digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at news.yahoo.com

Sharpton arrested as hundreds protest NYC police shooting

news.yahoo.com — The Rev. Al Sharpton was arrested at the Brooklyn Bridge on Wednesday as he and hundreds of demonstrators blocked traffic to protest the acquittal of three detectives in the 50-bullet shooting of an unarmed black man on his wedding day.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MookiBlaylock, on 05/08/2008, -8/+85Sharpton hasn't done his job until he's arrested.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7It ain't over 'til the fat man sings... oops... it over!
    • cawpin, on 05/08/2008, -5/+22No, he's always an ass. His job is done when he wakes up each morning.
      • dinostabOMG, on 05/08/2008, -14/+7Give him all the ***** you want. This kind of thing takes guts, and the murder of Sean Bell, and acquittal of the murderers, is a complete outrage. I doubt you have the balls to protest like this. I know I was sitting on my ass while this happened.
        • TheGuruStud, on 05/08/2008, -4/+16He's in it for himself. Sharpton is an asshole like Jackson.
      • raynar, on 05/08/2008, -1/+14If it was whitey that had been shot by blacky, he wouldnt give a *****.
    • jordanmerle, on 05/08/2008, -12/+7Blocking traffic should be a capital offense.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/08/2008, -14/+8BREAKING! SHARPTON DOES SOMETHING RIGHT FOR ONCE!

      I guess he's tired of working so hard for "The Man", The Matrix, The NWO, etc.
      • eliotmat, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5What was the thing he did right?
        • twinklyJesus, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8No, the right thing was to berate those white students charged with raping the girl, and then not apologize when it turned out she was scamming for a payoff and lied about the whole thing.
      • PimpinOnWelfare, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I chuckled when I saw The Matrix as an example of "The Main".
    • Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3A protest hasn't done its job until someone is arrested. Everyone should take note: if these protesters had stood on a corner and waved signs in compliance with the law, we never would have heard about it.
      • DigiDar, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0That's a hell of a good point.
      • jsmith39, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3yup, and either way I wouldn't have given a *****
      • kd1s, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I was stunned when I heard the cops had gotten off on any charges from the case. I'm sorry but it shouldn't take 50 rounds to subdue a subject.
        I do hope they don't put those cops on the street again though. Their lives are in jeopardy. I'm serious, Sharpton is stirring a hornets nest.
    • Pillage, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Nah, his job isn't done until he's filed a lawsuit, do the talk show circuit and written a book about it.
    • manteca29, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7what job? al sharpton has no job. he exploits people and their problems for political and financial gain with no success helping the people he exploited. tawana brawley anyone?
    • 11b1p, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2sean bell is not that innocent

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell
      • CryRightardCry, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2He's innocent of possessing a gun, which is what they claim is the reason they shot him.
        Get a ***** clue, dumbass.
        Quit trying to make excuses for murder.
  • roosevans, on 05/08/2008, -43/+138I have always felt Rev. Al Sharpton to be a "race mongering" publicity hound and I am a black American. The death of Sean Bell was an unfortunate accident but Sean Bell and his party's none compliance with the police led to this accidental slaying, in my opinion.
    • reeder, on 05/08/2008, -65/+22Then you're a fool.
    • AustinMandi, on 05/08/2008, -18/+88To me, an unfortunate accident does not involve out-of-uniform officers spraying your car with 50 bullets. And I am a white American. Say whatever you will of Sharpton but I seriously doubt Mr. Bell's would-be wife is protesting for some media face time.
      • Pake, on 05/08/2008, -12/+20So you have no problem with Sean Bell and his friends nearly running over the officers and trying to speed off? The 50 bullets were shot in an effort to prevent one of their own from getting run over while Sean Bell was being an asshole.
        • sealbeater, on 05/08/2008, -9/+18Considering that these cops almost certainly didn't flash their badges, it's not improbable to think that perhaps Bell and friends were trying to speed off because they thought they were being carjacked or something of a similar nature. You really need a clue.
          • Pake, on 05/08/2008, -8/+5And how did you come to the conclusion that they didn't flash their badges? More than likely, they walked up to the window with their badges showing, you know, like most officers do...
          • CabesMojo, on 05/08/2008, -1/+11I love how these articles always leave out the facts that all three of these men were convicted felons for drug trafficking and various other armed crimes, that the cops had overheard one of the men mention his gun, that they were driving drunk, and that they repeatedly rammed a police van. Oh lets play the race card some more for this poor victim...........
          • tatical, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1"More than likely, they walked up to the window with their badges showing, you know, like most officers do..."

            I got stopped by plain clothes-cops last year and they didn't show any kind of badge at all, they didn't even SAY they were cops. They did say why they stopped me though.
        • Brandoskey, on 05/08/2008, -15/+12yeah white guys carjacking a car full of black guys, that happens a lot!
        • kyzel, on 05/08/2008, -5/+9@ Brandoskey - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/c.txt read this before you make a blatant assumption... blacks are victimized by carjacking more often than whites, and the officers were white, hispanic, and black...
          • twinklyJesus, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6BUT, they are usually victimized by other blacks in those circumstances. Blatant assumptions, sweeping generalizations are no worse than quoting stats and leaving out "little pieces" that blow holes in your argument.
          • RealmDown, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Call Al Sharpton. Racist Carjackers are TARGETING blacks!

            I vote he goes on a hunger strike.
        • raynar, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6they might be more victimized, but you dont see the whiteys stealing the cars...black on black doesnt count
          • RealmDown, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3"If it can't be used against whites, then it is not worth it to call it racist."
        • Risingashes, on 05/09/2008, -2/+150 bullets is your idea of a reasonable response to a car?
          Wouldn't it be a better idea to move out of the way and call fellow officers to pursue?
        • ventralnet, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3@Risingashes

          It depends if they feel their life or someone else's is in danger. It is a judgment call that needs to be made in a split decision. None of us were there and have no room to comment.
    • 1337Einstein, on 05/08/2008, -13/+29An accident? How much weapons fire does there have to be before you might suspect their motives to be somewhat homicidal?
      • flip2trip, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3251?
        • Terr01, on 05/08/2008, -9/+2Only fifty bullets! ONLY FIFTY BULLETS! The fools! When will mankind *learn*? If only they had just used one more bullet!
          • Terr01, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1If it helps, imagine the final scene in Planet of the Apes for that one.
      • jordanmerle, on 05/08/2008, -5/+3Did you not see V for Vendetta?
      • Pake, on 05/08/2008, -9/+18How fast does a guy have to try to run you over at until his motives become somewhat homicidal? To think, he'd still be alive if he didn't try to run them over.
        • 1337Einstein, on 05/08/2008, -7/+1And in all of that, where the hell as the "accident?" Were the police shooting at birds when fifty stray bullets were "accidentally" aimed at this guy, or was he "accidentally" trying to run them over?
          • Pake, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7This guy had 49 chances to stop trying to run over the cops. He decided to roll the dice and the 50th landed on snake eyes.
          • twinklyJesus, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6each cop probably didn't fire more than the amount in their revolvers. If you confront 50 cops and they each fire one bullet, is that too many? It's still fifty. Whether 8 cops fired 6 bullets each, 50 fire 1 each, or 3 cops empty 15 rounds each, what matters is how you present the facts.

            Now if each cop had fired more bullets than their weapons could hold, and it didn't stop him, should they just stop firing? Or, should they keep firing until he stops? Chances are, it didn't take 50 to kill him, but that's how many were expended by the time his vehicle stopped. They would have no way of knowing when HE actually stopped until his vehicle stopped. It was not the police's fault he chose to attempt to evade arrest, and the fact that he was getting married the next day was a fact HE should have considered, not the cops. It doesn't enter into it at all.
            he was an idiot thug and got what he deserved. One or fifty, I don't care.
      • sparkleton, on 05/08/2008, -3/+12Not that I agree wtih the amount fired, but cops are specficially trained to empty their entire gun clips instead of firing 1-2 bullets.

        When cops shoot, they shoot to kill and the policy of emptying clips increases their chance of survival by removing judgment and also serves as a protection against lawsuits that might claim ".. more than ___ bullets fired is excessive force."
        • jriggs420, on 05/08/2008, -6/+3"...removing judgment and also serves as a protection against lawsuits that might claim "
          by taking out the witness?
        • jordanmerle, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Not to be rude by the term is "magazine" not clip and every bullet not fired by a cop is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
          • TheGuruStud, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2magazines are for real guns :P
          • sparkleton, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2No offense taken. I will be the first to admit ignorance in regards to gun terminology.
        • burnblue, on 05/08/2008, -7/+4Oh God, I can't believe you guys are saying and digging this stuff up. Sean Bell deserved to have two full clips pumped into him because that's what cops are trained to do? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

          Sharpton sticks up for justice along with other protesters, and all Digg can do is call him an asshole.

