bell cops acquitted.

[clodia83]

I think some of these statements are pretty unfair.

Undercovers aren't trained well for this kind of situation and if anyone is to blame it is the NYPD as a whole. They aren't supposed to be put this close to the action. The second a gun/shooting threat is involved undercovers and detectives have to be as far away from the situation as possible, especially after calling for backup. If any single person is to blame, maybe blame the Lieutenant or man in charge of the operation.

Can you honestly say that you can trust yourself to stay completely cool in a really dangerous situation when you get rammed by the car behind you when you know there is the possibility of a huge gun fight that is supposed to go down?

I'm not denying that 31 shots is a lot. You and me who are here sitting safely behind a computer, it's easy for us to say that it's excessive.

I'm with you here, and that's why I kind of understand 4 shots, and 11 shots...it was a terrible mistake. But having fired many a weapon, it takes some time to fire 31 shots. Time enough to think.

Clearly there was confusion at the time. We will never know exactly what happened that night. None of the witnesses, including the officers and the other victims, are all that reliable, and the judge had a tough decision to make.

The reason I find this disgusting and disturbing, however, is that I can't recall the last time the NYPD gunned down a white kid who had too much to drink before getting behind the wheel, or who mouthed off in a strip club. Nothing Sean Bell did was even close to a death penalty offense.

Things were supposed to change after Amadou Dialo was killed, but it doesn't appear things have changed.

 

[BillyP]

The prior criminal history of the victims is irrelevant to the reasonableness of the defendants' actions at the time of the incidents. The only way it could have any bearing is on the reasonableness of the defendants' estimation of the level and nature of danger to their own safety at the time, insofar as one assumes that a person who has had trouble with the law before is more likely to act towards you in a way that endangers your life. From what I could glean from news reports of the evidence presented, I don't know that the defendants had any specific knowledge about such prior criminal history at the relevant time (although if I am wrong, I will amend this). What makes this case so hot-button, obviously, is the concern that, absent such evidence in real-time, the defendants here in some way may have used the victims' race/appearance/setting as a proxy for such "criminality" (and, of course, the defendants' exercise of their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination by not testifying does preclude the most meaningful and specific exploration of whether this was the case). This responsive suspicion on the part of many members of the black community is certainly warranted.

 

[Sry An]

What makes this case so hot-button, obviously, is the concern that, absent such evidence in real-time, the defendants here in some way may have used the victims' race/appearance/setting as a proxy for such "criminality"

Why couldn't they just use the fact that Bell said he was going to get his gun- which clearly implies an impending act of violence- and that he followed it up by ignoring a cop's demands and then hitting him with a car? Why does it have to be racial at all?

 

[qnarf]

Why couldn't they just use the fact that Bell said he was going to get his gun- which clearly implies an impending act of violence- and that he followed it up by ignoring a cop's demands and then hitting him with a car? Why does it have to be racial at all?

if the first thing happened, then they have a duty to confront it. but most witnesses i've read say it didn't, as did bell's friends [i believe one put it 'that's a bad front where i'm from' or words to that effect on the stand.]
if they did confront it in a wholly by the book way, they have a duty to defend themselves. but most things i've read question at best whether they conducted themselves the way you claim in i.d.-ing properly.
if bell hit him with the car they have the duty to neutralize bell. did bell hit him with the car? i've not seen evidence that isnora went to the hospital for injuries sustained by a vehicle.
if it all went the way you think it might have, if that all went that well, 50 shots remains excessive and the wounds to bell's friends remain excessive.
which also needent be about race.

 

[MichelleD]

Some random facts and thoughts:

It's not hard to reload a 9mm automatic. They're not like the service revolvers of yore.

No defendant ever has to take the stand and testify. Declining to take the stand cannot be used as an inference against the defendant. That's your basic 5th Amendment.

The cops' grand jury testimony was introduced into trial.

There was disagreement in the Queens County DA office (usually a well-run operation) about whether or not to prosecute this case.

 

[El Jefe]

It's not hard to reload a 9mm automatic. They're not like the service revolvers of yore.

