The Sean Bell Case: What's your opinion on the outcome?

[Biggie Smalls]

-from wikipedia-

The Sean Bell shooting incident took place in the New York City borough of Queens on November 25, 2006, in which three unarmed African-American men were shot at fifty times by plainclothes NYPD officers, killing one of the men, Sean Bell, on the morning of his wedding day, and severely wounding two of his friends.[1] The incident sparked fierce criticism of the police from the public and drew comparisons to the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo.[2] Three of the five detectives involved in the shooting went to trial on charges ranging from manslaughter to reckless endangerment, but were found not guilty.

What is your standpoint on the verdict? In my opinion, the real side of cops has been shown. I just can't believe how racist cops are. There's very few good ones, like the kids who wanna grow up to being cops and kicking criminal ***.


There have been disgusting incidents involoving Columbia's cops, invlving **** with a screw driver, police brutality, and in florida a black cop had dropped a paraphelegic patient on the floor and checked him, even after he said he is paraphelegic. Most cops in general are terrible overpowered *******s, no matter what race. But hey, it's me.


By the way, rapper The Game made a song in response to the court verdict.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WndLtR0weSc

 

[Crimson King]

As I've been saying for years, **** the police.

 

[yossarian22]

Most cops in general are terrible overpowered *******s, no matter what race. But hey, it's me.

Oh delicious irony....

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Oh delicious irony....

..I don't see the irony.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Well what did the man do to trigger the police shooting him 50 times?! Never mind that, that's ridiculous regardless of what triggered it. Police are usually pretty bad, but this is just terrible. He was UN ARMED, and the charges were completely dropped? I'm sorry, but that is terrible racism, and it probably ruined his family's life.

BTW I was also unable to spot the irony

 

[WuTangDude]

It's obviously racism. Nobody would shoot a guy 50 times who's unarmed for such reasons.

However, not everybody's responding to this right. Honestly, The Game releasing on song on this probably ain't gonna help.



(I too, missed the irony, BTW. Elaborate)

 

[Zero Beat]

50 shots? That's some good reloading right there. Clearly racism.

And as far as the irony goes, it might have been a misunderstanding on Yossarian's part. I think Biggie Smalls worded his sentence a little funky.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I don't know anything about the case but you've clearly presented it in a biased manner. You just tell us that cops shot three unarmed black people, without any context (or, might I add, what race the police officers were), and then you just say "it's racism." Do you want us just to agree with you without debate? Or do you want us to argue with you that you're wrong?

"Most cops." Nice overgeneralization. Isn't that in fact the same logic that gets people called racists? Why yes it is. There are good cops and bad cops, just like there are good people and bad people.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

I don't know anything about the case but you've clearly presented it in a biased manner. You just tell us that cops shot three unarmed black people, without any context (or, might I add, what race the police officers were), and then you just say "it's racism." Do you want us just to agree with you without debate? Or do you want us to argue with you that you're wrong?

"Most cops." Nice overgeneralization. Isn't that in fact the same logic that gets people called racists? Why yes it is. There are good cops and bad cops, just like there are good people and bad people.

..It's from wikipedia, *******.

It's obviously racism if the guy was unarmed, and was shot 50 times.They could of shot him once in the arm or leg, but no the *******s had to shoot him 50 times. So what if it's not racism? Then it's just Police Brutality taken to a whole nutha level. Besides, I don't know why this isn't obvious, but I'm putting up the innocence of the cops up for debate.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

It's obviously racism if the guy was unarmed, and was shot 50 times.

Explain to me how it's obvious. If it is, it should be easy for you to do so. "Well what else could it have been?" is not a valid argument.

They could of shot him once in the arm or leg, but no the *******s had to shoot him 50 times.

From what I read the THREE of them were shot AT them 50 times. According to Wiki, Bell was shot four times.

So what if it's not racism? Then it's just Police Brutality taken to a whole nutha level.

False dichotomy.

Besides, I don't know why this isn't obvious, but I'm putting up the innocence of the cops up for debate.

I never said the cops were innocent. Just that it's not necessarily racism because they happened to be white and the victims happened to be black. Some people (cops are people too) are just ****ing stupid or paranoid or they overreact.

