NYPD officers aquitted after shooting unarmed man 50 times

[Saint]

imported post

The "non-police" witnesses were the other two men that were with the victim when he was shot. The judge ruled in favor of the officers based on his conclusion that "the officers statements were more credible"

I don't believe Law Enforcement are all bad. I think most of them are trying to do their job correctly and I understand that they operate in dangerous circumstances.

But in this case, I believe that the actions of the officers and the response is unacceptable. The only reason they were aquitted was because they were Law Enforcement. Anyone else in the same circumstances would have been convicted of manslaughter at the very least.

And to those of you who some how try to claim that a department reprimand is satisfactory punishment... Put yourself into the shoes of the victims family. Imagine that someone (regardless of their law enforcement status) pumped 31 bullets into your unarmed wife or husband based simply on the fact that "in their mind they were justified" And then try to reconcile that with the knowledge that the most punishment they will ever receieve is a slap on the wrist from their supervisor.

That IMHO, is a collasal failure in the justice system of our society. The only question is how long decent, law abiding Americans will allow such atrocities to continue before we stand up and assert our dignity and the right to a life without fear.

 

[Sa45auto]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

So, are there any non-police witnesses to Shawn Bell or anyone else in the car when he was shot saying anything about having a gun?

Not a hard question.

Not even a controversial question.

On face value that is a good question; but according to quotations from the trial judge it would appear that the only, not police,witness were friends of the deceased and the way they conducted themselves made them their own worst enemy.

"Cooperman said the inconsistent testimony, courtroom demeanor and rap sheets of the prosecution witnesses — mainly Bell's friends — "had the effect of eviscerating" their credibility."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24305660/

It sounds like the only credible witnesses present were the other officers.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

Sa45auto wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

So, are there any non-police witnesses to Shawn Bell or anyone else in the car when he was shot saying anything about having a gun?

Not a hard question.

Not even a controversial question.

On face value that is a good question; but according to quotations from the trial judge it would appear that the only, not police,witness were friends of the deceased and the way they conducted themselves made them their own worst enemy.

"Cooperman said the inconsistent testimony, courtroom demeanor and rap sheets of the prosecution witnesses — mainly Bell's friends — "had the effect of eviscerating" their credibility."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24305660/

It sounds like the only credible witnesses present were the other officers.

That didn't really answer my question. I didn't ask about the quality of the prosecution's witnesses. I asked if anyone OTHER than police claimed to have heard Bell or any of his party state that they had or were getting a gun. That's my ONLY question at this time.

 

[Sa45auto]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

.....Cops and their cheering sections just cannot pronounce the words "a cop screwed up."

I am not a police officer and never have been. I do not consider myself part of anyone's "cheering section", and I know a lot of police officers, who are all to human, and who have made some pretty serious mistakes.

If you will look at all of my post on this thread, you will note that my first post stated something along the lines of the whole legal system in NYC being messed up.

Did these officers make some mistakes...yes they did, but in this case the life ending mistakes were made by the deceased.

I spent much of my early years, doing everything I could to NOT be noticed by the police. I was part of a gang that did most of the mischief that our local men in blue spent much of their time investigating.

My friends all ended upeitherdead or with pretty long rap sheets, but I was lucky enough to never get caught.

The local police made some big mistakes in not catching me.

The person I was then, is no more, and for the rest of my lifeI have been the very antithesis of what I was.

I took a good look at my friends and where they were going and I decided to change.

Do police officersmake mistakes? Sure they do.

Do I hold a police officer in higher regard than a man with a long rap sheet? You bet I do.

I have had good friends from both groups and I know the difference.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

Saint wrote:

The "non-police" witnesses were the other two men that were with the victim when he was shot. The judge ruled in favor of the officers based on his conclusion that "the officers statements were more credible"

I don't believe Law Enforcement are all bad. I think most of them are trying to do their job correctly and I understand that they operate in dangerous circumstances.

But in this case, I believe that the actions of the officers and the response is unacceptable. The only reason they were aquitted was because they were Law Enforcement. Anyone else in the same circumstances would have been convicted of manslaughter at the very least.

