Sunday, May 4, 2008

A more serious post

This has been big news since it broke, but is still relevant. Do you think that this is going to have a more wide-reaching social concern (like the Rodney King verdict) or will it be forgotten over time?

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/nyregion/26bell.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Judge Acquits Detectives in 50-Shot Killing of Bell

By MICHAEL WILSON
Published: April 26, 2008

A Queens judge on Friday acquitted three detectives charged in the shooting of Sean Bell, who died on his wedding day in a hail of 50 police bullets. He said that prosecutors had failed to prove their case and that wounded friends of the slain man had given testimony that he did not believe.

The top-to-bottom acquittals of Detectives Gescard F. Isnora, Michael Oliver and Marc Cooper were delivered by Justice Arthur J. Cooperman in an essay form bearing little resemblance to a standard jury verdict, and were met momentarily with silence in court as spectators looked at one another to be sure they had grasped what he was saying.

The detectives, all but obscured behind a human wall of courthouse officers, finally seemed to exhale deeply, even crumple, with relief. Detective Oliver — who reloaded his gun to fire a total of 31 shots and helped catapult the shooting from tragic mistake to a symbol, for many, of police abuse of force and poor training — closed his eyes and cried.

Except for a few scuffles outside the Queens Criminal Court building and shouted displays of disbelief and outrage, the day passed peacefully amid calls for calm delivered by the mayor, the police commissioner and other officials. Still, the Rev. Al Sharpton, a spokesman for the Bell family, called for street protests and said people should get themselves arrested, “whether it is on Wall Street, the judge’s house or at 1 Police Plaza.”

Legal hurdles remain for the officers: federal authorities said they would now investigate the case, and the Police Department is mulling internal charges. A $50 million lawsuit against the city, filed last year by Mr. Bell’s fiancée, who had two children with him, and the two men wounded in the shooting, may now begin moving forward.

The shooting of Mr. Bell, 23, outside a nightclub in Jamaica, Queens, early on Nov. 25, 2006, the morning of the day he was to be married, was the city’s latest crucible for distilling questions about police treatment of people of color and the use of excessive force on unarmed black men. The shooting lasted seconds, but offered a glimpse of what it is to live in a neighborhood where black men and women are stopped and frisked at a higher rate than elsewhere in the city.

But the case never became the racially charged lightning rod of its predecessors, like the case of Amadou Diallo, killed in 1999 in a hail of 41 shots. This was due in part to the race of the officers — two of the three on trial were black — and to the response of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who reached out to the victim’s family in a stark contrast to the response of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after Mr. Diallo was killed.

Further, trial testimony showed that Mr. Bell may have played some role, however unwitting, in the shooting, as he was drunk by legal standards when he pressed down on the accelerator of his fiancée’s Nissan Altima and struck Detective Isnora in the leg in an attempt to flee.

Justice Cooperman, who heard the case without a jury in State Supreme Court in Queens, listed his reasons for throwing out much of the testimony from Mr. Bell’s group, including the number of times that witnesses were caught changing their story on the stand and the witnesses who had interests in the outcome because of the lawsuit against the city. Those issues, criminal backgrounds and the demeanor of the mostly young men on the witness stand “had the effect of eviscerating the credibility of those prosecution witnesses,” he said.

As for the detectives, the judge made it clear that he believed their versions of events over those of the young men involved, including Detective Isnora’s statement that he had overheard Mr. Bell’s friend Joseph Guzman twice say that he was going to get a gun.

“The court has found that the incident lasted just seconds,” Justice Cooperman said. “The officers responded to perceived criminal conduct; the unfortunate consequences of their conduct were tragic.”

But rather than call the shooting justified, the judge said that the prosecution failed to prove it was unjustified, as was its burden. Indeed, his ruling was far from approving of the detectives’ conduct during the undercover vice operation that night. “Questions of carelessness and incompetence must be left to other forums,” he said. He never mentioned the high number of shots fired, or the fact that Detective Oliver had fired 31 of them.

Similar statements came from the Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, whose office prosecuted the case. He said the trial “revealed significant deficiencies in, among other things, supervision, tactical planning, communications and management accountability — insufficiencies that need to be addressed.”

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who called the incident “inexplicable” and “excessive” in the days following the shooting, expressed sorrow for Mr. Bell’s family.

“There are no winners in a trial like this,” he said. “An innocent man lost his life, a bride lost her groom, two daughters lost their father, and a mother and a father lost their son. No verdict could ever end the grief that those who knew and loved Sean Bell suffer.”

The verdict came 17 months to the day after five officers pointed their pistols at the car Mr. Bell was driving and opened fire. The shooting followed a confrontation between Mr. Bell and a stranger outside the Club Kalua, where Mr. Bell had attended his bachelor party. During the confrontation, Detective Isnora said, he heard the threat about getting the gun.

In the events that followed, Mr. Bell’s car struck the detective’s leg and, twice, a police van. Detective Isnora said he saw Mr. Guzman reach for his waistband, shouted “Gun” and fired. The three detectives who were brought to trial fired 46 of the 50 rounds, killing Mr. Bell and wounding Mr. Guzman and Trent Benefield, another friend of Mr. Bell’s.

The detectives each spoke briefly at a press conference at the Detectives Endowment Association on Friday afternoon, variously thanking God, their families, lawyers and Justice Cooperman. “This is the start of my life back,” said Detective Cooper, who seemed to be fighting back tears.
The United States Department of Justice issued a statement announcing its own investigation. “The Civil Rights Division and the United States attorney’s office have been monitoring the state’s prosecution of this case and, following the review of all the evidence, will take appropriate action if the evidence indicates a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil rights statutes,” the statement said.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said an internal departmental investigation into the shooting, which could lead to a departmental trial and possible disciplinary actions up to termination, would be put on hold at the request of the federal authorities. This allows the Police Department, for the moment, to avoid the complex issue of meting out punishment to its own officers.

Mr. Guzman and Mr. Benefield left the courthouse without comment. Mr. Benefield — singled out by name in the verdict as giving testimony that contradicted the evidence — turned and shouted something back toward the officers guarding the building.

(Coincidentally, the judge paused in the reading of his verdict only once, to demand that a crying child be removed from the courtroom. It is unlikely that he had any idea that the child was Trent Benefield III.)

Mr. Bell’s parents, William and Valerie Bell, were sitting where they had been sitting, side by side, throughout the seven-week trial. Mrs. Bell had been looking toward the floor and blinking furiously during the verdict, and finally began to cry, covering her face while her husband stared straight ahead, looking at no one and shaking his head.

A woman sitting behind them broke the silence when she asked, “Did he just say ‘not guilty’?”

Court officers hurried the three detectives out a back door.

As news of the acquittals rippled through clots of supporters of the Bell family, Mr. and Mrs. Bell led a column of friends and relatives, including Mr. Bell’s fiancée, Nicole Paultre Bell, out of the courthouse. No one, including Mr. Sharpton, spoke, and the spectators on Queens Boulevard fell into a column and followed behind.

Mr. Brown, the district attorney, said he accepted the verdict, calling Justice Cooperman “one of this county’s most respected and learned jurists.”

“I accept his verdict and I urge all fair-minded individuals in this city to do the same,” he said.

He was asked if, in hindsight, he had any misgivings about the reading of the grand jury testimony of the three detectives from 2007 into the record during the trial. The readings were widely seen as something of a coup for the defense, with the detectives’ accounts of the panic and uncertainty surrounding the shooting coming across without the detectives having to undergo cross-examination.

“That was a trial decision that was made, I think appropriately made,” Mr. Brown said.

The lead prosecutor, Charles A. Testagrossa, an assistant district attorney, recalled criticism of the prosecution strategy of calling almost all the available witnesses, whether they were helpful or harmful to the prosecution.

“It’s very easy for people who are observing the trial to say, ‘Gee, you called this witness, and not this witness,’ ” he said. “If you think that criticism could have made us work any harder, be more committed to obtaining a conviction in this case, then you had a right to criticize us. But the fact of the matter is, knowing how hard all of the members of this team worked,” the criticism meant nothing.

Then he quoted one of his own witnesses, a stripper who appeared early in the trial: " 'It is what it is.' "

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the judge made the correct decision in this case. Yes, the guy was shot a lot of times, but he was drunk, he drove at a cop and hit him and a police van, and didn't seem to comply when asked to stop. In this day and age, behavior like this toward the police is not tolerable. Furthermore, Rev. Sharpton should not call for protests because they will lead to only more problems between the citizens of New York City and the NYPD.

Anonymous said...

I think these types of cases bring in a very sticky issue. Given the characteristics of the people involved in this case compared to the ones in the Amadou Diallo's case, I think it would be fair to say that it's not a race thing. Not that I'm saying that people of their own race can't be racist towards each other or that the police departments do not instill these believes into their officers during training by telling them that certain types of people are more likely to do this or that but these cases prove otherwise. The hard part about this is when the perceived becomes reality. Just because certain types of people are perceived to be involved more in certain things it doesn't mean that they actually have to be involved in these things and when it turns out that they prove what is perceived to be right, we can't really blame the officers.
I'm not agreeing with the Officers treatment or what happened in both these cases per say but can we really blame them. We as citizens should understand the task that the Officers play in society which is to protect. I don't see why anyone in society would not be happy that someone is looking out for them. There was no reason for the guy to get bent out of shape. All he had to do was comply with what the Officers were saying and it wouldn't have been a problem. Once he hurt an Officer he crossed the line, the point at which the Officers have the right to do anything and everything that is in their power to look out for their own safety. With this being said this will always be something that will be remembered and perhaps used against officer tactics in the long run.

