Federal Investigation For The Case
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Monday met with the family of a man fatally shot by police just hours before his wedding, promising a thorough federal investigation of the incident.Three New York police detectives were acquitted Friday on all counts in the case of Sean Bell, an unarmed man killed in a hail of 50 police bullets outside a strip club on November 25, 2006. Bell's two friends, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield, were wounded in the shooting.
"We are going to be putting together the federal strategy," said Rep. John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a Michigan Democrat. "This is important."
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 pointtheoretically, 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 inimalist
I don't understand your pointtheoretically, 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 dadudemonIt 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
Really? You make it sound as if they were taking a Sunday drive through the public park. :kaugh:Its hard to tell if you are serious or are joking on your first sentence.
Im not joking and you didnt respond to any of the point I made.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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?
What? I thought this happened:
1. Somebody said go get your gun.
2. They walked to their car
3. The police followed them for 2 and a half block, stopped the car then they got shot.
They did not get to where they were supposed to go to get there gun. Its possible they could have had a gun but it seems that they were driving away to get it.
Ok I guess I should have not said 'obvoulsy' but the fact they were driving away from the situation makes things more calmer, then if they had went to there car and come back.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I've seen several videos of police shooting into vehicles. If you can, cite the law for this municipality and/or state.
I guess its a bit more compliacted but here you are...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/nyregion/27shot.html
But Saturday’s shootings may have violated department rules, which largely prohibit officers from firing at vehicles. According to police guidelines, officers can fire only when they or another person is threatened by deadly physical force, but not if that physical force comes from a moving vehicle alone.
Basically the cops do not have a good case.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Im not joking and you didnt respond to any of the point I made.
I did make a point. I am not going to be a dick to you like others do, however. My point was, they just didn't get in their car and nonchalantly drive away. It was in the midst of a heated situation.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
What? I thought this happened:1. Somebody said got get your gun.
2. They walked to their car
3. The police followed them for 2 and a half block, stopped the car then they got shot.
Really? I need to read the article then. I've only been going off of what others recounted in this thread.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I guess its a bit more compliacted but here you are...http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/nyregion/27shot.html
But Saturday’s shootings may have violated department rules, which largely prohibit officers from firing at vehicles. According to police guidelines, officers can fire only when they or another person is threatened by deadly physical force, but not if that physical force comes from a moving vehicle alone.
Basically the cops do not have a good case.
The cops may have gotten off for the criminal charges...but they are in obvious violation of their own rules/laws. They should harshly disciplined up to and including termination from law enforcement.
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.