NYPD Officers Surrender in Groom's Death

[slackerinabox]

I know, it's hip to make fun of Al Sharpton here but I can't join the parade in this case...

Here are the issues:
1. The shooting is not the race issue people worry about. The shooters were hispanic (not african american) and white, but Sharpton isn't calling the cops racist. The issue is that the case be treated fairly, not swept under the rug. In other words, the concern is about institutionalized racism, about the Justice System moving this case to the suburbs where the loss of a single black life might not be as respected as the loss in his community. That's why the fight is to keep the trial in Queens - where I live and where this incident happened.

2. The cops lied, or at least are saying things about a 4th man in a car with a weapon. No weapon was ever found and a 4th man never located.

3. The cop who went up to the car was UNDERCOVER. Plains clothed. The driver who started to flee is reported as saying that he thought he was being carjacked. I've been to jamaica, queens - if 3 guys came up to my car without badged and without a uniform, I'D RUN TOO...

4. The "cop car" that was hit was an unmarked MINIVAN.


What seems to have happened is that these 3 guys, drunk after a batchelor party, thought that they were getting jumped. The cops did not clearly identify themselves so the 3 guys proceeded to flee... The cops, confused, started feeling like they were being attacked and started to fire. Race had little to do with what happened. Shooting 30 times is excessive, so justice needs to be served. Let's just stop calling things race issues without understanding what's going on. Sharpton himself lead a very straightforward press conference today asking that the trial be kept in Queens and, for a change, I agree with him.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

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. 😕

Only white people can be racist? 😕

black people can be racist against black people, is that what you are trying to say?

I'm indian and am sure as fvck racist against indian people. They smell funny.. Like curry .. Ewww..

Don't ban me, I'm just trying to prove a point.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
I know, it's hip to make fun of Al Sharpton here but I can't join the parade in this case...

Here are the issues:
1. The shooting is not the race issue people worry about. The shooters were hispanic (not african american) and white, but Sharpton isn't calling the cops racist. The issue is that the case be treated fairly, not swept under the rug. In other words, the concern is about institutionalized racism, about the Justice System moving this case to the suburbs where the loss of a single black life might not be as respected as the loss in his community. That's why the fight is to keep the trial in Queens - where I live and where this incident happened.

2. The cops lied, or at least are saying things about a 4th man in a car with a weapon. No weapon was ever found and a 4th man never located.

3. The cop who went up to the car was UNDERCOVER. Plains clothed. The driver who started to flee is reported as saying that he thought he was being carjacked. I've been to jamaica, queens - if 3 guys came up to my car without badged and without a uniform, I'D RUN TOO...

4. The "cop car" that was hit was an unmarked MINIVAN.


What seems to have happened is that these 3 guys, drunk after a batchelor party, thought that they were getting jumped. The cops did not clearly identify themselves so the 3 guys proceeded to flee... The cops, confused, started feeling like they were being attacked and started to fire. Race had little to do with what happened. Shooting 30 times is excessive, so justice needs to be served. Let's just stop calling things race issues without understanding what's going on. Sharpton himself lead a very straightforward press conference today asking that the trial be kept in Queens and, for a change, I agree with him.

Regarding how the scenario possibly went down; you're right. That COULD'VE happened...but neither you nor I know that for sure or not. I grew up in NYC and if anyone ran up to my window screaming, I'd run them over for sure!

Obviously, something's totally "not right" about what happened.

But..Sharpton's record speaks for itself. He's an instigator of the highest degree and about as trustworthy as a fox in a henhouse.

This case will come down to a jury's perception of the facts. Fact is attempted manslaughter of a police officer (and worse when there's more than one involoved) is a very bad thing.

Hey, possibly the cops were drinking and sniffing coke for all I know...but they had the badges. I'm glad not all the cops involved were white. That changes things a lot, ESPECIALLY in a cesspool like NYC. It'll be interesting to see what happens here.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
I know, it's hip to make fun of Al Sharpton here but I can't join the parade in this case...

