What is the thoughts of the LEO's on this topic. I know there are a few from almost all of the agencies, local city, county, state and even some federal as well. What is the answer to all of this "civil disobedience." I just can't get over the fact that this is allowed. Al Sharpton shutting down a city by means of this type of action. He should be counting his lucky stars that when he lays down in the road to block a tractor trailer, that I am not at the wheel, and just let it go at that.

What is the thoughts of the LEO's on this topic. I know there are a few from almost all of the agencies, local city, county, state and even some federal as well. What is the answer to all of this "civil disobedience." I just can't get over the fact that this is allowed. Al Sharpton shutting down a city by means of this type of action. He should be counting his lucky stars that when he lays down in the road to block a tractor trailer, that I am not at the wheel, and just let it go at that.

Context please? Link to what you are talking about?

1.al getting arrested blocking the brooklyn bridge this week
2.past track record of his activities blocking byway and hwyways etc

I saw something on the news about this tonight. I'm sorry, but this is not the answer to the situation in NY. There is a thread in the study regarding the shooting, but this subject came up there, so I'll say the same thing I did there. If someone wants to protest something, fine, I have no issue with that, as long as its done in a calm, civil manner. But if you're going to get crazy, cause a disturbance, etc., then I'm sorry, but I can't see how that is making his 'cause' any better. How is making a tense situation more tense, solving anything?

Can you post up some more info please? Civil disobedience is something we deal with a lot, we have peace campaigners at quite a few of our military camp gates so are often called upon to remove them.
A few years ago we had to deal with Greenham Common, an American base here in the UK which had a permanently based peace camp outside it and routinely attracted demonstrations. Not all the protestors were peaceful though!

Here is a link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24508637/). I love the way Al says this:

Sharpton had promised recently to "close this city down" with civil disobedience.

But to attempt to make himself not look bad does this:

Sharpton, shooting survivors Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman, and Bell's fiancee, Nicole Paultre Bell, lined up and peacefully put their hands behind their backs as police put plastic handcuffs on them. Sharpton and Bell were placed in a police vehicle.

So he calls for chaos and calls for people to shut the city down, but then peacefully gives up. If he was so concerned about being peaceful, he would say the things he does, but instead find a more civil way to demonstrate.

It's because he's not as concerned about "the message" as he is about getting free air time and press.

Peaceful demonstrations at the appropriate place would do much more than standing in the road and impeding traffic. At that point people aren't going to care how good of a cause you have, you are an annoyance and they will tune you out.

After the Tawana Brawley fiasco I cant understand how Sharpton has any credibility on any subject anymore.

I would respectfully suggest that everyone talk to your grandparents or your neighborhood older hippies about civil disobedience and why people do it, what it can accomplish, etcetera.

The People are supposed to be running this nation ... but it is not happening. Our congressmen are supposed to be the voice of the people ... but it is not happening.

Peaceful protest via civil disobedience is a MUCH more desirable alternative to, say, armed civilians claiming civil law over a geographical area and being shot down by police.

I say this in general terms, not specifically addressing the NY shootings incident.

Peace.

After the Tawana Brawley fiasco I cant understand how Sharpton has any credibility on any subject anymore.
I never placed much credibility in Sharpton in the first place... but I imagine some people do/did...

I agree with Archangel M.

Sharpton's a grandstanding idiot.

And he's blackmailing the city... I read a quote to the effect of "we'll keep causing disruption until we get an indictment!" Um... if the facts don't support an indictment, they don't support one.

This case wasn't a great or perfect shooting -- but everything I've seen supports that it was a justified shooting.

I agree with Archangel M.

Sharpton's a grandstanding idiot.

I fully agree. But he's a well known grandstanding idiot that has media contacts.

And he's blackmailing the city... I read a quote to the effect of "we'll keep causing disruption until we get an indictment!" Um... if the facts don't support an indictment, they don't support one.

That's the whole point of his protest, leading up to his and 200 others' arrests. They want to make a point, and create a buzz around a situation. The simple fact that we are discussing this in an MA forum proves that his cause has attained one of its goals of reaching as many people as possible. It's gained notoriety in the media, but hasn't really "shut NYC down," according to NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90011470). There's no "blackmailing the city."

This case wasn't a great or perfect shooting -- but everything I've seen supports that it was a justified shooting.

