NYC officers indicted in Bad Shoot

First his idiotic policies get some volunteer cops and private citizens killed, now we learn that his police force (the only ones that should have guns remember) is in a wee bit of trouble (not that this was unexpected).....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259186,00.html

NEW YORK — A grand jury on Friday indicted at least three of the five officers in the 50-shoot barrage that killed an unarmed man on his wedding day, lawyers told The Associated Press.......continued.....

Ahh the Big Apple. Don't you wish the whole US was like it? Bloomberg does......

Seems like maybe that stunt with the last minute "witness" who claimed to see somebody shoot at the cops backfired...

The wheels of justice turn slowly. The operative word, "turn".

... everybody's friend, The Reverend Al Sharpton has weighed in again. As quoted in a news article I read, Rev. Al said the charges marked an important first step in the fight for justice in the case.

"Since Nov. 25th, we have battled together. Today is a major step in that battle, whether it will be a step forward, time will tell. But one thing that we can say, if you stay together and you fight, you can do what is necessary to protect children," Sharpton said.

I greatly fear I must have missed something. The groom who was killed was 23 years old. His two friends appeared from photos to be of about the same age. So ... WHERE DID AL GET "CHILDREN" OUT OF ALL THIS MESS?

That's the same Mayor Michael Bloomberg who said that nobody needed a concealed weapons permit in New York City because they should trust the New York City Police Department. That's the same department too.

Sharpton obviously isn't referring to people who are already dead.

The Reverend Al Sharpton has weighed in again.
And how much has he gained this time?

Oh, I thought you said the Reverend Al Sharpton was weighed in again! :evil: :evil: :evil:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Three New York police officers will be indicted on Monday on criminal charges for firing 50 shots at three unarmed black men, killing one on his wedding day, the head of a detectives' union said on Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The case has generated outrage among blacks in New York and prompted a series of protests.

Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives' Endowment Association, told a news conference three New York Police Department officers would be indicted in the fatal shooting of Sean Bell hours before his wedding on November 25.

Palladino said he had not been informed of the content of the indictments or whether the officers will now face trial for murder, as some in the black community have called for.

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said he will announce the results of the sealed grand jury investigation at a news conference on 11 a.m. (1500 GMT) on Monday.

Such investigations are secret. Brown said in a statement the results would remain sealed until Monday.

A grand jury indictment means the panel has found there is enough evidence for a trial.

Bell was leaving a bachelor party at a strip club with two friends hours before he was to marry the mother of his two children when five police officers fired 50 bullets at his car in the belief that one of the men had gone to fetch a gun to settle a dispute at the club.

"These indictments will have a chilling effect," Palladino said, adding he believed the officers committed no crime.

"They took the action they took in good faith and pursuant to their lawful duties," he said. "I firmly disagree with the decision to indict these officers."

Palladino stressed that the standard to indict was much lower than it was to convict someone: "They say you can indict a ham sandwich, or even a rock."

Police have put 1,700 officers on alert in anticipation of the grand jury decision, mindful that activists have pledged a fierce reaction if the officers are cleared of wrongdoing.

"No one has the right even with badge and uniform to become the judge, jury and executioner," Rev. Al Sharpton said earlier at a news conference with the family of Bell, 23, by his side.

Sharpton, who has been acting as a spokesman for the family, said sources told him some of the charges the officers would be indicted on will be serious but he did not elaborate.

"We are not looking for revenge. We are looking for it to not happen again," he said.

The two survivors -- Joseph Guzman, 31, and Trent Benefield, 23 -- say police did not show their badges before opening fire and they believed they were being robbed

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

What the bumper sticker does not say is that the outlaws will be the government.

Car=weapon

I heard about this, apparently the "three black men, one of which was his wedding day"(quoted for irrelevance) we charging the cops. Why should the cops be in trouble for trying to protect themselves when they feel threatened?


as some in the black community have called for.

That just doesn't seem right. The "black community", I thought we were a united nation with our differences seperated.

