Sean Bell Trial (credit, home, crime)

[ogplife]

Originally Posted by pdcnret

Where to begin? How about this:

1. Cops testified they did identify themselves.
2. No "proof" needed that they had a gun. Cops believed it so.
3. No such thing as an "excessive" number of shots under the law. Use of deadly physical force is the use of deadly physical force -- without qualification.
4. Cops aren't trained to shoot out the tires. That's television -- and it doesn't work.
5. Cops profiled no one. Cops were black (2 of the 3 on trial) and patrons were black (not just the ones shot.)
6. They weren't staking out the bar -- they were involved in an active undercover investigation.
7. Cops didn't jump into this simply because there was an argument. There was credible evidence that statements were made about the presence of a gun.

And yes, it is a tragedy for all. This isn't over for those cops. Not by a long shot. They may in fact face federal prosecution or lose their jobs. They will be the subject of multiple civil suits. Their lives are ruined forever.

Bottom line is that these cops didn't intend to kill anyone that night when they went to work. They were caught up in a tragic event that no cop ever wants to face. Your version of events reads like a fairytale -- straight out of the liberal media accounts. The verdict was appropriate -- the prosecution failed to prove its case. This is all about the law -- not about anyone's feelings or beliefs.

Since you know the law so well I guess I should remind you that it is policy for cops not to shoot at moving vehicles. I recall our ex governor and mayor stating this when the murder happened.

[ogplife]

Originally Posted by diamondplayer

8. Dont hang out at a bar until 4 am on the day you are getting married with friends who are ILLEGALY armed or worse, pretend to be.

Let me guess number 9 is don't have bachelor parties either. Whatever.

[pdcnret]

Originally Posted by ogplife

Since you know the law so well I guess I should remind you that it is policy for cops not to shoot at moving vehicles. I recall our ex governor and mayor stating this when the murder happened.

Except if their lives are in danger -- which they believed was the case. And yes, I do know the law well -- there are no prohibitions about firing at moving vehicles in the law. That's department policy -- not law.

That's what everyone here seems to be missing. This is all about what fits within the parameters of law. What the cops did, while a tragic mistake, did not amount to criminal behavior. That's the standard that has to be met -- not emotions and beliefs and outrage.

And by the way, despite what you may believe, there was no murder here. No charges of murder, no legal discussion of murder. The only place that the word murder is heard is from the people who are trying to stir the pot and make this something it wasn't.

[pdcnret]

Originally Posted by SilkCity0416

^^^ So we're blaiming the victim here? That is like telling an Iraqi mother, who lost her kid in firefight: "You shouldn't be in a warzone!" I know this is apples to oranges, but lets not place blaim on Bell and his friends. This whole situation is nothing more than a tragedy. This city has a history of young, black males getting gunned down; never once have a gun was been found in these incidents. What I don't get is: How in the hell was these cops we're found guilty of reckless endangerment? I mean, 50 bullets fired on a street! There is no reason for that. 50 bullets. bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. x 5. How can these cops not be found guilty of that?

You're not following this. Nobody is blaming the victim. This was a tragedy. But it was not criminal. 5 bullets or 50 bullets or 500 bullets doesn't matter. The law doesn't put numbers on how many times you can shoot -- and neither does the police department -- when a cop believes his life is in danger.

[diamondplayer]

Originally Posted by ogplife

Let me guess number 9 is don't have bachelor parties either. Whatever.

Isn't it "whatever, whatever" ?

[ogplife]

Originally Posted by pdcnret

Except if their lives are in danger -- which they believed was the case. And yes, I do know the law well -- there are no prohibitions about firing at moving vehicles in the law. That's department policy -- not law.

That's what everyone here seems to be missing. This is all about what fits within the parameters of law. What the cops did, while a tragic mistake, did not amount to criminal behavior. That's the standard that has to be met -- not emotions and beliefs and outrage.

