PDA

View Full Version : Al Sharpton Arrested at Protest in NYC


JediAthos
05-07-2008, 08:15 PM
NEW YORK - The Rev. Al Sharpton was arrested at the Brooklyn Bridge on Wednesday as he and hundreds of demonstrators blocked traffic to protest the acquittal of three detectives in the 50-bullet shooting of an unarmed black man on his wedding day.
ADVERTISEMENT

Sharpton, two survivors of the shooting and the slain man's fiancee were among about a dozen people arrested on disorderly conduct charges near the base of the bridge. Police led away demonstrators at several other bridges and tunnels in the city.

The protests were part of a coordinated campaign to urge federal authorities to investigate the November 2006 shooting of Sean Bell. Three officers were acquitted of state charges last month.

Sharpton, shooting survivors Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman, and Bell's fiancee, Nicole Paultre Bell, lined up and peacefully put their hands behind their backs as police put plastic handcuffs on them. Sharpton and Bell were placed in a police vehicle.

The civil rights leader is seeking a federal civil rights probe into Bell's shooting outside a Queens nightclub. The case raised questions about police use of deadly force in minority neighborhoods.

Sharpton had promised recently to "close this city down" with civil disobedience.

Bell was black, as are his friends Benefield and Guzman; the three officers acquitted in the case are Hispanic, black and white.

U.S. attorney spokesman Robert Nardoza said the case was under review, but he declined to comment further.

(Source: AP via Yahoo.com)


Has anyone been following this story? What is your opinion on the officers acquittal? What is your opinion on Al Sharpton?

Achilles
05-07-2008, 08:29 PM
Sharpton had promised recently to "close this city down" with civil disobedience. Apparently he's confused as to what "civil disobedience" means :(

*Don*
05-07-2008, 08:46 PM
The officers definitely did not deserve to be acquitted on all charges.
They should have at least been charged with something....
At any rate, I think Sharpton's trying to follow in MLK's footsteps with "civil disobedience" but I agree with Achilles when I say that he's definitely confused about the definition of civil disobedience itself.

JediAthos
05-07-2008, 08:57 PM
I agree Don...I think excessive use of force at the very least. Fifty bullets seems like a lot to me, but on the other hand I'm not a cop and I wasn't there.

Arcesious
05-07-2008, 09:54 PM
Yeah... 50 Bullets... What kind of gun was being used? If it was a handgun(I don't know the details very well), then I'd say that is was excessive... Because you have to reload before you can belt off 50 bullets with a handgun... It only takes one bullet to kill- and policemen should be trained to have a good aim... I think that this was deliberate, and those policemen deserve to be punished.

*Don*
05-07-2008, 10:03 PM
In fact, there was a report on CNN where they said that one of the officers actually stopped and reloaded his weapon and proceed to empty the clip into Bell once again.
If that isn't excessive force, I don't know what is.

Boba Rhett
05-07-2008, 10:12 PM
It's been a while since this was discussed. As I recall it was five officers firing their handguns at three men in a car. Yes, one of the officers did reload but it wasn't as if he was standing over one of the men continuously plinking him. He was continuing to shoot at movement in the car. Having fifty shots fired in a very short amount of time isn't that ridiculous in such a situation. I think Bell was actually only struck four times in the hail of gunfire.

As for the "reverened" Mr. Sharpton; when I'm thinking of an abject buffoon in a suit, I'm usually thinking of him.

SilentScope001
05-07-2008, 10:14 PM
It does not matter if the guy is actually guilty. The courts declare him innocent, and the Consitution prevent the guy from being retired except there is new evidence. He may be guilty, but that's why Rev. Al Sharpton is a Reverend...there's God to punish injustice.

There's no real reason why to shut down the city, since the courts cannot go against the Consitution and try him again. Once the criminal is declared innocent, he will be seen as innocent, no matter what.

TK-8252
05-07-2008, 10:49 PM
I find it strange how cops can pump FIFTY ROUNDS into an UNARMED MAN... and get away with it.

Don't cops need to, like, actually SEE the gun the man was suspected of carrying before they open fire? Jesus... if I were to see someone break into my house, and he does not have a weapon although I suspect he does, and I shoot him just once, I would be thrown in prison for a very long time. The idea that cops should be held to a lower standard than your average citizen is just outrageous.

Arcesious
05-08-2008, 12:07 AM
Can't they plee 'mistrial' and retry the policemen for the crime?

JediAthos
05-08-2008, 12:45 AM
Not under the double jeopardy provisions in the law. There would have to be some kind of new evidence or a different set of charges for them to be tried again at the state level. Now the Federal government on the other hand could bring charges against them.

TK-8252: No..a police officer does not need to see the weapon a suspect may be carrying. The officer only needs to perceive that the threat exists which could be indicated by a suspect reaching into a jacket, behind a back etc... As far as someone breaking into your home goes...that varies. In a lot of places if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them you are justified regardless of whether they had a weapon or not.

Boba Rhett
05-08-2008, 01:03 AM
Our entire judicial system would be for not if such a thing were to occur, Arcesious.


if I were to see someone break into my house, and he does not have a weapon although I suspect he does, and I shoot him just once, I would be thrown in prison for a very long time.

Are you in the states? Most states now have stand-your-ground Castle Doctrine laws concerning these matters, meaning that you have the right to use deadly force to defend against forcible unlawful entry. Almost all the other states at least take a duty-to-retreat stance on the issue where you can at least use deadly force when it is absolutely necessary and you have announced that you will do so.

Da_man
05-08-2008, 01:12 AM
Yeah... 50 Bullets... What kind of gun was being used? If it was a handgun(I don't know the details very well), then I'd say that is was excessive... Because you have to reload before you can belt off 50 bullets with a handgun... It only takes one bullet to kill- and policemen should be trained to have a good aim... I think that this was deliberate, and those policemen deserve to be punished.

Like Arcesious, I think 50 bullets is a little over the top, since they were most likely using handguns, even for cops. The average handgun has something like 10 rounds to a clip, and even if they were using SMGs, which I doubt they were, they still have to reload at some point.I wouldn't be lieve they'd search the dude before they started shooting. I mean you have to have resonable suspicion of the guy having a weapon, and i don't think that you would get a very good idea of the guy if you just loooked at him while he was in a car.

Boba Rhett
05-08-2008, 01:52 AM
A standard police issue Beretta has a 15 +1 capacity. If they had extenders maybe up to 19+1. These clips can be emptied in big hurry.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying in the latter half of your paragraph.

Rogue Nine
05-08-2008, 02:22 AM
A standard police issue Beretta has a 15 +1 capacity. If they had extenders maybe up to 19+1. These clips can be emptied in big hurry.
New York City Police use Glocks, which usually carry a 15-round or higher magazine.

And Rev. Sharpton is such an ass. He paid witnesses, for crying out loud. If I'm trying to find justice for Sean Bell, I don't want him on my side.

El Sitherino
05-08-2008, 02:27 AM
I don't get it. Why arrest them?

Just give them all ticket. I understand what they did, even considering the reasonings, was over-exaggerated, but arrest is silly. Plus they just know they're gonna pay out.
It seems over-exaggerated on the Police Departments side.

