FFLieu

Let me correct one thing, I don't use foul language with everyone. I do when I feel it is necessary!
All is that kid had to do is comply with the Sgt. I don't care if he has a full carry or not, do what the PO's say & you may be on your way! Sounds like this guy is looking to cash in on a lawsuit!

The only thing I consider disturbing in this recording was the mention of the sergeant considering the use of a Taser. Deadly force(or threat of) is always met with Deadly force options(firearms). Just because the State of Pennsylvania allows open carry does not mean the city of Philadelphia does. Here is a link to the law that discusses open carry in Philadelphia: http://www.pafoa.org...arms/open-carry For an example closer to home, you may have a full carry permit issued by Westchester County, however it does not entitle you to carry your licensed firearm into NYC, you must get an additional permit (which is almost impossible) from the NYPD. Cities often have greater restrictions do to higher crime rates with firearms, and population density. The sergeant started out respectful, and this idiot decided to be a s$%t house lawyer and not comply with the sergeant's directions. The use of language escalated as the defendant continued to refuse to comply with lawful orders. The uniformed police officer is always in control, and gives the orders, not the defendant. If the order is "get on your knees", the get on on your knees.
Respect is a two way street, if you refuse to comply or treat me like crap, then my attitude and responses will change to meet the situation. Things like sir and please will get replaced with things like a$^%$hole and now.

Did you know that there's also such a thing as a warrantless arrest, too? Did you know that there's also exceptions to the warrant guidelines? Did you know that the 4th Amendment really isn't such a black-and-white issue, as its text has never been updated since it was written, but its interpretations have widely varied in the time since? Did you know that the spirit of the 4th Amendment is grounded in abuses that took place at the hands of the British Monarchy, thus giving more power to the people, and that no matter how many different interpretations there are of the Amendment, that is a standard that will remain constant?
In the case at hand, the cops weren't "grasping at straws." They were in hot pursuit subsequent to witnessing a narcotics buy, and when faced with the choice of which apartment to go into, they used the totality of the circumstances at hand in order to make their decision. The ruling, contrary to what papers like AM New York stated in this morning's edition, changes nothing, as it is an affirmation of already established holdings subsequent to previous caselaw. We are not on the slippery slope to having a police state.

If you're implying that the members here are not advocates of due process I think you need to reconsider your position as the majority of us are staunch advocates of due process and protecting our rights. To suggest that law enforcement officers are not advocates of due process is flat out wrong. We work within the sytem that has been crafted for us and this decision is merely a clarification of what has long been an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment.
You obviously didn't even read this case before posting your comments. The police were pursuing someone who was "actually committing a crime" not "grasping at straws" or "having trouble nailing the bad guy". Perhaps the appropriate criticism is that they just didn't run fast enough and he managed to get into an apartment before they apprehended him.
Every warrantless search is scrutinized at every level from the PD to the DA to the courts and in this case it went all the way to the Supreme Court where, in what was already noted as a rare 8-1 decision, they reaffirmed that the destruction of evidence is an exception to the warrant requirement. It is a great example of due process working as designed and everyone should be happy about it. Our rights are being protected and law enforcement is doing their job.
Having absolutely no idea what it takes to get a warrant or run into a housing project after a suspect your final comment "Oh well its hard for me to lock up the bad guys because its so damn hard to prove they are doing anything wrong" is nothing more than inflammatory and a slap in the face at all law enforcement. Every day police officers jump through all the hoops you're accusing them of ignoring or finding too difficult.
Now, let's get back to the point: the Supreme Court decision.

Rich Uncle Pennybag's little pet project with the bike lanes is simple: he couldn't get congestion pricing passed several years ago, so now that he's well on his way to inventing a traffic problem vis-a-vis taking away a vehicular travel lane from just about every major thoroughfare in Manhattan, he can say that there is a legitimate traffic condition and therefore, the peasant citizenry should pay the price.
The man needs to be stopped. At this point, he's just as dangerous to the City as the crazy guy on the subway platform, mumbling to himself and making furtive movements as if he's about to push someone in front of an oncoming train.

