Full Version: The Sean Bell shooting
The account:
New York Daily News story
Congressman Gregory W. Meeks press release on the shooting
Mayor Bloomberg: "Shooting unacceptable."
Questions for debate:
1.)Where the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
QUOTE
Bell was at the strip club with about 20 friends, police sources said. Two undercover cops, looking to make prostitution arrests, were also inside.
About 3 a.m., one of the undercover cops heard a bouncer suggest to a dancer that he had a gun, and the cops went outside to warn plainclothes officers in a nearby van, the sources said.
An hour later, a fight erupted outside the club. Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield were allegedly among eight men yelling at another man, Kelly said.
One of the undercover cops heard Bell shout, "Let's f--- him up," and Guzman say, "Yo - go get my gun," Kelly said.
"It's getting hot on Liverpool, for real. I think there's a gun," an undercover warned his lieutenant, Kelly said.
One undercover stayed at the club and the other followed the men as they got into Bell's car on Liverpool St. Bell drove forward, brushing that officer before slamming into the unmarked police van as it rounded the corner, Kelly said. The undercover officer then identified himself as a cop and fired the first round, sources said.
Bell threw the car into reverse and slammed into a building, then drove forward into the van again. Plainclothes cops poured from the van. Five officers at the scene began shooting.
Kelly said the investigation was ongoing. He stopped short of judging the actions of the officers involved. In 2004, he had quickly characterized the shooting of 19-year-old Timothy Stansbury by a Brooklyn cop as unjustified.
Although NYPD sources said the undercover cop at yesterday's incident had identified himself as an officer before police fired, Kelly said no witnesses had confirmed that account and brass had not interviewed the cops, pending a grand jury probe.
About 3 a.m., one of the undercover cops heard a bouncer suggest to a dancer that he had a gun, and the cops went outside to warn plainclothes officers in a nearby van, the sources said.
An hour later, a fight erupted outside the club. Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield were allegedly among eight men yelling at another man, Kelly said.
One of the undercover cops heard Bell shout, "Let's f--- him up," and Guzman say, "Yo - go get my gun," Kelly said.
"It's getting hot on Liverpool, for real. I think there's a gun," an undercover warned his lieutenant, Kelly said.
One undercover stayed at the club and the other followed the men as they got into Bell's car on Liverpool St. Bell drove forward, brushing that officer before slamming into the unmarked police van as it rounded the corner, Kelly said. The undercover officer then identified himself as a cop and fired the first round, sources said.
Bell threw the car into reverse and slammed into a building, then drove forward into the van again. Plainclothes cops poured from the van. Five officers at the scene began shooting.
Kelly said the investigation was ongoing. He stopped short of judging the actions of the officers involved. In 2004, he had quickly characterized the shooting of 19-year-old Timothy Stansbury by a Brooklyn cop as unjustified.
Although NYPD sources said the undercover cop at yesterday's incident had identified himself as an officer before police fired, Kelly said no witnesses had confirmed that account and brass had not interviewed the cops, pending a grand jury probe.
New York Daily News story
Congressman Gregory W. Meeks press release on the shooting
Mayor Bloomberg: "Shooting unacceptable."
Questions for debate:
1.)Where the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Nov 28 2006, 02:46 AM) 
The account:
QUOTE
Bell was at the strip club with about 20 friends, police sources said. Two undercover cops, looking to make prostitution arrests, were also inside.
About 3 a.m., one of the undercover cops heard a bouncer suggest to a dancer that he had a gun, and the cops went outside to warn plainclothes officers in a nearby van, the sources said.
An hour later, a fight erupted outside the club. Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield were allegedly among eight men yelling at another man, Kelly said.
One of the undercover cops heard Bell shout, "Let's f--- him up," and Guzman say, "Yo - go get my gun," Kelly said.
"It's getting hot on Liverpool, for real. I think there's a gun," an undercover warned his lieutenant, Kelly said.
One undercover stayed at the club and the other followed the men as they got into Bell's car on Liverpool St. Bell drove forward, brushing that officer before slamming into the unmarked police van as it rounded the corner, Kelly said. The undercover officer then identified himself as a cop and fired the first round, sources said.
Bell threw the car into reverse and slammed into a building, then drove forward into the van again. Plainclothes cops poured from the van. Five officers at the scene began shooting.
Kelly said the investigation was ongoing. He stopped short of judging the actions of the officers involved. In 2004, he had quickly characterized the shooting of 19-year-old Timothy Stansbury by a Brooklyn cop as unjustified.
Although NYPD sources said the undercover cop at yesterday's incident had identified himself as an officer before police fired, Kelly said no witnesses had confirmed that account and brass had not interviewed the cops, pending a grand jury probe.
About 3 a.m., one of the undercover cops heard a bouncer suggest to a dancer that he had a gun, and the cops went outside to warn plainclothes officers in a nearby van, the sources said.
An hour later, a fight erupted outside the club. Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield were allegedly among eight men yelling at another man, Kelly said.
One of the undercover cops heard Bell shout, "Let's f--- him up," and Guzman say, "Yo - go get my gun," Kelly said.
"It's getting hot on Liverpool, for real. I think there's a gun," an undercover warned his lieutenant, Kelly said.
One undercover stayed at the club and the other followed the men as they got into Bell's car on Liverpool St. Bell drove forward, brushing that officer before slamming into the unmarked police van as it rounded the corner, Kelly said. The undercover officer then identified himself as a cop and fired the first round, sources said.
Bell threw the car into reverse and slammed into a building, then drove forward into the van again. Plainclothes cops poured from the van. Five officers at the scene began shooting.
Kelly said the investigation was ongoing. He stopped short of judging the actions of the officers involved. In 2004, he had quickly characterized the shooting of 19-year-old Timothy Stansbury by a Brooklyn cop as unjustified.
Although NYPD sources said the undercover cop at yesterday's incident had identified himself as an officer before police fired, Kelly said no witnesses had confirmed that account and brass had not interviewed the cops, pending a grand jury probe.
New York Daily News story
Congressman Gregory W. Meeks press release on the shooting
Mayor Bloomberg: "Shooting unacceptable."
Questions for debate:
1.)Were the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
The report that Sean Bell backed his car into a building and slammed into a van twice is only alleged to have happened. That is only a statement by police officers, as is the alleged mention of a gun. This story could have been fabricated, for all we know, to cover-up the murder. It is important that we hear from the two survivors.
The question the media is asking is "Did the police use excessive force." This is a biased question. The question assumes that this was not a murder, but police killing someone in the line of duty. Did John Gacey use excessive force? Did the Boston Strangler use excessive force? The murder of Sean Bell may have been excessive force, or it could have been murder. The fact that these men are police officers may have nothing to do with it. It doesn't give the police the right to kill people. We need to hear from the survivors.
The thing about this that is hard to dispute is that 50 shots were fired at three unarmed black men. The police would not have fired at three white women. If they had, the response would have been unimaginable.
1.)Were the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
I believe they were, however what they did was against department rules. These officers should be disciplined.
Here's the bottom line: a car is a deadly weapon. According to the news reports, this guy had already hit one cop ("brushed" is a vague term, but he must have contacted him). That indicates intent to do harm or at least malicious recklessness. They had previously been involved in a fight outside the club.
There were reports of a gun before this happened. The officers followed these guys away from the club because they heard they were going for a gun.
If the driver had hit the unmarked police van and stopped, this would have been different. Instead, he backed up and rammed the van again at which point the officers opened fire.
Mayor meets groom’s family in NYPD slaying
If the police are to be believed, they identified themselves, THEN the guy bumped him, then hit hit the van, then he backed up and hit the van again. If they genuinely thought there was a gun involved, they were protecting themselves (perhaps illegally).
We don't know precisely what happened inside the club. Perhaps something happened in there that sparked this. At this point we don't know. If I were an investigator, I'd be asking some questions about what happened inside the club (if there was a confrontation between the undercover officer and the wedding party, for example).
The question remains about the number of bullets fired. But there is the concept of "contagious or sympathetic fire" in which the officers may have believed fire was being returned because of the other officers shooting. None of the officers, including the 12 year veteran present, had ever fired their gun in the line of duty before.
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
It's clearly not racial. Three of the officers were minorities although it is unclear which is which (was the undercover officer black or white)?
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
These questions are the same as the second one. Sharpton is an opportunist in any situation.
I believe they were, however what they did was against department rules. These officers should be disciplined.
Here's the bottom line: a car is a deadly weapon. According to the news reports, this guy had already hit one cop ("brushed" is a vague term, but he must have contacted him). That indicates intent to do harm or at least malicious recklessness. They had previously been involved in a fight outside the club.
There were reports of a gun before this happened. The officers followed these guys away from the club because they heard they were going for a gun.
If the driver had hit the unmarked police van and stopped, this would have been different. Instead, he backed up and rammed the van again at which point the officers opened fire.
Mayor meets groom’s family in NYPD slaying
QUOTE
“He was still acting in an undercover capacity when he followed the group down the street and apparently took some enforcement action, and that was unusual,” Kelly said.
Union officials insist the detective took out his badge, identified himself and ordered the men to stop before the car, driven by Bell, lurched forward and bumped him. The vehicle then smashed into an unmarked police van, backed up and smashed the van again before the shooting began.
Union officials insist the detective took out his badge, identified himself and ordered the men to stop before the car, driven by Bell, lurched forward and bumped him. The vehicle then smashed into an unmarked police van, backed up and smashed the van again before the shooting began.
If the police are to be believed, they identified themselves, THEN the guy bumped him, then hit hit the van, then he backed up and hit the van again. If they genuinely thought there was a gun involved, they were protecting themselves (perhaps illegally).
We don't know precisely what happened inside the club. Perhaps something happened in there that sparked this. At this point we don't know. If I were an investigator, I'd be asking some questions about what happened inside the club (if there was a confrontation between the undercover officer and the wedding party, for example).
The question remains about the number of bullets fired. But there is the concept of "contagious or sympathetic fire" in which the officers may have believed fire was being returned because of the other officers shooting. None of the officers, including the 12 year veteran present, had ever fired their gun in the line of duty before.
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
It's clearly not racial. Three of the officers were minorities although it is unclear which is which (was the undercover officer black or white)?
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
These questions are the same as the second one. Sharpton is an opportunist in any situation.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Nov 27 2006, 09:46 PM)
Questions for debate:
1.)Where the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
Impossible to know. 50 <i>seems</i> like too many shots. I generally tend to side with the Police. This case and Diallo, while clearly not parallels, are situations where I really just don't know. The Police seem to have done the wrong thing at nearly every step.
QUOTE
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
No.
QUOTE
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
No.
QUOTE
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
Al Sharpton is a racial opportunist - always.
From this article: Shooter: They knew I was cop the undercover police officer was the Hispanic one.
Also:
This implies that Guzman may not be black.
Also, according to police, the Kalua Cabaret has been plagued by prostitution (which is why the officers were there) drugs and guns.
NY Sun article
Also, all three men involved have criminal records, including gun charges.
QUOTE
But when the cop saw the man sitting in the passenger seat - whom police sources identified as Joseph Guzman - reach into his waistband, the officer fired the first of 11 rounds at the men.
Four other officers, believing they were being shot at, also opened up on the car, Karasyk said. When the gunfire was over, Bell was dead and Guzman and another man, Trent Benefield, were badly wounded.
<snip>
"That's our offer to the prosecutors - to waive immunity," Karasyk said.
The lawyer's client is a Hispanic officer in his late 20s.
Four other officers, believing they were being shot at, also opened up on the car, Karasyk said. When the gunfire was over, Bell was dead and Guzman and another man, Trent Benefield, were badly wounded.
<snip>
"That's our offer to the prosecutors - to waive immunity," Karasyk said.