I heard about this, apparently the "three black men, one of which was his wedding day"(quoted for irrelevance) we charging the cops. Why should the cops be in trouble for trying to protect themselves when they feel threatened?

Just a guess...but the odds are the prosecutors probably thought about that, dontcha think?

If they didn't...it'll come out in the wash pretty soon.

As for one nation united...you must be hunting deer on Mars ;) if you're thinking that. :o

I'm sure if they could have found a justification for this in the past couple of months, they would have made it public by now. If they thought they were about to be run over, they could have said that- self defense isnt so obscure a concept that the general public wouldnt have understood. Still, it isnt like they are locking the officers up without a trial. They will get to tell their story to a jury. Juries are very understanding of police officers.

I also think that if these officers fail to justify themselves at hearing, grand jury and then at trial, they should be punished severely. We normally cut officers a lot of slack but that slack has to give way to punishment at some point or they are not much more than a group of marauding bandits. Most people can be constrained adequately through their own morals, but we would be fools to rely on that method alone.

Sharpton is against the cops........that is all I have to know to support the police.

:barf:

I like how the officers have the luxury to stop by and turn themselves in when it's convenient. I swear, Chapelle did a funny skit and I thought it was just a joke.


Deer hunter, yea try saying 'white leaders' or 'white community' or 'white college scholarship fund', good luck.

I like how the officers have the luxury to stop by and turn themselves in when it's convenient. I swear, Chapelle did a funny skit and I thought it was just a joke.


No kidding... If Regular Joe shot 3 guys and had a warrant for his arrest, they would have sent the SWAT team to kick down his door. But since these guys are cops, they're politely asked to turn themselves in whenever they have nothing better to do. :cuss:

Car=weapon

I heard about this, apparently the "three black men, one of which was his wedding day"(quoted for irrelevance) we charging the cops. Why should the cops be in trouble for trying to protect themselves when they feel threatened?

The guys in the car were trying to escape. They were approached by an guy with a gun outside a nightclub who identified himself as a cop, as many carjackers do. Their actions weren't unreasonable; what's unreasonable is the allowance of undercover police work that creates these kinds of situations.

what's unreasonable is the allowance of undercover police work that creates these kinds of situations

Yup, we don't need no stinkin' Gestopo.

The enforcement of these "victim less" crime laws that create the need for undercover operatives to create the crime, since neither party involved would file a complaint, is a cure far worse than the disease!

--wally.

Al Sharpton is a broken clock. He has been spouting the same anti-cop and anti-gun BS since the 80s. He sees clansman behind every blade of grass and sees racism in every white man's action. Except maybe bill clinton.

Anyway, I have learned to ignore him. NY can have him.

Anyway, I have a lot of faith in juries. If the guys who got shot deserved it, I'm sure the jury will figure that out. Remember, NYC is the home of Bernie Goetz and the various other subway vigilantees. They aren't nearly as anti-gun and anti-cop as you might expect from the public figures there.

The original version of the story was that the 5 police vice squad members were on a stake out that the strip club. Three of the officers, or maybe two were inside while two others were outside in a van. The officers in the club were behaving like patrons, drinking; one of the officers was found to be legally intoxicated after the shooting.

They were looking for prostitution, drug dealing or any other law breaking happening, they had been tipped by an informant that such things were happening at this club.

So one of the members of the grooms party was approached by one of the officers, who started an altercation, words and shoves were exchanged.
One of the party goers threatened to get a gun from his car and all three left.

The police outside pulled the unmarked van in front of the Groom's friends car
Striking the bumper. On officer jumps out with gun drawn, and the Groom and friends try to drive away striking the van again in the process. The officers open fire, one officer fires 39 rounds reloading his Glock 17 twice, the other officer fires 11 rounds, total 50 rounds fired.
The Groom to be's party claim they thought they were being carjacked, which we all know never happens in the safest city in the USA.:barf:

Sharpton is against the cops........that is all I have to know to support the police.

Yeah because we all know that you have to shoot someone fifty times before they are stopped. ~ :rolleyes:

Car=weapon

I heard about this, apparently the "three black men, one of which was his wedding day"(quoted for irrelevance) we charging the cops. Why should the cops be in trouble for trying to protect themselves when they feel threatened?

Let's see, it's not yet been proved that the PLAINCLOTHES officers properly identified themselves before pointing guns at the men in the car.

I 100% guarantee you that if you point a gun at ME while I'm in my car, without definitively identifying yourself as a policeman, your MOS will instantly change to "speedbump". If what I think happened happened, Bell's mistake was in not flooring the accelerator and driving right over the cop who pointed the gun at him. In the Army, they taught me that the proper response to a near vehicular ambush is to drive over and through the people shooting at you. I've seen some pretty fast cars, but never one that could outrun even a 158gr. lead roundnose .38 Special. I've also never seen anybody who could shoot at me with the front wheel of my car on his head.

Sharpton is against the cops........that is all I have to know to support the police.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.......

Yeah because we all know that you have to shoot someone fifty times before they are stopped.


That is such a clever answer! Clearly the product of a crafty group of thinkers. :rolleyes:

We arm cops who likely had their first firearms experience on the job, and we don't train them adequately nor expect them to do that themselves.....a disturbing trend for a different thread.

Hard to say without having been there or having direct knowledge of everything that happened, but where exactly has Sharpton been right or supported a worthwhile cause?? Hmmm??

saw on some news talk-show this morning they were talking about this.

The guy they were interviewing (I didn't catch who it was as I was still half-asleep) was basically saying that the cops shouldn't be blamed for this incident. Something to the effect of, "They put their life on the line every day and this is what they get in return? What we need is stricter control of the drugs and guns in the area that the incident took place to prevent this from happening."

and that's when I changed the channel. :rolleyes:

The Sullivan Law is the key to understanding what is really going on here, with both the Bell Incident and Diallo affair in 1999.

Counter to our legal system’s presumption of innocence, NYC’s 1911 Sullivan Act assumes anybody with a handgun is a criminal or intends to commit a crime. As judges noted in the New York State Appeals Court in 1913:

…Legislature has now picked out one particular kind of arm, the handy, the usual, and the favorite weapon of the turbulent criminal class, and has said that in our organized communities, our cities, towns, and villages where the public peace is protected by the officers of organized government, the citizen may not have that particular kind of weapon without a permit… If he has it in his possession, he can readily stick it in his pocket when he goes abroad.11


Despite judges’ admission that the law against concealed carry “did not seem effective in preventing crimes of violence,” the court restricted civilian ownership anyway, ignoring the fact that the very features which made handguns the “favorite weapon of the turbulent criminal class” also made it the tool of choice for the law-abiding citizen seeking to protect their lives and livelihoods from this same criminal class. Instead, the court sought to reassure us (or them?) that the “public peace is protected by the officers of organized government.” This is a very curious statement, because United States higher court rulings consistently conclude the police are under no legal obligation to provide protection to any particular citizen.12

11 Darling v. Warden, 154 App. Div. 413, 139 N.Y.S. 277 (1913)http://www.guncite.com/court/state/139nys277.html

Guzman - Bell's friend - trash talked that he had a gun. Since the potential existence of a gun in a situation is considered a crime, the police (and dah mayor) believe that they must act as though the weapon was available, visable, and that a clear and immediate treat of death or serious bodily injury exists.

Down here in Florida, the potential existence of a weapon brings about heightened warriness for LEOs. They operate under the same deadly force rules as everybody else. 417,000 CCWs + those from the states with reciprocity here on vacation may have something to do with the differing approach.

WHERE DID AL GET "CHILDREN" OUT OF ALL THIS MESS?
Probably the same place The Organization Formerly Known as Handgun Control got it.

So many things wrong, on so many levels...