Let the Riots Begin-- Pigs acquitted in Sean Bell murder

[coda]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/25/sean.bell.trial/index.html

[An archist]

What the?? 50 shots fired and none of these pigs got convicted? Do they want riots?

[Psy]

What the?? 50 shots fired and none of these pigs got convicted? Do they want riots?

I was on a liberal website way back when the story first broke and they defended the police spray and pray policy due to the fact they thought it is unreasonable to expect police to be able to take proper aim during fire fights due to it being unreasonable to expect police to be disciplined to hold their shots till they have a clean shot (I am not kidding). They justified this by pointing to US troops doing the same in Iraq, yes this was from a liberal web sight that hated Bush and loved the Democratic Party.

[PRC-UTE]

I was on a liberal website way back when the story first broke and they defended the police spray and pray policy due to the fact they thought it is unreasonable to expect police to be able to take proper aim during fire fights due to it being unreasonable to expect police to be disciplined to hold their shots till they have a clean shot (I am not kidding). They justified this by pointing to US troops doing the same in Iraq, yes this was from a liberal web sight that hated Bush and loved the Democratic Party.

LOL, only fascist and police states use that kind of reasoning.

[Psy]

LOL, only fascist and police states use that kind of reasoning.
Well their reasoning was, "we support our troops and police in the war on terror" and not Republicans because they want social services.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was on a liberal website way back when the story first broke and they defended the police spray and pray policy due to the fact they thought it is unreasonable to expect police to be able to take proper aim during fire fights due to it being unreasonable to expect police to be disciplined to hold their shots till they have a clean shot (I am not kidding). They justified this by pointing to US troops doing the same in Iraq, yes this was from a liberal web sight that hated Bush and loved the Democratic Party.

Kinda like how it isn't unreasonable to shoot a man forty times when he attempts to take out his wallet.

[coda]

The defense for the cops was this: That they were "drunken thugs" and have previous criminal records. Which of course, they didn't know at the time of the shooting. And which shouldn't enter into it anyway.

""The pair were part of "a parade of convicted felons, crack dealers and men who were not strangers to weapons," said James Culleton, Oliver's attorney.""

The Judge said: "The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was not justified" in shooting the victims."

http://www.abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6101602

[Colonello Buendia]

50 rounds, FIFTY FUCKING ROUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the scary thing about the clear shot thing is that if that was justified then I could shoot someone and then say I was aimin for someone else and didn't have a clear shot, especially when you want to stop a suspect you don't pull that shit it's simply absurd

[Psy]

50 rounds, FIFTY FUCKING ROUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the scary thing about the clear shot thing is that if that was justified then I could shoot someone and then say I was aimin for someone else and didn't have a clear shot, especially when you want to stop a suspect you don't pull that shit it's simply absurd


That is because police don't have much training in tactics, they are mostly training in dealing with a unorganized force that is much weaker then they are. Thus why when they face even a small force with military spec equipment (or simply a lightly armed yet organized force that can out maneuver them) the police usually just waits for SWAT to get involved. This is why they spray so many bullets as they don't have enough training for dealing with a real fire fight, thus they try to drop the target before it even gets far.

On the bright side it means the police are of little concern when it comes to a revolution as their complete lack of tactics would make them a push over.

[Hampton]

Diallo was 40, Bell is 50, next time will be more.

And they get away with it.

[Ultra-Violence]

Fucking Ridiculous!
The officer un-loaded a whole clip reloaded and emptyed another clip
on the man .
It just great to be a person of color in Amerikkka

[Comrade Rage]

This news disgusted me, and I've heard a lot of police abuse stories. I don't think there will be riots, though. I hope not, anyway; since my Dad lives just over from this, in the Bronx.

Ever since Bernard Kerik became police commissioner stories like this have become more frequent. From what I've heard the police are not as rude as they used to be, but they've become more violent. It's wierd.

[Psy]

Again it is more to do with a complete lack of tactics then racism (though racism is a factor) for example Toronto Police used lethal force on a lose cow. Now I highly doubt the police officers were racist towards cows, but I find it funny police officer that think of themselves as real macho manly men used their guns instead a rope or just tipping the cow.

Thus you have police that have a complete lack of tactics that are also spineless cowards as they are scared of cows, and if they are that scared of cows it means racist police are petrified about blacks.

[Zurdito]

Again it is more to do with a complete lack of tactics then racism (though racism is a factor) for example Toronto Police used lethal force on a lose cow. Now I highly doubt the police officers were racist towards cows, but I find it funny police officer that think of themselves as real macho manly men used their guns instead a rope or just tipping the cow.

