NationStates Jolt Archive

Although I do conceed that they have a right to protest what they think it's unjust. But...

NEW YORK (May 8) - The Rev. Al Sharpton was among dozens arrested Wednesday as demonstrators blocked traffic at the height of the evening rush hour to protest the acquittal of three detectives in the 50-bullet shooting of an unarmed black man on his wedding day.
Police estimated that about 190 people were arrested, including Sharpton, two survivors of the shooting and the slain man's fiancee. They lined up and put their hands behind their backs as police arrested them on disorderly conduct charges.

The demonstrators prayed, sang and chanted slogans including "no justice, no peace" as they converged on six heavily used bridges and tunnels that carry traffic to and from Manhattan island. The protests were part of a coordinated campaign to urge federal authorities to investigate the shooting of Sean Bell in November 2006.

The three officers were acquitted of state charges last month in a case that from the start ignited protests and spurred criticism of police tactics. One of the officers fired 31 shots, emptying his clip two times in a few short seconds.

Sharpton has said Wednesday's "pray-in" protest was a preview of potential future demonstrations designed to paralyze the city.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/sharpton-arrested-at-shooting-protest/20080507182309990001

... Is it fair to paralyze the entire city just for it? Are there any other ways of protesting? Aren't these protestors infringing on the rights of others? What do you all honestly think on this subject?

Standing in front of rush hour traffic? They're lucky they were arrested, not run over.

Well it was a shame what happend...but I agree the protest style was a bit overboard. Although, it did get attention now didnt it?

Although I do conceed that they have a right to protest what they think it's unjust. But...



http://news.aol.com/story/_a/sharpton-arrested-at-shooting-protest/20080507182309990001

... Is it fair to paralyze the entire city just for it? Are there any other ways of protesting? Aren't these protestors infringing on the rights of others? What do you all honestly think on this subject?

1: No
2: Yes, the question is, would those other methods still get the point accross?
3: Yes, yes they are and therin lies the rpoblem. Its gets media coverage but mainly of the wrong sort for recklessly infringing the rights of normal innocent citizens to go about there legal daily business.
4: Not being an American I can't really comment much ut I feel that perhaps the protestors may have a point.... Thats a lot of bullets to pump into a man on his wedding day when it wasn't entirely nessicary.. (wouldnt 4 or 5 have sufficed? if any were needed at all?)

I think it's illegal to block up the whole city with a demonstration, and it should be.

On the other hand I can't help sympathising, as the protestors do have a point.

Then again, if they had remained entirly legal, wouls they have received any media attention at all? I don't think so...

what is it with unarmed black men in America :confused:

also in all honesty as long as it gets the rather important message across without hurting anyone I don't see why not

The demonstrators prayed, sang and chanted slogans including "no justice, no peace"

well you can't say it was a peaceful protests *giggles*

1: No
2: Yes, the question is, would those other methods still get the point accross?
3: Yes, yes they are and therin lies the rpoblem. Its gets media coverage but mainly of the wrong sort for recklessly infringing the rights of normal innocent citizens to go about there legal daily business.
4: Not being an American I can't really comment much ut I feel that perhaps the protestors may have a point.... Thats a lot of bullets to pump into a man on his wedding day when it wasn't entirely nessicary.. (wouldnt 4 or 5 have sufficed? if any were needed at all?)

i will address #4.
the bullets did not all land in him. he was ordered to stop by police, but instead tried to drive off, then tried to run over the police.
I bet only 4 or 5 landed, especially since one of the officers was in panic mode and shot 30 of the 50 bullets (shooting while in panic makes you tend to miss)

i will address #4.
the bullets did not all land in him. he was ordered to stop by police, but instead tried to drive off, then tried to run over the police.
I bet only 4 or 5 landed, especially since one of the officers was in panic mode and shot 30 of the 50 bullets (shooting while in panic makes you tend to miss)

:eek:

*rubs eyes*

:eek:

And people wonder why I prefer living in places where the police are unarmed...

:eek:

*rubs eyes*

:eek:

And people wonder why I prefer living in places where the police are unarmed...

