Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Link

As a black man, I have so much faith in the system!

50?

Originally posted by Troop
50?

Should done this the first time

jawdrop

Originally posted by chithappens


As a black man, I have so much faith in the system!

Trying to bring race into it like that is pretty dumb, seeing only one of the firers was white and the officer that began the gunfire was black.

Meanwhile, your cheap sensationalism in the title is ridiculous and I will edit. he was NOT shot fifty times, that is the number of shots that were fired in the confrontation. This is how ridiculous rumours get started. He was shot FOUR times.

Frankly it seems it was impossible for the prosecution to make a case here with such godawful witnesses. It had to be established that the police acted maliciously which I think cannot be done.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Trying to bring race into it like that is pretty dumb, seeing only one of the firers was white and the officer that began the gunfire was black.

Meanwhile, your cheap sensationalism in the title is ridiculous and I will edit. he was NOT shot fifty times, that is the number of shots that were fired in the confrontation. This is how ridiculous rumours get started. He was shot FOUR times.

Frankly it seems it was impossible for the prosecution to make a case here with such godawful witnesses. It had to be established that the police acted maliciously which I think cannot be done.

1) Would a cop fire at a white person 50 times? I have NEVER heard of that.

2) If 1 occurs, would they be acquited? Most likely not, but then again, cops never do this to white people.

Originally posted by chithappens
1) Would a cop fire at a white person 50 times? I have NEVER heard of that.


They have.

Originally posted by chithappens


2) If 1 occurs, would they be acquited? Most likely not, but then again, cops never do this to white people.

They do.

Originally posted by Troop
They have.



They do.

Examples would help.

Originally posted by chithappens
1) Would a cop fire at a white person 50 times? I have NEVER heard of that.

2) If 1 occurs, would they be acquited? Most likely not, but then again, cops never do this to white people.

blatent idiocy...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Meanwhile, your cheap sensationalism in the title is ridiculous and I will edit.

What utter bullshit! Newspapers do it, so why can't he?

As for the verdict, it stinks just like your abuse of power.

Trying to use newspapers sometimes printing lies as justifcation for chill posting a completely inaccurate title is quite strikingly silly.

Your other comment is just trolling. Don't do it again.


Chill- are you saying that the black cop had been brainwashed into only firing at other black people? Are youy seriously suggesting that if the target had been white, he would have thought "Oh, he's not my race, so I will not shoot him"?

This whole thing could not have had less to do with race.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Trying to use newspapers sometimes printing lies as justifcation for chill posting a completely inaccurate title is quite strikingly silly.

Your other comment is just trolling. Don't do it again.


Chill- are you saying that the black cop had been brainwashed into only firing at other black people? Are youy seriously suggesting that if the target had been white, he would have thought "Oh, he's not my race, so I will not shoot him"?

This whole thing could not have had less to do with race.

I said cop. Not white cop. Not black cop.

Cops in the city do not give a **** about anyone who is poor, but it is a known fact that police brutality is a huge problem when dealing with black people.

One of the other guys, who did not die, was shot 19 times. That is excessive by ANY standard.

My point is the justice system letting it go. If you look into the entire story, no one has a solid story but shooting 50 times at 3 men in a car is stupid. They were outgunned, outmanned. I understand a lesser sentence, but no charges go through? Complete bullshit

It possibly was excessivem though it is easy to comment from the sidlines with no actual knowledge of the events- especially as they were firing at a car, not any individuals.

Anyway, whether you said 'black cop or not', my point still stands.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This whole thing could not have had less to do with race.

That's not quite true. If they had all been the same colour it would have had less to do with race. If only slightly.


Anyways, since I am not going to read a freakin' article on the case I will just have to assume that chit is right and the kkk ****** hating judge chose to let them go on account that they shot a negro.

Originally posted by chithappens

My point is the justice system letting it go. If you look into the entire story, no one has a solid story but shooting 50 times at 3 men in a car is stupid. They were outgunned, outmanned. I understand a lesser sentence, but no charges go through? Complete bullshit

Where the three men in the car shooting back?

Originally posted by Robtard
Where the three men in the car shooting back?

No. This is the synopsis (in my words):

Nov 25, 2006: Guzman, one of the three with Bell, had an argument with a girl in the club. According to an undercover cop, he threatened to go get a gun to shoot the girl. Bell and the other two go outside and get into a car. They are confronted by an undercover cop and told to put their hands up (at this point, cops say they identified themselves as cops; witnesses say otherwise). Bell, who was later found to be drunk, accelerated and hit an unmarked police van. After this, the cops opened fire without a prior warning, according to witnesses and Guzman.

After a thorough report, police confirmed that no other weapons besides those of the officers were fired at the scene.

(a fourth man, assumed to have a gun, was mentioned in the preliminary police report but a law enforcement officer later said no fourth man was present which brought up a lot of questions.)

That's all the important stuff.

Originally posted by Robtard
Where the three men in the car shooting back? I am sure they would have if they actually would have had a gun. If nothing else he deserved death for that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It possibly was excessivem though it is easy to comment from the sidlines with no actual knowledge of the events- especially as they were firing at a car, not any individuals.

Anyway, whether you said 'black cop or not', my point still stands.

You should look into it rather than contradicting yourself. Makes you look like an ass.

Besides, I don't understand your point at all: Shooting at a car, with people in it, is no different than shooting a guy in open space. 50 shots in an enclosed area is actually worse. Fish in a barrel, so to speak.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am sure they would have if they actually would have had a gun. If nothing else he deserved death for that.

That I agree with, but there was no gun found in the car.

Originally posted by chithappens
You should look into it rather than contradicting yourself. Makes you look like an ass.

Besides, I don't understand your point at all: Shooting at a car, with people in it, is no different than shooting a guy in open space. 50 shots in an enclosed area is actually worse. Fish in a barrel, so to speak.

If you don't understand me it is only because you are not thinking clearly. Nor did anything I say contradict myself so who is the ass?

You say he was shot 19 times, but it is vitally important to give the context. They did not stand over a guy who was shot and repeatedly and pointlessly put bullets into him.

It just so happens they pumped a lot of bullets into the car and a certain proportion of them hit that guy.

Btw, saying that the police gave no warning 'according to witnesses' is also you being selective- because according to other witnesses, they did.

The police contention is that they were convinced they were preventing a shooting and that they were in fear for their lives. That is a viable defence. The prosecution has to PROVE that they were acting maliciously to get a conviction.

Things have to be established beyond reasonnable doubt, remember? That is impossible here. The witnesses are contradictory and there is no hard evidence that helps.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you don't understand me it is only because you are not thinking clearly. Nor did anything I say contradict myself so who is the ass?

You say he was shot 19 times, but it is vitally important to give the context. They did not stand over a guy who was shot and repeatedly and pointlessly put bullets into him.

It just so happens they pumped a lot of bullets into the car and a certain proportion of them hit that guy.

Btw, saying that the police gave no warning 'according to witnesses' is also you being selective- because according to other witnesses, they did.

The police contention is that they were convinced they were preventing a shooting and that they were in fear for their lives. That is a viable defence. The prosecution has to PROVE that they were acting maliciously to get a conviction.

Things have to be established beyond reasonnable doubt, remember? That is impossible here. The witnesses are contradictory and there is no hard evidence that helps. Judging from the article, only the defendant heard himself yell police. Do you have more information on the case than us and would you be willing to share it?

Because judging from that article, those cops apparently just shot a car of innocent men, for really close to no good reason at all.

Good Lord, how badly did you read that article? No reason? They were in the middle of a response to prevent an armed incident after receiving direct testimony from an undercover cop following the men that they had gone to get guns, Bell was challenegd, fled in his car and promptly collided with a police minivan. It was in the midst of such chaos and panic that the shooting started.