          I'm going to be sick
          • twinklyJesus, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Sharpton sticks up for money then he disappears, just like the dread pirate Jesse Jackson does. It's all theater for extortion money. you pay them off and the go away until the next opportunity for a scam.
          • jsmith39, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Cool, go be sick over there would ya? No one wants to see that *****.
          • ventralnet, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4sharpton is an asshole media whore. don't be one of his sheep
          • mike17032, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3He is an asshole, and justice was served when the ***** trying to run people down was shot.
        • sparkleton, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Where did I say he "deserved to have two full clips pumped into him"? I was just stating policy. Get your emotions out of the way and actually read what I typed.
        • mike17032, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1No, cops are NOT trained to do that. Double tap and re-aim, thats how cops are trained.

          However its human nature to empty the gun when threatened, and thats what happened here. Its very common for a cop who empties his gun to only think he fired a few rounds once everything is over.
        • jeffwmartin, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1You are wrong twice. They are not trained to empty their magazines and they do not shoot to kill. Their training is the same as the standards a citizen must use in the same situation: you shoot to "stop the threat" and you stop shooting as soon as the threat stops. Saying something like "shoot to kill" is a quick way to get a murder conviction.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6I haven't read anything about the original case -- just Sharpton.
        But I urge you not to decide the case based upon Sharpton -- or the comments of the cops. They typically will add in a motive for their shootings after the fact. So there needs to be other evidence or testimony. Whether it was 2 or 50 -- they will all testify the same.
    • oldhick, on 05/08/2008, -12/+45I don't quite understand the non-compliance... From what I've read, the non-uniformed cops rushed them with guns drawn. Now I don't know where you're from, but my hick ass would freak out if I was walking out of a strip club to find a bunch of dudes with guns drawn running towards me. I think I would try to jump in my car and get the hell out of dodge!!!
      • nblsavage, on 05/08/2008, -9/+6Well said hick.
      • KyleGoetz, on 05/08/2008, -5/+4From what I understand, the guys started ramming the vehicle the police were in. Then the police opened fire. But I've not been following the story except when it first broke like a year ago or something.
        • chanop, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1This is 100% true, they did ram into the undercover police cars/van.
        • oldhick, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1No its not. The cops pulled their vehicle around, their UNMARKED vehicle. They jumped out of that unmarked vehicle with weapons drawn. No uniforms on. The kids jumped in their own car and tried to get away and hit the cop car.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6Why though? Isn't that just asking to be shot? I mean if a gang of people run at you with guns, do you honestly think you can hop in your car and drive away before one of them can pull the trigger?
        • chan0429, on 05/08/2008, -7/+5Once again, un-uniformed how were they supposed to know they were cops and not angry skin-heads?
          • masterm1nd, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8If it were skin heads trying to kill him, they would have shot him the first chance they got, not only after he resisted. Again though, if you're in the situation, adrenaline is pumping and you don't really have much time to think.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4And I guess the adrenaline and lack of time to think would also apply to the cops. I think the bottom line is they probably should have been uniformed.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/08/2008, -4/+4And if they haven't killed you even though they did already had a shot, that probably means they want to talk and not kill you. Trying to get away is just asking for it in my opinion. To be fair if you're in the situation you wouldn't have as much time to think about it.
        • oderdigg, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Is it not better to be safe than sorry? I'm with oldhick on this one.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Yes, that was the whole premise of my argument... If you look at how it played out, I was right. I would have been safe, and you would have been sorry...
          • twinklyJesus, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Evidence in question shows no.
        • jeffwmartin, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I think that's a better option than ***** my pants and laying down on the sidewalk waiting for a bullet in the head.
      • CabesMojo, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Well the articles you've read I'm willing to bet have been pretty skewed and biased.
      • Billions, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2...And then, oldhick, after you were shot the entire internet would forgive the cops and talk about you as though you were a criminal who, godammit, deserved it! If it wasn't that night, it must have been something, let's look at your record! Sorry to pull this on you, oldhick, we'll secretly think, but we're going to re-align your past to make it seem like you deserved it. For something.
    • bxblox, on 05/08/2008, -9/+14Plain clothes cops come out of a club and empty guns (one even reloading) into a car. Half of those guys started shooting because someone else was. Far from an accident.
      • Anomaly100, on 05/08/2008, -4/+4Exactly! After the 12th or 25th round, wouldn't the cops have an inkling that they aren't armed? They couldn't be that clueless. And one of the geniuses just kept reloading until he shot off 30 bullets! Just as you said, half the guys started shooting because someone else was. I don't call this an accident. I have little respect for Al Sharpton because he goes to grief stricken homes in search for publicity. I am however finding it a lot easier to believe as you said, this was far from an accident.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3You've obviously been in a gun fight before. But it's a little bit different than lasertag...
        • chanop, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Yeah here's the thing with that. When you're shooting into a car with all of your other partners, It's very hard to tell which way the bullets are coming. They could have easily thought that 25-50 rounds were coming out of the car. Alls you hear is gunshots and alls you see is bullets flying, not knowing which way they came from...
        • oldhick, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1That's why cops are ***** irresponsible idiots. I don't know how anyone in their right mind can defend their behavior. You guys are making excuses for their excessive use of force now... Come on.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4If they have justification to shoot, the number of bullets is irrelevant and they are now focused on saving their own lives. It's not exactly easy to peg someone inside a moving chunk of metal. If they started shooting because others were, than that sounds like like accidental shots to me.
        • oldhick, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1You obviously don't know ***** about weapons or shooting and neither did those police officers. This isn't Iraq where you stick a gun around the corner and pull the trigger.
          You aim your weapon. You aim your weapon at your target and you engage the target. You don't engage the car and half the neighborhood.
          If you need 30-40 rounds to take down an un-armed civilian then you deserve to loose your badge.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2You've obviously never had a car trying to ram you.
      • twinklyJesus, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Assault with a vehicle is no less deadly than assault with a fire arm. Just because the weren't shooting back doesn't mean the police will stop shooting. A gun and a car are both considered deadly weapons. No difference.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1How are they in danger of being run over by a car if they just came out of a club? A car moving down the street would get one pass -- so either it was a near miss and someone got angry,... or we don't have the facts.
    • raoulduke87, on 05/08/2008, -5/+14An accident is when your gun discharges and unintentionally kills someone, not when you stop to reload...thrice.
      • twinklyJesus, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3The point you are missing is not that it was an accident he got shot. The accident was that he ran into off-duty cops and tried to kill them with his car. HIS accident, not the cop's.
        • oldhick, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5You're so full of ***** its not even funny.
          Here's what happened.
          1. They WALKED out of the club.
          2. They horsed around with one of the strippers.
          3. The cops thought they were causing trouble (bachelor is still on foot at this point)
          4. The undercover cops with an unmarked vehicle accelerate from around the corner to the front of the strip club.
          5. The cops jump out screaming with guns drawn
          6. The victims take off running to their car
          7. They are pursued by the UNDERCOVER police
          8. They start their vehicle and pull out of the parking lot
          9. Police move to block their exit in the UNMARKED police car.
          10. Victims hit the UNMARKED police car
          11. Cops unload their weapons
          • twinklyJesus, on 05/11/2008, -1/+26 and 10 prove my point, thank you for playing.
          • oldhick, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1How so? They didn't know they were cops? You guys really crack me up. A cop could kick the ***** our of your grandmother in front of you and you'd find a reason to defend them. But good for you. Its easier to defend the establishment I guess.
          • twinklyJesus, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1oLD hick:
            You don't know what they knew and when they knew it. All you know is what they said after they were caught. By the nature of their jobs, when it does come to it, the cop's word carries more weight than that of a convicted felon. (plus corroborating evidence from witnesses)
            also, if you expect the police to be willing to do the job they are expected to do, you have to lend credibility when they give evidence. Otherwise, every criminal who claims "I wasn't doing anything" is your other choice. I choose to believe the cops. I learned that no matter how unfair or whether or not I agreed with it, when I had a confrontation with the police, if I did EXACTLY what I was told, nothing happened to me, other than a minor inconvenience or maybe a short visit downtown. These jerks acted like they were playing a video game instead of taking part in life. The consequences are different in real life. You don't get to respawn, and that is the choice they gambled on.
            It came up snake-eyes. You don't get special treatment just because you are getting married tomorrow. You don't get to do anything you want with no consequences. There were a number of STUPID things these guys did that night. I dont know for sure, but in most places i've lived, it's illegal to carry a firearm in a club or restaurant that serves liquor. So, announcing publicly to "impress" people that you are packing ... dumb. That alone will get you arrested. Running from cops after announcing in public that you are armed...get you arrested or shot ... Dumber. Running into the police car blocking your exit guaranteed to get your ass some serious lead poisoning...dumbest.
            They made their choices and reaped the whirlwind because of them.
            It doesn't matter how many bullets were used. There is no guideline for that in this situation. You shoot until they stop. If it means 6 cops fire 10 bullets each, then 60 it is. If any bullets had been fired AFTER they had surrender, that would have been excessive...but if Ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have treats for after dinner!"
          • oldhick, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You live in a dream world my friend. THEY HAD NO GUNS. What the hell was that paragraph even about???
            Second, they didn't know they were cops. They didn't know that was a cop car. Out of all the witnesses that testified, none knew they were cops until the shooting was over.
            You're whole diatribe is dependent on some one respecting the authority of the cops and not starting a confrontation. I agree, but you have to KNOW they are cops.
    • h3smith, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4Sorry, we don't live in a totalitarian society.
    • Nathan187, on 05/08/2008, -0/+11Hey dude. You can't say bad things about Al or Tom Joyner and the rest of the self righteous crew will go after you. Ooops...wait...I'm black. I guess I can't say that either. By the way...did Al Sharpton apologize to those Duke players?
      • raoulduke87, on 05/08/2008, -0/+11No. He didn't apologize for the Tawana Brawley incident either.
    • Cognoscenti247, on 05/08/2008, -5/+24Unfortunately, the facts of the story are being ignored. These police officers (TWO OF WHICH WERE BLACK) were patrolling a crime-ridden area of town of which the strip club was a CENTRAL criminal element. They approached these four individuals. After identifying themselves as police officers; one fled the scene, the others jumped in a car and TWICE tried to RUN OVER the policemen. If they were innocent, they should have just complied.