 

[WuTangDude]

I never said the cops were innocent. Just that it's not necessarily racism because they happened to be white and the victims happened to be black. Some people (cops are people too) are just ****ing stupid or paranoid or they overreact.

So, what your're saying is, this was all one big fluke that is not race-related at all?

I guess Rodney King, as the well as the Selma-to-Montgomery protests could be chalked up as not race-related either.

The cops have had a history of unnecesary brutality to the African American community, I fail to see why this is any different. Especially if they were found innocent on accounts of manslaughter and murder, which also happened in cases like the Rodney King case. Such similarities to arguably the most famous account of police brutality point to racism, I fail to see why you believe otherwise....

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

So, what your're saying is, this was all one big fluke that is not race-related at all?

Did I say that? No I didn't. I just said it's not automatically racism.

I guess Rodney King, as the well as the Selma-to-Montgomery protests could be chalked up as not race-related either.

Just because some conflicts between white people and black people were race-motivated doesn't mean EVERY one is.

The cops have had a history of unnecesary brutality to the African American community, I fail to see why this is any different.

You're just assuming it is and asking ME to prove you wrong. That's not how arguments work. I never said I knew WHY the cops did what they did.

Especially if they were found innocent on accounts of manslaughter and murder, which also happened in cases like the Rodney King case. Such similarities to arguably the most famous account of police brutality point to racism, I fail to see why you believe otherwise....

Where did I say I believed anything one way or another?

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Explain to me how it's obvious. If it is, it should be easy for you to do so. "Well what else could it have been?" is not a valid argument.

Are you an idiot? Don't delete parts of my post that explain your answer. You really must wanna fight for no reason.

From what I read the THREE of them were shot AT them 50 times. According to Wiki, Bell was shot four times.

You're dodgin the main fact, why shoot 50 times? Why not shoot once? Why shoot at all?

I never said the cops were innocent. Just that it's not necessarily racism because they happened to be white and the victims happened to be black. Some people (cops are people too) are just ****ing stupid or paranoid or they overreact.

I don't see cops killing random people for no reason. There's absolutely no reason they would of shot them, unless for a hate crime. Police Brutality is another idea, but I think racism is the cause.

 

[WuTangDude]

Did I say that? No I didn't. I just said it's not automatically racism.

Well, I assumed you were saying otherwise, excuse me.

Just because some conflicts between white people and black people were race-motivated doesn't mean EVERY one is.

You're right. But the similarities between those events and this event are strikingly similar. For people to make these allegations because of the similarities this event had to previous accounts of police brutality, is only common sense.

You're just assuming it is and asking ME to prove you wrong. That's not how arguments work. I never said I knew WHY the cops did what they did.

This ain't an argument man, it's a debate. Why would come to this debate to say "Oh, this may not be racism, it may be something else!" without elaborating on what it may be? That contributes nothing to the debate, and shows you're not thinking your thoughts through. There's at least reason to believe the event may have been racially-motivated. You're not bringing anything to the table.

Where did I say I believed anything one way or another?

If you're saying (or assuming, whatever) it's not racism, then you're obviously taking the opposite side of the debate.

 

[blazedaces]

Stop making things black and white. He doesn't have to take a side. He's simply showing your arguments are faulty. You have to defend your arguments. I agree with your guys' conclusions, but at the same time, he's correct, you have yet to prove anything or provide valid reasoning to show they're true.

-blazed

 

[WuTangDude]

Stop making things black and white. He doesn't have to take a side. He's simply showing your arguments are faulty. You have to defend your arguments. I agree with your guys' conclusions, but at the same time, he's correct, you have yet to prove anything or provide valid reasoning to show they're true.

-blazed

Debates are all about taking sides. Pick a side (that side could be a set of beliefs, stance, whatever) and defend your belief in it. That's debating 101, if you have no stance, you have nothing to prove/defend/etc....

Yeah, it's true our view is faulty, we have no way to prove their intensions were racially charged. But there is similarities from past events we can draw upon to show there is a possibility of our insinuations (sp?) being correct. He's just saying, "It may not have been racial", and dumping it at that. If it wasn't racially charged (which is a possibility), then please, elaborate on what it may be. Contribute to the debate, don't just stifle it.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Debates are all about taking sides. Pick a side (that side could be a set of beliefs, stance, whatever) and defend your belief in it. That's debating 101, if you have no stance, you have nothing to prove/defend/etc....

