Thread: NY Police kill unarmed man on wedding day

Last Updated: Sunday, 26 November 2006, 10:58 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
NY police kill man on wedding day
New York police officers at the crime scene
No gun was found in the car which was hit by 21 bullets
An unarmed man has been shot dead by police in New York City hours before he was to have been married, prompting fury over the officers' actions.

Two of the man's friends were hurt in the shooting, which occurred outside a strip club where they had been celebrating before the wedding.

Police fired 50 bullets at a car carrying the men after it reportedly struck an unmarked police vehicle.

New York's mayor says police had acted fearing an armed "altercation".

"Officers on the scene had reason to believe that an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen and were trying to stop it," Michael Bloomberg said.

The club was under surveillance because of its long history of weapons complaints, drug-dealing and prostitution, New York's Police Chief Raymond Kelly said.

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton has demanded the police explain its actions.

"Gunshots all over the place. This is outrageous at best," he said.

He also criticised the police for handcuffing the two men receiving emergency care for their injuries in hospital.

Denise Ford, the mother of one of the men hurt in the shooting, is quoted as saying her son was shot in the hand, right leg and buttocks.

"I think this is messed-up on the cops' behalf," Ms Ford told New York newspaper Newsday.

"They're too hotheaded and something needs to be done about it."

Police suspicions

A total of 21 bullets hit the car the men were in as they left the strip club, police said.

The driver, Sean Bell, was to be married later on Saturday. He was pronounced dead on arrival at hospital.

Al Sharpton, flanked by relatives of the injured men
Al Sharpton said the police must explain its actions

One of his passengers, Joseph Guzman was hit by at least 11 bullets and is in a critical condition in hospital.

The other passenger, Trent Benefield, was hit three times and is in a stable condition.

Police Chief Kelly said the three men were also being watched.

He said an undercover officer at the club had reported that the men were in a group that was involved in a dispute with another person outside the club.

The officer had reportedly called his colleagues saying he feared a gun would be produced.

As the men left the scene, a car they were driving struck an undercover officer on the shin.

It also hit an unmarked police vehicle, which is when five of the seven police officers on the scene opened fire, Mr Kelly said.

No weapons were found on the three men or in their car. An investigation is under way.

In 1999, New York police fired 41 bullets at unarmed Amadou Diallo, killing him. The four officers involved were acquitted of all charges.

Weird, not sure if it deserved 50 shots due to thinking their "might" be a gun, but the guy did nick one of the cops and his car pulling out. Sounds like a DUI

Not as bad as the Diallo incident mentioned at the end, but still overkill

Originally Posted by goandykid

Weird, not sure if it deserved 50 shots due to thinking their "might" be a gun, but the guy did nick one of the cops and his car pulling out. Sounds like a DUI

Not as bad as the Diallo incident mentioned at the end, but still overkill

Yeah, it seems like a lot is missing in that article. Did they stop the car? Or just shoot at it as it was driving off? How did they hit the officer? Was he trying to stop them, already stopped them? Did they try to run after they hit the officer due to them being drunk?

I'm usually on the cops side on issues like this when a 'criminal' is putting lives in danger, but I have to say, I don't know what to think of this. It sounds like the cops were definitely trigger happy. Hell after two shots fired, they should have stopped and see if there were return fire, at the very least.

Yeah 50 is a little ridiculous. It says there his friend alone was hit 11 times.

"As the men left the scene, a car they were driving struck an undercover officer on the shin."

Sounds like they were just pulling out and nicked him, if they ahd hit him directly facing the shin they wouldve been in position to run him over. Sounds like drunk driving, nothing that takes 50 shots.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...shooting_x.htm

NEW YORK (AP) — A crowd angrily called on police Sunday to explain why authorities fatally shot a 23-year-old man on the day of his wedding, and some called for the ouster of the city's police commissioner.

At a vigil and rally, family members and friends chanted and prayed. Community leaders said they wanted to know why officers fired as many as 50 rounds at an unarmed group Saturday as they left Sean Bell's bachelor party in a car.

"We cannot allow this to continue to happen," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has been speaking for Bell's family since the shooting. "We've got to understand that all of us were in that car."

The civil rights advocate led the crowd in chants of "No justice, no peace." At times some in the crowd yelled that Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly should be ousted. "Kelly must go!" people shouted.

VIDEO: Family members outraged

The shootings occurred outside the Kalua Cabaret, a strip club where the bachelor party was held. The surviving victims were Joseph Guzman, 31, who was shot at least 11 times, and Trent Benefield, 23, who was hit three times. Both men are at Mary Immaculate Hospital, where Guzman was in critical condition and Benefield was stable.

Relatives of all three men — many of them stoic, and some crying — attended Sunday's vigil but none spoke publicly.

