Posted on 04/25/2008 6:22:46 AM PDT by Dallas
Your logical reasoning is at a pre K level.
BTW: You should refrain from sophmoric ad-hominem attacks if you expect any to take you seriously.
Indeed they are.
They continue to claim that the police did not identify themselves, when they did.
What we have here is a variety of assertions by the police who by any rational standard acted wrecklessly.
Acting in self-defense is, by definition, not "reckless."
Here's a better standard of reckless: trying to run over a cop while you are falling-down drunk and yet are driving a vehicle.
As for the founding fathers The Boston Massacre comes to mind.
Excellent analogy.
One of our Founding Fathers, John Adams, served as a defense attorney for the British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre.
In that incident you had a squadron of British soldiers stationed in a very anti-soldier environment - i.e. post-Stamp Act Boston. A crowd, some of them drunk, began pelting the soldiers with refuse and bricks, and one private who was knocked down by a member of the crowd who was wielding a club rose and took aim.
It is disputed who cried out "Fire!" first, a taunting member of the crowd or one of the other privates. It's certain that the only person authorized to give such a command was Cpt. Preston, who gave no such command - as the court found.
Six of the eight soldiers on trial were acquitted and the remaining two were convicted on lesser charges after the deathbed testimony of one member of the crowd corroborated their account of the incident.
John Adams, although a true patriot and an enemy of the British Crown, made certain that these men were not railroaded because they happened to hold a position of unpopular authority.
John Adams would not have assumed the police in this incident were guilty, just as he did not assume the British soldiers were guilty. He would have abided by the judgment of the court - as he did in 1770.
Unbelievable.
You're not sure what they're guilty of, but they must be guilty of something.
Did you study at the Che Guevara Academy Of Law?
The officers claimed is was Isnora who was in danger of being run over, but it was Oliver who fired 31 rounds. That means best case scenario he emptied his clip once, reloaded, and fired most of a second clip. Worst case he emptied two clips and was on a third. And you don’t think that’s a bit excessive?
I didn’t know anything about this incident. Thanks for the concise report. Sounds like the cops were justified.
I’m not sure if this would be murder, manslaughter or simple reckless endangerment. But you know that, you’re just being a pr*ck.
I am familiar with the details of the Boston Massacre, and John Adams participation (excellent series btw.) My point was that the citizenry and the majority of the founding fathers were incensed by the behaviour of the crown’s troops, and felt that the government was putting itself above the law. That’s where the paralell ends for me.
The police assert that they identified themselves. That is an assertion not a fact.
You haven’t offered your theory of the case so there is not really much to go on. Sufficed to say my understanding of your position is that you would obey the commands of anyone weilding a gun who happened towards you in the middle of the night. To be more clear if while entering your car in a public space in an urban area in the middle of the night I happend towards you brandishing a weapon and barking orders you would do whatever I said? Is that you position?
Everyone present admits Isnora was in danger of being run over. The prosecution's witnesses do not deny that Bell was trying to run Isnora over - they just have their own version of events for why they thought running him over was a good idea.
but it was Oliver who fired 31 rounds. That means best case scenario he emptied his clip once, reloaded, and fired most of a second clip.
That's not just the best caee, but describes what actualy happened.
And you don’t think that’s a bit excessive?
Oliver was standing closest to Isnora and Oliver's goal was to fire as many rounds as it took to stop the car from running over Isnora.
I can see how it would take 31 rounds to stop a vehicle.
Everyone present admits Isnora was in danger of being run over. The prosecution's witnesses do not deny that Bell was trying to run Isnora over - they just have their own version of events for why they thought running him over was a good idea.
but it was Oliver who fired 31 rounds. That means best case scenario he emptied his clip once, reloaded, and fired most of a second clip.
That's not just the best caee, but describes what actualy happened.
And you don’t think that’s a bit excessive?
Oliver was standing closest to Isnora and Oliver's goal was to fire as many rounds as it took to stop the car from running over Isnora.
I can see how it would take 31 rounds to stop a vehicle. The fact that Oliver stopped before he finished emptying the second magazine suggests that he did indeed stop firing when the driver was no longer attempting to run over his colleague.
Everyone present admits Isnora was in danger of being run over. The prosecution's witnesses do not deny that Bell was trying to run Isnora over - they just have their own version of events for why they thought running him over was a good idea.
but it was Oliver who fired 31 rounds. That means best case scenario he emptied his clip once, reloaded, and fired most of a second clip.
That's not just the best caee, but describes what actualy happened.
And you don’t think that’s a bit excessive?
Oliver was standing closest to Isnora and Oliver's goal was to fire as many rounds as it took to stop the car from running over Isnora.
I can see how it would take 31 rounds to stop a vehicle. The fact that Oliver stopped before he finished emptying the second magazine suggests that he did indeed stop firing when the driver was no longer attempting to run over his colleague.
Wrong division of sides. A just verdict is a victory for the just and a defeat for the unjust.
Of course. As far as you're concerned any of these would be acceptable, as long as they are found guilty of something. Because they must be guilty - there is no possibility that they are innocent.
But you know that, you’re just being a pr*ck.
Of course I am. There is no chance that I might actually be right, just as there is no chance that the police officers involved could actually be innocent.
If you're wrong about something, it cannot be a question of fact - it must be because I am a bad guy.
Yet the government allowed its troops to be tried in a local court.
It was not until 1774 that the Crown changed all the rules and forbade colonial courts to judge soldiers, making British soldiers a protected class impervious to local law enforcement.
That is an assertion not a fact.
In the court's determination, it is now established as the only plausible version of the events. And it is really rather ridiculous to imagine that these veteran police officers would deliberately throw their careers away over Sean Bell by intentionally ignoring a protocol they all engage in so often they probably do it in their sleep.
You haven’t offered your theory of the case so there is not really much to go on.
Guzman, Benefield, Bell and Nelson got into an argument with another club patron over a dancer. Guzman informed the other patron, in the presence of an undercover officer, that he was going to his car to retrieve a weapon in order to settle the dispute.
Nelson took off while Guzman, a drunken Bell and Benefield got into the car.
As they were preparing to drive out of their parking space, Isnora stood in their way, identified himself and ordered them to put their hands on the dashboard.
Bell responded by driving toward Isnora.
Isnora took out his weapon and began firing as Bell drove into his leg. Oliver, Isnora's backup, began firing as well.
A police minivan, in radio contact during the whole incident, then drove up and officers Carey, Cooper and Headley entered the fray.
Bell backed up and gunned the engine, likely intending to smash his way out. After Bell's vehicle hit the minivan blocking his path, he stopped moving and the police stopped firing.
Sufficed to say my understanding of your position is that you would obey the commands of anyone weilding a gun who happened towards you in the middle of the night.
No, my position is to comply with a peace officer's instructions.
To be more clear if while entering your car in a public space in an urban area in the middle of the night I happend towards you brandishing a weapon and barking orders you would do whatever I said? Is that you position?
It depends on what you are saying and whether you adequately identified yourself as a police officer.
“I’m not sure I agree with the ruling, but, then I am not privy to the evidence presented in the case or the testimony pertaining to it.”
Uh...yeah...see....the guy was unarmed...they shot him 50 times....
Maybe you are waiting for them to find the gun still?
If this was anyone besides a cop they would be doing serious time.
So, in your opinion, it is impossible to use a car as a weapon?
Never take a car to a gun fight....
Police are trained to continue firing at a threat until it’s neutralized. If it took 50 shots into a van to bring this guy down, then it took 50 shots. That’s all there is to it.
DE-ARM ALL COPS!!!
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.