You'd think the children of people from the decades of many protests and marches would be a little more perceptive and appreciative of the ability to even make a bold act like this. It's what the country was developed on, the right to express concern for injustice against people for petty and personal reasons.

I know, "They blocked Brooklyn Bridge and there was traffic backing up for hours". I don't recall a time, but if it were normal hours for traffic (civil disobedience could reasonably be cover for staging a "prayer-in" during normal back-up hours) then no harm was caused.

TK-8252
05-08-2008, 02:34 AM
TK-8252: No..a police officer does not need to see the weapon a suspect may be carrying. The officer only needs to perceive that the threat exists which could be indicated by a suspect reaching into a jacket, behind a back etc... As far as someone breaking into your home goes...that varies. In a lot of places if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them you are justified regardless of whether they had a weapon or not.

Are you sure? So if I reach in my pocket while being questioned by a cop, they are within their rights to shoot me dead? I doubt it.

The suspect was in a car when he was shot. Reaching for something while in your car is not something you deserve to die for. The cops were trigger-happy and that's all there is to it.

Are you in the states? Most states now have stand-your-ground Castle Doctrine laws concerning these matters, meaning that you have the right to use deadly force to defend against forcible unlawful entry. Almost all the other states at least take a duty-to-retreat stance on the issue where you can at least use deadly force when it is absolutely necessary and you have announced that you will do so.

Yes I am. I imagine the only place you could legally kill an unarmed intruder would be Texas, and even there, you probably would still be prosecuted for it.

El Sitherino
05-08-2008, 02:53 AM
Yes I am. I imagine the only place you could legally kill an unarmed intruder would be Texas, and even there, you probably would still be sued for it.
Fix'd.

Also to note. You cannot shoot at someone just for reaching at something, especially in a car. I highly doubt you drive with your registration and your wallet with ID out in your lap at all times.

Boba Rhett
05-08-2008, 03:08 AM
Are you sure? So if I reach in my pocket while being questioned by a cop, they are within their rights to shoot me dead? I doubt it.


Err... well, yes. Absolutely. ...you really doubt this? Seriously? If a police officer is given any reason to think that you are going for a weapon, they are going to draw their firearm and use force. Why would you think differently? They're not going to wait around to see if they get shot then shoot you back.


The suspect was in a car when he was shot. Reaching for something while in your car is not something you deserve to die for. The cops were trigger-happy and that's all there is to it.

Ah, so you have a problem with unarmed civilians being killed? Me too! :) Unfortunately, past experience with armed and dangerous civilians have made police fear for their own lives. Are you suggesting that police officers be asked to play russian roulette with their own lives every day by having to always assume that the person standing in front of them isn't reaching for a weapon if they suddenly jam their fist into their pocket?

I imagine the only place you could legally kill an unarmed intruder would be Texas, and even there, you probably would still be prosecuted for it.


How is anyone supposed to know when an intruder is unarmed or not? Ask politely?

Almost all of your statements so far have been conjecture. Which is hard to refute because more conjecture will surely follow. You're more than welcome to doubt/imagine/etc. whatever you want to but I assure you that I'm not simply pulling my statements from my arse, despite the rumors Niner so viciously spreads about me. As I said, most states, 31 of them I believe, currently support the stand-your-ground policy which, and I quote, which expressly relieves the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.

El Sitherino
05-08-2008, 10:07 AM
There's a little notation in Police Conduct called, reasonable measure, Rhett.

Unless there is a sincere immediate fear for life, you are generally to take a more non-lethal approach to firing shots. If the car was driving off, they could have easily followed after and arrested the men.

mimartin
05-08-2008, 11:10 AM
Yes I am. I imagine the only place you could legally kill an unarmed intruder would be Texas, and even there, you probably would still be prosecuted for it. Let's leave Texas out of this one please. When you can shoot a drunken Irish man through a locked door and get away with it, the Texas juridical system is not the standard I want to hold the rest of the world to. FWIW Texas requires that you be in fear for your safety or fear for your property.

It is also my understanding that Mississippi allows the use of deadly force if the intruder is fully within your property. So donít shoot the burglar coming through the window until they are within the home and not in danger of falling out.

Al Sharpton has the right to protest and I actually agree with this cause. He does not have the right to block traffic. Since I donít know if the police gave an order for the protesters to disburse or not. I cannot say if police acted correctly, but if I was stuck in that traffic I would have applauded their decision.

ET Warrior
05-08-2008, 11:16 AM
In Colorado we have the 'Make my Day' law, which grants the use of deadly force against the invader of your home if you believe it is for criminal intent.

Rogue Nine
05-08-2008, 12:07 PM
New York is one of the busiest cities in the world with regards to automobile traffic. What Sharpton did was disrupt the flow of that traffic by being in the way. That's just not smart. What he did was boneheaded and stupid, and only serves to prove he's a giant windbag seeking to cause publicity in any way he can, mostly in a negative way.

What a maroon.

Web Rider
05-08-2008, 12:31 PM
"Officer Gescard Isnora fired eleven, and veteran officer Michael Oliver emptied two full magazines"

TWO!? Two full magazines, damn man! This guy should of at least gotten cross misconduct and recklessness. I'm amazed Guzman survived after being shot 19 times. According to cameras a block away, one of the cops shots nearly hit a port authority and a couple dock workers.

tk102
05-08-2008, 12:35 PM
Apparently he's confused as to what "civil disobedience" means :(Apparently I am too, because it sounds like he protested civilly and disobediently.

Totenkopf
05-08-2008, 01:28 PM
New York is one of the busiest cities in the world with regards to automobile traffic. What Sharpton did was disrupt the flow of that traffic by being in the way. That's just not smart. What he did was boneheaded and stupid, and only serves to prove he's a giant windbag seeking to cause publicity in any way he can, mostly in a negative way.

What a maroon.

Hence its inevitability. ;) FTR, think it's ridiculous how much attention this buffon gets in the media, especially from Fox. :tsk:

JediAthos
05-08-2008, 01:54 PM
I myself am not a fan of Al Sharpton at all. I don't agree with most of what he says or does, but in this instance I hate to admit that he is probably right and those officers should be held accountable for their actions.

From this excerpt form an AP article on yahoo dated today it looks like the NYPD might just drop the hammer on them too.

"Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has said his department is considering disciplinary action against the detectives."

EnderWiggin
05-08-2008, 02:03 PM
Apparently I am too, because it sounds like he protested civilly and disobediently.
:lol:


How is anyone supposed to know when an intruder is unarmed or not? Ask politely?

You're completely right. And to top it off, the testimony heard in court was that one of the men in the car was believed to have a weapon. One of the perpetrators was reported to have said "Yo, get my gun and kill that dumb white b***h."

I agree Don...I think excessive use of force at the very least. Fifty bullets seems like a lot to me, but on the other hand I'm not a cop and I wasn't there.

Quite right. You weren't. Think about it from the cops' point of view. They were trying to apprehend the suspect(s) who was trying to flee and they believed he was armed. They didn't just say to themselves, "Let's see how many shots we can get off before this guy dies." And even so, there were four (or five?) cops that fired shots. Not like one guy just went psycho and shot three-and a half clips into the car.