Say what you like, but to say that it just happened spontaneously for no reason is absolutely ridiculous.

Have a look through the witness reports to get the completely contradictory nature of testimonies here.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you don't understand me it is only because you are not thinking clearly. Nor did anything I say contradict myself so who is the ass?

You say he was shot 19 times, but it is vitally important to give the context. They did not stand over a guy who was shot and repeatedly and pointlessly put bullets into him.

It just so happens they pumped a lot of bullets into the car and a certain proportion of them hit that guy.

Btw, saying that the police gave no warning 'according to witnesses' is also you being selective- because according to other witnesses, they did.

The police contention is that they were convinced they were preventing a shooting and that they were in fear for their lives. That is a viable defence. The prosecution has to PROVE that they were acting maliciously to get a conviction.

Things have to be established beyond reasonnable doubt, remember? That is impossible here. The witnesses are contradictory and there is no hard evidence that helps.

Sigh.

1) 50 shots is EXCESSIVE by any means. No one shot at them. No one had a gun.

2) I said according to witnesses because the cops said they did identify themselves. That's not being selective. That was just me reporting what was said. Contradicting testimony.

3) I know what the defense is, but it does not make logical sense. One cop even reloaded and continued to fire. In a situation where you are outnumbered, that makes more sense, but there were 7 undercover cops there. They may have panicked initially because the car ran into the undercover van, but there is still no reason to shoot 50 times.

1. You say 50 shots is excessive, but everything took place in less than a minute and I am willing to bet you actually have no idea at all what is and is not excessive, especially in a panicked situation like that one.

2. You stacked what you said to support your version of events, pure and simple. ou are not being objective.

3. Again, chaotic situation. You can reload and fire again inside about three seconds.

Honestly- I have only been under fire in a controlled training situation and I can tell you that even that is a freaking nightmare to keep yuor cool under. In a situation described here- where they had been told, directly, that there was a gun involved, that a murder was being planned, when the suspect has fled when challeneged and then you have been rammed... yes, I find the story believable.

Similar kinds of things happen quite often. Once one person starts firing, EVERYONE assumes the fight is on. Bullets been fired by anyone can be mistaken for bullets being fired at you. No-one is pausing time and telling you what is truly happening.

Now, if it was in fact complete nonsense, then fair enough, but the prosecution has to prove such a case. That's how the law works. And they really couldn't do it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord, how badly did you read that article? No reason? They were in the middle of a response to prevent an armed incident after receiving direct testimony from an undercover cop following the men that they had gone to get guns, Bell was challenegd, fled in his car and promptly collided with a police minivan. It was in the midst of such chaos and panic that the shooting started.

Say what you like, but to say that it just happened spontaneously for no reason is absolutely ridiculous.

Have a look through the witness reports to get the completely contradictory nature of testimonies here.

These are the exact details of what happened (NY Ttimes)



So they were already in the car. They did not flee to the car.

What is debatable is if the cop identified himself because there are many contradicting accounts of that.

Fled IN the car I said. Try reading properly.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord, how badly did you read that article? No reason? They were in the middle of a response to prevent an armed incident after receiving direct testimony from an undercover cop following the men that they had gone to get guns, Bell was challenegd, fled in his car and promptly collided with a police minivan. It was in the midst of such chaos and panic that the shooting started.

Say what you like, but to say that it just happened spontaneously for no reason is absolutely ridiculous.

Have a look through the witness reports to get the completely contradictory nature of testimonies here.

Wait, there were guys driving away with no gun and 3 cops shot 50 times at them. even if they had a ****ing gun, that's no reason make swiss cheese out of someone.

Also, I read it again, somehow I am missing it. Where does it say "They were in the middle of a response to prevent an armed incident after receiving direct testimony from an undercover cop following the men that they had gone to get guns, Bell was challenegd, fled in his car and promptly collided with a police minivan. It was in the midst of such chaos and panic that the shooting started."


I'm no expert on guns...but you do have to reload to shoot 31 bullets, right?

Originally posted by Ushgarak


Honestly- I have only been under fire in a controlled training situation and I can tell you that even that is a freaking nightmare to keep yuor cool under. In a situation described here- where they had been told, directly, that there was a gun involved, that a murder was being planned, when the suspect has fled when challeneged and then you have been rammed... yes, I find the story believable.

Similar kinds of things happen quite often. Once one person srarts firing, EVERYONE assumes the fight is on. Bullets been fired by anyone can be mistaken for bullets being fired at you. No-one is pausing time and telling you what is truly happening.

Now, if it was in fact complete nonsense, then fair enough, but the prosecution has to prove such a case. That's how the law works. And they really couldn't do it.

I don't dismiss that at all. I know how guns work. But the men were already in the car and the cop saw a gun that was not in the car so I have an issue with that. If someone yells "Gun!" you will panic, yes; however, there was not a gun so this was all unnecessary.

Now it is worth noting that the undercover cops were investigating a suspected prostitution ring so they were probably expecting the worse. Regardless, an over reaction does require some sort of punishment. Not 25 years to life but SOMETHING.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm no expert on guns...but you do have to reload to shoot 31 bullets, right?

I imagine that depends on hw many cops were standing there shooting.

Originally posted by Devil King
I imagine that depends on hw many cops were standing there shooting. Nah, that was one cop shooting. Maybe he went Castor Troy style. Thought he was Max Paine or something, happens I hear.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, that was one cop shooting. Maybe he went Castor Troy style. Thought he was Max Paine or something, happens I hear.

He most likely either had a .38 revolver, which would have been 5 reloads after he initially emptied it and then only fired one bullet the last time around. Or a 9mm, which holds between 9-10 bullets, depending on the model. So figure 2, maybe 3 reloads there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, that was one cop shooting. Maybe he went Castor Troy style. Thought he was Max Paine or something, happens I hear.

But there was more than one cop shooting, right?

Originally posted by Devil King
But there was more than one cop shooting, right? Yeah. Altogether it was 50 shots. But one cop shot 31 times.

So, a guy acting tough in a club in front of a girl is considered enough evidence to warrant, not a search and seizure, not a car chase, not a tazering or rough arrest, but in fact, opening fire onto the individual?

The argument "he could have had a gun" is actually "the cops didn't have enough information to know for sure", which, lets be honest, nobody can prove someone doesn't have something, so it comes up as being, at best, moot. The cops don't have enough information to know that I'm not a serial killer, guess they should act as if I am a serial killer. And no, if I tell some girl in a club that I am a serial killer, that isn't justification for the police to arrest me for it. Actually, I believe that is freedom of speech, and might mean that the guy could have been arrested for uttering threats... But afaik that is a crime that requires someone to press charges...

Anyways, as Spider-Man says all the time, with great power comes great responsibility. Those with the power are required to act more responsibly than those without the power.

And not to bring race back into this, but there is a phenomena in social psychology where people are quicker to associate black people with weapons. This is true of black observers as well. It is not only white people who hold the stereotype that blacks are dangerous. I'm wondering if assuming that black people can't be prejudice against black people is a form of racism?

It's not a stereotype though, black people are just on average more dangerous in the US.

I am sure it's not because of genes and there are great, smart black people, it's likely just because there are more poor black people around, but you can't really see poorness.

Damn I sound racist.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm wondering if assuming that black people can't be prejudice against black people is a form of racism?

It is, but I don't know that there is a term for it.

My whole thing is about how the courts handled this. I can't see the case not having any punishment at all..

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not a stereotype though, black people are just on average more dangerous in the US.

I am sure it's not because of genes and there are great, smart black people, it's likely just because there are more poor black people around, but you can't really see poorness.

