NYPD officers cleared on shooting.

Catus Felidae · 04-27-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

This story has pissed me off from day one. And now I feel "Rodney King" pissed. I never play the race card but in this case, I find it VERY difficult to believe they would shoot 50 rounds at a white group of young men. I'm speechless. I had a trip planned to NYC in August. I think I'd rather go to BFE Mississippi. I'd feel safer.

I clicked 'thanks' to your post, not from a racial point of view, but because I firmly believe that this type of police officer tends to migrate to cities that allow this kind of abuse.

Cops like this didn't go from 'defender of the public' to 'power crazed a**holes' overnight, but they do tend to go from small communities where they are more likely to be 'weeded out' to bigger cities where they aren't.

nuttyjoe · 04-27-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

I clicked 'thanks' to your post, not from a racial point of view, but because I firmly believe that this type of police officer tends to migrate to cities that allow this kind of abuse.

Cops like this didn't go from 'defender of the public' to 'power crazed a**holes' overnight, but they do tend to go from small communities where they are more likely to be 'weeded out' to bigger cities where they aren't.

I'm of the mind that this is more a case of "badge happiness"; police under the idea that they have no rules of conduct to which they must be held accountable. Yes, I suppose one could make a case for racial bias; if we think the police believed that they place they planned to raid was a hangout for those of ill repute. But to look at it this way is to also say that the police believe that those of that ill repute must be Blacks. I'm not sure that without more proof that I'll accept that.

Catus Felidae · 04-27-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

Police are authorized to use deadly force in certain circumstances, with this incident appearing to be one of those circumstances.

So, if you ask me, it doesn't matter if the NYPD fired 50 shots or just a single shot....just as long as the rest of the public was not put in danger by these actions.

(You can play the race card all you want. But this incident and court proceedings aren't about race.)

"In certain circumstances". Whose word do we have for those circumstances? The cops who did the shooting?

I used to put more credence into a statement by a police officer than I did into a statement by any other witness. My thinking: That police officers were trained to observe and less likely to make mistakes. That attitude was all well and good providing the officers were honest. I have since learned from personal experience that not all cops are 'honest defenders of the public'. I don't want to tar all police officers with the same brush, and I believe that the majority of them are decent people. But by accepting the majority, I must make room for the existence of the minority.

That said: As 'gung ho' as these officers were to fire, and "knowing now what I didn't know then", I think something stinks, so to speak.

Catus Felidae · 04-27-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

I'm of the mind that this is more a case of "badge happiness"; police under the idea that they have no rules of conduct to which they must be held accountable.

I think this is totally correct.

Yes, I suppose one could make a case for racial bias; if we think the police believed that they place they planned to raid was a hangout for those of ill repute. But to look at it this way is to also say that the police believe that those of that ill repute must be Blacks. I'm not sure that without more proof that I'll accept that.

I don't know if race comes into it or not, but this many shots fired at an unarmed man, black, white, or green, tells me that there is a problem in the NYPD.

Too many hot dogs, not enough buns.

nuttyjoe · 04-27-2008, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

I don't know if race comes into it or not, but this many shots fired at an unarmed man, black, white, or green, tells me that there is a problem in the NYPD.

Too many hot dogs, not enough buns.

As I ststed earlier; the 31 shots fired from the one officer are what bothered me the most. This officer shot and re-loaded several times in order to have fired that many times from his weapon. All without recieving no fire to begin with, and no return fire during this affair. All because the victims had no weapons at all to have threatened anyone! So when and did these officers feel that their lifes and the lives of others were in jeopardy?When did they no longer feel threatened as to stop firing?
I'm sorry for the stain this will cause other police officers everywhere whom do not think, and act in this manner. Even more, I'm sickened by the lame attempt to explain this behavior- thereby accepting it- by their superiors. Are police now given blanket authority to fire as they see fit; whenever they see fit to? A situation like this is a "first spark" to open anarchy when those entrusted to enforce the law do not to follow it themselves; and are not punished accordingly.

pensacola_niceman · 04-28-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharon den Adel

I'll play the race card, too. It pissed me off when people play the race card, but in this case, I'm playing it. I am of the belief that there is no way in Hell that this would have happened to a white man.