Don't they have tazers now?

Don't they have tazers now?

kinda hard to tazer someone inside of a car, while he is trying to run you over.

kinda hard to tazer someone inside of a car, while he is trying to run you over.

Can I ask what they wanted to arrest/talk to him for?

Could they not have just moved out of the way of the car?

Was whatever they wanted to talk to him for worthy of 'summary execution'

kinda hard to tazer someone inside of a car, while he is trying to run you over.

I imagine so. I suppose in theory you could tazer someone through an open window. Doesn't really answer my question, but makes sense.

I bet only 4 or 5 landed, especially since one of the officers was in panic mode and shot 30 of the 50 bullets (shooting while in panic makes you tend to miss)
He wasn't so nervous that he couldn't load his gun twice and keep shooting in the time it took other officers to fire 20 shots.

Can I ask what they wanted to arrest/talk to him for?

Could they not have just moved out of the way of the car?

Was whatever they wanted to talk to him for worthy of 'summary execution'

1) Whatever it was did not warent his actions
2) Not nessisarily an easy thing to do depending on the situation
3) At the point of him threatning them with the car it is beyond what the initial contact reasoning was for ... he was at best attempting assult with a deadly wepon.

I dont care for the death penalty and do not find it nessisary but depending on the situation here a cop defending himself is not the same thing.

It's pretty clear why they weren't convicted. The summary of the judge's opinion is at The Smoking Gun if you care to read it.

Having the testimony of the accusers impeached lets you know that the accusers were lying about the circumstances of the shooting.

It's pretty clear that the guy was trying to kill them with the car.

Although I do conceed that they have a right to protest what they think it's unjust. But...


... Is it fair to paralyze the entire city just for it? Are there any other ways of protesting? Aren't these protestors infringing on the rights of others? What do you all honestly think on this subject?

Well the point is that if you are not being a pain in the arse you are not going to get change.

I dont care for the death penalty and do not find it nessisary but depending on the situation here a cop defending himself is not the same thing.

I would make a statement about problems with allowing all officers to carry handguns but this isn't supposed to be turning into another gun law debate.

I will however add that that basically the situation is fucked up. The guy ran from the police and tried to drive off on his wedding day. They opened fire on him and killed him. Its a tragic loss of life and the only thing preventing the cops from having anything done against them is the simple fact that under the circumstances there over reaction is protected by US law.

I suppose on the other hand, they may, if they are feeling guilty, have to live with their over reaction for the rest of their life. They killed a man plain and simple.

So i guess in answer to the OP, the protestors will not achieve anything as the law cannot be changed hy a few people and the officers have been exhonerated by the law.

In two weeks Sharpton will have 3 guards up for charges of racism and the city will have to donate 10% of all thier jail space to Sharpton for him to put whoever he wants into it. Just to be fair to all black people.

I will however add that that basically the situation is fucked up. The guy ran from the police and tried to drive off on his wedding day. They opened fire on him and killed him. Its a tragic loss of life and the only thing preventing the cops from having anything done against them is the simple fact that under the circumstances there over reaction is protected by US law.

From what I gathered, they did not simply shoot at someon who was trying to "drive off".

The victim was not simply "driving off".

He was trying to hit the police officers with his car. Do you feel they did not have the right to defend themselves from what was a threat of deadly force?

I dont' think they overreacted at all.

From what I gathered, they did not simply shoot at someon who was trying to "drive off".

The victim was not simply "driving off".

He was trying to hit the police officers with his car. Do you feel they did not have the right to defend themselves from what was a threat of deadly force?

I dont' think they overreacted at all.

You should know that people on NSG who are anti-authority can't be bothered to read the case over at The Smoking Gun website, which showed that the guy was trying to kill them with the car, and that the accusers demonstrably lied about the conduct of the police and the driver.

You should know that people on NSG who are anti-authority can't be bothered to read the case over at The Smoking Gun website, which showed that the guy was trying to kill them with the car, and that the accusers demonstrably lied about the conduct of the police and the driver.

Indeed.

This wouldn't be the first time Sharpton has protested a crime that isn't a crime.

