Lets bash/defend police again...
- Thread starter escapeartist
- Start date
The reason you cant shoot somebody who rams you with a car is that the other people in the car have done nothing and are likely to get hit. Its just common sense that you wouldn't empty your magazine into a moving car full of innocent people.
Again, you guys are coming up with specific situational circumstances that might preclude shooting at a moving vehicle. Specific potential circumstances are not logical reasons to totally prohibit a certain action like shooting at a vehicle.
Now, I could see not shooting at a vehicle because you could puncture the gas tank and cause an explosion. That would apply to all vehicles in all situations.
So rules should only apply to general situations?
Like, you should never have sex cuz you could get her pregnant? What if she's hot?
What?
You and skatetokil both took a specific problem that could occur when shooting at a car, and said that's why you shouldn't ever shoot at any moving vehicle. It doesn't apply in all situations and is not a good reason to have a policy of never firing at a vehicle.
I don't have a policy of never having sex, so your point is moot. If I did have that policy, though, a very good reason to never have sex is because you could get her pregnant, since it applies in the vast majority of situations.
well, I was just trying to have some fun in such a serious thread 
But to answer your question, yes, you can apply a general rule to specific situations if said situations are so serious that it warrants it or the specific situations are more common than not.
How often do you get a car isolated from potential innocent bystanders?
In THOSE specific situations, sure, the 'rule' wouldn't apply... like out on a country road.
Sometimes, logic is irrelevant. That's where compassion comes in.
But to answer your question, yes, you can apply a general rule to specific situations if said situations are so serious that it warrants it or the specific situations are more common than not.
How often do you get a car isolated from potential innocent bystanders?
In THOSE specific situations, sure, the 'rule' wouldn't apply... like out on a country road.
Sometimes, logic is irrelevant. That's where compassion comes in.
I'll buy that. Drinks could make sense. But if they were drinking to the point of being drunk then that esxcuse is void.
I also agree that they wouldnt want to identify themselves inside the club. But if they never identified themselves as police when they started what did they plan on accomplishing? If their goal was to stop the car then wouldnt it be more affective to identify themselves as police? I know I wouldnt stop driving if a bunch of randon guys started shooting at my car at 3am in the parking lot of a sketchy strip club.
Good point. I know i"d do whatever it took to get out of there if I saw a bunch of guys approaching me especially if I saw a gun
Oh yeah, I agree with you on both points. Clearly there was a point at which they needed to just blow the cover and reveal their ID before it got to the point of ramming with cars and firing off magazines.
don't worry, only 21 bullets actually hit the car. the other 29 were "warning shots" fired into nearby buildings... :biggrin:
I think the NYPD needs more practice at the Amadou Diallo Memorial Shooting Range...
does this statement ever get old?
or am I the only one that finds statements like that ignorant
not saying that one side is right, but
"getting what he deserved" is not always justice
maybe not.does this statement ever get old?
or am I the only one that finds statements like that ignorant
not saying that one side is right, but
"getting what he deserved" is not always justice
but what is it about people with a criminal mindset (and the records to match) who act out in a totally unacceptable manner like they did.
jump up and start acting all surprised and outraged when the results of their actions lead to the inevitable result of DEATH ?
and now the cops are being hung out to dry by bloomberg.
and it's being forwarded to a grand jury.
that's nice.
real nice.
in an era when more and more little punk @$$ biotches are acting out in this manner.
the first thing that happens when the people we have set in place to protect us from them, actually perform their duty.
is to treat them like the criminals.
not a shot was fired untill the car had already struck officers.
and would somebody please step on al sharpton.
You need to back this up with facts. Like, where are you getting the kids in the car are "criminals (with records)"?
well I'm clearly not condoning the actions of the cops in this situation. And besides. . . . from what I've read in this thread it sounds like the cops were drunk, and shooting at a moving target. I'd say that a 2 out of 5 average ain't that bad.:biggrin:
how many rounds does a 9mm hold..? 10 or more?
And while we are at it...
What duty were they performing by drinking and getting lap dances?
Who were they protecting exactly? Which civillians were threatened by these men's actions?
There was an article on MSN this morning that was saying one of the guys in the car that lived was hit 11 times. Holy crap!
Whatever you say. It struck me that you could be hit 11 times with any kind bullet and live. Either he's the luckiest guy ever (depending on your definition of luck) or the police were just shooting wildly at the car. I'm sure we'll never know but I'd be morbidly curious to see the ballistics report on this one. Which bullets from which guns hit which people in the car?
