PDA

View Full Version : NYPD Killed 179 People Since 1999, Only 3 Indictments, ZERO Jail Time Served



Rusty Jones
12-08-2014, 04:22 PM
http://bossip.com/1075190/cops-kill-people-study-shows-nypd-killed-179-people-since-1999-only-3-indictments-zero-jail-time-served-43081/


Something is seriously wrong with this picture

Via NYDailyNews


A Staten Island grand jury’s decision not to indict white NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo for the chokehold death of Eric Garner — a black father of six — stunned large swaths of the city and added fuel to a nationwide surge of protests over police killings.

But history shows the odds were always in Pantaleo’s favor. A Daily News investigation found that at least 179 people were killed by on-duty NYPD officers over the past 15 years. Just three of the deaths have led to an indictment in state court. In another case, a judge threw out the indictment on technical grounds and it was not reinstated.

Only one officer who killed someone while on duty has been convicted, but he was not sentenced to jail time.

The analysis of the police-involved deaths begins with the 1999 slaying of unarmed Amadou Diallo in a hail of bullets and ends with last month’s shooting death of Akai Gurley, who police say was hit by a ricocheting bullet fired by a rookie cop in a darkened housing project stairwell in Brooklyn. Gurley was also unarmed.

The News found that since 1999:

Roughly 27% of people killed by cops were unarmed.
Where race was known, 86% were black or Hispanic.
Twenty-one people were killed — three of them by off-duty cops — in 2012, the highest during the 15-year span.

The ONE indictment, well…


Former NYPD Officer Bryan Conroy was convicted in 2005 of criminally negligent homicide for gunning down West African immigrant Ousmane Zongo, 43, during a counterfeit goods raid at a Chelsea warehouse two years earlier.

Zongo — a married father of two who was never implicated in the counterfeit goods investigation — worked at the warehouse and happened upon Conroy, who was disguised as a postal worker when he drew his weapon. Conroy shot Zongo four times.

Conroy’s first trial ended in a hung jury. A judge convicted him in a second trial and sentenced him to five years of probation and 500 hours of community service.

Community service?!?! For killing a unarmmed man?!?!? SMMFH.
------------------------

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2014, 05:37 PM
http://bossip.com/1075190/cops-kill-people-study-shows-nypd-killed-179-people-since-1999-only-3-indictments-zero-jail-time-served-43081/


------------------------

280 NY Police Officers have died in the line of duty during the same period.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2014, 05:50 PM
280 NY Police Officers have died in the line of duty during the same period.

Were they killed by people whose duty it was to protect and serve? Was the indictment rate of those who killed the cops the same? Were the killers as equally unlikely to get prison time?

sandsjames
12-08-2014, 06:21 PM
I'm surprised that, on a forum with so many military members, that this isn't being viewed the same way as an accusation of an ROE violation. Maybe it's because most, or none, of us have ever been involved in an incident where we had to make a split second decision in the face of actual, or perceived, danger.

sandsjames
12-08-2014, 06:25 PM
Were they killed by people whose duty it was to protect and serve? Was the indictment rate of those who killed the cops the same? Were the killers as equally unlikely to get prison time?

Since you are going to use the argument of the duty of the cops, I will do the same. Your argument is that more civilians are indicted or convicted for shooting/killing. That's how it should be. You yourself stated that it's the cops job to protect and serve. It's their job to deal with dangerous people. It's there job to shoot somebody if they perceive the situation requires it. It's not the job for civilians to do so which means that, when a civilian does so (except in cases of self defense) then they must be indicted/convicted.

I'm not saying that in the current/recent cases the cops shooting/killing someone was warranted, I'm just saying that if cops are getting indicted/convicted for doing their job then we aren't going to have any cops.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2014, 06:50 PM
Since you are going to use the argument of the duty of the cops, I will do the same. Your argument is that more civilians are indicted or convicted for shooting/killing. That's how it should be. You yourself stated that it's the cops job to protect and serve. It's their job to deal with dangerous people. It's there job to shoot somebody if they perceive the situation requires it. It's not the job for civilians to do so which means that, when a civilian does so (except in cases of self defense) then they must be indicted/convicted.

TJ brought up the number of police killed in the line of duty, presumably to cancel out the point of the article.

What I'm saying is this: as a civilian, I'm supposed to trust a police offer to protect and serve - not worry that he's going to shoot me. I don't have that same expectation of civilians.




