Bell's fiancee says verdict 'killed Sean again'

[Bangkok Bill]

Sharon Van Patten wrote:

How the hell can it be a race thing again, only one cop was white, one is black and the other hispanic i think. They say racist to justify riots.

You can't upset **** unless you scream racism.One down a million more to go.

[Not a clue]

I don't have one...

[Katie]

Sharon Van Patten wrote:

How the hell can it be a race thing again, only one cop was white, one is black and the other hispanic i think. They say racist to justify riots.

None of them were white! They cry racism because it's easier to blame the NYPD and the white man for their problems than it is to say my criminal of a fiance got gunned down b/c he must have been up to his usual tricks. The man was a criminal, his friends are criminals, when you keep that company bad things are bound to happen! While everyone sits and cries racism 24/7 they should take a good look at themselves and their status, only in this country can a group go from being disenfranchized and slaves to what they are today. Just say thank you and have a nice day!

[Michael]

KKKBM, either you are retarded or illiterate.

You posted: "Well, the courts don't agree that a cop should have to wait until the person they suspect of having a gun actually uses it before they react." Good, cuz I didn't suggest such a thing, dipshit. Your interpretation would make it a rule that if a cop THINKS there is a gun, it's a good shoot. So anytime a cop shoots people, all they need to do is say "I thought he had a gun" and poof, no consequences? No consequences FOR SHOOTING UNARMED CITIZENS? That is your argument?

THese cops shot UNARMED FOLKS. They claimed they identified 3 potential suspects (NONE IN BELL'S CREW) who "acted as if they were armed".
Do you understand that "acting armed" and claiming to hear "I gotta GO GET my gun".....are 2 very different things.(Having to go get his gun, MEANT HE WAS UNARMED, dopey....but instead of a stop and frisk, Isnora went after the guy HE THOUGHT WAS ARMED...but lost him.

You freaks need to read the transcripts.

[Michael]

Katie, non-whites can be racist. Fact is, if Bell were white, he'd be alive. NYPD does not shoot unarmed **** it's as simple as that.

[Wise Old Man]

I am a black man and i think we should bury this issue, both parties were wrong in hind sight Bell should of obey and the cop should of reacted with calm not chaos they got caught up in the confusion which with better training might never happen. I have a bad taste in my mouth when it come to Rev Al every since the Tawana Brawley case he never said he was sorry just acted like it never happen what a hypocite

[Geraldine]

Michael wrote:

KKKBM, either you are retarded or illiterate.
You posted: "Well, the courts don't agree that a cop should have to wait until the person they suspect of having a gun actually uses it before they react." Good, cuz I didn't suggest such a thing, dipshit. Your interpretation would make it a rule that if a cop THINKS there is a gun, it's a good shoot. So anytime a cop shoots people, all they need to do is say "I thought he had a gun" and poof, no consequences? No consequences FOR SHOOTING UNARMED CITIZENS? That is your argument?
THese cops shot UNARMED FOLKS. They claimed they identified 3 potential suspects (NONE IN BELL'S CREW) who "acted as if they were armed".
Do you understand that "acting armed" and claiming to hear "I gotta GO GET my gun".....are 2 very different things.(Having to go get his gun, MEANT HE WAS UNARMED, dopey....but instead of a stop and frisk, Isnora went after the guy HE THOUGHT WAS ARMED...but lost him.
You freaks need to read the transcripts.

Again, Michael, it's called a PERCEIVED threat.

It's the reason why cops shot that kid in Queens that had a hairbrush, but was waiving it around like a weapon.

If a cop mistakes someone for having a gun...bomb...nuke....whatever -- they're justified in using deadly force.

Actually, any civilian is.

If you can prove, in a court of law, that your life was in legitimate, imminent danger--and you used lethal force to stop the danger--a court of law will also find you not-guilty.

Happens all the time.

[Wizard of Oz]

Sean Bell killed himself when he took on the thug life, drugs and guns. No respect for the law. It was just a matter of time.

[Michael]

Geraldine, the kid with the brush kept claiming it was a weapon. I take issue with that shoot due to the mother telling them he had a knife and was off his meds...as well as the shocking inability of cops to tell a brush from a gun...but, the difference is: Guzman allegedly said he had to GO GET HIS GUN...meaning he DID NOT HAVE THE GUN WITH HIM. No ambiguity either....plain fact that saying "I have to go get my gun" means that I do not have my gun on my person.

