Skip to comments.
Cops’ pepper shot kills student
Boston Herald ^
| Friday, October 22, 2004
| By Tom Farmer and Dave Wedge
Posted on 10/22/2004 3:46:41 AM PDT by ninonitti
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-154 next last
To: jrg
My idea of crowd control: a Humvee with a Mark 19 AGL in a pintle mount, firing HE.
121
posted on
10/22/2004 4:37:15 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
(SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER...SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER)
Comment #122 Removed by Moderator
To: ninonitti
"As cops cleared the crowd, one young man who had been standing near Snelgrove shouted at police, ``Are you happy? Murderers!''"
Those cops didn't kill that young girl. That "young man" and his mob buddies did.
123
posted on
10/22/2004 8:09:13 PM PDT
by
streetpreacher
(Bush did not lead this country into an unjust war; Kerry led this country out of a just war.)
To: RightOnline
The problem with modern sporting events is that they are nothing more than public keg parties.
124
posted on
10/22/2004 8:13:26 PM PDT
by
streetpreacher
(Bush did not lead this country into an unjust war; Kerry led this country out of a just war.)
To: The Hound Passer
"I'm all for keeping order, but I do expect professionalism out of the police as the NYPD demonstrated on 9/11."
What does 9/11 have to do with a mob rioting? On 9/11, the people weren't the problem, the falling buildings were.
The NYPD, as you know, has a lot of controversy in this area. Just ask Al Sharpton.
125
posted on
10/22/2004 8:32:08 PM PDT
by
streetpreacher
(Bush did not lead this country into an unjust war; Kerry led this country out of a just war.)
To: LYSandra
I saw (on TV) people on top of vehicles and at least one vehicle on fire.
To: AdamSelene235
that is ridiculous - a .22 is disproportionally lethal.
They like to travel once inside - very nasty round.
To: The Hound Passer
"Give it up the Boston Police have already admitted they screwed up. And as for the American Revolution, do you remember the Boston Massacre?"
This is obviously just PR for the idiotic lib enablers of indecent behavior. Using riot control tools against a rioting mob is not the equivalent of the incident of deliberately killing protesters of occupation in the Boston Massacre. I give up trying to reason with you.
128
posted on
10/22/2004 11:54:05 PM PDT
by
Sirc_Valence
(As socialists formed trade unions against employers the ACLU formed against the U.S.)
To: Southern62
that is ridiculous - a .22 is disproportionally lethal. Oh well, it sucks to stupid and destroying property.
They like to travel once inside - very nasty round.
They fragment a bit. So long as it doesnt overpentrate and endanger an innocent bystander or damage property.
To: David Isaac
There is no way "non-lethal" weapons should result in a death.That's why weapons like pepper spray, batons, TASERs, etc., aren't known by professionals as "non-lethal" weapons anymore. The preferred term is "less lethal," meaning there is a much, much lower probability of kill than from a more traditional weapon like a firearm.
This young woman's death is a horrible tragedy, made worse by the fact that the police most certainly did NOT intend to use deadly force. If the officer in question meant to use deadly force, he would have drawn and fired his service weapon instead of the pepperball.
130
posted on
10/23/2004 2:52:12 PM PDT
by
Terabitten
(Live as a bastion of freedom and democracy in the midst of the heart of darkness.)
To: LibSnubber
"Open season on young women - how dare you say such a thing!"
The only fatality in this incident was caused by the police. You support the police, so presumably you support the killing of this young woman. See how you are?
Anyway, the police have acknowledged responsibility for her wrongful death. It is only people like you who defend their mistakes that don't get it.
131
posted on
10/25/2004 9:59:26 AM PDT
by
monday
To: r9etb
"Yes it is. The cops were surrounded by people who were beginning an honest-to-goodness riot. Do you suggest that the cops should have read 19th century French poetry to calm the crowd?"
I think they should get high power lights and cameras and film everyone present, then show it on TV the next day. Embarrass them, then make the rioters pay for damages and do 3 or 4 years in prison each. Another method might be to fire really loud blanks into the air. Gunshots usually get peoples attention. What you don't want to do is make victims of the rioters by shooting them. Unless they are beating someone up, killing them is unreasonable.
