From what I read here, the offending vehicle struck one officer and another police car about the time these officers opened fire.
How exactly does this work then? If your driving in a car that strikes a copper in the shin, hard enough to go straight through him to hit an unmarked car, why is there no mention of the injuries to the copper that got hit? It seems a little odd that they could hit someone and not notice no?
And in defensive of the coppers, there were 5 people shooting at the car in which case thats "only" 10 rounds each; not quite as bad as one person opening up.
EDIT: Ok just seen another news piece that says that the car drove through the copper and into the minivan, reversed into a buildings gate and then into the minivan again... wtf?
And in defensive of the coppers, there were 5 people shooting at the car in which case thats "only" 10 rounds each; not quite as bad as one person opening up.
EDIT: Ok just seen another news piece that says that the car drove through the copper and into the minivan, reversed into a buildings gate and then into the minivan again... wtf?
Last edited by Jainus (2006-11-27 05:41:22)
They were drunk. They must die. Period.Jainus wrote:
How exactly does this work then? If your driving in a car that strikes a copper in the shin, hard enough to go straight through him to hit an unmarked car, why is there no mention of the injuries to the copper that got hit? It seems a little odd that they could hit someone and not notice no?
And in defensive of the coppers, there were 5 people shooting at the car in which case thats "only" 10 rounds each; not quite as bad as one person opening up.
EDIT: Ok just seen another news piece that says that the car drove through the copper and into the minivan, reversed into a buildings gate and then into the minivan again... wtf?
/end sarcasm.
BTW:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/27/nyc.sh … index.html
"One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said."
Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2006-11-27 05:48:16)
well, according to this article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 … ting_x.htm, there were 7 NYPD officers in plain clothes on the scene, and one of the heard one of the passengers make a "reference" to a gun during a verbal dispute outside of the club. Let me quote here:
"Kelly said the incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club in the Jamaica section of Queens. Seven officers in plain clothes were investigating the Kalua Cabaret; five of them were involved in the shooting.
According to Kelly, the groom was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club after 4 a.m. and one of his friends made a reference to a gun.
An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward — striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said.
The officer who had followed the group on foot was apparently the first to open fire, Kelly said. That officer had served on the force for five years. One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said.
At some point, Bell, who was driving, backed his car up onto the sidewalk, hitting a building gate, authorities said. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said."
ok, so one of the officers hears a drunk man make a reference to a gun. 7 NYPD officers are then unable or unwilling to stop three drunk individuals from entering their car, and without ever actually seeing a gun then open fire on the car ? Am I the only one here to think that this reaction was a little out of proportion ?
Imagine this: you sit in your car, unarmed, ready to go after a wild party in a strip club. You just had a verbal dispute in front of the club. A total stranger in plain clothes steps in front of the car, trying to stop you. In New York.
Hell, I'd try to get out of there too.
Question at hand: did the NYPD officer identify himself before trying to stop the car ?
And even if he did, was it justified to shoot 50 bullets at that car to stop it ? Does the police in NY not have non-lethal means to stop a car ?
I am sorry, but that was a clear over-reaction. The officers reacted to something that wasn't there. I have seen my share of police videos in the last couple of years, and I have never seen half a dozen cops emptying their mags into a car to stop it. That's just uncalled for.
The officers were obviously quite willing to kill all of the passengers to stop the car. I am sorry, but that just doesn't sound like quality police work to me.
I'll freely admit that the security situation and handgun circulation in major US cities is much different from what most of us Europeans are used to, but it still seems to me as if the police were much too eager to stop the vehicle at all costs, including the lifes of all passengers.
another article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15889445/
and another quote:
"Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun but investigators found no weapons. It was unclear what prompted police to open fire, Kelly said.
It was also not clear whether the shooters had identified themselves as police, Kelly said."
"The police department’s policy on shooting at moving vehicles states: “Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officers or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle.”"
hm, guess there must have been some other deadly force used against the officers then, huh ?
Probably a Jedi or something. We all know those are handy with the force...
"Kelly said the incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club in the Jamaica section of Queens. Seven officers in plain clothes were investigating the Kalua Cabaret; five of them were involved in the shooting.