Yeah, it's true our view is faulty, we have no way to prove their intensions were racially charged. But there is similarities from past events we can draw upon to show there is a possibility of our insinuations (sp?) being correct. He's just saying, "It may not have been racial", and dumping it at that. If it wasn't racially charged (which is a possibility), then please, elaborate on what it may be. Contribute to the debate, don't just stifle it.

I agree, however they're just trying to point out trifle matters like saying we're racist to assume such a thing or "why don't you consider police brutality".

 

[WuTangDude]

I agree, however they're just trying to point out trifle matters like saying we're racist to assume such a thing or "why don't you consider police brutality".

I don't think they're accusing us of racism. They simply believe we are overeacting to what they think is a non-racially influenced case of police brutality.

But we work well together, like Biggie and Method Man did.


(and since Method Man is Wu-Tang, it's great by me )

 

[Biggie Smalls]

I don't think they're accusing us of racism. They simply believe we are overeacting to what they think is a non-racially influenced case of police brutality.

But we work well together, like Biggie and Method Man did.


(and since Method Man is Wu-Tang, it's great by me )

Yeah, they're just pointing out minute stuff. Those guys were just typing for the hell of it though, I think one said I presented a biased telling on the story when I even said it was from wikipedia. I just hate when people ignore part of your post and use an arguement contradicting it.


Hah, yeah.
"I got more glocks and tecs than you
I make hot *****z wont even stand next to you"

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Are you an idiot? Don't delete parts of my post that explain your answer. You really must wanna fight for no reason.

Nothing in your post explains why it had to be racism. This is what you said:

"if the guy was unarmed, and was shot 50 times.They could of shot him once in the arm or leg, but no the *******s had to shoot him 50 times."

That proves absolutely nothing about racial motivation. I never said it WASN'T racially motivated, in fact if I had to GUESS, I'd guess it was to SOME degree (though not necessarily ENTIRELY). But that's beside the point. And you don't need to insult me, I've not insulted you.

You're dodgin the main fact, why shoot 50 times? Why not shoot once? Why shoot at all?

How should I know? I do know that just because racism supposedly COULD answer these questions doens't mean it's THE answer.

I don't see cops killing random people for no reason. There's absolutely no reason they would of shot them, unless for a hate crime. Police Brutality is another idea, but I think racism is the cause.

Well what are you saying? First you say there's ABSOLUTELY no other reason, then you say oh well it COULD have been this other thing. Choose your words carefully. And your (or my, or anyone else's) inability to think of any other reasons is not a reason why it HAS to be racism.

If you're saying (or assuming, whatever) it's not racism, then you're obviously taking the opposite side of the debate.

I'm not saying it's not racism.

Debates are all about taking sides. Pick a side (that side could be a set of beliefs, stance, whatever) and defend your belief in it. That's debating 101, if you have no stance, you have nothing to prove/defend/etc...

I'd rather we try to figure out what the truth of the matter is instead of both sides making blind assumptions and then trying to defend them.

He's just saying, "It may not have been racial", and dumping it at that. If it wasn't racially charged (which is a possibility), then please, elaborate on what it may be. Contribute to the debate, don't just stifle it.

Ok, look you guys, just saying "racism" without explaining in what capacity doesn't really say anything. Were they consciously just looking for a black person to kill? Or was it something more subconscious like a latent prejudice tha got the better of them? Clearly these are both "racism" but they are vastly different as far as how they fit into the picture. So just dumping it at "racism" when you have no elaboration of your own isn't really much better than what I'm doing.

And yes, it is in fact racist to assume it was racism. That doesn't mean that it is incorrect of course.

I don't think whether it was racist or not is as important as what the actual act was that was carried out. From what I have read about it, it sounds like the police used excessive force. But does that AUTOMATICALLY mean racism? Of course not. Many other things can lead to judgement errors. Bell hit an undercover officer with his van before shots were fired, who then yelled that he had a gun. It's not so unimaginable that that could cause the police to overreact. Of course I am not attempting to justify their actions; like I said to me it still sounds like they used excessive force.

