NYPD officers aquitted after shooting unarmed man 50 times

imported post

I recall reading something aboutthe dead guy saying "Go get my gun" or "I am going to go get my gun out of the car".. correct me if I am wrong here.

So if I have it right... the first officer would have been justified in shooting when the guy reached for what he believed to be a gun. I recall some court rulings on this a few times that said when there is something to cause the officer to believe the person is armed and dangerous.. any furtive movements can be interpreted as going for a deadly weapon. Even if he did not have one.

So based on what was being said the cop would be justified. The other cops there hear someone say "Gun" and thenfire based on what they believe to be credible information. It is NOT wrong for him to call out "Gun" but is going to always be taken as you actually SAW a gun.

Did they fire several rounds? Not really. Only one guy reloaded and he was the one that saw the threat first hand.

The "50" rounds are from five officers. If you consider that there could have been far more round..... 5 * ((15 * 2) + 1) = 155 available rounds.

Now THAT would have been excessive.

Just like 3 guns is not an arsenal.....

imported post

"Sympathetic Shooting" is a nice softer term and akin to calling what sharks do when they smell blood "Sympathetic Feeding".

This needs to be called what it was - a"Shooting Frenzy"

imported post

It seems no matter what happens, no matter how tragic the situation, some cops will always try to justify the outcome.
Is it really that difficult for a "law enforcement officer" to pronounce the words " he screwed up?"

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Once a cop yells "gun".... this tells the other cops there is a real gun and can gives them a reason to fire. I cannot hold the other two responsible at all for getting bad information and taking appropriate action. He should NOT have yelled GUN if he never saw one.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

Click to expand...

I can't. Even if owning or carrying a gun is illegal here, how does the mere presence of a gun justify his death? I have a gun as do most people on this board, that's what we're here to talk about. I will also tell you that if the entire nation became a gun free zone, I might still have a gun, because my life is worth more than the law. Is that alone justification for officers to shoot me?

imported post

Obviously, in New York it is.

imported post

asforme wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Once a cop yells "gun".... this tells the other cops there is a real gun and can gives them a reason to fire. I cannot hold the other two responsible at all for getting bad information and taking appropriate action. He should NOT have yelled GUN if he never saw one.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

Click to expand...

I can't. Even if owning or carrying a gun is illegal here, how does the mere presence of a gun justify his death? I have a gun as do most people on this board, that's what we're here to talk about. I will also tell you that if the entire nation became a gun free zone, I might still have a gun, because my life is worth more than the law. Is that alone justification for officers to shoot me?

Click to expand...

Eh, I was moreso referring to the sentiment that once the first LEO has identified a threat, the others are relying on his assessment that there is a dangerous person that needs to be neutralized. The other two LEOs can't be expected to say, "Wait, hold on a second, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying is correct. Let's reassess the situation together." I'll gladly blame the LEO who started it, so to speak, but the others were reacting to what they were led to believe was a life-or-death situation (for the LEOs at least).

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

asforme wrote: Eh, I was moreso referring to the sentiment that once the first LEO has identified a threat, the others are relying on his assessment that there is a dangerous person that needs to be neutralized. The other two LEOs can't be expected to say, "Wait, hold on a second, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying is correct. Let's reassess the situation together." I'll gladly blame the LEO who started it, so to speak, but the others were reacting to what they were led to believe was a life-or-death situation (for the LEOs at least).

Click to expand...

I will agree with that, police officers need to be able to depend on and trust each other without fear of being hung out to dry.

imported post

I would agree that if some other officer yells gun, you have to trust that.

But Officer Isnora, who yelled gun, is close enough to see him reach under the seat, starts shooting.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15, reload, does he see any gun now, remember, he's close enough to see the man's hands, apparently no gun seen. Lets keep shooting anyway. (I don't think he even stopped to look)

16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, okay, everyone in the car is bleeding now, I think I'll stop.

If Officer Isnora was you or me, he'd be charged and denied bail.

Game over.

I think most officers do the best they can, but this guy screwed up bad.

imported post

I like how it said that Oliver "squeezed off" 31 rounds. That sounds like he did it very carefully.

How slowly did he "squeeze" the trigger as he was pumping several magazines into this poor guys body?