I'm not saying that in the current/recent cases the cops shooting/killing someone was warranted, I'm just saying that if cops are getting indicted/convicted for doing their job then we aren't going to have any cops.


In the case of Eric Garner, it was ruled a homicide. Just yesterday, the Detroit police officer who killed a 7 year old girl by shooting her in the back while she was sleeping escaped indictment. Really, just "doing their job," right? A situation that required it, right?

The stats post above even showed that, in the case of the NYPD, 27% of those that they shot were unarmed.

Granted, the numbers don't show how many of those 179 cases where the use of deadly force was justified; but we also need to consider the fact that bulk of the time period that's covered in these stats were well before social media... even then, the big push to catch cops on film only started less than a year ago.

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2014, 07:36 PM
TJ brought up the number of police killed in the line of duty, presumably to cancel out the point of the article.

What I'm saying is this: as a civilian, I'm supposed to trust a police offer to protect and serve - not worry that he's going to shoot me. I don't have that same expectation of civilians.






In the case of Eric Garner, it was ruled a homicide. Just yesterday, the Detroit police officer who killed a 7 year old girl by shooting her in the back while she was sleeping escaped indictment. Really, just "doing their job," right? A situation that required it, right?

The stats post above even showed that, in the case of the NYPD, 27% of those that they shot were unarmed.

Granted, the numbers don't show how many of those 179 cases where the use of deadly force was justified; but we also need to consider the fact that bulk of the time period that's covered in these stats were well before social media... even then, the big push to catch cops on film only started less than a year ago.

My point wasn't to "cancel out the point of" anything. It was to illustrate that the mere recitation of statistics doesn't answer any real questions.

I feel pretty safe in saying that in a confrontation with a police officer, if I adhere to his/her instructions I will not be shot. I think you probably have the same feeling.

As to your question, the cops were killed by the people they were sworn to protect and serve (in most cases...the figure includes 9/11 casualties). Likelihood of prison time and the other distractions of your post are irrelevant.

I have some serious questions about the amount of force used to subdue Garner (meaning the number of cops) but he was a very big guy and was not complying. Once again when you strip away the bullshit you are left with a cause and an effect. You can examine the whole situation but to reduce it to a simply matter of racial issues is just plain bullshit. The fact that the black female sergeant being on-scene being totally ignored by every talking head who has a pulpit to spew vomit shows that.

Are the 'quality of life' crimes worth pursuing?
Was it really critical that Garner be arrested at that time and place?

These are valid questions and while I believe that valid arguments can be made for both side of the issue you will notice that his race doesn't have a frapping thing to do with it.

What we now have now is a situation where threshold of racial prejudice in this country; where the bar is placed is the mere fact of a white person and a black person being present (although there has been some talk from the other minorities in this equation they are very much drowned out). Actually the bar is where a white person kills (or harms) a black person because the opposite seems to be dismissed pretty quickly. I am not one to foist countless examples of this but the dismissals are very revealing to me.

That is a ridiculous formula not to mention untenable. In almost every major case in the past few years there is a light speed rush to judgment followed by the slow release of actual evidence at which time every piece is spun by those who issued the initial condemnation. In the end we have a predestined outcome.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2014, 07:44 PM
Likelihood of prison time and the other distractions of your post are irrelevant.

The fact that these cops aren't being indicted is why this thread exists and why we're having this discussion in the first place.

If the people who killed police officers were charged, convicted, and sentenced to prison time - then we can have faith that the justice system works. At least it does in that direction. But what about the other way around? That's the whole point of the discussion.

garhkal
12-08-2014, 07:57 PM
Strange as it seems, i am having to agree with rusty here. Too often i hear in the news about cops shooing excessive numbers of bullets at a suspect, or shoot with little probable cause. But too few get indicted, and those who do often get little to know punishment. Its as if the court system is geared up to protect cops.

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2014, 08:03 PM
The fact that these cops aren't being indicted is why this thread exists and why we're having this discussion in the first place.

If the people who killed police officers were charged, convicted, and sentenced to prison time - then we can have faith that the justice system works. At least it does in that direction. But what about the other way around? That's the whole point of the discussion.


Ok, I see your point.

I think it is a straw man thread but ok.

You ignore the facts around the deaths to begin with. If you come up with some instances where the police killed people who weren't in the act of committing a crime or resisting the police (with violence) those would be more relevant statistics. All you have offered is bare numbers where police killed people. How about citing a statistic where an armed suspect or one who did resist was arrested but wasn't killed? Then you begin to get a truer picture of any real problem. Then you can, with credibility state 'there is something wrong with this picture'.

