100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: NYC COPS CLEARED OF KILLING GROOM | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
My only question is how many rounds are in a police gun?.I know they also carry backup guns so possibly 31 rounds for 3 cops isnt that extrodinary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My only question is how many rounds are in a police gun?.I know they also carry backup guns so possibly 31 rounds for 3 cops isnt that extrodinary? Mine has 15 in the mag plus one in the chamber, so a similar weapon would mean the 16 original plus a full extra magazine. I excelled at math in school  Oh, and to the previous question of shooting to injure...that just isn't going to happen with a pistol. Anything further than 7 to 10 yds on a moving target while taking gun fire means a very difficult shot for any limbs and even the head. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks jrod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is one cop fired 31 rounds cute.
one fired 11, another 4, and two others fired the remaining 5 rounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it sounds like this was a case of sympathetic fire. one person shoots, the partners assumes there is a threat and fire as well. I just hope each person can articulate why they shot and not say, "I shot because my partner shot."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is one cop fired 31 rounds cute. one fired 11, another 4, and two others fired the remaining 5 rounds. oh then that is a wee bit excessive.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is one cop fired 31 rounds cute. one fired 11, another 4, and two others fired the remaining 5 rounds. oh then that is a wee bit excessive.. Especially when nobody was shooting back!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again they were shooting at the car to stop the moving car. they had already tried confronting them and the car struck a person and another car. they weren't shooting point blank at the man (and there were 3 guys) or shooting at a man running on foot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 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. very well said. i'm justglad we can finally debate on the actual story and not the BS story previously given |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question has been raised about shooting to injure; i.e. to shoot for arms or legs.
Police officers are trained to shoot at "center mass", basically the area between the neck and waist. It seems to many police were dying while trying not to kill. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sun 04/27/08 03:46 PM
|
|
It still seems a bit excessive to me but I agree not being in the middle of it makes it hard to say. There are cops who are control freaks and use excessive force to control when unnecessary. We also have that problem here in Colorado. I have seen cops violate this rule on more than one occasion.
I want to say also though that for every bad one there is two good ones who do their job exceptionally and deserve all the respect we give to the military men and women. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dragoness...for once I agree with you
people are trying to make it into a conspiracy or racial shooting. there is no evidence of a conspiracy and the cops weren't all white excluding racial. it's just a way of stirring up trouble the excessiveness IMO....trying to stop a car...not excessive. if the man was standing there and took all those bullets...yes. stopping a moving car isn't easy and takes more than a few shots. the grey area is the testimony from the witnesses and cops and the victims. unless it was caught on video...it becomes he said/she said and then they have to rely on what is more credible |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A police van had pulled in front of the car in a blocking manuver. This caused the car to stop as it crashed into the van. Then the shots were fired at the stopped car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isnora (cop-fired 11 rds) said he decided to arm himself, call for backup - "It's getting hot," he told his supervisor - and tail Bell, Guzman and Benefield as they went around the corner and got into Bell's car. He claimed that after warning the men to halt, Bell pulled away, bumped him and rammed an unmarked police van that converged on the scene with Oliver (cop who fired 31 rds) at the wheel.
How could he be firing at a moving car? He had just stopped it with his van, then exited the van and fired 31 rds!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They arent even good liars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fanta...again that is a he said/she said. the defense agrued that there was forensic evidence (wasn't sure what exactly) saying they struck the undercover cop that id himself then was struck by the car and slammed into the van. did the shots start when they first hit the cop???? did the car keep trying to get away????? it's all one word against another. i suspect there are things we don't know because the courts etc have not said because there is an ongoing investigation on conduct. so apprently there is somethin that made the judge say there was not enough evidence etc. so it's not as clear cut. i have only offered the real story instead of the BS story from the other thread and offered my theory on the gray areas and based on what we know and don't know. i'm sure the DA had a different take...just not a strong case. but even you assumed the witnesses were all high and the judge had to be crooked. again...no evidenced to make such a blanket statement. you can only assume that as an assumption as your view
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fanta...again that is a he said/she said. the defense agrued that there was forensic evidence (wasn't sure what exactly) saying they struck the undercover cop that id himself then was struck by the car and slammed into the van. did the shots start when they first hit the cop???? did the car keep trying to get away????? it's all one word against another. i suspect there are things we don't know because the courts etc have not said because there is an ongoing investigation on conduct. so apprently there is somethin that made the judge say there was not enough evidence etc. so it's not as clear cut. i have only offered the real story instead of the BS story from the other thread and offered my theory on the gray areas and based on what we know and don't know. i'm sure the DA had a different take...just not a strong case. but even you assumed the witnesses were all high and the judge had to be crooked. again...no evidenced to make such a blanket statement. you can only assume that as an assumption as your view That was the cop Isonora's testimony! Get real......... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isnora (cop-fired 11 rds) said he decided to arm himself, call for backup - "It's getting hot," he told his supervisor - and tail Bell, Guzman and Benefield as they went around the corner and got into Bell's car. He claimed that after warning the men to halt, Bell pulled away, bumped him and rammed an unmarked police van that converged on the scene with Oliver (cop who fired 31 rds) at the wheel. How could he be firing at a moving car? He had just stopped it with his van, then exited the van and fired 31 rds!! well that explains that...but even you said the officer id himeself and they took off anyway. it was a split 2nd decision based on what happened before and the reason they were investigation to begin with. they weren't out of the car where the cops shot directly into them like led to believe in the first posts here |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Sun 04/27/08 05:16 PM
|
|
No, I didn't assume, The Judge said that's why he didn't believe their testimonial. Because the one guy had a possession of Marijuana charge or two on his record!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They arent even good liars. then neither are they witnesses you claim were high...and IMO could be drunk from being at a bar. again....one word vs another. which is why i say there are things the public doesn't know that the judge did because there is an investigation...so it's not clear cut possession doesn't mean he was high. there would have to be a drug test and not all the witnesses would have been drunk or high |
|
|
|
|
