The opportunities for misunderstanding were great in this one. The case came down to witness testimony and in that regard, the prosecution's case was very shaky. If you read the judge's decision, it's clear to see why he ruled the way he did.

That's one man's opinion. Here's another:

"I never saw a case prosecuted like this," Marvyn Kornberg, the noted defense lawyer, said several times during the Sean Bell trial. "It's a throw-everything-at-the-wall approach."

Stephen Murphy, who won the only acquittal in the sensational Howard Beach trial in the very same Queens courtroom 21 years ago, is still scratching his head.

"I've thought all along that these cops were going to be acquitted because the prosecution made major blunders in the case," he said.

"To start with, the prosecution should never have read the grand jury testimony of the three cops into the record because it basically precluded the defendants from taking the stand."

Murphy says once the cops' versions of the shooting were on the record in the trial, there was no way the defense was going to expose them to cross-examination.

"If the prosecution hadn't done that, the defense would have seriously had to consider making their clients take the stand," Murphy said.

I couldn't find a defense lawyer who could explain why the prosecution never prepared their star witnesses for cross examination concerning their conflicting statements to police, prosecutors and the grand jury. link

Which leads to another possibility...

Al Sharpton hasn't accused the Queens D.A. Richard Brown of throwing this fight yet, but it doesn't take much to imagine that's next. Even the prosecutor I spoke with before the trial was concerned about this. "There has to be some tension between Richard Brown's office and the police," he said. "The difficulty with the Queens D.A.'s office is they need the police to prosecute their cases." link

People watch too much Law & Order and never consider a D.A. might worry about how it might affect his office's relationship with the police if the prosecutor's office starts going after cops in shooting cases with too much zeal.

That doesn't mean prosecutor incompetence factored into Judge Cooperman's decision. But neither does it mean it did not.

Sean Bell was innocent. He still is. The law has been satisfied, but justice? Not so much.

When this story was shown on the BBC the undercover officers in the picture were all but one, African Americans or 'hispanic'. Am I missing something here?

Wikipedia reports two of the five officers involved were black, one was white, one was Middle-Eastern, and one was of biracial black and Hispanic origin (Haitian/Mexican). The first officer to fire was black.

Is this a 'race issue' just because an African American man was shot dead under dubious circumstances or what...?


How do you know that?

I can see the case for the police being guilty of reckless endangerment given the veritable barrage of bullets fired, but I can't see how Sean Bell or his friends can be declared innocent when they tried to use a car as a battering ram.

Yes, you are and if you want to go back to 2006 and the first page of this thread and move forward maybe you'll figure out what exactly it is.



That question was addressed by me with Aevans176 in 2006 and with Nebraska29 and DaytonRocker in April 2008. While you may not want to research the posts all the way back to 2006, surely you can scroll back to the 145th post.





But of course you can, moif. I would expect nothing less from you.

Sean Bell can't be declared anything but a dead man. The 50 bullets the cops unloaded upon him made that a certainty.

Let's see if I can help fill in some of the gaps in your knowledge.

Sean Bell was innocent. Almost everyone seemed to understand that, going into the excruciating seven-week Queens trial of three cops who gunned Bell down the night before his wedding, November 25, 2006. But going in, there also was a lot of talk about how, once the trial started, the police's defense lawyers might try to rough up Bell a bit, posthumously. It wasn't hard to guess that they would try to bring in his sketchy police record, or at least mention how anyone hanging out at 4 a.m. at the Club Kalua strip joint in Jamaica could be presumed to be up to no good. "They're not going to say he's a choir boy," one veteran prosecutor of police cases told me before the trial started. "I think what they will do is try to disparage Club Kalua, a notorious drug spot. What good upstanding citizen would be there to begin with? It explains that cops are there to try to do the right thing."

Sure enough, the police’s defense lawyers played the Club Kalua card from the start. "Who is attracted to such a place?" defense attorney Anthony Ricco asked imperiously. That (along with the fact that Ricco and two of the three cop defendants were also black) was a convenient way of getting around having to play the race card: The police were in danger, you see -- how could they have been profiling?

It was a clever position, to be sure. But how could it stand up to the prosecutor's seemingly solid arguments? Sean Bell was a father. Sean Bell was about to get married to his high-school sweetheart. The mother of his two little girls. Going to Club Kalua that night apparently wasn't even his choice; it was the suggestion of a friend. And, more to the point: Bell didn't have a gun. No one did. Before shooting 50 times, the cops hadn't even seen a weapon -- not that entire night. A slam dunk, right?

Wrong. The acquittal today of Gescard Isnora, Marc Cooper, and Michael Oliver (he’s the one who was so driven to fire that night that he reloaded -- and then, on the eve of his indictment, partied at Nello) was a surprise until you looked at Judge Arthur Cooperman's terse decision. First, the judge essentially bought into the Club Kalua argument. He gave the cops the benefit of the doubt for assuming this was a dangerous place with dangerous people, and that any talk about a gun could mean they should be ready to fire. You might say the outcome was clear the moment the cops waived their right to a jury trial. A judge, the three cops hoped, would be less swayed by the emotion behind this tragedy, more willing to call what happened around the corner from the club on Liverpool Street careless, not criminal. And that’s what happened.

Sean Bell, for the record, remains innocent link

For more details about what happened in the case of Sean Bell, you can read New York Magazine's "Bad Night at Club Kalua". It might be helpful in order to better understand why your "car as a battering ram" speculation is not only patently absurd, the defense didn't argue it either.

I have my doubts if you'll allow another version of events intrude upon your already formed and erroneous one, but nobody can say I didn't try to present another side of the story.

I have read it all thank you and I am unconvinced that there is anything but bias on display in this thread.


It was on the basis of those post I felt inspired to ask my question...

You appear to be suggesting that the collective goal of the police is to 'execute' black people, and that any minority officers, even when they are the majority of any given group in an operation, and even when they are the first to fire, are only doing so because they wish to conform to a racism that seeks to destroy them.

Your saying black police officers are deliberately targetting other black people in order to please white police officers. If thats true then its sad beyond measure because it means nothing has changed in the USA despite all the well meaning white police officers and all the black police officers who have been employed by the nations police services.

I find it hard to believe thats true, and the idea that 'cops close ranks to protect each other' seems really far fetched when arguing that black cops kill black people in order to conform to a white racist agenda.


In point of fact the cops unloaded fifty bullets on all the men not just Bell, one them whom was hit nineteen times and survived. Only four bullets hit Sean Bell.

I would also remind you that in the MLK thread, Kimpossible posted a link to an experiment that demonstrated cops were far less likely to shoot a black suspect by accident than the general population. That supports the Justice Department report from 2000 and places your own conclusion in the realm of biased assumption. I however expect nothing less from you so that makes us about equal in our mutual regard.

I've seen nothing here to support the argument that Sean Bell was killed by racism. Everything I've read indicates that this is a simpe matter of minority police officers making a mistake the scale of which was compounded by so called 'contagious fire' but which is being argued as a point of racism because any old stick will do to beat a wicked dog.

As it happens I've seen contagious shooting when I was in the military. Many times in fact. I've even done it myself. Once a fire fight erupts, people tend to forget their training and just blast away with everything they've got. One enters a sort of mental high gear where time seems to speed up and slow down when the andrenaline kicks in and the next thing you know you've expended three magazines in no time at all. Considering there were five officers firing, fifty rounds, with modern automatic fire arms isn't that much. I've seen people burn up hundreds of rounds on a light machinegun when they were trained to use short controlled bursts. I note that the officer who fired the most rounds, had never used his gun in the line of duty before. I'll wager his training was completely pushed aside by andrenaline and once he made the decision to fire he was then acting on nervous instinct alone. He fired 31 rounds from a Sig automatic, with a fast reload, that doesn't take very long. It should never have happened of course, but to go from accusing him of human fallibility to racism requires something more substantial than opinion, unless your going to argue that racism against black people is human fallibility, even for other black people.


Nothing in that article contradicts the wikipedia article which states that
Link.

What your article does tell me is:
and...

Link.

So, all the drugs, the guns, the gangs, the prostitutes and the violence of suburbian America has nothing to do with the people living in suburban America?

I don't care what colour your skin is, you share the responsibility for your surroundings. If you don't like it, leave! Don't try to blame other people. Act on your own best interests.


Shaprton is also quoted in the article as saying:
This is nothing but idle speculation. Sharpton is assuming that white peope are never shot by accident by the police I suppose.


I have not formed any conclusion despite what you may wish to believe. I have merely stated that I cannot see how any claim of racism can be levelled against the police in this matter, regardless of whether or not they were justified in opening fire. Had Sean Bell been gay would that have made the cops homophobes also?

Mistakes happen and when you have boredom, andrenaline and guns involved, people are going to get killed by accident. It happens all the time. When you find yourself in a place where crime is rife, your chances of meeting with violence are increased dramatically. The solution is, don't go to places where crime is rife if you are worried about being killed, either by accident at the hands of the police or deliberately at the hands of criminals.

Prosecutorial incompetence may have been a big factor, I don't know. I will wait to form an opinion on that aspect of it as time progresses. Right now, it remains clear that Bell's friends were the key to this case and they couldn't be counted on for accurate testimony.



