Cops acquited after shooting of Sean Bell

Originally posted by dadudemon

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.)

Bell was drunk according to an autopsy.

Again, I don't completely disagree with shooting the guns but not 50 times and not without something going through

Originally posted by KidRock
The shots begin when the van starts driving towards the police officer.

The car?

so he did drive his car at one of the officers?

Originally posted by inimalist
so he did drive his car at one of the officers?

Not intentionally. The officer was behind a vehicle.

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.

Thanks for posting this....my words can't do your points justice. 😄

Also, I think I need to clarify my position.

I don't think what the police officers did was criminal.

I DO believe that what they did was a very poor display of policing skills.

Just because they thought their buddies' lives were in danger, doesn't mean that they can go outside their own policies to save each other. They should have exercised better judgment.

Am I acting like an "armchair" quarterback with my perspective? NO! As Chill pointed out, that's their job. I don't HAVE to be in that situation because I didn't choose to be. They chose to be so it is literally their job to keep a cool head and exercise their best judgment in mere seconds. Failure to be able to do so is a disqualification for the work that they do. Can't handle a stressful situation and can't enforce the law while adhering to your own rules and regulations? Don't take the job.

Originally posted by chithappens
Not intentionally. The officer was behind a vehicle.

no, I agree, I was just unaware of this fact

while inane, that might be all it takes to absolve these officers of any responsibility

Yeah, but all this crap about what happened intially is irrelevant to the FIFTY shots. You don't need 50 shots to subdue anything. Hell, elephants are like **** it at that point even with a peashooter.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Am I acting like an "armchair" quarterback with my perspective? NO! As Chill pointed out, that their job. I don't HAVE to be in that situation because I didn't choose to be. They chose to be so it is literally their job to keep a cool head and exercise their best judgment in mere seconds. Failure to be able to do so is a disqualification for the work that they do. Can't handle a stressful situation and can't enforce the law while adhering to your own rules and regulations? Don't take the job.

if people fail to do their job adequately and it results in someone's death it opens them up to at the very least criminal negligence, also reckless endangerment or manslaughter

And to answer what you were saying before, in light of learning that the guy did drive at the cop, I'd say the error comes in the undercover cop allowing the guys to get to the car where they thought the gun was.

Why they would do that is completely beyond my comprehension. "So, he has the gun in the car. Lets follow him to the car, and when he has the weapon we move in. Even though right now he is totally unarmed. Wait until he is a threat to my health, then make a dangerous situation 1000 times worse."

Originally posted by chithappens
Yeah, but all this crap about what happened intially is irrelevant to the FIFTY shots. You don't need 50 shots to subdue anything. Hell, elephants are like **** it at that point even with a peashooter.

the democracy now report says that one of Bell's friends was shot 6 times in the back as he attempted to crawl out of the car...

Originally posted by inimalist

Why they would do that is completely beyond my comprehension. "So, he has the gun in the car. Lets follow him to the car, and when he has the weapon we move in. Even though right now he is totally unarmed. Wait until he is a threat to my health, then make a dangerous situation 1000 times worse."

😆

Originally posted by inimalist
the democracy now report says that one of Bell's friends was shot 6 times in the back as he attempted to crawl out of the car...

They were trying to make sure he wasn't the Highlander

Originally posted by inimalist
if people fail to do their job adequately and it results in someone's death it opens them up to at the very least criminal negligence, also reckless endangerment or manslaughter

If it were that simple, then we would have a different outcome at the criminal trial.

In this case, it was police officers inability to exercise their BEST judgment in mere seconds.

Originally posted by inimalist
And to answer what you were saying before, in light of learning that the guy did drive at the cop, I'd say the error comes in the undercover cop allowing the guys to get to the car where they thought the gun was.

I've thought about that point already. It didn't seem like a good counterpoint to me. The undercover cops may have been trying to pin an firearms possession on the suspects or some other infraction. They may have also been trying to asses the environment to see if their was any validity to this situation. They may have been trying to link these gentleman on ongoing investigation into gang activity...they were undercover for a reason, weren't they?

Edit- "let's kill our entire undercover investigation by gambling on whether or not these gents are linked with the common crimes occuring in this place..."

Not a great idea from the investagitive perspective.

