Let us look at this recent verdict and compare it to the John White verdict from just over a month ago:
In the case of the Sean Bell shooting we have Judge Cooperman saying that the since the officers thought there was a gun and thought that something deadly was going to happen, the court cannot find them guilty. At worst, says Cooperman, they were careless.
So remember: No gun, A loud argument: Ok to shoot 50 shots because someone made "threatening movements."
John White: In his home. 2 cars of white youth (thugs) pull up to the front of his house. They are yelling at the man's house threatening the life of his son.
John White retrieves his gun and comes outside to defend his son and his property from this mob that came out to his house. Mob member gets into John White's face clearly menacing the man and is shot and killed. 1 Shot. guilty of manslaughter. Like the Sean Bell case, there is "no gun" there is a "heated argument" and there is a threat on someone's life.
How does a court system reconcile acquitting a set of people who shot at unarmed men based on the "fact" that there was an argument, and threatening movements" and convicting another faced with the same situation?
It is clear then, that under criminal law in NY State that police have the right to shoot at unarmed people so long as they say that the person was making "threatening moves" and having "heated arguments." but a civilian defending his home and family has no such right. In other words, under NY State law There is one set of codes for the police and another for civilians.
Technorati Tags: Sean Bell Watch
No comments:
Post a Comment