# NYPD Shooting



## MJS (Nov 26, 2006)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15889445/



> NEW YORK - Police opened fire early Saturday on a car full of men driving away from a bachelor party at a strip club, killing the groom on his wedding day after an undercover officer was rammed with the car.
> Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said it was too early to say whether the shooting  50 rounds were fired, hitting the vehicle 21 times  was justified. The deadly incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the club, Kelly said.


 
Thoughts on this?  There are still many unanswered questions, but it'll be interesting to see how this turns out.


----------



## bydand (Nov 26, 2006)

I think there is a lot more to this story than it first appears.  I did notice that in true media fashion, they had to add 2 unrelated incidences where a seemingly innocent person was shot and killed and the police involved were not charged with anything.  All that is going to do is raise this up to a fever pitch before the whole story gets out.  Plus with Sharpton involved it is going to go right down a racial path weather it is or not.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 26, 2006)

bydand said:


> I think there is a lot more to this story than it first appears. I did notice that in true media fashion, they had to add 2 unrelated incidences where a seemingly innocent person was shot and killed and the police involved were not charged with anything. All that is going to do is raise this up to a fever pitch before the whole story gets out. Plus with Sharpton involved it is going to go right down a racial path weather it is or not.


 
I am wondering if the language 'seemingly innocent person' indicates an 'assumption of guilt'. Because a police officer draws a weapon, does that automatically indicate guilt? Guilt is the opposite of innocent, isn't it?

Are we determining guilt on the part of a person strictly because a police officer thought use of force was necessary?

EDIT ...

It is interesting that you intimate some nefarious purpose to Reverend Sharpton's involvement. From the article, which statement do you think hints on something other than what it says?



> I will stand with this family. This stinks. Something about the story being told did not seem right.





> We&#8217;re not anti-police ... we&#8217;re anti-police brutality.



END EDIT.


----------



## bydand (Nov 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I am wondering if the language 'seemingly innocent person' indicates an 'assumption of guilt'. Because a police officer draws a weapon, does that automatically indicate guilt? Guilt is the opposite of innocent, isn't it?



Never said they were guilty or innocent.  I do not know, nor can I know one way or the other.  "seemingly innocent" means exacty that, break it down.  It seems as though they were innocent, how would you rather me phrase it?  "Totally innocent persons"  well that would be incorrect also, because I do not know one way or the other.  Never said because a Police officer draws a weapon it makes the other person guilty.  Show me where I indicated that please.  Guilt is opposite of innocent, no bearing on the statement I made.



> Are we determining guilt on the part of a person strictly because a police officer thought use of force was necessary?



Again, NO.





> It is interesting that you intimate some nefarious purpose to Reverend Sharpton's involvement. From the article, which statement do you think hints on something other than what it says?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Never said it had a nefarious purpose.  Just that reasonable adults know the race issue card will be drawn with anything he gets his fingers involved in.  That is based on past history, not on anything he said in that article.  If you are going to call me to the mat over that statement, you need to call the media to the mat also for calling up past history as well. If just taken as if this was a stand alone story, I admit I would be in the wrong for that assumption.  And as I called the media to task for bringing up cases that are not related to this particular incident, I was in the wrong to do the same with Mr. Sharpton.  I *hope* he is there just for support of the family and not to make this into a media circus and personal spotlight.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 26, 2006)

bydand said:


> Never said they were guilty or innocent. I do not know, nor can I know one way or the other. "seemingly innocent" means exacty that, break it down. It seems as though they were innocent, how would you rather me phrase it? "Totally innocent persons" well that would be incorrect also, because I do not know one way or the other. Never said because a Police officer draws a weapon it makes the other person guilty. Show me where I indicated that please. Guilt is opposite of innocent, no bearing on the statement I made.
> 
> Again, NO.
> 
> Never said it had a nefarious purpose. Just that reasonable adults know the race issue card will be drawn with anything he gets his fingers involved in. That is based on past history, not on anything he said in that article. If you are going to call me to the mat over that statement, you need to call the media to the mat also for calling up past history as well. If just taken as if this was a stand alone story, I admit I would be in the wrong for that assumption. And as I called the media to task for bringing up cases that are not related to this particular incident, I was in the wrong to do the same with Mr. Sharpton. I *hope* he is there just for support of the family and not to make this into a media circus and personal spotlight.


 
The article linked by MJS does not reference any earlier incidents (8:58 AM 11/26). While different articles on different web sites make reference to other historical incidents (cnn 5:09 pm 11/26), when I replied, I was looking at the MSNBC article. 

Looking at your post now, after this response, it seems that you were referencing this news story from a media source other than that posted by MJS. But, you did not direct me to any other stories. Your language about two prior incidents did not make any sense to me then. Only after looking to other news stories do your references make any sense.


----------



## bydand (Nov 26, 2006)

The article referenced is the only one I have seen on the matter.  The earlier incidences were referenced at the very bottom.  I have looked for more information this afternoon, but have only seen this article, and the same thing reprinted in a UK paper.

EDIT:  Son of a gun.  Just looked back at the referenced article and the last paragraph is GONE!  I can see why it didn't make any sense.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 27, 2006)

Well, it seems that the car crashed into a van with NYPD officers in it. Then it sped backwards, nearly killing another officer. Then it crashed into the van _again_ and the police opened up.

Probably some extreme stupidity and booziness on the part of the driver. But from the police viewpoint, they were right to assume that this guy might be trying to kill them.

I don't think any one of us as marial artists would have had more restrain than them in considering this an attack on them. 

I hope more facts get out rather than press conferences by Sharpton. I still remember some of the things he did and the riots they caused.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 27, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> I hope more facts get out rather than press conferences by Sharpton. I still remember some of the things he did and the riots they caused.


 
Well, Sharpton is definitely a piece of work, isn't he?

I'm reserving judgment on this one until a few more days have passed. Initial reports on high-profile cases are often wrong or misleading.


----------



## MJS (Nov 27, 2006)

Looking in my local paper, it stated that there was a verbal dispute outside the club, and one of the guys friends made reference to getting a gun.  An undercover officer began to follow the group.  As he approached the front of their car, the car drove forward, hitting the officer as well as an unmarked car.  The article does not mention if the officer identified himself as a police officer.  

That is one question that I'd like to know the answer to: Did they know that the guys on the outside of the car were cops?  

There have been a few cases like this here in CT, in which an officer, fearing for his safety, fires upon the car.  Could he have shot out the tires, in an attempt to disable the car?  I'm sure we've all heard of cars being hit by spike stripes, and they still attempt to continue on, despite having no tires.  Then again, thats like people saying to shoot the guy in the leg rather than the chest, if faced with a gun.  They're most likely going to be going for a bigger target, not a smaller one.

It will be interesting to see what else happens.  If anyone else has any links to articles that are relevant, feel free to post them.

Mike


----------



## Lisa (Nov 27, 2006)

A vehicle is a deadly weapon.  After seeing it ram the officer, back up and ram again, I can see why the incident escalated to where it did.  

It is a tragedy to say the least.


----------



## Drac (Nov 27, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> Well, Sharpton is definitely a piece of work, isn't he?


 
I would love to tell you what I think of Sharpton but I'd probably short out the automatic censor...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2006)

MJS said:


> Looking in my local paper, it stated that there was a verbal dispute outside the club, and one of the guys friends made reference to getting a gun. An undercover officer began to follow the group. As he approached the front of their car, the car drove forward, hitting the officer as well as an unmarked car. The article does not mention if the officer identified himself as a police officer.
> 
> That is one question that I'd like to know the answer to: Did they know that the guys on the outside of the car were cops?
> 
> ...


 
It is interesting that the articles do *not* say who was involved in the verbal alteraction. I am wondering if there is an assumption that those who were shot were verbally altercating with the police. 

Several of the articles are vague about whether there was intent on the part of the driver with hitting the plain clothed officer. Reports are that the office followed the party to their car. One news report said the officer had a 'scraped knee'. In fact, one article says Mr. Bell "almost" ran over an undercover cop. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4798502 

One officer fired 31 one times. That seems interesting. Two clips? Two officers did not fire any rounds? 

Bullets Broke windows at the train station, which was across 94th street.
Bullets hit nearby homes? 

There was ... maybe ... a fourth member of the party, that fled? 

EDIT - just found this ... here http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/1127/nypd_ap.html ... perhaps Ms. Wright was the fourth member of the party. 



> Trini Wright, a dancer at the strip club where Bell's bachelor party was held, told the Daily News she was going to a diner with the men and was putting her makeup bag in the trunk of their car when the police minivan appeared.
> 
> "The minivan came around the corner and smashed into their car. And they (the police) jumped out shooting," Wright, 28, told the newspaper for Monday editions. "No 'stop.' No 'freeze.' No nothing."



END EDIT


The officers that fired their weapons are on desk duty, and because of the Grand Jury investigation will not be able to speak for some time. Obviously, there are quite a few unanswered questions.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2006)

Heres a list compiled by some ACLU type org listing NYPD shootings.

http://home.earthlink.net/~alvgc/justice/id73.html

Is it me or do a LOT of these "Shootings of civilians (strange term. arent ALL people cops shoot, justified or not, civilians??)" look pretty cut and dry justified? People shooting and stabbing cops get shot, big deal. Just because the DA decides not to prosecute doesnt mean a cover-up. Look at how many of these went to grand jury and got turned down. Should we short circuit the system and go to trial on all police shootings? If it goes to grand jury and a panel of citizens decides it was justified its good enough for me.

In this case, all these people calling for heads to roll this early in the investigation are going by emotion rather than logic. Nobody knows enough details to be calling for anything at this point. Sharpton is just an opportunist looking to get back in the limelight if you ask me. How he has ANY standing after the Tawana Brawley fiasco is beyond me. If he was a white guy making these types of accusations against non-whites I can just imagine what would be said bout him. Somehow Sharpton remains a hero. I guess it shows that race issues trump almost anything.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Heres a list compiled by some ACLU type org listing NYPD shootings.
> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~alvgc/justice/id73.html
> 
> ...


 
What accusations are you seeing Reverend Sharpton make? 

Are you referencing statements about this account, or earlier incidents?

Again, here are two quotes about this incident I find ascribed to Reverend Sharpton.



> "I will stand with this family. This stinks. Something about the story being told did not seem right."





> "We're not anti-police ... we're anti-police brutality."


 
Here is a third quote.



> "How does one justify 50 shots at unarmed men?"


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 27, 2006)

> "How does one justify 50 shots at unarmed men?"



When they ram cops and cop cars repeatedly. You know what? If I did that, I'd expect to get shot too! I'll also wager that ANY court is going to find a car ramming police as a weapon. Those men were not unarmed.

Good grief... ok, lets take away their guns. they can't seem to EVER use them w/out some liberal having a hissy fit. Lets take away the TASERS, since thats too dangerous. Cuffs should go, since you can hit someone while they are wearing them and they tend to chafe. Lets just instruct them to sing "koom by ya" when someone starts shooting them, ramming them with cars or otherwise threatening the public...

sorry, I'm not interested in neutering the police. they have a job to do, and its a hard job to do. they don't do it perfect, but I'm going to imagine there is NOONE on this board that does thier job perfectly. I'll tip my hat to any cop any day. They have a hard job every day that often determines life and death. They get shot at, stabbed, run over, etc. and are crucified by people like Sharpton if they survive.



> "We're not anti-police ... we're anti-police brutality."


Agreed, however, ridiculous things like RAMMING POLICE with your car requires extreme response. Should they just run away and let this idiot go ram some civilians? Has it been proposed that if these guys left the scene they would have caused other fatalities?

I do get a bit tired of people like Sharpton running their mouths all the time before the facts are even out. Police are not out to get people. I don't know any cop that finds pleasure in shooting people or causing anyone serious harm. Its not like they want to go kill everyone. Geez. Some guy will take a shot at a cop and the cop fires back. If the guy is black and dies, here comes Sharpton et al. They ignore the fact that he shot at the cop, but focus on the cops response and the resulting death. I mean, come on...



> I'm reserving judgment on this one until a few more days have passed. Initial reports on high-profile cases are often wrong or misleading.


AMEN! Thank you! Totally agreed. Give this time. Don't have a heart attack. If the cops handled it inappropriately, it will come out. They will be prosecuted if so. The rantings of Sharpton will *not* determine their innocence or guilt. From my understanding, when there is a shooting death there is automatically a probe. It will happen, just let it work...



			
				article said:
			
		

> Other shots hit nearby homes and shattered windows at a train station, though no one else was injured.


I must admit, that part was distrubing. I thought they were trained to not have collateral damage?


----------



## MJS (Nov 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> It is interesting that the articles do *not* say who was involved in the verbal alteraction. I am wondering if there is an assumption that those who were shot were verbally altercating with the police.


 
Yes, that is a good point.  



> Several of the articles are vague about whether there was intent on the part of the driver with hitting the plain clothed officer. Reports are that the office followed the party to their car. One news report said the officer had a 'scraped knee'. In fact, one article says Mr. Bell "almost" ran over an undercover cop. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4798502


 
Amazing how many different witness accounts there are.  



> One officer fired 31 one times. That seems interesting. Two clips? Two officers did not fire any rounds?
> 
> Bullets Broke windows at the train station, which was across 94th street.
> Bullets hit nearby homes?


 
Given the amount of shots fired, I'm surprised that no bystanders were hit.



> There was ... maybe ... a fourth member of the party, that fled?
> 
> EDIT - just found this ... here http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/1127/nypd_ap.html ... perhaps Ms. Wright was the fourth member of the party.
> 
> ...


 
Hmmm...yeah, that very well could be a possibility.  I don't recall, in the initial stories, any detailed description of the 4th person.  This girl could very well be that one.


Mike


----------



## MJS (Nov 27, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> When they ram cops and cop cars repeatedly. You know what? If I did that, I'd expect to get shot too! I'll also wager that ANY court is going to find a car ramming police as a weapon. Those men were not unarmed.
> 
> Good grief... ok, lets take away their guns. they can't seem to EVER use them w/out some liberal having a hissy fit. Lets take away the TASERS, since thats too dangerous. Cuffs should go, since you can hit someone while they are wearing them and they tend to chafe. Lets just instruct them to sing "koom by ya" when someone starts shooting them, ramming them with cars or otherwise threatening the public...


 
Aside from moving out of the way, I really don't see how they could not be justified in shooting at the car.



> sorry, I'm not interested in neutering the police. they have a job to do, and its a hard job to do. they don't do it perfect, but I'm going to imagine there is NOONE on this board that does thier job perfectly. I'll tip my hat to any cop any day. They have a hard job every day that often determines life and death. They get shot at, stabbed, run over, etc. and are crucified by people like Sharpton if they survive.


 
I don't know much about Sharpton, but anytime something like this happens, its not surprising that there are alot of folks voicing their thoughts.  Back to the cops though.  My Grandafther was a cop, I work at a PD, and I see everyday, the crap the LEOs have to deal with.  Likewise, I tip my hat to them as well.  




> Agreed, however, ridiculous things like RAMMING POLICE with your car requires extreme response. Should they just run away and let this idiot go ram some civilians? Has it been proposed that if these guys left the scene they would have caused other fatalities?


 
Good points.



> I do get a bit tired of people like Sharpton running their mouths all the time before the facts are even out. Police are not out to get people. I don't know any cop that finds pleasure in shooting people or causing anyone serious harm. Its not like they want to go kill everyone. Geez. Some guy will take a shot at a cop and the cop fires back. If the guy is black and dies, here comes Sharpton et al. They ignore the fact that he shot at the cop, but focus on the cops response and the resulting death. I mean, come on...


