Cops kill yet another black guy for probably no reason

[Uncayimmy]

There's not much in the way of first-hand accounts. A senator says the man was a designated driver. The civil rights attorney is talking about things that witnesses allegedly said. What little we have in the way of a first-hand account is one of the passengers saying, ""Whether we were trying to drive away or not, there was no need for any of that to happen." It's an interesting choice of words. There's no denial that they were trying to drive away.

As for Skeptic Ginger's comments about the kid not being a "ghetto black" , it's irrelevant. Smart people with no criminal records do stupid stuff all the time. I don't understand why there's such a rush to decide the "facts" of the case based on the kid's character.

BTW, as evidence of smart people doing stupid things, Michael Sussman, the civil rights lawyer for the family of the victim, graduated first in his class at Harvard Law. Pretty smart, eh? Well, check this:

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070128/NEWS/701280337
In July 2002, Sussman is suspended from practicing law for a year in New York’s state courts because his Goshen law firm has deposited client checks into its operating fund instead of a separate escrow account. Sussman admits the violation, but characterizes it as an innocent misunderstanding of the state’s rules governing client accounts.

For several years I was the lead developer for a company that makes accounting software for mid to large sized law firms, so I have a little background expertise. What he did was an incredibly stupid thing to do or an act of deliberate malfeasance.

If a Harvard lawyer can do that, then a 20 year old man can panic and try to run away from the cops.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I don't see how these cops made calm rational skilled decisions here.

By your own admission there hasn't been a complete investigation yet. And you've already come to a conclusion that someone else is supposed to disprove.

"Skeptic" Ginger, indeed.

Boston Herald
Sports Illustrated
Fox Sports

None of which are sympathy pieces based on the parents' interview.

Well, there's a Fox News story in there so I think, based on forum precedent, we can ignore the entire story as BS. I doubt anyone even got killed!

 

[Uncayimmy]

You mean that, based on this thread, you actually went outside and tested the placement of your hips relative to your cars' outside mirrors? Wow. If this thread was not the impetus, what the hell were you doing?

I was getting out of my car in the driveway when I remembered this thread, so I checked.

What does "well past the windshield" mean? Two inches? Two feet? The top of the windshield or the bottom?

If I stand with my hip against the mirror and bend over at the waist, on my Mercedes station wagon the edge of my shoulder is about 8 inches past where the hood starts (and windshield stops). On my wife's Kia it's about 4 inches. More importantly, when I assume that position, my entire chest is on the windshield.

How can one hip be parallel to the hood of a car? Parallel to the left side? The right side? The front? The bottom?

Are you having difficulty imagining this or are you just yanking my chain? Stand with your crotch pressed up against the left fender. Slide to your right until the right side of your body touches the driver's mirror.

If you're still struggling, look at this guy (hot linked from my own server).

And, finally, what evidence do you have that your cars are similar to the one involved in this thread?

Most cars are similar in design in regards to the placement of the mirror, windshield and hood. Let's remember that my burden is not to explain to what happened. My burden is to show that it's merely plausible. Skeptic Ginger is the one who asserted that the story was "absurd," and thus the cops are lying.

I call bull pockey on this one. Huge bull pockey. Galactic-sized bull pockey.

Maybe my friends and I had a little more testosterone than you and your friends. We did lots of crazy things. Teens today are not much different:

NSFW - Contains foul language

Not only did we try to jump over moving cars like these kids, we used to try to hit each other in parking lots. Apology accepted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's not much in the way of first-hand accounts.

Does this mean you are discounting the 2 guys in the car and all the people who came upon the scene as it was unfolding who gave their accounts, and, the numerous police who all gave their accounts?

As for Skeptic Ginger's comments about the kid not being a "ghetto black" , it's irrelevant. Smart people with no criminal records do stupid stuff all the time. I don't understand why there's such a rush to decide the "facts" of the case based on the kid's character.

Yes, they do. And if we are just citing what some people do, some cops lie. Many have been caught on tape and convicted doing just that.