You try and run over a police officer with a car (or ANYBODY, for that matter) while running from them when they've asked you to come and talk to them, I don't really mind if you get shot.

Indeed.

This wouldn't be the first time Sharpton has protested a crime that isn't a crime.

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

It's pretty clear why they weren't convicted. The summary of the judge's opinion is at The Smoking Gun if you care to read it.

Having the testimony of the accusers impeached lets you know that the accusers were lying about the circumstances of the shooting.

It's pretty clear that the guy was trying to kill them with the car.

If someone was shooting at me, I'd try to run them over, too.

Oh, but he should have had more faith in the system. After all, it's not like the police are likely to flip out and fire 50 shots into a young black man who's, say, reaching for his wallet to show I.D.

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

Exactly.

... Is it fair to paralyze the entire city just for it?

yes

If someone was shooting at me, I'd try to run them over, too.

The shooting started after the guy tried to run them over. Try again.

If someone was shooting at me, I'd try to run them over, too.

Oh, but he should have had more faith in the system. After all, it's not like the police are likely to flip out and fire 50 shots into a young black man who's, say, reaching for his wallet to show I.D.

of course, these guys weren't even dressed like cops, they were undercover and had guns drawn. running them down is the right thing to do.

i will address #4.
the bullets did not all land in him. he was ordered to stop by police, but instead tried to drive off, then tried to run over the police.
I bet only 4 or 5 landed, especially since one of the officers was in panic mode and shot 30 of the 50 bullets (shooting while in panic makes you tend to miss)

He was struck 4 times in the neck and torso, according to wikipedia (for whatever credibility wikipedia's worth).

From what I gathered, they did not simply shoot at someon who was trying to "drive off".

The victim was not simply "driving off".

He was trying to hit the police officers with his car. Do you feel they did not have the right to defend themselves from what was a threat of deadly force?

I dont' think they overreacted at all.

According to the N.Y. Times, they struck one detective in the leg, then hit the unmarked police van (containing 2 other detectives, including the one that shot 31 times) not once, but twice. That's when the shooting started.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/nyregion/26bell.html?ref=nyregion

The shooting started after the guy tried to run them over. Try again.

Okay, how about this: I'm leaving a club, a little intoxicated, and get into a dispute with a guy at the door. It doesn't turn into a fight, but it's tense. I leave with my friends and we start to get into cars (I agree drinking and driving is wrong). A black man in civies approaches saying "Let me holla at you" and he has a group of men behind him. Connected to the jerk at the door? I'm not sticking around to find out. I try to get out of there, the men stand in my only avenue of escape. With the information available to me, my life is now in jeopardy. I panic. I drive at the group, hoping they'll run off. Instead, they fire 50 rounds at me and my friends and I'm dead. And what am I dead for? I might have had a gun. I didn't, but someone thought I might have. Great justification.

The police should concern themselves with protecting citizens before they start attacking them. They didn't have to use deadly force, they could have jumped out of the way, called backup and persued. They chose instead to kill a man.

Okay, how about this: I'm leaving a club, a little intoxicated, and get into a dispute with a guy at the door. It doesn't turn into a fight, but it's tense. I leave with my friends and we start to get into cars (I agree drinking and driving is wrong). A black man in civies approaches saying "Let me holla at you" and he has a group of men behind him. Connected to the jerk at the door? I'm not sticking around to find out. I try to get out of there, the men stand in my only avenue of escape. With the information available to me, my life is now in jeopardy. I panic. I drive at the group, hoping they'll run off. Instead, they fire 50 rounds at me and my friends and I'm dead. And what am I dead for? I might have had a gun. I didn't, but someone thought I might have. Great justification.

The police should concern themselves with protecting citizens before they start attacking them. They didn't have to use deadly force, they could have jumped out of the way, called backup and persued. They chose instead to kill a man.

They had already announced that they were the police. Your scenario is full of fail.

Also, he ran over people (used a deadly weapon) before any guns came out.

In New York, you do not have the option of using a deadly weapon and deadly force on people who are just standing around making you feel "threatened". So, once again, you are full of fail.