Right, but you would think those couple of seconds would be enough to give you a second to find out if you were still in danger. Or if any GSW victims needed medical care.

I don't pretend to know much more about the case than your average New Yorker, and honestly, it sounds like everyone involved was a drunk, macho asshole, but something is wrong with police training if it's this common that cops would ever need to shoot that many times, unless they have the terminator coming at them.

- Armchair critic

 

[qnarf]

Some random facts and thoughts:

It's not hard to reload a 9mm automatic. They're not like the service revolvers of yore.

certainly if my hippie ass can figure out how to do it, it's not hard, and it's hardwired into their training.
but i'd hope that it would be hardwired with other things in training that appear to be lacking.
emptying a gun, reloading the gun, emptying it again is a long time to be standing up shooting and if oliver thought he was under fire, he was one of the bravest people to ever put on a uniform, as most everyone else sucks pavement under fire that goes on that long.
personally, i think his response was irrational, revealing poor training and poor action in the field. criminally poor response on his part, i'd go so far as to say.

No defendant ever has to take the stand and testify. Declining to take the stand cannot be used as an inference against the defendant. That's your basic 5th Amendment.

yep, but i consider it telling from an i'm-making-a-judgment-from-the-sidelines standpoint. nothing i write here matters. to anyone or in any case. nor should it.

The cops' grand jury testimony was introduced into trial.

i consider that unfair. they can 'speak' in that way. but they cannot be questioned.

There was disagreement in the Queens County DA office (usually a well-run operation) about whether or not to prosecute this case.

i don't really have a point about this. i just like multiple quotes.

 

[MichelleD]

Indeed! Multiple quotes abound.

I don't feel comfortable posting an absolute opinion one way or the other. I will admit to having something of a general pro-cop bias on the one hand, but recognizing that cops can be fuckups. My bias comes from a personal and professional point of view.

So I can't really say I'm arguing. I'm just saying. Does that make me a pussy? I don't know.

There will be repercussions and ill feelings, I'm sure.

I'm a bit surprised that this ruling came from the bench; I honestly expected them to be found guilty of some charge, whether or not it was manslaughter. However, from my limited understanding, the prosecution's case had some definite problems.

I don't feel like I can judge fairly; there's too much I don't know. I wouldn't want to be those cops, or those family members. It's just awful all around.

 

[BillyP]

Why couldn't they just use the fact that Bell said he was going to get his gun- which clearly implies an impending act of violence- and that he followed it up by ignoring a cop's demands and then hitting him with a car? Why does it have to be racial at all?

Hey Shane -- I don't disagree that that's what should be the issue that can be considered on its own merits. I was merely responding to the implication that there could be some post-facto justification for the defendants' actions along the lines of, "and anyway, even aside from their behavior in the moment, these guys were hardly quivering milquetoasts; after all, some of them had been arrested before" etc. I definitely agree that the racial thing shouldn't be a factor in the equation, and that's what's underlying the clamor on all sides. But given the long and emotional history surrounding these types of things, it's inescapable when you have yet another black man shot dead by the police.

For what it's worth (and it may be quite a bit), there is still the civil suit to recover damages for the loss of Sean Bell's life, and a pending departmental disciplinary matter against the officers involved.

 

[mikelibrarian]

but something is wrong with police training if it's this common that cops would ever need to shoot that many times, unless they have the terminator coming at them.

I think you're right about that. Maybe things have changed, but I had a friend who was a Police Officer in the early 90's and he said that police officers tended to be reluctant to practice shooting ever, and that 90% of shots fired at distances of 15 feet or less failed to hit their targets. So if Bell wanted to neutralize a threat to himself and his partners, namely a guy trying to run them down with a car, he might have had to fire that many shots.

My friend nmanaged to snag quite a few marksmanship awards because of his dedication to going to the shooting ranges.

He left the force around 1994, so I'm not sure if any reforms have been made. Also, the growing popularity of realistic video games may have improved the marksmanship of those that play them. Such videogames weren't as advanced in the early 90's.

 

[Ute Giddeon]

Thank god Grand Theft Auto IV comes out tonight.