 

[blazedaces]

Debates are all about taking sides. Pick a side (that side could be a set of beliefs, stance, whatever) and defend your belief in it. That's debating 101, if you have no stance, you have nothing to prove/defend/etc....

Yeah, it's true our view is faulty, we have no way to prove their intensions were racially charged. But there is similarities from past events we can draw upon to show there is a possibility of our insinuations (sp?) being correct. He's just saying, "It may not have been racial", and dumping it at that. If it wasn't racially charged (which is a possibility), then please, elaborate on what it may be. Contribute to the debate, don't just stifle it.

No, debates are about whatever you choose them to be about. As Hyuga pointed out above I honestly feel debating is about seeking the truth. I enjoy debating because whether I'm wrong or right, by the end of it, hopefully I'm closer to the truth than I was before.

On the other hand, blindly picking a side and simply arguing it is a waste of both our time. Even if I'm on your side in a debate, I'm not going to stand by idly as you use faulty reasoning to procure your conclusion.

 

[The Executive]

No, debates are about whatever you choose them to be about. As Hyuga pointed out above I honestly feel debating is about seeking the truth. I enjoy debating because whether I'm wrong or right, by the end of it, hopefully I'm closer to the truth than I was before.

On the other hand, blindly picking a side and simply arguing it is a waste of both our time. Even if I'm on your side in a debate, I'm not going to stand by idly as you use faulty reasoning to procure your conclusion.

Can we sticky this somehow? I feel it's important (especially the latter; it doesn't help my case when I attemp(ed) to argue for religion and people come in with copypaste "arguments" and get torn to pieces by snex, AltF4, etc.).

 

[WuTangDude]

Ok, look you guys, just saying "racism" without explaining in what capacity doesn't really say anything. Were they consciously just looking for a black person to kill? Or was it something more subconscious like a latent prejudice tha got the better of them? Clearly these are both "racism" but they are vastly different as far as how they fit into the picture. So just dumping it at "racism" when you have no elaboration of your own isn't really much better than what I'm doing.

And yes, it is in fact racist to assume it was racism. That doesn't mean that it is incorrect of course.

I don't think whether it was racist or not is as important as what the actual act was that was carried out. From what I have read about it, it sounds like the police used excessive force. But does that AUTOMATICALLY mean racism? Of course not. Many other things can lead to judgement errors. Bell hit an undercover officer with his van before shots were fired, who then yelled that he had a gun. It's not so unimaginable that that could cause the police to overreact. Of course I am not attempting to justify their actions; like I said to me it still sounds like they used excessive force.

We have to elaborate on wether the racism was subconcious or not now? That doesn't seem very relevant to me, and to me it seems like you're using that as an excuse to compare what I'm doing to what you're doing.

You're right in the case that it may not have been racism, but a judgement error of a different sort. I'm not saying "No, this was definitly racially influenced!", I'm saying I believe it was, which of course doesn't mean it's automatically true, and I understand and fully accept that.

And Bell did scream he had a gun (or his friend said "Yo, go get my gun", just something along the lines of having a weapon, so whatever), but cops don't tend to let off shots just because of that.


Everybody's saying that me and Biggie Smalls are calling this racism with no basic evidence or proof. Nobody has evidence or proof is WASN'T racially influenced, either.

I've come to my conclusion based on the similarities this case has to Rodney King and Selma-to-Montgomery incidents, and all events like it. I have some basis to my view. Stop saying that I'm just blantantly arguing for the sake of arguing. Comparison of historical events is fair game in debates.

No, debates are about whatever you choose them to be about. As Hyuga pointed out above I honestly feel debating is about seeking the truth. I enjoy debating because whether I'm wrong or right, by the end of it, hopefully I'm closer to the truth than I was before.

On the other hand, blindly picking a side and simply arguing it is a waste of both our time. Even if I'm on your side in a debate, I'm not going to stand by idly as you use faulty reasoning to procure your conclusion.

From Dictionary.com:

de·bate /dɪˈbeɪt/ noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

That's a debate, plain and simple.

