0
   

Killer Cops Go Free (Surprise, Surprise)

 
 
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 04:58 pm
NEW YORK - Three detectives were acquitted Friday in the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day, a case that put the NYPD at the center of another dispute involving allegations of excessive firepower.

Scores of police officers surrounded the courthouse to guard against potential chaos, and as news of the verdict spread, many in the crowd began weeping. Others were enraged, swearing and screaming "Murderers! Murderers!" or "KKK!"

Inside the courtroom, spectators gasped. Sean Bell's fiancee immediately walked out of the room; his mother cried.

Bell, a 23-year-old black man, was killed in a hail of gunfire outside a seedy strip club in Queens on Nov. 25, 2006, as he was leaving his bachelor party with two friends. The case ignited the emotions of people across the city and led to widespread protests among those who felt the officers used unnecessary force.

Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter, while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren't charged. Oliver squeezed off 31 shots; Isnora fired 11 rounds; and Cooper shot four times.

The case brought back painful memories of other NYPD shootings, such as the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo - an African immigrant who was gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets by police officers who mistook his wallet for a gun. The acquittal of the officers in that case created a storm of protest, with hundreds arrested after taking to the streets in demonstration.

Moments after the verdict was announced Friday, Trent Benefield, a friend of Bell's who was wounded in the hail of gunfire, staggered down the courthouse steps with a look of angry disbelief on his face, a friend's arms tightly wrapped around his shoulders.

"Not guilty. Not guilty. It's real," he said, while dozens of people wearing Bell's face on hats, T-shirts and buttons burst into sobs.

Within an hour, the crowd of about 200 people had settled down and dispersed. Despite a few scuffles between members of the throng and police officers, no arrests were made.

William Hardgraves, 48, an electrician from Harlem, brought his 12-year-old son and 23-year-old daughter to hear the verdict. "I hoped it would be different this time. They shot him 50 times," Hardgraves said. "But of course, it wasn't."

The officers, complaining that pretrial publicity had unfairly painted them as cold-blooded killers, opted to have the judge decide the case rather than a jury.

The judge, Justice Arthur Cooperman, indicated when he delivered the verdict that the officers' version of events was more credible than the victims' version. "The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was not justified" in firing, he said.

Hours later, the officers appeared at a news conference.

"I'd like to say sorry to the Bell family for the tragedy," Cooper said, thanking God, his lawyers and the police officers who supported him.

The U.S. attorney's office said after the verdict that it had been monitoring the state's prosecution and would conduct an independent review of the case. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who represents Bell's family, called for a federal investigation.

"This verdict is one round down, but the fight is far from over," Sharpton said on his radio show. "What we saw in court today was not a miscarriage of justice. Justice didn't miscarry. This was an abortion of justice."

Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association, responded angrily to Sharpton's suggestion that the verdicts were unfair.

"That's despicable for him to say that because we have the greatest criminal justice system on earth," he said.

The nearly two-month trial was marked by deeply divergent accounts of the night.

The defense painted the victims as drunken thugs who the officers believed were armed and dangerous. Prosecutors sought to convince the judge that the victims had been minding their own business, and that the officers were inept, trigger-happy aggressors.

Both sides were consistent on one point: The utter chaos surrounding the last moments of Bell's life.

"It happened so quick," Isnora said in grand jury testimony. "It was like the last thing I ever wanted to do."

Bell's companions �- Benefield and Joseph Guzman �- offered dramatic testimony. Both were wounded in the shooting; Guzman still has four bullets lodged in his body.

Referring to Isnora, Guzman said, "This dude is shooting like he's crazy, like he's out of his mind."

The victims and shooters were set on a fateful collision course by a pair of innocuous decisions: Bell's to have a last-minute bachelor party at Kalua Cabaret, and the undercover detectives' to investigate reports of prostitution at the club.

As the club closed around 4 a.m., Sanchez and Isnora claimed they overheard Bell and his friends first flirt with women, then taunt a stranger who responded by putting his right hand in his pocket as if he had a gun. Guzman, they testified, said, "Yo, go get my gun" �- something Bell's friends denied.

Isnora said he decided to arm himself, call for backup �- "It's getting hot," he told his supervisor �- and tail Bell, Guzman and Benefield as they went around the corner and got into Bell's car. He claimed that after warning the men to halt, Bell pulled away, bumped him and rammed an unmarked police van that converged on the scene with Oliver at the wheel. The detective also alleged that Guzman made a sudden move as if he were reaching for a gun.

Guzman said Isnora "appeared out of nowhere" with a gun drawn and shot him in the shoulder �- the first of 16 shots to enter his body.

"That's all there was �- gunfire," he said. "There wasn't nothing else."

With tires screeching, glass breaking and bullets flying, the officers claimed that they believed they were the ones under fire. Oliver responded by emptying his semiautomatic pistol, reloading, and emptying it again, as the supervisor sought cover.

The truth emerged when the smoke cleared: There was no weapon inside Bell's blood-splattered car.

___
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpfMFOoYpA
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,540 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 05:01 pm
Delores Jones-Brown of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice says the case has drawn attention because it's part of a larger pattern of police shooting unarmed suspects.

Jones-Brown, a former prosecutor, directs the college's Center on Race, Crime and Justice. She cites a string of acquittals of police officers around the nation who killed civilians while on duty. In the Bell case, detectives fired 50 bullets at Bell and his friends outside a strip club in the predawn hours. Bell, who was unarmed, was to be married later that day.

The professor says the sheer number of bullets matters, in this case and in past ones, like the police killing of Amadou Diallo in New York in 1999. The unarmed Diallo died in his apartment doorway after officers fired 41 bullets at him. "It takes place in residential locations where other people are put at risk by the police behavior," Jones-Brown says.