Here are the issues:
1. The shooting is not the race issue people worry about. The shooters were hispanic (not african american) and white, but Sharpton isn't calling the cops racist. The issue is that the case be treated fairly, not swept under the rug. In other words, the concern is about institutionalized racism, about the Justice System moving this case to the suburbs where the loss of a single black life might not be as respected as the loss in his community. That's why the fight is to keep the trial in Queens - where I live and where this incident happened.

2. The cops lied, or at least are saying things about a 4th man in a car with a weapon. No weapon was ever found and a 4th man never located.

3. The cop who went up to the car was UNDERCOVER. Plains clothed. The driver who started to flee is reported as saying that he thought he was being carjacked. I've been to jamaica, queens - if 3 guys came up to my car without badged and without a uniform, I'D RUN TOO...

4. The "cop car" that was hit was an unmarked MINIVAN.


What seems to have happened is that these 3 guys, drunk after a batchelor party, thought that they were getting jumped. The cops did not clearly identify themselves so the 3 guys proceeded to flee... The cops, confused, started feeling like they were being attacked and started to fire. Race had little to do with what happened. Shooting 30 times is excessive, so justice needs to be served. Let's just stop calling things race issues without understanding what's going on. Sharpton himself lead a very straightforward press conference today asking that the trial be kept in Queens and, for a change, I agree with him.

Regarding how the scenario possibly went down; you're right. That COULD'VE happened...but neither you nor I know that for sure or not. I grew up in NYC and if anyone ran up to my window screaming, I'd run them over for sure!

Obviously, something's totally "not right" about what happened.

But..Sharpton's record speaks for itself. He's an instigator of the highest degree and about as trustworthy as a fox in a henhouse.

This case will come down to a jury's perception of the facts. Fact is attempted manslaughter of a police officer (and worse when there's more than one involoved) is a very bad thing.

Hey, possibly the cops were drinking and sniffing coke for all I know...but they had the badges. I'm glad not all the cops involved were white. That changes things a lot, ESPECIALLY in a cesspool like NYC. It'll be interesting to see what happens here.

Sharpton's a scumbag, he uses the suffering of others to increase his own personal fame.

But that doesn't mean that he's always wrong.

Even Gandhi (and I'm not comparing Sharpton to Gandhi, my parents would kill me) had personal/selfish motivation that convinced him do what he did.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
I know, it's hip to make fun of Al Sharpton here but I can't join the parade in this case...

Here are the issues:
1. The shooting is not the race issue people worry about. The shooters were hispanic (not african american) and white, but Sharpton isn't calling the cops racist. The issue is that the case be treated fairly, not swept under the rug. In other words, the concern is about institutionalized racism, about the Justice System moving this case to the suburbs where the loss of a single black life might not be as respected as the loss in his community. That's why the fight is to keep the trial in Queens - where I live and where this incident happened.

2. The cops lied, or at least are saying things about a 4th man in a car with a weapon. No weapon was ever found and a 4th man never located.

3. The cop who went up to the car was UNDERCOVER. Plains clothed. The driver who started to flee is reported as saying that he thought he was being carjacked. I've been to jamaica, queens - if 3 guys came up to my car without badged and without a uniform, I'D RUN TOO...

4. The "cop car" that was hit was an unmarked MINIVAN.


What seems to have happened is that these 3 guys, drunk after a batchelor party, thought that they were getting jumped. The cops did not clearly identify themselves so the 3 guys proceeded to flee... The cops, confused, started feeling like they were being attacked and started to fire. Race had little to do with what happened. Shooting 30 times is excessive, so justice needs to be served. Let's just stop calling things race issues without understanding what's going on. Sharpton himself lead a very straightforward press conference today asking that the trial be kept in Queens and, for a change, I agree with him.

