|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 4:35:21 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1535
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
I just wanted to share a few things with our friend who think police officers get their kicks off of killing black people:
Deadly weapon.
In my kitchen, I have a knife block filled with various cooking knives. They are cooking tools however, if I grab one of them and chase my neighbor down the street with it in order to stab them, that cooking tool becomes a deadly weapon.
It's the same thing with vehicles.
This really isn't a difficult concept.
As far as the other hateful stuff you are spewing, I find it very offensive that you think that everyone's elses motives are so evil and racist.
As far as simply "jumping out of the way" of the car. Police officers are there to neutralize a threat - not run away from it. Which is a good thing. A very good thing...
Well, since we are all potential threats (like cooking knives) maybe police should nuetralize all of us. It would cut down on a lot of potential crime! 
During the Rodney King riots, I saw a lot of "running away from the threat" by the police and that was at the beginning before it got out of hand.
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 5:24:05 PM
|
|
|
buckifn
Posts: 1759
Joined: 5/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I disagree. It's called "perceptions." There are no races, only various phenotypes.
Well that would make darwin happy I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 5:27:11 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 4826
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where bbq pigeons roast....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: buckifn
quote:
I disagree. It's called "perceptions." There are no races, only various phenotypes.
Well that would make darwin happy I suppose.
Why is that? When Darwin was a documented racist who thought all non-whites were lesser creatures.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 8:50:23 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: rnershigh
I want to know is why is race entering the equation here?
I hate it when people try to bring race into the discussion.
The fact the man was black is not the main issue and is not the reason why he was shot at.
But it is the reason that folks find it justifiable.
I still contend that the reaction to the verdict would have been very different if the victim had been white, especially considering that two of the cops were black.
And i contend that if it had been a white guy shot we wouldn't be having this conversation even if he had been shot by an army of black cops.
When the cops are attacked with a car they have no way of knowing if the guy driving heard them say stop police or if the driver saw their badges when they flashed them. All they know is they are being attacked with a deadly weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 9:02:09 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Is everyone applauding their death?
No one is applauding Bell's death, they are applauding that the law enforcement officers who were put in a very bad situation were not sentenced for reacting to a deadly force leveled against them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 9:08:00 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
We don't know that this was his intention. He may very well have expected them to get out of the way,
So if I point a gun at someone expecting them to move out of the way and pull the trigger and they don't move out of the way and are injured am I to be held accountable?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 9:21:00 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
The judge spoke to the lack of credibility of those speaking on behalf of Mr. Bell... He spoke of a lack of consistency... The credibility of a witness is about who they are...
As in black? And civilians to boot? I'm just suggesting that this is very possible if not downright likely.
quote:
Yes, if you are Spiderman...
I'm not, and yet I could do it. I guess that I possess superhuman powers . . .
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
I'm talking about someone at a bar known for nefarious activities in the middle of the night, not the mentally ill or mentally retarded.
In what insane world does being "up to something" warrant an assassination via a hail of 50 bullets?
quote:
My point is if someone is dumb enough to attempt to run down a LEO telling them to stop armed with guns then they are going to suffer the consequences of being stupid.
Does this really sound stupid, or maybe confused?:
"The detectives drew their weapons, said Guzman and Benefield, who testified that they never heard the plainclothes detectives identify themselves as police."
quote:
Also, if a person is a criminal in a place where criminal activity is rampant then it would not be too far fetched to believe that just maybe some narcs were there undercover.
So they should have just known that these were undercover cops and not just another "criminal?"
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
In my kitchen, I have a knife block filled with various cooking knives. They are cooking tools however, if I grab one of them and chase my neighbor down the street with it in order to stab them, that cooking tool becomes a deadly weapon.
It's the same thing with vehicles.
Let's try it out:
They were armed with a deadly weapon; they were wielding a knife.
Okay, that works interchangeably. Now:
They were armed with a deadly weapon; they were getting away in their car.
Nope, it's just not the same.
quote:
As far as the other hateful stuff you are spewing, I find it very offensive that you think that everyone's elses motives are so evil and racist.
No, I am not hateful because I refuse to applaud the acquittal of three cops responsible for the brutal shooting of a young black man about to be wed.
Nor have I called anyone evil. Racism and evil are two different concepts.
quote:
As far as simply "jumping out of the way" of the car. Police officers are there to neutralize a threat - not run away from it.
Like I said, "pursue and subdue." You do understand that concept, don't you?
And the word here is "kill", not "neutralize."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 9:29:31 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: buckifn
Well that would make darwin happy I suppose.
