The Sean Bell Trial Verdict Is In

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrialSword

LOL

---

squallvb: (2.59 posts per day)
Jason: (27.15 posts per day)

squall might be a noob, but he still understands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrialSword

LOL

---

I've been talking with a lot of the folks on here since well before February.

Quote:

---

And also, fuck you.

---

Oh yeah? Well, my dad can beat up your dad.

Quote:

---

Criminal history or not, it doesn't entitle the police to stuff you full of lead on an occasion that doesn't warrant it.

---

This is exactly why we have a court system. If these matters were settled by mobs wielding torches and pitchforks and demanding blood, we would have exactly the type of emotionally charged, knee-jerk reactions that you are exhibiting.

An impartial jury examined all the facts on a much more detailed level than anyone in here. They also heard testimony from both sides. After a careful examination of all the information before them, they reached the conclusion that the police officers did not act inappropriately. 51 bullets sounds like a lot, but the circumstances of the event seemed to warrant that reaction as far as the jury was concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squall_vb

An impartial jury examined all the facts on a much more detailed level than anyone in here. They also heard testimony from both sides. After a careful examination of all the information before them, they reached the conclusion that the police officers did not act inappropriately. 51 bullets sounds like a lot, but the circumstances of the event seemed to warrant that reaction as far as the jury was concerned.

---

Sounds to me like you're talking out your ass. There was no trial by jury. It was a presiding judge.

I love how people like you come in flapping your big vagina lips like you know what you're talking about. I also love how you and Jason play the "cops work a thankless job" angle. So do fry cooks at McDonalds, we don't give them free license to murder unarmed men once in a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrialSword

Sounds to me like you're talking out your ass. There was no trial by jury. It was a presiding judge.

I love how people like you come in flapping your big vagina lips like you know what you're talking about. I also love how you and Jason play the "cops work a thankless job" angle. So do fry cooks at McDonalds, we don't give them free license to murder unarmed men once in a while.

---

Correction noted. Let it also be noted that the matter was resolved by an impartial court of law. The argument stands.

People like me? Do tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason

good point. They make it sound like all three cops sat in front of Sean Bell and counted each shot while high fiving each other.

---

It doesn't matter. THEY SHOT HIM 51 FUCKING TIMES. WHAT ABOUT THAT IS REASONABLE AND DEFENSIBLE? Yes they have a hard job. But if you can't handle how hard the job is, you need to not be a fucking cop. It does not give you the right to take that anger out on the public EVER. Thats part of your responsibility as a police officer.

Jesus Christ, this "Cut em some slack, they probably had a hard day's work." Bullshit is really starting to sound like the same shit people use to defend criminals, "Cut em some slack, he had a rough childhood." I don't care how fucking bad their day was. They shot another human being 51 times without just cause, and they get to go back to their lives like nothing fucking happened.

Bullshit.

51 shots were fired at the vehicle... Sean Bell was hit 3 times.. or 4, from what I am seeing online.

"Undercover cops fired at least 50 rounds of bullets into a car carrying Sean Bell and two of his friends as they left Bell's bachelor party in the Jamaica section of Queens. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly reported that one of his men fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines. News reports said Bell was shot in the neck, shoulder and right arm and died at the hospital. Two of Bell's friends who were in the car, 21-year-old Joseph Guzman and 23-year-old Trent Benefield, were hospitalized with multiple gun shot wounds."

And that justifies it how exactly?

So it was like that scene in Naked Gun 2 when Hector Savage is holed up in a house and Frank accidentally causes everyone to start shooting like crazy nearly destroying the house with bullet fire.

Yeah, not exactly justifable.

Of course it sounds extreme. It's a big number. But an impartial court took a neutral look at the facts, and found it to be absolutely justifiable.

No professional law enforcement officer would reload and keep firing without a damn good reason. And according to the court, that damn good reason existed, hence the ruling.

And that's my final thought on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squall_vb

Of course it sounds extreme. It's a big number. But an impartial court took a neutral look at the facts, and found it to be absolutely justifiable.

No professional law enforcement officer would reload and keep firing without a damn good reason. And according to the court, that damn good reason existed, hence the ruling.

---

You mean the judge, not a jury.

A judge, that would side with cops in just about any matter such as this.

Impartial my ass. Put it in the hands of a jury if you want impartial. Luckily since they are cops, they got to choose a judge.