Race Baiting 101.....

[Sharwood]

Alright, so then why try freakishly to get away from him, and not have a similar confrontation with the people inside the club? Why would these guys, on one hand, go out their car to presumably get a gun to take care of a problem with rivals in the club, but try and run over people confronting them outside of the club? What makes more sense, that they would openly and thuggishly confront people inside the club, and then try and run away from car jackers? Or thuggishly confront people inside the club, and then try and run away from cops because they'd all been arrested on multiple occassions, and were in posession of drugs.

I've seen no evidence that they were actually going outside to get a gun anyway, but accepting that, quite frankly, I don't care if I've just shot two people in cold blood, if people in street clothes flash badges and guns at me in a car park, I'm still assuming they're carjackers, not police.

Under what guise? How implausible. So they don't tell them they're cops. They don't have lights, they don't do all those things you said. But cathartically they realize that they must have cops? Gimme a break.

Carjackers probably wouldn't put 51 bullets into a car, then stick around afterwards. Me guesses that they'd leave. If they stay, and make no attempt to rob you, steal what left of the car, etc., it's fairly safe to assume they were being honest about being police officers.

He was a FIRST RESPONDER! He was right there, in the area, when it happened.

So? In the area doesn't mean sh*t. It routinely takes police and paramedics more than hour to arrive in my area, and I live so close to the hospital and police station I can walk there faster than that. Besides, being first respondent hardly means he saw the whole thing, and heard everything that was said.

When did the guns come out?

Let's for a moment say that they were brandishing guns. If you are in a PARKED CAR and a bunch of guys approaches your car, pointing guns at you, what are you gonna do and why? I'm doing whatever the hell they tell me to do because odds are, I'm gonna end up like these guys did if I don't. Whether they are cops or not. Fight flight takes over here and you're an idiot to fight three to five guys pointing their guns at you.

Then I must be an idiot, because I've fought off two guys pointing guns at me before, and won. And I didn't have a nice big shiny weapon at my disposal. Personally, I'd floor the thing. I like my odds of survival better running them down than doing as they say, and trusting their as to their integrity to not pop me once I'm down on my knees in front of them, utterly defenceless.

But first, is there clear evidence from anyone other than the stripper that they had their guns out before hand? And that the guns didn't come out AFTER he started ramming the police van?

Is there clear evidence from anyone reliable that they didn't? And besides, attacking carjackers is perfectly acceptable, whether they're armed or not.

Jesus...

What's it take to be "seasoned" to you...

I spent more than seven years in the Marine Corps. Guess I wasn't seasoned or something...

I grew up two blocks from a police academy. Trust me, five years in pushing it, and three years certainly isn't seasoned. The military life is a far different one to the police force.

I said insinuate. And I would say, that given the tone and his initial position, that he was insinuating that this isn't a big deal. And again, I was just explaining that it was a felony.

I thought he was just asking a question, but I'll accept that.

If this came across as a direct position of Den, then I apologize. I meant it as a generality of people who HAVE talked about the notions that this was a racist action.

Well, you probably should have pointed that out, but I withdraw my comment.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Yeah, he didnt immediately comply and raise his hands when told "stop, police"....and instead tried to run them down.

Plainclothes officers cannot reasonably expect to be believed just because they say so.

 

[Den Valdron]

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

Blood alcohol showed that he was legally impaired to drive a motor vehicle. This, however, is irrelevant, since the officers did not know or suspect this at the time, and this was not the basis for their approach to the vehicle.

This whole thing seems to come about because of suspicion of a firearm. But even that seems to have involved a consistent exercise of bad judgement.

One undercover detective tells another that he saw a man inside the club wearing a white sox baseball cap make a gesture towards his wasteband, while telling a dancer that he would take care of any problems that she might have.

This leads to the suspicion that there is a firearm inside the club. No gun is actually seen. No suspicious bulge is observed which might indicate a firearm. There is no direct or indirect statement heard that he has a firearm. At best, its a somewhat ambiguous gesture, and an inference from an ambiguous remark.

Maybe this guy had a gun, maybe he didn't. The club security watches for firearms so strictly that the undercover officers had to leave their firearms behind. So....

They search for the man in the white sox cap for fifteen minutes, and never find them. From this point, the man in the white hat vanishes entirely from the story, never to be heard from again.

But he's left his mark...

"getting hot on liverpool for real," one of the officers says on the phone. "I think there's a gun."

It appears that they were predisposed to seeing or acting on firearms, but based on what? A guy in a white hat.

