Al Sharpton arrested.... - Page 3

jillio · 05-08-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

Let's see...

Al Sharpton and his activisms -
1. Howard Beach - 3 African-American men were assaulted in Howard Beach by a mob of white men
2. Tawana Brawley - 15-years old black girl claimed to be assaulted and raped by 6 white men
3. Bensonhurst - 4 black teenagers beaten by a group of white youths
4. Crown Heights Riot - 7 years old Guyanese (African) killed by Jewish driver but police gave driver preferential treatment and ignored a boy
5. Freddie's Fashion Mart - "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business."
6. Amadou Diallo - black
7. Vieques - black
8. Ousmane Zongo - black
9. Duke lacrosse players - black female rape victim
10. Sean Bell - black
11. Dunbar Villager - black
12. etc. etc. etc. - black black black
13. Founded National Action Network - guess what? a non-profit, black civil rights organization! Black Power!

OY! It's getting tiring! YUP it's the race card! need any more proof that pretty much everything he does is a race card. That's his "schtick."

In Sean Bell case - there were 2 white officers and 2 black officers. Obviously NYPD can't have 4 white officers on this case so they include 2 black officers to avoid racial outcry if shit happens.

And, this is still not a complete list of all of the cases that Al Sharpton has taken in his career. And it was not 2 white officers, and 2 black officers. It was 2 white officers, a black officer, and an Hispanic officer. Which is another indication that a race card is not being played. The protestors are asking for a federal investigation against the officers of color as well.

jillio · 05-08-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

Let's see...

Al Sharpton and his activisms -
1. Howard Beach - 3 African-American men were assaulted in Howard Beach by a mob of white men
2. Tawana Brawley - 15-years old black girl claimed to be assaulted and raped by 6 white men
3. Bensonhurst - 4 black teenagers beaten by a group of white youths
4. Crown Heights Riot - 7 years old Guyanese (African) killed by Jewish driver but police gave driver preferential treatment and ignored a boy
5. Freddie's Fashion Mart - "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business."
6. Amadou Diallo - black
7. Vieques - black
8. Ousmane Zongo - black
9. Duke lacrosse players - black female rape victim
10. Sean Bell - black
11. Dunbar Villager - black
12. etc. etc. etc. - black black black
13. Founded National Action Network - guess what? a non-profit, black civil rights organization! Black Power!

OY! It's getting tiring! YUP it's the race card! need any more proof that pretty much everything he does is a race card. That's his "schtick."

In Sean Bell case - there were 2 white officers and 2 black officers. Obviously NYPD can't have 4 white officers on this case so they include 2 black officers to avoid racial outcry if shit happens.

So you are saying that they planned the shooting in advance, and made sure that all of the officers involved wren't white? Please!

Byrdie714 · 05-08-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Not all of them. There was one black, two white, and one Hispanic. Another reason why this has nothing to do with a race card.

3 police officers were acquitted. 2 of them were black, one hispanic and two others that weren't charged.

Sean Bell Verdict: 3 NYC Police Officers Acquitted Of 50-Shot Killing Of Groom-To-Be - The Huffington Post

Quote:

Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged only with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren't charged

jillio · 05-08-2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

3 police officers were acquitted. 2 of them were black, one hispanic and two others that weren't charged.

Sean Bell Verdict: 3 NYC Police Officers Acquitted Of 50-Shot Killing Of Groom-To-Be - The Huffington Post

Right.

Cheri · 05-08-2008, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Not all of them. There was one black, two white, and one Hispanic. Another reason why this has nothing to do with a race card.

Tell that to Al Sharpton.

jiro123 · 05-08-2008, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

[/b]

So you are saying that they planned the shooting in advance, and made sure that all of the officers involved wren't white? Please!

uh.... you must be high

I guess you don't know much about politic and law enforcement. NYPD has a VERY VERY VERY long history of racial tensions. They have recent internal policy of having a team of mixed "races" especially undercover unit in order to avoid any racial outcry. In Amadou Diallo case, it was Street Crimes Unit was which was, of course, shut down due to political pressure and bad PR - it's replaced by "Anti-Crime Units" for each precinct. ALL 4 NYPD Officers of Street Crimes Unit involving in Amadou Diallo case are WHITE - hence RACIAL OUTCRY!