After losing a man whom Isnora claimed "acted armed" as in acting as if he had a weapon ON HIS PERSON....Isnora went to Bell's car.

As for self-defense claim...funny how it usually fails for non-cops, huh? John white PERCEIVED A THREAT....yet found guilty, no? Bernie Goetz, perceived a threat...yet did time and owes millions to the thugs he shot while trying to rob him.

Difference is, a civilian can't PERCEIVE a threat, without more. Neither can a cop, again, or all cop shooting would end in acquittal...as the cop perceived the threat, even though NONE EXISTED. Claiming to have a weapon...is more. Acting as if you have a weapon, IS MORE.

Saying, I gotta go get my weapon, does nothing to support the ERRONEOUS THOUGHT THAT SOMEONE IN BELL'S CAR HAD A WEAPON.(If they feared the gun was in the car...stop and frisk..we know the NYPD has perfected this technique...or, what about a felony stop?)

[NO SHE DIDNT]

Michael wrote:

Geraldine, the kid with the brush kept claiming it was a weapon. I take issue with that shoot due to the mother telling them he had a knife and was off his meds...as well as the shocking inability of cops to tell a brush from a gun...but, the difference is: Guzman allegedly said he had to GO GET HIS GUN...meaning he DID NOT HAVE THE GUN WITH HIM. No ambiguity either....plain fact that saying "I have to go get my gun" means that I do not have my gun on my person.
After losing a man whom Isnora claimed "acted armed" as in acting as if he had a weapon ON HIS PERSON....Isnora went to Bell's car.
As for self-defense claim...funny how it usually fails for non-cops, huh? John white PERCEIVED A THREAT....yet found guilty, no? Bernie Goetz, perceived a threat...yet did time and owes millions to the thugs he shot while trying to rob him.
Difference is, a civilian can't PERCEIVE a threat, without more. Neither can a cop, again, or all cop shooting would end in acquittal...as the cop perceived the threat, even though NONE EXISTED. Claiming to have a weapon...is more. Acting as if you have a weapon, IS MORE.
Saying, I gotta go get my weapon, does nothing to support the ERRONEOUS THOUGHT THAT SOMEONE IN BELL'S CAR HAD A WEAPON.(If they feared the gun was in the car...stop and frisk..we know the NYPD has perfected this technique...or, what about a felony stop?)

Good point on the fact that when civilians "perceive" a threat. We have seen terrible results happen on more than a few occasions.

[TomIslander]

Michael wrote:

Katie, non-whites can be racist. Fact is, if Bell were white, he'd be alive. NYPD does not shoot unarmed **** it's as simple as that.

Black, white, purple or green, anyone drives a 3,000 lb car at me I'm putting a bullet in their skull. Stop saying they were unarmed. The car was the weapon. Also cops believed them to be because of Bell's buddies running their mouths screaming, "Go get the gat!" Two words, percieved danger.

[Michael]

Tomislander....again, why did the cops testify that they shot due to arm/hand movements and hearing their fellow officer yell GUN?

If the car was a weapon, why didn't the cops "perceive" it to be a weapon?

Why are you trying to claim the car as a weapon, if the Defendant Cops did not?

3 words: unarmed men shot.

[Michael]

I could go further: if Bell had control of the "weapon"....does that give the cops permission to shoot those NOT IN CONTROL?(Perhaps this is why they suggest not shooting into cars, unless the car is dragging or attempting to run an officer down.....you know, those pesky passengers who can't control the vehicle...deserve to be shot as well, huh?)

[Blueskies]

Wise Old Man wrote:

I am a black man and i think we should bury this issue, both parties were wrong in hind sight Bell should of obey and the cop should of reacted with calm not chaos they got caught up in the confusion which with better training might never happen. I have a bad taste in my mouth when it come to Rev Al every since the Tawana Brawley case he never said he was sorry just acted like it never happen what a hypocite

Finally! Someone who actually remembers the Tawana Brawley case! He stood by her and then as soon as all the dirt came out about it he ran for the hills. And I am shocked that the media never brings it up. At that point his credibility was gone as far as I am concerned.

