So if I read this correctly (police shooting)

[R00k]

Are you trying to say race was not a factor in this Puff?

Because throughout the entire thread, your analysis of the situation revolved around the way blacks have been treated in that community. In your opinion, race was part of the reason the shooting happened at all.

You were the one who pointed out the massive bearing race has had on the case in general, and is the biggest reason for the outrage surrounding the shooting.

I repeat: you were advocating that race was a major (and justified) reason for the outrage.

Now you are saying there would have been the same outrage if the victim had been white? And calling someone stupid for not holding that same opinion?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

What I'm trying to say is that the initial reaction to this issue in this thread was, 'hey this is no big deal, nothing out of police procedure just black people playing the race card and trying to attain personal agrandizement' or something like that. And that it was also claimed that if the victims were white it wouldn't be news (presumably because it was a clean shoot)

yes i pointed out that many community leaders claimed there are race issues with the police in their community, that community.

now what's my point coming back to this thread? well gee it looks like firing 50 bullets on a city street isn't kosher after all (and is justifiably news black or white especially when [edit: 1 not 3] people die) do you agree?

see i guess what really bothers me is how i feel some people use race to ignore certain facts i.e. i believe ns and ygp would be going apeshit if the police were shooting up the street 20 feet away from where their family was standing because it's NOT standard procedure to do so is it? Instead they go, oh it must be blacks complaining, this isn't news etc...

2 sets of rules for 2 sets of neighborhoods.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

okay so 50 shots were fired by police at people with no gun. the guy hit by the car went to the hospital and had his shin treated for scratches and cuts.

so what's the q3w jury's verdict?

An officer was hit by a car and other cars were rammed. If you were the officer, when do you start shooting to save your life and the lives of others?

Some people seem to think that assaulting an officer is the same thing as cursing out your neighbor.....

Idiots.

holy fuck you are stupid...

Some policies appear to have been violated in the shooting, which occurred when undercover officers fired 50 bullets at Mr. Bell’s car after he drove into one of the officers and an unmarked police van.

Officers are trained to shoot no more than three bullets before pausing to reassess the situation, Mr. Kelly said in his most detailed assessment of the shooting yet. Department policy also largely prohibits officers from firing at vehicles, even when they are being used as weapons.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/nyreg ... r=homepage



sure you don't want to blame BET?

i think you'll notice i was hardly advocating the main problem was race it was procedure...

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

so rook reread the thread and be sure of what i was saying. The race issue part of it is subtle and different then what you might think it is.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Because throughout the entire thread, your analysis of the situation revolved around the way blacks have been treated in that community. In your opinion, race was part of the reason the shooting happened at all.

Y

I didn't say the reason the shooting happened was because of race. I do think that people like ygp and ns's reaction are partly due to race.

[ek]

only in A......

[R00k]

I agree with NS in this instance.

Of course the cops didn't follow procedure, and there were all kinds of things that were wrong with the way this went down.

But the national scandal, the reverends flying in, the front page news in several papers.... All this would not have been nearly as publicized had the victims been white guys.

I'm not saying that's right -- the publicity obviously helped in this case, to bring attention to the situation in that neighborhood, and the fact that it obviously isn't getting any better. That needed to be put out in the public's eye, and that was helped by all the publicity. And now, people are being held accountable for the actions, as they should.

But you can't argue that this would have been the same kind of nation-wide scandal if this had been a couple of white guys, a couple of mexicans, a couple of columbians, a couple of italians, or what have you.

Other races and nationalities don't have nationwide networks swooping down on perceived injustices and bringing them national attention whenever and wherever they happen.

There is nothing wrong with that (there may be in individual cases of course, but certainly nothing wrong with it in general) - but it is still a fact. The reason Al Sharpton exists is to bring publicity to things like this, so to deny that this got more publicity than it would have otherwise just doesn't make much sense to me.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

But the national scandal, the reverends flying in, the front page news in several papers.... All this would not have been nearly as publicized had the victims been white guys.

But you can't argue that this would have been the same kind of nation-wide scandal if this had been a couple of white guys, a couple of mexicans, a couple of columbians, a couple of italians, or what have you.

Other races and nationalities don't have nationwide networks swooping down on perceived injustices and bringing them national attention whenever and wherever they happen.

