Cops acquited after shooting of Sean Bell

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?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
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.

That's why I don't understand everyone excusing this stuff. It doesn't mean you can make assumptions and freak out the normal person and **** them up for getting scared.

Originally posted by chithappens
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?

I agree, but what if you were the cop behind the van?

You have 2 options..get run over and killed or shoot to stop the van.

Dive out of the way.

Originally posted by KidRock
I agree, but what if you were the cop behind the van?

You have 2 options..get run over and killed or shoot to stop the van.

I think you mean shoot to stop the car.

Well, in a link I posted earlier, they talk about how if you have time to line up a shot then you have time to move out the way (this was a cop talking).

This first option for that situation is not shoot first. This is not a closed environment. The citizen's safety comes first. Those cops were shooting so wildly that some of the bullets went into a store across the street.

I don't see why people are so mad. So what if another darkie is gone? That's a good thing.

😐

Originally posted by chithappens
I think you mean shoot to stop the car.

Well, in a link I posted earlier, they talk about how if you have time to line up a shot then you have time to move out the way (this was a cop talking).

This first option for that situation is not shoot first. This is not a closed environment. The citizen's safety comes first. Those cops were shooting so wildly that some of the bullets went into a store across the street.

How did they stop to line up a shot? You just said it yourself the cops were shooting wildly. If somone in a van floored it and the tires were screaching towards me I would be in fear for my life, and being in fear for your life gives a cop every right to use his weapon.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Dive out of the way.

For comparison the width of a Ford E-series van is 79 inches..

Who is the cop? The offspring of a cat with the reflexes and carl lewis's jumping ability? Nevermind the fact its going towards him at who knows how fast.

Originally posted by KidRock
How did they stop to line up a shot? You just said it yourself the cops were shooting wildly. If somone in a van floored it and the tires were screaching towards me I would be in fear for my life, and being in fear for your life gives a cop every right to use his weapon.

I meant to say that the cop from the article was saying that a cop should line up shots while out in public and that firing wildly should not happen even in extreme situations. However, this is a car thats not moving. The shots begin AFTER the car hits the van

Originally posted by KidRock
For comparison the width of a Ford E-series van is 79 inches..

Who is the cop? The offspring of a cat with the reflexes and carl lewis's jumping ability? Nevermind the fact its going towards him at who knows how fast.

Fair enough, I don't really know what I'd do. I don't know what I'd do in any of those sort of positions, but I'm not a police officer.

Originally posted by chithappens
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.

You are thinking about it from the wrong perspective. You are thinking about it from the Police's perspective. That is not my point. I am referring to the suspects perspective. Reinterpret the scenario as IF the suspects thought that only citizens where in that van. 🙂

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.

Because it was in the way? If that is the reason, they were really endangering the lives of the civilians and needed to be disabled or taken out ASAP. Agreed?

Depends, though. We need VIDEO from the incident to determine the intent.

Do you have autopsy information that confirmed the intoxication level? (The level does degrade after death..but it can still be determined.)

Doesn't really matter, though. The police assumed he went to the car to get a gun and that he possibly STILL had a gun. The vehicle then crashed into another vehicle while...fleeing the police? Two reasons they were fired on...regardless of how incorrect you think that was, it was not seen as criminal in court. They DID violate their own rules of conduct as Heat showed us and they should be suspended without pay or fired. (I would go with the latter.)

Originally posted by chithappens
I meant to say that the cop from the article was saying that a cop should line up shots while out in public and that firing wildly should not happen even in extreme situations. However, this is a car thats not moving. The shots begin AFTER the car hits the van

The shots begin when the van starts driving towards the police officer.