 
Agreed 100%




> AMEN! Thank you! Totally agreed. Give this time. Don't have a heart attack. If the cops handled it inappropriately, it will come out. They will be prosecuted if so. The rantings of Sharpton will *not* determine their innocence or guilt. From my understanding, when there is a shooting death there is automatically a probe. It will happen, just let it work...


 
Agree.


Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2006)

Strange how one can praise the desire to withhold judgement until more facts are known, at the same time as decrying statements that are completely neutral. That just doesn't seem to be 'withholding judgement'. 

Also, it has not yet been determined that the officers identified themselves as police officers. The automobiles that were hit were unmarked vehicles. The officers were plain-clothed. 

If some guy in bluejeans followed me out of a club, and started firing a gun at me ... I'ld probably try to run the guy over ... and "ram" the car too.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 27, 2006)

I'll divide my post into two sections.  The first concerns Al Sharpton, and the second is about the actual situation.

Al Sharpton does not care about the families.  He's an attention hound, and just happens to be able to incite people by trying to find any kind of dirt on the police, often times using race as an issue.  He has zero credibility, especially after the Tawana Brawley incident, and how he desperately tried to keep the anger amongst the community at a peak, despite the fact that Brawley was a flat-out liar.  

He even tried to drag down Steve Pagones, and ended up ruining his life and his career, just to keep the hype up.  If Sharpton had any decency, he would have at least given an apology to Pagones, but chose not to do so, instead having a lackey of his pay the money to Pagones after the defamation trial.

Then add to the fact that Sharpton was spewing blatant lies during the Crown Heights incident, and spurring on people to riot.  



As for this incident, there seem to be two sides to tell.  

The first side is dependent on the testimony of a stripper at the club where Bell and co. were at.  She asserts that the van rammed Bell's Altima first, and didn't announce anything, and instantly started shooting.  

The second side states that Bell first tried to run over the police officer, who had identified himself as a law enforcement agent.  Bell then proceded to ram the police van, then rammed a store, and the tried to run over the police officer in an effort to escape.  It wasn't until he tried to run over a police officer *again*, that shots were fired.  


If the facts agree with the second point of view, then the police officers were perfectly justified in firing at someone attempting to commit vehicular homicide.  If, on the other hand, the stripper's account of the events proves to be true, then the officers would be responsible for committing murder.  

I am much more inclined to believe the second point of view.  

Regardless of the situation, there is no racist content in this incident from the police.  Three of the five officers involved are minorities (2 black, 1 Hispanic).


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Strange how one can praise the desire to withhold judgement until more facts are known, at the same time as decrying statements that are completely neutral. That just doesn't seem to be 'withholding judgement'.





> 1) "I will stand with this family. This stinks. Something about the story being told did not seem right."
> 
> 2) "We're not anti-police ... we're anti-police brutality."
> 
> 3) "How does one justify 50 shots at unarmed men?"


These are completely neutral?

1) "This stinks" is considered neutral? Want to stand by the family, thats fine, but "This stinks"? Speaking of which, he supports the families, but not the police? The guys that risk their lives to protect him from criminals don't deserve his support?

2) police brutality has not been determined.

3) Thats already been mentioned. They were armed. What number of shots would have made you happy? 10? 4? These cops wanted to stop the ability of these men to run over any more cops/civilians. It will be determined later if excessive force was used.

I'll withhold judgement on the situation. I was not there, and I don't know the men involved. I'll posit that Sharpton does not either. Now, Sharpton I've observed over the past years. He has precedent. Sharpton is free to say what he wants, but I also reserve the right to respond. Sharpton wants to paint a picture of police brutality, I'll posit the alternative.

It seems Sharpton wants a lynching. I'm not up for that. Maybe these guys are guilty and deserve punishment. Maybe they are innocent and acted properly. Either way, I don't like Sharptons automatic assumption of guilt.



> Also, it has not yet been determined that the officers identified themselves as police officers. The automobiles that were hit were unmarked vehicles. The officers were plain-clothed.
> 
> If some guy in bluejeans followed me out of a club, and started firing a gun at me ... I'ld probably try to run the guy over ... and "ram" the car too.



Would it have been better if they were civilians? The only thing that changed in this circumstance is these guys had the ability to stop them.

So, you would ram some cops too... lets find out some information here then. 1) Why were undercover cops there? 2) Why was an undercover van there 3) what were these guys being probed for (assuming they were) and were they engaged in any illicit activity in that bar?

Is there bias in asking these questions about the victims? Sort of... questions seemed to have been raised about the cops, but I'm not hearing anything about these guys that were shot. Lets get both sides here. 

One of the things that is aggrevating about this is the contradictory eye witness accounts... going to make it difficult to get the truth. What should be telling are videos that might arise and police records. I'm sure they have records of their undercover activities.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> These are completely neutral?
> 
> 1) "This stinks" is considered neutral? Want to stand by the family, thats fine, but "This stinks"? Speaking of which, he supports the families, but not the police? The guys that risk their lives to protect him from criminals don't deserve his support?
> 
> ...


 

Did you really just say that "I'll withhold judgement", one paragraph before 
"If Sharpton wants a *Lynching*" ? ? ? That language doesn't connote judgement at all, does it?  


I guess I would have to ask ... How would you describe it, if a groom dies on his wedding day, at anyone's hands? Seems to me that "This Stinks" is an understatement. 


And ... at 4 in the morning *NOBODY KNEW THEY WERE COPS. *The reports are exceedingly vague when it comes to the officers identifying themselves. At 4 in the morning ... it was some plain clothed thug with a gun, following the young men as they left the club.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2006)

The whole outrage about the number of shots fired is pure idiocy. If a shooting is justified and it needs 5000 rounds to conclude it, so be it. If its unjustified, one shot is too many. I wonder how many rounds "you" (for those with a round count issue) would fire if you thought your or your comrades life were in danger? Were these rounds justified here? I dont know and neither do "you", but the number of shots when there are that many people with guns around dont really mean much IMO. 5 officers, 50 rounds...about 10 shots each if all were shooting on average. I dont know about anybody else but Ive shot out a whole pistol magazine with an automatic in a couple of seconds. I can see how this happens. Once one person starts shooting the other cops start shooting too, yeah they are all each responsible for the shots they fire but it doesnt seem like a big mystery to me.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> The whole outrage about the number of shots fired is pure idiocy. If a shooting is justified and it needs 5000 rounds to conclude it, so be it. If its unjustified, one shot is too many.


 
Exactly.  

The big issue here, is that shooting at a vehicle isn't the same as shooting someone out in the open.  When a charging attacker or God forbid, a 3000 lb automobie is rushing towards you, you don't have time to take one shot, analyze the situation, and then determine if a second shot is needed.  If you try to analytically determine what to do, you're probably going to be dead in a short time.  You shoot until the threat is no longer present.  

This is especially true when dealing with an oncoming vehicle.  You don't have time to take a careful aimed shot at the tires of a moving target.  

If you took some of the best handgun marksmen on almost any police force or even civilian marksmanship club, and had them try to shoot an 8 inch wide target that's moving at 40 MPH with only one shot, in a time period of a half second, while being jacked up on adrenaline, and I'll guarantee that only by sheer luck will they hit that kind of a target, which is why multiple shots would most likely be necessary.  

Even if you did hit the tires, that's no guarantee that the car will magically swerve out of your way (more often than not, it won't).  As posted above, cars can drive on deflated tires for a long time, and even bare metal rims for a while.  

In this case, they did what was tactically correct, and shoot at the windshield multiple times.  Windshield glass is very tough stuff, and just about any handgun bullet can be deflected when it hits the front windshield at an oblique angle, after hitting the surface with the first shot.  Yes, even a .44 magnum slug can be deflected in such a manner.  Remember, we're talking about handgun rounds, not centerfire rifle rounds. 

This isn't long-range sniping; it's tactical handgunning, and those are two different games, indeed.  

This is why, if the NYPD's version of the story holds up, that it doesn't matter how many rounds of ammo were fired; they had to shoot to stop the attacker, and however many rounds it took, is not an issue.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2006)

I will not disagree that if firing is justified, then enough bullets should be used to complete the task. 

One office emptied two clips at the vehicle; 31 one rounds. Two officers fire zero rounds. There were no 'averages' involved. I wonder why the difference. One officer had time to re-load his weapon and empty another clip, while officers apparently standing by, did not feel the need to fire. That seems odd, doesn't it? 

Reports are more than 20 bullets struck the vehicle. 

Mr. Bell is dead. Reports are he recieved 4 shots. He was driving the car.

One passenger was hit with 11 bullets, he is in critical condition.

One passenger was hit with 3 bullets, he is in stable condition.

The train station, on the other side of 94th street was struck. As were some houses. 


And there continues to assumptions about the speed with which the car was moving. From descriptions, the car was parked, and attempting to get out of a parrallel parked situation. Reports indicate the car pulled forward ... backed up ... pulled forward again.  

"rushing" 
"40 Miles Per Hour" 

Why not just make stuff up?

EDIT 
And this from a Fox News report on the story 



> There were no reports that any officers were wounded, Officer Kathleen Price said.



This contradicts earlier reports that the driver hit an undercover officer.

END EDIT

2ND EDIT

This story tells a different version of events. Which may be more accurate, or less. In this story, there are several bystanders who were injured by the discharge of weapons --- other than those in the car. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/n...&en=df284071aaaa3079&ei=5094&partner=homepage

END 2ND EDIT


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> standing by, did not feel the need to fire. That seems odd, doesn't it?


 
Not odd at all.  You don't take the shot if you don't have a shot.  There could be any number of circumstances, such as obstructions, or maybe you might be worried about hitting your fellow officer.  They were most likely not in the line of direct danger.



> The train station, on the other side of 94th street was struck. As were some houses.


 
Collateral damage is going to occur in these situations.  The officers are going to try to avoid it, but as stated before, they're human beings, and don't have the luxury of taking carefully aimed shots when under duress.  



> And there continues to assumptions about the speed with which the car was moving. From descriptions, the car was parked, and attempting to get out of a parrallel parked situation. Reports indicate the car pulled forward ... backed up ... pulled forward again.


 
And what reports were that?  Most of the AP articles list that Bell and co. tried to run over a police officer the first time (who initiated the firing), and when you claim that Bell was just trying to "pull forward," that paints an entirely different picture than someone trying to commit vehicular assault.  

My friend, have you seen the pictures of the scene?  Based on how badly the police van was damaged, I strongly doubt that they were just trying to "pull forward."  

Bell rammed the van a second time, and that's hardly "pulling forward."


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Did you really just say that "I'll withhold judgement", one paragraph before
> "If Sharpton wants a *Lynching*" ? ? ? That language doesn't connote judgement at all, does it?


Fine.

Lynching typically happens when a crowd is excited by someone or something that has occured. It seeks to contravine justice by enforcing their own judgement sans due process. Sharpton has already taken sides. He is not there for justice (which could fall EITHER way) but to excite a crowd. I'm not saying they are forming a gang to murder the cops, so perhaps the term "lynching" is a bit much, but I'll stand behind how it was used.

As I have said before, I'm not going to form a judgement on the situation with the shooting. There is not sufficient evidence. Sharpton has been a public figure for a very long time and his actions both past and present are easily observable.



> I guess I would have to ask ... How would you describe it, if a groom dies on his wedding day, at anyone's hands? Seems to me that "This Stinks" is an understatement.


If I was given JUST that information, I would agree! That would suck! Anyone dying on their wedding day would be bad. I'll also say that the death/injury of his friends is bad and stinky!

You know what else is stinky? someone trying to run over cops! Or someone trying to ram a cop car? Something else that is stinky is someone trying to run over someone that is NOT a cop or ramming a car that is NOT a cop car.



> And ... at 4 in the morning *NOBODY KNEW THEY WERE COPS. *The reports are exceedingly vague when it comes to the officers identifying themselves. At 4 in the morning ... it was some plain clothed thug with a gun, following the young men as they left the club.



So, if they were not cops, you would be ok with these guys running them down? Its ok to ram a van that is not a cop van? Exactly why are you so concerned that noone knew these were cops? Would it make you happier that a non-cop was assaulted or a civilian vehicle rammed?? Or that the shooting death was perpetrated by someone else?

Are you privy to some facts I'm not aware of? Did these guys KNOW this undercover cop had a gun? I've had lots of people follow me out of stores. I seldom run over old grannies following me out of grocery stores though. I've also had alot of cops tail me on the road and even pull me over. I've yet to ram any of them.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Did you really just say that "I'll withhold judgement", one paragraph before
> "If Sharpton wants a *Lynching*" ? ? ? That language doesn't connote judgement at all, does it?



For me, I will reserve judgement on the shooting until some more facts are known, even though at least some of the facts seem to back the officers. But I feel free to judge Sharpton based on the fact that he is leading people in chanting "No justice, No peace." I say he wants a lynching based on his own statements and actions in front of the cameras.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2006)

Grenadier said:


> My friend, have you seen the pictures of the scene? Based on how badly the police van was damaged, I strongly doubt that they were just trying to "pull forward."
> 
> Bell rammed the van a second time, and that's hardly "pulling forward."


 
I did not see the photo of the crime scene until I posted that last link to the New York Times article. Combined with the text from the NYTimes, I have said there is a different frame of events. 

If you read the links, the story as first reported was that the three men went to their car, the man followed them and walked in front of the car. The driver may have hit the man, bumped the man, scraped the mans shin. The driver backed up into a fence. The driver hit the van. 

That is the way the story was first reported. 

The NYTimes article reports the story differently. They report the men got into their car, drove down 94th, turned onto Liverpool and Hit the unmarked van. They then backed up into the man (unidentified police officer). Someone got out of the van and started shooting. The driver hit the van. 

So, did Bell drive into the police officer going forward - as described in the first report - or going in reverse - as described in the NYTimes? Did Bell drive into the unmarked police van first, or hit the police officer first? Where was the unmarked police van when it was struck by Bell? There are two different reports - a) Bell came around the corner and hit the van - b) the van came around the corner and hit Bell's car. 

Incidently, I work in Collision Repair, the picture I saw, with a bumper cover pulled of the front of a vehicle, does not indicate damage that is all that severe. Those covers are held on with plastic clips. 

Let me ask you this ... if you were in your car, and some guys were shooting their guns at you ... what would you do?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2006)

These cops may very well have been in a "bad shoot" I dont know, but I think the people going off half cocked with their ill informed opinions like a bunch of torch wielding villagers says something. There are plenty of ways this could have been totally justifiable but instead of waiting to find out if thats the case we get this. I think its telling about peoples real beliefs.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> These cops may very well have been in a "bad shoot" I dont know, but I think the people going off half cocked with their ill informed opinions like a bunch of torch wielding villagers says something. There are plenty of ways this could have been totally justifiable but instead of waiting to find out if thats the case we get this. I think its telling about peoples real beliefs.


 
Who do you think is "going off half cocked with ... ill informed opinions"? 

Cuz, those just seem like fightin' words, don'tcha think?


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I did not see the photo of the crime scene until I posted that last link to the New York Times article. Combined with the text from the NYTimes, I have said there is a different frame of events.


 
And yet, other sources state differently.  

http://www.nypost.com/seven/1127200...n_queens_regionalnews_murray_weiss.htm?page=0

In a nutshell...

The police officer put his foot on the hood of Bell's car, and yelled at him, telling him that that he was a police officer, and pointing his pistol at the car.  

Bell then floored the gas pedal in an attempt to run over the officer.




> The driver may have hit the man, bumped the man, scraped the mans shin. The driver backed up into a fence. The driver hit the van.


 
When you floor the gas pedal in an attempt to hit someone, that's  vehicular assault (a felony, if my memory serves me correctly), regardless of what damage was inflicted.  