The lawyer's client is a Hispanic officer in his late 20s.
Also:
QUOTE
Karasyk said his client followed because he heard Guzman say outside the club that he was going to get a gun to settle a beef with another club patron.
Many in the African-American community believe there was a racial component to the shooting because Bell and Benefield are both black.
Many in the African-American community believe there was a racial component to the shooting because Bell and Benefield are both black.
This implies that Guzman may not be black.
Also, according to police, the Kalua Cabaret has been plagued by prostitution (which is why the officers were there) drugs and guns.
NY Sun article
Also, all three men involved have criminal records, including gun charges.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Nov 27 2006, 09:46 PM)
The account:
QUOTE
Bell was at the strip club with about 20 friends, police sources said. Two undercover cops, looking to make prostitution arrests, were also inside.
About 3 a.m., one of the undercover cops heard a bouncer suggest to a dancer that he had a gun, and the cops went outside to warn plainclothes officers in a nearby van, the sources said.
An hour later, a fight erupted outside the club. Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield were allegedly among eight men yelling at another man, Kelly said.
One of the undercover cops heard Bell shout, "Let's f--- him up," and Guzman say, "Yo - go get my gun," Kelly said.
"It's getting hot on Liverpool, for real. I think there's a gun," an undercover warned his lieutenant, Kelly said.
One undercover stayed at the club and the other followed the men as they got into Bell's car on Liverpool St. Bell drove forward, brushing that officer before slamming into the unmarked police van as it rounded the corner, Kelly said. The undercover officer then identified himself as a cop and fired the first round, sources said.
Bell threw the car into reverse and slammed into a building, then drove forward into the van again. Plainclothes cops poured from the van. Five officers at the scene began shooting.
Kelly said the investigation was ongoing. He stopped short of judging the actions of the officers involved. In 2004, he had quickly characterized the shooting of 19-year-old Timothy Stansbury by a Brooklyn cop as unjustified.
Although NYPD sources said the undercover cop at yesterday's incident had identified himself as an officer before police fired, Kelly said no witnesses had confirmed that account and brass had not interviewed the cops, pending a grand jury probe.
About 3 a.m., one of the undercover cops heard a bouncer suggest to a dancer that he had a gun, and the cops went outside to warn plainclothes officers in a nearby van, the sources said.
An hour later, a fight erupted outside the club. Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield were allegedly among eight men yelling at another man, Kelly said.
One of the undercover cops heard Bell shout, "Let's f--- him up," and Guzman say, "Yo - go get my gun," Kelly said.
"It's getting hot on Liverpool, for real. I think there's a gun," an undercover warned his lieutenant, Kelly said.
One undercover stayed at the club and the other followed the men as they got into Bell's car on Liverpool St. Bell drove forward, brushing that officer before slamming into the unmarked police van as it rounded the corner, Kelly said. The undercover officer then identified himself as a cop and fired the first round, sources said.
Bell threw the car into reverse and slammed into a building, then drove forward into the van again. Plainclothes cops poured from the van. Five officers at the scene began shooting.
Kelly said the investigation was ongoing. He stopped short of judging the actions of the officers involved. In 2004, he had quickly characterized the shooting of 19-year-old Timothy Stansbury by a Brooklyn cop as unjustified.
Although NYPD sources said the undercover cop at yesterday's incident had identified himself as an officer before police fired, Kelly said no witnesses had confirmed that account and brass had not interviewed the cops, pending a grand jury probe.
New York Daily News story
Congressman Gregory W. Meeks press release on the shooting
Mayor Bloomberg: "Shooting unacceptable."
Questions for debate:
1.)Where the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
First, the facts of this case are not yet known. All we have are initial reports, and the hyped up responses by the "usual suspects" (Sharpton, Jesse) who never miss a chance to keep the hate alive.
1. Were the officers justified *if* the facts of the case show that an officer was being attacked by a car? Yes. A car is considered to be a "deadly weapon" that can kill an officer as dead as a gun, knife, or bazooka for that matter. Officers are justified (as are private citizens) if they believe they are threatened by deadly force by responding with deadly force.
2. Was it a racial event? Given the fact that the officers involved were "minorities", that's a tough one to sell. However, as I mentioned above, the race baiters like Jesse and Reverend Al never miss an opportunity to turn a tragedy into a "racial event" in order to promote their own selfish agenda which involves keeping the hate alive. 50 shots? I'd be more concerned that only 21 shots hit the car. This points to a relatively low level of training on behalf of the NYPD. Was the number of shots excessive? It depends on the police training by the NYPD. In many departments, they train their officers to unload their guns into a threat they deem life threatening until the gun goes "click". It would seem they did just that here. Perhaps the modified triggers they have on their Glock 9mm's (12 lb pull rather than the standard 5.5 lb pull) have contributed to the consistently poor marksmanship by these officers. That modification, which was dictated by department lawyers, not cops, was in result to "accidental" shootings by officers who had their fingers on the trigger and pointed at someone they didn't intend to shoot (a basic safety error). In any event, this isn't the first time that NYPD officers has "sprayed and prayed" and managed to hit what they were shooting on less than 50% of the time.
3. One would think so. But what were the qualifications of these cops in the first place. Did they pass the standards or were they given a break based on department "affirmative action" policies which reward lesser performing officers because they "look a certain way"?
4. Yes. Sharpton is a huckster and a racist opportunist. His deplorable conduct during the Tawana Brawley farce should have resulted in the media ignoring him for the rest of his life. In that case, he accepted the lies by a black woman at faces value and tried to ruin the life (and career) of an innocent cop.
1.)Where the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
From what I am able to gather from the coverage, the van was unmarked and the undercover officers did not identify themselves as police. I believe Bell and his friends panicked and were trying to get away, and that’s why they rammed the van. Regardless of the nuances of what happened, why did the undercovers fire so many rounds into the vehicle? Why didn’t they identify themselves as police officers and order the men out of the car? Why start shooting…then reloading, and shooting some more? One might wonder how much consideration was given to innocent bystanders possibly being caught in the fusillade of bullets. I think the police firing because “they thought the men were armed” is a pretty lame excuse for the excessive barrage unleashed upon Bell and his friends.
One tidbit I read was that, since they were undercover, the officers are allowed to drink, and had been drinking at the club. Could alcohol have been a factor in the shoorting? Possibly, but I guess the watch commander did a “visual” inspection and didn’t test them, so we’ll never know.
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
Who can say? I’m not from NY, but I think Jamaica, Queens is largely a black area, so the likelihood of the victims being black is fairly high. I think the main racism here is blue vs. everyone else. Whether this was racism or not, these officers’ actions were unprofessional, and possibly criminal. “Oopsie, my bad” isn’t going to bring Sean Bell back to life, or heal the multiple bullet wounds in his friends.
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
I’d be curious to know the ethnicity of the officer who shot, reloaded, shot, reloaded again, and shot some more. That man has some issues, whether racial or otherwise.
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
Sharpton is a publicity hound.
Edited to add:
Amlord, the officers couldn't possibly have known that at the time. They sure as hell didn't ask for ID and run it through the system. Saying that because they have criminal records makes it sound like it's OK to shoot them dozens of times.
From what I am able to gather from the coverage, the van was unmarked and the undercover officers did not identify themselves as police. I believe Bell and his friends panicked and were trying to get away, and that’s why they rammed the van. Regardless of the nuances of what happened, why did the undercovers fire so many rounds into the vehicle? Why didn’t they identify themselves as police officers and order the men out of the car? Why start shooting…then reloading, and shooting some more? One might wonder how much consideration was given to innocent bystanders possibly being caught in the fusillade of bullets. I think the police firing because “they thought the men were armed” is a pretty lame excuse for the excessive barrage unleashed upon Bell and his friends.
One tidbit I read was that, since they were undercover, the officers are allowed to drink, and had been drinking at the club. Could alcohol have been a factor in the shoorting? Possibly, but I guess the watch commander did a “visual” inspection and didn’t test them, so we’ll never know.
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
Who can say? I’m not from NY, but I think Jamaica, Queens is largely a black area, so the likelihood of the victims being black is fairly high. I think the main racism here is blue vs. everyone else. Whether this was racism or not, these officers’ actions were unprofessional, and possibly criminal. “Oopsie, my bad” isn’t going to bring Sean Bell back to life, or heal the multiple bullet wounds in his friends.
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
I’d be curious to know the ethnicity of the officer who shot, reloaded, shot, reloaded again, and shot some more. That man has some issues, whether racial or otherwise.
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
Sharpton is a publicity hound.
Edited to add:
QUOTE(Amlord)
Also, all three men involved have criminal records, including gun charges.
Amlord, the officers couldn't possibly have known that at the time. They sure as hell didn't ask for ID and run it through the system. Saying that because they have criminal records makes it sound like it's OK to shoot them dozens of times.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Nov 27 2006, 09:46 PM)
Questions for debate:
1.)Where the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
1. Too soon to tell. All the facts are not in yet, though I have little reason to expect any investigation by the police will not find the shooting justified. The cops that blew away Amadou Diallo skated by without punishment. I would expect nothing less than another official whitewash and tacit blessing of another Black man's life being snuffed out.
2. I don't think the cops went out with the idea of blowing away any brother that gave them an attitude, but I also don't think when a Black man is gunned down like this the cops should always get the benefit of the doubt. There are incompetent police officers just as there are incompetent judges, doctors, attorneys and Presidents of the United States. But no profession closes ranks to protect its worst members like cops do.
A white guy being fired at 50 times? Wouldn't that be "excessive force?"
3. No. Not at all.
4. Sharpton and other activists are doing exactly what needs to be done to place pressure upon the city and police to conduct an open and aggressive investigation instead of just writing it off as just another unfortunate accident. If a shooting this egregious doesn't deserve people to rise up and demand answers then what the hell does?
People who toss out charges of "racial opportunist" in the wake of this mess don't really want justice to be served. They think the cops already have served justice the way they like to see it.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 1 2006, 10:16 AM)
Also, all three men involved have criminal records, including gun charges.
How is that relevant, Amlord? Sean Bell having a rap sheet neither explains the overkill by the cops nor justifies his death.
As DaffyGrl points out, there is no way the cops could have known if the men in the cars had criminal records as long as your arm or none at all. Either way, going to a strip club is not an executable offense. All you are doing is dirtying up Bell's life to rationalize his death.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Dec 1 2006, 10:39 AM)
First, the facts of this case are not yet known. All we have are initial reports, and the hyped up responses by the "usual suspects" (Sharpton, Jesse) who never miss a chance to keep the hate alive.
You're absolutely right that the facts of this case are not yet known, lordhelmet, but that's not going to stop you from keeping your own hate alive for Black men demanding answers from the law enforcement officials charged with protecting them.
That's not "hate" as you spit out. That's holding the cops accountable for their actions. I'm not the least surprised you can't tell the difference.
Here’s a truly odious term that has been applied to the Sean Bell shooting: “contagious shooting”. Like it’s a freakin’ cold or something, and somehow excusable because of it. 
A load of crap, I say.
It sounds to me like some serious re-training is in order for the NYPD. They're damned lucky innocent bystanders weren't killed or injured.
William Saleton of Slate makes a good point that the NRA stance that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” can’t be true if we use the flippant term “contagious shooting” as an excuse for this kind of behavior.
A load of crap, I say.QUOTE
In the 1995 Bronx bodega robbery in which officers fired 125 shots, the suspects did not fire back. “They were shooting to the echo of their own gunfire,” a former police official said at the time.
