The fact that these "killers" had badges makes a HUGE difforence. The only reason these officers were in this situation to begin with was because they were doing thier jobs, keeping us safe. Unlike your average Joe hanging out at a scummy strip club, it is thier job to intervene in dangerous situations. We ask alot of our police officers, but we cannot ask them to risk thier lives for a crazed criminal - The second they felt thier lives were in danger they had every right, legal and moral, to defend themselves with any means necassary.


Another point that seems to have been overlooked here is motive, or lack there of. Assuming we can saftely rule out racial hatred (given that 2 out of 3 cops were black) there was absolutly no motive for the police to purposly kill this man, none. I'm sure that played a big factor in the judges decision.

Sharpon plans trouble:

I'm curious where you found the "scumbag" statute and when scumminess became punishable by firing squad.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

Seems to be determined by geographical location and ethnic population as defined by WASP oracles.

So, assuming that's true (and I don't believe it is), what should've been done?

Should the assumption simply have been made that the police acted unlawfully?

What's the point of a trial, or any legal proceeding, if you're only going to accept the outcome that you want?

The police are our bodyguards? I was under the impression that they existed to enforce the law (which in some cases benefits you, and in post is against you). My experience has been that they primarily exist to prosecute victimless crimes and collect money for the state/local government. Wasn't there a court decision (SCOTUS?) that said police don't have to respond to 911 calls?So people who associated with "scumbags" need to be killed?

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

The guy ran into a police officer who was on foot with his car, then rammed a squad car. He might have killed someone. It really doesn't matter if he didn't have a gun. His car was the weapon.

Shortly after the Rev. Wright situation came to light race relations almost blew up all over America. It has since calmed down. Now we have this and the shootings in Chicago. I think everybody needs to settle down or this could be a very perilous Summer.

Sharpton is just trying to regain some cred with his inflamatory rhetoric. Wanton lawlessness should never be rewarded.

__________________


"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis,"

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies,

the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." - Rep. Barney Frank (D)

Only in neighborhoods deemed scummy.

__________________
The smile when you tore me apart. You took my heart, deceived me right from the start. You showed me dreams, I wished they'd turn into real. You broke a promise and made me realize.
It was all just a lie.

excellent article Pic thx...

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

There were multiple officers and typically they are trained to shoot to stop the threat. A 9mm pistol bullet doesnt have much effect on a car. In addition, it isnt like the movies. In real life, in a life or death situation, yes, you can (and frequently WILL) miss your target even when they are close. The fight-or-flight response dumps HUGE amounts of adrenaline into your system and fine motor control is a fantasy.
I dont know about you, but most people consider a 3500lb blunt object to be a hell of a weapon. Yes Sharon, a car is considered a weapon.
He was - his car.
ROFL! Now THATS a laugh. Cops really are pretty bad shots when it comes down to it, and the simple fact of the matter is, a 9mm sidearm is a terrible match for an automobile.
This is a common misconception among those who know nothing about firearms, and specifically about the use of them by law enforcement. Again, he WAS armed, and he was armed with a very effective weapon.
Yes there was. Cops are trained to shoot to stop the threat. In fact, that is good advice for ANYONE who is defending themselves. In addition, they would have ALL fired and they likely would fire until the magazines were empty. That doesnt take that long, and when under stress (and yes a gunfight is an EXTREMELY stressful situation) it is quite believable they would empty their guns at the threat. They were probably still pulling the triggers after the slides locked open. Thats just how these things work.

Expert testimony would of course have presented this information to the judge.
As we can all see, you really do not have the knowledge to make that determination Sharon. You know nothing of firearms, nothing of tactics and nothing of the situation itself.
No they didnt.
I'm not.

For clarification, i have no love for cops and will be the first one to say they probably shouldn't be armed 99% of the time, but the reality is, this was a good shoot. You may not LIKE that fact - but it IS a fact.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

You may be interested to know that in 2007 a total of 187 Police Officers were killed in the line of duty. 9 of which were struck by a motor vehicle so it turns out you can really die from this. Also everyone is up in arms about the number of shots fired. I will be the first to admit that 50 seems more than excessive however the accuracy in an officer involved shooting when 3 or more officers are involved is around 9%. This is in large part because of the adrenaline. The fact is that Mr. Bell was only hit 4 times. Now I don’t think anyone knows what shots hit Mr. Bell so my question is when should the officers have stopped firing at the vehicle? Was it the first four that hit Mr. Bell or the last four? The fact is I don’t know and would not bet my paycheck either way. I would however bet that had Mr. Bell and the others involved simply complied with the officers direction he would be alive today.

__________________
The smile when you tore me apart. You took my heart, deceived me right from the start. You showed me dreams, I wished they'd turn into real. You broke a promise and made me realize.
It was all just a lie.

According to what I read in the link, it appears as though the cops had no legitimate reason to even detain the guy. Having an argument is not a crime. They also found no gun, so the cops' excuse was bullshit. In essence, according to that article, the cops were in plain clothing and threatened Bell with deadly force, even though Bell had not done anything illegal. What do you think would happen if a guy who is not a cop took out a gun and threatened a cop in his cop car? Then, when the cop moved his car, the regular citizen fired and killed the cop even though the cop was unarmed? I would say it would be manslaughter at best. It anything, moving the car, even with proven intent to kill the gunman, would be self-defense.

Cops are not above the law. They should not be treated as a special class of citizens.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

I agree. Additional shots doesn't make or unmake self-defense (if it were the case). If anything, it shows they were genuinely interested in killing the guys, suggesting that they considered him a legitimate threat (as opposed to shooting someone in the leg once, which suggests you do NOT consider them as threatening).But why did they draw their guns at him in the first place?Right, but what legitimate reason prompted them to threaten Bell with their guns in the first place?

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.