Cops kill yet another black guy for probably no reason

[BobTheDonkey]

That it happened in the fire lane.

EDIT: For one, the number of officers struck for another.

Well, technically, her version doesn't dispute the Officers versions. If she was exiting the bar/club, she perhaps only saw the end of the entire incident.

Regardless of how much of it she saw, or whether she saw the other Officers involved being hit (note that multiple Officers were treated for injuries) - she still witnessed an Officer trying to stop the car, being hit by said car, and the car continuing to drive.

What do you know, it wasn't just a racially profiled shooting of a "good kid"...starting to look like the incident went down like the local media initially reported...

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well, the last is just idiotic; a case of following the letter of the law while ignoring the intent. How much car is enough? If there's no engine, can I sit in there drunk? How about just a van seat on my lawn, does that count?

Not to get too sidetracked on this point, but it's a lot more complex than you may realize. In some states the law required the person to actually drive the vehicle. If you were passed out drunk in the driver's seat with your car on the shoulder of the highway, you could escape conviction if the officer didn't actually see you drive the vehicle. Cops would yell at the driver, "Get outta here!" When the driver started the car to leave, the cops would arrest him. Hardly a good situation.

In the case in question apparently the guy was in an improperly parked car in an apartment parking lot. The car wouldn't start when the cops tried to start it. For all we know the battery could have died after he parked it. Or maybe the guy didn't know it wouldn't run, so he tried to operate the vehicle. I couldn't find more specific info.

Some laws require actual physical control of the vehicle, and that can include just steering it while somebody is pushing it. What if the car is stuck in the mud in a ditch? It's inoperable at that point, right? But if the driver has actual physical control trying to get the car out (flooring it and going nowhere).

DUI being a matter of state law, other courts have ruled that if the driver did not operate the vehicle before it was disabled and the vehicle's mechanical problems were such that it couldn't be operated under any reasonable circumstances, that's a valid defense. There was a case where a guy was passed out drunk in the passenger seat and leaning into the driver's seat. The car was out of gas, and the man's son had left with the keys to go get gas. That person's conviction was overturned.

It all depends how the law was written and the totality of the circumstances. Neither of your absurd circumstances would result in a DUI.

 

[sgtbaker]

I don't know when all those cops arrived or how far away the commotion was to the car. Surely more came once shots were fired.

Exactly, which is why I recommend reserving judgement.

Right, only those of us in the thread who view the likely story here was overreacting cops are drawing conclusions. Those in the thread who view the likely story as well disciplined, following protocol cops, killing a kid in self defense are not drawing any premature conclusions.

I am saying the general tone is reserve judgement, that is the exact opposite of premature conclusions.

 

[WildCat]

Sometimes "designated driver" just means he's not as drunk as his friends are.

 

[dtugg]

Sometimes "designated driver" just means he's not as drunk as his friends are.

Definitely.

And a DUI (which could cost him his scholarship) is certainly enough reason to flee the scene. And although he probably didn't mean to hit any cops, **** like that happens when you are drunk. And after he hit the cops, well avoiding DUI + aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (or whatever he would have been charged with) is plenty enough reason to keep on going with the cop on the hood - at least to a drunk person.

I am not saying the above it what happened. But it certainly seems much more likely than cops killing some kid for basically no other reason than he was black.

 

[Wolrab]

Nobody has mentioned the retractable machine guns mounted in the wheel wells and that the driver was in the process of attempting to mow down several officers with the guns. Also ignored is the officers were armed with flame throwers and were looking for babies to burn.

This unfounded speculation thing is easy. How about we wait for something resembling a fact?

 

[Belz...]

3rd year in college, not at the bar, no drugs or alcohol in the car.

"Your honor, as we all know my client is a well-respected member of this community and gives frequently to charity."

 

[Emet]

State police investigator: Pace shooting witnesses are holding back, changing stories

Police say a large number of witnesses to the shooting of Pace University football player Danroy Henry are not sharing their accounts with authorities, with some hiring lawyers and making only public accusations of brutality.

One witness, Desmond Hinds, who was sitting behind Henry in the car police shot at, did speak with investigators but did not tell them anything about being brutalized afterward; he told a lawyer three days later that cops slammed his head into the pavement, causing a concussion.

"I see in the paper there's plenty of witnesses obtaining attorneys," Murphy said. "You don't need to obtain attorneys if you're a witness. We're trying to determine what happened here and we can't do that unless witnesses talk. Just making innuendos in the paper doesn't help anybody."

http://www.lohud.com/article/201010...witnesses are holding back+, changing stories

 

[NYCEMT86]

http://www.lohud.com/article/201010...witnesses are holding back+, changing stories

I think some are seeing the dollar signs that come with cases like this and trying to jump on the bandwagon of eventually suing the town, county, and the officers.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Nobody has mentioned the retractable machine guns mounted in the wheel wells and that the driver was in the process of attempting to mow down several officers with the guns. Also ignored is the officers were armed with flame throwers and were looking for babies to burn.

This unfounded speculation thing is easy. How about we wait for something resembling a fact?

It certainly appears that some posters in this thread are taking positions related to their personal feelings toward Police in general, without regard for what scant evidence there is.

At this point, there is at least a modicum of evidence indicating the initial local media reports have the story right (or very close to it):

1) multiple Officers were treated for injuries
2) At least one witness has acknowledged that the vehicle was heading directly toward an Officer
3) The vehicle hit a police cruiser after being fired upon
4) No one denies the vehicle was illegally parked, or that Officers were clearing a fight (precludes, but directly leads to the incident)

Speculative reports include:

4) The driver had a BAC over the legal limit. Being underage and in college on a football scholarship, if 1 is true, then there is a motive for the driver to panic and attempt to leave the scene (despite the presence of a large number of Officers).



