Three young white (or black for that matter) women would be highly unlikely to be in this situation. This is a completely disingenuous comparison.

You seem to base your judgement on what would pass in the court of law as evidence against the accused. In which case, you would be correct that history and environment would play no part in a person's guilt. The lawyers would also have weeks to form their arguments on which to base a judgement. These policemen had seconds to act, in which case things like environment and violent criminal history can matter a lot in assessing the immeditate danger of a situation.

In this instance however no background checks were made of the suspects, nor were the suspects previously known to the officers. Any criminal previous criminal history therefore is not applicable. They could not have reacted on a perceived criminal past they had no knowledge of at the time of the shooting. To bring up the criminal records of the suspects after the shooting as some sort of reason for fear of personal safety is a bit of a red herring on the part of the police department.

I am not here to win you over with reason, logic or appeals to objectivity or fairness, vanguard. Not any longer. I've gone down that path in this thread. I have indicated my belief in the necessity of the police. I have defended police officers from blanket statements condemning them all for the bad actions of a few.

But at some point I grow tired of reading the problem is with those who protest acts of police brutality and not with the police that commit the acts. It grows annoying to continually point out the prior criminal history of Sean Bell and the other occupants isn't relevant if they were the victims of a supposedly "random" shooting.

It's tedious to see over and over the apologists for the police chanting like a mantra, 'Let's wait for the investigation to be over" on one hand and on the other hand warble like chirping birds how sure they are the cops were justified in killing Bell and will be fully exonerated.

It is deranged to attempt to appeal to the better nature of people who say the only problem here is the lousy markmanship of the NYC cops. It is ludicrous to waste the time trying to reach a rapport with someone who thinks Sean Bell deserved to die because he went "whoring" the night before his wedding. It's a worthless endeavor trying to find common ground with anyone who thinks 50 gunshots leveled at three unarmed men is a reasonable show of force.

It is not my intention to win any votes for next year's Person We Most Want to Meet Award. I am convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt there are posters in this thread that don't give a damn about Sean Bell. They value the illusion of security far more than the life of just another Black guy who got on the wrong side of a cop's gun.

I don't care if my language is from "another era" to you vanguard. The unfortunate habit of police officers with itchy trigger fingers "accidently" blowing away Black people is a reoccurring problem where the outrage by Blacks and the passive reaction from Whites is all-too familiar and typical.

If my words come off as strong it's because a strong reaction is required in the face of the glib and willful intransigence on display in this thread. If you want dry pontification and mellifluous colloquy, flip on C-SPAN and knock yourself out, vanguard. As long as this thread is open and posters are "bringing the pain" my response is to bring it right back at them. Quid pro quo.

If that comes off as "strident and inflammatory" so be it. Whenever a Black man stands up and defends his right to live as a human being instead of dying like a dog in the streets you can bet someone will cluck their tongue, wring their hands and wag their finger that they are being "strident and inflammatory" for doing so.

I don't care one little bit if my words grate on you vanguard. Your and others casual dismissal of a man's life grates on me far, far more.

Macura - Your points are well taken. I too have problems with how the police executed their duties that night. I do have some clarifications to make.

To quote;

"The aggressive criminal history has absolutely no bearing on the case. The officers knew nothing of his history so it played no part in their decision making that night. It's the same argument a rapist gives when he calls his victim a slut so she deserved it. It's a dirty argument no matter how you look at it. Past criminal records is no reason for shooting an unarmed individual."

I did not mean to suggest that the officers knew of the "aggressive criminal history" of any one of the victims. I did suggest however that due to this criminal history it would seem more plausible that the victims responded aggressively to the officers.

"The quality of the neighborhood also has no bearing on the case. Residents of bad neighborhoods deserve the same level of consideration and respect as those of the best neighborhoods. Because there is crime around does not mean every random person you meet is engaged in criminal activity."

Yes, the quality of the neighborhood does indeed provide context in the case. Of course, "bad" neighborhoods deserve the same level of consideration and respect. Nor does it mean that every random person you meet is engaged in criminal activity. Macura, why don't you spend a day patrolling the streets of Beverly Hills and then one day in the streets of Harlem and then let's talk about how easy it is to anticipate every eventuality.

"19th, 20th, 21st century it matters not. When the protectors of the peace kill unarmed black men there will always be a shout of dismay. It has happened too often for there not to be questions of race. The race of the shooters is not the determinant, what is at the heart of the matter is the belief of the community that had that car been full of 3 young white women they would still be alive. Address of that belief with something other than official dismissal may aid in removing that belief. of course it also has to start with a true investigation of such events, and a determination by the police that there never again be an instance where 3 unarmed men are shot in a hail of bullets followed by a flurry of slim excuses."

Yes, doubts about the competency of these officers are legitimate. Be careful however not to down play the fact that the victims were black as you might once again awaken the sleeping giant on this thread (believe me when I say he "knows" the hearts of men - your's included) . You see, this by definition cannot be just about police incompetence but rather a raging, institutionalized, unchecked, and arrogant form of racism reminiscent of the late 1800s. Tread ever so gently...


Nighttimer - Where to begin, where to begin...

