NYPD Officers Surrender in Groom's Death

[Brutuskend]

NYPD Officers Surrender in Groom's Death
By PAT MILTON, Associated Press Writers
2 hours ago

NEW YORK - Three police officers surrendered Monday to face charges in a shooting that killed an unarmed groom on his wedding day.

The policemen, accused of firing most of the 50 shots at three young men in a car outside a nightclub, were being fingerprinted and processed Monday morning before their arraignment.

Michael Oliver, who fired 31 times, and Gescard Isnora, who fired 11 bullets, face felony manslaughter and first-degree assault charges, according to a person close to the investigation, who spoke with The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the results were secret.

Those charges are classified as violent felonies with mandated jail time if they are convicted.

Marc Cooper, who fired four shots, faces a misdemeanor endangerment charge, the person said.

Grand jurors declined to indict on the more serious counts of second-degree murder, and attempted murder, or the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide. Two other officers involved in the shooting were not indicted.

"We are a long way from a conviction," said defense attorney Philip Karasyk, who represents Isnora.

Prosecutors have declined to discuss the grand jury's work until the findings are officially released.

The Nov. 25 shooting killed Sean Bell and severely injured two of his bachelor party guests.

Police have said the officers were involved in an undercover investigation at the nightclub when they overheard a conversation that convinced them the men were going to their car to retrieve a gun. They have said that Bell's car hit the unmarked police vehicle and that the officers believed someone in Bell's car was reaching for a gun when they opened fire. No gun was found.

The shooting stirred outrage around New York City and led to accusations of racism against the NYPD. Bell was black, as are the other victims; three of the officers are black, and two are white.

 

[moshquerade]

of course this had to be done solely because of racism even though over half of the five officers involved were black.

 

[Specop 007]

As I understand it, the driver attempted to run them over.

Dunno. I wasnt there, and truthfully havent followed it to closely.

What I do know is when your approached by the cop on the street he judge, jury and executioner. Hes GOD. You do what he says when he says it or he can make your life real sh1tty real quick. Then you pursue legal options in court.

Having said THAT, there was a very recent case where a man heard his wife struggling and went into the garage to find 2 officers wrestling with his wife. He-Man proceeds to charge in, gets shot with the zap zap gun, shrugs it off, takes the zap zap gun away from officer #1 and forces her out of the house and locks the door. He turns and then proceeds to beat the everloving hell out of officer #2 with said zap zap.

All charges dropped.

Its a funny world aint it?

 

[spidey07]

Here's a clue for the Perps. Don't try to run over the police and you won't get shot!

Brilliant!

 

[AkumaX]

Michael Oliver, who fired 31 times, and Gescard Isnora, who fired 11 bullets,

i wonder what race they were

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
As I understand it, the driver attempted to run them over.

If that's the case, then I'd hardly call the guy "unarmed."

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Specop 007
As I understand it, the driver attempted to run them over.

If that's the case, then I'd hardly call the guy "unarmed."

True....

 

[j00fek]

im sure they were trying to run them over

 

[moshquerade]

From what I understand the entourage was not cooperating with the police, and Gescard Isnora, a black undercover officer, was the first to fire at Bell's car. He fired a total of 11 shots when Bell's car had started to move and he saw one of the men reach for what he thought was a gun. The other officers were convinced by Isnora's shots that they were being fired upon and they returned fire.

These guys will go down or else the Al Sharpton led protestors will resort to the same violence they are detesting.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: AkumaX

Michael Oliver, who fired 31 times, and Gescard Isnora, who fired 11 bullets,

i wonder what race they were

Of the three indicted officers, Oliver is white, while detectives Isnora and Cooper are black.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
of course this had to be done solely because of racism even though over half of the five officers involved were black.

Agreed. It pisses me off, this reverse racism as well.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
From what I understand the entourage was not cooperating with the police, and Gescard Isnora, a black undercover officer, was the first to fire at Bell's car. He fired a total of 11 shots when Bell's car had started to move and he saw one of the men reach for what he thought was a gun. The other officers were convinced by Isnora's shots that they were being fired upon and they returned fire.

These guys will go down or else the Al Sharpton led protestors will resort to the same violence they are detesting.

Isn't there a New York City councilman ratcheting up tension and threatening violence as well? I saw this idiot on the news but forget what his name is.

 

[Lemodular]

it took 50 shots from presumably 3 different angles to take down a car/passenger/driver? These guys need to be off the streets.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: moshquerade
From what I understand the entourage was not cooperating with the police, and Gescard Isnora, a black undercover officer, was the first to fire at Bell's car. He fired a total of 11 shots when Bell's car had started to move and he saw one of the men reach for what he thought was a gun. The other officers were convinced by Isnora's shots that they were being fired upon and they returned fire.

These guys will go down or else the Al Sharpton led protestors will resort to the same violence they are detesting.

Isn't there a New York City councilman ratcheting up tension and threatening violence as well? I saw this idiot on the news but forget what his name is.

"Councilman Charles Barron, a vocal critic accused of agitating the situation in Bell's Queens community..."
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/75449

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Lemodular
it took 50 shots from presumably 3 different angles to take down a car/passenger/driver? These guys need to be off the streets.

But but but they are police officers, they do not need to know how to control their fire or actually hit what they are aiming at.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Lemodular
it took 50 shots from presumably 3 different angles to take down a car/passenger/driver? These guys need to be off the streets.

