Sean Bell Situation..

[SiGh]

I just read on Wiki, that one of the guys that survived got shot 19 times. And he was arrested a week ago in NY for the protest (he along with like a bunch of people, no arrests stuck, just was issued tickets).

Anyways, 19 times?? And he's fully healed? Anyone know anything more about him? How the hell do you get healed fully after getting shot that many times?

 

[Devious]

luck? the same way you can get shot 9 times and live like 50 or get shot once in the leg and die like Sean Taylor. it all depends on where the bullets go. he's one lucky fucker tho, talk about horseshoes up his ass lol. they'll have to put "Hard To Kill" on his tombstone.

 

[Rukas]

19 times? Ok so 19 plus the 51 shots Sean caught, thats 70 shots, plus Im sure they missed some, lets say 10 at minimum. Thats 80 shots!

Three police officers, thats 26 shots each. That means that each officer emptied a clip into them, stopped, reloaded, and emptied another one.

That is fucked up, that isnt some startled shooting, thats fucking cold blooded. After 1 clip they'd have been on the floor, let alone three clips, and then to reload and pump another three clips into Sean Bell while he was already on the ground, thats crazy.

 

[SiGh]

Sean Bell only caught 4. It hit his vital points, 51 rounds were shot total.

 

[Rukas]

Ok well that is fucked because the media here is playing it like Bell got shot 51 times.

Even if it was "only" 51 shots they'd still have had to reload, rethink the threat, reaim and fire on a downed target.

 

[SiGh]

^Exactly!

Over here too man, when I first heard it on Hot97..(sadly its where I heard it first) they made it seem HE got shot 51 times.

I was like are you fucking serious?? Then I read it and it said he caught 4 of them. I was like ohh..

But then I read Guzman caught 19 and still lived and I was like wtf, why isn't there more on him?

(I know why, cuz the other died innocently and etc, but even then..)

Shits crazy out here in NY, can't drive to places cuz there were protests blocking ish and etc..

 

[Devious]

yeah i read that at least one cop stopped and reloaded during the shooting. i still can't believe they were acquitted of all charges, especially since cops in NY aren't even allowed to open fire on a moving vehicle. they were completely reckless and endangered the lives of everyone on that street at the time. it's a miracle no one caught a stray.

although i wish people would stop playing up the race thing in this case, since most people who make this claim don't know the facts of the case and just assume the cops shot Bell because he was black. and there was a reason for the cops to believe that Sean or someone else in the car had a gun, so it's not as though they were in the wrong for confronting Sean and his friends. but they were absolutely negligent and reckless in the way they handled things. this case reminds me a lot about Rodney King, the way that no one seemed to notice or care that King was high and speeding, ran from the cops, and then resisted arrest. the cops erred when they didn't stop the beating when King was subdued, but the cops had every right in the world to use force on him. but everyone just saw what was on the tape and assumed, oh, there they go again, beating on black guys for no reason. i just don't think race should always be the main issue in cases like this. someone is dead, and justice was not served. those are the only things that matter in this case.

also Rukas, don't forget that they were in a moving vehicle when the police started shooting, and they probably continued firing until the car stopped moving. they had no sure way of knowing if any of the shots hit anyone (although that would be some ridiculously bad shooting if they missed with all the shots.) it's not as though they opened fire on him when he was walking down the street, there was no one "downed" and until the car stopped moving they couldn't be sure if the driver was still alive.

 

[Bachi]

Shits crazy out here in NY, can't drive to places cuz there were protests blocking ish and etc..

I always thought you were from L.A.

yeah i read that at least one cop stopped and reloaded during the shooting. i still can't believe they were acquitted of all charges, especially since cops in NY aren't even allowed to open fire on a moving vehicle. they were completely reckless and endangered the lives of everyone on that street at the time. it's a miracle no one caught a stray.

although i wish people would stop playing up the race thing in this case, since most people who make this claim don't know the facts of the case and just assume the cops shot Bell because he was black. and there was a reason for the cops to believe that Sean or someone else in the car had a gun, so it's not as though they were in the wrong for confronting Sean and his friends. but they were absolutely negligent and reckless in the way they handled things. this case reminds me a lot about Rodney King, the way that no one seemed to notice or care that King was high and speeding, ran from the cops, and then resisted arrest. the cops erred when they didn't stop the beating when King was subdued, but the cops had every right in the world to use force on him. but everyone just saw what was on the tape and assumed, oh, there they go again, beating on black guys for no reason. i just don't think race should always be the main issue in cases like this. someone is dead, and justice was not served. those are the only things that matter in this case.

also Rukas, don't forget that they were in a moving vehicle when the police started shooting, and they probably continued firing until the car stopped moving. they had no sure way of knowing if any of the shots hit anyone (although that would be some ridiculously bad shooting if they missed with all the shots.) it's not as though they opened fire on him when he was walking down the street, there was no one "downed" and until the car stopped moving they couldn't be sure if the driver was still alive.

There are few problems with this. You said cops had a reason to believe that Sean or someone else in the car had a gun. Where is the proof? Was there a proof in court or afterwards that they indeed did have a gun?

Second, even if they did have a gun, was is right to assume that they were going to use it? People always carry a gun, some illegally some legally, I don't know what was the case with Sean though. Maybe you know it and could tell us. Also, sadly I live in NY and don't know myself if it is legal here to carry a gun with a license.

But, still moving vehicle or not, they still shouldn't have handled the situation to that extreme. Plus like you said NY cops aren't allowed to shot at moving vehicles. But then agin there are restrictions like in this case, the moving vehicle was ''believed'' to be armed and dangerous. So would that mean they can shot the moving vehicle anyway?

 

[Devious]

I always thought you were from L.A.


There are few problems with this. You said cops had a reason to believe that Sean or someone else in the car had a gun. Where is the proof? Was there a proof in court or afterwards that they indeed did have a gun?

Second, even if they did have a gun, was is right to assume that they were going to use it? People always carry a gun, some illegally some legally, I don't know what was the case with Sean though. Maybe you know it and could tell us. Also, sadly I live in NY and don't know myself if it is legal here to carry a gun with a license.

But, still moving vehicle or not, they still shouldn't have handled the situation to that extreme. Plus like you said NY cops aren't allowed to shot at moving vehicles. But then agin there are restrictions like in this case, the moving vehicle was ''believed'' to be armed and dangerous. So would that mean they can shot the moving vehicle anyway?

Sean Bell shooting incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i never said the cops KNEW he or someone else had a gun, or that there even was a gun. what i said was the cops had reason to believe someone in his group had a gun, which is why the cops approached them in the first place. if you actually read the facts, you would know the reason why. this is what i mean when i say people jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.

 

[Bachi]

And when did I say you said cops KNEW Sean had the gun?

I said exactly what you said...that cops had a reason to believe that Sean or someone else in the car had a gun. So I'm asking a question, where was the proof that they indeed have the gun? Or was there any proof?

(read carefully between the lines)

I didn't even bother reading wiki article. I refuse to take wiki source seriously. I don't think thats a very accurate or reliable source. Most people know this. Some info is accurate and helpful like if you want to find out the dob of 2pac lol. But with thing like Sean bell, anybody can put up there anything.

So I'd like to read the facts from a different source to be sure that the reason cops believed he had a gun was accurate and true.

 

[S O F I]

And when did I say you said cops KNEW Sean had the gun?

I said exactly what you said...that cops had a reason to believe that Sean or someone else in the car had a gun. So I'm asking a question, where was the proof that they indeed have the gun? Or was there any proof?

(read carefully between the lines)

I didn't even bother reading wiki article. I refuse to take wiki source seriously. I don't think thats a very accurate or reliable source. Most people know this. Some info is accurate and helpful like if you want to find out the dob of 2pac lol. But with thing like Sean bell, anybody can put up there anything.

So I'd like to read the facts from a different source to be sure that the reason cops believed he had a gun was accurate and true.

Almost every single thing said in that Sean Bell wiki article is quoted from an official source. Go to the References portion of the article and read the source directly and then that's as accurate or reliable as you're going to get, unless you're privy to official court and police documents.

 

[Bachi]

It all comes down to who's story you're believe in.

On one hand you may justify police action by saying one of the unnamed undercover police officer while monitoring the club, overheard Guzman (one of Sean's friends) say 'get my a gun'. The undercover officer then followed the men and approached them and identified him as an officer and ordered Sean Bell to raise his hands but he did not, instead he took off and crushed his car into a police mini van. And that gave officers the reason to start firing at Sean and his two friends.

Or who is to say Michael Palladino, the head of the detectives union, did not pay this janitor guy to say he had seen a black man fleeing the scene, and the man started firing a gun at the police to furthermore support undercover officers account of the story.

On the other hand, who is to say that this 'unnamed undercover officer' is telling the truth to begin with? He is the undercover officer after all. So he might be making this up that he 'overheard Guzman say get me a gun' to justify the shooting.

One thing is sure, I don't know if race thing played any role in this incident or noy, but, it does not take 50 shots to take down three men, even if one of them is armed.

 

[Devious]

And when did I say you said cops KNEW Sean had the gun?

I said exactly what you said...that cops had a reason to believe that Sean or someone else in the car had a gun. So I'm asking a question, where was the proof that they indeed have the gun? Or was there any proof?

(read carefully between the lines)

I didn't even bother reading wiki article. I refuse to take wiki source seriously. I don't think thats a very accurate or reliable source. Most people know this. Some info is accurate and helpful like if you want to find out the dob of 2pac lol. But with thing like Sean bell, anybody can put up there anything.

So I'd like to read the facts from a different source to be sure that the reason cops believed he had a gun was accurate and true.

i don't know how you can say that you're saying the same thing i did. you said where's the proof of the gun? well there was no gun obviously, otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about this case. there was no gun, no one is questioning that. but the cops had reason to believe someone in the group had a gun which is why cops approached them in the first place.

and you really must not use wiki much because apparently you have never noticed that most of the articles there post the sources of their information. sure anyone can put anything up there, but if it's bullshit it wouldn't have a source. the Sean Bell article has plenty of sources listed where you can get the info from. so there are your different sources.

 

[Devious]

It all comes down to who's story you're believe in.

On one hand you may justify police action by saying one of the unnamed undercover police officer while monitoring the club, overheard Guzman (one of Sean's friends) say 'get my a gun'. The undercover officer then followed the men and approached them and identified him as an officer and ordered Sean Bell to raise his hands but he did not, instead he took off and crushed his car into a police mini van. And that gave officers the reason to start firing at Sean and his two friends.

Or who is to say Michael Palladino, the head of the detectives union, did not pay this janitor guy to say he had seen a black man fleeing the scene, and the man started firing a gun at the police to furthermore support undercover officers account of the story.

On the other hand, who is to say that this 'unnamed undercover officer' is telling the truth to begin with? He is the undercover officer after all. So he might be making this up that he 'overheard Guzman say get me a gun' to justify the shooting.

One thing is sure, I don't know if race thing played any role in this incident or noy, but, it does not take 50 shots to take down three men, even if one of them is armed.

but on the other hand, who's to say anything is the truth. instead of questioning whose story is more believable (there is bullshit in almost every side of every story) take all the stories and get the information, then find what seems to make the most sense and you will be as close as you can get to the truth without being a witness.

and i don't want to defend the cops in this case, but as i pointed out earlier, they fired so many shots because you're dealing with a moving vehicle. just because the driver gets shot doesn't mean the car automatically stops. the cops probably just kept on firing until the car was stopped. in that context, with 3 officers firing shots, i can easily see cops taking up to 50 shots. after all until the car stops, they don't know for sure if the driver's still alive or not. and when said driver has already tried to ram police vehicles, you don't want to take chances. of course none of this clears them from the fact that as i said before cops in NY aren't allowed to fire on a moving vehicle in any situation, because there is too much of a risk of bystanders getting hit.