To quote,

"I am not here to win you over with reason, logic or appeals to objectivity or fairness, vanguard. Not any longer. I've gone down that path in this thread. I have indicated my belief in the necessity of the police. I have defended police officers from blanket statements condemning them all for the bad actions of a few."

At least you're honest. Based on the nature of your responses, I too never thought you were here to win me "over with reason, logic, or appeals to objectivity or fairness..." We differ however when you suggest that you have in some way been a defender of police officers. If you're referring to your response to Barnaby's disgraceful tirade, don't be too impressed with yourself - gently taking an anarchist to task hardly distinguishes you.

"But at some point I grow tired of reading the problem is with those who protest acts of police brutality and not with the police that commit the acts. It grows annoying to continually point out the prior criminal history of Sean Bell and the other occupants isn't relevant if they were the victims of a supposedly "random" shooting."

See my above response to Macura's same concern.

"I don't care if my language is from "another era" to you vanguard. The unfortunate habit of police officers with itchy trigger fingers "accidently" blowing away Black people is a reoccurring problem where the outrage by Blacks and the passive reaction from Whites is all-too familiar and typical."

Nighttimer, I too care about the higher incidence of police officers killing black people. I'm surprised though you chose the word "accidently". Hey, forget the nuance brother, these bastards blew him away on purpose for no other reason but that he was black, right? You have by design already unmasked your bias.
Why appear to exercise any semblance of discretion now?

And finally;

"If that comes off as "strident and inflammatory" so be it. Whenever a Black man stands up and defends his right to live as a human being instead of dying like a dog in the streets you can bet someone will cluck their tongue, wring their hands and wag their finger that they are being "strident and inflammatory" for doing so.

I don't care one little bit if my words grate on you vanguard. Your and others casual dismissal of a man's life grates on me far, far more."

I see, it is now about your right "to live as a human being instead of dying like a dog in the streets..."
Wow, how did you get there? I think this is too much about you and not enough about the realities of the incident or about justice. You should look up "projection" in any psych text.

Criminy, I can't believe how embroiled I've become in these "race" threads. Pitifully, it is no longer about my belief that these black men deserve their day in court. Contrary to how much you may wish for this, I do not casually dismiss a black man's life (but how can that be when I am white and wish to give the police their day in court? This seems impossible!) You see, while you would suggest that my "glib and intransigent" attitude makes a mockery of the black man's plight I would suggest that your blind determination to paint racism when you see "black and white" does far more a disservice to a cause that you claim to serve (I know, I know, "I don't give a sewer rat's behind about what you may think vanguard, yadda, yadda, yadda...").

Here is the key difference between us Vanguard. You seem to think this thread is about you and I. I think it's about Sean Bell.

As the police officers in question are not exactly being forthcoming in providing their perspectives about what happened that terrible night, one of the few accounts as to the events as they unfolded can be found in this story from the New York Times.

When the shooting stopped, the police lieutenant edged toward the gray Nissan Altima with his gun drawn. He ordered the men inside to show their hands. The lieutenant had not fired his weapon, and as he neared the car, according to police records, one of the bloodied men inside complied and stuck his hands out the window. The other did not move.

A police sergeant who arrived seconds later described the scene this way: The Nissan had crashed into a van in the middle of the street. Smoke was coming from its radiator. The man in the driver’s seat was slumped back. His passenger was lying across his lap with his arms hanging outside the driver’s window.

The sergeant, Michael Wheeler, later told investigators that both men appeared seriously injured and likely to die, according to the records. A plainclothes officer stood close by, his pistol still trained on the two men in the car. A third man lay on the street nearby.

Minutes later, the shooting scene on Liverpool Street in Jamaica, Queens, was choked with patrol cars and the scrum of officials that follows a police shooting. A captain ordered another uniformed sergeant, Donald Kipp, to locate and inspect the weapons of the men involved in the shooting. In all, five plainclothes officers had fired a total of 50 bullets.

link
(registration may be required)

Another perspective is provided by a blogger who marched in last week's rally against the shooting of Sean Bell.

2. Signs proclaiming "Improve Police and Community Relations" were handed out free by the NAACP and predominated, but there were plenty of homemade efforts as well. The NJ–based People’s Organization for Progress had two distinct clumps in the march (contingent integrity was very difficult to maintain in the jam-packed assembly area), but their distinctive signs—with much more direct and militant slogans--were scattered throughout the march as well. Many in the crowd addressed themselves to the officers guarding the route, and had some pithy things to say to the Black officers in particular.

3. The march screwed up holiday traffic in Midtown for hours; while the march was on, neither cars nor pedestrians could cross Fifth Avenue above 30th Street. Good! On the other hand, police containment tactics were distressingly effective. The entire march route, maybe a mile and a half, was very heavily copped out. Worse, it was lined with double layers of the interlocking metal barricades they’ve been using to keep rallies controlled and split up in recent years, and the police adjusted seamlessly to the unexpectedly large turnout by expanding the march’s right of way, once we stepped off, from one lane to the whole of Fifth Avenue. The police were unusually respectful, especially in light of the righteous anger that was being directed at them by marchers. They were scared, right up to the highest level.

