Sean Bell shooting

[toreskha]

Putting aside the Al Sharpton involvement for a minute, what does everyone think about the Sean Bell shooting incident in New York? Both sides seem to have at least somewhat credible stories. A major factor is that most if not all of the police involved were in plainclothes and using unmarked vehicles. There seems to be some lessons here for both civilians and LEOs.

[kwo51]

Seems to me he had a history with the police. Still unfortunate for the family of both the shooters and vic.

[GHF]

Bell was killed by a theory. The theory is the result of the Sullivan law. It goes like this:

When you have a social culture that in which saying a gun exists means that it physically there (even if it fact it does not), you, as a LEO, behave as if it is.

Bell was killed because somebody heard that somebody in his group of 3 had a gun. Nobody saw it. He and his buddies left the building - disengaging from the conflict, but because the NYPD operates under the mindset of the theory, they wanted to arrest him.

The arrest was attempted outside of the building and down the street/around the corner by plain clothes cops, in a method that given that he was tired and had had a few, he initially acted as we would - he assumed an attack/robbery and tried to escape.

51 rounds were fired into the vehicle, hitting everybody in the car, and killed Bell. One of the cops let fly 31 rounds - emptied his gun, reloaded a second mag, and emptied that.

No gun was found.

The judge that heard the case - it was non-jury - and indicated that

"It was necessary to consider the mindset of each defendant at the time and place of occurrence, and not the mindset of the victims.”

The cops - being the defendant(s) - were a prisoner of the theory....

[Brainchild]

That's bullcrap.Did the cops identify themselves as cops? Did they HAVE to shoot?They were looking at the vehicle,couldn't they have radioed a description?Ithey HAD to shoot,did have to shoot that many times?
It smells like rotten fish to me.

[rjnsn]

Originally Posted by GHF

Bell was killed by a theory. The theory is the result of the Sullivan law. It goes like this:

When you have a social culture that in which saying a gun exists means that it physically there (even if it fact it does not), you, as a LEO, behave as if it is.

Bell was killed because somebody heard that somebody in his group of 3 had a gun. Nobody saw it. He and his buddies left the building - disengaging from the conflict, but because the NYPD operates under the mindset of the theory, they wanted to arrest him.

The arrest was attempted outside of the building and down the street/around the corner by plain clothes cops, in a method that given that he was tired and had had a few, he initially acted as we would - he assumed an attack/robbery and tried to escape.

51 rounds were fired into the vehicle, hitting everybody in the car, and killed Bell. One of the cops let fly 31 rounds - emptied his gun, reloaded a second mag, and emptied that.

No gun was found.

The judge that heard the case - it was non-jury - and indicated that

"It was necessary to consider the mindset of each defendant at the time and place of occurrence, and not the mindset of the victims.”

The cops - being the defendant(s) - were a prisoner of the theory....

Cops need to follow the same rules as everyone else where deadly force is concerned (at least in theory). They can no more indiscriminately shoot into a car because they "thought" there was a gun than can a civilian in fear for his life. They need to go one step further, in fact, and ensure all involved know they are cops. If they do not, they can't very well expect people to respond properly. imho

[NDS]

Originally Posted by rjnsn

Cops need to follow the same rules as everyone else...

That statement is almost prima facie nonsense under today's system. If only we could restore our country to one where no one was above the law and police were citizens working to assist others. Then the rest of your post would seem like common sense.

[BikerRN]

I'm just going to sit back and watch this one.

I've got an opinion, but I wasn't there and don't know all the facts. Having been in more than one "Armed Encounter" I have a pretty good idea what was going through the minds of the Officers, and why they did what they did.

I'm not willing to share this opinion on a public forum, as what I say or feel about this will have no bearing on the outcome, nor am I likely to change anybody's mind.

Biker

[tattedupboy]

Not sure if Bell's race played a factor into the decison to shoot, but I'm wondering if Al Sharpton would have responded if the officers involved had been Black. Here where I live, back in 2006, a young Black teen (16 years old, I believe), who was caught burglarizing a house and was running from officers was shot in the back of his head and killed (by a Black officer). The teen, whose pants were sagging, was pulling them up while running; according to the officer, it appeared as if he was reaching for a weapon, and he claimed that he was in fear of his life. As it turns out, the teen was unarmed. I can't help but feel that if the officer had been white, Al and Jesse would have been all over it. I guess what I'm saying is that it's a shame that people like Al and Jesse play the race card any time a Black civilian is shot by white officers, but not when the officers are Black.