I confess I haven’t followed this case, and it is highly likely the jury (correction: it was a judge trial) had every reason for deciding as they did. But I hope people understand that just from a gut level it is very hard for black people to reconcile that there was nothing criminal about an innocent young man being gunned down in a hail of bullets.
Three detectives were found not guilty Friday morning on all charges in the shooting death of Sean Bell, who died in a hail of 50 police bullets outside a club in Jamaica, Queens.
Justice Arthur J. Cooperman, who delivered the verdict, said many of the prosecution’s witnesses, including Mr. Bell’s friends and the two wounded victims, were simply not believable. “At times, the testimony of those witnesses just didn’t make sense,” he said.
His verdict prompted several supporters of Mr. Bell to storm out of the courtroom, and screams could be heard in the hallway moments later. The three detectives — Gescard F. Isnora, Michael Oliver and Marc Cooper — were escorted out of a side doorway. Outside, a crowd gathered behind police barricades, occasionally shouting, amid a veritable sea of police officers.
The verdict comes 17 months to the day since the Nov. 25, 2006, shooting of Mr. Bell, 23, and his friends, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield, outside the Club Kalua in Jamaica, Queens, hours before Mr. Bell was to be married.
Well, first, there was no jury. This case was heard by the judge alone. Second, he made reference to “incompetence” on the part of the officers. That would lead me to believe this was a not-so-subtle hint for a civil case. I definitely think the cops were over-zealous here. Move that more toward irresponsible.
That ain’t right.
I think a jury didn’t decide this. Other media reports say the police involved opted for a judge-only trial.
Kathryn is correct. No Jury.
There was no jury, the judge is an ex-cop, and the case was prosecuted by the DA rather than a special prosecutor.
Over at TalkLeft, there is discussion of why this was not a jury trial (cops rarely choose jury trials) and apparently, the utter incompetence of the prosecutor.
Jebus Oliver, I would hope that most people would be appalled at the notion of any individual being killed by 50 bullets fired by three cops, with one officer having the time to reload.
“There was no jury, the judge is an ex-cop, and the case was prosecuted by the DA rather than a special prosecutor.”
i think that just about sums this whole mess up.
the judge should have disqualified himself from the case, being an ex-cop and all. i think it’s hard to be fair and impartial towards a fellow cop once you’ve been a cop.
the DA, who works hand in hand with the cops on a daily basis, should have seen the obvious and called for special counsel.
50 shots fired at 3 people?? that sounds like really crappy gun training to me.
Jerry:
Did I read it right? One cop fired 31 times? Is that accurate? And then cops wonder why people won’t “snitch” and the like. They ought to look in the mirror.
50 shots fired at 3 people?? that sounds like really crappy gun training to me.
They sure ain’t no “Dirty” Harry Callahan’s, that is for sure.
I think what a lot of people are going to miss here - in the highly charged racial aspects of the case - is the continuing trend of the police violating what should be our inalienable civil rights. This incident may well have been exacerbated by race - by that automatic assumption that black men are “up to no good” and are dangerous until proven otherwise. However, there is also a disturbing trend in this country of police creating situations where civilians feel threatened, then responding with deadly violence when those civilians try to protect themselves.
Where was the probably cause here to stop the car, much less fire bullets into it?
Why are undercover cops automatically granted impunity when it comes to firing at civilians? How many times have cops used the excuse that their lives were endangered by civilians who did not know that they were cops?
Esequiel Hernandez Jr
Amadou Diallo
Tarika Wilson
Kathryn Johnston
Sean Bel
How much longer are we going to let this go on?
Botched Raids
I’ve been following this case through posts at Prometheus 6 and his links to NYT local stories.
This verdict is just awful. The victim of the shooting, Sean Bell, was leaving his bachelor party on the morning of his wedding day. Undercover officers had been inside the same strip club, working a prostitution sting. When Bell and two friends left the bar, they exchanged words with a man who acted in a somewhat threatening manner and who indicated that he might have a gun.
One of the undercover officers says that one of Bell’s party said to another, “Go get my gun.” Bell’s friends deny this remark was made. The officer called for backup and undercover officers approached Bell’s car with guns drawn. The officers say they had their badges visible and identified themselves verbally. Bell’s friends say they didn’t see badges or hear anything that would identify the men as police officers.
Having just been threatened by another person who said he had a gun, Bell tried to drive away. One of the undercover officers says it looked as if a passenger in the car was reaching into his waistband, so he opened fire. Other officers joined in, firing 50 shots in all.