Damn I sound racist.

ok, ya, fair enough

I meant stereotype as "a generalization about an identifiable group", not as differentiating between true and false generalizations.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not a stereotype though, black people are just on average more dangerous in the US.

I am sure it's not because of genes and there are great, smart black people, it's likely just because there are more poor black people around, but you can't really see poorness.

Damn I sound racist.

Well the media never shows poor white people, besides on COPS . Go figure.

The media is basically urban based and there are currently more poor white people in the U.S. than there are black people total. All of this is about random perceptions of crap.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Trying to use newspapers sometimes printing lies as justifcation for chill posting a completely inaccurate title is quite strikingly silly.

Your other comment is just trolling. Don't do it again.


Chill- are you saying that the black cop had been brainwashed into only firing at other black people? Are youy seriously suggesting that if the target had been white, he would have thought "Oh, he's not my race, so I will not shoot him"?

This whole thing could not have had less to do with race.

Chit, not chill. Don't bring me into your silly debate.

Originally posted by chithappens
It is, but I don't know that there is a term for it.

My whole thing is about how the courts handled this. I can't see the case not having any punishment at all..

Up here we had a bunch of cops who would pick up drunk natives, beat them up, then leave them without socks or boots or jackets (whatever) in the middle of nowhere in a Canadian winter (out in manitoba/alberta, where it is cold as shit).

afaik, nothing was done (I think someone got fired... I'll look it up). Not as racist, but then there is the case of Alain Olivier.

Cops screw people over, and the rest of the system is institutionally established to allow them to circle the wagons and deflect the blame.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well the media never shows poor white people, besides on COPS . Go figure.

The media is basically urban based and there are currently more poor white people in the U.S. than there are black people total. All of this is about random perceptions of crap.

indeed, most blacks aren't poor and most poor aren't blacks

however, when looking at percentages, like abject poverty or cyclical poverty, blacks are disproportionately represented, with a higher percentage of their race being in terrible economic conditions than other groups. Or, at least this is how it was explained to me.

Originally posted by inimalist
Up here we had a bunch of cops who would pick up drunk natives, beat them up, then leave them without socks or boots or jackets (whatever) in the middle of nowhere in a Canadian winter (out in manitoba/alberta, where it is cold as shit).

afaik, nothing was done (I think someone got fired... I'll look it up). Not as racist, but then there is the case of Alain Olivier.

Cops screw people over, and the rest of the system is institutionally established to allow them to circle the wagons and deflect the blame.


I couldn't have put it any better.

Originally posted by inimalist


indeed, most blacks aren't poor and most poor aren't blacks

however, when looking at percentages, like abject poverty or cyclical poverty, blacks are disproportionately represented, with a higher percentage of their race being in terrible economic conditions than other groups. Or, at least this is how it was explained to me.

That is indeed that case, but poor whites are the forgotten people ALMOST worse than the Native American. Poor whites are never discussed in any context. They are presented quickly during the times when presidential candidates roll by and forgotten for another 3 and half years.

It's really, really messed up.

Originally posted by chithappens
That is indeed that case, but poor whites are the forgotten people ALMOST worse than the Native American. Poor whites are never discussed in any context. They are presented quickly during the times when presidential candidates roll by and forgotten for another 3 and half years.

It's really, really messed up.

lol, the native american thing is really just an American phenomena. We have groups up here that pick up guns and shut down highways and railways with blockades or whatever. LOL, we have our own Bin Laden, a Mr. Shawn Brant.

but ya, I agree with the statement about white people. Poverty has almost becomes a 'cultural' thing of blacks, and nobody realizes that, numerically, there are far more whites in the exact same position (although, I might argue that inner-cities are a minority thing...). It certainly hurts any attempt to abolish poverty.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, the native american thing is really just an American phenomena. We have groups up here that pick up guns and shut down highways and railways with blockades or whatever. LOL, we have our own Bin Laden, a Mr. Shawn Brant.

but ya, I agree with the statement about white people. Poverty has almost becomes a 'cultural' thing of blacks, and nobody realizes that, numerically, there are far more whites in the exact same position (although, I might argue that inner-cities are a minority thing...). It certainly hurts any attempt to abolish poverty.

Your assumption about the inner city is true. In urban areas, white people generally live on the outskirts (although this is changing now because they are starting to buy out downtown projects for cheap so they can renovate and up the market value; this pushes all poor people outside the city - basically "white flight".

In the state of Tennessee, there is Memphis which is in the Southwestern part of the state. Most black people of Tenn stay in Memphis or Nashville (which is the middle of Tennessee). The rest of the state is basically country areas (besides the city of Knoxville and Chattanooga) where poor white people live. They still have Confederate flags. If I stop at gas stations in those areas, they still look at me like a cheetah walking on it's hind legs appeared out of nowhere. Right above Tennessee is the state of Kentucky, which is a very, very poor state.

It's amazing how much people who never get out the city do not know about this country.

Originally posted by chithappens
Your assumption about the inner city is true. In urban areas, white people generally live on the outskirts (although this is changing now because they are starting to buy out downtown projects for cheap so they can renovate and up the market value; this pushes all poor people outside the city - basically "white flight".

In the state of Tennessee, there is Memphis which is in the Southwestern part of the state. Most black people of Tenn stay in Memphis or Nashville (which is the middle of Tennessee). The rest of the state is basically country areas (besides the city of Knoxville and Chattanooga) where poor white people live. They still have Confederate flags. If I stop at gas stations in those areas, they still look at me like a cheetah walking on it's hind legs appeared out of nowhere. Right above Tennessee is the state of Kentucky, which is a very, very poor state.

It's amazing how much people who never get out the city do not know about this country.

very interesting, and sad (especially about people renovating and upping the price of projects... not that I am challenging you, but do you have any examples?). The whole america/race thing is insane.

Originally posted by inimalist
very interesting, and sad (especially about people renovating and upping the price of projects... not that I am challenging you, but do you have any examples?). The whole america/race thing is insane.

By examples, do you mean particular cities?

White flgiht (Wiki link)

I can give some examples but I would have to cite from books and that takes a while. I don't know of any good internet sources off hand to point you to.

Lmao I turned the news on and first thing I saw was Al Sharpton pushing his agenda by taking advantage of the situation.

Yeah, that Sharpton fella is one media whore.

cops should have regular mandatory target practice. these guys were clearly idiots.

The point is generally being missed that the prosecution could not prove that the cops were guilty, not to say that they weren't guilty of anything.

Originally posted by Captain REX
The point is generally being missed that the prosecution could not prove that the cops were guilty, not to say that they weren't guilty of anything. Dunno, my point at least is that even just with the things they admitted they should get some sort of punishment.

Originally posted by Captain REX
The point is generally being missed that the prosecution could not prove that the cops were guilty, not to say that they weren't guilty of anything.

There is not a whole lot to prove. Most folks aren't asking for a death sentence, but something...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Trying to use newspapers sometimes printing lies as justifcation for chill posting a completely inaccurate title is quite strikingly silly.

Sometimes? The media uses sensationalistic headlines all the time; it's part of the game that gets people to notice them. If this guy wants to use the same tactics, then that's his prerogative however erroneous you may think it is. So, for you to edit the title is exactly what I called it.

Originally posted by Captain REX
The point is generally being missed that the prosecution could not prove that the cops were guilty, not to say that they weren't guilty of anything.

Getting off scott free seems like way too much no matter what the prosecution did or didn't do.

thats what happens when it cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of a criminal act. killers go free every day because of this, but trust me the alternative to such a system would really suck.

Originally posted by Schecter
thats what happens when it cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of a criminal act. killers go free every day because of this, but trust me the alternative to such a system would really suck.