I am not saying there is no problem whatsoever. That would be equally inane and ignoring of facts on my part.

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2014, 08:09 PM
Strange as it seems, i am having to agree with rusty here. Too often i hear in the news about cops shooing excessive numbers of bullets at a suspect, or shoot with little probable cause. But too few get indicted, and those who do often get little to know punishment. Its as if the court system is geared up to protect cops.

Ok, we have different and complete subjects mixed in here.

The number of bullets fired is completely irrelevant to any discussion of whether or not the shooting was justified. I keep hearing this, most recently in the Brown shooting, and it is nonsense.

In the Brown case as we know now from testimony, it was a matter of shooting until the threat is eliminated.

In many cases I think it is poor fire discipline but again whether you do it like they do on TV or in the movies with one shot or with a whole magazine, the shooting is either justified or not. For the most part cops are not taught to shoot to wound but to incapacitate and that usually means 'center of mass'. This is the best case for eliminating the threat.

If the first bullet kills the suspect then the other 14 aren't going to make him more dead.

Shooting with no probably cause is a valid topic. A little probable cause or a lot of probable cause isn't really a topic. It is like someone's virginity. It is either present or it's not.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2014, 08:12 PM
Ok, I see your point.

I think it is a straw man thread but ok.

You ignore the facts around the deaths to begin with. If you come up with some instances where the police killed people who weren't in the act of committing a crime or resisting the police (with violence) those would be more relevant statistics. All you have offered is bare numbers where police killed people. How about citing a statistic where an armed suspect or one who did resist was arrested but wasn't killed? Then you begin to get a truer picture of any real problem. Then you can, with credibility state 'there is something wrong with this picture'.

I am not saying there is no problem whatsoever. That would be equally inane and ignoring of facts on my part.

Look at my last paragraph on post #6. I've already taken into consideration that the 179 doesn't break down the number of cases where the use of deadly force was justified - that's already been noted.

However, what I am saying is that with the big push to catch police on film and spread the word of police brutality having only started within the last year; I think it's reasonable to say that what's being reported now on social media has been going on since well before 1999 - we just don't hear about it, because it didn't get anywhere near as much exposure back then.

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2014, 08:41 PM
Look at my last paragraph on post #6. I've already taken into consideration that the 179 doesn't break down the number of cases where the use of deadly force was justified - that's already been noted.

However, what I am saying is that with the big push to catch police on film and spread the word of police brutality having only started within the last year; I think it's reasonable to say that what's being reported now on social media has been going on since well before 1999 - we just don't hear about it, because it didn't get anywhere near as much exposure back then.

Then the statistic, by itself is not really on point for anything which was MY point.


I don't suppose it matters one way or the other but video taping cops started a lot sooner than the last year. It pretty much started with camera became standard on cell phones.

By 'what's being reported now on social media' if you mean distorting facts to fit agendas I totally agree with you.

garhkal
12-09-2014, 07:27 AM
Ok, we have different and complete subjects mixed in here.

The number of bullets fired is completely irrelevant to any discussion of whether or not the shooting was justified. I keep hearing this, most recently in the Brown shooting, and it is nonsense.

But not to the overall subject of why does it seem practically all cop shootings are 'seen as justified'.

sandsjames
12-09-2014, 12:26 PM
But not to the overall subject of why does it seem practically all cop shootings are 'seen as justified'.

Because all the ones we hear about had the "victims" in the act of committing a crime and resisting.

TJMAC77SP
12-09-2014, 02:57 PM
But not to the overall subject of why does it seem practically all cop shootings are 'seen as justified'.

If you are saying that the number of bullets fired is related somehow to the reported lack of prosecution of cops in shootings I would agree only because that people are swallowing the sound bites being fed to them.

As a practical matter, as I have pointed out, the number of shots fired is irrelevant. It does add to the overall graphic and that is why the news media and others promoting a particular agenda. As we have seen in the Brown shooting Wilson hit Brown 8 times and it was the final bullet that stopped him. Probably why it was the last bullet fired.

A prime example of this was the Amadou Diallo shooting. Putting aside the other facts in the case (whether or not the shooting was justified) four officers fired a total of 41 rounds hitting Diallo 19 times. My first thought when I heard that is the same thought I have now. Police need better training in fire discipline under stress. The 'empty the magazine' syndrome is too prevalent. That however doesn't add or detract from the other key issue of whether or not the shooting was justified. In that case the officers were charged but acquitted.