Now about this Sean Bell case - even though the undercover unit was mix of colors, the people up above like D.A., Governor, Chief, etc. who are all white claimed the shooting was justified - hence RACIAL OUTCRY! Obviously it reeks of racism for public and Al Sharpton.

I suppose they claim "if the shooter was middle-class white, these officers would be found guilty."

jiro123 · 05-08-2008, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

[/b]

So you are saying that they planned the shooting in advance, and made sure that all of the officers involved wren't white? Please!

oh by the way - what i'm saying is the black victims were not given same treatment as white victims do. Please read each case I listed above and you can easily smell race card.

Reba · 05-09-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Perhaps it is because people of color disproportionately are in need of representation due to the inequities in the justice system.

I'm referring to the fact that the police in the Tawana Brawley case, and the college students at Duke had their character and reputations unfairly shredded. Did Sharpton repudiated his false accusations against them in sense of justice? No. There is no justice for the people he slanders and libels.

Quote:

And like I said, unless you have a complete list of all clients he has defended throughout his career, you can not unequicocally state that he does not defend caucasions.

I can unequivocally state that he did NOT repudiate his slander against the defendants in the Brawley and Duke cases, nor did he repudiate his inflammatory words that resulted in riots and the deaths of Jews. They just happen to be Caucasian.

BTW, why do you refer to the people he supports as "clients"? Did they pay him for his public support? I wasn't aware of that.

Quote:

As a matter of fact, in the early 60's he represented both black and white individuals who were arrested during civil rights protests.

How so? What do you mean "represented"? Was he a lawyer?

Quote:

Did the cops hire him as legal representation? Looks to me like it would have created a conflict of interest.

Huh? He wasn't their lawyer. He slandered and libeled them. He used a lot of time on TV to bad mouth and accuse them. Did he expend as much energy and time to apologize and influence his cohorts to apologize? NO!

Quote:

I seriously doubt that any attorney makes it a practice to apologize after loosing a case, unless it is to his client.

Sharpton was a prosecuting attorney? Are we talking about the same guy?

Sharpton made speeches at rallies against the falsely accused cops and students. That was NOT the role of an attorney. That was a rabble-rousing trouble maker who made slanderous statements against falsely accused people.

Quote:

Whether you agree with Al Sharpton's politics or not, is not the issue.

I'm not even talking "politics." I'm talking personal character. He doesn't mind destroying the lives of people for his own benefit.

Quote:

By concentrating on that factor alone, you are simply feeding into what you have accused him of. You have changed the focus from the case being protested...the shooting of an unarmed man, and made it all about the Reverend Al.

If you notice, I didn't start this thread. I didn't pick the topic. The thread has Al Sharpton's name in the title.

Quote:

Looks like the tactics that you have accused him of are pretty effective.

Have I publicly made any false slanderous statements about Sharpton?

NOPE.

jillio · 05-09-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

uh.... you must be high

I guess you don't know much about politic and law enforcement. NYPD has a VERY VERY VERY long history of racial tensions. They have recent internal policy of having a team of mixed "races" especially undercover unit in order to avoid any racial outcry. In Amadou Diallo case, it was Street Crimes Unit was which was, of course, shut down due to political pressure and bad PR - it's replaced by "Anti-Crime Units" for each precinct. ALL 4 NYPD Officers of Street Crimes Unit involving in Amadou Diallo case are WHITE - hence RACIAL OUTCRY!

Now about this Sean Bell case - even though the undercover unit was mix of colors, the people up above like D.A., Governor, Chief, etc. who are all white claimed the shooting was justified - hence RACIAL OUTCRY! Obviously it reeks of racism for public and Al Sharpton.

I suppose they claim "if the shooter was middle-class white, these officers would be found guilty."

How ironic that you would even presume to tell me how much I know about anything, given your own obvious limitations in knowledge and experience.

And how typical that you would attempt to divert fromt he actual topic at hand by bringing in unrelated cases. It is called diversion and is a common tactic of the ill informed.

The only obvious racism is that which you are demonstrating, and are so ignorant in your own attitudes that you dont even realize when you are doing it. Why is it that you continue to focus on color, rather than on the issue at hand? The color of the victim, and the color of the protestors is not the issue. You, and others like you are making it an issue. So, where is the racism coming from?

jillio · 05-09-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

I'm referring to the fact that the police in the Tawana Brawley case, and the college students at Duke had their character and reputations unfairly shredded. Did Sharpton repudiated his false accusations against them in sense of justice? No. There is no justice for the people he slanders and libels.