The truth is the truth, Darwin notwithstanding.
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
Why is that? When Darwin was a documented racist who thought all non-whites were lesser creatures.
You are very misinformed. But this isn't the forum to discuss Darwin.
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
And i contend that if it had been a white guy shot we wouldn't be having this conversation even if he had been shot by an army of black cops
Why?
quote:
No one is applauding Bell's death, they are applauding that the law enforcement officers who were put in a very bad situation were not sentenced for reacting to a deadly force leveled against them.
I can read. People on this thread are not simply sticking up for the cops; they are denegrating the memory of the deceased and justifying his brutal slaying by suggesting that he deserved it just because they perceive him as a bad guy. The fact that he was black amplifies their perception.
quote:
So if I point a gun at someone expecting them to move out of the way and pull the trigger and they don't move out of the way and are injured am I to be held accountable?
Let's just stick to what actually happened. Bell didn't point a gun; he didn't even have a gun. He was attempting to get away in his vehicle.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 9:44:56 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 7707
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
I'm talking about someone at a bar known for nefarious activities in the middle of the night, not the mentally ill or mentally retarded.
In what insane world does being "up to something" warrant an assassination via a hail of 50 bullets?
That's not why the officers shot at them and you know it.
quote:
quote:
Also, if a person is a criminal in a place where criminal activity is rampant then it would not be too far fetched to believe that just maybe some narcs were there undercover.
So they should have just known that these were undercover cops and not just another "criminal?"
And the officers should have "just known" that these folks in a bad area trying to run them over with their car were just scared and trying to get away? Again, what did you want the police to do?
"Excuse me! Before you mow us down, could you please explain why so we know what to do?"
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
In my kitchen, I have a knife block filled with various cooking knives. They are cooking tools however, if I grab one of them and chase my neighbor down the street with it in order to stab them, that cooking tool becomes a deadly weapon.
It's the same thing with vehicles.
Let's try it out:
They were armed with a deadly weapon; they were wielding a knife.
Okay, that works interchangeably. Now:
They were armed with a deadly weapon; they were getting away in their car.
Nope, it's just not the same.
They weren't getting away in their car, they were trying to run officers over. This is a basic legal concept. And yes, it is exactly the same thing. If you really don't understand this concept, I suggest you ask an attorney, judge, law enforcement officer, criminal justice professor or pretty much ANYWAY who knows even a smidgen about the law.
quote:
quote:
As far as the other hateful stuff you are spewing, I find it very offensive that you think that everyone's elses motives are so evil and racist.
No, I am not hateful because I refuse to applaud the acquittal of three cops responsible for the brutal shooting of a young black man about to be wed.
Nor have I called anyone evil. Racism and evil are two different concepts.
So calling people racists isn't hateful? Have you read what you are writing?
quote:
quote:
As far as simply "jumping out of the way" of the car. Police officers are there to neutralize a threat - not run away from it.
Like I said, "pursue and subdue." You do understand that concept, don't you?
You don't know much about law enforcement or even military procedure do you? There is a reason, you don't just jump out of the way and follow hoping the people will stop shooting, mowing people over with their car, etc. No. When lives are threatened, you do what it takes to stop the threat. When someone starts shooting at police officers, they don't jump out of the way and then follow the person after the shooting stops.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
The easily offended...
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 9:53:46 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 7707
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
No one is applauding Bell's death, they are applauding that the law enforcement officers who were put in a very bad situation were not sentenced for reacting to a deadly force leveled against them.
I can read. People on this thread are not simply sticking up for the cops; they are denegrating the memory of the deceased and justifying his brutal slaying by suggesting that he deserved it just because they perceive him as a bad guy. The fact that he was black amplifies their perception.
We are saying that when you try to mow down police officers, you are putting your life in your hands and officers who use lethal means to stop you are not unjustified in doing so. The ONLY applause going on in this thread is that the officers, in doing their jobs, were aqcuitted of a crime.
As far as your last statement, that is way out of line. You have no reason to make that accusation and if you continue, I will report you for TOS.
quote:
quote:
So if I point a gun at someone expecting them to move out of the way and pull the trigger and they don't move out of the way and are injured am I to be held accountable?
Let's just stick to what actually happened. Bell didn't point a gun; he didn't even have a gun. He was attempting to get away in his vehicle.
No. He was trying to run the officers over. There is a difference between trying to flee, and trying to kill someone with your car. I can't comprehend why you don't get that concept. And the analogy jjp used was perfectly appropriate for that very reason. I can only assume you won't respond because you know that.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
The easily offended...
