Unarmed Grooms Death Sparks Protest
The AP at Yahoo has a story entitled "Calls for justice at NYC vigil for groom". Yahoo entitled the story, "Unarmed Grooms Death Sparks Protest".
I usually do not comment on stories until more of the facts are out, but I cannot contain myself here.
First, the groom, Sean Bell, was not unarmed. He struck an undercover police officer and their minivan with his car. He then backed up, crashed into a building's gate, drove forward, and struck the minivan again.
Second, Sean Bell was involved in a verbal altercation outside the club and one of his friends mentioned a gun. An undercover officer in the vicinity followed the group to their car obviously wondering if they were going to brandish a gun.
Third, undercover officers were at this club because the managers of the club had in the past been convicted of prostitution and drug trafficing.
Fourth, this event occurred at 4:00 in the morning.
Now, on the night before and the morning of his wedding, Sean Bell was at a club known to practice in prostitution and drug trafficing. He stayed at the club until 4:00am. Upon exiting the club, he had a verbal altercation with an individual and his friend apparently mentioned a gun. Now, Sean Bell gets into his car, runs over an undercover police officer, strikes their minivan, backs up, strikes a gate, and then drives forward striking the van again.
The police officer who opened fire first had been on the force five years. Another officer who fired 31 rounds had been on the force 12 years. None of the officers involved had ever been involved in a shooting.
Now, while this death is tragic, it is anything but a race crime.
It has everything to do with a groom, while allowed to have fun prior to his wedding night, was probably engaged in illicit behavior inside this club until 4:00 in the morning, not to mention most likely intoxicated. So much for fidelity in marriage. If intoxicated, his senses were impaired which directly resulted in him/his friend mentioning having a gun and then driving over a pedestrian, who happened to be an undercover police officer, smashing into a van, backing up, smashing into a gate, and then smashing back into the van.
If not intoxicated, his friend still mentioned a gun. Sean Bell still ran over an undercover police officer, smashed into their van, smashed into a gate, and then smashed into the van again.
Being a military officer and having been involved in moving under life or death situations, I can only say one thing, why did not all officers empty their weapons?
The groom's friends are anything but friends if they took him to this club known for prostitution and drug trafficing and kept him out until 4:00 am on the day of his wedding. His friends are anything but friends if any of them mentioned a gun. His friends were anything but friends if they let him engage in illicit sexual behavior on the night prior to his wedding.
My mother always used to tell me, "It is hard to soar with the eagles when all you hang out with is turkeys."
These gentlemen were turkeys.
I usually do not comment on stories until more of the facts are out, but I cannot contain myself here.
First, the groom, Sean Bell, was not unarmed. He struck an undercover police officer and their minivan with his car. He then backed up, crashed into a building's gate, drove forward, and struck the minivan again.
Second, Sean Bell was involved in a verbal altercation outside the club and one of his friends mentioned a gun. An undercover officer in the vicinity followed the group to their car obviously wondering if they were going to brandish a gun.
Third, undercover officers were at this club because the managers of the club had in the past been convicted of prostitution and drug trafficing.
Fourth, this event occurred at 4:00 in the morning.
Now, on the night before and the morning of his wedding, Sean Bell was at a club known to practice in prostitution and drug trafficing. He stayed at the club until 4:00am. Upon exiting the club, he had a verbal altercation with an individual and his friend apparently mentioned a gun. Now, Sean Bell gets into his car, runs over an undercover police officer, strikes their minivan, backs up, strikes a gate, and then drives forward striking the van again.
The police officer who opened fire first had been on the force five years. Another officer who fired 31 rounds had been on the force 12 years. None of the officers involved had ever been involved in a shooting.
Now, while this death is tragic, it is anything but a race crime.
It has everything to do with a groom, while allowed to have fun prior to his wedding night, was probably engaged in illicit behavior inside this club until 4:00 in the morning, not to mention most likely intoxicated. So much for fidelity in marriage. If intoxicated, his senses were impaired which directly resulted in him/his friend mentioning having a gun and then driving over a pedestrian, who happened to be an undercover police officer, smashing into a van, backing up, smashing into a gate, and then smashing back into the van.
If not intoxicated, his friend still mentioned a gun. Sean Bell still ran over an undercover police officer, smashed into their van, smashed into a gate, and then smashed into the van again.
Being a military officer and having been involved in moving under life or death situations, I can only say one thing, why did not all officers empty their weapons?
The groom's friends are anything but friends if they took him to this club known for prostitution and drug trafficing and kept him out until 4:00 am on the day of his wedding. His friends are anything but friends if any of them mentioned a gun. His friends were anything but friends if they let him engage in illicit sexual behavior on the night prior to his wedding.
My mother always used to tell me, "It is hard to soar with the eagles when all you hang out with is turkeys."
These gentlemen were turkeys.
posted by Lieutenant Colonel Caveman at Monday, November 27, 2006
1 Comments:
Interesting. Even though you state that you "usually do not comment on stories until more of the facts are out" you could not "contain" yourself from stating (based not on police or eye witness testimony) that Mr Bell was "probably engaged in illicit behavior" (!) was "most intoxicated" (!) and not being faithful to his fiance (!)
Since we're jumping recklessly to conclusions, what about the fact that the police had also been in the bar since 1:00 AM, and were "probably engaged" in drinking over that 3 hour period? Why not then conclude they were also probably "most intoxicated"? It would certainly explain 50 shots at unarmed men.
The problem with jumping to the immediate defense of the police based more on conditioning than the "facts" that have so far been presented indicates you're already biased. Whether that's racial or not is immaterial, it's still pre-judging. In other words "prejudiced".
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home