Let's look at this a bit differently. How many of you, if you were sitting on that jury, would have voted them guilty?

I know that I've been asked to a couple of criminal trials. It just so happens my best friend is a cop. I grew up with two neighborhood guys who became cops. I got classmates who are cops. I have a cop living on my street. The former police chief lives next door to a friend of mine.

I can honestly say that if I ever got chosen to serve on a criminal jury, I would be biased in favor of the police. I've been excused both times where police officers were involved. It also helps when you know half the people on the witness list on a first name basis.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited 02-26-2000).]

 

They were aquitted be a jury of their peers. This was a mixed jury of men, women, black, and white. I could only make a decision if I had ALL the facts that were brought out in the trial. What you read in the paper, and see on TV is usually sensationalised (sp?). I'm not discounting the cases events, but you have to realize that the media can surely sway facts to enhance attention.

my .02
Rick.

 

Negligent homicide is only a misdemeanor, hardly worth any time or effort to prosecute.

 

54regcab:
I was wondering what happened to you,but I wasn't alone,heck even a topic was named for your abscence(sp)(LOL)..Good to see all is well with you..Funny,I was going to ask you what you thought of your ISP,and lo and behold ya have problems.

------------------
2000 F-150,4x2,supercab,4.2,5 speed.Mods are only a matter of time,and money!!!

 

I don't think it was an ISP problem, because I could surf the web fine.
It just would get stuck when I went to post a reply.
I think it was an IE or the RR software glitch.
Now that I've reinstalled them I can post, but I still got to set my email settings and stuff.
It was real wierd.
On the whole though I would recommend the RR service.
By time you pay for the phone line and ISP you could have RR.

 

Sorry...but a trained pistol shooter can generally take someone out with just a couple of shots. All four cops should not have fired 41 rounds with two of them completely emptying their weapons.

Like I said before...it's their butt on the line...but I can honestly say..I could have tagged the guy without 'locking my slide back' (an empty magazine).

Better safe than sorry (dead) I guess...."new police motto".

------------------
2000 F-150 XLT, 4x2, 5.4L Supercab, Styleside, Black with silver two-tone, 3.55, class III towing package with heavy duty cooling package, 4 wheel disk ABS, overhead console, sliding rear window, keyless entry, dark graphite interior, in dash CD, Pendaliner bedliner, K&N air filter, rubberized undercoating, cabin filtration system, Bugflector II, 5W-30 Mobil 1, engine build 10/4/99

 

>>>>First off let me say that I really haven't followed this case, I don't know much about it, and I am not defending what these officers did or persecuting them. I have no knowledge of the facts to base an opinion.

>>>>But, what I will defend against is the over sensationalism of the media about the number of rounds that are sometimes fired in police shootings. First off I will tell you that we as police are taught to shoot until the threat or what we perceive as a lethal threat is over. This is drilled into your head over and over as a rookie officer going through basic training. We are shown tapes of officer shootings, like the trooper in SC that was killed a few years back on I 95, The trooper shot the man that had already shot him once. The bad guy's first shot hit the trooper in the vest, the trooper returned fire and stopped firing after hitting the bad guy evidentally thinking the threat was over, the bad guy was on the ground. The bad guy then shot the trooper hitting him in the arm, the round hit the bone and traveled into the officers chest. The trooper bled to death in a matter of moments. The trooper didn't miss, his 357 revolver should have killed the guy, they were good hits. My point is, hesitation to shoot or continue to shoot can be a fatal mistake by an officer.

>>>>Second, most semi automatic weapons carry anywhere from 12 to 14 rounds of ammo including one in the chamber. Our SIG 357's carry 13 rounds. If you multiply that by four officers that is 52 rounds of ammo without changing clips. Anyone who shoots or is knowledgable about pistols knows how quickly you can empty a weapon, it doesn't take long to fire 13 rounds. You can empty you weapon in around 3 seconds. Now if you think about four men emptying their weapons in about 3 to 4 seconds, 41 rounds isn't really all that many and by the number of rounds (41) it sounds as if they some of them didn't even empty their weapons.

>>>>Let me say this, I have never shot at a human being. I have been around shootings and know officers that have been in shootings. It's a whole different world shooting at a target on a range than it is in a real shooting scenario, when you have fear, adrenaline pumping, heart rate soring, and respiratory functions increased. I hope that I never have to shoot another human in the line of duty, but I hope if I did have to I wouldn't miss. But the facts are in most given shootings, that fear and adrenaline work against us and there are going to be missed shots. Granted these guys did miss a lot, but how far away were some of them shooting, what was the lighting (day/night/well lit street)?