Wasn't the simple level of overkill criminal?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wasn't the simple level of overkill criminal?

no

ok, the ruling was that it wasn't malicious

why was it necessary? the police can unnecessarily though non-maliciously kill people?

so, these guys said they had a gun, there was a fight. The guys went to their car (where there were no guns), the cops approached (already with their guns drawn). One of the guys spots the cop, whether he identifies him as a cop or not, they drive off, hit the van, the cops rush in and......

in what sane reality does this end with 50 rounds being emptied into the car. If the guys had guns, there might be some argument, but these were unarmed individuals. There was never a point where the police had a really legitimate reason to think these guys were a real threat.

imho they were incompetent retards who put the lives of everyone within a bullet's flight radius in danger...50 times.

i feel that ALL police officers should be trained in firearms at the level of swat team.

Originally posted by Schecter
imho they were incompetent retards who put the lives of everyone within a bullet's flight radius in danger...50 times.

i feel that ALL police officers should be trained in firearms at the level of swat team. I agree. An important part in owning a gun is certainly when not to use it.

well, i agree in the sense that a pistol should not serve as a panic button. just point in the general direction of danger and fire wildly while screaming and cursing. this is not how to responsibly handle a firearm.

Originally posted by Schecter
imho they were incompetent retards who put the lives of everyone within a bullet's flight radius in danger...50 times.

i feel that ALL police officers should be trained in firearms at the level of swat team.

I agree. More training AND continued training should be given to local law enforcement on proper firearm usage...depending on the municipality.

I'm with Schecter. The cops were dumbshits who really have no place being police officers; especially if their response to a situation like this is to empty their guns in the general direction of the guy, hitting EVERYONE in the car, is just inexcusable.

It's understandable why they'd be extra alert in this case - because the guy did mention something about getting a gun, but come on, this was just over the top.

its time for a 187

see, if that as me, i would have been like...

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dglepm/wes/wes_equipments/sniper_rifle_50cal.jpg

...and the paper would read "one shot, one kill"

"It shoots through schools."

What happened was extremely unfortunate, but I do feel two points need to be made (I didn't read all the prior posts, so I apologize if this is redundant)...

1. The cops were acquitted of the charges as specified, which centered on criminal intent to do harm. The prosecution did not prove criminal intent. If the charges were lesser (reckless endangerment, or whatever), then the cops may've been convicted. In other words, as I understand this, the prosecution may've reached too high. As such, they were unable to prove their point...just like in the OJ case. Most African-Americans I had spoken to about that case believed OJ was guilty. But the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Every single person--black or white--I have ever spoken to about these types of cases all shared two things in common:
- criticism of police response
- they themselves were not cops, ie, were never in a life/death situation. I don't think it's right to judge how police should behave under these circumstances when the civilian has no idea of the fear and pressure. Yes, training helps (otherwise police response could well be way worse), but you're still dealing with human beings fearing for their lives.

Don't get me wrong: from what I've read about Detective Oliver, he sounds like a real piece of ship, someone who should Not be a cop anymore than that lowlife Volpe who ass-raped Louima. But I do feel that most police officers are good people trying to do a decent job.

in the proper context, all people, regardless of their intentions, can do evil things. The fact that it was a dangerous situation does nothing to explain or excuse the officers of their actions, as it is their job to be able to rationally judge dangerous and difficult situations.

I don't think anyone is complaining that they weren't charged with first degree murder. People are complaining that nothing is being done at all. That the prosecutors tried the officers for something they couldn't prove and not obvious charges like manslaughter, to me, is proof of institutional 'circling of the wagons'.

Originally posted by Mindship

- they themselves were not cops, ie, were never in a life/death situation. I don't think it's right to judge how police should behave under these circumstances when the civilian has no idea of the fear and pressure. Yes, training helps (otherwise police response could well be way worse), but you're still dealing with human beings fearing for their lives.

I agree. They shouldn't be judged different because they are cops. That would be like saying, oh, they are enforcers of the government, they can shoot citizens if they are scared. I think they should be judged just like anyone else who thought those guys had a gun when driving away and shooting the car 30 times. Would be unfair otherwise. At least I hope that's the point you are trying to make...otherwise it would sound to me like you are saying it's alright people employed by the government to kill people when scared.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think anyone is complaining that they weren't charged with first degree murder. People are complaining that nothing is being done at all. That the prosecutors tried the officers for something they couldn't prove and not obvious charges like manslaughter, to me, is proof of institutional 'circling of the wagons'. From what I understand, they're not out of the woods. There's going to be a departmental investigation, and they are still open to civil suits.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree. They shouldn't be judged different because they are cops. That would be like saying, oh, they are enforcers of the government, they can shoot citizens if they are scared. I think they should be judged just like anyone else who thought those guys had a gun when driving away and shooting the car 30 times. Would be unfair otherwise. At least I hope that's the point you are trying to make...otherwise it would sound to me like you are saying it's alright people employed by the government to kill people when scared. No, you got it right. Being a gov't employee does not = right to kill just cuz u got scared. Which is why, even though they were acquitted of criminal intent charges, further investigation is definitely warranted, as well as perhaps another look as to how cops are selected/hired and trained.

speaking as a white guy i have to say it's a shame that cops get away with shit like this. and if alot of people believe shooting a man 50 times with no weapon on him that the people who side with those cops are just as prejudice as them.

Originally posted by Mindship
From what I understand, they're not out of the woods. There's going to be a departmental investigation, and they are still open to civil suits.

interesting

I should read the reports before making such sweeping statements I guess

I hope something happens... I'm not optimistic, but I hope

Originally posted by Robtard
"It shoots through schools."

That's freaky. I must be pyschic.

Originally posted by chithappens
One of the other guys, who did not die, was shot 19 times. give that man a record deal

Originally posted by red g jacks
give that man a record deal

Originally posted by chithappens
Link

As a black man, I have so much faith in the system!

*gasp* Dont bring race into this.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
*gasp* Dont bring race into this.

I think it's really hard not to feel as if there is a racial element to this. I don't want to go far into, but there is something wrong with the cops in New York. A couple of years back they shot an African immigrant because "mistook his wallet for a gun."

It's just a really sad thing because it starts to seem so obvious that it makes you doubt it's true. Sometimes rappers don't speak in hyperbole.

*shrug*

I'm black, and all I see this as, is a bunch of dumb people, being dumb.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
*shrug*

I'm black, and all I see this as, is a bunch of dumb people, being dumb.

Seriously, that's a good point. The were overreacting cops and idiot strip club patrons.

Originally posted by chithappens
I think it's really hard not to feel as if there is a racial element to this. I don't want to go far into, but there is something wrong with the cops in New York. A couple of years back they shot an African immigrant because "mistook his wallet for a gun."

It's just a really sad thing because it starts to seem so obvious that it makes you doubt it's true. Sometimes rappers don't speak in hyperbole.

Lol you do know 2 of the 3 cops were black..right?

And the cop that shot first..and shot 31 out of the 50 bullets..was black?

Or is it all just whitey controlling them?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
*shrug*

I'm black, and all I see this as, is a bunch of dumb people, being dumb.

Shhhh..dont let Al Sharpton "King of the Blacks" hear that..he might see you as being controlled by the white man.

Cops. I don't care what race the cops were.

Black cops got stripes by beating on black folks even in the 70s

Originally posted by chithappens
Cops. I don't care what race the cops were.

Black cops got stripes by beating on black folks even in the 70s

So what is the racial element? Just black cops shooting black people? Black on black crime or somethin?

Has this thread degenerated into a FotN-fest yet?

You seem like the type who will be skeptical about anything concerning police brutality so I'll end here.

