said by whizkid3 :

My guess is that the van was 'rammed' after the driver was incapacitated by gunfire.

said by HardwareGeek :

Cop who fired after van was rammed 31 times

Cop who says he fired after van was rammed, but could have fired before van was rammed, 31 times.

said by HardwareGeek :

Then, whats up with their witnesses, all inconsistent I read through most of the transcript I could find and the stories don't match up, aren't sean belles friends who got shot friends? Shit my 5 year old nephew can make up better stories with his 5 year old friends and stick to them better then these two idiots did.

said by Psychephylax :

Figure the first person who pulled the trigger emptied out before the others started to fire and did a reload and got anywhere between 2 and 5 rounds off.

said by MetroT1 :

said by jwersan :

---

Now if you want to argue that it necessitated 50 bullets, I would argue that maybe there was an excessive amount of bullets fired, but that is not the issue being questioned.

---

No. That was most definitely a training issue. If you can't stop someone with less than fifty rounds, you need to be a better shot.

Now there are exceptions to my above statement... but in this case, I don't believe 50 rounds could even remotely be justified.

said by MetroT1 :

If I'm in legitimate fear for my life, my family's life, or someone else's life, I'm using deadly force. It is 100% justified.

said by MetroT1 :

If police are in legitimate fear for their life, isn't that exactly when they should be allowed to use deadly force?

said by VidsGuy :

Police officers are made of the same flesh and blood and frailties as you are, dude.

This was an unfortunate accident, not a plot to "get" Sean Bell and his buddies. Shit happens. The judge used the purely legal tests that he was supposed to. He wasn't in cahoots with the defense or the prosecutor and he wasn't programmed to render a not guilty verdict.

said by CopperMux :

If a drunk gets behind the wheel and tries to gun the car away from the location, an officer shooting them is justified to save the life of someone else. Just think if the person they hit is your loved one. You ok with that?

said by Tzale :

Thank God you aren't making the laws.
Driving drunk should be illegal (as it is), but the punishment doesn't fit the crime if you're calling for the death of all drunk drivers! I'd much prefer a more humane approach at rehabilitation!

-Tzale

said by HardwareGeek :

My friend is a cop and she just told me they aim for the body not a leg or an arm the body.

said by ruscorp :

Well said Ontario.

said by CopperMux :

Having lost family and friends to a drunk driver, I say it is fully justified.

said by Tzale :

Oh get real... Since when does driving drunk justify being killed?

-Tzale

said by sailor :

There wasn't any jury...The officers defense attorneys used a common tactic when police officers are on trial and that is they waive their right to a jury trial and it is then tried in front of the judge who makes the decision on guilt or not.

Works in cops favor often but not always..They do that to take the emotions of a juror out of the trial...The judge is picked so he will just listen and make his decision on the evidence presented and not get emotionally involved like a juror might. ..if the defense happens to get a judge who is cop friendly, then that would be considered a +

said by james1 :

Welcome to the United States of Litigation, where you can have 6, 9 or 3 prior arrests for drugs or weapons violations, yet still get away with suing the police for shooting at you when you threaten to get a gun, try to run them over with your car, and ram 2 police vehicles.

said by CylonRed :

I have yet to see anything that stated the guys had any guns pointed at the cops - just that the cops over heard the possible reference to a gun and when they tried to stop them from getting into their car - the guy tried to drive off and swiped one of the cops who were not wearing uniforms (plain cloths)...

said by HardwareGeek :

I think the prosecution had idiots for lawyers or al sharpton is an idiot for not having his leagal team prepare them better.

I keep reading what they said on the stand and I have to say if I was on the Jury I probably would of sided with the cops too.

said by qakbiggs :

Here's another odd point of view. Apparently Sean Bell was drunk the night he was killed. Everyone seems to forget he climbed behind the wheel to drive. Who's to say his death didn't prevent a murder from occurring? He had no gun, but he did have a 2000 pound brick to throw around.

said by whizkid3 :

You've been reading too many comic books. The area is part of New York City. The only one shooting were the panic-stricken cops. Other than that, some guys were having a bachelor's party. What do you want to bet that there were words exchanged with some slime-ball undercover cops; who decided to teach Sean Bell and his friends a lesson? Think this has never happened before?

Your version of this is way off the facts.

Again, so far off the time-line, I have to wonder if you read any-ones version. The only one who heard this, long before anyone pulled up with a van, was Isnora as they were walking to their car - a block away. The only one who claims to have heard this is Isnora. And even if they did say it - it doesn't justify a single bullet. Even if they saw a gun (and they didn't), it doesn't justify a single bullet. (Co-incidentally, it was Isnora that opened fire first.)

