U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-16-2019, 08:10 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
8,080 posts, read 5,879,066 times
Reputation: 7948

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylentvoyce View Post
RageX, your first paragraph is solid. I definitely will not dispute the legal standing on which these types of charges can manifest themselves. The argument is very simple, even in laymans terms: that Detective would not be dead had the robber not acted a damn fool.

But, one has to wonder about the practical application here. The rest of your post is also in tune with what I was thinking as well. That police (especially in NYC), have a shoot first and shoot fast culture that could definitely benefit from a little reining in.

Now, many might argue that police have to make split second decisions, and I don't know what they deal with, etc... but, in spite of which trash heap the Courts are going to dump truck all the blame too, the fact remains that some Police Officer in that group is a clown who was probably shooting with his eyes closed.
But it's all about the "legal standing". And that "legal standing" has been wrong and indefensible from the get-go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-16-2019, 08:22 AM
 
13,277 posts, read 12,944,857 times
Reputation: 38331
I believe this concept of responsibility is intended as a deterrent. Problem is, most criminals are not that bright - I've known a lot of guys who were capable of stupid stuff like this. They don't think very far ahead as to the chain reaction their crime could set off. In other words, I don't think it's much of a deterrent for people who have little in the way of critical thinking skills and impulse control. So it places the blame on some idiot and puts him in prison for life (or most of it) on the taxpayer's dime. Manslaughter seems like a more accurate charge in many of these cases, and if we actually treated prison as a rehabilitation opportunity, the perpetrator would get more time off the sentence for meeting certain educational benchmarks. This is the kind of law where there needs to be some discretion in how it is exercised.

And the other issue is the trigger-happy nature of a lot of cops. Amadou Diallo, anyone? Will the officer who shot his co-worker be held accountable? Or will he just be told that "Oh it was a tough situation. It could have happened to anyone. You were in fear for your life, and the robber is to blame." Honest question.

I used to date a combat vet who found cops terrifying because they were armed and not very good with guns or dealing with armed conflict to the extent of someone who was in the military. Being around too many of them could trigger his PTSD simply because he knew their training was not as reliable as his own. Which I find interesting given all this talk of the militarization of police forces. If that's a trend for real, then do it right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 09:56 AM
 
6,241 posts, read 3,343,547 times
Reputation: 16544
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
What I donít understand about modern policing, is that it used to be a shot or two to take down the perpetrator. Now itís 42 shots? Sometimes itís even more. If they didnít just shoot 42 shots helter-skelter all at the same time, the detective would still be alive. Itís not that they shot at the robber, itís that it seem uncontrolled to a great degree in many recent cases.
I wonder how much is due to the nature of the weapon in use. A pistol isn't a precision instrument except in the hands of a very few skilled marksmen. Making it an automatic would tend to support the "spray and pray" methodology where as the old revolver took longer to fire each shot and a lot longer to reload so they couldn't just waste rounds down range. Four cops, 42 shots. Someone or more than one someone, not only emptied his weapon but reloaded and continued firing. Did they even have a target?

I was raised to respect the police and still do. Yet more and more I wonder if Tackleberry (Police Academy) might actually be typical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
14,016 posts, read 11,132,102 times
Reputation: 10355
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
I wonder how much is due to the nature of the weapon in use. A pistol isn't a precision instrument except in the hands of a very few skilled marksmen. Making it an automatic would tend to support the "spray and pray" methodology where as the old revolver took longer to fire each shot and a lot longer to reload so they couldn't just waste rounds down range. Four cops, 42 shots. Someone or more than one someone, not only emptied his weapon but reloaded and continued firing. Did they even have a target?

I was raised to respect the police and still do. Yet more and more I wonder if Tackleberry (Police Academy) might actually be typical.
Over 85% of our police officers never have to draw their weapons; let alone fire those weapons. If you saw a criminal pointing a weapon at you; how many rounds would you fire? If the suspect was still moving and still had his 'weapon' would you stop shooting? There is the concept of suppressive fire: when somebody is shooting at you it is harder to return fire. All the suspect had to do is drop his weapon (in this case it was a replica) and then there was no reason for our police to fire. When he pointed his weapon at the police there was no turning back. Then our police were in a battle and it was hard to tell if the crook was firing or other officers. The adrenalin was flowing and self-preservation kicked in. The gun play could have only taken seconds with average pistols holding 15 rounds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 12:24 PM
 
5,428 posts, read 2,458,704 times
Reputation: 13855
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
Would you favor the criminals in charge? Society needs a counterbalance. The police, in this case, did not set the stage that led to the death of the other detective. Only the robber is guilty of that.

