Same-Sex Marriage Bill REJECTED in New York State Senate
UPDATE: City To Remove 14 Blocks Of Bike Lanes On Bedford Ave.
Catholic League Pissed at PETA
Hamster Rides The 4 Train
Bouncer Beatdown at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club
Two potential witnesses who took cellphone video in the moments following last month's fatal cop-on-cop shooting in Harlem were told to leave by an officer at the crime scene, WABC reports. The two men, who showed the video to reporters but requested anonymity, say they were in a vehicle at a stoplight where Officer Omar Edwards chased the man who broke into his car. They didn't see the shooting because their view was blocked by another vehicle, but they heard the gunshots.
Two 30-second video clips reportedly show Edwards lying on the pavement in handcuffs, and raise questions about whether precious time was lost that might have saved the officer's life. The arresting officers have previously said that they did not discover that Edwards was NYPD until they tried to administer aid. One witness says: "We pull up and then we see a cop handcuffing him and leaving him there. They just left him. Didn't give him no aid. Told the officers not to touch a gun. It was a silver gun. He was about 10 to 15 feet away from his gun. He was just on the floor cuffed. Face in a ditch, in the gutter... They weren't paying attention to him."
John Shane, a professor at John Jay College, viewed the video and calls it "inconclusive at best. It's difficult to tell (if enough attention was paid to the person on the ground) because the video begins rolling at the point where the individual is already handcuffed. So we don't know what evaluation they've done at this point." Perhaps more troubling is that a uniformed officer told the witnesses to leave the scene shortly after they stopped recording. Shane says, duh, holding onto witnesses is "very crucial. Very crucial, especially when we don't know how many other witnesses there may be. You don't let anybody go." WABC showed the videos to the D.A. and the NYPD; both spokespersons declined to comment.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Fedoras and trench coats. They look like something out of dick tracy.
Sane or Shane? What's the dude's name?
Witnesses to what? They didn't see anything. Their 30-second videos of nothing being done don't show anything. Cops aren't supposed to be doing anything in that situation other than waiting for EMTs and supervisors.
'Didn't give him no aid.'
So they did give him, so what is the problem.
The problem is poor punctuation.
As Bill Murray says, "And you. Watch the double negatives."
standard operating procedure when the perp down is black or a minority. lots of milling around, passing the buck and deciding where to drink when the shift ends.
I lol'd hard.
hahahaha!
I think that we must thoroughly analyze the situation before we jump to declaring it as racist. Cops (no matter their race) are trained to act before they think. This may have been a very racist situation, but let's have solid proof first.
I think that we must thoroughly analyze the situation before we jump to declaring it as racist. Cops (no matter their race) are trained to act before they think. This may have been a very racist situation, but let's have solid proof first.
It's difficult to tell (if enough attention was paid to the person on the ground) because the video begins rolling at the point where the individual is already handcuffed. So we don't know what evaluation they've done at this point.
I think it's safe to say that they didn't know he was a cop at that point, otherwise they would have uncuffed him. And if the video does indeed show that they continued to do nothing after he was cuffed, then they obviously didn't care. They admit that they didn't find out until after they tried to administer aid. Which apparently came after the video. I think the good professor is engaging in mealy-mouthed doublespeak.
"And if the video does indeed show that they continued to do nothing after he was cuffed, then they obviously didn't care."
Or, they cared about following policy. Especially after a shooting by one of them, that makes sense because everything will be scrutinized.
If they had known it was a cop, yeah, they probably would have gone against policy and attempted to begin treatment. But following the rules means they simply secure the scene and let EMTs or medics do any evaluation or treatment.
In this case, an ESU unit arrived (procedure after a police-involved shooting) and tended to him (they're the ones who discovered his shield). Those officers are trained as medics, so policy allowed them to act. Which, again, they began to do before learning he was a cop.
The WABC article quotes Professor Shane as saying, "One of the first things you want to do is assess the individual's condition." That's policy. After someone is shot, you don't just cuff him and walk away.