• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NYPD officers aquitted after shooting unarmed man 50 times

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
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.
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.
Actually, I read a report once that said that violent crime increases 600% around sexual businesses. I don't have the source, but if you look at strip clubs in your area, you'll see what I mean. Those neighborhoods become the really bad neighborhoods, and you'll notice also that the strip clubs that have bad reputations of strippers giving "extra services" have extra shady customers and more crime. So even if it is just consentual sex, it is creating a very dangerous situation for anyone that lives in that neighborhood.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Best as I can tell, Sean was guilty of nothing more than talking trash in a club and went to leave. The cops FOLLOWED Sean outside to his vehicle. If Sean WAS serious about getting a gun, couldn't the cops have WAITED to see if he was actually going to GET a gun and RETURN to the club, instead of gunning him down under the mistaken belief he HAD a gun?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Best as I can tell, Sean was guilty of nothing more than talking trash in a club and went to leave. The cops FOLLOWED Sean outside to his vehicle. If Sean WAS serious about getting a gun, couldn't the cops have WAITED to see if he was actually going to GET a gun and RETURN to the club, instead of gunning him down under the mistaken belief he HAD a gun?

As I understand it... they tried to stop him at a point when he was able to get a gun from the location he said he kept it. The car.

It would actually be real bad to allow him to get it in his hand and walk back into a room full of people.

Imagine if they did let him get the gun... He walks back inside and meets the guy he is having words with and shoots him between the eyes.

The cops would now be judged for failing to act and stop him from getting a gun. They knew ahead of time words were exchanged and he even made threats to go get a gun. They had plenty of advanced notice and could have stopped him and saved the victim from being shot.

If they try to shoot him in the club there are many other people that could be in the line of fire.

They did the right thing in keeping the fight outside and trying to keep him from getting the gun he boasted about.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

stevewonderful wrote:
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.
Going to court can be part strategy... defendants... (cops or citizens) all have the right to refuse to take the stand. You can almost NEVER help your case taking the stand. Taking the stand willopen you up to questions where YOU provide evidence against yourself and can be used against you big time.

Why a judge and not a jury??? The judge is going to use the rules of law to make his decision.... the jury will almost always judge based on their feelings and what they perceive as right and wrong. And let's face it... some people do not have a clue and have police expectations that are unrealistic or unattainable. This board here has a few people like that.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
some people do not have a clue and have police expectations that are unrealistic or unattainable. This board here has a few people like that.
LEO,
Just for the sake of discussion - are you OK with citizens shooting another citizen and everyone around him on the basis that he may or may not be retrieving a firearm? Of course you're not, and I don't blame you. Why do you think an expectation of the same restraint by police in unattainable? Be the change...
 

GLENGLOCKER

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
558
Location
VA Beach, Virginia, USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Best as I can tell, Sean was guilty of nothing more than talking trash in a club and went to leave. The cops FOLLOWED Sean outside to his vehicle. If Sean WAS serious about getting a gun, couldn't the cops have WAITED to see if he was actually going to GET a gun and RETURN to the club, instead of gunning him down under the mistaken belief he HAD a gun?
Yea that would have required being smart. perhaps LEO can answer this. If you people are so willing to spray a car with 50 rounds because you THINK he has a weapon (not to mention the bystanders who could have been injured) because as one of the killers said "thank God WE all got to go home" then why don't you stop police work and get a real job??
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

GLENGLOCKER wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Best as I can tell, Sean was guilty of nothing more than talking trash in a club and went to leave. The cops FOLLOWED Sean outside to his vehicle. If Sean WAS serious about getting a gun, couldn't the cops have WAITED to see if he was actually going to GET a gun and RETURN to the club, instead of gunning him down under the mistaken belief he HAD a gun?
Yea that would have required being smart. perhaps LEO can answer this. If you people are so willing to spray a car with 50 rounds because you THINK he has a weapon (not to mention the bystanders who could have been injured) because as one of the killers said "thank God WE all got to go home" then why don't you stop police work and get a real job??
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=10265&forum_id=4&jump_to=164926#p164926
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Jim675 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
some people do not have a clue and have police expectations that are unrealistic or unattainable. This board here has a few people like that.
LEO,
Just for the sake of discussion - are you OK with citizens shooting another citizen and everyone around him on the basis that he may or may not be retrieving a firearm? Of course you're not, and I don't blame you. Why do you think an expectation of the same restraint by police in unattainable? Be the change...
A citizenhas no authority to make someone "freeze" and therefore has no legal reason to stand there and take lethal action against someone still movingand possible going for a gun.

Now if a citizen has someone who is about to shoot them (going for a gun and the intent is already known or they are pointing it) and the citizen fears for their life....they canshoot back. If theyunintentionally shoot someone else in the line of fire... not a good thing but it was"kill or be killed" so what can you do.

