Sean Bell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia since im too lazy to dig up the NY Daily News stories

Sean Bell (May 18, 1983–November 25, 2006) was an African-American who was shot and killed by plainclothes New York Police Department detectives on November 25, 2006. Bell and two other friends were leaving Bell's bachelor party at a strip club in Jamaica, Queens when they were shot, in what may have been a contagious shooting. Bell was to be married later that day.

---------------

At the time Bell was holding his bachelor party at Kalua Cabaret, the club was being investigated by seven undercover police detectives.[6] The New York Post reported that, according to an undercover cop, Bell's friend Joseph Guzman had an argument inside the club with a woman and threatened to get a gun. The woman was overheard saying to the men arguing with Bell's friends, "I'm not doing you all. I'll do one or two, but not all," [1] The undercover officer followed the group and Bell was ordered by the officer to raise his hands after getting in his car. Instead, the car hit the undercover officer and, seconds later, an unmarked police minivan. [7]

Other accounts of the incident conflict with that of the undercover officers. According to Guzman and lawyer Michael Hardy, the detectives never identified themselves while they approached the vehicle with drawn weapons.[5] Another source also told New York Daily News that the officers failed to warn Bell before opening fire and started firing immediately when leaving their vehicles. [8]

In an interview on Larry King Live, accompanying Bell's fiancée Nicole Paultre, Al Sharpton stated that according to his conversations with eye-witnesses, none of the three men who were shot mentioned a gun while leaving the club. Sharpton also felt that it would be impossible for the persons in the car to have heard the police from within the car, and that they were likely to fear that they were being carjacked.[9]

According to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, one veteran officer emptied two full magazines, firing 31 shots from a 9mm handgun. Some shots hit nearby homes and a train station. Five of the seven officers investigating the club were involved in the shooting. Guzman, 31, was shot at least 11 times and Benefield, 23, who was in the back seat, was hit three times. Both men were taken to Mary Immaculate Hospital. Guzman was listed in critical condition and Benefield was in stable condition.

---

what do you think, with previous police brutality murders like Amadou Diallo and many more my community was basically emptied today as protests went on, City Council Member Charles Barron (almost became mayor) thinks that if the police officers are allowed to walk again (as they have in every other police murder case) there will be violence and riots.

thoughts?

I thought that was depressing - it was the guy's wedding day and he gets killed for nothing. >__> I remember a (somewhat) similar case that was controversial not too long ago despite occurring years ago - a Filipino boy in a gang was shot by an officer who believed he had a knife. The officers defended themselves with stuff about "he had a knife, we found a knife, danger, etc." but witness testimony (from friends, though) conflicted with that.

And the officer got off. Not saying either side was right or wrong, but it makes me wonder... I know the police are here to do right but when they kill someone who wasn't dangerous (hell, they shot this guy in the BACK) without enough knowledge, that's upsetting.

well the police here are saying Sean and three other men were about to kill a prostitute for not wanting to fourway with them and then when undercover cop intervened they got into a car and tried to run them all over, so they shot at the car and killed him.

witnesses say there was no fourth man, that they never got into a car and that there was no warning from the uniformed cops before they opened fire.

Hmmm i think that its fine, cops need the right to kill dangerous people. Heck if they dont kill the guy today the guy might kill someone else another day. and really theres nothing we can do about it.. if cops can't shoot than there would be more crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingDarr

Hmmm i think that its fine, cops need the right to kill dangerous people. Heck if they dont kill the guy today the guy might kill someone else another day. and really theres nothing we can do about it.. if cops can't shoot than there would be more crime.

---

HE WASNT DOING ANYTHING DANGEROUS!!!

Quote:

---

Instead, the car hit the undercover officer and, seconds later, an unmarked police minivan. [7]

---

That sounds dangerous to me.
Hitting a policeman with your car, and then an unmarked police car, during what sounds like a "stakeout."

Sounds to me that, while tragic, what the policeman did was within the realm of their discretion. Imagine what you would do if you saw someone run over another cop during a stakeout, and then, seemingly try to wreck your van(police use vans for surveillance, so I am willing to bet that was what they hit).

Al Sharpton, you must admit, lives on controversy and manipulation. It is his bread and butter, it is how he puts his food on the table(quite literally), it is how he stays in the public eye. This might sound callous, but I think this is another one of those cases.


P.S. - Why is a man trying to have a four-way with a stripper the day of his wedding?

You live in Harlem... right?

The problem is that witnesses say something else (or so I understood) - and anyway, that doesn't justify shooting someone. You don't shoot drunk drivers, for instance, and their driving skills are about that level. Assuming that the witnesses are right and the police didn't identify themselves - oh, and the van wasn't marked; would someone actually think "oh look, a police van! I hate the police, let's go hit it!" - there was no reason to shoot them.

Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn is where i live.

the cops story is iffy because they werent in the van they were in their squad car. i dont even know why they were there. the place was under surveillance for supposedly housing prostitution but that wasnt the case for the police presence this time.

and fifty shots jakko is more than responding to the danger of a moving car. NYC police policy is NOT to fire at a moving vehicle even if the vehicle is a weapon. no matter how they cut it they still broke the law, but theres the problem that the number of shots fired far exceeds the number needed (if any at all) for the situation of three or four men in a car if they were in the car at all.

Obviously you have never fired a 9mm. 9mm's are known not to even penetrate the windshield of cars. If they saw the need to fire, concentrated fire would be needed to stop the car and its occupants, when coming from an underpowered round like the 9mm.

Also, as you said, the place was under investigation for housing prostitution. They followed those men out because they were denied the right of being prostituted to. They were pursuing a lead, and were, as they probably saw it, attacked by a fleeing vehicle.

Police policy or not(for a liberal city that walks on egg-shells, it seems), if a police officer is attacked, the other officers will protect, defend, back-up that officer. That supercedes police "policy," and everyone knows it. Cops protect their own. If they saw what looked like a fellow officer being attacked, then no matter how tragic the outcome, if they, in the heat of the moment, thought deadly force was necessary, then I support them.