at least two people shot on carlton/dean tonight

man.oh.man wrote: "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.

It's a fair point that the plain-clothes cops were probably intimidating/scary-looking and that, as mentioned above, it apparently took forever for an ambulance to take him away. But I find it impossible to believe that the cops would go from hearing about the alleged crime on the radio to spotting the kid to opening fire with no steps in between.

Candicissima wrote: [quote=man.oh.man]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.

This is also what has been making my brow furrow throughout this entire thread. I also agree with Jack, enough about the iPod. And it certainly does appear like this kid, 16 is a kid indeed, running away invoked gun fire. BUT 19 missed shots in the early evening when someone else's kid was probably playing in the street and I was walking home from work, wow...

Candicissima wrote:
Actually, why can't a "thug" listen to Fleetwood Mac if it's something they happened to be into? "Thugs" watch MTV/listen to the radio just like everyone else. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge a book by its cover. :roll: (That of course has nothing to do with the robbery at hand, but it's a pet peeve of mine.)

Heh, this is true, and reminds me of a very amusing cab ride I took not too long ago, complete with lecture on relaxing music from very thuggish-looking cabbie. And the dulcet tones of nineties Jewel.

Candicissima wrote: [quote=man.oh.man]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.

I don't know what they were shooting with, but handguns aren't made for distance. That Lethal Weapon smiley-face-at-the-shooting-range scene- yeah, that doesn't happen in real life- not with a hand gun. I'd also think that both the target and the shooters were on the run. Not as easy as you'd think.

As far as bystanders, I would hope that the NYPD trains sufficiently so that an officer wouldn't fire when there's a chance of hitting a bystander. From my understanding, not specifically NYPD, but PD in general, they are supposed to be able to account for every shot fired. Of course I wasn't there last night, so I can't vouch, but that's the way it's supposed to be...

Even if you remove the iPod theft and the Manslaughter charge from the equation,

If you "brandish" a gun at the police, or at least point it at them, they are allowed to shoot back. However the wisdom of a wild west shootout is rightfully questioned especially since we know he did not return fire at any point in the chase, but a tough descision nonetheless that would be difficult to fathom.

The cops may have been a bit green and I'll be the first to bash the police but I think it's a bit easy to come down on them with hindsight in this case.

Candicissima wrote: [quote=man.oh.man]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.

Right?

the interesting thing about this, sort of as an aside, is it (kinda) proves something I learned in a self-defense course. the instructors said that most people can't shoot anything accurately more than 5 feet away with a pistol, so, if a mugger or rapist or whatever has a gun on you, and you're more than 5 feet away, you might as well run for it. I always thought this sounded kinda sketchy, like maybe this would be great advice if you wanted to get shot. but after hearing about this, I guess it's true. trained professionals can shoot a gun at a moving target and only hit it 10% of the time? those are decent odds.

obviously, I have zero non-anecdotal evidence, so don't quote me, or gamble your life on the above, please.

Captain M wrote: If you "brandish" a gun at the police, or at least point it at them, they are allowed to shoot back. However the wisdom of a wild west shootout is rightfully questioned especially since we know he did not return fire at any point in the chase, but a tough descision nonetheless that would be difficult to fathom.

I partially agree with you Captain M but police must ensure their surroundings as well as the person they are after. I have a good family friend who lost their son because he was playing with a toy gun in the stairwell of the Gowanus Houses and he was only 13.

alafairnadia wrote:
the interesting thing about this, sort of as an aside, is it (kinda) proves something I learned in a self-defense course. the instructors said that most people can't shoot anything accurately more than 5 feet away with a pistol, so, if a mugger or rapist or whatever has a gun on you, and you're more than 5 feet away, you might as well run for it. I always thought this sounded kinda sketchy, like maybe this would be great advice if you wanted to get shot. but after hearing about this, I guess it's true. trained professionals can shoot a gun at a moving target and only hit it 10% of the time? those are decent odds.

obviously, I have zero non-anecdotal evidence, so don't quote me, or gamble your life on the above, please.

Good to know, if I am ever in a bad situation of the like I will just run away screaming save the iPod, SAVE THE IPOD!

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=Candicissima][quote=man.oh.man]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.

Right?

the interesting thing about this, sort of as an aside, is it (kinda) proves something I learned in a self-defense course. the instructors said that most people can't shoot anything accurately more than 5 feet away with a pistol, so, if a mugger or rapist or whatever has a gun on you, and you're more than 5 feet away, you might as well run for it. I always thought this sounded kinda sketchy, like maybe this would be great advice if you wanted to get shot. but after hearing about this, I guess it's true. trained professionals can shoot a gun at a moving target and only hit it 10% of the time? those are decent odds.

obviously, I have zero non-anecdotal evidence, so don't quote me, or gamble your life on the above, please.

Maybe we need a Daily Heights paintball game to put that to the test (hint hint)

lirio wrote: 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.

Well, yes and no. Computers themselves have better serial number capabilities than before. Nowadays most computers store serial number info in the BIOS or firmware. If you've ever--for example--had to to a logic board swap, you know about the serial number issues right away. Some software is locked into the serial number of the logic board and will choke when it detects a new SN.

iPods do have serial numbers on the the case, and in the firmware on the device itself; the firmware can't be changed to reflect or erase serial numbers by everyday folk. But to my knowledge, Apple does not keep a database that matches serial numbers to people in all cases.

For example, my new iPod was purchased from the Apple Store online and the serial number is recorded in my customer record. But what about someone who walks into a store and buys one off of the shelf? I know Circuit City matches serial numbers for return purposes, but it's not in one centralized database.

And all of this is logged during purchase, repairs and returns. If I sync my iPod right now it doesn't 'ping' Apple's servers to tell them that I am on this computer syncing this iPod.

The long story short is that serial numbers for hardware are traceable and do get passed around and logged, but there's no one centralized database for any of this. And if there was one, who would control it? Would it be Apple? Would it be some third party?

I don't think Apple should be blamed for selling products. But I do think that now technology is becoming more a part of the non-tech world, and the iPod is immensely ubiquitous, maybe Apple should setup a system in which an iPod can be traced each time it's hooked up to a computer. Sure there is a potential for privacy abuse, but at the same time if done right it could be a deterent.

stacey wrote: [quote=Captain M]If you "brandish" a gun at the police, or at least point it at them, they are allowed to shoot back. However the wisdom of a wild west shootout is rightfully questioned especially since we know he did not return fire at any point in the chase, but a tough descision nonetheless that would be difficult to fathom.

I partially agree with you Captain M but police must ensure their surroundings as well as the person they are after. I have a good family friend who lost their son because he was playing with a toy gun in the stairwell of the Gowanus Houses and he was only 13.

I totally agree and I'm not saying it's ok, in fact it sucks, I was just trying to say its a tough call once someone like that has been engaged from a PD perspective, if he gets loose and hurts anyone else it would be on them as well.

/
me