And to those of you who some how try to claim that a department reprimand is satisfactory punishment... Put yourself into the shoes of the victims family. Imagine that someone (regardless of their law enforcement status) pumped 31 bullets into your unarmed wife or husband based simply on the fact that "in their mind they were justified" And then try to reconcile that with the knowledge that the most punishment they will ever receieve is a slap on the wrist from their supervisor.

That IMHO, is a collasal failure in the justice system of our society. The only question is how long decent, law abiding Americans will allow such atrocities to continue before we stand up and assert our dignity and the right to a life without fear.

The problem here is that it's entirely possible that NONE of them were credible witnesses. If Bell's friends made conflicting or obviously false statements, that would rule them out. Testimony of the police involved in the shooting is naturally suspect, given that they have a vested interest in being found not culpable.

My theory of what happened is as follows:

Bell's party may or may not have claimed to have or been getting a firearm. I'm not willing to believe this SOLELY on the word of the police involved. They might be telling the truth. They might be telling self-serving lies.

The police who followed them did something which led Bell to believe that they were NOT police, like pulling gun(s) without identifying themselves.

Bell thought he was being carjacked, panicked and attempted to flee THROUGH the officers.

Officers do the Diallo thing and fire as much and as fast as they can.

I don't know what actually happened. I DO know what would happen if somebody pulled a gun on me while I was in my car without identifying themselves as police. The Army taught me that the proper reaction to a near vehicular ambush is to drive through those doing the ambush, and that is exactly what I would do. Neither Art Arfons nor Craig Breedlove ever drove a car which could outrun the slowest pistol bullet. That means that your best bet is to run your putative assailant down.

Again, I don't believe there are any non-police witnesses who say that police identified themselves before shooting. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. At this point, I wouldn't trust the statements of the cops OR Bell's party. All I know is what I'd do when faced with a perceived carjacking scenario. Point a gun at me without identifying yourself as a cop and your MOS instantly changes to "speedbump".

Is that what happened in this case? I don't know. I know it COULD have happened. I also know that I don't at this point trust the word of ANYBODY involved.

 

[Sa45auto]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

So, are there any non-police witnesses to Shawn Bell or anyone else in the car when he was shot saying anything about having a gun?

Not a hard question.

Not even a controversial question.

On face value that is a good question; but according to quotations from the trial judge it would appear that the only, not police,witness were friends of the deceased and the way they conducted themselves made them their own worst enemy.

"Cooperman said the inconsistent testimony, courtroom demeanor and rap sheets of the prosecution witnesses — mainly Bell's friends — "had the effect of eviscerating" their credibility."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24305660/

It sounds like the only credible witnesses present were the other officers.

That didn't really answer my question. I didn't ask about the quality of the prosecution's witnesses. I asked if anyone OTHER than police claimed to have heard Bell or any of his party state that they had or were getting a gun. That's my ONLY question at this time.

The first sign of insanity is to ask the same question over and over, expecting to get a different answer.

Lets think about this. They were at a questionable strip club. The only people there were the police officers and a bunch of bums. The prosecution brought in every bum they could find and according to the judge he didn't much like or trust the way these people acted or the answers they gave.

If any of these guys heard the deceased say he was going to get his gun, and testified thusly, it is not mentioned anywhere that I could find.

What is known from statements by the judge is that he didn't believe a thing these prosecution witnessessaid and so it doesn't really matter what they heard or said now does it? :banghead:

None of us really know what happedso we are left with a choice. We can drive ourselves crazy over a verdict that will not change or accept the verdict from a judge who knows a lot more about it than we do.


SinceIam more than half crazy as it is, I think I have beat this oldhorse, as much as I'm going to.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

Sa45auto wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

So, are there any non-police witnesses to Shawn Bell or anyone else in the car when he was shot saying anything about having a gun?

Not a hard question.

Not even a controversial question.

On face value that is a good question; but according to quotations from the trial judge it would appear that the only, not police,witness were friends of the deceased and the way they conducted themselves made them their own worst enemy.

"Cooperman said the inconsistent testimony, courtroom demeanor and rap sheets of the prosecution witnesses — mainly Bell's friends — "had the effect of eviscerating" their credibility."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24305660/

It sounds like the only credible witnesses present were the other officers.

That didn't really answer my question. I didn't ask about the quality of the prosecution's witnesses. I asked if anyone OTHER than police claimed to have heard Bell or any of his party state that they had or were getting a gun. That's my ONLY question at this time.