During a press conference Saturday, Kelly said the department was still piecing together what happened, and that it was too early to say whether the shooting was justified.

The officers' shots struck the men's car 21 times after the vehicle rammed into an undercover officer and hit an unmarked NYPD minivan. The wild gunfire hit nearby homes and shattered windows at a train station, though no residents were injured.

Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun. But investigators found no weapons. It was unclear what prompted police to open fire, Kelly said.

Kelly said the incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club in the Jamaica section of Queens. Seven officers in plain clothes were investigating the Kalua Cabaret; five of them were involved in the shooting.

According to Kelly, the groom was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club after 4 a.m. and one of his friends made a reference to a gun.

An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward — striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said.

The officer who had followed the group on foot was apparently the first to open fire, Kelly said. That officer had served on the force for five years. One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said.

At some point, Bell, who was driving, backed his car up onto the sidewalk, hitting a building gate, authorities said. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said.

On Sunday, the group 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care said it is issuing a vote of no confidence in Kelly over the shooting.

A police spokeswoman on Sunday did not immediately comment on the group's demands.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Posted 11/25/2006 10:27 AM ET

I wonder if he "backed up and hit the vehicle a second time" after the shooting started in an attempt to get to safety. The vehicle he hit and the cop were unmarked so he probably thought it was some thugs shooting at him. It also says the cop in plain clothes walked towards the front of his car as he was pulling out. Sounds like a dumb cop.

Originally Posted by goandykid

Kelly said the incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club in the Jamaica section of Queens. Seven officers in plain clothes were investigating the Kalua Cabaret; five of them were involved in the shooting.

According to Kelly, the groom was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club after 4 a.m. and one of his friends made a reference to a gun.

An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward — striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said.

There ya go. Club was under surveillance, someone mentions a gun and then a cop gets hit by their car. I say nice shot!

I do love to hear Sharpton's comments.

Originally Posted by the nut

There ya go. Club was under surveillance, someone mentions a gun and then a cop gets hit by their car. I say nice shot!

I do love to hear Sharpton's comments.

A guy was shot and killed on his wedding day for what sounds only to be a DUI, how the hell is that funny?

I hate Sharpton also, but his involvement shouldn't make this case any less serious. There are missing parts of the story which might prove those cops are completely innocent or it might prove them to be at fault.

It doesn't make sense. Who the fuck unloads that much lead into a car simply because they were told someone might have a gun? How the fuck was the cop hit in the sheen? How fast were was the car going when it struck him?

Originally Posted by the nut

There ya go. Club was under surveillance, someone mentions a gun and then a cop gets hit by their car. I say nice shot!

I do love to hear Sharpton's comments.

you sir, are retarded and should be sentenced to a vasectomy.

KelJu, as usual i find myself agreeing with you to a T. you seem to verbalize, or rather, write what i think but cannot put down on paper/computer screen.

Originally Posted by KelJu

A guy was shot and killed on his wedding day for what sounds only to be a DUI, how the hell is that funny?

I hate Sharpton also, but his involvement shouldn't make this case any less serious. There are missing parts of the story which might prove those cops are completely innocent or it might prove them to be at fault.

It doesn't make sense. Who the fuck unloads that much lead into a car simply because they were told someone might have a gun? How the fuck was the cop hit in the sheen? How fast were was the car going when it struck him?

Exactly. The picture I got was that he was leaving the scene drunk and struck an officer in the shin while pulling out. The officer was walking towards him, and it makes no mention of him falling or being run over. All news articles would mention that as to relieve suspicion. It seems as though he was struck in the shin and the car stopped or turned, and they started shooting. My guess is he hit the cop car after he heard shots. We need to remember that there were 7(?) UNDERCOVER police officers and he hit an UNDERCOVER officer/UNDERCOVER car. He was obviously in the hood if the strip club in Queens was suspected of prostitution and gang activity, he must've thought these were gangbangers shooting at him or something.

This is not nice at least it was less painful than marriage, I am joking.

Why would someone shoot so many times?

Originally Posted by goandykid

Exactly. The picture I got was that he was leaving the scene drunk and struck an officer in the shin while pulling out. The officer was walking towards him, and it makes no mention of him falling or being run over. All news articles would mention that as to relieve suspicion. It seems as though he was struck in the shin and the car stopped or turned, and they started shooting. My guess is he hit the cop car after he heard shots.We need to remember that there were 7(?) UNDERCOVER police officers and he hit an UNDERCOVER officer/UNDERCOVER car.

And there is your problem, along with Sharpton's: You're guessing.

All the facts aren't clear yet, but if he did hit a cop with a car, then I'm not surprised that they shot him. Trying to kill someone with a car ranks right up there with using a gun. He may simply have been drunk, but to the cops it looked like attempted vehicular homicide.