Can't they plee 'mistrial' and retry the policemen for the crime?

Seriously? :(. First of all, a mistrial is called if there is a mistake in the trial or if something happens that makes it impossible for the trial to be finished fairly. That wasn't the case here. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Double_Jeopardy if you need a crash course in American Freedoms, since you obviously want to throw all of the rules out of the window in order to convict these men. You seriously think they deserve the 25 years in prison that a 1st degree Manslaughter charge gets you? (Granted, this is the maximum, but prison is required.) Wow.


Are you sure? So if I reach in my pocket while being questioned by a cop, they are within their rights to shoot me dead? I doubt it.

Abso-freaking-lutely.

Try it sometime. I'll come to your funeral.

-----

Look up the case, people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell

"The undercover officer ordered Bell to raise his hands after getting in his car. Instead, Bell accelerated the car and hit an unmarked police minivan."

In that moment, they acted how the police should act. And for that, they should not be punished.

_EW_

Web Rider
05-08-2008, 03:16 PM
:lol:
Look up the case, people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell

"The undercover officer ordered Bell to raise his hands after getting in his car. Instead, Bell accelerated the car and hit an unmarked police minivan."

In that moment, they acted how the police should act. And for that, they should not be punished.

_EW_

Unload 50 shots into 3 people in a car? If that's how police are "supposed to act" then we need some new police. A guy was shot 19 times. 19!

First: Bell and co did not know the car in front of them was a cop car, as it was UNMARKED. Second: the police did not inform Bell and friends that they were cops. They were plainclothes guys who came up to them, while they were in their car, and told them to put their hands up. Bell and friends were also very drunk.

So, you just got out of a bar, you're drunk. You go to get in the car, which is a bad move, but hey, you do it anyway. A bunch of guys(of mixed races), who are probably large and intimidating, come up to your car and tell you to put your hands up.

Your first reaction is: "OH SH** I'M GETTING CARJACKED!" And hit the gas. of course, you're to drunk to realize that there's a car in front of you, so you rear-end it.

The cops unload 50 rounds into you. One cop even stop to reload and keep shooting...until the second clip is EMPTY. Their shots are so errattic that they almost hit a port authority a block away(which in NYC can be quite a distance).

Now, do you think that they acted "reasonably" and "as cops should"? These cops were what, 5 feet away from the car? less? Missing is rather hard at this point. Letting off 3-4 shots per cop, at that range, is generally enough to down 3 people, especially when there were 5 cops. Especially when those people were sitting in a car, and not likly to escape.

I could understand if it said: 15 shots fired. And one of the guys was hit 2 or 3 times. But this is 50 shots, and one man was hit 19 times. That is approx 17 shots PER PERSON. Now, only in the most extreme cases of a strong man being high on drugs has it required the cops to unload that many shots into a person to stop them.

Since this was not the case, I wonder, exactly, what rationale went through the officers minds that they needed to fire this many shots into 3 men.

Da_man
05-08-2008, 03:39 PM
Look up the case, people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell

"The undercover officer ordered Bell to raise his hands after getting in his car. Instead, Bell accelerated the car and hit an unmarked police minivan."

In that moment, they acted how the police should act. And for that, they should not be punished.

Might I point out that the atricle came from wikipedia! Wikipedia can't be trusted. We have no clue who wrote that.

EnderWiggin
05-08-2008, 03:46 PM
First: Bell and co did not know the car in front of them was a cop car, as it was UNMARKED. Second: the police did not inform Bell and friends that they were cops. They were plainclothes guys who came up to them, while they were in their car, and told them to put their hands up. Bell and friends were also very drunk.

First: I don't care whether they were driving a cop car or an ice cream truck. Second: The police testified that they announced who they were. And if Bell was very drunk, then in my opinion most of the blame falls on him.



So, you just got out of a bar, you're drunk. You go to get in the car, which is a bad move, but hey, you do it anyway. A bunch of guys(of mixed races), who are probably large and intimidating, come up to your car and tell you to put your hands up.

I think you are making generalizations and assumptions there.


Now, do you think that they acted "reasonably" and "as cops should"? These cops were what, 5 feet away from the car? less? Missing is rather hard at this point. Letting off 3-4 shots per cop, at that range, is generally enough to down 3 people, especially when there were 5 cops. Especially when those people were sitting in a car, and not likly to escape.

Good conjecture and speculation. Were you there to decide that people driving a car were unlikely to escape? "The majority of the bullet holes in the Altima were on the passenger side of the vehicle, also supporting claims that police thought that passenger Joseph Guzman was reaching for a gun, and not just firing haphazardly as the prosecution claims."


But this is 50 shots, and one man was hit 19 times. That is approx 17 shots PER PERSON.

Fifty shots by five guys is an average of ten.


Since this was not the case, I wonder, exactly, what rationale went through the officers minds that they needed to fire this many shots into 3 men.
Perhaps the rationale that any man who thinks they are going to die. The officer thought he had a gun, saw him reaching, saw his arm coming up. What was he going to do? He kept shooting until there was no more movement.

He acted in order to eliminate the perceived threat to him and his fellow officers caused by someone who was breaking the law. He ended a life. It's tragic. But they're not culpable for it.

_EW_



Edited out the condescending and belligerent comments.

Keep it civil, people.
~9

Corinthian
05-08-2008, 03:57 PM
Police Procedure is, when Deadly Force is called for, open fire until suspects are no longer moving. Oh, yeah, and they're not trained to hit targets in the arms, legs, or shoot the guns out of their hands. If the facts of the case are accurate, and: 1: The cops were threatened by one suspect declaring he possessed a weapon and would "Kill the White *****", proceeded to ignore Police orders and attempt to flee in their vehicle, then crashed, the Cops were RIGHT to open fire. Especially given that Sean Bell was a pretty rough criminal, what with him being a drug dealer.

Sean Bell was an idiot. Ultimately, his death was his fault, and his alone.

*Don*
05-08-2008, 04:13 PM
Might I point out that the atricle came from wikipedia! Wikipedia can't be trusted. We have no clue who wrote that.

That part is actually true.
Look up the sources at the bottom of the page and it'll lead you to the New York Post website which is a much more reputable source.

As for the cops being scared for their lives and opening fire, whatever the hell happened to ducking and finding cover?
Its NYC and hence there are plenty of objects (parked vehicles etc) to duck behind.
Once Sean Bell's car had stopped and the passengers got out, the cops could have waited to proceed.



I think you are making generalizations and assumptions there.


They're quite accurate assumptions. In a place like Queens, NY, carjackers are rampant and are constantly watched out for.

If plainclothes people come up to you and claim to be officers and ask you to keep your hands where they can be seen, wouldn't you be skeptical?
If your from the suburbs maybe you wouldn't. But in the inner cities, an event like that would have alarm bells going off in the back of any man's head.
With no uniform and no badge that can be immediately seen, it's a little weird if you get approached as such.