The guy that got shot 19 times and survived is just lucky the bone in the chicken leg he was eating deflected the killing shot. Lucky sob.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
The guy that got shot 19 times and survived is just lucky the bone in the chicken leg he was eating deflected the killing shot. Lucky sob.
Did it break his malt liquor bottle?

Originally posted by KidRock
Lol you do know 2 of the 3 cops were black..right?

And the cop that shot first..and shot 31 out of the 50 bullets..was black?

Or is it all just whitey controlling them?


Originally posted by inimalist
there is a phenomena in social psychology where people are quicker to associate black people with weapons. This is true of black observers as well. It is not only white people who hold the stereotype that blacks are dangerous.

People get too emotional about race.

It's hard to have any discussion that doesn't start hurling unnecessary sarcasm or insults.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Did it break his malt liquor bottle?

Break? More like gave him a knigger-knife (Courtesy of one of my black friends after watching They Live).

Originally posted by inimalist


So is there also a social phenomana where black and white people usually HEAR black people say "yo go get my gun as well?"

So people seem to both associate black people with guns now and also their minds make them think they are hearing things such as "yo get my gun" come from their mouths?

Are black people more prone to committing crime then? Or are we all just a bunch of paranoid bigots?

Originally posted by chithappens

It's just a really sad thing because it starts to seem so obvious that it makes you doubt it's true. Sometimes rappers don't speak in hyperbole.

Originally posted by chithappens
I think it's really hard not to feel as if there is a racial element to this. I don't want to go far into, but there is something wrong with the cops in New York. A couple of years back they shot an African immigrant because "mistook his wallet for a gun."



You know I think there are certain posters on this forum where if this were the 80s or 70s they would still be complaining if you brought up race.

Lol they would see black people being hosed down by riot police in the 60s and they'd say some shit like "Nah man the police were just protecting themselves!!"

Originally posted by chithappens
Cops. I don't care what race the cops were.

Black cops got stripes by beating on black folks even in the 70s

Correct. Racism doesnt just involve one race persecuting another but causing people of the same race to hate each other.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You know I think there are certain posters on this forum where if this were the 80s or 70s they would still be complaining if you brought up race.

Lol they would see black people being hosed down by riot police in the 60s and they'd say some shit like "Nah man the police were just protecting themselves!!"


no, they were just cooling them down. it gets pretty hot in georgia.

Originally posted by Schecter
no, they were just cooling them down. it gets pretty hot in georgia.

Originally posted by KidRock
So is there also a social phenomana where black and white people usually HEAR black people say "yo go get my gun as well?"

So people seem to both associate black people with guns now and also their minds make them think they are hearing things such as "yo get my gun" come from their mouths?

oh, ok

so you just don't understand what people are upset about

nobody is saying the cops shouldn't have tried to arrest and check these guys for guns

its the unloading of 50 bullets into a car full of unarmed men who are no longer fleeing without ever trying to subdue them.

The reason race is brought into it is to try and understand why black people are more commonly (at least it seems in the media) the victim of such police "mistakes".

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, show me some stuff that says police kill as many white people needlessly as blacks and I will be equally enraged, though I'll drop the race angle.

Oh, also, explain why minority groups with similar socio-economic status have similar problems in other countries with the police. Like natives in Canada? This is, of course, if race and ethnicity have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by KidRock
Are black people more prone to committing crime then? Or are we all just a bunch of paranoid bigots?

it would actually be a very complex and self reinforcing loop of behaviour

Originally posted by inimalist

Oh, also, explain why minority groups with similar socio-economic status have similar problems in other countries with the police. Like natives in Canada? This is, of course, if race and ethnicity have nothing to do with it.



I will address this briefly. I'm not going to attempt to persuade people like KidRock who are skeptical of anything concerning race relations because no one is prejudice in modern society according them.

Editoral On The Sean Bell Verdict



Inimalist has brought this up a few times earlier and I will address this again. No race is represented in a realistic light by the media. The people who make up the majority of the population in the U.S. live in rural areas. Those people are all forgotten. The concerns of those people never show up in mass media, until DA-DA-DA: presidential election time! They make all these promises to the blue collar workers of the Midwest, for example, and never follow up on it. And for three and half years, people in urban areas forget they existed, which is why Obama made the comments he made about people in rural areas not trusting the federal government: they feel they have no say in what goes on at all.

According to what we are exposed to on TV, people in rural areas are idiots who kiss their cousins. Now keep in mind I mean poor and rural, not rural with a ranch on 100 acres.

When it comes to the city it normally works like this:

Originally posted by chithappens
Your assumption about the inner city is true. In urban areas, white people generally live on the outskirts (although this is changing now because they are starting to buy out downtown projects for cheap so they can renovate and up the market value; this pushes all poor people outside the city - basically "white flight".



The interesting thing here is that white people of urban areas are identified, by the media, as being generally upper-middle class, living the high life and all of that stuff; meanwhile, black people are identified by the ghetto, thug persona. Truthfully, a good amount of white people struggle just like everyone else, but this struggle is never given a real light. Politicians make promises and throw poor whites under the bus like everyone else. But then there is stuff that you can not really account for, like these things:

Philadelphia Mayor orders bomb on "black radicals"



Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment



I could continue naming things but on ALL levels of government, but at this point it is beating a dead horse. I just wanted to show some things that KMC members might not be aware of.

Everyone is getting screwed around but black people are having blatantly dumb, racist things done so, as a black man, I can't help but shake my head when a car with three black men is shot @ 50 times and every charge is dropped, no punishment is handed down (I did not go into police brutality because obviously certain people will just attack it and say this post is not valid but it happens way too often).

Obviously, there are those who do not view race as a factor when they make decisions, but certainly there is a problem with how things are carried out as a whole.

Originally posted by Schecter
no, they were just cooling them down. it gets pretty hot in georgia.

band

Do you have a crew of writers or something?

Originally posted by Schecter
no, they were just cooling them down. it gets pretty hot in georgia.
'Cept when they has one o' them fine, juicy melons. Laws ha mussy, that'll cool yeh down!

Originally posted by Schecter
no, they were just cooling them down. it gets pretty hot in georgia.

haermm

What up Chit

It's been a while.

I would just like to commend you on taking the high road, and continuing your best to explain where your're comming from. Even in the midst of all this "Berries and Creame" bullshit.

But jewels are for KINGS brother.

Leave these fools to their cheese

Originally posted by chithappens
I will address this briefly. I'm not going to attempt to persuade people like KidRock who are skeptical of anything concerning race relations because no one is prejudice in modern society according them.

Editoral On The Sean Bell Verdict



Inimalist has brought this up a few times earlier and I will address this again. No race is represented in a realistic light by the media. The people who make up the majority of the population in the U.S. live in rural areas. Those people are all forgotten. The concerns of those people never show up in mass media, until DA-DA-DA: presidential election time! They make all these promises to the blue collar workers of the Midwest, for example, and never follow up on it. And for three and half years, people in urban areas forget they existed, which is why Obama made the comments he made about people in rural areas not trusting the federal government: they feel they have no say in what goes on at all.

According to what we are exposed to on TV, people in rural areas are idiots who kiss their cousins. Now keep in mind I mean poor and rural, not rural with a ranch on 100 acres.

When it comes to the city it normally works like this:



The interesting thing here is that white people of urban areas are identified, by the media, as being generally upper-middle class, living the high life and all of that stuff; meanwhile, black people are identified by the ghetto, thug persona. Truthfully, a good amount of white people struggle just like everyone else, but this struggle is never given a real light. Politicians make promises and throw poor whites under the bus like everyone else. But then there is stuff that you can not really account for, like these things:

Philadelphia Mayor orders bomb on "black radicals"



Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment



I could continue naming things but on ALL levels of government, but at this point it is beating a dead horse. I just wanted to show some things that KMC members might not be aware of.

