« Development Watch: 509 Myrtle Avenue Monday Blogwrap »
July 13, 2009
Closing Bell: Shooting in Front of 370 Lafayette

The Local blog has the report on an undercover operation gone tragically wrong in Clinton Hill...Evidently an undercover cop sitting on the stoop at 370 Lafayette Avenue was attacked by a resident of the building who was angry at his presence on the stoop. One thing led to another and the resident was shot. Check The Local for more details. Update: The Daily News is reporting that the fight started because the policeman had an earpiece in that prevented him from hearing the resident, and ex-con, giving an initial command to get off his stoop; the resident then followed up with a kick to the back of the head and a punch in the face.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10581
Comments
I read this story in the NYDN. Seems like the guy was just trying to get the undercover guy off the stoop of his relative's house. How the hell did the officer shoot him? What a waste.
Posted by: dittoburg at July 13, 2009 4:12 PM
I hope the cop goes to jail for this. Pulling a gun out on an unarmed man?
Posted by: brickoven at July 13, 2009 4:17 PM
Yeah. Times had a big piece on it too & I don't understand how it happened. Two undercovers - one on the stoop & one on an adjacent one. Guy comes out of the house & asks the supposed dealer (i.e. cop) to move & ends up dead after struggle over the officer's gun. Huh?
Posted by: Arkady at July 13, 2009 4:17 PM
The narc should have GTF off the stoop when he was told to. Bloody hands.
***Bid half off peak comps***
Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at July 13, 2009 4:18 PM
Way too late on this one mr b. Post this at 10am and we're talking 300 plus posts. Oh well. I guess the what has made you think twice about potential race/class baiting.
Posted by: Return of Randolph at July 13, 2009 4:23 PM
The story said there were three cops in that location. WTF happened here that the situation escalated to a drawn gun anyway?????
It sounds like the cops didn't want to blow their cover and did not identify themselves at first.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 4:25 PM
here's the thing...
My instinct is that some point he identified himself as a cop. That means he got into a fight w/ a cop and tried to grab gun.
Even if he didnt know the guy was a cop, he still got into a fight w/ an armed man when he could have just retreated into the home.
This guy walked up to an individual he thought was either a drug dealer or a cop and confronted him. When the gun came out, he didnt run. He struggled for the gun, nearly guaranteeing that someone would get shot.
Could the cop have handled it better? Always.... but I cant come up with any scenario where the guy who got shot was blameless.
Posted by: slick at July 13, 2009 4:39 PM
Slick, you're a bona fide idiot
Posted by: cornerbodega at July 13, 2009 5:00 PM
Randi, agreed. When I heard this on the news, I thought for sure it would be the first item posted here today.
Posted by: Biff Champion at July 13, 2009 5:24 PM
the problem is not only do we not know the story...but that when we hear it it'll be the cops' story.
from the little i do know this is fucked up. dumb cops killing people with no cause need to spend their lives in jail.
Posted by: ftgreenepark at July 13, 2009 5:29 PM
i am just glad it was a black cop that shot a black perp, that's the last thing we need more al sharpton garbage.
Posted by: Xander Crews at July 13, 2009 5:54 PM
It seems that the gun went off by accident. However, in an arguement where there were at least two cops and one guy, the gun never should have been drawn initially. I think if the cops had identified themselves to the homeowner at the very beginning, none of this would have happened.
I can't believe that the cops use the gun whenever they have someone out of control. It's absolutely ridiculous. This policy has to stop. Even more so that, if they do have to use the gun, it's never to maime but always seems to be a shot, or many shots, that kill.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at July 13, 2009 5:57 PM
I hate cops just as much as the next hippie jerkoff, but this looks like a by the book shoot. Hope the cop gets promoted to something better than narcotics.
Posted by: Xander Crews at July 13, 2009 6:07 PM
Totally agree DIBS. Whereas I think in general the NYPD does a great job, there are too many incidents such as this. Not sure whether it's an issue of policy or training, but it's harmful to the wider mission of the NYPD when these incidents happen.