Bell then hit a metal door covering when going in reverse, and when he tried to go forward again, ended up trying to perform yet another vehicular assault.  




> Let me ask you this ... if you were in your car, and some guys were shooting their guns at you ... what would you do?


 
The police officer didn't start shooting until *after* Bell tried to run down the police officer(s) a *second* time.  That's hardly in the class of "pulling forward."  

The police officer gave Bell and co. a chance to stop.  Had he not wanted to give them a chance, he could have simply started shooting without announcing that he was a police officer, much less putting his foot on the hood of the car.  

Given the criminal pasts of Bell (two drug charges and an unlawful weapons possession charge), Guzman (busted 9 times for criminal activities, including armed robbery), and Benefield (an unlawful weapons charge), I am even that much more inclined to believe the police officers' accounts of the incident.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2006)

So, now there is a third representation of what happened Saturday morning. One wonders why you choose this as the definitive version. All the quotes are un-sourced. It may very well have happened just as described in this article. Then again, maybe not.

This story has an non-uniformed officer putting his foot on the hood of a car. That is different from the NYTimes, which indicates Mr. Bell backed into (or toward) the non-uniformed officer. Hmm? Curiouser and Curiouser.

This story talks of Mr. Bell's and Mr. Guzman's prior arrest. While that does not surprise me, coming from Murdoch/O'Reilly. There is no way that could have been known by the undercover police. it is Irrelevant.


Lastly, according to this article ... one cop shoots through a vehicle, and cops on the other side start shooting back? Is that acceptable? Is that normal practice? Cops just start shooting in the direction they think is a threat? They don't identify the threat?  Isn't one of the rules of operating a weapon is that you always know what you are aiming at, and what is downrange? 

Good Grief --- a circular firing squad?


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> So, now there is a third representation of what happened Saturday morning. One wonders why you choose this as the definitive version. All the quotes are un-sourced. It may very well have happened just as described in this article. Then again, maybe not.



I don't think anyone is taking this as the definate version of events.

But if you are going to accuse someone of something there is a little thing called burden of proof and reasonable doubt. So if it reasonably looks like there is a good chance that one of these versions that make it a good shoot is true, then our law system says to let them go. The police are being charged here, and the burden of proof is on those accusing them of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is not going to go over well with rascist rabble rousers like Sharpton. In cases like this there is _always_ some problem with the story. People remember things differently and evidence paints contradictory views. It just happens in even the best of cases. But people like Sharpton with his desire to jump to power by leading the lynch party can take any problem like this and paint it as some sort of conspiracy or miscarriage of justice.

Race relations and violence, deaths even, will probably result from the hate he is helping to spread. But that does not matter to him as long as he gets the power he desires.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 28, 2006)

Grenadier said:


> http://www.nypost.com/seven/1127200...n_queens_regionalnews_murray_weiss.htm?page=0
> 
> In a nutshell...


 
You know, I thought more about this article, and was going to reply according to a different tact, but decided against that. That decision was a bad one, so let me amend my earlier remarks with this.

From the NY Post - a NewsCorp paper - owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns FoxNews - the company that was going to bring us the O.J. Simpson "confession". 



> Dramatic new details of the deadly mayhem


 
Don't you love the phrase 'deadly mayhem'. Does this report news, or does it tell a story. And don't we all wish that our law enforcement officers always acted with 'deadly mayhem'. 



> "Police! Turn off your car! Let me see your hands!" said sources who talked to some of the cops involved in the shooting.


 
Other news reports indicate that the officers involved are not supposed to talk to anyone about the incident, because of the Grand Jury investigation. Since the Judith Miller imprisonment, most news organizations takes steps to explain why an anonymous source's identity is being withheld, and they attempt to describe the source's position, so that the reader can interpret the intent of the source.

This attribution does not help me determine the spin. Did these sources speak to the officers who fired their weapons? Or Did they speak to the officers who did not fire their weapons. Are these sources employed by the New York Police Department? Are they related to the officers who fired their weapons? Are there two sources, or more? Are all the anonymouse quotes throughout this article attributed to the same sources?



> The undercover watched as an argument erupted between Bell's group, which included three male pals and the beefy man with the gun, and four other men - with the woman in the middle of them, the sources said.
> 
> The undercover, thinking there was about to be a drive-by shooting in front of the club involving Bell's group, followed Guzman, Bell and two others to their car.


 
So, the cop walks away from the group that is armed, to follow the group that is not armed? Does that make sense? Doesn't make sense to me.

And how does this reporter know what the undercover officer was 'thinking'?



> But Bell *floored* the gas pedal and headed for the cop,


 
Floored the gas pedal? How does the reporter know that? Maybe Mr. Bell only pressed the gas pedal 3/4's of the way to the floor. Maybe only 1/2. "Floored"? 

It makes for 'great' story telling, doesn't it. 



> One of the Altima's passengers - who possibly had a gun - jumped out of the back of the car, the sources said.


 
Who possibly was Bill Gates. Who possibly had a million dollars. Who possibly was wearing stolen Nike's. I can not help but wonder how the source, or reporter, is determining this? 


You know .... as I said ... the description of events may be true. But that is some really lousy news reporting. Murray Weiss and Stephanie Gaskell need an editor.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 28, 2006)

I tend to think the cops are justified until they are proven wrong.

Others tend to think the cops are always wrong until they are proven right, and even then its always some sort of conspiracy with the DAs office.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> "If Sharpton wants a *Lynching*" ? ? ?



I don't know about Sharpton, but I was watching some news last night and there are some elected officials really upset and calling for violence if they don't get what they want (ie punishment for those horrid cops). Sure sounds like lynching to me. My original post was mildly sarcastic, but it looks like my statement was about right...

Source


> City Councilman James Sanders said patience was wearing thin.
> 
> 
> "Anger is justified," Sanders said. "Patience is not necessarily justified. These people have been told for 400 years to be patient."



So, any time a black man is shot by a cop, patience is no longer needed? I wish I could find some quotes from the program last night... was kind of scary to watch. The above quote hardly does it justice. I'll look further when I get time.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 28, 2006)

James Sanders is being ignorant of the fact that three of the five officers involved in the incident are minorities (two black, one Hispanic).  Eventually, he'll realize that this has nothing to do with race.  



michaeledward said:


> From the NY Post - a NewsCorp paper - owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns FoxNews - the company that was going to bring us the O.J. Simpson "confession".


 
Now you're getting off track, but since I'm waiting on that next pot of coffee to finish, I have a bit of time.  Since you've repeatedly referred to the New York Times, maybe a few reminders are in order about their shortcomings:

How about the New York Times that kept Jayson Blair on their staff for several years, and repeatedly promoted him, despite his repeated garbage reporting and plagiarism?  

How about the Duranty incident?  Quite disgusting, especially since the Times still honors him for his ill-deserved Pulitzer.  

How about this year's Hassan Fattah incident?  

What about their coverage of the so-called Katrina refugee living in the hotel?  

Should we call the entire New York Times a worthless publication because of the hundreds of Jayson Blair garbage pieces?  Should we call Fox News a complete trash organization because they brought in a flake the likes of Geraldo Rivera?  

News agencies, be they left, middle, or right-leaning, are going to make mistakes along the way.


----------



## KarateKowboy (Nov 28, 2006)

These guys came out of a bar at night and were confornted by someone with a gun, who said he was a police officer but apparently did not show a badge or police ID.  
We don't know that the guys in the car even heard him say he was a police officer.  They just sw someone pointing a gun at them and ran hmi over.  This is exactly what I tell my students to do.  This cop screwed up big time and caused this whole situation.

Then they shot him 50 times?  Why not just 40 or 30?  Why not stop at 10?
Why not stop firing the first time he was hit.  

At best, it's  case of very poor Police training.  At the worst it looks like another black guy murdered by the NYPD.  Very likely, it's a combination of one cop being suspicious of black people and feeling the need to check up on them, followed by poor training, followed by a major CYA.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 28, 2006)

Grenadier said:


> Now you're getting off track, but since I'm waiting on that next pot of coffee to finish, I have a bit of time. Since you've repeatedly referred to the New York Times, maybe a few reminders are in order about their shortcomings:
> ...
> Should we call the entire New York Times a worthless publication because of the hundreds of Jayson Blair garbage pieces? Should we call Fox News a complete trash organization because they brought in a flake the likes of Geraldo Rivera?
> 
> News agencies, be they left, middle, or right-leaning, are going to make mistakes along the way.


 
Reporting news does not require a left, middle, or right bias. It does require reporting facts. Facts are not biased. 

The Post reported stated a "fact" - Bell "floored" the vehicle - which he could not have known if it was true. He made it up, for the benefit of a story.

I am not pointing to the Times a definitive event of what happened. Nor do I address the Associate Press report as a definitive event of what happened. Nor do I dispute the assertions of the Post. 

What I do question, specifically about the Post, is that the reporter is dramatizing events for the effect of a 'story'. The Post reporter also does not properly identify the anonymous sources - a lesson I think the Times has learned.

A story is not news. Being able to discern the difference between a 'story' and 'news' is a skill that can always be improved, I think.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Reporting news does not require a left, middle, or right bias. It does require reporting facts. Facts are not biased.



Facts are not biased. The presentation of facts most likely becomes biased.

Lets say a woman wore a green dress. This can be presented several ways.

1) The woman wore a green dress
2) The woman, lacking style, wore a putrid green dress
3) the woman wore a fashionable green dress

all three are stating facts. she wore a green dress. in this situation, the bias is blatantly obvious. Impressions are clearly given that may not be relevant or necessary. When reporting news, its not always the case. Also, reading 2) is alot more interesting than reading 1) and probably 3). News reporters have just a few aims. 1) report news 2) keep a paycheck coming. If noone listens, they get fired or their paper/show gets canceled. They have to keep it interesting. Even when stating something that is true and clearly fact bias can easily be inserted.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 28, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Impressions are clearly given that may not be relevant or necessary. When reporting news, its not always the case. Also, reading 2) is alot more interesting than reading 1) and probably 3). News reporters have just a few aims. 1) report news 2) keep a paycheck coming. If noone listens, they get fired or their paper/show gets canceled. They have to keep it interesting. Even when stating something that is true and clearly fact bias can easily be inserted.


 
That is why reporters do not get to decide what is published, and where the published article appears in the paper. Reporters are overseen by editors. The editor's job is to ensure that facts are reported, and not exaggerated or made up. The publishers job is to make sure the editors get stories in the paper that sell advertising space. 

Let's take a look from two articles on this story.



			
				msnbc said:
			
		

> Union officials insist the detective took out his badge, identified himself and ordered the men to stop before the car, driven by Bell, lurched forward and bumped him.


 


			
				NY Post said:
			
		

> But Bell floored the gas pedal and headed for the cop, the sources said, striking him and badly cutting his knee.


 
Which more clearly represents facts available to a reporter when assembling a story? Is there a difference between 'floored the gas pedal' and 'lurched foward'? 

Now I know MSNBC is "Liberal" ... but what in the article represents that bias? My opinion is nothing in these quotes represents a liberal bias. The NY Post has a sensationalist bias, perhaps a 'pro law and order' bias.

The MSNBC article - which was published today, so therefore has more information, as more information will naturally become available with the passage of time - has this interesting point. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15935239/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15935239/page/2/



> We stress when officers go to the range that they fire no more than three rounds and then assess what the situation is, Kelly said.


 
Recall that one officer fired 31 times. According the NY Police Department, that officer should have stopped shooting ten times to assess the situation. That is a question and answer session that I would love to hear.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 28, 2006)

I think that everyone just needs to wait and let the facts come out in this case.  Particularly the public figures who are talking way to much when the facts as of yet are unknown.  Just my opinon on this.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 28, 2006)

KarateKowboy said:


> Then they shot him 50 times? Why not just 40 or 30? Why not stop at 10?
> Why not stop firing the first time he was hit.


 
Its not paintball. People dont raise their hands and say "Im hit!".


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 29, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think that everyone just needs to wait and let the facts come out in this case.  Particularly the public figures who are talking way to much when the facts as of yet are unknown.  Just my opinon on this.



And I happen to agree. In the case of the poisoning of the ex Russian spy in England, one of the guys in government said he was not going to even speculate about something still under investigation. Then you look at what Sharpton is doing. Score one for the Brits over the Americans.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 29, 2006)

This article is intersting ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15950574/site/3000001/from/RS.5/

Especially this quote.



			
				Former Democratic Mayor Ed Koch said:
			
		

> His rhetoric is totally acceptable in my judgment. I haven't read a single statement on his part that is demagogic. I think he's conducted himself in a statesman-like manner."


 
Mayor Koch is speaking of Reverend Sharpton. Mayor Koch, since 911, has become a very strong supporter of all things Republican. It would be highly unlikely that he would be elected as a member of the Democratic Party today. 

Perhaps, not everyone is acting in a 'statesman-like' manner. 



			
				NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said:
			
		

> "I can tell you that it is to me unacceptable or inexplicable how you can have 50-odd shots fired, but that's up to the investigation to find out what really happened,"


 
and the Mayor also said this ...



			
				NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said:
			
		

> "There is no evidence that they were doing anything wrong."


 
... and the Mayor was referring to Mr. Bell, and his friends. 


Mr. Bloomberg's quotes can be found here ..... http://www.nbc11.com/news/10405874/detail.html


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 1, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> > Originally Posted by *Former Democratic Mayor Ed Koch*
> > His rhetoric is totally acceptable in my judgment. I haven't read a single statement on his part that is demagogic. I think he's conducted himself in a statesman-like manner."



Then Koch has not been reading or watching the news very closely. Or maybe he is still in sympathy with the democratic party even if he has leaned a bit to the right. Or maybe he is trying to defuse a situation made bad by people like Sharpton by not attacking him and reaching out a bit.

Whatever the reason, on Japanese television I have seen Sharpton leading groups in chanting "No justice, no peace!" And I have read what he has said. 

He is a racist rabble rouser seeking power. 

I do not need to know much to interpet his words. I may not know what happend on that night, or a lot about what police do but in this case I don't need special or privelaged knowledge to make a judgement about what Sharpton says and does in front of the cameras and I will not defer to any authority even if they are a former mayor.

Sharpton is a jerk.


----------



## MJS (Dec 1, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think that everyone just needs to wait and let the facts come out in this case. Particularly the public figures who are talking way to much when the facts as of yet are unknown. Just my opinon on this.


 
Well, that opinion is very well stated, and I agree very much!  We can have 10 news papers and I'll bet anything that we'll get 10 different stories.  Does what happened seem excessive? Sure, but considering none of us were there, the best we can do is guess as to what happened.  Its easy to say, and I'm guilty myself, what we would/would not do, but unless we're in that situation at that given moment, we really don't know what we'd do.

Mike


----------



## Naha (Dec 2, 2006)

Regardless of the other facts, there are a few things that are obvious.  The policemen lost their training.  They are not trained to open fire and bring down people in a hail of bullets, especially when they are not being fired upon.  Actually, there are stages of force an officer is expected to follow.  I know, given the circumstances, one might think that someone was firing back in the heat of the moment, but if they would have followed procedure, they would have realized that the only people firing were the cops.  Remember the weapon was a car.  Fifty bullets at a suspect with a gun gives the investigators a field day.  One of the first things that will  be  looked at is why deadly force.  Even though the suspects tried to run over an officer, could something less than deadly force have been applied?  The car is a weapon, but the driver is the only one wielding it.

Also, the undercover officer broke procedure by confronting them.  That was the job of the officers waiting outside in the van.