<snip>
(regarding the Bell shooting) In the ensuing barrage, one shot struck the window of a house, another a window at an AirTrain platform, injuring two Port Authority police officers with flying glass. It appeared that the Altima was struck by 21 shots, fewer than half of the number fired, the police said. NY Times
<snip>
(regarding the Bell shooting) In the ensuing barrage, one shot struck the window of a house, another a window at an AirTrain platform, injuring two Port Authority police officers with flying glass. It appeared that the Altima was struck by 21 shots, fewer than half of the number fired, the police said. NY Times
It sounds to me like some serious re-training is in order for the NYPD. They're damned lucky innocent bystanders weren't killed or injured.
William Saleton of Slate makes a good point that the NRA stance that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” can’t be true if we use the flippant term “contagious shooting” as an excuse for this kind of behavior.
QUOTE
Contagious shooting blows that argument away. If cops fire reflexively, there's no moral difference between people and guns. They're both machines, and based on recent shootings, we should limit clips or firing speed to control their damage. No responsibility, no freedom.
Alternatively, we could reassert that police are free agents, to be trusted with weapons and held responsible—not excused with mechanical metaphors—when they abuse them. You can't have it both ways. Slate
Alternatively, we could reassert that police are free agents, to be trusted with weapons and held responsible—not excused with mechanical metaphors—when they abuse them. You can't have it both ways. Slate
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Dec 1 2006, 02:12 PM)
Here’s a truly odious term that has been applied to the Sean Bell shooting: “contagious shooting”. Like it’s a freakin’ cold or something, and somehow excusable because of it.
A load of crap, I say. QUOTE
In the 1995 Bronx bodega robbery in which officers fired 125 shots, the suspects did not fire back. “They were shooting to the echo of their own gunfire,” a former police official said at the time.
<snip>
(regarding the Bell shooting) In the ensuing barrage, one shot struck the window of a house, another a window at an AirTrain platform, injuring two Port Authority police officers with flying glass. It appeared that the Altima was struck by 21 shots, fewer than half of the number fired, the police said. NY Times
<snip>
(regarding the Bell shooting) In the ensuing barrage, one shot struck the window of a house, another a window at an AirTrain platform, injuring two Port Authority police officers with flying glass. It appeared that the Altima was struck by 21 shots, fewer than half of the number fired, the police said. NY Times
It sounds to me like some serious re-training is in order for the NYPD. They're damned lucky innocent bystanders weren't killed or injured.
William Saleton of Slate makes a good point that the NRA stance that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” can’t be true if we use the flippant term “contagious shooting” as an excuse for this kind of behavior.
QUOTE
Contagious shooting blows that argument away. If cops fire reflexively, there's no moral difference between people and guns. They're both machines, and based on recent shootings, we should limit clips or firing speed to control their damage. No responsibility, no freedom.
Alternatively, we could reassert that police are free agents, to be trusted with weapons and held responsible—not excused with mechanical metaphors—when they abuse them. You can't have it both ways. Slate
Alternatively, we could reassert that police are free agents, to be trusted with weapons and held responsible—not excused with mechanical metaphors—when they abuse them. You can't have it both ways. Slate
The thing is, Daffy, you are ignoring the reality and the human stress levels that occur during a police (or any) shooting. These events happen REAL FAST and they don't occur like they do on TV. The cops are fully aware of how fast officers get shot and killed and the brutality of many of the people they're up against.
The purpose for training the police is to ensure their "reflex" in deadly force situations. In a situation involving split second judgements involving life and death, the officer doesn't have time to go off and have a cup of coffee, confer with a lawyer, and then decide on the best course of action.
If the cop was about to be attacked by a car (ala a deadly weapon), then his training would teach him to *shoot*. If the other officers come into the situation, are hyped up by the "man with a gun call", and then shots happen rapidly and the car that tried to run over the cop is the target, their training will kick in and they will react "instinctively".
And why in god's name would you "limit clips (magazines)" or the "firing speed" of the police officer's guns? Would it make you feel better to have MORE dead police? This sort of mentality has already hampered the NYPD officers when lawyers and administrators have made heavy handed tactical decisions.
We still don't know the facts of this case. It may turn out that someone in this group of guys DID have a gun. It may turn out that these guys DID try to run over the cop who tried to stop them.
In that case, we have a justified shooting by the police. And, with respect to the number of rounds fired, you have to take into account (again) the police officer's training and the doctrine of the deparment. If the cops fired 50 shots, then I think it's a shame that only 21 hit the car (let alone the occupants). I pointed to one potential issue related to their poor marksmanship (the Glock NY #2 trigger). I'd be interested in knowing how much time these guys actually spend training, qualifying, etc.
I'm all for better police training. But I'm not for putting them into situations that will get them killed in greater numbers.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Dec 1 2006, 02:32 PM)
We still don't know the facts of this case. It may turn out that someone in this group of guys DID have a gun. It may turn out that these guys DID try to run over the cop who tried to stop them.
In that case, we have a justified shooting by the police
And it may turn out that no one had a gun and the cops went ballistic on a car full of unarmed men. Have the officers been questioned or tested to see if any of them had been drinking?
I'm not rushing to judgment accusing the cops of deliberately killing Sean Bell. Why are others are so eager to rush to judgment and call the shooting justified when the facts of the case are not yet known?
The police are dragging the sewers looking for a gun. Good freakin' luck, on that one. Even if they "find" a weapon at this point how are they going to put it into Sean Bell's cold, dead hands or prove it wasn't planted?
QUOTE
. And, with respect to the number of rounds fired, you have to take into account (again) the police officer's training and the doctrine of the deparment. If the cops fired 50 shots, then I think it's a shame that only 21 hit the car (let alone the occupants).
Your thinking the "shame" lies in the poor marksmanship of the cops is a greater travesty than the fact a innocent young man may have been killed speaks volumes about your errant priorities and a distasteful lack of humanity.
It's quite revealing that the same people in a previous thread who were berating Black men for being irresponsible and ducking responsibility and bad behavior are the very first ones to smear a young man who was trying to do precisely what they suggest. This isn't "compassionate conservatism." It's rank hypocrisy.
(CBS/AP) QUEENS Sean Bell was just 23 when he died, but those close to him said he had already made some mature sacrifices.
Bell had a promising run as star pitcher for his Queens high school, and he hoped to pursue a baseball career. But when his high school girlfriend, Nicole Paultre, discovered she was pregnant, he put aside those dreams, said Kinglarry Crawford, a cousin.
"He would have signed professionally," said Bishop Lester Williams, who had planned to marry the couple Saturday. "He gave up all that baseball and everything to be with his high school sweetheart."
Distraught in the hours after her fiance's death, Paultre also was consumed by regret, Williams said, calling the minister to ask if he could somehow still legally marry them.
"We can't do it," the pastor said he told her. "I'm sorry."
After Paultre became pregnant, Bell moved in with her and her parents, working odd jobs and staying in shape, harboring hopes of eventually returning to playing ball, Crawford said. The couple began planning a wedding, and a move to Atlanta, where her parents were planning to help them buy a house.
link
Sean Bell should be enjoying his honeymoon. Instead he's being fitted for a pine box. Somebody has some explaining to do here.
NYPD policy is not to shoot at a vehicle.
A witness’ version of events suggests the police may have had the wrong guy in the first place.
Plus, the commissioner and the mayor both have stated that the number of shots fired was excessive, and the mayor has added that the shooting was “unacceptable” and “inexplicable”. That part of the incident doesn’t seem to be in dispute. Hardly an endorsement of the officers’ behavior that night.
Sadly, it looks as if the NYPD’s heavy-handed tactics continue. Now they’re rousting residents in the area. They keep this kind of stuff up and they'll convince many that the shootings were race-based, whether they were or not.
Whatever Sean Bell may or may not have been as a person is immaterial to the circumstances surrounding his murder. Sure, the strip club slash whorehouse was in a rough, nasty, seedy area frequented by gang members and all around no-goodniks, but that still doesn’t mean Sean Bell deserved to die the way he did.
QUOTE
"Policy is not to shoot at a vehicle," admitted Kelly at City Hall on Monday while standing at the Mayor's side, "if the only deadly force being used against you is the vehicle itself." Queens Ledger
A witness’ version of events suggests the police may have had the wrong guy in the first place.
QUOTE
"They had the wrong guy," said the man, who claimed to have been a patron at the bar that evening. "This guy [Bell] said to his friends, 'I'm getting married tomorrow. Let's break out.' The person who had the gun, he was there the whole time, standing in the doorway."
Plus, the commissioner and the mayor both have stated that the number of shots fired was excessive, and the mayor has added that the shooting was “unacceptable” and “inexplicable”. That part of the incident doesn’t seem to be in dispute. Hardly an endorsement of the officers’ behavior that night.
Sadly, it looks as if the NYPD’s heavy-handed tactics continue. Now they’re rousting residents in the area. They keep this kind of stuff up and they'll convince many that the shootings were race-based, whether they were or not.
QUOTE
They kept asking if she knew the whereabouts of certain friends of the three men shooting victims.
"If you don't tell us what we want to hear, you know, you can get five years," she says one cop told her.
Thus, in a bizarre twist almost as inexplicable as the original 50-shot fusillade, the NYPD is raiding homes and picking up young blacks in southeastern Queens in an all-out effort to locate an alleged "fourth man," a man investigators say was at the scene of the shooting and fled. NY Daily News
"If you don't tell us what we want to hear, you know, you can get five years," she says one cop told her.
Thus, in a bizarre twist almost as inexplicable as the original 50-shot fusillade, the NYPD is raiding homes and picking up young blacks in southeastern Queens in an all-out effort to locate an alleged "fourth man," a man investigators say was at the scene of the shooting and fled. NY Daily News
Whatever Sean Bell may or may not have been as a person is immaterial to the circumstances surrounding his murder. Sure, the strip club slash whorehouse was in a rough, nasty, seedy area frequented by gang members and all around no-goodniks, but that still doesn’t mean Sean Bell deserved to die the way he did.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Dec 1 2006, 03:32 PM)
The thing is, Daffy, you are ignoring the reality and the human stress levels that occur during a police (or any) shooting. These events happen REAL FAST and they don't occur like they do on TV. The cops are fully aware of how fast officers get shot and killed and the brutality of many of the people they're up against.
The purpose for training the police is to ensure their "reflex" in deadly force situations. In a situation involving split second judgements involving life and death, the officer doesn't have time to go off and have a cup of coffee, confer with a lawyer, and then decide on the best course of action.
I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. Yes, police work is dangerous. That's what they are paid to do, to risk their lives. Each officer should realize that he should rather risk a chance to be killed in a line of duty than to harm an unarmed civilian. Right now it seems to me that the cops mentality is completely different. Why do you think that they teach you that if you're stopped on a highway by a cop you should "put your hands on the wheel and not move"? God forbid a cop will think that he is in danger and may kill you for nothing! Essentially, your most mundane interaction with the representative of the Law potentially puts your life at risk!
Who cared how fast it had happened? Who cares whether these guys have any priors or not? I think I read somewhere that "moving vehicle" is not considered a deadly force and that alone should never be a justifyable reason to open fire.
The three guys in a car were never a threat to cops since they were unarmed (and cops were undercover anyway so the victims didn't even know that they're in danger), so this shooting can not be considered justified any way you look at it. Period.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Dec 1 2006, 03:27 PM)
Who cared how fast it had happened? Who cares whether these guys have any priors or not? I think I read somewhere that "moving vehicle" is not considered a deadly force and that alone should never be a justifyable reason to open fire.
The three guys in a car were never a threat to cops since they were unarmed (and cops were undercover anyway so the victims didn't even know that they're in danger), so this shooting can not be considered justified any way you look at it. Period.
If a moving vehicle isn't considered a deadly weapon by the NYPD, then they should change their policy. If they are not allowed to shoot at a moving vehicle, then they should change their policy.
Would anyone here deny that a moving vehicle can kill you? Especially a cop trying to arrest someone in a vehicle?