Everyone is getting screwed around but black people are having blatantly dumb, racist things done so, as a black man, I can't help but shake my head when a car with three black men is shot @ 50 times and every charge is dropped, no punishment is handed down (I did not go into police brutality because obviously certain people will just attack it and say this post is not valid but it happens way too often).

Obviously, there are those who do not view race as a factor when they make decisions, but certainly there is a problem with how things are carried out as a whole.

I love points you are making and I think you have a very good mindset...

I have one problem, the majority of Americans do not live in rural areas.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I love points you are making and I think you have a very good mindset...

I have one problem, the majority of Americans do not live in rural areas.

To cover this in complete context would have taken forever so let me add this: Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and that was before this current economic recession. The common American is not well represented and it gives everyone the idea that everyone is doing fine when in fact we are all a few steps from being out on the street.

Originally posted by chithappens
To cover this in complete context would have taken forever so let me add this: Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and that was before this current economic recession. The common American is not well represented and it gives everyone the idea that everyone is doing fine when in fact we are all a few steps from being out on the street.

I definitely understood what point you were making and I believe you have made the above point before.

I would like to see a story like this happen to a bunch of white guys. Is there one?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I definitely understood what point you were making and I believe you have made the above point before.

I would like to see a story like this happen to a bunch of white guys. Is there one?

Originally posted by chithappens
1) Would a cop fire at a white person 50 times? I have NEVER heard of that.

2) If 1 occurs, would they be acquited? Most likely not, but then again, cops never do this to white people.

The responses were:

Originally posted by Troop
They have.



They do.

Originally posted by jaden101
blatent idiocy...

Yet no examples were given. It's all psychological anyway

Originally posted by chithappens
The responses were:





Yet no examples were given. It's all psychological anyway

Just because you and I have never heard of one, doesn't mean that they don't exist. However, because neither of us can think of one off the top of heads, it goes to show that there is some validity to your statements. Its either biased media, or simply virtual universal racism among our local law enforcements...or it could be various degrees of the above with variations depending on the locale.

The fact we can't recall it deals with the fact that white people are not dealt with in that way, nor are they perceived that way.

Sean Bell and the others were painted as thugs and that is what made acquittal possible

Originally posted by chithappens
The fact we can't recall it deals with the fact that white people are not dealt with in that way, nor are they perceived that way.

Sean Bell and the others were painted as thugs and that is what made acquittal possible

Yeah, the prosecutions witnesses (sean bells friends) having prior criminal records had nothing to do with them being labeled thugs..

Do people walk around with their criminal record tattooed on their foreheads?

Yeah! Of course they do! clapping

2 pieces of information I learned today (might have been mentioned prior)

1 - The police were acquitted not only of murder, but also manslaughter and reckless endangerment, neither of which require malicious intent

2 - The undercover officer followed Bell and his three friends for 2 and a half city blocks from the club to his car. At which point he draws his gun and approaches the car.

from today's feed: http://www.democracynow.org/
transcript: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/28/following_acquittal_of_nypd_officers_in

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, the prosecutions witnesses (sean bells friends) having prior criminal records had nothing to do with them being labeled thugs..

are you arguing that the police have the right to kill unarmed and innocent thugs or individuals with criminal records?

Cops always get acquitted no matter who they kill.

Originally posted by inimalist
2 pieces of information I learned today (might have been mentioned prior)

1 - The police were acquitted not only of murder, but also manslaughter and reckless endangerment, neither of which require malicious intent

2 - The undercover officer followed Bell and his three friends for 2 and a half city blocks from the club to his car. At which point he draws his gun and approaches the car.

from today's feed: http://www.democracynow.org/
transcript: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/28/following_acquittal_of_nypd_officers_in



are you arguing that the police have the right to kill unarmed and innocent thugs or individuals with criminal records?

Shit happens or whatever his name is said that they were painted as thugs and that is what made acquittal possible..saying that because the prosecution made them all look like thugs, the judge aquited them of the crime. So I said..maybe the prosecution made them look like thugs because they are, with criminal records and going to strip clubs known for prostitution and drug dealing.

How you got the idea cops have the right to kill unarmed thugs is beyond me...

Originally posted by KidRock
Shit happens or whatever his name is said that they were painted as thugs and that is what made acquittal possible..saying that because the prosecution made them all look like thugs, the judge aquited them of the crime. So I said..maybe the prosecution made them look like thugs because they are, with criminal records and going to strip clubs known for prostitution and drug dealing.

How you got the idea cops have the right to kill unarmed thugs is beyond me...

1) I was talking about how would the cops know that before the trail just by looking at them in a club.

2) What is a thug?

Originally posted by chithappens
1) I was talking about how would the cops know that before the trail just by looking at them in a club.

2) What is a thug?

You said it helped the aquital, not when it was all going down.

and you tell me..your the one who said they were painted as thugs..where is your proof of this as well?

It goes both ways.

Type 'Sean Bell' and click a few links. You could have answered that yourself.

The judge made the right decision in the end, in such a shady case I would have been skeptical of the testimony of men with criminal records leaving a strip club known for drug dealing and prostitution as well.

This isn't about the criminal record of the men. The cop did not know who they were.

WTF does that have to do about the FACT (not an opinion, a fact) that they shot at the car 50 damn times? It remains they saw a weapon that was not there.

Stop going around the topic.

Originally posted by chithappens
This isn't about the criminal record of the men. The cop did not know who they were.

WTF does that have to do about the FACT (not an opinion, a fact) that they shot at the car 50 damn times? It remains they saw a weapon that was not there.

Stop going around the topic.

One of the cops heard one say "yo get my gun". In a high stress and tension situation I cant blame a cop for shooting, was it excessive? Maybe, but if the cop thought he heard someone say get a gun and responded by using his weapon then i respect his decision.

It is better then the alternative of the cop thinking "maybe he does or maybe he doesn't have a gun, maybe i should go ask him" then getting shot dead in the street for thinking twice.

And also the topic is the acquital of the officers..so I am not going around anything, try and keep up.

Originally posted by KidRock
One of the cops heard one say "yo get my gun". In a high stress and tension situation I cant blame a cop for shooting, was it excessive? Maybe, but if the cop thought he heard someone say get a gun and responded by using his weapon then i respect his decision.

I don't. If he shot someone innocent. Sure it is a high tension job, but guess what, that's why not every average joe does it, because you can't excuse shooting at innocent citizens 50 times.


And I am sorry, but a Cops life is not worth more than anyone elses.

Originally posted by KidRock
One of the cops heard one say "yo get my gun". In a high stress and tension situation I cant blame a cop for shooting, was it excessive? Maybe, but if the cop thought he heard someone say get a gun and responded by using his weapon then i respect his decision.

It is better then the alternative of the cop thinking "maybe he does or maybe he doesn't have a gun, maybe i should go ask him" then getting shot dead in the street for thinking twice.

And also the topic is the acquital of the officers..so I am not going around anything, try and keep up.

The "yo go get a gun" was in the club, not outside or when they were in the car.

You are not addressing what part of this is not excessive. There is no "maybe" about excess. 50 shots is a lot. These were not automatic weapons.

Originally posted by chithappens
The "yo go get a gun" was in the club, not outside or when they were in the car.

You are not addressing what part of this is not excessive. There is no "maybe" about excess. 50 shots is a lot. These were not automatic weapons.

The cops heard someone was going to get a gun..giving them reason to believe a gun would be in play..same thing.

And 3 cops shooting off 50 9mm rounds wouldn't take that long or even seem like a lot, especially if you think someone else has a gun and may return fire on you.