That being said.  Rule number one in dealing with police officers is do what you are told.  If he/she says get on the ground, you get on the ground. Many of the abusive incidents that make the news are the result of someone not following instructions.  If I'm in a situation with officers, I do what I'm told.  In another lifetime, I expected the people I dealt with to do what I told them.  It's better to get dirty laying in the dirt than to taste a nightstick.  Ask the FMA guys (and ladies) about that.  Of course, today it's pepper spray and a stun gun.

As for Sharpton, his actions say more than I ever could.  Start with the Brawley case and work forward.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 2, 2006)

Naha said:


> Regardless of the other facts, there are a few things that are obvious.  The policemen lost their training.



No, that is not obvious to me. I would like to know more about the case before I made a statement like that.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 2, 2006)

The _Reverand_ Al Sharpton REQUIRES sensational race issues in order to stay in the public eye (see Tawana Brawley case), so I automatically discount his statements on such cases - while acknowledging that _some _of his criticisms of society have merit.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> The _Reverand_ Al Sharpton REQUIRES sensational race issues in order to stay in the public eye (see Tawana Brawley case), so I *automatically* discount his statements on such cases - while acknowledging that _some _of his criticisms of society have merit.


 
It is that 'automatically', that I keeps coming back. 

Seems to me you are not alone in this regard concerning the Reverend. I am often accussed of 'automatically' "hating" the President, I believe the reflexive action is unfair. That so many here are judging the man based on 19 year old actions speaks to something.

Some have said that the Reverend was "leading" chants of "No Justice, No Peace", in attempts to incite the assembled. Two thoughts on that, first, is there anything wrong with that sentiment? Second, the early articles I read on the matter indicated that the "crowd" was chanting the phrase. There was no mention of Reverend Sharpton 'leading' the chant.

Either way ... there are times when instinct serves the human animal well. I'm not sure this is one of them. 

Lastly, this issue may be 'sensational', but it is not a 'race' issue.


----------



## MJS (Dec 2, 2006)

Naha said:


> Regardless of the other facts, there are a few things that are obvious. The policemen lost their training. They are not trained to open fire and bring down people in a hail of bullets, especially when they are not being fired upon. Actually, there are stages of force an officer is expected to follow. I know, given the circumstances, one might think that someone was firing back in the heat of the moment, but if they would have followed procedure, they would have realized that the only people firing were the cops. Remember the weapon was a car. Fifty bullets at a suspect with a gun gives the investigators a field day. One of the first things that will be looked at is why deadly force. Even though the suspects tried to run over an officer, could something less than deadly force have been applied? The car is a weapon, but the driver is the only one wielding it.
> 
> Also, the undercover officer broke procedure by confronting them. That was the job of the officers waiting outside in the van.
> 
> ...


 
There are a great number of Police Depts. throughout the world, each with their own policies.  Before we can really say if they were in the right or the wrong, we need to know all the facts, and one fact would be the NYPD policies.

Mike


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 5, 2006)

Naha said:


> Regardless of the other facts, there are a few things that are obvious. The policemen lost their training. They are not trained to open fire and bring down people in a hail of bullets, especially when they are not being fired upon. Actually, there are stages of force an officer is expected to follow. I know, given the circumstances, one might think that someone was firing back in the heat of the moment, but if they would have followed procedure, they would have realized that the only people firing were the cops. Remember the weapon was a car. Fifty bullets at a suspect with a gun gives the investigators a field day. One of the first things that will be looked at is why deadly force. Even though the suspects tried to run over an officer, could something less than deadly force have been applied? The car is a weapon, but the driver is the only one wielding it.
> 
> Also, the undercover officer broke procedure by confronting them. That was the job of the officers waiting outside in the van.
> 
> ...


 
That the police officers lost their training is not obvious.

There are no "stages" that an officer must follow when using force, if indeed you are referring to some type of steps (first A, then B, then C) that they must follow.  The only standard, other than departmental policy, is that the force be reasonable and necessary to the average officer at the time of the incident, given the facts that the officer has at the time.  Case law espressly forbids the use of 20-20 hindsight.

I don't have to try to spray you with pepper spray, and if that doesn't work, hit you with a baton, and if that doesn't work, shoot you, if you are pointing a firearm at me.

And what do you know of the NYPD's procedure?  And if it was followed, how then, do you know that they would have realized that the only ones shooting were cops?  Were you there?  Are you a police officer, or have some insight into combat psychology above the average layperson (and I don't mean simply martial arts training).

Also, it is not neessary to show whether the cops *could* have done something else, rather than shoot their firearms.  It is only required that they show that it was reasonable and necessary to stop a threat.




> These guys came out of a bar at night and were confornted by someone with a gun, who said he was a police officer but apparently did not show a badge or police ID.
> We don't know that the guys in the car even heard him say he was a police officer. They just sw someone pointing a gun at them and ran hmi over. This is exactly what I tell my students to do. This cop screwed up big time and caused this whole situation.
> 
> Then they shot him 50 times? Why not just 40 or 30? Why not stop at 10?
> ...


 

It is amazing to me that you can have several different accounts of the situation by new groups, police and law enforcement agencies, and private organizations, all of whom have people in the area, at the scene, and interviewing witnessess, but you seem to have all the answers, and know exactly what happened.

And please, tell me how you know, in the fury and unpredictability of combat, how a person is supposed to tell the exact moment a person is hit, and which bullet hit out of the many fired?  Oh, that's not to mention whether that one bullet would actually stop the threat.  

A famous incident (to law enforcement anyway) is know as that Platt and Maddox / FBI shooting in Florida.  In that situation, one of the suspects, although he received a fatal wound, continued to fight, killing an FBI agent *after he received the fatal wound.*  Should the FBI agents have stopped firing then after they knew he was hit?

It appears that you have an extreme lack of information on the way gunfights occur, or the psychology of of life and death situation.  I suggest that you learm more before making statements made out of ignorance.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 5, 2006)

I just watched a video at cnn.com. Larry King was talking to Nicole Paultre, the fiancee of the guy killed. She was suprisingly calm, cool and collected. She seems upset but optomistic about justice being executed. Unfortunately Sharpton was there, with his negative thoughts...

still, that was a great interview. If I get the link or transcript I'll try and post.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 5, 2006)

This in ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16063265/



> One of two men wounded in a police shooting ... disputed a police account that a fourth person, possibly armed, fled the scene.


 


> Lawyers for Benefield, 23, and Joseph Guzman, 31, say both men also claim that none of the five undercover and plainclothes officers identified themselves as police before opening fire.


 


> Through his lawyer, the initial shooter has insisted he had his badge out and had identified himself when, believing Guzman was pulling a gun, he opened fire. He and other witnesses also have said there was a fourth man in or near the car who escaped on foot, possibly with a weapon.


 
No gun was found in the car or at the scene. No fourth man has been identified or found. 

One wonders why, with no evidence, news reports continue to press the 'fourth man, possibly with a weapon'.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 9, 2006)

Fiance takes name of slain fiance

Kind of sad...


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> It is that 'automatically', that I keeps coming back.
> 
> Seems to me you are not alone in this regard concerning the Reverend. I am often accussed of 'automatically' "hating" the President, I believe the reflexive action is unfair. That so many here are judging the man based on 19 year old actions speaks to something.



I think that it is a fair assesment of the facts to do so. 19 year old incident, yes. But he has never changed and never apologized for what he did then. Some people still bring up stuff about Bush's military service over 30 years ago and try to make it relevent to discussions about politics today. Why should people on the other side of the aisle be left alone?

And I just found this,



> No gun was found in the car, but witnesses and video footage confirm that a fourth man in the party fled the scene once the altercation began. Bell and the other men with him all had been arrested for illegal possession of guns in the past; one of Bell's companions that night, Joseph Guzman, had spent considerable time in prison, including for an armed robbery in which he shot at his victim.



I would like to see if this is confirmable. If it is true, it really kind of takes a lot of the credibility away from them as sources IMO. I have never known a criminal that has said they were doing anything wrong when the police picked them up. And if they were carrying illeagle guns, that kind of shows a possibility that they were living a lifestyle that required them to have them. I know guys that carry guns without a permit. But when you get a whol group of them like this that have been arrested for it, that sends certain signals to me.

I mean....honestly... if Guzman has been convicted of shooting at someone during a robbery, do you really think that his testimony that no one in their group was doing anything suspicious and the cops didn't ID themselves is going to carry as much weight with a jury as several police officers?

Edit, found This article. Of course, the families and friends paint a good picture of them. But if you look at the records these guys have, you wonder if you can trust _anything_ the say about their dealings with the police. But that has not made it to a lot of the stories out there in the media.



> Relatives and neighbors insisted that Sean Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield were family men whose friendship revolved around the positive things in life.
> 
> But all three also had criminal records, sources said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 22, 2006)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061223/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting

It looks like the guy that was killed and behind the wheel of the vehicle may have been over twice the legal limit for alchohol in his system.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 22, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061223/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting
> 
> It looks like the guy that was killed and behind the wheel of the vehicle may have been over twice the legal limit for alchohol in his system.



from the linked article:


> The two survivors have disputed union officials' and lawyers' claims that the first officer to shoot had identified himself as a policeman and ordered the victims to stop before he opened fire.



Having been out with an off duty officer or two before, and in this case no alcohol being involved on our side, (* not saying we do not or have not drunk together for we have, just not in the case listed today *), we identified ourselves (* me as the manager of the location that was closed and parking lot we were in *) and on of those with me identified himself as an off dut officer. The replies were "yeah right", or "We eat cops for lunch" or other such stupid comments.  In that case I was able to knock some of them over (* they bunched together a group of 15 and 10 were together *) and they fell on each other, so I ran to the front door and opened it without shutting off the alarm. So they ran. And also no one got shot. 

Having been in situations where people are just drunk or being stupid and their egos will not let them walk away, I have a hard time seeing this alcohol not being significant to the case. Now of course it could always turn out that the officers involved up front are not clean either, (* Having dealt with not so clean or bad cops myself *) and until that information is released, I will have to go with what I have.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2006)

So, the soon-to-be-groom had some drinks at his Bachelor Party? Imagine that. 

I know I tell my children that sometimes, in conflict, the best thing to do is to 'walk away' or to 'run away'. 

Looking at the evidence ... 

Mr. Bell and company walked away from the club, and the 'words' reported outside the club, to their car. They got in the car and were attempting to leave. Even if they were under the influence of alcohol, it seems to me, that it was the right thing to do. 

Those are the same instructions I give to my children.


----------



## MJS (Dec 23, 2006)

Well, this certainly brings up some interesting questions.  Being that he was as drunk as he was, I'm sure that played a big part in his actions.  We all know that being under the influence can make one not think or act clearly.  

I also have to wonder if this will come into play as well:



> Alcohol also was a potential issue for police: The officers were part of a team conducting an undercover vice operation at a Queens strip club, and police officials said two undercover officers working inside  including one of the shooters  were allowed to have two drinks each. Police officials have insisted a supervisor at the scene afterward found them fit for duty. It is unclear whether the officers were given blood tests.


 
Now, I'm not a LEO and I'm sure the policies vary from place to place, but I have to wonder if this is normal procedure in undercover operations.  Had this been a drug bust, would the cops be allowed to do drugs as well?  The fact that the suspect was tested and the cops possibly were not raises some questions with me.  Also, if they were tested, how long after the incident did the test take place?  Again, I'm not a cop, but I'd imagine that results would vary if they were given within a half hour or 4 hrs later.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> So, the soon-to-be-groom had some drinks at his Bachelor Party? Imagine that.
> 
> I know I tell my children that sometimes, in conflict, the best thing to do is to 'walk away' or to 'run away'.
> 
> ...




Yes walking away is a good idea.

Having had a Dodge Daytona back up onto one of my feet, and having been hit by a car in a parking lot, I know it really hurts and this is not the thing to do to anyone. In the case of the Daytona on my foot I hit with a simple hammer fist into the windshield and it cracked just like a head into the windshield in an accident. The person then got off my foot. Note: I had asked them to get off my foot first and when the laughed and said no I reacted. 

Having had people try to race and hit me, and being able to dodge out of the way and roll and take road rash away was being lucky. 

One such case was the old Trail Blazers (* Read size of Yukon today *) full size truck vehicle. I tried to jump up and get on the hood instead of being pinned between the vehicle and a wall. The grill clipped me in the shins and I fell face first into the hood. Nice front fall as I did slap and turn my head and placed my tongue on the roof of my mouth. I grabbed the hood. Like I said it was one of those that was older so it had a nice gap for hands to grab. The person put it into reverse and before I coudl get off they took off and pulled out into traffic with me on the vehicle. Once they stopped swerving to get me off and was straight driving at speed, I swung at the windshield. No crack. But it did get the guys attention. I did it again, and it just put a little crack into the glass. I was yelling I was going to kill him. As he was obviously trying to kill me. He jerked / swerved and started to stop. When he was about 2+ miles per hour I rolled off into no traffic has he speed away. I then had a long walk back while being bruised in the shins and dealing with the situation. 

So it is my opinion that the Groom was incorrect in getting behind the wheel in this case and then pinning the officer to a wall with his car. If he was too drunk to realize it then that is his error. If he did it on purpose it was his error. I have been to one bachelor party for myself, and many others for friends, and sober people drive. I repeat no one who had a drink drives. To leave a scene with a police officer is not the proper procedure. You wait until they are complete and take you away or let you go. Those are the rules. If you ignore them and leave anyways, then you are fleeing from an officer or something similiar  depending upon local ordinance.


If you are getting married you are looking to the future with hope, why risk it for a drink or two. I have been the DD many times myself to make sure my friends get home and then later to their wedding.  


PS: I know about bad cops. I have the memories of the beatings and the harassment and such, so yes there are bad people out there on both sides. But in most cases, until one has all the information one does not know. So, until the police are reviewed and if there is enough evidence for a grand jury and or a trial I will wait like I said, but error on the side of innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 23, 2006)

MJS said:


> Well, this certainly brings up some interesting questions. Being that he was as drunk as he was, I'm sure that played a big part in his actions. We all know that being under the influence can make one not think or act clearly.
> 
> I also have to wonder if this will come into play as well:
> 
> ...




If the officers were allowed to have two (2) drinks over the whole night 6 hours  or so for example then their blood alcohol limits may be in the legal limits for driving and or handling a firearms for NY. I do not know. 

I agree that when tested just like any other human would cause an issue. And I am sure the lawyers of the family will have their experts that will say it was "X" time after the event and they had "Y%" blood alcohol and based upon that the time tables for the body to process the alocohol. 

So, like I said until I get this information I do not know, but I do know that if I was pinned by a car I would take action. What lead up to it is still in question.


----------



## MJS (Dec 23, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> If the officers were allowed to have two (2) drinks over the whole night 6 hours or so for example then their blood alcohol limits may be in the legal limits for driving and or handling a firearms for NY. I do not know.
> 
> I agree that when tested just like any other human would cause an issue. And I am sure the lawyers of the family will have their experts that will say it was "X" time after the event and they had "Y%" blood alcohol and based upon that the time tables for the body to process the alocohol.
> 
> So, like I said until I get this information I do not know, but I do know that if I was pinned by a car I would take action. What lead up to it is still in question.


 
Yes sir, I'm in agreement with you.  A whole new page in the book, which means more questions, speculation, etc.  I don't envy the investigators on this case.

As for the cops drinking...like you said, things may be in order, but I'm sure that this is something Bells family will be questioning, especially since it seems like no tests were given.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> So it is my opinion that the Groom was incorrect in getting behind the wheel in this case and then pinning the officer to a wall with his car.


 
There is no evidence that anyone was "pinned ... to a wall" in this story. By using that language, others are going to pick it up, and use this erroneous language to justify what was going on.