EnderWiggin
05-08-2008, 04:15 PM
Police Procedure is, when Deadly Force is called for, open fire until suspects are no longer moving. Oh, yeah, and they're not trained to hit targets in the arms, legs, or shoot the guns out of their hands. If the facts of the case are accurate, and: 1: The cops were threatened by one suspect declaring he possessed a weapon and would "Kill the White *****", proceeded to ignore Police orders and attempt to flee in their vehicle, then crashed, the Cops were RIGHT to open fire. Especially given that Sean Bell was a pretty rough criminal, what with him being a drug dealer.

Sean Bell was an idiot. Ultimately, his death was his fault, and his alone.

Thank you very much.


Might I point out that the atricle came from wikipedia! Wikipedia can't be trusted. We have no clue who wrote that.

Gotta be kidding me. With this being in the news so much and seeing how it gets so many page views its ridiculous to think that misinformation would remain on the article. Others would fix it. Plus, its got a bunch of citations.


Once Sean Bell's car had stopped and the passengers got out, the cops could have waited to proceed.

....That never happened. :confused: The guys were still in the car because they were trying to get away when the shooting started. And the cops thought he was grabbing a gun. So there was no waiting needed.



They're quite accurate assumptions. In a place like Queens, NY, carjackers are rampant and are constantly watched out for.
I was referring to the assumption that the guys were intimidating.


If your from the suburbs maybe you wouldn't. But in the inner cities, an event like that would have alarm bells going off in the back of any man's head.
With no uniform and no badge that can be immediately seen, it's a little weird if you get approached as such.

Doesn't excuse the victim or incriminate the cops. So it's a bit moot.

_EW_

Totenkopf
05-08-2008, 04:24 PM
As for the cops being scared for their lives and opening fire, whatever the hell happened to ducking and finding cover?
Its NYC and hence there are plenty of objects (parked vehicles etc) to duck behind.
Once Sean Bell's car had stopped and the passengers got out, the cops could have waited to proceed.

Don't know about you, but if the cops are busy ducking and hiding, most criminals would be busy getting the hell out of dodge. Cops are paid to face danger, not run away. If all they did was the former, why hire any (besides throwing biz to the coffe & donut shops :D )?



If plainclothes people come up to you and claim to be officers and ask you to keep your hands where they can be seen, wouldn't you be skeptical?
If your from the suburbs maybe you wouldn't. But in the inner cities, an event like that would have alarm bells going off in the back of any man's head.
With no uniform and no badge that can be immediately seen, it's a little weird if you get approached as such.

On the other hand, this guy had a rap sheet, or at least a reputation. The idea of being busted by undercover cops wouldn't have been a foreign idea to him.

*Don*
05-08-2008, 04:49 PM
Cops are paid to face danger, not run away.


What danger? They weren't getting shot at.
And, with the exception of the car accident, the victims hadn't endangered anybody.


Doesn't excuse the victim or incriminate the cops.


I never said that it was incriminating.
At the same time, it doesn't excuse the cops for firing 50 bullets.
Had it just been 10 or 15, I could've understood. But why did the cops discharge 50 shots in respsonse to a gun which they did not even see?

EnderWiggin
05-08-2008, 05:03 PM
What danger? They weren't getting shot at.
And, with the exception of the car accident, the victims hadn't endangered anybody.

Really?

First of all, they suspected these guys were going to go shoot a woman. Then, the guy gets in an accident. Both are endangerment to others.

Also, you and I both know that apprehending criminals and preventing crime are both things they're also paid for as well as facing the danger that you don't believe existed.

_EW_

*Don*
05-08-2008, 05:12 PM
Really?

First of all, they suspected these guys were going to go shoot a woman. Then, the guy gets in an accident. Both are endangerment to others.

Also, you and I both know that apprehending criminals and preventing crime are both things they're also paid for as well as facing the danger that you don't believe existed.

_EW_

I agree that the drunk driving was definitely endangerment.
But if the cops were so concerned about preventing vehicular homicide, why didn't they just shoot at the tires?
Additionally, even if the car escaped, backup was already on the way and they could've been chased down.

Furthermore, simply being suspected of murder isn't a valid excuse for killing a man.
How's that justified? They attempt to kill three people in order to save a woman?

Additionally, at the time, the cops apparently didn't know about Bell's previous drug dealing past.
According to sources, they were tipped off by another person and feared that a shooting may occur.

EnderWiggin
05-08-2008, 05:21 PM
I agree that the drunk driving was definitely endangerment.
But if the cops were so concerned about preventing vehicular homicide, why didn't they just shoot at the tires?


Hello? You don't shoot the tires of a car that has three suspects in it, perceived to be armed, raising his arm. Not a good plan.


Furthermore, simply being suspected of murder isn't a valid excuse for killing a man.
How's that justified? They attempt to kill three people in order to save a woman?


If Sean Bell & Co would have complied he wouldn't have died and then everyone would have been saved. It's absolutely his fault. They acted in order to prevent a murder. It's a valid excuse if you think you're going to die. They didn't just start shooting. There were exigent circumstances.

Additionally, at the time, the cops apparently didn't know about Bell's previous drug dealing past.
According to sources, they were tipped off by another person and feared that a shooting may occur.

Are you arguing my side or yours?

_EW_

Rogue Nine
05-08-2008, 05:31 PM
Guys, watch the tone. There's no reason we can't discuss this maturely, no reason we have to resort to pointed condescension and sarcasm.

Play nice.

*Don*
05-08-2008, 05:33 PM
If Sean Bell & Co would have complied he wouldn't have died and then everyone would have been saved. It's absolutely his fault. They acted in order to prevent a murder. It's a valid excuse if you think you're going to die. They didn't just start shooting. There were exigent circumstances.


I'm not saying that the cops were wrong to fire. In fact, all I'm trying to say is that:


They should have at least been charged with something....


50 bullets is a lot. I dont' think there's any man that can continue to make threatening movements after getting shot more than 15 times (like the passenger). Accordingly, I feel that they should have at least been charged with "use of excessive force".

EnderWiggin
05-08-2008, 06:22 PM
Guys, watch the tone. There's no reason we can't discuss this maturely, no reason we have to resort to pointed condescension and sarcasm.

Play nice.

I apologize. My Fault. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference.



50 bullets is a lot. I dont' think there's any man that can continue to make threatening movements after getting shot more than 15 times (like the passenger). Accordingly, I feel that they should have at least been charged with "use of excessive force".

I can agree with this.


_EW_

Niner: Tell me if this is ok? I was responding when the post disappeared.


{snipped, inflamatory ice cream truck comment}
To be honest, the point was if they announce themselves as cops, then the car doesn't much matter.


I'm quoting from the Wiki article you linked to
Nowhere in it did it describe the cops as large and intimidating. It did say 2 were black and 1 was hispanic, but I wasn't really disputing that.


Last I checked, that's not reasonable cause to kill them
They were evading arrest after threatening to kill a woman. He was perceived to be raising a weapon. That is probable cause.


according to the article, the cops also believe a mysterous "4th person" left the car at some point and he had the gun(it's in the Wiki article). now, if the cops thought this guy had the gun, why did they unload on the guys in the car?

