Jump to content

Home

Al Sharpton Arrested at Protest in NYC


JediAthos
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 don’t 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 don’t 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...