You can write, but maybe you should learn how to read too.

4/27/2008 2:50:42 PM

Quote :

"quit fucking talking you worthless piece of shit"

now thats the mature open minded liberal debate that i love so much

4/27/2008 6:39:22 PM

. . .

[Edited on April 28, 2008 at 12:54 AM. Reason : .]

4/28/2008 12:54:11 AM

BLACK COP ! BLACK COP ! BLACK COP !


- KRS-ONE = knowledge reigns supreme over nearly everyone.

4/29/2008 11:12:24 AM

Quote :

"I guess Italians can't shoot worth a shit, then."

Cops have trouble with accuracy in groups. They're like ninja. A law of conservation goes into effect. While a lone cop might be a decent shot, more than one or two cops could unload their guns and miss a barn. Hell, they might even shoot each other. (It's a good thing they wear vests.) In this case, a police bullet hit an AirTrain station half a block away, flying right past a few employees. If you ever encounter a bunch of cops with their guns out, drop and pray.

Quote :

"I thought every human died when hit with the first bullet?"

Ha. Sadly, guns are far from death rays. Even emptying a pistol magazine might not instantly stop a determined attacker. For example, poor Guzman survived 19 bullet wounds.

4/29/2008 2:14:54 PM

5/8/2008 3:27:33 PM

See, he's marching against BLACK cops too!

5/8/2008 3:28:56 PM

that pic was from yesterday btw...i didnt hear anything about it

5/8/2008 3:31:29 PM

They protested at the brooklyn bridge and got arrested

The Rev and I think the lady is Bell's Fiance

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2008 3:32:52 PM

Quote :

" I don't give a fuck if they are black - they're piece of shit cops. I can't believe they got away with it. Lock that scum up."

5/8/2008 3:36:29 PM

It seriously takes 12 seconds to shoot off 31 shots, even if you reload (which was fired by the one police officer).

Sean Bell did run his car into the one cop. Also, keep in mind that Sean Bell was only hit 4 times and his friend 13 (according to the NY Times break down of the evidence).

From a legal standpoint, the witness credibility is very important. The friends in the car were largely inconsistent in their stories and testimony. One claimed he was shot by police as he ran away, the evidence just did not match that. Guzman claimed bell spoke to him, as he lay dying. That was not possible since the bullets severed his vocal cords.

This case sucks bad, but they stand to get quite a bit of money from the City. Essentially, this whole ordeal took less than 30 seconds, from the time bell drove towards the cop, till the last shot was fired. They may not deserve to be cops, but I question whether their actions were criminal or just poor judgment.

5/10/2008 3:51:15 PM

seems like the cops were justified, as found in a court of law. it also seems that bell was a thug wannabe who thought that ramming a police vehicle and acting gangsta was a good idea.

5/10/2008 5:34:15 PM

Seems to me like that gangsta got what he deserved for attacking the police, whatever happened to "maybe in a body bag but never in cuffs"

[Edited on May 10, 2008 at 7:40 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2008 7:39:14 PM

Quote :

"seems like the cops were justified, as found in a court of law. it also seems that bell was a thug wannabe who thought that ramming a police vehicle and acting gangsta was a good idea."

there was no jury in this court of law... just one judge who decided the case. witnesses stated that the undercovers never identified themselves as cops. the "police vehicle" that was rammed while the "gangsta" was being shot at by men in plain clothes was an unmarked police van. of course, there were witnesses for both sides and i don't think any of us know exactly what occurred that night. regardless, not one shot was fired from bell or his buddies and they had no gun.

5/11/2008 2:27:54 PM

this trial has ruined all the local papers for several weeks now.

im sick of it.

5/11/2008 5:14:49 PM

ZOMG racist cops!

oh wait; two of them were black!

5/11/2008 9:27:37 PM

i gar-un-damn-tee you that the undercover cops identified themselves as cops before firing. i mean the thugs will say that they didnt, but they are credible . Any UC cop knows to identify themselves in a situation like that. Legal precedent says they must anyways. And still, the number of shots fired is totally irrelevant in this instance.

5/11/2008 10:48:02 PM

The cops made a series of mistakes that lead to somebody's death. I don't think people were comfortable severely punishing them for mistakes. Like, let's say that instead of killing him, they just beat him up pretty bad...I believe they would have been found guilty of that cause the punishment for assault is more in line with what we imagine should happen when a person makes a mistake. But murder or homicide or mansalughter probably seemed extreme.

Republican18, you shouldn't bother commenting on these situations. You're almost always going to side with the police, regardless of the evidence. It's part of your job to side with the cops. Loyalty above all else...

I'm not saying you're wrong to do that. I'm studying to be a teacher, and teachers tend to take that same sort of defensive stance. It's worse for cops obviously since y'all are hated and bashed a lot more, but still, it seems like the same dynamic.

Quote :

"red bardon 22: Legal precedent says they must anyways."

And...?

Quote :

"At one point as he read, Justice Cooperman paused to insist that a crying baby be taken from the courtroom. Immediately a young woman who appeared to be among the Bell contingent got up and left with a baby."

Excellent journalism, NYT.

Also the fact that the cops were black isn't that meaningful to folks who are angry with the entire justice system. And black cops can be racist, too.

[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 11:10 PM. Reason : sss]

5/11/2008 11:08:08 PM

of Course Bridget sticks up for this kid.

I am not a big fan of the police; but I sure the hell take their word over Homie G. If nothing else I am sure cops LOVE the reports and headache following having to use their firearm in the field.

5/11/2008 11:40:48 PM

Did you read my post?

5/12/2008 12:08:33 AM

Quote :

"Republican18, you shouldn't bother commenting on these situations. You're almost always going to side with the police, regardless of the evidence. It's part of your job to side with the cops. Loyalty above all else..."

Um not quite. There are two things I don't do: One, I don't judge the actions of cops on a scene when I was not on the scene....unless its BLATANTLY obvious they were wrong. If there is some sense of ambiguity then i hold judgment. I don't Monday morning quarterback fellow cops when I wasn't there.

Two, I don't blindly defend cops when it is BLATANTLY obvious they were wrong. I mean when all the facts are out and have been objectionably looked at and its clear they were wrong, then I wont blindly defend someone. But again, if its ambiguous, I reserve judgment.

I really think that people truly don't understand or appreciate how quick a police situation can turn from sugar to shit, and how little time you have to react. All the training and experience cant always prepare you for every situation. Sometimes you have to just act based on guts and instinct. Which is why I say again, police conduct is measured by a reasonable standard, not by right or wrong. Was it reasonable for a cop to shoot a person who pulls out a toy gun in the dark....well when judged by right/wrong its clearly wrong because the person posed no threat. But, thats not the standard. The standard is what a reasonable cop would have done, and in that regard it is justified. The reasonable standard also varies from officer to officer. For example, a female 100lbs officer is more reasonable in using deadly force against a 250lbs male attacker than a 225lbs male officer is. Each case is different but judged by reasonableness.

this case, has been found after examining all the facts in a court of law to be reasonable and justified. thats that.

5/12/2008 5:11:03 AM

Quote :

"The cops made a series of mistakes that lead to somebody's death. I don't think people were comfortable severely punishing them for mistakes. Like, let's say that instead of killing him, they just beat him up pretty bad...I believe they would have been found guilty of that cause the punishment for assault is more in line with what we imagine should happen when a person makes a mistake. But murder or homicide or mansalughter probably seemed extreme. "

Unfortunately for Bell's family, and fortunately for the cops, they were charged with homicide or manslaughter and not assault. And that is what the case was to decide. It's an interesting aspect of our criminal system that by the time you are in court waiting for a guilty or innocent verdict, it doesn't matter what else you may be guilty of, the only decision that will be made is your guilt or innocence of the specific crime charged, and then you can't be hauled back in court for the same crime on a lesser charge. That's why prosecutors must choose their charges carefully.

5/12/2008 8:09:31 AM

This kind of reminds me of the 1st episode of the Wire when Hauk and Prez go to the high rises and night. After prez pistol whips the kid the quiet high rises turn into a war zone with people throwing bottles at the cops and shooting up the cop car

5/12/2008 11:36:46 AM

^^Are you responding to me or something?

Quote :

"Republican18: Um not quite. There are two things I don't do: One, I don't judge the actions of cops on a scene when I was not on the scene....unless its BLATANTLY obvious they were wrong. If there is some sense of ambiguity then i hold judgment. I don't Monday morning quarterback fellow cops when I wasn't there. Two, I don't blindly defend cops when it is BLATANTLY obvious they were wrong. I mean when all the facts are out and have been objectionably looked at and its clear they were wrong, then I wont blindly defend someone. But again, if its ambiguous, I reserve judgment. I really think that people truly don't understand or appreciate how quick a police situation can turn from sugar to shit, and how little time you have to react. All the training and experience cant always prepare you for every situation. Sometimes you have to just act based on guts and instinct. Which is why I say again, police conduct is measured by a reasonable standard, not by right or wrong. Was it reasonable for a cop to shoot a person who pulls out a toy gun in the dark....well when judged by right/wrong its clearly wrong because the person posed no threat. But, thats not the standard. The standard is what a reasonable cop would have done, and in that regard it is justified. The reasonable standard also varies from officer to officer. For example, a female 100lbs officer is more reasonable in using deadly force against a 250lbs male attacker than a 225lbs male officer is. Each case is different but judged by reasonableness. this case, has been found after examining all the facts in a court of law to be reasonable and justified. thats that."

Blah, blah, blah. Everybody's heard this speech. You all say the exact same thing.

"I don't play Monday morning quarterback for cops (but I do it for everybody else). I also think it's reasonable for cops to use stress/adrenaline/pressure to excuse almost all their actions. It's always the stress and pressure, and people just can't appreciate that. A cop can never be wrong (except once every three years when I come out against a cop to look reasonable and unbiased)."


Seriously, I bet you'd defend Officer Peal.

5/12/2008 8:05:04 PM

^ Or it could just be that in most of the hugely high profile "OMG POLICE STATE TASER DEATH RAY COPS REPRESSING THE PEOPLES!!!!" things that tend to make their rounds about here, the cops are for the most part, in the right or have a good reason for doing things the way they did.

5/12/2008 10:31:52 PM

Quote :

"OMG POLICE STATE TASER DEATH RAY COPS REPRESSING THE PEOPLES!!!"

i was about to say something similar but decided to shut my mouth. yeah i think jesse jackson and al sharpton pop a big boner whenever these stories come up so it gives them an excuse to get up on their soap box and vomit their rhetoric all over the media.

5/12/2008 10:59:53 PM

I wish this would just pass, I'm so sick of the news coverage of it. And yes I'm happy with the verdict.

5/12/2008 11:13:39 PM

^^^I know. All professions tend to have this sort of thing going, but it's particularly prevalent when it comes to cops.

They really, really, really stick up for each other.

And it's totally okay. I'm just saying they can't expect to be taken seriously. Even though they're the ones who should have the most knowledge, their opinions of police incidents end up being the least valid. Because they always come from this defensive position. I understand they have to be defensive because they are constantly accused of bullshit, but still...

Republican18 wasn't there and he doesn't know all the facts and he won't Monday morning quarterback or make assumptions...but he has no problems calling Bell a "thug who thought acting gangsta was a good idea." He very reasonably kept repeating that the court had spoken and he has to agree with the court, but when pressured, he busts out BELL'S A THUG WHO ACTED GANGSTA!

Gimme a break.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 11:22 PM. Reason : sss]

5/12/2008 11:21:46 PM

Um, I was never "pressured", I dont know what the hell you are referring to. I have made only intelligent replies in this thread. So I referred to Bell as a thug, sue me. Seems to me that he was a thug, with a record of drug dealing and illegal weapons possession. So were the the other two guys in the car as well.

Also, I am not using police "stress" to excuse behavior, merely to explain how quick things can happen. You would never understand that of course, but most honest people can I think. And, if you fail to grasp this concept, then you will never understand how things like this happen. You will find fault with the cops no matter what because you just cant comprehend how little things turn deadly in a blink of an eye. Until you have confronted an armed person in the dark, or done half the crap I and other cops have, you just wont get it. You will continue to sit in your ivory tower, and judge actions that you have no way to relate to. You will use "stress/adrenaline/pressure" as ways to think we are excusing ourselves, when in reality those things are valid catalysts for the way situations end. There is no pause, all the facts arent always known and there sure as hell isnt a do-over. Again I am not defending police action when its blatantly wrong, all I am asking for is for people to take a minute to try and put yourself in our shoes. Most honest people can, you cant it seems.

5/13/2008 6:15:06 AM

Quote :

"Republican18: Also, I am not using police "stress" to excuse behavior, merely to explain how quick things can happen. You would never understand that of course, but most honest people can I think. And, if you fail to grasp this concept, then you will never understand how things like this happen. You will find fault with the cops no matter what because you just cant comprehend how little things turn deadly in a blink of an eye. Until you have confronted an armed person in the dark, or done half the crap I and other cops have, you just wont get it. You will continue to sit in your ivory tower, and judge actions that you have no way to relate to. You will use "stress/adrenaline/pressure" as ways to think we are excusing ourselves, when in reality those things are valid catalysts for the way situations end. There is no pause, all the facts arent always known and there sure as hell isnt a do-over. Again I am not defending police action when its blatantly wrong, all I am asking for is for people to take a minute to try and put yourself in our shoes. Most honest people can, you cant it seems."

Again, more about the stress and how hard your job is.

I actually think I understand a little bit of what you're talking about, and I don't find fault with the cops no matter what.

Anyway, you already supported my opinion on this matter. You said it had to be "BLATANTLY obvious" the cops were wrong before you would judge them, and you blindly defend cops unless it was "BLATANTLY obvious" they were wrong. For everybody else in the world, obvious is good enough. You want it to be BLATANTLY obvious. This is my point.

5/13/2008 3:25:31 PM

first of all, the job is hard...its not just some cliche cops like to throw around to make themselves feel good. secondly, i see nothing in this case that screams to me these cops were unreasonable or wrong in their actions, when looked at from an objective point of view.

5/13/2008 9:25:23 PM