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?