I cannot fault you for hitting someone in the background. It would be completely unavoidable andI do not expect you to just get shot because you could miss and hit someone else.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post


LEO 229 wrote:
Now if a citizen has someone who is about to shoot them (going for a gun and the intent is already known or they are pointing it)
That's really the crucial part of this whole issue. One side thinks they're peacefully driving away and the other side felt a deadly threat even without seeing a gun.

I suspect that had a citizen made that same error (30 times) your defense would be less robust.

That officer made an error. I don't blame the others for backing him up. I do think the survivors should own NYC. They can't do much worse than the current management.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

I just love how people are sooooooooo quick to put words in my mouth. I never said "let him go GET his gun and wait for him to go BACK into a room full of people." A SMART "law enforcement officer" would have gone outside, alright, and loosely followed him to his car and see if he comes OUT of the car with a weapon vs driving away. Now, that said, if Sean DID come out of the vehicle, armed, of course you wouldn't allow him to go back inside, you stop him OUTside. Had these three cops taken that approach, ya'll's famous saying (everybody gets to go home) would have included Sean.
I've personally monitored the local (Baton Rouge) cops for over 20 years and some of the stuff they've done just defies common sense and logic. I guess they don't teach that in the academies.
 

Pointman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
, ,
imported post

In poor lighting it's hard to tell if the BG has a gun; you might see them lean forward as if pulling something from under the seat, then the car moves and the light changes.

I have a feeling the officers may have over-reacted in this case. We hear too often of officers investigating drugs and presuming parties guilty without any proof (Legba). However, the media also likes to leave things out to make a more dramatic story.

If you want to go off on officers, maybe try the ones who nailed a guy for eating a burger at a burger joint instead. (see Legba's ongoing case)
 

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Best as I can tell, Sean was guilty of nothing more than talking trash in a club and went to leave. The cops FOLLOWED Sean outside to his vehicle. If Sean WAS serious about getting a gun, couldn't the cops have WAITED to see if he was actually going to GET a gun and RETURN to the club, instead of gunning him down under the mistaken belief he HAD a gun?

Oh please. Come on, really? This isn't the wild west, and you don't have to wait until the gunfight is fair. They guy said he was going to get a gun, didn't stop for the police officers, and reached under the seat for something. That's enough. Bang. That's it. Why would you wait until the gunfight is "fair"? The whole idea is rediculous. That's like saying that Robert Ford should have shot Jesse James face to face. Yeah it would have been a lot more honorable, but Robert Ford would have been a lot more dead too. This whole old west honor code is something you only see in movies and on TV. In reality, you do what you have to do to survive the gunfight, not to be the moral superiour. I'd rather have a judge tell me I'm an asshole than have a priest tell everyone else how honorable I was in letting the other guy get his gun all the way out too.

The person who made the biggest mistake here was Sean. Not the cops. The cops were acting on what seemed like very good intel. Sean was the jackass that was threatening to go and get a gun, ignored the "freeze" order, and grabbed something from under his seat. Anyone, cop or not, would be justified in shooting.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I just love how people are sooooooooo quick to put words in my mouth. I never said "let him go GET his gun and wait for him to go BACK into a room full of people." A SMART "law enforcement officer" would have gone outside, alright, and loosely followed him to his car and see if he comes OUT of the car with a weapon vs driving away. Now, that said, if Sean DID come out of the vehicle, armed, of course you wouldn't allow him to go back inside, you stop him OUTside. Had these three cops taken that approach, ya'll's famous saying (everybody gets to go home) would have included Sean.
I've personally monitored the local (Baton Rouge) cops for over 20 years and some of the stuff they've done just defies common sense and logic. I guess they don't teach that in the academies.

You said.... two things.. one was follow outside and then you said "couldn't the cops have WAITED to see if he was actually going to GET a gun and RETURN to the club"

So you are allowing him to return. But in your situation he is now outside the car walking back to the club and possibly armed. While in the car they had a chance to actually stop him from putting his hands on the gun.

Say they try to stop him as he is headed back to the club.... they approach and he pulls his gun or reaches in his coat to get a breath mint. The same outcome could still happen.

It really made no difference except to show intent to return when he had already implied it when he boasted about going to go get his gun. The common man would conclude he was going to return with the gun and settle the matter.

Why are you now discussing the departmentof Baton Rouge? I do not believe they trained the detectives that fired or were even there in the state. :lol:
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

expvideo wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Best as I can tell, Sean was guilty of nothing more than talking trash in a club and went to leave. The cops FOLLOWED Sean outside to his vehicle. If Sean WAS serious about getting a gun, couldn't the cops have WAITED to see if he was actually going to GET a gun and RETURN to the club, instead of gunning him down under the mistaken belief he HAD a gun?