Posted by: etson at July 13, 2009 6:09 PM
Slick, if you believe that an unarmed Black man in Brooklyn tried to wrestle a drawn gun away from a known cop or suspected drug dealer, I'd like to talk to you about a bridge I am selling.
Posted by: Brooklynista at July 13, 2009 6:12 PM
Stuff like this needs to happen more often to make this city a safer place to live.
Posted by: Xander Crews at July 13, 2009 6:16 PM
hey xander and slick, maybe you can share a bus out of town. redneck fools.
Posted by: ramona at July 13, 2009 7:01 PM
yo slick/xander. maybe you can go half on a white sheet. fools.
Posted by: ramona at July 13, 2009 7:03 PM
Black people are simply targets to cops who think like slick/Xander Crews.
Posted by: East New York at July 13, 2009 7:08 PM
I'm am incredibly saddened by this!
Mr. Walker was only trying to get young men he probably figured were drug dealers off his stoop. Why or WHY couldn't these stupid cops have "fled the scene" if they were really trying not to "blow there cover"????!!!
This is a travesty!!!
Posted by: BrooklynGreene at July 13, 2009 7:09 PM
obama promised me hope and change, all we have is more black on black crime, why dont we make Dinkins our mayor again, this city needs another 2600 murders and a good douching.
Posted by: Xander Crews at July 13, 2009 8:42 PM
Brownstoner, I'm confused. Just 3 days ago someone posted an incident about rude cops drawing their guns on him and his dog. We all chipped in about can potentially go wrong when rude and arrogant cops with guns confront the public, something many (non-home owning) Brooklynites can relate to.
You took the post down and reminded us kids to basically stick to Real Estate as per your post below.
Forum Rules and Regs
Here's what's allowed on the Forum: Questions from readers about renovation, gardening, real estate and quality-of-life issues relating to home ownership; readers (not businesses) are also encouraged to post architectural salvage items for sale. Here's what's not allowed: Self-promotional posts by businesses of any kind, events postings, off-topic rants and cut-and-paste articles. Contractors and other service providers may respond to general reader questions or to specific negative reviews. Thank you.
Posted by Brownstoner at 11:59 PM
Using your own logic - I ask you respectfully. What does this have to do with Real Estate??
Posted by: Crownlfc at July 13, 2009 9:27 PM
This has a lot to do with real estate, if you were a prospective home buyer you know not to move to that shitty block regardes of how "up and coming" Corcoran calls it.
Or maybe you want to if you're looking to score some crack and now you know where to cop.
Keep up the good work Brownstoner,
Posted by: Xander Crews at July 13, 2009 9:34 PM
Crown,
Those are, and have always been, the guidelines for the Forum. Not sure why you have a bee in your bonnet about this. The home page has always covered a broad range of local information like retail news and, yes, crime.
Posted by: brownstoner at July 14, 2009 6:45 AM
As someone who has lived three blocks from this shooting, I must say that the police presence is a godsend. Latieta James has tried to get increased presence for the people here, and finally something has happened.
I lived three blocks from this shooting location. Over 10 months of "living" there was 1 gang killing, 2 killings, and dozens of gun shots heard. Each time I called 911 to get late response and scoffed at by the police. Finally there is something being done in this hotbed of activity.
I wish all the people who that live in this area, peace and harmony. And I thank god each time I hear of an incident over there that I have left the area.
Posted by: johnpaul at July 14, 2009 8:30 AM
"It seems that the gun went off by accident"
DIBS, I respect your views, but there's no such thing. Keep that gun under your bed and it'll never accidentally fire itself.
Posted by: dittoburg at July 14, 2009 8:43 AM
The guy who lived in the house was clearly a hot head and probably wouldn't have died had he tried a calmer approach but still, the fact of the matter is it should not be possible to die at the hands of police on one's own porch when stepping outside for a smoke. Police training and procedure must adjust to this tragic situation.
Posted by: wasder at July 14, 2009 9:07 AM
Why is it OK for the police to set up a drug sting on the steps of a private residence?