Killing someone while they're getting married? Back in the good ole days, if the courtroom hadn't fried this A**hole, the lynch mob waiting outside would have.

imported post

Careful now, youse guyz, Reverend Al Sharpton might be lurking and we wouldn't want to contribute to inciting him! Tap tap tap. move along now. Nothing new here.

imported post

Well, I think we are all starting at the end and working backwards. The officers were there in the first place investigated whether or not some stripper was giving blowjobs in the backroom of a seedy (as the newspapers repeatedly called it) strip club. Now let's think about this. Thousands of people in NYC being murdered, mugged, raped, assaulted, robbed, burglarized in that city each year BUT the NYPD has the extra manpower and budget to send an undercover van and 5 officers to find out if strippers give blowjobs in the backroom for extra money.

NYPD could have saved a lot of resources, a man's life, 2 men's near fatal injuries, millions for a trial, and tons of bad PR by just calling their governor and asking. He obviously had that information already. What a waste.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

NYPD could have saved a lot of resources, a man's life, 2 men's near fatal injuries, millions for a trial, and tons of bad PR by just calling their governor and asking.  He obviously had that information already.  What a waste.

Click to expand...

Now that's funny. I don't care who you are--that's funny.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

"Sympathetic Shooting" is a nice softer term and akin to calling what sharks do when they smell blood "Sympathetic Feeding".

This needs to be called what it was - a"Shooting Frenzy"

Click to expand...

Now Bob.... that is what it turns into and not how it starts. What I said was an accurate identification of "why" others start shooting when the first shot is fired.

A "shooting frenzy" iswhat happens when all hell has broken loose. Extreme excitement takes over while they are participating and keep shooting anddo not stop.

As I recall... in your "frenzy" one one cop actually reloaded and the others stopped after a few shots. So this was not much of a frenzy. Seems that they actually stooped without discharging all the rounds they had available.

I hope you can understand the difference. Please do not target my verbiage as being soft as we are talking about different periods of the shooting.

Thanks for your understanding.

imported post

asforme wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Once a cop yells "gun".... this tells the other cops there is a real gun and can gives them a reason to fire. I cannot hold the other two responsible at all for getting bad information and taking appropriate action. He should NOT have yelled GUN if he never saw one.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

Click to expand...

I can't. Even if owning or carrying a gun is illegal here, how does the mere presence of a gun justify his death? I have a gun as do most people on this board, that's what we're here to talk about. I will also tell you that if the entire nation became a gun free zone, I might still have a gun, because my life is worth more than the law. Is that alone justification for officers to shoot me?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I just read this again and it does not convey what I was saying.

For clarification... If someone is reaching for something after being told to not move... and someone screams out "GUN"... it normally indicates that the subject is reaching for a gun. This... is a reason to shoot.

It does not mean you HAVE to shoot. And if someone yells GUN and shoots.. most cops are going to draw and possibly fire too if they are in a good position.

This is probably going to apply in most states. I a police officer tells you to "freeze!" and go reaching for a gun.... You can get shot. And if you are heard prior boasting about going to get your gun from your car and you start reaching for something..... Most cops are going to believe you are going for your gun.

I apologise for any misunderstanding.

imported post

I want to take a step back with my blame.

I just got back from a long business trip.

In Easton Maryland I didn't have much to do, and the Death Wish series was on AMC.

The original Death Wish really brought home how messed up the laws in NYC are.

The police are trained under those laws.

To them guns are evil and the mention of anyone but the police with a gun and they shoot first and ask questions later.

They are taught this, they believe this.

I blame those who have so altered the laws and thinking of the police and judicial system there, that even the thought of a citizen with a gun, brings forth fear to the extent shown by these officers.

They are but the tools of a corrupt system, but they acted within the framework of the laws they are sworn to uphold.

That said, based on what transpired in the club, the officers, who were there on assignment, acted prudently, within their training and had every right to believe what had been said and that the man was really going to get his gun.

They were within the law when they responded to his reaching for something under the seat and when he did not respond to their direct command to freeze, he got the alternative.

imported post

asforme wrote:

I will agree with that, police officers need to be able to depend on and trust each other without fear of being hung out to dry.

Click to expand...