From the NYT article that I read, I believe it was the cop who fired 30 times who was shadowing the group in the club. As an undercover cop, you are allowed up to 2 drinks, although there is some question as to whether this rule was actually followed (the implication being that this cop may have also been drunk when he opened fire) and I don't believe the cop was required to submit to a BA test after the incident.
It was also pointed out that while inside the club, the undercover cop was w/o his firearm. He had to walk outside and to a car to retrieve it.

Clearly, there are a lot of questions to be answered, and it certainly seems reasonable that a grand jury would recommend bringing this case to trial.

 

[QueBert]

Sharpton helps to get the media to cover sh!t they otherwise will leave pretty much ignored. Ragardless of it he has personal motives, it's important he does what he does, even if it causes racial tentions to swell. America needs to start opening their eyes to race, it's not always the case, but there are so many examples where the coverage of a white story is sooooo much more than one that is almost exacty the same, except it's about a non white person.

a good example is Lacy Peterson, the same month Lacy was killed a pregnant Hispanic woman was killed by her Hispanic husband and dumped in a lake. I bet not one person on here can tell us her name (without looking the story up) I know I can't. But, Lacy is etched in everyones head. That's just one example, it happens all the time.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
I know, it's hip to make fun of Al Sharpton here but I can't join the parade in this case...

Here are the issues:
1. The shooting is not the race issue people worry about. The shooters were hispanic (not african american) and white, but Sharpton isn't calling the cops racist. The issue is that the case be treated fairly, not swept under the rug. In other words, the concern is about institutionalized racism, about the Justice System moving this case to the suburbs where the loss of a single black life might not be as respected as the loss in his community. That's why the fight is to keep the trial in Queens - where I live and where this incident happened.

2. The cops lied, or at least are saying things about a 4th man in a car with a weapon. No weapon was ever found and a 4th man never located.

3. The cop who went up to the car was UNDERCOVER. Plains clothed. The driver who started to flee is reported as saying that he thought he was being carjacked. I've been to jamaica, queens - if 3 guys came up to my car without badged and without a uniform, I'D RUN TOO...

4. The "cop car" that was hit was an unmarked MINIVAN.


What seems to have happened is that these 3 guys, drunk after a batchelor party, thought that they were getting jumped. The cops did not clearly identify themselves so the 3 guys proceeded to flee... The cops, confused, started feeling like they were being attacked and started to fire. Race had little to do with what happened. Shooting 30 times is excessive, so justice needs to be served. Let's just stop calling things race issues without understanding what's going on. Sharpton himself lead a very straightforward press conference today asking that the trial be kept in Queens and, for a change, I agree with him.

Regarding how the scenario possibly went down; you're right. That COULD'VE happened...but neither you nor I know that for sure or not. I grew up in NYC and if anyone ran up to my window screaming, I'd run them over for sure!

Obviously, something's totally "not right" about what happened.

But..Sharpton's record speaks for itself. He's an instigator of the highest degree and about as trustworthy as a fox in a henhouse.

This case will come down to a jury's perception of the facts. Fact is attempted manslaughter of a police officer (and worse when there's more than one involoved) is a very bad thing.

Hey, possibly the cops were drinking and sniffing coke for all I know...but they had the badges. I'm glad not all the cops involved were white. That changes things a lot, ESPECIALLY in a cesspool like NYC. It'll be interesting to see what happens here.

That's a stupid argument, Sharpton leeches onto everything but that doesn't mean he isn't right. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.

 

[lupi]

I wonder at what point does someone think to re-analyze the situation. Personally I would have done it before getting ready to load a 4th clip.

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."

Me thinks someone tries to use the car I'm sitting in as a metal collector I encourage someone to hit the gas.

 

[thujone]

the original details i heard about this immediately after it happened...

some sort of altercation breaks out in the club between 2 groups... 1 group happens to be undercover cops. one of the guys in the bachelor party makes a threat of going to his car to get a gun. all the men from the bachelor party get in the car to leave... they start the car... all the cops come out. one starts to approach the car as they're starting to LEAVE the club... they swerve to avoid hitting him as he's trying to stop them from leaving. the other cops see this and take it as a "perceived threat" and open fire. car slams into minivan. car comes to rest. cops continue to fire... even reloading then continuing to fire.

that's the details that were reported by the survivors in the car.

the true culprit? male attitudes towards violence. idle threats can get you in some nasty places. but... that being said... it's still no justification for the force used by the police and i'm eager to see the evidence presented in their trial.