I have no idea whether this shooting was justified or not. Then again, neither does mayor Bloomberg or anyone else who has pontificated on this.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Dec 1 2006, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Dec 1 2006, 03:32 PM)
The thing is, Daffy, you are ignoring the reality and the human stress levels that occur during a police (or any) shooting. These events happen REAL FAST and they don't occur like they do on TV. The cops are fully aware of how fast officers get shot and killed and the brutality of many of the people they're up against.
The purpose for training the police is to ensure their "reflex" in deadly force situations. In a situation involving split second judgements involving life and death, the officer doesn't have time to go off and have a cup of coffee, confer with a lawyer, and then decide on the best course of action.
I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. Yes, police work is dangerous. That's what they are paid to do, to risk their lives. Each officer should realize that he should rather risk a chance to be killed in a line of duty than to harm an unarmed civilian. Right now it seems to me that the cops mentality is completely different. Why do you think that they teach you that if you're stopped on a highway by a cop you should "put your hands on the wheel and not move"? God forbid a cop will think that he is in danger and may kill you for nothing!
Who cared how fast it had happened? Who cares whether these guys have any priors or not? I think I read somewhere that "moving vehicle" is not considered a deadly force and that alone should never be a justifiable reason to open fire.
The three guys in a car were never a threat to cops since they were unarmed (and cops were undercover anyway so the victims didn't even know that they're in danger), so this shooting can not be considered justified any way you look at it. Period.
With all due respect, if an officer was your wife, husband, son, or daughter, would you believe that their mission was to "risk a chance to be killed"? The police are hired to "preserve and protect"... not risk their lives on purpose. Their training is designed to teach them how to react appropriately, in the appropriate situation.
A moving vehicle aimed at you will kill you. Period. Just as dead as a gun or knife or bazooka. On the other hand, you're correct IF that moving vehicle is aimed "away from the officer" and would not be considered a case warranting lethal force. However, if an officer is being rammed by a moving vehicle, his department, and the courts, will CERTAINLY rule that the shooting to stop that car is justifiable.
It's good common sense not to do something stupid when one is stopped by an officer. He has no way of knowing if you are a threat or not. It's good common sense to put on your dome light, keep your hands in sight, and not make any quick or erratic movements. That's what I have done when stopped (the few times that I actually have been).
Police do hero's work and they do so for relatively low pay. I know a number of police officers and the amount of things they have to deal with on a daily basis is beyond normal human being's capacity to deal with. Yet they do so... day after day after day.
Yet, when something like this happens, the uninformed (about police matters) public are quick to judge, politically charged hucksters race to the TV cameras, and pronouncements are made.... before all the facts are in.
To date, the ONLY fact that we can establish in this case is the relative lack of marksmanship ability of the officers's involved. And that's is a forensic question.
I, for one, choose to wait until we know of ALL the facts. But....
If it were demonstrated that the car was attempting to run over an officer... then the shooting was justified.
If not, then it probably wasn't.
The police are trained to shoot until (either their magazines are empty) or the target is DOWN. I don't know for certain what NYPD doctrine is, but I believe it's "shoot until you're dry". People when shot with handguns don't fly backwards like they do in movies. Real cops can tell you stories of guys shots literally "dozens" of times who kept on coming and continued to kill an officer. These training methods were designed for "good" reasons.... usually as a result of dead cops and dead civilians.
The police on the scene didn't know what "priors" were held by the individuals. They were called to a problem with a "man with a gun".
So lets wait and see what the facts show before we pass judgement on these officers and the police class in general.
Funny...and here I thought it was protect AND serve.
Who is protected when a volley of 50 gunshots are leveled against unarmed suspects? What good is served by gunning down a man the night before his wedding?
There's some perverse logic that the life of a police officer is worth more than a innocent civilian. It's not. Being a police officer is a voluntary choice, just like being a soldier in the defense of the nation. Putting on a badge is not a license to shoot and kill without consequence.
Nobody here was there that night. Nobody knows the facts of the case yet---not even the people who were there.
But there isn't a dime's worth of difference between those who sneer at "hucksters" who demand accountability from law enforcement officials and the apologists who say, "All the facts aren't in so let's not second-guess the police officers," but follow up with "Let me explain to you since you're too stupid to figure it out why the cops are right whey they shoot unarmed people."
For some folks every cop is a trigger-happy thug in uniform hoping for a excuse to drag out their pistol and blow some lowlife away. For other folks ever cop is a blue knight doing a dirty, difficult job and the only thing standing between order and chaos. Neither side is completely right or totally wrong.
Any cop who cannot control himself in situations of high stress maybe shouldn't be a cop. Giving someone a gun and the power to end another human life is not a trivial task. If they just want to tote a badge so badly, let them get a job walking the floor of a Wal-Mart where it's not allowed to shoot a customer because you don't like their attitude.
For some people they're still in kindergarten and thinking of kindly Officer Friendly who tells kids if they're ever in trouble go to the nearest donut shop and find a policeman because the policeman is their friend.
But every policeman ISN'T your friend. Police come out of the same gene pool as everyone else and their subject to the same fears, biases and blindspots as everyone else. Some policemen see young Black men as suspects guilty until proven innocent.
For cops like this it's Shoot First and Come Up With Excuses Later.
These types of cops are armed and dangerous. Especially if you are a 23-year-old Black male in NYC in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Who is protected when a volley of 50 gunshots are leveled against unarmed suspects? What good is served by gunning down a man the night before his wedding?
There's some perverse logic that the life of a police officer is worth more than a innocent civilian. It's not. Being a police officer is a voluntary choice, just like being a soldier in the defense of the nation. Putting on a badge is not a license to shoot and kill without consequence.
Nobody here was there that night. Nobody knows the facts of the case yet---not even the people who were there.
But there isn't a dime's worth of difference between those who sneer at "hucksters" who demand accountability from law enforcement officials and the apologists who say, "All the facts aren't in so let's not second-guess the police officers," but follow up with "Let me explain to you since you're too stupid to figure it out why the cops are right whey they shoot unarmed people."
For some folks every cop is a trigger-happy thug in uniform hoping for a excuse to drag out their pistol and blow some lowlife away. For other folks ever cop is a blue knight doing a dirty, difficult job and the only thing standing between order and chaos. Neither side is completely right or totally wrong.
Any cop who cannot control himself in situations of high stress maybe shouldn't be a cop. Giving someone a gun and the power to end another human life is not a trivial task. If they just want to tote a badge so badly, let them get a job walking the floor of a Wal-Mart where it's not allowed to shoot a customer because you don't like their attitude.
For some people they're still in kindergarten and thinking of kindly Officer Friendly who tells kids if they're ever in trouble go to the nearest donut shop and find a policeman because the policeman is their friend.
But every policeman ISN'T your friend. Police come out of the same gene pool as everyone else and their subject to the same fears, biases and blindspots as everyone else. Some policemen see young Black men as suspects guilty until proven innocent.
For cops like this it's Shoot First and Come Up With Excuses Later.
These types of cops are armed and dangerous. Especially if you are a 23-year-old Black male in NYC in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Boy, there's quite a bit of judgment flying around before an investigation has been completed.
"The three guys in a car were never a threat to cops since they were unarmed (and cops were undercover anyway so the victims didn't even know that they're in danger), so this shooting can not be considered justified any way you look at it. Period." ENGLISH HORN
"Sure, the strip club slash whorehouse was in a rough, nasty, seedy area frequented by gang members and all around no-goodniks, but that still doesn’t mean Sean Bell deserved to die the way he did." DAFFY GIRL
"Sean Bell should be enjoying his honeymoon. Instead he's being fitted for a pine box. Somebody has some explaining to do here." NIGHTTIMER
YOU GUYS NEED TO SLOW DOWN.
I have a feeling that if these officers are exonerated there will be quite a few posters on this thread (by virtue of their exceptional insight into law enforcement procedures and their finely-tuned sensitivities when detecting racism) who will still insist there was malfeasance despite any evidences to the contrary. If the officers are found negligent in the execution of their duties then they should be disciplined accordingly and the department should take a look at their policies regarding this type of confrontation.
1.)Where the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
I do not know. On the face of it, it seems there was some aggression coming from the 3 civilian men that could reasonably be construed as an attempt to harm the officers. This possibility notwithstanding, the officers' reactions do seem a bit over-the-top. BUT WHAT DO I KNOW SITTING HERE AT MY COMPUTER SEVERAL THOUSAND MILES AWAY.
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
I do not know. I hope that as the facts unfold we do not find out that race was a factor. If the officers are exonerated of any wrongdoing, I have to hope that a white guy would receive no different treatment. BUT WHAT DO I KNOW I HAVE NEVER MET THESE OFFICERS NOR THE CIVILIAN MEN. I CANNOT KNOW THE INTENT OF THEIR HEARTS. FOR THIS I WILL SUSPEND JUDGMENT UNTIL CONCLUSIONS TELL ME OTHERWISE.
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
I do not believe so.
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
Attention to the case is justified. Pre-judgment is not.
"The three guys in a car were never a threat to cops since they were unarmed (and cops were undercover anyway so the victims didn't even know that they're in danger), so this shooting can not be considered justified any way you look at it. Period." ENGLISH HORN
"Sure, the strip club slash whorehouse was in a rough, nasty, seedy area frequented by gang members and all around no-goodniks, but that still doesn’t mean Sean Bell deserved to die the way he did." DAFFY GIRL
"Sean Bell should be enjoying his honeymoon. Instead he's being fitted for a pine box. Somebody has some explaining to do here." NIGHTTIMER
YOU GUYS NEED TO SLOW DOWN.
I have a feeling that if these officers are exonerated there will be quite a few posters on this thread (by virtue of their exceptional insight into law enforcement procedures and their finely-tuned sensitivities when detecting racism) who will still insist there was malfeasance despite any evidences to the contrary. If the officers are found negligent in the execution of their duties then they should be disciplined accordingly and the department should take a look at their policies regarding this type of confrontation.
1.)Where the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
I do not know. On the face of it, it seems there was some aggression coming from the 3 civilian men that could reasonably be construed as an attempt to harm the officers. This possibility notwithstanding, the officers' reactions do seem a bit over-the-top. BUT WHAT DO I KNOW SITTING HERE AT MY COMPUTER SEVERAL THOUSAND MILES AWAY.
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
I do not know. I hope that as the facts unfold we do not find out that race was a factor. If the officers are exonerated of any wrongdoing, I have to hope that a white guy would receive no different treatment. BUT WHAT DO I KNOW I HAVE NEVER MET THESE OFFICERS NOR THE CIVILIAN MEN. I CANNOT KNOW THE INTENT OF THEIR HEARTS. FOR THIS I WILL SUSPEND JUDGMENT UNTIL CONCLUSIONS TELL ME OTHERWISE.
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
I do not believe so.
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
Attention to the case is justified. Pre-judgment is not.
QUOTE(vanguard @ Dec 1 2006, 05:40 PM)
Boy, there's quite a bit of judgment flying around before an investigation has been completed.
"The three guys in a car were never a threat to cops since they were unarmed (and cops were undercover anyway so the victims didn't even know that they're in danger), so this shooting can not be considered justified any way you look at it. Period." ENGLISH HORN
"Sure, the strip club slash whorehouse was in a rough, nasty, seedy area frequented by gang members and all around no-goodniks, but that still doesn’t mean Sean Bell deserved to die the way he did." DAFFY GIRL
"Sean Bell should be enjoying his honeymoon. Instead he's being fitted for a pine box. Somebody has some explaining to do here." NIGHTTIMER
YOU GUYS NEED TO SLOW DOWN.