Okay, how about this: I'm leaving a club, a little intoxicated, and get into a dispute with a guy at the door. It doesn't turn into a fight, but it's tense. I leave with my friends and we start to get into cars (I agree drinking and driving is wrong). A black man in civies approaches saying "Let me holla at you" and he has a group of men behind him. Connected to the jerk at the door? I'm not sticking around to find out. I try to get out of there, the men stand in my only avenue of escape. With the information available to me, my life is now in jeopardy. I panic. I drive at the group, hoping they'll run off. Instead, they fire 50 rounds at me and my friends and I'm dead. And what am I dead for? I might have had a gun. I didn't, but someone thought I might have. Great justification.

The police should concern themselves with protecting citizens before they start attacking them. They didn't have to use deadly force, they could have jumped out of the way, called backup and persued. They chose instead to kill a man.
Yeah simply jumped out of the way ... trapped in a van that was repeatedly being rammed from what i understand

According to the N.Y. Times, they struck one detective in the leg, then hit the unmarked police van (containing 2 other detectives, including the one that shot 31 times) not once, but twice. That's when the shooting started.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/nyregion/26bell.html?ref=nyregion

the unmarked van which pulled in front of them to block them in.

piggies acted in precisely the way most likely to end up with somebody dead. fuck them.

the unmarked van which pulled in front of them to block them in.

piggies acted in precisely the way most likely to end up with somebody dead. fuck them.

Nope. The laws and regulations protect what the police did. They acted according to standard protocol, which is in accordance with what voters in New York have asked for.

The driver acted in a way that would make him take a dirt nap.

the unmarked van which pulled in front of them to block them in.

piggies acted in precisely the way most likely to end up with somebody dead. fuck them.

:rolleyes:

I didn't realize there were farm animals living on the streets and in the alleys of New York.

Just because you have a chip on your shoulder in regards to police officers, doesn't mean that the cops acted wrong. Here's the verdict statement that the judge read in court, that includes details of the trial. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0425081bell1.html

Just because you have a chip on your shoulder in regards to police officers, doesn't mean that the cops acted wrong. Here's the verdict statement that the judge read in court, that includes details of the trial. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0425081bell1.html

ooh, cops got off, therefore they must actually be innocent. fuck that shit, we know there is a systemic pro-cop bias to the legal system, such that they are able to flat out blatantly make shit up and get people locked up for years or even executed.

the fact of the matter is whether they committed a crime or not, sean bell was a victim of their unjust violence.

Nope. The laws and regulations protect what the police did.

even if true (and based on the verdict, i guess we have to act as though it is), that doesn't justify shit.

Just because you have a chip on your shoulder in regards to police officers, doesn't mean that the cops acted wrong.
They used firearms, that's bad policing in my book.

As I stated on the OP, I recognize the protesters' right to protest what they consider is unjust. What I don't condone is them imposing, like they did in paralyzing one of the busiest streets in NYC, while the rest of the city just wanted to go about their daily business.

even if true (and based on the verdict, i guess we have to act as though it is), that doesn't justify shit.

If someone pulls in front of you, and blocks you, you're not allowed to ram them. Period.

If you ram a police van, and it's unmarked, and they announce many times that they are police, and you run one over (and a few other people), you've now used deadly force.

In a situation where some stranger has employed deadly force, the police are permitted to kill you on the spot.

That's what I mean by the law and regulations.

Read the judge's summary and judgment at the Smoking Gun website. It's that simple.

Well it was a shame what happend...but I agree the protest style was a bit overboard. Although, it did get attention now didnt it?

Thats the objective of a protest, to get attention. Now with the mass media you can have 1 million people marching on the street and nobody will know because it wont appear in the new.... but five naked guys will get 3 minutes in the news, and a much higher impact in world events.

Thats how it works.

SO EVERYBODY GET NAKED!:cool:

If someone pulls in front of you, and blocks you, you're not allowed to ram them. Period.

you are if you reasonably believe your life to be in danger

ooh, cops got off, therefore they must actually be innocent. fuck that shit, we know there is a systemic pro-cop bias to the legal system, such that they are able to flat out blatantly make shit up and get people locked up for years or even executed.

the fact of the matter is whether they committed a crime or not, sean bell was a victim of their unjust violence.

