Sharpton arrested as hundreds protest NYC police shooting

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


"No weapons were found in the Altima, which Mr. Bell had been driving."

"According to police guidelines, officers can fire only when they or another person is threatened by deadly physical force, but not if that physical force comes from a moving vehicle alone"

Once again these quotes are taken from the NY Times.

It's funny that the passenger was the one shot, when the driver was the one who did something wrong. You can't justify this just from the driver's actions. It's not like the passengers had any control over him.

And no weapons were found in the car.

He shouldnt have tried to run the cops over. The police need to practice their aim, that way instead of three hitting him, we need all 50 to hit him. I woulda thrown a grenade at the car, then taken out an RPG. Im glad sharpton is in jail for trying to start a riot over served justice.

reply to post by theendisnear69

Your right there was no weapon found in the car, the weapon was the car! Maybe 50 bullets was bad, but obviously if only 3 hit him, somewhat justified to be able to stop the car from coming at them. I am the first person to be pissed at police (Abner Lawima (sp) ) come to mind. But it seems justified. And I am not a pro Gov person, I cannot stand our current Admin and thin they are fairly evil. I just see this for what it is. A drunk Suspect trying to run down a group of cops. Sounds pretty dumb to me.

And on a side note, I love how they say an unarmed Black man, like that is why he was shot lol. Seems they always forget to mention the color of the people who shot him. See the media is not helping anything here either. Both Al and the media would LOOOOVE a riot over this. There are plenty of things to riot about, this aint one of them. IMHO

reply to post by ShiftTrio


The man who was shot was not driving the car.

I have never heard of cops just unloading on a vehicle with passengers in it.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by theendisnear69
Once again these quotes are taken from the NY Times.

“Each officer who discharged their weapons believed that their lives and the lives of their partners were in imminent danger,” he said.

www.nytimes.com...

It is customary to provide a link to quotes used in posts.

Now back to the subject:

Sharpton arrested as hundreds protest NYC police shooting

Looks to me like the PTB see the need to prop up their servant Sharpton’s ‘street cred’ by letting him cool his heels for a minute. I’ve no doubt that this is but a prelude to future activities, perhaps planned for after Obama’s demise.

The dreadful depths of political opportunism.

The facts of this case have not been disputed, yet Mr. Sharpton is prepared to decry this event as if the tabloid headlines were true.

I wonder, why the press is not forthcoming with a more robust report regarding the events as they have been determined to be? Is 'the man' lying? Or is Mr. Sharpton in compelled by some holy mission to ensure that racial antipathy is kept stoked like white hot embers in a forge?

Why couldn't a headline have read, "Presumed gunman assaults 3 officers with vehicle, fired 50 rounds". Or maybe "Suspect shot and killed while trying to run down officers with his vehicle".

Who decided, "Unarmed black man shot 50 times by police"?


Where did that inflammatory little bit come from? I ask because in my fantasy world, they are the one's who will be charged both financially and criminally for all damages resulting from the unrest which follows.

Alright... very nice... thanks for adding onto the thread that was already following this story... since Sunday 5/4...

[My apologies now... I just got up and I am not a "morning" person]

[edit on 5/7/2008 by RabbitChaser]

If the guy killed was white. This wouldn't be in the news.

The cops were not in uniform. They pulled out their guns on them. The cops had even been drinking themselves, according to the initial reports from couple years ago. It was reported at the time that the cops were "off-duty" and has since been changed to "undercover."

The one who was killed was not even trying to run anyone over. He was just a passenger. And a previous poster wanted the victim to have been hit with all 50 of those bullets?

If someone without a uniform who is drunk claims to be a cop and pulls a gun on you, are you going to stop for them? Or are you going to try and get away? They showed no proof at the time according to initial reports that they were cops. Any drunk can pull a gun on someone and claim to be a cop, that doesn't make it so.

I have a couple of comments on this matter.

I don't like Al Sharpton.

I don't like that plain clothed cops shot this guy. You can't expect someone to obey your orders if you are just a normal looking person with a gun.

The cops should have been jailed in my opinion.

If they didn't want riots in New York, they should not have arrested Sharpton. This will certainly cause the tension to increase 10x.

It makes Sharpton a martyr for an army of pissed off people.

I would estimate that instead of being a protest, this will likely result in a full blown riot/riots.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
The cops were not in uniform. They pulled out their guns on them. The cops had even been drinking themselves, according to the initial reports from couple years ago. It was reported at the time that the cops were "off-duty" and has since been changed to "undercover."

