Police not guilty in groom's death

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Then why did the car hit one of the cops?

Nevermind - I just read that he 'grazed' a cops leg while trying to drive away..

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

Then why did the car hit one of the cops?

Nevermind - I just read that he 'grazed' a cops leg while trying to drive away..

it brushed against his leg, lets not get carried away here...and thats besides the point...51 shots, are you seriously arguing that this is justified? unarmed civilians, gimme a break

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Shooting them probably was. 50+ bullets is the detail everyone's getting all hung up on, though.

It's hard to visualise. It sounds like an incredibly chaotic scene.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

Shooting them probably was. 50+ bullets is the detail everyone's getting all hung up on, though.

It's hard to visualise. It sounds like an incredibly chaotic scene.

i agree, but i dont see any reason for them to even have pulled out a gun

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Shooting them probably was. 50+ bullets is the detail everyone's getting all hung up on, though.

It's hard to visualise. It sounds like an incredibly chaotic scene.

i agree, but i dont see any reason for them to even have pulled out a gun

Something doesn't add up about the story - hard to say what it is.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From text of the verdict statement read in court by Justice Arthur J. Cooperman:

... the confrontation that took place in front of the club was heated. The SUV owner, Fabio Coicou, gave the impression that he had a gun, causing at least one of the group to threaten to take it away from him.

And, the court finds, another threat was made by Joseph Guzman to retrieve a gun. At that point, nothing of a criminal nature had taken place. But, having witnessed that provocative confrontation between Mr. Coicou and the group, the undercover officers became concerned and followed the group around the corner to Liverpool Street.

Defendant Isnora approached the Nissan Altima into which Mr. Guzman and Sean Bell, two of the more active participants in the heated exchange, entered.

The Altima, which was driven by Mr. Bell, sped away from its parked position, struck Defendant Isnora and collided head on with the police van that had entered Liverpool Street. The Altima then went into reverse, backed up on to the

sidewalk, struck a gate and then went forward and to the right, striking the police van again. As this was happening, Defendant Isnora -- who testified in the grand jury -- observed Mr. Guzman, the front passenger, move his body as if he were reaching for a weapon. Defendant Isnora yelled, "Gun" and fired.

Other officers, indicted and unindicted, joined in from different locations on the street.

The court has found that the incident lasted just seconds.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...25_VERDICT3.pdf

Edited April 25, 2008 by VJ Troll

[Ban Hammer 13,633]

Shooting them probably was. 50+ bullets is the detail everyone's getting all hung up on, though.

It's hard to visualise. It sounds like an incredibly chaotic scene.

i agree, but i dont see any reason for them to even have pulled out a gun

it's good enough cause to fire them up. vehicular assault ya know....

[no name 1]

From text of the verdict statement read in court by Justice Arthur J. Cooperman:

... the confrontation that took place in front of the club was heated. The SUV owner, Fabio Coicou, gave the impression that he had a gun, causing at least one of the group to threaten to take it away from him.

And, the court finds, another threat was made by Joseph Guzman to retrieve a gun. At that point, nothing of a criminal nature had taken place. But, having witnessed that provocative confrontation between Mr. Coicou and the group, the undercover officers became concerned and followed the group around the corner to Liverpool Street.

Defendant Isnora approached the Nissan Altima into which Mr. Guzman and Sean Bell, two of the more active participants in the heated exchange, entered.

The Altima, which was driven by Mr. Bell, sped away from its parked position, struck Defendant Isnora and collided head on with the police van that had entered Liverpool Street. The Altima then went into reverse, backed up on to the

sidewalk, struck a gate and then went forward and to the right, striking the police van again. As this was happening, Defendant Isnora -- who testified in the grand jury -- observed Mr. Guzman, the front passenger, move his body as if he were reaching for a weapon. Defendant Isnora yelled, "Gun" and fired.

Other officers, indicted and unindicted, joined in from different locations on the street.

The court has found that the incident lasted just seconds.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...25_VERDICT3.pdf

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

i just read a summary of each of the witnesses' testimonies, and they are very convoluted...i cant help but wonder though...given the little summation that vjtroll posted, at what point did it seem okay to think 'oh wait, nobody is firing back, maybe i should fire several rounds, stop to reload my gun and then fire several more'

Edited April 25, 2008 by BabyBlueSusie

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... at what point did it seem okay to think 'oh wait, nobody is firing back, maybe i should fire several rounds, stop to reload my gun and then fire several more'

The court has found that the incident lasted just seconds.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Also, from the same document:

The police response with respect to each defendant was not proved to be criminal, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt. Questions of carelessness and incompetence must be left to other forums.

It appears that the judge is making clear that his judgment does not rule out carelessness or incompetence.

[no name 1]

... at what point did it seem okay to think 'oh wait, nobody is firing back, maybe i should fire several rounds, stop to reload my gun and then fire several more'

The court has found that the incident lasted just seconds.

Even so, the reloading thing is a bit weird.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Perhaps. I don't know enough about guns to know.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

Also, from the same document:

The police response with respect to each defendant was not proved to be criminal, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt. Questions of carelessness and incompetence must be left to other forums.

It appears that the judge is making clear that his judgment does not rule out carelessness or incompetence.

true that, but their carelessness and incompetence lead to the death of this guy, also known as an act of manslaughter

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ok this is what an anonymous poster on an nj.com message board has to say about the 31 shots. Anyone care to chime in to accuracy of his facts?

Okay let's analyze this. There were 31 shots by one cop alone. That means he would have to have fired 15 shots, reloaded, fired 15 more, reloaded yet again, and fired one more just for good measure.

Jeez, I didn't even use that much fire power when I was fighting in Iraqi. This is inexcusable. That judge will rot.

Iraqi Vet