If you believe that the officer was 'pinned to a wall', then I suggest you go back and re-read the articles on this incident.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> There is no evidence that anyone was "pinned ... to a wall" in this story. By using that language, others are going to pick it up, and use this erroneous language to justify what was going on.
> 
> If you believe that the officer was 'pinned to a wall', then I suggest you go back and re-read the articles on this incident.




Then maybe you should also look into what you wrote as well and how you wrote it.  

Just a thought.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 23, 2006)

> The car, driven by Bell, was struck by 21 of the police bullets after the  vehicle rammed an undercover officer and hit an unmarked NYPD minivan. Other  shots hit nearby homes and shattered windows at a train station, though no one  else was injured.




I think the key statement I was trying to get to here was *". . . driven by bell, . . . after the vehicle rammed an undercover officer and hit an unmmarked NYPD minivan."*

So no wall, just a hit and run.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2006)

So, we can agree that Mr. Bell, regardless of how much alcohol he consumed during his bachelor party, did not 'pin' ... anyone ... 'to a wall'. We can further agree that Mr. Bell walked away from a verbal altercation and to his car ... no matter how much alcohol he had in his bloodstream. We can further agree that the Police, who may or may not have been under the influence of alcohol, did fire 50 rounds into Mr. Bell, his associates, and his vehicle.

Are any of these fact, mis-represented, exaggerated, distorted, or magnified to put forth any agenda?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> So, the soon-to-be-groom had some drinks at his Bachelor Party? Imagine that.
> 
> I know I tell my children that sometimes, in conflict, the best thing to do is to 'walk away' or to 'run away'.
> 
> ...




So in your opinion it was the right thing to do was to hit an officer undercover or not and also another car? 

Your words are condemning the officer without a hearing or trial. 

So we can agree that he did hit a person while driving away and also into another car, which to me makes me ask why was he behind the wheel in the first place.

Michael, you can try to place my misleading  comments here as the issue, but they were made to get you and yes this is trollish behaviour if you want, or maybe debating by using the same tactics others use, but I have an issue with your words and implications just like you do with mine. 

Where lies the truth, can you prove he was not pinned during being hit? I do nothave that information so I can guess the worse possible issue, just liek you can guess at the officer walk out and attacked someone who was different. 

I hate racism and profiling being a victum of it all the time, but I wonder why it seems that you see more here? I do not have the all the facts and if you do I wish you would share them. 

Can you prove he (* the undercover officer *) was not pinned between a wall or antoher car? From the links all we have was that he was rammed. to me that is being hit by a car, and yet they say the vehicle then collides with an unmarked police minivan, could not it be possible that the officer was pinned between a wall or another vehicle? 

But, no you imply that he walked away and the police just shot him for nothing, or worse yet for just being different. 

Which theory is better? 

Who has the right to say that they are the correct theory? 

How come you can theorize and I cannot ? 

Are you discriminating against me? (* I do not know *)

I am very confused by your comments and actions.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> So in your opinion it was the right thing to do was to hit an officer undercover or not and also another car?
> 
> Your words are condemning the officer without a hearing or trial.


 
Kindly do not state 'my opinion' for me. It is not my opinion that the right thing to do is to strike an undercover police officer with a vehicle, nor is it the right thing to strike another car. 

What words are condemning 'the officer', without a hearing or trial? 




			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> So we can agree that he did hit a person while driving away and also into another car, which to me makes me ask why was he behind the wheel in the first place.


 
Actually, there is a disputed report on whether Mr. Bell's vehicle struck a police officer. See my earlier post. Also, there is some reports that say the police officer had his foot, or feet on Mr. Bell's car. A reasonable question is 'Why did the person put his foot on the car'? Recall, at the time, Mr. Bell according to the majority of reports, had no idea the person was a police officer.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Michael, you can try to place my misleading comments here as the issue, but they were made to get you and yes this is trollish behaviour if you want, or maybe debating by using the same tactics others use, but I have an issue with your words and implications just like you do with mine.


 
What comments are misleading? 
Why do you accuse me of trollish behavior? 
What words do you have issue with? 
What do you think I am implying? And with what words? 



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Where lies the truth, can you prove he was not pinned during being hit? I do nothave that information so I can guess the worse possible issue, just liek you can guess at the officer walk out and attacked someone who was different.


 
There seem to be many inferences in this paragraph Mr. Parson. 

First, there are no reports of anyone being pinned by Mr. Bell or his vehicle. Ergo, any such accusation is either made up or hyperbolic. When attempting to find out what happened for the purposes of discussion, both attitudes are detriments to further understanding. 

I have no more information than in the news reports that we all have available to us. I have no information that Mr. Bell pinned a person to a wall with a vehicle. And so, I would not guess at any information. I would refer to the news reports. 

_That you are accusing me of attributing this attack was because someone is 'different', seems awfully close to calling me a racist. I have no idea why you are projecting these attitudes toward me, but I do not think you will find them in my posts._ 




			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I hate racism and profiling being a victum of it all the time, but I wonder why it seems that you see more here? I do not have the all the facts and if you do I wish you would share them.


 
I don't see 'anything' here; except for a young man being shot to death by the police force. 

You need to be much more clear in your accusation. 



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Can you prove he (* the undercover officer *) was not pinned between a wall or antoher car? From the links all we have was that he was rammed. to me that is being hit by a car, and yet they say the vehicle then collides with an unmarked police minivan, could not it be possible that the officer was pinned between a wall or another vehicle?
> 
> But, no you imply that he walked away and the police just shot him for nothing, or worse yet for just being different.
> 
> ...


 
I am not theorizing, Mr. Parsons. I am referring to articles and reports we have available. I am not making up words to described the actions of anyone. I have already presented one dissertation on the unfactual nature of one of the news articles. That the posts here continue to comment with words that have inflamatory tone does not lead to clarity.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> So, the soon-to-be-groom had some drinks at his Bachelor Party? Imagine that.



And they got behind the wheel of a car. :angry: And if the guys with him were also as under the influence, they were likely more beligerent than normal, not acting as calmly or clearly as they should and their memories would be influenced as well. Not to mention that the vast majority of people with police records like their just never seem to admit that they or their friends *ever* did anything wrong and you have what juries call "reasonable doubt" in regards to their version of events.



michaeledward said:


> Mr. Bell and company walked away from the club, and the 'words' reported outside the club, to their car. They got in the car and were attempting to leave. Even if they were under the influence of alcohol, it seems to me, that it was the right thing to do.



It also looks like they nearly ran over a police officer in the process. There was also accounts of how one member of the party might have said something about going back to get a gun.

It is not really about if the guys in the van were innocent or not. What is important now is if the police had a _reasonable_ excuse to use force like they did. If, under the influence of alchohol, they drove so widly that they hit a coulple of walls and nearly run down the police, then from the standpoint of the police they were correct in assuming that the use of firearms was justified.

That is what a jury must determine. Not if the guys in the van were bad, but if the police had reason to believe that they were as the event was going down.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Kindly do not state 'my opinion' for me. It is not my opinion that the right thing to do is to strike an undercover police officer with a vehicle, nor is it the right thing to strike another car.
> 
> What words are condemning 'the officer', without a hearing or trial?
> 
> ...




Having been a witness to many a crime (* Assault/stabbing *) to take the word of many of the witnesses who did not see or hear the whole thing and only part of it, and having them all agree is something I have never seen. 

You present your point of view.

I present mine, and some how I am all wrong, so it is only ok for you to express an opinion. 

I do wish you the best Michael. I really do. 

And in the spirit of the season, I will just add you to my ignore list. It seems you and only those that agree with you can have a valid point of view. 

All I see from here is a continued disagreement, as in my opinion it seems from your actions it is alright for you to suppose and infer, but no one else can even express an opinion. 

Enjoy the holidays. 

I will.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 23, 2006)

Given the fact that an automobile can be a lethal weapon, these "gentlemen" were not, in fact, unarmed.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Having been a witness to many a crime (* Assault/stabbing *) to take the word of many of the witnesses who did not see or hear the whole thing and only part of it, and having them all agree is something I have never seen.
> 
> You present your point of view.
> 
> ...


 
Mr. Parsons, I am not presenting 'my point of view'. I am relating information that has been reported by various news outlets. I am giving weight to those various news outlets according to the language they use. 

I am not relating any personal information about the incident. I have no first hand knowledge. I have am not extrapolating from other events I have witnessed. I am not transferring personal experience into the situation. I have not spoken with anyone with first hand knowledge.

The only thing that I have stated where you were 'wrong', is when you described Mr. Bell as having "pinned" an person "to a wall" with his vehicle. 

I have also asked that you not ascribe to me sentiments, or opinions, that are not mine.


Here are some more recent articles. These tend toward opinion pieces, because there are not many new facts coming out. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/opinion/24neufeld.html

http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=2807

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20061225n

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/482062p-405614c.html


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Mr. Parsons, I am not presenting 'my point of view'. I am relating information that has been reported by various news outlets. I am giving weight to those various news outlets according to the language they use.



To my eye, you only seem to be giving credence to the news sources that back the version of events you agree with. There is such a thing as "reasonable doubt" when you talk about dealing with crimes. And all the evidence that we have seen seems to be that there is a great deal of doubt about the outcome. In such a case, you have to let the accused (i.e. the officers) off. And you have not given even a single word to the effect that we don't know, so we can't convict.

Rich has talked about how several witnesses have given different versions of events. He is quite clear in saying that witnesses tend to do that. Listening to you, it seems that you automatically give credence to those that say there was no fourth person- etc, but cast doubt on anything that backs the police version of events.

You seem to take great offense at the use of the idea that an officer was pinned to the wall because it is not correct. But your calls for absolute truth and exactness do not continue to the idea that a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon when you say there was none involved on the victim's part. Why be so worked up about not saying that there was no pinning of an officer to a wall and yet not be concerned that intoxicated people behind the wheel kill thousands of people every year?

For that matter, why not be concerned that the guy that was killed seems to have been commining a crime by driving at over twice the legal limit? That is something that would give someone not thinking correctly to try to get away by any means they could- like going through the officers. And if you say that we don't know enough to say what the guys in the car may have done, why try to bring up the matter at all instead of waiting for things in court?

The articles you linked to also seem to show a bias. I scanned the first one long enough to see that is was written by someone who seems to make their living off of suing the police department. I myself would try for a more objective source when trying to lay out how the police should and should not react.

And I really do not see how a reasonable person could consider Al Sharpton anything other than a racist, hate mongering, rablle- rouser out to promote his political capital no matter the expense it causes the community.

In short, I have to agree with Rich's version of events. And I am concerned with the way you seem to be trying to make him out to be the bad guy instead of debating him honestly.


----------



## HKphooey (Dec 24, 2006)

I just wish "citizens" could just onece go through simulator training and see how they react to life and death situations.  I am not siding with either yet.  Not enough facts.  But a police officer needs to make a split second, life and death decision.  You can have all the reactionary training in the world, but that does not mean you will be perfect.  I think of all the fallen LEO that decided to wait that split second.  I bet their families wish they had that second back.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2006)

Here are the events, as the news stories report them.

Bell and Co have bachelor party at strip club.
Bell and Co have drinks at bachelor party.
Bell and Co may have solicited a prostitute at the strip club.
Bell and Co leave a strip club.
Outside the Club, there is a verbal altercation between Bell and Co, and some other group. It has never been clearly defined as a verbal altercation with the undercover police operation.
Bell and Co may have said something about a gun.
Bell and Co walk to, and enter their car.
The Undercover police officer follows them to the car.
The undercover police officer stands in front of the car; placing a foot on the bumper .... or steps on the hood of the vehicle.
The next sequence of events is very important, but is not very clear ... How one interprets the sequence of *these* events, will lead to very different attitudes about the shooting. For instance - switch the first two bullet points.

Bell moves the vehicle forward toward ... or into ... the man standing on his bumper.
A man pulls a gun and points it at the occupants of the car
A car comes around the corner and attempts to box in Bells car.
The man starts shooting his gun into the car.
A second car comes around the corner, to box in Bell's car.
Bell hits the second vehicle once.
A man, having shot at 15 rounds from his weapon, reloads, and continues firing.
Bell backs into a fence / wall.
Five men are firing guns at the vehicle and its occupants, for more than 50 rounds.
Bell hits the second vehicle a second time.
Bell is shot to death. His two companions receive multiple gunshot wounds, and a taken to a hospital.
Items that are in dispute.



Did the undercover officer identify himself as a police officer?The officers say yes. The men who were shot, and questioned from separate hospital beds, say no. Who is more served by their answer? Who had time to collaborate their answer?​
Was there a fourth person?Although the evidence clearly shows there was no fourth person. The police have been attempting to locate one for over a month now. The police have made a claim about a fourth person, which they have not redacted. - why is it their faulty memories don't seem to be questioned?​
Was there a gun?This is not in dispute. There was no gun. Mr. Bell and Co. may have talked tough, but there was no weapon found on the men, or in the vehicle. There are police statements that the undercover officer fired his weapon because he thought he saw someone reaching for a gun.​
How much alcohol was consumed?Everyone invovled was a bar until 3:30 AM. Everyone had alcohol in their system; including the officers. That kinda levels the playing field on this issue, doesn't it? If Bell and Co were being belligerant because of alcohol, might not the undercover officer similarly behave in a belligerant manner? And, of course, we only know Mr. Bell's BAC because he died and the test could be performed.​
How fast Bell's car was moving?It is unclear. Reports have the man placing his foot on the front of the car, at that point, one would assume the vehicle has no kenetic energy - it is not moving. The unmarked police vehicles reportedly attempted to box Bell's car in. As I reflect on it, the only vehicle speed listed in the reports I read, was how fast the unmarked police van was traveling when came around the corner to box in Bell. How much momentum could Mr. Bell gather while 'boxed in'? This question is important because, as many have pointed out, a car is a deadly weapon. As such, can this weapon be used for self-defense?HYPOTHETICAL - You're in your car, and someone starts shooting at you. Do you get out of your car to draw your gun? or do you run them over? - END HYPOTHETICAL.​​Now, are any of the facts bulleted out above, in dispute? Other than the mentioned sequencing of events. Are there any facts left out from my list, that one may feel I am deliberately leaving out?

Of the items that I list as disputable, and offer explainations for the doubts to each of the questions, I don't think I make any direct assertions about what has happened, because I don't know. But, when someone takes one of those disputed items, and makes a definitive statement about it ... I question that statement. So words that describe the uncertainty ... such as 'rammed' ... I question. Words that describe something contrary to reports ... such as 'pinned' ... I question.


In the last ten posts, I have been accused of being racist. I have been accused of 'condemning' an officer. I have had my ethical compass challenged by defining attitudes as 'right' and 'wrong'. 

I will admit, I am very much more skeptical of the police department on this shooting. Why did the undercover officer *follow* Bell to the car? Without a clear answer to that question, everything that follows is uncertain. Bell and company were leaving. What better way to diffuse a tense situation, than to walk away?





Questions that demand answers:Was the undercover officer attempting to detain the young men?​
Why not identify himself as a police officer sooner?​
Why not just let them go?​
Why stand in front of a vehicle?​Again, all I know, is that a young man has been shot to death by the police force. At least 50 rounds were fired, all by the police. Policy Policy is to fire three times, and assess the situation. Was that policy followed?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 24, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> To my eye, you only seem to be giving credence to the news sources that back the version of events you agree with. There is such a thing as "reasonable doubt" when you talk about dealing with crimes. And all the evidence that we have seen seems to be that there is a great deal of doubt about the outcome. In such a case, you have to let the accused (i.e. the officers) off. And you have not given even a single word to the effect that we don't know, so we can't convict.
> 
> Rich has talked about how several witnesses have given different versions of events. He is quite clear in saying that witnesses tend to do that. Listening to you, it seems that you automatically give credence to those that say there was no fourth person- etc, but cast doubt on anything that backs the police version of events.
> 
> ...