OOH, the cops must've paid off the judge, because we all know that EVERY cop is scum of the earth, and are trigger happy assholes. Let's not let the facts get in the way (such as un-credible prosecution witnesses with inconsistent testimony, renunciation of prior statements, etc), let's just hang those dirty cops right now, right in the middle of Times Square.

The fact of the matter is, we know that Sean Bell committed at least two crimes that night before the shooting even started. Driving intoxicated (he was behind the wheel, and according to the NY Times article, was intoxicated), and assaulting a police officer (striking Detective Isnora in the leg).

They used firearms, that's bad policing in my book.

In your book, when would the detectives be allowed to use their firearms?

you are if you reasonably believe your life to be in danger

There's nothing to indicate that lethal force is required on the part of the driver.

Really, you need to take a class on self-defense - when it is permitted - and when it definitely is not.

Until he had already run over several people and rammed a van, thereby indicating his willingness to use deadly force on just about anyone (including non-police), the police hadn't even drawn their guns.

I guess you'll be back for this class again, since you have already failed.

Although I do conceed that they have a right to protest what they think it's unjust. But...



http://news.aol.com/story/_a/sharpton-arrested-at-shooting-protest/20080507182309990001

... Is it fair to paralyze the entire city just for it? Are there any other ways of protesting? Aren't these protestors infringing on the rights of others? What do you all honestly think on this subject?
I think their method of protest is very effective, but the proportionality just isn't there. If this were to become a pattern, then yes, and I would be there with them.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2019/2475238184_5528b6d99c.jpg (http://www.mikhaela.net/2008/05/toon-again-and-again-and-again-sean.html)

Until he had already run over several people and rammed a van, thereby indicating his willingness to use deadly force on just about anyone (including non-police), the police hadn't even drawn their guns.

not according to the people not on trial for opening fire on a group of unarmed men.

not according to the people not on trial for opening fire on a group of unarmed men.

Their testimony was completely discredited - one in particular discredited himself by being so inconsistent that it was quite evident to all present that he was pulling his account out of his ass.

Really, it wouldn't hurt you to read the judge's summary.

not according to the people not on trial for opening fire on a group of unarmed men.

Of course, none of them managed to develop a consistent story, and present it in court. Developing an understanding of what actually happened from their testimony is virtually impossible, because what they said is so miserably contorted that it hurts.

I'd assume you'd rather have the officers dangling from a lightpole with some fishing wire, without due process.

You know what would have stopped this entire situation from happening? If Bell and friends got out of the car nice and peacefully to talk to the officers.

Of course, none of them managed to develop a consistent story, and present it in court. Developing an understanding of what actually happened from their testimony is virtually impossible, because what they said is so miserably contorted that it hurts.

I'd assume you'd rather have the officers dangling from a lightpole with some fishing wire, without due process.

If he's willing to believe the lies of the accusers (who were in one particular case, so obviously lying that it was inescapable), he's willing to believe Tawana Brawley.

Say, Free, are you actually Al Sharpton?

You know, there are a lot of racist cops no doubt(there are a lot of racist everybodies), but there seems to be at least a possibllity that in this case at least some of the cops involved really were inocent. Now believe me, I am not a person who's inclined to think well of the police, but sometimes it seems like Sharpton believes any shooting of a black man by a white cop is an injustice.:headbang:

That said, 50 bullets is pretty damn excessive. Even if they were justified in shooting, at least one cop clearly panicked and badly overreacted.:mad:

You know, there are a lot of racist cops no doubt(there are a lot of racist everybodies), but there seems to be at least a possibllity that in this case at least some of the cops involved really were inocent. Now believe me, I am not a person who's inclined to think well of the police, but sometimes it seems like Sharpton believes any shooting of a black man by a white cop is an injustice.:headbang:

That said, 50 bullets is pretty damn excessive. Even if they were justified in shooting, at least one cop clearly panicked and badly overreacted.:mad:

I'm with you on this. Officer Oliver, who fired off 30 rounds demonstrated that he lacked the cool needed to do the job he was doing, he was jumpy and he was likely a danger to bystanders and his fellow officers in the event of a crisis situation. Further, in my opinion he he should be indicted on charges of reckless endangerment. Looking at the wide shot patterns, Oliver, especially, seemed to be firing at random, and such charges would seem somewhat appropriate.