Thus you have police that have a complete lack of tactics that are also spineless cowards as they are scared of cows, and if they are that scared of cows it means racist police are petrified about blacks.

or it shows that many cops in the US (and Britain in many ways) value black people about as much as they value animals.

[hekmatista]

Unless the fix is in, as must be evident. These cops didn't want a jury, 'cause they knew the judge would acquit.

[Module]

That is because police don't have much training in tactics, they are mostly training in dealing with a unorganized force that is much weaker then they are. Thus why when they face even a small force with military spec equipment (or simply a lightly armed yet organized force that can out maneuver them) the police usually just waits for SWAT to get involved. This is why they spray so many bullets as they don't have enough training for dealing with a real fire fight, thus they try to drop the target before it even gets far.

On the bright side it means the police are of little concern when it comes to a revolution as their complete lack of tactics would make them a push over.
No way it's a lack of tactics which makes a group of police men shoot a man 50 times.
Surely the target 'drops' long before the 50th shot. (If that's what you mean.)

[Psy]

No way it's a lack of tactics which makes a group of police men shoot a man 50 times.
Surely the target 'drops' long before the 50th shot. (If that's what you mean.)
Depending on their accuracy, many times when they are spraying bullets like that a small percentage of the rounds actually hit the target.

[Bilan]

Again it is more to do with a complete lack of tactics then racism (though racism is a factor) for example Toronto Police used lethal force on a lose cow. Now I highly doubt the police officers were racist towards cows, but I find it funny police officer that think of themselves as real macho manly men used their guns instead a rope or just tipping the cow.

Thus you have police that have a complete lack of tactics that are also spineless cowards as they are scared of cows, and if they are that scared of cows it means racist police are petrified about blacks.

You have to be fucking kidding me.
Yeah, 5 shots, maybe it was the pig shitting himself, but 50. No fucking way.
Not a fucking chance is this some fault of tactics.
This is cold blooded murder.

[3A CCCP]

I have a carry permit and carry a 6 round S&W, model 65, .357 magnum revolver for self-protection. If I need more than 6 shots in a self-defense scenario then I probably should get down to the range for more practice!!!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

P.S. A semi-auto pistol has a "magazine" ("mag" in the lingo), not a clip.

[dez]

"justice".

[The Advent of Anarchy]

50 shots at an unarmed man is not justifiable in any way. It's the pure definition of police brutality.

[#FF0000]

Not only did they fire 50 shots, but I remember when the story first broke, how they found the shells spread around the car at close proximity, as if they were walking around the car and firing at everyone inside.

[Psy]

You have to be fucking kidding me.
Yeah, 5 shots, maybe it was the pig shitting himself, but 50. No fucking way.
Not a fucking chance is this some fault of tactics.
This is cold blooded murder.
Two Port Authority patrolmen at the near by elevated train station stating at the elevated platform were nearly hit by the police bullets, meaning the police were widely firing without aiming.



50 shots at an unarmed man is not justifiable in any way. It's the pure definition of police brutality.

I agree, but it is also a clear sign of a lack of discipline of police offers, meaning they would easily be susceptible to ambushes.



Not only did they fire 50 shots, but I remember when the story first broke, how they found the shells spread around the car at close proximity, as if they were walking around the car and firing at everyone inside.

Even at the close range they had a low hit ratio. Only half of the rounds fired hit the victims that they probably were trying to hit. Any dinky guerilla force could wipe floor with them with that kind of pathetic marksmanship

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Not only did they fire 50 shots, but I remember when the story first broke, how they found the shells spread around the car at close proximity, as if they were walking around the car and firing at everyone inside.

What the fuck?! If they were any more brutal, they might've shot the gas tank in the car at a distance to watch it explode! Bring out the rioters and burn down the LAPD buildings!

[AGITprop]

Fuck police officers.

Line them all up.

Shoot.

Then pour salt into their wounds.

[Psy]

What the fuck?! If they were any more brutal, they might've shot the gas tank in the car at a distance to watch it explode! Bring out the rioters and burn down the LAPD buildings!
If they weren't so lucky they would have hit the white patrol men at the station and got charged with murder for the white patrol men.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

This is exactly why the police should not exist. They are the foot soldiers of the ruling class, and a major key to preserving authoritarian rule all over the world. I agree with Gunther, they should all be shot. However, killing the police is an extra reward when watching the LAPD building burn to the ground.

