Sean Bell's Killers (NYC Cops) Walk

[DArtist]

Originally Posted by NappyBison

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.

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.

[NappyBison]

Originally Posted by DArtist

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by NappyBison

I don't think "anything worth shooting" is worth shooting multiple times. Especially from the professional standpoint of an officer of the law. A shooting such as this is expecting of rival gangs who harbor hate behind their bullets. Self-defense is just a crutch that the NYPD has used for years to justify wrongful slaughters such as these.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by macallan25

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.

HEhehehehe!!


ok!!!

[NappyBison]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by NappyBison

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.

[pyt4christ]

Originally Posted by AKA2D '91

The cops may walk, but will they be FREE?

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.

[texas*princess]

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by jon1856

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?

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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?

[shinerbock]

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.

[Kevlar281]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by jon1856

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".

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.