 

[Dessert Tears]

Originally posted by: isasir
Yep, I've had an officier in civilian clothes charge after me in NYC w/o identifying himself until he was right next to me. If I had any sort of weapon on me, you can damn well bet I would have pulled it out to defend myself against what would appear to just be a crazy lunatic charging after me.

Do you always / sometimes / never carry a weapon? Why did the plainclothes officer accost you?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: lupi
I wonder at what point does someone think to re-analyze the situation. Personally I would have done it before getting ready to load a 4th clip.

One cop fired 31 shots. I'm guessing that's 1 in the chamber initially + 2 15-round magazines. So he reloaded once. It all could have happened in as little as 10 seconds.

Me thinks someone tries to use the car I'm sitting in as a metal collector I encourage someone to hit the gas.

I don't know which happened first, because I wasn't there. Which is why I said, "If that's the case..."

 

[imported_cheapdude]

I consider that a tragic incident but honestly don't know if the guys deserve what they got. (both the victim and the cops)

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: isasir
Yep, I've had an officier in civilian clothes charge after me in NYC w/o identifying himself until he was right next to me. If I had any sort of weapon on me, you can damn well bet I would have pulled it out to defend myself against what would appear to just be a crazy lunatic charging after me.

Do you always / sometimes / never carry a weapon? Why did the plainclothes officer accost you?

You quiet implication is that if a cop accosts you then you must be doing something fishy. That's not really true - I'm a dorky indian fellow and dress like a nerd - my usual attire involves puma sneakers, dress pants, t-shirt and suit jacket. Not a "thug" at all, and have more in common with elvis costello than puff daddy. But i've been searched by the police on the subway twice.

I wasn't doing anything fishy and complied fully. Now, if some guy in plains clothes said "hand me you bag!" before identifying themselves, well, I'd probably walk away quickly, resist, or run. Add a few drinks to my system and my quiet resistance might change to "what the fvck you want to see my bag for, a$$hole!" Do I deserve to be shot for not complying?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Topic Title: NYPD Officers Surrender in Groom's Death
Topic Summary: "Michael Oliver, who fired 31 times..." 31 SHOTS @ an unarmed man???!

The only reason he didn't fire 32 shots was because he only had 31 bullets.

 

[Dessert Tears]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: isasir
Yep, I've had an officier in civilian clothes charge after me in NYC w/o identifying himself until he was right next to me. If I had any sort of weapon on me, you can damn well bet I would have pulled it out to defend myself against what would appear to just be a crazy lunatic charging after me.

Do you always / sometimes / never carry a weapon? Why did the plainclothes officer accost you?

You quiet implication is that if a cop accosts you then you must be doing something fishy. That's not really true - I'm a dorky indian fellow and dress like a nerd - my usual attire involves puma sneakers, dress pants, t-shirt and suit jacket. Not a "thug" at all, and have more in common with elvis costello than puff daddy. But i've been searched by the police on the subway twice.

I wasn't doing anything fishy and complied fully. Now, if some guy in plains clothes said "hand me you bag!" before identifying themselves, well, I'd probably walk away quickly, resist, or run. Add a few drinks to my system and my quiet resistance might change to "what the fvck you want to see my bag for, a$$hole!" Do I deserve to be shot for not complying?

I didn't imply that - you inferred it. I was actually just curious, though you're right that I think that an officer would have a reason - a personal one, not necessarily PC or even valid - for accosting a citizen. Otherwise the officer is just wasting his/her time.

