Yuku free message boards

Hi Lion,

I got your revisions, but if you don't mind I made some revisions from there. Tell me what you think

Three young men with criminal records (the fact that they have criminal records is important here), go out to celebrate the impending wedding of one of their own, Sean Bell. Going to a strip club before getting married is a right of passage most American men enjoy. But later after consuming lots of alcohol the three become embroiled in a heated exchange that makes the undercover police present percieve there is about to be gunplay. Incredibly no one questions why these unarmed men would get into a fight and bring it to the boiling point, not knowing if the strangers they are confrontiong are armed.

It is clear to me Sean Bell and his friends precipitated a tragic chain of events by getting into an altercation with another clubgoer and escalating it further by claiming they had a gun. Why would people claim they have a gun if, in fact, they don't? Because it works, that's why.

I grew up in public housing and many times when a fight broke out someone would invariably scream for someone to get a gun. In my late teens, a group of thugs attacked my best friend at a party. He landed in the hospital with a broken jaw that had to be wired shut. I tried to intervene and the two of the attackers yelled they had a gun, while reaching in their jackets. I escaped with only a black eye. Later, an acquaintance mockingly told me the gun ploy was the oldest trick in the book. Well, in the heat of battle that "trick" registers as a real threat. And a police officer takes any threat as very real. Whether Sean Bell had a gun or not, it existed as far as those police officers were concerned. When a person yells they have a gun, they bear full responsibility for what occurs next. How far backward must society bend to protect people from themselves? Should there be a "Sean's Law" to protect unarmed people who pretend to be armed from being shot?

When an officer fires his gun 31 times at an civilian that turns out to be unarmed, there are serious questions that need to be answered. But here is why choosing a non-jury trial is essential. Det. Oliver will more than likely have to answer for every shot he fired in chronological order, explaining what the situation on the ground was as he percieved it during each pull of the trigger. Having a veteran jurist that will objectively weigh that evidence is crucial for a fair trial here. The fact that there are people questioning the D.A.'s tactics as not aggressive enough prove the point. Having the prosecutor put on theatrics will not make the facts he's presenting more factual.

Reynolds, a 20-year NYPD veteran, retired in 2001.

Lion,

Thank you so much for the opportunity to express my views, but I am not interested in having this 'final' edition published under my name, because these are not my ideas, nor thoughts on the matter. I mistakenly thought what I wrote would be published , and it's not only about that. The idea of what I wrote was to show exactly how someone in those three detectives shoes see it. Nothing personal, but it's quite clear that a civilian or some cop with very little street experience wrote it. I have no problem with editing, but this is not my writing, it's more like your interview of me. Those three detectives deserve better than this. This is a big part of the reason cops do not trust civilians to understand what happens out there. This is why they opted for a non-jury trial. When you say one thing, and then you notice the person you are speaking to has some other interpretation of your words based on their preconceived notions makes you turn inward, because your words are all you have. Thanks for your time.

-Eric Reynolds


This is what she wanted to publish using my name on it
If you notice she claims that some of my points are irrelevant. Can you guess what that would be??? A little bit of past criminal behavior on the part of our 'victims'???

-----Original Message-----
From: "Calandra, Lion" <lcalandra@nydailynews.com>
Sent: Mar 21, 2008 10:50 AM
To: fordham59@mindspring.com
Subject: New York Daily News

Eric,

Here's the final. I was able to get some of your changes in, but others were not as relevant.

L.

By Eric Reynolds

Three young black men with criminal records celebrate the upcoming wedding of one of their own. After the party, which included alcohol, the three become embroiled in a heated exchange that makes the undercover police present at the nightclub believe there is about to be gunplay.

One of the young men, groom-to-be Sean Bell, is shot dead by cops. It's convenient to make the case about race. But the Sean Bell case is not about race. This case is about one thing: fear.

As an NYPD detective, I saw many police officers fear for their lives. Sometimes the fear was warranted, other times it was an overreaction by an officer with little experience handling crime in the big city.

Cops spending time in a nightclub, drinking a little while surrounded by women wearing very little clothing would appear to outsiders a cushy assignment. In that environment, it would seem that there's nothing to really be afraid of. But this is not the vice squad of those days before the Knapp Commission when being a part of public morals meant little activity. Times change, brass pressures officers to make an arrest and cops on any assignment can find themselves facing a gunfight. That's when the fear comes in.

That fear is lost on the armchair pundits who accuse the police of lying about the events of that night. In most trials, the facts would be laid out and a police officer's word would not be automatically relegated to a spot beneath known criminals.

This is not most trials.

It is clear to me that Sean Bell and his friends precipitated a tragic chain of events by getting into an altercation with another clubgoer and escalating it further by claiming they had a gun. Why would people claim they have a gun if, in fact, they don't? Because it works, that's why.

As a young black man, I grew up in public housing and there were many times when a fight would break out and someone would tell a friend to go get a gun. When I was in my late teens, a group of thugs attacked my best friend at a party. He landed in the hospital with a broken jaw that had to be wired shut. I tried to intervene and the two perps yelled they had a gun, while reaching in their jackets. I escaped with only a black eye. Later, an acquaintance mockingly told me the gun ploy was the oldest trick in the book. Well, in the heat of battle that "trick" registered as a real threat. And a police officer takes any threat as very real. They must. Their life and the lives of citizens depend on it.

Whether Sean Bell had a gun or not, it was there as far as those police officers were concerned. If a person yells they have a gun, that person bears the full responsibility of what occurs next.

That, however, does not mean cops are always innocent. When an officer fires his gun 31 times at an apparently unarmed civilian there are serious questions that need to be answered - questions about whether proper procedure was followed or whether an individual was guided solely by the race of a suspect.

It's a good thing a judge will get to decide those questions. The fact that there are people questioning the district attorney's tactics as not aggressive enough prove the point. Having the prosecutor put on theatrics will not make the facts he's presenting more true. A jury of so-called peers would be made up of people who have never dealt with the insane situations a police officer faces daily.

While critics ripped the officers for choosing a bench trial, it's a smart move. These men are on trial for their lives and their livelihoods and their greatest fear should be a system that would turn its back on them for doing their job.

Reynolds, a 20-year NYPD veteran, retired in 2001.
Lion Calandra Daily News Editorial Board