So if Guaman was correct, did the police purposely gun the men down? ANd what evidence suggests that they did it for doing its sake? They may have been scared out of their wits, who knows? Like I said, there was a lot misunderstanding that went down on this one, Bell was certainly not helped by his friends, who accelerated the evening's events.

The Rodney King beating was excessive and wrong. But if you remember, Rodney King himself opened that can of worms by driving a motor vehicle while under the influence and so forth. If you mess with fire you sometimes get burned. He was not completely innocent in the matter. That's the cold truth.



The problem is that isolated cases where police overreact or outcomes are not favorable, for whatever reason, become the standard by which every police officer is judged.



I really don't know how to respond but to say that if you are a black man what the heck are you doing out late at night when and where this type of stuff goes down? If the ill treatment of black men is so rampant by the police then it makes no sense to be a black man out late at night in a place where he might be mistaken for a criminal or what have you.

Let's forget about how the world "should" be. If the world "is" unfairly treating blacks then why are they taking that risk and expecting a different outcome? Maybe CR is right when he says the young ones develop an "I don't give a darn" attitude. And they sometimes pay in a big way for such naivete'.



Or he could have not gone out to walk the friend to the car. OR perhaps there is more to the story that your friend didn't mention to you.



Police officers are human beings. If they are constantly dealing with black men who are partaking in criminal acts, they will start to see every black man as a criminal. And that is the burden that a black man has to bear. And admittedly, one I don't share.



If you think a person should be able to act however he wants, short of actually killing a cop, and not have the cop take proactive measures you are living in a dream land. I would suggest you become a cop for a day and see the crap they have to deal with over and over again. I truly believe you would be tooting a different horn. I went on a ride along with a police officer in downtown L.A. It was very eye-opening. It was very unnerving and rather scary to see the daily occurrences that they have to contend with.



I'm saying that people lie. They say the cops harrassed them for no reason, when in fact, there was a reason.



I'm trying to analyze the dynamics of police and civilians in a pragmatic way. The burden is on the civilian, assuming he wants to stay alive and not be held up in any way by the police. If a person wants to take a chance and do something that could somehow be construed or mistconstrued by a police officer with a gun then the burden IS on that person , whether or not it's fair in his or anyone else's eyes.




The lesson is simple. Don't expect a police officer to know what your intent is. He will base his reaction on the fact that he himself doesn't want to die. And other factors (like the countless number of blacks he's had run-ins with in previous times and so forth) will also shape his decision. That's human nature.



You could be if you put yourself in a similar situation. But those situations are avoidable, for the most part.




What came first is the blatant mistreatment of blacks in America. But in today's social and political climate, police officers have to be very careful. They are not going to seek out and purposely create a scenario like the one we are discussing in this thread. It is career suicide. Lawyers are standing by waiting for the next "civil rights violation" case to try.

In L.A., because of cases like Rodney King, police officers are looking to avoid controversy with minorities, especially blacks. I would love to see the statistics on who gets pulled over nowadays. There are a lot of cautious cops who will take the easy ticket (someone like me, and I've got the tickets to back up my claim) over a minority who could potentially make a plea of racism.



Yes, that happens. But it doesn't happen all the time. Most police officers are not racist and do not seek out to unfairly target and/or arrest people that don't deserve it.



Like I stated above, most people in the world (and that includes white police officers) are good people. So by that reasoning, most police officers are decent people with good intentions. But I also understand that they have a job where they are dealing with criminal elements of society on a daily basis and their judgment may be shaped by recurring patterns of criminality. As human beings, police officers (like civilians) make mistakes and the outcomes aren't always good. But again, in a world where survival is the thing we are all trying to do, one cannot rely on anyone but himself to ensure that survival.



Respect is a two-way street. The police officer deserves respect, too. Or is he guilty automatically? I don't know about you, but when I get pulled over by a police officer for some stupid thing (like not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign) I show the utmost respect, even though in my mind I'm not too happy about having to deal with him.

DP- what we need is a change in the burden of proof, and the way cops are allowed to shoot at all. The very fact that the dead man is unarmed and they shot him- there should be NO mitigating circumstances here- no more than I would have for opening up at a bar myself. They should be held to a HIGHER standard- NOT a lower one for shooting. ALL shootings of unarmed assailants, where it is shown that there was no personal risk to the cops, such as the Lou Amadillo case- should be law that they are automatically fired and lose thier pensions and all benefits- immediately.

The standard for shooting someone that is not shooting at you, or putting you in eminent and immediate hazard, should result in jail time, period. the laws themselves are too leniant for cops, and allow too much room for abuse.