I assume that you mean other than the "large packages and other bulky objects" tables that they sometimes set up outside the turnstiles and that the officers who searched you were in uniform. I agree with your response - comply fully and be calm and polite. Your response to a confrontational man in plainclothes is reasonable when sober and understandable when a little inebriated. No, you do not deserve to be shot for not complying, unless you present lethal force.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: isasir
Yep, I've had an officier in civilian clothes charge after me in NYC w/o identifying himself until he was right next to me. If I had any sort of weapon on me, you can damn well bet I would have pulled it out to defend myself against what would appear to just be a crazy lunatic charging after me.

Do you always / sometimes / never carry a weapon? Why did the plainclothes officer accost you?

You quiet implication is that if a cop accosts you then you must be doing something fishy. That's not really true - I'm a dorky indian fellow and dress like a nerd - my usual attire involves puma sneakers, dress pants, t-shirt and suit jacket. Not a "thug" at all, and have more in common with elvis costello than puff daddy. But i've been searched by the police on the subway twice.

I wasn't doing anything fishy and complied fully. Now, if some guy in plains clothes said "hand me you bag!" before identifying themselves, well, I'd probably walk away quickly, resist, or run. Add a few drinks to my system and my quiet resistance might change to "what the fvck you want to see my bag for, a$$hole!" Do I deserve to be shot for not complying?

I didn't imply that - you inferred it. I was actually just curious, though you're right that I think that an officer would have a reason - a personal one, not necessarily PC or even valid - for accosting a citizen. Otherwise the officer is just wasting his/her time.

I assume that you mean other than the "large packages and other bulky objects" tables that they sometimes set up outside the turnstiles and that the officers who searched you were in uniform. I agree with your response - comply fully and be calm and polite. Your response to a confrontational man in plainclothes is reasonable when sober and understandable when a little inebriated. No, you do not deserve to be shot for not complying, unless you present lethal force.

Remember, we shouldn't glamorize cops - many struggled through high school and don't even have their BA degree. So they're not always the intelligent, nobel people we want them to be.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Remember, we shouldn't glamorize cops - many struggled through high school and don't even have their BA degree. So they're not always the intelligent, nobel people we want them to be.

Err, I agree we shouldn't glamuorise cops (or anyone) however I fail to see the connection you are implying regarding schooling and intelligence.

 

[moshquerade]

Interesting New York Post editorial

CRIMINALIZING TRAGEDY

March 20, 2007 -- Three of New York's Finest were arraigned yesterday on felony and lesser charges in the Sean Bell case - a tragedy steeped in the chaos and danger that city cops face daily.

The three - Detectives Michael Oliver, Gescard Isnora and Marc Cooper - pleaded not guilty to the eight counts against them. Oliver and Isnora face charges of manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment; Cooper is accused of reckless endangerment.

Now it's up to Queens DA Richard Brown to prove those charges.

He'll have his hands full.

Sure, the usual racial troublemakers already have convicted the three - and locked them up for good.

As if life were so simple.

On the night in question, Bell and his pals were celebrating his upcoming wedding at the Kalua Cabaret, a skeevy strip joint known for drugs, prostitution and guns. The cops were there gathering evidence in an effort to shut the dump down.

When Bell and his buddies left, chaos erupted. Bell rammed his car into a police van and clipped Isnora, who was the first to fire his weapon.

When it was over, five officers had fired 50 shots; Bell was dead, his pals seriously injured.

DA Brown's extraordinarily thorough investigation followed.

As did the indictments.

Now comes the trial, with time out for motions and a probable application for a change of venue - a not-unreasonable request under the circumstances.

"I'm going to keep this in the street," the Rev. Al Sharpton vowed last November - and, as always, he hasn't disappointed.

Yet Sharpton and his ilk weren't the only ones in the streets of late.

Take some of the incidents that city cops faced last week:

* Crowds at a high-school basketball championship game at Madison Square Garden began a near-riot Sunday night, stretching all the way from 33rd Street to 42nd and Times Square. Gunfire erupted. Cops on horseback were called in. The Deuce had to be shut down.

