It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NYPD Blue Acquitted Of 50 Shot Kill Of Unarmed Suspect - SOUND OFF

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:37 AM
Heres the thing....these so called cops are only tough with a America your cops are absolute pussies ruining a great country. Get any one of those cops on his own in a room out of the way of prying eyes and he or she is just a little scared person...with no firearm. world wide people take the piss out of the American police force....non educated and brain dead. But each one on thier own is just a little girl sucking on the tit of their mothers.

germany, France, Britain, Japan, Australia...they all mock your police for this reason....unfortunate as America is such a great country being ruined by these types of people.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

Did you kill these armed assailants as you stated you would if someone pulled a gun on you?

Sounds like in this situation you vaguely describe, you stayed cool used your head and survived.

"In fact, in one situation, I would have been dead if I had pulled the firearm I was carrying."

Had the groom in question used his head and stayed cool, and responded to men with guns by slowly placing his hands in full view and telling his companions to do the same, to try and assess the situation, he would be alive today.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:14 PM
Fox news reported this morning the City of Chicago intends to arm non-swat officers with M4 Carbines to combat the recent escalation in violence. A tactitcal military assault weapon in the hands of beat officers, why do I think this can only get uglier?

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by TheRooster

A similar topic is being discussed in this thread, regarding assault rifles in NYC subways...'

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Sounds like in this situation you vaguely describe, you stayed cool used your head and survived.

I shoved the gunman in front of a passing bus. I don't know if he survived.

EDIT to add: I was also lucky enough to escape a spray of machine-pistol fire from his accomplice standing across the street as I rounded a corner and fled.

[edit on 4/27/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:56 PM
One thing that really stands out to me in this case, is that these officers were in straight "thug-mode" as a part of their operation, drinking and all. I wonder what their BAC was at the time of the shooting. Badge or no badge, there are plenty of thug-cops out there. Here is an example of what nice guys cops are...

(Notice - Video contains profanity and raw subject matter)

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:00 AM
That shooting was nothing new.....police have been shooting down Black men in this country for no damn good reason since the first Africans were brought here in chains....ain't nothin new here except now and then they get a black brother to help them do it occasionally.....

Let me know when it happens on the upper west side to a stockbroker coming out of a strip club - that would be something new....

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:12 AM
I abhor the acts of these officers as I have yet to see any evidence that gave them the right to shoot as they did. However, it is illogical to shun all police officers because of the actions of a few. It is logical to hold those whose actions are abhorrent accountable for what they have done. Yet our government/judicial branch seems unable or unwilling to do this. That judge has probably seen those officers in his own court more than once, so his judgment is necessarily biased. It was wrong that those officers not have a jury trial. For that matter, make the entire jury up of other officers who have the same experience and background in dealing with such situations. My understanding is that cops aren't supposed to shoot to kill, but only to stop and apprehend. This was obviously not the case in the Bell case, yet they are getting off scott free? Something tells me that things are not entirely as they appear.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:47 AM
The judiciary shirked their responsiblility to impose applicable aggravated homicide charges, at the least manslaughter. Saying 'proer procedures were not followed but not criminal'. LOL, since when is it NOT criminal to shoot at an unarmed man 53 times on his wedding nite.
That means if I pull out a cell phone and it throws a glint I can expect to be shot with assault rifles by the newly appointed subway goons?
Plus NY saved millions in wrongful death claim. Now Sharpton is calling for dissenters to shut city down. More than likely leading to mayhem and 'more' killing. It is well known blacks are stopped and searched in NY far more than whites.
He really was killed twice. The judge should be banished from the bar. Why was it not a 'jury' trial?

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:08 AM
A trial by jury is the right of the defendant. It is there as a check against state power. You may waive your right to a trial by jury for a bench trial.
And no departmental policy is ever shoot to wound/disable. That is ridiculous. And, yes. If you're in the subway, and the cop tells you to put your hands up, but you pull out your cell phone, and it glints like a weapon they may very well shoot you.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by _Del_]

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
My friend are you slow or stupid?

The cold hard fact & truth is an unarmed man was shot multiple times & killed unlawfully.

Maybe I'm slow and stupid but running over someone with a car is still considered lethal in all 50 states. He didn't have a gun but that's not to say he didn't have a lethal weapon.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:25 PM
reply to post by jpm1602

Why was it not a 'jury' trial?

A jury trial is the right of the accused. If you were up on charges, you could opt for no jury as well, and leave your fate in the hands of the judge. The younger brother of a person I went to school took this option when he accidentally blew someone away with a shotgun at a keg party.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by dbates

Maybe I'm slow and stupid but running over someone with a car is still considered lethal in all 50 states.

I don't believe this was proven. Even if it was, I would not find it unreasonable that Sean Bell might use his car to defend himself against armed attackers who were shooting at him.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:32 PM
This is just un-called for! There must of been some sort of explanation of what happened! Is there any other information about this?

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 12:07 AM
reply to post by jackinthebox

Wow, sounds like you lead an intersting life, or just live in a very bad neighborhood.

Ok, if the groom at the heart of this tragic story thought he could get away, I don't blame him for trying, especially if he thought he was being attacked by some regular joe and not a cop. I have never had a gun pointed at me with any intent, so I don't know for sure how I would react.

This is what bothers me about this situation. Why in the world are cops working strip clubs to catch hookers? Instead of blaming the cops for bad decisions in a bad situation, we should be rethinking these morality laws that create more crime and corruption than they prevent.

The real problem is that we have a justice system that is more about insuring jobs than protecting the public, and this is why the cops are not going to be held responsible. Police activities keep a whole lot of people employed enabling them to collect generous pensions when they retire, and that includes the judges at the top of the pyramid. It is the whole system that is corrupt.

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Star for that post. And as far as my interesting life goes, I guess you could call it that. I've spent some time in bad neighborhoods, but have had guns pulled on me in nice neighborhoods too. In fact, once right down the street from a Presidential home.

EDIT to add: And I was shot in the fourth grade on my way home from school.

[edit on 5/1/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:35 PM
I think that this topic deserves plenty of attention...but why does it keep getting bumped to the top of my subscription list even though no one has posted.

On topic now. Notice how no one is really talking about this anymore? For all the talk of justice finding these cops down some other avenue, after they were aquitted, I think the opposite is now clear. We'll probably never hear anything about this case again. Swept right under the rug now.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by Dave Rabbit

Okay, so it took them 50 shots to shoot an unarmed man?

Um, was he high on meth?

Um, did he look just like Rodney King?

Um, did he have a plunger stuck up his "you know what" like other Police in New York have done in the past?

50 shots, for 50 stars on the flag?

Acquitted? Acquitted you say, I say they should quit ther job, not be acquitted of the use of excessive force.

Dave Rabbit, just an FYI, but the link that you originally posted about the story has been taken down. I went to read it and it was unavailable.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:25 PM
I'm surprised and saddened by the fact that this case hasn't gotten more attention here. When will enough be enough?

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:30 PM
I'm delighted by the ruling.

The major factor of this case, was everyone thought this was a racially-motivated crime by the police because the groom was black. It's automatically assumed that if cops do something wrong to a black, they are racists or something.

But they forgot to check a simple fact - 2 out of 3 of the COPS themselves WERE BLACK.

That's probably why the case was lost.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in