      And Al Sharpton is a disgrace....I am a black man trying to transcend the stupidity and reckless abandon of our youth (and in many cases our adults). However, this man, the democrats, welfare, etc, continue to keep us on the plantation. Why march to protect the legacy of a felon that tried to commit an act of Vehicular homicide on a police officer? I guess we still need Sharpton to mischaracterize and promote racial inequality, otherwise, we would have to take responsibility for our poor communities, education and crime statistics. Very sad.
      • twinklyJesus, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7You are a wise and centered man.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1OK. Right. Officers were "casing the strip club." That is not a fact in question -- but the strip club was a "central criminal element" or these guys were, um, casing the strippers. So, OK, we know they just left a strip club and we can't be sure of the rest.
        Bullets were fired and someone got shot in a car. The order of events, and whether or not they identified themselves (and someone would believe you without a badge) -- I'd say that story would be the same after the fact whether or not it was true to begin with.

        Guys are dead. 50 Bullets. Strip Club. Ethnicity of people involved. ... the rest, not a fact.
      • quiggibub, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Your rational argument has no place here on Digg!
      • greysinrose, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0What planet or country do you live in????? " Back on the plantation??????" When, where, and how can the African American society stop bitching? I'm white, and I have far less rights then an African American. Atleast Sharpton is out there fighting for causes. Whether you agree with him or not, he's walking the walk. You talk the talk, and I'm guessing that's it. Black folks need to quit with the " I'm black and oppressed, it's not fair" attitude, and realize in America, WE ARE ALL SCREWED.
    • DellDrEvil, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5I'm often surprised that there hasn't been any move to "disown" Sharpton.

      Every time he shows up, people dismiss whatever topic he's speaking about. Any time a movement gets started that has some weight behind it... a positive change. he gets involved and the project tanks.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I'm sure there have been -- but the MSM would never show it.
    • withears, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3We all agree it was an accident (well, there some nuts out there who will think there's a racist component), but the REAL crime in this is that accidents still have consequences. If you or I ACCIDENTALLY killed someone, we would still be brought up on charges. But because a police office does his job very very poorly (no one would disagree with that, would they?) and someone dies, the police office walks away scot free? That is not fair.
      • jellygraph, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1How was it an accident? First of all, it was racial prejudice because the police assumed he was dangerous because of his color. Secondly, there is a big problem with the police if their response is to shoot people down for no reason
      • twinklyJesus, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Who said they did their jobs poorly? A car full of thugs tries to evade arrest by attempting to run police over. Thugs killed, cops live ... success!
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3This situation needs to be examined independent of Al Sharpton.

      Al Sharpton merely serves Al Sharpton, and he also ruins the chance that a problem will be addressed seriously.
    • jellygraph, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Blacks don't matter.. especially blacks who defend other blacks who have been murdered for no reason *sarcasm*
      • jsmith39, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Its really just Al Sharpton that doesnt matter
    • piratehead, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1It has to be over 9000.
  • Laughsatyou, on 05/08/2008, -22/+129Sharpton is a joke.
    • RealmDown, on 05/08/2008, -2/+18And an unfunny one at that.
    • leerayIG88, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3he just neeeds to be loved.
    • IglooBurner, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6He basically created a race issue out of thin air.
      Yes i agree that this is a form of police brutality, and should be dealt with accordingly, but using the black victim to work the crowd and play the race card is ***** up. Because we all know that if Sean Bell is white or any other race, I can guarantee you that Al won't give two ***** about it.
      • CabesMojo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3The guy makes his living off of playing the race card, what more do you expect? Never mind that out of the 3 officers 3 different races are represented, all that matters is that the victim is black.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2I heard they sent him to Guantanamo Bay for a *****-meat sandwich.
      • ruddy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4your icon has a slash through a penguin. i hope you rot in hell you filthy animal...
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Actually this Digg account is completely automated.
    • Pillage, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1More of a punchline.
  • Gabberwok, on 05/08/2008, -13/+142The only thing Sharpton really cares about is Sharpton.
  • ClosedCaption, on 05/08/2008, -58/+50Good for Sharpton and others for keeping this acquittal of these murders in the public square. Funny how they arrested Sharpton and the wife of Sean Bell...I'm sure they were totally out of control /sarcasm.

    It wont be long before diggers find it neccessary to ***** on Sharpton for...Hell, I dont even know anymore. Because the news calls him and he agrees to go on television? Yeah, thats something to be mad about and ignore the 50 something shots that tore into Sean Bells car without reason. Its like being mad at someone for answering a telephone. Sharpton doesnt own any media outlet.. and he cant demand to be on TV either.
    • Falldog, on 05/08/2008, -9/+29Sharpton has a history of inciting riots, and as a leader of an illegal protest, would be the primary person to remove.

      As for reasons to ***** on him, there are a ton already.
    • TopherT, on 05/08/2008, -7/+19The idea of an illegal protest makes me sick to my stomach. When the system is broken all protests that matter are illegal protests.
      • KyleGoetz, on 05/08/2008, -6/+10No, when a protest blocks traffic across one of the most important arteries from Manhattan to the mainland, shutting off commerce, I think that might be a little bit illegal. It sounds a lot like a DoS attack on an entire frigging island.
        • ClosedCaption, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Even if a protest doesnt block "important arteries" it still can be considered illegal. Which is ***** rediculous that there's even a such thing as an "illegal protest". Lets not pretend that its only because of location.
      • Falldog, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2Would it really have been that hard to hold a protest in a public place that didn't prohibit and effect those who are totally unrelated? It wasn't the fault of the people driving, the people really being effected by this protest.
        • Zempz, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3obstructing trafifc gets peoples attention. a bunch of people gathering in a park or w/e doesnt.
          • jsmith39, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1yeah, and it annoys the Hell out of them and makes them even less sympathetic towards whatever you're bitching about.
    • stix213, on 05/08/2008, -12/+15The reason the 50 something shots tore into Sean Bells car was he was about to run over a plain clothes officer... But I guess that is still "without reason" in your eyes.
      • smotpoker, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3Ya know... when a cop isn't on trial, 50+ shots at unarmed individuals is what escalates a charge from 2nd degree murder or manslaughter to first degree murder. If it wasn't a cop in question, they would have caught murder charge for every person in the car, regardless of if that is who they were shooting at. If they weren't cops, everyone would be ridiculing them as stupid for approaching a car with their guns drawn when they hadn't witnessed a crime or weapons and not moving out of the way.


