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.
Can you name me a single instance in which a person of color, who was a victim of violence by law enforcement, or any other entity, irrespective of circumstance, where Al Sharpton did not show up within 24 hours? Even when the case was highly questionable, such as was the circumstance with the Duke lacrosse team, and that scumbag DA, Mike Nifong?
As for the first justification, it makes the assumption that firing at a car will prevent it from running you over. Let's say you're the driver and five unknown people are shotting at you, you have three options: 1. swerve and run over the people on the sidewalk or hit another car in another lane; 2. go faster and try to kill them before they kill you; 3. Die. Knowing those options, I'm not sure why someone driving a car towards you would be a justification for you shooting them, because there is no reason to believe it will prevent them from running you down. Not only will it not prevent this, it would facilitate it. As we all learned in high school physics, an object in motion remains in motion. If you kill the driver, he can't hit the breaks, and the car isn't going to magically stop like a dragon when you cut off its head. If anything, the foot will relax onto the accelerator and cause the car to increase in speed. Therefore, I don't see how opening an barrage of bullets onto a Manhattan street can be justified by someone driving a car towards you. I would think the better option would be to get out of the way, get the plate, and go arrest them later.
If you shoot the guy and he dies OR goes unconcious he no longer can acelerate.
#1) Many cars will NOT acelerate since the weight of the human foot is insuficient to push the pedal down. Many cars require active muscle effort to accelerate.
#2) Dead people can't AIM the car at you, Nor can it back up repeatedly to try to again and again.
As for Guns See my last post or the next one and I will answer that question.
Regarding #1, officers are not supposed to fire on cars, its generally not the right choice. The potential for ricochets and injuring innocent bystanders is heavy, and so its been determined to be an undesirable action. The officers involved should be punished accordingly for doing so.
In many jurisdictions shooting a vehicle is lawful and within department policy. In some it is not. Please provide a source that in this case it violated policy.
Even if it did so that does not necesarily make it a CRIMINAL matter, many such policy violations simply mean you are diciplined or fired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuCullin
JM can probably comment better, but I believe on average 15-20 shots takes most officers less than 5 seconds. So even going with 15 shots and 5 seconds, one single officer (without reloading times) can fire 50 shots in about 16-17 seconds. Now turn that into several officers - one jumping the gun and letting off a shot, the rest making the assumption of the other officer being in immediate danger, and firing as well. All 50 shots would take only a moment or two.
Yes, 20 Shots can be fired in WELL under 5 seconds. The entire incident INCLUDING reloading may well have taken less then 10 seconds.
See the following you tube clips if you want to see HOW FAST semi auto pistols are.
In many jurisdictions shooting a vehicle is lawful and within department policy. In some it is not. Please provide a source that in this case it violated policy.
NYPD policy is that officer's are not supposed to fire if the threat is only an oncoming vehicle. Which it was, though the threat of a gun makes it murky. Murky enough that I wouldn't judge them harshly at all, though I would think discipline to be the right choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomU
Even if it did so that does not necesarily make it a CRIMINAL matter, many such policy violations simply mean you are diciplined or fired.
I agree 100%, I don't think this was really a matter for court, I think it became a dog & pony show because idiots like Sharpton got involved, and started making this out as a crime of race, as opposed to the behavior of Bell and Guzman.
Listen, I am not for violence or anything but this guy was an idiot. He hit the cop with the car and kept going, when you do that, what do you expect the cops to do? Buy you a box of donuts and say "Have a good night"?
It is unfortunate that this guy died but that is what happens when people act stupid and ignorant.
I do not think this had anything to do with race though. If the guy was purple or blue, I am sure he would have died anyways. He was just a big dummy who happens to be Black.
Get over it, you dumb Al Sharpton and all his other worthless cronies!
NYPD policy is that officer's are not supposed to fire if the threat is only an oncoming vehicle. Which it was, though the threat of a gun makes it murky. Murky enough that I wouldn't judge them harshly at all, though I would think discipline to be the right choice.
Thank you for the information. While you site no source (Which I know can be bear to find), it sounds like you have followed this case enough and have good grasp on police and department policy, that your origional statement is correct.
I just find many out there fail to realize laws and policy differ between jursdiction and they wrongly assume that what applies in Huntington Beach California applies to Waco Texas.
On a side note for those who want more speed shooting I found this extra clip of some truley IMPRESSIVE speed shooting.
8 rounds hitting a single target in 1 second.
8 rounds hitting 4 targets in 1.06 seconds
and MOST AMAZING
6 shots fired, RELOAD, and then fireing 6 more in UNDER 3 seconds.
I see that it is fairly easy to fire off several rounds in only a few seconds, but each shot still requires a pull of the trigger. I was unable to find anything about whether or not a dead person's foot would accelerate a car. It would prevent him from aiming, but that might only endanger the lives of others. It would definitely prevent them from trying to run you over several times. However, the NYPD policy states that officers should not discharge their weapons at a moving vehicle if it is the only source of threat. I suppose you could argue that it was as source of threat, and Bell's statement about getting the gun was an additional source of threat. But I think the policy would at least give the inference that the officers who violated it were reckless (which is what they were charged with).
But I think the policy would at least give the inference that the officers who violated it were reckless (which is what they were charged with).
They were charged with first- and second-degree manslaughter, first-degree assault, second-degree reckless endangerment, which is quite different really. The statement that they were getting a gun complicates the issue, and the officers had to make a judgment call. I still don't think this would have even gone to court if it weren't for people like Al Sharpton getting people riled up, making this a race issue.
Oh enough with Sharpton. Stop begging him to get involved. Just as in the case of Sharpe James this case is airtight enough to stand on its own. You simply cannot expect to attempt to kill a police officer by running him down with a car and live to tell the tale. By the way Mike, there was a case of a black man in Trenton who crashed a stolen car into two parked cars and then got out and ran from the police. In the process of arresting him he had a heart attack and died. There were initial protests and the family ordered their own autopsy independent of the Mercer County M.E. It was found that the man had enough PCP and cocaine in his system to kill an elephant. Case closed, Al was nowhere to be found.
Bell was ordered by the officer to raise his hands after getting in his car.
No, he wasn't. The cop said "Yo, let me holler at you."
He didn't do his job, and the kid is dead because of it.
The only reason NYC isn't in flames right now is because the cop who caused the chain of events that led to Bell's death happens to be of color.
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.
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.
