cops acquitted in sean bell case — Page 2

You Jane. He Jonny. The people who shot Sean Bell are free.

Will there be a civil trial which is the way Mister Simpson finally was allowed to face the music?

---

The one who fired 31 shots should never have been a cop. He had a history of violent outburts while in uniform

Normally I side with the cops but this clown should have had the book thrown at him. The others should have been given stiff fines & suspensions.

The main problem, from what I have read , was the prosecution was almost as bad as in the OJ case & many of their witnesses contradicted each other. Federal charges will probably follow.

---

This makes me sick.

---

"Sharpton vows to 'close this city' after officer acquittals"
Think he can do it?

"And what sort of policeman cannot impair a possible suspect with only a shot or two?"

Maybe the kind that is being run down with a vehicle that the driver won't stop after 1 or 2 warning shots. Everyone in that car had a history with firearms and trouble. It's very unfortunate that someone had to die, but if they cooperated when told to, this never would have happened. Let's not make Sean Bell out to be holier than he was. If these policemen were your brothers or husbands or fathers, you might be able to see it a bit differently. If my life is threatened by someone, then I am going to do whatever it takes to save it. It's human nature and all the training in the world isn't going to change that.

---

I would also like to see Al Sharpton and other "leaders" come to the assistance of the policemen who risk their lives to keep people safe every day. I know we will never see that happen with a white officer, but he can at least do it with a black officer.

---

Who ya gonna call? The police!

---

Very well said, mc.

---

"This is more about class"

Like the fact that they were getting into a fight outside a strip club at four in the morning?

I agree.

"Whatever happened to class?"

Even though I know what BK is getting at, it still gripes me. Too much victimization for my taste.

*rolls eyes*

---

"And what sort of policeman cannot impair a possible suspect with only a shot or two?" Police don't shoot to impair.

How much television and movies do people watch when they feel the goal of using lethal force is to impair? The concept of a Marshal Matt Dillon winging or shooting a Colt out of someone's hand from 50 yards away is the stuff of make-believe.

Is there a police officer alive that doesn't understand the potential for life altering ramifications each time he pulls a weapon out of its holster? Yet, he's still willing to do the job.

When a police officer in the wee dark hours of the night makes that decision in the fraction of a nano second, while his heart is pounding and his breathing is sporadic and his adrenalin is pumping, when he makes that decision that will be reviewed and picked apart for years in the courts, in the media, in precincts, in churches, on talk shows, message boards, blogs and can result in physical, emotional and financial consequences, when he makes that decision to prevent death or injury to himself or another by the use of lethal force, then the intent of that force is to be lethal. When you perceive the intent that deadly force is being used, and a vehicle can most certainly be a deadly weapon, then you meet it with deadly force.

Police don't shoot to warn, to scare, to wing, or to impair. They shoot to kill. That's what they're taught. That's how they're trained. If people take issue with that, then I suggest they take it up with their state legislators since that's where the authority, responsibility, and privilege to use force has stemmed.

You make that decision to use deadly force then you follow through with that force until you determine the threat no longer exist. As long as you feel the threat is continuing you keep firing your weapon until that threat has stopped, or until you're incapacitated, or until you run out of ammunition. Isn't that what you would want and expect if it was you or your loved one in danger? Nothing less. Sometimes that might mean firing more than 50 rounds. Excessive? I don't know. I wasn't there, and I suspect neither was anyone else posting in this thread.

The reality of police work is that they are often dealing with people who are non-compliant. Police don't go to work each day hoping for any type of confrontation, whether it be verbal, physical, or heaven forbid lethal. Confrontation is the nature of some enforcement because unfortunately not everyone is compliant. Some people don't want to do the right thing. They want to do what they want to do, and that leads to the conflict. Should the police ignore their bad behavior? Or ignore the behavior because someone's a bridegroom? And for each bridegroom who is a husband to be, father, brother, or someone's son, there is also a police officer who is a husband, father, brother, and someone's son and who at the end of his shift just wants to go home safely and in one piece. He doesn't want to shoot anyone but he certainly doesn't want to be anyone's target. Nor should he be. He'd rather be judged by twelve strangers than carried by six friends.

Seems in this case it was one judge who heard all the testimony and evidence and ruled to acquit. So since I wasn't in the courtroom privy to the same information as the judge, and I wasn't at the scene of the shooting at 4am, then I'm not going to pass any further judgment on these officers.

Behavior has consequences and if civil action is warranted I'm sure we'll all read about it. I haven't walked a mile in these officers' shoes so I'm willing to let the courts play it out. I feel the police in New York City have an extremely difficult job. They have my admiration, my respect, my thanks and my compliance.

---