4. The cops’ nervousness reflects the fact that the rulers of the city are running kind of scared themselves. And they should be—killer cops get off scot-free in NYC as a matter of course, and people are righteously sick of it. Folks are angry. Ed Koch, former mayor and current has-been columnist for give-away newspapers, made a point of complimenting Rev. Al Sharpton in his most recent outing, just as Bloomberg made a point of being photographed with him. The problem is that after decades of the likes of Koch and Giuliani, there is a veritable thicket of laws, procedures and "safeguards" which make getting a cop behind bars for even the most outrageous shooting nearly impossible, even pretending for a moment that the city administration really wanted to. Impunity, racism and lamentable training make future Sean Bells and Amadou Diallos a certainty, and at some point the rage is likely to erupt.

link 2

I won't address the source attacking, as it included links to the facts as they're presented by the police. The City Journal isn't anywhere CLOSE to as slanted as your objective sources... hahaha... like the Daily Kos. Come on man... pot callin' the kettle, but actually worse. This wasn't even an Op Ed piece, but a factual resource. Oh yeah... and you used the NY Times. Pillars of objectivity. Whatever. At least argue the facts. We'll start with that, and when that doesn't work... I guess you can make more absurd remarks about white biggots and cops. Not necessarily in that order.

Secondly, your rhetoric about cops killing black people is simply unfounded and absurd. Your hatred for the "man" and white conservatives seems to pour out of your posts more by the day. I assume that's what you mean by "good and moral folks".

The facts in your eyes won't be adequate unless the show this to be race related. Numerous posts have shown that there's a good chance that this is just a tragic event. What does it have to do with race? Lord knows. The idea that a black cop shot first, that there are numerous black cops involved, that the kids had a record, and that there was an undercover cop in the night club that thought someone had a gun (remember- someone fled the scene) isn't enough. You usually buy into speculation. Who's to say that the guy that fled didn't have a gun? Wouldn't that be reason to run? Hmmm...

In this case, I'll concede, that the verdict isn't in. However- the only evidence you have is rhetorical remarks about cops running scared and some history of cops killing blacks. Exactly why America continues to be divided. I believe you'd begin to garner real support if you spoke about cops and firearm control and the use of deadly force as opposed to pullin' the card immediately. Maybe this man shouldn't have tried to run over folks, maybe's could fly for months. However- the cops most likely could've avoided more than a shot or two on the outside.

Too bad that won't be the issue... as it's clouded in a barrage of race cards being thrown...

Once again, the difference between you and I Aevans176 is unlike you, I don't merely quote from blogs. I link to them as well. I don't run away from the sources I quote. In the case of Daily Kos, the link was provided for the sake of information. Everyone knows Daily Kos slants to the left. Don't insult my intelligence by feigning The City Journal isn't equally slanted to the right.

As regards The New York Times, you can quibble over the newspaper's objectivity if you like, but I don't notice you quibbling over the facts. That is what a good newspaper does but if you spend all your time digesting right-wing blogs it isn't a surprise you aren't aware of that fact.

I'm not arguing the facts with you. The fact that Sean Bell was shot down by the cops isn't even up for debate. Your lack of interest in his death says far more than any words you've dribbled on this thread.



Here we go again with that endlessly regurgitated drivel about the number of Black cops involved. And does that somehow magically absolve Michael Oliver, the 12-year detective whom himself fired 31 of the 50 shots?

But one after another, in conversations with Sergeant Kipp or Sergeant Wheeler, the men said they could not say how many shots they had fired. Two said they were unsure whether they had even fired at all, including a detective who investigators later learned had fired 31 shots, emptying his 9-millimeter Sig Sauer pistol, reloading and emptying it again during the frenzied barrage.

link

One cop---who happens to be White---fired 62 percent of the shots at a car with three Black suspects. Oh yes, there were Black cops there. One of them may have even fired first. But they damn sure weren't the one who fired the most. This is New York City we're talking about. Race gets involved a LOT in these types of "accidents," so save that jive that there's no racial component at play for yourself and the rest of those with their heads crammed in the sand.

By the way this incessant repeating by you and others about the prior criminal history of Bell and the other men is just a slimy, sleazy way of trying to dirty the victims of this horrific overreaction. Your dilemma is no matter how much you try to muddy him it's still Sean Bell who was the victim here.



Why in the world would anyone need or want the "support" of a man who admits he has no familiarity with "true racism" but then says it's a non-issue?

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-12-04hm.html

Aevans176, you must have slept through the chapter about slant and op-eds.

I copied the first paragraph of Heather MacDonald’s "factual" article.

Sure, stuff like “anti-cop” and “hate-mongers” is a virtual paragon of fact. Then again, MacDonald grabs the nether portions of that old bugaboo, “the press,” and hangs on for dear life.

The title City Journal sounds like something scholarly – something that might be tied to a university or a professional group. Looking at it, however, it is anything but. I find a right-wing electronic propaganda rag. Is it any wonder you did not provide a link with your original post?