Now, getting back to my point the case has been referenced many times in pop culture and the number of shots often figures in the reference (Springsteen's American Skin 41 shots). This adds to the graphic but is, in truth, unrelated to the issue of whether or not Diallo was illegally killed.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Diallo had indeed pulled a gun on the officers instead of his wallet. Then no one would raise an issue about the number of shots fired (except those who believe it is poor fire discipline) so if that is true, why is it a relevant fact when the shooting justification is in question.

MikeKerriii
12-09-2014, 03:09 PM
280 NY Police Officers have died in the line of duty during the same period.

And that justifies killing unarmed civilians?

TJMAC77SP
12-09-2014, 03:31 PM
And that justifies killing unarmed civilians?

Read the thread and get back to me.

garhkal
12-09-2014, 10:11 PM
Let's say for the sake of argument that Diallo had indeed pulled a gun on the officers instead of his wallet. Then no one would raise an issue about the number of shots fired (except those who believe it is poor fire discipline) so if that is true, why is it a relevant fact when the shooting justification is in question.

Showing excessive force, non compliance with firearm safety rules (being sure of your target, not firing when bystanders are in the path).

TJMAC77SP
12-09-2014, 11:23 PM
Showing excessive force, non compliance with firearm safety rules (being sure of your target, not firing when bystanders are in the path).

You are confused about what excessive force means. It is usually referred to as the Use of Force Continuum. You start with the minimum force necessary to effect and arrest and escalate. Deadly force is the end of the continuum. More bullets is not a further escalation.

Again, firing 41 bullets is excessive but I don't think it is excessive force since one bullet could have had the same result. There are examples where force is not escalated and excessive force is present. Striking a suspect with a baton or asp after he/she has complied or continuing to tase suspects (these things are a continuing problem).

The other two things you mentioned are relevant to the overall incident and the police behavior but now not to your original point of a shooting being justified.

I would concede that if police were to continue to shoot a suspect after he is down, not moving and obviously dead there may be an issue but even then it is more a procedural issue than a legal one.

The SCOTUS (Plumhoff v.Rickard) came to the same conclusion ("It stands to reason that, if police officers are justifiedin firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.")

MikeKerriii
12-10-2014, 06:37 AM
You are confused about what excessive force means. It is usually referred to as the Use of Force Continuum. You start with the minimum force necessary to effect and arrest and escalate. Deadly force is the end of the continuum. More bullets is not a further escalation.

Again, firing 41 bullets is excessive but I don't think it is excessive force since one bullet could have had the same result. There are examples where force is not escalated and excessive force is present. Striking a suspect with a baton or asp after he/she has complied or continuing to tase suspects (these things are a continuing problem).

The other two things you mentioned are relevant to the overall incident and the police behavior but now not to your original point of a shooting being justified.

I would concede that if police were to continue to shoot a suspect after he is down, not moving and obviously dead there may be an issue but even then it is more a procedural issue than a legal one.

The SCOTUS (Plumhoff v.Rickard) came to the same conclusion ("It stands to reason that, if police officers are justifiedin firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.")

In the Dialo case the lasts hots were fired after he was down, one foe the shores entering though the bottom of his foot after he was down. But I guess it is hard to determine that the threat has ended when the threat existed only in your own panicked mind

TJMAC77SP
12-10-2014, 12:43 PM
In the Dialo case the lasts hots were fired after he was down, one foe the shores entering though the bottom of his foot after he was down. But I guess it is hard to determine that the threat has ended when the threat existed only in your own panicked mind


That would part of the discussion on whether or not the shooting was justified and not about how many shots were fired.


......when the threat existed only in your own panicked mind

It sounds like you are dismissing such a panicked mind out of hand. I assume you have never had a gun pointed at you? Even an object you thought was a gun.

I also assume you read the thread and don't need an answer to the earlier question you posed to me?

MikeKerriii
12-10-2014, 07:12 PM
It sounds like you are dismissing such a panicked mind out of hand. I assume you have never had a gun pointed at you? Even an object you thought was a gun.

I also assume you read the thread and don't need an answer to the earlier question you posed to me?

I've had guns pointed at me and fired along with mortars and rockets. That doesn't provide a excuse for shooting random people out of panic

The "read the thread' comment made no sense so I ignored it .................................................

TJMAC77SP
12-10-2014, 08:19 PM
.................................................

