Cops acquited after shooting of Sean Bell

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.

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)

The undercover detective who fired first had been monitoring the group in the club. Once outside, the detective heard Mr. Guzman say “Yo, get my gun, get my gun,” and head with the others to his car, according to police. The undercover officer followed the group on
foot, then positioned himself in front of their car.

According to the person briefed on the accounts, the detective, his police badge around his neck, then pulled out his gun, identified himself as a police officer and ordered the occupants to show their hands. They did not comply, the person said, but instead gunned the car forward, hitting the undercover officer and, seconds later, an unmarked police minivan. The undercover officer fired the first of 11 shots, yelling, “He’s got a gun! He’s got a gun!”

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.

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?

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.