Bell was killed and his two passengers were seriously wounded.
Bell and his friends posed no threat to the officers. They didn’t commit a crime. They did what reasonable people would do under the circumstances.
The officers initiated contact with Bell and his friends, lost control of the situation, and killed a young man on the day he was to be married. Nevertheless, they pay no price for their actions.
What is this, 1992?
You got a court case involving a dead person, you use a freaking jury. That’s just common sense.
Nobody deserves to die in a hail of bullets, but this case is all the worse for their being no logic to the police picking these guys out, much less loosing that hail of bullets as if they were in, or likely to be in, a firefight. Bell and his friends were not in any sense in the game, didn’t have police records, were not acting suspiciously, etc. Not that it matters, but Sean Bell was Frank Haith’s (head basketball coach at Miami) nephew.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s wrong to shoot at middle class kids but OK to blast kids from the wrong side of … but there is some level at which you can understand at least a little nerves being on edge and overreaction if they had been accosting bad guys, or anybody who they could really mistake for bad guys.
This is not that case. In this case, regular citizens got mistaken for miscreants and slaughtered for their troubles.
At this juncture, I will belabor an earlier point:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/04/20/plight-of-the-black-cons/#comment-91881
“……In the 21st century it is still about survival. Even the most braindead and bought among us figured that out after Katrina, when Bush’s approval rating went to 2%.
It’s all well and good that one politician supports a certain capital gains policy or favors some Iranian engagement strategy. But what good does that do me as a black man, if I can be strip-searched for jay walking in the wrong suburb, be given a subprime loan when my credit says otherwise, or have my children sent to federal prison for the most petty of “crimes”. What good is “mundane” policy when, when my life is in immediate danger, my government won’t lift a finger to help? Or when my franchise is in danger, the Attorney General looks the other way?……”
Let’s remember in the “racial aspect” of this, that two of the three officers involved are black. Also, defendants have the option of choosing a trial jury or trial judge to rule on their case. Considering the media coverage that had basically convicted these three before a gavel was struck, it doesn’t surprise me in the least they chose to have a judge decide the case rather than a jury.
That being said, it has nothing to do with the judge. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with a prosecutor that put on a bad case, using witnesses that contradicted themselves constantly and whose credibility was in question due to former criminal convictions.
I agree that the “racial aspect” of this does not follow the standard script.
However, I do believe that the culture of law enforcement in this country encourages an inherent suspicion of persons of color. So no, it does not surprise me when a black officer is involved in one of these cases. It’s still racism, but of a subtler and more insidious nature.
You got a court case involving a dead person, you use a freaking jury. That’s just common sense.
The defendant has the choice; the prosecution doesn’t.
It has to do with a prosecutor that put on a bad case, using witnesses that contradicted themselves constantly and whose credibility was in question due to former criminal convictions.
Those witnesses were people who were at the scene of the shooting–and in two cases, victims of the shooting. What other witnesses should the prosecution have used?
I’m ashaamed of this. There’s no way a car full of unarmed men warranted nearly 50 bullets directed at them. Law enforcment is out of control, violating people’s civil rights without blinking an eye, using excessive force like this in a situation where nothing was done to trigger such a response. I hope the family appeals the decision, or if they can’t that they file a considerable law suit about it. It won’t bring their loved on back, but when you can’t appeal to decency, sometimes your only recourse is to do the little you can do.
Oops - that’s “ashamed” - my key board is typing multiple a’s and c’s for some reason.
Most officers are former military. The training, especially Marine, is to fire until the enemy is dead or you are ordered to halt.
Innocent until proven guilty. Look it up.
30 rounds is about two clips. This is not a lot. If you ask some of your ex-mil friends they can tell you how long it takes to empty a magazine.
Given that this is a high profile case with media scrutiny and racial issues(?), the statement of the judge leads me to believe that the witnesses were less than truthful. Otherwise a prudent jurist would simply be silent.
Many years ago I made the choice that I was going home. You pull a gun or put my life or others at risk…you don’t. Thankfully, I never had to act. Mostly, I stayed with talk and having backup visibly nearby. But if it’s him or me, it’ll be him. Nearly every officer has to deal with this.
“Most officers are former military. The training, especially Marine, is to fire until the enemy is dead or you are ordered to halt.”
Which is proper training when facing an armed enemy in the battlefield, not an unarmed one in Queens.
“Innocent until proven guilty. Look it up.”
What was Sean Bell guilty of? DWB? He’s dead now, you know. Meanwhile some cops who panicked in a life and death situation get to go scot free.