Overall, though, this incidence strikes me as one in which both parties screwed up, but one party instigated the screw up, and that was Mr. Bell. Mr. Bell had, as has been indicated here previously, committed two crimes before any shots were fired, both of which are potential felonies.

*snip, fair enough*

That said, 50 bullets is pretty damn excessive. Even if they were justified in shooting, at least one cop clearly panicked and badly overreacted.:mad:

Several of the cops had their weapons out but did not fire at all. Clearly they didn't feel in such fear for their lives that they had to shoot. At all. Most of the cops who did shoot did so in a measured fashion.

I really can't decide if the cop who went way over the top should be punished for it, but I do think he should be fired from the police force. And I don't see why that should have a terrible effect on police morale -- surely most of them would feel "this guy did the wrong thing and made us all look bad."

Several of the cops had their weapons out but did not fire at all. Clearly they didn't feel in such fear for their lives that they had to shoot. At all. Most of the cops who did shoot did so in a measured fashion.

I really can't decide if the cop who went way over the top should be punished for it, but I do think he should be fired from the police force. And I don't see why that should have a terrible effect on police morale -- surely most of them would feel "this guy did the wrong thing and made us all look bad."

If you're shooting on the move (which I assume you're doing if a car is coming at you, and you're firing at the car to try to stop it), you're not going to hit what you're aiming at very often.

If you have a pistol, you're already way high in the "I miss a lot" category - pistols just aren't accurate weapons. They also have no effect on moving vehicles, unless you happen to plug the driver in the brain.

Rifles, on the other hand, are far more accurate, except when used on the move, and far more likely to screw up a car (an engine hit by a medium caliber rifle is often enough to thrash it enough to make it stop). It goes without saying that a single hit from the same rifle would instantly turn the driver into an anatomy lesson if he was hit in the head or torso.

Rifles, however, aren't issued to police. Pistols are.

If you're shooting on the move (which I assume you're doing if a car is coming at you, and you're firing at the car to try to stop it), you're not going to hit what you're aiming at very often.

If you have a pistol, you're already way high in the "I miss a lot" category - pistols just aren't accurate weapons. They also have no effect on moving vehicles, unless you happen to plug the driver in the brain.

Rifles, on the other hand, are far more accurate, except when used on the move, and far more likely to screw up a car (an engine hit by a medium caliber rifle is often enough to thrash it enough to make it stop). It goes without saying that a single hit from the same rifle would instantly turn the driver into an anatomy lesson if he was hit in the head or torso.

Rifles, however, aren't issued to police. Pistols are.
There's something comfortingly familiar about this discussion... Almost like you know a thing or two about it.

Their testimony was completely discredited - one in particular discredited himself by being so inconsistent that it was quite evident to all present that he was pulling his account out of his ass.

Really, it wouldn't hurt you to read the judge's summary.

i read it. consider me the 'other forum' which the judge left to determine carelessness and incompetence. given the state of the law, and the longstanding but obviously stupid deference given to cop testimony in the courts, the finding that criminality wasn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is probably about right. but their actions are clearly unjust, incompetent, and wrong, and ought prevent them from exercising force on behalf of the state ever again.

Guys, don't act like you were there. What would you do if a car just recently hit a police van and then a fellow police officer? This is like a drunk man coming at you with a knife. What are you going to do? Let him stab you? You taser him of course. They COULD have tasered him but then the car is moving, the taser wire would have been snapped so the voltage would have been cut off. Also why let would you let a drunk man drive through NYC? Thats like a death sentence to innoncent civillians living there.

