Jump to content

Home

Al Sharpton Arrested at Protest in NYC


JediAthos
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...