at least two people shot on carlton/dean tonight

bewitched

EmilyM wrote: Reminder to self: always take off headphones and pack iPod in purse before leaving the subway...

Ditto, I never wear my iPod after dark. But where does that stop? Should I stop using it on the street during the day? Should we not talk on our cell phones in public? This really sucks.

ETA: Aren't iPods traceable by their serial number? Presumably whoever keeps the stolen iPod will have to connect it to a computer to upload their own music. Unless they're smart enough not to connect to the Internet.

bewitched

EmilyM wrote: Reminder to self: always take off headphones and pack iPod in purse before leaving the subway...

Ditto, I never wear my iPod after dark. But where does that stop? Should I stop using it on the street during the day? Should we not talk on our cell phones in public? This really sucks.

ETA: Aren't iPods traceable by their serial number? Presumably whoever keeps the stolen iPod will have to connect it to a computer to upload their own music. Unless they're smart enough not to connect to the Internet.

anonymous

jml wrote: [quote=EmilyM]
I would find it a lot easier to take the view that this was a kid who just made a mistake if he weren't under indictment for manslaughter. The police may have fired more shots than necessary, but I won't lose sleep over it.

He was under indictment. This means he was accused, not convicted. Our criminal justice system gives the assumption of innocence.

Running around with a pellet gun robbing people is idiotic and criminal (again, if he did it, since he hasn't even been inicted of this yet). But I hate to see people calling for the crucificition a 16 year old kid.

Ditto. Also remember, the plainclothes cop started chasing after him only after getting a "description" of him over the radio. Having been on Carlton last night and seen the plainclothes cops - they were very convincing in baggy jeans and hooded sweatshirts and looked about 19 - it wouldn't seem to crazy to start running from one if he started chasing me. So now the cop is chasing a kid cause he thinks he may have tried to rob someone for an iPod, and cop unloads into kid's face and body?

Then, still a suspect of the iPod attempted robbery, not convicted, the kid is handcuffed and made to lay face down on the sidewalk for almost 40 minutes -- all the while shot in the face -- before they picked him up and put him in an ambulance (this I watched from 50 feet away).

And most of the responses on this list are cheering.

After reading these posts I'm more alarmed by the people living in my neighborhood with computers and iPods than I am about the kids with fake guns.

anonymous

jml wrote: [quote=EmilyM]
I would find it a lot easier to take the view that this was a kid who just made a mistake if he weren't under indictment for manslaughter. The police may have fired more shots than necessary, but I won't lose sleep over it.

He was under indictment. This means he was accused, not convicted. Our criminal justice system gives the assumption of innocence.

Running around with a pellet gun robbing people is idiotic and criminal (again, if he did it, since he hasn't even been inicted of this yet). But I hate to see people calling for the crucificition a 16 year old kid.

Ditto. Also remember, the plainclothes cop started chasing after him only after getting a "description" of him over the radio. Having been on Carlton last night and seen the plainclothes cops - they were very convincing in baggy jeans and hooded sweatshirts and looked about 19 - it wouldn't seem to crazy to start running from one if he started chasing me. So now the cop is chasing a kid cause he thinks he may have tried to rob someone for an iPod, and cop unloads into kid's face and body?

Then, still a suspect of the iPod attempted robbery, not convicted, the kid is handcuffed and made to lay face down on the sidewalk for almost 40 minutes -- all the while shot in the face -- before they picked him up and put him in an ambulance (this I watched from 50 feet away).

And most of the responses on this list are cheering.

After reading these posts I'm more alarmed by the people living in my neighborhood with computers and iPods than I am about the kids with fake guns.

sje

I'm more scared of the "kids" with fake guns. :?

sje

I'm more scared of the "kids" with fake guns. :?

jack

Let's all blame society for a 16 year old kid who--with the aid of 3 others--robbed someone at gunpoint. Sure, it was a B.B. gun. But the intent was to menance and rob. No questioning or debating that.

I'm more afraid of apologists for thugs than anything else.

jack

Let's all blame society for a 16 year old kid who--with the aid of 3 others--robbed someone at gunpoint. Sure, it was a B.B. gun. But the intent was to menance and rob. No questioning or debating that.

I'm more afraid of apologists for thugs than anything else.

brooklynswordstyle

I find iPods terrifying. All silvery and white. And now they have black ones too! You can't see those coming in the dark!

brooklynswordstyle

I find iPods terrifying. All silvery and white. And now they have black ones too! You can't see those coming in the dark!

emily

jml wrote: He was under indictment. This means he was accused, not convicted. Our criminal justice system gives the assumption of innocence.

