I understand that cops are always supposed to identify themselves. That does not necessarily mean that they always do. But I do know that when providing a formal statement of such events, if they did verbally identify themselves they are obligated to include that detail.

The fact that it does not seem to appear in any of the statements provided may indicate that this did not happen. But even if he failed to do so it does not make Isnora a bad cop. It just makes him human. Humans make mistakes. Especially in highly charged situations.

Please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to attack the officers, nor am I saying that the suspects were without blame for what happened to them.

I am simply trying to point out that both sides may have made mistakes, and that instead of siding with one side or another, people need to evaluate the actions of each side for what they were, rather than either jumping on the “Cops are racist” or the “LEOs can do no wrong” bandwagons. Both are flawed points of view.

My belief is that Isnora made a mistake. He did not follow procedure. And those procedures are there for a good reason. Not to validate uncooperative behavior, but rather to make it easier to identify the good from the bad, and to make it easier to justify ones actions when things like this happen.

There is a reason why LEOs do not write the law, and need regulation. Because their view of the world is biased by what they have seen. Majority of the people they encounter are bad seeds. So in general, a LEOs first instinct will be to assume a suspect is malevolent, and this often shows up in the way many cases are handled, regardless of whether the suspect is innocent or not.

The regulation and procedure isn’t intended to hamstring police officers, though it is sometimes an unfortunate side effect, but rather to makes sure that good people do not suffer because there are so many bad people…

That is why it is so important that police officers follow procedure. I can understand that this may not sway your opinion about the whole thing, as you are too worried that the hesitation may cost you your life, but think about it.

That hesitation works both ways. It could possibly save your life if there just so happened to be a series of misunderstandings where you ended up being the suspect…

Really? So that “bling” comment I made makes sense to you? Wow. I didn’t know New Yorkers dressed like such assholes?

Unmarked police van or not they tried to run the guy over. I mentioned that cops always identify themselves. I don’t doubt this guy did as well.

I appreciate the effort in your response but I’m no more convinced by it than any other point made. It’s too easy to point and say “bad cop”.

And before you make the obligatory “But they were repeat offenders whose deaths are no great loss” argument, consider that if this was actually a procedural mistake on the part of the officers, this could easily happen to an innocent.

I don’t think it could. If that were true these cases wouldn’t happen almost exclusively to repeat offenders.

There was a cop up here years back who shot a suspect after the guy tried to run over the cop. People called foul cause the guy was black. Problem being the guy was going in reverse and the cop had no way of knowing his race.

Attacking cops for doing their jobs validates uncooperative behavior and places hesitation and doubt in the minds of working cops. Cops who could at some point be in a position to save your life but don’t because they were scared of getting prosecuted for it after if procedure isn’t followed.

So fuck this dead idiot and his retard friends.

Let me try this again.
1. You keep talking like it was a forgone conclusion that Bell and Co. knew they were being accosted by LEOs. But we do not know for sure if this is true. From the suspects accounts, all they saw was some guy pointing a gun. That was whole reason I brought up the verbal identification thing. Its the difference between reacting to a mugger and reacting to a police officer.

2. What, exactly, has poverty and toughness to do with any of this? I was pointing out that a persons responses to given situations will differ depending on what environment you grew up in, and you cannot assume that the response that makes sense to you must make sense to everyone else…

3. Growing up in a violent environment does not teach compliance. Where are you getting that from? I think it breeds a lot of people who react without thinking, (both cops as well as civilians are guilty of this) but compliance wouldn’t be high on the list. I think your point of view is flawed in that regard.

4. The issue here is whether we could have prevented ANYONE from dying, not just the suspect or the cops. Obviously, in this case, none of the officers would have gotten shot because there was no gun. But the LEOs probably didn’t know that, so the relevant question becomes whether the death of the suspect could have been avoided.
And before you make the obligatory “But they were repeat offenders whose deaths are no great loss” argument, consider that if this was actually a procedural mistake on the part of the officers, this could easily happen to an innocent.

5. It was an unmarked vehicle.

Bell pulled away in his car, bumped him and rammed an unmarked police van that converged on the scene.

The least you could do is read the article…

6.