Maybe this guy was a hot head, but he is a military dude confronting some jerk sitting on his Mom's front step looking like he is selling or buying drugs (which is exactly what the cops wanted folks to think).
I am not sure how many would confront such a situation in a calm friendly manner. This is a sad case of escalating testosterone levels.
But I still can't figure out why the police can use your home any how they see fit. We can't openly drink a beer on our stoops, but they can step up stings potentially and actually endangering all who live in the home without their consent.
Posted by: bedstuy11216 at July 14, 2009 10:41 AM
So the guy that got shot was an asshole, and rule of thumb if you are an asshole and mess with a cop, the chances of getting shot increase.
Posted by: Xander Crews at July 14, 2009 11:10 AM
xander- if we are to go along with your premise then it might be a smart idea for you to stay inside . ignorant racist.
Posted by: ramona at July 14, 2009 12:25 PM
aww.. name calling, not a racist, just tell it like it is and the truth hurts.
Dont be a dick, you wont get shot... its a simple yet effective rule.
Posted by: Xander Crews at July 14, 2009 12:33 PM
Point taken Brownstoner - thanks for the clarification.
As for you Xander, I don't know if you're semi-literate or you simply didn't read my post in your rush to retort but you've actually made my point for me. Thank you.
As for this unfortunate incident: Who knows what happened but again, an undercover officer with proper training should've got up and left if someone, a hot head or not asked them to. Come back with back up if you have to but your job is to avoid confrontation and keep your cover.
Posted by: Crownlfc at July 14, 2009 1:01 PM
i live there. i am so grateful the police are trying to bust up the drug dealing activity, insofar as it is connected to violence. i don't think there is anything wrong with operating a sting from stoops of apartments- it does not increase the level of danger if that's where dealing is occuring with or without police presence.
Posted by: blowfish at July 14, 2009 1:05 PM
Now they are saying that the cop was wearing earphones and therefore could not hear Walker (who was standing right next to him). Even if that is believable, and Walker did start physically assaulting the cop, he must have known that Walker had just come from inside the building and had a good idea of the motivation for the assault. Then he is assisted by his partner, who grabs Walker, but the first cop still sees a need to pull out a gun?
I also find it hard to believe that Walker would grab the gun if he was indeed aware that the armed man was a police officer. Not a smart thing to do in any event, but if you were being restrained by one apparent thug while another was pointing a gun directly at you, that might be a natural reflex action.
Brownstoner, I find it interesting that you emphasize that Walker was an ex-con. There is no question that the whole thing was an unfortunate accident, arguably resulting from police error, or a systemic over-reliance on firearms by law enforcement. Do you mean to suggest that one's view of the incident should be different if the victim is an ex-con vs. someone who has never been caught breaking the law? It's not as though there is an issue as to whether he "brought it on himself" by association with other criminals. In this case, the cops only appeared to be criminal types and were clearly not associates of the victim.
I agree with the prior post saying that if the cops were intent on not blowing their cover they should have just left the scene rather than engaging with Walker. Given their posture as drug dealers hanging out on other people's property they might have chalked up any flack they received to occupational hazards. It would be different if they witnessed Walker assaulting a citizen, but then again the appropriate thing to do would still be to identify themselves.
Blowfish -- I take it you are okay with the cops (posturing as drug dealers) hanging out on private stoops as long as it is not your stoop. How would you feel if you walked out of your door to see a shady character lounging on your steps? Also note that this was the stoop of a single family home not an apartment building, so it was clearly not someone who had any reason to be there.
Posted by: supersleuth at July 14, 2009 2:18 PM
Stuff like this doesn't happen in Park Slope because everyone seems to have a job.
Posted by: Xander Crews at July 14, 2009 2:33 PM
^^^No, Cop's Husbands shoot Cops in Park Slope. But maybe he did have a job.