Of course, I agree with you about debating being about seeking the truth, which sometimes doesn't require opposite sides. But this isn't one of those cases.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

We have to elaborate on wether the racism was subconcious or not now? That doesn't seem very relevant to me, and to me it seems like you're using that as an excuse to compare what I'm doing to what you're doing.

My point is that the incident could have had multiple causes, each with varying degrees of how much it affected it. Just saying "racism" says nothing about the degree to which racism was involved, and also ignores the other causes. That is why just blurting "racism" is meaningless.

And Bell did scream he had a gun (or his friend said "Yo, go get my gun", just something along the lines of having a weapon, so whatever), but cops don't tend to let off shots just because of that.

Strictly speaking that was an officer's account of the events before the shooting. And no, cops don't tend to let of shots just because of that, but after the undercover officer was hit by a van, it's likely that that scream entered their minds as they had to decide what to do.

Everybody's saying that me and Biggie Smalls are calling this racism with no basic evidence or proof. Nobody has evidence or proof is WASN'T racially influenced, either.

I've come to my conclusion based on the similarities this case has to Rodney King and Selma-to-Montgomery incidents, and all events like it. I have some basis to my view. Stop saying that I'm just blantantly arguing for the sake of arguing. Comparison of historical events is fair game in debates.

If you say "it's racism" it's up to YOU to show it, not up to everyone else to prove otherwise. I didn't say it wasn't racism. You say it's similar to other events, ok fine. How, and why should I believe this even is then as racially motivated as the others?

Incidentally, in reading the wiki article, there is no mention of racism from anyone, OR even what race the officers were. In fact, according to this article, the first person to open fire was black. And if anything, the person who fired first is more responsible, because him firing probably panicked the other officers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/n...=5087&excamp=GGGNseanbellshooting&oref=slogin
So, there's some evidence against racism, and a strike against the similarities to the incidents you mentioned.

Of course, I agree with you about debating being about seeking the truth, which sometimes doesn't require opposite sides. But this isn't one of those cases.

Says you. I say otherwise. This isn't a debate contest (unless you WANT it to be) where we just pick sides and defend them, we're here to discuss the issues and come up with our own ideas.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Nothing in your post explains why it had to be racism. This is what you said:

"if the guy was unarmed, and was shot 50 times.They could of shot him once in the arm or leg, but no the *******s had to shoot him 50 times."

So? I never said it's downright racism, nothing else. You're just wasting your **** time, you and those other idiots don't even know what my topic of debate is, the cop's innocense. Hell, you're even misunderstanding my stance on the issue. I'm agnostic towards to fact that it might not be police brutality. I just feel it's a hate crime, for the reasons WuTangDude presented.

BTW,

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

So? I never said it's downright racism, nothing else.

Ok, fine, but you still said it's "obviously racism" and I've shown you that nothing in your post proves anything about racism.

You're just wasting your **** time, you and those other idiots don't even know what my topic of debate is, the cop's innocense. Hell, you're even misunderstanding my stance on the issue. I'm agnostic towards to fact that it might not be police brutality. I just feel it's a hate crime, for the reasons WuTangDude presented.

I've already said I believe they used excessive force. And I agree they should have been punished for that. But you're ALSO accusing them of a hate crime, something that you have no evidence regarding. In fact, I've provided evidence to the contrary, and shown you how those events aren't as similar as you think they are, with the article I linked. So where is the actual EVIDENCE going to come from? I took the time to do my homework and found the evidence, and it does not support your claim. I doubt you even knew that the officer who fired first was black.

As for your picture, ok great, you found a black (he might be south asian I can't tell) person wearing a tshirt with a Nazi swastika on it, which doesn't actually prove anything. I could tell my black friend to put that shirt on, snap a pic, and put it all over the internet, as a joke. Sure, maybe there ARE black people who ARE racist against other black people. But you have no evidence that the black officer was! You can't just go around shouting racism every time a black person is wronged by someone, least of all someone of the SAME race.

And it goes back to my thing about how racism fits into the picture. If it was something subconscious then you can't legitimately call it a hate crime. You have to prove that he was deliberately acting because he hated black people.

See this is why I think hate crime legislation is stupid. First of all, it's punishing people for what they believe. Second, it just turns things into a witch hunt. It's just too hard to absolutely prove that something was absolutely 100% motivated by racial HATRED.