[Psy]

This is exactly why the police should not exist. They are the foot soldiers of the ruling class, and a major key to preserving authoritarian rule all over the world. I agree with Gunther, they should all be shot. However, killing the police is an extra reward when watching the LAPD building burn to the ground.

I would rather have May 1968 Paris where even the police in armored cars turn tail at the sight of their armored cars burning, yes you can torch them by lobbing molotov cocktails into them as they open up to deploy the riot police or by ramming the windows with a pipe (thrusting the pipe right into the window instead of swinging it down into it) over and over again till they break.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

I would rather have May 1968 Paris where even the police in armored cars turn tail at the sight of their armored cars burning, yes you can torch them by lobbing molotov cocktails into them as they open up to deploy the riot police or by ramming the windows with a pipe (thrusting the pipe right into the window instead of swinging it down into it) over and over again till they break.

Sounds like fun. Too bad that's not 2008 Los Angeles(sp?). But no police is still better.

[Colonello Buendia]

that would be good, I'll get the fuel

[Sublevarse]

I can't say I'm surprised, considering how police brutality is treated in the U.S. today. The fact that no one seems to have heard the cops identify themselves apparently means nothing. Disgusting, really.

[mikelepore]

To the people who are surprised, not only at the verdict, but also the number of rounds that the cops fired, I wanted to share what I have learned. I picked up this information by watching the entire Feb. 2000 trial of the cops who killed Amadou Diallo in Feb. 1999, which was broadcast on cable TV.

First, New York City is one of those cities where the cops are taught that the decision whether to use lethal force is a binary decision, it is go / no-go, all or nothing. The cops are trained never to say they shot a suspect in the leg, and then they could see that he was now incapacitated, and then they arrested him. The rule book that is given to the police forbids that. Once they make the decision to shoot at all, they are required to see to it that the suspect is certainly dead and that they have emptied all of their guns into the person's body. Therefore, that they shot Diallo 41 times or Bell 50 times is no more unexpected than their decision to shoot one time.

The other thing is that we need to understand how the law is currently written, or at least what it's currently interpreted to mean. Even when the cops are completely incompetent and paranoid, on top of being racist, even if the cops kill someone with the most atrocious excuse for their behavior, such as: I sincerely believed that my life was in danger because the suspect acted very suspicious and threatening, i.e., he was a young black man who put his hand into his pocket -- that's not sufficient to convict a cop. In April 1992 during the first trial of the cops who assaulted Rodney King, and in Feb. 2000 in the trial of the cops who killed Amadou Diallo, the judge's instructions to the jury amounted to this: members of the jury, this is what the law requires of you -- you can only convict the police officers if there is evidence that the police actually said let's go out today and maim or kill an innocent person for no reason. Since that's not the way it happened, those juries returned not guilty verdicts. Of course, in a case where there is no jury, the position of the judge is the final word.

I thought I'd take this opportunity to explain some of the systematic things that are wrong with the legal structure, so that people can be outraged, as they should be, but not unnecessarily confused or surprised.

[Anashtih]

That is because police don't have much training in tactics, they are mostly training in dealing with a unorganized force that is much weaker then they are. Thus why when they face even a small force with military spec equipment (or simply a lightly armed yet organized force that can out maneuver them) the police usually just waits for SWAT to get involved. This is why they spray so many bullets as they don't have enough training for dealing with a real fire fight, thus they try to drop the target before it even gets far.

On the bright side it means the police are of little concern when it comes to a revolution as their complete lack of tactics would make them a push over.
Tactics don't mean as much if they have automatic weapons and tear gas :crying:

[Module]

Depending on their accuracy, many times when they are spraying bullets like that a small percentage of the rounds actually hit the target.

Two Port Authority patrolmen at the near by elevated train station stating at the elevated platform were nearly hit by the police bullets, meaning the police were widely firing without aiming.
26 bullets hit their targets. That's not a small percentage, and clearly indicates they were aiming.

mikelepore, I had heard about those laws, too. It's absolutely disgusting that police officers are told only to shoot to kill, rather than shoot to disarm or incapacitate. It just shows the real motive of the police, as an institution, is in no way to protect.

[Psy]

26 bullets hit their targets. That's not a small percentage, and clearly indicates they were aiming.

They were at a very close range to the car.