Rodney King was speeding. I don't care if he was speeding and such when he was stopped- NOTHING he did deserved what he got- nothing. There should be no expectation in a free society that this will happen.

The laws should be written so every single one of those police officers were sitting on lifetime in prison sentences, without possiblity of parole, for attempted murder.

It is the law that allows too much room for abuse here DP. Take away this special status for cops to be able to "mistakenly" kill someone- and make "kiling someone by mistake" a jail sentence, on par with what any civilian would face, and you would have a very large decrease in abuse of this power.


And, perhaps a large portion of our population in America would start to see them as something more than thugs with badges, the gestapo of America yadda yadda.

Yes. You do need that in your commute. It's far better than a riot that many people would have expected after yet another cops kill unarmed black man verdict. Of course, perhaps because there is no riot, nothing more than shouts of dismay and demands for inconveince, that should tell us that this sort of incident has become commonplace. I still find it hard to believe that again the cops have gotten away with it and people continue to blame the victim for bringing about his own death. My question is what will it take for unarmed black men to be safe on the streets of our large cities? Should they walk around arms held high in the air wearing white gloves to demonstrate that they are indeed unarmed?

Including your own.



You appear to be interpreting my statement to match your own biases.

I never said the collective goal of the police is to execute Black people.

I never said Black officers deliberately target Black civilians to please White officers.

Draw your own conclusion any way you want to Moif, but I will only debate what I actually said, not your erroneous interpretations.

You find it hard to believe minority officers would opt to conform to the group dynamic established by the majority, rather than challenge it? Obviously, you don't understand how the code of omertà applies not only to the Mafia but to the police force as well.

Since you don't have any personal point of reference with American law enforcement perhaps you should read some old Joseph Wambaugh novels or watch L.A. Confidential, The Glass Shield or Sidney Lumet's Serpico and Prince of the City.



Racism didn't kill Sean Bell, moif. The bullets that pierced his body did that. Racism is what profiled Bell and racism is part of the mindset that excuses his death.

It appears all the serving and volleying you've been engaged in with net2007 in the NASA thread has you picking up his bad habit of sticking in long, windy and beside-the-point personal anecdotes in your posts.

Your vast military expertise aside, the nature of a soldier's job and that of a police officer are vastly dissimilar. Just because they both carry weapons and are authorized to shoot people doesn't mean they share the same mission.

If a police officer is "acting on nervous instinct alone" and squeezing off 31 rounds out the 50 fired at Sean Bell bachelor party, then that police officer should not be allowed to carry a firearm. Nervous people should not be put into situations where their nerves may falter and a unarmed man gets killed.



Which is exactly what Bell was attempting to do. Unfortunately, some trigger-happy cops had other ideas.



An opening statement such as, "I am unconvinced that there is anything but bias on display in this thread" reads like a conclusion to me. And your red herring non sequitur about Sean Bell's sexual orientation aside, one could go back literally years on looking in vain for a case where you do "see how any claim of racism can be leveled" against any White police officer, politician, shock jock or anyone else not a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.



Well, that is very good advice. So the answer for Black people is to avoid going anywhere at anytime where bored, over-amped and trigger-happy cops might mistake you for a criminal and you won't get shot? That's not exactly the way "equal protection under the law" or even "to serve and protect" works here in America, but you're from Denmark, so maybe that is how it rolls on your side of the pond.

Y'see, Moif, that doesn't work all that well over here. There are too many cases over the years in NYC like that of Patrick Dorismond, Eleanor Bumpers, Randolph Evans and the infamous 41 shots execution of Amadou Diallo for me to just write this off as "mistakes happening."

But by all means, please continue to issue your smug know-it-all proclamations from your ivory tower in Denmark. They are good for a bitterly cheap laugh if nothing else.



"Purposely?" You think they fired 50 shots by accident?

If the cops were "scared out of their wits" they shouldn't be out on the streets doing a job that makes them so frightened. A man gunned down on the day of his wedding is slightly more than just a "misunderstanding."

When the geek at the drive-thru window doesn't get your order right, that is a "misunderstanding." Blowing away an unarmed man is an act of murder.



Right, he deserved to get the living hell beat out of him by a gang of cops for a traffic violation. Another cold truth is the victims of police brutality aren't always choirboys and Girl Scouts. Your empathy is underwhelming, doomed_planet.



Oh, so are you saying that the police as well as young Black men are considered guilty and must prove their innocence? Damn, stereotypes suck...



Where in the hell am I supposed to be "late at night" where I WON'T get shot, DP? I don't particularly hang out at dive bars or strip clubs or after hours clubs, but every now and then I AM out when the streetlights come on. Please define the place where I won't be mistaken for a criminal or what have you. Most churches and libraries are closed at night so if I'm out on a beer run or coming home late from work, should I ask a White friend to be my designated driver so I don't get killed?