Gee, thanks for the lesson in vocabulary and 5th grade civics! I didn't say I was happy about it; I said I wasn't going to lose sleep over it. I presume that the cops didn't just open fire; they probably told him to stop first. If the kid then starts running, what exactly are the cops supposed to do?

emily

jml wrote: He was under indictment. This means he was accused, not convicted. Our criminal justice system gives the assumption of innocence.

Gee, thanks for the lesson in vocabulary and 5th grade civics! I didn't say I was happy about it; I said I wasn't going to lose sleep over it. I presume that the cops didn't just open fire; they probably told him to stop first. If the kid then starts running, what exactly are the cops supposed to do?

whyfi

Jack wrote: Let's all blame society for a 16 year old kid who--with the aid of 3 others--robbed someone at gunpoint. Sure, it was a B.B. gun. But the intent was to menance and rob. No questioning or debating that.

I'm more afraid of apologists for thugs than anything else.

Ditto.

Innocent until proven guilty, yadda, yadda- I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt but he's currently under indictment for manslaughter. Don't you think that when you're under indictment, guilty or not, you'd try to keep your nose clean? Maybe? I'd stay as far away from the action as possible- I'd stay at home watching rentals, and I sure as hell wouldn't return 'em late.

whyfi

Jack wrote: Let's all blame society for a 16 year old kid who--with the aid of 3 others--robbed someone at gunpoint. Sure, it was a B.B. gun. But the intent was to menance and rob. No questioning or debating that.

I'm more afraid of apologists for thugs than anything else.

Ditto.

Innocent until proven guilty, yadda, yadda- I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt but he's currently under indictment for manslaughter. Don't you think that when you're under indictment, guilty or not, you'd try to keep your nose clean? Maybe? I'd stay as far away from the action as possible- I'd stay at home watching rentals, and I sure as hell wouldn't return 'em late.

emily

nybt just said it better than I did. If you are under indictment for a major crime--even if you didn't do it and are 100% sure you will be able to prove that at trial--three things you shouldn't do are (1) carry around a fake gun (2) not cooperate with police (3) be seen with or hang around with people who are mugging people for their iPods, even if you're wholly uninvolved.

Let's not get carried away and implicitly compare this to a case like that of, say, Amadou Diallo, that was a misunderstanding. The circumstances are very different.

emily

nybt just said it better than I did. If you are under indictment for a major crime--even if you didn't do it and are 100% sure you will be able to prove that at trial--three things you shouldn't do are (1) carry around a fake gun (2) not cooperate with police (3) be seen with or hang around with people who are mugging people for their iPods, even if you're wholly uninvolved.

Let's not get carried away and implicitly compare this to a case like that of, say, Amadou Diallo, that was a misunderstanding. The circumstances are very different.

jack

Also, let's remember that the cops themselves knew that this guy was out on bail on a manslaughter charge.

It's not like they were told "Suspect just stole iPod, let's kill him!"

It's more along the lines of someone who has killed someone in the past has now robbed someone as is on the loose.

Cops screw up and I'll admit to that. But in this case, it's all understandable.

jack

Also, let's remember that the cops themselves knew that this guy was out on bail on a manslaughter charge.

It's not like they were told "Suspect just stole iPod, let's kill him!"

It's more along the lines of someone who has killed someone in the past has now robbed someone as is on the loose.

Cops screw up and I'll admit to that. But in this case, it's all understandable.

ltjbukem

Subject: and where were they from

out of curiosity, does anyone know where the kid who was shot was from? did he live in the neighborhood and planned on robbing his fellow neighbors? or did he come from east new york or brownsville or crown heights, looking for some easy pickin' gentrifiers?

what's next- robbing ppl of their blackberries? not too interesting reading about my work-related emails...i read 'em onlly b/c i'm forced to.

what if the next hip thing is to carry a bb in the holster on the belt of your baggy jeans??

you're right, this kid should not be out gang-bangin'. but makin' it a blockbuster night.

ltjbukem

Subject: and where were they from

out of curiosity, does anyone know where the kid who was shot was from? did he live in the neighborhood and planned on robbing his fellow neighbors? or did he come from east new york or brownsville or crown heights, looking for some easy pickin' gentrifiers?

what's next- robbing ppl of their blackberries? not too interesting reading about my work-related emails...i read 'em onlly b/c i'm forced to.

what if the next hip thing is to carry a bb in the holster on the belt of your baggy jeans??

you're right, this kid should not be out gang-bangin'. but makin' it a blockbuster night.

anonymous

EmilyM wrote: [quote=jml]He was under indictment. This means he was accused, not convicted. Our criminal justice system gives the assumption of innocence.