According to Kelly, the groom was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club after 4 a.m. and one of his friends made a reference to a gun.
An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward — striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said.
The officer who had followed the group on foot was apparently the first to open fire, Kelly said. That officer had served on the force for five years. One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said.
At some point, Bell, who was driving, backed his car up onto the sidewalk, hitting a building gate, authorities said. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said."
ok, so one of the officers hears a drunk man make a reference to a gun. 7 NYPD officers are then unable or unwilling to stop three drunk individuals from entering their car, and without ever actually seeing a gun then open fire on the car ? Am I the only one here to think that this reaction was a little out of proportion ?
Imagine this: you sit in your car, unarmed, ready to go after a wild party in a strip club. You just had a verbal dispute in front of the club. A total stranger in plain clothes steps in front of the car, trying to stop you. In New York.
Hell, I'd try to get out of there too.
Question at hand: did the NYPD officer identify himself before trying to stop the car ?
And even if he did, was it justified to shoot 50 bullets at that car to stop it ? Does the police in NY not have non-lethal means to stop a car ?
I am sorry, but that was a clear over-reaction. The officers reacted to something that wasn't there. I have seen my share of police videos in the last couple of years, and I have never seen half a dozen cops emptying their mags into a car to stop it. That's just uncalled for.
The officers were obviously quite willing to kill all of the passengers to stop the car. I am sorry, but that just doesn't sound like quality police work to me.
I'll freely admit that the security situation and handgun circulation in major US cities is much different from what most of us Europeans are used to, but it still seems to me as if the police were much too eager to stop the vehicle at all costs, including the lifes of all passengers.
another article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15889445/
and another quote:
"Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun but investigators found no weapons. It was unclear what prompted police to open fire, Kelly said.
It was also not clear whether the shooters had identified themselves as police, Kelly said."
"The police department’s policy on shooting at moving vehicles states: “Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officers or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle.”"
hm, guess there must have been some other deadly force used against the officers then, huh ?
Probably a Jedi or something. We all know those are handy with the force...
Please Please Please stop the cut & paste from "news" articles. These "news" people are always wrong. Period. They have no clue what they are talking about.
what paper/magazine/TV report/internet site did you get that info from?usmarine2007 wrote:
Please Please Please stop the cut & paste from "news" articles. These "news" people are always wrong. Period. They have no clue what they are talking about.
*sigh*ozghost wrote:
what paper/magazine/TV report/internet site did you get that info from?usmarine2007 wrote:
Please Please Please stop the cut & paste from "news" articles. These "news" people are always wrong. Period. They have no clue what they are talking about.
A little while back, I was watching the live coverage of that jetBlue Airbus that made an emergency landing at LAX. (some of you might remember) The nose wheel was stuck perpendicular to the runway. As I was watching MSNBC, the "aviation expert" said "they are going to try and land on the main landing gear first." And then the stupid talking head lady said " oh my, is that a hard maneuver? Do they train for that?" Then the aviation expert said the plane would go dump fuel over the ocean, which is impossible since that plane does not have a fuel dump option.
So please excuse me for getting pissed at people who cut & paste news articles trying to pass it off as fact, since I think they are all pretty much a bunch of idiots.
io hear ya marine, the bf2 community has just got thru the Elmo1337 experience.
He was black.he was up to something. /sarcasm
well, since I wasn't there to see it, what "facts" should I base my opinion on apart from what the news media report ?usmarine2007 wrote:
Please Please Please stop the cut & paste from "news" articles. These "news" people are always wrong. Period. They have no clue what they are talking about.
I am prepared to give the officers the benefit of the doubt, but from what I have gathered so far ( three different articles, one from the BBC, which is usually very accurate and offers decent journalism, none from Fox News ), the outcome of the incident ( one dead, two wounded, 50 shots fired on a public street ) was clearly disproportionate compared to the actual security situation ( three unarmed, possibly drunk guys after a bachelor party in a car ). That's all I am saying.
Thus, until the official investigation has concluded, you'll have to allow me to speculate and give my opinion.
This is not a court room, and I am not a lawyer. It's just the internet...