The first sign of insanity is to ask the same question over and over, expecting to get a different answer.

Lets think about this. They were at a questionable strip club. The only people there were the police officers and a bunch of bums. The prosecution brought in every bum they could find and according to the judge he didn't much like or trust the way these people acted or the answers they gave.

If any of these guys heard the deceased say he was going to get his gun, and testified thusly, it is not mentioned anywhere that I could find.

What is known from statements by the judge is that he didn't believe a thing these prosecution witnessessaid and so it doesn't really matter what they heard or said now does it? :banghead:

None of us really know what happedso we are left with a choice. We can drive ourselves crazy over a verdict that will not change or accept the verdict from a judge who knows a lot more about it than we do.


SinceIame more than half crazy as it is, I think I have beat this oldhorse, as much as I'm going to.

So then the answer is "No, no non-police testified that they heard Bell or his party state that they had or were getting a gun."

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

Oh, now we're going to elevate a JUDGE to some higher status of righteousness?
That's just too funny. You people live in LaLa Land.

 

[Sa45auto]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Oh, now we're going to elevate a JUDGE to some higher status of righteousness?
That's just too funny. You people live in LaLa Land.

Yea I agree Mark how could you do that?





mark edward marchiafava wrote:

......Within minutes, Judge Janice Clark told them to give me a driver's license......

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

Judge Janice Clark did not state she found the state's witnesses to be more believable than mine. Only an idiot (and there's certainly no shortages of those in Amerika) would not see what happened here. A cop, one of the "anointed, the elite," fubbed up and royally. To add insult to injury, a "judge" was allowed to make that horrible decision. Now that you mention it, having to decide between a "judge" and 12 Amerikans isn't much of a choice. Which brings up "we'd all be better off with no government at all."

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Judge Janice Clark did not state she found the state's witnesses to be more believable than mine. Only an idiot (and there's certainly no shortages of those in Amerika) would not see what happened here. A cop, one of the "anointed, the elite," fubbed up and royally. To add insult to injury, a "judge" was allowed to make that horrible decision. Now that you mention it, having to decide between a "judge" and 12 Amerikans isn't much of a choice. Which brings up "we'd all be better off with no government at all."

The court system allows the defendant to be tried by the Judge or the Jury.

They chose the Judge.

So what is the problem?

Just like the defendant's attorney gets to exclude people FROM a jury during the selection process. The defendant does not need to testify either and can even ask for a change of venue.The defendant is always afforded many ways to protect his own interests. Just because the defendants are cops they are somehow not allowed this? You think they should have a jury trial?

This is our system of justice, like it or not. And I know you don't. But your complaining here will do nothing for you. I see you becoming a whining, snivelinglittle child wanting us to change what we cannot.

You want no Government and I want the police to have more power to catch criminals. Neither of us will get our wish today.

So as I have said before...

Move along, nothing to see here.. :::Tap, Tap, Tap ::: :lol:

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

Yes, "they" DID choose a judge. Now, knowing most every "court" in this country will take the word of a cop/cop backer over a lowly citizen most any day, I seriously doubt anyone on this board is surprised a cop chose a judge over a jury of 12. It's a sucker bet. You can more easily "influence" one judge than 12 citizens. Besides, with a jury, a cop just might run into one fully informed citizen on a jury.
While you may be a cop, you're not that stupid. Cop turns down the opportunity to have a jury decide and opts for a judge? LOL, have you ever considered a career in stand up comedy?

Change? Oh, yes, changes ARE coming and you are not going to like them. History clearly teaches that. At least to those who can learn from history.
THANK YOU for admitting you're a police state fascist. While lots of Amerikans want their freedoms back, YOU are one of "them" who will work to prevent them from having their freedoms back. Personally, I'd not want to be on "your" side when this comes to a head.
When that Great Day of Reckoning passes, there will be PLENTY to see. For most, it will be a real shocker.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Yes, "they" DID choose a judge. Now, knowing most every "court" in this country will take the word of a cop/cop backer over a lowly citizen most any day, I seriously doubt anyone on this board is surprised a cop chose a judge over a jury of 12. It's a sucker bet. You can more easily "influence" one judge than 12 citizens. Besides, with a jury, a cop just might run into one fully informed citizen on a jury.
While you may be a cop, you're not that stupid. Cop turns down the opportunity to have a jury decide and opts for a judge? LOL, have you ever considered a career in stand up comedy?