You know, there are a lot of racist cops no doubt(there are a lot of racist everybodies), but there seems to be at least a possibllity that in this case at least some of the cops involved really were inocent. Now believe me, I am not a person who's inclined to think well of the police, but sometimes it seems like Sharpton believes any shooting of a black man by a white cop is an injustice.:headbang:

That said, 50 bullets is pretty damn excessive. Even if they were justified in shooting, at least one cop clearly panicked and badly overreacted.:mad:

2 of the 3 cops who did the shooting were black(including Mr. 30 rounds). so they were either self hating blacks or Race is not an issue in this case

The driver overreacted too FYI.

You know what would have stopped this entire situation from happening? If Bell and friends got out of the car nice and peacefully to talk to the officers.

yes, though to make that happen it probably would have been best for the cops to, you know, identify themselves as cops in an unambiguous way. not approach people already in a car in a threatening manner.

2 of the 3 cops who did the shooting were black(including Mr. 30 rounds). so they were either self hating blacks or Race is not an issue in this case

they were cops. black cops are as fully capable of internalizing the institutional systemic bias against black youth as their white compatriots.

I just figured their were probably allegations of racism, since it usually comes up when police shoot a black man, and Sharpton generally focuses on race issues. I'm sorry if I rushed to conclusions.

However, having black cops pressent doesn't mean the white cops weren't racist. It just means its less likely that race had an impact on the incident itself. I'd be interested to know weather it was a white or black cop who fired the first shot in cases like this.

Theres racism in everything.

i read it. consider me the 'other forum' which the judge left to determine carelessness and incompetence.

The other forum is likely a departmental review or other legal recourse. Not the opinion of an amateur.

I've noticed Al Sharpton only protests things that get him media attention. I've also noticed that if people are found to truly be innocent of a crime, say rape, he never apologizes to those whose reputations he smeared. While I agree that this situation needed protesting, I don't think Al Sharpton was the right man to lead it.

I just figured their were probably allegations of racism, since it usually comes up when police shoot a black man, and Sharpton generally focuses on race issues. I'm sorry if I rushed to conclusions.

However, having black cops pressent doesn't mean the white cops weren't racist. It just means its less likely that race had an impact on the incident itself. I'd be interested to know weather it was a white or black cop who fired the first shot in cases like this.

Why must everything be about race? Last time I checked, we all bled red and were all considered homo sapiens. As long as people keep making an issue of race, there will never be true equality for anybody.

yes, though to make that happen it probably would have been best for the cops to, you know, identify themselves as cops in an unambiguous way. not approach people already in a car in a threatening manner.

Given that this was a stakeout of the nightclub, and the officers were undercover, they probably felt that a more appropriate course of action would be to handle the matter quietly and attract as little attention as possible. Unfortunately, they didn't expect Bell to react in the way that he did. Should they have made it clear that they were police? Yes. Was their reason for handing it the way they did because they wanted to kill someone, as you allege? Absolutely not.

Once again, I don't disagree that the cops handled this poorly, but the blame doesn't rest squarely on their shoulders. It's shared to a significant degree with Bell himself. Bell's response was perhaps the worst thing he could have done at the time.

Further, the officers violated departmental protocol by firing at a moving vehicle, and, if nothing else, should be stripped of their weapons for such a violation.



As is so often the case with these sorts of things, it's a mixed bag, there's no good guys and there's no bad guys. It just plain sucks.

they were cops. black cops are as fully capable of internalizing the institutional systemic bias against black youth as their white compatriots.

And black youth are as fully capable of perpetuating the hostility towards police as the police are their hostility towards them.

Was their reason for handing it the way they did because they wanted to kill someone, as you allege? Absolutely not.

that's not my allegation at all. it's not a matter of wanting to execute somebody, its just acting in a way, aided by the "cops as an occupation force" mentality, that was most likely to get somebody killed. and then, of course, they got away with it when nobody else would, because we hold cops to the opposite end of the double standard than where they should be.

that's not my allegation at all. it's not a matter of wanting to execute somebody, its just acting in a way, aided by the "cops as an occupation force" mentality, that was most likely to get somebody killed. and then, of course, they got away with it when nobody else would, because we hold cops to the opposite end of the double standard than where they should be.