How do explain the race card angle when 2 of the officers doing the shooting were black?

highway80west · 04-28-2008, 01:07 PM

It is interesting to see how race could play a role in this. Two of the officers involved were of the same color as the man whom they fatally shot with all those bullets. Now suppose Sharpton were to have his people march in the streets of NYC protesting the verdict. How does Sharpton feel that two of the men are of the same color as he? Maybe Sharpton should rethink his position.

Nevertheless, the Justice Dept. needs to investigate this. But here again is where the civil rights issue come to play.

We all remember that the four policemen in the Rodney King beating were all white. They were acquitted in state court. Hence came the riots.

Then the justice dept. stepped in and charged the four with civil rights violations. They were convicted and sent to prison.

I think the justice dept. may not have a case against the three officers from NYC.

And certainly it cannot be looked at as double jeopardy, too.

pensacola_niceman · 04-28-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

It is interesting to see how race could play a role in this. Two of the officers involved were of the same color as the man whom they fatally shot with all those bullets. Now suppose Sharpton were to have his people march in the streets of NYC protesting the verdict. How does Sharpton feel that two of the men are of the same color as he? Maybe Sharpton should rethink his position.

Nevertheless, the Justice Dept. needs to investigate this. But here again is where the civil rights issue come to play.

We all remember that the four policemen in the Rodney King beating were all white. They were acquitted in state court. Hence came the riots.

Then the justice dept. stepped in and charged the four with civil rights violations. They were convicted and sent to prison.

I think the justice dept. may not have a case against the three officers from NYC.

And certainly it cannot be looked at as double jeopardy, too.

I never understood that either. They get aquitted but then have to stand trial again under civil charges. If that's not double jeopardy I don't know what is.

The same thing happened with OJ Simpson. Don't get me wrong, I think Simpson was guilty as sin. I just don't understand how he had to stand trial twice for the same crime.

highway80west · 04-28-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

I never understood that either. They get aquitted but then have to stand trial again under civil charges. If that's not double jeopardy I don't know what is.

The same thing happened with OJ Simpson. Don't get me wrong, I think Simpson was guilty as sin. I just don't understand how he had to stand trial twice for the same crime.

The second trial was a civil suit brought against him by Fred Goldman and the Browns. They cleaned him out, but he has not paid very much.

Simpson will always be guilty in my book, but the state botched the case because they moved it out of Santa Monica to downtown L.A., and if the glove does not fit, you must acquit. That was Chris Darden's mistake. He felt he got railroaded into prosecuting, because he did not want to. Johnny Cochran ran a brilliant trial, I must say.

nuttyjoe · 04-28-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

I never understood that either. They get aquitted but then have to stand trial again under civil charges. If that's not double jeopardy I don't know what is.

The same thing happened with OJ Simpson. Don't get me wrong, I think Simpson was guilty as sin. I just don't understand how he had to stand trial twice for the same crime.

That's because you don't understand exactly what double jeopardy is. It only applies to murder. The police in Rodney King's case were never originally charged with murder. Hence, they could be re-tried at will with whatever the Justice Department so wished to charge them with. Our friend OJ was originally charged with murder. His aquittal in the first trial kicked in double jepardy. He now could not (and never can be tried for the murders of his ex-wife and young Mr. Goldman. This did not mean that he couldn't be charged with anything else, and tried for it. Hence, the trial for wrongful death.
As far as the NYC case goes, as I understand it; this trial did not have them charged with murder. There is no statue of limitations on murder in any jurisdiction in America of which I am aware of. They can be tried and re-tried for this charge whenever prosecutors want to; for as long as they live.