...Snipped

And OJ selected a Jury trial and won!!

Heisa celebrity and his fame probably won the Jury over when the Judge would probably have put him in jail after all the evidence that was collected.

Ihave seen the evidence andit was obvious that he did it. He also lost in the civil trial and thatshows I was right.

But I am not going to worry about it. He had his day in court and won keeping him out of jail.

I am held to a higher standard on the job and amvery tolerant herebut I suggest you limit the unnecessary name callingas it is not required and will not be condoned. :X

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

Well, if we're going to start suggesting things, here's my advice: go get a real job, one that does NOT include violating your fellow man. A job where your paycheck isn't paid with monies taken by force from others.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

[Removed by moderator]

 

[asforme]

imported post

Wow this forum is different. I don't think I've ever seen a post by an Administrator removed by a Moderator before.

:question:

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I want the police to have more power to catch criminals. Neither of us will get our wish today.

How's it goin 229? I was just curious to see if you could go into some more detail on what exactly you mean by yourabovecomment... I don't want to assume anything or question your motivesbut I think that may have brought out the curiosity in many of us..

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Unlike most others on this and most other sites, I've actually learned years ago most cop supporters cannot discuss anything. No matter what facts you present, the cops always "do no wrong." Even when they kill (murder) someone, there's always excuses.
Here are some of the usual excuses, not necessarily in order of most frequency.
1. "I feared for my life."
2. "He/she had a gun."
3. "He/she had what I THOUGHT was a gun."
4. "He/she didn't freeze when I shouted "freeze!"
5. "He/she tried to run over me with their car."
6. "The deceased has an extensive criminal history."
The list goes on, but the point is, there ALWAYS is some sort of justification, some area of debate, some "grey" issues, he said/she said.
Cops and their cheering sections just cannot pronounce the words "a cop screwed up."

I was a cop. I still support cops. HOWEVER, RIGHT IS RIGHT and WRONG IS WRONG. IMHO, this incident falls on the side of being MORE THAN WRONG. Either you positively identified the threat or you didn't.

There is NO excuse for blind firing in the law enforcement community regardless of the circumstances PERIOD!

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Yes, "they" DID choose a judge. Now, knowing most every "court" in this country will take the word of a cop/cop backer over a lowly citizen most any day, I seriously doubt anyone on this board is surprised a cop chose a judge over a jury of 12. It's a sucker bet. You can more easily "influence" one judge than 12 citizens. Besides, with a jury, a cop just might run into one fully informed citizen on a jury.
While you may be a cop, you're not that stupid. Cop turns down the opportunity to have a jury decide and opts for a judge? LOL, have you ever considered a career in stand up comedy?

...Snipped

And OJ selected a Jury trial and won!!

Heisa celebrity and his fame probably won the Jury over when the Judge would probably have put him in jail after all the evidence that was collected.

Ihave seen the evidence andit was obvious that he did it. He also lost in the civil trial and thatshows I was right.

But I am not going to worry about it. He had his day in court and won keeping him out of jail.

I am held to a higher standard on the job and amvery tolerant herebut I suggest you limit the unnecessary name callingas it is not required and will not be condoned. :X

OJ was acquitted for two reasons:

1. A perverse desire by Black jurors to mirror the antics of all white jurors who routinely acquitted Whites in the South accused of racially motivated murders of Blacks.

2. The utter incompetence of Marcia Clark. Her lack of mental apparatus was proved conclusively by her post-trial calls for the abolition of jury trials because she couldn't win an open and shut case, the obviousness of which Stevie Wonder and Roy Orbison could have seen.

 

[GLENGLOCKER]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

"And HE should be held accountable..........."
Did that happen? Is it GOING to happen?
Just one more tragic example of why HONEST folk would be better off with no government at all.

No law says you cannot yell "GUN."

What do you want to see happen to him?

Do you know that his department did not take action against him? This is something you would never know about as it is not reported to the news.

Of course not because when police do something wrong they all stick together to cover it up.