* On Tuesday, gunman Corey Mickins shot plainclothes officer Robert Tejada twice in a Harlem restaurant.

* Later that night, police say Hugo Hernandez stabbed transit officer Angel Cruz in the head with a hunting knife during a life-or-death struggle at a Brooklyn subway station.

* On Wednesday night, two unarmed auxiliarly cops were executed in cold blood by a deranged ex-Marine who had just murdered a bartender in Greenwich Village. Police managed to kill the gunman, David Garvin, after a total of 56 shots were fired.

For sure, New York today isn't the seething cauldron Rudy Giuliani inherited 13 years ago, and Mayor Bloomberg deserves considerable applause for consolidating the gains of his predecessor.

But the bulk of the credit goes to the men and women of the NYPD, who are on the streets in the wee hours, at places just like the Kalua Cabaret - risking their lives, and futures - for the citizens of New York City.

They are not perfect.

They make mistakes.

But imagine what the city would be like without them.

Most of the charges leveled yesterday require that intent to do harm be proved beyond a reasonable doubt if a conviction is to be obtained.

Or, perhaps more relevant to this case, to be sustained on appeal.

The fact is, sometimes police officers must fire their guns. And when that happens, the consequences can be tragic.

But criminalizing tragic outcomes serves only to embolden criminals and to hamstring the police.

And to propel New York City back toward the abyss.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/po.../criminalizing_tragedy_editorials_.htm

 

[DBL]

If that editorial is not a perfect example of how to create a terrible newspaper, I don't know what is.

 

[classy]

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. 😕

Hmm thats odd soley based on racism huh, it was only the WHITE ONE who took 30 plus shots, he even reloaded :roll:. And the other two are black I think, so stfu.

 

[Lemodular]

Originally posted by: DBL
If that editorial is not a perfect example of how to create a terrible newspaper, I don't know what is.

What did you expect, it's the NY Post.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: DBL
If that editorial is not a perfect example of how to create a terrible newspaper, I don't know what is.

The New York Post is the 13th-oldest newspaper published in the United States and the oldest to have been published continually as a daily.[2] Since 1993, it has been owned by Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and, as of October 2006, is one of the 10 largest newspapers in the United States.[3] Its editorial offices are located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, in Manhattan.

Sales

The daily circulation of the Post slumped in the final years of the Schiff era from 700,000 in the late 1960s[citation needed] to approximately 418,000.[citation needed] A resurgence in the 21st century boosted circulation to 673,379 in September 2006,[1] achieved partly by lowering the price from 50 to 25 cents.

One commentator has suggested that the Post cannot become profitable as long as the competing Daily News survives, and that Murdoch may be trying to force the Daily News to fold or sell out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: classy

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. 😕

Hmm thats odd soley based on racism huh, it was only the WHITE ONE who took 30 plus shots, he even reloaded :roll:. And the other two are black I think, so stfu.

you stfu! as soon as Sharpton stepped in this turned into a cry of racism.

let me ask you. if Bell was white, would Sharpton give a sh#t about this at all?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: classy

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. 😕

Hmm thats odd soley based on racism huh, it was only the WHITE ONE who took 30 plus shots, he even reloaded :roll:. And the other two are black I think, so stfu.

you stfu! as soon as Sharpton stepped in this turned into a cry of racism.

let me ask you. if Bell was white, would Sharpton give a sh#t about this at all?

Its kind of ironic you would ask that question. Why? Because we all know it hasn't and wouldn't happen to a white person.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: classy

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. 😕

Hmm thats odd soley based on racism huh, it was only the WHITE ONE who took 30 plus shots, he even reloaded :roll:. And the other two are black I think, so stfu.

you stfu! as soon as Sharpton stepped in this turned into a cry of racism.

let me ask you. if Bell was white, would Sharpton give a sh#t about this at all?

Its kind of ironic you would ask that question. Why? Because we all know it hasn't and wouldn't happen to a white.

In the same situation if Bell were white, yes, it could've happened to him.
and you didn't answer my question.