Police Officers Acquitted

MMDad

Lem Putt
That was the testimony...doesn't make it the truth...:shrug:

This case screams of immature officers (at least the one who fired the most shots) and corruption in them getting off....at least that is my opinion.

:rolleyes: Are you saying these cops said "hey, let's go bust 50 caps into some guys just for the fun of it!"

Tell me, oh wise one, why would they shoot if they didn't think there was a gun?
 

AndyMarquisLIVE

New Member
That was the testimony...doesn't make it the truth...:shrug:

This case screams of immature officers (at least the one who fired the most shots) and corruption in them getting off....at least that is my opinion.
"Innocent until proven guilty."

Unfortanently, the only person who could prove they knew it wasn't a gun is :dead:.

I'm sure as hell am glad I'm not in New York tonight. (see avatar)
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
"Innocent until proven guilty."

Unfortanently, the only person who could prove they knew it wasn't a gun is :dead:.

I'm sure as hell am glad I'm not in New York tonight. (see avatar)

:doh: :smack:

THE ONE THEY THOUGHT HAD A GUN LIVED!!!!!

When are you going to get tired of spewing crap without actually reading something first????

And stop pointing out your avatar. Nobody cares about it.
 

theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

Well-Known Member
:rolleyes: Are you saying these cops said "hey, let's go bust 50 caps into some guys just for the fun of it!"

Tell me, oh wise one, why would they shoot if they didn't think there was a gun?

The sad thing is I think you're serious.

Let me paint a picture for you.

Officer, who ADMITTED he was nervous about the whole situation...goes up undercover to investigate alleged prostitution.

He gets antsy when he runs into some guys who are obviously intoxicated (they were at a bachelor party..) and calls for backup. He follows the guys who still don't know he is a cop. They get worried because they are wasted and being followed by some strange guy. Victims jump into their vehicle and try driving away when the backup shows up and trys to block off the vehicle. Lord knows if there was even ANYTHING that the one victim reached for, testimony just said he reached his hand down or something...Antsy/nervous/shouldn't have a gun in the first place officer calls out "GUN" because he is scared ####-less. He fires multiple shots, deflected bullets fly around thus the other officers think they are being shot at. All officers, but mostly the inexperienced one, shoot at the victim's vehicle. Smoke clears, turns out "hey, there was no gun".


Give me a better story.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt

You could actually read what really happen instead of making it up to start with.

The cop who you say was "immature" and fired the most shots was NOT the one that yelled "gun." The one you say was "inexperienced" was not the one who fired the most shots.

It's amazing to see you, of all people, call someone immature. You can't even bother reading the facts of the case before you decide that the cops are guilty and the judge is corrupt.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
Antsy/nervous/shouldn't have a gun in the first place officer calls out "GUN" because he is scared ####-less.

So, you say he thought the guy had a gun because he was scared. Tell me, oh wise one, why would he be scared if he didn't think they had a gun?
 

theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

Well-Known Member
You could actually read what really happen instead of making it up to start with.

The cop who you say was "immature" and fired the most shots was NOT the one that yelled "gun." The one you say was "inexperienced" was not the one who fired the most shots.

It's amazing to see you, of all people, call someone immature. You can't even bother reading the facts of the case before you decide that the cops are guilty and the judge is corrupt.

My facts are apparently different from yours :shrug:

I'm not rereading, it isn't that important to me.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
My facts are apparently different from yours :shrug:

I'm not rereading, it isn't that important to me.

:rolleyes: Your "facts" are different because you made them up.

It's not important to you to read the story before you proclaim a judge corrupt? Does the truth mean absolutely nothing to you?
 

MMDad

Lem Putt

Let's go back to your stupid statements now.

Care to explain how "warning shots" are a good idea?

Care to explain how you think four officers fired 50 shots from "2 or 3 clips?"

Care to explain how the guy they thought had a gun was able to testify if he was dead?
 

theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

Well-Known Member
:thewave: I win!!!!!

You should be proud of yourself. There are not many people dumb enough for me to end a debate with them without getting my point across. You are up there with the religious nuts that think Noah shoved millions of creatures onto a boat and they somehow didn't kill eachother and somehow had enough food for 40 days...ect ect ect. :roflmao:
 

Lexib_

Blah.. Blah...Blah
The sad thing is I think you're serious.

Let me paint a picture for you.

Officer, who ADMITTED he was nervous about the whole situation...goes up undercover to investigate alleged prostitution.

He gets antsy when he runs into some guys who are obviously intoxicated (they were at a bachelor party..) and calls for backup. He follows the guys who still don't know he is a cop. They get worried because they are wasted and being followed by some strange guy. Victims jump into their vehicle and try driving away when the backup shows up and trys to block off the vehicle. Lord knows if there was even ANYTHING that the one victim reached for, testimony just said he reached his hand down or something...Antsy/nervous/shouldn't have a gun in the first place officer calls out "GUN" because he is scared ####-less. He fires multiple shots, deflected bullets fly around thus the other officers think they are being shot at. All officers, but mostly the inexperienced one, shoot at the victim's vehicle. Smoke clears, turns out "hey, there was no gun".


Give me a better story.


That may be your spin but this is my understanding of what happened


Undercover detectives were inside the club, and plain-clothes officers were stationed outside.

"Witnesses said that about 4 a.m., closing time, as Bell and his friends left the club, an argument broke out. Believing that one of Bell's friends, Joseph Guzman, was going to get a gun from Bell's car, one of the undercover detectives followed the men and called for backup."
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
without getting my point across.



If your point was that you don't know the facts but are spewing aynway, you did very well at getting your point across.

If there was another point, don't blame me if you can't get your point across.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
I don't.

It's obviously a better idea to just shoot the person dead. :rolleyes:

Come on, Andy. You are the one who said they should have fired warning shots. Why?

Since you don't know the answer, I'll spell it out for you:

You only shoot when deadly force is justified. If you don't think deadly force is justified, you do not shoot. If you do think deadly force is justified, you shoot for center of mass. Why waste time firing a warning shot and letting the bad guy get a shot off at you?

Next, what should he have fired the warning shot at? One of the surrounding buildings where he could hit an innocent? Up in the air where it could come down on an innocent? At the pavement where the ricochet could hit an innocent or one of the other officers?

Tell me, Andy. You said they should have fired a warning shot. Please explain.
 
Top