For those of you that are concerned about the police having too much "power", this doesn't give us any more "power" than we already have.
When you are a cop that works in a busy area or in a special unit that deals with search warrants frequently, you know what the destruction of evidence sounds like as opposed to " putting up a shelf," and you know what people scurrying around in an apartment trying to hid or escape sounds like as ooposed to people getting off the couch to come open the door."
Let's try to keep this in perspective... we are talking about piece of s*** drug dealers here, the scum of the earth who ruin lives and communities, Who Cares what happens to them... when you live in a community that doesn't have the scourge of heavy drugs in it, it's easy to sit back and say " but we need to preserve their rights too."
If the apartment or the house next door to you had frequent visitors knocking on the door at all hours of the day and night or cars coming up comstantly and there were strange odors coming from the apartment, and you heard rumors that they were selling crack of heroin out of the apratment, the first thing you would do is call the police and ask them why they aren't doing anything about it and when you get the answer of " Our hands are tied and they have rights too," maybe you will rethink your position.
Or if your kids couldn't go to the park becuase the local dealer has taken up residence by the swingset to sell his drugs because the swing set has the best panoramic view to see if the cops are coming.
Or there were drive by's and gang fights on the corner or if your car or your house kept getting broken into becasue the crack heads are staying in your neighborhood becuase your local dealer has the best product.
I am a supporter of the constitution but I am also a supporter of Common Sense

In this case, the PD didn't really "create" their own PC. In fact, the Supreme Court decision in the instant case was a mere affirmation of several of their previous decisions, all of which boil down to the doctrine of "good faith." As long as the police are operating in good faith, then they can act. The good faith doctrine covers all searches and seizures that are categorized under the 4th Amendment, and acts more-or-less as a safeguard for police protection in instances when bona-fide actions that are undertaken in the spirit of the 4th Amendment produce different results, suspects, or both.

I, for one, want to see pictures only because the cynic inside of me finds it rather interesting that it took 10 years to find him and only a day to kill him and dispose of his body in a rather convenient place where it can never be found.

I viewed the video and I have to say that this one is a real stretch. Everyone is jumping to conclusions about what "looks like" and "seems to be" a Confederate Flag. Are they the same people who insinuated that the late Joe Camel "appeared to be" phallic in design? I'm currently down South and I see lots of Confederate Flags, it's just part of the culture. There is no Confederate Flag depicted here. Just another non-story that was picked up for no good reason.

I knew that Bloomberg was bad news on January 1, 2002 when he started the "doing more with less" nonsense. As soon as that started, it was a slippery slope for New York City. The "less" aspect of that phrase gradually became lesser and lesser, until present day when we're faced with the realization that a snowstorm, of all things, can cripple the City relatively easily and quickly. Power is one of those funny little things that easily corrupts people who are not strong enough leaders, and even then, strong leaders can succumb to the vice. Unlimited power, which is what we have in New York City, is downright dangerous. He paid off the members of the City Council to allow him to circumvent a law that was voted on TWICE during the 1990s. (One of those City Council members is the currently sitting member from my old neighborhood in the Bronx. I asked him why he voted the way he did, and he told me that he did so because his mother, not his constituents, was "incensed" [his word] that she could not vote for "her mayor" [again, his words] a third time. When I followed up with the obvious question of why his mother's opinion is more important than that of the voters who put him in office, he had no answer; then he pretty much walked away when I asked if maybe a rich benefactor with a Napoleonic complex dropped a few extra shekels in his pocket.)
Our forefathers never wanted indeterminate-length power for any one section of the government or any one component thereof; it's the reason why there are checks and balances, and it's the reason why George Washington chose the word "President" and not "King." On a more local scale, we're seeing firsthand why governmental power and intrusion needs to be limited and checked by the electorate. All this man has done for the past several years is scheme ways to limit New Yorkers' civil liberties in the areas of what we eat, what we drink, how, when, and where we may or may not smoke, all in addition to finding new and unique ways of hitting us all in the pockets with increased ticket fees, taxes, and the ridiculous notion that we all should have to pay to enter Manhattan, regardless of whether or not we will contribute to the overall "congestion" in the area. (Speaking of, has anyone noticed all of the bike lanes that have popped up in the days after congestion pricing was voted down? Tell me that taking a perfectly fine travel lane and removing its vehicular use, thereby artificially creating congestion and getting the issue back on the table, wasn't in Emperor Nero-bloomberg's master plan.) On top of all that, people who put there lives on the line for the City day in and day out keep getting the shaft from this guy, all while he sits back, puts his feet up on his desk, and laughs in their faces. And he had the nerve to call a reporter a "disgrace?" No, sir, you are the disgrace. Until you put on a uniform and stand a fixed footpost in the 75th Precinct at 0200, or until you enter a burning building to search for people even though it has long been abandoned, or until you teach some of the animals that you have in your school system - which, incidentally, have not gotten any better under your so-called "mayoral control" - then you cannot speak for those who gracefully answer that call daily, without any recognition from those in charge.
I can recall that on December 4, 1992, there was a rally in front of City Hall in which protesters chanted the phrase "Dinkins must go" due to the condition of the City at that time. It is said that history repeats itself. Take a look at the City and compare it to the way it was back in the early '90s. High crime, drugs everywhere, rampant disregard for the public, and a mayor who was never around. Sound familiar? Present day, we have high crime despite the best efforts of the PC and the mayor into deluding the public that such is not the case, we have drugs everywhere, there is a rampant disregard for the public by both the mayor, his staff, and the City Council, and we have a mayor who more or less phones it in from Bermuda. Maybe it's time for us as a City to reach back to the "bad old days" and finally say enough is enough. Bloomberg must go.