When I first read this remark by quick, I thought it was on The Top Ten of the Most Racist Things Anyone Has Ever Posted on America's Debate:

If I were black, I would dress, eat, speak, look, as absolutely conformist as I could, I would never set foot in a bar or strip club, I would never be out late unless I were going to or from my job, and I'd carry a letter from my employer detailing my late work hours so I could show it to a cop.

What quick was suggesting was no less than an introduction of South African apartheid era Pass Laws here in America. At that time I thought that was absurd beyond belief. Now I'm not so sure.



Wow, doomed_planet, you make me wonder if I shouldn't have had my son aborted. Killing him in the womb might have been a kindness.



And this is the Black man's burden to bear? Being assumed guilty at birth and spending the rest of his life trying to prove his innocence? Isn't that kind of backwards? I'm just drowning in the oceans of your empathy.



What is pragmatic about civilians living in fear of their lives being taken by a cop who happens to be having a bad day and decides to take it out on some kid be-bopping down the street? Do you realize how NUTS this is?

They told me waaaay back in kindergarten that Officer Smith was my friend. Did they lie to me? You are saying that if a "person" (=Black?) wants to take their life in their hands and do "something" that "somehow" could be construed or misconstrued by a armed officer, it's THEIR fault if things go terribly wrong and they get shot?

That is insane. Why don't I just paint a bullseye over my heart now and help the cop that kills me work on their target practice while they're at it?



Career suicide, you say? I haven't seen a single report to lead me to believe the cops involved in Bell's death aren't going right back out on the street. Even if Bell's family files and wins a civil suit, it's the city that will cough up the cash, not the cops. WHAT "career suicide?"



I'm playing the world's smallest violin about your tickets, DP. Ever stop to think you're just a lousy driver? A ticket for a moving violation ain't quite the same thing as getting shot for no damn good reason as being beaten upside the head with nightsticks (or "nigger knockers" as they're called in the 'hood).





Why are just "White police officers" good people, DP? That mean the Black and Latino officers are bad?

The police do deal with criminal elements of society on a daily basis. They also deal with non-criminal elements of society on a daily basis that don't deserve to be lumped in the same category merely because they share the same skin color. I don't want cops on the police force that can't tell the difference.

That is profiling and profiling an entire group of people based upon their race is racist. By your screwy logic, any Black man that encounters the police had better be as strapped as they are in order to protect their own lives from being taken by the police.



Respect IS a two-way street and the police officer deserves respect. But not more respect than they give because supposedly the cop is a public servant who works for me, not the other way around.

I hate to do this, but Moif opened the door so I'm going to give you a personal anecdote, DP. I don't like getting pulled over by a officer either. The last time it happened I had just left a press conference at City Hall and it was growing dark early as it does in the winter. A cop turned on his lights and I pulled over.

Before he got out of his car, I put the car in 'park' and shut off the engine. Turned on the dome light. Left my seat belt on. Opened up the glove compartment. Put down the window and placed my hands on the steering wheel at the "10 and "2" position.

When he walked over he asked me if I knew I had a burnt-out headlight. I told him, "No sir, I didn't." He asked me where I was going and I replied "Home, officer." He told me he wasn't going to give me a ticket, but to go straight home and get the light replaced the next day. I replied that I would and then I said,
"Thanks, Have a good night." He said, "You do the same, sir."

He went his way and I went mine and that time at least eight years ago was the last time I was stopped by a cop.

But the thing of it is, I still could have done everything the right way and if the cop "misconstrued" my intentions, he could have shot me and by your reasoning, it would STILL be nobody's fault but mine.

I hope you understand doomed_planet, why I have a problem with that, but I'm certain from what you've written you don't.

Nighttimer: Part of my perceived lack of empathy has to do with my philosophical outlook on life. I see the individual responsible for his actions and the potential outcome in almost every situation he may encounter. There are always exceptions (like 9/11, for example). In the case of Rodney King, he was responsible for driving under the influence and evading arrest. Had he never taken (was it PCP?) and gotten into his car and proceeded to drive, the incident would not have occurred. At the same time, the officers are responsible for going above and beyond what was necessary in restraining him. They are all guilty of creating that situation. Rodney King was as much a victim of his own actions as he was of theirs. That is my point. You have every right to disagree, but please don't paint me as a non-sympathetic supporter of violence on behalf of the police. I am in full support of accountability on all levels.



I get your point here, but perhaps you missed mine, which is this: (and it goes for everyone in any walk of life) Don't put yourself in a situation that could potentially put your life (or someone else's) in danger. If alcohol and a group of guys in a seedy establishment isn't a recipe for disaster, I'm not sure what is.