I hate to interrupt the tirade against these racist police officers with facts, but it appears Sean Bell's tox level shows he was around 2 times the legal limit. Obviously, black community leaders have come out and denounced this discovery by stating it is not relevant. To quote the Rev Al:



Instead, the officers are being accused of being drunk. Given these examples, maybe the police had a reason to think a drunk behind the wheel may be a danger to the police trying to stop him and/or the general public instead of being racist killers. Just a hunch...

DR-

The cops had no idea this guy was drunk or whatever- so yes, it is ENTIRELY irrelevent- because, like the prior of Sean Bell, the police had no idea- they just decided to take a brutha out, and the blue line would protect them.

Far as I know- being drunk isn't usually the death penalty on the spot, especially if you don't know the person in the car is drunk.

I still tend to disagree a bit with NT on this issue- though the cavalier attitude of NY cops towards black deaths is something I have heard before amongst NY police- I tend to chalk this up to incompetance, and the horrible amounts of legal cover a cop gets in that state- all of those guys should be fired, and chared with manslaughter- ESPECIALLY the dude that reloaded- that is just plain murder IMHO.

What you have is a stupid criminal, legally intoxicated, who tried to run over a police officer. He got his just desserts. I suggest to those who wish to live a long life to 1) avoid houses of ill repute 2) Don't attempt to kill police officers 3) do something that is not morally reprehensible on the eve of your wedding.

So, just to be clear - some guy comes out of a bar in a bad neighborhood, gets behind a wheel, and runs into you, there's no reason to suspect he might be out of control? Are we going to suspend logic when as evidenced by the link I have shown, it might be hazardous to your health?

I don't think the cops acted perfectly as I'm sure Sean Bell didn't. The truth is the middle somewhere. But to say this is racially motivated is to me, well - racist.

And to be clear- the only ones totally, obviously out of control- were these trigger happy cops. they have already lied- that is obvious as well.

I guess you have to know the mentality of the NY police "corporate culture" DR- I have an inkling, and have seen some of it in action, and have met and talked with former NY police that live here- they tend to believe (privately, of course) that this was basically a racially biased shooting (note I didn't say "racially motivated")- it is just that the NY cops believe they are untouchable in shootings AS LONG as it is a black male- because society will pooh-pooh it away, and nothing will happen to the cops- I give you a case in point in US society thinking- Waco- the outrage over killing those kids and various white religious folks swept the right wing nation- however- when cops firebombed black women and children muslims in this country- I forget the particulars myself - there was little to know outrage, and certainly no cops were put in jail for murdering- now where they?

There is certainly a racial component here as part of the "corporate culture"- look at how much punishment the murderers of innocent blacks by cops have been meted out in high profile cases in the last 10 years- it is ridiculous- if Sean Bell had been a pretty white chick- those guys would be behind bars right now IMHO-

so, I don't think it was 'racially motivated" but rather "racially biased- 'cause we can do whatever the hell we feel like and get away with it"

At the very least- every single one of those guys, no matter which race, should be fired, and never allowed to work in LE again, and thier pensions and retirement revoked- because, at the very least, extreme negligence was pretty obvious.

No law enforcement officers were imprisoned for the incident at Waco either. Several Davidians were imprisoned. Never saw Al or Jesse at Waco. I believe Al and Jesse don't care much about victims who are not black.

Deng- it is hard to say who JJ or Al care about- because i don't know them personally- Al- well, he has issues and all, but I really don't have a problem with his public persona EXCEPT the Tawana Brawley thing- I think he should have repudiated her- but outside that- the job those two dudes do NEEDS to be done- without them, there is virtually 0 chance of lot's of very bad things that officials in the US seeing the light of day- in fact, there is a chance that Sean Bell, without these two figureheads, would just be another 'brutha down" situation- and of course- the usual coverup afterward.

Deng- we live in a very, very racist society- not as bad as it was in 1970, but still quite bad. You can not expect to be middle to lower income black male in America and have any kind of justice, no matter which side of the law you are on- for instance- most drug users and sellers in America are white- but they are targeted for law enforcement by any close % like black users and sellers are- there are some mechanics of the situation that make this true- like the fact that the culture of drug dealing for whites is usually to poeple they know and in thier homes, while the black culture of selling drugs is on the street corner, to passers-by.

But also- there would be some genuine (and deserved) outrage if the cops came even close to prosecuting white small time drug dealers in middle america the way they target blacks.

racism in america against blacks has become more subtle- like not calling back a prospective employee because of a black sounding voice or name- even when the alternative white prospect has a criminal record and the black person does not!

I have enormous respect for Jesse Jackson however- he was a very key figure in the civil rights movement in America- and paid his dues by getting beat by cops and bit by police dogs. The man has paid his dues to speak out against police brutality- by living through it.

He has seen it up close and personal- he knows it when he sees by someone who lived it.

I don't agree to much with Farrakhan - but I went to his "rally" here in Anchorage years ago, a white face in a sea of black faces- and I was not harrased, but rather, invited and treated warmly- as a white man with an "open heart"- he did speak of racial harmony- and injustice against whites and blacks- whether he believed it or not- he had no need to address injustice against whites- there weren't enough of us there to matter, besides, we weren't his "base"- but he did it anyway- I respect that- though I don't agree with many of his views. I think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are at least as concerned with injustice as Farrakhan.

