A cop's life..

They make a decision in seconds that will be debated for years.

No wonder most will tell you, they would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15918902/#storyContinued

is the story I read. the other one before my computer locked was pretty much the same from FOX

the only thing I see questionable is this part (and I think it depends on the state and interpretation)

Bloomberg also said police appeared to have violated the policy stating that officers cannot shoot at a vehicle being used as a weapon if no other deadly force is involved.


to me...and I believe the cops I know and this state....the car being used as a deadly weapon is the same as a gun.

That is true of most states. There have been people arrested, tried, and convicted of ADW when the weapon was a vehicle.

hello its me again i have a question the trail they are talking about about the groom that go shot at his wedding and all of them was found not guilty becaus ethe three detectives didnt know that that was acell phone he had in his hand but to be shot multipile time for nothing in front of family and your wife just doesnt make sence to me they saying it not racial because of two black officers shot him also that is not the point is why all this volience anyway over mistaken idenity what makes this all right? I could happen to anyone at anytime to me it called injustice but this is what we call?


that was the OP from the other thread referrenced here. unless there were 2 groom shootings...this one is way off.

so if I looked up the wrong NY groom shooting...please let me know. in this post...i can see outrage. but in the story I read from the news...this isn't the case

The incident occurred as the men were leaving an all-night bachelor party at a bar that was under police surveillance.

other things to think about that I didn't see so I don't know what exactly happened...as no one else here would. if you have a link to answer these questions...please let me know

1. were they plastered or clearly drunk when they left the bar and got into an argument (where a gun was mentioned)
2. did the undercover cop id himself or anything
3. what happened during the shooting??? did the cops tell them to stop and they refused????


these are some things to think about. if they were plastered (aloong with the argument and mention of a gun) and if the cops tried to id themselves etc....then they would clearly be in the right to me. i was under the impression some guy was gunned down (face to face) at his own wedding at the church or whatever

1 - Not sure if their state of sobriety was mentioned.
2 - Conflicting testimony on whether they ID'ed themselves as Police. (They said - They said)
3 - From what I remember, the Police were trying to question the men when they jumped into the car and tried to get away. The surviving two men said they did not know they were police, were scared because they were armed, and was trying to get away.

wyatt...do you have a link to that??? or was it in my link and I missed it????

sorry but I'm still amazed at the differences in the stories here.

Rose, I'll see if I can find it.

ty wyatt. links help (as we can see)

there are good cops and bad cops. just like there is good and bad in every profession. it's inaccurate stories (or lies) that people hear and pass on though...makes the view of cops turn very bad and people start looking at them very bad (as if they are all bad)

Here its been front page news for awhile now;

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/witness-no-warning-then-50-shots-fired/n20080331155809990033

Rose, that's pretty much the same thing as what I read.

Witnesses said a police van pulled in front of their car causing the collision. The shots weren't fired until that point.
If that cop is so scared that he fires 31 rounds with none being fired in return, perhaps he shouldn't be a cop.

The cops were not even called to the witness stand. The judge just read an affidavit they had given at a grand jury testimony!

fanta....it wouldn't let me pull up the page. it said page not found

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/04/26/0426nyverdict.html
Justice Arthur Cooperman said prosecutors had not proved their case during the two-month trial and that their witnesses at times "didn't make sense."

without being there myself...it sounds more like either the witnesses maybe contradicted each other or their original statements confilcted. that would be how i would interprete "didn't make sense" because either they heard the officers or they didn't. therefore...who knows

fanta this story is total opposite (except for a groom killed) than what was previously posted

Its there, Youre probably posting the link in the wrong bar!

Read what you want to believe, makes no difference to me!

None of the officers took the stand. Instead, the judge heard transcripts of the officers telling a grand jury that they believed they had good reason to use deadly force.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24305660/page/2/

i copied and pasted the link fanta. people on trial usually don't testify...means nothing. maybe it's a media twist like i always say because the story i read...the driver struck an undercover cop and hit an unmarked car. we may never know the true story but i know the one originally posted was WAY off. and the rounds weren't fired while the man was standing there...they were fired at the car and they hit the guy. if he was in the car while they were driving off...how would the cop know what hit who until they stopped. if they hadn't id themselves...then that is illegal....and would be a clear bust on the cops. but appreantly the witnesses weren't very clear themselves. the "victims" were involved in an argument before and a gun was heard mentioned...that is way the cops approached them. fact is unless we were there for ourselves...it's a he said/she said issue. then throw in the media and people retelling the story. but the rounds weren't fired while the guy was just standing there...they were fired at the car. even if the van pulled out...that is an acceptable way of stopping someone they find a possible threat

They smoked pot. That's why the judge didn't believe them. That and he was protecting the cops. Its in the hands of the Feds now, and the NY police may yet fire them for reckless endangerment!

where did you see they smoked pot???? they could have been drunk..either way because of either of those they could have missed something important so they aren't reliable. why do people here always think there is some kind of conspiracy????? just because people don't do things the way you want them done doesn't a conspiracy make. i didn't see anything they did wrong based on what i know...the gray areas...we will never know. the only thing the mayor said about it was the shooting on the car even if it's a deadly weapon. he said they broke "policy" not law. the police chief makes the policies for his officers...as long as it doesn't break the law. they didn't break the law from what i know

Exactly, now I'm not saying the decision was the best decision (when lives are lost the decision was never the best) but we are in no position to argue a cops split second decision...but we will argue it regardless of whether our actions would've been different, which we can't account for.