All around general stupidity. From the genius Deputy Inspector in the NYPD Transit HQ that came up with the brilliant idea to have transit districts not field RMP's during the storm, and instead take the subway. That great idea worked on paper until the subways stopped running before the worst of the storm hit. I don't think I saw one RMP in the Bronx that had chains put on. The shops were closed, tire shops on the street were not sure about putting the cable chains on the new hybrids, or in my commands case, a new van, but the chains in our locker didn't fit this size tire. MTA Bus was equally unprepared, with numerous buses with no chains. The accordion style buses fared the worst, often taking on a jack knifed appearance and getting stuck in snow banks. I did see several NYC Sanitation trucks driving around Boston Road in the Gun Hill Area, one problem though, the plow doesn't work when kept in the raised position. Mid town Manhattan did look nice and clean this morning so that Bloomburg could go see his Broadway shows, while a good portion of the Bronx has yet to a single plow on the side roads.

According to the court case of Tennessee v. Garner, the use of deadly force is justified when an officer has probable cause to believe that an otherwise unarmed suspect, through his escape or means of escape, poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. (The court case also states that the instrument used to dispense the deadly force is of no consequence.) The totality of the circumstances in this case, as viewed through Garner, renders the entire issue moot. Danroy Henry was drunk and used his vehicle in a manner similar to that of any other perp with a weapon, and quite frankly, he and his buddy got what they deserved.

According to the court case of Tennessee v. Garner, the use of deadly force is justified when an officer has probable cause to believe that an otherwise unarmed suspect, through his escape or means of escape, poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. (The court case also states that the instrument used to dispense the deadly force is of no consequence.) The totality of the circumstances in this case, as viewed through Garner, renders the entire issue moot. Danroy Henry was drunk and used his vehicle in a manner similar to that of any other perp with a weapon, and quite frankly, he and his buddy got what they deserved.

According to the court case of Tennessee v. Garner, the use of deadly force is justified when an officer has probable cause to believe that an otherwise unarmed suspect, through his escape or means of escape, poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. (The court case also states that the instrument used to dispense the deadly force is of no consequence.) The totality of the circumstances in this case, as viewed through Garner, renders the entire issue moot. Danroy Henry was drunk and used his vehicle in a manner similar to that of any other perp with a weapon, and quite frankly, he and his buddy got what they deserved.

The rhetoric that is coming out from the lawyers and this guys family is ridiculous. The DA says that bonita zelman who is the attorney for the other players who were arrested that night called the lead detectives and said that unless the charges against her clients were dropped they wouldn't speak to investigators about the shooting. Zelman now denies this but i firmly believe this happened and the reason i believe this is that she is a low ball lawyer who saw dollar signs at the outset of this thing and figured that she could get her mug in front of the cameras and shame the DA's office into dropping the charges which isn't going to happen so now she is in way over her head and she is panicing and trying to make threats to get her clients out of trouble. If it can be proven that she made this statement then that is a matter for the NYS bar association to deal with as a possible misconduct issue.
The next topic is henry sr. who was on news 12 saying that the charges against the other players should be dropped because they were only trying to help his son ..... help his son how by breaking the window of a store ?? I don't remember ever reading about breaking a window out of anger as being a recognized part of first aid. The rest of the people were arrested for dis con/resisting, and I ask again, how was that trying to help dj henry. After the shooting dj henry was a prisoner of the police on scene which means that nobody should have been going near him except PD/EMS/FD.
Then we have michael sussman who proved himself to be a huge opportunist during the Yonkers desegragation case and now he is proving to be nothing more than that now. He is alledging that the ME's office fabricated the tox results because it contradicts witness statements from that night ... this fool would try to have us believe alcohol / marijuana and God knows what else fueled college students instead of a highly educated team of doctors and scientists... sorry mr sussman but NO.
The bottom line is that everyone involved on the henry side is grasping at straws becuause they know that they don't have a leg to stand on anymore. Any public opinion they had on their side is now gone - and shame on anyone who took their side to begin with.
During this whole thing we must keep the most important thing in mind and that is the officers involved. I have said it before in this thread and I will say it again, these cops were forced to respond the way they did because of dj henrys actions, the fault with this entire situation is on dj henry.

