Jump to content

Home

Al Sharpton Arrested at Protest in NYC


JediAthos
 Share

Recommended Posts

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

: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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...