Originally Posted by goandykid

He was obviously in the hood if the strip club in Queens was suspected of prostitution and gang activity, he must've thought these were gangbangers shooting at him or something.

You obviously don't know how the police work. They identify themselves every time. And they do it multiple times.

Without hearing the full story here, it's hard to make an informed opinion. It certainly doesn't look good for the cops based on what's been reported to this point.

Don't know what happened, but

1)They said they had a gun
2)They ran from the po-po
3)They were in a suspicious place anyway.

I don't believe the cops needed to fire so much, or needed to try and go for the kill. I think this is a severe overreaction by the cops, but still believe what the guys did was wrong.

Originally Posted by KelJu

.

Who the fuck unloads that much lead into a car simply because they were told someone might have a gun? How the fuck was the cop hit in the sheen? How fast were was the car going when it struck him?

If they tried to run over the officer, it is force with a deadly weapon and the officer is justified using however much resistant force to stop it. It that means it takes 50 shots, so be it. He also sideswiped an undercover car. I personally know a police chief in another small town that responded to a domoestic and another officer had been shot and killed previously responding and when he drove up and was hit in the shoulder by a rifle and he unloaded every clip he had into the door/window where the shot came from. I think it was 46 rounds(three 15 rd clips and 1 in the chamber) Luckily one or two shots injured the guy and it stopped him from shooting the chief again. If not, I'm sure he would have kept firing at the chief. You do what you have to, to stop the threat.
Unfortunately, we don't know enough about this to make any kind of determinations, but I'm sure many will fry every officer involved because of ignorance.

If you're telling me there's no foul play here you have to be kidding. I understand what you wrote DG (BTW, happy 50th ), but the it sounds like the officer walked into a drunk driver pulling out, not going fast, not enough to "run him down" or seriously injure him. I feel like the shooting wouldve stARTed ASAP after the officer made contact w/ the vehicle, and the fender bender was caused by him fleeing the shooting. Theres no way for him to know these were cops shooting at him or were cops around him. If people dressed in plain clothes started unloading at me I'd try and bolt too.


Dale - And jsut because they assumed he had a gun doesn't mean he did, as we all know now.

Originally Posted by goandykid

If you're telling me there's no foul play here you have to be kidding. I understand what you wrote DG (BTW, happy 50th ), but the it sounds like the officer walked into a drunk driver pulling out, not going fast, not enough to "run him down" or seriously injure him. I feel like the shooting wouldve stARTed ASAP after the officer made contact w/ the vehicle, and the fender bender was caused by him fleeing the shooting. Theres no way for him to know these were cops shooting at him or were cops around him. If people dressed in plain clothes started unloading at me I'd try and bolt too.

con·jec·ture (kn-jkchr)n.

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.

v. con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing, con·jec·tures
v.tr. To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.


You're getting pretty worked up over something that you simply lack all the facts of. You're assuming.

Why are people so quick to jump the cops when these type of stories come out? How about a little support for the guys that risk their lives for us on a dailly basis? We don't know shit from the articles posted so far, only that a guy was killed in an officer involved shooting. DO you really believe that some undercover cop walking out of a club behind a person of interest decided that ... because the guy might have a gun ... it was time to kill him? Lol not a chance. There were words and actions taken that aren't in the news yet. Look at it this way ... the police were survailing this guy in a club known as a thug joint. After an altercation became public, a gun was mentioned, and the guys were leaving the club the po-po came up on the guy and shot his ass. Just decided that he was someone who needed shot and tossed a few clips his way for sport. What the hell we got time, he is black and we haven't been in the news enough for racial hatred lately, and we are all bored. Fuck it lets shoot his ass.

Nah ... the guy was up to something that got him killed. We need to give the right people a little support here before the public caining starts. If this is a bogus killing of an unarmed man then the cops involved need to be hung out to dry. All I'm saying is that we need to hear it all before we fry the poor bastards AND we need to make a habit of it instead of right away hanging the cop that had to take a life to keep us safe.

I'll go out on a limb here and "conjecture" the other side of the story.

This idiot was a bad guy. A gang banger. A sordid soul with no respect for authority or life outside his own pathetic existence.

It's a shame the police wern't armed with belt-fed weapons.

Originally Posted by goandykid

If you're telling me there's no foul play here you have to be kidding. I understand what you wrote DG (BTW, happy 50th ), but the it sounds like the officer walked into a drunk driver pulling out, not going fast, not enough to "run him down" or seriously injure him. I feel like the shooting wouldve stARTed ASAP after the officer made contact w/ the vehicle, and the fender bender was caused by him fleeing the shooting. Theres no way for him to know these were cops shooting at him or were cops around him. If people dressed in plain clothes started unloading at me I'd try and bolt too.