        If their lives were truly in danger, why weren't *any* of them hurt? If all of them weren't directly in danger why did all of them fire? Does anyone truly believe that a car that is too close/fast to dive out of it's way can be instantly stopped by popping a couple of caps into the driver (or passengers)? You people have been indoctrinated into believing all cops and soldiers are from some super-elite class of American who we should give extra respect, credit, appreciation and doubt-benefits just because your parents said so and you never encountered a situation to make you believe otherwise is possible.


        This is definitely not the case and this belief is a major fault that will be exploited by the corrupt minority, often for years without detection while victimizing dozens or hundreds in the process, for as long as that belief exists.
        • pixeldust, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4"If their lives were truly in danger, why weren't *any* of them hurt? "
          Perhaps because they shot ***** 50+ bullets into the car?
          • smotpoker, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Shooting bullets at a car doesn't immediately mitigate the laws of physics. The car will not suddenly have it's momentum diminished because you managed to hurt or kill the driver. The likelihood of him veering off course before the moment of impact due to the injury/death is not very high either.
          • stix213, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Smotpoker:
            Every car I have seen filled with bullets seemed to stop pretty quick. It turns out it is actually pretty hard to keep your foot on the gas when you are dead. Your foot doesn't get stuck on the gas... the pedal actually pushes your foot off of it if your random muscle movements don't do it first .
          • smotpoker, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1*****.

            I don't know how many "cars full of bullets" you have seen, but everyone and their mothers know that a few bullets is not going to stop a car in it's tracks. Nor does simply removing pressure from the gas pedal. On flat land many cars can keep moving while idling for nearly a mile before it comes to a stop.

            And no, the car doesn't magically detect the driver is dead and passengers are incapacitated before proceeding to slow down to 5mph for the entire mile.
        • stix213, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5One of them was actually hurt. One of the officers was hit by the car before the officers opened fire. It was being hit by the car that prompted the gun fire, not because the driver was disobeying commands. So yeah, if you think getting hit by a car and potentially killed doesn't count as "in danger" then you are correct.... But everyone who is fair would know that getting hit by a car (that has no intention of stopping for you) is about as "in danger" as it gets.

          If my partner was hit by an escaping vehicle, I'd dump every bullet I had into the driver to save him.... No matter if the driver had a gun or not, a car is a very dangerous weapon.
          • smotpoker, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Link please? I've never seen anything to suggest any of the officers were hit or injured, unless you are referring to clipping the unmarked minivan... Still didn't hear of an injury though.


            If you are really in danger of being hit by the car either you move, you are suicidal or you're stupid. Firing at the driver isn't going to help much if there is imminent threat of being run over.


            As for firing at the car, even if he hit your partner, it is still potentially reckless/dangerous. There were other passengers in the car who did nothing illegal to their knowledge and could have hit bystanders. It is unacceptable
          • starscream45, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2That is beside the point, a car is a deadly weapon, he hit a police vehicle and was trying to hit a police officer, the police officers shot at the car in self defense. Do you think a police officer is going to think "hmm...Shooting bullets at a car doesn't immediately mitigate the laws of physics. The car will not suddenly have it's momentum diminished maybe I shouldn't shoot at the car to save my life or my friend's life." He isn't gonna try to think about physics. Most police probably don't even know what Physics are. If I am him, I'm gonna try to stop that dude anyway possible and the best way to stop a car from hitting you is to try to get out of the way IF possible or shoot the car. I'm sure it happened in a flash, the police were scared and threatened so they acted, as any person probably would if they were scared. Even Al Sharpton.

            And tell me this, WHY are all these people so mad at the policemen, do they think that they purposely went to work and wanted to kill a black man. No. I know at least one of the policemen was black. They did it in self defense, get that through your thick skulls, you weren't there and you can't say otherwise. The man was threatening to get his gun, and trying to run them over. The police acted, and it's a good thing they did. This story would be totally different if he had gotten away from the police and ran over some school children and THEN the police shot him down. And because he was drunk that would've been a possibility.

            It's unfortunate and tragic, but seems pretty clear to me. BUT because the victim is black, Al Sharpton is getting involved and spreading his racist hate. Makes me sick.
          • smotpoker, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1This isn't beside the point perceived danger is the ONLY point to be made that could justify the actions of the cops or the victims. Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and equal credibility (which is justified considering the witnesses mostly corroborate the testimony of the victims).

            The only possible way to determine guilt is by trying to gauge whose fear and actions were most justified. We know we have two groups of people, one came out of nowhere and were armed and started making demands. They not only knew what was about to happen, but had been planning on some sort of confrontation for weeks and had years of experience. The other group of people were unarmed and on their way out of a celebration when they were approached.

            In this situation, the police were the aggressors. They instigated the situation by all accounts and according to some, they did so without identifying themselves. A gun is more threatening than a gun, 6 people are more threatening than 3, a bunch of guys standing around yelling at you (even if your music is too loud to hear them) is more threatening than 3 guys sitting in their car.

            No matter how you spin it, the victims had plenty of obvious reasons to fear the cops that can be verified by witness testimony, however the cops have no such evidence (either of means or intent) to verify their actions.

            Al Sharpton is a bit of a douche sometimes. I suspect that in many cases he dives in before knowing all of the facts or to rally support and then gets in over his head, but this is one of his more just cases. The ethnicity of the officers doesn't prove that the shooting is justified.

            "They did it in self defense, get that through your thick skulls, you weren't there and you can't say otherwise."

            Yet you were there? Forgive us for not all be so willing to accept the official explanation. Some of us have had enough bad experiences with authority figures to realize that by-and-large they are just as likely to be corrupt as, or more corrupt than, anyone else you meet. Just keep believing everything the police tell you without question and you make the problem worse by leaving the people who can do the most harm on the streets
          • stix213, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2In response to smotpoker's link request. And thanks for that request, cause I also just learned the driver was drunk too.

            From the New York Times, which is anything but on the side of the officers.

            "...Mr. Bell may have played some role, however unwitting, in the shooting, as he was drunk by legal standards when he pressed down on the accelerator of his fiancée’s Nissan Altima and struck Detective Isnora in the leg in an attempt to flee."

            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/nyregion/26bell. ...
          • smotpoker, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1@stix - Ahh, I never heard that mentioned because it was a "minor scrape" (according to that link) I suppose. According to the link, he scraped the officers leg while attempting to flea. It also suggests the order of events was: confrontation->tries to escape->scrapes officers leg->hits van->police open fire

            It seems like there would be plenty of time to consider taking cover in that time, call for backup, announce who they were, and reconsider how many shots they were firing when they actually decided to open fire.


            Interesting you didn't know he was legally intoxicated, that is usually the first thing anyone mentions regarding the case. I suppose many people feel it is the best justification for murdering them *shrug*
          • starscream45, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Just face it, your just mad that the popo arrested you for pot over last weekend. I hate most police also, most are arrogant but when their life is in danger or they get hurt by the suspect, the suspect says he is getting a gun, come on.
            Lets face it not all police are bad, can you admit that, can you admit that you don't have some grudge against police? Can you admit that there is a chance that the police really did feel that their life was in danger? Even if in your mind it is a tiny tiny chance? And your wanting to prosecute these men when you don't even know for sure what went down, you weren't there and I wasn't there. Sure maybe these police officers went to work that day and agreed that they were gonna blow some dude away. Sure they could have just wanted to kill him because they are all in some conspiracy to kill black men. Sure, but most likely not. What makes you so sure that this man was so wrongly murdered? And you'll say "how do you know he wasn't?" I don't but it sure points more in favor of the police.
            If I feel like my life is in danger, I'll shoot 5000 bullets. If I feel like one of my buddies is gonna be hurt, I'm gonna shoot. Even if the police got jumpy, isn't it understandable, when someone talks about getting "gat" or a gun that is scary. That's some big time red flags.
            I'm just glad the drunkard didn't go driving off and killing a pedestrian on the road.
          • smotpoker, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Out of all of my arrests, only the last two were for pot and only one of those was really justified (though the other was likely due to my passenger's action). I have been lied on and falsely arrested by many cops in many different towns/states, though I have always tried to show nothing but respect when talking to them. I have lost thousands of dollars, two cars, various job opportunities and the respect of my family (and many of my friends) due to the actions of corrupt police/justice system.

