Sean Bell Trial (New York, York: salary, job, crime)

[baylovers]

Wow, you are really that naive?

Did they immediately identify themselves? I'm sure if they did, Bell wouldn't have tried to take off.

Uh yeah.... it happens quite often. Bad guys run from the police because they do not want to go to jail. Ever watch "Cops" on TV?

So just because a cop "believes" there is a gun, they can take whatever action they like?

No, they have to take reasonable action. Every scenario is different, but generally you wouldn't go up against someone armed (or believed) with a gun with a nightstick.

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.

Your arguments are quite lame.... the average citizen doesn't go through the amount of training a police officer does. The average citizen does not have the responsibility of a police officer to make sure the other average citizens are safe.

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.

How do you disable a vehicle while it is ramming into your car or into your legs?

Ya know what, I can't even go through the rest of your post. It is the most nonsensical argument in this whole thread. The fact is that these were cops and not some band of thugs rolling down the street.

The police are the safety line between us and anarchy... like it or not.

[pdcnret]

Originally Posted by ogplife

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.

Now you're getting the idea. The law sets up different standards for cops (that's the law, not the department or the culture.) They're allowed to do things that others can't, simply because they are cops. Read the law.

[pdcnret]

Originally Posted by bbguy05

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.

See my above post. Different legal standards apply to cops. The law allows them to do things that civilians can't. End of story.

Climb down off your soap box. The bottom line is that whatever the cops did -- right or wrong -- did not rise the level of being criminal. You can be as outraged as you want. But we're a nation of laws and what you believe and what the law says may be two extremely opposite things.

Try reading the judge's decision and understanding the many, many inconsistencies in the prosecution case and particularly in the witnesses they presented. These weren't choir boys -- Guzman is an ex-con. Think he has an axe to grind with the cops?

[ogplife]

Originally Posted by pdcnret

Now you're getting the idea. The law sets up different standards for cops (that's the law, not the department or the culture.) They're allowed to do things that others can't, simply because they are cops. Read the law.

Trust me I know the law quite well.

[aj2007]

The whole situation is horrible and should have never happened. I feel so bad for his family. Cops can get away with anything and because of that a innocence person died. Knowing how horrible "the system" is the cops will get off scott free.

[pdcnret]

Originally Posted by ogplife

Trust me I know the law quite well.

Good. Then there's no need to explain it to you any further.

[SeventhFloor]

Originally Posted by pdcnret

See my above post. Different legal standards apply to cops. The law allows them to do things that civilians can't. End of story.

Climb down off your soap box. The bottom line is that whatever the cops did -- right or wrong -- did not rise the level of being criminal. You can be as outraged as you want. But we're a nation of laws and what you believe and what the law says may be two extremely opposite things.

Try reading the judge's decision and understanding the many, many inconsistencies in the prosecution case and particularly in the witnesses they presented. These weren't choir boys -- Guzman is an ex-con. Think he has an axe to grind with the cops?

i don't think that any of their criminal histories have relevance to the chain of events. but of course the defense will bring that up, anything they can to discredit these guys. bottom line, i'm not even mad that they got acquitted of manslaughter, but i think reckless endangerment was a justifiable charge. one of the bullets fired went through the air train terminal for christ sake.

[pdcnret]

Originally Posted by SeventhFloor

i don't think that any of their criminal histories have relevance to the chain of events. but of course the defense will bring that up, anything they can to discredit these guys. bottom line, i'm not even mad that they got acquitted of manslaughter, but i think reckless endangerment was a justifiable charge. one of the bullets fired went through the air train terminal for christ sake.

Criminal histories are important to credibility on the witness stand. And particularly so when the defendants are cops. Do you think that someone with a record, who has done time, might testify less than truthfully against the cops?

Again, what people may commonly believe is reckless behavior does not necessarily fit within the law. There is an intent or state of mind that goes along with that in order to meet the requirements of the law. If this had been a running gun battle between the cops and some bad guys, would you still think that a bullet through the air terminal was reckless?

[bbguy05]

Originally Posted by baylovers

Uh yeah.... it happens quite often. Bad guys run from the police because they do not want to go to jail. Ever watch "Cops" on TV?

Not everybody who is confronted by a cop runs. But if they were confronted in the middle of the night by some strange person with a gun, they would run. If you were in the same situation, unless they properly identified themselves as police, you woudn't stay to see what these unknown armed men are going to do.

Originally Posted by baylovers

No, they have to take reasonable action. Every scenario is different, but generally you wouldn't go up against someone armed (or believed) with a gun with a nightstick.

The police go up against anyone with a gun no matter what the situation is. The thought of them using a nighstick is just funny.

Originally Posted by baylovers

Your arguments are quite lame.... the average citizen doesn't go through the amount of training a police officer does. The average citizen does not have the responsibility of a police officer to make sure the other average citizens are safe.

The training you receive with your gun doesn't dictate the amount of shots you can fire when you feel your life is in danger. Is there some type of manual that says you can only fire X number of shots when you feel you life is in danger at X level? Please take that somewhere else!

Your trying to say if an average citizen felt their lives were in dangered and the have a legally owned gun, they could only shoot an X number of shots to defend themselves because they don't have the amount of training police do? Your ridiculous.

The cops that night didn't care for the safety of other average citizens that night of the shooting. Bullets went all over the place and could have struck a child. Where was their responsiblity then?

Originally Posted by baylovers

How do you disable a vehicle while it is ramming into your car or into your legs?

I wouldn't even put my body in front of the car in the first place.

Originally Posted by baylovers

Ya know what, I can't even go through the rest of your post. It is the most nonsensical argument in this whole thread. The fact is that these were cops and not some band of thugs rolling down the street.

The police are the safety line between us and anarchy... like it or not.

I never said the cops were thugs. I just want to know how their actions that night went unpunished, when they showed no regard to the safety of those around.

It's sad that you couldn't go through the rest of my post. I was kind of interested on seeing what you had to say. I'm just telling it like it is. If you don't like, I really don't care. You have your opinion, I have mine.

[bbguy05]

Originally Posted by pdcnret

See my above post. Different legal standards apply to cops. The law allows them to do things that civilians can't. End of story.

Climb down off your soap box. The bottom line is that whatever the cops did -- right or wrong -- did not rise the level of being criminal. You can be as outraged as you want. But we're a nation of laws and what you believe and what the law says may be two extremely opposite things.

Try reading the judge's decision and understanding the many, many inconsistencies in the prosecution case and particularly in the witnesses they presented. These weren't choir boys -- Guzman is an ex-con. Think he has an axe to grind with the cops?

If they were choir boys with no criminal history, would it have made any difference? Would it have made any difference if there was a baby in the backseat of the car?

In your head, a cop does wrong it's okay. A citizen does wrong, it's not.

The sad thing is that you are right, cops can do whatever they want as long as its in the name of being a cop. Maybe I should become a cop and commit a few crimes, so I can get away with it.