Unarmed Groom Killed by NYPD Bullets

[Sirrich3]

NEW YORK - Sean Bell and his fiancee had already shared a high school romance, then two children. In the early hours of what was to be their wedding day, the reception hall lay waiting, covered in satin and adorned with balloons. But the ceremony never occurred Saturday. Police shot 50 rounds at the groom's car as he drove away from his bachelor party, killing the 23-year-old hours before he was to walk down the aisle.

The hail of gunfire at a car full of unarmed men drew an outcry from family members and community leaders, including the Rev. Al Sharpton. Two passengers, who had been celebrating with the groom at a strip club, were also injured; one was struck by at least 11 bullets.

The officers' shots struck the men's car 21 times after it rammed into an undercover officer and hit an unmarked NYPD minivan, police said. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said it was too early to say whether the shooting was justified.

The gunfire also sprayed nearby homes and a train station, though no residents were injured.

Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun, but investigators found no weapons. It was unclear what prompted police to open fire, Kelly said.

He said the incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club in Queens. Seven officers in plain clothes were investigating the Kalua Cabaret; five of them were involved in the shooting.
Lets see how this turns out...
http://www.yahoo.com/s/446321

[mcs328]

Heard about this this morning. Awful. I wouldn't have shot at them because no real evidence of a gun but they did ram two police vehicles however they were unmarked. I guess as a police officer I would follow whatever hit and run procedure cops follow. The hit and run is the first alarm bell to me.

[Airencracken]

11 bullets in one guy that was suspected to have a gun?

Yeah, I'd call that overboard.

[Houdini]

Sounds horrible. I'd like to know more about the situation and the true number of rounds. The media almost never gets the number right. Also, as most police service pistols carry 15-17 rounds (16 or 18 if fully loaded), it's easy for a panicked cop to fire a whole lot quickly.

[Burzhui]

NYT

The shooting on Saturday unfolded in a flash. An undercover officer posted inside the Club Kalua, a site of frequent drug, weapon and prostitution complaints in Jamaica, overheard an exchange between a stripper and a man that led the officer to suspect the man was armed, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said on Saturday. The undercover officer alerted the officers acting as backup outside — there were seven officers in all — about 4 a.m., setting into motion the events to follow later.

Eight men left the club and argued briefly with another man, with one from the group saying, “Yo, get my gun,” Mr. Kelly said.

The eight men apparently split into two groups of four, with one group piling into a Nissan Altima driven by Mr. Bell, Commissioner Kelly said. As an undercover detective who had been following the group on foot approached the vehicle, Mr. Bell drove into him, striking his leg, before plowing into a minivan carrying two backup officers, the commissioner said.

A person familiar with the case who knows the detectives’ version of events said yesterday that it was Mr. Guzman who asked for his gun, and that the first undercover detective on foot clearly identified himself to the occupants of the car and, gun drawn, told them to get out. Instead, the person said, they roared toward him. That detective fired the first shot.

Eugene O’Donnell, a professor of police studies at John Jay College, said a high number of shots fired underscores the threat the officers felt.

“The only reason to be shooting in New York City is that you or someone else is going to be killed and it’s going to be imminent,” he said. “It’s highly unlikely you fire a shot or two shots. You fire as many shots as you have to, to extinguish the threat. You don’t fire one round and say: ‘Did I hit him? Is he hit?’ ”

[ShawnLee]

The number of shots doesn't disturb me in any way. If they shot with reason, then they shot with reason. The question isn't the severity of the action, it's whether that action is justified or not. Once that question is settled, for me, any shots after the first are the same.

I've emptied full magazines in less than two seconds (in a shooting range), I can easily see a panic situation lasting longer than that. I can thus just as easily see that a cop might shoot his whole magazine and firing into his second magazine.

Again, I'm holding out on the final details, but if I were a cop and someone were trying to run me over? I'm surprised the guy was only hit 11 times.

How odd, I just realized as I was typing this out how similar this situation sounds to something that happened years back in LA where a drugged out Korean guy tried to run over cops. I remember some people being mad at the LAPD then for shooting too many times, and I remember calling them (the people, not the cops) stupid for sticking with the stupid Korean kid and not the cops. If I remember correctly there was video of this.