America is my country, and I am a patriot- and it bothers me that police feel that they can get away with this kind of thing in my country- we are NOT supposed to be a police state, and they should have the same consequences of thier negligent behavior as any citizen should be in a free and open society.

the actions of those innocent men that night should not even be part of the topic- it is the police that have done wrong by killing innocent, unarmed civilians- and they had no right to kill those men- and I think it is truly appaling that anyone would justify these murderers actions- I call them murderers, not in cold blood, or premeditated- but extreme negligence that comes from the feeling that they are above reproach and the law.

Those cops, like with Amadou Dialo (sp) , Gammage and others SHOULD be dating the guy with the most ciggarettes in jail- instead, they are murderers that get to walk free- simply because they carry a badge- very, very police state of us!

USDOJ stat's



From the same source; 62% of felons killed by police officers were white. 98% of the felons killed by police officers were male. Does that indicate gender hatred against males..or simply parallels the fact that 98% of police officers murdered on the job were victims of males?

Let me supply the link http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ph98.pdf

A little extrapolation of the stats show that blacks made up 41% of those arrested for violent crimes (1998) while only making up 35% of those killed by police officers. Could indicate a slight bias against killing black felons.

The color of Sean Bell is irrelevant, the fact that an innocent man is dead is the problem. Many people are still buying into the 'one bad apple doesn't spoil a bunch' theory. Well, the cliche of the police should be, "One bad bunch, doesn't spoil an apple."

I have great cop story that helps explain the courage and compassion of our uniformed thugs. My cousin, on break from working the night shift on Christmas Eve came over to sit down with the family and have a plate of good Christmas ham and a slice of pecan pie. His mother and brother had brought their dogs over and the conversation had turned toward them. My cousin goes into explaining that just a few days prior, he had hit a dog with his police cruiser. My grandma exclaims, "Oh my goodness, you hit a dog!" To which he responded, "No, I smoked it, chuckle, chuckle, I broke its leg and skinned it up real bad." He was asked if he returned the dog to its owner and he said yes. The owner expressed guilt for accidentally leaving his gate open. My grandmother, still concerned with the dog's well being recommended that my cousin return to the man's house sometime in the future to see if the dog is alright. My cousin then explained how he had already returned to his house, to give the man a bill for the cost of fixing the police bumper and a ticket for his dog not having a leash.

Stories like this are why Kevin Johnson is my hero.

Could you clarify the planet for which you are speaking? Because it certainly isn't this one.

I would agree that plenty of racism exists. There is isolated incidents of racism in the white world, but as a race, we have no tolerance for it. If you say something that can even be construed as racist, you will lose your job. Conversly, I beleive there to be institutional racism in the black community against whites. Somehow, we still have this mysterious power over them holding them down - without even trying.

But as a society? I don't beleive there is any evidence to suggest your statement to be true. And the reason why race has little - if anything - to do with this incident.

The general "they decided to take the brutha out" attitude by some is simply moronic. There's simply no other word. The black cop who started this firestorm by shooting in the general direction of his "blue bruthas" was ill trained, maybe just plain scared. He's not looking to KILL blacks.

CR you need to really consider what you're typing/spewing. Some of it is uniformed and just so biased that writing you off completely on ANY subject is really easy. Your biased, unsubstantiated attacks on these Police is a poor representation of who you likely are.

Sean Bell should not be dead. That's a no brainer. His culpability shouldn't be a question. He has none. At the end of the day the NYPD has made the worst error. Someone, possibly many, people in the NYPD should pay a price and lose their freedoms over this.

CR if you're going to paint the NYPD and all cops with racist intentions then you have little moral standing to denounce racists who proclaim all blacks are criminals.

DR- I can't believe you have ignored all the studies I have posted in this section of the board- I have posted like, 20 studies showing rampant and continued racism to this day- from not calling back prospective employees because of black sounding names or voice- to selective prosecution of black nieghborhoods compared to white nieghborhoods- I can see why NT gets so frustrated- because it is pretty apparent- and any reputable study pretty much shows we are still incredibly racist in our day to day institutions.

I mean- I have never been stopped for "driving while white"- however- I have been in a car that was stopped because the cop could only see black poeple in a fairly expensive car- "stopped for driving while black"- there isn't even an analogy for this for white poeple in the US DR-

I know you are a reasonable dude- with a good handle on science, surveys and stats- just go through the board and see all the studies that back this up- after a while, about the 30th time someone posts these studies- you wonder if reasonable white folks in the US just don't want to hear the truth anymore- because it sucks.



Barnaby- it is those statements that make real progress towards justice a real problem- a guy that will just walk up and start shootng police officers for no reason is a sociopath, and NEEDS to be put down like a rabid dog- the ifference is- in the Sean Bell shooting- the cops pulled a "Kevin Johnson"- and, instead of a man hunt, we have a coverup- oops, I mean "investigation" - of the NYPD- and we all know the history of "investigating" NYPD types goes- Serpico anyone?

But- I also understand that cops have the same ratios of bad apples and good guys as any other walk of life, and demonizing cops just because they are cops is not only not helpful, but well, knda stupid bro- let's take it one case at a time- and prosecute the bad guys, reward the good guys.

