http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/25/sean.bell.trial/index.html

So is this an example of pigs getting away with abusive behavior like usual, or police being wrongly accused?

I think the problem is simply human: an officer of the law is required to protect the public trust at all cost, even s/he life, by this logic they should have allowed them selves to get run over rather then break protocol and shot at a vehicle and ruin public confidence and cost millions of tax dollars in state trials and legal suits (which I hope to god wins), but humans are selfish and at the very least the urge for self preservation will overred most people (accept for true heros). What we need is a tireless officer that always follows protocol and would give their lives in true selflessness to protect the people... Robocop where are you???

i dont blame the guy for trying to run the [deleted] down. if someone pulls a gun on you, then you have a responsibility to disarm them before they can harm you or anyone else.

is it just me or is anyone else reminded of the "Reginald Denney" and "Officer Coon" sections "Arizona Bay" in each of the two postings above this?

in case you've not heard it both bits are here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNLHsWu7lT8

vslayer: Nobody pulled a gun; the policeman only thought that a gun was going to be pulled.

is it just me or is anyone else reminded of the "Reginald Denney" and "Officer Coon" sections "Arizona Bay" in each of the two postings above this?

in case you've not heard it both bits are here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNLHsWu7lT8

Its just you

This is a case of some people need to recognize it was not about race. Given what the club was under investigation for they would have believed anyone in a similiar situation was going for a gun. The friends testimony is highly suspect on the cops not identifying themselves as if they admitted they had and let their friend try to run them over they would be accomplices to attempted murder. The other witnesses for prosecution gave conflicting testimony that changed constantly. The whole thing was a tragic mess. Then we add in Al Sharpton who can't seem to understand were in the 21st century now.

vslayer: Nobody pulled a gun; the policeman only thought that a gun was going to be pulled.

i think you completely misunderstood me. the pigs were the ones that pulled the guns, and the guy was completely right to try and run them over before they could shoot anyone, which they did.

i think you completely misunderstood me. the pigs were the ones that pulled the guns, and the guy was completely right to try and run them over before they could shoot anyone, which they did.

However the cops had pulled guns becuase they thought they were going to pull guns and if all he wanted was to live through this why did he attempt to run over the cops and when he missed attempted to ram them again.

umm, perhaps because they pulled guns on him? it doest matter who they are, if someone pulls a gun on you, they are threatening you and you need to disarm them.

umm, perhaps because they pulled guns on him? it doest matter who they are, if someone pulls a gun on you, they are threatening you and you need to disarm them.

They're cops!!! Cops can pull guns! You try and disarm a cop and guess what happens. You get shot. DUH!

Why is Sharpton even involved in this. :shrug: Two black cops shot a black guy trying to run them over.

They're cops!!! Cops can pull guns! You try and disarm a cop and guess what happens. You get shot. DUH!

Why is Sharpton even involved in this. :shrug: Two black cops shot a black guy trying to run them over.

Becuase one of the cops was white and the victims were black. If all the cops had been black and the victim white they still would have been acquitted and Sharpton would be nowhere to be seen.

There was too much contradictary testimony coming form the people claiming the cops did not identify themselves. It would be only thing is person A and person B were saying slightly different thing, but this was Person A changing the story each time they told it.

A new case: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356622,00.html
I think the problem is police testimony is trusted over civilian, nothing beats the camera though.

They're cops!!! Cops can pull guns! You try and disarm a cop and guess what happens. You get shot. DUH!

Why is Sharpton even involved in this. :shrug: Two black cops shot a black guy trying to run them over.

I doubt Sharpton (or the NAACP) would have got involved if this had happened to white guys.

Back to the trial though, I could understand the cops firing once or twice if they truely felt one or more of their lives were in danger, but 50 shots ?!?!?
They were too gun-happy, and should be at least fired from their jobs.

I think what is needed is fundemental change in teh system
1. Police overcite should be a separate agency (like in Britain) none of this BS about police policing them selfs, it retarded. Prosecution of police should be handle by a separate prosecute specifically who works for the police overcite agency.
2. The ability to sue police officers directly, not only police agencies, right now the agency pays a pay out or settlement and the officers responsible go continue doing what ever it is they do.
3. Surveillance on police. Patrol car cameras and even cameras and mic on the officer remove the possibility of false officer testimony, most of all control of these video/audio should be controlled by the agency in recommendation #1, officers who do not report in their video/audio records should be punished harshly
4. Tracking Police: the history of any officers and complaints about them should be handle by the agency in recommendation #1, none of this BS about complaining to the police about other police.

As if the police don't have a bad enough image:

Patrick Lynch, president of the New York Police Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said "there's no winners; there's no losers" in the case.

"We still have a death that occurred. We still have police officers that have to live with the fact that there was a death involved in their case," Lynch said.

(Feyerick (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/25/sean.bell.trial/index.html))

Apparently the innocent dead aren't losers in this case. Apparently the bereaved survivors aren't losers in this case.

That a man like that represents police officers in New York City is one of the reasons so many people think police officers are shit. It's one of the reasons people don't trust the police. It's one of the reasons so many people believe you have to be corrupt to be a cop in the first place.

But they wear a badge, so murderous corruption is their god-given right.
____________________

Notes:

Feyerick, Deborah. "Acquittals in groom's shooting spark outrage". CNN.com. Updated April 25, 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/25/sean.bell.trial/index.html

Tiassa, i think you're adding your own melodram to an already messed up situation. The cops did what cops are trained to do. Protect themselves and other from possible danger, even during an investigation. They pulled guns and identified themselves. Now the groom might have not understood them or was so frightened by the sight of gun he tried to ram them (repeatedly). The cops were just defending themselves. They did not fire untill the car was already being used as a weapon.

As for the "no winners, no losers." comment, it's just a damn saying that some people use to say no hard feelings from us. When people like yourself take it out of context and turn it into an attack all you ae doing is throwing gasoline on a spark that should be left to die. Same can be said for Al Sharpton's comments.