Let the rioting begin?

link

-- (nemesis@aol.com), February 25, 2000

Answers

Ooops, I accidentally put in an aol addy. Sysops please delete.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 25, 2000.

Related story...

NY Officers Acquitted in Diallo Case

The Associated Press Friday, Feb. 25, 2000; 5:01 p.m. EST

ALBANY, N.Y.  Four white New York City police officers who killed unarmed West African immigrant Amadou Diallo in a barrage of 41 bullets were acquitted of all charges Friday, a stunning end to a case that led to massive protests and raised tensions between police and minorities.

The jury  four black women, one white woman and seven white men  deliberated for more than 20 hours over three days after a monthlong trial.

The verdict was returned at about 4:45 p.m. The first defendant acquitted, Kenneth Boss, closed his eyes and dropped his head in relief when the verdicts were read.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi had ruled the jury could consider less serious charges against the officers, opening the door for a compromise verdict in the trial of Sean Carroll, 37; Edward McMellon, 27; Boss, 28; and Richard Murphy, 27.

But the Albany jury, seated after an appeals court ruled that finding an impartial New York City jury was impossible, acquitted all four on counts from murder to reckless endangerment.

The officers shot and killed Diallo, 22, in the elevator-sized vestibule of his Bronx apartment building at 12:40 a.m. on Feb. 4, 1999. Nineteen bullets struck the victim; the officers said they thought Diallo had pulled a gun, but he had actually reached for his wallet.

The accused officers were members of a roving unit of plainclothes officers that allegedly stopped and frisked young black men without cause.

) Copyright 2000 The Associated Press

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 25, 2000.

If you want to kill someone in the Big Apple:

1. Join the NYPD

2. Catch the person on the street without any witnesses around

3. Claim that you thought you were at risk

4. Cry and act like you feel badly about it

5. Go on to the next intended victim

-- Z (Z@Z.com), February 25, 2000.

Oh my, here we go again. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser. Wonder how Hills will spin this?

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 25, 2000.

Failing riots, the next worst thing is we will be subjected to JJ and Sharpton for days and weeks on end. I bet their shirts are soaked with saliva right about now.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 25, 2000.

It's very simple. We live in a police state.

-- (no@police.state), February 25, 2000.

Watching NY local news right now. 610pm EST. I think the NYPD is slowly starting to piss their pants.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 25, 2000.

Why is NYPD concerned? Their Gestapo triumphed again. Evidently it's open season on unarmed citizens in NYC. Never thought I'd agree with Sharton (yuck!), but this is a blatant outrage. But hey, the NYPD is a great place of homicidal maniacs to indulge their hobbies. (Not intended against the vast majority of honest NYPD police officers...they are/will be victims of these officers' blood lust).

-- Z (Z@Z.com), February 25, 2000.

Z, I doubt they know whether riots will break out. If they did, NYPD would be powerless. But, maybe the outraged populace will stay calm and wait for the appeals process to rectify the 'injustice'.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 25, 2000.

Canthappen, there's no appealing an innocent verdict. What will probably happen is there will be a civil suit against the cops based on alleged violations of federal civil rights laws. The constitution refers to that sort of thing as "double jeopardy," but nowadays it's perfectly legal.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 25, 2000.

Amadou Diallo and me - Thoughts of an African-American columnist who believes the police officers are innocent.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 25, 2000.

Markus, you may be right, I don't know. All I heard them say is it will now be taken to the federal level because Albany's justice system failed. Is that what you mean by a civil suit?

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 25, 2000.

Canthappen - Exactly. You can't appeal the criminal verdict, the constitution was written that way on purpose, if you're found innocent by a jury of your peers, end of story. But now if a jury doesn't decide in the politically correct way, then the justice system failed and we have to take it to the federal level where the justice system is more in tune with right thinking.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 25, 2000.

Nobody wants to see more violence except the lunatic fringe who wants total anarchy. I commend Sharpton and the Diallo family for calling for calm and control. But I can't help but think that this is just another straw on the proverbial 'camel's back' that will ignite something tragic. Killing unarmed men on their porch isn't exactly the definition of justice in the minds of a lot of people.

Personally, I'd like to see the Diallo family win a civil lawsuit against the officers. It won't bring their son back, but it would certainly make the officers feel some of the pain that the Diallo family has felt.

-- Z (Z@Z.com), February 25, 2000.

Flame me if you will, but common sense dictates you do not reach into your jacket in this situation.

-- JB (noway@jose.com), February 25, 2000.

No flame here, JB. One of the truly heartbreaking facts of human existence is that people die tragic and premature deaths that are not anybody's fault. And by all accounts, that's what happened here. Not everyone may agree with that statement, but there are twelve individuals, including four African-Americans, in Albany who heard all of the facts in full detail, had the opportunity to investigate the evidence and disucss it among themselves for as much time as they needed, and reached the same conclusion.