I have a feeling that if these officers are exonerated there will be quite a few posters on this thread (by virtue of their exceptional insight into law enforcement procedures and their finely-tuned sensitivities when detecting racism) who will still insist there was malfeasance despite any evidences to the contrary. If the officers are found negligent in the execution of their duties then they should be disciplined accordingly and the department should take a look at their policies regarding this type of confrontation.
Attention to the case is justified. Pre-judgment is not.
Your feeling is probably justified vanguard. If history tells us anything most of these investigations are more focused on justifying the shooting instead of finding the truth.
It doesn't take "exceptional insight into law enforcement procedures" or "finely-tuned sensitivities when detecting racism" to guess when the game is fixed the result is predetermined. All it usually takes is some "official" stamp of approval to take people's mind off the ongoing problem of police misconduct until six weeks, six months or six years the same thing happens and only the names change.
When betting between the truth and the whitewash, bet on the whitewash.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
It's good common sense not to do something stupid when one is stopped by an officer. He has no way of knowing if you are a threat or not. It's good common sense to put on your dome light, keep your hands in sight, and not make any quick or erratic movements. That's what I have done when stopped (the few times that I actually have been).
Y'know, this is all well and good if the police officers are in uniform and in a marked police vehicle. But these guys were undercover, and thus were in street clothes, in an unmarked vehicle. If you're in a notso-hotso area and some guy in regular clothes 'fronts you, how are you supposed to know it's a cop and not just "some guy" out to kill you?
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Dec 1 2006, 06:13 PM)
QUOTE(nighttimer)
It's good common sense not to do something stupid when one is stopped by an officer. He has no way of knowing if you are a threat or not. It's good common sense to put on your dome light, keep your hands in sight, and not make any quick or erratic movements. That's what I have done when stopped (the few times that I actually have been).
Y'know, this is all well and good if the police officers are in uniform and in a marked police vehicle. But these guys were undercover, and thus were in street clothes, in an unmarked vehicle. If you're in a notso-hotso area and some guy in regular clothes 'fronts you, how are you supposed to know it's a cop and not just "some guy" out to kill you?
Well, that's a good question.
Thus are the risks in hanging in a a "notso-hotso" area.
And what makes it such? The "notso-hotso" folks who are THERE. Thus, the on edge attitude of the cops who are charge to "preserve and protect...." that area.... even when it's "notso-hotso".
I'm sure they yelled out the "POLICE! STOP! FREEZE!" commands, didn't they? I supposes that jackers could use that same tactics, and since several of the cops looked liked the victims, perhaps they thought there were part of an elaborate ruse.
But, that's why there are investigations and why we must wait until all the facts are in before making judgements on this issue.
Actually, that's lordhelmet's quote, DaffyGrl. Not mine. Credit where it's due and all that... 
However, to the point....
It's good common sense not to do something stupid when one is stopped by an officer. He has no way of knowing if you are a threat or not. It's good common sense to put on your dome light, keep your hands in sight, and not make any quick or erratic movements. That's what I have done when stopped (the few times that I actually have been).
The last time I got stopped was because I had a headlight out. I did EXACTLY all those things before the officer came over. Engine shut off. Window down. Dome light on. Hands on the wheel. Asked if I could get my driver's license. Called him "sir" and looked directly at him.
He just gave me a warning. No ticket.
But it's not beyond the realm of possibility to think you can do everything right and get shot anyway.
However, to the point....
It's good common sense not to do something stupid when one is stopped by an officer. He has no way of knowing if you are a threat or not. It's good common sense to put on your dome light, keep your hands in sight, and not make any quick or erratic movements. That's what I have done when stopped (the few times that I actually have been).
The last time I got stopped was because I had a headlight out. I did EXACTLY all those things before the officer came over. Engine shut off. Window down. Dome light on. Hands on the wheel. Asked if I could get my driver's license. Called him "sir" and looked directly at him.
He just gave me a warning. No ticket.
But it's not beyond the realm of possibility to think you can do everything right and get shot anyway.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Actually, that's lordhelmet's quote, DaffyGrl. Not mine. Credit where it's due and all that...
Oh, jeez, sorry about that.
I, too have been a victim of a nasty cop (and I'm as white as Wonder bread). I was all of 19 years old. I was in Montebello driving to an art class. There was a black and white parked on the side of the road just ahead of me on the other side of the intersection. The light turned green, I drove through...and the cruiser whipped in front of me sideways, causing me to slam on the brakes. The officer got out, stomped over to my car, ripped my door open and started screaming at me about how the road was closed. I was scared crapless, speechless, and I was mighty perplexed. (turns out a tiny little sliver of the right lane had collapsed on the hill ahead of me) Might have been nice if there was SOME INDICATION THE ROAD WAS CLOSED.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Dec 1 2006, 12:33 PM)
4. Sharpton and other activists are doing exactly what needs to be done to place pressure upon the city and police to conduct an open and aggressive investigation instead of just writing it off as just another unfortunate accident. If a shooting this egregious doesn't deserve people to rise up and demand answers then what the hell does?
People who toss out charges of "racial opportunist" in the wake of this mess don't really want justice to be served. They think the cops already have served justice the way they like to see it.
I have met Al Sharpton many times and worked with him on a few projects regarding computer training.
"Off the air" he's a likeable, seemingly decent human being. "On camera" he's a race-baiting opportunist. A huckster, a shakedown artist. Ask yourself; what does Al Sharpton do for a living? What's his job? How does he get from one racial event to the next? The $2500 Armani suits?
Al Sharpton is not a geniune person. His list of offenses is long. He hurts his community more than he has ever helped it. However, that's not really his point. He's not really trying to help anyone but himself.
Not to drag things to far off topic but if some regular Joe looking people pulled out badges and wanted to do things to be I might be a bit apprehensive. Fake badges are not impossible to obtain.
Also, as far as I know, I don’t know if its nation wide but police officials or officers usually have to train on a regular basis to deal with high stress situations, and last time I checked I think threat has to be rather draining of options before an officer can just point and shoot someone.
As already pointed out though police officers like anyone else is indeed still human, open to everything else a typically human being is, from being a racist to a great humanitarian, to failing under a stressful situation and making a bad decision. Corruption of police officers is not something new either, and in cases where police officials have to use deadly force I think the only just thing to do is a in depth investigation of such, and I don’t think I would just leave it to that officers department or precinct or whatever to conduct such, just to be fair to everyone.
Last time I was checked by a police officer was well, years ago walking to college. The officer promptly searched me and all my stuff, looked at my papers and then let me go, I have no idea why this happened, I asked and I got an answer that basically would allow for the officer to search anyone really... Is such good or bad, I guess it would be relative to whomever was involved.
I also think police departments should try to cap individuals that join up looking for thrills or to be moral crusaders or to simply make a point to a group of people. They are to police a population, and last time I checked America is not some place of homogenous perception or whatever. I do know that when performing such tasks you can do your job without having to be crude or brutal and still be secure of you and the people around you. I also think that maybe some people over years of such can well maybe become disturbed, I don’t think such a notion is far fetched.
Also, as far as I know, I don’t know if its nation wide but police officials or officers usually have to train on a regular basis to deal with high stress situations, and last time I checked I think threat has to be rather draining of options before an officer can just point and shoot someone.
As already pointed out though police officers like anyone else is indeed still human, open to everything else a typically human being is, from being a racist to a great humanitarian, to failing under a stressful situation and making a bad decision. Corruption of police officers is not something new either, and in cases where police officials have to use deadly force I think the only just thing to do is a in depth investigation of such, and I don’t think I would just leave it to that officers department or precinct or whatever to conduct such, just to be fair to everyone.
Last time I was checked by a police officer was well, years ago walking to college. The officer promptly searched me and all my stuff, looked at my papers and then let me go, I have no idea why this happened, I asked and I got an answer that basically would allow for the officer to search anyone really... Is such good or bad, I guess it would be relative to whomever was involved.
I also think police departments should try to cap individuals that join up looking for thrills or to be moral crusaders or to simply make a point to a group of people. They are to police a population, and last time I checked America is not some place of homogenous perception or whatever. I do know that when performing such tasks you can do your job without having to be crude or brutal and still be secure of you and the people around you. I also think that maybe some people over years of such can well maybe become disturbed, I don’t think such a notion is far fetched.
Maybe man should not go to strip club. Might be alive today. Maybe people should ask why seedy strip club exist. Someone try to run me over if I got gun I shoot them.
I don't think we have enough facts to come to any conclusions yet. I'll submit a pertinent e mail exchange from a while back. My husband has a bunch of gaming buddies in his age group. They are all professionals and there are a couple of CIA, ATF agents, police officers, military, ect.
A police officer (he's black, incidentally) sent the group an e mail entitled 'illumination' which had a video of a police shooting (an unarmed man), as viewed from the dashboard of one of the police cars. He asked us what we thought, and then sent another video after our responses, of the same event from another vehicle dashboard camera that showed something very different. In the first video, the man looked like he was simply walking and was gunned down viciously with what seemed like an excessive number of shots. The second video showed a very agressive man aiming what looked like a gun (but turned out to be a cell phone) at the policemen before they shot at him. I really wish I could find this video link somewhere but i cannot. It was indeed amazingly illuminating. His response, I think, is pertinent to this debate.:
A police officer (he's black, incidentally) sent the group an e mail entitled 'illumination' which had a video of a police shooting (an unarmed man), as viewed from the dashboard of one of the police cars. He asked us what we thought, and then sent another video after our responses, of the same event from another vehicle dashboard camera that showed something very different. In the first video, the man looked like he was simply walking and was gunned down viciously with what seemed like an excessive number of shots. The second video showed a very agressive man aiming what looked like a gun (but turned out to be a cell phone) at the policemen before they shot at him. I really wish I could find this video link somewhere but i cannot. It was indeed amazingly illuminating. His response, I think, is pertinent to this debate.:
QUOTE
Here's the second video with the better angle.
Like Keith said the moral of the story is "careful how much credit you put into what evidence you see of ANY investigation unless you are privy to ALL the evidence." The only thing different was that I heard was that the suspect was holding a cell phone. Which the officers did not find out about until after the shooting. My info is second hand. So, I'm more inclined to believe Keith's version. However, of late, law enforcement (back me up here Theron & Keith) has gotten intel that there are cell phones out there that have been modified to shoot a single .22 caliber bullet. So, even if it was a cell phone I would've probably shot him too.
Here's an early discussion about some common mis-conception from most civilians when watching a police shootings.
1.Shooting in the leg is NEVER an option ("If he was a flight risk, shoot him in the legs to prevent escape"). We shoot to stop, and in most cases, that means lethal force. Reason being, when you’re in an extremely situation you work off of muscle memory and act on training. If you train to shoot the legs you can accidentally shoot for the leg when you really need to shoot for the center mass.
Keeping in mind we only draw our weapon when we have already identified an immediate threat that requires lethal force. Also, on a technical note. You saw how many shots it took to eventually stop the suspect’s forward motion. I counted about 7 shots between both officers. Imagine if he had a gun (not saying he did not) at that range he would’ve had enough time to kill both LEO before dying himself. Civilians have to understand in a gun fight there’s no such thing as a draw. You either win or lose. And winning is NOT getting shot. There are too many stories of officers shooting and killing the bad guys but themselves also dying. It's not hollywood, the bad guys does not fly back 10 ft and die instantly.
2.You never judge an officer’s action on other officer’s past actions ("...when I have seen footage where people were waiving guns around and officers held their fire.") The use of lethal force is based on each individual’s idea of what is an immediate threat.
For example, a female officer who is 5’ 01” has a greater reason to shot a 6’ 04” unarmed suspect who’s hell bend on kicking her (expletive). Remember in every scene an officer comes a upon, there’s at least one gun, that’s his/her own gun. Again there are too many stories of officers getting killed by there own guns. Several years ago, CMPD had two officers shot and killed by there own gun, by one suspect.