The one who was killed was not even trying to run anyone over. He was just a passenger. And a previous poster wanted the victim to have been hit with all 50 of those bullets?

If someone without a uniform who is drunk claims to be a cop and pulls a gun on you, are you going to stop for them? Or are you going to try and get away? They showed no proof at the time according to initial reports that they were cops. Any drunk can pull a gun on someone and claim to be a cop, that doesn't make it so.

Well, I must accept what you say, for the moment. Please try, whenever possible to cite sources about earlier reports. It makes learning easier for me.

Certainly, if they were undercover (please note, I said if) then I wouldn't expect them to be uniform, yet a question remains. I am assuming this was a fact that was investigated and part of the trial facts. It is possible that the police could have 'retroactively' changed the officers' official status, but that's a major criminal act isn't it? It would involve multiple officers at several levels to corroborate the 'falsehood' rendering it a conspiratorial crime. This is a major accusation that would spring from what you have said. Has there been any comments about this by the witnesses? I didn't hear any, but I may have simply missed it.

If they were 'on duty' were they witnessed drinking? I am assuming so, but that's a major issue right there, exposing these officers to civil liabilities if not more. I can't imagine that would have been ignored in the court case either. More perjury?

The fact that they were at a location where people socialize with liquor I expect undercover officers have to be much more clear about who they are, not just whipping out a gun, which I suspect might happen relatively frequently at such places and hours of the evening. So I can believe there may have been uncertainty as to the legitimacy of their identity at the time.

I will not however understand how the status of the passenger as 'unarmed' and 'just a passenger' can be considered the cornerstone of the complaint because, whether we realize the danger or not, such is the nature of being 'near the flame' once tends to risk getting burned. Unless there are more outright falsehoods being brought to the case, there was no doubt that the driver made reference to getting his gun. At that moment I would likely have said, "No thanks man, I'll wait here". But I suppose one could argue that he felt he had no choice but to go with his friend to get the alleged firearm.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
The cops were not in uniform. They pulled out their guns on them. The cops had even been drinking themselves, according to the initial reports from couple years ago. It was reported at the time that the cops were "off-duty" and has since been changed to "undercover."

No.
Again, this article was published the day after the shooting. they were clearly idetified as "In all, Five plainclothes officers"

According to the person briefed on the accounts, the detective, his police badge around his neck, then pulled out his gun, identified himself as a police officer and ordered the occupants to show their hands. They did not comply, the person said, but instead gunned the car forward, hitting the undercover officer and, seconds later, an unmarked police minivan.

This act has destroyed many lives. The Bell family, the three NYPD officers as well as the lives of Sean's "in laws".

Sharpton needed to vent some of the Big Apples anger. So long as it does not get out of control it is probably good that some of the anger is vented. If not, when another event like this or worse happens, the venting will be a lot worse.

The NYPD needs to heal as well. I am no cop lover but we still need to recognize the pain within the NYPD family as well.

Intelligent people hire good attorneys. Nut cases and Glory Hounds like Sharpton get themselves arrested on purpose. Go figure

The victims in this need to get away from Sharpton and then maybe they could get some satisfaction out of the courts. Wise people know you can't beat the system, but you can use it.

Remember, the Victim tried to mow down an Officer with a car. That just may have caused the shooting, don't you think?

Sharpton must be getting drowned out of the news by the Election activities. He needs his media fix.

I'm in complete shock that any LEO would think it's OK to try to stop a suspect who refused to comply from running them over with his vehicle. Obviously the right thing to do here would have been to calmly get run over and then handle the situation!

What a crock! Do you people even stop to think about what you're typing or is the brain to hands connection completely severed? Put yourself in the same situation and tell me that you wouldn't have unloaded your gun into the car to try to get it to stop.

reply to post by BlueTriangle


So if a person not in uniform in plain clothes came up to you waving a gun that you would not try to get away?

Come on I had a guy threaten me with a knife once. If he would have pulled out a badge that would not have stopped me from tackling him.

Weapons instill fear in people. The officer was not in uniform. I would have ran him over to

You would think that the way he try's to portray himself as an intelligent person wouldn't stoop to ghetto ways of dealing with things,I think he is right where he belongs,hope they have him share a cell with big Jamal

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Remember, the Victim tried to mow down an Officer with a car. That just may have caused the shooting, don't you think?

The victim was not driving. The victim was a passenger. The victim did not try to mow down an officer with a car.

The cops couldn't even aim right. More innocent people could have been killed as well. It was a miracle that didn't happen.

The cops had no reason to stop them in the first place. They were getting in the car to drive away. They had not committed any crimes.