Really, I'm not sure how we get from "Officers lives in danger, so they fire on a vehicle that had already injured at least one other Officer" to "Cops kill yet another black gy for probably no reason" when no one denies the vehicle was heading toward an Officer and multiple Officers were treated for injuries.

Maybe the driver shouldn't have turned a cartwheel before jumping in his car and running multiple Officers down

 

[eeyore1954]

http://www.patriotledger.com/topsto...d-high-hopes-for-Danroy-DJ-Henry-Jr-of-Easton

This story has been pretty big news here in Boston for the last couple of days. In New York, police were responding to a brawl at a pub and ended up shooting and killing college student Danroy "DJ" Henry Jr. According to the police accounts, the kid was terrorizing cops with the car, hitting several officers and then trying to mow down another before the officer was forced to shoot him.

According to the other passengers of the car, a cop knocked on the window of the car, which was illegally parked. The driver interpreted this as an order to move the vehicle. When he started to drive away, an officer jumped in front of the car and then shot into the vehicle several times before the driver even had a chance to stop the car.

There is no indication that Henry was involved in the brawl police were responding to.

Of course the police initially tried to portray this as defending themselves against some cop killing hood rats. However, according to everyone who was familiar with the passengers - teachers, community memebers, coaches, etc, Henry and the passengers were hard working students, upstanding citizens, and had never been in any trouble, not even so much a school suspension. Henry himself has been cited as an exceptional, well behaved, well liked, and highly respected student by faculty who were familiar with him.

Yeah I agree with out any facts it is always best to assume it was the racist cops fault.
You are ridiculous.

I am certain there will be an investigation and it may possible turn out to be the police were wrong but I think logic dictates that any reasonable person can see it was cops killing another black guy for probably no reason.

 

[Mumbles]

That site also posted an article on Sunday 10/17
http://www.lohud.com/article/201010170421

So according to this account the officer who wound up on the hood was not the same one who was struck by the mirror.

That makes a great deal more sense than the version provided in the OP. I'm still iffy on shooting at a car that's coming at you, but at the very least this now sounds like less than pure stupidity on the everyone's part.

 

[Ysidro]

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you didn't read the quote to which I was responding, on the grounds that I'm also assuming you're not an imbecile.

You do that. I however, have no compunction to make such assumptions about anyone else in this thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Your honor, as we all know my client is a well-respected member of this community and gives frequently to charity."

Why are you not considering the many videos and convictions of cops doing bad things?

A lot of people are more than willing to assume the witnesses are all interested in the lawsuit lottery and the kid was a bad kid. Talk about being unskeptical. At least I'm willing to reconsider if it turns out the kid was indeed drunk. Before we had that information, there was evidence of shooting a kid and no evidence except he said she said that the kid was trying to run down any cops. I still think the cops should be responsible not to kill people because the cops got in front of a moving car or in front of a car that was likely to move. It's like saying defy me, go ahead, I can just shoot you. Is the crime of being in a bar brawl or parked in a fire lane, or even being drunk behind the will a capital case? Should cops kill people who make mistakes and the cops own contribution to the hazardous situation not be considered?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Why are you not considering the many videos and convictions of cops doing bad things?

Oh, so you have videos of the Officers involved doing bad things?


The relevance of other Officers doing bad things is the same as the relevance of every other drunk driver.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Why are you not considering the many videos and convictions of cops doing bad things?

Why are you not considering the videos and convictions of 20 year old black males doing bad things? Why are you not considering that people are not likely to come out and say bad things about somebody who just died, especially friends close to the deceased? Why are you not considering all the videos and convictions of criminals by skilled police officers?

All that matters is what actually happened. All this crap about characterizing the slain man and the cops as being either good or bad is just that. It's a complete waste of time.

 

[Belz...]

Why are you not considering the many videos and convictions of cops doing bad things?

Because the mere existence of such behaviour at some place, some time, doesn't tell us what happened in THIS specific instance. It's amazing you don't see that. You seem to think that:

A) Some cops act wrongfully
B) This incident involves cops
C) Therefore the cops acted wrongfully.

I also notice you didn't actually adress the post you were responding to.

A lot of people are more than willing to assume the witnesses are all interested in the lawsuit lottery and the kid was a bad kid.

Is that straw I smell burning ?

All we're saying is: let's wait to have some actual EVIDENCE.

At least I'm willing to reconsider if it turns out the kid was indeed drunk.

And in the meantime you're simply picking the cops as the bad guys because ?

 

[Belz...]

All this crap about characterizing the slain man and the cops as being either good or bad is just that. It's a complete waste of time.

Actually, it's not a waste of time: it's a time-saving process. That's why it took us millenia to devellop a fair justice system: it was much simpler and shorter to just judge the accused and the accuser based on their "character" (read: race or social status) and then deliver swift sentences.

 

[eeyore1954]

Why are you not considering the many videos and convictions of cops doing bad things?

Of course poice have done bad things. That makes the news. Why are you not considering all the times the police have done the right thing? I am sure that far outweighs the bad. But it doesn't make the news.

I am inclined to believe the police first but I also believe there will be an investigation. Sometimes police panic and do the wrong thing (not having anything to do with race) and it has happened that some police are bad people.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I'm saying the cop should not have been in front of the car, and I see no reliable evidence the kid was fleeing the scene and running cops over.

Well then what does it matter whether the cop was in front of the car or not?