As for me, I love to go running late at night. I have only done it a few times in my life, and never alone. Why? Because I don't want to take the risk of being (1) hit by a car (2) abducted and assaulted. There is a chance that one of those two scenarios might occur. Being raped or physically assaulted by the opposite sex is probably something you have never worried about.



That may have been over the top, but if you look at life and our actions as members of society, we all conform to some degree. And when we don't we often suffer in big or small ways. It's part of being in an imperfect society.



Something tells me that your son is in good hands with a dad like you. As for me and my kids, I will apply the same logic in advising them on how to proceed in the world around them --- with caution. My motto is this: "fly under the radar as much as possible".

A lot of situations that make the news are somehow related to drugs and/or alcohol. When people are under the influence there is a greater chance for problems of one sort or another.



I don't say it's every black man's burden. But in case you didn't get the bulletin, a lot of people have preconceived ideas about black men. If I was a young black man I would do whatever it took to survive at the highest level. If that means avoiding certain situations, then that's what it means.



The scenario that you just gave would be nuts. But the scenarios that occur and often make headlines are more complicated. They deal with police and civilian misunderstandings, fears, expectations, etc. that go awry for many different reasons. How do we stop these types of situations for occurring? It takes change from both sides. The police need to address the way they deal with certain situations, absolutely! But the civilians who find themselves in such situations also need to look at what they do to help create the end result. What is nuts about that?



I am saying that the people who survive best are those that adapt themselves most successfully to their environment. The world isn't fair, Nighttimer, in case you didn't notice. It's never going to be fair. There will always be tragic outcomes that could have been avoided. The needless death of a young man is a tragedy. If we can all learn something from it perhaps a similar outcome can be avoided. But I don't see how that will happen if we don't address the accountability of all members involved.



The most recent ticket I received was for not coming to the 3-second stop at a four-way stop where I was the only vehicle! The motor cycle cop was hiding in the bushes waiting to give an easy ticket. I don't need your sympathy, as in the grand scheme, I deserve no sympathy. And now whenever I hit that stop sign (which is a few blocks from my house) I sit there for a good four seconds in case that cop happens to be hiding in the bushes again.



That's for sure. But not every situation that culminates in the shooting of a civilian is unjustified, or at the very least, is not partially the outcome of behavior by the person who finds himself in the role of "victim."




It's a given that black and latino officers are non-racist. Whites, however, are often painted as KKK followers of the worst kind. I was merely pointing out that even white officers, despite popular belief, are mostly good and decent.



How do you tell the difference, NT? How do you know which guy is gonna pull a gun and which guy is just mouthing off but means no harm?



This is the problem in a nutshell. If a large percent of the blacks that police officers encounter are criminals engaging in criminal activity, how do you expect an officer to "not" have a degree of suspicion or doubt?


Absolutely. I completely agree.



You showed him respect and he reciprocated.



Are the majority of youth who get into these situations with police showing the degree of caution and care that you did? I highly doubt it, especially when they are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

Part of my philosophical outlook on life, doomed_planet, is two wrongs don't make a right. Small evils don't justify large ones. I wouldn't want Rodney King to babysit my kids either, but what he did hardly justifies acts of police brutality.



.

Sean Bell didn't want to go to the Club Kahlua that night. That was a suggestion by his "friends." The same "friends" that did such a miserable job on the witness stand they made the judge's decision to acquit the cops all the easier. But the fact that he did doesn't mean he should have gotten killed. Bachelor parties aren't tea and cookies affairs. They can get loud, rowdy, boisterous and the last one I went too had a couple of "dancers" banging one drunk idiot in the restroom.

The problem with not putting yourself into a situation that could potentially end your life is the goal posts of what constitutes a dangerous situation keeps moving. There was recently a high school graduation party held in a parents house and they were there to chaperon it. Some kids that weren't invited tried to crash the party and in the following fight, a kid got shot and killed.

What's the lesson here? Don't hold graduation parties? Hire armed security guards and install metal detectors? You tell me.



I wouldn't presume to understand the fear or rape or assault, but I am a husband and a father of a budding 13-yr old girl, so every time she's a few minutes late getting home from school the paranoia rises.





Sorry, but I don't think that's imperfect. I think that's sick. Sure, everyone conforms to some degree, but I'll burn in hell before I feel I have to account for my comings and goings to anyone. There's conformity and there's cowardice and I refuse to live in fear like a coward.



Caution makes sense to me, but not the flying under the radar jazz. I like what Winston Churchill said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Friends are priceless, but enemies have some worth too. If I cared about flying under the radar, I would have never started posting instead of lurking. As soon as you express an opinion, you've made friends and enemies.





