And BTB Nappy, those studys cover much more than NYPD.

Actually Michael Vick got thrown in prison for, over a 6-7 year span, helping to fund and operate an illegal gambling/dog fighting ring that crossed interstate lines.......a federal offense.

...and I'll tell anyone to go to hell if they think what happened to those dogs was not that big of a deal because they were just "damn dogs". Mutilating and butchering domesticated animals is about as sick as it gets. All of those pieces of shit should be shot on the spot.


Sorry. End rant.

At any rate police brutality is something that needs to be addressed by the appropriate persons and since it fails to be corrected you've got angry and ignorant individuals who choose to take the law into their own hands. I'm not condoning people running around and enforcing the whole "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" concept, but I can't blame these individuals for feeling the way they do.

Yay!

No.

But I laugh at most things and most people. Laughter doesn't mean that something more substantive is not happening.

waitwaitwaaaaaaait!!!



MACK!!!!

who said that the dogs were domesticated??!!!

hehe!

It depends on the circumstances.

I can think of plenty of situations that I have seen where once shot just isn't going to get the job done.

Do you condemn or condone people for excusing what they did by accusing someone of brutality?

Or perhaps person trying to deflect responsibilities and thus their own actions or deeds.

I'm not going to condone people for accusing someone of brutality due to their specific reasons on why something is considered brutality. You've got many African-Americans who've decided that this shooting was racially charged and those who do not. I can't say that I agree with AA's who believe this shooting was about race because two of the officers involved were AA.

They ran and operated a professional style kennel for the sake of raising and training overly aggressive pit bulls. I'd say that = domesticated. They certainly weren't wild, random dogs.

Just my opinion though yo.

Race is definately the case. It seems that the norm is to be wary of AA, and draw first and let IA sort it out later. Police officers are trained to deal in specific situations that the average individual on the street would not have the reactionary time to handle. I can only wonder how many times this can repeat until people start reacting in a violent way.

My point exactly.

You can't expect ppl to stand idlely and keep allowing stuff like this to take place. *sigh* I can't help but think that had Bell been a few shades lighter he'd probably still be alive.

I'm not disputing that 50 seems like a very high number. I'm arguing that shooting merely once is unrealistic in a lot of situations. The average cop is not capable of consistent shots guaranteed to stop an aggressor. Even the most capable shooters in the country are likely to fire more than a single round at someone they believe poses a danger.

HEhehehehe!!


ok!!!

I agree that it may take more than one round to stop an aggressor, but in Bell's case it was overkill. Unless these cops were trying to take out a wooly mammoth, 50 rounds was more than enough to stop Bell or any other human being for that matter.

Yeah, and in addition to the high number of rounds, they were dispersed pretty wildly. Extremely reckless shooting, it appears.

Fifty rounds in a shootout is not ridiculous, but with no return fire and only one "aggressor," it certainly is a large number.

Hi...new to the forums, but this topic burns me. I think you're right AKA2D justice for them will mean knowing that they ruthlessly murdered an innocent groom before his wedding. How can you live with that??

I, for one, hope that "we" don't try to take justice into our own hands. But at the same time, don't want Mr. Bell to die in vain.

It was sad to hear the news :( When I initially heard the story I couldn't believe it, and was sure the guys who needlessly shot him would be put in jail at the very least.

Please....in the 10 years since Amado Diallu was shot...only one officer was ever found guilty.....they will protect thier own.

Just had this sudden thought, sort of off topic thread but close enough, of just how many Peace Officers have been shot in the past 10 years?
And how many have died?

And I just heard the latest from The Rev.
"We are going to shut down this City"
"We are making plans, we are having meetings on just where and when to do so".
"We know how to strategically shut down this City".

Does any of that sound or seem like civilized negotiation or conversation?
Does making everyone else's life in NYC worse help help anyone or anything?
Does taking resources away from public safety (up to and including anti-terrorism) help anyone or anything?
Does the additional cost to the tax payer help anything or anyone?

Or does it sound, particularly in this day and age, like a terrorist threat??

at least 11 officers have died since 2001.... but still we are talking about UNARMED citizens who in most cases were in the wrong place at the wrong time when these cops decided to fill them up with lead.

A terrorist threat?

As long as any protest march or whatever is PEACEFUL, there is no threat unless they plan on killing...mind you last month there were protesters here in DC who shut down and disrupted portions of the city that day because they were protesting the war....they blocked traffic, disrupted the IRS...MY office (Dept of Vet Affairs) and so on....

But.....we didn't call them terrorists....so what are you playing at Jon?

I am getting at just what he said.
Did anyone in DC make that kind of statement?
If that was picked up as "chatter" by NSA, what would the response be?

And it was one day, not an on going matter of days and locations.
As I indicated in my list.
And the news has already indicated several attempts to incite, from within, the groups of protesters.

And when, not if, something does happen the cops hands are now tied up.
For anything they do, is going to be wrong per Rev Al.

Have seen it happen before.

FYI-People do wonder, and have for a long time, if Rev Al has people working both sides of the street when he does his protests.
Washington is not the only city known for it "secrets"/"whispers".

And as they will not have permits, just what are these "marches" going to be? Humm?
And comments/actions of this sort could be taken as threats/extortion.. Hummm?

I do think the same people who are outraged about this incident should be outraged about people killing cops. I'm sure many are, and hopefully they're just as vocal about that as they are about this. But I'm also sure that many aren't, and that is unfortunate.