Others factors that most civilians are not aware of when officers decide to shot or not shot. Cover versus concealment, innocent people behind the suspect, crossfire, etc., so watching "....footage where people were waiving guns around and officers held their fire" keep in mind it’s because you don’t see what’s going on outside the frame of that video footage. But the officer does.
Like Keith said the moral of the story is "careful how much credit you put into what evidence you see of ANY investigation unless you are privy to ALL the evidence." The only thing different was that I heard was that the suspect was holding a cell phone. Which the officers did not find out about until after the shooting. My info is second hand. So, I'm more inclined to believe Keith's version. However, of late, law enforcement (back me up here Theron & Keith) has gotten intel that there are cell phones out there that have been modified to shoot a single .22 caliber bullet. So, even if it was a cell phone I would've probably shot him too.
Here's an early discussion about some common mis-conception from most civilians when watching a police shootings.
1.Shooting in the leg is NEVER an option ("If he was a flight risk, shoot him in the legs to prevent escape"). We shoot to stop, and in most cases, that means lethal force. Reason being, when you’re in an extremely situation you work off of muscle memory and act on training. If you train to shoot the legs you can accidentally shoot for the leg when you really need to shoot for the center mass.
Keeping in mind we only draw our weapon when we have already identified an immediate threat that requires lethal force. Also, on a technical note. You saw how many shots it took to eventually stop the suspect’s forward motion. I counted about 7 shots between both officers. Imagine if he had a gun (not saying he did not) at that range he would’ve had enough time to kill both LEO before dying himself. Civilians have to understand in a gun fight there’s no such thing as a draw. You either win or lose. And winning is NOT getting shot. There are too many stories of officers shooting and killing the bad guys but themselves also dying. It's not hollywood, the bad guys does not fly back 10 ft and die instantly.
2.You never judge an officer’s action on other officer’s past actions ("...when I have seen footage where people were waiving guns around and officers held their fire.") The use of lethal force is based on each individual’s idea of what is an immediate threat.
For example, a female officer who is 5’ 01” has a greater reason to shot a 6’ 04” unarmed suspect who’s hell bend on kicking her (expletive). Remember in every scene an officer comes a upon, there’s at least one gun, that’s his/her own gun. Again there are too many stories of officers getting killed by there own guns. Several years ago, CMPD had two officers shot and killed by there own gun, by one suspect.
Others factors that most civilians are not aware of when officers decide to shot or not shot. Cover versus concealment, innocent people behind the suspect, crossfire, etc., so watching "....footage where people were waiving guns around and officers held their fire" keep in mind it’s because you don’t see what’s going on outside the frame of that video footage. But the officer does.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 2 2006, 02:27 PM)
I don't think we have enough facts to come to any conclusions yet. I'll submit a pertinent e mail exchange from a while back. My husband has a bunch of gaming buddies in his age group. They are all professionals and there are a couple of CIA, ATF agents, police officers, military, ect.
A police officer (he's black, incidentally) sent the group an e mail entitled 'illumination' which had a video of a police shooting (an unarmed man), as viewed from the dashboard of one of the police cars. He asked us what we thought, and then sent another video after our responses, of the same event from another vehicle dashboard camera that showed something very different. In the first video, the man looked like he was simply walking and was gunned down viciously with what seemed like an excessive number of shots. The second video showed a very agressive man aiming what looked like a gun (but turned out to be a cell phone) at the policemen before they shot at him. I really wish I could find this video link somewhere but i cannot. It was indeed amazingly illuminating. His response, I think, is pertinent to this debate.:
So, after all, the man in the video was innocent and he was never a threat to officers? The guy at the video was not a "bad guy" at all as your friend LEO refers to him... just unlucky. "Very aggressive" is subjective; a man who appears aggressive may be "agitated", "excited", etc. - or he is simply Italian and uses hand gestures a lot. So what happened to the "To Serve and Protect" motto? That's exactly what I was addressing in my post a few postings back. Officers are at liberty to use deadly force whenever they fancy (with a valid reason or not) that they're at risk. That's why I, who was never arrested in my life and had one traffic ticket in the past ten years, try to stay as clear from Law Enforcement and its representatives as possible. Who knows what small shiny object in my hand they will deem a threat to themselves? A cell phone? My iPod?
QUOTE(English Horn @ Dec 2 2006, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 2 2006, 02:27 PM)
I don't think we have enough facts to come to any conclusions yet. I'll submit a pertinent e mail exchange from a while back. My husband has a bunch of gaming buddies in his age group. They are all professionals and there are a couple of CIA, ATF agents, police officers, military, ect.
A police officer (he's black, incidentally) sent the group an e mail entitled 'illumination' which had a video of a police shooting (an unarmed man), as viewed from the dashboard of one of the police cars. He asked us what we thought, and then sent another video after our responses, of the same event from another vehicle dashboard camera that showed something very different. In the first video, the man looked like he was simply walking and was gunned down viciously with what seemed like an excessive number of shots. The second video showed a very agressive man aiming what looked like a gun (but turned out to be a cell phone) at the policemen before they shot at him. I really wish I could find this video link somewhere but i cannot. It was indeed amazingly illuminating. His response, I think, is pertinent to this debate.:
So, after all, the man in the video was innocent and he was never a threat to officers? The guy at the video was not a "bad guy" at all as your friend LEO refers to him... just unlucky. "Very aggressive" is subjective; a man who appears aggressive may be "agitated", "excited", etc. - or he is simply Italian and uses hand gestures a lot. So what happened to the "To Serve and Protect" motto? That's exactly what I was addressing in my post a few postings back. Officers are at liberty to use deadly force whenever they fancy (with a valid reason or not) that they're at risk. That's why I, who was never arrested in my life and had one traffic ticket in the past ten years, try to stay as clear from Law Enforcement and its representatives as possible. Who knows what small shiny object in my hand they will deem a threat to themselves? A cell phone? My iPod?
He was never a real threat, but his cell phone looked exactly like a gun and he aimed it at them in the firing position, antenna sticking out looking exactly like the barrel, and he took it out after aggressively shoving one of the officers. This wasn't a "fancy" he looked to be a real threat and the police officers aren't robocot and real life isn't a movie. They want to go home at night and not to the morgue, just like the rest of us. Like a said, you really have to see the tape and you are proving my point exactly. A little knowledge of only selective facts can be worse than ignorance. The response is completely situationally dependent and we need to know everything.
Edited to add: LEO stands for Law Enforcement Officers, I believe. His name isn't Leo.
Mrs P- I believe in that case, you were looking at "suicide by cop"- something that is just making it into training radar's around the country- I know personally of a few examples of this. I have sometimes gone to patients apartments that are in an "assisted living" situation when they are on probation, and that probation demands a med regime or return to the hospital or jail-
you know what is considered a safe distance for a cop and an assailant with a knife? 30 feet- it takes just a split second for an amped up crazy person to cover that distance- I know this from personal experiance, as I knocked on the door, two policemen standing off to the side (it was not a criminal issue at this point- just a "health and welfare" on the patient)- and suddenly- I was staring at a knife about 10 inches from my face, sticking through the crack in the door. My own training had dictated a certain behavior at the door, and certain personal space from the door, and my own training reminded me to backpedal quickly and let the LEOs take over (troopers have jurisdiction up here over these kinds of things, not APD) - but, man, did everything happen fast- so fast, you don't even realize what is completely happening until it is over, and your training takes over, big time. Guns were drawn, yelling insued, and pepper spray was deployed, then a stand off, and eventually- rubber bullets and "less lethal" technics deployed, but I was out of there long before the stand off ended.
On the flip side, I have been shook down by corrupt cops in Mississippi, and been in a car that was stopped for "driving while black" in SC and Alabama, and they got all nice as soon as they seen the clean cut military white guy in the back.
I have been to the police firearm training- and no way is this 50 round deal SOP or trained at ANY ethical PD in the nation.
Also, SOP usually says, that, in an undercover operation, a marked unit is nearby, with uniformed officers, to assist, if or when bullets fly. That way there can be no "mistaken identity"- lots of time between enforcement agents themselves- we had a short stand off once between DEA and APD because it took a couple minutes for everyone to identify themselves.
So, my gut instinct says one of three things here:
1) Trigger happy cops
2) Poorly trained cops
3) Bad policy that eventually would set up this situation
I go with two and three personally
you know what is considered a safe distance for a cop and an assailant with a knife? 30 feet- it takes just a split second for an amped up crazy person to cover that distance- I know this from personal experiance, as I knocked on the door, two policemen standing off to the side (it was not a criminal issue at this point- just a "health and welfare" on the patient)- and suddenly- I was staring at a knife about 10 inches from my face, sticking through the crack in the door. My own training had dictated a certain behavior at the door, and certain personal space from the door, and my own training reminded me to backpedal quickly and let the LEOs take over (troopers have jurisdiction up here over these kinds of things, not APD) - but, man, did everything happen fast- so fast, you don't even realize what is completely happening until it is over, and your training takes over, big time. Guns were drawn, yelling insued, and pepper spray was deployed, then a stand off, and eventually- rubber bullets and "less lethal" technics deployed, but I was out of there long before the stand off ended.
On the flip side, I have been shook down by corrupt cops in Mississippi, and been in a car that was stopped for "driving while black" in SC and Alabama, and they got all nice as soon as they seen the clean cut military white guy in the back.
I have been to the police firearm training- and no way is this 50 round deal SOP or trained at ANY ethical PD in the nation.
Also, SOP usually says, that, in an undercover operation, a marked unit is nearby, with uniformed officers, to assist, if or when bullets fly. That way there can be no "mistaken identity"- lots of time between enforcement agents themselves- we had a short stand off once between DEA and APD because it took a couple minutes for everyone to identify themselves.
So, my gut instinct says one of three things here:
1) Trigger happy cops
2) Poorly trained cops
3) Bad policy that eventually would set up this situation
I go with two and three personally
Rubber bullets have a steel core and at close range are perfectly lethal. I to have known people in law enforcement branches. Border and prison respectively. I know at some prisons that actually have silenced .45 cal sub machineguns, but hey I like the thing they bounce off the ground, I cant remember if its a big rubber ball or a piece of wood. As for border patrol, those guys have to do a lot of training, such as running and shooting, how to shoot with one arm still working, all kinds of stuff. So overall training I would hope is pretty large in the realm of law enforcement. Personally, I still don’t know why they allow cops to work alone while on duty, and why even a simple traffic stop is not treated with simple actions that can greatly reduce the possibility of harm to everyone involved.
I also know that everyone I talked to actually seemed to never want to have to use force overall as in shooting someone, though of course the small amount of people I knew hardly constitutes the entire law enforcement population. I did get to hear nice stories about corruption though
but such was dealt with.
I agree with mrs.p that you cant know for sure what happened that night, again I think the only thing you can do is have say the fbi or some organization have a group that deals with the use of deadly force after the fact, I cant see how you could simply sit by and say its ok when a police officer does shoot and kill someone, after all the people with the badges are still human. Not to long ago the cops busted into a house on the hunch or something about drug dealing, a gun battle then occurred, with an elderly women, it was the wrong house and a bad area of town, the lady thought she was being robbed, of course she was killed during it, it only goes to show that law enforcement is far from perfect, and that oversight needs to be maintained on people that can or happen to have authority to use deadly force.
I also know that everyone I talked to actually seemed to never want to have to use force overall as in shooting someone, though of course the small amount of people I knew hardly constitutes the entire law enforcement population. I did get to hear nice stories about corruption though
but such was dealt with.I agree with mrs.p that you cant know for sure what happened that night, again I think the only thing you can do is have say the fbi or some organization have a group that deals with the use of deadly force after the fact, I cant see how you could simply sit by and say its ok when a police officer does shoot and kill someone, after all the people with the badges are still human. Not to long ago the cops busted into a house on the hunch or something about drug dealing, a gun battle then occurred, with an elderly women, it was the wrong house and a bad area of town, the lady thought she was being robbed, of course she was killed during it, it only goes to show that law enforcement is far from perfect, and that oversight needs to be maintained on people that can or happen to have authority to use deadly force.