Oh please. Come on, really? This isn't the wild west, and you don't have to wait until the gunfight is fair. They guy said he was going to get a gun, didn't stop for the police officers, and reached under the seat for something. That's enough. Bang. That's it. Why would you wait until the gunfight is "fair"? The whole idea is rediculous. That's like saying that Robert Ford should have shot Jesse James face to face. Yeah it would have been a lot more honorable, but Robert Ford would have been a lot more dead too. This whole old west honor code is something you only see in movies and on TV. In reality, you do what you have to do to survive the gunfight, not to be the moral superiour. I'd rather have a judge tell me I'm an asshole than have a priest tell everyone else how honorable I was in letting the other guy get his gun all the way out too.

The person who made the biggest mistake here was Sean. Not the cops. The cops were acting on what seemed like very good intel. Sean was the jackass that was threatening to go and get a gun, ignored the "freeze" order, and grabbed something from under his seat. Anyone, cop or not, would be justified in shooting.

I agree....

Now there were a few rounds sent down range.. but Sean did not listen to police commands andkept reaching for whatever he was reaching for.

After talking about getting a gun..... and reaching for what anyone would believe was that gun he wanted to go get.... what do you do???

If Seanwas having an argument with a citizen in the parking lot and said.. "I am going to go get my gun from this back pack" and then started to reach inside the bag.... should the citizen stand there and wait to see if the guy pulls out a pair of socks or gives him a chance topull out his gun?

If the citizen pulls his gun before Sean can reach in the bag and tells him to not move but Sean reaches in the bag anyway..... Does the citizen wait to give Sean a chance to pull out his gun?


IMO.... I say No!! He already had an argument and threatened to get his gun. If he is so determined to keep reaching after being told not to move... He may be determined enough to kill me.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

expvideo wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Best as I can tell, Sean was guilty of nothing more than talking trash in a club and went to leave. The cops FOLLOWED Sean outside to his vehicle. If Sean WAS serious about getting a gun, couldn't the cops have WAITED to see if he was actually going to GET a gun and RETURN to the club, instead of gunning him down under the mistaken belief he HAD a gun?
Snipped
Mistaken belief???

He said he was going to go get it!! And then went to his car!!!

That is why the cops went out there to stop him.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

At no time did I say allow him to return INSIDE the club. If, if, if, if he went TO the car under the possibility he was going to retrieve a weapon, and then he made an attempt to go back INSIDE the club, then you'd have more probable cause to conduct a stop. Speaking a threat is one thing, but making an attempt to carry out that threat is another. Getting in his car, POSSIBLY leaving the scene just doesn't qualify as an attempt to carry out his idle threat, unless Sean verbalized something about running OVER the other guy. "While in the car........." Yep, we all see how well THAT worked out. One dead, two injured, other lives permanently harmed.
You've got not one, not two, but THREE cops involved. Sean is walking back TO the club, you're outside. Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, his hands were in his pockets. Only a moron would surrender the advantage of surprise and actually allow this citizen to pull ANYTHING out of his pockets.
No, the "common man" would NOT conclude anything. Wait a minute. Maybe I'm not the "common man." I wouldn't have assumed anything. But, then again, I've never been indicted for mistakenly shooting (fatally)anyone, either.
One of the minor details about all of this really sums it up quite well: the two injured victims were HANDCUFFED to their hospital beds. THAT, in and of itself, should suffice.
 

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I guess as long as there are cops there will always be those who blindly support cops,about the same way there are those who blindly vote for anyone with an "R" after their name.
Actually it seems to me that there will always be those who blindly accuse the cops of wrong-doing no matter what the circumstances are.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
expvideo wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Best as I can tell, Sean was guilty of nothing more than talking trash in a club and went to leave. The cops FOLLOWED Sean outside to his vehicle. If Sean WAS serious about getting a gun, couldn't the cops have WAITED to see if he was actually going to GET a gun and RETURN to the club, instead of gunning him down under the mistaken belief he HAD a gun?
Snipped
Mistaken belief???

He said he was going to go get it!! And then went to his car!!!

That is why the cops went out there to stop him.
Were there witnesses BESIDES the cops who testified under oath to hearing him say that?
 

Sa45auto

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
387
Location
, , USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I guess as long as there are cops there will always be those who blindly support cops,about the same way there are those who blindly vote for anyone with an "R" after their name.

I have been reading all the posts and what I see are three groups.

1. Those who believe in the rule of law.

2. Those who believe there are to many laws and don't particularly like anyone who enforces the laws they don't like.

3. A couple of anarchists who hate everybody who stands for anything, especially if it is good.



I will leave it up to the various posters to determine which group they fall into.
 
Top