They all had records. It won't stop the race hustlers from acting like they're angels.
I haven't heard or read whether the police officers were white or black, or purple or green; assuming all or mostly black, else Moral Exemplar Sharpie would have been apoplectic.
1. Did anyone in the press or the "protest group" of race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson ask about the status of the police officer who was the target of the driver who was using his vehicle as a deadly weapon?
2. Were any of the shooting officers African-American?
bump
Bell was one of a group of five, supposedly arguing with another group of four. The second group of four left without incident.
One of the group of five is the one who provided "probable cause" by being armed inside the club, though the undercover officer never saw a gun and the "source" quoted in the article didn't actually use the word "gun".
If I am reading the article correctly, only four men got into Bell's car. Who was the fifth and where did he go? Was this fifth man NOT the one who created "probable cause"?
When the undercover officer supposedly challenged the people in the car, by putting his foot on the hood of the car, evidently one of the four men in the car left the car. Was this fourth man the one who supposedly had a gun and who provided "probable cause". Where did this fourth man go?
If neither the fifth man, who the police seem to have lost track of, or the fourth man, who the police seem to have lost track of, are the man who had the gun in the club, then one of the three remaining men must have been the one who had the gun in the club. So, why has this man not been identified as one of the three men who were shot? Where is the gun?
Since when would it be more important to follow and arrest somebody who was going to get a gun, rather than a person who is believed to already have one on him?
From the linked article: "The undercovers, who usually worked in Manhattan, were on the last night of their two-month Queens job to try to nail the Kalua and other clubs on such violations as drugs and underage prostitution. "
The last night of two months. To me it sounds very much like the BATF JBTs and their "show time" assault in Waco. You can't justify all the manpower, equipment, training, and other resources provided to the BATF unless they demonstrate that such are needed. It would not have been useful for Koresh to simply turn himself in when informed that a warrant existed. What budget would that justify?
Similarly, we now read of the last night of a two month operation to "try to nail" the Kalua Club. One might presume that nothing had been accomplished since the cover had evidently not been blown. I find it very convenient that the undercover operation managed to find something only on its last night of operation. And that what they found consisted of suspicion of possession of a firearm, and suspicion of attempting to possess a firearm.
I don't think the people who were accosted by the undercover policeman had any reason to believe that the person attempting to detain them was a cop. Further, how was it that the undercover cop only suffered a scratch while avoiding what he claimed was a deadly attack?
Chalk up another casualty of the war on some drugs and the war on prostitution. It makes me sick that I now must consider the possibility that a man not wearing a uniform might put his foot on the front of my car, point a gun at me, and that I have to consider the possibility that he might be a cop.
Bunch of salient points here:
1) It is dark at 0400. Following someone 'closely' is bound to arouse suspicion in those being followed. So when the suspicious person jumps on your hood, points a gun at you, and starts screaming/yelling something, instinct will take over.
2) Officer states alternately that he had his foot on the front bumper and he was on the hood screaming 'police'. It was a late model car, and fairly well insulated. Unlikely the occupants understood what he was saying, and when a gun is pointed at ones head, one becomes fixated upon it and tends not to see the badge on a neck lanyard or hear what the gunman is screaming. Especially when the officer is dressed in civvies.
3) Officer number 1's bullets went through the rear window. The car was moving forward into the unmarked van blocking the way. Therefore, Officer #1 was in no immeadiate danger when he opened up, as he was behind the forward moving car. He then failed to check fire when friendlies entered his kill zone. Further, several articles have noted that NYPD procedures do not allow for use of deadly force in a vehicle only situation. He has to be under fire from that vehicle. Officer #1 was not under fire.
4) "Mr Beefy" seems to be the one whom the police 'knew' had a gun. He is also the only individual not shot at by police. He is also not in custody. The only ones shot were the ones not armed.
5) The paper relies heavily on un-named 'sources' for its info on what went down. Un-named sources also had Karl Rove as the leak of the non-spy's name. Un-named sources have said many things. Most of the time said source had an agenda. And for all we know the un-named sources are the officers PBA lawyers.
There are many things we know, and more we don't. But it doesn't look like the officers followed proper or prudent procedures.
So he deserved to die? Perhaps you enjoy that kind of police state madness, but most Americans do not. These "cops" must never again wear a uniform if the facts as laid out so far are true.
If only Al had been in the happy stag party!
The issue here is that the article was poorly written - the meat of the story, i.e. the facts were in the third paragraph. Again the MSM is trying to direct the will of the American people by faulty reporting.
1) First question - did the reporters read the police report once it was released?
2) Did Bloomberg read the report before he commented to the black public and the press? - Most likely a resounding no, his effort was to grab the headlines.
3) With Sharpton involved, does the public realize the fact he has done this before? - Remember Tawana Brawly?
4) Does this mean what it usually means? Yes, the MSM is the fifth column, and they are an enemy of the state. this could potentially blossom into a full fledged race riot, and those individuals who raised the red flag over this need to be held accountable if such a thing were to get out of hand. Sharpton should be jailed for his claims, bloomberg needs to be recalled or impeached for what he has done.
Final point - Sharpton is an instigator, and is facilitating the left's desire to separate this nation using race as a bias point. They want a civil war. If they have a civil war, and they are in power they CAN negate the constitution.
SS
If only Al Sharpton is still willing to fight for the civil rights of men, especially when drunken undercover agents are able to legally attack unarmed men for no apparent reason except one was suspected of having a gun, then that is a sad testimony to our state of affairs for a so called free republic.
It shouldn't just be Al Sharpton there. It should be all who hold dear the sanctity of life, individual freedom, and just cause. No matter how it will be painted in the future, three unarmed men were attacked by some guys in plain street clothes. One was killed while two others were shot several times. None of the victims had guns nor drugs. Their offense was leaving a bar in the early hours of the morn and being assaulted by unknown assailants. It matters little that the undercover cop had a badge and a gun. These are not hard to come by.
This story is a classic example of how only one side of the story is told, and both sides are guilty (reporters, I mean).
I realize it's a bit soon, but I have yet to read a comprehensive, balanced article on this incident. It is nearly impossible to know who to trust in the reporting.
If anyone has a link to a factual, complete, well-balanced article, I would love to have it.
(1) Bachelor parties at strip clubs or with strippers are not a normal part of preparation for marriage. They are always a mistake, a perversion of the whole concept of the special bond that marriage is.
(2) Going to strip clubs with a reputation for violence and gunplay -- another bad decision.
(3) Going with a "posse" of thugs ... another bad descisiion.
(4) Trying to run down a cop. Another bad decision.
(5) Trying to run him down twice, after all the other bad decisions -- the straw that broke the camel's back.
A good day for the local undertakers.
Just curious...what are the races of the respective parties to the conflagration and from which side are they represented?