Race Baiting 101.....

[Den Valdron]

A few observations.

First of all, I'm pretty suspicious of all this 'he's going to get a gun talk.' These are a bunch of cops who were up on trial for homicide. They have a pretty good motive to lie like troopers to save their asses.

Second, these are undercover officers. All of them in plain clothes. There wasn't a uniform in sight. So they're indistinguishable from carjackers. There's no ifs, ands or buts. Some guy in street clothes flashes a gun at me and demands I get out of the car... what's a reasonable person going to believe?

Third, identifying themselves as police under the circumstances is irrelevant. Would a carjacker tell a lie? Is it an even bigger crime to do a carjacking and pretend to be a police officer to confuse the victim? Could they even hear from inside the car, or under the circumstances, would that matter? Was a badge flashed? You can get fake badges for $3.50 at any novelty shop.

Frankly, you had a group of men coming out of a batchelor party who are approached by men brandishing weapons demanding they exit the vehicle... Its not unreasonable to assume that their first impulse would be to step on the gas, and get the hell out of there. A carjacking really ruins your night, and its not like carjackers won't put a bullet in you after they have the car, just for fun.

And fifty bullets pumped into the automobile. One of the officers actually fired thirty-one shots, stopping to replace his clip and keep on firing? Jesus H. Christ on a Crutch. There is no planet where that's going to be reasonable.

Notwithstanding the judicial verdict on criminal charges of homicide, a situation where intent had to be found, and where guilt had to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, I find it impossible not to see this as a major screw up on the part of the police. I'm not willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I recently had a personal situation where armed police officers broke into my home and pointed loaded firearms at me, based entirely on a bad warrant and an incompetent investigation... they got the wrong house, and didn't double check. Since then, I've been reading up on best practices, reasonable standards, appropriate conduct and policies regarding use of force. These policies and standards are there to preserve the lives of police officers as well as victims. Police have a hell of a responsibility, they have powers commensurate with that responsibility, and they have training and accountability up there. They do not and should not have a license to act like drunken cowboys.

I'm sorry, but on this one, Sharpton's got the right of it.

 

[Den Valdron]

I'm also wondering if any of these officers were tested for blood alcohol in the aftermath of the shootings.

 

[Trajan12]

They said you had to have a drink every 30 minutes in the club. Is it doubtful that the officers may have been intoxicated?

I'm sure no one will look at this though. Remember Den, Cops are good guys and should be given the benefit of the doubt when they blast unarmed people into oblivion.

 

[Den Valdron]

Presumably, if they were undercover, part of that cover would have had to involve buying drinks steadily. Since it was a prostitution sting, the risk assessment would have been minor. Some degree of impairment would not have been out of the question. You do not have to be over the legal driving limit to have impaired judgement.

Were they? I don't know. But a proper investigation would have been to have asked for blood samples from all officers involved ASAP. They would have been within their legal rights to have refused to provide samples, but if so, that refusal should be on the record.

In terms of Judgment issues, this is an illustrative point (from the Wikipedia article):

Surveillance cameras at the Port Authority's Jamaica AirTrain station a half block away from the shooting site recorded one of the bullets fired by the officers shattering through the station's glass window and narrowly missing a civilian and two Port Authority patrolmen who were standing on the station's elevated platform.

That's why you don't open up with 51 shots. Bullets travel. Some of them travel a long way.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

I'm surprised its Sharpton making hay over this, the issue has nothing to do with race. To my knowledge the victims here did nothing illegal and the police executed them for it. Those cops do not deserve to walk free let alone still have a career.

It is not reasonable to expect someone to cooperate with a plainclothes police officer. Especially in a less than reputable area of town.

 

[Trajan12]

In my city there were reports of people with fake badges going door to door claiming to be undercover police officers. Cleaning people's entire houses out.

If a plainclothes cop at my door is untrustworthy, I imagine one pointing a gun at me will rattle my nerves.