            I don't have a grudge against the police, I have one against the system that allows them to do what they want with little or no oversight. My disdain did not just materialize out of nowhere based exclusively on my own limited experiences but on research of reports/analysis of incidents nationwide.

            The problem gets worse instead of better, and the more people ignore it the longer it will continue to. I try to treat everyone equally and give anyone the benefit of the doubt - unlike most of these people who assume these cops were in the right. They only wish to view it from the cop's perspective and ignore the fact that they instigated the situation improperly and nearly killed two other people who were essentially just sitting there throughout the incident.

            *IF* you truly believe these cops' testimony that he threatened to go get a gun, they had no reason to fire 50+ shots since he wouldn't have been leaving to get one. Since they had an unmarked van right there, why couldn't they have just followed him and awaited backup?

            I call it murder because they weren't trying to stop this guy, they were trying to kill him. Maybe they were slightly scared for a minute but it seems unlikely that they were very scared or for very long. Since he had already scraped the officers leg and crashed into the van when they opened fire...

            In actuality, what likely happened, is they got ***** he wouldn't listen and/or that he had scared them a bit and got adversarial. They determined, as many people would, that this guy doesn't know who he's dealing with blahblahblah and opened up on him. It is understandable to some degree, but shouldn't be tolerated.

            We have witnesses who say that the police did not identify themselves, the police admit to approaching the car guns drawn, and whether or not they did identify themselves, there is a good chance they couldn't be heard due to music/windows. If I walk into your house with a gun drawn, and then you reach for a knife, does that give me the right to shoot you? How about if I approach you on the street with a gun drawn and then you throw a drink at me or something as you turn to flee. Is that assault?

            The only thing I am advocating here is that police be treated the same as any other suspect in the same situation - especially considering they were in plain clothes. The longer we continue showing the courts and police favoritism the worse they will become.

            The police encounter a potentially lifethreatening situation and they are allowed to unload 50+ bullets on someone. Yet that person encounters an even worse looking situation and they aren't even allowed to flee?
            http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo14.htm
          • stix213, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Ahhh, you can tell a lot about someone when they start a sentence with "Out of all my arrests..."

            Typical people who don't do anything to get themselves into trouble generally have never been arrested in their life, and don't hang around people who do (like your "passenger").

            I'm not against the police much because I've never been arrested, nor threatened, nor do I drive around with people who bring it on me.
          • smotpoker, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1"Typical people who don't do anything to get themselves into trouble generally have never been arrested in their life, and don't hang around people who do"

            We both know, or should rather, that there is no way to accurately determine that when you automatically assume anyone convicted (or even charged in many cases) must truly be guilty and that any complaints lodged against a given officer or charge must be dismissed out of conflict of interest.

            I am atypical and have never tried very hard to hide the fact, so I suppose that part of your assertion holds true. I have always resented efforts to make me conform to trends or beliefs that force me to act against my principles/values/tastes. For years I assumed pretty much the same as you - that as long as I didn't hurt anyone or break any laws I would not get into trouble, only hassled a bit which was a small price to pay for freedom/self-expression. However, that naivete disappeared after having multiple officers in multiple states lie on me in court multiple times and treat me like scum.

            You may not have a problem being forced to pick specific friends or stay out of certain parts of town to keep the police happy but I resent both and do neither. Assume I am stupid or deserve the persecution all you want - it doesn't make it true. I try to speak and act on principle wherever possible and I'm pretty sure that if the police can arrest and convict me on false charges/lies in over half of my cases, it seems more than reasonable to me that probably half of all arrests are equally flawed (even with repeat offenders - hard to hold even a ***** job when you get arrested or have more than 1-2 charges)

            Anyway, that is why I speak on police brutality cases so much. Please consider the link I put on the bottom of my comment immediately above. You will see that a very large majority of police complaints are dismissed/hidden/turned-away outright and those that ever do make it to court usually still get dismissed or settled out of court.

            Also check out the links in my favorites on my profile. Even in the case where the cop shot an Iraq vet 3 times in the chest point blank on tape, and the cop was caught lying about it 3 separate times, his charges were dismissed and he never saw the inside of a jail. He was suspended with pay for like 2 yrs and in the end he just lost his job.
    • dext3r, on 05/08/2008, -5/+18Sharpton is racist as hell. Thats why I ***** on him.
      • ClosedCaption, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2How is he a racist? Has he excluded whites from anything? Has he stated that blacks are better than whites? Seriously, you cant redefine "racist" from its actual meaning just because you dont like what someone says.
    • seanc6610, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7how is she his wife? she was his fiance, and he died. i don't get the marrying a dead guy thing.
    • yaryarhumphump, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Reason 1. Drunk and disorderly
      Reason 2. Said he was going to get his Gat (slang for gun just incase you dont know)
      Reason 3. Tried to run a cop over with a car

      and I'm sure there was one or 2 more but it was awhile back I read the stories.... so he was shot because hes a dumb ass not for no reason, and it doesn't matter if it was 1 or 50 hes still shot for being a dumb ass.
    • sjm20k, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1digg digs the status quo, if you haven't figured that out yet. don't ***** with the system, etcetera.
      • dext3r, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3If digg dug the status quo, why are there always Marijuana legalization stories being dugg. Pro-Marijuana viewpoints are not of status quo by any means.

      • sjm20k, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1not true - you can basically smoke pot and get away with it in the USA. i do it every so often. a real change to the status quo would affect everybody's lives.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2The media puts Sharpton on because he makes Liberals look bad. He is belligerent, over the top, and needlessly makes the issue about Race. Even if it is about that -- what is better is to treat such an incident as a problem with overzealous police first. By assuming what is in the hearts and minds of the police -- you've already lost the issue of fair deliberation.

      Sharpton provides cover for real problems that are not being addressed -- that is the problem with Al Sharpton. If Bozo the clown were brought in to discuss the Budget Deficit, they wouldn't be talking about the war expense -- they'd be talking about Bozo.
    • manteca29, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1tawana brawley idiot. thats something to be mad about.
  • casspa, on 05/08/2008, -9/+3http://amyruthsharlem.com/dinnermenu/waffles/waffl ... The Sharpton is the best item on the menu
  • RealmDown, on 05/08/2008, -12/+48"A verdict for us is true justice and a positive step forward."
    "A Verdict against us is racist conspiracy."
    • ObamaWins08, on 05/08/2008, -2/+13Well, at least he is summarizing it instead of going into a full wind-bag approach
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/08/2008, -13/+3well in this case, MORON, it's true.

      MORON!
    • soccerman90, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3that is some poor logic you are using in an attempt to prove your point. Sadly 12 people so far have been misled by your statement. I agree that you can not throw out the racism card for every argument, but in many cases it is very appropriate. To try to make this a valid argument is cheating everyone on digg of an intelligent discussion of a serious issue.
      • RealmDown, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Logic? What world are YOU living in? This is applied racism for political posturing. Logic means nothing. It is a tool to use fallacy for political and material gain.

  • devaka, on 05/08/2008, -16/+1its a really gov. fake

    http://maulnet.sevasjack.info/
  • wynja, on 05/08/2008, -35/+53I've no love for Sharpton, but this actually raised my appreciation of him greatly.
    • Falldog, on 05/08/2008, -11/+34I'm sure if you were sitting in the traffic your opinion would be different.
      • laserblazer, on 05/08/2008, -22/+6Your right to convenience ends when the innocent are slain in the streets.
        • patpl22391, on 05/08/2008, -4/+19So we punish people who are just trying to get to work, the airport, drop off/pick up their kids at school, for something they were never apart of. I have no problem with protesting, as long as it is only effecting the people he disagrees with.
        • KSUdesigner, on 05/08/2008, -5/+9Wrong. Your right to protest ends when you create safety issues for the public. It is completely legal to protest and I am glad they were protesting, but it is not legal to block public roads while doing so.
        • Pake, on 05/08/2008, -3/+11Innocent people don't try to run you over.
        • smotpoker, on 05/08/2008, -5/+2@Pake - But they *do* run out with guns in the middle of the night outside of a club and fire 50+ rounds at unarmed men when they try to haul ass rather than say... move?
          • starscream45, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2I think smotpoker is thinking of that Austin Powers movie where the steam roller is rolling toward the guy and the security guard is screaming to stop and the camera zooms out and you see that the steam roller is 100 ft away. Well this is real life smotpoker.

            I also love how you make it seem as though the police ran around the club shooting innocent people who just happened to be driving straight at them. Innocent people who were hitting cars in the process. And the police misunderstood him saying he was gonna get his "gat." What he really said was, "I am gonna get my gato (spanish for cat)." So in reality he wanted to show the mean police officers his kitty.
          • smotpoker, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1So let me get this straight, only police are allowed to react in the heat of the moment out of fear for their lives? The rest of us have to carefully calculate any and all of our [re]actions, not only to prevent improper actions on us, but to predict improper actions of anyone wearing a badge or pointing a gun?

            You act like driving a car should be perceived as a threat but pointing a gun is completely justified and proper. Unworthy of any sort of impulsive reaction at all? You have no way of knowing what their intent was before or after the shooting, just as I don't, but based on the assumed facts of the case, the people in that car had more reason the un-uniformed officers than vice-versa. If the cops did indeed *hear* about *going somewhere to get* a gun, these guys actually had them pointed at them.

            If the police really thought they were going to get a gun, they had no business with their own guns drawn
            If they were really in fear of being hit by the car, they should have just moved out of the way and called it in
            If they were really just trying to stop the car, they could have stopped firing after the first 10 shots (I'm sure)
            Since they were watching these suspects for as long as they had been, they should have approached them in a safer environment/manner

            These cops not only endangered the people in the car but everyone who was on the street that night. Of course I can see now that you are one of those douches who refuse to accept that some really ***** up ***** happens to innocent people because of police recklessly trying to assert their authority and everyone runs around trying to protect them when it happens.

            Racism or no, it was unfair and unjust and should not have happened or gone unpunished
      • sjm20k, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6an innocent person was shot 50 times, his killers were acquitted, and you're honestly complaining about traffic? there's always ***** traffic in new york, i live there. also i think justice trumps your personal convenience. every day i realize more and more how ***** the average person is. apathetic, dumb, self absorbed. if this upsets you or makes you feel uncomfortable it's time to re-evaluate yourself.
      • wynja, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1No, no, my opinion would not change because my day was slightly inconvenienced, you creep. It was an attempt to make retards like you aware of reality.
    • TopherT, on 05/08/2008, -11/+12I might go out and join him, that acquittal was some serious *****.
    • zephyr42, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Oh come on there's better ways of protesting than blocking traffic on a bridge... I love protests because they are pretty much the foundation for free speech but blocking traffic is just un-called for under 98% of all protest-worthy causes.
      • laserblazer, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Protest is not automatically expected to be as ignorable as possible.
      • wynja, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Mmmm, right. I don't care what you have to say.... just get the ***** out of my way so I can get my (feel in the blank worthless *****). Now everyone know about this injustice where a week ago no one knew.
  • MisterThePlague, on 05/08/2008, -17/+3how come everything I see on digg these days is something that I saw on belowgroundsurface.org the day before?
    • LowROI, on 05/08/2008, -0/+12Well technically you have to digg up something that's belowgroundsurface. amidoinitrite?
  • Jsmuli2, on 05/08/2008, -11/+43I hope he stays in jail. I don't care what he says anymore, how about that time he got those two jewish kids killed and walked away from it? He's so quick to be up in arms about race yet he himself has caused more harm than good.
  • suzywang3000, on 05/08/2008, -24/+27i hope they tased him
  • dinot, on 05/08/2008, -4/+33While I think that the acquittal was ***** up, I don't see how encouraging people to "shut the city down" with civil disobedience was going to change anything, other than distract from the real issue at hand while potentially ending up with many innocent people hurt, or even killed. Luckily, that didn't happen and I must commend the protesters for not acting upon it.

    I really wish this guy would either shut the ***** up or at least realize that people tend to ignore you when you act like an asshole. He's really not doing the civil rights movement any favors.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/08/2008, -9/+17I can't believe I'm actually defending Al Sharpton here, but honestly... What we have is is what basically amounts to the State-sanctioned murder of an innocent man. If any time qualifies for taking to the streets, I'd think that was it. I understand they were cops and accidents are bound to happen, but come on? 50 bullets is no accident.
      • dinot, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7I agree. Taking to the streets to protest is fine, but calling to shut down a city with civil disobedience is extremely irresponsible. There's a lot of impressionable youths out there with a bone to pick, and him saying this only gives them an excuse for violence.
        • cawpin, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3"shut down a city with civil disobedience is extremely irresponsible"

          Well, that just shows how stupid Sharpton is. You CAN'T shut down a city with civil disobedience. In fact, I would venture to say civil disobedience doesn't even exist. As soon as you are disobedient it is criminal and no longer civil.
        • Zempz, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1wtf...MLKJ was criminal then...? You sound like a character from 1984 or something...
          • dinot, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Did I say that? I already said protesting is fine.
          • macweirdo42, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2@dinot
            To be clear hear, the whole concept of civil disobedience is that you break the law. Granted, generally, the concept is that you break a law that you find unjust - I don't know how the modern concept of just breaking any law arose, but I mean, look at Rosa Parks - that was a classic case of civil disobedience. She decided that the law that black people had to sit at the back of the bus was unjust, and so she simply refused to obey it.
      • PolishLogic, on 05/08/2008, -4/+8Innocent men don't try to run people over with their cars.

        Just sayin'.
        • dinot, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5They might if those people where raining bullets on you.
        • Zempz, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3nono, obviously when someones pouring magazines of bullets into your car, you get out and politely ask them whats wrong..duh
        • smotpoker, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2If you haven't noticed, there are many cases (at least on COPS) where police seem to habitually jump in front of cars. It could be argued that sane/credible law enforcement officers wouldn't generally do that and that their testimony would be questionable. Yet for some reason, it seems that in most cases they tack on an attempted vehicular homicide charge though or some such.

          With police routinely jumping in front of cars who are attempting to flee, it becomes unclear whether *any* suspect was TRYING to run them over and with some unknown assailant pointing a gun at your face, it becomes unclear how justified it would be even if it was intentional
      • CabesMojo, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2He was a very innocent convicted felon who repeatedly refused to stop when cops asked him then repeatedly rammed a police van. A true injustice......
    • soccerman90, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4sometimes all you have to fight with is civil disobedience. You got to fight with the tools you have (love that album)
      • dinot, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2come on. really? sometimes the only answer is to break the law?
        • soccerman90, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4your damn right that there are situations in our world where you have to civilly break the law and get the attention of the people in power to let them know we will not stand for this
          • dinot, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Point taken. But now we have the internet.
          • soccerman90, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2the internet is great and allows us to learn about things that we otherwise would never hear on the news, but sometimes the internet has no effect and its necessary to get out and do something.
        • oderdigg, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5What about Rosa Parks? Didn't she disobey a law?
  • flip2trip, on 05/08/2008, -11/+41Sharpton is a waste of oxygen.
    • KaiSe7eN, on 05/08/2008, -6/+2Does that make you a waste of bandwidth?
    • mcquitty, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Perhaps we should require him to have carbon credits before he speaks?
  • InuX, on 05/08/2008, -12/+5Cue being called a bigot in 3...2...1...
  • robbymcdobby, on 05/08/2008, -10/+1FAIL
  • AshamedAmerican, on 05/08/2008, -6/+44Attention Whore.
    • oderdigg, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3And your response was just as Whorish.
  • yohnstoppable, on 05/08/2008, -25/+20I hate Sharpton as much as the next person, but this is a just cause.
    • Falldog, on 05/08/2008, -3/+11I plan to block traffic for any judicial decisions I disagree with.
      • laserblazer, on 05/08/2008, -9/+4What kind of monster agrees with this ruling?
        • Falldog, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I'm a monster for looking at the situation from both sides and seeing that the cops acted correctly by firing on a subject they believed was threatening their lives? That's essentially what occurred, only to have it blown out of proportion by poor training and firearm restraint on part of the officers.
        • Zempz, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0ok wait, so your saying either a.) they shot 50 bullets while he was still heading to them (no.) or b.) he was chasing after them in the car........or else wouldn't the responsible decision to be...note license plate and work from there? when they started shooting, as i understand he had already hit their car and was peeling away....
  • proliance, on 05/08/2008, -5/+73Blocking traffic? People trying to get to work, the doctor or taking the kids to daycare somehow deserve to be punished by Al Sharpton? He's lucky he didn't get run over.
    • laserblazer, on 05/08/2008, -15/+6I bet the American Revolution was a tad inconvenient, too. If you're going to champion the cause of apathy, why not just refrain from comment?
    • cawpin, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6And we are unlucky that he didn't.
    • bxblox, on 05/08/2008, -6/+2Its rush hour in NYC. There probably would have been a traffic jam anyway.
    • charliebucketts, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Sharpton was not alone. Many people are outraged by the constant police brutality.
      Oviously to you, life is cheap. Outside of your "in group", that is.
    • sjm20k, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4yeah i bet you're all for progress and revolution as long as it doesn't effect you in any way. who's the selfish one? someone campaigning for justice, or regular jackoffs complaining about their commutes?
      • jpowell180, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1The "selfish" one is the media attention whore who is willing to cause innocent people to suffer by jamming up the roads - what if someone needed an ambulance and died because of this idiot's protest making the arrival of medical help impossible?
        I guess to some folks, it's worth that sacrifice so the "Reverend" can get some more attention, but to others who actually posess some intellectual capacity, it just shows what a selfish moron this man is.
  • shyner, on 05/08/2008, -2/+32The only thing I don't like much about Sharpton, is that I can almost gaurantee that if this was the exact same situation with a white guy being shot he wouldn't be doing anything. George Bush might not care about black people, but Al Sharpton ONLY cares about black people it seems.

