Yay! Uh, I mean oh my. What a shame. NOT!

I have to wonder though.....if those three officers had all been black, and Sean Bell had been white, just what Al Sharpton’s take on it would be if mobs of mostly white protesters blocked streets and demanded that they be punished even after a court acquitted them.

He’d still be in the street protesting. Only then he would be calling the persecution of three black officers by a white mob a “lynching”.

2 of the 3 officers who killed Bell were black. I guess they don’t count cause they’re not night black, but light skinned blacks.

But it isn’t just about Sean Bell. It’s about grabbing their fifteen minutes of fame, as this statement shows:

Oh, I thought it was about standing up for Americans, who worry that when and if they are accidentally shot 50 times by police, that justice would be served and not over-looked.

But thanks for setting the record straight Rob.  I had no idea who Al Sharpton was until he got his 15 minutes. 

Good thing you can read between the lines.  I did’t do acid as a child, so my extra sensory skills don’t work like yours do.  Makes perfect sense now.

Hannitized:  Al Sharpton is a dedicated servant to his cause and his people. Has he profited thereby?  Assuredly, yes.  Has he made his minions feel better? Yes.  Many men have done less and done less well.

Having said that, You, Me, Rev. Sharpton and all others must recognize the rule of law in a civilized society.  If a jury of their peers found the officers not guilty, then one either accepts that verdict or appeals to the next highest court.

Sharpton has taken the law into his own hands in an effort to shut New York down. 100 years ago, White lynch mobs also took the law into their own hands in the South.

Either we are civilized and ruled by laws of our own devising, or we are lawless creatures who stop traffic one day and burn a city down on the next.

Sharpton is doing wrong and his wrong-doing cannot be justified.

I agree pparets.  Sharpton was causing civil disobedience and thus got arrested.  I don’t see why people think it is okay for Jackson or Sharpton and their racebaiting minions to break the law in ways others would not be allowed to do so.

Oh, I thought it was about standing up for Americans, who worry that when and if they are accidentally shot 50 times by police, that justice would be served and not over-looked.

I am sure Sharpton cares about black people, but if the protest was not another way for him to get in the news then why didn’t he hold some type of a press conference instead of blocking roads and causing civil disobedience?

Ah, that’s funny.  I didn’t even hear anything about this until I cracked a beer in my brooklyn apt and pulled up a website outta the Dakotas.  Goes to show no one here seems to care that much about it. 

I will say that I’ve gotten the impression from nonpartisan friends that the the NYPD is overbearing, and that falls disproportionately on black people.  And, living in a cop neighborhood, I’ve seen them act in ways that made me a lot more receptive to that idea. 

But this really was just an undercover action gone bad.

Dougee:  Good post, but remember that in the years leading up to 1776, the patriots were committing ‘civil disobedience’ too.

hannitized blathers:

Oh, I thought it was about standing up for Americans, who worry that when and if they are accidentally shot 50 times by police, that justice would be served and not over-looked.

Let me set the record straight here. He wasn’t accidentally shot. He was deliberately shot because those officers perceived a threat. And get this: That is the standard courts have set in shootings like this.....did the officers perceive a threat? And under the color of that perception did they act reasonably?

And he wasn’t shot 50 times. Fifty rounds were fired. Big difference.

I wouldn’t expect Hannitized to understand what having to make a split second decision to shoot or not to shoot would be like. If you’re wrong either way the results can be disastrous.

And don’t give me the old, “well, they should have been sure”. Yeah. They should have. But they couldn’t be under the circumstances. The court agreed.

You’re out of your league on this one, Hannitized. Way out.

Oh, and jpe....

Someone else recently pointed this out as well: You pick up on news from your city (New York) from a blog from North Dakota in an article written by a guy from Louisiana.

How cool is that?

Wait a minute, so this morning you take an issue with folks impeding freedom of speech.

Now you celebrate cracking down on freedom of speech.

I got to hand it to you, Pilgrim, you are quite consistent with your moral inconsistency.

Typical. Their tolerance extends only to themselves and their politcal point of view. Not to you and yours.

You WILL think like they think and do as they say. Dissenting opinions will not be tolerated.

They know what’s best, you silly little person.

So, to summarize, some dude pulling little crosses out of the ground is evidence of some liberal conspiracy and indicative of their intolerance.

But whatever you do, if the cops plug your son or fiance on his wedding day, with 50 bullets keep your damn mouth shut.

After all, according to Pilgrim:

There wasn’t a murder committed here.