On the issue of racial issues- I think not in this case. I think, in the message delivered by Al Sharpton, is that the policies of the NYPD are anti-black, and I am not sure if it is true or not, because I am not there- I have a hunch that it is corruption more than anything, or perhaps a "corporate culture" of violence and turning a blind eye towards wrongdoing.. 
The LEO culture is a sub-culture unto itself. Lot's of cops have non-cop friends when they start in the proffession, and then only have cop friends by thier 10th year. It is because, well, most poeple commit small crimes- a joint, a snort of cocaine on a special occasion, tax evasion, whatever- and a cop can't be hangin' around with potential lawbreakers- right?
So they end up being thier own culture. Throw in some jailer types, maybe some mental health professionals- Most poeple don't realize "profilers" are not LEO at all- they are usually psychologists for a state facility, brought in due to thier expertise and training in psych, for the team.
So it is a very cabal-ish little society within a society. Cops get lots and lots of baseless accusations- so, the cops themselves, and internal affairs as well, tend to err on the side of the LEO- for good reasons.
Some police departments are very notorious for thier over-zealous 'blue shield" defense. NYPD and LAPD are very well known for this. APD here is known for the opposite- but they are very well paid and fairly well respected at this time for thier proffesionalism- so it is also somewhat regional.
Both NYPD and LAPD have a long history of abuse and corruption- so they definately need more oversite and more external controls on thier departments, and I tend to err on the side of the young man killed in this case, due to the unproffesionalism of the officers in this case.
Also- one other thing- typically, in a shooting situation, the most senior officer may not draw his gun at all unless there is someone clearly firing on them- because the supervisor is supposed to be viewing where the cops bullets are going- you know, they don't just stop when they miss the folks they are aiming at!
So, the supervisor in this situation, no matter how it plays out, probably should be, at the least, reprimanded, for not remaining calm and supervising the situation.
The LEO culture is a sub-culture unto itself. Lot's of cops have non-cop friends when they start in the proffession, and then only have cop friends by thier 10th year. It is because, well, most poeple commit small crimes- a joint, a snort of cocaine on a special occasion, tax evasion, whatever- and a cop can't be hangin' around with potential lawbreakers- right?
So they end up being thier own culture. Throw in some jailer types, maybe some mental health professionals- Most poeple don't realize "profilers" are not LEO at all- they are usually psychologists for a state facility, brought in due to thier expertise and training in psych, for the team.
So it is a very cabal-ish little society within a society. Cops get lots and lots of baseless accusations- so, the cops themselves, and internal affairs as well, tend to err on the side of the LEO- for good reasons.
Some police departments are very notorious for thier over-zealous 'blue shield" defense. NYPD and LAPD are very well known for this. APD here is known for the opposite- but they are very well paid and fairly well respected at this time for thier proffesionalism- so it is also somewhat regional.
Both NYPD and LAPD have a long history of abuse and corruption- so they definately need more oversite and more external controls on thier departments, and I tend to err on the side of the young man killed in this case, due to the unproffesionalism of the officers in this case.
Also- one other thing- typically, in a shooting situation, the most senior officer may not draw his gun at all unless there is someone clearly firing on them- because the supervisor is supposed to be viewing where the cops bullets are going- you know, they don't just stop when they miss the folks they are aiming at!
So, the supervisor in this situation, no matter how it plays out, probably should be, at the least, reprimanded, for not remaining calm and supervising the situation.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 1 2006, 09:20 AM)
1.)Were the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
I believe they were, however what they did was against department rules. These officers should be disciplined.
Here's the bottom line: a car is a deadly weapon. According to the news reports, this guy had already hit one cop ("brushed" is a vague term, but he must have contacted him). That indicates intent to do harm or at least malicious recklessness. They had previously been involved in a fight outside the club.
There were reports of a gun before this happened. The officers followed these guys away from the club because they heard they were going for a gun.
If the driver had hit the unmarked police van and stopped, this would have been different. Instead, he backed up and rammed the van again at which point the officers opened fire.
Mayor meets groom’s family in NYPD slaying
QUOTE
“He was still acting in an undercover capacity when he followed the group down the street and apparently took some enforcement action, and that was unusual,” Kelly said.
Union officials insist the detective took out his badge, identified himself and ordered the men to stop before the car, driven by Bell, lurched forward and bumped him. The vehicle then smashed into an unmarked police van, backed up and smashed the van again before the shooting began.
Union officials insist the detective took out his badge, identified himself and ordered the men to stop before the car, driven by Bell, lurched forward and bumped him. The vehicle then smashed into an unmarked police van, backed up and smashed the van again before the shooting began.
If the police are to be believed, they identified themselves, THEN the guy bumped him, then hit hit the van, then he backed up and hit the van again. If they genuinely thought there was a gun involved, they were protecting themselves (perhaps illegally).
We don't know precisely what happened inside the club. Perhaps something happened in there that sparked this. At this point we don't know. If I were an investigator, I'd be asking some questions about what happened inside the club (if there was a confrontation between the undercover officer and the wedding party, for example).
The question remains about the number of bullets fired. But there is the concept of "contagious or sympathetic fire" in which the officers may have believed fire was being returned because of the other officers shooting. None of the officers, including the 12 year veteran present, had ever fired their gun in the line of duty before.
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
It's clearly not racial. Three of the officers were minorities although it is unclear which is which (was the undercover officer black or white)?
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
These questions are the same as the second one. Sharpton is an opportunist in any situation.
Amlord, I disagree with you on almost every interpretation you make. First, a car is not a deadly weapon, it is a transportation device. This convenient interpretation by police and those that allow others to think for them, presents the illusion that an officer's life is moments away from being taken, and the only way to save that life is to end the driver's life. The non-thinkers eat that stuff up. If Bell was driving toward the officer, the officer could have, oh I don't know, stepped behind another car considering it was in a parking lot. What also seems strange was that if this officer's life was in such jeopardy, then why did he pull out his gun and shoot at a moving vehicle, knowing that if he killed the driver, the vehicle would have KEPT MOVING seeing as how the controller of that vehicle would no longer be alive. But maybe the officer jumped out of the way and fired shots at the same time, which leads me to believe if he can run for cover his life is not in nearly as much jeopardy as they are trying to make us believe.
You are supposed to be some kind of legal thinker. Explain how any of this is makes any sense. None of the actions or stories add up. If the officer is undercover, why didn't he call in uniformed backup for an offense that was not related to his undercover status? If he had time to retrieve the gun he was not able to bring into the club he must have had time to call in backup, which would have protected his undercover status. The story you cited says this:
QUOTE
The situation began to unravel when one of the officers alerted the backup team outside that a man inside was possibly armed. During a later altercation among patrons, police claim they heard a member of Bell’s bachelor party, say, “Yo, get my gun.”
One of the undercover detectives responded by retrieving his weapon and confronting Bell and his friends after they entered their car. Kelly suggested that it was unorthodox for the officer to blow his cover rather than rely on other officers to make the arrest.
One of the undercover detectives responded by retrieving his weapon and confronting Bell and his friends after they entered their car. Kelly suggested that it was unorthodox for the officer to blow his cover rather than rely on other officers to make the arrest.
Quite a series of inconsistencies. First there was a suspected gunmen and that potential danger isn't enough for them to blow their cover. Then there was an altercation were someone exclaimed their intent to get a gun. Still, the police did not feel that two groups of intoxicated young men fighting outside a bar with the intent to grab a gun was dangerous enough to blow their cover, only after the parties departed did they show up at Bell's vehicle with a weapon explaining, "Hey we're the cops." This had to look real convincing to Bell. Just got out of a fight and now a man with a gun has followed him to his vehicle. And the cops are claiming he rammed their unmarked vehicle twice. Unmarked meaning, it looked like any other vehicle and Bell could not possibly know it was a police vehicle.
Why did these officer's only follow Bell's group to their vehicle? Maybe they thought Bell's group was armed.
Why not the other group? How did they know the other group was not armed? They didn't know that.
How can you tell the difference between Bell's group and the other group? Who is an observer? Who is a drunken patron looking for any reason to fight?
Why if they thought Bell's group was armed did they wait until Bell's group got to their car which supposedly had the weapon?
Why didn't they stop Bell's group as soon as the altercation had separated?
This undercover assignment was not that deep of a cover. How many police do you think were lining up to take this assignment? In a strip club and able to drink, oh I'm going to make an estimated guess and say, all of them. This problem could have easily been solved if one of the cops would have put a badge in one hand and a gun in the other and taken control of the situation. They did not do that.
You go on to suggest that some of the officers may have been firing because they thought someone was returning fire in all of the confusion. Well the story you cited has one officer firing 11 shots and the other officer firing 31 shots, bringing the total to 42 out of 50 shots fired by two officers. The 12 year idiot, the most experienced of the bunch, reloaded, with all his experience he seems to be the only one who made the mistake of thinking their was return fire.
To lordhelmet
QUOTE
First, the facts of this case are not yet known. All we have are initial reports, and the hyped up responses by the "usual suspects" (Sharpton, Jesse) who never miss a chance to keep the hate alive.
Sharpton is trying to keep people alive. The NYPD does not seem too interested in keeping anything alive.
The only facts of this story are that 5 cops shot and killed one man and injured two others. The 3 people they shot were unarmed. These are facts which cannot be disputed. Now, you can make speculation all day long and you have the utility of interpretation at your disposal. But you cannot interpret facts. Unarmed Dead Man, Fact.
There are really only three or four scenarios that are possible. Bell did not know the police were police and tried to hit them. In this scenario the police failed to notify Bell of their status and killed a man acting in self defense. So this makes them murderers because of their negligence. The next scenario is that Bell knew they were police and tried to hit them. The police need to prove self defense in this scenario, was their life in danger and there was no other recourse but to shoot the driver? Given that none of the cops got hit by the car it is hard explain that their lives were really in danger. The story is that the driver hit the van. Well if you are inside the van, you could simply drive off. Which would mean they used excessive force and are therefore murderers. The next scenario is the cops just straight up murdered them.
So in summation, Bell's group either knew, or didn't know, and the killing can only be justified if you can put at least one of the officer's life in immediate peril, which with what we have, we cannot come to that conclusion.
Not to mention the compassion angle, you have a bride to be without a groom and a daughter without a father and the only thing the cops can come up with is, "We thought he had a gun." This story is a cover up from the minute it went down. Now the cops are shaking down the neighborhood and strong arming people for some mystery shooter. This mystery shooter is suspect as well. How can 5 cops aiming at one vehicle miss the one guy that had a weapon but get the three guys that did not have a weapon? And when all the smoke clears the mystery shooter gets away? How? On foot? In a vehicle? What was the License Plate Number? What kind of car? Was he in the vehicle of outside of it? If he was outside of it, why did they aim at the car and make 14 hits on the two suspects that lived and who knows how many hit Bell? Another thing, If Bell was trying to kill them with the car then why were the cops shooting at the passengers if Bell was the only one driving? Wouldn't they want to aim at Bell only since the other guys had no control over the car? And which story are we believing here, that there is a mystery shooter or that Bell was trying to kill them with the car? None of this adds up.