And again, chill out and stop calling me an idiot. I haven't insulted you once.

 

[WuTangDude]

My point is that the incident could have had multiple causes, each with varying degrees of how much it affected it. Just saying "racism" says nothing about the degree to which racism was involved, and also ignores the other causes. That is why just blurting "racism" is meaningless.

Point taken.

Strictly speaking that was an officer's account of the events before the shooting. And no, cops don't tend to let of shots just because of that, but after the undercover officer was hit by a van, it's likely that that scream entered their minds as they had to decide what to do.

Cops are trained for years to keep a calm during such a situation, I doubt it really got to them. But training can onyl go so far, I see your point.

If you say "it's racism" it's up to YOU to show it, not up to everyone else to prove otherwise. I didn't say it wasn't racism. You say it's similar to other events, ok fine. How, and why should I believe this even is then as racially motivated as the others?

Well, there's literally no way beyond speculative investigation to prove it was racially motivated, as well as proving that it wasn't racially provoked. I could flip this on you and say "Prove that it WASN'T racism".

Incidentally, in reading the wiki article, there is no mention of racism from anyone, OR even what race the officers were. In fact, according to this article, the first person to open fire was black. And if anything, the person who fired first is more responsible, because him firing probably panicked the other officers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/n...=5087&excamp=GGGNseanbellshooting&oref=slogin
So, there's some evidence against racism, and a strike against the similarities to the incidents you mentioned.

That's because Wikipedia must maintain a standing of Neutrality in all of it's articles (I would know, I'm a member ).

If this is true, and an african-american DID open fire first, then that really does hinder my point, as you said. I may be wrong.

Says you. I say otherwise. This isn't a debate contest (unless you WANT it to be) where we just pick sides and defend them, we're here to discuss the issues and come up with our own ideas.

No, not says me, says an official dictionary. Debates ARE picking a side and defending it, and from that, you get a clearer view of the truth of a situation, or at the very least the views of another person/group. So you do learn and get smarter no matter what. We are discussing the issue, and we do have our own ideas. Welcome to a debate.




(And Biggie, stop insulting people with stuff like idiot. You're not helping anybody and that'll end up having your name thrown in the boot topic if it really annoys the person you're insulting. And I would hate to see the only other hip-hop fan here get booted. )

 

[Biggie Smalls]

If this is true, and an african-american DID open fire first, then that really does hinder my point, as you said. I may be wrong.

It's quite true, I knew of this before the thread was posted. The situation is unclear, but will try to paint a picture of conjecture. Now, of course a black guy wouldn't shoot another and be called a racist. For example, he could of been in an opposing gang (assuming Sean Bell was in a gang) or was an enemy of Sean Bell. With the white cops, it's quite possible they were pulling off a hate crime by baffling the black guy, saying there was a warrant for arrest on Sean and he was a deadly murderer.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Well, there's literally no way beyond speculative investigation to prove it was racially motivated, as well as proving that it wasn't racially provoked. I could flip this on you and say "Prove that it WASN'T racism".

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion. I didn't say it was or wasn't, because I don't have enough information to know such a thing.

No, not says me, says an official dictionary. Debates ARE picking a side and defending it, and from that, you get a clearer view of the truth of a situation, or at the very least the views of another person/group. So you do learn and get smarter no matter what. We are discussing the issue, and we do have our own ideas. Welcome to a debate.

Ok, my side is that you don't have enough information to support an assertion of a 'hate crime.'

It's quite true, I knew of this before the thread was posted. The situation is unclear, but will try to paint a picture of conjecture. Now, of course a black guy wouldn't shoot another and be called a racist. For example, he could of been in an opposing gang (assuming Sean Bell was in a gang) or was an enemy of Sean Bell. With the white cops, it's quite possible they were pulling off a hate crime by baffling the black guy, saying there was a warrant for arrest on Sean and he was a deadly murderer.