Gee, thanks for the lesson in vocabulary and 5th grade civics! I didn't say I was happy about it; I said I wasn't going to lose sleep over it. I presume that the cops didn't just open fire; they probably told him to stop first. If the kid then starts running, what exactly are the cops supposed to do?

"probably told him to stop first": thanks for the lesson in television-cop etiquette. i saw the "plainclothes" police last night too -- didn't look like anybody I'd wait around to talk to, especially if they started chasing after me. nobody's trying to apologize for wrong-doing, nobody's trying to defend crime. but why is it "apologist" to just point out that there's something messed up, scary and sad about the fact that someone in our neighborhood got shot in the face last night cause he matched a description of someone who tried to steal an iPod? even if he did try to steal the iPod? and because anybody else, and any one of us, could have gotten hit by one of the other 19 bullets that didn't make their target.

anonymous

EmilyM wrote: [quote=jml]He was under indictment. This means he was accused, not convicted. Our criminal justice system gives the assumption of innocence.

Gee, thanks for the lesson in vocabulary and 5th grade civics! I didn't say I was happy about it; I said I wasn't going to lose sleep over it. I presume that the cops didn't just open fire; they probably told him to stop first. If the kid then starts running, what exactly are the cops supposed to do?

"probably told him to stop first": thanks for the lesson in television-cop etiquette. i saw the "plainclothes" police last night too -- didn't look like anybody I'd wait around to talk to, especially if they started chasing after me. nobody's trying to apologize for wrong-doing, nobody's trying to defend crime. but why is it "apologist" to just point out that there's something messed up, scary and sad about the fact that someone in our neighborhood got shot in the face last night cause he matched a description of someone who tried to steal an iPod? even if he did try to steal the iPod? and because anybody else, and any one of us, could have gotten hit by one of the other 19 bullets that didn't make their target.

jack

Subject: Re: and where were they from

ltjbukem wrote: out of curiosity, does anyone know where the kid who was shot was from?

In an article about his manslaughter charge:
"Javaughn Higgins, 16, of 142 Lenox Road in Flatbush..."

jack

Subject: Re: and where were they from

ltjbukem wrote: out of curiosity, does anyone know where the kid who was shot was from?

In an article about his manslaughter charge:
"Javaughn Higgins, 16, of 142 Lenox Road in Flatbush..."

jack

man.oh.man wrote: but why is it "apologist" to just point out that there's something messed up, scary and sad about the fact that someone in our neighborhood got shot in the face last night cause he matched a description of someone who tried to steal an iPod? even if he did try to steal the iPod? and because anybody else, and any one of us, could have gotten hit by one of the other 19 bullets that didn't make their target.

Please get off the iPod trip. He matched the description, showed a gun, and ran away.

What do you think two cops should have done when they get a report that someone out on bail for manslaughter just robbed someone at gunpoint?

jack

man.oh.man wrote: but why is it "apologist" to just point out that there's something messed up, scary and sad about the fact that someone in our neighborhood got shot in the face last night cause he matched a description of someone who tried to steal an iPod? even if he did try to steal the iPod? and because anybody else, and any one of us, could have gotten hit by one of the other 19 bullets that didn't make their target.

Please get off the iPod trip. He matched the description, showed a gun, and ran away.

What do you think two cops should have done when they get a report that someone out on bail for manslaughter just robbed someone at gunpoint?

candicissima

man.oh.man wrote: and any one of us, could have gotten hit by one of the other 19 bullets that didn't make their target.

That's what I find to be the scary part also. Especially since apparently a bunch of people were standing around watching the whole thing play out. 19 bullets, 2 hits? That's a pretty bad ratio and it's practically miraculous that no bystanders got hit when apparently they can't shoot for crap.

candicissima

man.oh.man wrote: and any one of us, could have gotten hit by one of the other 19 bullets that didn't make their target.

That's what I find to be the scary part also. Especially since apparently a bunch of people were standing around watching the whole thing play out. 19 bullets, 2 hits? That's a pretty bad ratio and it's practically miraculous that no bystanders got hit when apparently they can't shoot for crap.

stacey

Jack wrote: Also, let's remember that the cops themselves knew that this guy was out on bail on a manslaughter charge.

Jack from what have read they did not know that he was wanted for manslaughter - if Im wrong let me know.

stacey

Jack wrote: Also, let's remember that the cops themselves knew that this guy was out on bail on a manslaughter charge.

Jack from what have read they did not know that he was wanted for manslaughter - if Im wrong let me know.