Posted on 12/04/2006 12:20:29 PM PST by ventanax5
New York’s anti-cop forces have roared back to life, thanks to a fatal police shooting of an unarmed man a week ago. The press is once again fawning over Al Sharpton, Herbert Daughtry, Charles Barron, and sundry other hate-mongers in and out of city government as they accuse the police of widespread mistreatment of blacks and issue barely veiled threats of riots if they do not get “justice.”
The allegation that last weekend’s shooting was racially motivated is preposterous. A group of undercover officers working in a gun- and drug-plagued strip joint in Queens had good reason to believe that a party leaving the club was armed and about to shoot an adversary. When one of the undercovers identified himself as an officer, the car holding the party twice tried to run him down. The officer started firing while yelling to the car’s occupants: “Let me see your hands.” His colleagues, believing they were under attack, fired as well, eventually shooting off 50 rounds and killing the driver, Sean Bell. No gun was found in the car, but witnesses and video footage confirm that a fourth man in the party fled the scene once the altercation began. Bell and the other men with him all had been arrested for illegal possession of guns in the past; one of Bell’s companions that night, Joseph Guzman, had spent considerable time in prison, including for an armed robbery in which he shot at his victim.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
Fine article.
How many officers fired the 50 shots? 5 at 10 each?
one fired 31 shots.
PING
When you have to fire 31 shots you are looking at quantity instead of quality.
That officer probably needs to practice gun control.
The first cop to shoot was a black guy, I recall reading.
If I had some drug crazed drunk driving a car at me, I would unload more than just 50 bullets!!!!
Don't tell me any of you would just stand there and ask them to turn the car off....I own the Brooklyn Bridge if you answer yes.....
Try and run over a cop in any other state, and watch what happens - you WILL be shot for trying to kill that officer - plain and simple. The man behind the wheel of that car was a complete idiot. The others in the car were lucky they were not killed as well.
Sharpton and the other paper weights need to rethink their attitude, or the vigilante's of Newark may return.
If there were 4 or 5 guys in the car that is only 6 shots per person.
Anyone who has been to this neighborhood in New York City will understand why someone in a car might behave exactly as these guys did when surrounded by a group of armed men.
there were three guys in the car
I don't believe they were surrounded
I can hardly wait for Bruce Springsteen to write a song about this. Maybe it'll be a duet with Al Sharpton.
some rapper already wrote one, it's called something like "50 shots"
Right, and if so, why did he try and run them over?
Next!
The guy knew, and he did not want to get nailed, but he was unaware of how much support this one officer had - did he or did he not find out the hard way?
SS
I guess that's a matter of semantics. When it's 4 AM and you've got one guy an foot and several others in two vehicles (I believe this was the arrangement at the scene), there are plenty of reasons for any rational adult to wonder what the heck is going on.
hahaha.. nothings faster than the American Capitalist.
Gotta love it.
It sure wouldn't be the first time the NYPD shot an unarmed man in an undercover operation gone awry. See "Diallo, Amadou" and "Dorismond, Patrick" for examples of this.
The more I hear about crime in the big cities the more I wonder what has happened to the real men in our society.
We do not tolerate this type of crap anywhere near our home in the sticks.I firmly believe if groups of men would police those city neighborhoods and take out the trash it would be cleaned up real quick.
Not necessarily. One RPG would have done the job.
The weapon was a car. Hello!!!!!
What article did you read? People get shot at all the time, because like the idiots they are, they choose to try and use their vehicle as a weapon.
No weapon found? Hell, the weapon had his fingerprints all over the steering wheel.
SS
At any rate, there is no reason to expect anything remotely resembling "real men" in a city that was one of the first to ban smoking in private establishments and is soon going to impose dietary restrictions on restaurants, too.
(2) If Diallo had bothered to learn a few rudimentary phrases of English during his illegal stay in the US he would be in one piece today.
(3) If Dorismond had not committed assault against an undercover police officer, he would be in one piece today.
Which falsified Sharpton media event are you going to trundle out next? Eleanor Bumpurs?
We do not tolerate this type of crap anywhere near our home in the sticks.I firmly believe if groups of men would police those city neighborhoods and take out the trash it would be cleaned up real quick...
Well, you do have meth labs out in the sticks along with all varieties of growers.
Plenty of New York residents have escaped actual police states and are delighted to live in NYC precisely because it is the opposite of what they have endured.
Describing NYC as a police state is ridiculous.
Life in NYC is overregulated in a number of respects, but the rule of law prevails.
In the Diallo case it wasn't an "undercover" operation. It was the SCU street crime unit looking for a man who had committed 51 rapes in the area.
The SCU no longer exists and NYC is experiencing a rise in crime because of it.
There's more to the story than that, there was something about a prostitute and the undercover was going to arrest her outside. Also, there had been one man in the club with a gun. I don't believe he was involved in the subsequent event.
What a load of garbage.
Are you Charles Barron's press agent?
The Dorismond case was particularly instructive in the way it highlighted the potential idiocy of an undercover operation . . .
There is no way to justify a police shooting of a person who assaulted an undercover officer who tried to sell drugs to him. Remember -- the follow-up investigation of that incident revealed that Dorismond probably had no idea the guy was an undercover cop.
The reaction by the Cops is beginning to make a lot of sense IMHO.
A vehicle has been used as a lethal weapon, more than once.
In addition, the fact that constitutional rights are abrogated in New York City as a matter of course (see Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) would seem to support my contention that the place is a police state.
Every time that happens to me, I do the same thing.
Just sayin'...
Most Americans would suggest that an armed citizenry would be a far more effective -- and constitutionally legitimate -- way of dealing with 51 rapes than a "Street Crimes Unit."
Don't confuse the anti-police folks on this thread.....with the facts!
Cops are trained to identify themselves. It causes most honest citizens to cooperate, while causing most dishonest citizens to react in an absolutely opposite manner.
Thousands of undercover arrests and you find three to support your bias?
The question was whether or not he went to the car in question in order to retrieve a firearm.
Which is why the officer attempted to stop the car.
Furthermore, these men were shot a block away from the club, clearly having no intention of engaging in illegal activity at the club or having committed any crime while at the club.
They were shot a few feet from the club. And it doesn't matter whether they were inside the club or not. Do the police have no authority outside of the club? Is the club magical?
Beyond that, the undercovers had not alerted the other police in the neighborhood that they were about to make a bust or had probable cause for an arrest.
They have no responsibility to alert any other officers if they are making an arrest.
They were operating as police officers in their own jurisdiction.
And they weren't about to make a bust. They were about to stop a car and question its passengers.
I'm very pro-gun but NYC has limited the right of its citizens to be armed since early in the 20th Century. The people of NY apparently like it that way since they never do anything about it.
40,000 cops for over 8 million people isn't a lot.
The rumors are that Mayor Bloomberg will run for President and Police Commissioner Kelly will run for Mayor.
Anj undercover officer tried to purchase drugs from Dorismond, mistakenly believing that Dorismond was the bouncer who was selling drugs at that club.
Dorismond's response was to shove him against a wall.
A second undercover, trying to defuse the situation, told Dorismond to lighten up and forget about it, and Dorismond then punched the second officer in the mouth.
Dorismond's fellow bouncer then began beating the first officer and Dorismond joined in.
The second officer, recovering from the blow, unsheathed his weapon, identified himself and told Dorismond and friend to put their hands up.
Dorismond tried to grab the weapon and it discharged in the struggle, killing Dorismond.
The grand jury was satisfied with this testimony and declined to indict the officer.
If Dorismond had not assaulted two people, he'd be alive.
Ten bucks says the City of New York is going to be paying out a hefty cash settlement for this one.
it's some guy named Papoose
(1) Iraq is not a police state.
(2) US military personnel are not the only people involved in policing Iraq. There are more than 250,000 local police and Iraq Security Forces personnel.
(3) Much of Iraq is rural.
(4) NYC has a population one-third the size of Iraq.
Silly comparison.
In addition, the fact that constitutional rights are abrogated in New York City as a matter of course (see Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) would seem to support my contention that the place is a police state.
The right to own a pistol is largely abrogated in NYC. The right to own a rifle is not.
And stupid gun laws do not define a police state.
A police state involves the persecution, disenfranchisement, disability and imprisonment of people due to their ethnicity or their political or religious beliefs. It involves state control of the media. It involves laws against the free exercise of speech. It involves the lack of a right to to trial for offenses. It involves the ability of the police to detain citizens withoput charging them with crimes.
It's pathetic that you know so little about history that I have to explain the definition of a simple term to you in such detail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.