The article states he "said that he saw a fourth man in the car, who fled the scene amid the chaos, possibly in possession of the alleged weapon."

This means that during the commotion, one guy gets out and runs. That's the defense's explanation as to why the gun wasn't found. They didn't know who had it at the time.


It's about 17 per person in the car.

The way you said this was unclear. I stand corrected.


a seasoned police vetran who's obviously gone through more than just this thinks he's going to die.

I don't care how much experience a cop has, every time a gun is thought to be pulled and you have a chance of dying your adrenal glands kick in and so does fear. Fight or Flight, baby. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response)

I probably started most of this, but I'm trying to tone it down now that I see some of the things that were said and now that Niner said something. So I apologize again to anyone I have offended, and I hope we can continue this discussion. I would hate to cause it to be locked.

_EW_

Web Rider
05-08-2008, 07:06 PM
To be honest, the point was if they announce themselves as cops, then the car doesn't much matter.
the testimony here was sketchy, some accounts say they didn't, some say they did, though it's a lot of he-said she-said.

Nowhere in it did it describe the cops as large and intimidating. It did say 2 were black and 1 was hispanic, but I wasn't really disputing that.
I have met only one small and slim male cop. I know many and the police dept used to train on my college campus. Very, VERY few cops are small and not intimidating. Given the location, I doubt these cops fit the "not intimidating" profile.

They were evading arrest after threatening to kill a woman. He was perceived to be raising a weapon. That is probable cause.
The cops overheard what they perceived was a threat. He was thought to HAVE a weapon, he was told to raise his hands, and the cops also believed this one weapon was in the hands of the mysterious man who ran away. So I question: were is the gun? In the hands of the man who was in the car(Guzman), or the guy running away? They obviously weren't shooting at the guy running away(considering the 19 shots in Guzman), so I find that claim of theirs that there was a 4th man who had a gun somewhat sketchy. And if it's true, then what explains the holes in Guzman?

The article states he "said that he saw a fourth man in the car, who fled the scene amid the chaos, possibly in possession of the alleged weapon."
Honestly, very little of it strikes me as "chaos", all 3 men were trapped in the car while the officers fired upon them, one man, if he really existed, escaped with the alleged gun. If he had the gun, why shoot the car?

This means that during the commotion, one guy gets out and runs. That's the defense's explanation as to why the gun wasn't found. They didn't know who had it at the time.
But the defense maintained that Guzman had the gun, AND this guy running away had the gun. It sounds like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Either the gun ran away with the 4th guy, or the gun was with Guzman, or there was no gun.

The way you said this was unclear. I stand corrected.
yeah, I wasn't too clear there.

I don't care how much experience a cop has, every time a gun is thought to be pulled and you have a chance of dying your adrenal glands kick in and so does fear. Fight or Flight, baby. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response)
Cops are trained to be able to resist this. If every cop freaked the moment a gun was pulled, cops would probably be shooting each other. The cops asked the men in the car to stay in the car and raise their hands, they didn't and ended up hitting the unmarked cop car. The cops opened fire here after they claimed Guzman reached for a gun and the 4th guy ran away with a gun.

After putting 19 holes in a guy, and finding no gun at the scene, it's easy to surmise that Guzman did not reach for a gun, and while being unloaded upon, did not hand it to the 4th guy who ran away.

I'm not saying the cops don't have a right to defend themselves, but like everyone else, that right exists within limits. If a criminal breaks into my house, I have the right to defend myself, I do not have the right to break every bone in his body or bash his skull into pulp. If a criminal is pulling a gun, a cop has the right to defend themselves, within reason.

3-5 shots is within reason. There is no excuse for 31, especially when reloading requires the conscious effort to realize your gun is empty, release the clip, pull a new clip, insert the clip, and resume firing until all 15 shots are gone again.

I don't agree that they're murderers, but I do agree they were reckless and used "excessive force".

EnderWiggin
05-08-2008, 09:04 PM
the testimony here was sketchy, some accounts say they didn't, some say they did, though it's a lot of he-said she-said.

Most of the people who claim they didn't were quite drunk, but possible.


I have met only one small and slim male cop. I know many and the police dept used to train on my college campus. Very, VERY few cops are small and not intimidating. Given the location, I doubt these cops fit the "not intimidating" profile.

From Sean Bell (An intimidating black man)'s point of view, maybe they weren't. I understand where you're coming from.


But the defense maintained that Guzman had the gun, AND this guy running away had the gun. It sounds like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Either the gun ran away with the 4th guy, or the gun was with Guzman, or there was no gun.

I agree. They used it as an excuse ex post facto.

I'm not saying the cops don't have a right to defend themselves, but like everyone else, that right exists within limits. If a criminal breaks into my house, I have the right to defend myself, I do not have the right to break every bone in his body or bash his skull into pulp. If a criminal is pulling a gun, a cop has the right to defend themselves, within reason.

3-5 shots is within reason. There is no excuse for 31, especially when reloading requires the conscious effort to realize your gun is empty, release the clip, pull a new clip, insert the clip, and resume firing until all 15 shots are gone again.

I don't agree that they're murderers, but I do agree they were reckless and used "excessive force".

I can agree that the force might have been excessive. But it certainly was not manslaughter in the first degree. They don't deserve jail time.

_EW_

For anyone interested, the big man himself will be on Hannity & Colmes at 9PM EDT (right now).

They've got the Rev. Al Sharpton "straight from his jail cell."

_EW_

TK-8252
05-08-2008, 09:23 PM
You guys still haven't explained where that gun is that Sean Bell was allegedly reaching for. How could he reach for a gun that doesn't exist?

The fact of the matter is that an innocent, unarmed, black man was gunned down by police, because they thought he was "reaching for a gun." How many times has this scenerio played out? Too many times.

Cops are held to such a low standard when it comes to their liberal use of deadly force. They are allowed to essentially murder innocent, unarmed people just because of a suspicion. If I were suspicious that someone was going to pull a gun on me, and I shoot him, and he turns out to have been unarmed, I would be convicted of murder, no doubt about it. The police CANNOT be held to a lower standard than the average citizen.

EnderWiggin
05-08-2008, 09:39 PM
You guys still haven't explained where that gun is that Sean Bell was allegedly reaching for. How could he reach for a gun that doesn't exist?


They never thought Bell was reaching for the gun. It was his passenger. But now I'm arguing semantics. The group said that they would 'get his gun' and then the guy reaches for something. 2+2 equals 5 only according to Orwell. They had cause to believe it.

I think they acted in a manner that showed a desire for self-preservation as they were trying to apprehend this supposedly armed man.

And I think that an extenuating circumstance exists here, as do I think that since cops have had additional training and such that they should be allowed to be more liberal with the use of deadly force. If a person is in your house, and you believe him to be armed, and you shoot him, you shouldn't be convicted, in my opinion. As I said, most states, 31 of them I believe, currently support the stand-your-ground policy which, and I quote, which expressly relieves the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.
There we go. This is just a more intense version of self defense in a situation that existed because of the safety of the public.