Posted by: bedstuy11216 at July 14, 2009 4:05 PM
supersleuth- yes, i am okay with a cop hanging out on my stoop, not sure why you would have assumed otherwise. like i said, i live in that neighborhood. i don't think the cop was posturing as a drug dealer- he was backup for a cop posturing as a buyer in front of a bodega. so, he was posturing as an invited guest. yes, had i come out of my house, i would have been annoyed and would have asked him to leave, not knowing he was a cop. if he did not leave, i would have gone back inside and called the cops.
all of this is to say nothing about what happened at 370 Gates. i don't follow what necessitated the gun to be drawn, even if he was being assaulted, but i'd rather not try to glean who might have been at fault from the article. i'm just saying the premise of an undercover cop on my stoop, or anyone's stoop, where there is already dangerous activity, does not offend me.
Posted by: blowfish at July 14, 2009 5:52 PM
Blowfish, I also live on a corner with a lot of drug activity and, selfishly, would love to see some regular busts until the market moved elsewhere. However I think using private property for this purpose without permission is pushing it. Sorry to belabor the point but if this happened to you, you would not know the person sitting on your stoop was a cop. It would just appear that they were loitering. As a woman, I think I would actually feel a little threatened by a strange man sitting on my steps without permission. (Particularly if, like Walker's mother, I was in my seventies, legally blind and an amputee.) Depending on my level of timidity that day I may even be reluctant to ask the person to move, because I would assume, just by virtue of them sitting there, that they didn't have too much regard for my interests. If I were home by myself at night I might even be afraid to open the door, which, if they had some criminal intent, would give them the opportunity to force themselves into my house.
You are right, I misspoke when I said the undercovers were posturing as drug dealers. But regardless, to the person whose property they are using I think they would seem shady just by virtue of what they were doing. And based on some knowledge of this issue (not from TV) I think that most undercover narcotics officers affect a less than clean cut look because sometimes they play the ghost role and other times the buyer. So I imagine these guys didn't exactly look like Jehovah's Witnesses taking a break from knocking on doors.
I think that this incident may result in a new policy precluding the use of private property by undercover cops when not absolutely necessary.
Xander -- this happened on Saturday night. A LOT of people with jobs are home on Saturday night.
Posted by: supersleuth at July 14, 2009 7:03 PM
xander- last i checked "asshole" was as much a name as"racist" and while you might not think you are either and some of your best friends are black and/or you voted for obama and liked run dmc back in the day, judging by your comments you are damn close to being a racist. you are spouting off some really inane, out of wacka nd , uh, yeah. racist crap, just because you're not using epithets doesn't mean we can't crack the code(d) language and references.
and as for brownstoner. walker's criminal past has nothing to with this. bringing it up is a tactic worthy of rudy.
Posted by: ramona at July 14, 2009 9:30 PM
Amen, amen, Supersleuth, and Ramona! And, thank goodness for the common sense, conscious and compassionate reasoning of the majority of those who have posted to this thread! Regardless of how poorly Walker may have responded to the problem of an "intruder" on his stoop, the ignorant cops who set this whole chain of events in motion by their mere presence on the stoop, handled their response to his upset even worse. Now an unarmed brother is dead for no good reason. Those who are celebrating his death as an indicator that the police are finally doing something about drug dealing in the nabe just ought to be ashamed of themselves. As for Xander Crews? Just ignore him/her. This individual is a troll who delights in provoking emotional responses. No need to feed the fool.
Posted by: Brooklynista at July 14, 2009 11:39 PM
supersleuth- i said i would not know he was a cop and would be annoyed and would feel threatened enough to call the cops if he did not leave. but i said that would be worth it to me. that said, i take your point that it may not be necessary for ghosts to be on stoops for an operation, so they shouldn't unless they have to.
Brooklynista- show me one comment where someone was celebrating Walker's death. you ought to be ashamed of yourself for making such a baseless comment. People were lauding that there is finally a police presence after a LOT of community push for one, separate from the tragedy. the debate was over whether the ghost on the stoop was the proximate cause for Walker's fatal injuries, and so his death should have been forseeable just from the practice, or whether it was that particular cop's behavior that was or was not the cause. try reading AND comprehending.
Posted by: blowfish at July 15, 2009 1:04 PM

Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.