It wasn't a perfect shooting. But I don't think it justified one officer firing 31 times into Bell's Nissan Altima. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/nyregion/26cops.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/B/Black%20Culture%20and%20History&pagewanted=all) I think that's a reload or two with the officers' 9mm semiautomatics weps (holding 16 rounds). That's a pretty itchy trigger finger for one cop. It makes investigators suspicious as to the situation revolving around the case. Why would a cop unload his gun not once, but at least twice into a car when they're not firing back? That's not even counting his backup, who also fired into the vehicle.

There's a controversy involving a fourth man in Bell's car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell), who fled the scene and fired his weapon, according to the officer who fired the first round and a janitor who worked in a nearby building. Both claimed that this individual had a gun, and the janitor claimed that he allegedly fired a gun, but according to ballistics, the only slugs and shell casings at the scene were from the police officers.

Justified? I don't know. This was a case of a drunk guy acting tough, panicking and almost hitting an undercover cop in his blind spot. Then some police unload their weapons on him and his friends based on speculation that Bell and his friends have a weapon. That's like a cop arresting/shooting an old man because he said he would "bop someone on the head" with his cane. Sure, what the old man said was wrong, but it doesn't warrant an overabundance/excessive use of deadly force.

The cops were acquitted, which frustrates Bell's family, as well as a number of other families who feel victimized by the police in NYC. Personally, I think they had a good lawyer, as well as good information on Bell's previous crack-cocaine dealings, and weapons charge. They could have used that in court and a jury could buy that.

I know with LEOs there's a lot of "Us vs. Them" mentality. Cops stick together. They have to in order to survive. It's a brotherhood and I understand why people will support their brother through hell and back. But this situation was wrong, and one in a long list of NYC police brutality (http://www.wnbc.com/video/1677652/index.html#). This kind of stuff happens with 8 million+ people and gets attention because there are so many people in that city, and when someone like Al Sharpton is involved and makes an idiot of himself by getting arrested.

Either way, he got what he wanted: attention.

Maybe I'm naive, but I always thought civil disobedience was supposed to have a point. Besides keeping a certain race-baiting attention whore employed, I mean.

I would respectfully suggest that everyone talk to your grandparents or your neighborhood older hippies about civil disobedience and why people do it, what it can accomplish, etcetera.

The People are supposed to be running this nation ... but it is not happening. Our congressmen are supposed to be the voice of the people ... but it is not happening.

Peaceful protest via civil disobedience is a MUCH more desirable alternative to, say, armed civilians claiming civil law over a geographical area and being shot down by police.

I say this in general terms, not specifically addressing the NY shootings incident.

Peace.

I don't think that anyone has argued that PEACEFUL protests can accomplish something for a cause. The main thrust of this thread is Al Sharpton's use of his own method (interfering with legitimate business/commerce that have NOTHING to do with what he is protesting) and using it to gain HIS OWN media attention, again not for the cause he is protesting.

I'm gonna make a prediction that his "protest" will lead to a riot or a large violent outburst.

Sharpton might have an ulterior motive with this protest, but the cause he claims to promote is gaining as much, if not more, attention. "Sharpton" is a catchphrase. And it's now becoming synonymous with "Sean Bell."

No one's going to write a news story about MAForumGuy123 staging a protest or give two hoots about his/her cause.

With every large protest, there's bound to be some inconvenience to private business. That's how they get attention, to themselves, but more importantly, their cause.

I fully agree. But he's a well known grandstanding idiot that has media contacts.



That's the whole point of his protest, leading up to his and 200 others' arrests. They want to make a point, and create a buzz around a situation. The simple fact that we are discussing this in an MA forum proves that his cause has attained one of its goals of reaching as many people as possible. It's gained notoriety in the media, but hasn't really "shut NYC down," according to NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90011470). There's no "blackmailing the city."



It wasn't a perfect shooting. But I don't think it justified one officer firing 31 times into Bell's Nissan Altima. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/nyregion/26cops.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/B/Black%20Culture%20and%20History&pagewanted=all) I think that's a reload or two with the officers' 9mm semiautomatics weps (holding 16 rounds). That's a pretty itchy trigger finger for one cop. It makes investigators suspicious as to the situation revolving around the case. Why would a cop unload his gun not once, but at least twice into a car when they're not firing back? That's not even counting his backup, who also fired into the vehicle.

There's a controversy involving a fourth man in Bell's car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell), who fled the scene and fired his weapon, according to the officer who fired the first round and a janitor who worked in a nearby building. Both claimed that this individual had a gun, and the janitor claimed that he allegedly fired a gun, but according to ballistics, the only slugs and shell casings at the scene were from the police officers.

