NYPD detectives in Bell shooting acquitted

Submitted by brendanm98 on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 10:12am. Tags:

Social Issues

The verdict in the Bell shooting case is in -- all NYPD detectives acquitted of all charges. I guess firing 50 shots at the unarmed occupants of a car, even stopping to reload, killing one and wounding the other two, doesn't rise to the level of manslaughter if you're a NYC cop and you claim one of the victims "made a sudden move."

Both before and during the trial the victims were attacked, as if their pasts were somehow relevant to whether the police used unnecessary force. Wait, according to the judge they were: Justice Arthur Cooperman said he found problems with the prosecution's case. He said some prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves, and he cited prior convictions and incarcerations of witnesses. He also cited the demeanor of some witnesses on the stand.

Bloomberg's reaction:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued a statement saying, "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." However, he said, the legal system must be respected. "America is a nation of laws, and though not everyone will agree with the verdicts and opinions issued by the courts, we accept their authority."

Here is a useful summary of the trial from the NYT.

There is a lawsuit pending -- I hope the victims win, so that there will be some consequences that will motivate changes to prevent future unjustified shootings.

Not that past incidents have made any noticeable difference.
--

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

brendanm98's blog
Login or register to post comments

Interesting That. . . (#91410)

by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 11:41am

. . .the defendants chose a bench trial, rather than a jury trial. Since they couldn't know what judge they'd get, that's certainly rolling the dice about the kind of reception they'd get.

(

)

IIRC they were denied a change of venue (#91412)

by Jordan on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 11:44am

and figured a jury trial in that neighborhood would almost certainly result in a conviction.

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

(

| parent )

As Far As I'm Concerned. . . (#91409)

by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 11:24am

. . .shooting a driver who is fleeing in defiance of orders to stop--knocking down a cop in the process--and is endangering other drivers (second link, last line) is fine with me. Same goes for someone who is screaming "I've got a gun!" and quickly pulls out a black object (third link, last line). So basically, you combined the Diallo shooting (well, at least HRC refrained from calling the cops in the Bell shootings murderers before the verdict) with two cases where cops were doing their jobs. If you don't want to get shot, using a car as a weapon while fleeing and lying about having a gun are really stupid things to do, and cops shouldn't have to be idiot-proofed.

(

)

Fine... but 50 rounds? (#91434)

by JKC on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 1:01pm

Things can go wrong, Scott, as they did in Albany four years ago when an innocent pedestrian was hit by a cop's stray bullet:

During {former Albany county DA} Clyne's watch a string of scandals erupted involving the Albany Police Department. Last New Year's Eve, in the late afternoon on a crowded corner in downtown Albany, pedestrian David Scaringe was accidentally shot to death by a police officer during a DWI pursuit. Numerous police officers were involved in the chase. The officer who fired the fatal shot was on foot. He later testified that he thought the drunk driver, who when cornered reversed the car toward the officer, meant to kill him. Making the use of deadly force justifiable. The driver was caught next day and ultimately pled guilty to assorted traffic violations, in the process admitting he intended to run over the officer. He got six months in jail. Even though he potentially could have killed a police officer. The grand jury investigating the matter absolved the officer, plus the police department, of any culpability in Scaringe's death.

That cost the city of Albany 1.3 million dollars. I expect the City of New York to pay out proportionately more.

(

| parent )

Second link (#91428)

by brendanm98 on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 12:44pm

The guidelines do not permit utilization of deadly force if someone is merely fleeing in a vehicle.

The "reached for the glove compartment" bit should make it obvious to you that the ~~undercover~~ edit, sorry: off-duty officer sought to justify his actions in a manner that contradicts your interpretation of what "his job" was. He was indicted by a grand jury and is charged with first degree manslaughter.

Third link, the guy had a history of mental illness and Kelly said that Coppin's mother told police when they arrived that she didn't think her son had a gun. I don't think this case is as egregious but I don't think the shooting was necessary either.

I notice you distinguish the first link. May I ask if you think the cops were doing their jobs in the Diallo case?

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

(

| parent )

No "Merely" About It (#91483)

by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 4:44pm

The driver was fleeing and had just shown reckless indifference to human life by committing ADW with his vehicle against a police officer. As for the indictment, talk to me when there's a conviction--particularly given that the grand jury pool is apparently contaminated with the notion that "reaching for the glove compartment" means "the cop is lying."

As for the third link--sorry, but I don't expect the cops to take the suspect's mother at her word at the risk of their own lives.

As for the Diallo case, yes you may ask--but the distinction I drew should make the answer obvious. Nonetheless, the officers were acquitted.

(

| parent )

The guidelines are quite explicit (#91995)

by brendanm98 on Tue, 04/29/2008 - 10:46am

and do not say what you appear to think they say:

(g) Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly physical force is being used against the police officer or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

(

| parent )

Its not unknown that policemen carry guns and use them, (#91414)

by mmghosh on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 11:54am

after all.

I didn't expect that sig line, though, MSE. A communitarian philosophy?

(

| parent )

The Sig Line. . . (#91486)

by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 4:52pm

. . .is a tribute to Mr. Robinson. I suppose it could be taken as communitarian, but to me it simply says that if we want to leave more of a legacy of our existence behind than a headstone when we're gone, it would behoove us to to have a substantial impact on other people's lives--and most sane people would want that impact to be at least mostly a positive one.

(

| parent )

Right. It reinforces what I wrote the other day about the (#91487)

by mmghosh on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 4:57pm

conservatives on this site being very diverse in social views.

(

| parent )

Undercover cops walking into a violent altercation (#91413)

by Jordan on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 11:51am

may not have identified themselves to the unarmed men who were probably trying to leave the scene before getting shot. "Lying about having a gun" could have been a bluff to scare off the thugs who were getting into it with them. In a rough neighborhood like that, "don't shoot! we're unarmed!" may not be the wisest thing to shout at people.

It sounds like a fustercluck in other words: one case where things probably would have gone down better if the cops had *not* been on the scene.

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

(

| parent )

Even If True. . . (#91482)

by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 4:37pm

. . .there's nothing in what you've written that makes me question the justice of an acquittal in this case. It *does* make me question the wisdom of hanging out in a place where one must announce that they are packing heat in the name of safety, and why cops should have to bear the risk of not relying on said representations. I suppose cops could just not go into those neighborhoods at all, in which case the rate of mistaken police shootings would drop to zero. I'm not sure the residents would like the trade-off, though.

(

| parent )

They weren't returning fire, just shooting into a fleeing (#91488)

by Jordan on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 5:20pm

vehicle which turned out to have no weapons. They most likely failed to properly identify themselves. They were keyed up, didn' t know the neighborhood or the patrons of the club, and overreacted to a situation that would have been quite a bit less dangerous without them in it. I'd say in front of a jury, the reckless endangerment charges at least would have stuck. Manslaughter is a real stretch, since they were doing police work: they just broke some rules doing it.

I suppose cops could just not go into those neighborhoods at all, in which case the rate of mistaken police shootings would drop to zero. I'm not sure the residents would like the trade-off, though.

Wouldn't've happened if they'd been uniformed cops, or called in the uniforms. Which is the point of having uniformed cops at night in places like this. I'd chalk this whole story up to a bad example of mission creep: if you're going undercover with unmarked cars on a vice investigation, it makes it a lot more dangerous to do regular street police work. These guys were blowing their cover by getting involved in a minor assault case.

Fact is, while nobody should begrudge the right of these officers to defend themselves in a dangerous situation, they shouldn't have been in the dangerous situation in the first place. Then they wound up shooting the wrong people. A botched operation and a tragedy.

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

(

| parent )

Spot on, Jordan (#91494)

by Elagabalus on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 5:52pm

They deserved at least a slap on the wrist. C'mon Scott, if you're in a vehicle with the motor running and the police start shooting, not just one or two rounds but 50 rounds all at once, your going to hit the gas pedal just to get away.

I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine

(

| parent )

Recent Diaries