Comments on: Anger Over Cops' Acquittal In Groom Slay

Emotions Run High After 3 Detectives Cleared Of Charges In 50-Shot Killing Of Unarmed Man

[flajoe1]

I''''m not saying they didn''''t over react. I''''m saying the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. NOT GUILTY was the only legal outcome.
----

Posted by smiley676 at 02:36 PM

I agree.

Well, Gota go mow the lawn. Have a good day :-)

[smiley676]

They shot a guy because he may have had a gun that they never saw.

Actually they were charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment not murder. I think if it was a jury trial they would have been found guilty. Their lawyers made a good choice having the judge decide the case.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Flajoe1

The point is no sane person runs a car into a van.

And the standard is still the same, you cannot be guilty of manslaughter if you reasonably believed your life was in danger.

It was the prosecution''s job to prove that they did not reasonably believe their lives were in danger and the prosecution failed to do that.

I''m not saying they didn''t over react. I''m saying the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. NOT GUILTY was the only legal outcome.

[smiley676]

I believe it is something like 65% that have college educations.

To assume that someone is uneducated because he is a police officer is really an ignorant assumption. That is why colleges offer criminal justice as a degree course.

[flajoe1]

It doesn''''t matter if they were in police uniform or if the van was marked. The question is were they guilty of murder or did they have a valid defense?
---
Posted by smiley676 at 02:14 PM

I guess my point was, if you were in that type of neighborhood and someone not in police uniform told you to stop, would you? Then while you are trying to get away from this person claiming to be a cop a strange van blocks your escape. Would you think they were the police or would you think that it could be a robbery?
They shot a guy because he may have had a gun that they never saw.

Actually they were charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment not murder. I think if it was a jury trial they would have been found guilty. Their lawyers made a good choice having the judge decide the case.

[hungry1968]

You do realize that most police officers today have gone to college, right?

Posted by smiley676 at 02:01 PM : Apr 26, 2008




Not in NY they don''t. That''s part of the fallout of offering your new officers only $28,000 / year salary. You don''t get "college educated" applicants - you get trigger happy, sanitation department flunkies.

[smiley676]

It doesn''t matter if they were in police uniform or if the van was marked. The question is were they guilty of murder or did they have a valid defense?

First, there is a presumption of innocence in the USA. Remember that? You are presumed innocent? It is the DA''''s job to PROVE that you are guilty. To be proven guilty, the DA had to prove that these police officers were not in fear of danger when they shot. He couldn''''t prove that.

Why you ask?

My second point. There were mentions of an armed person. In fact Bell and his friends were talking about a man with a gun. The police asked them to stop, but instead of stopping what did they do? They ran their car into the police officers'''' van.

Yes, obviously, the police overreacted. Obviously Bell''''s family must be devasted. However, it also seems obvious that those police officers were in fear of danger.

Therefore NOT GUILTY.

[flajoe1]

they were out at night in a police uniform

Posted by linfinster at 01:44 PM

Were did it say they were in uniform? I thought it was an undercover prostitution sting operation. One of the cop''s wasn''t carrying a gun; the article said he had to "arm himself". The article also said that the van was unmarked.

[beehive21-2009]

We would like to see the police shoot more of the ones that run especially after a car chase.The punks drive the car at high speed thru stop signs,red lights, putting society at the risk of death,etc.crashes and runs ,shoot the punks.

[smiley676]

Patrolling my own neighborhood instead of relying on useless, low-educated doughnut snarfers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by FloydZepp

You do realize that most police officers today have gone to college, right?

[smiley676]

It''s always so nice to read the posts from people who are completely oblivious as to the law or what actually happened.

First, there is a presumption of innocence in the USA. Remember that? You are presumed innocent? It is the DA''s job to PROVE that you are guilty. To be proven guilty, the DA had to prove that these police officers were not in fear of danger when they shot. He couldn''t prove that.

Why you ask?

My second point. There were mentions of an armed person. In fact Bell and his friends were talking about a man with a gun. The police asked them to stop, but instead of stopping what did they do? They ran their car into the police officers'' van.

Yes, obviously, the police overreacted. Obviously Bell''s family must be devasted. However, it also seems obvious that those police officers were in fear of danger.

Therefore NOT GUILTY.