RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

mapachito13 -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 10:25:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

What I don't understand was why they were there in the first place.



Refer to Post 148. The NY Times map gives the timeline. Sean Bell made statements to people in the club and during the altercation with the guy on the street where he inferred he DID have a gun. The police would have probable cause to stop him because it is illegal to be carrying a gun in NYC. If it weren't for this "gun control" law they wouldn't have the probable cause.

Ironic for the anti-gun control crowd isn't it? Maybe they can claim that gun control killed Sean Bell![;)]



rnershigh -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 10:28:44 AM)

Yah sure. Bell didn't know who he was dealing with.
[8|]

Thanks for the link mapachito. The interactive map was really helpful.

If you view that 1dblthnk02, you'll realize yes Bell knew exactly who was approaching him. The police had enough time to identify themselves as such before a fire was shot. The detective that got hit was approaching the car Bell was driving. He was in FRONT of the car. Okay, when I am sitting behind the wheel of my car and I see someone cross in front or walk toward me, I am not going to press the gas and go and hit that person!

Bell knew full well what he was doing, he wanted to get away. A person walking toward his car wasn't going to stop him. He intentionally hit the police officer.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 10:37:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13
The police would have probable cause to stop him because it is illegal to be carrying a gun in NYC. If it weren't for this "gun control" law they wouldn't have the probable cause.

But what were they doing there in the first place? Whom were the cops after?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rnershigh
Bell knew full well what he was doing, he wanted to get away. A person walking toward his car wasn't going to stop him. He intentionally hit the police officer.

He acted with wonton disregard for the officer's safety; this isn't the same thing as attempted murder.



tracydolls -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 10:54:56 AM)

Who did he think he was hitting, so if it was'nt a cop, it's ok to hit someone?

It is sad, especially on the day of his wedding. It just gets hard for people to listen to REAL concerns when every case is taken up. Crying wolf as they say. now the next time, police should be prosecuted and they see AL's face, it will be here he goes again. WE need to pick our fights carefully. It's hard to claim racism when it was 2 black cops involved.



mapachito13 -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 12:31:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tracydolls

Who did he think he was hitting, so if it was'nt a cop, it's ok to hit someone?

It is sad, especially on the day of his wedding. It just gets hard for people to listen to REAL concerns when every case is taken up. Crying wolf as they say. now the next time, police should be prosecuted and they see AL's face, it will be here he goes again. WE need to pick our fights carefully. It's hard to claim racism when it was 2 black cops involved.


It sure wasn't.

But that officer that stepped in front of a car with an engine still running and a guy that might have a gun behind the wheel with two other potentially armed people in the same car wasn't using his brain.[sm=yummy.gif]



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 3:16:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tracydolls
It's hard to claim racism when it was 2 black cops involved.

Like I said before, I suspect that some degree of racism underscores people's celebratory reaction to the acquittal, not so much in the incident itself.

And, like I said before, just because two of the cops were black does not make it automatically okay.



earthless -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 3:19:31 PM)

1dblthnk02 - did you see and study the link that was posted this morning? The facts are what they are - the police were justified and the judge knew that.

But you just called anyone that doesn't side with Bell a racist. Regardless of anything else, you're calling us racists.

A weapon used by those that have no other leg to stand on. It's either that or sexual harassment.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 3:39:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless
1dblthnk02 - did you see and study the link that was posted this morning?

Yes.

quote:

The facts are what they are - the police were justified and the judge knew that.

"Justified" is a loaded word.
But I did say not too long ago that the bottom line resides in what can and cannot be proved in court. The verdict is in, and that's that.
Your reaction to the verdict is what disturbs me.

quote:

But you just called anyone that doesn't side with Bell a racist.

No, I said that if you can celebrate what happened to him, then there is good reason to read racism into it.

Did you read bzirk's post #120? Now, that is a reaction that I can understand even if I don't completely agree with it.



earthless -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 3:49:11 PM)

I guess my reaction is due to being SICK and TIRED of criminals being applauded, being awared millions of tax dollars, cuddled and victims/and the police vilified and hated.



phosadaud -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 3:56:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:

ORIGINAL: phosadaud
They weren't called there for a fight, but they saw a fight break out while they were there. Do you understand why they had to check that out?

What I don't understand was why they were there in the first place.


I'm not sure I understand why you don't. No one contests why they were there. They were investigating the location for a list of illegal activities. While they were there, the fight broke out. The police HAVE to respond.

quote:

quote:

No one claimed that a vehicle in and of itself is a lethal weapon.

earthless did, and even went so far as to suggest that Bell was "armed with a deadly weapon."


He was armed with a deadly weapon when he tried to use his vehicle to mow down officers. If he just got in his car and sat there with the engine off, he wouldn't have been "armed with a deadly weapon". It was his actions that turned the vehicle into a deadly weapon.

quote:

quote:

No, I was using an analogy that I thought MIGHT make more sense to you since you seem to think that not having a gun somehow means you cannot be a threat and shouldn't be shot.

This is the difference between us: I deal with what you actually say, while you attribute your inferences to me when I never said such things at all.


That's funny. You deal with what we actually say and yet you are concluding that anyone who disagrees with is a racist and has racist sentiments... That's just rich... [&:] And if I mistake what you are saying, all you have to say is: I meant "x" not "y".

quote:

quote:

So it took 50 shots for them to know that the threat was neutralized in a chaotic moment?

Pursue and subdue: this is how most cops handle these kinds of situations.

And the word is kill, not "neutralize."


Kill is one way to neutralize a threat. But again, every officer I know and every department I know of would have done the exact same thing if someone was in their vehicle and driving in a way that directly risked the lives of other officers or the public. Once again, what other option did they have? Do you think this is the first time officers have had to open fire on a car that was trying to mow people down?

quote:

quote:

Oy... It's like talking to a brick wall...

I know; isn't it annoying the way that I obsess on those inconvenient facts?


What facts are you presenting?

quote:

quote:

Awww. Another artful dodge to avoid answering a question....

Your irrelevant questions had nothing to do with me being "artful."


Why are they irrelevant?

quote:

quote:

they were at a place being investigated for a litany of crimes and they observed a fight break out.

That's just it: why were they there-- exactly? Whom were they after? Bell? No one asks these things.


Um. No one is asking because the information you seek is easily available to anyone who wants to actually find out the facts of the case. And these facts are not contested.

quote:

quote:

I'm trying to understand then why you think they should have been found guilty of murder for that?

Not if the case could not be made. I believe in our justice system. The verdict was the verdict.

What dismays me is the calloused reaction from people- Christians at that- who are obviously delighted by the whole event. Is it really heresy if I marvel at certain people's gleeful reaction to this horrible event?


People are "delighted" that justice prevailed. No one here is delighted that Bell died.

I know a lot of officers and without exception, they are not "delighted" when they have to use force to stop someone bent on destruction. They are however delighted they were able to stop them from hurting more people. Do you understand the difference?



tracydolls -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 4:14:31 PM)

quote:

Like I said before, I suspect that some degree of racism underscores people's celebratory reaction to the acquittal, not so much in the incident itself.

That can be true. What is there to celebrate? It is sad all the way around. Who is celebrating?

quote:


And, like I said before, just because two of the cops were black does not make it automatically okay.



It was not ok. and NO ONE should be celebrating.

Pro 24:22 For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?

There was nothing to celebrate, if those police truly did it out of malice in their hearts, believe me G-D got them.

I think they are so poorly trained, it's a shame! and is racism involved in cops, of course, there's a terrible case in Mpls, MN


A friend of mine who is a cop on MPD the longest serving AA cop here 23 yrs? when he asked for a promotion, He got criminal charges by the FEDS, I know him , used to date him, they"d have to show me video, let me take the video to my hack friends to make sure it was not put together, etc. to prove it. Look up the name Mike Roberts, MPD
Believe me I know. Now there's a case that needs to be looked at, but we pick the um.... cases, swallow the gnat........cases

Would they find some things in Mikes in past? They Would find me, and LOL, my past, I still cry.



I just don't think this was a good, clear cut case. I pray for that boy, his family, his was to be family, those cops, and this country, because I wonder can we let racism go?


I get scared when I think of the answer, and the repercussions.


But I know racism, used to LOVE that sin, felt proud in it, was stiff-necked in it, especially after you get an EDUCATION, and really see where we come from, BELIEVE ME, I know that one. Loved him for many years. I know him.

I know that one real close, can smell him miles away now. Over cyberspace, hear his voice and my neck stiffens, I know.




this ain't him.


EDIT: are there some posters on here that racist, I can give you the list



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 8:14:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: phosadaud
People are "delighted" that justice prevailed. No one here is delighted that Bell died.

It doesn't seem that way to me, and I'll just leave it at that. I have no more points to make without being redundant.

Thanks to all for this discussion.



earthless -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 8:18:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

quote:

ORIGINAL: phosadaud
People are "delighted" that justice prevailed. No one here is delighted that Bell died.

It doesn't seem that way to me, and I'll just leave it at that. I have no more points to make without being redundant.

Thanks to all for this discussion.


Thank you, too. [:)]



_jjp_ -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/29/2008 9:46:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Again, I can read. They said a good deal more than that: that he was a shady character of no good reputation (post #3 & 22), a drug dealer and a whore-monger (posts #8 & 64), and a criminal (post #12 and others), therefore we should not feel bad for what happened to him (posts #2 & 25).

And for the record, cudos to bzirk who had by far the best and most reasonable response to this incident (post #120).


Post 2 is a thumbs up that the police weren't wrongfully prosecuted in the name of political correctness, post three was simply a commentary on the fact that many in today's society blame others instead of taking personal responsibility. Neither of those glorifiy Bells death or call his character into question. Post 8 described the actual actions of Bell and explains how our actions have consequences but in no way says we shouldn't feel bad for him. Post 64 is a direct answer to a question you posed asking how we would react if it was one of our loved ones and in no way an indictment of Bell. As far as post 12 and others, Bell was a criminal, do you deny that? No one is saying that he deserved to die for being a criminal but it is mentioned as a fact which is in at least some small part responsible for the outcome of the situation. Bad choices bring bad things.



earthless -> RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case (4/30/2008 7:57:54 AM)

You reap what you sow....



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI