Pals to testify in NYPD 50-shot killing - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Thematic-Device · #16 (**permalink**) 03-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigTlilODD

I don't think the cops are "largely" out of control. Some are, but not the majority.

I think this case illustrates this.

Quote:

Paul Headley, who shot one round; Michael Cary, three; Marc Cooper, four;

Reasonable if they legitimately feared for the safety of others and had no other immediate recourse, indeed explainable simply if other officers had started firing.

Quote:

Gescard Isnora, 11;

Excessive

Quote:

and Michael Oliver, 31.

Completely out of control

hairballxavier · #17 (**permalink**) 03-05-2007

The pigs involved in the murder should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Having a badge is no excuse to just go around willy-nilly murdering niggers.

Diuretic · #18 (**permalink**) 03-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

I'm always impressed in cases like this the shear volume of fire the police officers lay down. While it may be a case of them being jumpy, insufficient firearms training (rather then firing a few well placed shots they just spray and pray), but it certainly never looks good for the police.

We're talking 10 shots on average, it's quite possible a few of them emptied their clips (depending on their pistol and whether some fired more shots then others).

I can empty a revolver in seconds. That's six shots, usually in pairs. I could probably dump a magazine from a pistol in much the same way, two shots at a time. I don't know if I'd empty a magazine but then I've never actually had to shoot anyone.

Diuretic · #19 (**permalink**) 03-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyd95

Supposedly one cop fired 31 of the total shots. But I don't know where he was in the line of fire so I wont even go so far as to say he shot too much.

Yeah, it doesn't look good for so many shots to be fired, but I usually don't blame the police until I know the full investigation was done. In this case, you also must consider that the police were on different sides of the car, and the see bullets coming out at them, so they continue to fire. They couldn't know the bullets came from the officers on the other side of the car. I just don't like the fact that the victim were immediately heralded as innocent people and the police were instantly vilified. Ah, it's the society we line in though...

I'm trying to get my head around one officer firing 31 times. Two weapons surely. I just can't imagine a reload situation but hell I could be very wrong.

Thematic-Device · #20 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

I can empty a revolver in seconds. That's six shots, usually in pairs. I could probably dump a magazine from a pistol in much the same way, two shots at a time. I don't know if I'd empty a magazine but then I've never actually had to shoot anyone.

So you empty the clip, take out the old clip put in a new one, and continue shooting. And if the clip was smaller then 15 bullets empty that clip too and put in a third clip and continue shooting at an unarmed person.

Yeah that makes me a bit suspicious of the police officer.

Diuretic · #21 (**permalink**) 03-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

So you empty the clip, take out the old clip put in a new one, and continue shooting. And if the clip was smaller then 15 bullets empty that clip too and put in a third clip and continue shooting at an unarmed person.

Yeah that makes me a bit suspicious of the police officer.

It will come out in the wash. I suppose there could be another explanation but that's the only one I can think of as well. Maybe two weapons but again it seems to be really over the top.

jimmyd95 · #22 (**permalink**) 03-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

So you empty the clip, take out the old clip put in a new one, and continue shooting. And if the clip was smaller then 15 bullets empty that clip too and put in a third clip and continue shooting at an unarmed person.

Yeah that makes me a bit suspicious of the police officer.

Again with "unarmed." They (not sure if it was the suspect who died or someone else driving) tried to run over the cops! What is so hard to understand that that is, in fact, "armed and dangerous?"

Thematic-Device · #23 (**permalink**) 03-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

It will come out in the wash. I suppose there could be another explanation but that's the only one I can think of as well. Maybe two weapons but again it seems to be really over the top.

I have trouble believing police procedure involves wielding akimbo weapons. Even if he was, that seems to be something you'd do if you wanted to lay down some rather indiscriminate fire, and suppressing fire doesn't seem to be necessary in this case since they weren't being shot back at.

Thematic-Device · #24 (**permalink**) 03-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyd95

Again with "unarmed." They (not sure if it was the suspect who died or someone else driving) tried to run over the cops! What is so hard to understand that that is, in fact, "armed and dangerous?"

I've been clipped by cars before when riding a bike, even came a bit close crossing the street. While I consider the people who did it reckless I don't automatically consider it an attempt on my life. From the reading i saw it seems entirely possible that the man simply panicked.

Most items are only weapons if their being wielded as such. A pen can make an improvised weapon, for example, but not everyone with a pen is 'armed'. In order to prove that he was 'armed' with the car, you'd need to prove some kind of malice or intent.

Diuretic · #25 (**permalink**) 03-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

I have trouble believing police procedure involves wielding akimbo weapons. Even if he was, that seems to be something you'd do if you wanted to lay down some rather indiscriminate fire, and suppressing fire doesn't seem to be necessary in this case since they weren't being shot back at.

I was thinking of primary weapon and backup weapon, used one at a time.

Thematic-Device · #26 (**permalink**) 03-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

I was thinking of primary weapon and backup weapon, used one at a time.

In that case i don't think it'd be much different then reloading. Finishing firing and then pulling out another weapon and emptying its clip would be about the same as reloading.

Besides aren't backup weapons typically smaller clip sizes making it more likely that he had to reload?

Diuretic · #27 (**permalink**) 03-07-2007

I don't know what the practice is with backup weapons, I assume it's either personal choice or regulated by the employing agency. But yes, I would think the weapon would have less capacity than the primary weapon. Having said that I understand some Glock models have a capacity up to 33 rounds, so I suppose we'll all have to wait for the matter to unfold.

Thematic-Device · #28 (**permalink**) 03-08-2007

I thought those kinds of extended clips were banned in New York, and that certainly wouldn't be standard issue.

jimmyd95 · #29 (**permalink**) 03-08-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

I've been clipped by cars before when riding a bike, even came a bit close crossing the street. While I consider the people who did it reckless I don't automatically consider it an attempt on my life. From the reading i saw it seems entirely possible that the man simply panicked.

Most items are only weapons if their being wielded as such. A pen can make an improvised weapon, for example, but not everyone with a pen is 'armed'. In order to prove that he was 'armed' with the car, you'd need to prove some kind of malice or intent.

Fine. To prove they were unarmed you have to prove NO malice and intent. So if you want to say I am wrong that they tried to run over the police, you are equally wrong to say they did not.

And from more than one report I've heard, they tried to run down the police. Not only is this an attack, it's an attack with a deadly weapon, which means the police have ever right to respond in turn! Also, your analogy is weak as well. What if the suspects had used a gun in a "reckless" or "panicked" fashion?

Thematic-Device · #30 (**permalink**) 03-08-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyd95

Fine. To prove they were unarmed you have to prove NO malice and intent. So if you want to say I am wrong that they tried to run over the police, you are equally wrong to say they did not.

And from more than one report I've heard, they tried to run down the police. Not only is this an attack, it's an attack with a deadly weapon, which means the police have ever right to respond in turn! Also, your analogy is weak as well. What if the suspects had used a gun in a "reckless" or "panicked" fashion?

A gun in inherently a weapon, a car is inherently a vehicle and potentially a weapon. We do not consider traffic accidents 'assault with a deadly weapon'. We may have cases of vehicular homicide, but the fact is, when police decide to discharge their weapon, their fire must stop when the threat stops. Something that 31 shot rambo probably doesn't understand.

Response has to be appropriate to the level of threat for each shot, not simply when they started shooting.

-Note, whats the possibility a cop legally has a 33 round clip glock-18 with full auto?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode