Sharpton Vows To Shut NYC Down

Not really, considering we are talking about how cops should act, rather than about complicated legal arguments. Its the difference between general knowledge about a profession and extremely specialized knowledge.

And since you don't know shit about being a cop, you should shut the fuck up.

Whatever the situation, someone screwed up.


And this is based on your wealth of experience as a cop? Oh that's right, you're not a cop, never been a cop, probably haven't even watched cop shows on tv. Maybe you should just shut the fuck up? The silence would be pleasant for a change.
 
The fact that they shot at all means they felt deadly force was justified. How long the threat was around can depend on your viewpoint.

And considering there was never a threat to begin with shows that they were wrong as hell.


Oh?

Please tell me what I need to know about being a cop to tell them that they shouldn't kill unarmed innocents.

And this is based on your wealth of experience as a cop? Oh that's right, you're not a cop, never been a cop, probably haven't even watched cop shows on tv. Maybe you should just shut the fuck up? The silence would be pleasant for a change.

So your argument boils down to "omg your not a cop"?

Surely you can come up with something better than that?
 
It isn't whether or not there was a threat, but whether or not a threat was perceived.
 
If everything had been hunky dory there would have been no criminal trial. The criminal trial was necessary for a couple of reasons.

One was that the available evidence could be tested, it was tested, it was found wanting, the case was tossed.

The second reason - and I don't suppose you'll find official acknowledgement of this - was that if there had been a declaration that the officers had not acted criminally there would have probably been some serious objections from large sections of the public.

Even with an aquittal there are threats to shut NYC down. I have to say I find that disturbing. What is Sharpton trying to do, use political pressure to force a re-trial?

And what if there was a re-trial (there won't be on state charges) and another aquittal? More pressure? Would the pressure be maintained until eventually they were convicted of criminal offences and imprisoned? Is that how Sharpton sees the criminal justice sytem working?
 
It isn't whether or not there was a threat, but whether or not a threat was perceived.

Not really, no.

If they perceived a threat, they were wrong and they fucked up. If they didn't...well if they didn't then they are murderers. But I'm assuming they thought there was a threat.
 
And if the response was proportional to the threat.

True. Unfortunately, the US is a dangerous place - much more than say NZ or Oz, in that regard. So, they can't take chances, and sometimes they over react to a situation. I don't believe for one minute they committed murder. Did they over react? Dunno, wasn't there and don't know the mindset of the officers involved, or how it pannedo out. It's easy for some (not saying you BTW) to sit on the sideline and act like the moral arbitor without having been in that situation. 50 shots sounds bad. But handguns - even in the hands of trained people - are not known for their accuracy. Of the 50 shots fired, how many found their target?
 
True. Unfortunately, the US is a dangerous place - much more than say NZ or Oz, in that regard. So, they can't take chances, and sometimes they over react to a situation. I don't believe for one minute they committed murder. Did they over react? Dunno, wasn't there and don't know the mindset of the officers involved, or how it pannedo out. It's easy for some (not saying you BTW) to sit on the sideline and act like the moral arbitor without having been in that situation. 50 shots sounds bad. But handguns - even in the hands of trained people - are not known for their accuracy. Of the 50 shots fired, how many found their target?

Agreed.

This is an interesting thread though, it brings out the gaps in perception. Cops tend to defend their own blindly and refuse (I'm generalising) to admit someone could be malicious or just wrong (not suggesting malice in this case). That's not helpful to the occupation but unfortunately it's part and parcel of the culture.

On the other hand people like Sharpton will exploit any even they can get and it was London to a brick that Sharpton would get involved in this one. The folks who can't see him for what he is are coming from exactly the same mindset as cops who will never admit a brother or sister in the job could be malicous or wrong.

The obvious tragedy here is that a young man is dead. But without minimising any aspect of this, make no mistake, those cops have been through one meat grinder and are about to be run through several more. It's trite to observe that every single one of them would have wished he'd gone sick instead of to work that night, they're now in a long nightmare, along with Sean Bell's family and loved ones.

I just hope the ensuing cases take a look at more than the obvious events.
 
Lotsa Monday morning quarter backing going on here.

The only folks who know exactly what went on are the three victims and the five cops. Cops thought they were being fired on. Wouldn't surprise me, in the confusion, if one cop hearing another cop firing thought it was the suspects and opened up himself.

What I do love, is these folk who criticise the cops, because you know, if it had been them in that situation, they would have handled it perfectly...

Bottom line, I doubt it was racially motivated in any way, shape or form. These guys could have been little green men from Mars and the result would have been the same. It was the situation, not the people, that was the problem.

I don't think anyone is claiming they'd have handled it perfectly. Being killed for resisting arrest, if that is all he did, is a little extreme.
 
And you have training and experience in police work? Do you tell your Doctor how to operate? Do you tell your mechanic how to fix your car? Do you tell your broker how to work your stocks?

If they fukk it up I certainly question them.

Has anyone asked them that question?
 
True. Unfortunately, the US is a dangerous place - much more than say NZ or Oz, in that regard. So, they can't take chances, and sometimes they over react to a situation. I don't believe for one minute they committed murder. Did they over react? Dunno, wasn't there and don't know the mindset of the officers involved, or how it pannedo out. It's easy for some (not saying you BTW) to sit on the sideline and act like the moral arbitor without having been in that situation. 50 shots sounds bad. But handguns - even in the hands of trained people - are not known for their accuracy. Of the 50 shots fired, how many found their target?

Hey, if you aren't a US citizen are you allowed to comment on what US citizens do?

;)
 
I don't think anyone is claiming they'd have handled it perfectly. Being killed for resisting arrest, if that is all he did, is a little extreme.

They didn't resist arrest. The cops never identified themselves as such and were in plainclothes.
 
The threat of violence by Sharpton shows his -- and the larger black -- lack of respect for the settling power of the law. The blacks didn't get the legal result they wanted, so now they want to riot, loot, burn, etc. That doesn't show you're a part of civilized society, it shows you're outside it.

Never mind the incredible absurdity of this being racial when 2/3 of the cops were BLACK.

And can I point out that a drunk man gunning his car at you is not an "unarmed man"?

So, solution! White cops and command go bye-bye from black neighborhoods. Only black cops, with Rev. Al as the commander, patrol black areas. Then, any police misconduct will come to rest solely upon... themselves. Would that work?
 
They didn't resist arrest. The cops never identified themselves as such and were in plainclothes.

Ah, I was going by the account on wikipedia. I do sincerely believe the cops overreacted and I hope they never, ever get to carry weapons again. Because who needs that? And this idea that we shouldn't question their actions is ludicrous. Of course we should.
 
The threat of violence by Sharpton shows his -- and the larger black -- lack of respect for the settling power of the law. The blacks didn't get the legal result they wanted, so now they want to riot, loot, burn, etc. That doesn't show you're a part of civilized society, it shows you're outside it.

Never mind the incredible absurdity of this being racial when 2/3 of the cops were BLACK.

And can I point out that a drunk man gunning his car at you is not an "unarmed man"?

So, solution! White cops and command go bye-bye from black neighborhoods. Only black cops, with Rev. Al as the commander, patrol black areas. Then, any police misconduct will come to rest solely upon... themselves. Would that work?

Threat of violence? What are you smoking?
 
Where in the trial did it say differently?

Pictures minutes after the shooting showed the badges. Seriously, many did not like the OJ outcome, which was admittedly jury nullification, but did you see calls for pouring out to protest? No.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top