I can unequivocally state that he did NOT repudiate his slander against the defendants in the Brawley and Duke cases, nor did he repudiate his inflammatory words that resulted in riots and the deaths of Jews. They just happen to be Caucasian.

BTW, why do you refer to the people he supports as "clients"? Did they pay him for his public support? I wasn't aware of that.

How so? What do you mean "represented"? Was he a lawyer?

Huh? He wasn't their lawyer. He slandered and libeled them. He used a lot of time on TV to bad mouth and accuse them. Did he expend as much energy and time to apologize and influence his cohorts to apologize? NO!

Sharpton was a prosecuting attorney? Are we talking about the same guy?

Sharpton made speeches at rallies against the falsely accused cops and students. That was NOT the role of an attorney. That was a rabble-rousing trouble maker who made slanderous statements against falsely accused people.

I'm not even talking "politics." I'm talking personal character. He doesn't mind destroying the lives of people for his own benefit.

If you notice, I didn't start this thread. I didn't pick the topic. The thread has Al Sharpton's name in the title.

Have I publicly made any false slanderous statements about Sharpton?

NOPE.

No where did I say that you have made any false or slanderous statements. What I said was, you are selectively using that which supports your negative view. Likewise, you are diverting the issue of this particular case by bringing in things which are not related in any way to the case being reported at this particular time, which effectively takes attention away from this case in order to minimize the wrong that has been committed. You, in your responses, have made Al Sharpton and race the focus, which indicates that you are playing into the tactics that you accuse him of attemting to use.

jillio · 05-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

Tell that to Al Sharpton.

This isn't about Al Sharpton. It is about the shooting of unarmed men. Why is it that you cotinue to focus on that which has no bearing on the case?

And, still, you have not explained how it is that Al Shaprton is playing the race card. It would appear that the ones that are focused on race are the ones that continue to make Al Sharpton the focus of this case, rather than the victims, and those that continue to accuse him of "playing the race card" without valid and logical reasoning for making that accusation.

jillio · 05-09-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

oh by the way - what i'm saying is the black victims were not given same treatment as white victims do. Please read each case I listed above and you can easily smell race card.

In Sean Bell case - there were 2 white officers and 2 black officers. Obviously NYPD can't have 4 white officers on this case so they include 2 black officers to avoid racial outcry if shit happens.

The bolded is what you said. Copied and pasted from your reply. What your statement implies is that the NYPD assigned a multi-racial team to this case prior to the shootings so that in the case of a death, they would have a defense. "On this case" implies that they prepalnned the events of this night, and assigned officers accordingly. Perhaps you should be a bit clearer in expressing your views.

Liewise, your statement implies that it is the NYPD that is "playing the race card", and not the protestors, by intentionally assigning a multi-racial team. If race was not a consideration, the race of the officers, not the victims, would have been an issue when assigning officers.

Reba · 05-09-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

No where did I say that you have made any false or slanderous statements.

Good. That means I haven't done the things of which I accuse Sharpton. I'm not using his tactics.

Quote:

What I said was, you are selectively using that which supports your negative view.

I'm using the truth. Sharpton is an opportunist, and he doesn't care about the fall out from his words and actions.

Quote:

Likewise, you are diverting the issue of this particular case by bringing in things which are not related in any way to the case being reported at this particular time, which effectively takes attention away from this case in order to minimize the wrong that has been committed. You, in your responses, have made Al Sharpton and race the focus, which indicates that you are playing into the tactics that you accuse him of attemting to use.

Not me. I'm only responding to this thread's specific topic, and to your original post ("Following in the footsteps of numerous other protesters who have had the courage to stand up against civil rights violations") that made it sound like Sharpton was someone worthy of praise. You elevated him, and I exposed him. That's fair.

jillio · 05-09-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Good. That means I haven't done the things of which I accuse Sharpton. I'm not using his tactics.

I'm using the truth. Sharpton is an opportunist, and he doesn't care about the fall out from his words and actions.

Not me. I'm only responding to this thread's specific topic, and to your original post ("Following in the footsteps of numerous other protesters who have had the courage to stand up against civil rights violations") that made it sound like Sharpton was someone worthy of praise. You elevated him, and I exposed him. That's fair.