National statistics show that police shootings are on the decline. That means little to the loved ones of those killed when things go wrong. "When you're the family members of the victims, you could care less what's going on in other parts of the state or in other parts of the country," Jones-Brown says. "And on an individual basis, a case such as this one - where you've got at least one officer shooting 31 times, his shooting alone exceeds the average of the department by almost 10 times."

The bullets fired in the Bell case amounted to nearly 10 percent of those fired by the entire New York Police Department that year.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 05:10 pm
they are protecting us edgar...

(I feel safer now, how 'bout you)

RH
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 05:43 pm
What was the evidence regarding his car having hit the cop vehicle prior to the shoot out? Any idea?

I didn't know the defense could opt for a judge over a jury. That seems a bit odd in this case since the prosecutor, judge and cops would all basically be on the same "team."

I don't have all the facts, but assume there will be a civil case.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 03:42 pm
In Harlem, Willie Rainey, 60, a Vietnam veteran and retired airport worker, said that he believed the detectives should have been found guilty, but that he saw the case through a prism not of race, but of police conduct. "It's a lack of police training," Mr. Rainey said. "It's not about race when you have black killing black. We overplay the black card as an issue."

Even near Liverpool Street and 94th Avenue in Jamaica, the very spot where Mr. Bell was killed, Kenneth Outlaw stood and spoke not only of the humanity of Mr. Bell but of the police as well. "A cop is a human being just like anyone else," said Mr. Outlaw, 52. "If I had to be out here, facing the same dangers the cops face, I'd be scared to death too."

New York controversies have a way of playing out along racial lines in a city that is diverse but often seems stratified. When Amadou Diallo, an unarmed West African immigrant, was killed by the police in a blast of 41 shots in the doorway of a Bronx apartment building in 1999, his death became shorthand for excessive police force against minorities.

Yet in the aftermath of the verdict in the Bell case, many black New Yorkers reacted not with outrage but with a muted reserve, saying that the city felt like a less polarized place in 2008, nearly a decade after the Diallo shooting and with a different mayor and police commissioner. Some also said that after a seven-week trial, the picture of what happened the night Mr. Bell, a black man, was killed was still murky, and so they left the public outcry to a relatively small group of black activists who had been closely monitoring the case.

There were those, however, who spoke of losing faith and trust in both law enforcement and the judicial system, and who saw the Bell case as a vivid example of how little has changed. "How many shots have to be fired for things to change?" asked Torell Marsalis, 35, of South Jamaica.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 03:46 pm
Ignorant public.....surprise surprise Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 04:19 pm
And the cultural divide goes on.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 04:41 pm
squinney wrote:
What was the evidence regarding his car having hit the cop vehicle prior to the shoot out? Any idea?

I didn't know the defense could opt for a judge over a jury. That seems a bit odd in this case since the prosecutor, judge and cops would all basically be on the same "team."

I don't have all the facts, but assume there will be a civil case.


Defense choice. If you're guilty, you try to confuse the jury. If you are innocent, and have good evidence, you go for the judge. That's the general idea, anyway; don't know what went into the choice in this case
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 07:42 pm
I don't know what I think, I don't know enough, re guilt as to criminality in the police response, or any other aspect re behavior of the people shot.

I do know I don't like the whole situation where such a barrage can happen.

I've never liked the shoot to kill thing, though I can understand it.

The whole us/them setup, a natural human mode, elevated as in this situation to potential for massacres from various sides - that mode sets scenes. It's a culture of mayhem, and the innocent can be victims. Not good for a functioning society. No, I've no idea how to fix that underlying situation.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 07:47 pm
Neither do I. It was surprising to hear that 50 rounds represented about 10% of police shots fired in NYC. That comes to a rough total of 500 rounds in a densely populated city. Sounds like a lot, though each event gets investigated.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2008 01:16 am
Cops don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop a threat.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2008 01:40 am
Which is exactly the philosophy you adopt if you have to defend yourself. It is, if you know what's good for you, anyway.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2008 01:45 am
Hi Roger Very Happy
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2008 01:45 am
Hey, TTH
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2008 01:54 am
The reason so many shots are fired is because a cop is not going to shoot his gun once, stop, and look to see if the threat has ceased. The cops train to shoot in rapid succession. It only takes a couple of seconds to empty a clip.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2008 04:54 am
Most cops are just doing their job when they shoot. Some cops are not.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2008 08:33 am
TTH wrote:
The reason so many shots are fired is because a cop is not going to shoot his gun once, stop, and look to see if the threat has ceased. The cops train to shoot in rapid succession. It only takes a couple of seconds to empty a clip.



I disagree. 31 shots from one gun is excessive. I believe they said it was 10 times the norm. I believe that the police are under-trained. The adrenalin might have kicked in and he couldn't stop. One witness described the guy as 'going nuts' or some such phrase.

Nobody needs 31 bullets to be stopped.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2008 09:49 am
edgarblythe
I agree with you about some are not just doing their job. Those need to get fired and prosecuted.

Mame I don't know the particulars of the story and the news likes to add and twist information. 31 shots can be from 2 clips and that only takes seconds.
You would be surprised at how many bullets some people can take and they still don't go down.

I just found this and it shows how fast events happen in seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWqQZOyd84o
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 05:24 am
Those need to get fired and prosecuted.

Which is the topic of this thread.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 07:43 am
Innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. That as I understand it is the law of the land. The prosecution simply could not prove their case. The witnesses against the officers were unreliable changing their accounts of what occurred. One to the DA and grand jury and another on the witness stand.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Killer Cops Go Free (Surprise, Surprise)
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 07:57:37