We give cops a lot of leeway because what they are doing is something that occurs outside of the normal range of actions of an individual within society. They are held to a different standard, because that is the very nature of their job.

As for the "occupation force" mentality, that is something that has developed over time, and as part of a vicious cycle in which their "opponents" share a near equal proportion of the blame. They perceive themselves as entering into an area in which they are not perceived with a significant degree of hostility, and they perceive themselves as being significantly outnumbered. Likely, this perception of hostility is derived from personal animosities, which spread to the greater population over time.

And when people spout this "piggy" horseshit, they don't help the situation. It further engenders the perception of hostility, so if you want to help break the cycle, cut it out.

They had already announced that they were the police. Your scenario is full of fail.

Also, he ran over people (used a deadly weapon) before any guns came out.

In New York, you do not have the option of using a deadly weapon and deadly force on people who are just standing around making you feel "threatened". So, once again, you are full of fail.

I based my argument on the NY Times article posted here. If you have more information, you can add it without being quite such a condescending ass. If you want to have adult discussions, act like one.

Rifles, however, aren't issued to police. Pistols are.

No doubt you'd be happier if police did carry rifles.

2 of the 3 cops who did the shooting were black(including Mr. 30 rounds). so they were either self hating blacks or Race is not an issue in this case

I don't think race is nearly as big of an issue here as plain old police brutality is.

The other forum is likely a departmental review or other legal recourse. Not the opinion of an amateur.

Well then what the hell are we all doing here talking about it?

It warms my heart to see Al Sharpton get arrested.

Not what I came to talk about, but I did want to make that side observation.

Anyway, Andaluciae has hit the nail on the head. Now, I've never worked undercover, but there have been a couple times when I have been outnumbered and outgunned, and wished that I could call for an airstrike. Unfortunately, they never give you one.

Ahem, anyway...

Police attempt to go in with the best logistical advantage when possible. I do not know the circumstances of this... event, but we should allow the powers that be (and by that, I mean Internal Affairs) to investigate the matter. Our random speculation, not being there and not seeing the evidence, is insulting not only to the police, but to the suspect as well.

When you are working as a uniformed officer, everyone knows you're police before you even get close. This means that, generally speaking, if they start shooting (or other means of provocation) they will begin at a distance. Working undercover, its more complex, and more stressful. Provocation could start at any time, with a variety of different circumstances. I've never worked undercover, so I can't go into detail about that kind of position (because I simply don't know), except to say that I don't envy it.

In a high stress situation, many things can happen, but only they have the physical evidence and the eyewitness testimony available to conduct the investigation. We cannot begin to judge simply by the number of rounds that were expended what happened. We can't say who was hit, how many times, and by whom. Once the bullets start flying, it's hard to keep track of anything. If they release that information, then we will know, but until then, all this is speculation about events that none of us have a clue about.

They had already announced that they were the police. Your scenario is full of fail.

After reading over all of the testimonies and evidence again, doubt remains about whether the officers ever identified themselves before opening fire, not only among the young men injured but among police themselves; their commanding officer testified he did not hear any shouts of "Police".

Also, he ran over people (used a deadly weapon) before any guns came out.

This is inflammatory and not strictly true. He did not "run over people", he struck an undercover officer displaying no badge once with his car. In fact, initial reports stated that the car "almost struck" a man standing nearby, so it would seem that it was slightly less dramatic than you would have everyone believe.

In New York, you do not have the option of using a deadly weapon and deadly force on people who are just standing around making you feel "threatened". So, once again, you are full of fail.

Yet the officers went to their vehicles to retrieve weapons and vests, and then approached the group of men without displaying badges, clearly ready to use deadly force if necessary, because some of the young men had argued with someone else who they may or may not have overheard saying he had a gun.

And when people spout this "piggy" horseshit, they don't help the situation. It further engenders the perception of hostility, so if you want to help break the cycle, cut it out.

ah, except i hold that the only way to break the cycle is to completely start over with new institutions, and not keep reforming ones that were clearly designed to be agents of repression.