Sharpton arrested as hundreds protest NYC police shooting

Sharpton arrested as hundreds protest NYC police shooting

www6.comcast.net

NEW YORK — The Rev. Al Sharpton has been arrested at the base of the Brooklyn Bridge in a protest over the acquittal of three police officers involved in the 50-bullet shooting of an unarmed black man.

Sharpton, two survivors of the shooting and the slain man\'s fiancee were arrested Wednesday in one of a series of demonstrations calling for a federal investigation into the November 2006 shooting.

Sharpton had called for acts of civil disobedience across the city. Several other demonstrators have been arrested as they stopped traffic at bridges and tunnels.

As police keep their distance, organizers are giving protesters instructions on how to behave when arrested.

The three officers were acquitted of state charges last month.

(visit the link for the full news article)

looks like things are heating up!

www6.comcast.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

Heh-You just KNEW this was going to happen the moment he started talking about "shutting the city down"...Hopefully this doesn't escalate into a full blown riot.

reply to post by bamaoutlaw


I hope they don't let that racist pig out of jail!

Inciting riots, it only hurts his cause. Not that he actually believes in what he does..

I agree that NOONE should instigate riots, but I also can understand the anger... 50 bullets??????

I (as a native new yorker) can only guess that this WILL get much much worse.....



[edit on 7-5-2008 by damntheptb]

reply to post by damntheptb


Oh, no question. This entire case was beyond corrupt-no jury, no charges, HUGE abuse of firepower against an unarmed civilian---The entire case EPITOMIZES everything that is wrong with our ever-corrupted legal system, from the bottom to the top.

I wonder if sharpton has seen the cops in phili last night. wow that was crazy the way the police was kicking the (suspects)

1)HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

2)

3) I am not a lawyer, but is it not against the law to incite a riot???(I expect this is a state or local law)

4)(IMO) It is about fricking time!!!!!!!!!

5) If I remember correctly he wanted to "shut the city down"!!!!! (Could that be considered a terrorist threat, no, seriously, think about it for a second)

6) All that said, I find it "HIGHLY" suspect that several cops needed to pump "50" bullets into the guy, even if he did not cooperate...come on now, 50???

7) I am sorry for the young ladies loss, but rioting and such is not the answer.

Al Sharpton in jail.....
What a beautiful day it turned out to be!

ok be back later, I'm going to go get some beer and celebrate

They didnt "pump 50 bullets into a guy" They shot 50 bullets into a car that was being driven AT THEM.

Now when three men in a car try to run you down, how many bullets do you fire?

Good. Something needs to be done about that outrageous crime those officers committed. And yes rioting is the answer to this. The state really screwed that woman over, and the only way now adays to get your word out is to riot.

reply to post by theendisnear69


I agree.. Seems like the justice system failed horribly here.. I support this womans cause 100%.. If it was me i would be proud that so many people were out there with me . .

I hope this woman sees justice for the horrible murder of her o'l man ..

The convicted fellon in question was hit by three (3) bullets, which only demonstrates NYC cops have atrocious aim. The entire mess could have and would have been avoided if he had...
A) Never been a convict in the first place. Ever notice this rarely ever happens to a person who doesn't already have a record?
B) STOPPED when the officers ordered him to do so.
C) NOT tried to run one of the officers over with his vehicle.

As for these protests, again... where is there any sort of protection for these people to violate other's rights? That's what's happening here, make no mistake about it. Anytime you feel the need to stand in the middle of the street and prevent other Americans from going about their daily procedure, blocking traffic and harassing them, you are violating their civil rights. Every person involved in this should be arrested and charged with being a public nuisance. Sharpton should be arrested for sedition.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The convicted fellon in question was hit by three (3) bullets, which only demonstrates NYC cops have atrocious aim. The entire mess could have and would have been avoided if he had...
A) Never been a convict in the first place. Ever notice this rarely ever happens to a person who doesn't already have a record?
B) STOPPED when the officers ordered him to do so.
C) NOT tried to run one of the officers over with his vehicle.

As for these protests, again... where is there any sort of protection for these people to violate other's rights? That's what's happening here, make no mistake about it. Anytime you feel the need to stand in the middle of the street and prevent other Americans from going about their daily procedure, blocking traffic and harassing them, you are violating their civil rights. Every person involved in this should be arrested and charged with being a public nuisance. Sharpton should be arrested for sedition.

Thank you, I was afraid it would be left to me to, once again, be the lone voice of sanity on inane thread.

The cops did the right thing, and you cant say it was racism as these guys were an racial trifecta, you had a white, a black, and a hispanic, Thats america in Blue right there boy.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


haha and it's people like this that's the reason we soon won't be able to say anything bad about the government.

And where are you getting you're story from because from every news source I have read it says the cops shot an innocent unarmed man.

Originally posted by theendisnear69


And where are you getting you're story from because from every news source I have read it says the cops shot an innocent unarmed man.

really? I did a basic search for the name sean bell and every story mentions that he drove at the officers and ended up hiting a police van. Furthermore his BAC showed he was drunk at the time.
From the day after the incident

reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed


"No weapons were found in the Altima, which Mr. Bell had been driving."

"According to police guidelines, officers can fire only when they or another person is threatened by deadly physical force, but not if that physical force comes from a moving vehicle alone"

Need I say more

Here's the story in a nutshell, yet we won't be hearing much about the facts of the case.

Sean Bell was at best a passenger in a car that struck a police officer who had ordered them to stop and show their hands.

The undercover detective who fired first had been monitoring the group in the club. Once outside, the detective heard Mr. Guzman say “Yo, get my gun, get my gun,” and head with the others to his car, according to police. The undercover officer followed the group on foot, then positioned himself in front of their car.

According to the person briefed on the accounts, the detective, his police badge around his neck, then pulled out his gun, identified himself as a police officer and ordered the occupants to show their hands. They did not comply, the person said, but instead gunned the car forward, hitting the undercover officer and, seconds later, an unmarked police minivan. The undercover officer fired the first of 11 shots, yelling, “He’s got a gun! He’s got a gun!”

www.nytimes.com...

So, a car full of angry men who proclaim to have a gun and who after being ordered by a police officer to cease their activities and show their hands, purposely hit that police officer wth their car and then hit a police van are innocent and the use of deadly force is not justified?

I suggest that anyone who is truly interested in this case read the whole article and as Shazam The Unbowed did do a Google search to gather the facts from several sources.

Here, I'll make it easy for you.

Google Search: Sean Bell Shooting


[edit on 2008/5/7 by GradyPhilpott]

Sharpton is down for the struggle!

Originally posted by theendisnear69

"According to police guidelines, officers can fire only when they or another person is threatened by deadly physical force, but not if that physical force comes from a moving vehicle alone"

I think at the point that the car hit the officer, the situation changed from a threat to an act.

Also, you need a citation for that quote.