    It's a just cause, however. So dugg!
    • socalslaker, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7I agree Sharpton wants equal rights but you would never see him protest for a white person. That's the first step to equal right help out whites, blacks, Mexicans, Ect. to show that we all can come together.
    • bxblox, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4If it were... but how often does that happen? Every time you hear of NYPD emptying guns you might as well just dial sharpton yourself because 99.9% of the time they're black.
      • shinythingy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1links to all these other occasions please
    • Troy64, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Al Sharpton doesn't care about black people. Al Sharpton cares about Al Sharpton. Pretending to care about black causes gets him the attention, money and power he craves.
    • sjm20k, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2you realize he's protesting for equal treatment of blacks right? the whole concept is that this wouldn't happen to a white person. that's why he's crying racism .
  • eminiguy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+15I don't like Al Sharpton and his ilk at all. Hopefully, when Obama is President we will be hearing less about this fellow. Or perhaps I am wrong.

    Even if this is a just cause, Al Sharpton being involved in it diminishes it because of his checkered credibility.
    • alanr19, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Sharpton is a trouble making crackhead. He should be tarred and feathered and thrown into the sea.
    • cawpin, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Checkered? I wouldn't give him that much credit.
    • Shawn4168, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Sharpton won't rest until all members of other races are slaves to black people. No, he won't be shutting up anytime soon.
  • TruckStuff, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3I'm not from New York and haven't heard about this since it happened. Why where they acquitted?
    • laserblazer, on 05/08/2008, -6/+8They're cops. That's all.
      • twertyto, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2That's not funny. This is a serious issue. Provide a serious answer or don't comment at all.
        • twiztidsinz, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2That WAS a serious answer...
          That WAS why they were acquitted..
    • cawpin, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2In New York.
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/08/2008, -3/+5Summary of the events:
      A few guys out at a bar having fun.. drinking.. celebrating one of the guys marriage.
      Something happens and there is an altercation.
      Guys leave bar to go wherever.
      Another group** jumps out infront of the car as they are leaving with guns drawn.
      Guys in car get scared and try to get the hell out of there.
      Guys with guns open fire shooting FIFTY TIMES. One guy being responsible for something like 38 of those shots.
      Turns out those guys with guns were undercover, plain clothes officers with no visible markings/badges.
      Guy who's wedding was the next day is dead.
      • CabesMojo, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Well thats one very biased side of the story.
        Here is another
        Guys are out at a strip club celebrating a bachelor party
        Altercation occurs plains clothes officers over hear one of the individual mention getting his gun
        Guys leave the bar visibly drunk
        Cops repeatedly order the men to stop declaring they are police.
        The men ignore the warnings and continue.
        Plain clothes cops approach the car third officer joins them.
        Repeatedly orders to stop and that they are cops, men in car floor it almost ramming an office and repeatedly ramming a police van
        On man reaches back for something officers assume it is the gun, while the driver continues to ram the van
        Shots are fired, in the confusion the officers believe they are being fired back upon
        The driver eventually stops because hes dead.
        • yaryarhumphump, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2I like how this comment has all the facts as opposed to the one above that leaves out the important ones that show the guy got shot for a reason.
    • raoulduke87, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Because you have the right to not be killed...unless it's by a policeman or an aristocrat.
      • yaryarhumphump, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Or if your not beating someone up resisting arrest, "getting your gun", and hitting cops with your car.
  • digitallysick, on 05/08/2008, -12/+5I think he is doing the right thing, 50 something shots , how excessive does it need to be before its considered wrong?
    • alanr19, on 05/08/2008, -3/+8The shooting was wrong. Nobody is saying it was. What is also wrong is the ***** Sharpton showing up and making a racial issue of it when clearly it wasn't. (there were black police officers present, and also involved in the shooting)

      You have obviously been easily confused and influenced by Sharpton's *****-talk.
      • CaityCait13, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0New York Times Article 'Our Racist, Sexist Selves':
        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/opinion/06kristo ...
        QUOTE:
        "The University of Chicago offers an on-line psychological test in which you encounter a series of 100 black or white men, holding either guns or cellphones. You’re supposed to shoot the gunmen and holster your gun for the others.... Most whites AND MANY BLACKS are more quick to shoot blacks, no matter how egalitarian they profess to be."

        Just because black people did it too doesn't mean its not racist. It's possible to be racist against your own race, because we all live in a world that conditions us to be racists. When is the last time a similar thing happened to a white person?
        • alanr19, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1The Facts: You have made an allegation of racism that you have failed to prove. You cite a video game as proof. You are a retard.
    • laserblazer, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3The first shot was excessive, so just think what it was after a full reload.
      • Pake, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1The first shot was a warning to stop trying to run them over. The other 49 were in self defense as the guy continued to try to run them over.
    • cawpin, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Excessive is shooting someone after they're already dead. The guy did something to make the officers feel that their lives were in danger. Once you start shooting you don't stop until the threat is eliminated.
    • twertyto, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2People have the right to protest but not the right to civil disobedience
  • Falldog, on 05/08/2008, -6/+43Congratulations to Sharpton for making a non-race issue into one.
    • nblsavage, on 05/08/2008, -7/+2The article doesn't go in to details, but I sure didn't see anything race related in it.
    • bjs3171, on 05/08/2008, -4/+5non-race related issue? A black kid was shot 50 times by police.
      That being said, if I were trying to drive across that bridge, a bunch of idiots standing in my way wouldn't stop me.
      • Shawn4168, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Clarification: A guy walking out of a club that tries to run over a cop with his car is shot 50 times by police.
      • shinythingy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3correction a guy was shot 50 times, he happened to be black. It is a non issue, as stated many times black officers were involved. Unless it is a huge conspiracy and it was just a white dude in make up
    • PATSCRU, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Are you kidding? this isn't the first time an unarmed black guy was sprayed in new york with a ludicrous amount of bullets. I wish i could say it was just a coincidence, but it's simply not.
      • Shawn4168, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Unarmed? So you're saying that the guy in the car wasn't really trying to run the cop over, he was just "pretending", right?
    • enderwiggin13, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5I don't see how it's a race issue - 2 of the 3 cops that shot Sean Bell were black...

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/nyregion/26bell. ...
      • mmmbud, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0i knew i read that somewhere... yeah al is an idiot. People are Fuk'n stupid.
      • jarjarjanks, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1ever heard of uncle tom?
    • jarjarjanks, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Ever heard of Uncle Tom?
  • m0rtified, on 05/08/2008, -7/+20***** you Al
  • alanr19, on 05/08/2008, -12/+21He's a trouble making *****. He makes money out of stirring up racial hatred and destroying lives.

    He should be flogged to within an inch of his life.
    • johnsmith3210, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Lynched?
    • sjm20k, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2god you ***** love to call the kettle black don't you?
      • alanr19, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1You're not making sense. Please think before posting in future.

        Thanks.
        • sjm20k, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1you're thick as *****, and smug too. you also perfectly embody the greater internet dickwad theory. ***** human trash.

          want to know what I meant by my comment: you chide sharpton for stirring up hate and causing trouble, then suggest the answer is beating him within an inch of his life. if that doesn't come off a bit hypocritical to you, then maybe YOU should think before posting, cheeto-*****.