LOL! I didn't say there was anything unfair about the discussion. And, in the late 50's and 60's Sharpton was involved in some very valuable civil rights activities. That is as pertinent as his more recent activities. However, what is really important at this particular time is the case at hand, not Al Sharpton.

Reba · 05-09-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

LOL! I didn't say there was anything unfair about the discussion. And, in the late 50's and 60's Sharpton was involved in some very valuable civil rights activities. That is as pertinent as his more recent activities. However, what is really important at this particular time is the case at hand, not Al Sharpton.

Maybe you have Sharpton confused with someone else. He was born in 1954, so he wasn't active in the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's.

If you don't want to discuss Sharpton, then maybe you should start a new thread about the shooting. The topic of this one is the arrest of Al Sharpton.

jillio · 05-09-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Maybe you have Sharpton confused with someone else. He was born in 1954, so he wasn't active in the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's.

If you don't want to discuss Sharpton, then maybe you should start a new thread about the shooting. The topic of this one is the arrest of Al Sharpton.

Funny....I have some old tapes that show him standing alongside Martin Luther King.

I'll check the dates on them. Perhpas the late 50's was too early a time frame.

Reba · 05-09-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Funny....I have some old tapes that show him standing alongside Martin Luther King.

I'll check the dates on them. Perhpas the late 50's was too early a time frame.

MLK died in 1968. Sharpton was 14 years old.

He's not listed here:

Civil Rights Leaders

jillio · 05-09-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

MLK died in 1968. Sharpton was 14 years old.

Doesn't mean that he couldn't have been actively participating in the protests ocurring at the time. I'll check the dates when I get home. And the civil rights protests of that era were certainly worthwhile causes, IMO. Just as protests against the racial inequities we are experiencing in our legal system at this time are wothwhile causes.

Reba · 05-09-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Funny....I have some old tapes that show him standing alongside Martin Luther King.

I'll check the dates on them. Perhpas the late 50's was too early a time frame.

Maybe CGI, like Forrest Gump.

jillio · 05-09-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Maybe CGI, like Forrest Gump.

LOL!

Cheri · 05-09-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

This isn't about Al Sharpton. It is about the shooting of unarmed men. Why is it that you cotinue to focus on that which has no bearing on the case?

This thread is about Al Sharpton being arrested, so yes it holds bear to this thread.

Quote:

And, still, you have not explained how it is that Al Shaprton is playing the race card

I already did, you just think my answer is not good enough for you.

jillio · 05-09-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

This thread is about Al Sharpton being arrested, so yes it holds bear to this thread.

I already did, you just think my answer is not good enough for you.

No, I haven't seen an answer that addresses the specific question of "how?"

And, you seem to be forgetting the reason Al Sharpton was arrested.

Reba · 05-09-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

...And, you seem to be forgetting the reason Al Sharpton was arrested.

According to the linked story:

"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.
Sharpton, two survivors of the shooting and the slain man's fiancee were among about a dozen people arrested on disorderly conduct charges near the base of the bridge."

That means, he was arrested on disorderly conduct charges for blocking traffic.

He was NOT arrested for protesting the acquittal. He had the right to protest the acquittal; he did NOT have the right to block traffic.

jillio · 05-09-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

According to the linked story:

"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.
Sharpton, two survivors of the shooting and the slain man's fiancee were among about a dozen people arrested on disorderly conduct charges near the base of the bridge."

That means, he was arrested on disorderly conduct charges for blocking traffic.

He was NOT arrested for protesting the acquittal. He had the right to protest the acquittal; he did NOT have the right to block traffic.

But would he have been blocking traffic if the acquittal had not happened?

Reba · 05-09-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

But would he have been blocking traffic if the acquittal had not happened?

Who knows? He can always come up with something to grand stand.

He knew that he could protest without getting arrested but he preferred to do it his way. That's his prerogative. Which is fine, as long as people don't think that he's being arrested for the act of protesting or for the reason of his protest.

People can hold any protest they want any time without Al.

He's actually hurt the cause by getting his name in the headlines instead of the cause itself being the headline--exactly the thing that you bemoan happening in this thread.

How come the headline wasn't "Slain man's fiancee arrested during Sean Bell shooting protest"?

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-09-2008, 03:25 PM	#86 (permalink)
jillio Registered User &nb