Tactics don't mean as much if they have automatic weapons and tear gas :crying:

The police had tear gas at the Paris uprising of May 1968, they (showing complete lack of tactical awareness) moved armored truck into the protesters and got stuck in the barricades and the protesters had tons of time to crack them open with tools. Thus protesters were able to loot them for gas masks (plus other riot gear).

When police tactics are counter productive then it becomes much easier to crush them.



First, New York City is one of those cities where the cops are taught that the decision whether to use lethal force is a binary decision, it is go / no-go, all or nothing. The cops are trained never to say they shot a suspect in the leg, and then they could see that he was now incapacitated, and then they arrested him. The rule book that is given to the police forbids that. Once they make the decision to shoot at all, they are required to see to it that the suspect is certainly dead and that they have emptied all of their guns into the person's body. Therefore, that they shot Diallo 41 times or Bell 50 times is no more unexpected than their decision to shoot one time.

That is tactically unsound when dealing with multiple targets. Since you spending so much time attacking a single target the other targets has more opportunities to aim and fire. Also they (police) are most vulnerable when reloading and if they all have to reload around the same time, then the police will be unable to repel a ambush.

Even if the NYPD is not thinking of fighting urban guerrilla forces or a revolutionary army, criminal organizations has enough disciplined gun men that organize crime can do such ambushes too. If one of the major criminal organizations ever declared war on the NYPD, odds are the NYPD would get brutally crushed and go crying to the FBI like police forces did regarding the Black Panthers.

Police are basically unskilled thugs, meant to intimidate like the thugs of Mofias, they are useless in a real fight and like the Mofia the state has to bring in the big guns when ever the thugs fail at intimidation.

[ckaihatsu]

> And so politics decompose into ethics. The author of the letter blames Obama for not taking the right stance, for not mouthing the right words of displeasure.


[...],

I don't see why you're bringing up ethics here -- this is a political issue, meaning that it involves policy which could apply to anyone, not just to the murderers of Sean Bell, but to the treatment of any other killer cops. Obama -- as with any politician -- is either going to be demonstrating appropriate judgment regarding political issues like this one, or else he isn't.

He *isn't* making the correct decision on this, by going lightly on Bell's murderers. Call it a stance, or mouthing, or whatever -- what counts is his treatment of the case -- that's the substance of what he does, or of what any of us do by becoming involved.


> Obama isn't endorsing the shooters, and he isn't decrying protest.


*Not* endorsing the shooters??? Just compare the treatment given to the killer cops versus to someone like Mumia Abu-Jamal, who didn't even commit a crime and has been in jail for decades. That is a tacit *endorsement* of cops who kill. Why *shouldn't* they be given sentences? There is plenty of precedent to show that a double standard is in effect in terms of how police perpetrators are treated compared with others.

Obama doesn't have to "decry" protest or not "decry" protest -- protest is up to those who are in a position to protest. Whether politicians "decry" it or not is irrelevant. If protest actually worked these days we'd have ended the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq by now, and Mumia would be a free man.


> He's urging a political solution to prevent police brutality, not a round of pointless riots.


[...], can you really say that anything that Obama says or does will *prevent* any and all possible future occurrences of police brutality? A ***solution***? Come on -- we both know that police brutality goes hand-in-hand with the defense of the capitalist state. Please remember, this *is* an [...] discussion list...!


> A political solution. That, to my mind, is worth vastly more than another round of ritual outrage, another moment to feel good about being on the right side....


Would you care to elaborate, then? What would be a political solution to police brutality?

Politics is *all about* being on the right side, given one's material interests. That's why the capitalist state *has* military and police forces at all -- so that their interests to capital are protected.

If someone "feels good" about having the correct stance, then that's their personal business -- what counts politically, collectively, is what that stance is. If regular people take offense to the slaying of one of their own, that's not "ritual" outrage, that's *outrage* -- why belittle genuine, justified responses to actual events with your dismissive characterization?


> A perfect symptom of a left more concerned with taking stances than
with real change.


Isn't this sloganeering? One *has* to begin by making a decision and taking a stance. Everything else, including real changes, follows from that. Leftism doesn't happen accidentally -- it happens by beginning with taking stances.


Chris





--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Module]

They were at a very close range to the car.
They weren't shooting at the car, they were shooting at the men who were outside of the car.
That is entirely different.


When police tactics are counter productive then it becomes much easier to crush them. And this is clearly not a case of counter productive police tactics. What exactly was counter productive for them in this case?
They got away with it, just like those have before them, and those will after them.