Dale - And jsut because they assumed he had a gun doesn't mean he did, as we all know now.

goandykid, you are jumping the gun here. You can't possibly have enough information yet to know whether this was justified or not.

Let me lay this out for you guys:

Surveillence - Expecting or watching for criminal activity that night.

Dsipute with mention of firearm - red flag goes up.

Men who claimed to have gun are heading to vehicle - 2nd red flag

Officer approaches vehicle - car "srtikes" officer - officer open fire - brother officer see this occur and vehicle still moving, they open fire. You tend to get a little nervous when you see your brother officer's life in danger, and you are gonna fire until the vehicle stops. The fact that the driver is the only one dead tells me that all the cops were firing on the drivers seat to stop the vehicle.

Lesson to be learned:

Try not to threaten people with guns and try not to strike a police officer or civilian with your vehicle right after you do that.

I was laughing because Sharpton waste no time in these instances, getting his rallies going and protests. He dosen't care wether it was justified or not.

I'm gonna go with my brother officers on this one, until something else comes out that even looks suspicious.

Originally Posted by goandykid

Dale - And jsut because they assumed he had a gun doesn't mean he did, as we all know now.

Andy, they didn't assume... they reacted to the threat.

Married or dead; either way his life is over. So, what's all the fuss about?

Originally Posted by dg806

If they tried to run over the officer, it is force with a deadly weapon and the officer is justified using however much resistant force to stop it. It that means it takes 50 shots, so be it. He also sideswiped an undercover car. I personally know a police chief in another small town that responded to a domoestic and another officer had been shot and killed previously responding and when he drove up and was hit in the shoulder by a rifle and he unloaded every clip he had into the door/window where the shot came from. I think it was 46 rounds(three 15 rd clips and 1 in the chamber) Luckily one or two shots injured the guy and it stopped him from shooting the chief again. If not, I'm sure he would have kept firing at the chief. You do what you have to, to stop the threat.
Unfortunately, we don't know enough about this to make any kind of determinations, but I'm sure many will fry every officer involved because of ignorance.

Like I said before, there are missing parts to the story that make assigning blame impossible at this point. Bringing up some story about some guy unloading 3 clips worth of ammo at a perpetrator and saving the day does not automatically make what these cops did ok. There will be an investigation, and hopefully new information will help determine what actually happened.

Originally Posted by DOMS

And there is your problem, along with Sharpton's: You're guessing.

All the facts aren't clear yet, but if he did hit a cop with a car, then I'm not surprised that they shot him. Trying to kill someone with a car ranks right up there with using a gun. He may simply have been drunk, but to the cops it looked like attempted vehicular homicide.

You’re doing the exact same thing just in the other direction. The facts aren't out yet and you have already made the guy out to be an attempted murderer. When the smoke clears you may be right, but lets get the rest of the story first.

Originally Posted by DOMS

You obviously don't know how the police work. They identify themselves every time. And they do it multiple times.

Bahahaha, that is bullshit. I have watched undercover officers jump people without identifying themselves every year at mardi gras. Usually the undercover cops would subdue the perpetrator, then identify themselves, and read them their rights once they were handcuffed on the ground.

The cops are supposed to identify themselves, that doesn't mean they do.

Originally Posted by goandykid

"Officers on the scene had reason to believe that an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen and were trying to stop it," Michael Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg is a fucking whacko. He is one of the nation's leaders in gun control efforts. Apparently Bloomberg thinks people should not be able to defend themselves, instead they must depend on the police. When the police arrive on the scene, they can open fire on anyone they please, regardless of whether they have seen a gun or not.

Originally Posted by clemson357

Bloomberg is a fucking whacko. He is one of the nation's leaders in gun control efforts.

He's a whacko all because he is against guns?
Now if he said that in drag I would have to agree with you but....

Apparently Bloomberg thinks people should not be able to defend themselves, instead they must depend on the police. When the police arrive on the scene, they can open fire on anyone they please, regardless of whether they have seen a gun or not

.

I am sorry, that seems to be over my head.
Are you implying the gunfight would have been fair if the people who were shot had guns? WTF??

Originally Posted by min0 lee

I am sorry, that seems to be over my head.
Are you implying the gunfight would have been fair if the people who were shot had guns? WTF??

That is a funny way of interrupting that, but I don’t think that is what he means.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Like I said before, there are missing parts to the story that make assigning blame impossible at this point. Bringing up some story about some guy unloading 3 clips worth of ammo at a perpetrator and saving the day does not automatically make what these cops did ok. There will be an investigation, and hopefully new information will help determine what actually happened.

I agree there are missing parts. We may never know them. So why are you still condeming the police if we don't know what they done is justified or not???