Its nice to know that when you get appraoched by the police in NYC that you are Dead until proved innocent, then of course all information pertaining to the incident will disappear - allowing the officers to walk free...
Justice? Law? Order?
It makes me laugh "to protect and serve" do the police actually understand what that means???
Justice? Law? Order?
It makes me laugh "to protect and serve" do the police actually understand what that means???
In 1999, New York police fired 41 bullets at unarmed Amadou Diallo, killing him. The four officers involved were acquitted of all charges.
Last edited by SkoobyDu (2006-11-27 06:46:28)
But your the expert?usmarine2007 wrote:
*sigh*ozghost wrote:
what paper/magazine/TV report/internet site did you get that info from?usmarine2007 wrote:
Please Please Please stop the cut & paste from "news" articles. These "news" people are always wrong. Period. They have no clue what they are talking about.
A little while back, I was watching the live coverage of that jetBlue Airbus that made an emergency landing at LAX. (some of you might remember) The nose wheel was stuck perpendicular to the runway. As I was watching MSNBC, the "aviation expert" said "they are going to try and land on the main landing gear first." And then the stupid talking head lady said " oh my, is that a hard maneuver? Do they train for that?" Then the aviation expert said the plane would go dump fuel over the ocean, which is impossible since that plane does not have a fuel dump option.
So please excuse me for getting pissed at people who cut & paste news articles trying to pass it off as fact, since I think they are all pretty much a bunch of idiots.
Of course not. But if I do not know something, I just don't make shit up in order to get ratings and fill time. I can say I know more about aviation than most of the networks aviation experts.Vilham wrote:
But your the expert?usmarine2007 wrote:
*sigh*ozghost wrote:
what paper/magazine/TV report/internet site did you get that info from?
A little while back, I was watching the live coverage of that jetBlue Airbus that made an emergency landing at LAX. (some of you might remember) The nose wheel was stuck perpendicular to the runway. As I was watching MSNBC, the "aviation expert" said "they are going to try and land on the main landing gear first." And then the stupid talking head lady said " oh my, is that a hard maneuver? Do they train for that?" Then the aviation expert said the plane would go dump fuel over the ocean, which is impossible since that plane does not have a fuel dump option.
So please excuse me for getting pissed at people who cut & paste news articles trying to pass it off as fact, since I think they are all pretty much a bunch of idiots.
But my point is, the news is usually far from the truth.
Seeing as the grand total of 0 planes were involved in this, I don't really think you can critise anything.usmarine2007 wrote:
Of course not. But if I do not know something, I just don't make shit up in order to get ratings and fill time. I can say I know more about aviation than most of the networks aviation experts.Vilham wrote:
But your the expert?usmarine2007 wrote:
*sigh*
A little while back, I was watching the live coverage of that jetBlue Airbus that made an emergency landing at LAX. (some of you might remember) The nose wheel was stuck perpendicular to the runway. As I was watching MSNBC, the "aviation expert" said "they are going to try and land on the main landing gear first." And then the stupid talking head lady said " oh my, is that a hard maneuver? Do they train for that?" Then the aviation expert said the plane would go dump fuel over the ocean, which is impossible since that plane does not have a fuel dump option.
So please excuse me for getting pissed at people who cut & paste news articles trying to pass it off as fact, since I think they are all pretty much a bunch of idiots.
But my point is, the news is usually far from the truth.
Oh FFS, I was not talking about planes, I was just using that story to prove how the media does not always know what they are talking about. Goddamn.ghettoperson wrote:
Seeing as the grand total of 0 planes were involved in this, I don't really think you can critise anything.usmarine2007 wrote:
Of course not. But if I do not know something, I just don't make shit up in order to get ratings and fill time. I can say I know more about aviation than most of the networks aviation experts.Vilham wrote:
But your the expert?
But my point is, the news is usually far from the truth.
Well, when i saw this on the news last night, they made sure to do their best job of making it a one sided, and heavily slanted view by suggesting the cops simply opened fire on a vehicle that crashed into an undercover car, then another car... Which of course suggests the cops were just a bunch of wild-eyed cowboys ready to kill anybody they felt like.TeamZephyr wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6184948.stm
This is an interesting one, what do you all think?
but after reading this article, and this part:
He said an undercover officer at the club had reported that the men were in a group that was involved in a dispute with another person outside the club.
