How many officer involved shootings have there been in NYC as compared to other major metropolitan areas?

Sorry, this is totally ridiculous - police officers are trained not to draw their weapons unless their life or someone else's in in immediate danger. They don't shoot unless someone about to be hurt - and they are trained to shoot to kill. And they are trained not to stop until the suspect is down.

And that's the way it ought to be. Because "shooting to incapacitate" would surely result in some instances in not stopping the behavior (imminent harm to the officers or someone else). Then, there are dead officers or bystanders.

This case hinged on whether the judgment of the officers that their lives were in imminent danger was reasonable. He (She?) decided that the threat was reasonable. I actually give the judge credit for making a decision based on the law and the evidence - it would have been easy to simply convict the officers. The reactions posted here indicate that.

I find it hard to believe that these officers felt that their lives were in imminent danger. Again, I wasnt there and this is just my opinion. But for them to walk away from this when these guys were unarmed and not doing anything wrong, is ludicrous.

You weren't there, have never been confronted with a situation like this before, have a judge's opinion that their actions were reasonable, yet you still can't give them the benefit of the doubt.

The fact these guys were unarmed is not pertinent. The reasonablness of their actions is based on their perceptions.

It is like saying a suspect pulls out a toy gun, the officer shoots the suspect, then you discover the gun was a toy and conclude the officer acted recklessly. (by the way, this anectode actually took place in NYC about 15 years ago)

Or you have chest pains, go to the ER, have tests and find out you did not have a heart attack, only to have HMO decline the claim since you visited the ER when there was no emergency.

You are a hoot straw..... The fact that the guys were not armed is the MOST pertinent fact of the whole situation.. I really hope you are not ignorant or cruel to think that an unarmed person who is shot 50 times deserved it regardless of the huge fact that the were never a relevant threat to the officers.

and the police stated they thought they saw a gun, the ones shot would not respond to officers commands, and most importantly, they were found not guilty at trial...

could be a hot summer in New York

The issue is not whether or not the victim deserved to be shot. The issue is whether the officers acted reasonably, given what they believed, not what actually happened.

And your comment is the exact reason why the officers requested a judicial trial, rather than a jury trial, since I gather from your comment you are as ignorant as most of the potential jurors in the NYC jury pool.

Answer this hypothetical:

Suspect points a gun at an officer. Officer follows protocol, orders weapon dropped, etc. Suspect fails to comply. Officer fires and empties clip.

Turns out suspect's gun was a toy.

Shooting justified or not?

And a point I remember from when this first occurred that has gotten no play in the recent media stories (and not much play the first time around) is that Mr. Bell tried to hit one of the officers with his car (the one who shot 31 times), and actually did hit an unmarked police vehicle.

The only legal question at issue was whether or not the decisions to draw and fire their weapons reasonable, given the circumstances. The judge found the police officers more credible than the witnesses for the prosecution.

The reaction of some posters here demonstrates why a judicial trial was appropriate in this case. A jury would likely have reacted to the result, rather than making the determination required by the case - nullification in reverse.

Excellent points, redsfan. The part of the story that our steering news media let fall by the wayside is that one of the "victims" tried to run over one of the officers with the car. As soon as that begins to happen, the car is a deadly weapon and deadly force against the officer is being used. I am personally weary of the media's incessant attempts to make police officers out to be blood-thirsty power mongers. The fact that the officers prevailed in the exchange of deadly force should not be held against them, and I'm glad it wasn't in this case.

I'm sure that the car he was using to run over the officer was a Hot Wheel's replica or a Tonka at best, just ask those who support convicting the officers.

First off, Straw... There is no need to insult people. I do not attack you personally so please refrain from personally attackink me. As to answer your question, yes then I would feel it was justified.. And if the suspect tried to hit the officer (which by the way was not noted in the story) then it is justified. I am allowed to believe that if the suspect had not tried to hurt the officer and was unarmed other actions could have been taken.. Try backing up your stance on issues with facts and not by being rude to other posters, I respect others opinions and expect any reasonable adult to do the same.

I see. Well, allow me to rephrase my response more in line with yours.

I hope you are not so ignorant or cruel as many in the NYC jury pool that would have virutally lynched these officers.

Is that a more appropriate tone. It mirrors what you said to me, but I guess that was neither insulting, nor a personal attack so please forgive me.

Now, as to the issues, you believe the officers would be reasonable if its a toy weapon, but no weapon would actually be in play.

Therefore, isn't the fact that the suspects had no weapon not terribly relevant, since the standard is whether the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances, one of those circumstances being the officers thought they saw a weapon.

You previously argued that the shooting was not justified because of the large number of shots, which could mean that even if the suspects had a weapon, you would believe the level of force was not warranted.

Which of these issues would you like to deal with first? Or would you rather go back to explaining how many officers are, in your opinion, lustful of violence and join the force in the hopes of shooting people.

These are all issues you raised which I will gladly discuss.

Please re read the thread as you are stating others opinions as my stances, and I did not say or agree the things you are stating are the "issues I raised".

My apologies. These are not issues you raised.

I still hope you are not so ignorant or cruel that you would lynch these officers as a NYC jury would have.

If they brought all the facts before the jury, then no I don't know many that would.

Well, judging by the constant protests since the judge's decision, I cannot agree with your assessment.

No one mentioned that the cops were plain clothesmen and the victims that lived stated that the cops did NOT show their badges, even after being asked... they (the victims) though that they were being mugged.. Similar situation happened to me last week.. Plain clothed cop pulls behind my car just as I parked it, ordered me & my friends out of the car at gun point. We thought we were being mugged, he looked like a bum.. and we were trying to figure out a way to jump the crazy lunatic that was mugging us!!! Good thing no one got hurt. I asked to see his badge & he said: "You want to see my f....ing badge & stuck his gun in my face (nice huh) & I'm a girl!!! He told me my car was stolen. After the other cops came, they said that it was mistaken identity (wrong state).. how is that possible?? Stolen cars not only list the plate, but the state and also the make/model of the car. I'd report him, but I'll probably be put on some kind of "harrassment list"!

Pickles that is horrific. I understand your concern about filing a report, but it sounds like that officer should be checked out.

Perhaps your community has a civilian review board you could contact regarding the officer.

jeepers pickles!! that is so scary!!!

it's stories like this that make me i live in the sticks. i prolly would've peed a little if that happened to me!!!!

WE have a civilian review board, but it's just not worth taking a chance that I get pulled over someday when I'm by myself (his word against mine).. no thanks!

Pickles, that some whack stuff. Do you live in a major city? I'm asking, because nothing like that has happened to me here in Phx. However, one of my friends was pulled over after leaving a bar and was put in Tent City. He felt he was profiled.

what kind of profile used puts a nice looking young man in a Tent?

I live in Pgh.. and yes, I thought I was going to die peeing myself! If I ever get profiled, I hope I can get thrown into Tent City with BaconBoy's friend (especially if he is good looking & single OR very, very old & rich!!!).. how shallow of me. ha!