That is tactically unsound when dealing with multiple targets. Since you spending so much time attacking a single target the other targets has more opportunities to aim and fire. Also they (police) are most vulnerable when reloading and if they all have to reload around the same time, then the police will be unable to repel a ambush.And what makes you think this will strictly apply to multiple targets, as well, when clearly this is referring to a general single target situation? Somehow I doubt that the police are told to shoot and kill just one man, when dealing with a group. In the case of multiple targets they will deal with all targets.

[Bilan]

Two Port Authority patrolmen at the near by elevated train station stating at the elevated platform were nearly hit by the police bullets, meaning the police were widely firing without aiming.

No, meaning the pig couldn't handle the fire arm.
That does not excuse 50 shots.

[Psy]

And this is clearly not a case of counter productive police tactics. What exactly was counter productive for them in this case?
They got away with it, just like those have before them, and those will after them.

None of the officers had any rounds left in the magazine loaded in their pistols as they emptied their guns into the targets. If it was a mafia ambush they be defenseless and be sitting ducks as mafia gunmen enter the fight and mow them down. They would have also been totally defenses if a mob charged them, meaning the people of the bar could have ganged up on the police and beat them into a pulp as the police would have had tunnel vision during firing (it is common when firing at that rate) and wouldn't notice the mob approaching, since this took place in a bar parking lot the mob could quickly start lobing molotov cocktails and the police would have no rounds in the pistols to defend themselves.

Meaning it would have been counter productive if the police were counterattacked by anyone after the fire fight.



And what makes you think this will strictly apply to multiple targets, as well, when clearly this is referring to a general single target situation? Somehow I doubt that the police are told to shoot and kill just one man, when dealing with a group. In the case of multiple targets they will deal with all targets.
The issue is defending against a counterattack from forces that was not involved in the first fire fight.

[Psy]

No, meaning the pig couldn't handle the fire arm.
That does not excuse 50 shots.
That still means they were not aiming. I'm saying it is an excuse, just saying it is a sign of police being more of unskilled thugs then a disciplined fighting force.

[coda]

i don't know what degree of racism was involved, if any. it should be noted that the three cops on trial were all minorities -- 2 black cops and the cop who spent the 30 and reloaded was Latino. However! The white cops involved were never indicted.

[Guerrilla22]

It was an execution pure and simple. The fact that they were given a bench trial by a sympathetic judge who decided to take manners in his own hands was a travesty.

[coda]

I agree, Guerrilla22. It was an execution. And they got acquitted because they were cops -- and there's a protection afforded to the ruling class.

another detail: the cops, undercover, had been drinking at the bar.

[Psy]

I agree, Guerrilla22. It was an execution. And they got acquitted because they were cops -- and there's a protection afforded to the ruling class.

another detail: the cops, undercover, had been drinking at the bar.


Yet that was not the mission, it is not really in the interest of the ruling class, the ruling class rather have the police effectively keep organized crime in check (that was those officer's mission) rather then go off killing blacks that is of no importance to the ruling class.

Yet organize crime continues to have its fastest boom since prohibition with some crime bosses having more capital then most of the ruling class.

And the ruling class can't even make an example of police officers that through incompetence let organized crime grow in power.

[coda]

What i mean is that cops, as part of the ruling class,,, which I consider them to be.. are afforded special protection, i.e. acquittal.

[Psy]

What i mean is that cops, as part of the ruling class,,, which I consider them to be.. are afforded special protection, i.e. acquittal.
Police are no more part of the ruling class then thugs are part of the inner circle of a crime family.

[Ultra-Violence]

i don't know what degree of racism was involved, if any. it should be noted that the three cops on trial were all minorities -- 2 black cops and the cop who spent the 30 and reloaded was Latino. However! The white cops involved were never indicted.


Just so you know it realy doenst matter what the race of the cops are cuase thier all racist fucks anways! Ive had plenty of run ins with the cops the Hispanic cops treat me just as bad as the white ones! they #1 try to look legit infront of the white officers #2 They hate thier own skin they were born with(self hate)

[Mindtoaster]

"These people ain't seen a brown skinned man since their grandparents bought one" - Zack De La Rocha

Police are fucking thugs. I'm going on a date with a girl saturday night who had the shit beat out of her by the NOPD after she accidently kicked one as they were approaching her. They beat her with their nightsticks in the jailhouse, while she wasn't resisting. Atleast the fucking cowards had the decency not to rape her. I just heard on the news that another New Orleans cop has been accused of forcing a girl to expose herself to him.