Originally posted by KidRock
The cops heard someone was going to get a gun..giving them reason to believe a gun would be in play..same thing.



This is how people getting killed "by accident" all the damn time. By that logic, damn near anyone should be killed on suspicion.

"**** Bush." Guess I'm a terrorist.

Originally posted by chithappens

"**** Bush."


Well if you say that followed by "go get my suicide bomb vest"..then yes

Well, my job is done

Originally posted by inimalist
The undercover officer followed Bell and his three friends for 2 and a half city blocks from the club to his car. At which point he draws his gun and approaches the car.

2 1/2 blocks aren't a lot.

Federal Investigation For The Case



I don't understand that point of this. They already know exactly what happened. What's the federal investigation going to accomplish after the trail is over?

This just seems like people trying to seem as if they care. The verdict was already handed down...

Originally posted by Devil King
2 1/2 blocks aren't a lot.

no, not a whole lot, but imho it represents a few things that are important to the case.

For instance, at any point during the 2 1/2 block walk, the police officer could have ended the situation (ie, he thought they were going to get a gun, why would not stop them before they have the gun and instantly difuse a dangerous situation?).

2 1/2 blocks could represent a cooling down and finishing of whatever conflict had gone on inside of the club. The guys had left the situation, and it was in fact over.

Honestly, I think it removes the 'dangerous situation' argument, as these guys weren't running out to the parking lot to turn around and start blasting, they were leaving. Similarily, the 'high stress' situation was actually walking behind a group of unarmed individuals for 2 1/2 blocks. It just further shows that there was absolutly no necessity for the police officer to have even drawn his gun, let alone open fire.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, not a whole lot, but imho it represents a few things that are important to the case.

For instance, at any point during the 2 1/2 block walk, the police officer could have ended the situation (ie, he thought they were going to get a gun, why would not stop them before they have the gun and instantly difuse a dangerous situation?).

2 1/2 blocks could represent a cooling down and finishing of whatever conflict had gone on inside of the club. The guys had left the situation, and it was in fact over.

Honestly, I think it removes the 'dangerous situation' argument, as these guys weren't running out to the parking lot to turn around and start blasting, they were leaving. Similarily, the 'high stress' situation was actually walking behind a group of unarmed individuals for 2 1/2 blocks. It just further shows that there was absolutly no necessity for the police officer to have even drawn his gun, let alone open fire.


That whole argument has a flaw.

They were, "supposedly", walking two blocks towards their car to get a gun and they were going to come back. You would have an excellent point if they were parked at the club.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That whole argument has a flaw.

They were, "supposedly", walking two blocks towards their car to get a gun and they were going to come back. You would have an excellent point if they were parked at the club.

I don't understand your point

theoretically, there is more immediate danger from people getting a gun in the parking lot than from a car 2 blocks away, and thus, more reason for the irrational response.

The time and distance from the scene provided by the walk represents a lessening of the immediate danger. Seeing as they had no gun and the cop believed they had no gun while they were walking, I don't understand what danger was posed AT ALL, and thus, why the police didn't bust them at that time, or at least detain them and search their car.

I would understand the cops being freaked and reacting quickly/aggressively if they had 45 seconds before the guys got to their car and had a gun. I'm not going to make asumptions about how far/long they did walk, but I can't see a reason that would have prevented them being arrested/etc during that time (considering how prepared the cops were to shoot once they reached the car).

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't understand your point

theoretically, there is more immediate danger from people getting a gun in the parking lot than from a car 2 blocks away, and thus, more reason for the irrational response.

The time and distance from the scene provided by the walk represents a lessening of the immediate danger. Seeing as they had no gun and the cop believed they had no gun while they were walking, I don't understand what danger was posed AT ALL, and thus, why the police didn't bust them at that time, or at least detain them and search their car.

I would understand the cops being freaked and reacting quickly/aggressively if they had 45 seconds before the guys got to their car and had a gun. I'm not going to make asumptions about how far/long they did walk, but I can't see a reason that would have prevented them being arrested/etc during that time (considering how prepared the cops were to shoot once they reached the car).

If I say that, it gets blasted in about 2 min

Originally posted by inimalist
no, not a whole lot, but imho it represents a few things that are important to the case.

For instance, at any point during the 2 1/2 block walk, the police officer could have ended the situation (ie, he thought they were going to get a gun, why would not stop them before they have the gun and instantly difuse a dangerous situation?).

2 1/2 blocks could represent a cooling down and finishing of whatever conflict had gone on inside of the club. The guys had left the situation, and it was in fact over.

Honestly, I think it removes the 'dangerous situation' argument, as these guys weren't running out to the parking lot to turn around and start blasting, they were leaving. Similarily, the 'high stress' situation was actually walking behind a group of unarmed individuals for 2 1/2 blocks. It just further shows that there was absolutly no necessity for the police officer to have even drawn his gun, let alone open fire.

Originally posted by chithappens
If I say that, it gets blasted in about 2 min Your own fault for choosing to be black

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your own fault for choosing to be black

raygun

Take that! And that! AND THAT!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0425081bell1.html

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't understand your point

theoretically, there is more immediate danger from people getting a gun in the parking lot than from a car 2 blocks away, and thus, more reason for the irrational response.

The time and distance from the scene provided by the walk represents a lessening of the immediate danger. Seeing as they had no gun and the cop believed they had no gun while they were walking, I don't understand what danger was posed AT ALL, and thus, why the police didn't bust them at that time, or at least detain them and search their car.

I would understand the cops being freaked and reacting quickly/aggressively if they had 45 seconds before the guys got to their car and had a gun. I'm not going to make asumptions about how far/long they did walk, but I can't see a reason that would have prevented them being arrested/etc during that time (considering how prepared the cops were to shoot once they reached the car).

You're not debating the same point as I was making with my counter argument.

Originally posted by inimalist
2 1/2 blocks could represent a cooling down and finishing of whatever conflict had gone on inside of the club. The guys had left the situation, and it was in fact over.

It was NOT over if they were going to their car to get a gun. If the police were under the assumption that they were going 2 and a half blocks for their gun, then the situation was far from defused and only the walk to the car was suspending a soon to be escalated situation.

Originally posted by inimalist
Honestly, I think it removes the 'dangerous situation' argument, as these guys weren't running out to the parking lot to turn around and start blasting, they were leaving.

This is the main point I was arguing against. IF they were going out to their car to get a gun as purported, then you above statement doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by inimalist
Similarily, the 'high stress' situation was actually walking behind a group of unarmed individuals for 2 1/2 blocks. It just further shows that there was absolutly no necessity for the police officer to have even drawn his gun, let alone open fire.

That doesn't make sense when you understand that the police officers got a report that Mr. Bell was going back to his car to get a gun. The "danger" was about to "hit the fan" if he got to his car.

And when did the police start their approach with upholstered guns? And what did the gentlemen do when the police started their "sting" so to speak? They ram a police van...that falls under assault with a deadly weapon and can be tried for attempted murder depending on the situation.

The then criminals had no chance of survival if a gun was thought in their possession. IF there was a gun as was thought, we would all be singing a different tune to this story...no doubt.


I see a failure on the police officers part ONLY because they did not get a positive on the possession of a gun. However, police ARE trained to fire immediately IF a gun is seen on a person. You ASS is gone in a situation like that. I really don't know what they could have done to get a positive ID on a gun possession in mere fractions of a second before they started to fire. I would have to have been there. Were the car windows tinted? Did one of the raise a hand and the silhouette give the appearance of holding a gun? They are trained to "take 'em down" before THEY have a chance to fire.

Originally posted by dadudemon


It was NOT over if they were going to their car to get a gun.