I cited the kid's background as part of the entire body of evidence as we have it from the news accounts. It is but one piece of evidence suggesting the kid was not likely running cops down with his car simply because a cop rapped on his window with a flashlight.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

By your own admission there hasn't been a complete investigation yet. And you've already come to a conclusion that someone else is supposed to disprove.

"Skeptic" Ginger, indeed...

And the forum members convinced the cops were reasonable and the kid was stupid have not drawn a conclusion?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Does this mean you are discounting the 2 guys in the car and all the people who came upon the scene as it was unfolding who gave their accounts, and, the numerous police who all gave their accounts?

Obviously not, since I quoted a first-hand account. Please quote your first hand accounts.

Yes, they do. And if we are just citing what some people do, some cops lie. Many have been caught on tape and convicted doing just that.

Yep. What is your point? I am not drawing any conclusions about the accuracy of what the police reported. I am not making any judgments at all accept that their story is plausible.

I cited the kid's background as part of the entire body of evidence as we have it from the news accounts. It is but one piece of evidence suggesting the kid was not likely running cops down with his car simply because a cop rapped on his window with a flashlight.

First off, he's not a kid. He's a 20 year old man. Let's use the correct language here.

Second, he didn't have to be trying to run down cops intentionally to actually be running down cops. He could have simply been in a panic or goofing around. He could have been trying to flee the scene and not seen the cops. After all, there were 50 cops on the scene. That means a lot of flashing lights making things hard to see. Ever been pulled over? It's blinding.

Third, there were two other people in the car. Even if the driver was doing nothing wrong, the other two might have been doing something wrong, which is why he tried to flee. For all we know one of his buddies could have had several grams of cocaine in his pocket. These things happen.

You are making a lot of assumptions, the most egregious of which is that the man was intentionally trying to harm the officers. Intention is irrelevant to their reactions. What's relevant is the actions the driver took and the reactions of the officers under the circumstances. That's it. It could all be the result of a misunderstanding mixed in with panic on both sides.

As for evidence rather than speculation, there's no dispute that his car hit a cop car. Therefore, we know the vehicle was moving. A cop was said to be on the hood of the car and shot through the windshield. We know shots were fired through the windshield. Another cop was allegedly hit by the mirror. It is not disputed that some cops were treated for injuries (the family's lawyer said as much), so it's likely that cops were, in fact, struck by the car.

That's all we know. Unfortunately, it's hard to get outraged with so little information, so people are making all sorts of extrapolations. That's decidedly unskeptical.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And the forum members convinced the cops were reasonable and the kid was stupid have not drawn a conclusion?

Who said that the cops acted reasonably? Can you quote someone?

 

[jakesteele]

I wonder how many incidents of "Cop kills yet another white guy" there every year? All you hear about is the plight of the poor black man, but never about the plight of the poor white man.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I wonder how many incidents of "Cop kills yet another white guy" there every year? All you hear about is the plight of the poor black man, but never about the plight of the poor white man.

There are no poor white people, just like there are no white people shot by cops.

Pay attention!

 

[Aepervius]

That's all we know. Unfortunately, it's hard to get outraged with so little information, so people are making all sorts of extrapolations. That's decidedly unskeptical.

Happens all the time here (with, for example, so called economical expert, or israeli-palestinian expert to name a few themes), when it goes a bit toward politic. For one , if the kid had been white , I wonder if it would make so many headline. Just saying.
For second, all we can say is : undetermined. We have no access to the evidence. It is a bit like reading an UFO account. Expect people jump the gun ehre , and would not for the UFO account. But if you examine it critically it is the same lack of evidence on the part of people discussing one version of the fact or another. Bottom line is until an investigation is done, all we can say is "I don't know".

 

[Uncayimmy]

If you are parked, you don't get a DUI.

Yes, you do.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/dui-in-a-parked-car.html
http://www.dui.com/dui-library/connecticut/news/guilty-of-dui-while-in-parked-car
http://www.drunkdrivinglawyers.com/resources/dui-dwi/dui-defendants-rights/dui-parked-car.htm

 

[Belz...]

I fail to see how that scenario is more likely than the one where one or more of the cops overreacted.

But even if true, do you get out of the way, or murder the 'punk' who isn't obeying you?