The police acting on an overheard conversation inside the club definitely seems a little sketchy at this point. Even if the guy did say he had a gun, wouldn't it be handed off to the backup unit outside as has been suggected by some?
He lived, but he's not going to be living like he used to when he gets out of the hospital. Gunshot wounds seriously mess you up. Even if you get hit in a non-vital part of your body. It's not like the movies where you get shot in the shoulder and then punch the bad guy with that arm once you've had a breather.
Seriously dude, PaWN is not your forte. It's like watching a drunken Geraldo try to berate someone for fighting the Nazis.
Fifty rounds from three cops IS excessive, and they should be hung out to dry for using their firearms in such a reckless manner. I don't care if they were trying to kill Osama bin Laden, that's fvcking ridiculous.
Cities in the US do not need to be turned into veritable warzones by police.
I totally agree that cops should take a tough stance on "gang bangers" or whatver you'd like to call them. I think the media and hollywood have glorified that lifestyle and its only going to be more prevolent in the future unless something changes. However, I dont feel protected when cops fire at a car full of unarmed civilians 50 times, especially if they only hit said car 2/3 of the time.
Maybe thats why the fired 50 rounds???
I would like to say that I have no bad feelings towards police in general. I respect most of them and truly appreciate what they do. But that doesnt mean, based on the information available to me, I would ever defend these cops.
agreed. NYPD isn't known for it's "understanding and sensitivity" by any means. Would an undercover officer who had just identified himself as such be justified in unloading into a moving vehicle that was trying to run him over? i sure hope so. would it take 50 rounds? i dunno, for some, it's hard enough to hit a stationary target when the stakes are high, add a metal/glass cage and movement to your target and more rounds are probably necessary. my department authorizes us to shoot into a moving vehicle if it is trying to run us or someone else over, but then again, we all undergo training that entails shooting into a vehicle so that we know what our bullets will do once they break through the glass. it's not exactly a guaranteed shot...different caliber and grain rounds do odd things when they penetrate a vehicle.
i think these cops will lose out in this one if it's proven that they didn't identify themselves or that they were drinking. but, then again...the dead guy may have known they were cops and the cops didn't have time to announce. the fact is, we weren't there and it's not fair to the cops to armchair quaterback their decisions until all the facts are laid out.
i'm not completely disagreeing with you as to the excessive part, it may very well be. however, if you have access to an outdoor gun range then try this exercise and tell me if you think 50 rounds is still excessive.
line up about 10 targets on the firing line, about 10' apart. mark off the 10 yard mark, this is where you'll be shooting from.
now, sprint 200yds away from the range, do 50 pushups and then sprint back. this will simulate the effects of adrenaline on your fine motor skills. once you're back at the 10yd line, try and put one round in each target as fast as you can starting from the furthest out. you have 10 seconds to complete the firing portion of the drill, far more time than the officers in this incident had to react. remember, each missed round is some bystander in the public. this is the easiest way to simulate a moving target w/out getting fancy. constantly having to readjust for distance helps to make it more realistic but this method is still much easier than shooting at an actual moving target.
now...you are THE MAN if you can hit all 10 targets in less than 25-30shots.
I concurr. But based on what we do know...it doesnt look good. But I mean...it was on the internet. Its gotta be true.
I'm still waiting for any real information from New York, but it isn't coming out quickly. Only thing I've heard is M. Bloomberg saying it didn't look good.
bingo !!!
i have two very close friends who are police officers.
and was with one of them just recently when it became time for him to "unholster his weapon".
i have no doubt that all the critics here in this thread would have wet themselves in that same situation.
We're still waiting for the link/info on how you know the kids in the car were criminals.
Or was it just cuz they're minorities?
Here we are with a rush to judgement again with absolutely NO WAY anyone gets a fair shake or honest resolution.
edited: keep it civil.
they been saying all along that they all had records.
and the shooters weren't all white.
but you're just one of many here who only hear what you want to hear, to fit your own little social agenda.
I haven't read or heard that they have records.
And what kind of crimes were they convicted of previously?
All I'm asking is for you to back up your statements with a link to a credible source.
Got Link?
While we are waiting (and waiting, and waiting) for the link, we can discuss how the police operate in my town:
See? The blue wall of silence is real.
Care to threaten me with violence again manimal?
Dude, you're an asshat. And you're not even making a point with your asshattery.
What, exactly, does a handful of bad cops in Chicago have to do with either of the cases that you've brought this up in?