Yeah and when they go to their car they drove away. Which kinda implies they were driving somewhere else to get a gun. It was on if they had walked to there car and come back

Originally posted by dadudemon

If the police were under the assumption that they were going 2 and a half blocks for their gun, then the situation was far from defused and only the walk to the car was suspending a soon to be escalated situation.




Not all because obvoulsy they stopped them before they got a chance to get there gun.

Also there is apparently a law against shooting into vehicles...I can understand why. I just think the cops don't give a **** and if people get killed they can get away of it, why the hell should they care to be extra vigiliant?

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yeah and when they go to their car they drove away.

Really? You make it sound as if they were taking a Sunday drive through the public park. :kaugh:

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Which kinda implies they were driving somewhere else to get a gun. It was on if they had walked to there car and come back

Its hard to tell if you are serious or are joking on your first sentence.



Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Not all because obvoulsy they stopped them before they got a chance to get there gun.

They did? So when the "suspects" got into the car and rammed a police vehicle, you mean that they should have assumed that they got the gun that they supposedly had?

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Also there is apparently a law against shooting into vehicles...I can understand why. I just think the cops don't give a **** and if people get killed they can get away of it, why the hell should they care to be extra vigiliant?

I've seen several videos of police shooting into vehicles. If you can, cite the law for this municipality and/or state.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did make a point. I am not going to be a dick to you like others do, however.

Go to hell?

Originally posted by dadudemon

My point was, they just didn't get in their car and nonchalantly drive away. It was in the midst of a heated situation.


Im aware of that but they were driving away from the heated situation!



Originally posted by dadudemon

Really? I need to read the article then. I've only been going off of what others recounted in this thread.

Well I thought thats what happened. That sounds like sarcasm.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Go to hell?

I am not sure...I think you are missing that point in saying that, too. I was saying that I am not going to be like other immature posters and say, "ZOMG!! lol...look at the idiot! Can't even get a simple point." because I find that lame. In a verbal conversation, those points are made much more clear...ergo why its lame to make fun of other posters for missing subtle points.



Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Im aware of that but they were driving away from the heated situation!

But do we have video? It can be proven, for or against them, whether or not their driving appeared intentional.





Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Well I thought thats what happened. That sounds like sarcasm.

No, my friend, I am a lot more genuine than most posters. You don't have to be on guard with me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am not sure...I think you are missing that point in saying that, too. I was saying that I am not going to be like other immature posters and say, "ZOMG!! lol...look at the idiot! Can't even get a simple point." because I find that lame. In a verbal conversation, those points are made much more clear...ergo why its lame to make fun of other posters for missing subtle points.

Ok so your point was that it was a heated situation.......



Originally posted by dadudemon

But do we have video? It can be proven, for or against them, whether or not their driving appeared intentional.

No we dont all we can do is discuss the evidence presented and driving away from the situation makes it less tense.


Originally posted by dadudemon

No, my friend, I am a lot more genuine than most posters. You don't have to be on guard with me.

Well im pretty sure that happened.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Ok so your point was that it was a heated situation.......

No. That was not my point for our personal "bout". That is true for the police situation.





Originally posted by Phantom Zone
No we dont all we can do is discuss the evidence presented and driving away from the situation makes it less tense.

That is most certainly not the case because the crashed into a police vehicle.




Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Well im pretty sure that happened.

If you are referring to my post from two posts ago, true.

dadudemon: Hey, sorry for asking you to check facts for me, lol, and I'll do a proper response, but where are you getting the "using the car as a weapon"

admittedly, chit is my source on this, but I thought the crash into the van was caused by the guys fleeing from the officer holding a gun rather than as an assault on the officers van.

Actually, wasn't the van an undercover vehicle? or am I making this up?

Originally posted by dadudemon


And when did the police start their approach with upholstered guns? And what did the gentlemen do when the police started their "sting" so to speak? They ram a police van...that falls under assault with a deadly weapon and can be tried for attempted murder depending on the situation.


You do know this was an unmarked, undercover van right? It's not like they aimed for it

Originally posted by inimalist
dadudemon: Hey, sorry for asking you to check facts for me, lol, and I'll do a proper response, but where are you getting the "using the car as a weapon"

admittedly, chit is my source on this, but I thought the crash into the van was caused by the guys fleeing from the officer holding a gun rather than as an assault on the officers van.

Actually, wasn't the van an undercover vehicle? or am I making this up?

Its quite common to be charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" when a car is involved.

Here's the first article I found with google search...came right up.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070426-1150-bn26gaut2.html

I have no idea what my previous points were, but I determined that a major talking point was the use of the vehicle. If it looked intentional, assault with a deadly weapon is easily passable. What furthers this point is if the people in the van were citizens. It would be the Police Officers duty to disable or take out the suspects as soon as possible to save as many civilian's lives as possible.

What probably exacerbated the situation was the spur of the moment thoughts of the officers. "SHIT! THEY ARE TAKING OUT MY FELLOW OFFICERS!" This goes back to what Chill and AC were saying in a thread a long time back about officers having to be more objective in their approach to their law enforcement. They can't go overboard with "subduing" and they can't retaliate because their buddy and fellow officer is being attacked, killed, or injured. This all seems tangential, I know...it even feels as such.

I can understand, more so, if all the cops were undercover and no one was in uniform and no one was in a marked vehicle. That would be quite the shitty situation for the suspects.

Originally posted by chithappens
You do know this was an unmarked, undercover van right? It's not like they aimed for it

Do you have video? If you do, can it be determined that the suspects did not intentionally ram their vehicle into that van?

OMFG, its unmarked. What is so hard to understand

Originally posted by chithappens
OMFG, its unmarked. What is so hard to understand


OMFG, did you read this?


Originally posted by dadudemon
What furthers this point is if the people in the van were citizens. It would be the Police Officers duty to disable or take out the suspects as soon as possible to save as many civilian's lives as possible.

Do you have video? If you do, can it be determined that the suspects did not intentionally ram their vehicle into that van?

There were on a stakeout beforehand. Why the hell would citizens be in there? That's really a moot point. If there friends were in there, it's the same thing.

The point is why the hell would they aim for the van? Bell was said to be drunk and his friends said he panicked once the officer pulled a gun out. That's now how you approach supposed threats anyway.

Originally posted by chithappens

The point is why the hell would they aim for the van? Bell was said to be drunk and his friends said he panicked once the officer pulled a gun out. That's now how you approach supposed threats anyway.

From what my professor said in a criminal justice class I am taking there was an undercover cop behind the van and one approaching the driver side. When Bell or whoever was driving saw a man approaching with a gun (the cop) so he freaked out and put it in drive and hit a car in front of him, then put it in reverse and floored it to back away from the car in front of him and so he was heading straight for the cop behind the van and so that cop thought he was trying to run him over so he open fired.

Doesn't matter whether they were undercover or not, it's not the job of a police officer to guess what might or could happen, then respond to that scenario instead of what is actually happening.

That excuse of "well, police officers are under a lot of pressure" is complete shit, don't become a police officer then - simple as that.
If you can't handle pressure without shooting wildly like what's-his-face off Point Break, perhaps the Army's a better career; the American army are quite good at panicking and shooting the wrong people.

Originally posted by KidRock
From what my professor said in a criminal justice class I am taking there was an undercover cop behind the van and one approaching the driver side. When Bell or whoever was driving saw a man approaching with a gun (the cop) so he freaked out and put it in drive and hit a car in front of him, then put it in reverse and floored it to back away from the car in front of him and so he was heading straight for the cop behind the van and so that cop thought he was trying to run him over so he open fired.

I'm not sure which of us would not freak out in a situation like that as the guy in the car. Sure, you haven't done anything but why would anyone just run up on your car like that?