[Bob Fort Salonga]

Nothing good happens after 2:00AM.

[Geraldine]

Michael wrote:

Geraldine, the kid with the brush kept claiming it was a weapon. I take issue with that shoot due to the mother telling them he had a knife and was off his meds...as well as the shocking inability of cops to tell a brush from a gun...but, the difference is: Guzman allegedly said he had to GO GET HIS GUN...meaning he DID NOT HAVE THE GUN WITH HIM. No ambiguity either....plain fact that saying "I have to go get my gun" means that I do not have my gun on my person.
After losing a man whom Isnora claimed "acted armed" as in acting as if he had a weapon ON HIS PERSON....Isnora went to Bell's car.
As for self-defense claim...funny how it usually fails for non-cops, huh? John white PERCEIVED A THREAT....yet found guilty, no? Bernie Goetz, perceived a threat...yet did time and owes millions to the thugs he shot while trying to rob him.
Difference is, a civilian can't PERCEIVE a threat, without more. Neither can a cop, again, or all cop shooting would end in acquittal...as the cop perceived the threat, even though NONE EXISTED. Claiming to have a weapon...is more. Acting as if you have a weapon, IS MORE.
Saying, I gotta go get my weapon, does nothing to support the ERRONEOUS THOUGHT THAT SOMEONE IN BELL'S CAR HAD A WEAPON.(If they feared the gun was in the car...stop and frisk..we know the NYPD has perfected this technique...or, what about a felony stop?)

Claiming to have a weapon and making threats of using that weapon are two very sinister acts.

Sean Bell & Co did both.

As for your claim that they did not "have the gun in their possession" -- the cops (and myself included) would have easily thought that the gun was in their vehicle.

So--pair that with the erratic driving of Mr. Bell--and you have a whopping case of "NO CRIMINAL INTENT".

Sean Bell was not killed because he was Black. Get off it.

He was killed because he made threats of having a weapon--made the intention of acting upon these threats, and then proceeded to disobey police orders (SEVERAL TIMES).

Regardless of whether or not he had a gun on his person, or not; the cops were justified.

A car is not a weapon? Answer the dang question! You tell me I dance around the subject? But you compare apples and oranges!

A car is a weapon and a perceived threat CAN be construed as a REAL threat, and thus deserving of lethal force.

If you walked around the sidewalk and said to someone that you had a bomb, and then hauled off in a manner suggesting you did -- there's a good chance you might be shot, too.

[Michael]

Eastern or Central time?

[Tina]

Michael wrote:

3 words: unarmed men shot.

2 words: not guilty...now **** up!!

[Geraldine]

Tina wrote:

<quoted text>
2 words: not guilty...now **** up!!

Suppose it's all fine and dandy if Mikey wanted to argue the competency of the officers, involved....Or even the use of excessive force.

But he throws the racial card into the mix and totally p*sses everyone off because anyone with half a brain can see it's NOT a racial issue.

Guess you're right though. No sense in arguing with someone who can't comprehend arguments, and likes to call ppl who disagree "fellators" (nice touch).

[Michael]

Fellators, are people who only see authority in a fatherly light.(You know, those who'd rather blow a cop than admit they can be wrong.) Been using the term for a while now....

Racial card is there, I didn't throw it anywhere. You honestly believe that if Bell were white, he'd be dead?

A white Sean Bell, would have been arrested and charged with DWI. He would have been approached, not with a gun drawn and some cop either saying "lemme holler at ya" or "POLICE SHOW YOUR HANDS", but by a cop who would have asked him to turn off the car and step out. He and his buddies would have either been stopped and frisked BEFORE they got to the car, or had a felony stop initiated after entering the vehicle.

A white Guzman would have raised his arms, without a shot being fired, as it would be compliance instead of a perceived threat.

A white BEnefield, would have been offered assistance and medical care, instead of having his bullet ridden body jumped on with a knee to his head (even tho I say he wouldn't have been shot).

Again, if it's not racism, why have the only people who have been unarmed and shot by the NYPD been dark skinned males?

Tina....Jersey, huh....set anyone's turban on fire yet?