The officer had reportedly called his colleagues saying he feared a gun would be produced.
As the men left the scene, a car they were driving struck an undercover officer on the shin.
It's clear there was probable cause to stop the men from leaving the club or shortly after they started their vehicle to run ids, explore their probable cause of a weapon possession. But when they sped away, clipping an officer's shin, that's considered hit and run, at least, and ultimately (at the officer's discretion) attempted murder with a deadly weapon. Then, hitting the two cars (regardless of who's they are) is further cause for immediate action. Firing on the driver as a measured response would have been expected...50 rounds...questionable at best.
Al Sharpton? Must have been some black victims as that racist bitch wouldn't show up if it were white victims...
Schuss? What part of your post dont you get? Ill quote your post a bit and then AGAIN tell you why.
"An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward — striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said."
Ok again, Hitting or even attempting to hit a Person or If an officer is struck or is going to be struck by a car (a 2000 pound WEAPON) then they have a right to defend themselves. The drunks made the first move, and unfortunately they paid the price.
"An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward — striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said."
Ok again, Hitting or even attempting to hit a Person or If an officer is struck or is going to be struck by a car (a 2000 pound WEAPON) then they have a right to defend themselves. The drunks made the first move, and unfortunately they paid the price.
And say they were involved in an incident where someone had threatened to shoot them, then a few seconds later some bloke comes charging towards their car with waving a gun? Where the fuck is their right to self defence?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Schuss? What part of your post dont you get? Ill quote your post a bit and then AGAIN tell you why.
"An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward — striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said."
Ok again, Hitting or even attempting to hit a Person or If an officer is struck or is going to be struck by a car (a 2000 pound WEAPON) then they have a right to defend themselves. The drunks made the first move, and unfortunately they paid the price.
(edit: is charging at someone in fear for their life whilst brandishing a gun not "the first move" then?)
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-11-27 10:06:51)
Well my friend, because of lawyers and liberal judges, criminals have more rights than victims. So self defense is almost dead in this country.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
And say they were involved in an incident where someone had threatened to shoot them, then a few seconds later some bloke comes charging towards their car with waving a gun? Where the fuck is their right to self defence?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Schuss? What part of your post dont you get? Ill quote your post a bit and then AGAIN tell you why.
"An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward — striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said."
Ok again, Hitting or even attempting to hit a Person or If an officer is struck or is going to be struck by a car (a 2000 pound WEAPON) then they have a right to defend themselves. The drunks made the first move, and unfortunately they paid the price.
(edit: is charging at someone in fear for their life whilst brandishing a gun not "the first move" then?)
The OP's linked article does not give a full account of the situation. Ultimately, I have no sympathy for anyone who drives around drunk, as they obviously don't care about themselves or anyone else on the road.
Doesn't mention alcohol in the articleunnamednewbie13 wrote:
The OP's linked article does not give a full account of the situation. Ultimately, I have no sympathy for anyone who drives around drunk, as they obviously don't care about themselves or anyone else on the road.
In Europe, a drunk driver pays with his license - in the US of Gun-Nuts A he pays with his life...
R-Tard[pt] KEIOS wrote:
In Europe, a drunk driver pays with his license - in the US of Gun-Nuts A he pays with his life...
Man them cops are just doing there jobs.
Really? My mistake then, about the assumption, but what I said isn't necessarily restricted to this lone incident.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Doesn't mention alcohol in the articleunnamednewbie13 wrote:
The OP's linked article does not give a full account of the situation. Ultimately, I have no sympathy for anyone who drives around drunk, as they obviously don't care about themselves or anyone else on the road.
Accounts of what happened are still being pieced together, but I'm not going to deny that police do often act with excessive force.
usmarine2007 wrote:
R-Tard[pt] KEIOS wrote:
In Europe, a drunk driver pays with his license - in the US of Gun-Nuts A he pays with his life...
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-27 10:19:47)