If the African-Americans felt the evidence pointed to the defendants being guilty, we would have had a hung jury and mistrial, not a majority-vote aquittal. The judge also gave them the option of finding them guilty on lesser charges charges, e.g. they're not murderers but were criminally negligent. Those twelve individuals who examined the facts in detail said innocent of ALL charges.

The way our justice system was designed, that's supposed to be the end of it. It was by design: better that occasionally an innocent person is acquitted than that an innocent person be subjected to trials over and over again. Ironically enough, the constitutional prohibition against double-jeopardy was specifically aimed at preventing the FEDERAL government from imposing double-jeopardy. Now it seems that that's become the very purpose of having a federal judiciary.

(P.S. You're right, JB, we are clones. Bill C. was my alias on that other thread.)

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 25, 2000.

Sorry, "better that occasionally an innocent person is acquitted" should read "better that occasionally a guilty person is acquitted." Although I have nothing against acquitting innocent people either.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 25, 2000.

I unfortunately have mixed feelings about this. It was a horrendous thing that happened that day, but understand what might have led to it. The neighborhood they were in is a dangerous one. Most people would have understood to put their hands up, but he obviously did not comprehend what was going on. Now, I don't think you can blame the police for having to decide what they were going to do in a nanosecond. They perceived they were under threat. What is wrong with this situation is that instead of shooting to disable Diallo, they just let rip with a hail of bullets. Call it fear or lack of training, maybe. But to call it murder is a stretch.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), February 25, 2000.

Those that say that this matter cannot be retried at the Federal level because of "double jeopardy" are incorrect. Federal and state entities are considered separate for purposes of the double jeopardy clause, and the actions of one are not binding on the other.

If you're aquitted on a federal charge, the feds cannot recharge. If you're aquitted by the state, the state cannot recharge. But (rightly or not) you CAN be tried twice -- once on the state level and once at the federal level.

Indeed, I believe that the Rodney King defendants were initially aquitted in state court and retried successfully by the fed.

This is perhaps the most common misconcenption regarding double jeopardy.

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), February 25, 2000.

It's true that Diallo made a foolish move in that situation, unless he really thought he was being robbed and was handing over his wallet. Remember that he was new in town, new in the country, and reacted in a way that would have made sense where he came from.

It seems to me that in this case the police were negligent, at least. Thomas Sowell's comparison to his experience (above link)in the Marines is a bit different in that, no one was sneaking up on the officers, and they had a four to one advantage. To their credit, at least they didn't plant a weapon on the man.

And I still have a problem with 41 shots fired. What about the other residents of the building?

Well, the jury has spoken, and that is that. We have only a small portion of the evidence they have seen. I have the feeling that there are really no winners at all in this contest.

sadly,

gene

-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), February 25, 2000.

How many cops were murdered last year while protecting and serving? Not a one of you who posted on this thread ever had the balls to be a cop. They also are the first one's you'd call if you needed help. If this guy had been conforming to acceptable societal behavior, he would never had been gunned down by the NYCPD. I am in total agreement with the verdict. Justice has been served. What a great country we live in!

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 25, 2000.

Gun Control,start collecting Guns from all these Gov.Employees.Do You realize how many crazy,retarded,uniformed,civilian clothed are wandering around,just waiting to play Rambo??I see these daily uncivilised Arrests and illegal Road Checks on the Tube.These Ruby Ridge,WACO Style Assaults on the Public must stop.I would not want them Law and Order Creeps in my Neighborhood.

-- JD Public (go@get.em), February 25, 2000.

Well, the point is: no riots. So I guess we truly did enter the New Age at rollover. I was SO wrong.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 25, 2000.

Right ON Vern! Dont cha just love these bleeding heart pukes screeching about the evil police state. Of course these are the same pussys that stain themselves when they get jammed-up and scream out for the police to save them.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), February 25, 2000.

Markus said "Canthappen - Exactly. You can't appeal the criminal verdict, the constitution was written that way on purpose, if you're found innocent by a jury of your peers, end of story."

I understand the double-jeopardy concept and I agree with the constitution. I'm wondering though about this "jury of your peers". Does anyone find anything askew in a jury consisting of 4 black women, 1 white woman, and seven white males deciding on the fate of 4 white cops acused of wrongfully killing a black man?

I can imagine the subtle and not so subtle pschological pressures 7 white men could put on 5 women in a jury deliberation. I can visualize 4 black women easily intimidated. Why not 6 black men and 6 white women for such a trial?

Lawyers pick the jury panel, and IMO, the verdict is mostly won by the lawyer who was most successful with his own choices.

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), February 25, 2000.