Yeah - you see the glint of metal in your mind. Everything is racing because you're a panic-stricken cop who should have never been on the job. Training? Police - after seeing a gun - are trained to identify themselves loudly, and order you to freeze, and drop your weapon. That's what they are trained to do. But again, these lame excuses for police, or downright criminals, never saw a gun (or a glint of metal, unless you're talking about a seat-belt). Even a cop on the scene testified that Isnora never identified himself as a cop. Oh, and they are trained (in NYC at least) - should they have to use their weapons - to fire three shots only, and then assess the situation. Not to fire as many bullets as you can carry. Not to hide under the dashboard, as the officer in charge did. Fearful cowards.

This year, the trigger-happy cops shot one of their own - an undercover. Three years ago the same. Both were wearing badges. One was shot in the back. Not to forget about Amadou Diallo, the last innocent New York citizen who was gunned down by cowardly cops. All, including Sean Bell, were black. There is a serious problem with the NYC police force. There is no incentive to fix it, because the police investigative system and the justice system is set up every step of the way to thwart any trials against police officers, innocent or guilty. The cops don't even have to worry about following their training, or even think before they open fire, because they know the system is designed to let them off.

These cops or one of them could have been out to get Sean Bell. Or these cops could just have been frightened, cowardly sad-sacks. They were taken from the scene, yet remained out of handcuffs. They weren't separated. They were allowed to stay together, in private, with their PBA representative(s). They were given 3 full days to get their stories straight, and then report back. They are citizens - and nothing more - just like you and I. And they have to follow the same law.

They weren't judged by their peers. The prosecutors were appointed for their incompetence. Most defense lawyers reading about how the trial was conducted were shocked at how poorly the case was executed by the prosecution, saying that it would be a defense lawyer's dream-case to go up against this prosecution. This was even commented on by the Bell family (with little legal expertise) during the trial. The prosecution elected to do something that is absolutely unheard of - read the cops testimony from the grand jury trial, preventing any possibility of the cops having to testify! The trial was probably purposefully botched by the District Attorney's office, who not so coincidentally works day-to-day with the very same cops - their best friends in government.

The only truth to what happened is that three cowardly cops that didn't follow their training and should have never been on the job - or worse yet at least one murderer - was set free, solely because they are cops and are apparently above the law. The cop's job is to bring suspected criminals to justice - not summarily execute them.

said by roc5955 :

Welcome to the Police States of America, where cops can think that someone has a gun, and pump them full of lead, and get away with murder!

said by roc5955 :

If it isn't illegal for a police officer to panic unnecessarily, than it should be grounds for said officer's dismissal.

said by MysticGogeta :

One of the cops was shot though, so someone had a gun pointed at them.

said by MysticGogeta :

One of the cops was shot though, so someone had a gun pointed at them.

said by VidsGuy :

. . . . It's the middle of the night in a very bad area, at a particularly bad location with a history of extreme violence, known to be frequented by people with multiple armed felony convictions . . . you're on stakeout.

Several men known to the police get into a car, there's yelling. You move in with your unmarked police van and you are suddenly rammed not once, but twice.

You jump from the van, move in and you hear, "get me my gun".

Your mind starts to race and your adrenalin surges. All you hear in your mind is GUN . . GUN . . GUN. You think you see the glint of metal and your training takes over.

said by sansri88 :

I side with the cops on this one. Good that they got off.

said by Network Guy :

Both sides could be lying, and most likely are.

Personally, if I had three people pointing their guns at me after coming out of a nightclub that late at night, the last thing I would do is try to run them over.

That's that ride or die mentality.

said by roc5955 :

clips

said by roc5955 :

Shoot to disable, not to kill. Besides, 50 shots, would have probably killed a mastodon. Stopping to change clips proves to me that the officer was in the wrong, and panicked unnecessarily, IMNSHO.

said by Pathfinder :

This isn't California. I doubt any riots. There may be some trouble but I doubt any riots.

said by Pathfinder :

"panicked unnecessarily" Is that criminal now?
»graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p···ICT3.pdf

said by roc5955 :

Shoot to disable, not to kill. Besides, 50 shots, would have probably killed a mastodon. Stopping to change clips proves to me that the officer was in the wrong, and panicked unnecessarily, IMNSHO.

said by roc5955 :

Shoot to disable, not to kill. Besides, 50 shots, would have probably killed a mastodon. Stopping to change clips proves to me that the officer was in the wrong, and panicked unnecessarily, IMNSHO.

said by RangerTX :

If an officer thinks he/she sees a gun what do you want them to do? Stop, make sure they really see a gun before shooting? I am usually anti-cops but in this case, cops had justification to shoot if one of them thought they see a gun.

said by RangerTX :

please stand by for riots.

said by roc5955 :

Welcome to the Police States of America, where cops can think that someone has a gun, and pump them full of lead, and get away with murder!