 

[Merkinball]

Den Valdron, go the NYT's link I posted. I think it might change your perception.

For instance, one person testified to seeing a badge. One of the VICTIMS was quoted as saying right afterwards, "Why did the COPS shoot my friend?"

It is a worse crime to pretend your a cop, or any sort of uniformed person, when you commit a crime. It's a felony in and of itself.

The cops that fired the shots, from what I have read, had twenty years on the force combined, and had NEVER fired their weapons while in the line of duty.

Just some things to consider.

 

[JollyRoger]

When I first saw the thread title, I thought this was going to be a variation of one of those "Ask a . . ." threads. Somebody better get back in this thread and stir the pot some more or I foresee a trip back to Remedial Race Baiting.

 

[Den Valdron]

For instance, one person testified to seeing a badge.

I can get a badge from a dime store for Three dollars and fifty cents.

In any event, the first reference to seeing a badge comes from a person who is identified as the 'first journalist on the scene.' Presumably, he comes in after the shooting is done. So there's no probative value whatsoever there.

One of the VICTIMS was quoted as saying right afterwards, "Why did the COPS shoot my friend?"

Presumably, after being shot full of holes, with ambulance and uniformed police around, one might accept the notion that these guys were police.

He said it to an emergency medical technician doing CPR on him, after the situation had stabilized. That's more than long enough to figure out that the plain clothes gentlemen with guns are not carjackers but police.

On the other hand, this does not speak to the state of mind or knowledge prior to or at the time of shooting.

It is a worse crime to pretend your a cop, or any sort of uniformed person, when you commit a crime. It's a felony in and of itself.

And armed robbery and carjacking is what? A misdemeanor?

The cops that fired the shots, from what I have read, had twenty years on the force combined,

Twenty years on the force combined, divided among five police officers is approximately four years apieces. They were junior officers. Assuming that there was some sort of senior officer on duty, the rest of them would have been even more junior.

Assuming that you restrict to three officers, that's still only about 6.6 years experience apiece. Not exactly junior. But not terribly experienced. Were they taking guidance or direction from a senior officer, or did they just take their own initiative? Was one of the three a senior officer?

and had NEVER fired their weapons while in the line of duty.

From this, you conclude that they were untrained or not competent in weapons situations?

Just some things to consider.

Other observations... there was no turret light (flashing police light that can be put on the dash and let people know its a police vehicle) in Lt. Napoli's vehicle. Napoli seems to have been senior officer, but was not directly involved in the shooting.

Napoli was near the shooting, and testified that he did not hear any of the officers announce themselves as police. He could have missed it, but frankly...

Several of the officers were not sure if they had even fired a shot at all:

Detective Paul Headley told him he did not know if he fired his weapon. He counted one bullet missing. Said Detective Michael Oliver told him he fired his weapon and gave him two empty magazines, meaning 31 bullets were missing. Said Detective Gescard F. Isnora told him he did not know if he had fired any rounds. His gun was empty, meaning 11 rounds were missing. Said Detective Marc Cooper told him he did now know if he fired any rounds, but four of his bullets were missing.

It takes a certain amount of volition to pull a trigger, and even a relatively modest firearm has a kick. Frankly, if you can't recall whether you fired your gun in a situation, the rest of your testimony about the situation is worthless in my book.

As for bullets going astray, an SUV down the block was shot twice, and there were bullet holes in a fence. And a lampshade in another house.

Found two bullet marks in a SUV parked down the block from the shooting.
Said he could not determine the angles of the bullets from the impact marks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernardino Dossantos
Construction worker who lives near shooting Said his wife woke him in their 95th Avenue home during the shooting. It was his Ford Explorer that was shot twice.
Said he paid no attention to bullet holes in his fence. “It’s not my house,” he said. “I’m a renter.”

---------------
Detectives found a bullet embedded in a lampshade in her living room.

Sort of makes it look worse, doesn't it?

