NYPD Shoots and Kills Groom

If the undercover officer had identified himself, which is in considerable doubt.

May be justified, but is definitely poor judgement.

I've seen too many conflicting stories on this one to believe them all. It definitely needs to be investigated, and at this point, should go to a Grand Jury to determine if further action is needed.
 
I've seen too many conflicting stories on this one to believe them all. It definitely needs to be investigated, and at this point, should go to a Grand Jury to determine if further action is needed.

The Spanish Inquisition is always a good choice[thinking]
 
The Spanish Inquisition is always a good choice[thinking]
So we should not investigate why a man who had committed no other crime went berserk and started running over cops? This all computes to you? Or are you just being sarcastic about the general cop hating/suspicion going on?
 
I don't care for the Grand Jury. I don't think it can always be fair.
I never said that it should not be investigated. It should be but not by a Grand Jury.
 
I don't care for the Grand Jury. I don't think it can always be fair.
I never said that it should not be investigated. It should be but not by a Grand Jury.

Gee, why not Jon?? After all, they do get to see only one side of the evidence! [rolleyes] j/k

It's kinda like asking Tom Reilly if guns are good and determining whether they should be allowed or not based ONLY on his testimony!

There is a standing joke, not far from the truth, that a GJ could indict a ham sandwich!
 
Gee, why not Jon?? After all, they do get to see only one side of the evidence! [rolleyes] j/k

It's kinda like asking Tom Reilly if guns are good and determining whether they should be allowed or not based ONLY on his testimony!

There is a standing joke, not far from the truth, that a GJ could indict a ham sandwich!

Butta Bing!
 
If it's not the Grand Jury, then who else determines wether or not
someone should be tried criminally? the DA? I don't know all the
legal lingo and I'm curious about this EG, is the standard vary from
state to state; eg; I know for SD shootings, in some states the DA
can choose to not try the case, in some situations -every- SD shooting
will see a grand jury..... ?

It seems if there is more than one entity that can "indict" that it could
go badly more than a few different ways.


-Mike
 
Well, lets see here.

NYPD Policy is to NOT fire at vehicles in this situation.

There was no firearm found on the 3 men.

There was an excessive amount of rounds fired by the LEOs.

I'm just quoting one opinion. The Chief of the New York City Police Department that is.

Yeah, I'd say an investigation is definitely called for. Maybe I was too hasty on the Grand Jury recommendation, but it damned sure needs a real investigation, and not covered up. A third party investigation might not be so bad, this time.

There's way too much of this stuff going on in this country, and frankly, the good LEOs are getting a bum rap due to the poor judgement of the bad LEOs and too much covering up of poor behavior in the past.
 
IFF they have a good surveillance tape to view, AND IFF it shows that the first officer fired, such that bullets were exiting the other side of the car AND that other officers were on the other side, it would be natural for them to assume "incoming" and respond accordingly.

The DA could be the impartial force and make a determination to go forward or not, without a GJ. This assumes that he has the 'nads for the job and doesn't want to hand off the political hot potato to a GJ.

My gut tells me that they will go GJ and indict ONLY because anything less leaves politicians and bureaucrats answering to Sharpton/Jackson's accusations of "racism". If the GJ does the dirty work, all the hacks can point to them and say "don't blame me"!

ETA: For the non-geeks . . . "IFF" means "if and only if".
 
so if someone were to ram my car with theirs I'm justified in getting out and unloading on them. Good to know. Oh wait, I'm not LEO so different standards apply...
 
About the fact that the officer flashed a badge and said, "POLICE!" I can take a visit down to Trippi's and pick up one of those myself. Official department issue and all.

That's my angle at least. I wonder if the officer had his gun drawn as he was yelling and flashing a badge.



I also had a fellow soldier in my unit tell me that LEOs can speed and break other laws because they have a badge and a gun [rolleyes]. He said that it is justified becuase, "they are the law" [sad2]. I told him that I have a gun and carry it and he asked me what would happen when a cop would "roll up on me with it". I replied nothing at all becuase it was completely legal [wink]. The guy is a total tool [thinking]
 
I also had a fellow soldier in my unit tell me that LEOs can speed and break other laws because they have a badge and a gun . He said that it is justified becuase, "they are the law

He sounds like a true retard.
 
He sounds like a true retard.
Most definitely. I told him I was a CJ minor and he was mocking me becuase of it. I told him police corruption among other things is what drives me to make a semi-career out of LE. This is also why I am pursuing a commission in the ARNG. You can hardly get in a word among the enlisted/NCO core without hearing something negative about officers.
 
The judge, Justice Arthur Cooperman, indicated when he delivered the verdict that the officers' version of events was more credible than the victims' version. "The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was not justified" in firing, he said.

So if a person is killed the prosecutor has the burden to prove the killer wasn't t justified? [thinking]


Also...

I found this article on CNN which links to a video demonstration:

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

Alexander Jason, an expert witness for the defense, produced a video demonstrating how quickly Oliver could have fired off 31 rounds, including a pause to reload.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-15443

The video is kinda stupid--how about a stop and reassess after reload--but I know you all can't pass up a video of someone firing a pistol. [grin]

So what comes after the NYC 12 lb. trigger? A 20 lb. trigger? Do they make bolt action pistols?
 