The whole point of them being cops is that they should know how to respond in scenarios that might involve lethal force, and if they do, then we can't fault them for doing what they have to in order to keep us safe. (Within reason, of course.)

I think that it would be a perversion of justice for these men to go to jail for 25 years.

_EW_

Web Rider
05-08-2008, 10:22 PM
The fact of the matter is that an innocent, unarmed, black man was gunned down by police, because they thought he was "reaching for a gun." How many times has this scenerio played out? Too many times.

If you are attempting to play the ZOMG RACISM! card, you'll have to try again, the cops in question were of mixed race, white, black, hispanic, this was not an instance of 5 white cops mowing down a couple black guys.

I think they acted in a manner that showed a desire for self-preservation as they were trying to apprehend this supposedly armed man.
A desire for self preservation is when I fire a shot or two at the guy who spooked me. Reckless abandon is when I fire 30 rounds, the self preservation argument runs out after the 15th shot or so.

And I think that an extenuating circumstance exists here, as do I think that since cops have had additional training and such that they should be allowed to be more liberal with the use of deadly force. If a person is in your house, and you believe him to be armed, and you shoot him, you shouldn't be convicted, in my opinion.
No, what we should be is more understanding of their use of force. Cops are trained in the use of force, and therefore should be MORE able than the average person to exercise it at the right times, and within reason. They should be held to a higher standard when it comes to exercising force. A normal man will get scared and shoot. A cop will get tough and might shoot, or might not, and if they do, they won't empty two whole clips into a car.

The whole point of them being cops is that they should know how to respond in scenarios that might involve lethal force, and if they do, then we can't fault them for doing what they have to in order to keep us safe. (Within reason, of course.)
"keeping us safe" is a false argument. They could very easily have "kept us safe" by dragging the men out of the car and cuffing them.

I can agree that the force might have been excessive. But it certainly was not manslaughter in the first degree. They don't deserve jail time.
For manslaughter? no, for excessive use of force and reckless use a weapon, yeah, I think they might. Though, I would specifically target the one cop who fired 31 shots.

Corinthian
05-08-2008, 11:54 PM
Given that they're shooting at targets that aren't exactly at point blank range in a car, 50 shots is perfectly reasonable from five officers. Each officer pulls his weapon and opens fire. Again, police procedure is to open fire until suspects are no longer moving when deadly force is deemed to be reasonable, which, in this case, it was. The police were threatened and a suspect went for an unknown object. Suspecting the presence of a firearm is not unreasonable in the slightest degree. I'm pleased to see these officers were not punished for doing exactly what they were trained to do.

Furthermore, Sean Bell was not just some family man out for a night of drinking. He was a drug dealer, who also had a previous conviction for firearms.

Web Rider
05-09-2008, 12:04 AM
Given that they're shooting at targets that aren't exactly at point blank range in a car, 50 shots is perfectly reasonable from five officers.
Actually, 20 shots is perfectly reasonable for 4 officers. 31 came from a single officer. If each cop fired 10 shots, okay, that's more balanced. But that's not what happened. And, I'm not sure how far away "point blank" is? Obviously one or more cops knocked on a window of the car, and the car did not move a great distance when it hit the undercover cop car. So, 5, maybe 10 feet from any point of the car? maybe a few more between there and a person inside? Considering that 26 of the 50 shots hit a person, and 19 of them hit a single man, I have to argue that accuracy was not questionable at the range at which the officers stood.

I know the nearest target at the local gun-range is about 20 feet. We usually shoot at baseballs, which as you are aware, are smaller than people. It's pretty hard not to hit within about 2 feet of the baseball, which on an average person, means at best you're missing by a few inches. The fact that

The police were threatened and a suspect went for an unknown object.
no police officer was threatened in the slightest, a perceived threat was issued against a later-named female who was NOT an officer.

Suspecting the presence of a firearm is not unreasonable in the slightest degree.
Since a comment was made about a gun, I agree. Suspecting a firearm without reason is not acceptable.

I'm pleased to see these officers were not punished for doing exactly what they were trained to do.
I would agree that, with the exception of the one officer who fired 31 shots, this is correct.

Furthermore, Sean Bell was not just some family man out for a night of drinking. He was a drug dealer, who also had a previous conviction for firearms.
Which justifies extra violence? You are presuming these cops were familiar with the man. A record does not mean this record is installed in every officer, they may have known who he was, they may not, comments were not made by the officers to indicate this.

Corinthian
05-09-2008, 01:47 AM
They were still moving. One officer reloads because they are not all lying completely still dead or praying to Mother Theresa and all the saints above that the fires of Heaven doesn't smite their vehicle. Simple as that.

Also, my error. They threatened someone else. Makes no difference.

And he knocked on a window, then the car sped away and smashed into another car. That could be as few as five feet or he could have gone halfway across the parking lot. Without the case photos, it'll be pretty hard to find out.

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 02:06 AM
Face it, one of the big problems officers face in the field is uncertainty. You can't just assume that once you identify yourself as police that the other guy is just going to agree to cooperate. Couple this with the fact that police are going to have to deal with people better armed than they are and you should be able to see the problem. If they "knew" that these guys had no weapons at all (try proving that), you'd have a point about just forcing them out of the car. These guys clearly had no intention of cooperating with the police. I'd agree to the excessive violent stance if you could demonstrate that it was snipers that shot someone 19+ times. Drug dealers and gang bangers are known to use some pretty heavy firepower and usually aren't at all worried about a cop's safety.

Web Rider
05-09-2008, 02:06 AM
They were still moving. One officer reloads because they are not all lying completely still dead or praying to Mother Theresa and all the saints above that the fires of Heaven doesn't smite their vehicle. Simple as that.
Movement does not give police justification to kill somebody. Saying "get out of the car with your hands up" is not the same as saying "don't move". What do you want them to do? Hold still or get out of the car.

And who holds still when being shot at? I imagine when the massive pain of being shot hits you, you're going to react in some fashion, that reaction is movement. You are essentially saying that reaction to the pain of being shot justifies shooting more, and in the end, killing.

Also, my error. They threatened someone else. Makes no difference.
it does, actually, make quite the difference.

And he knocked on a window, then the car sped away and smashed into another car. That could be as few as five feet or he could have gone halfway across the parking lot. Without the case photos, it'll be pretty hard to find out.

Given that the police unloaded most of their shots into the passenger side door and 19 of them struck a person, it's within reason to say that the cops were not behind the car when it drove off.

Corinthian
05-09-2008, 02:10 AM
Nineteen bullets out of 50. That's a 38% hit rate. Not very good. Pretty bloody terrible, actually. And only one suspect was killed. Which would suggest fairly good distance, or they'd all three be dead.

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 02:15 AM
Also, my error. They threatened someone else. Makes no difference.


it does, actually, make quite the difference.

How so? Aren't the police tasked with protecting the community from criminals? Try threatening to kill someone else in the presence of police in a tense situation and see what happens.

Web Rider
05-09-2008, 02:16 AM
Nineteen bullets out of 50. That's a 38% hit rate. Not very good. Pretty bloody terrible, actually. And only one suspect was killed. Which would suggest fairly good distance, or they'd all three be dead.