Don thanks for the comments.

I have to agree, and hence why I put ME on ignore. It is ok for him to caqst doubt, and present as if it is the truth. I have said I need more information. Based upon the information I have now. Given my experience.  I have no proble talking what if's. Yet if those one debates expresses their points as the only solution, then there is no room for a debate, as they most likely will not even acknowledge the other side of the arguement. Once again a reason for ignore. 

Enjoy gentlemen


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 24, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> I just wish "citizens" could just onece go through simulator training and see how they react to life and death situations. I am not siding with either yet. Not enough facts. But a police officer needs to make a split second, life and death decision. You can have all the reactionary training in the world, but that does not mean you will be perfect. I think of all the fallen LEO that decided to wait that split second. I bet their families wish they had that second back.




Question(s):

Does having a gun pointed at your head by an unknown bad guy count as life and death decision making?

Does someone trying to stab you from a car count?

Does it count when you are being targeted by a car? 

Does it count when there are multiple opponents? And at what number? i.e. 2 or 3 or more

Does it count when they have unknown weapons or known weapons in their hands? 

To me with the exception of being in a gun fight, and or serving in the military (* Which I have most definitely not *), I think I have been in many a situation where my choices determined if I lived or if I died. And in others, it determined my state of injury(ies) and how long my recover might be. 

Dealing with tunnel vision and adrenaline dump is rough. 

The first time you think you have actually killed someone is tough as well. I know I wanted to puke. But instead I check pulse, and then his mouth for swallowed tongue, and took a pen and removed his tongue from the back of his throat where he began to breath. And yes jsut a few seconds before I had wanted to hurt him and of stop him permanently so as I would not get hurt. 

Now, that being said, I have not had to deal with the in a few years.  Yet, having been there, I still express my points as possibilities, not as absolutes.

It would be nice if this training was mroe readily available as I would like to take it from time to time.


----------



## MJS (Dec 25, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> I just wish "citizens" could just onece go through simulator training and see how they react to life and death situations. I am not siding with either yet. Not enough facts. But a police officer needs to make a split second, life and death decision. You can have all the reactionary training in the world, but that does not mean you will be perfect. I think of all the fallen LEO that decided to wait that split second. I bet their families wish they had that second back.


 
They had brought one of those simulators to the Middletown PD.  I had the chance to check it out, and I have to say, that while you know you're not going to really 'die' if you get hit, putting yourself in the proper mindset, it really opened my eyes to a number of things.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Dec 25, 2006)

Man oh man....
Simple solution here. When stoped, confronted, questioned by police guilty or not some simple rules aply.
1) Don't "go for anything" put your hands on the wheel in clear view and wate for instructions from the cop.
2) Don't run them over don't even hit his car. A car is a weapon like it or not. And speed? Would you rather be ran into with 5000lb or have it parked on top of you? 
3) Don't be stupid. Seems to be much eaiser to talk to your law team than making your family talk to a coroner.

Come on stop blaming the cops for reacting to a situation like this, yes they do overreact in some situations, yea they pull you over for " being out late" but like i said don't give them a reason to esculate things.
Deal with it in court....


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 26, 2006)

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/81265.shtml

This article is kind of interesting. Just the premise of the blood alcohol content being released by an anonymous source should demand skepticism. What is the spin? Who is spinning? Why? 

Also, I point to the Jean Nelson, December 2 report of the undercover officer firing "without warning".


----------



## MJS (Dec 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/81265.shtml
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 26, 2006)

MJS said:


> Yes, that is interesting. IMO, until a final report is issued by a named source, its all hearsay as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> I wouldn't believe this guy 100%. How reliable of a source is he? If he is a close friend of the people in the car, whats to say that hes telling the truth?


 
There is no reason to consider his statement hearsay. 
*hearsay* :_ noun_ : evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath​Mr. Nelson is named in the article, as his attorney. The statement is related directly to Mr. Nelson's personal knowledge of the events of the evening. The quote is ascribed, by name, to a person, who can be verified; unlike the references to Mr. Bell's blood alcohol content, which, originating as it does from an anonymous source, must be considered hearsay.

Further, as Mr. Bell's two associates have been in the hospital since the shooting, (one assumes they are in separate rooms) and they have both been questioned, and relate a similar description of the events of the evening, it may add some weight. One assumes that these three individuals have not had time, or ability, to speak with each other to 'contrive' a unified story.

I believe this is referred to as corroboration evidence.

In contrast, as referenced in one of the earlier articles; the officers involved in the evenings events were not separated and questioned individually about the shooting. The officers have, apparently, been able to sit together and discuss the events of the evening, because the Police Department does not have a policy that prevents that behavior. Further, the police department, apparently does not have a policy of immediately taking statements from the officers involved in the shooting immediately after the shooting.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Further, as Mr. Bell's two associates have been in the hospital since the shooting, (one assumes they are in separate rooms) and they have both been questioned, and relate a similar description of the events of the evening, it may add some weight. One assumes that these three individuals have not had time, or ability, to speak with each other to 'contrive' a unified story.



So you are assuming, instead of dealing with the facts. Let us just make that clear.

The problem I have with your assumption is that all these guys have criminal records. And I happen to know that one of the first things most folks who have had experience on the wrong side of the law is to ask for a lawyer before anything else. Aside from talking with a lawyer, they also have the ability to talk to relatives and get the story from them.

Oh, and I think that the hearsay comment was about the report, not what anyone says about it. You seem a bit confused over the matter. The story of the blood alchol content is not official and until it is released publicaly, it is all hearsay. We do not know who the source for the leak and if it is a real report or not. Hence, we can't treat it as fact- i.e. hearsay.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 26, 2006)

I'm chiming in rather late on this... but I'm going to make a few comments.



MJS said:


> Well, this certainly brings up some interesting questions. Being that he was as drunk as he was, I'm sure that played a big part in his actions. We all know that being under the influence can make one not think or act clearly.
> 
> I also have to wonder if this will come into play as well:
> 
> ...


 
Undercover officers are, in some cases and when appropriate to the investigation, permitted to consume some alcohol.  In some cases, they're permitted to consume a LOT of alcohol, but generally it's a limited amount because not to do so would be incredibly obvious...  As to drug use -- it's a possibility, but each agency has its own response to it.  Generally, the investigation is over, and the cop is getting to go to some form of "rehab-lite."  If it's a choice of using dope, or getting killed...  They're gonna use.  (You might read *Under & Alone*, if you're interested in UC investigations.  It's the true account of how Billy Queen went undercover with the Mongol MC.)



Naha said:


> Regardless of the other facts, there are a few things that are obvious. The policemen lost their training. They are not trained to open fire and bring down people in a hail of bullets, especially when they are not being fired upon. Actually, there are stages of force an officer is expected to follow. I know, given the circumstances, one might think that someone was firing back in the heat of the moment, but if they would have followed procedure, they would have realized that the only people firing were the cops. Remember the weapon was a car. Fifty bullets at a suspect with a gun gives the investigators a field day. One of the first things that will be looked at is why deadly force. Even though the suspects tried to run over an officer, could something less than deadly force have been applied? The car is a weapon, but the driver is the only one wielding it.
> 
> Also, the undercover officer broke procedure by confronting them. That was the job of the officers waiting outside in the van.
> 
> ...


 
Are you privy to the op plan for the case the officers were working?  Or the NYPD Patrol Guide and other regulations and SOPs for NYPD.  There are a number of instance where a plainclothes officer from any agency might make official contact with a suspect, with or without the support of an arrest team.  Police op plans fall under the same subsection of Murphy's Law that military battle plans do; they NEVER survive contact with the "enemy."  

There's little or no evidence that the officers failed to adhere to their training.  There's plenty of evidence that something went very wrong -- but solid research also tells us that each officer makes his own decision to shoot, to continue to shoot and not to shoot based on their own unique perception of the mind-bogglingly rapid unfolding of events.  You can find the research for yourself at the Force Science Research Center; http://www.forcescience.org/.  (You might also find their research on shell casing distribution of interest.)

I can't help but note that you seem to be perfectly happy making some conclusions about this incident -- while condemning others who have made different conclusions.  Might I suggest that there is far too little solid information, and far too many conflicting versions of the event available to make any conclusions at the moment?



HKphooey said:


> I just wish "citizens" could just onece go through simulator training and see how they react to life and death situations. I am not siding with either yet. Not enough facts. But a police officer needs to make a split second, life and death decision. You can have all the reactionary training in the world, but that does not mean you will be perfect. I think of all the fallen LEO that decided to wait that split second. I bet their families wish they had that second back.


 
Similators are fantastic training tools -- and great tools for public education, too.  In fact, I know that several agencies are making it a point to provide a "media training day" where they bring reporters in, and let them do a number of things like firearms simulators so that they have a better understanding of what the police do -- and why we do it.  Most reporters, I've heard, are shocked by how much is happening how quickly during the simulator.


----------



## MJS (Dec 27, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Oh, and I think that the hearsay comment was about the report, not what anyone says about it.


 
Yes, thank you.


----------



## MJS (Dec 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> There is no reason to consider his statement hearsay. *hearsay* :_ noun_ : evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath​Mr. Nelson is named in the article, as his attorney. The statement is related directly to Mr. Nelson's personal knowledge of the events of the evening. The quote is ascribed, by name, to a person, who can be verified; unlike the references to Mr. Bell's blood alcohol content, which, originating as it does from an anonymous source, must be considered hearsay.
> 
> Further, as Mr. Bell's two associates have been in the hospital since the shooting, (one assumes they are in separate rooms) and they have both been questioned, and relate a similar description of the events of the evening, it may add some weight. One assumes that these three individuals have not had time, or ability, to speak with each other to 'contrive' a unified story.
> 
> ...


 
I for one do not know the location of any of the parties involved, if they are in the same rooms, or even if they're in the same hospital.  The point I was trying to make is, the fact that these guys are not 'angels' by any means.  Do you honestly think that the witness, even if he didn't have time to create a story with the other people involved, is going to say anything to incriminate the people he was with??  This guy left the scene right after the shooting.  Who knows if he took a gun with him?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2006)

MJS said:


> I for one do not know the location of any of the parties involved, if they are in the same rooms, or even if they're in the same hospital. The point I was trying to make is, the fact that these guys are not 'angels' by any means. Do you honestly think that the witness, even if he didn't have time to create a story with the other people involved, is going to say anything to incriminate the people he was with?? This guy left the scene right after the shooting. Who knows if he took a gun with him?


 
For the hearsay comment ... when I quoted you, my original quotes weren't included in the post window ... the reference you were making was lost on me. My bad. In the quote window, I thought you were saying Mr. Nelson's comments were hearsay. Sorry. 

Is it fair to assess the victims as 'not being angels'? At the time of the shooting, the police department could not have known whether they were angels or not. And, are we projecting the status of 'angels' on the police officers? and if so, why?


*IF *we are going to 'honestly' question if this witness (Mr. Nelson) had the time and motivation to 'create' a story .... which corroborates the information we have recieved from Mr. Bell's associates ....

*THEN* can we similiarly question the 'honesty' of the anonymous source reports of the police officers who stated the officer on the hood of Mr. Bell's car identified himself as a police officer before firing.



*IF *we are going to work under the assumption that Mr. Nelson would not saying anything to incriminate his friends.

*THEN* can we work under the assumption that the police officers are not saying anything that would incriminate themselves; such as the initially reported fourth occupant of the vehicle; such as the missing gun in the vehicle; such as the identification as a law enforcement officer before firing a weapon. 


A couple of last thoughts: 

It is not clear when Mr. Nelson left the scene of the shooting. He is reported as an 'eyewitness'. He may have left right away. He may have lingered to watch the proceedings. We don't know. 

To speculate if Mr. Nelson took a gun with him, away from the scene, would add to its irrelevance. Mr. Nelson is not reported by *any* of the reports as having been *in the vehicle *when the first shots were fired. Those shots were fired because, reportedly, the officers felt that one of the occupants of the vehicle was reaching for a gun. 

It would defy imagination to suggest that Mr. Nelson could get to the car, retrieve a weapon, and leave the scene with seven police officers on heightened alert, after having discharged more than 50 rounds.


----------



## MJS (Dec 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> For the hearsay comment ... when I quoted you, my original quotes weren't included in the post window ... the reference you were making was lost on me. My bad. In the quote window, I thought you were saying Mr. Nelson's comments were hearsay. Sorry.


 
No worries.  Anytime there are online discussions, a number of things to look at within the discussion, etc., human error happens. 



> Is it fair to assess the victims as 'not being angels'? At the time of the shooting, the police department could not have known whether they were angels or not. And, are we projecting the status of 'angels' on the police officers? and if so, why?


 
As far as the victims go, whats to say that the cops didn't recognize them? I for one, do not know the criminal record(s) of any of these people. However, if they do have records, then there is a pretty good chance that the cops will be familiar with them. I work as a dispatcher. Many times an officer will see someone that they know, someone that has committed crimes, and will ask for me to check to see if there are any outstanding warrants on the person. Sometimes there are none and sometimes one is in the system. As for the cops...I do not know the officers involved, but it should be no surprise that there are 'dirty' cops, just like there are good cops.


*



			IF
		
Click to expand...

*


> we are going to 'honestly' question if this witness (Mr. Nelson) had the time and motivation to 'create' a story .... which corroborates the information we have recieved from Mr. Bell's associates ....
> 
> *THEN* can we similiarly question the 'honesty' of the anonymous source reports of the police officers who stated the officer on the hood of Mr. Bell's car identified himself as a police officer before firing.
> 
> ...


 
Mike, to be honest, there are so many reports, so many versions, etc, its hard to know whats fact. IMO, this is how many things get blown out of proportion and stories get started. There are a number of quotes in one of the last links you posted that say that the source spoke on condition of anonymity, because the investigation is still ongoing. Why is this person speaking at all? If he doesn't know all the facts himself, how can we really get a good picture? This is why I made the hearsay comment earlier.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Is it fair to assess the victims as 'not being angels'? At the time of the shooting, the police department could not have known whether they were angels or not.



That is not the point MJS was trying to make and you seem to have twisted the meaning a bit. Here is his exact quote.



> The point I was trying to make is, the fact that these guys are not 'angels' by any means.



In other words, you seem to be treating what they say as if it were fact, while ignoring their criminal records and expereince with the system as a criminal. MJS was not talking about their behavior at the time of the shooting. He was talking about how reliable they are compared with all the trust you seem to put in what they say.

To give an example, some people at the scene have said that there was another guy who left on foot and who may have had a gun or referenced having a gun. The guys in the hospital say there was not. It seems clear to me that if there was some truth to the existence of another guy, that they would have reason to coordinate their stories through family and lawyers to say differently. But it seems enough for you that they said there was no other person.

Me, I don't know if there was one or not. But I am not as quick to take their word and say there was not. Things are unclear and I can't say one way or another with as much of a tone of certainty as you seem to have. There was no gun found at the scene- _that_ I am pretty sure of. But if there was one, or if one of the guys that were shot talked about having one is still pretty much a matter of debate.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2006)

MJS said:


> As far as the victims go, whats to say that the cops didn't recognize them? I for one, do not know the criminal record(s) of any of these people. However, if they do have records, then there is a pretty good chance that the cops will be familiar with them. I work as a dispatcher. Many times an officer will see someone that they know, someone that has committed crimes, and will ask for me to check to see if there are any outstanding warrants on the person. Sometimes there are none and sometimes one is in the system. As for the cops...I do not know the officers involved, but it should be no surprise that there are 'dirty' cops, just like there are good cops.


