Friday, March 16, 2007

Um, Uh-Oh...

So, a grand jury has ruled that three NYPD cops will be charged with killing an unarmed black groom in a hail of gunfire just before his wedding day.

Sharpton's already holding a press conference claiming a measure of victory in the case and some are publicly celebrating.

Half the NYPD is Irish.

Tomorrow's St. Patrick's Day -- and there are now a-million-some-odd drunk, belligerent Irishmen roaming the streets of New York.

I kid you not, I already hear sirens outside my window.


officer barbrady said...

Is that a new Dodge Charger NYPD is flashing around??? Kinda like the one seen in the local St. Pattys Day parade owned by the University Police (AKA rent a cops). I mean is that a "necessary" expense because of the "threat" of another "lite brite" bomb?
if you'll excuse me i hear a Guiness calling my name.

Chez said...

Keep in mind -- the NYPD is already a little edgy because two of its unarmed aux cops were gunned down in very fucking cold blood two nights ago in the Village.

It's gonna be an interesting weekend.

choenbone said...

sounds like a good reason to stay in this weekend, well that and the 14"s of expected snow. -cheers

Confucious said...

Is that a new Dodge Charger NYPD is flashing around???

Just a replacement for tiiiiiiiny penis.

Harris said...

“The message that’s being sent now is that even though you’re acting in good faith, in pursuit of your lawful duties, there is no room, no margin for error."
Michael J. Palladino, the president of the Detectives Endowment Association in the New York Times responding to the indictment.

Well. Mike, there should be no margin of error. Cops get to walk the streets armed with deadly weapons and, with very few exceptions, can kill with impunity. With a right to kill based solely on an officer's fear that his life may be in danger, a fear that may have absolutely nothing at all supporting it, cops don't get to make a mistakes. Because when they do and they start blasting away, innocent people die.

Chez said...


The problem is that right off the bat you're drawing a line in the sand between "them" (the police) and "us" (everyone else). They GET TO carry weapons... (like they won some kind of lottery or something)... They kill with impunity... (nonsense by the way)... etc. As if there's never a point where the cops -- who are paid a generally pathetic salary to ostensibly use that weapon and limited authorization to protect your ass -- and your own goals actually meet.

You're right to say that there should be no room for error, because when accidents do happen, people can typically wind up dead. You'd like to think that training and experience can deter all such tragedies, but unfortunately they can't. I wasn't there the night Sean Bell was killed so I don't know what happened -- I haven't seen all the evidence. I do know however that although not holding the police responsible for grievous lapses in judgment -- particularly when deadly force is involved -- isn't wise, neither is setting an example which might lead to a chilling effect the next time a cop is forced to make a life-or-death decision.

In no way do I want to live in a city full of cops who believe that they stand not for the law but above it; but neither do I want to live in a city where a cop might think twice in a situation where such hesitation can result in his, her, or a completely innocent person's death -- especially when the genesis of that second thought is the ease with which he or she can be sacrificed upon the altar of election-year prudence or the public outcry from activists whose innate distrust of the police has become -- above-all -- a source of political clout within the community and an easy way to get face-time on television.

Did the police who killed Sean Bell kill an unarmed man (unless of course you count the 2000 lb. car that police may have believed was going to run them down)? Yes. Did they over-react? Sure as hell looks that way. Should they be held accountable if that's the case? Of course.

Am I willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and wait to see and hear the evidence before I immediately assume that they're a bunch of trigger-happy hot-heads?

Yeah, as a matter of fact I am.

Harris said...

You're playing games with semantics. Is there a substantial difference between "get to" carry guns versus "allowed to" carry guns? I think not. Is "kill with impuntiy" an exaggeration? Maybe. How about, "Kill with few consequences""? In any event, you recognize an "us versus them" dynamic with your post making note that half the NYPD would be stumbling around the city drunk and pissed-off on Saturday.

So, while I'm just as willing as you to wait to see if this is a bad as it looks, and it looks real damn bad, I'm just not as convinced that justice will be done. I don't much care for Al Sharpton -- though I interviewed him once and in person his hair is downright resplendent -- that doesn't mean he doesn't have a point when complains that the NYPD has an unfortunate tendency to expend a whole lot of bullets in the direction of young black men.

And, not to make this racial or nuthin', but they're not shooting at guys who look like you; they're shooting at guys who look like me. So, yeah, I'm a little more willing to listen to Al on these kinds of things.

I want aggressive, well-trained cops. The thugs are shooting at guys who look like me too.That said, I also want the thugs-in-blue -- who are the exception and not the rule -- to know they'll do time when they start blasting away. And, really, what are the odds of that?

Chez said...

For the record, I wasn't intimating that the cops would be drunk, rather that their Irish brethren would be (which of course they were -- in droves).

Regardless, your point is well-articulated and very well-taken.

"Resplendent" -- damn that's funny.

Robo said...

"And, not to make this racial or nuthin', but they're not shooting at guys who look like you; they're shooting at guys who look like me"

One of the "They" was also a black man. Doesn't this shift the conversation a little? Don't get me wrong I think the higher profile cases in the past with the NYPD wildly shooting black men was racially motivated but how does Sharpton's motives hold up when a black man is at the defendant's table? I feel like he's just looking for face time as usual.