>>>>Now please don't think I am defending these officers, at the same time I will not persecute them without knowing all the facts, this is not what this long post is about. If those officers did wrong then they should pay the price. I plan to read up on this case to be better informed about it. But please don't sit there in a comfy chair and tell me, yes it's ok to kill the bad guy to save your life or someone elses, but for God's sake don't kill him too badly. You can use lethal force to subdue him, but don't shoot him too many times because it wont look good. The media loves to play this up. The sad thing about this is, we are expected to make life and death decisions in a split second. Decisions that can take someone elses life or cost us ours. If we make a mistake, a jury, judge, prosecutor, lawyer, media, and the public have days, weeks, and months to decide if the decision the officer had to make in a split second was the right one. There is a saying I have heard over and over again, it says......."I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six". I don't know about you, but if someone is trying to take me out, I'm shooting until I'm positive that the bad guy can no longer try to kill me. That means I got thirteen bullets in the gun and two more clips on my belt, I'll be putting in another clip then decide if the bad guy no longer poses a threat. Sorry for the long post guys and gals....

........later Patrick

------------------
99 F150 XLT SC 4x4 4.6 liter Deep Wedgewood Blue

Westin Nerf Bars , Lund Bug Deflector , Kenwood 10 disc CD changer, Extang Black Max soft bed cover, Bodyguard Bed Liner




[This message has been edited by JPF1715 (edited 02-27-2000).]

 

I think you mean most semi-automatics carried by peace officers have a capacity of 12 to 14 rounds. I know of at least a dozen popular centerfire handguns that carry less than 12 rounds.

 

>>>>Yep, that's what I meant. But there are a lot of weapons manufactured prior to the gun control laws that do carry that many. But none other than law enforcement that are manufactured now, at least legally.


[This message has been edited by JPF1715 (edited 02-26-2000).]

 

Think first then react/respond. Thank you Patrick, very well said.

 

The issue in the New York case is what was in the officers minds and what did they really believe was happening when the event took place. The jury, after hearing all the evidence, came to the conclusion that the officers believed that their lives were in danger at the time of the event because of the victins behavior and actions, and they were justified in taking the action they did based on their perception of what was happening. The number of shots is a false issue, as explained by JFP1715. In infantry training during Vietnam, we were also trained to shoot until you were sure. When your life is in danger and threatened by someone with a gun, or in this case by someone believed to be going for a gun, you shoot until you are sure the threat has ended. The victims action of going into an area of his body where a gun could be concealed, and failing to heed the officers commands, gave the jury justification to find that the officers acted as a reasonable person would in such a situation. It's unfortunate that the events were not as they appeared and an innocent man died.

------------------
2000 F150 SuperCab, Short Bed, 4X4, ORP, 5.4L, Auto Trans, 3.55LS, Captains Chairs with power drivers seat, rear slider, class III towing package, remote entry with alarm and just about everything you can get on this truck. Added a Ford bug deflecter, floor mats and a K&N filter.

 

The problem with this case was and is the media. The appeletecourt said it was a media circus in Bronx County, NYC that the trial had to be moved to upstate Albany County, NY. It has been in the local news here everyday for a year. The media played to the "People" with bits of information and sound bites from people who have absolutely nothing to do with the case. The criminal justice system worked in the case of the indictments brought on by the state of NY. All the facts from all the the parties came out at one time to a jury of the indicteds' peers.

These officers still have to answer to a police review board which is made up of both police and citizens of NYC. Plus the are now under federal investigastion for civil rights violations. Why, justifiable cause for stopping the victim.

As for the 41 bullets, I think JPF stated that clearly enough. When your life is threatened, 3 seconds can seem like forever.
Some schools especially in minority areas, are teaching students what to do when a police officer stops them for whatever reason. This could have saved this mans life if he did what he was told by police.

 

That would be incorrect. The '94 Crime Bill only concerned the manufacture and sale of magazines with a capacity of greater than 10. The firearms themselves are still manufactured yet and any magazines manufactured prior to that are still legal to buy/sell/trade/own by anyone. I was referring to weapons such as the Colt 1911 and clones, with a 7 to 8 round capacity, Ruger P90 and P97, with a 7 round capacity, Ruger P94 .40 caliber, with an 11 round capacity, etc.

[This message has been edited by Ford man (edited 02-27-2000).]

 

>>>>The last I checked Ford Man the clip is considered part of the weapon, least in my book. I suppose I didn't address this clearly enough. I didn't say that they were illegal to own, I did say that there aren't any manufactured legally now with that many rounds except for law enforcement. My point was that there are many pistols (with higher capacity clips ) that were manufactured prior to the gun control law of 94 that could and did hold that many rounds. I don't think I said that anyone could not own or possess any of those, don't think I even addressed that.

>>>>Any high capacity clips that have been produced since the introduction of this bill have or should have "for law enforcement use only" stamped into them, it is illegal for John Q. Citizen to own one of these. So I wasn't incorrect, just a miscommunication between us, oh well. LOL
............later, Patrick

[This message has been edited by JPF1715 (edited 02-27-2000).]

 

Yes, but for example, my Para Ordnance P14 in .45 auto, was purchased by me, brand new in August of 1998 and came with one 14 round magazine and a coupon for two more 14 round magazines (the magazines being manufactured prior to September of 1994). In other words, high capacity handguns are still manufactured and sold and any pre-crime bill high capacity magazines can still be legally used in ANY newly manufactured handguns.