But I'm not responsible for anyone's preconceived ideas, DP. Neither is my son. He has all the tools already to not merely "survive" at the highest level, but to "thrive" and take it to the next level. Yes, a healthy dose of common sense mixed with discretion is needed, but for too many Black males, they don't have to look for trouble. Trouble comes looking for them.





If history has taught us anything, human beings are remarkably adaptable to all types of hostile environments, including where the color of your skin impacts negatively upon the value of your life. I'm not expecting "fairness" in the world, doomed_planet, but is it asking too much for some justice? I can't find any in the case of Sean Bell. The law may be satisfied, but justice took it in the shorts.



What behavior of Bell justifies his shooting?



All that does is make the case for the return of Wild West vigilantism. If the police have to be viewed as flawed human beings, then they must be held accountable when the mistakes they make as human beings destroy innocent lives. If you truly believe people are ultimately responsible for their own actions, why are the police held to lower standards or none at all when their actions go terribly wrong.





I'm not personally familiar with the training of police officers, but they do have standards and methods of eliminating those unfit to carry a badge and gun. Nobody should want a cop trying to enforce the law who can't tell the difference between a dangerous citizen that might shoot and one that's just shooting off their mouth.



By seeing individuals as potential criminals, not entire groups. If the majority of pedophiles are middle-aged, single White males who live at home with their elderly mothers, does it follow all middle-aged, single White males living at home with mom are likely pedophiles? I don't make that connection and neither should a trained police officer.





I'd like to think every parent teaches their child that the middle of the street isn't the best place to stop to tie your shoe. I'd also like to think most parents teach their child not to lip off to a cop and if they have already made the mistake of getting drunk or high, don't compound it by getting into a confrontation with the police.

But not every parent does teach their child the right way to cross a street. Not every parent teaches a child how to interact with the police. Not calling a cop "sir" or "ma'am" isn't a offense that warrants immediate execution on the spot.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it's no reason to pay for your ignorance with your life.

No, but you've implied it by linking Bells killing with those of several other black people. You also wrote:
The implication of your words is clear to the meanest understanding. You're saying that black people like Sean Bell, Patrick Dorismond, Eleanor Bumpurs and Amadou Diallo get shot deliberately by law enforcement officials of the city of New York and that African American police officers collude in this because they tend to conform and support the goals of the collective group.


Yes you did you simply couched it in terms of 'conforming to support the goals of the collective group', goals which you've implied by your use of the word 'execution', to imply something more than than an accidental homocide. Execution means to carry out a sentence of death. In your own words, Sean Bell was 'tried, convicted and executed'.

Perhaps your not aware of the implication of your own words, but I understand that you are a journalist, so I am forced to assume you do understand the meaning of your words and as usual you've chosen them with calculated deliberation. It seems you want your cake and to eat it too for you wish to use the strong language of outrage whilst refusing to accept the implications of those words.



I am well aware of the code of omertà though we tend to confuse it with esprit de corps in Europe, omertà is in fact a European concept, originating as I understand it from the sense of family honour in Southern Italy.

Omertà does not justify the notion of racism leading to the death of Sean Bell.


Well, if half a paragraph constitutes 'long winded' then fair enough, but the anecdote is hardly beside-the-point since it deals with the nature of contagious fire.

Otherwise I agree with you. A police officer who cannot control him self in a situation where his gun is removed from its holster ought not to be a police man. The trouble is, as the long, windy and beside-the-point personal anecdote of my vast military expertise, relates, most people will react in a similar way.


Well, if we are yet again to debate me personally, I would say in my defence, that I am not averse to being proven wrong, I can accept a reasonable argument and I have in the past accepted many such. You will only find me obtuse if try to bully me by playing the xenophobia card.

And also, I didn't start the MLK thread because I had formed any foregone conclusions. I was hoping for a reasonable debate and not the petty squabbling you indulged in that was hardly germane to the debate. I was more than happy to have Kimpossible challenge me in an intelligent way and I would advise you to read her posts and take note.

The day you start offering posts which actually live up to your reputation, instead of always mouthing off about my nationality, then I'll accept your criticism.


Ah, nighttimer you played the xenophobia card again with dependable regularity.

Your descriptions of America sound ominous indeed. One might be forgiven for thinking you lived in a dangerous society in comparison to mine, but when you actually compare America with the UK, where I grew up, you may find that the opposite is largely true. Yes, you can dredge up dozens of incidents where black people got killed by the police, certainly. But that is how many incidents gone wrong during how many arrest, from a population of how many millions of people? ...and how many white people were shot by accident by the police in the last few decades?