Last edited:
Response to the NY media over the case...

To Whom This May Concern,

Your coverage of the Sean Bell incident from beginning to end has been absolutely horrible, irresponsible and criminal. Not only have you chosen to selectively cover bits and pieces in the case, but you have also fanned the flames of racial tensions that are undeniably alive in the City, partially created by your irresponsible and sensational reporting.

Sean Bell and his friends were not saints as you make them out to be. They were the scourge of the City. Responsible for countless deaths, violence, and needless addictions against their own people. Their night on the town was not an innocent get together of friends to reminisce on the old times before he made his final commitment to his long time girlfriend. This particular night out was a continuation of his past nights out of fights, drug use, and talk of gunplay. You conveniently forget to mention the past convictions of gun possession, controlled substance sales and the fact that Trent Benefield couldn't even stay out of trouble after this incident, beating his pregnant girlfriend bloody last year.

On the other hand, you choose to make villains out of 3 men who have sworn to protect the City and did so without incident or loss to life until that fateful night. You choose to ignore the fact that none of the Cops involved in the shooting were white, including Det. Oliver who is of Lebanese decent, creating innuendo's that because his appearance is white, he's is so in fact white and that racism was in play.

Sean Bell was not unarmed that night. He was armed and he used his weapon of choice, a 3200lb Nissan Altima that he struck down a Police Officer with and hit an unmarked Police Van twice. This criminal was not a stranger to the criminal justice system and I have no doubt in my mind that he had his gut feeling that they were Cops that he was about to run over, just as we had a gut feeling that he was up to no good.
This was not a tragedy. You can sugarcoat this all you want, but Sean Bells lifestyle, his choices in life, and his choices that night sealed his fate. This is not a tragedy nor is this a unique story. If you choose to live a life of crime, most likely you will die a violent death. The only tragedy here is what 3 detectives had to go through for politcal reaons and yet another african american child is without a father due to his choices in life. This is the true tragedy.

As far as the prosecution is concerned, you can try and blame them all you want. The prosecution was poor because there was no case to begin with. You had 3 men politically indicted without regard of the Penal Law in which they clearly did not violate. You had witnesses on the stand that changed their story 3, 4 , and 5 times. You had witness that told stories that contained physical impossibilities. You had witnesses that would do anything it takes to take a cop down with them. You had witnesses that had been paid off by Al Sharpton or given back door deals on pending cases by the DA's office to "cooperate" and testify. You also had witnesses on the stand that got testy and showed their propensity for violent outbursts, even in protected environment such as a Court Room. No, the Judge did not have a hard time reflecting on this case and coming down with a verdict. That's because there was no case.

So if I can build a time machine and tell my brothers what will happen if they decide to take focus of their case and try to save a possible homicide from happening in front of their eyes, what would the headlines...

"Past criminal kills family of 4 in drunken accident after Cops ignore man going to his car in a drunken stuper, focusing on sting operation instead" Where were the Police?"

or

"Cops sitting inside club, doing sting operation, ignore talk of gunplay as violence erupts outside
 
Last edited:
"The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was not justified" in firing, he said.
The people were not involved here. State agents tried other state agents. The people are the ones who almost rioted outside.
 
Rscalzo,
A nice artickle. Stupid liberals are constantly trying to find "racism" everywhere, and make criminals their martyres.

Gabe, those who almost ripted outside were not exactly the people. That was a wild herd.
 
The people are the ones who almost rioted outside.

The cream of the crop of NY City residents. The area is a shi*hole and most involved and called as witnesses were the drug dealers that hung out at the bar. Sharpton was pissed because he couldn't bring his mob to the courtroom in his usual attempt to intimidate the jury. He's wearing out his welcome in the city and anyone with a brain has caught on to his method of operation. He doesn't work for a living but depends on the uninformed to keep sending money his way. According to him, every rapist and drug dealer in the city are just good ol' folk minding their own business.
 
Liberal thinking

If white kills black, this is a whire racism, because thare are no other reasons for it.
If black kills white, this is a white racism, because were oppressed and disciminated against many years ago.
If black kills black, this is a white racism, because evel whites force blacks to kill ech other.
If white kills white, this is a white racism, because probably the killed white was supporting black privelege.
 
So if a person is killed the prosecutor has the burden to prove the killer wasn't t justified? [thinking]
QUOTE]

The question in this shooting was if the officers were justified in the use of force. The prosecution said no and as a result had to prove the criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. Which they apparently failed to do.

In many other states, the prosecutor would have to prove the same if a civilian had fired. MA and some other liberal states seem to have a presumption that any self defense shooting isn't justified. Bruce didn't call his blog Massbackwards for nothing.

Gary
 
If white kills black, this is a whire racism, because thare are no other reasons for it.
If black kills white, this is a white racism, because were oppressed and disciminated against many years ago.
If black kills black, this is a white racism, because evel whites force blacks to kill ech other.
If white kills white, this is a white racism, because probably the killed white was supporting black privelege.

Honestly I have no clue what you are attempting to convey here. Are you saying that anytime X kills Y or vice versa its always racism?
 
Back
Top Bottom