Wait a minute. There might have been a probable cause to stop the men from leaving the club, BUT that does not mean they had any right to start firing, especially since they were undercover (meaning the victims would have no way of knowing they were actually being stopped by police officers). They could have easily just called for backup, in which case the car would have been brought to a hault a few blocks away.IRONCHEF wrote:
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...
What is it with you people and guns lately? Its like they're the solution to everything. You're making Dirty Harry look like a pussy.
The fact that the 3 men were in a dispute is no reason to produce a gun.
The fact that the officer had reportedly called his colleagues saying he feared a gun would be produced is no reason to produce a gun.
The fact that the victims' car struck an undercover officer on the shin is no reason to produce a gun. Much less fire 50 rounds.
ƒ³