If your "hero" is some psychopathic coward that guns down a father of three you've got bigger problems than a anecdotal story about your cousin. Your "hero" also shot a 13-year-old innocent bystander in the process of murdering Sgt. McEntee.

Police say he was responding to a fireworks call, and was talking to a 13-year-old male. McEntee was sitting in his car talking to the teen, who was standing outside the driver's side door.

Police say 19-year-old Kevin Johnson walked up along the passenger side of the car and started firing into the car, hitting McEntee and also hitting the 13-year-old boy in the leg. The teen's injuries are not considered life threatening. link[i]

It seems as if a lot of your antagonism directed toward the police is based upon your own issues with your cousin, Barnaby2341. That makes me wonder how you would feel if he died in the line of duty as many of these officers did?

The tragic death of Sean Bell and the part the New York City police played in it is in no way a blanket condemnation of all police officers. Cheering cop-killing filth is a extremist viewpoint. Bell deserves justice, not revenge.

Oh, and the source of your story about Kevin Johnson comes from a White supremacist website. Trying to tell us something?

It took some time but the grand jury has decided to proceed with prosecuting three of the officers involved in the Sean Bell shooting:

A Queens grand jury voted today to indict three city police detectives — two black men and a white man — in the killing of Sean Bell, an unarmed 23-year-old black man who died in a hail of 50 bullets in November, a defense lawyer in the case said.

The detectives who will face charges, Michael Oliver, Gescard F. Isnora and Marc Cooper, were three of five officers who fired bullets into Mr. Bell’s car on Nov. 25 outside a strip club in Jamaica, Queens, hours before Mr. Bell was to be married.

Detective Oliver, 35, fired 31 of the 5o bullets in the shooting and Detective Isnora, 28, opened fire first and shot 11 bullets in total. link

Let the legal system proceed and we will see what happens. Personally, I'm pleased there will be a further examination of the shooting. If the officers are innocent that should come out during the trial (provided no deals are cut). If they are found guilty, let them suffer the proper punishment for the crime.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

Police are an affront to our civil liberties and protectors of the massive inequalities in our society. They turn up at protests of the World Trade Organization to protect the power structure that secures that developing nations will be riddled with poverty for eternity. These nations will owe money to the World Bank for loans and not have money to provide social services to its citizens. So a few rich people get richer while an entire nation of people suffer. The police break up protests with force or violence, taking away our right to free speech, our right to peacably assembly, and our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. They tell us where to protest, when to protest, and even have the ability to deny us the right to protest. Why are there police in the first place? It is believed that police exist to protect us, when the reality is they exist to protect FROM us.

You are right barnaby. If we didn't have police then a slew of criminals would not have to worry about being caught. This includes: Murderers, rapists, child molesters, bank robbers, drug dealers, extortionists, counterfeiters, thieves, embezzlers...

I suppose you think jail is a bad idea as well?

I would ascertain that if you are against the concept of police, you are for vigilantes?

Ahh... the slippery slope theory that the police are saviors from our own barbarism.

Bank robbers - steal because they need money, the real problem is poverty.
Drug Dealers - yes, the ultra-nefarious drug dealer. What about other drug dealers like the bartender or the gas station attendant that charges $3 for a pack of Marlboro, should we protect from them to? The hypocrisy is beyond your comprehension, that is apparent.
Extortionists - Money, poverty, see a trend?
Counterfeiters - Money, poverty
Thieves - money, poverty
Embezzlers - money, poverty

The real problem is poverty of which the police protect that inequality so they are more of the problem than a solution. As far as rapists and murderers go, police never stop these crimes, they only apprehend the suspects. I wish the police addressed these issues with as much vigilances as we believe they do, but the sad fact is that homicide and rape do not happen with enough frequency to justify the massive police numbers that there are. Here are some 2003, 2004 statistics. Source.
There are a combined number of only around 110,000 murders and rapes in a given year among a population, at the time, around 290 million. If you look at the poverty crimes like robbery and theft, there are over 10 million a year. Obviously, the real problem is poverty, which the police ensure exists. The police do not do anything to reduce poverty. If you address poverty the need for police goes away. But you buy into the propaganda so I am talking to a wall on this. These numbers don't mean anything to you because your mind was made up before you posted.

Ah yes I am sure those bank robbers who hit LA in the 90's and had fully automatic machine guns and body armor were poverty stricken and needed money to eat..

Extortion normally occurs on the white collar level. Do people who commit high end extortion live in poverty?

Todays counterfeiter needs high end equipment and technology. I suppose they are poverty stricken as well.

Let me name a couple of known embezzlers.. Ken Lay, Jeffry Skillings... Man those guys were poor before they embezzled...

The only point I will give you are thieves... But they still break the law... Oh yeah I forgot you don't like laws... *Smacks forehead, what was I thinking..

I noticed you forgot Murderers, rapists, and child molesters.... Let me guess all the fault of poverty?

