Master Index of Archived Threads


"Sean Bell" cops = not guilty

Frayed Knot Apr 25 2008 07:24 AM

... on all counts

Kong76 Apr 25 2008 07:28 AM

Acquitted on all counts = mind boggling

seawolf17 Apr 25 2008 07:32 AM

Wow. Ugly.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 25 2008 07:33 AM

Sounds like the prosecution would have had a better case if their witnesses hadn't lied and contradicted themselves repeatedly. One of the victims testified that Bell was talking to him, saying "I love you" before he died while the defense proved he had way too many bullets in his throat to talk.

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 07:42 AM

Thirty-one rounds from Detective Oliver and a not-guilty verdict.

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 07:45 AM

You folks (and your spouses) may want to get home now. It could be a long weekend in New York.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 25 2008 08:00 AM

AG/DC wrote: You folks (and your spouses) may want to get home now. It could be a long weekend in New York. Yeah, I don't think that's going to be necessary.

metirish Apr 25 2008 08:07 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Sounds like the prosecution would have had a better case if their witnesses hadn't lied and contradicted themselves repeatedly. One of the victims testified that Bell was talking to him, saying "I love you" before he died while the defense proved he had way too many bullets in his throat to talk. Exactly , that fella Guzman acted like a thug on the stand , which is what he no doubt is.

Kong76 Apr 25 2008 08:07 AM

I know nothing about modern-day hand guns -- how many shots can a typical police gun fire before having to re-load it?

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 08:27 AM

The report has him reloading once. I figure there's got to be a time to reassess in there, and re-loading should be it. During the first Bush administration, there was a general feeling that crimininality was spreading because police were outgunned, and cops started getting armed with semi-automatics. Once that first shot is fired, the culture of the situation changes, and it takes so little to keep firing, and you have so many more rounds in a clip. It's like with the Diallo case, there's no middle ground. Once that first shot is fired, wisely or not, forty follow before anybody has time to think. My dad's snubnose had six shots. I squeezed it enough to know it took enough pressure to fire when it was uncocked that you had to make a decision each time, rather than firing on instinct. But it was lightweight enough that the recoil didn't make you fire haphazardly. They could empty sis shots into the kill zone in seconds if they had to, but they could sure count they as they were fired. If reloading didn't lead you to pause and reassess, burning hot metal did. My dad had long been under the opiinion that the NYPD was way over-armed and mis-armed. And come on, 31 shots from one officer? When was the last time you heard about a cop being killed because he had to pause and reload?

Willets Point Apr 25 2008 08:33 AM

It ain't no secret No secret my friend You can get killed just for living In your American skin.

Gwreck Apr 25 2008 08:48 AM

AG/DC wrote: And come on, 31 shots from one officer? When was the last time you heard about a cop being killed because he had to pause and reload? Exactly. I can accept that the prosecutors did a shitty job, and they put crappy witnesses on the stand, etc. But not guilty on at least "reckless endangerment?" C'mon.

metirish Apr 25 2008 08:53 AM

="Willets Point"]It ain't no secret No secret my friend You can get killed just for living In your American skin. A very powerful song.

Willets Point Apr 25 2008 09:10 AM

metirish wrote: A very powerful song. I agree. I just wish it would stop being so relevant.

seawolf17 Apr 25 2008 09:34 AM

A colleague's husband is NYPD... apparently, they've called in everyone, asking them to make sure they bring their vests.

Nymr83 Apr 25 2008 02:15 PM

a few thoughts: i didn't hear the testimony and i'm still unclear not only on what really happened (which nobody who wasnt there will ever know) but on what each side says really happened. it seems to me that all the prosecutions witnesses were scumbags and some lied (either on the stand or in earlier statements that cant be reconciled) thats a pretty big problem when you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judge, unlike a jury, knows what reasonable doubt means and won't just convict on the strength of public outrage. [on a side note if i ever did something and felt i wasn't guilty i'd choose the judge, if i felt i was guilty i'd rather try to trick the jury] i think we'll end up with an "oj" situation here where despite the criminal acquitalls these guys will end up owing millions in the civil suit that is sure to come. i suspect the city will to try and settle, quickly. also, i'm upset that i'm going to have to hear Rev. Racebaiter on the radio and news for another few weeks now.

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 02:30 PM

There's plenty that can be established factually for the sake of the trial, without really being "known," inlcuding that which neither side contests, and that which can be uncovered forensically. That "nobody who wasnt there will ever know" is no more true of this trial than any other trial. You draw conclusions. Others draw their conclusions. Is there reason to believe a judge is more immune to public outrage than a jury? You don't really have to hear anybody on the news.

Nymr83 Apr 25 2008 03:50 PM

i do personally believe that a judge is more apt to actually consider if charges were proven beyon a reasonable doubt rather than deciding in a common sense way if a defendant "did it."