Originally posted by inimalist
Why they would do that is completely beyond my comprehension. "So, he has the gun in the car. Lets follow him to the car, and when he has the weapon we move in. Even though right now he is totally unarmed. Wait until he is a threat to my health, then make a dangerous situation 1000 times worse."

See my above point...which doesn't invalidate your point.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I've thought about that point already. It didn't seem like a good counterpoint to me. The undercover cops may have been trying to pin an firearms possession on the suspects or some other infraction. They may have also been trying to asses the environment to see if their was any validity to this situation. They may have been trying to link these gentleman on ongoing investigation into gang activity...they were undercover for a reason, weren't they?

See my above point...which doesn't invalidate your point.

ok, but in any of those situations, you are conceding that the individuals were not an immediate threat to the police.

and the pinning gun charges sounds far too close to you condoning cops letting crooks arm themselves just to get to shoot them, which I shouldn't have to point out, is the opposite of what police are supposed to do.

Originally posted by inimalist
the democracy now report says that one of Bell's friends was shot 6 times in the back as he attempted to crawl out of the car...

Any video?

How was this determined? Was it just his word and the survivors word? (You could pull the same tactic and ask "was it only the cops word that this didn't happen...they DO have more of a reason to lie, imo.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Any video?

How was this determined? Was it just his word and the survivors word? (You could pull the same tactic and ask "was it only the cops word that this didn't happen...they DO have more of a reason to lie, imo.)

Probably forensic evidence.

well, in absence of video, we do have to sort of go with what people say. The reason I cited it was because it isn't me making that point. I happen to personally trust democracy now, but by no means do I think you should. If you can provide information that is contrary to this, I'm very open to that, though again, I do trust this source.

if unequivocal video is your standard of evidence required to be absolutely sure the cops acted poorly, my only comment is that you have a much higher standard of evidence than I (I know you weren't saying that, only that we can't know the facts without a video, but still, its very close)

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but in any of those situations, you are conceding that the individuals were not an immediate threat to the police.

and the pinning gun charges sounds far too close to you condoning cops letting crooks arm themselves just to get to shoot them, which I shouldn't have to point out, is the opposite of what police are supposed to do.

I edited my post. Read it again.

I never implied or claimed that when they were following them that they were an immediate threat to the police. They were a potential threat. As you pointed out, why did they let them get to their car if they "knew" they were going there for a gun? The counter argument has already been posed to that...but both are valid points.

You second point is a hell of a stretch for an assumption. Catching criminals "in the act" is a way to seal their guilt in court. You know that already.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If it were that simple, then we would have a different outcome at the criminal trial.

It's a known fact that the judicial system will be skewed given certain status. Cops are rarely prosecuted on anything other than drug charges.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, in absence of video, we do have to sort of go with what people say. The reason I cited it was because it isn't me making that point. I happen to personally trust democracy now, but by no means do I think you should. If you can provide information that is contrary to this, I'm very open to that, though again, I do trust this source.

if unequivocal video is your standard of evidence required to be absolutely sure the cops acted poorly, my only comment is that you have a much higher standard of evidence than I (I know you weren't saying that, only that we can't know the facts without a video, but still, its very close)

Video is far from what is required, however, forensics can only take you so far. Angle of entry...incidental or missed shots around the "victim"...blood splatters and stains from wounds...and even matching the police officers location based on testimony and matching rounds to bullets to verify firing position against story.

However, isn't there still room for doubt? What if it was shown in a vid that it appeared he reached for something as he was exiting the vehicle and received an 8 bullet greeting?

In this scenario, I am very dubious of conclusions drawn without veritable facts upon which the conclusions were drawn.

You're right, I am a stifler for evidence...my personal belief on death row is that no one should be executed without a 100% conviction. (no doubt should be left.)

Originally posted by chithappens
It's a known fact that the judicial system will be skewed given certain status.

That doesn't change, at all, what I said.

Originally posted by chithappens
Cops are rarely prosecuted on anything other than drug charges.

I call BS?

I see more cops getting "busted" for sex related stuff.

Do you have evidence for your statement?

Originally posted by dadudemon

I call BS?

I see more cops getting "busted" for sex related stuff.

Do you have evidence for your statement?

I was being sarcastic actually.

I could search and look but I will admit I'm far too lazy right now.

Besides, you continue to skip my point about 50 shots being used to subdue three men in a car. There is no wiggle room and no one is firing back.