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 10:08:41 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
That's not why the officers shot at them and you know it.
That is why you and others on this thread justify what they did, and you know it.
quote:
And the officers should have "just known" that these folks in a bad area trying to run them over with their car were just scared and trying to get away? Again, what did you want the police to do?
Pursue and subdue, if there was even a clear reason to try to detain them in the first place. Funny how no one wonders about that . . .
quote:
They weren't getting away in their car, they were trying to run officers over. This is a basic legal concept.
No, this is not a legal concept. It is a very bizarre concept:
"The car was the most convenient weapon at his disposal."
Come on . . .
quote:
If you really don't understand this concept, I suggest you ask an attorney, judge, law enforcement officer, criminal justice professor or pretty much ANYWAY who knows even a smidgen about the law.
A vehicle can be determined as a deadly weapon after the fact, but only if it can be demonstrated in court.
quote:
So calling people racists isn't hateful?
I haven't called anyone a racist outright. I have argued that justifying and approving of the shooting reflects racist sentiment.
quote:
Have you read what you are writing?
With relish. I'm pretty good!
quote:
There is a reason, you don't just jump out of the way and follow hoping the people will stop shooting
The guys in the car were not the ones doing the shooting.
quote:
When lives are threatened, you do what it takes to stop the threat.
50 bullets?
quote:
When someone starts shooting at police officers, they don't jump out of the way and then follow the person after the shooting stops.
Again, the cops were the ones doing the shooting, not the guys in the car.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 10:16:18 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
We are saying that when you try to mow down police officers, you are putting your life in your hands and officers who use lethal means to stop you are not unjustified in doing so.
That is not all that has been said. His character has been denegrated and assassinated just as surely as his body.
quote:
The ONLY applause going on in this thread is that the officers, in doing their jobs, were aqcuitted of a crime.
No, I believe that even the suggestion the cops didn't go far enough was brought up. Something about RPGs . . .
quote:
As far as your last statement, that is way out of line. You have no reason to make that accusation and if you continue, I will report you for TOS.
You have that right.
quote:
No. He was trying to run the officers over.
So they say.
quote:
There is a difference between trying to flee, and trying to kill someone with your car. I can't comprehend why you don't get that concept.
I do. I also comprehend that there can be a difference between truth and perceptions.
quote:
And the analogy jjp used was perfectly appropriate for that very reason. I can only assume you won't respond because you know that.
I did respond. His analogy was incongruent.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 10:25:36 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 7707
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
That's not why the officers shot at them and you know it.
That is why you and others on this thread justify what they did, and you know it.
Those are the facts of the case.
quote:
quote:
And the officers should have "just known" that these folks in a bad area trying to run them over with their car were just scared and trying to get away? Again, what did you want the police to do?
Pursue and subdue, if there was even a clear reason to try to detain them in the first place. Funny how no one wonders about that . . .
Umm.. They were in a fight and the officers were concerned especially considering where they were at. You don't think that merits officers trying to find out what was going on?
quote:
quote:
They weren't getting away in their car, they were trying to run officers over. This is a basic legal concept.
No, this is not a legal concept. It is a very bizarre concept:
"The car was the most convenient weapon at his disposal."
Come on . . .
I seriously have no clue why you don't get the concept that a car can be a lethal weapon. It is a legal concept whether you want to admit it or not.
quote:
quote:
If you really don't understand this concept, I suggest you ask an attorney, judge, law enforcement officer, criminal justice professor or pretty much ANYWAY who knows even a smidgen about the law.
A vehicle can be determined as a deadly weapon after the fact, but only if it can be demonstrated in court.
Huh? Are you saying that a car cannot be a deadly weapon unless after the fact it is demonstrated in court? You can only be convicted of using it as a deadly weapon after the fact, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a lethal weapon. That makes no sense what-so-ever.
quote:
quote:
So calling people racists isn't hateful?
I haven't called anyone a racist outright. I have argued that justifying and approving of the shooting reflects racist sentiment.
Case closed.
quote:
quote:
There is a reason, you don't just jump out of the way and follow hoping the people will stop shooting
The guys in the car were not the ones doing the shooting.
So what? You do know that you can kill someone without using a gun right?
quote:
quote:
When lives are threatened, you do what it takes to stop the threat.
50 bullets?
I don't know. I seriously doubt they were counting while they were trying to defend their lives.
And what would be ok? 1? 5? 15? Where is the break? And why?
quote:
quote:
When someone starts shooting at police officers, they don't jump out of the way and then follow the person after the shooting stops.
Again, the cops were the ones doing the shooting, not the guys in the car.