Justified? I don't know. This was a case of a drunk guy acting tough, panicking and almost hitting an undercover cop in his blind spot. Then some police unload their weapons on him and his friends based on speculation that Bell and his friends have a weapon. That's like a cop arresting/shooting an old man because he said he would "bop someone on the head" with his cane. Sure, what the old man said was wrong, but it doesn't warrant an overabundance/excessive use of deadly force.

The cops were acquitted, which frustrates Bell's family, as well as a number of other families who feel victimized by the police in NYC. Personally, I think they had a good lawyer, as well as good information on Bell's previous crack-cocaine dealings, and weapons charge. They could have used that in court and a jury could buy that.

I know with LEOs there's a lot of "Us vs. Them" mentality. Cops stick together. They have to in order to survive. It's a brotherhood and I understand why people will support their brother through hell and back. But this situation was wrong, and one in a long list of NYC police brutality (http://www.wnbc.com/video/1677652/index.html#). This kind of stuff happens with 8 million+ people and gets attention because there are so many people in that city, and when someone like Al Sharpton is involved and makes an idiot of himself by getting arrested.

Either way, he got what he wanted: attention.

Good post. What I wanted to comment on was your last line. You're 100% correct, Al and his followers are getting attention. But, IMO, the attention that they're getting, well, at least from me, is bad, and its all due to the way that he's going about getting that attention. I look at him and pretty much, for lack of a better word, think he's acting childish.

I know I keep going back to how he's protesting, but I think its important. Sure, some, mostly his followers, will think that what he's doing is a good thing, but I don't see how any good can come from what he is doing.

I don't think that anyone has argued that PEACEFUL protests can accomplish something for a cause. The main thrust of this thread is Al Sharpton's use of his own method (interfering with legitimate business/commerce that have NOTHING to do with what he is protesting) and using it to gain HIS OWN media attention, again not for the cause he is protesting.

I'm gonna make a prediction that his "protest" will lead to a riot or a large violent outburst.

And then they'll have another reason to cry foul with the NYPD.

Good post. What I wanted to comment on was your last line. You're 100% correct, Al and his followers are getting attention. But, IMO, the attention that they're getting, well, at least from me, is bad, and its all due to the way that he's going about getting that attention. I look at him and pretty much, for lack of a better word, think he's acting childish.

I know I keep going back to how he's protesting, but I think its important. Sure, some, mostly his followers, will think that what he's doing is a good thing, but I don't see how any good can come from what he is doing.

I see where you're coming from. And I agree from a perspective, Sharpton is acting childish. But our perspectives will have to agree to disagree.

Without Al Sharpton acting like a loon, I would never have known about Sean Bell or his predicament. Unfortunately, I don't live in NYC. If I did, I would see how my local politicians act and say about these events. That would help decide my vote/opinion of that politician in the future.

It would also make me think about how police departments are funded, and if there should be more/less police in the streets; and when that issue comes to the ballot, that would also be affected by these events.

Childish or not, Sharpton shaped my view point on a situation. Childish or not.

I see where you're coming from. And I agree from a perspective, Sharpton is acting childish. But our perspectives will have to agree to disagree.

Without Al Sharpton acting like a loon, I would never have known about Sean Bell or his predicament. Unfortunately, I don't live in NYC. If I did, I would see how my local politicians act and say about these events. That would help decide my vote/opinion of that politician in the future.

It would also make me think about how police departments are funded, and if there should be more/less police in the streets; and when that issue comes to the ballot, that would also be affected by these events.

Childish or not, Sharpton shaped my view point on a situation. Childish or not.

Thats perfectly fine. :) I certainly don't think a discussion would be interesting if everyone agreed. :) I don't live in NYC either, but this situation made it to MSNBC, the local news, as well as my local paper. Now, obviously not everything that happens through out the world makes it to my area, but at least its getting to some areas. :)

Regarding how he got peoples attention...I guess no matter how you act, you will get someones attention, whether its someone who agrees or someone who disagrees. I'm simply saying that by acting civil, there is, IMO, a much better chance that you and your cause will be taken more seriously. For myself, I have no use or no respect for someone like him, that would rather resort to chaos to solve a problem.

But to each his own. :)

People should have taken to the streets when OJ was found not guilty....why didnt THAT happen?

Wow...good ol' Al is at it again.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24526428/

NEW YORK - A day after his carefully orchestrated protests briefly blocked rush-hour traffic, the Rev. Al Sharpton on Thursday promised to stage another mass protest over three police detectives' acquittals in the 50-bullet killing of an unarmed man.

I'm sorry, but this guy needs to be locked up with the key thrown away.

Looks like big Al hasnt been paying the tax man. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_re_us/sharpton_s_money)