While I don’t agree with Barnaby about the nature of crime in total I will agree that historically in western culture, I don’t know about the rest of the planets cultures, that poverty has tied into crime. Now I don’t know if its because of poverty directly that people commit crimes, such as I have known people in poverty that I would suggest would never commit crime, historically it does have a bearing, from a barbarian, to a pirate to the reality of what the word cowboy was originally a designator for, to gangsters and the mafia and so on. I don’t know how you would erase this but taking time into perspective on the issue policing such seems to never actually work save for to barely contain and really be a clean up after the fact of a crime related to poverty. I think this hurts America for how much poverty is shifter to our prison or correctional facilities in general as just one facet you can look on in relation to poverty in America, I do think its a negative stereotype to propagate though without understanding, because on impact it will lessen a person in poverties chance to improve life because of fear and bias that because of poverty the person is a criminal already. It might be PC, but I doubt for religious types collectively in American to want to be looked at that same some as Osama bin laden.

Its a complex issue and for the most part debates on it typically never deal with the issues but rather if the republicans or democrats are the winners again

I mentioned murders and rapist separately because those crimes are not a result of poverty.

Bank robberies, extortion, counterfeiting, embezzling are crimes that are not committed everyday. Extremely rare, but those crimes are crimes for money. It takes enlightenment to understand where I am coming from, you don't want to look at the imbalance of society and address that as a problem, you just want to simplify and go on with your life. Criminals should be thrown in jail, case closed. You never ask why these crimes are being committed. You aren't willing to ask the tough questions about what has made people committ these types of crime. The Ken Lays of the world are overtaken by greed, there is no such thing as too much money, they want more and more. That is created by the imbalance, the obsession of being rich. But it is funny how you had a litany of crimes that are rarely committed to justice a police force of such magnitude. Like I said before, you aren't able to confront the problem of poverty. You simply are not able.

Within your response lies your fault in your blaming of the police as a whole. You have simplified the few to say the whole is bad. Law enforcement is needed to protect and serve. You said yourself that criminals should be thrown in jail, who should do this task then? You identified the Ken Lays, to make your point about greed. Cannot the same be true to identify bad cops who want power? Or only when the example is convenient for you?

And you did not address those other crimes, since you blame poverty for the others. How do you think we should deal with the murderers, rapists, and child molesters?

Police acquitted over NY shooting

A judge in New York has acquitted three police officers who shot dead an unarmed man hours before his wedding.

Sean Bell, 23, who was black, was shot as he left a strip club in the suburb of Queens in November 2006.

Two detectives, Michael Oliver and Gescard Isnora, faced charges of manslaughter. A third, Marc Cooper, had been accused of reckless endangerment.

The case had generated accusations of police racism and brutality, and there were angry protests outside the court.

Mr Bell's fiancee, Nicole Paultre Bell, walked out of the packed courtroom as soon as Supreme Court Justice Arthur Cooperman cleared the three officers of all charges.

"The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was not justified" in firing, the judge said.

The defendants had opted to not be tried by a jury. link

It would have been interesting hearing what the judge heard from both sides.

On the surface of it, it sounds like an outrage for the judge to acquit the defendants. I'm just wondering what extenuating circumstances there were for the police to fire 50 bullets at or into this man. What on earth was going on?

It remains a tragedy, and I'm pretty sure we will not have heard the end of this.

The text of the Judge's decision is quite illuminating. One of hte largest problems was that the prosecution witnesses had a ton of trouble. From the text:



The number of times that Bell was shot has also been an interesting issue. The defense showed how the broken glass flying back at them could've given them the impression that they were under fire. source.

Heck, Trent Benefield contradicted himself and had no clue as to who approached the car.

I would be curious to hear these items line by line addressed. Time will only tell, I'm still out on this one, though the judge's decision looks like a strong one, rhetoric, politics, and Al Sharpton not withstanding.

There are times when I feel I have far more to fear from the police than I do from any terrorist or common street criminal and this is one of those times.

I'm not the least bit surprised by the verdict. The only surprise would have come if the cops had been penalized at all.

Looks like the only thing they were guilty of is lousy marksmanship.

I didn't know Sean Bell, but I have been out late Saturday night in places not patronized by the good folks who sit in the front pews on Sunday morning doing things that I might not want to brag about to my mama. There but for the grace of God go I...

Everybody has a different definition of what constitutes a good time. Sean Bell shouldn't have had to die for it.

New Hero

The cops do it, why can't we?

And your point would be? I suppose it's a constitutional right to be twice over the legal limit, arguing with strip club owners, all the while, your convicted felon friends talk openly about getting guns and showing people? Sounds like systematic oppression to me.

My point would be that I celebrate when a cops guts are splattered on the highway. I know that is one step closer to freedom.

And your argument makes no sense. You can be fifty times over the legal limit, urinate in the face of a strip club owner, have convicted child rapists as friends and none of that matters. Being drunk isn't punishable by death. Being in an argument isn't punishable by death. Hanging with felons isn't even a crime, much less punishable by death. And talking about getting a gun isn't punishable by death. The only thing that was punishable by death in this case, was murder. The crime the cops committed, but got away with because they wear a badge, scratch that, they wear a shield, because a shield is something you hide behind.

There's some fine critical thinking skills there, Sparky.