The reason Al Sharpton exists is to bring publicity to things like this, so to deny that this got more publicity than it would have otherwise just doesn't make much sense to me.

Well I can argue that and would/will. First of all it wasn't a nationwide scandal was it? Yes it made front page of the NYT (happened in NY) but it's not like it's not newsworthy right? Yes they covered the racial angle but the important part is the fact they are shooting and hitting nearby houses and a train station. Shooting at a vehicle against procedure. Never showed their badges and just started shooting. But what it's really all hype because Sharpton says it wouldn't happen in a white neighborhood?

Al Sharpton is from Brooklyn. He didn't swoop down, it's his neighborhood. He's involved in his community you can't fault a man for that.

[LawL]

Internet Freedom Fighter.

[Nightshade]

I didn't say the reason the shooting happened was because of race. I do think that people like ygp and ns's reaction are partly due to race.

That's because of your own predjudices, you have no idea how I feel about any race or anyone else for that matter. To assume you do is the height of arrogance.
Would I shit bricks if cops fired 50 some-odd rounds in my neighborhood? Because NOTHING even remotely like that ever happens where I live. Would I blame the cops for trying to save their own lives by firing at a vehicle until it stopped moving? No. Because if I was in the same situation, I'd do the same thing, provided I thought it was a direct threat to my life or that of another officer.
Are you saying that I'm off my head because I'm not shocked that there's an exchange of gunfire in a high-crime area? (If that's where this took place, I don't remember.) Because if you are, you're nuts. Cops shoot criminals that shoot at them, and this happens more often in high-crime areas. It's pretty simple. And if you think that there'd be huge crowds of angry suburbanites howling for blood because there was a shoot-out between cops and criminals in a "nice" neighborhood, I think you're wrong. Especially if it was white cops and white criminals. Hell, even black cops and white criminals. Most of the people I know are possessed of some common sense and would blame...let's see here...THE CRIMINALS.

I wasn't there, neither were you. But, let's recall:

Bell backed the car onto a sidewalk, hitting a building gate, authorities said. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said.

The police department's policy on shooting at moving vehicles states: "Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officers or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle."

Sounds like appropriate application of deadly force to me. Hey Puff, have you ever had a gun stuck in your face? I'll bet you haven't. You strike me as the kind of guy to sit back and criticize cops for having to shoot at people and have NO IDEA what it's like to be threatened by deadly force. It puts things in a VERY different light, trust me. And I also think that judging from this thread and several others that you're VERY quick to accuse people of racial bias, yet you deny your own vehemently.

[Nightshade]

Shooting at a vehicle against procedure.

No, they weren't.

But what it's really all hype because Sharpton says it wouldn't happen in a white neighborhood?

Al Sharpton is from Brooklyn. He didn't swoop down, it's his neighborhood. He's involved in his community you can't fault a man for that.

Al Sharpton is a steaming pile of shit. My problem isn't with his stance on the issue, it's him personally.

I feel really bad that black America has this retarded, asshole, failed pimp, wannabe coke dealer, shyster shithead as a leader. He lost any sort of credibility he had after the Tawana Brawley debacle, and still people love him. More and more shit has come to light about that lying assfuck, yet no one dismisses him as the shitdribble that he is.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

and I felt your feelings for him got in the way of your objectivity. (the question of whether this was newsworthy and whether the concerns had merit.

and yes they were

[Nightshade]

My feelings for Al Sharpton aside, I still think the cops were in the right. The guy that fired 31 times should probably be closely investigated, but I can't pronounce judgement on his actions, because I wasn't there. 31 shots seems excessive, but, I wasn't there.

I re-quoted the bit on the policy regarding police firing on a vehicle. It's cut and dried to me, they weren't violating procedure. The car was being used as an instrument of deadly force. End of story.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I didn't say the reason the shooting happened was because of race. I do think that people like ygp and ns's reaction are partly due to race.

That's because of your own predjudices, you have no idea how I feel about any race or anyone else for that matter. To assume you do is the height of arrogance.
Would I shit bricks if cops fired 50 some-odd rounds in my neighborhood? Because NOTHING even remotely like that ever happens where I live. Would I blame the cops for trying to save their own lives by firing at a vehicle until it stopped moving? No. Because if I was in the same situation, I'd do the same thing, provided I thought it was a direct threat to my life or that of another officer.
Are you saying that I'm off my head because I'm not shocked that there's an exchange of gunfire in a high-crime area? (If that's where this took place, I don't remember.) Because if you are, you're nuts. Cops shoot criminals that shoot at them, and this happens more often in high-crime areas. It's pretty simple. And if you think that there'd be huge crowds of angry suburbanites howling for blood because there was a shoot-out between cops and criminals in a "nice" neighborhood, I think you're wrong. Especially if it was white cops and white criminals. Hell, even black cops and white criminals. Most of the people I know are possessed of some common sense and would blame...let's see here...THE CRIMINALS.

I wasn't there, neither were you. But, let's recall:

Bell backed the car onto a sidewalk, hitting a building gate, authorities said. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said.

The police department's policy on shooting at moving vehicles states: "Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officers or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle."

Sounds like appropriate application of deadly force to me. Hey Puff, have you ever had a gun stuck in your face? I'll bet you haven't. You strike me as the kind of guy to sit back and criticize cops for having to shoot at people and have NO IDEA what it's like to be threatened by deadly force. It puts things in a VERY different light, trust me. And I also think that judging from this thread and several others that you're VERY quick to accuse people of racial bias, yet you deny your own vehemently.

I think the first paragraph of the above post belies your prejudices and illustrates exactly what I'm getting at. You feel it's natural for something like that to happen in Brooklyn but not in your neighborhood.
The living victims say they were never shown badges and thought they were being robbed. What would you do if you were behind the wheel?

btw height of arrogance is claiming that poverty is largely under control of the those who are poor.

[Nightshade]

Again, you make assumptions about my beliefs because you think that I say this was not an unreasonable occurrence because it happened in a black neighborhood. That's not what I said. Can you not understand the difference between "high-crime" and "predominantly black"? Or do your own prejudices deny you that ability? Looks that way.

And since you're changing the subject and avoiding answering my questions, yeah, sure, being poor is always someone else's fault. No one is actually responsible for their own situation.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

it wasn't 'an exchange' of gunfire...

Police chases have been an issue here. High speed pursuits have resulted in the deaths of innocent bystanders. The police now have procedures which call for them to break off pursuit if it is in a residential area or dangerous to the public etc. It's a fucking no brainer. You don't have carte blanche to get the badguy and yes the innocent victims blame the criminals but they've also blamed the police (and rightly so when the public is endangered) who put catching their man ahead of the public safety. So it's okay to shoot up Brooklyn with 50 bullets which hit houses and a train station (and apparently one man dodged them and lived) but if something the same happened in your neighborhood everyone would approve of the police's actions? Get real.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Again, you make assumptions about my beliefs because you think that I say this was not an unreasonable occurrence because it happened in a black neighborhood. That's not what I said. Can you not understand the difference between "high-crime" and "predominantly black"? Or do your own prejudices deny you that ability? Looks that way.

And since you're changing the subject and avoiding answering my questions, yeah, sure, being poor is always someone else's fault. No one is actually responsible for their own situation.

If 10 guys are are selling crack on your corner is it cool if a policeman starts shooting 31 bullets towards them? Coincidentally, your house is right behind them in the line of fire.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

he officers on the scene fired a total of 50 bullets, but fewer than half hit the intended target, a car carrying the three men, despite being fired at close range. The rest sprayed nearby cars and buildings, as local residents leapt out of bed and huddled on the floor. One of the stray bullets shattered a window at a train station in the neighbourhood, injuring two transport police officers with flying glass.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1957881,00.html

[Nightshade]

it wasn't 'an exchange' of gunfire...

Police chases have been an issue here. High speed pursuits have resulted in the deaths of innocent bystanders. The police now have procedures which call for them to break off pursuit if it is in a residential area or dangerous to the public etc. It's a fucking no brainer. You don't have carte blanche to get the badguy and yes the innocent victims blame the criminals but they've also blamed the police (and rightly so when the public is endangered) who put catching their man ahead of the public safety. So it's okay to shoot up Brooklyn with 50 bullets which hit houses and a train station (and apparently one man dodged them and lived) but if something the same happened in your neighborhood everyone would approve of the police's actions? Get real.

This incident and high speed chases are two totally different things. In a pursuit the cops' lives aren't being threatened, so it's not a valid comparison.
I'm not at all in favor of giving police carte blanche to go all Dirty Harry, but some leeway must be given when the people we entrust to get bad guys off the streets have their lives threatened. As I've said, and you conveniently ignored, the guy that fired the 31 rounds should probably be investigated, and if it's found that he was just spraying and praying then yes, that's a problem.
See, the difference between us here is that you automatically assume the cops are in the wrong, and you've already tried and convicted them. And I never said, yeah it's fine that this happened in Brooklyn, I said I wasn't suprised. Stop making so many goddamn assumptions and try actually reading what I post.

And you still haven't answered my question. Have you ever had your life threatened? Have you ever had a gun stuck in your face?

[farad]

...the next time a bunch of niggers try to run over a cop I say we just shoot Al Sharpton...

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

it wasn't 'an exchange' of gunfire...

Police chases have been an issue here. High speed pursuits have resulted in the deaths of innocent bystanders. The police now have procedures which call for them to break off pursuit if it is in a residential area or dangerous to the public etc. It's a fucking no brainer. You don't have carte blanche to get the badguy and yes the innocent victims blame the criminals but they've also blamed the police (and rightly so when the public is endangered) who put catching their man ahead of the public safety. So it's okay to shoot up Brooklyn with 50 bullets which hit houses and a train station (and apparently one man dodged them and lived) but if something the same happened in your neighborhood everyone would approve of the police's actions? Get real.

This incident and high speed chases are two totally different things. In a pursuit the cops' lives aren't being threatened, so it's not a valid comparison.
I'm not at all in favor of giving police carte blanche to go all Dirty Harry, but some leeway must be given when the people we entrust to get bad guys off the streets have their lives threatened. As I've said, and you conveniently ignored, the guy that fired the 31 rounds should probably be investigated, and if it's found that he was just spraying and praying then yes, that's a problem.
See, the difference between us here is that you automatically assume the cops are in the wrong, and you've already tried and convicted them. And I never said, yeah it's fine that this happened in Brooklyn, I said I wasn't suprised. Stop making so many goddamn assumptions and try actually reading what I post.

And you still haven't answered my question. Have you ever had your life threatened? Have you ever had a gun stuck in your face?

I didn't automatically assume the cops were wrong but I could identify that they cleary weren't following procedure. You were the one who dismissed the whole event as not even newsworthy (except for the Sharpton factor)

What is your point about a gun in my face? None of the officers had a gun in his face that night? Did you know that the VAST majority of law enforcement officers who are killed (by a gun) on the job NEVER get a chance to draw their own weapon?

[Nightshade]

Jesus, you really can't get past your own bias and actually understand someone else's statements, can you? I never said it wasn't a newsworthy event, I saw it as yet another instance in which Al Sharpton was shooting his mouth off and blowing things out of proportion.
And what the hell makes you an expert on police procedure? I've pointed out several times that you're wrong in your assessment of whether or not the police were acting correctly in shooting at a vehicle that presents an imminent threat to life and limb, yet you persist in saying they were wrong.
And just answer the damn question Puff, have you ever had a gun stuck in your face or had your life threatened?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

So let's see. The one's with guns in their face that night was Sean Bell and friends. They get into their car and suddenly a man (not in police uniform come towards their car while a van pulls up beside them. Does the man have a gun in their face? If so can you blame Bell's reaction of trying to drive the hell out of there?

Maybe that's what you were trying to help me understand?

Who else had guns that night NS?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Jesus, you really can't get past your own bias and actually understand someone else's statements, can you? I never said it wasn't a newsworthy event, I saw it as yet another instance in which Al Sharpton was shooting his mouth off and blowing things out of proportion.
And what the hell makes you an expert on police procedure? I've pointed out several times that you're wrong in your assessment of whether or not the police were acting correctly in shooting at a vehicle that presents an imminent threat to life and limb, yet you persist in saying they were wrong.
And just answer the damn question Puff, have you ever had a gun stuck in your face or had your life threatened?

Not sure what your point is, but yes I have. When I was 16 at worked at a community fitness centre. Happy now? edit: to be clear it was option a) gun in the face. (more pointed at my chest though)

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

look a grand jury has found enough evidence for a trial. i'm not saying these guys have already been found guilty but shooting off 50 bullets in a residential area is a big no-no. Life isn't Hollywood. Your first post in this thread wouldn't have been so flippant and dismissive if the same thing had happened on your street.