Well, given your extensive combat experience I would think you would understand a 'panicked mind" and not so glibly dismiss it. It isn't a blanket excuse but should certainly be part of the discussion. The reason the military (and police) train so much is to instill muscle memory so that when one is faced with a situation that produces a 'panicked mind' you react without relying your the full faculties.

The comment is much like your question inane and specious. A question BTW which I am sure made sense to you so I assume was ignored for another reason, If you had read the thread you would know that my comment in no way said what you attempted to intimate it did. Comments like that (and many you make) are mere grenades thrown over the transom.

For example where in this thread has anyone discussed "shooting random people out of panic"? You may disagree with the justification and manner of many police shootings mentioned here but there have been no mention of 'random people' being shot.

BENDER56
12-11-2014, 09:17 PM
280 NY Police Officers have died in the line of duty during the same period.

I thought that seemed way too high but I haven't had much luck finding data on this. Can you share the source for this?

The best source I could find is the NYPD memorial website. By manually counting the officers who died since 1999 (inclusive), I came up with 181. The difference might be that this site includes NYPD deaths, and NYPD is the abbreviation applied to the New York City police departments. This is also what the article originally posted by Rusty referred to. You cited the number of deaths of "NY Police Officers," which might include deaths from the entire state.

Anyway, the info on this website is interesting. Seventy of the officers died in the 9/11 attacks and 78 died due to what the site calls "9/11 related illness," including the most recent death on 31 Oct 2014.

Now those deaths are legitimate, line-of-duty deaths and I'm not saying they shouldn't be counted, but because those deaths are due to an extraordinary event they don't reflect the usual rate of line-of-duty police deaths for the NYPD. If you subtract those you get 33 deaths since 1999. That's more in line with statistics for similarly sized departments.

Also, if you look at those remaining 33 deaths it seems only 12 were killed by perps. The rest were mostly due to accidents or illnesses. Those proportions are also similar to all law enforcement deaths nationwide.

So I'm not actually refuting whatever point you were trying to make with that comment, but I felt I the number was misleading.

Here's the link: http://nypd.police-memorial.com/list-of-nypd-fallen-heroes/

TJMAC77SP
12-11-2014, 10:33 PM
I thought that seemed way too high but I haven't had much luck finding data on this. Can you share the source for this?

The best source I could find is the NYPD memorial website. By manually counting the officers who died since 1999 (inclusive), I came up with 181. The difference might be that this site includes NYPD deaths, and NYPD is the abbreviation applied to the New York City police departments. This is also what the article originally posted by Rusty referred to. You cited the number of deaths of "NY Police Officers," which might include deaths from the entire state.

Anyway, the info on this website is interesting. Seventy of the officers died in the 9/11 attacks and 78 died due to what the site calls "9/11 related illness," including the most recent death on 31 Oct 2014.

Now those deaths are legitimate, line-of-duty deaths and I'm not saying they shouldn't be counted, but because those deaths are due to an extraordinary event they don't reflect the usual rate of line-of-duty police deaths for the NYPD. If you subtract those you get 33 deaths since 1999. That's more in line with statistics for similarly sized departments.

Also, if you look at those remaining 33 deaths it seems only 12 were killed by perps. The rest were mostly due to accidents or illnesses. Those proportions are also similar to all law enforcement deaths nationwide.

So I'm not actually refuting whatever point you were trying to make with that comment, but I felt I the number was misleading.

Here's the link: http://nypd.police-memorial.com/list-of-nypd-fallen-heroes/

I can't remember which site I used but I know I included 9/11 deaths (including related to 9/11) which is why I said 'in the line of duty'. I also was only referring to NYPD not the state.

I am pretty certain the OP got my point (as well as others) particularly if you take into consideration the opening line..."Something is seriously wrong with this picture"

There was no true 'picture' and that was my point (which is made clearer in subsequent posts). A statistic, posted by itself with no explanation or with any context is near meaningless. For instance:

Roughly 27% of people killed by cops were unarmed:
Is the intimation that they were just standing around and innocent and were murdered by police? It seems that is what they want you to believe. They don't mention the extensive investigative process that occurs when a cop shoots someone and that is magnified when the victim is unarmed.

Where race was known, 86% were black or Hispanic:
The intimation here being that there is racial bias involved. Doesn't provide any statistics on the demographics where the shootings take place. Doesn't provide the race of the police officer. Ignores the diversity of the NYPD which is as follows............

Based on Census data and 2007 federal figures for police diversity, shows that:

Whites make up 33 percent of New York City’s population and 54 percent of the NYPD.
Blacks represent 23 percent of the city’s population and 16 percent of the NYPD.
Hispanics make up 28 percent of the city’s population and 24 percent of the NYPD.
Asians represent 13 percent of the population and 4 percent of the NYPD.