Your bias is showing again, Ginger. If you think a cop who fires his weapon at the driver of the car who's trying to _run him down_ is a murderer, you're not thinking clearly about the issue.

 

[Belz...]

In my experience, people are more outraged when police kill dogs, than when police kill black men.

Which is a fine opportunity to answer what I said: had the victim/suspect being white, this thread would not exist. So who's the racist, now ?

 

[Belz...]

I really don't know of any cases of police shooting white people.

That's just crazy talk, now.

 

[Belz...]

It's looking worse for the cops. The kid was the designated driver, hadn't been to the bar and was waiting to give a ride home to teammates who were there. So, again, no drugs, no alcohol, no police record, 3 years in college, a close family including a father at home, not ghetto blacks or anything like that...

What does this have to do with whether or not he tried to attack the officers with his vehicle ?

 

[brenn]

The article notes that friends inside the car accused the officer of running in front of the car and firing without warning.

Can you quote that? It's not in the article that I can find, unless you are addressing a different article than the OP linked.

Why would one cop shoot at an oncoming car, while another officer is on the hood of the car and also firing? This would put the officer on the hood in grave danger of being shot. Also, shooting the driver of a car that's heading at you seems like a bad idea, since even if you kill the driver, all you have is an out of control car headed at you.

Those may all be a bad idea...but none of them is relevant to whether the police were justified in shooting.

Look, the simple fact is, there are two main reasons why people are skeptical:

1) The kid doesn't seem like the type that would get into trouble:

2) the Blue Wall of Silence, where cops routinely stick up for one another after doing unconscionable deeds. Radley Balko's article this week discusses this, and what happens to the whistle-blowers.

There may be reasons (although they would have to come from a source other than the OP's article) but you'd be foolish to refer to the posters here as "skeptical."

 

[brenn]

The OP accuses the cops of shooting the kid for no reason. And several others agree.

Wouldn't you consider shooting someone for no reason psycotic behavior?

Besides, it's as if taking "psycho" out of my statement improves other peoples' strawmen any.

Why haven't you been calling out their fallacies?

Would that be, for example, even more psychotic than the nutty posts you and the OP have posted accusing people of doing things made up from thin air, without the slightest support in that article?

 

[brenn]

One can look at the evidence available and still be open to changing one's view if more is revealed.

Is there any evidence the kid had a reason to run? No

Well, A - I wasn't talking about being open to changing a view, I was talking about people who have already posted a view contrary to the evidence.

B - there is evidence he tried to flee - his reason isn't known or even relevant to the events claimed in the article. ("Police said that when they tapped on Henry’s car window, he accelerated").

Does it make any sense at all the kid would take such a drastic action as running down cops who clearly this kid would have known had guns? No

Happens all the time - has even happened to me over traffic offenses. It's always amused to see apparently academic types examine these things from the bias that they believe everyone's thinking is so similar to their own.

You post plenty of questions, but your other posts clearly show you jumped to the conclusion that you have answers...without evidence.

No warrants, no drugs, no cause to run. We don't have a tox screen. I believe the article said he was 21. If you are parked, you don't get a DUI.

Yes, you do, in most (possibly all) states. That went along with the wave of MADD promoted DUI legislation in the late 80's. In this situation, he would have probably been charged with DUI if he was over .08% BAC (about 3-4 drinks in an hour) sitting in his car as described in the article.

And the forum members convinced the cops were reasonable and the kid was stupid have not drawn a conclusion?

The only one you can draw from the article, since all of the fact information provided is that he did accelerate and hit a cop and was headed toward another when shot. That is the evidence we have to go on and, based on that, the police were justified. Just like science, that could change if IN THE FUTURE some evidence is introduced to support your preconceived opinion.

 

[brenn]

Much like the people assuming the cops are lying, you're assuming the kids are lying. We don't know yet.

Oh, at what point do you cling to the hood of a moving car?

I don't see a statement from "the kids," about what happened, in the article.

 

[Belz...]

Would that be, for example, even more psychotic than the nutty posts you and the OP have posted accusing people of doing things made up from thin air, without the slightest support in that article?

I don't think we're clear on the meaning of the word "psychotic".