Havent shot much I assume?

Shooting through glass, especially auto glass, is a recipe to miss. If I recall correctly, and I may be wrong, SWAT is advised not to attempt shots at subjects that are outside of 1-2 feet of glass with a .223/5.56 caliber rifle. If may be a bit more however. Point is, glass drasticallly changes the point of impact of a bullet. Its one reason why when you see the occasional photo from Iraq of some gate runners car the windshield looks like comeone hit the fun switch and started dumping mags in the car. Because thats what they have to do.

Secondly shooting under pressure is hard. I mean HARD. I've seen skilled shooters tense up and do poorly with no other pressure then someone hitting a button on a stopwatch and saying "GO!". Now take into account someone trying to potentially kill you with a car or shooting back at you with a weapon....

These factors add up, and make placing shots where you need them exceedingly difficult.

I personally would hate to take on a car with a pistol. In fact I'd probably be more concerned with finding solid cover then I would be in trying to stop the driver.

 

[Specop 007]

Without making it a P&N topic...

Article

Home owner resist police, charges dropped.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Without making it a P&N topic...

Article

Home owner resist police, charges dropped.

There is already a thread about that.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Without making it a P&N topic...

Article

Home owner resist police, charges dropped.

There is already a thread about that.

Fair nuff.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
of course this had to be done solely because of racism even though over half of the five officers involved were black.

And as evident by nearly all of your 30,000 posts, racism does not exist.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Lemodular
it took 50 shots from presumably 3 different angles to take down a car/passenger/driver? These guys need to be off the streets.

or at least back to the firing range for a refresher on aim

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Lemodular
it took 50 shots from presumably 3 different angles to take down a car/passenger/driver? These guys need to be off the streets.

Havent shot much I assume?

Shooting through glass, especially auto glass, is a recipe to miss. If I recall correctly, and I may be wrong, SWAT is advised not to attempt shots at subjects that are outside of 1-2 feet of glass with a .223/5.56 caliber rifle. If may be a bit more however. Point is, glass drasticallly changes the point of impact of a bullet. Its one reason why when you see the occasional photo from Iraq of some gate runners car the windshield looks like comeone hit the fun switch and started dumping mags in the car. Because thats what they have to do.

Secondly shooting under pressure is hard. I mean HARD. I've seen skilled shooters tense up and do poorly with no other pressure then someone hitting a button on a stopwatch and saying "GO!". Now take into account someone trying to potentially kill you with a car or shooting back at you with a weapon....

These factors add up, and make placing shots where you need them exceedingly difficult.

I personally would hate to take on a car with a pistol. In fact I'd probably be more concerned with finding solid cover then I would be in trying to stop the driver.

shooting thru glass does deflect a round, but once the first few go in it doesnt affect it all that much since the integrity of the glass is compromised greatly. if the car was moving, their best vantage point would have been to step to the side of the vehicle and fire thru the side window, giving them at most a 2 shot hit. who would want to stand in front of a car that was moving anyway? that only happens in the movies.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Lemodular
it took 50 shots from presumably 3 different angles to take down a car/passenger/driver? These guys need to be off the streets.

Havent shot much I assume?

Shooting through glass, especially auto glass, is a recipe to miss. If I recall correctly, and I may be wrong, SWAT is advised not to attempt shots at subjects that are outside of 1-2 feet of glass with a .223/5.56 caliber rifle. If may be a bit more however. Point is, glass drasticallly changes the point of impact of a bullet. Its one reason why when you see the occasional photo from Iraq of some gate runners car the windshield looks like comeone hit the fun switch and started dumping mags in the car. Because thats what they have to do.

Secondly shooting under pressure is hard. I mean HARD. I've seen skilled shooters tense up and do poorly with no other pressure then someone hitting a button on a stopwatch and saying "GO!". Now take into account someone trying to potentially kill you with a car or shooting back at you with a weapon....

These factors add up, and make placing shots where you need them exceedingly difficult.

I personally would hate to take on a car with a pistol. In fact I'd probably be more concerned with finding solid cover then I would be in trying to stop the driver.

shooting thru glass does deflect a round, but once the first few go in it doesnt affect it all that much since the integrity of the glass is compromised greatly. if the car was moving, their best vantage point would have been to step to the side of the vehicle and fire thru the side window, giving them at most a 2 shot hit. who would want to stand in front of a car that was moving anyway? that only happens in the movies.

Hind sight and after action is always 20/20.

Things change, drastically and quickly, when your in the middle of the mix. To point out, how many times was the driver hit? I think it was less then 10 wasnt it? Like I said, I havent followed the case too closely so I wont try to armchair general it.

 

[DBL]

Many of you are missing the crucial fact that these were undercover cops in civilian clothes and there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the officers did not identify themselves. That's probably the most important fact.

Personally, if I'm walking away from a seedy strip joint after a brief altercation and a group of men pointed guns at my car w/o clearly identifying themselves as police, I might be inclined to react in the same manner. I'm not sure you can absolve the police in this case. In addition, the fact that the officers fired wildy different amounts of rounds does not bode well for some of them.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: moshquerade
of course this had to be done solely because of racism even though over half of the five officers involved were black.

And as evident by nearly all of your 30,000 posts, racism does not exist.

what the **** are you talking about beside blatantly flamebaiting?

nowhere have i said racism doesn't exist anywhere in the world. what i have said in this thread is that i don't believe racism is a basis for this case.