 

I would assume that these officers, being undercover, and in a different bourrough than their normal duty stations, it would be a safe bet that in a city of eight million citizens and a police force of forty thousand, the officers in question did not recognize the young men.

I doubt that the officers involved would be 'dirty' cops in the manner of, let's say, 'The Shield'. 

But, I am not willing to extend to the officers any assumptions that I will not similiarly extend to the young men. The cops don't get a pass because they are in uniform. And, that a young man is dead on his wedding day, the questions directed toward the officers are going to be more severe, and demand more thorough and complete answers.

Why did the officer follow the young men to the car? 
Why did he stand in front of the car with his foot on the hood/bumper?



EDIT - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/n...tml?ex=1167368400&en=97d75b13f39ecade&ei=5070 

This link is to a New York Times Slide Deck. It is pretty interesting. Slide 4 is of note, because it shows the distance that Bell and Co *walked *to get to the Altima. During this walk - which appears to be past at least four building lots - the undercover officer followed them quite a distance. Recall the reports of identification as a police officer differ, and at best, say the officer displayed his badge *at* the Altima, and not before.

Sorry, this link does require an account at NYTimes web site. It is free.

END EDIT


----------



## MJS (Dec 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I would assume that these officers, being undercover, and in a different bourrough than their normal duty stations, it would be a safe bet that in a city of eight million citizens and a police force of forty thousand, the officers in question did not recognize the young men.


 
Again, so many reports, I can't keep track.  Was there a report that stated who or what the cops were investigating?  I ask this, because if the people involved in the shooting were the subjects of the sting, then yes, it is possible that the cops had descriptions, etc., of the people in question.



> I doubt that the officers involved would be 'dirty' cops in the manner of, let's say, 'The Shield'.


 
Again, I don't know the officers involved, and I never said that they were dirty.  I simply responded to this:



> Is it fair to assess the victims as 'not being angels'? At the time of the shooting, the police department could not have known whether they were angels or not. And, are we projecting the status of 'angels' on the police officers? and if so, why?


 




> Why did the officer follow the young men to the car?


 
Were they in some way involved in the sting? If someone heard mention of a gun, I'd imagine that the cops would follow them.



> Why did he stand in front of the car with his foot on the hood/bumper?


 
Again, so many links, but I can't seem to recall the cop putting his foot on the car.  If you could direct me to that link, that would be great.   In any case, if that were me, and it appeared the car was not stopping, I would move out of the way.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2006)

MJS said:


> Again, so many reports, I can't keep track. Was there a report that stated who or what the cops were investigating? I ask this, because if the people involved in the shooting were the subjects of the sting, then yes, it is possible that the cops had descriptions, etc., of the people in question.
> 
> Again, I don't know the officers involved, and I never said that they were dirty. I simply responded to this:
> 
> ...


 
The reports are that undercover officers did not have specific targets at the club. They were on that location to look for drug violations. One of the club bouncers seemed to indicate to one of the entertainers that he was armed. There have been *no reports* that Mr. Bell, Mr. Benefield and Mr. Guzmen were targets in any way. There have been no reports that the young men were subject to any police 'sting'.

The reference about the officer putting himself at the front of the car was first mentioned by Grenadier, in post #31. He referenced this article from the Post: 
http://www.nypost.com/seven/1127200...n_queens_regionalnews_murray_weiss.htm?page=0

From the article, it sounds as if the car was not moving at the time the officer placed his foot on the vehicle. 

I think I later ripped into this article because, in my opinion, it sensationalized the events for a Sunday Night Movie.


----------



## MJS (Dec 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The reports are that undercover officers did not have specific targets at the club. They were on that location to look for drug violations. One of the club bouncers seemed to indicate to one of the entertainers that he was armed. There have been *no reports* that Mr. Bell, Mr. Benefield and Mr. Guzmen were targets in any way. There have been no reports that the young men were subject to any police 'sting'.
> 
> The reference about the officer putting himself at the front of the car was first mentioned by Grenadier, in post #31. He referenced this article from the Post:
> http://www.nypost.com/seven/1127200...n_queens_regionalnews_murray_weiss.htm?page=0
> ...


 
Taken from the original article I linked.



> According to Kelly, the groom was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club and one of his friends made a reference to a gun.


 
I'd imagine this is what brought attention to themselves.  To be perfectly honest Mike, I really don't even know what to think anymore.  I mean, there are so many stories, and un-named sources running around telling 'their' version of what happened.  This most likely will take a very, very long time to investigate.  Hopefully, in the end, all of the facts will be brought out.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 28, 2006)

Yes, there was a reference to a gun, according to many of the reports. One of the first questions I raised, was who was involved in the 'verbal dispute' ... It appears that the dispute was between 8 young men, none of which was the police. 

The undercover officer reports having overheard Mr. Guzmen say 'Yo, get my gun', during that dispute. We know now that there was no gun in the car. Additionally, the preliminary official report, released on December 11, makes no mention of the mysterious fourth man. So that claim, thrown about by anonymous sources, seems to have evaporated.

Did you see this link .... I amended it to an earlier post, but, the you had replied before I edited, so you may have missed it. The graphic shows how far the undercover officer followed Bell and Co. Which goes back to one of my questions - 'why was the undercover officer following the young men?'

EDIT - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/ny...9ecade&ei=5070 

This link is to a New York Times Slide Deck. It is pretty interesting. Slide 4 is of note, because it shows the distance that Bell and Co *walked *to get to the Altima. During this walk - which appears to be past at least four building lots - the undercover officer followed them quite a distance. Recall the reports of identification as a police officer differ, and at best, say the officer displayed his badge *at* the Altima, and not before.

Sorry, this link does require an account at NYTimes web site. It is free.

END EDIT​I'm not sure there are all that many 'un-named' sources. Maybe, all those anonymous quotes are from the same source. And many of those anonymous quotes have apparently been rendered "no longer in effect" - like the report of a fourth man. Once those quotes get out in open, however, it doesn't matter if they are proved ineffective. The well has been poisoned. Some people will continue to insist there was a fourth man, with a gun, to reinforce their belief that the cops were justified, even though the December 11, official preliminary report makes zero mention of this supposed fourth man.

That's the SPIN factor. As you yourself have said, you can't keep track of the story, the quotes, the sources. Maybe, that's the point.

And ... the story moves on. Mr. Bell's death is a month old now. It is no longer on the front page. Other stories take precedence. People, having formed their opinioins, check out. The story fades into history. And when the 'facts' do come out, they will be a footnote on page A-18.

Really, this is a small tragedy. Especially, with all the other destruction going on all around us. There are going to be 3,000 dead in Iraq by Tuesday. But, we still don't know why this young man is dead.


----------



## MJS (Dec 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Yes, there was a reference to a gun, according to many of the reports. One of the first questions I raised, was who was involved in the 'verbal dispute' ... It appears that the dispute was between 8 young men, none of which was the police.


 
Agreed.



> The undercover officer reports having overheard Mr. Guzmen say 'Yo, get my gun', during that dispute. We know now that there was no gun in the car. Additionally, the preliminary official report, released on December 11, makes no mention of the mysterious fourth man. So that claim, thrown about by anonymous sources, seems to have evaporated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, I missed the link but did take the time to look thru it now.  A few things that interest me.  1) There was mention of a gun, but what I'd like to know is, where was it?  Its stated that he says, "Yo, go get my gun." but we don't know the location of it.  2) As for the 4th person...yes, that is a mystery.  I recall an earlier post which said something about one of the dancers at the club possibly being that person.  Also what about Mr. Nelson.  Could he have been the 4th?  I really don't know.​


> I'm not sure there are all that many 'un-named' sources. Maybe, all those anonymous quotes are from the same source. And many of those anonymous quotes have apparently been rendered "no longer in effect" - like the report of a fourth man. Once those quotes get out in open, however, it doesn't matter if they are proved ineffective. The well has been poisoned. Some people will continue to insist there was a fourth man, with a gun, to reinforce their belief that the cops were justified, even though the December 11, official preliminary report makes zero mention of this supposed fourth man.


 
Well, IMO, 4th person or not, the main focus should be on the people that were shot, if policy was followed, etc.  




> And ... the story moves on. Mr. Bell's death is a month old now. It is no longer on the front page. Other stories take precedence. People, having formed their opinioins, check out. The story fades into history. And when the 'facts' do come out, they will be a footnote on page A-18.
> 
> Really, this is a small tragedy. Especially, with all the other destruction going on all around us. There are going to be 3,000 dead in Iraq by Tuesday. But, we still don't know why this young man is dead.


 
Yes, that true, I hardly hear much about this anymore.  Reminds me of Natalie Holloway.  Seemed like she was in the news every day, and now we don't hear anything.  They had so many supposed leads, but yet there is no body.  The world sure would be a better place if we didn't have so much violence.

Mike


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 28, 2006)

City of 8 million or not, Im guessing that the NYPD cops know who the "players" are in their districts. Im guessing that they dont deal with "8 million" on a daily basis, only a few thousand citywide and probably a few hundred district wide.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 28, 2006)

MJS said:


> Well, IMO, 4th person or not, the main focus should be on the people that were shot, if policy was followed, etc.


 
Interestingly, the NY Police Department apparently has a policy of *not* firing a weapon at a moving automobile. Seems like an odd policy.

Although, the policy I am more interested in, in this case, is the 'Three Shots and Assess' policy; recalling that one office fired 31 times. That means at least 9 stops to assess the situation and once to reload.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 28, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> City of 8 million or not, Im guessing that the NYPD cops know who the "players" are in their districts. Im guessing that they dont deal with "8 million" on a daily basis, only a few thousand citywide and probably a few hundred district wide.


 
This undecover unit was apparently playing outside their own district. The officers were part of a 'city-wide' Club Enforcement Unit. 

And you seem to be predicating your belief that Mr. Bell, Mr. Benefield and Mr. Guzman are part of the 'few hundered district wide'. I wonder why?


----------



## MJS (Dec 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Interestingly, the NY Police Department apparently has a policy of *not* firing a weapon at a moving automobile. Seems like an odd policy.
> 
> Although, the policy I am more interested in, in this case, is the 'Three Shots and Assess' policy; recalling that one office fired 31 times. That means at least 9 stops to assess the situation and once to reload.


 
Yes, both are rather interesting.  Could you direct me to a link if you have one available?  I'd be interested in reading more about this.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 30, 2006)

MJS said:


> Yes, both are rather interesting. Could you direct me to a link if you have one available? I'd be interested in reading more about this.
> 
> Mike


 
This link directs you to an article from 11/27. Much of the premises within are now out of date ... and may seek further refinement ... but, as the mainstream media has largely passed this story by, and some have insinuated that following only the black press has some nefarious purpose - even though they are the only ones still reporting. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15924960/



> If the officers thought they were justified in using deadly force because Bell was using his car as a weapon, they are mistaken.  The problem with this case is that the use of deadly force is never justified unless an officer believes deadly force is being used or is about to be used against him or her.  The police departments policy on shooting at a moving motor vehicle is clear:  You cannot do it, even if the vehicle itself is being used as a weapon against you.  You cannot shoot at a moving car, even if it is trying to run you over, unless deadly force is being used against you and the car itself does not count as deadly force.  A car is clearly exempted from the definition of deadly force.
> In order for the officers use of force to be justified, they would have had to reasonably believe deadly force was about to be used against them.  In other words, that someone had a gun and was about to use it.  But no weapon was recovered from the scene, and it appears that no one was armed.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Interestingly, the NY Police Department apparently has a policy of *not* firing a weapon at a moving automobile. Seems like an odd policy.
> 
> Although, the policy I am more interested in, in this case, is the 'Three Shots and Assess' policy; recalling that one office fired 31 times. That means at least 9 stops to assess the situation and once to reload.



It's very common for law enforcement agencies to strictly limit the circumstances when an officer may fire on a moving vehicle.  Some minor little concern about creating a 2000 pound unguided missile...  Generally, firing at a moving vehicle is essentially a tactic of last resort, when the officer or public are in imminent danger of deadly harm AND there appears to be no reasonable line of retreat or escape.  

I'm not familiar with the details of NYPD training regarding shooting and assessing; my training in my state was to, in theory, assess after every one or 2 shots, and that was fairly standard training across the country.  I am, however, quite familiar with extensive, peer reviewed research that shows that each officer makes his own decision about when to start and stop shooting in an incident like this based on their own perceptions about the rapidly unfolding situation.  I'm also familar with the simple fact that it's not at all uncommon for an officer involved in a shooting to have shot his gun empty and only recall firing one or two shots.  Again, I refer you to the Force Science Research Institute, as well as the work of Col. Dave Grossman (USA, ret.) about what goes on, physically, emotionally, and psychologically during a shooting.  

The simple truth is that this incident is under investigation, and that armchair quarterbacking it isn't clearing anything up.  Most people doing so have already decided what they believe happened, based on whatever accounts they feel are credible in the light of the biases they bring to the table.  (And we all bring biases to the table in a discussion like this; I'm, not unsurprisingly, pro-police and will generally assume that they were doing what they were supposed to unless & until I see evidence to the contrary.)  

There's another truth at play, too.  Media influence on public opinion may lead to a witch hunt, no matter what the investigation determines.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2007)

Grand Jury testimony in the shooting of Mr. Bell wrapped up today. 

Earlier in the week, there were reports of a 55 year old man, who spoke very little English, emerging as a 'new' witness. According to reports, this witness reported a man firing one or two shots at the officers in question, and then running into a building. Further, the reports indicate this witness said the officers vocally announced they were police officers. The reports today are that investigators have known of this witness for some time, and had interviewed several months back. 

On Monday, an announcement of the Grand Jury proceedings is expected. The current report is that three of the police officers will be indicted; the three who fired the most shots. What charges may be filed has not been hinted at in today's reports. 

Of course, as the Grand Jury proceedings were coming to a close, some areas of New York City have been on a higher alert status, with extra officers deployed. All the usual calls for restraint were made by all officials.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2007)

Three officers were indicted with Manslaughter charges this week. 

Two officers were not indicted. These two officers who fired the least amount of shots toward Mr. Bell's automobile.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2008)

Bumping this old thread back up.  Saw this article in todays paper.
http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-nyshooting0423.artapr23,0,2036520.story



> NEW YORK  - When police killed an unarmed African immigrant in a hail of 41 bullets in 1999, outrage was rampant on the streets of New York.
> 
> About 1,200 people were arrested, including elected officials and celebrities, during a month of daily protests. Thousands more marched through the city after the officers were acquitted in Amadou Diallo's death.
> 
> ...


 
Amazing how long this case has been going on.  And of course, good ol' Al is making an appearance.


----------



## MJS (Apr 25, 2008)

Oh boy.  I wonder if this is going to spell trouble?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24305660/


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 25, 2008)

If I were to fathom a guess, there's going to be some isolated rioting.  I doubt it will reach nearly the same level as what happened in 1992, with the Rodney King riots, since there wasn't nearly as much hoopla going on.


----------



## MJS (Apr 25, 2008)

Grenadier said:


> If I were to fathom a guess, there's going to be some isolated rioting. I doubt it will reach nearly the same level as what happened in 1992, with the Rodney King riots, since there wasn't nearly as much hoopla going on.


 
I've never understood why people take to rioting to voice their opinion.  People watch sports.  Their fav. team wins and what do they do?  Go on a rampage.  People watch high profile court cases unfold.  They don't like the decision..they riot.  IMHO, that does nothing to solve the problem.  It just brings on more problems.  I'm sure there're better ways to voice their displeasure over this, if people are upset with the outcome.  It'll be interesting to see if a civil suit comes out of this.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 25, 2008)

MJS said:


> It'll be interesting to see if a civil suit comes out of this.


