NYPD officers acquitted
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/...olice_shooting

We talkd about this way back when it happened. All three officers had all charges against them dropped, and people are somewhat upset.

Do I think the officers intended to murder that man? No, probably not, but clearly there was poor training and negligence on the go there.

I mean, it says the police thought they were being shot at, when the whole time they were the only ones shooting! I understand the chaos, but those guys in that car basically got lacerated with nearly a hundred bullets and were completely helpless. They couldn't defend themselves, or run, or even surrender.

And the one guy who fired THIRTY-ONE times! I mean seriously, thats got to be a little excessive when there's no return fire...

Maybe they aren't murderers, but they sure botched the responsibility they were given. Its amusing (as in rather pathetic) how a doctor can get in a whole lot of trouble for botching a surgery, but these guys get away clean for shooting somebody fifty times.

Well, in my opinion this verdict is a sham. That's all I can say. Looking at the facts of the case, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that these police officers did indeed pull the trigger. Even though they thought it was in self-defense, that only bumps it down to voluntary manslaughter. We know that they were firing in an attempt to cause death or serious injury, and so they have the necessary mens rea to have committed the crime. And yet, they somehow got acquitted. Well, it ruined my day, at the very least. :stressed:

Ugh. Just because you say it doesn't necessarily make it true. The whole thing smacks of the "It's coming right for us!" bit.

Don't get me wrong, though. I don't believe the officers were drunk on their own power and dead set on keeping the black man down with deadly force or anything, but it seems like they were inadequately trained insofar as how to properly perform the investigation they were on.

First of all, they were there to investigate the possibility of prostitution at the club. They deviated from that operation in order to follow a group of patrons because one of them thought he overheard one say that he had a gun, which itself does not indicate a crime as Mr. Bell would have been within his constitutional rights to have one and there was no indication that he was owning it without a permit.

Maybe sending an officer to tail the group if they thought there was a possibility of violence from the encounter at the club would have been enough, but calling for backup and ordering the men to stop when there was no real evidence of them committing any crimes is overkill and grossly irresponsible, especially when you're diverting your resources from the case you're supposed to be investigating undercover.

The verdict was garbage, but the likelihood that they'll still have their jobs after this is even more disappointing, because at the very least they should clearly never be allowed to be put in this sort of situation ever again.

hold up... one of the cops shot 31 times?

for standard police Firearms that's what? 2 Full Clips? 5 Barrels?

You mean, he fired 2 full clips by himself on self defense? He reloaded the gun and shot again??

EVEN if the other guy has a gun and shoots at you this would be excessive or poor training at least... what kind of officer cant halt a suspect sitting inside a car with one full clip?

Also, isnt normal conduct to fire warning shots or take cover and provide verbal warning BEFORE opening deadly fire on a suspect, even if you think he has a gun?

Hell, all this im sayin is taking in account just one of them.. they were 3! What kind of gun they tough the gun had? Plutonium cannon!?

Yeah, apparently when the first cop fired, the other two thought it was the guys in the car and let loose. Then the first cop thought that the shots from the other two were the guys shooting back. And a vicious circle ensues, with the cops being the only guys shooting.

So not only was it poor training, distasteful, and excessive, but it was also excessively unco-ordinated between the three officers. They panicked, and thats bad form for guys with lethal weapons.

I think the part where racism comes into play is how if the guys were white, it would have been unlikely the officer would have been suspicious or called for back up in the first place.

I mean, its the stereotype, right? Drunk black guys in the hood driving with their guns looking for a gang shooting?

I agree the shooting wasn't racist. They weren't trying to kill 'black men', they were trying to kill a perceived threat. The shooting was irresponsible and caused by panic among talentless police officers. Besides, I believe only one of the charged officers was actually white.

However, the reason they came after the guys to begin with could EASILY be taken as racist is simply because the social stereotype is that drunk black guys are criminals. That view seems to be adopted by policemen regardless of their race, and you really do have to wonder would the whole situation have even happened if those boys didn't happen to be black.

So... in case my view isn't entirely clear: The shooting, stupid but not racist. The original intent, quite possibly stereotyping by race.

I haven't really followed this one, but I'll say outright that based on this article alone, I agree with the verdict.

I also agree with POS, however, that at least the one who shot 31 bullets shouldn't be able to get within 10 miles of a situation like this again.

If the article was accurate, the man broke down in tears.

He made a mistake. A really big one, but it's a mistake. An unfortunate circumstance. Sometimes these things really do happen. He shouldn't be punished, but he should be taken far away from being able to make more mistakes like this.

As much as some may want to go the "eye for an eye" route, it's really not right.

If it was a mistake, then the fault lies with those who actually let them go out on stings, or on the streets in general with firearms. Don't blame the officers for being poorly trained. They can't help that. Bad judgement? Many have it in spades - they just aren't the ones with firearms.

Please, don't condemn them because they screwed up. If I was in their shoes, it would crush me and/or drive me insane for people to damn me because my judgement lapsed and I did something I regret.

Ahem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8-oGpGQ91g :D

I think the question we need to ask is not "are they sorry", but "did they do it". The answer is yes. I'm not calling for the death penalty or anything, but frankly, you do the crime, you do the time. I've already said it; under US law, they are guilty for voluntary manslaughter. The situation does not acquit them, but it keeps the situation from being murder. (as far as I can tell at least. I'm far from an expert)

Well, if you want to argue it out fully, we could try writing closing statements and having someone judge based on them or something. :)

i just think they should be retired of the force.

It breaks down moral and instigates unease within people to see that those officers got clean of all charges regarding killing a man by accident.

Something that Police officers should be properly trained not to do.

The fact that it was in such "neo lights" circunstances ( 100 shots? Black man unarmed in car? Shooting first asking later? all bad... ) should be enough to warrant that those officers arent fitting to be empowered