As much as you are tired of hearing about friendly fire; it is not new: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...fire_incidents. Think of the days before uniforms and how hard it was to distinguish friend from foe - especially when everybody was swinging swords and axes. Today's military is trying to address these problems with night vision that has flash identification of our own: https://www.quora.com/How-do-soldier...ity-conditions. They are also working on smart honing bullets that could be 'locked' on to the bad guys.

But war and law enforcement is not a perfect science. Criminals look for opportunities and there will always be situations that spiral out of control. At least our police scrutinize every single bullet they fire and try to do a better job the next time. The criminals do not worry; they will do whatever it takes to commit their crime.
Your responding question is in and of itself bias to ask. May I say though that every person has a choice.. the officer is no less accountable for his shooting of his fellow officer. Stop saying if not for A, B wouldn't have happened.
I doubt the chief of police is saying ...gosh ..Golly. ..better luck next time with your target shot. But your an officer so here's a free pass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 01:46 PM
 
2,615 posts, read 961,089 times
Reputation: 4986
From the information provided by OP...



When there is loss of life during the commission of an armed robbery the robber is responsible.
The expired policeman would not have been in harms way if he did not have to respond to an armed robbery. In addition, the robber refused to obey the officers which culminated in gun fire.
The gun fire was the result of the robber's crime but also his disobedience.


Now I see that there were 42 shots fired. Definitely unnecessary for there to be more than 2 police marksman out of the swarm of officers who congregated at the scene. It only takes one bullet to stop the robbery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 05:26 PM
 
17,222 posts, read 18,637,737 times
Reputation: 25014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylentvoyce View Post
Great discussion everyone!

The real debate here seems to lie at the boundary of the law vs actions taken.

We all understand at this point that the law says murder charges are warranted for this situation.
However, as an act of morality; I still feel that applying these charges, while well intentioned, are still wrong.

Police have a huge amount of leeway. While a majority can arguably be trusted, there is still a notable percentage who cannot. If Police shooting down partners, shooting down bystanders, crashing into buildings, or breaking into random homes can all be laid on the offender in the name of: Outcomes that resulted from your actions; then we have a genuinely slippery slope.

At what point do we hold police accountable for their mayhem when all the blame can just be conveniently placed on the offender?
Morally

Isn’t it morally wrong for the robber to rob a store? Sorry but the robber caused this chain of events with his actions. I have no moral reservations with a decision of charging this person with murder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
14,016 posts, read 11,132,102 times
Reputation: 10355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3 View Post
Your responding question is in and of itself bias to ask. May I say though that every person has a choice.. the officer is no less accountable for his shooting of his fellow officer. Stop saying if not for A, B wouldn't have happened.
I doubt the chief of police is saying ...gosh ..Golly. ..better luck next time with your target shot. But your an officer so here's a free pass.
How, in good conscious, can you not say that. The officers did not start this; the robber (crook) did. He made a decision to buy a real looking fake gun. Nobody told him to buy that gun. Nobody told him not to drop the 'gun' when the police responded. These were personal decisions that the criminal made that lead to the death of the detective.

With many police officers that never have to upholster their weapons; how do you prepare for the unexpected? There is 'Hogan's Alley' training; but it can never prepare an officer for all possibilities. This would be especially true when they can go for so many years and then, all of a sudden, it's right there in front of them.

What is this statement about my bias? Is it bias to be for law and order and against our criminals?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Texas
42,741 posts, read 51,080,993 times
Reputation: 68557
That's some stormtrooper level of shooting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 08:48 PM
Status: "POTUS Trump promises - not hot air" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
14,342 posts, read 5,663,495 times
Reputation: 11429
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylentvoyce View Post
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...uspect-n971396

Ok. Here is the summary of the above article link. Two NYC Detectives respond to a robbery in progress. Other Officers eventually join them. The robber is in a store robbing it. He decides to advance to the front of the store holding a fake gun. Definitely looked real. Police fired 42 shots, and accidentally kill one of the Detectives themselves. They also wound the robber, whom they quickly apprehend.

Here is the discussion I'm interested in starting up. I am pro police. But I also like to try to be critical of certain police actions, within some particular personal belief confines. Having said that...

I support the shooting itself, the gun looked real, the robber was aggressively advancing, the decision was one of those split second decisions that needed to be made. However, they are charging the robber with murder as well as the robbery because of the Detective's death.

I am going to boldly state that I think that is wrong. Is the death tragic, yes. Did the robbers actions lead to this shooting occurring, yes. But I still feel that tacking on charges because of your own poor shooting skills is a little petty.

Any thoughts, debates, arguments, and insults are all welcome.
I am very hesitant to charge a crime unless the police officer wanted someone dead for malicious purposes. As for the robber with the fake gun, "absitively." His attempt at a crime caused the death. In law we call it a crime of transferred intent, where the intent to commit a robbery transfers over to the death, even though the robber intended to steal, not kill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top