Some things are done in good faith. You have to trust the people you work with are doing the right thing and believe what they say. In a crisis situation like this you do not have the time to walk up and see the gun for yourself.

imported post

stevewonderful wrote:

I would agree that if some other officer yells gun, you have to trust that.

But Officer Isnora, who yelled gun, is close enough to see him reach under the seat, starts shooting.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15, reload, does he see any gun now, remember, he's close enough to see the man's hands, apparently no gun seen. Lets keep shooting anyway. (I don't think he even stopped to look)

16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, okay, everyone in the car is bleeding now, I think I'll stop.

If Officer Isnora was you or me, he'd be charged and denied bail.

Game over.

I think most officers do the best they can, but this guy screwed up bad.

Click to expand...

Now I would agree that shooting 31 times at point blank range seems like overkill...

But when you are in a life or death situation.. imagined, speculated, or legit.... anyone here on this board after an adrenalin dump would probably do the same thing. How many here carry 3 - 4 magazines???

You do not draw and say.. "OK, I am going to shoot two to the chest and one to the head and stop."

It does not work that way when your mind is racing. All you think about is "Oh Sh!T!!! I have to stop this guy from shooting me!!"

I am sure we have seen the cop videos where the guy points a gun out the windowand the cop unloads on the back window as he runs for cover. Do you really think it is saying "Two to the chest... one to the head... assess... repeat as necessary." ???

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Well, I think we are all starting at the end and working backwards. The officers were there in the first place investigated whether or not some stripper was giving blowjobs in the backroom of a seedy (as the newspapers repeatedly called it) strip club. Now let's think about this. Thousands of people in NYC being murdered, mugged, raped, assaulted, robbed, burglarized in that city each year BUT the NYPD has the extra manpower and budget to send an undercover van and 5 officers to find out if strippers give blowjobs in the backroom for extra money.

Click to expand...

But don't ya know? They need to protect our families. And nothing destroys families quite like consensual sex. It almost destroys families as much as the gays...

Whoops, Rick Santorum moment.

It does strike a similiarity to the police shootings of innocent people during no-knock search warrants on the wrong houses. The side effects of our beloved Wars on Nouns.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Now I would agree that shooting 31 times at point blank range seems like overkill...

But when you are in a life or death situation.. imagined, speculated, or legit.... anyone here on this board after an adrenalin dump would probably do the same thing. How many here carry 3 - 4 magazines???

You do not draw and say.. "OK, I am going to shoot two to the chest and one to the head and stop."

It does not work that way when your mind is racing. All you think about is "Oh Sh!T!!! I have to stop this guy from shooting me!!"

I am sure we have seen the cop videos where the guy points a gun out the windowand the cop unloads on the back window as he runs for cover. Do you really think it is saying "Two to the chest... one to the head... assess... repeat as necessary." ???

Click to expand...

I tend to generally agree with that statement. Especially since never having been in that type situation. I think we should be careful about armchair quarterbacking. You have to try to put yourself in that position. The other officers fired a few and stopped. Office Isnora emptied his gun. Most resonable people think that at slide lock would have been an ideal time to reassess while inserting the second magazine.

I also noted the officers chose trial by judge and not jury. They also chose not to testify. Do you think they were worried that a jury verdict wouldn't be the best outcome for them.

The jury verdict in the civil suit trial, and there will be one, will be most interesting.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Once a cop yells "gun".... this tells the other cops there is a real gun and can gives them a reason to fire. I cannot hold the other two responsible at all for getting bad information and taking appropriate action. He should NOT have yelled GUN if he never saw one.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

Click to expand...

Me too. I think that if I was a police officer approaching a car full of people, and another officer yelled "gun!", I wouldn't wait to make sure he was right. I would react, just as the other officers did, by opening fire. If another officer tells you that the guy is pullinga gun, that is enough evidence to believe that he is in fact doing so. The officer that yelled gun betrayed this trust by not being certain, and put his fellow officers (not to mention the victim) ina very bad situation. He should have made sure of what he was talking about, because he knew how the other officers would have reacted to his announcing a threat. I think everyone knows that as a police officer, you don't say "gun" without knowing that there is a gun, because that is the expectation that your fellow officers should have.