132
posted on
10/25/2004 10:13:23 AM PDT
by
monday
To: monday
Uh huh. And I suppose the threat of future embarassment would have mollified the nice people who were tearing things up and headed toward the cops with makeshift clubs....
Lest you get on too high a horse here, the girl's death was an ACCIDENT, and a freak accident at that.
133
posted on
10/25/2004 10:20:49 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: Vigilantcitizen
"That being said, at a velocity of 300-380 FPS, I can easily see a paintball penetrating the eye."
Why is it necessary for the velocity to be so high? Pepper spray is very effective at any velocity. Seems to me they would only have to be delivered fast enough to burst on impact. Perhaps 50 FPS? 300-380 FPS makes it appear that the police intention was to cause injuries similar to those caused by rubber bullets.
Perhaps crowd control isn't satisfying for police unless there is a chance of permanent injury or death for rioters?
134
posted on
10/25/2004 10:26:29 AM PDT
by
monday
To: Polybius
"In crowd control situations or in situation's when a perp is running through innocent bystanders, it's use is no can longer be thought of as "non-lethal"."
That was always the case. The police used it incorrectly THIS time.
135
posted on
10/25/2004 10:34:40 AM PDT
by
monday
To: monday
"Anyway, the police have acknowledged responsibility for her wrongful death. It is only people like you who defend their mistakes that don't get it."
Only in your dreams!
Come back with proof that those 6 policemen went out with the intent to kill this woman - picking her out of a crowd of 3000 and I might reconsider my opinion.
136
posted on
10/25/2004 10:37:40 AM PDT
by
LibSnubber
(liberal democrats are domestic terrorists)
To: monday
Why is it necessary for the velocity to be so high? Pepper spray is very effective at any velocity. Seems to me they would only have to be delivered fast enough to burst on impact. Perhaps 50 FPS? 300-380 FPS makes it appear that the police intention was to cause injuries similar to those caused by rubber bullets. Speculation...but pepperpaintballs have a harder shell than regular paintballs do, mainly due to the filler having a solid in it(Pepper), rather than being all liquid. If a paintball has too soft a shell, it will bust in the barrel.
Looks like Boston police are asking the same question.
To: Rubber_Duckie_27
"That doesn't mean I joined the 10,000-person mobs who went around campus setting bonfires and throwing bottles at cops! It's simply foolish to knowingly put yourself in a situation that's likely to get out of control."
She didn't either. She just went out to drink with friends and watch the game in a bar. This could probably all have been avoided if the bars in the area had staggered their closing times.
Instead 'last call' came at the same time all over the neighborhood, so the bars emptied out all at once, putting hundreds of drunk people out on the street at the same time. Almost an college kid in America could have made the same mistake she did. She wasn't stupider than most.
138
posted on
10/25/2004 10:41:31 AM PDT
by
monday
To: r9etb
"Uh huh. And I suppose the threat of future embarassment would have mollified the nice people who were tearing things up and headed toward the cops with makeshift clubs.... "
Seeing a riot on TV where the perpetrators were later punished might make people think twice about putting themselves in that sort of situation in the future. It obviously won't have any effect until after it is tried.
Yes an accident, caused by police incompetence. What is clear is that the police intended to cause serious physical harm to someone and that they apparently DID NOT KNOW that the weapon they used could kill.
They also apparently missed their intended target and hit an innocent bystander. Perhaps they need more training? or perhaps they simply need to be told to aim before pulling the trigger? Who knows?
What is clear is that this was an accident that didn't need to happen.
139
posted on
10/25/2004 11:08:13 AM PDT
by
monday
To: monday
. What is clear is that the police intended to cause serious physical harm to someone and that they apparently DID NOT KNOW that the weapon they used could kill. Oh? It's clear? C'mon, monday(morning quarterback) -- your agenda is showing. The only things clear in this story are a) the cops were attempting to subdue an ugly crowd, who b) were advancing on the cops, and that c) they did not intend to kill anybody.
140
posted on
10/25/2004 11:11:27 AM PDT
by
r9etb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-154 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson