Skip to comments.No, the Cops Didnít Murder Sean Bell
Posted on 12/04/2006 12:20:29 PM PST by ventanax5
click here to read article
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.
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.
There is something inherently wrong when you have police officers "commit a crime" as part of their undercover operation, then turn around and deal with a unarmed civilian as a criminal when he reacts in this kind of manner (i.e., arrest the people involved when they react as any normal person might react when confronted with criminal activity).
The undercovers, who usually worked in Manhattan, were on the last night of their two-month Queens detail to try to nail the Kalua and other clubs on such violations as drugs and underage prostitution.For sixty nights, nada. Then suddenly on the very last night...
Any jurisdiction that goes to great lengths to inform its citizenry to "watch for terrorism" through a color-coded warning system -- while at the same time prohibiting law-abiding citizens from using the most effective means they would have to deal with terrorism on a personal level -- is either a police state or a dysfunctional heap of sh!t.
You take your pick between those two, and I'll go with you on this one, OK?
Having already demolished your previous post, this one isn't worthwhile.
And why were they hanging out with prostitutes right before a church wedding? I feel bad for the fiancee and her kids but why didn't she tell him to stay home before the wedding? Why did these guys have to go to such a horrible place "to have fun"?????
Those familiar with undercover work know that officers are switched from precinct to precinct and rotated in and out from operations in order to (1) make sure that undercovers do not become too close, psychologically, to their contacts and (2) make sure that contacts do not begin suspecting the officers.
Just because their detail was ending at the club does not mean they obtained no results from their investigation, nor does it mean their undercover work was at an end, nor does it mean the investigation was at an end.
The implication is that these officers were desperate to bust anyone at Kalua Club for any reason at all because their jobs or prestige or something depended on it and that the events of that night were the result of an ego trip.
90% of undercover operations are unsuccessful. These officers would have been happy to walk away from an assignment in one piece whether they got a bust or not. Arresting one club patron for having an illegal handgun in a car outside the club would not have been a more glorious end to the detail than quietly walking away.
Do you ever go back and actually read your posts???????????????????????
Ok. I still dont' think that's a lot if his duty is to protect himself, his fellow officers and the city of New York. Why didn't they stop?
So your position is that if enough New Yorkers had handguns, they would be able to tell if a box truck in the next lane is filled with explosives? Or they could have shot down the planes with Glocks before they hit the towers?
If a terrorist plot is foiled by an alert citizen it will not be because he shot a shifty-looking Arab, but because he notices a technically legal but very suspicious piece of activity and reports it to law enforcement officers who are on the ball and are able to put two and two together with other information that has flowed into the system.
If any citizen had shot and killed any of the 9/11 terrorists before they boarded those planes purely ebcause of their very suspicious but illegal behavior, that citizen would be in prison today.
That's not how it works.
Firearm ownership is a far better preventer of street crime than it is of terrorism.
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.