Actually, 26(four in Bell, 3 in Benefield) hit people, I was referencing how 19 hit a single person, I should have been more clear. So it's something like a 52% hit rate, which, considering that 19 hit the intended target, Guzman(police believed he had the gun), I'd say that's a pretty good ratio.

Now, not all the shots may have been aimed at him of course, but I'd have to say, even guys in warzones, where thousands of bullets are being fired, guys usually only get hit 5-6 times and they're down. 19/50 in one guy is pretty good in my book.

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 02:20 AM
Face it, if you don't cooperate with the police and even look like you might be going for a weapon......you've signed your own death warrant. Same goes for soldiers. Why it's never a good idea to put yourself in that situation.

Corinthian
05-09-2008, 03:27 AM
Whatever. My point is that if they were at point blank or very short range, the ratios would be higher. 52% is still pretty low for a confrontation with them less than ten feet from the target. These guys got what they paid for - you floor it and then go for an unknown object in front of five cops and you're asking to get bullets.

And, once again, just to make sure everyone gets the picture, Police Procedure - FIRE UNTIL TARGETS ARE NO LONGER A THREAT. At longer ranges, it's harder to differentiate moving targets from being sobbing as they slowly die and bringing their gun around so they can shoot at the cops.

Also, I'm not convinced about the nonexistence of the Fourth Man.

*Don*
05-09-2008, 03:48 PM
Furthermore, Sean Bell was not just some family man out for a night of drinking. He was a drug dealer, who also had a previous conviction for firearms.

What does that have anything to do with it?
At the time of the shooting, the cops didn't know that. At that point in time, he was just some random man who possibly posed a threat.

Face it, if you don't cooperate with the police and even look like you might be going for a weapon......you've signed your own death warrant. Same goes for soldiers. Why it's never a good idea to put yourself in that situation.

But these werent cops. They were undercover cops.
Had they been in uniform, the situation would have been entirely different.

jonathan7
05-09-2008, 04:12 PM
You want a British opinion?

Yet more evidence that your gun laws don't work!

We've just had someone shot to death by police; last one was Menezes over 3 years ago (and both of those were wrong). I don't understand some of you defending the police for shooting an innocent man.

Face it, if you don't cooperate with the police and even look like you might be going for a weapon......you've signed your own death warrant. Same goes for soldiers. Why it's never a good idea to put yourself in that situation.

WRONG! What happened to innocent untill proven guilty? Police aren't soldiers, they are not in a battlefield. Last time I checked, martial law hadn't been declared for the above. If an area is so bad the police are shooting like the above, you should call the national guard in.

See, while the above two I think were incorrectly shot, in Britain the average police officer does not presume someone is reaching for a gun. Your police are trained to do so, and it seems to me that racism is an ingrained phenomena in our police, so I don't like to imagine what it is like in yours...

Baseline; this is a tragedy and the Police involved should be prosecuted for murder, that'd stop them from being so trigger happy. To clarrify 50 bullets is excessive; infact murder, you should try to preserve life, last time I checked the police's job was to protect and serve. IF your going to shoot, shoot a couple of times and move in, try and negotiate.

Due proccess should be allowed to occur, the gun fixation of some in America is what has allowed this and all the tragedies before it to happen.

My 2 cents thanks for reading.

*Don*
05-09-2008, 04:33 PM
Baseline; this is a tragedy and the Police involved should be prosecuted for murder, that'd stop them from being so trigger happy. To clarrify 50 bullets is excessive; infact murder, you should try to preserve life, last time I checked the police's job was to protect and serve. IF your going to shoot, shoot a couple of times and move in

Due proccess should be allowed to occur, the gun fixation of some in America is what has allowed this and all the tragedies before it to happen.


I couldn't agree more.
The police need to stop acting like their above the law.

The fact that those cops were able to get away without any charges worries me more. Their acquittal has set a precedent for the cases to come and possibly encouraged their trigger happiness.
The next time some officer shoots a man 50 times, he could very well be let off the hook thanks to this decision.

jonathan7
05-09-2008, 04:37 PM
Getting prosecuted for murder might be a little extreme, but I do agree that police need to stop being trigger happy.

Possibly, however ask yourself this; if 5 civilian men did the same wat would happen to them? This maybe different statesidebut here the police are supposedly under the same laws as us, so why have they not recieved the same treatment?

The fact that those cops were able to get away without any charges worries me more. Their acquittal has set a precedent for the cases to come and possibly encouraged their trigger happiness.
The next time some officer shoots a man 50 times, he could very well be let off the hook thanks to this decision.

Agreed.

Web Rider
05-09-2008, 05:00 PM
Yet more evidence that your gun laws don't work!
Actually, I would argue this is a problem with the training on how police should approach and treat a situation.

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 05:38 PM
You want a British opinion?

Yet more evidence that your gun laws don't work!

We've just had someone shot to death by police; last one was Menezes over 3 years ago (and both of those were wrong). I don't understand some of you defending the police for shooting an innocent man.

Ah, but "monday morning quarterbacking" (ie hindsight) is deceptively easy to fall back on when you don't like an outcome. I do agree that the gun laws here don't work. Thus, why put more on the books that won't be enforced either? Perception. Looking like you're doing something, ie posturing, is always easier than actually doing anything constructive at all. Fact is, criminals don't care what the laws are, hence their classification.



WRONG! What happened to innocent untill proven guilty? Police aren't soldiers, they are not in a battlefield. Last time I checked, martial law hadn't been declared for the above. If an area is so bad the police are shooting like the above, you should call the national guard in.

See, while the above two I think were incorrectly shot, in Britain the average police officer does not presume someone is reaching for a gun. Your police are trained to do so, and it seems to me that racism is an ingrained phenomena in our police, so I don't like to imagine what it is like in yours...

Actually, you're wrong here. I'm not saying that my "advice" is fair, just a recognition of reality. Besides, it's in the courts where your guilt or innocence is ultimately determined. Perhaps our police officers are trained that way b/c many of our criminals are often more violent than yours, or at least there are more of them. As to the racism quip, don't you think you might be guilty of projecting that quality onto them (as you don't seem totally sure)?

Baseline; this is a tragedy and the Police involved should be prosecuted for murder, that'd stop them from being so trigger happy. To clarrify 50 bullets is excessive; infact murder, you should try to preserve life, last time I checked the police's job was to protect and serve. IF your going to shoot, shoot a couple of times and move in, try and negotiate.

Due proccess should be allowed to occur, the gun fixation of some in America is what has allowed this and all the tragedies before it to happen.

My 2 cents thanks for reading.

I disagree. Once again, 50 bullets/cop would make a stronger case for what you allege. Outside of a hostage situation, it's not exactly a policeman's requirement to negotiate in order to do his job. What's he going to negotiate anyway...."Drop your guns and lay down on the ground so we don't have to fill you full of lead" ? The judge, not the police officer, will fianlly decide their fate. As to the gun fixation crack, I guess that's why every gun owner goes off and randomly shoots people for the helluva it. We've got pretty big borders, so gun smuggling (like illegals and drugs) wouldn't be all that hard. I would think that the biggest proponents of gun control are probably the facists and the criminal class. The timid as well, I suppose.