The NYPD’s own most-recent numbers show that, as of June 2014, the department has become even more diverse since 2007.
Whites make up 51 percent of the department, Hispanics 26 percent and Asians 6 percent, with the percentage of blacks about the same, according to the newer figures.
“In the uniformed ranks, it’s virtually 50-50 [white vs. non-white],” NYPD spokesmanStephen Davis told The Post.(source NYPost, http://nypost.com/2014/09/08/nypd-is-as-diverse-as-new-york-city-itself/)

Of course if these facts are taken into consideration the intimations tend to evaporate and you are left with just bare facts and not much controversy. You are free to ignore the real problems which our urban areas face.

Twenty-one people were killed — three of them by off-duty cops — in 2012:

This is relevant how? It was presented as a stand-alone statistic so it must mean something particular related to the headline

EDIT: Damn the NYPD has lost a lot of people to 9/11 and it's aftermath! Not really relevant to the thread's topic but it struck me in any case.

MikeKerriii
12-12-2014, 03:02 AM
Well, given your extensive combat experience I would think you would understand a 'panicked mind" and not so glibly dismiss it. It isn't a blanket excuse but should certainly be part of the discussion. The reason the military (and police) train so much is to instill muscle memory so that when one is faced with a situation that produces a 'panicked mind' you react without relying your the full faculties.

The comment is much like your question inane and specious. A question BTW which I am sure made sense to you so I assume was ignored for another reason, If you had read the thread you would know that my comment in no way said what you attempted to intimate it did. Comments like that (and many you make) are mere grenades thrown over the transom.

For example where in this thread has anyone discussed "shooting random people out of panic"? You may disagree with the justification and manner of many police shootings mentioned here but there have been no mention of 'random people' being shot.

In the Dialo case the shot a man that was walking up to his apparent door who took no hostile act, that is random as hell


They were not under fire and had no reason to be in any extraordinary amount of fear, they got scared and slaughtered an innocent man, who took no hostile action, out of that panic and fear.

All my limited exprecience under fire come from couple of days in a two week period, but even that is enough to know that you don't just randomly shoot unarmed people that scare you.

Stalwart
12-12-2014, 11:58 AM
In the Dialo case the shot a man that was walking up to his apparent door who took no hostile act, that is random as hell


They were not under fire and had no reason to be in any extraordinary amount of fear, they got scared and slaughtered an innocent man, who took no hostile action, out of that panic and fear.


Sort of ...

[Taken from Wikipedia (sorry)]: In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. At about 12:40 a.m., 4 police officers passed by in a Ford Taurus. Observing that Diallo matched the description of a serial rapist involved in the rape or attempted rape of 29 victims, they approached him.

The officers claimed they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". The porch lightbulb was out and Diallo was backlit by the inside vestibule light, showing only a silhouette. Diallo then reached into his jacket and withdrew his wallet. Seeing the suspect holding a small square object, Carroll yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. Mistakenly believing Diallo had aimed a gun at them at close range, the officers opened fire on Diallo. During the shooting, lead officer McMellon tripped backward off the front stairs, causing the other officers to believe he had been shot. The four officers fired 41 shots, more than half of which went astray as Diallo was hit 19 times.

So yeah, they made a mistake that I agree was out of panic and fear -- fear of being shot. Was the error based on bad training, bad judgment, bad faith on the enforcement of the law, or a split second decision complicated by an individual not complying with the instructions of the police?

TJMAC77SP
12-12-2014, 02:38 PM
In the Dialo case the shot a man that was walking up to his apparent door who took no hostile act, that is random as hell


They were not under fire and had no reason to be in any extraordinary amount of fear, they got scared and slaughtered an innocent man, who took no hostile action, out of that panic and fear.

All my limited exprecience under fire come from couple of days in a two week period, but even that is enough to know that you don't just randomly shoot unarmed people that scare you.

Dialo was confronted by members of the Street Crimes Unit. He fit the description of the suspect wanted for a crime which I can't remember now. The police officers identified themselves and Dialo ran up the stairs of the building's stoop. He went into a pocket and brought out what was later determined to be his wallet. One of the police officers thought it was a weapon and yelled "gun" and opened fire.

We seem to be describing two different events. One happened and the other fits a narrative.

EDIT: Sorry Stalwart, didn't see that you had already posted the facts.