Of course it's POSSIBLE. Literally hundreds of scenarios and motives are possible. But you can't go around accusing people of a HATE CRIME, something they can go to prison and lose years of their lives for, unless you have evidence. The way you talk about it makes it sound like you are so sure it was a hate crime (in addition to excessive force which I DO agree with) that you'd have no second thoughts about sending these (possibly innocent) men to prison and taking away years of their lives. Just relying on conjecture is what turns honest investigations, which are fine, into witch hunts.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Of course it's POSSIBLE. Literally hundreds of scenarios and motives are possible. But you can't go around accusing people of a HATE CRIME, something they can go to prison and lose years of their lives for, unless you have evidence. The way you talk about it makes it sound like you are so sure it was a hate crime (in addition to excessive force which I DO agree with) that you'd have no second thoughts about sending these (possibly innocent) men to prison and taking away years of their lives. Just relying on conjecture is what turns honest investigations, which are fine, into witch hunts.

Who gives a ****? Hate Crime or not, their ****ing crime should be punished severely, hell I don't even think they wer eon ****ing duty. Regardless of it being a hate crime or what, those ****s should go to jail or death row. May I ask why you say they don't deserve to die or be jailed for commiting ****ing 3 casualties? The case was on MANSLAUGHTER, NOT A HATE CRIME. **** the hate crime, this thread was about the ****in' case. IT WAS ON MANSLAUGHTER, AND THE JUDGE RULED NOT GUILTY! Think back to your posts, and look at the title of the thread. When I did this, I saw barely any revelence in your posts, besides trying to be a pain in the ***.

 

[pockyD]

I read the original post, and it seems like all your outrage centered around the "race" aspect of the case more so than just the killing part of it

...and trust me, getting worked up about it and yelling at someone you think is stupid for disagreeing with you only results in you looking stupid, not the target of your aggression

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Who gives a ****? Hate Crime or not, their ****ing crime should be punished severely, hell I don't even think they wer eon ****ing duty. Regardless of it being a hate crime or what, those ****s should go to jail or death row. May I ask why you say they don't deserve to die or be jailed for commiting ****ing 3 casualties? The case was on MANSLAUGHTER, NOT A HATE CRIME. **** the hate crime, this thread was about the ****in' case. IT WAS ON MANSLAUGHTER, AND THE JUDGE RULED NOT GUILTY! Think back to your posts, and look at the title of the thread. When I did this, I saw barely any revelence in your posts, besides trying to be a pain in the ***.

Haven't I already said that I agreed that they used excessive force? Where did I say they don't deserve to be jailed? I didn't. Also you can't go to jail for more than 10 years for voluntary manslaughter (6 for involuntary, though I would suppose it varies from state to state, I may be wrong regarding NY law) anyway so death row is right out. Not all killings are under the exact same circumstances so you can't just say 3 casualties = death row. If it could be proven that the cops were just like "I feel like killing some ***

gers" and then mowed them down for absolutely no reason you can bet I'd want to send them to death row. Speaking of which, NY doesn't have the death penalty anymore.

The fact is police officers have to make a lot of tough decisions in the heat of the moment all the time. It seems to me this time they ****ed up. Let me ask you this. Some people in a van all of a sudden take off, then hit one of your friends and then a parked car WITH THE VAN, and your friend that just got hit yells "he's got a gun!" Are you just gonna sit there or are you gonna try to do something? Again I'm not saying what the cops did was the RIGHT THING, just that it's not a stretch to say they made an error in judgement (a fatal error that can't go ignored or unpunished, but in the end an error nonetheless), and there's no need to resort to 'racism' to explain the cops' actions.

And I understand that in your first post you were just asking about the verdict, but you also accused them of being racist, and you have accused them of committing a hate crime, and I take serious issue with that, because the evidence as it stands does not support that.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Haven't I already said that I agreed that they used excessive force? Where did I say they don't deserve to be jailed? I didn't. Also you can't go to jail for more than 10 years for voluntary manslaughter (6 for involuntary, though I would suppose it varies from state to state, I may be wrong regarding NY law) anyway so death row is right out. Not all killings are under the exact same circumstances so you can't just say 3 casualties = death row. If it could be proven that the cops were just like "I feel like killing some ***

gers" and then mowed them down for absolutely no reason you can bet I'd want to send them to death row. Speaking of which, NY doesn't have the death penalty anymore.