Again, who cares? You are avoiding dodging the point.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
The easily offended...
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 10:28:38 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 7707
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
We are saying that when you try to mow down police officers, you are putting your life in your hands and officers who use lethal means to stop you are not unjustified in doing so.
That is not all that has been said. His character has been denegrated and assassinated just as surely as his body.
What lies were told about him?
quote:
quote:
The ONLY applause going on in this thread is that the officers, in doing their jobs, were aqcuitted of a crime.
No, I believe that even the suggestion the cops didn't go far enough was brought up. Something about RPGs . . .
Ever hear of hyperbole?
quote:
quote:
As far as your last statement, that is way out of line. You have no reason to make that accusation and if you continue, I will report you for TOS.
You have that right.
And I'll use it.
quote:
quote:
No. He was trying to run the officers over.
So they say.
What evidence do you have that everyone involved was lying?
quote:
quote:
There is a difference between trying to flee, and trying to kill someone with your car. I can't comprehend why you don't get that concept.
I do. I also comprehend that there can be a difference between truth and perceptions.
Huh?
quote:
quote:
And the analogy jjp used was perfectly appropriate for that very reason. I can only assume you won't respond because you know that.
I did respond. His analogy was incongruent.
Only to you apparently...
_____________________________
~Kristin~
The easily offended...
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 10:45:48 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
Those are the facts of the case.
I don't know what you mean by "those," but okay.
quote:
Umm.. They were in a fight and the officers were concerned especially considering where they were at. You don't think that merits officers trying to find out what was going on?
So that's what undercover cops were there for: bouncers paid by the people's taxes?
quote:
I seriously have no clue why you don't get the concept that a car can be a lethal weapon. It is a legal concept whether you want to admit it or not.
Theoretically, it can. It also can not. I also understand that.
quote:
You can only be convicted of using it as a deadly weapon after the fact, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a lethal weapon.
That's what I'm saying. But this is a different concept from "armed and dangerous" just because someone is behind the wheel of a moving vehicle.
It's okay: you weren't the one making this claim in the first place.
quote:
Case closed.
If you say so . . .
quote:
So what? You do know that you can kill someone without using a gun right?
So, you seemed to suggest that they were shooting at the cops. This wasn't the case.
quote:
I don't know. I seriously doubt they were counting while they were trying to defend their lives.
Probably not.
quote:
And what would be ok? 1? 5? 15? Where is the break? And why?
Dead would more than work, because dead people don't pose a threat. Wounded would have been sufficient. Apprehended and subdued is how it is usually done.
quote:
Again, who cares? You are avoiding dodging the point.
Getting the facts straight is not dodging the point.
quote:
What lies were told about him?
I didn't say lies.
quote:
Ever hear of hyperbole?
Yes. And why would anyone think that hyperbole would be appropriate when referring to someone shot 50 times?
quote:
And I'll use it.
I honestly hope that it makes you feel better.
quote:
What evidence do you have that everyone involved was lying?
Perceptions can be incorrect without lying.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 11:00:56 PM
|
|
|
rnershigh
Posts: 1764
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: DC metro area
Status: offline
|
I agree with phosadaud.
A person can use anything handy to kill another person. Their own hands, a baseball bat, a steak knife, a CAR....
How hard can it be to comprehend the fact that a car can be used as a murder weapon? Come on! 
In this case, the man that was killed was trying to mortally wound police officers in his way.
He had no regard to their safety or lives, nor anyone else that would get in his way in his attempt to flee.
_____________________________
O Grave! where is thy Victory?
O Death! where is thy Sting?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 11:12:57 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 7707
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
Umm.. They were in a fight and the officers were concerned especially considering where they were at. You don't think that merits officers trying to find out what was going on?
So that's what undercover cops were there for: bouncers paid by the people's taxes?
They weren't called there for a fight, but they saw a fight break out while they were there. Do you understand why they had to check that out? Have you ever been on a ride along with the police? Often they will be on one call only to observe something completely different unfold. They don't ignore it just because that wasn't the initial call. That would actually be criminal.
quote:
quote:
You can only be convicted of using it as a deadly weapon after the fact, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a lethal weapon.
That's what I'm saying. But this is a different concept from "armed and dangerous" just because someone is behind the wheel of a moving vehicle.
It's okay: you weren't the one making this claim in the first place.
No one claimed that a vehicle in and of itself is a lethal weapon. You misunderstood their post. My car sitting in my garage is not a lethal weapon sitting in my garage. However, if I get in my car and try to mow down the neighbor kids playing in the street, it BECOMES a lethal weapon.
quote:
quote:
So what? You do know that you can kill someone without using a gun right?