But, I don't want to say that this isn't worthy of outrage because of possible hypocrisy. I'd much rather any such people raise their level of outrage about cop killings than lower their outrage about this.

But about what Al said, I found the comments a bit much. It is a tough line to draw, and maybe he also made it abundantly clear what type of action he's speaking of. But at first glance, those comments seem a bit open-ended for being so inflammatory, and though there may be nothing wrong with his intentions and sentiments, I suspect there are many people who respond to Sharpton's message and may not share his civility. Given his earlier remarks, which I found to be pretty composed, I'm surprised at his statements. Especially considering some of the other bad situations he's found himself in.

It's a really dumb statement to make. Especially if the protest goes bad. Sometimes all it takes is a few troublemakers to escalate a legal protest to a full scale riot.

Sounds good!

I shut 'em down (shut 'em down, shut 'em, shut 'em down!!!)

I'm sure he isn't advocating a riot but rather a protest. People have mobilized protestors for less.

As pointed out by others, it only takes one or two to change that situation rather quickly.

And as I indicated, it is questioned if those kind of people who are inclined to change matters in that fashion have a "connection to Al.

And even if they do not, turns ugly fast.

And the matter still gets turned around onto the cops once again.

and I really hate to bring it up...but...

How quickly people forget....

20,000 went to Jena 6 ( a town of 5,000) and shut the town down....no arrests (except for the idiot with a noose in a truck try to incite a riot) altho some assumed that it would turn into a riot.

I can't say that the same will happen in NYC but one should not assume that a riot will happen !

So? This is the case with every mobilization effort in the world.

SHUT UP EM DOWN.

The biggest fish fry in this country's history? :) Don't get me started on Jena but I agree with your point.

There are still some people who would be quick to call those that went to Jena 'terrorists' because of thier actions I had a nice heated debate with one of those loonies a few weeks ago) ...last time I checked the Constituion still allowed for people to assemble peacefully...hehe

Hey...Jena was perfect for the small businessperson who made tshirts and dinner plates. :)

Unfortunately the larger point can be lost on many when some of the Jena 6 appear to be idiots.

I want another Million Man March and a Million Family March. And a Get On the Bus 2008 while we're at it. :)

And Jon, it only takes inflammatory assumptions like in your first sentence to lead down the slippery slope of infringing on civil liberties. Denying citizens their rights to peaceably assemble and redress grievances is how totalitarian governments squelch the voice of the people. Trying to justify it by inciting fear of violence before anything even happens is manipulation at its worst.

I also caught how you made sure to refer to "peace" officers in an earlier post. That title has not been earned by the police officers in this case. That does not mean that citizens as a whole distrust or don't see the need for police officers in general (who at their best, are "peace" officers). But it does mean that when someone who wears a badge blatantly does something wrong, the badge shouldn't protect them from being held accountable. Which is too often the case.

And another person said something about people needing to get as upset about police officer shootings as they are in this case. I think people's sympathies are always with officers (and their families) who are lost while they are faithfully executing their duties. However, name a case where a police officer was killed in a hail of 50 bullets, the shooters were caught, and they walked.

Oh yeah....riiight...!!!

I'm still called a terrorist or a rabble rouser for attending those events.....;)

Probably by the same people who thought the Rodney King riot was a peaceful protest gone sour. "See?! You people can't get together in peaceful protest if you tried!!"

On another note, there have been a lot of race riots in this nation's great history. It's crazy. And a lot of race protests.

Nittany, I didn't see anything indicating that Jon was in favor of infringing on the right to assemble.

But one could make the argument that Sharpton's comments could have been made more..."responsibly" I suppose. I don't find his comments reckless, but others could probably argue a similar point with some success.

He is a leader (to some) in a volatile situation, and he'd be well served by choosing his words carefully. Maybe he has. I don't expect people to riot over this, but anytime this much emotion is involved, there is a threat. Thus, I think it should be expected that anyone speaking publicly on such a matter should be cautious, unless they're indifferent to the result.

The situation isn't as volatile as people are interpreting it. The cause speeds on but there is no overwhelming sense of outrage that is likely to lead to a riot. Riots happen for a combination of reasons beyond an incident of injustice. They usually are a culmination of discontent with underlying inequalities and social issues like joblessness, poverty, and racial antagonism and a particular incident provides the venue. The riot probably would've begun already if it was going to happen in the Bell case. And Sharpton has his faults but he's generally too responsible and political to incite a riot.

Out of respect for his "widow," child, and family the Bell situation is likely to be handled in a different fashion. Even Roc A Wear is allowing Nicole Paultre-Bell to speak out.

I wanted to ask someone about this, if anyone has seen this "ad." I saw a blip about it but haven't actually seen it. What is it appearing in?

I was somewhat disturbed by it at first, but it sounds like it may not be a traditional advertising relationship. I looked briefly but couldn't find details, anyone know more?

I was just thinking the same thing

http://binside.typepad.com/photos/un...llcampaign.jpg

http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/i...in-rocawear-ad

http://www.defsounds.com/news/Rocawe...ks_controversy



....aaaahhhhh...but there was no jury.....

I don't see it as a traditional advertising relationship, either.

I think it's a good idea because it provides a voice whereas not having a voice is what the desire for violent protest are made of.

I can't show the image that's on my computer but it's just a very simple ad. There's a photo of Nicole Bell (I assume it's Mrs. Bell) wearing Roc A Wear earrings. The caption reads "we are going to be here 'til the end, 'til justice is served." At the bottom it says "Roc a Wear--I will not lose."