"Why not 6 black men and 6 white women for such a trial?"

Chris, the phrase is, "jury of your peers." That's the peers of the accused, not the victim. And I think it's somewhat of a stereotypical statement to presume the four black women jurors were manipulated by the other jurors. The breeding of this kind of presumption is what allows the divisions of race to flourish.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), February 26, 2000.

Correct analysis, Buster. Think of the O.J. Simpson jury.

-- Daisy Jane (deeekstrand@access1.com), February 26, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Flame me if you will, but common sense dictates you do not reach into your jacket in this situation.

Perhaps he was thinking that he should show them proof that he belonged in that building. One of the homeschooling organizations I belong to will make up student ID cards for kids to carry around, in case they get harrassed by truant officers or other nosy authorities. It occurred to me that it could be quite dangerous to reach for one's ID card. I've given my son repeated instruction on how to be sure that all authorities within shooting distance are aware that he is reaching for his ID. I probably should write a letter to the homeschooling organization asking them to include some instructions to this effect when they provide the ID card.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), February 26, 2000.

"Does anyone find anything askew in a jury consisting of 4 black women, 1 white woman, and seven white males deciding on the fate of 4 white cops acused of wrongfully killing a black man?"

As I said in an earlier post on this thread, if the black jurors thought the cops were guilty and the whites thought them innocent, we'd have a hung jury and a mistrial. What we got was a unanimous call for acquittal. If they were deadlocked and wanted to get things over with, they could have agreed on a lesser charge, like reckless endangerment. The verdict was innocent of all charges.

I can only conclude, as I said before, that these twelve individuals, insulated from all the press hype and political demagoguery, reviewed the facts of the case objectively and in detail, and concluded that, while Mr. Diallo's death was a terrible and unspeakable tragedy, the cops had not committed a crime.

-- Markus Archus (apxov@mail.com), February 26, 2000.

A fascinating mixture of reactions to this tragedy. There are those who see fascisism and there are law and order types who support strong police action. There are those who appreciate the hairtrigger decisions required of policemen and there are those who see racism.

Not on this board, but in the real world, there will be the inevitable demagogues motivated by money, influence and/or ideology.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 26, 2000.

How many cops were murdered last year while protecting and serving?

That goes with the job. If you can't take the threat, get a different job.

Not a one of you who posted on this thread ever had the balls to be a cop. They also are the first one's you'd call if you needed help.

Sorry fool, but the first person *I* look to if I need help is ME. Even though my state doesn't allow CCW, I carry at all times. I do not expect the PD to be there when I (or my family) might be threatened by criminal acts.

If this guy had been conforming to acceptable societal behavior, he would never had been gunned down by the NYCPD.

You are SO right! He shouldn't have been carrying that bag of groceries and standing on his porch! How "unacceptable" from society's standpoint!

I am in total agreement with the verdict. Justice has been served. What a great country we live in!

Figures. Legal murder under color of authority is okay in your eyes, hmmm? Makes me glad I have my guns. I may go down someday, but at least I'll take some of those a$$holes with me. Bad cops are BAD COPS. Either too stupid, untrained, or trigger-happy. What they did (killing an INNOCENT, UNARMED human being), is beyond the pale.

Just like at Waco.

-- notme (not@this.time), February 26, 2000.

Well, I'll tell you one thing...if I ever get pulled over at a traffic stop and the cop asks for my ID, he can pull the wallet out of my pocket himself. I'm not going to lay a finger on it.

-- Norm Harrold (nharrold@terragon.com), February 26, 2000.

Gia:

In answer to your question, only in the movies and TV are people able to shoot to disable. Police nationwide are trained to shoot for center of the torso mass. Under the stress of a situation requiring gun useage, it's usually all one can do to hit the torso, due to the adrenaline dump. Read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob to get a better handle on what is involved in a gunfight.

Also in many states, it is a bad idea to shoot to disable even if you can. It indicates to the law that you didn't consider the situation life-threatening, and that is one of the primary criteria for a legal shooting.

I've seen cops shoot, and I am not suprised that 41 rounds were fired. They simply freaked out. I've shot some quite realistic shooting events (NTI) and while I rarely shot the no-shoots, most of the cops did. 10 rounds EACH is insane, considering that you're legally responsible for each and every round fired. ONLY HITS COUNT.

As usual, the cops get off scot free with at least in my opinion, negligent homicide. Sure, the guy may have been partially at fault for reaching for his ID; we'll probably never know. But, you don't shoot the guy 19 times! 41 rds fired, 19 hits, that sucks. And who knows, the cops may have been plainclothes officers, and the guy may have thought he was being robbed/intimidated. Without more info, it's hard to say.

-- Bill (billclo@blazenet.net), February 27, 2000.