 

[Merkinball]

I can get a badge from a dime store for Three dollars and fifty cents. - Den Valdron

So what? So when you see a badge, you assume it's fake and someone trying to jack you? What an unrealistic and stupid assertion.

Presumably, after being shot full of holes, with ambulance and uniformed police around, one might accept the notion that these guys were police. On the other hand, this does not speak to the state of mind or knowledge prior to or at the time of shooting. - Don Veldron

This happened moments after the shooting. Not when the place was crawling with EMT's.

And armed robbery and carjacking is what? A misdemeanor? - Don Veldron

Those are felonies too. You were insinuating that it wasn't any significant crime to pretend to be a cop while committing a crime. I am simply pointing out that this isn't the case. It's a totally seperate felony. And I don't know one person who walks out of a strip club and assumes that people with badges aren't cops, and simply bought them at a five and dime store to turn a few tricks.

Twenty years on the force combined, divided among five police officers is approximately four years apieces. They were junior officers. - Den Valdron

No, there were five officers. Two that didn't shoot at all. The three officers that shot had twelve, five, and three years between them.

From this, you conclude that they were untrained or not competent in weapons situations? - Don Veldron

No, it makes me conclude that it's asanine that a group of five officers, two who were black, one who was hispanic and black, targeted these individuals with the intent to kill them simply based on their race. It's f--king stupid.

It's nice to know that in one day, I've managed to find more information on this, than you with your predetermined opinions of wrongdoing.

 

[Elrohir]

It's an unfortunate situation, and I'm not sure I'd say the police were entirely in the right. However, I tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt in situations like this, and they've been legally cleared, so I'm not sure what can, or even should, be done about it. And Sharpton making this a racial thing is pretty ridiculous - two out of the three cops who fired their weapons were black. Even insinuating that they shot this guy because he was black is incredibly stupid. The guy was drunk, and was breaking the law. Maybe the police overreacted, but I don't see how this is a racial case at all.

 

[JollyRoger]

And Sharpton making this a racial thing is pretty ridiculous - two out of the three cops who fired their weapons were black. Even insinuating that they shot this guy because he was black is incredibly stupid. The guy was drunk, and was breaking the law. Maybe the police overreacted, but I don't see how this is a racial case at all.

I would be interested in seeing actual quotes of Rev. Sharpton on the race issue in this case. Do you happen to have a link to some?

 

[MobBoss]

Funny, but I don't see a single reference to race in that article. Maybe the race baiter is not who the OP claims it to be.

Or maybe you need glasses.

 

[Merkinball]

I would be interested in seeing actual quotes of Rev. Sharpton on the race issue in this case. Do you happen to have a link to some?

To be fair, he has pretty much said that it's about police accountability.

However, this incident resulted in numerous changes to policies and procedures.

See this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/nyregion/26about.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, said that Friday’s verdict should not be taken as an acquittal of serious management weaknesses that he believes led to the Bell shooting.

“To the contrary,” Mr. Brown said, the trial “revealed significant deficiencies in, among other things, supervision, tactical planning, communications and management accountability — insufficiencies that need to be addressed.”

He noted that a special panel set up by the Police Department after the shooting of Mr. Bell recommended 19 changes in undercover operations. “Virtually all of them had Sean Bell written all over them,” Mr. Brown said. He said he had called Mr. Kelly to volunteer his office’s help.

A spokesman for Mr. Kelly said that 16 of the 19 recommendations had already been put into practice, and that a major study on improving police firearms training would be finished within a month. Compared to most other big cities, New York police officers rarely fatally shoot anyone.

It's very hard to judge what exactly happened here. I don't know if you were joking about the "Nissan" crack or what, but that's what it seems to be. This was a case of police officers trying to stop a car. I've read articles that say they HIT one of the cops. Or at the very least ALMOST hit a cop. They rammed the police van more than once.

With that said, I can understand why cops would be apt to begin shooting to stop the vehicle. It also should be noted that the first cop that started shooting was black.