Web Rider
05-09-2008, 05:48 PM
Your police are trained to do so, and it seems to me that racism is an ingrained phenomena in our police, so I don't like to imagine what it is like in yours...

hmmm, missed this, well...

You can't really call racism here, as the team of detectives was of mixed races, though I've only found mentions of two whites and one black. Their race however, does not mean they are racist.

Corinthian
05-09-2008, 05:52 PM
Sean Bell got exactly what he was bargaining for by fleeing from a police officer.

*Don*
05-09-2008, 06:01 PM
You can't really call racism here, as the team of detectives was of mixed races...

Agreed.
Had racism been a factor, it would've been a different story.

On another note, if I had to pinpoint the problem, I'd probably say the cause of all this is fear.
Police officers in the cities these days are just plain scared (and I can't really blame them). I realize that I'm making a generalization, but for the most part, it's true.
The alarming availability of firearms coupled with the rise in gang membership has driven the average inner city police officer to a stage of paranoia.
They see sudden movement in an alley from a person and automatically reach for their gun.

Sean Bell got exactly what he was bargaining for by fleeing from a police officer.

Did he really? How so?

Cops are only allowed to use one level of more advanced weaponry when dealing with criminals.

If a criminal tries to punch them, they can use tear gas, or a nightstick.
If a criminal tries to stab them, they can use their gun or taser.

But if a person, who has no visible weaponry, run from the cops, they can only give chase (or use a taser).
They can't just shoot him.

Also, he wasn't fleeing from a police officer.
He was fleeing from undercover cops.
It makes a world of a difference. Had he been escaping from a uniformed officer, it would have made sense. But he never saw the man's badge or had any proof that he was a cop. For all we kno, he could have thought that he was being carjacked and wanted to escape.
At that point in time, he was just a random man trying to get away from some guys he didn't know.

Web Rider
05-09-2008, 06:27 PM
Sean Bell got exactly what he was bargaining for by fleeing from a police officer.

"It's easy for the innocent to speak of justice. They so seldom feel it's terrible power."

Death is neither the legal nor legitimate punishment for evading arrest.

TK-8252
05-09-2008, 09:15 PM
If you are attempting to play the ZOMG RACISM! card, you'll have to try again, the cops in question were of mixed race, white, black, hispanic, this was not an instance of 5 white cops mowing down a couple black guys.

Just because one of the cops was black does not mean that he can't be racist. There are lots of black cops who are just as prejudice as white cops. White or black, cops racially profile, no doubt about it.

Furthermore, Sean Bell was not just some family man out for a night of drinking. He was a drug dealer, who also had a previous conviction for firearms.

So then **** Sean and his rights as an American citizen and a human being. Mistakes should not be forgiven. In fact, you should be killed for what you've done in the past. Right?

How so? Aren't the police tasked with protecting the community from criminals? Try threatening to kill someone else in the presence of police in a tense situation and see what happens.

Police are ONLY supposed to use deadly force if there is an immediate threat to someone's life.

Face it, if you don't cooperate with the police and even look like you might be going for a weapon......you've signed your own death warrant.

Actually, no. Police do not have the right to kill someone for not cooperating. They have the right to arrest them. As far as looking like going for a weapon... I still don't understand how Sean could have reached for a gun that is nonexistant.

Sean Bell got exactly what he was bargaining for by fleeing from a police officer.

Ridiculous. First of all, they were undercover. That means that they look like any carjacker you might run into. And, by the way, even if the police were in uniform, evading police is not a crime that you are put to death for.

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 09:26 PM
Actually, no. Police do not have the right to kill someone for not cooperating. They have the right to arrest them. As far as looking like going for a weapon... I still don't understand how Sean could have reached for a gun that is nonexistant.

It's not a question of rights, but common sense. If you've been told to put your hands up and you ignore them and reach for something else, it's reasonable for them to conclude that you're resisting arrest and going for a gun in the process. In that sense, you've brought it on yourself. In Sean's case, he'd had enough run ins with the cops to know what he was setting himself up for in the end. If you have a problem with false arrest....that's what the court system is for.

*Don*
05-09-2008, 10:31 PM
It's not a question of rights, but common sense. If you've been told to put your hands up and you ignore them and reach for something else, it's reasonable for them to conclude that you're resisting arrest and going for a gun in the process.


Yes. But you're forgetting that these were not uniformed officers. If some random people come up to you and tell you to put your hands up, would you?
At any rate Sean Bell didn't reach for anything. He just hit the pedal and sped off for about ten seconds at which point the cops decided to blast 50 shots.

Tommycat
05-10-2008, 01:32 AM
I think part of the problem is that people tend to forget that there are a number of times a police officer is shot at for even a "routine" traffic stop. People attempt to kill cops with their cars all the time as well. Lets see, whether the guy pointing a gun at you is a cop or not, it is a good idea to listen to what they are saying. The longer you stay alive the better.

And Sorry, but unfortunately we haven't got all of the info. Some accounts say he reached, others say he didn't. The only thing that is being reported and repeated with any regularity is the 50 shots. None of us were there. Some of my officer friends have said it does seem excessive, but every one of them said that there can be a logical explanation for it. Once one of them stated they had a firearm, it is reasonable to assume that that person is armed.

Totenkopf
05-10-2008, 02:08 AM
Yes. But you're forgetting that these were not uniformed officers. If some random people come up to you and tell you to put your hands up, would you?
At any rate Sean Bell didn't reach for anything. He just hit the pedal and sped off for about ten seconds at which point the cops decided to blast 50 shots.


Perhaps, but the kicker is that if they are also criminals they will be even less reluctant to kill you than the cops.

Corinthian
05-10-2008, 02:46 AM
If random guys come up to me, especially if they're armed, I put my bloody hands up. The car's not as important as my brains getting splattered all over the pavement. Sean Bell's actions were not just criminal, but downright idiotic. You can't outrun a bullet.

Web Rider
05-10-2008, 04:42 AM
If random guys come up to me, especially if they're armed, I put my bloody hands up. The car's not as important as my brains getting splattered all over the pavement. Sean Bell's actions were not just criminal, but downright idiotic. You can't outrun a bullet.

which is kinda sad in a way. We don't NEED the police to defend ourselves, if criminals realize that people are gonna kick ass and take names instead of just giving in, we'd have a lot less crime. Many petty criminals simply wouldn't risk it.

Totenkopf
05-10-2008, 12:49 PM
which is kinda sad in a way. We don't NEED the police to defend ourselves, if criminals realize that people are gonna kick ass and take names instead of just giving in, we'd have a lot less crime. Many petty criminals simply wouldn't risk it.


Conceal and carry. Keeps 'em guessing. But Corinthian is right. If several guys with guns get the drop on you, you're pretty well screwed whether they are good guys or bad.

El Sitherino
05-10-2008, 01:40 PM
Locked because I haven't heard anything about Al Sharpton in his own thread.

I think it's time to make a new thread to continue the discussion of Sean Bell and his death.