So, you seemed to suggest that they were shooting at the cops. This wasn't the case.
No, I was using an analogy that I thought MIGHT make more sense to you since you seem to think that not having a gun somehow means you cannot be a threat and shouldn't be shot.
quote:
quote:
And what would be ok? 1? 5? 15? Where is the break? And why?
Dead would more than work, because dead people don't pose a threat. Wounded would have been sufficient. Apprehended and subdued is how it is usually done.
So it took 50 shots for them to know that the threat was neutralized in a chaotic moment? Are they supposed to check for a pulse after each shot is fired? 
And I don't know about you, but if someone was driving a car at me and I was afraid for my life, I probably wouldn't be saying "Excuse me! You're under arrest. Please pull over and put your hands behind your back".
quote:
quote:
Again, who cares? You are avoiding dodging the point.
Getting the facts straight is not dodging the point.
Oy... It's like talking to a brick wall...
quote:
quote:
What lies were told about him?
I didn't say lies.
Awww. Another artful dodge to avoid answering a question....
quote:
quote:
What evidence do you have that everyone involved was lying?
Perceptions can be incorrect without lying.
So, I'm trying to understand you point. If you don't think the police were lying, you admit that they had reason to be concerned, when they were at a place being investigated for a litany of crimes and they observed a fight break out. Then, when they tried to figure out what was going on, Bell panics, jumps in his car and they believed their lives were threatened by him trying to mow down one of the officers. I'm trying to understand then why you think they should have been found guilty of murder for that? Whether their perceptions were right or wrong, they had reason to believe they were in danger from Bell's actions and they responded. Are you saying that police officers shouldn't respond unless they are 100% certain and have 100% of the facts? Because that's never going to happen. If someone actions put your life at risk, you aren't going to sit down and ponder what all the possible reasons for what's going on is happening and have trial right there in the parking lot. You are going to do whatever it takes to eliminate the threat.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
The easily offended...
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/28/2008 11:27:03 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 2611
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
The judge spoke to the lack of credibility of those speaking on behalf of Mr. Bell... He spoke of a lack of consistency... The credibility of a witness is about who they are...
As in black? And civilians to boot? I'm just suggesting that this is very possible if not downright likely.
You want it to be that way...
quote:
quote:
Yes, if you are Spiderman...
I'm not, and yet I could do it. I guess that I possess superhuman powers . . .
A lot easier to type you can than actually doing it.. It's not like the person trying to hit you is going to give you fair warning...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/29/2008 5:37:48 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
And i contend that if it had been a white guy shot we wouldn't be having this conversation even if he had been shot by an army of black cops
Why?
Because there wouldn't be anyone defending the fact that he assaulted police with a car and there wouldn't be anyone trying to make the cops look like the bad guys.
quote:
I can read. People on this thread are not simply sticking up for the cops; they are denegrating the memory of the deceased and justifying his brutal slaying by suggesting that he deserved it just because they perceive him as a bad guy. The fact that he was black amplifies their perception.
You can obviously read between the lines. No one said he deserved to die, they said that by attempting to run over the cops he elevated the situation such that the use of deadly force was justified.
quote:
quote:
So if I point a gun at someone expecting them to move out of the way and pull the trigger and they don't move out of the way and are injured am I to be held accountable?
Let's just stick to what actually happened. Bell didn't point a gun; he didn't even have a gun. He was attempting to get away in his vehicle.
No you are the one who attempted to say they should just have moved out of the way of a deadly weapon driven by Bell, I made the valid point that a gun is a deadly weapon just as the car was a deadly weapon in this case. You are so dead set on prosecuting the cops as racist that you can't follow logic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/29/2008 8:06:29 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 4826
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where bbq pigeons roast....
Status: offline
|
Unreal.... some people will believe anything, even when it absolutely goes against common sense and established law, all to go against authority figures.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - 4/29/2008 8:26:37 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1535
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
Well, a little information goes a long way! I went on-line to check the facts in the case because I knew I was making assumptions and as a person who tries to be fair I wanted to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
The NY Times has a great interactive graphic that has changed my view toward the shooting. Sean Bell actually struck an officer with his car. He struck the van and then he tried to back up to get away. The officers were definitely justified in the shooting because they definitely had time to identify themselves before the shooting started.
The only thing the police need is more time on the practice range if it takes them 50 shots to neutralize a Nissan Altima.
NY Times Interactive Map Here
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Police Found Not Guilty in Sean Bell Case - | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