The quotes by Al Sharpton, which you have conspicuosly ignored, indicate that either no whites ever get shot by accident by the police in the USA, or that these shootings are irrellvent to the manufactured sense of outrage upon which the accusation of racism in the police rests. I'm thinking the latter seems more likely.

There is such a thing as context.


edited to add a missing word

There are two key issues in this case.

First, were the cops moving in to stop and investigate these guys before all hell broke loose? It appears they were.

Second, what motivated the first cop to fire? It appears that he believed one of the males was reaching for a gun.

Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, justice was done.

If the cops were NOT moving in to stop the males they made a tactical error, at worst. Criminal? Absolutely not. It might not even merit disciplinary action depending on their full explanations for their actions.

The first cop to fire had been warned of the possibility of a gun and he says one of the men made a move for his waistband. Believing this male was pulling a gun, the cop fired. Criminal? No. Reckless? No. Tragic? Yes.

Once the first shots were fired, the number of subsequent shots is irrelevant. The other cops believed they were under fire from the males in the vehicle. Very reasonable belief based on the totality of the circumstances.

We cannot ask cops to put themselves in harm's way every day and then expect perfect outcomes in all circumstances. None of these cops had any history of abuse, so to call this anything more than a tragic case is mistaken.

I feel bad for Sean Bell and his family. But there was no criminal intent here.

Yes. It does. But on the other hand. No. It doesn't.

1. the act or process of executing.
2. the state or fact of being executed.
3. the infliction of capital punishment or, formerly, of any legal punishment.
4. the process of performing a judgment or sentence of a court: The judge stayed execution of the sentence pending appeal.
5. a mode or style of performance; technical skill, as in music: The pianist's execution of the sonata was consummate.
6. effective, usually destructive action, or the result attained by it (usually prec. by do): The grenades did rapid execution.
7. Law. a judicial writ directing the enforcement of a judgment.
8. Computers. the act of running, or the results of having run, a program or routine, or the performance of an instruction.



Words can be like arrows shot into a clear blue sky. Eventually, they will land and with some impact, but what I write I try to write, clearly, cleanly and with clarity. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

I am not at all interested in what you believe I have "implied" or what you think I am "saying" nor your suggestion that I "couched" the meaning of a statement.

Don't tell me what you think I've "implied." I don't waste time with "implications." Challenge me on what I have actually written. You and your "implications" are your affair and no business of mine.





No, the trouble is you presented a long, windy and besides-the-point personal anecdote as if your experience in the military in Denmark explains a undisciplined and panicky response by NYPD plain clothes officers one early morning. Compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. Both may be be fruit, but they are not both the same.

How do you know most people will react in a similar way? Based upon what exactly? Because you say so?



Based upon past practices and a pattern of posting, I disagree that you are open to accepting a reasonable argument on acts of racist violence and behavior perpetuated against African Americans. And please don't play the victim card. It's not bullying or xenophobia to point out there is a bit of a difference between your limited exposure to the often difficult, contentious and often dangerous relationship between the police and young Black men in the United States.

That's not xenophobia. That's geography and history.



Your lofty pronouncements about not forming any foregone conclusions in the pursuit of reasonable debate and the avoidance of petty squabbling would ring more true if it weren't for the childish give-and-take you recently engaged in with net2007 in Amlord's NASA thread. I have read Kimpossible's posts in the recent MLK thread and commended her off-board. Typically, I enjoy reading the offerings of the female members of the board. They help break up the monotony of all the testosterone-fueled whizzing contests engaged in by the alpha males of (and yes, I am including both of us in that group).



If I never win another "Best of" award on , I will be quite comfortable with the status of my "reputation." I only mention your nationality when its germane to the debate and in the matter of cops vs. Black folks, your knowledge base is somewhat scarce. Mine would be as well were the debate about the relationship between Danish police and minority immigrants.

Don't hate the playa. Hate the game.



I'm not so much "dredging up" incidents of Black people killed by the police as I am providing other examples of bad policework and little in the way of corrective action taken against those officers.

As to how many White people were shot by accident by the police in the last few decades, that's a real good question. How soon can you come up with the numbers?



Oh, I didn't ignore the Al Sharpton quotes, moif. I just didn't respond to them. I'm not his official press spokesperson, so I don't see it as my lot in life to explain or defend his remarks.

Sure there is. You recently cited your grandfather's life as a slave as an example of context.

So which one of those definitions did you really mean when you wrote Sean Bell was stalked, tried, convicted and executed by law enforcement officials of the city of New York?


Your protestations of innocence would ring far truer if, after having used words like stalked, tried, convicted and executed to describe under cover police officers making a mistake, you didn't try to pretend that these word