To me, this seems like a case where everything that could have gone wrong and escalated the situation, went wrong, and escalated the situation.

Once you have a drunk, with a car, potentially using it as a weapon, you shoot until it stops.

But again, I don't think there is enough evidence to take a firm, concise, position on this event.

 

[Den Valdron]

So what? So when you see a badge, you assume it's fake and someone trying to jack you? What an unrealistic and stupid assertion.

Number one, there was no testimony from the trial witnesses that the Officers identified themselves as police, or that they showed a badge. The only person who refers to seeing a badge is the first journalist on the scene.

Number two, these were undercover officers, not displaying turret lights, in plain clothes and unmarked vehicles, outside a strip club, late at night. There's no objective reason why anyone should assume that they were police officers rather than carjackers. Sorry, but that's just reality.

Anthony South
Freelance videographerFirst journalist on the scene. Prosecutors played his footage of Trent Benefield screaming in pain and Mr. Bell’s friends shouting about what had happened.
Said he saw a badge on an undercover officer.

In respect of your second remark, regarding the admission that one of the victims asked "why did the police shoot my friend."

This happened moments after the shooting. Not when the place was crawling with EMT's.

You are wrong. The quote that you are referring to comes from William Rudnick, an EMT who was doing CPR and treatment on the victims.

William Rudnick
Emergency Medical Technician Performed CPR on Sean Bell and treated Joseph Guzman.
Said Mr. Guzman asked him, “Why did the police shoot my friend?” suggesting he knew the plain clothed detectives were the police.

He was not contemporaneous on the scene. That's so obvious as to be not worth commenting.

As to whether armed robbery and carjacking are crimes...

Those are felonies too.

Further:

You were insinuating that it wasn't any significant crime to pretend to be a cop while committing a crime. I am simply pointing out that this isn't the case. It's a totally seperate felony.

In for a felony, in for a pound, as the British would say.

And I don't know one person who walks out of a strip club and assumes that people with badges aren't cops, and simply bought them at a five and dime store to turn a few tricks.

Well, its not clear that they showed badges prior to shooting. That wasn't any testimony of any witness for the prosecution. That wasn't the testimony of defense witnesses. Lt. Napoli, close to the scene, did not hear them identify themselves as police officers. And no one else did, apparently, either in testimony.

However, if you have done nothing wrong that you are aware of, and are being accosted by armed men in plain clothes with no sign of uniformed officers, police lights, or police cars around... there's no special reason to automatically assume that they are police.

You seem to be assuming evidence that doesn't actually exist.

No, there were five officers. Two that didn't shoot at all. The three officers that shot had twelve, five, and three years between them.

Thanks for clearing that up. So two junior officers and one seasoned one.

No, it makes me conclude that it's asanine that a group of five officers, two who were black, one who was hispanic and black, targeted these individuals with the intent to kill them simply based on their race. It's f--king stupid.

I don't know that this is a race issue at all. This appears to be a clear case potential of police misconduct, and that's how I'm treating it. I've said nothing about race issues. It's not clear that Sharpton is taking that tactic. You are inferring things that are not actually on the table.

It's nice to know that in one day, I've managed to find more information on this, than you with your predetermined opinions of wrongdoing.

I don't have a predetermined opinion. I merely assess the facts that I am given. Given more facts, I review and revise my assessment. The fact that you don't like that assessment.... not my problem.

 

[Sharwood]

So what? So when you see a badge, you assume it's fake and someone trying to jack you? What an unrealistic and stupid assertion.

Assume? Maybe not. But if the possibility isn't in your mind, you're a very trusting individual, and I'd like to spend a few hours in your home when you're not there, if you don't mind. If someone in street clothes flashed a badge AND a gun at me, I would most certainly assume they were carjackers. Hell, I'd probably run them down even if they were cops, but that's just me. I've been through even worse experiences with police than Den has.

This happened moments after the shooting. Not when the place was crawling with EMT's.

