Without mentioning how Sean Bell died, Mayor Bloomberg signed a bill Monday designating the site of one of the city's most shocking police shootings as "Sean Bell Way."
Bell, 23, was killed in a fusillade of 50 police bullets Nov. 25, 2006, just hours before his scheduled wedding. The shooting erupted on Liverpool St., near the Kalua Cabaret in Jamaica, where Bell's bachelor party was held.
Police said Bell was armed, but no weapon was ever found. Three detectives were acquitted of state charges last year, but a federal civil rights investigation is continuing. Also still pending is a civil damage suit against the city.
Can you believe the three "detectives were acquitted of state charges last year?" Can you believe how the friends and relatives of Sean Bell appear in that picture with the mayor? I can't.
Wikipedia links the Sean Bell killing with another famous one, Amadou Bailo Diallo, which took place a few years earlier.
[He was]a 23-year-old Guinean immigrant in New York City who was shot and killed on February 4, 1999 by four New York City Police Department plain-clothed officers: Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss. The four officers fired a total of 41 rounds. The shooting took place at 1157 Wheeler Avenue in the Soundview section of The Bronx. The four were part of the now-defunct Street Crimes Unit. All four officers were acquitted at trial in Albany, New York.
Diallo was unarmed at the time of the shooting, and a firestorm of controversy erupted subsequent to the event as the circumstances of the shooting prompted outrage both within and outside New York City. Issues such as police brutality, racial profiling, and contagious shooting were central to the ensuing controversy.
What's your opinion? Are these incidents infrequent enough that they should be considered the price we have to pay for a safer New York City? Do you think this is part of the deal, that the cops are asked to go out there and clean things up with the promise of immunity when things go wrong? Is this the Giuliani legacy being carried on by Bloomberg?
Do you think the fault for this extends beyond the officers themselves who are doing the shooting? Do you think the Mayor and the city and the judges and juries should share in the blame?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Are these incidents infrequent enough that they should be considered the price we have to pay for a safer New York City?"
ReplyDeleteIt's obviously not a safer New York City if you're a black man.
I have a better question for you though: Are criminal shootings in general infrequent enough to be the price we have to pay to keep our relatively unfettered access to arms?
I ask because gun controllers are quick to say that even one death is one too many. Especially if it's one of The Children© who die.
"Is this the Giuliani legacy being carried on by Bloomberg?"
It wouldn't surprise me. They are scum cut from the same east coast elitist cloth.
Under the anti gun loon's criteria of "one death is too many" as pointed out by Aztek Red, New York would be a lot safer if NYPD were disarmed. Fewere unarmed innocent people would be killed and since New York has such stringent gun control which means criminals can't possibly get guns, then why does NYPD need to be armed? Laci tells us time and again that London cops don't need to be armed because they have such great gun, knife and beer mug control over there. If it works so well there, why wouldn't it work in Bloomberg land?
ReplyDeleteThe anti gun loons all claim that legally owned guns are the problem since they are all stolen or turned on their owners so New York can reduce the senseless gun violence even further if they really wanted to. They could get 50,000 legally owned guns off the streets that could possibly be stolen or used against their owners if they disarm the NYPD and all of their auxiliary officers. PLus, they would save the occasional unarmed man from being gunned down by the police as well.
After all, its for the children isn't it?
FWM, I'm not sure but I think JadeGold has a copyright on the word "gunloon." You might be violating that by saying "anti gun loon."
ReplyDelete"FWM, I'm not sure but I think JadeGold has a copyright on the word 'gunloon.' You might be violating that by saying 'anti gun loon'"
ReplyDeleteIf all gun owners are "gun loons" then wouldn't those people that suffer from an irrational fear of guns be "anti gun loons"?
"FWM, I'm not sure but I think JadeGold has a copyright on the word 'gunloon.' You might be violating that by saying 'anti gun loon.'"
ReplyDeleteMikeB, just so there is no confusion, I own gunloon.com. It is for sale if Jade wants it, otherwise, please censor the use of the term in comments by others including JadeGold.
FWM, I realize I started this joke, but is it true? Do you own a domain called gunloon.com? Now you've got me going.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't help myself. Yes, I bought it. It links to my site now--click it.
gunloon.com
Maybe I'll do something funny with it later. I am serious though, I will sell it to Jade if he wants it--I promise to only make a profit enough to buy one box of ammo--just in the spirit of fun.
Is there a reason you keep calling him Bloomfield? Not that I object (I actually hope it has some hidden and offensive meaning...) just curious.
ReplyDeletePublic places should be named for people who do great things, or are at least legitimately famous rather than infamous. I don't think getting shot by cops is justification to have a street named after you, nor do I think it is a good idea to memorialize this event, regardless of whether the police were wrong.
You took the time to check Wikipedia for Diallo--Did you check Bell's entry there? Bell and both his companions had been previously arrested on gun charges. Both of the others had armed robbery convictions, and one a juvenile gun possession conviction. Bell might not have been a convicted criminal, but chances are near 100% that he was a criminal.
Unarmed is irrelevant if the police legitimately thought he was likely armed.
You shouldn't give police complete immunity, but you also have to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are faced with quickly deteriorating situations. You can almost always find a flaw in hindsight, but can you find an alternate solution that includes officer safety in the few seconds these officers had to decide?
"Is there a reason you keep calling him Bloomfield? Not that I object (I actually hope it has some hidden and offensive meaning...) just curious."
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping it's a portmanteau of Bloomberg and Cloverfield: Both slimy creatures we'd rather not venture outside of NYC.
FWM, That's fantastic. I love the way you were able to turn that silly joke around by actually owning the domain. Wonderful.
ReplyDeleteIt made me notice something though, and not for the first time. Terms like "gun loon" and "gun nut" seem to be acceptable when you guys use them, reference Caleb's site, but offensive when we do. Do you think that's the way it is?
I pretty much avoid using them for that reason, preferring instead "gun enthusiast" or "gun apologist," even the one I sometimes use, "gun lover" sounds slightly antagonistic to me. What do you think about these terms?
Mikeb: Terms like "gun loon" and "gun nut" seem to be acceptable when you guys use them, reference Caleb's site, but offensive when we do. Do you think that's the way it is?
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly. It's not uncommon for the targets of a perjorative to adopt said perjorative as a playful term among themselves.
"Terms like "gun loon" and "gun nut" seem to be acceptable when you guys use them, reference Caleb's site, but offensive when we do. Do you think that's the way it is?"
ReplyDeleteI don't recall any of us getting real bent out of shape when the anti gun loons used the terms for us. Even when they are clearly upset at us for throwing facts and the truth into the argument and they start the name calling, we really don't get that upset. It is just a name, after all.
Remember, our side is all about facts while your side is all about feelings. :)
Yes, indeed, FWM. One of my feelings right now is hoping that you have a wonderful 2010, that you and your family may enjoy health and prosperity.
ReplyDelete