 
Bell's fiance had already filed, and the case has been postponed pending the outcome of the criminal trial. I imagine that the civil suit(s) will now go forward......

....no word of any rioting.


----------



## MJS (Apr 26, 2008)

Another article.

Some highlights.



> We strategically know how to stop the city so people stand still and realize that you do not have the right to shoot down unarmed, innocent civilians," Sharpton told an overflow crowd of several hundred people at his National Action Network office in the historically black Manhattan neighborhood. "This city is going to deal with the blood of Sean Bell."
> He joined Bell's family in the 20-block march 20-block march down Malcolm X Boulevard and then across 125th Street, Harlem's main business thoroughfare, where some bystanders yelled out "Kill the police!"


 
We're going to shut the city down and kill the police?  Yeah real nice Rev.  I'm sure acting like a bunch of fools is really going to get you much respect.  Its interesting because I was reading in my local paper, that many of the people who spoke on behalf of Sean didn't seem too credible.



> "We strategically know how to stop the city so people stand still and realize that you do not have the right to shoot down unarmed, innocent civilians," Sharpton told an overflow crowd of several hundred people at his National Action Network office in the historically black Manhattan neighborhood. "This city is going to deal with the blood of Sean Bell."


 
Lets start with unarmed.  Well, its said a gun wasn't found, but does that mean there wasnt one at all?  Innocent?  Were they really? 



> Sharpton urged people to return for a meeting this week "to plan the day that we will close this city down" with the kind of "massive civil disobedience" once led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.


 
So running thru the streets acting like animals is really going to help with the credibility of any of these people.


----------



## grydth (Apr 26, 2008)

I've despised the unrepentent Sharpton since the Brawley hoax. 

However - how fair is it to hold the entire crowd responsible for some bystanders who chanted "kill the police" ? There may well have been many people there honestly concerned about the shooting who did not chant or agree with that sentiment.


----------



## MJS (Apr 26, 2008)

grydth said:


> I've despised the unrepentent Sharpton since the Brawley hoax.
> 
> However - how fair is it to hold the entire crowd responsible for some bystanders who chanted "kill the police" ? There may well have been many people there honestly concerned about the shooting who did not chant or agree with that sentiment.


 
Well, sure, I suppose anything is possible.  I guess I was just going with one bad apple spoils the bunch and guilty by association.  I mean, would you hang around with someone if you knew that they were a troublemaker or known dirtbag?  

If you have 50 people yelling "Kill the cops!" and 10 of those people are not interested in violence or killing someone, why would you hang with that group?  You have 2 groups technically then, so even if you're against what happened, but also against violence, you'd think those 10 would find another less violent way to act or demo. their disapproval.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 26, 2008)

MJS said:


> Well, sure, I suppose anything is possible. I guess I was just going with one bad apple spoils the bunch and guilty by association. I mean, would you hang around with someone if you knew that they were a troublemaker or known dirtbag?
> 
> If you have 50 people yelling "Kill the cops!" and 10 of those people are not interested in violence or killing someone, why would you hang with that group? You have 2 groups technically then, so even if you're against what happened, but also against violence, you'd think those 10 would find another less violent way to act or demo. their disapproval.


 
I do not know that you can call people who make up a spontaneous demonstration "associates".  It is one thing in a planned situation, but this is not that.



> So running thru the streets acting like animals is really going to help with the credibility of any of these people.


 
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that not you are calling every group of minority demonstrators is an animal.  The reason I say this is due to the context of your quote of the article:

"Sharpton urged people to return for a meeting this week "to plan the day that we will close this city down" with the kind of "massive civil disobedience" once led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr." 

So were those who demonstrated with Martin Luther King Jr. also animals?  I would suggest you think about the way you frame your position and the quotes on which you use to base them.


----------



## MJS (Apr 26, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I do not know that you can call people who make up a spontaneous demonstration "associates". It is one thing in a planned situation, but this is not that.


 
So you're telling me that someone may have innocently been walking by the court house or whatever area this group was in, and wasn't able to tell that it was some sort of protest, especially one with possible violence and not say to yourself, "Hmm..this doesn't look good.  Maybe I should leave the area."  Sorry, can't buy that.  If I had to wager a guess, I'd say that the majority of people who were protesting, were in the court house, were friends or family of the victims.





> I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that not you are calling every group of minority demonstrators is an animal. The reason I say this is due to the context of your quote of the article:
> 
> "Sharpton urged people to return for a meeting this week "to plan the day that we will close this city down" with the kind of "massive civil disobedience" once led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr."
> 
> So were those who demonstrated with Martin Luther King Jr. also animals? I would suggest you think about the way you frame your position and the quotes on which you use to base them.


 
I think you may be reading too deep into my post, although I will give you the benefit of the doubt as well, as I may not have been that clear.  But, for the sake of the discussion, let me be clear.  First off, I didn't mention race.  I quoted parts from an article.  Second, it would not matter if the person was black, hispanic, white, or any other race...if you're going out into the streets, calling for civil disobedience, people saying kill cops, then yes, you're acting out of control.  Simple figure of speech, which there was no racial motives behind that.  I have many black and hispanic friends, so the last thing I am is racial.  Look thru my past posts to see if there is anything racial.  And lastly, if you're offended by my post, hit the RTM so the post can be reviewed.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 26, 2008)

I didnt take your post that way MJS, I knew exactly what you meant


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 27, 2008)

MJS said:


> So you're telling me that someone may have innocently been walking by the court house or whatever area this group was in, and wasn't able to tell that it was some sort of protest, especially one with possible violence and not say to yourself, "Hmm..this doesn't look good. Maybe I should leave the area." Sorry, can't buy that. If I had to wager a guess, I'd say that the majority of people who were protesting, were in the court house, were friends or family of the victims.
> 
> I think you may be reading too deep into my post, although I will give you the benefit of the doubt as well, as I may not have been that clear. But, for the sake of the discussion, let me be clear. First off, I didn't mention race. I quoted parts from an article. Second, it would not matter if the person was black, hispanic, white, or any other race...if you're going out into the streets, calling for civil disobedience, people saying kill cops, then yes, you're acting out of control. Simple figure of speech, which there was no racial motives behind that. I have many black and hispanic friends, so the last thing I am is racial. Look thru my past posts to see if there is anything racial. And lastly, if you're offended by my post, hit the RTM so the post can be reviewed.


 
What I am saying is that there were probably several hundred people anticipating the decision. When it did not happen the way they agreed with, they protested. Spontaneously. Some few in the crowd probably said stupid things. That in no way diminishes the intention of the others in non-violent demonstration. 

My issue with what you said was simply that you quote a remark discussing protest in the way of Martin Luther King, Jr. Then you proceed to call those who would participate in such "animals". I simply suggested that you be cognizant of the quotes and things that you say and use for formulation of your argument, as they can be misunderstood. In no way did I suggest that you were making a rasict comment, just that it could be easily construed as such by your wording.

My next question for you is whether you disagree with civil disobedience. The reason I ask is because if one were to protest, a la Martin Luther King, Jr. style (as the article you quoted mentions), there would be little risk of being "animal"-like in behavior.

I would suggest that if you are against any form of non-violent demonstration, you leave little else to those who feel that a system of laws that is biased against them few choices other then to resort to violence. I am not suggesting that the system is so, but that there are those that believe it to be so., probably based on historical precedence.


----------



## grydth (Apr 27, 2008)

MJS said:


> Well, sure, I suppose anything is possible.  I guess I was just going with one bad apple spoils the bunch and guilty by association.  I mean, would you hang around with someone if you knew that they were a troublemaker or known dirtbag?
> 
> If you have 50 people yelling "Kill the cops!" and 10 of those people are not interested in violence or killing someone, why would you hang with that group?  You have 2 groups technically then, so even if you're against what happened, but also against violence, you'd think those 10 would find another less violent way to act or demo. their disapproval.



I wish you would rethink this one, it simply does not sound like the person I know.

The MSNBC report mentions a *20 block march*, with some people at *one block* chanting "Kill the Police"...... That's nowhere near any 50/10 split in numbers with respect to the crowd's demeanor. Even the disgusting Sharpton was advocating civil disobedience to shut the city down, and it appears the crowd was supporting that course of action.

I don't think you can judge an entire crowd by the words of only a very few.

If you really wish to contend that "one bad apple spoils the bunch", I would submit to you that there will remain precious few unspoiled bunches in the world, to include Martial Talk Forum. A recent - locked - discussion mentioned the return of the despicable practice of anonymous negative repping.... where those who don't have the brains to debate or the integrity/courage to sign their reputation leave digs on others in the dark of night. Applying your standard, are all of us here  cowards and sneaks because of the actions of these few clowns?


----------



## MJS (Apr 27, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What I am saying is that there were probably several hundred people anticipating the decision. When it did not happen the way they agreed with, they protested. Spontaneously. Some few in the crowd probably said stupid things. That in no way diminishes the intention of the others in non-violent demonstration.
> 
> My issue with what you said was simply that you quote a remark discussing protest in the way of Martin Luther King, Jr. Then you proceed to call those who would participate in such "animals". I simply suggested that you be cognizant of the quotes and things that you say and use for formulation of your argument, as they can be misunderstood. In no way did I suggest that you were making a rasict comment, just that it could be easily construed as such by your wording.
> 
> ...


 
As I said, the term was a simple figure of speech.  If someone wants to protest something, go ahead.  But the difference lies in how you go about doing it.  Is it peaceful? If so, that is fine.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions.  But, if you're going to resort to violence, threats of violence, flipping cars, burning things, etc., then yes, you're acting out of control, wild, etc.  

If someone was in college and was referred to as a 'party animal' would you say that is a racist term?


----------



## MJS (Apr 27, 2008)

grydth said:


> I wish you would rethink this one, it simply does not sound like the person I know.
> 
> The MSNBC report mentions a *20 block march*, with some people at *one block* chanting "Kill the Police"...... That's nowhere near any 50/10 split in numbers with respect to the crowd's demeanor. Even the disgusting Sharpton was advocating civil disobedience to shut the city down, and it appears the crowd was supporting that course of action.


 
The 50/10 split, was again, an example.  If we want to get technical, we don't know how many people were present, but as I said to 5.0 Kenpo, if someone wants to protest, fine, but do it without violence or threats of.



> I don't think you can judge an entire crowd by the words of only a very few.
> 
> If you really wish to contend that "one bad apple spoils the bunch", I would submit to you that there will remain precious few unspoiled bunches in the world, to include Martial Talk Forum. A recent - locked - discussion mentioned the return of the despicable practice of anonymous negative repping.... where those who don't have the brains to debate or the integrity/courage to sign their reputation leave digs on others in the dark of night. Applying your standard, are all of us here cowards and sneaks because of the actions of these few clowns?


 
I think you're missing the point here.  Lets use pitbulls as an example.  If you took a survey, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people would say that they'd never own one, that they're a bad breed, etc.  But in reality its not the dog, its the way they're treated.  But that does not mean every pit is bad.  I know someone who has 2 and she says they're the most gentle dogs around.  In this case, with the pits, they are labled by a select few that abuse them.  Same thing with this case in NYC.  Is every protester out of control?  No, but why is it any time a protest is going to happen, the police presence is high?

I really don't think that I have to explain this to you though.


----------



## grydth (Apr 27, 2008)

I almost replied saying apples were better examples to use than pitbulls....... and realized we risk having dueling example models rather than any real substantive difference. 

The toughest lesson for any lawyer to learn is when to shut up and sit down.

So......Having nothing new of substance to add, then, I will bid you a good evening!


----------



## MJS (Apr 27, 2008)

grydth said:


> I almost replied saying apples were better examples to use than pitbulls....... and realized we risk having dueling example models rather than any real substantive difference.
> 
> The toughest lesson for any lawyer to learn is when to shut up and sit down.
> 
> So......Having nothing new of substance to add, then, I will bid you a good evening!


 
Whats really interesting is how this thread suddenly went from discussing the shooting, to riots/protests, to an apple to orange to pitbull debate.  And of course, as always, study topics usually result in mixed points of view.  Part of that is being able to be somewhat civil and still discuss the topic at hand.  Sadly that doesnt seem to be happening here.

Have a good evening.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 28, 2008)

MJS said:


> The 50/10 split, was again, an example. If we want to get technical, we don't know how many people were present, but as I said to 5.0 Kenpo, if someone wants to protest, fine, but do it without violence or threats of.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Again, all I was trying to point out is how your statement could be very easily misconstrued.  I guess my point was missed.  And I do not see how people are not being civil.  In no way has anyone here insulted anyone else.  If I have insulted you somehow, I apologize, and would simply ask what I said that was so insulting.  

You make a point of saying any time there is a protest, the police are there because the protesters can get out of control.  While this is true, very few protests actually result in violence.  Often times, the police are there for such mundane things as traffic and crowd control, not because of potential violence.  And remember, sometimes it is not the protesters that start the violence, but those that disagree with them.  So the police are there to protect the protest, just as much to protect people from the protesters.


----------



## MJS (Apr 28, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Again, all I was trying to point out is how your statement could be very easily misconstrued. I guess my point was missed. And I do not see how people are not being civil. In no way has anyone here insulted anyone else. If I have insulted you somehow, I apologize, and would simply ask what I said that was so insulting.


 
Well, its like I always say...any time a discussion takes place on a forum, there is bound to be some confusion, misunderstanding, etc.  I'm sure this is the case here.   No worries, no hard feelings. 



> You make a point of saying any time there is a protest, the police are there because the protesters can get out of control. While this is true, very few protests actually result in violence. Often times, the police are there for such mundane things as traffic and crowd control, not because of potential violence. And remember, sometimes it is not the protesters that start the violence, but those that disagree with them. So the police are there to protect the protest, just as much to protect people from the protesters.


 
I suppose its going to depend on whats being protested.  I don't follow politics much, but I know there have been and I'm sure there still are, protests against the war.  Have those been violent?  Or have they just resulted in some heat between the 2 sides?

In a case like this shooting, or the beating of Rodney King, I'd say that the chance of violence, etc. being on the high side.  

Hey, I wasn't there, so all I have to go on is what I see online.  We all know that the media isn't the most reliable source, so I'm sure things have been left out.  But, it seems to me that this is a case of someone not wanting to believe that their son could have done anything wrong.  Did he?  Again, I don't know as I wasnt there.  

I simply wanted to carry on the thread with the new findings.  The protests are, IMHO, just a sideshow to the main event.


----------



## MJS (Jul 28, 2010)

http://www.courant.com/news/nation-world/sns-ap-us-police-shooting-settlement,0,1820567.story

I know this is an old thread, however, I thought I'd post this update that I saw in the paper today.



> NEW YORK (AP)  The city of New York has agreed to pay more than $7 million to settle a civil lawsuit stemming from the fatal 50-bullet police shooting of an unarmed man on his wedding day.
> 
> The settlement filed in Brooklyn federal court on Tuesday pays $3.25 million to the estate of Sean Bell, who was killed in 2006 outside a strip club in Queens while leaving his bachelor party. As part of the settlement, the city agreed to pay $3 million to Joseph Guzman and $900,000 to Trent Benefield, both of whom were wounded in the shooting that killed their friend.
> 
> The lawsuit had accused the city of wrongful death, negligence, assault and civil rights violations.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 28, 2010)

I'm going to have to disagree with this matter.  If the jury had a sense of responsibility, they would realize, that had the perps simply used a bit of common sense, and not tried to run over the officers, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.


----------



## MJS (Jul 28, 2010)

Grenadier said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with this matter. If the jury had a sense of responsibility, they would realize, that had the perps simply used a bit of *common sense,* and not tried to run over the officers, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.


 
Well, thats the key word right there...common sense.


----------