According to the court case of Tennessee v. Garner, the use of deadly force is justified when an officer has probable cause to believe that an otherwise unarmed suspect, through his escape or means of escape, poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. (The court case also states that the instrument used to dispense the deadly force is of no consequence.) The totality of the circumstances in this case, as viewed through Garner, renders the entire issue moot. Danroy Henry was drunk and used his vehicle in a manner similar to that of any other perp with a weapon, and quite frankly, he and his buddy got what they deserved.

According to the court case of Tennessee v. Garner, the use of deadly force is justified when an officer has probable cause to believe that an otherwise unarmed suspect, through his escape or means of escape, poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. (The court case also states that the instrument used to dispense the deadly force is of no consequence.) The totality of the circumstances in this case, as viewed through Garner, renders the entire issue moot. Danroy Henry was drunk and used his vehicle in a manner similar to that of any other perp with a weapon, and quite frankly, he and his buddy got what they deserved.

I am increasingly disgusted with the way the media is portraying this guy as the victim in this case. The victims are the cops who were involved, end of story.
As for these so called " minority law enforcement groups" who are so concerned with this case, the majority of them are corrections officers who have no clue what it's like to be a street cop. They should be embarassed to have held that press conference and said the anti cop things that they said. It's funny how they come out of the wood work when a cop shoots someone but when gang members are killing each other and people are getting robbed, beaten, raped, burglarized and shot each and every day, they say nothing. These jerks are opportunists and nothing more. Everyone ran to back up this guys family and his friends version of what happened and now that his BAC is back at a .13 everyone is quieting down a bit. It kind of reminds me of the tawana brawley case all those years ago... everyone ran to her defense and just like the witnesses in this case, she was a LIAR.
I pray that our brothers are doing well as they try to come to terms with the actions that they were forced to take. These cops made the right decisions and did an outstanding job given the circumstances. Just think, you have a large crowd and an out of control drunk driver, if the officer didn't take the action he did, imagine what the outcome could have been if the car sped into the crowd. This cop not only did the right thing, he is a hero in my book.

I'm sorry, but I am a firm believer in shared costs, meaning that everyone should pay at least something toward health insurance. If it costs me an extra $50 a check to subsidize my health insurance, and in the long run, I can alleviate some of the strain on my department and the taxpayers who support it, thereby potentially saving a job or jobs, then I am all for it. The private sector does it, and in this day and age, maybe the public sector should, too. We may have to foot some upfront costs, but in the long run, it might just be a better situation in the end.

Thanks Barry. I knew you would bail me out with the details. I know you have more too...stop holding out on us

Thank you for asking...it's unfair that people who live in communities that are not served by a volunteer department and who pay taxes for a career department have to pay for other communities who are served by a volunteer department. Don't you agree? If not, please explain.

You could make that argument and you would be correct. I can sympathize with why a taxpayer may have a problem with SAFER grants. However, there is one big difference... with a SAFER grant there is accountability. If the federal grant pays for firefighters, the firefighters who are being paid have to show up to work and respond when they are called.

They're all clowns, regardless of party. My theory of Dems and Reps is this: D= Depression and R=Recession. They're all self-serving people who pander to us - the voters - so that they can get elected, and then screw us the second they're seated in office. All I can say is that the true concept of having a government by and for the people of this great country has become muddied and obscured over the last 50 or so years because of the actions of these "career politicians."
And as far as being fined for breaking the law, that's fine by me (no pun intended), so long as the law is constitutional; sadly, in this case, it appears, to me, at least, that the clause regarding fines does not fall in line with the tenets of the US Constitution.

I agree, but I think the whole QTIP thing is a bit overused. Sure, there are some who take things to a degree higher than what was originally intended, but you'll find that everywhere. But, there are some who hide behind it. It's like cursing someone off and then when they get mad, saying "oh, QTIP." Just because QTIP is something that you see all over internet message boards such as this doesn't necessarily mean that it's a catch-all for statements made in poor taste.