I'm sure when you ended up on the short end of the stick under the mob rule you seemed to desire, you might feel a little different. In fact, I'd bet that if your wife, daughter, mother, or whoever close to you got raped by a pack of gang-bangers, you just might call 911. No need to admit that here though...you can stick to your "all cops should die" mantra.

This statement just proves that you are not interested in the facts pertaining to the case. The cops and government are always wrong, criminals and people who break the law are always right.

And your point would be? So arguing with strip club owners while being drunk with felon friends talking about showing people guns is punishable by death now? You have a constitutional right to argue with whomever you want. The police didn't know they were convicted felons at the time. If the police were really worried about them going to the car to retrieve a gun, then they would have identified themselves and detained them way before Bell and his friends got to the car. It doesn't make sense to wait until Bell and his friends had access to this phantom gun.

The fact of the matter is, many police have a much lower threshold for shooting at black men than anybody else in this country, and that is systematic oppression. If this happened to a family member, I seriously doubt you would be trying so hard to justify the officer's actions.

It's a good way to get to know local enforcement, that's for sure.



Excatly, which shows that the police didn't have it out to murder them in a premeditated way. Their "criminal thinking" got the best of them as they argued with the strip club owner, hit a van, and then proceeded to drive at the officers, despite the officers verbally identifying themselves.



The officers maintained they did. Their recollection was solid, while Bell's friends's testimony was racked with inconsistencies, poor attitude, and doubtful authenticity. Read the judge's text statement and you'll see that.



Race isn't a part of this as a large number of the officers were minorities themselves. What specific evidence is there that Bell and his friends were shot specifically because they were black? What, the two black officers and hispanic are card carrying members of the KKK?

That doesn't make a lick of sense. Two of the three cops on trial were black. Can blacks be so easily oppressed that even black men help cause this oppression? Your argument seems to indicate that black people are oppressing themselves. That's a heck of a way to find racism in this incident.

My feelings now are somewhat in the middle of this issue- I am very disappointed in the criminal justice system here ( a misnomer, as usual) - that New York STILL has a hard time bringing justice for victims of police brutality and murder, and STILL has a hard time prosecuting crimes against blacks.

Basically- the NYPD needs an enema.

It also looks like some legislative change is needed to put more responsibility on the police when they commit murder, as in this case.

Taking away a great deal of the NYPDs ability to shoot anyone would be good.

Changing the rules of engagement is very neccesary here.

I have nothing against cops in general, blacks or Al Sharpton.

I just wanted to see Sean Bell's killers brought to justice, that is all.

If I were there- I would participate in Sharpton's calls for protest.

Where are you getting all of these stick men from? Who said anything about being premeditated? They weren't brought up on 1st degree murder charges, they were brought up on manslaughter, felony assault, and reckless endangerment charges.



The officers didn't detain them on the way to the car and never said that they did. They contend that they identified themselves before shooting, which wasn't corroborated by any trial witnesses. The officers didn't take the stand. All they had were statements from the grand jury, which aren't subject to the same level of scrutiny that trial testimony is and could have revealed more inconsistencies in their stories. Second of all, Bell's friends weren't the only witnesses to testify that the officers didn't identify themselves.

What does poor attitude have to with whether or not an unarmed man deserves get to gunned down? The defense attorney, Ricco, was a sleazeball. Plenty of people would have a "poor attitude" if this attorney was assassinating their character trying to blame the victims.



from here



The crime wasn't shooting them because they were black, the crime was reckless, unwarranted, excessive use of force. I'm just saying that this degree of recklessness is most prevalently at the expense of black males.

You don't have to burn crosses and wear a hood to be prejudiced. Anyone can have a lower threshold for harassing and shooting black men, including black officers. It is naive of you to imply that they can't. This lower threshold comes from prejudice, and Black people internalize prejudice against black people all the time. Haven't you ever heard of the doll test?. That deals specifically with standards of beauty, but the principle that it speaks to, internalized prejudice or "negative branding" (that is a very apt term, quick, you should charge royalties), is universal.



That is sort of what I am saying. Forget the word racism. I'm talking about prejudice and oppression, which aren't the same thing as racism. Black people can participate in oppressive systems like anybody else. There were black slave owners, there were black plantation overseers, many FBI informants who infiltrated civil rights organizations were black, the US army used native american trackers to help extinguish other native americans, there were american colonists loyal to the british throne during our revolutionary war... these are all examples of people participating and reinforcing systems that are oppressive to their own people. That participation of the oppressee doesn't take anything away from the existence of oppression the system imposes.

This is yet another example of the lower threshold for police officers to harass and shoot black men. You can blame the lower threshold on "negative branding". But whatever you call it, this lower harass and shoot threshold is oppressive.

I disagree with barnaby2341's contempt for police, but he is correct that being drunk twice over the legal limit, arguing with strip club owners and having felon friends talking about getting guns are not crimes that someone can be executed for and executioners were precisely what those cops were.





One liners and inappropriate quips aside, nebraska29, you can't take race out of the killing of Sean Bell simply because three officers were minorities. Both you and DaytonRocker use the race of the officers as an excuse to suggest race (and racism) does not apply.

I'm repeating myself here, but what I wrote previously about the race of officers being secondary still applies: