Cops aquitted in 50 bullet killing of an unarmed man

[x togepi x]

on his wedding day (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/83525/)

[catscradle]

disgusting.

[ashesofapril234]

I'm outraged by this, I don't understand how they got off completely free.

[shit stroll]

where is stza when you need him?

[screamoutmyname]

i saw this on MSN.com and i couldn't believe it.

[williek311]

Disgusting.

[dai the flu]

i like how the story doesnt even begin to describe what transpired, yet its 'disgusting and outrageous'. all it says is 'he's black. he got shot at 50 times. (not hit 50 times, shot at 50 times). it was his wedding day.' and without giving any reasons as to WHY this happened, it elicited the typically retarded 'cops are evil and racist' response.
hear some facts about the case before you make judgments.

[catscradle]

The guy was unarmed, what on earth could an unarmed man do to provoke a response of 50 sots fired? One officer stopped to even reload another clip. It's disgusting that things like this happens all to often. This isn't the first time such exaggerated use of force has been used upon unarmed young black males.

[mht]

for the record: 2 out 3 of the cops I believe were of the darker skinned nationality.


So don't start stereotyping this into black man being shot for ____ reason category. Cop's shooting him were the same color.

[wesgemm08]

for the record: 2 out 3 of the cops I believe were of the darker skinned nationality.


So don't start stereotyping this into black man being shot for ____ reason category. Cop's shooting him were the same color.

Racists

... This is why you put your hands in the air when cops tell you to and don't keep them hidden away in your jacket or whereever.

[we are cured]

who knows why it happened, none of us were there. if the cops feel threatened they're going to start firing. cops typically aren't the greatest in spur of the moment gunfire situations (unless they've served active duty) so i'm not surpried 50 shots were fired.

[dai the flu]

i think the real problem here is that our highly trained police force can fire 50 bullets and only hit a target with 4.

[mht]

correct. they fired 50 shots because they couldn't fucking hit the broad side of barn.


they went 4/50. and well that conversion is like a night of Vince Carter shooting a basketball.

[open mind]

for the record: 2 out 3 of the cops I believe were of the darker skinned nationality.


So don't start stereotyping this into black man being shot for ____ reason category. Cop's shooting him were the same color.

people of all races abuse power when they have it.

[saysmydoctor]

i think the real problem here is that our highly trained police force can fire 50 bullets and only hit a target with 4.
I was hoping I wasn't the only one disturbed by this.

[catscradle]

people of all races abuse power when they have it.

this.

and it doesn't mean people of the same race can't stereotype and act upon their prejudices that society is constantly reinforcing.

[ghostyouare]

i like how the story doesnt even begin to describe what transpired, yet its 'disgusting and outrageous'. all it says is 'he's black. he got shot at 50 times. (not hit 50 times, shot at 50 times). it was his wedding day.' and without giving any reasons as to WHY this happened, it elicited the typically retarded 'cops are evil and racist' response.
hear some facts about the case before you make judgments.
I dont know the whole story and the two articles Ive read from today (one being cnn) doesnt explain why shots were fired either.
Also, you have to like the first post of this thread for the same reason.

[ghostyouare]

At the time Bell was holding his bachelor party at Kalua Cabaret, a venue that was being investigated by seven undercover police detectives [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-CNN-10). The owners of the club had been repeatedly accused of fostering prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_States). [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-NYT12-11)
The New York Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post) reported that, according to an unnamed undercover officer, Guzman had an argument inside the club with a woman and threatened to get a gun. One of Bell's friends was heard to say "yo, get my gun" as they left the scene. Fearing a shooting was in the making, the Undercover Detective followed them to their car while alerting his Backup team that they were possibly retrieving a gun from the car, prompting the team to confront Bell and his companions before they could leave the scene. [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-weiss-12) The undercover officer followed the group and Bell was ordered by the officer to raise his hands after getting in his car. Instead, Bell accelerated the car and seconds later hit an unmarked police minivan.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-nyt-officer-0) A toxicology report reportedly showed that he was legally drunk at the time of the shooting. An attorney for the Bell family said in response to the report, "No matter what his blood-alcohol level was, he's a victim."[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-WNBC-13)
Other accounts of the incident conflict with that of the undercover officers. According to Guzman and lawyer Michael Hardy, the detectives never identified themselves while they approached the vehicle with drawn weapons.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-nydailynews-8) Another source also told New York Daily News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Daily_News) that the officers failed to warn Bell before opening fire and started firing immediately upon leaving their vehicles.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-irish-examiner-14)
The police officer who initiated the gunfire said that he saw a fourth man in the car, who fled the scene amid the chaos, possibly with the alleged weapon that wasn't recovered. Some civilian witnesses at the scene support this claim, and pointed to Jean Nelson as the fourth man. Nelson was possibly present at the bachelor party and witnessed the shooting, but denies being in the car or possessing a gun.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-Dec12NYT-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-Dec15NYDN-16) According to The New York Times, a preliminary police report of the shooting contains
"... no meaningful discussion of a fourth man, a mysterious figure who some in the Police Department have suggested may have been present along with the three men who were shot. None of the witnesses whose accounts are in the report speaks of someone who may have fled — perhaps possessing a gun — and there are no indications that the police at the time were seeking anyone who may have left the scene."[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-Dec11NYT-17)
Critics suggest that the scenario was concocted by the police officer in order to justify the shooting.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-Dec12NYT-15) Columnist Juan Gonzalez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Gonzalez_%28journalist%29) reported in the New York Daily News that, according to a law enforcement source, in the hours immediately following the incident, there was no mention of a fourth man in the police calls and no search was launched for the potentially armed man. This source thus contradicted initial reports that the police searched the neighborhood for the missing man.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-Dec12NYDN-18)
According to Michael Palladino, the head of the detectives union, a man who was working as a janitor in a nearby building while the incident occurred later told the detectives that he had seen a black man fleeing the scene, and that the man had fired a gun, at least once, at the police. The witness further stated that he had then heard the officers shouting "police, police." According to the police, there is no ballistic evidence indicating that any weapon, other than those of the officers', was fired at the scene. [20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-19).
Two of the five officers involved were black, one was white, one was Middle-Eastern, and one was of biracial black and Hispanic origin (Haitian/Mexican). The first officer to fire was black.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell#cite_note-NewYorkSun-20)

some info on it

[TheByrus]

that's the price you pay for ridin' dirty.

[Nevuk]

Just more proof the justice system is useless.

[ghostyouare]

Just more proof the justice system is useless.
There was a witness saying that one of Sean Bells people fired at the officers..

[tambam]

That's fucking horrible.

[open mind]

There was a witness saying that one of Sean Bells people fired at the officers..

but no physical evidence to support that. there should have been a shell casing if nothing else to back that up if that's what really happened.

[kshtoinks12]

From what I know of this story, he started acting crazy in front of a car and provoking them saying he had a weapon.

[open mind]

From what I know of this story, he started acting crazy in front of a car and provoking them saying he had a weapon.

talking mad shit and acting a fool might get you killed by a "gangsta", but it shouldn't get you killed by the cops.

[xhellalujahx]

correct. they fired 50 shots because they couldn't fucking hit the broad side of barn.


they went 4/50. and well that conversion is like a night of Vince Carter shooting a basketball.

They actually hit Guzman alone 16 times, but your point still stands.


Benefield and Guzman testified that there were no orders. Instead, Guzman said, Isnora "appeared out of nowhere" with a gun drawn and shot him in the shoulder — the first of 16 shots to enter his body. "That's all there was — gunfire," he said. "There wasn't nothing else."


With tires screeching, glass breaking and bullets flying, the officers claimed that they believed they were the ones under fire. Oliver responded by emptying his semiautomatic pistol, reloading, and emptying it again, as the supervisor sought cover.


The truth emerged when the smoke cleared: There was no weapon inside Bell's blood-splattered car.
There's no way Oliver shouldn't have stopped to reassess the situation after completely unloading his first clip.

[ghostyouare]

talking mad shit and acting a fool might get you killed by a "gangsta", but it shouldn't get you killed by the cops.
If you claim to have a weapon and start reach for one then it definitely will and should get you shot.

Not saying thats what happend in this case but the point stands universially.

[allthruwinter]

I'm outraged by this, I don't understand how they got off completely free.

They're cops. They will always get off free.

[leifstar]

disgusting.

Agreed.

[billyboatkid]

Thats so messed up. 50 times is so overboard. I wonder what he was doing to have the cops called on them.

[Love As Arson]

I wonder how many times this has to happen before we stop chalking it up to "a few bad apples". Further, it is illegal for cops to fire into a moving vehicle, so they should have been found guilty of reckless endangerment, if anything. There are more than a few witnesses that disputed the claims that he was reaching for a weapon or anything of the worth; yet so many are content to believe the witnesses that support the police officers.

[kshtoinks12]

talking mad shit and acting a fool might get you killed by a "gangsta", but it shouldn't get you killed by the cops.
They thought he was a threat, and it all happened very quickly. As a cop, you're told to shoot to kill to avoid lawsuits, so I think these cops are justified.

[Villanova1L]

I wonder how many times this has to happen before we stop chalking it up to "a few bad apples". Further, it is illegal for cops to fire into a moving vehicle, so they should have been found guilty of reckless endangerment, if anything. There are more than a few witnesses that disputed the claims that he was reaching for a weapon or anything of the worth; yet so many are content to believe the witnesses that support the police officers.

This isn't a frequent occurrence. Think of every traffic stop, arrest, etc. made and then think of how many abuses of power, especially violent, that you hear of.

It's like a plane crash, you hear about it every time it happens so you think they're frequent.

This is a case of merely a few bad apples.

I've heard people say that this happens all too often, show me one statistic that shows how many times it happens versus normal arrests/citations, the number is going to be tiny.

[E-Skeezy]

This isn't a frequent occurrence. Think of every traffic stop, arrest, etc. made and then think of how many abuses of power, especially violent, that you hear of.

It's like a plane crash, you hear about it every time it happens so you think they're frequent.

This is a case of merely a few bad apples.

I've heard people say that this happens all too often, show me one statistic that shows how many times it happens versus normal arrests/citations, the number is going to be tiny.


The fact that it is happening AT ALL means it is too frequent. Yes, you're right, the percentage of violent abuses of power per number of ever arrest/traffic stop/citation is going to be small. However, your comment is the equivalent of a plane crashing due to a preventable cause, and then saying that since it really only happened once or twice in a year out of a hundreds of thousands of flights, then its really not a big deal and we shouldn't worry about it. It IS a big deal, and it needs to be stopped.

[Love As Arson]

This isn't a frequent occurrence. Think of every traffic stop, arrest, etc. made and then think of how many abuses of power, especially violent, that you hear of.
I've actually heard countless stories of abuse and have been subject to unfair abuses of power.


I've heard people say that this happens all too often, show me one statistic that shows how many times it happens versus normal arrests/citations, the number is going to be tiny.
The most recent statistic I've seen is, around thirteen percent claim to have been subject to police abuses of power, with another ten percent of the abuses that go unreported or unaddressed by the department.

[Broken Parachute]

This is the biggest thing going on right now in NY. Everyone is talking about it. That article is stupid for several reasons.

First, it fails to mention that one of the men said he had a gun and started provoking the cops. Second, the prosecution had not one believable witness. Every witness they brought to the stand lied. They all contradicted each others' stories and not one of them was 100% sure of their story. Third, 2/3 indicted cops were black so I don't see how race would have much to do with it.

You cannot honestly put those cops in prison with a defense that bad. The defense had nothing to show at all.

[Broken Parachute]

They thought he was a threat, and it all happened very quickly. As a cop, you're told to shoot to kill to avoid lawsuits, so I think these cops are justified.Plus the fact that it was dark out and they were saying/acting as if they'd do something to the cops.

I wonder how many times this has to happen before we stop chalking it up to "a few bad apples". Further, it is illegal for cops to fire into a moving vehicle, so they should have been found guilty of reckless endangerment, if anything. There are more than a few witnesses that disputed the claims that he was reaching for a weapon or anything of the worth; yet so many are content to believe the witnesses that support the police officers.That was established in court, however all of the witnesses were also deemed to be liars. They constantly changed their stories.

[Fuce]

I've met cops who are dicks, and I've met cops who are genuinely hardworking and decent people. Broad sweeping generalizations are fun to make, but saying "all pigs r evil/terrorists in uniforms!" just makes you look like an idiot.

[Broken Parachute]

Interesting. Thanks.I'm one of those people who thinks that the cops should use their guns when they absolutely have to, trust me, but in this case I don't see how the cops should be put in prison. Our justice system is based on "beyond a reasonable doubt." If there is any doubt in the prosecution's story or any question left unanswered, then the judge cannot put the person(s) on trial in prison. He just can't. In this case, there was not one believable witness and that was the biggest factor in the end.

[Fuce]

You associate what is right/correct with how it reflects in popular opinion of you. Hmmmm.

I'm fairly sure what you just said makes absolutely no sense at all. But if I'm understanding what you just tried to write, yeah I do equate a person's ability to look past broad stereotypes and understand the reality of a situation with their overall intelligence.

[Love As Arson]

Plus the fact that it was dark out and they were saying/acting as if they'd do something to the cops.
That is a fairly flimsy standard. Let's see: If you're African-American, it's dark out, and let's say you're reaching under your seat to get a quarter, while a cop is across the street from you, he can fire fifty times.
That was established in court, however all of the witnesses were also deemed to be liars. They constantly changed their stories.
The inconsistencies between stories is to be expected. If they all had similar stories, it might have been charged that they'd been coached, so, again, what is the standard? The judge stated that the demeanor of the witnesses, as well as their history, played a role in his discounting of their testimony, i.e., they had records, so their testimony cannot be trusted, as opposed to the cops whose jobs were on the line. Further, of the witnesses that were questioned at the time of the shooting, there was a consensus that the police had not identified themselves. And, as I said, firing into a car is illegal, so, at the very least, they should have been put in prison for reckless endangerment. One can only hope that the civil suit is more successful.

[Broken Parachute]

That is a fairly flimsy standard. Let's see: If you're African-American, it's dark out, and let's say you're reaching under your seat to get a quarter, while a cop is across the street from you, he can fire fifty times.If a cop identifies himself as a cop and tells you to do something, you do it. I wasn't saying "it's dark" because they were black, I was just saying it in general. It could have been a white guy and I would have said the same thing.

The inconsistencies between stories is to be expected. If they all had similar stories, it might have been charged that they'd been coached, so, again, what is the standard? The judge stated that the demeanor of the witnesses, as well as their history, played a role in his discounting of their testimony, i.e., they had records, so their testimony cannot be trusted, as opposed to the cops whose jobs were on the line. Further, of the witnesses that were questioned at the time of the shooting, there was a consensus that the police had not identified themselves. And, as I said, firing into a car is illegal, so, at the very least, they should have been put in prison for reckless endangerment. One can only hope that the civil suit is more successful.They all said the police didn't identify themselves, but the cops had badges around their neck so that's a moot point. Also, I didn't know firing into a car was illegal. Do you have any proof of that (link or something)?

[wesgemm08]

Average cops shouldn't have guns. We don't get this repeated problem here because only specialised units have firearms.

This country would have to completely reform gun policies before we talk about having police without firearms

[Love As Arson]

If a cop identifies himself as a cop and tells you to do something, you do it. I wasn't saying "it's dark" because they were black, I was just saying it in general. It could have been a white guy and I would have said the same thing.
As you said, they did not identify themselves and, moreover, they were undercover, so it wouldn't be readily understood that they were police officers.

They all said the police didn't identify themselves, but the cops had badges around their neck so that's a moot point.
Which, given that it was dark, would be difficult to see.


Also, I didn't know firing into a car was illegal. Do you have any proof of that (link or something)?
"Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officers or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle."

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2004/everymothersson/special_NYPD_deadly.html

I misspoke; it is not illegal, but it is prohibited by police protocol.

[nwptrl]

As you said, they did not identify themselves and, moreover, they were undercover, so it wouldn't be readily understood that they were police officers.


Which, given that it was dark, would be difficult to see.





http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2004/everymothersson/special_NYPD_deadly.html

I misspoke; it is not illegal, but it is prohibited by police protocol.

It is neither illegal or prohibited. Read your own post. If an officer feels that deadly force is necessary than they are allowed to shoot at or into or from a vehicle. And obviously these officers believed that deadly force was warranted or they wouldn't have started shooting at this guy. Can you not read and interpret your own posts?

[SLoT]

They're cops. They will always get off free.
they do have an advantage thats for sure.

[xvszero]

The guy was unarmed, what on earth could an unarmed man do to provoke a response of 50 sots fired? One officer stopped to even reload another clip. It's disgusting that things like this happens all to often. This isn't the first time such exaggerated use of force has been used upon unarmed young black males.

Theoretically? He could have been brutally attacking women at the club in a drug-induced rage.

Not that I think that happened. Still though, I would like to see the details.

/EDIT So there were details. And it seems I wasn't too far off the mark, though it was closer to threatening to come back with a gun.

I doubt the shooting was necessary, but it's sort of hard to care too much about a guy threatening strippers with violence. Then trying to escape from police in his car. It also appears there may have been a 4th guy who escaped with a weapon.

I'm sorry. I know it makes me a terrible person that I really don't care too much about this guy getting shot. This isn't QUITE the same situation as a black guy getting pulled over for a routine traffic violation then getting shot when he reaches inside his coat for his driver's license.

[catscradle]

My main qualm is police administering death sentences on the street at their own discretion. Just b/c they feel threatened doesn't justify their use of force, especially if their fears are perpetuated by prejudices and racial stereotypes that society reinforces.

I mean 50 shots and the guy never even drew a weapon? come on, that's overkill.

[ActionActionFan]

From what I read the guy was driving towards the cops in an attempt to run them over. So judging by that I think it is rediculous that these cops were even put on trial. Also they identifyed themselves as cops so if a person doesn't get out of your car than I would be suspect these people to have a gun.

And 2 of the cops were black so why is Al Sharpton getting involved and making this a racial case.

[ActionActionFan]

Average cops shouldn't have guns. We don't get this repeated problem here because only specialised units have firearms.

This is the most idiotic statement that I have ever heard. If cops don't have guns than how are they supposed to stop a criminal with a gun. Imagine an armed robber is robbing a bank and there is a cop there that doesn't have a gun. What's the cop supposed to say, "You will be arrested for this later but I can do nothing to stop you right now."

Basically you are a moron.

[xvszero]

There are some problems, and some of it is the individual asshole officers, but some of it also is just the fact that they throw these greenhorn officers out on the street with guns in situations where someone with experience might say ok I know how to defuse this situation, but a newbie freaks out and just starts firing.

Point in case, someone threatens gun violence on women, is heard to have said "get the guns" while walking to their car, then ignore police and tries escape... what do you actually do? I don't know, I'm not even sure what protocol would demand, but you certainly can't just let them run off. Decisions, decisions.

50 shots will always sound terrible in print, but considered only a few hit most of it was probably random fire... either out of fear or desperation or throwing down covering fire because for some reason you think they are shooting back.

[xvszero]

Lol basically you know nothing of the world outside America.

And you don't know America. It's not like this stuff happens in Orland Park or Gold Coast. We have specific areas which are highly, highly dangerous... to your average citizen and police alike. Specifically police, people in these areas do not tend to like police, at all. Suggesting that police officers do not carry guns in these areas is like handing police officers a death sentence.

I'm not sure there is any simple answer, but taking away guns from officers would be lunacy.

[xvszero]

We have rough places in the UK too you know? And the police are not armed yet there are very very few police killings. Not even one a year and we have even less of these incidents.

I don't think you understand the situation here. It's not "rough" neighborhoods, it is neighborhoods that are virtually run by gangs, where people are murdered by said gangs EVERY DAY. Chicago (where I'm from,) for instance, is one of the murder capitals of the US, and I'd wager the world... we have a few murders daily, and they are usually in the same areas over and over and over.

Gangs travel in packs as well, and they all carry.

Sending police in without guns to these neighborhoods where murder WILL happen each day is ridiculous. I'm not saying the police are at the biggest risk as half the violence is gang on gang or gang on innocent bystander... but they won't be able to do much without guns either.

[nwptrl]

Lol basically you know nothing of the world outside America.

Obvioulsy you know nothing of the world inside America. A law enforcement officer dies in the U.S. at the rate of about 1 every 23 hours. Lets take away their guns and see if it helps.... naive foreigners....

[ActionActionFan]

And you don't know America. It's not like this stuff happens in Orland Park or Gold Coast. We have specific areas which are highly, highly dangerous... to your average citizen and police alike. Specifically police, people in these areas do not tend to like police, at all. Suggesting that police officers do not carry guns in these areas is like handing police officers a death sentence.

I'm not sure there is any simple answer, but taking away guns from officers would be lunacy.

Well if no one is stopping criminals then why wouldn't they target places like Orland Park.

[0starter0]

Being black warrants 50 bullet shots but me holding a real gun at a police officer and I would probably be dead in 1 or 2.

[oldwirehands]

This is fucking stupid. I can't read the news or current events anymore without becoming outraged and frustrated. No wonder the jazz dude in Chicago killed himself. I can see myself being driven to that state one day.

[SgtSmegma]

i like how the story doesnt even begin to describe what transpired, yet its 'disgusting and outrageous'. all it says is 'he's black. he got shot at 50 times. (not hit 50 times, shot at 50 times). it was his wedding day.' and without giving any reasons as to WHY this happened, it elicited the typically retarded 'cops are evil and racist' response.
hear some facts about the case before you make judgments.

I, too, would like to know what provoked this atrocity. It seems like that would be something included in a newspaper article. Regardless though, I don't think anything that an unarmed man could do would warrant 50 shots at him. That being said, I want to know what exactly transpired so as to create a more accurate opinion.

[ghostyouare]

Well naturally I don't think that cops in America should be disarmed right now, that would be disastrous but ideally they would not have guns and a situation similar to that in the UK and other European countries would emerge. Not going to happen anytime soon but that is what I would ultimately choose.
Dont change the constitution, please, kthx.

[total brodown]

Average cops shouldn't have guns. We don't get this repeated problem here because only specialised units have firearms.

somewhat agree. the average cops are such poorly trained, fat, out of shape, no idea what to really do in a serious situation, middle aged assholes who think they have power it's a joke.

but, it also seems like that could cause problems. don't cops over there get caught defenseless and killed or unable to handle situations over there now and then?

[Nevuk]

Dont change the constitution, please, kthx.
That document which is designed to guarantee an oligarchy?

[total brodown]

This is the most idiotic statement that I have ever heard. If cops don't have guns than how are they supposed to stop a criminal with a gun. Imagine an armed robber is robbing a bank and there is a cop there that doesn't have a gun. What's the cop supposed to say, "You will be arrested for this later but I can do nothing to stop you right now."

Basically you are a moron.

let me kind of fix what i said in above post.
it's not that i don't think cops should have guns.

basically, i think cops just need way better screening and training. they let any dumbass highschool asshole become a cop and go through very little training and hand them a deadly weapon and some power, and it's absurd.

[total brodown]

that must be nice.

[Nevuk]

No because average criminals and people do not have guns. I have never seen a gun in my life in the possesion of someone other than a police officer at an airport (even that is a post 9/11 measure) or in another country.
Hopefully they don't have ridiculous amounts of tazers either?