A group of eight men, including Bell and Guzman, are arguing with the owner of a black SUV.

The owner of the SUV is seen to put his hand in his jacket pocket. This is seen as evidence of a firearm. Perhaps its a meaningless nervous gesture, perhaps its a bluff, he's outnumbered eight to one. Who knows. Again, there is no actual sight of a firearm. There is no bulge or visual description which suggests that there might be a concealed firearm. There is merely an ambiguous gesture believed to be suspicious.

If it was a bluff, it seems successful. Members of the group of eight felt that the man was armed. Perhaps he was, it was never followed up on. He may well have had a gun. But if he did, we'll never know.

At this point, attention turns to Guzman:

Another man in the group, identified as Guzman, is heart to say "Yo, get my gun, get my gun."

Now, I'm sure that this was part of the cross examination, but I would assume that the undercover officers are not standing right there in the group of eight. They would be some distance off (they clearly weren't in a position to intercept before Bell and Guzman entered their vehicle, which means they weren't close), they're listening to a group of people.

I think its clear that these were not optimum eavesdropping conditions. The persons involved in the conversation have had alcohol, there may be slurring of voices and overlapping of voices, and none of the persons are familiar to the officers so as to allow them to adjust for voice or speech.

The officers have heard something from someone in the group, and attributed it to Guzman. You're watching a group of eight guys talking, in the middle of the night from a short distance. No telling who is necessarily saying what.

There is no outside corroboration that Guzman said any such or similar thing. No gun was ever found.

So what's going on here?

The officers were clearly predisposed to look for someone with a gun. Their attention shifted from the Man in the White Hat, to the Man in the Black SUV, to Guzman. In short, they had no idea who had a gun, but they were sure that someone had a gun. Under the circumstances, this is major league bad judgement, and a predisposition to bad judgement.

So, the officers hear something, and because they're predisposed to look for a gun, it sounds to them like they hear someone claiming they have a gun, or going to get a gun. It may not be that at all, but they're predisposed, suggestible, and the conditions are poor enough that they're preconceptions are read into it.

So they focus on Guzman, who, five seconds ago, they'd had no interest in at all.

Basically, sloppy and shot through with bad judgement.

 

[MobBoss]

Plainclothes officers cannot reasonably expect to be believed just because they say so.

Neither should those with extensive criminal backgrounds.

But I would generally believe a policeman, plainclothes or not, unless other mitigating evidence was at hand.

Again, not every plainclothes cop is Denzel Washington in "Training Day".

 

[JollyRoger]

It's hard to tell. If I was a cop and a someone was driving a car at me, that's death penalty worthy. Hell, in everyday life, if someone is driving a car at me, it's death penalty worthy. What do you say?

Maybe if it's like Duel. Otherwise, there is probably an adequate resolution short of killing the driver, especially if you have some armed friends around.

 

[Sharwood]

We don't know where they were shooting from.

From what I understand from the testimony piece from the NYT, the tires WERE indeed flat.

As MobBoss said, you've obviously never been faced with the prospect of the situation before.

In a situation such as that, particularly if you are in the rhealm of getting hit, you fire until the car stops. You don't fire until the tires are flat. You fire until the car stops.

I agree, you fire until the car stops moving. I'm just saying they're supposed to be trained to be able to stop that sucker without wasting so many rounds. If it takes 51 bullets to stop a car, it takes too damn many.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Neither should those with extensive criminal backgrounds.

But I would generally believe a policeman, plainclothes or not, unless other mitigating evidence was at hand.

Again, not every plainclothes cop is Denzel Washington in "Training Day".

You misunderstand, my point is if some random guy comes up to me at night and identifies himself as police I have NO reason whatsoever to believe he's not just conning me. NONE. and I would operate under the assumption he's lying until I got some proof. If possible I would call 911 and ask them to confirm. If not possible I would operate under the assumption that the man was trying to rob and/or harm me and treat him as such. It's not an unreasonable thought process.

 

[MobBoss]

I agree, you fire until the car stops moving. I'm just saying they're supposed to be trained to be able to stop that sucker without wasting so many rounds. If it takes 51 bullets to stop a car, it takes too damn many.

Let me offer you a true story.

Years ago, the hilltop area in Tacoma, WA used to be a virtual gangland suburb. It was over-run with gangs. But some did try to attempt to clean up their own little pockets of the area.