There are a lot of unanswered questions, because the cover up has not been completed. In a week or two, when the Police Union, the Dept. Heads, the officers involved, and the PR department have concocted their story all the "facts" will come out. And we will find out that Bell indeed was the one that killed the 19 year old, was the lead pimp in the prostitution ring, started the altercation because of a failed drug deal that he was responsible for, and threw his gun into the bushes only moments before the diving, badge brandishing, warning shot firing father of three, community service volunteering, church function organizing, youth football coaching, and feeder of the homeless reluctantly unloaded his clip...........twice.
Man going whoring before his wedding day. Man no good, Fiancee probably take a dump on his grave. Policeman, any evidence of any history of other abuses? Why they just suddenly shoot people after 12 years on force. Make no sense. Policeman good. Cheating groom bad. Whoremongerer dead. That's good.
Man see bullets fly? Is he Superman ? Make no sense. Can't watch bullets go.
QUOTE
Also- one other thing- typically, in a shooting situation, the most senior officer may not draw his gun at all unless there is someone clearly firing on them- because the supervisor is supposed to be viewing where the cops bullets are going- you know, they don't just stop when they miss the folks they are aiming at!
Man see bullets fly? Is he Superman ? Make no sense. Can't watch bullets go.
QUOTE(deng @ Dec 3 2006, 09:20 AM)
Man going whoring before his wedding day. Man no good, Fiancee probably take a dump on his grave. Policeman, any evidence of any history of other abuses? Why they just suddenly shoot people after 12 years on force. Make no sense. Policeman good. Cheating groom bad. Whoremongerer dead. That's good.
QUOTE
Also- one other thing- typically, in a shooting situation, the most senior officer may not draw his gun at all unless there is someone clearly firing on them- because the supervisor is supposed to be viewing where the cops bullets are going- you know, they don't just stop when they miss the folks they are aiming at!
Man see bullets fly? Is he Superman ? Make no sense. Can't watch bullets go.
I don't know where you are from, but it's a sort of tradition here that the groom has a bachelor party celebrating the "end of his bachelorhood". This usually involves raunchy behavior and sometimes strippers. While there are those who may not approve of the tradition, it doesn't make Bell a "whoremonger" or a "cheater". And rather than the vile suggestion you made, his fiancee is fighting hard to find out what happened to her children's father. It's rather disturbing that you approve - and praise, no less - the fact that a young man is dead.
I mentioned earlier the condition the police call "contagious fire" whereby the officers react to their own shots and escalate the situation.
The prosecutor's office has been talking to witnesses to the shooting, and most of them agree that the police did not identify themselves. Though I 'm sure there will be the apologists up in arms who will say that they are lying.
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Dec 3 2006, 12:06 AM)
Amlord, I disagree with you on almost every interpretation you make. First, a car is not a deadly weapon, it is a transportation device.
It's probably a good thing you're not a cop. You wouldn't have a long life span with those detective skills.
Don't you think that hitting a van, backing into a building, and hitting a van again - without stopping - just might be cause to think he/she would run over you as well? Or, because the car is a "driving device meant for transsportation", that there would be no threat to your life? How should a cop stop someone from ramming into everything around it with a car? The threat of a moving violation?
A car is a deadly weapon just like an airplane flying into a building is a weapon. Unless you want to suspend logic - as your post appears to do.
Well, I would think fifty plus rounds would be enough to not only crack and engine block but pretty much destroy the engine. Plus, not sure most undercover cops have to pack the larger calibers, or course I don’t know for sure. Another thing to me is I don’t understand why the cops would spring an arrest in a situation that could so easily go out of control, I mean if you know you need to take some people down, why not call in the uniforms at that point, I think you would want to do that in the first place so the faces of the undercover did not so easily become known. I mean personally if I was in that job profile stealth would be of my prime concern to keep.
I think the problem here is really the flexibility for officers to use deadly force, actually on hearing this it almost sounded kind of like a slaughter.
Also again, I don’t know if its simply overlooked but a bunch of dudes jumping out a van might be enough to scare anyone, again fake badges are not impossible to obtain, and that group had already been in an altercation that night.
It just seems like bad planning, bad execution, bad everything that lead to a car load of dead people and a lot of questions. Again, I was not there, so overall I cant know how dire the situation was, all I can say which I think is a good idea is a group with no direct ties that would investigate such, the ability for a cop to use deadly force in the line of duty I think should have rather enormous amounts of oversight attached to it. IN the end if the officer was correct in action, it would surface.
I think the problem here is really the flexibility for officers to use deadly force, actually on hearing this it almost sounded kind of like a slaughter.
Also again, I don’t know if its simply overlooked but a bunch of dudes jumping out a van might be enough to scare anyone, again fake badges are not impossible to obtain, and that group had already been in an altercation that night.
It just seems like bad planning, bad execution, bad everything that lead to a car load of dead people and a lot of questions. Again, I was not there, so overall I cant know how dire the situation was, all I can say which I think is a good idea is a group with no direct ties that would investigate such, the ability for a cop to use deadly force in the line of duty I think should have rather enormous amounts of oversight attached to it. IN the end if the officer was correct in action, it would surface.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Dec 3 2006, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Dec 3 2006, 12:06 AM)
Amlord, I disagree with you on almost every interpretation you make. First, a car is not a deadly weapon, it is a transportation device.
It's probably a good thing you're not a cop. You wouldn't have a long life span with those detective skills.
Don't you think that hitting a van, backing into a building, and hitting a van again - without stopping - just might be cause to think he/she would run over you as well? Or, because the car is a "driving device meant for transsportation", that there would be no threat to your life? How should a cop stop someone from ramming into everything around it with a car? The threat of a moving violation?
A car is a deadly weapon just like an airplane flying into a building is a weapon. Unless you want to suspend logic - as your post appears to do.
You probably only read that one line DaytonRocker because that's all you are focusing on here when start your "Don't you think" response. Do I think a car can be deadly? Sure it can, and so can a 2x4. How about water? That's killed before. Or maybe a belt. Or rope. A screwdriver can be deadly; the tool, not the drink that the officer was consuming prior to taking a man's life. A plastic bag has been used to take a life. So has a pillow. And even a fist.
As I stated previously, the deadly weapon label is a definition given to cover the police officer's behind when they have taken someone's life. We as the public are lead to believe that the officer's life was in peril, BUT........
Interesting little fact, you know, the things you overlook, the officer was hit by the car. If the car is such a deadly weapon, then how come the officer that was struck with this lethal killing machine wasn't even injured?
Must not be that deadly after all. And another thing, if this car is so deadly, and there was supposedly another deadly weapon in the car, the gun, then why did the officer(s) wait for Bell to obtain access to not only one but two potentially "deadly" weapons? The story says the cops believed someone had a gun, they alerted their backup, then there was a scuffle and someone declared they were going to get the gun. At that point the officer instead of following the the potential gunman to identify him to his backup unit, leaves their presence and goes to his car? You have five officers, one of them could not have stopped Bell's group to say, "We're the cops. Get up against that wall."?
Here's another interesting behavioral pattern of guilty people, they usually admit to committing forgivable offenses, such as not following policy by blowing cover, but they thoroughly deny the unforgivable offense of murder. So you look at it the way Amlord did and say:
QUOTE
I believe they were [justified in their reaction], however what they did was against department rules. These officers should be disciplined.
This analysis jogs my memory of an always enjoyable and appropriate Hitler quotation.QUOTE
"How fortunate for leaders, that the masses do not think."
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Dec 4 2006, 01:26 AM)
Here's another interesting behavioral pattern of guilty people, they usually admit to committing forgivable offenses, such as not following policy by blowing cover, but they thoroughly deny the unforgivable offense of murder. So you look at it the way Amlord did and say:
QUOTE
I believe they were [justified in their reaction], however what they did was against department rules. These officers should be disciplined.
This analysis jogs my memory of an always enjoyable and appropriate Hitler quotation.QUOTE
"How fortunate for leaders, that the masses do not think."
Thanks for filling us in that these officers are guilty until proven innocent. After all, they've exhibited the classic signs of being guilty, such as running from the police or attempting to hit them with their vehicle.
The thing is that we cannot judge the situation because we weren't there. Although we can read a news account of what happened (or what the reporter thinks happened) we have no time reference as to when the officer identified himself (if he did), when he was "brushed" by the car, when the car hit the van, how long/how aggressive was the backing-up & then ramming of the van the second time, when did the shooting begin, how long (time-wise) did the bullets continue to fire? What was the layout of the street when this occured?
I lend the benefit of the doubt to the police involved because they are the ones with their lives on the line everyday. I know this clouds my thinking, but I personally know an officer who was shot in the face and killed during a routine stop. This does not mean I advocate "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" style justice. However, it seems clear in this instance that the suspects were not above causing harm to the officeres and that the officers believed that the suspects were armed and that the neighborhood was perhaps not the greatest (I'm actually unclear on the last point, but some people have made that assertion).
If we are too strict with policies in these situations than officers lives are going to be put in even more dange than they currently are. My father-in-law (a retired police officer) said that his #1 priority was always "protect yourself and your partner" in all situations.
Does that mean shooting unarmed people? Obviously not. But does it mean shooting people who are trying to run you over with their car and who you suspect (by direct evidence) to have a gun in their vehicle? I think we can give them the benefit of that doubt.
1.)Where the officers justified in reacting as they did to one of their peers being struck by the car and the van rammed not once, but twice?
It doesn't seem like it. The story told be one of those in the car, that Bell was simply trying to get away from a person with a gun, seems plausible. Given that it was plausible, it would also therefore seem like the officer's reaction was unfounded...unless police have a new policy of shooting at anyone trying to avoid a gunfight?
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
Well, let me ask you this...how often do you hear of this happening to a white person? I can't say that I've ever heard of it happening. It certainly occurs far less often, despite the fact that there are far more white people. What other conclusion could be drawn from this?
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
See above. Although I do think it adds an interesting twist to the racial aspect. I think the racial aspect only applies to the victims. The whole 'guilty of being black' concept says nothing about the race of the police involved.
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
A little of both, although I personally think far too much of the latter. If such things didn't make him famous, I'm not sure he'd be doing them...although my question posed above probably also indicates that attention does indeed need to be brought. I always have to wonder though, if Sharpton, etc. consider the fact that their showing up at every opportunity does nothing but draw attention AWAY from the issue, as I think most white people simply tune him out anymore. The whole 'crying wolf' thing.
It doesn't seem like it. The story told be one of those in the car, that Bell was simply trying to get away from a person with a gun, seems plausible. Given that it was plausible, it would also therefore seem like the officer's reaction was unfounded...unless police have a new policy of shooting at anyone trying to avoid a gunfight?
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
Well, let me ask you this...how often do you hear of this happening to a white person? I can't say that I've ever heard of it happening. It certainly occurs far less often, despite the fact that there are far more white people. What other conclusion could be drawn from this?
3.)Does the fact that two officers were black and one hispanic negate any claim that this was a racial event?
See above. Although I do think it adds an interesting twist to the racial aspect. I think the racial aspect only applies to the victims. The whole 'guilty of being black' concept says nothing about the race of the police involved.
4.)Do people like Al Sharpton bring justified attention to the case, or are they just racial opportunists on events like this?
A little of both, although I personally think far too much of the latter. If such things didn't make him famous, I'm not sure he'd be doing them...although my question posed above probably also indicates that attention does indeed need to be brought. I always have to wonder though, if Sharpton, etc. consider the fact that their showing up at every opportunity does nothing but draw attention AWAY from the issue, as I think most white people simply tune him out anymore. The whole 'crying wolf' thing.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Dec 4 2006, 04:00 PM)
2.)Was this a racially motivated event? Would a white guy who had done the same thing been fired at 50 times?
Well, let me ask you this...how often do you hear of this happening to a white person? I can't say that I've ever heard of it happening.
Just a few months ago, I started a thread about a (white) man who was shot by a policeman several times while on his knees, at point blank range, unarmed and with his hands in the air. This barely made the news, and it