          Thanks.
    • DyceFreak, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1you should see his own life he's ***** up by doing so... stupid know nothing.
  • hackthesystem, on 05/08/2008, -5/+8'Bout time.
  • yaygrr, on 05/08/2008, -3/+13this is a perfect example of why so-called 'black leaders' shouldn't play the race card with every issue -- now he has a built-in base of people who will disagree with him whether it's a just cause or not...
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/08/2008, -2/+9 Sharpton isn't the only one who has lost faith in the police, especially in New York!
  • The_Red_Monkey, on 05/08/2008, -6/+36Most of the cops were minorities involved in the shooting. The man was heard saying let me go get my gun. I think that's enough. I am tired of the fake outrage.

    Sharpton lives in a mansion, wears $5000 suits and drives around in expensive cars. Why the hell is no one outraged over that?
    • grobinson, on 05/08/2008, -4/+5Shoot a man 50 times?! because they heard somebody say "let me get my gun"?
      • cleverdiggname, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Not saying that i am completely on the cops side, but if they guy threatened you with a gun, and supposedly some of his friends try to run you over, i would think you would shoot before he shot you to keep your own life.
      • sjm20k, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3im pretty sure you have no ***** way to know if anyone actually said that or not considering all of the non-cop participants in the incident are DEAD.
      • Black6x, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Remember, the cops were undercover at a club that was well known for illegal activity. All of a sudden, someone says they are going to get their gun, rams the undercover cop car and then is about to run over an officer. I'm sure that the officers probably thought their cover was blown, at the very least.
    • kreatre2007, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9Great points! I'm definitely outraged. It's people like Sharpton who keep the racial battles alive. He does this because this is how he makes a living. He has no interest in achieving racial equality. It would mean he no longer has a purpose. Jesse Jackson is just as bad. Most people in this country (myself included) don't give a damn what race or religion someone is but, Sharpton, Jackson, the Rev. Wright, etc. keep bringing race into the public's attention. I am sick and tired of hearing about how bad blacks have been treated. Slavery was ended 145 years ago. There is no one left alive who experienced it. Congress and the courts have addressed racial inequities several times. It's time for everyone to stand on their own merit and stop expecting the government or someone else to make them successful. If things were left up to people like Al Sharpton, we would never be allowed to move on and live in harmony. There will always be bigots and there will always be times when someone is treated unfairly because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That's just human nature sometimes -- to fear or hate something different. That will never change but, in this day we have reached a point where blacks, whites, hispanics, women, etc. have equal opportunities.
      • Anomaly100, on 05/08/2008, -2/+0Slavery ended 145 years ago? I don't think so.
        • kreatre2007, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2The Emancipation Proclamation was issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. The last time I checked, that was 145 years ago. True, the Southern states in rebellion probably didn't recognize it but, the proclamation became the official policy of the U.S. government 145 years ago. Since the Confederate government no longer exists, we cannot hold them responsible for not ending slavery in the states that seceded.
          • Anomaly100, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0Very true. I bow to your wisdom-really. I really was speaking of slavery right now. It's so abundant out there. You are right that it is illeagal and not accepted. People sold into the sex slave market as children and the wonderful wealthy people of low morals that are paying nothing to have someone clean their homes is beyond me. I do agree with your views on Sharpton as he only comes out in the public eye when he thinks he can turn a subject into a racial matter. The families he uses are grieving and are taken into his drama. They are the ones I feel badly for. Sharpton never has any other views unless he can turn it into a racial battle. God bless.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3The man was "overheard saying" by someone not involved in the shooting, or by the police who just happened to have put 50 holes in him? The days of believing everything the police say as fact are kind of over for me.
  • frepnog, on 05/08/2008, -1/+9Niko can take care of this little "problem".
  • monkeyrun, on 05/08/2008, -3/+12I like how even Obama doesn't want to be associated with him.
  • kcapxis, on 05/08/2008, -5/+12Sharpton is a race-baiter and is one of the primary obstacles to his own professed cause. I hope they execute him so we can finally begin to work toward real equality.
  • kreatre2007, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6This is great. I hope they keep that loudmouthed hypocrite bastard in jail. Sharpton is nothing but a race peddling poverty pimp.
  • Misinformant, on 05/08/2008, -2/+16Think reverend Al would give a damn if it was a Sean Rodriguez or a Sean Kawasaki?
    • alanr19, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8Exactly. He's as bad a racist as you'll ever see.
    • PolishLogic, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Not at all. Much like Sharpton was nowhere to be seen when cops in Philadelphia were getting gunned down by young black men over the past year. All while black on black crime in Philly has grown to alarming proportions. That might have been a good time to talk about taking a stand, although it wouldn't have gotten him as much press time as this does, so it's understandable why he wasn't interested in it.
  • AppleGeorge, on 05/08/2008, -11/+3His black ass should be hung.
    • papipablo, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Clothes are hung. People are hanged.
      • AppleGeorge, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2No, you're just a dumbass with no grammar skills.
        • papipablo, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Nope, you should try reading a book without pictures for a change you dumb *****.
    • Shawn4168, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Typically it works a lot better by the neck, but hey, we can try your way.
  • muleking, on 05/08/2008, -6/+9Sean Belle wasn't unarmed, he was drunk behind the wheel of a car and bumped a police officer with it.

    Reverend Al is a racial arsonist. He doesn't want to see blacks advance in this country because he won't have anyone to profit off of.
    • raoulduke87, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3So everyon who drives drunk should be gunned down for it? By those paid to protect them?
      • Black6x, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2When they're trying to run an officer over, sure.
    • charliebucketts, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2The cops were drunk too! BooYah!
  • grobinson, on 05/08/2008, -3/+12I don't necessarily agree that race has anything to do with this case, but the bottom line is an unarmed man was shot 50 times!
    And I'm glad somebody * decided to show the city and the nation that an incident like that can not be tolerated.

    * although Al Sharpton is flawed and has cried wolf many times
    • seanc6610, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3i agree with you to a point, but it's unfair to say that a drunk guy behind the wheel of a car is really unarmed.
      also, he pushed coke and was just bad news. not that he deserved what he got, but he was no saint.
    • Black6x, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Also, the cops were at eth club because it was well known for illegal activity. It's not like he was gunned down driving down the road. It was AFTER he rammed the undercover police car, and BEFORE he ran a cop over.
  • MaddieCakes, on 05/08/2008, -6/+9I read about the whole Sean Bell case... The dude didn't comply with police orders. And it's not like they were like, 'oh, you're black, you're under arrest.' No, him and his buddies got in a fight with someone at his bachelor party, and one of his friends said 'let me go get my gun so I can shoot this dumb white bitch', and so the cops followed them out as they got in their car, and when the cops told them to stop, they accelerated. I don't know about you, but to me, that's just begging to be shot, I don't care what color you are.
    • grobinson, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4If he didn't comply why didn't they taze him or mace him or force him to the ground, or just shot him in the leg once or something? Why did 3 cops shot him a total of 50 times?! that shows no restraint and no respect for human life.

      I'm sure the police handbook does not say, if a suspect does not comply, then shot him 50 times.
      • bmcnally, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1They shot the car, not him 50 times. And aside from one cop (who reloaded) they all shot either part of or all of a single clip into a car with 3 people in it.
    • raoulduke87, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Oh, you read about it? Ok.

      Have you ever been to Jamaica, Queens? I think not. Because if you had, you'd know that at that hour of the night, in that part of town, if someone approaches your car with a gun drawn and doesn't identify themselves as a cop (which everyone who witnessed the shooting has said that the officers in question did not do) you run like hell. And as for the gun in question...where was it? There was never a gun recovered. So, the cops heard some drunk guy posturing and running his ***** mouth, assumed the worst and decided to fire 50 ***** times.

      Now, I live here. I've seen this ***** play out in my hometown. I'm white and I don't particularly care for the good Rev., but somebody's gotta stand against these corrupt bastards.
    • Zempz, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2after he accelerated, they cops were no longer in clear or present danger. he wasn't swerving to run them down, he was accelerating to leave. grab a plate and make a report. guns were completely unnecessary
  • patpl22391, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4At least he didn't pull a Cynthia Mckinney and slap the officer and then play the race card.
  • jetblackz4, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5The only thing Sharpton does is play the race card over and over and over .........
  • stix213, on 05/08/2008, -4/+10Sorry but I can't understand where Sharpton is coming from. When plain clothes officers surround your car, why the hell would you floor it at one of the cops??? 50 shots is a lot, but the driv