Sharpton Vows To Shut NYC Down

Threat of violence?

Sharpton threatens to "shut the city down," and you don't take that to mean violence? He knows what happens when he gives the whistle. The blacks in Los Angeles didn't like the Rodney King verdict, so entire parts of LA were destroyed. Nice people to live with, those blacks.

Is it really worth it? We bend over backward to provide them food, clothing, shelter, vice presidencies of human resources, Senator from Illinois, you name it. They thank us by threatening violence.

Again, nice.

Whites need to wake the hell up and realize they're not dealing with a fully mature race of people.

What do you think of my solution? Surely no non-racist could object to pulling white cops out of black areas, eh Larkinn?
 
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.

Umm, ok then. Not sure what this means, but sure.

By the way, the Judge made no finding of fact of the cops trying to arrest Bell, or telling him they were cops so I'd say your little opinion about the trial settling it is dead wrong.
 
Sharpton threatens to "shut the city down," and you don't take that to mean violence? He knows what happens when he gives the whistle. The blacks in Los Angeles didn't like the Rodney King verdict, so entire parts of LA were destroyed. Nice people to live with, those blacks.

No, I take it to mean civil disobedience. He isn't calling for violence and if you weren't such a dumbass you might know that.
 
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.

Is that all he did though? And under what circumstances was he resisting.

The problem i have is this: People who are saying the cops over reacted are only looking at the bare facts: One man is dead, cops fired 50 bullets in his and his friends' direction. One of the cops was plain clothes. The victim and his friends were unarmed. Those are the bare facts, and on what people seem to be basing there opinions. There are a plethora of other questions that need answering before an informed opinion can be given.
 
Hey, if you aren't a US citizen are you allowed to comment on what US citizens do?

;)

Of course. In a larger sense, you can do so because we do so. We comment on other nations – telling them what they should or should not do. And, if we feel strongly about it and they do not cooperate, we impose tariffs and sanctions.
 
Threat of violence? What are you smoking?

On of the cops was hit by Bell's vehicle as he gunned the engine.

From the NY Daily News
Bell clipped an undercover officer who was on foot with his car and then twice rammed into the cops' unmarked minivan - and the cops opened fire, police said.

The undercover cop fired the first shot, followed by 10 more rounds, a law enforcement source said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...hundreds_rally_as_5_cops_put_on_leave_da.html
 
Is that all he did though? And under what circumstances was he resisting.

The problem i have is this: People who are saying the cops over reacted are only looking at the bare facts: One man is dead, cops fired 50 bullets in his and his friends' direction. One of the cops was plain clothes. The victim and his friends were unarmed. Those are the bare facts, and on what people seem to be basing there opinions. There are a plethora of other questions that need answering before an informed opinion can be given.

I agree. And that's exactly why we are asking the questions.
 
I know. I was just razzing you because you said we can't question the cops.

I know you were, thus the smilie.

I have no problem with the cops being questioned at all. I just don't have enough info to make an informed comment on whether they should have been found guilty or not. Once the guns start going, all reason would go out the window I'd imagine..
 
I know you were, thus the smilie.

I have no problem with the cops being questioned at all. I just don't have enough info to make an informed comment on whether they should have been found guilty or not. Once the guns start going, all reason would go out the window I'd imagine..

Yes. It'd be nice to think reason hadn't gone out the window before the guns got going.
 
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've always thought it was the undercover cop who started the problem. He was drinking with the guys he was surveilling. No one was allowed to give him a breathalyzer at the scene. It's always been my suspicion that he overreacted to something he heard or misheard.
 
What a great thread this is.:rolleyes:

Any wonder the rest of the world thinks we're nuts in the US? The only two people having an objective conversation here are the Aussie and the New Zealander. Bother former police officers.

Then there's Mr Judgemental Armchair QB arguing with two former MPs one of them now a cop deciding how cops should act.

I got a real simple solution for this ... If you haven't been shot at or trained to be shot at and put your ass out on the line, don't tell those that have what it's all about. You don't f-ing have a clue.

And honorable mention goes to the serial racist trying to make Al Sharpton being an idiot into a racial trait.
 
Umm, ok then. Not sure what this means, but sure.

By the way, the Judge made no finding of fact of the cops trying to arrest Bell, or telling him they were cops so I'd say your little opinion about the trial settling it is dead wrong.

The cops testified that the cop that nearly got run down DID identify himself and order them to surrender. I guess you missed that part.
 
Not true, the Cops stated and the Judge believed them, that they did IN FACT identify themselves, or rather the one that nearly got run over did.

Judge Cooperman made no such finding. His only finding was that there was insufficient basis for a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt... which is ALL THA WAS DETERMINED. And what he said was:

the inconsistent testimony, courtroom demeanor and rap sheets of the prosecution witnesses — mainly Bell's friends — "had the effect of eviscerating" their credibility.

"At times, the testimony just didn't make sense," the judge said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24305660/
 
I've always thought it was the undercover cop who started the problem. He was drinking with the guys he was surveilling. No one was allowed to give him a breathalyzer at the scene. It's always been my suspicion that he overreacted to something he heard or misheard.

Ya nearly be run down after identifying yourself and demanding they exit the car is no threat at all and just imagined, along with the damaged minivan that was rammed several times.
 
Ya nearly be run down after identifying yourself and demanding they exit the car is no threat at all and just imagined, along with the damaged minivan that was rammed several times.

You were in the Courtroom?

The only conclusion you should draw is that there wasn't enough for a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything else is speculation.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top