[mcs328]

Reminds me of the kids at Denny's skipping out on the check. I don't remember how that went but the cop killed a kid because presumably the car was gunning for him and he shot at the car.

[Prngr44]

The update makes it sound like they were following procedure fairly well... maybe the kids thought the detectives were full of crap and impersonating?

Who knows... unfortunate in any case.

[eSDee]

I think the hardest part to explain will be how supposedly one cop emptied a clip, then reloaded, and fired again. I can't find a link right now but I'll find it later. Either way, it's definitely excessive force.

[cheapie]

I think the hardest part to explain will be how supposedly one cop emptied a clip, then reloaded, and fired again. I can't find a link right now but I'll find it later. Either way, it's definitely excessive force.


are you kidding me? excessive force? IF indeed the dude was trying to take him out with the car and tried to do the same to other cops what is a reasonable response? 1 bullet? 12? or until the cops are reasonably sure their lives are no longer in danger?

[Houdini]

are you kidding me? excessive force? IF indeed the dude was trying to take him out with the car and tried to do the same to other cops what is a reasonable response? 1 bullet? 12? or until the cops are reasonably sure their lives are no longer in danger?

:stupid:

How is shot number in ANY WAY related to excessive force? If someone were to drive a car at me, with intent to kill me, and I couldn't easily move away from his line of fire, I'd empty every round I had at him and likely feel pissed at myself for not having another magazine. Changing mags doesn't have anything to do with excessive force.

Like others have said. Standard procedure for anyone licensed to carry, whether it be civillian or police or military, is to shoot to stop the threat. Nobody wants to kill anyone. If the threat still exists, waiting to see if the bad guy is hit, if he's still after you, is just bad, bad judgment. Sacrificing your life or the lives of innocents to avoid being judged for using too many bullets doesn't make one morally superior to someone who changes magazines, say, 4 times in order to stop the threat and save himself and his civilians. In fact, by most ethical systems and religious teachings, not doing what it takes makes you morally culpable. You can't be "too dead."

With any auto pistol, and any appropriate training, the process of dropping the empty magazine and inserting a full one shouldn't take more than a second or so.

It always amazes me how "excessive force" is used nowdays. It used to be for obvious stuff like 12 police beating the hell out of one guy. Now, the number of bullets used in a self-defense shooting can = excessive force? What's next? Not asking the bad guy for permission to shoot him first?

[Napoleon54]

are you kidding me? excessive force? IF indeed the dude was trying to take him out with the car and tried to do the same to other cops what is a reasonable response? 1 bullet? 12? or until the cops are reasonably sure their lives are no longer in danger?

:stupid:

Bang! Bang! Bang!

Okay, he's dead now, but that was fun.

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Wooo hooo!

Nah, I really don't believe that's how it went down.

[MikeD]

The eyes that would be opened if each of us walked for a day in a policeman's shoes. The stuff they have to go through, put up with...yet we're often quick to point the fingers of blame at them. :disa:

I'd like to see some more info come out on this case as well before passing judgement.

[Napoleon54]

The eyes that would be opened if each of us walked for a day in a policeman's shoes. The stuff they have to go through, put up with...yet we're often quick to point the fingers of blame at them. :disa:
Police would have a lot more respect from me if abuse of power wasn't so widespread. Little things, like the cop car that flies by 20+mph over the limit and pulls into a donut shop, cops that park in the fire zone outside of the grocery store in order to pick up a loaf of bread, not writing speeding tickets to people who get pulled over but have connections... that stuff really lowers them in my eyes.

I'd like to see some more info come out on this case as well before passing judgement.
Yea, me too.

[eSDee]

are you kidding me? excessive force? IF indeed the dude was trying to take him out with the car and tried to do the same to other cops what is a reasonable response? 1 bullet? 12? or until the cops are reasonably sure their lives are no longer in danger?

Was what I said that incredulous? You don't see even the slight possibility of how unloading 2 clips might be seen as excessive? Is everyone that desensitized?

[DarkFury]

Was what I said that incredulous? You don't see even the slight possibility of how unloading 2 clips might be seen as excessive? Is everyone that desensitized?
Of course they are...

