African Americans seem to be up in arms regarding the shooting of the unarmed man in NYC recently? Do they?

Question

a case which indicates police brutality? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/nyregion/28shoot.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1164776400&en=20a135cccb2bda67&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

Answer 1

It is truly outrageous but where possible I give the police the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because while there are rogues in uniform, like there are dirty doers in all professions, I am certain that the vast majority are decent human beings who want to help the community. Do any of the people constantly criticizing police officers know what it's like to put your life on the line every night in neighborhoods most of us wouldn't dare walk in even in the light of day? Perhaps one of the officers was too quick on trigger, I would not instantly label him a racist simply because his survival instinct kicked in by mistake. A fair number of the officers involved for men of color.

Speaking of all the shots fired, btw, ther was a psychologist on one of the shows that talked about how once one officer starts firing, sometimes. not knowing where the shots are coming from, sort of freak out en masse.

If the man involved and his companions WERE unarmed and if they were innocent, then these officers were totally wrong/at fault I still would be prone to call them simply human beings who over reacted.. not evil incarnate out to eliminate some African Americans just for the heck of it.

Answer 2

UNARMED!!! Are you insane?!?! Wow that's dumb.

To begin there is a reason why those officers would have to fire several rounds. And since they are firing at the same time you can't consider the total number of rounds fired and jump to a conclusion of excessive. Officers are trained to shoot until the threat stops. Depending on how fast an individual officer can operate his or her weapon that can range from a few rounds to a lot.

To continue, the NYPD issues 9mm handguns and requires the officers to carry hardball rounds. This means that the round does not expand once it strikes something. No expansion means that it looses it's energy, and subsequently, it's velocity very slowly. Long story short, you end up with small wounds that hardly slow down the threat so it takes more of them. Oh, and they also tend to come out the other side so they're leaving the person while taking a lot of that energy with them so you need extra rounds to get the same effect. If you want your police to carry small, bad-guy friendly bullets then you have to accept more rounds fired before the bad guy quits being so bad.

Now, as to the question of race, the group asked for their gun from THE CAR. They then got into that same car. Next the driver rammed and injured a police officer. Witnesses stated that they plainly heard this officer identifying himself (not a requirement at the time he's being threatened but important prior to the threat.) However, he had a badge on a chain around his neck and was yelling POLICE. In law enforcement parlance that my dear readers is referred to as a clue. Should've got one.

So, did the bad guy have a weapon? Yes, a +/- 3,000 pound car is easily a dangerous weapon. If there is any doubt, ask a state trooper about the results of car vs. pedestrian.

Did the bad guy have the opportunity to kill or critically injure the officer? Yes, he was in the driver's seat, the car was running (obviously).

Did the bad guy intend to kill or critically injure the officer? Well, let's see. I think it can be safely said that anyone with a grain of common sense and intelligence knows that a car can kill or seriously injure. The media ensures that we are all well aware of this fact-of-life.

Final question, was the threat immediate? Considering the officer was in close proximity of the car and was unable to get out of the way before being struck I believe we can safely answer that with a yes as well.

Oh, did I mention that after hitting the officer the first time and after hitting a police vehicle and after hitting a garage door the driver then turned the car towards the INJURED officer ON THE GROUND? That's when the shooting started.

Now, considering that the other officers are capable of seeing and hearing it is quite obvious that they can look, see these same factors and draw the same conclusion. That conclusion is that someone, in this case a fellow officer, is in danger. Coming to that conclusion allows each officer present to decide to defend this third party with deadly force. Add all of these officers together, factor in the weak, ineffective rounds they have to carry and the final sum is a lot of ammunition expended.

These are the standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court for using deadly force. Did anyone notice anywhere in this that race is a factor to be considered? Let me get that for you, no. So get off the racist kick. It doesn't matter what a criminal's race is, when they did or are getting married, their mental condition, how many kids they do or don't have, etc. A cop doesn't have time to consider these things when the foremost thought in his or her brain is, "holy crap - I've got to do something to survive this."

Answer 3

I am not African-American and I am up in arms.

The "wars" of terrorism and drugs have put us into the reality that we live in a police state.

How in the hell can this not put you "up in arms"? The victims were UNARMED and the cops still shot 50 rounds? Come on! What sheer utter dereliction of duty.

Answer 4

FIFTY SHOTS! It is crazy that they squeezed off 50 into that car. Everybody should be up in arms about it, so to speak. It was quintessential brutality.