The fact is police officers have to make a lot of tough decisions in the heat of the moment all the time. It seems to me this time they ****ed up. Let me ask you this. Some people in a van all of a sudden take off, then hit one of your friends and then a parked car WITH THE VAN, and your friend that just got hit yells "he's got a gun!" Are you just gonna sit there or are you gonna try to do something? Again I'm not saying what the cops did was the RIGHT THING, just that it's not a stretch to say they made an error in judgement (a fatal error that can't go ignored or unpunished, but in the end an error nonetheless), and there's no need to resort to 'racism' to explain the cops' actions.

And I understand that in your first post you were just asking about the verdict, but you also accused them of being racist, and you have accused them of committing a hate crime, and I take serious issue with that, because the evidence as it stands does not support that.

I thank you for your explanation, there more I know.

Well, I kept in mind my conjecture theories, as silly as they may sound. I have no evidence there's racism involved 100%, but I'll pull a WuTangDude and explain that you have no proof of racism not involved in it 100%.

Well, I tend to go a bit off topic with rants because when I rant galaxies blow up.

 

[pockyD]

as mentioned before, in America, the burden of proof is on the accuser

innocent until proven guilty O_o

 

[Biggie Smalls]

as mentioned before, in America, the burden of proof is on the accuser

innocent until proven guilty O_o

This cop had shot at Sean Bell, and it's been thought over by the court that he was the one, Micheal Oliver. The black cop which certain people referred to, started the incident and hit no one, with only 2 shots because of a stupid claim. The other cop, who was white, had done a chunk of shots as well.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/sean-bells-father-recalls-fatal-night-at-club/
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0810,the-bell-curveball,351205,2.html

Now that the situation is examined, I don't see why racial involvement should be ruled out.

 

[KevinM]

Debating is fine, insulting the other person however Biggie Smalls only makes you look ignorant as well as lessens your point in my eyes. If you are unable to back up your facts without excessive swearing perhaps you should take some time before typing, internet tough guy doesn't win debates, careful thought out arguments do.

 

[Evil Eye]

Protip, Biggie: Never ever start a topic on a news event with your own paraphrase. That's just insipid.

Let's have a link to a real news article in the future, slugger.

Of course I can see why you wouldn't want to do that, because the news tends to at least vaguely entertain opposite points of view.

From one of your own articles:

If anything, the prosecutors undercut their own theory during the first week of the trial by stressing the lack of planning by the accused officers' unit on the night of the shooting and the chaos that followed.

Right. So it was planned. But it wasn't planned. Well, that makes all the sense in the world.

And no, WuTang, you cannot turn the burden of proof coin over on your own caprice. In Canada and the United States, it's entrenched deep within legal precedent and constitutional law that the need to display evidence that proves the camp correct beyond any reasonable doubt rests solely with the prosecutors. O.J. definitely murdered the hell out of his wife, but legally speaking, he was "not guilty".

Any suggestion to the contrary is just ... absurd! If you want to make comments like that, you'll have to get into the law sector, bust your keister for a couple decades, become a judge, and cross your fingers real hard.

Right off the bat, knock Marc Cooper, a detective who couldn't shoot straight, out of the discussion. Cooper faces only a misdemeanor count of reckless endangerment because his aim was so bad: One of his shots crashed through an AirTrain window 200 feet away. His aim, it turned out, was 11 degrees too high.

Now there's a hate crime if I ever heard one. **** those AirTrains! Burn them! Burn a lower-case T on their lawns!


This was but an incredibly reckless misfire of judgment by cops who were a little too ready to use their firearms. It's a top drawer case of ignorance, and not a whole lot else.

Postscript: Officer Isnora fired eleven shots, not two.

 

[Dexter Morgan]

This is a sad event. Police are only out to harass people. When it comes to actually helping people they act like its a bother to them.

Out of 50 shots 20 hit the Altima. Bell was hit 4 times; Guzman was hit 13 times; Benefield was hit 3 times. Grand total of 20 hits out of 50 shots at a very short distance. That is terrible shooting even if you agree that it was justified. Taking all 50 shots and dividing by 50 you get a 52 percent hit rate verses a 49 percent miss.

Poor shooting at it's finest no matter what side of the issue you are on.