A SSG from the 2/75th Ranger battalion lived on the hilltop. He announced he was going to have an anti-gang block party one weekend and invited all his Ranger buddies. Being Rangers, they all also had conceal carry permits and brought their guns. Hey, it was hilltop and that was just considered smart.

They expected gang activity and they got it. They got a drive by on their little barbecue and as they were ready for it, returned fire. Over three hundred rounds were fired by both sides total (as evidenced by all the empty shell casings everywhere). Not a single person was hit. None. Nada. No blood anywhere. No tires where hit either....the gangstas just simply drove off.

The moral of this true story? Even if you are military grade trained in weapons its not so easy as it looks to hit someone at night while they are moving and your blood is up.

Oh...and just to prove to you I am not making this up: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/hill23.shtml

 

[Sharwood]

Double Pizzy.

 

[Sharwood]

Let me offer you a true story.

Years ago, the hilltop area in Tacoma, WA used to be a virtual gangland suburb. It was over-run with gangs. But some did try to attempt to clean up their own little pockets of the area.

A SSG from the 2/75th Ranger battalion lived on the hilltop. He announced he was going to have an anti-gang block party one weekend and invited all his Ranger buddies. Being Rangers, they all also had conceal carry permits and brought their guns. Hey, it was hilltop and that was just considered smart.

They expected gang activity and they got it. They got a drive by on their little barbecue and as they were ready for it, returned fire. Over three hundred rounds were fired by both sides total (as evidenced by all the empty shell casings everywhere). Not a single person was hit. None. Nada. No blood anywhere. No tires where hit either....the gangstas just simply drove off.

The moral of this true story? Even if you are military grade trained in weapons its not so easy as it looks to hit someone at night while they are moving and your blood is up.

Oh...and just to prove to you I am not making this up: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/hill23.shtml

Point taken. I've always found handguns to be extremely easy to aim though, in any situation. But my cousin was a gold medallist at shooting, so maybe that's just me.

 

[Merkinball]

I've seen no evidence that they were actually going outside to get a gun anyway, but accepting that, quite frankly, I don't care if I've just shot two people in cold blood, if people in street clothes flash badges and guns at me in a car park, I'm still assuming they're carjackers, not police. - Sharwood

Read the information about it. The cops were on a prositution stakeout. They overheard that Bell and his "crew" were going to get a gun. The only reason they diverted from their mission at hand was because they presumed a shooting was about to go down.

So? In the area doesn't mean sh*t. It routinely takes police and paramedics more than hour to arrive in my area, and I live so close to the hospital and police station I can walk there faster than that. Besides, being first respondent hardly means he saw the whole thing, and heard everything that was said. - Sharwood

Again, read up on it. The police were notified BEFORE the shooting happened that there was a potential shooting in progress. They had already called for backup. The crew that this guy was with was moments away. Not an hour, not five minutes, they were right there.

Then I must be an idiot, because I've fought off two guys pointing guns at me before, and won. - Sharwood

I don't want to get to get points or flaming. But you know what I'm thinking.

Is there clear evidence from anyone reliable that they didn't? - Sharwood

I dunno. That's why I asked. Am I the only one looking up information on this crap?

I grew up two blocks from a police academy. Trust me, five years in pushing it, and three years certainly isn't seasoned. The military life is a far different one to the police force. - Sharwood

These aren't just standard run of the mill cops. They were undercover, DETECTIVES. I would fathom that what they did was probably more salty than the two years I spent in a freakin' combat zone.

This leads to the suspicion that there is a firearm inside the club. No gun is actually seen. No suspicious bulge is observed which might indicate a firearm. There is no direct or indirect statement heard that he has a firearm. At best, its a somewhat ambiguous gesture, and an inference from an ambiguous remark. - DV

Unfortunately, security officials profile. Should they have not intervened at all? Should they have waited? One thing that security officials, whether they be cops, FBI, CIA, military, NCIS...hell, even POST WORKERS, are taught to detect specific behaviors which may be indicative of POTENTIAL threats. And it's a police organizations job to act on those potential threats in order to protect others.

Remember that guy in Orlando a couple weeks ago that was caught simply because he was acting funny?

There is no bulge or visual description which suggests that there might be a concealed firearm. - Veldron

This is irrelevant. These guys were thugs. They all had thick prior records. Thugs have a habit of wearing clothing for the specific reason of hiding and concealing their weapons so nobody knows they are there.

 

[Den Valdron]

Alright, so then why try freakishly to get away from him, and not have a similar confrontation with the people inside the club? Why would these guys, on one hand, go out their car to presumably get a gun to take care of a problem with rivals in the club, but try and run over people confronting them outside of the club? What makes more sense, that they would openly and thuggishly confront people inside the club, and then try and run away from car jackers? Or thuggishly confront people inside the club, and then try and run away from cops because they'd all been arrested on multiple occassions, and were in posession of drugs.

There's no evidence that they were having a confrontation inside the club. As nearly as I can determine from the testimony, they were well behaved inside the club, had a good time, ordered drinks and left a tip.

Upon leaving the club, they were part of a group of eight having an argument of some sort with the driver of a black SUV. But there's no indication that they were running from him, attacking him or doing anything. There's no indication that they were rushing towards the car, or doing anything but getting in and going home for the night.

There's no indication of thuggish confrontation at all. You are inferring evidence that doesn't actually exist, to support a theory that doesn't have a foundation.

Under what guise? How implausible. So they don't tell them they're cops. They don't have lights, they don't do all those things you said. But cathartically they realize that they must have cops? Gimme a break.

The Emergency Medical Technician was not on the scene. He would have arrived sometime after. The first responders on the scene would have been the group of seven police officers, including the three who had fired the shots. They would have acted like police officers, taking control of the scene, etc. According to the evidence, Guzman was handcuffed. At some point after the shooting, Guzman would have been told, or would have figured out that they were police. Maybe the EMT mentioned it.

Guzman's statement to the EMT is not, in any way, shape or form, probative as to what he would have known or believed prior to the shooting.

He was a FIRST RESPONDER! He was right there, in the area, when it happened.

He wasn't on sight, waiting for the shooting, so he could go into action. He would have received the call, received location information, and proceeded to the location. Anywhere between five minutes and thirty minutes can be reasonable on a first response, depending on the situation.

Let's for a moment say that they were brandishing guns. If you are in a PARKED CAR and a bunch of guys approaches your car, pointing guns at you, what are you gonna do and why? I'm doing whatever the hell they tell me to do because odds are, I'm gonna end up like these guys did if I don't. Whether they are cops or not. Fight flight takes over here and you're an idiot to fight three to five guys pointing their guns at you.

Faced with a situation of prospective carjacking, if there was any chance of running away, it would be pretty tempting to take it.

But first, is there clear evidence from anyone other than the stripper that they had their guns out before hand? And that the guns didn't come out AFTER he started ramming the police van?

Considering that the officers did not recall if they had fired immediately after the incident, and the stripper was aware that they had fired, I would accept her testimony.

She has no stake in the matter, she is neither defendant nor complainant, no indication of intoxication. As a witness, I'd say that there is reason to give her testimony more weight than the officers.

Again, you're trying to infer evidence that is not on the record.

What's it take to be "seasoned" to you...

I spent more than seven years in the Marine Corps. Guess I wasn't seasoned or something...

Police are not marines. Seniority is a significant factor in police operations. Five years is a junior officer.

I said insinuate. And I would say, that given the tone and his initial position, that he was insinuating that this isn't a big deal. And again, I was just explaining that it was a felony.

Allow me to correct myself. I did not mean to suggest that impersonating a police officer was a trivial offense. I would suggest that in the context of armed robbery and carjacking, its not an unlikely thing. The penalties for impersonation, and the gravity of the crime, is not so great that it would deter someone willing to commit armed robbery.

 

[Merkinball]

Maybe if it's like Duel. Otherwise, there is probably an adequate resolution short of killing the driver, especially if you have some armed friends around. - JollyRoger

Just for another perspective: The second time I went over, there was a bigger focus on the threat of VBIED's and using vehicles as weapons. We were not trained, at all, to shoot out tires. We were trained to shoot at the center mass of the vehicle to: A.) Kill the driver, and B.) Take out the engine block. It had been concluded that shooting the tires was much too risky, and not effective enough even if you did managed to hit the tires.

I don't know how applicable that is in this situation since it seems more like a close quarters situation.

What I will say, is that I am not about to spray and pray at a freakin' tire if someone is driving at me. I'm probably going to be aiming at the person if I feel my life is in immediate danger. Again, the main problem we have here determining this, is that we don't know how close to the car they were, and we don't know what angle they were standing at.

I agree, you fire until the car stops moving. I'm just saying they're supposed to be trained to be able to stop that sucker without wasting so many rounds. If it takes 51 bullets to stop a car, it takes too damn many. - Sharwood

Well, it would seem that the car lurched back and forth two full cycles. How much time do you think goes on during that? I know that I was able to unload two clips in a firing drill, going from standing to kneeling, in less than thirty seconds with a 9mm Beretta.

 

[Sharwood]

Read the information about it. The cops were on a prositution stakeout. They overheard that Bell and his "crew" were going to get a gun. The only reason they diverted from their mission at hand was because they presumed a shooting was about to go down.

I have read a bit of information about it. And I agree with Den's assessment. There was absolutely no reason to believe there was a gun involved.

Again, read up on it. The police were notified BEFORE the shooting happened that there was a potential shooting in progress. They had already called for backup. The crew that this guy was with was moments away. Not an hour, not five minutes, they were right there.

This still means nothing. As I said, when the guys don't leave, and make no attempt to rob you, it's safe to assume that they genuinely were police officers.

I don't want to get to get points or flaming. But you know what I'm thinking.

I also don't want to get points for flaming. But I'll just say in general, that anyone who doesn't defend themself, using everything up to and including lethal force, is a fool and a coward. There are situations in which one should back down. I would not feel this was one of them. In hindsight, obviously it was, but since i wasn't there, I can only go by how I've reacted in reasonably similar situations in the past.

I dunno. That's why I asked. Am I the only one looking up information on this crap?

No, but you seem to be finding more than I am. Which is why I asked.

These aren't just standard run of the mill cops. They were undercover, DETECTIVES. I would fathom that what they did was probably more salty than the two years I spent in a freakin' combat zone.

Maybe. But I don't know how long they'd been undercover for. And in my experience, many undercover cops ARE like Denzel Washington in Training Day, so their experience may well have been in the wrong areas.

Unfortunately, security officials profile. Should they have not intervened at all? Should they have waited? One thing that security officials, whether they be cops, FBI, CIA, military, NCIS...hell, even POST WORKERS, are taught to detect specific behaviors which may be indicative of POTENTIAL threats. And it's a police organizations job to act on those potential threats in order to protect others.

Remember that guy in Orlando a couple weeks ago that was caught simply because he was acting funny?

Intervening is one thing. Intervening stupidly is another. This is like intervening in a potential assault by beating the crap out of a guy checking his wallet.

This is irrelevant. These guys were thugs. They all had thick prior records. Thugs have a habit of wearing clothing for the specific reason of hiding and concealing their weapons so nobody knows they are there.

I will accept this.

 

[Den Valdron]

Read the information about it. The cops were on a prositution stakeout. They overheard that Bell and his "crew" were going to get a gun. The only reason they diverted from their mission at hand was because they presumed a shooting was about to go down.

I've commented on the "belief in a gun" issue.

Again, read up on it. The police were notified BEFORE the shooting happened that there was a potential shooting in progress. They had already called for backup. The crew that this guy was with was moments away. Not an hour, not five minutes, they were right there.

Are you suggesting that the EMT was included in the call for backup? Interesting. I would not have normally made such an assumption. In any event, its still post facto.

This is irrelevant. These guys were thugs. They all had thick prior records. Thugs have a habit of wearing clothing for the specific reason of hiding and concealing their weapons so nobody knows they are there.

That remark is irrelevant. The Officers did not know any of these men prior to approaching them. They had not marked these men in the club. They had not singled them out in any way, until the argument with the black SUV driver.

Given that it is a batchelor party that the groom's father was attending, its not clear that they would have been wearing thug gear. There's no evidence as to what they were wearing. Once again, you're inferring evidence that is not there.

They did not know these men were thugs. They did not know of any criminal records. Irrelevant.

 

[Merkinball]

There's no evidence that they were having a confrontation inside the club. - DV

Where was the guy in the white hat? I thought that confontation was inside the club?

There's no indication of thuggish confrontation at all. You are inferring evidence that doesn't actually exist, to support a theory that doesn't have a foundation. - DV

Yes there is. One of the strippers was hit by a man in there. Then you yourself said that they were gesturing like they had guns. This was testimony members of BELLS PARTY! At best, the only thing you can say is that it's disputable. But to say that I'm supporting a theory with no foundation is completely disengenuous, and completely off point.

Let me ask you this, why would the cops just make this stuff up?

Faced with a situation of prospective carjacking, if there was any chance of running away, it would be pretty tempting to take it. - DV

Faced with prospective DEATH if the guns were indeed being brandished openly.

She has no stake in the matter, she is neither defendant nor complainant, no indication of intoxication. As a witness, I'd say that there is reason to give her testimony more weight than the officers. - DV

Look up some articles about this woman the day after it happened. She was a media whore, and some of her story was proven to be completely false, and countered evidence from Bells very own crew.

 

[Sharwood]

Well, it would seem that the car lurched back and forth two full cycles. How much time do you think goes on during that? I know that I was able to unload two clips in a firing drill, going from standing to kneeling, in less than thirty seconds with a 9mm Beretta.

That's one thing I've never done, actually reloading while firing. I've emptied clips without missing one target at speed, but never tried to reload at it. And never timed myself either. Too bad I don't have access to firearms anymore, I'm really in the mood right now.

 

[Den Valdron]

Unfortunately, security officials profile. Should they have not intervened at all? Should they have waited? One thing that security officials, whether they be cops, FBI, CIA, military, NCIS...hell, even POST WORKERS, are taught to detect specific behaviors which may be indicative of POTENTIAL threats. And it's a police organizations job to act on those potential threats in order to protect others.

Remember that guy in Orlando a couple weeks ago that was caught simply because he was acting funny?

Unfortunately, its clear that the profiling had broken down. The officers were looking for a gun, predisposed to seek a gun. They shifted attention from the man in the white hat, to the man in the black SUV, to the man in the Altima.

That's not profiling, that's paranoid ideation. They had no idea who or what they were looking for any more. They were just bent on finding it.

 

[Merkinball]

There was absolutely no reason to believe there was a gun involved. - Sharwood

You gotta be kidding me!

So when one of your officers thinks he hears someone say, "Go get my gat, go get my gat." They are just supposed to dismiss it? When they see individuals making COMMON GANG GESTURES wich are used to POSTURE that you have a firearm, you are just supposed to pass it off? You're supposed to ignore all these things and go in with your prostitution investigation? I'm sorry, but that's bogus. If a shooting had gone down, and it was found the the police officers "thought" that they had heard talk of a firearm being used, and SAW common gestures used to posture posession of a firearm, Sharpton would STILL be having a coniption fit.

What is the proper course of action? Are you insinuating that the cops manufactured this? If so? Then why? What reason is there to percieve that the cops had some sort of evil premeditation for what they did? At worst, it was a bad perception of the situation. You guys say, "No gun was found." But there were loads of people who fled the scene.

But I'll just say in general, that anyone who doesn't defend themself, using everything up to and including lethal force, is a fool and a coward. - Sharwood

A fool and a coward is an individual who lets his house get robbed. An idiot is a person who tries to take on TWO individuals pointing guns at them. That's suicide. You're only hope is a blind burglar.

Are you suggesting that the EMT was included in the call for backup? Interesting. I would not have normally made such an assumption. In any event, its still post facto. - DV

No, I'm saying that they were simply very close to the scene already.

Given that it is a batchelor party that the groom's father was attending, its not clear that they would have been wearing thug gear. There's no evidence as to what they were wearing. Once again, you're inferring evidence that is not there. - DV

You were inferring evidence that "was not there." You are inferring that since you couldn't see the gun through the clothing being worn, that you can somehow infer that there wasn't a gun there. I am simply saying that you don't know what they were wearing. I don't know how familiar you are with modern thug culture, but they have a tendency of wearing baggy clothing. So it's ridiculous for YOU to INFER that they were wearing clothing that WOULD have revealed a bulge from a firearm.

 

[Sharwood]

Where was the guy in the white hat? I thought that confontation was inside the club?

It was, but that guy wasn't in Bell's party.

Yes there is. One of the strippers was hit by a man in there. Then you yourself said that they were gesturing like they had guns. This was testimony members of BELLS PARTY! At best, the only thing you can say is that it's disputable. But to say that I'm supporting a theory with no foundation is completely disengenuous, and completely off point.

But there is absolutely no evidence that any of Bell's party were involved in that incident. If someone punched my girlfriend, I wouldn't beat up the very first person I saw afterwards, I'd take out the right person.

Let me ask you this, why would the cops just make this stuff up?

Oh, I'm not even touching that. I'm on enough police blacklists as it is.

Faced with prospective DEATH if the guns were indeed being brandished openly.

Still faced with death if you do what they say.

Look up some articles about this woman the day after it happened. She was a media whore, and some of her story was proven to be completely false, and countered evidence from Bells very own crew.

A stripper a media whore you say? Shocking. But she still apparently knew more about the incident at the time than the police involved did. She also has no real vested interest in lying in court, where she can be punished if her testimony is deemed fraudulent.