And by the way, despite what you may believe, there was no murder here. No charges of murder, no legal discussion of murder. The only place that the word murder is heard is from the people who are trying to stir the pot and make this something it wasn't.

I guess the cops get to have it both ways. When they are shooting they are acting within the scope of the department, but when they abuse their powers they can ditch the department rules and hide behind the law.

[ogplife]

Originally Posted by pdcnret

You're not following this. Nobody is blaming the victim. This was a tragedy. But it was not criminal. 5 bullets or 50 bullets or 500 bullets doesn't matter. The law doesn't put numbers on how many times you can shoot -- and neither does the police department -- when a cop believes his life is in danger.

The law doesn't put numbers on how many times cops shoot, yet they weigh aggravating and mitigating factors when the public commit a crime. If I go outside and shoot someone it will matter if I did it 5 or 50 times.

[Ogden Assassin]

Originally Posted by Freak

Michael Oliver proves my claims that Lebanese people are White. Anyone else still wish to argue over that?

And your point is???

[Ogden Assassin]

Originally Posted by NooYowkur81

Really, I believe you might be confusing him with one of the other PO'S. I've seen several media outlets indicate he was Lebanese.

There are many Levantine Christians in the Caribbean. He is a Haitian of Levantine heritage.

[bbguy05]

Originally Posted by pdcnret

Where to begin? How about this:

1. Cops testified they did identify themselves.
2. No "proof" needed that they had a gun. Cops believed it so.
3. No such thing as an "excessive" number of shots under the law. Use of deadly physical force is the use of deadly physical force -- without qualification.
4. Cops aren't trained to shoot out the tires. That's television -- and it doesn't work.
5. Cops profiled no one. Cops were black (2 of the 3 on trial) and patrons were black (not just the ones shot.)
6. They weren't staking out the bar -- they were involved in an active undercover investigation.
7. Cops didn't jump into this simply because there was an argument. There was credible evidence that statements were made about the presence of a gun.

And yes, it is a tragedy for all. This isn't over for those cops. Not by a long shot. They may in fact face federal prosecution or lose their jobs. They will be the subject of multiple civil suits. Their lives are ruined forever.

Bottom line is that these cops didn't intend to kill anyone that night when they went to work. They were caught up in a tragic event that no cop ever wants to face. Your version of events reads like a fairytale -- straight out of the liberal media accounts. The verdict was appropriate -- the prosecution failed to prove its case. This is all about the law -- not about anyone's feelings or beliefs.

1. Did they immediately identify themselves? I'm sure if they did, Bell wouldn't have tried to take off. He would have known they were cops instead of a bunch of thugs trying to car-jack/rob him.
2. So just because a cop "believes" there is a gun, they can take whatever action they like?
3. If an average citizen were to shoot 50 bullets at someone they felt threatened their life, there would be serious questions raised about the number of bullets shot. But then if it was a cop, then the number doesn't apply. That's really fair, but then again, cops are above the law and everything they say and do is right and true. *rolls eyes*
4. Cops aren't trained to try and disable the vehicle, but they are trained to just blast away at whomever is inside. There's something wrong with that picture.
5. They did profile. No matter if the cops were black or white, they still profiled.
6. Well they weren't just passing by.
7. And what credible evidence was that?

No matter what happens to these cops, their families still have a Husband, Father & son. The Bell family, on the other hand, do not.

Bottomline, cops get away with a lot of sh*t. Period. Let's think for a moment that these weren't cops. Let's say it was just a rival group that had beef with Bell and his group (not necessarily gangs). The group approached Bell to confront him (and the people in his car), and he took off almost running one of them over. They all shoot and fire a total of 50 shots inside the car(...and they legally owned their guns). Now we have a case of murder.

Now when the rival group goes to trial, their defense that they felt their lives were in danger isn't going to fly AT ALL, and they probably would get prison time. Now slap a couple of badges on them, and they walk away scott free.