Those folks always get up at the end of the movie.... :rolleyes:

:2far:

[MikeD]

Little things, like the cop car that flies by 20+mph over the limit and pulls into a donut shop, cops that park in the fire zone outside of the grocery store in order to pick up a loaf of bread

Never seen those things happen. :shrug:


not writing speeding tickets to people who get pulled over but have connections... that stuff really lowers them in my eyes.

Have seen that. Understand what you're saying.

Just pointing out that it's easy to scream "Patriot Act!!!" or talk about racism, excessive force, etc...but it would be interesting to see how people's views may change if they had to do the job, day in and day out.

[MikeD]

unloading 2 clips might be seen as excessive?

Might be, but you said it def was:


Either way, it's definitely excessive force.

I don't think it's fair to say it was definitely excessive. It could have been. Honestly, the only folks who will probably ever know are the ones who were there (and weren't killed).

[cheapie]

Either way, it's definitely excessive force.

you ever played paintball? if a dude is running toward you, don't you just start pulling the trigger as fast as you can and hit him before he hits you?

now imagine instead of a dude running toward you with paintballs that sting like a mother%#^*er, he's trying to kill you with his car. do you think you'd be any less likely to shoot as many times as possible than you would be while playing a game?

no way. when i'm playing paintball i keep pulling the trigger as fast as possible until i'm either sure the other person is hit or they give up. why would you expect less from someone who's life is really in danger.


and of course the aforementioned situation is assuming the dude was really doing what the police claim he was doing.

[Napoleon54]

Just pointing out that it's easy to scream "Patriot Act!!!" or talk about racism, excessive force, etc...but it would be interesting to see how people's views may change if they had to do the job, day in and day out.

Yea, I can agree with that. I guess I didn't mean to come off as disagreeing with you, just wanted to add something else to the discussion.

[eSDee]

you ever played paintball? if a dude is running toward you, don't you just start pulling the trigger as fast as you can and hit him before he hits you?

now imagine instead of a dude running toward you with paintballs that sting like a mother%#^*er, he's trying to kill you with his car. do you think you'd be any less likely to shoot as many times as possible than you would be while playing a game?

no way. when i'm playing paintball i keep pulling the trigger as fast as possible until i'm either sure the other person is hit or they give up. why would you expect less from someone who's life is really in danger.


and of course the aforementioned situation is assuming the dude was really doing what the police claim he was doing.

What you're describing cheapie is the same rules of combat that soldiers use when in a war. When you paintball, you pretend to be soldiers in a pretend battle. The problem with using that analogy is that cops are not supposed to be "at war" with citizens. If the cop was stuck at the end of an alley and the guy was driving a car right at him, then I could see emptying a clip or two into the driver in order to stay alive. But if after the investigation is over, it turns out that this officer nor any other officer was in danger of being run over (after being hit the first time) then it was unnecessary use of force.

This is not to say I don't understand how a person can lose it when put into high adrenaline situations. In the military it is the same way, and people lose the ability to think clearly when faced with the high pressure. However, just like in the military, if the person who shoots and kills is found to have used excessive force, then that person should not be given a free pass because of their job description. They should be removed from that position and be held accountable.

[LPMiller]

once the first bullet exits the chamber, it's either excessive or not. The raw amount of bullets really don't matter. There is no 'shoot to wound'. Shawn is right, it goes back to whether or not the actual shooting is justifed. Once that trigger is pulled, all bets are off regardless of the amount of rounds fired. It only seems excessive if you have no experience with a gun, and have never been in a fight/flight situation.

Excessive would be if he stood steady, cocked one eye and calmly hit him square in the head with one shot, then said, "well punk, do you feel lucky?" Also, tacky. But once you feel you have to fire/return fire, you're commited. I doubt you will ever find, in the history of law enforcement, any ever only shooting 1 bullet at a suspect.

[Houdini]

once the first bullet exits the chamber, it's either excessive or not. The raw amount of bullets really don't matter. There is no 'shoot to wound'. Shawn is right, it goes back to whether or not the actual shooting is justifed. Once that trigger is pulled, all bets are off regardless of the amount of rounds fired. It only seems excessive if you have no experience with a gun, and have never been in a fight/flight situation.

Excessive would be if he stood steady, cocked one eye and calmly hit him square in the head with one shot, then said, "well punk, do you feel lucky?" Also, tacky. But once you feel you have to fire/return fire, you're commited. I doubt you will ever find, in the history of law enforcement, any ever only shooting 1 bullet at a suspect.

And I'm sure that the few of us in this forum that have been in such a situation and can attest to it. And there are a couple.

There's no "10 rounds is enough to stop anyone!" or "Just shoot the gun out of his hand!" or "Why not just shoot him in the leg?" etc...as people are often asking after such an incident. The decision was made to use lethal force. It's easy to monday morning quarterback it, to knee-jerkly respond that because a cop had to reload it must have been excessive etc.

Picture this scenario. The bad guy isn't armed with the usual bad guy Hi-Point POS auto or a cheapo 6-shot revolver, but is armed with, say, an AK variant with a mag of 30+. Would anyone criticize any officer for reloading? Or even if the bad guy is shooting with only 6 rounds but is taking his time in the gunfight, the officer would be justified in sending a hail of bullets his way.

Otherwise, why would officers carry extra magazines? As I said above, it's rather easy to train to exchange clips in 1 sec or less. It's not like you have to take the spent mag, sit down, stick 15 rounds into it, and reload. You just drop the mag from the gun with one button and then, using a proper technique, stick the new mag in. There are certain national competitions for civilians that require this sort of thing all the time - tactical situations, reloading, etc. All because more than police have to know these techniques.

[CourtJester]

My understanding is that the police are
trained to empty they mags when they start to fire when a suspect is armed.

[Houdini]

My understanding is that the police are
trained to empty they mags when they start to fire when a suspect is armed.

Not necessarily. First, it depends on the weapon. Then, they are generally trained to shoot to stop. Not to kill, not to make neato graphic movie-type bloodbaths, but to do whatever it takes to stop the threat. Same for civilians. Especially in close quarters, emptying a mag can render you kinda incompetent for a second or two depending on your training and your stress level. And rapid shooting does drastically reduce accuracy, less-so if the cops practice daily/weekly (rare - many I know only un-holster their weapons for cleaning/shooting once/year for easy qualifications.) But hitting a car, especially with more than one officer involved (trying to defend your buddies as well), may require emptying the entire 15-17 round magazine.

At any rate, more holes in bad guy = less danger for police and good guys. Like I said, you can't make someone too dead, especially with modern ammunition and weapons. I'd rather, in a life/death situation, over-do it than under-do it.

[Prngr44]

The problem with using that analogy is that cops are not supposed to be "at war" with citizens. If the cop was stuck at the end of an alley and the guy was driving a car right at him, then I could see emptying a clip or two into the driver in order to stay alive. But if after the investigation is over, it turns out that this officer nor any other officer was in danger of being run over (after being hit the first time) then it was unnecessary use of force.

If a citizen is driving a vehicle at me intending to hurt or even kill me, I'm at war. Whether or not it's in an open park or dead end alley doesn't make one bit of difference.

The officer made the decision that his life was in danger. At that point it's going to be him or his assailant. There's no more time to decide "Well, I could have just done my TJ Hooker gunroll out of harms way."

It's really no different than a kid pointing a realistic looking toy gun at a cop and getting killed and dealing with all the outrage over that.

[Thesifer]

Excessive?

If a Cop makes the decision that "Lethal Force is Authorized" they are trying to kill everyone that they feel is a threat. If they felt the people in the car were threatening (could have all had guns) and decided that they need to use Lethal Force then they were TRYING TO KILL THEM!

Knowing this, seeing as how at least last I read, only 1 of the 'suspects' had been killed and the others were just wounded, where is the "Excessive Force?" They didn't even accomplish their task.

On a slightly other point of the argument, "Hindsight is 20/20" It is much easier to look back and say "Wow, they didn't have guns. Cops shot unjustly."

I have no love for most of the policemen I have had any dealings with. (And not always because I was doing something wrong) From reading the facts here though, I can't argue against them yet.