Anonymous said...

The judge had the unenviable task rendering this verdict.

If he sided the way he did he let “White cops get away with killing an unarmed black man”
If he found the 3 detectives guilty he would “bowed down to the intense pressure to find guilty these 3 detectives who in the eyes of a lot of individuals were guilty and racist from the beginning”
We must respect this decision if we have any faith in our justice system. If we think the State acted improperly (if we believe the detectives were excessive, or if we believe the verdict was not in good faith and a way to unjustly protect the police) we have much bigger issues then a man killed by police.
I honestly believe that this judge could have chosen the easy way out and let these detectives get punished, but he took the high road the, right road and did what any honorable and just judge would do and allowed these men to go free since the prosecution did not present enough evidence and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these detectives acted improperly.
None of us were their that night, and their was a lot of confusion and I have faith that these officers legitimately feared for their lives and I know if it was me I would have kept shooting until the threat was neutralized and Mr. Bell and the men in his car were cooperating and no longer resisting.

-Robert S.

Anonymous said...

To me this represents an excessive use of force by the NYPD. I believe that they were fearful of death or extreme bodily harm when Mr. Bell drove at them striking an officer a police van. I also believe that if these officers were trained properly than they would not have pulled their triggers 50 times and reloaded however many time. But the judge did what he was supposed he gave the verdict based on the evidence that the prosecutors presented to the court. They failed to meet the burden of proof necessary for guilty verdict of the officers. I don't mean to give fault to the prosecution. As said in the article nobody wins in this case. And the family and friends of/and Sean Bell. It is extremely unfortunate in this case and hopefully more extensive training will be implemented by all police forces that advise against stereotyping and excessive force.

-Eric Spaulding

Anonymous said...

To me this represents an excessive use of force by the NYPD. I believe that they were fearful of death or extreme bodily harm when Mr. Bell drove at them striking an officer a police van. I also believe that if these officers were trained properly than they would not have pulled their triggers 50 times and reloaded however many time. But the judge did what he was supposed he gave the verdict based on the evidence that the prosecutors presented to the court. They failed to meet the burden of proof necessary for guilty verdict of the officers. I don't mean to give fault to the prosecution. As said in the article nobody wins in this case. And the family and friends of/and Sean Bell. It is extremely unfortunate in this case and hopefully more extensive training will be implemented by all police forces that advise against stereotyping and excessive force.

-Eric Spaulding

Anonymous said...

I think that the judge did make the right decision. It has nothing to do with the fact that he was an unarmed black man. It has to do with the fact that he was drunk and drove at a cop and hit him. So it was almost self defense. I dont think that the officers should have fired so many times. The officers were just doing there job. I think this will be forgotten and it probably wont be brought up again.
T.Elia

Anonymous said...

I think that the judge did make the right decision. It has nothing to do with the fact that he was an unarmed black man. It has to do with the fact that he was drunk and drove at a cop and hit him. So it was almost self defense. I dont think that the officers should have fired so many times. The officers were just doing there job. I think this will be forgotten and it probably wont be brought up again.
T.Elia

Anonymous said...

I believe that the number of shots fired may have been excessive but the officers were dealing with a drunk man who attempted to run them over. I agree that the judge did make the right decision in this case because it doesn't seem as though the prosecution was able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that this is a very difficult case to decide and there is no outcome that is gonna make everyone happy.

Yea said...

This case is different from the one's that have happened before because two of the three offenders on trial accused of using excessive force were black where in cases before the offenders were all white. This was a detail that made this case markedly different from the others.
I don't feel that there was a race issue in this case and that this is a case of excessive force and that the cops should have been held responsible by the court for their actions.
The facts of the case are unclear and I don't get if Mr. Bell ran into the cop before or after the shots. However firing 50 shots and 31 one of them coming from the same gun is excessive no matter what the circumstance.

Anonymous said...