He still would have had time to figure out they actually were police officers by this point.

Those are felonies too. You were insinuating that it wasn't any significant crime to pretend to be a cop while committing a crime. I am simply pointing out that this isn't the case. It's a totally seperate felony. And I don't know one person who walks out of a strip club and assumes that people with badges aren't cops, and simply bought them at a five and dime store to turn a few tricks.

Den did not, in any way, imply that it wasn't a significant crime to pretend to be a cop. He asked if it was more significant to pretend to be a cop while committing an already pretty serious felony. Does it really matter if you're carrying a badge or not when you pull a gun and carjack someone? It may get you a little extra time in prison, but the end result is exactly the same. As for your other comments, I've already dealt with them.

No, there were five officers. Two that didn't shoot at all. The three officers that shot had twelve, five, and three years between them.

Which was the senior officer? Hopefully NOT the one that fired 31 bullets.

No, it makes me conclude that it's asanine that a group of five officers, two who were black, one who was hispanic and black, targeted these individuals with the intent to kill them simply based on their race. It's f--king stupid.

It's nice to know that in one day, I've managed to find more information on this, than you with your predetermined opinions of wrongdoing.

Point out to me where Den mentioned they were targeted because of race. I've read both his posts twice, and I'll be damned if I can't see it.

More information, does not mean better information. Den had all of the information necessary to make those conclusions, and with your added info, I'd bet he still reaches exactly the same ones. I know I have.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I think that the issue of whether or not Sharpton was "race-baiting", and even the issue of whether this was a "hate crime" or not, is secondary in considering the full details of the incident.

From what I remember from the back-story, there was reason for the cops to fire at them, although I still believe that such excessive force was unjustified and would like to see a harsher penalty for negligent death on the job.

 

[Trajan12]

It's an unfortunate situation, and I'm not sure I'd say the police were entirely in the right. However, I tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt in situations like this, and they've been legally cleared, so I'm not sure what can, or even should, be done about it. And Sharpton making this a racial thing is pretty ridiculous - two out of the three cops who fired their weapons were black. Even insinuating that they shot this guy because he was black is incredibly stupid. The guy was drunk, and was breaking the law. Maybe the police overreacted, but I don't see how this is a racial case at all.

Al Sharpton himself has said this is not about race. Maybe in giving the cops the benefit of the doubt you can extend this to Sharpton, no? No comment by all Sharpton indicated that the police shot this man because he was black. The OP in haste to bash Sharpton was the only baiting I've seen all day.

I'd also like to know which law Mr. Bell was breaking at the time three men pointed loaded weapons at him.

 

[Den Valdron]

I don't think there is enough evidence to take a firm, concise, position on this event.

Really?

However, this incident resulted in numerous changes to policies and procedures.

The Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, said that Friday’s verdict should not be taken as an acquittal of serious management weaknesses that he believes led to the Bell shooting.

“To the contrary,” Mr. Brown said, [I]the trial “revealed significant deficiencies in, among other things, supervision, tactical planning, communications and management accountability — insufficiencies that need to be addressed.”

He noted that a special panel set up by the Police Department after the shooting of Mr. Bell recommended 19 changes in undercover operations. “Virtually all of them had Sean Bell written all over them,” Mr. Brown said. He said he had called Mr. Kelly to volunteer his office’s help.

A spokesman for Mr. Kelly said that 16 of the 19 recommendations had already been put into practice, and that a major study on improving police firearms training would be finished within a month. [/I]

Based on that, I have no difficulty coming to a firm, concise, conclusion. The standards of competence and training that a reasonable professional would have expected of the police were badly failed. Numerous mistakes were made that should not have been made. If the matter had been handled competently then we have every reason to expect that Mr. Bell might be alive today.

 

[JollyRoger]

Al Sharpton can race bait by mere presence - he draws in those attracted to the race baiting game even when he says a case isn't about race. Makes all the other race baiters feel small and inadequate by comparison.