He said he clipped his police badge to his collar, drew his gun and ordered Bell and his friends to halt as they climbed into their car

No verbal police identification is mentioned. The suspects were getting into their car, presumably not even realizing that Isnora is watching them.
How, exactly, are they supposed to see Isnoras badge? And even if they did, out of the corner of their eye, in that location, it would look a lot like the gold chains and whatnot worn on or around the neck area by a lot of new yorkers…

7. Your point about shooting to kill is well taken, except that the decision tree taken to get to that point is a very subjective one. It is just as likely that the officers made a bad shoot and are now covering it up by saying that they “thought” the suspects were armed and they were being fired upon.
That’s not to say the suspects couldn’t also be lying, but we do know they didn’t actually have a gun, so that calls the whole statement about someone talking about getting their gun into question…
And unfortunately, even if the LEOs were lying, a judge is always going to take their word over that of a convict…

So no, not sheltered. I’m just smarter than you. And the douche who got blown away.

I never understood why people equate poverty with being tough. The only correlation I’ve seen is poverty carries with it stupidity and laziness.

And if this magical asshole had lead some battlefield existence in the big bad ghetto (*cough*snicker) you’d think that would mean he knew even more so to follow cops orders. That only bolsters my point of view.

I guess you guys would all be much happier if it was the cops who had died because they hesitated?

Also it didn’t say in any of the articles that the car was unmarked. It also says the guys shield was produced. What did they think was on the guys shirt? “Bling”?

Also please reread what I wrote regarding the amount of fire. Police shoot to kill. It’s part of the training. You shoot torso till its empty because you have at that point decided deadly force is required and thats the deadliest force you have at your disposal.

@Flyingmantisshrimp

I think we were implying that the guy would have run off on his kid. Sort of a usual cultural thing.

From the other articles you have so kindly provided, it appears that all of the officers were under cover, and the police vehicle was unmarked.

I can see deciding to open fire after almost being run over, but nowhere in any of the articles you’ve shown, does it say that Isnoras actually identified himself.

I really don’t understand why people assume that what would normally be a sensible course of actions in the Care Bears neighborhood makes the same sense everywhere else.

I mean honestly, In NYC officers are trained to employ what effectively amounts to continuous suppressive fire against any supposedly armed suspect.

That is a battlefield tactic, not a civilian one. Seriously why do you think that is…? And having never lived in such an environment, how can you say you would be so quick to do what anyone pointing a gun at you said?

About the magazine thing: all I’m saying is that firing that many rounds indicates some piss poor training and/or self restraint on the part of the cops, or more specifically, that one guy who fired two mags. I can’t agree more that cops have every right in the world to defend themselves.

I totally disagree with mastershake4071.

Unless you are a police investigator you aren’t an expert on this.

Yes he emptied another clip. Why? Is he a lunatic? Probably not. lol

He would have shot a full clip into one suspect and seen fit to fire at another…with another clip. So why in the fuck would someone who’s friend or friends just got mowed down do anything but drop like a rock and cover his head?

www.smh.com.au/news/world/call-to-close-down-nyc/2008/04/27/1208743317058.html

“He opened fire after being grazed by Bell’s car as the victim tried to drive away.”

So they tried to run him over as well?

www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7487020

Fuck that. If someone yell hey stop and you have no reason not to then you stop. They tried to run him over and rammed his police car. The lesson is listen to the cops. They have a hard ass job and are on edge as a result. It’s not a two way street. If you argue they have a right to trat you as hostile. If you try to run them over they have a right to defend themselves. Running someone over is deadly force.

The driver of the car caused his own friend’s death.

Its no loss anyway. They were all repeat offenders and retards.

a wise decision my friend.

I just don’t see anything that justified that one cop’s action of firing two mags. Putting that many rounds on one target is inexcusable and stupid. Had it been a truly hostile situation involving suspects with actual guns, where would that leave him after he spends half or more of his ammunition at the very beginning of the fight? Again, stupid and inexcusable.

On the other hand, if somebody has really been scared to a certain point, there’s no telling what they’ll do.

I’d assume it might have been somewhat of a “bad” neighborhood, as how most strip clubs aren’t exactly in family-friendly areas. That alone would put cops on edge.

In any case, it’s a tragic situation that could have easily been avoided. Now a kid has to grow up without a father because people made some poor decisions.