While I'm not going to agree or disagree with the verdict, I do think that it has wider social concerns. No matter which way the verdict went, there would have been a backlash from some community. I think it's important to recognize that justice is what it is. If the case could not be adequately proved, then yeah, it should be ruled against them. If it had been, the verdict would have been for him and his family. I don't think that the arguments about the morality of the verdict will die down anytime soon... especially if Rev. Sharpton gets involved.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Andrew. I think that the decision that was made was the right one and behavior that that towards law enforcement is not acceptable. I do not think it will have far reaching effects like that of Rodney King. Rev. Sharpton is irrational and self serving. He should call himself what he really is, not just a civil rights activist, but a black civil rights activist. Where is he with his thoughts on the polygamy happening in Texas and all those children?

Anonymous said...

There has been a lot of coverage on this case as of late, however the impact it will cause will not touch the Rodney King incident I feel. I too agree that the judge made the right decision. While the police officers probably shouldn't have shot so many times, they were justified in the fact the he was drunk and drove into a police officer. Something like that gives a police officer the right to do what he feels necessary.

Anonymous said...

While I do believe the number of bullets were excessive, I do believe the judge did make the right decision. Sean Bell was obviuosly highly intoxicated and was trying to flee the situation when he ran over a police officer and hit another vehicle. The question of whether someone said to get a gun will always be scrutinized, however, he shouldn't have been attempting to drive that intoxicated in the first place, and while that in itself is not enough reason to be shot several times, he should have just stopped what he was doing and followed directives from the police, then this situation would have not have gone as far as it did.
Veronica V.

Anonymous said...

I feel the judge did make a right decision in the case. I do not feel this is a racial issue because Mr. Bell was clearly acting recklessly and probably could have killed one of the officers or even a bystander. The police were just doing there job in stopping the reckless behavior before anything more dangerous could have happened. However, I do believe that there was excessive force used on Mr. Bell. Firing about 50 bullets is just inexcusable. I can see people believing it is a racial issue becaue shooting someone 50 times is heartless even when trying to stop dangerous and violent behavior. I feel that this issue will soon be forgotten because it doesn't closely relate to the Rodney King situation.

Anonymous said...

This case is one that is going to be remembered for just the shear amount of force that the police used. After taking a policing class, I feel like I have a much better understanding of a police officer's job, but it's impossible for a non-officer to truly comprehend what the police have to deal with on a daily basis. I do not personally have issue with the police retaliating against Bell, as he did not comply with the police commands, but despite that, they still shot him many more times than was necessary. One officer not only emptied an entire clip, but then re-loaded and then proceeded to resume firing. Self defense is one thing, but shooting someone 50 times definately seems excessive when really only 1 bullet could stop an offender.

Anonymous said...

Of course this will be made a race case by Al Sharpton, but every case is not based on race. There are many good cops out there and many bad cops out there. We have to look at the nature of their work, in which decisions have to be made in a split second.. and give them some credit. I am sorry that a man is dead as a result, but look at the fact that he was drunk and may have killed several other innocent people by driving away drunk, getting into a police chase, etc. On top of that, the fact is that the police are going to protect themselves and their own men at all times. They called this man unarmed, but he had one of the most dangerous weapons at the scene, thousands of pounds of a car. Should that be taken lightly? I dont think so.

Christina D.

Anonymous said...

It is hard to say which side is right in this case. The detectives seemed to have reason to use deadly force against the offenders. The fact that they were in a car may have lead to the high number of shots fired to subdue the fleeing vehicle. Race was involved on both sides and it is hard to see it as an issue. The self defense was excessive but it was said that it happened in a matter of seconds. I can agree with the judges decision but i can also see how it controversial reaching a decision may be.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that the police should have been let off so easily. It is one thing to feel threatened and firing a weapon to thwart physical injury, and it is another thing to shoot at individuals who were unarmed by firing well over 50 bullets. For goodness sake, were they trying to take down Clark Kent? This is truly another disappointing act of injustice. The poor man was supposed to get married the next morning! The police should not be above the law in cases like these.

Joe P said...

After reading this article, I will restrain my personal feelings on the matter, and only comment that articles like this help stir up trouble. There is more conjecture and appeal to sensationalism and emotion than fact. There is not...either because the information was not available or was poorly presented...a detailed, accurate account of how the events played out according to either party. So, the people who respect law enforcement side with the police, and the people who feel minorities are abused by the police side with the victim. The bottom line is that after reading that article, none of us is really qualified to determine who was right or wrong.

Craig H. said...

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. I agree that the officers were endangered and justified in using deadly force, in order to preserve their own safety. However, after firing the 15 or 16 shots held in a handgun's clip, at an unarmed man, it seems very unneccessary to reload and continue firing. Doing so was either the result of really really bad personal judgement, or equally poor training. As for the whole race issue, I have never lived in an area with racial tension and poor police-community relations so I don't feel like I know enough to even try to come up with an answer to that issue