"Heinekens, get your free Heinekens here!!"
Posted on 04/25/2008 6:22:46 AM PDT by Dallas
Hillary made a major faux pas with the police union when she said NYC cops had "murdered" Amadou Diallo back in 1999...
THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON - Hillary Calls the Police Murderers (from 1999 re Diallo shooting).
The NYPD officers who killed Diallo were also acquitted - by a jury that included black jurors in Albany (trial had to be moved to different venue due to pretrial publicity).
Especially when all you do is suck off the sensationalism titles and not know the reason WHY they shot at him! 2 charges of attempted vehicular manslaughter of a police officer. Still want to talk about equality?
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-12-04hm.html
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.
"Heinekens, get your free Heinekens here!!"
“Huh ? Al acting like a Reverend ?”
No, he has just decided the money isn't there at this particular juncture. He'll be back pimping soon when the time is right.
Your post is full of sensationalism. You convince me of nothing. Cops kill citizens. Cops do have more rights than I have. Period.
Would he have said the same thing, had all three cops been white?
Probably not. I'm sure that's why the judge gave the cops a total pass.
Nothing going on in Manhattan that I can see.
bump for later
Is that a serious question?
I have my fair share of gripes about some cops, but that is WAY over the top.
Yes. I’m sure that Judge isn’t good friends with the police union.
These are the types of comments jackholes make.
The state wins almost every time. Agents of the state, same dept of justice, done.
That very true observation has made my day. ROTFLOL!
We shall. I hope and pray that there will be no trouble, but I know better.
“No Justice, No Peace!” will be the rallying cry of Al Sharpton and others...and maybe here, they are right? These cops DID seem awful trigger-happy, and the NYC police force DOES have a history of similar atrocities. These killer cops - are they all with Waco-wannabees? Even if the victims DID have a gun - what makes the police think that they would have used it against them, first? Why are they so fearful of armed ciizens?
OK. You are saying that you are seriously inquiring as to how there could have been no jury in this case.
I will give you some background:
This case took place in the United States of America, which is governed by a document called the Constitution.
The Constitution includes a number of amendments, the first ten of which are called the Bill Of Rights.
The sixth amendment in this Bill Of Rights guarantees a defendant in a criminal case the right to decide whether he will be tried by a judge or by a jury of his peers.
The defendants in this case chose a trial by judge.
The only other alternative to this system in one in which the prosecution - and not the defendant - gets to choose whether the defendant will be tried by a judge or by a jury.
Would you prefer that alternative?
I’m sure that Judge isn’t good friends with the police union.
If you are accusing the judge of corruption, then by all means produce some evidence. That's a pretty serious accusation, and it would be immoral to make it without having solid grounds for it.
The defendants had a choice - a judge, or a jury drawn from a community that was crying for their blood.
Which would you choose, if you were accused of a crime?
This whole discussion, of course, takes place in the context of your almost complete ignorance of both the facts of the case and of the legal system under which the case was tried.
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.