3 NYPD detectives acquitted in 50-shot killing (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting)

By TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writer
47 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Three detectives were acquitted of all charges 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.

Though emotions ran high, there were no immediate problems outside the courthouse Friday, where many wore buttons with Bell's picture or held signs saying "Justice for Sean Bell." Some people approached police after the verdict was read, but they were held back and the jostling died down quickly.

William Hardgraves, 48, an electrician from Harlem, brought his 12-year-old son and 23-year-old daughter to hear the verdict. "It could have been my son, it could have been my daughter" shot like Bell that night, he said.

He didn't know what result he had expected.

"I hoped it would be different this time. They shot him 50 times," Hardgraves said. "But of course, it wasn't."

Justice Arthur Cooperman delivered the verdict in a packed Queens courtroom. 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.

Cooperman indicated that the police 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.

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.

None of the officers took the witness stand in his own defense. Instead, Cooperman heard transcripts of the officers testifying before a grand jury, saying they believed they had good reason to use deadly force. The judge also heard testimony from Bell's two injured companions, who insisted the maelstrom erupted without warning.

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 his grand jury testimony. "It was like the last thing I ever wanted to do."

Bell's companions — Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman — also offered dramatic testimony about the episode. Benefield and Guzman were both wounded; 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.

"I yelled 'Gun!' and fired," he said. "In my mind, I knew (Guzman) had a gun."

Benefield and Guzman testified that there were no orders. Instead, 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.

Cooperman indicated that the police 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.

The proof is in the pudding. They shot at 50 times and they had no weapons.

I grew up with a lot of people who have become NYPD officers or their parents were NYPD officers. I think they have a high level of arrogance, ignorance, and too much power.

I think the prosecution had a prima facie case and the judge is way off base.

The judge believed the police were justified in shooting 50 times? What's the justification? The detective's belief they were in danger? They have an obligation to be sure when they unload on a car like that. They are not being held responsible for their actions.

How long does it take for an individual to fire 31 shots?

Len

How long does it take for an individual to fire 31 shots?

Len

It's at least two clips. Figure two rounds/sec plus the clip change .... no more than 30 seconds if the shooter is well trained.

How long does it take for an individual to fire 31 shots?

Len

depends on the magazine capacity. i could go through 30 rounds (.40 cal glock 22 mags w/15 round capacity) in probably under forty (?) seconds including one (speed / non-tactical) reload. couple that with adrenaline. i don't shoot at the range for speed but it could probably be alot faster than that...figure as quick as you could pull the trigger, drop the mag and reload, and pull the trigger.

I'm still trying to figure out what happened?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/24/nyregion/20080424_BELL_GRAPHIC.html
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p260/BillyGoat71/sb.jpg

It seems like an excessive number of shots from that one officer, but isn't that also indicative of an instinctive fear? If I am not mistaken Police ( & military personnel) have to account for each bullet fired and are not trained in such a manner than would cause them to just "fire until empty." I think that evidence would relate more toward a genuine belief that the cop thought he was in honest jeopardy. Thing is, no backgrounds are mentioned in relation to the participants. No files on the police officers & nothing on the victims. Doesn't that also speak volumes as to how each group came about their decisions that evening?

Just another reminder that life isn't fair.

whats the difference if you kill with one shot or 50 ???

and i'm sure they were a sweat bunch of guys enjoying a night at the strip club ...lol

whats the difference if you kill with one shot or 50 ???

and i'm sure they were a sweat bunch of guys enjoying a night at the strip club ...lol


Your question/comment is linked to my post; I'm not sure why. Have a nice day.

whats the difference if you kill with one shot or 50 ???

and i'm sure they were a sweat bunch of guys enjoying a night at the strip club ...lol


i'm sure they were a sweat bunch of (BLACK) guys enjoying a night at the strip club ...lol

Peace :rolleyes:

whats the difference if you kill with one shot or 50 ???

and i'm sure they were a sweat bunch of guys enjoying a night at the strip club ...lol

0 out of 10 on the troll scale. Sorry no points this round.

I am a sweet WHITE guy that went to a strip club for my bachelor party.

Speaking of which Bachelor Party, great teenage nudie movie.

It seems like an excessive number of shots from that one officer, but isn't that also indicative of an instinctive fear? If I am not mistaken Police ( & military personnel) have to account for each bullet fired and are not trained in such a manner than would cause them to just "fire until empty." I think that evidence would relate more toward a genuine belief that the cop thought he was in honest jeopardy. Thing is, no backgrounds are mentioned in relation to the participants. No files on the police officers & nothing on the victims. Doesn't that also speak volumes as to how each group came about their decisions that evening?

They may be trained that way, but most cops never get a chance to fire their weapons in a real threat situation. When they do, I've seen a number of studies that show that they generally behave like most people would: fire the gun until it is empty. Often they don't even hit their target. To me, the most surprising thing about this case is that the guy was actually hit 50 times. That is pretty good shooting.

I am a sweet WHITE guy that went to a strip club for my bachelor party.

Speaking of which Bachelor Party, great teenage nudie movie.

Is that the footlong...and then some.

Not sure what to think of this........

I suspect, like most things, there are 3 sides to this...the officers, the guys that got shot & survived & the truth.

If, (& it's a big if) the officers felt that a.) the guys were armed & b.) they were threatened in an escalating confrontation, than it's hard to fault them. Adreneline is tough to control.

If, OTOH, the guys were JWA (Just walkin' Around) to their car and this occured...well it's clearly excessive.

Don't know the judges predisposition, and haven't reviewed the testimony so it's very difficult to make a judgement.

Len

Not sure what to think of this........

I suspect, like most things, there are 3 sides to this...the officers, the guys that got shot & survived & the truth.

If, (& it's a big if) the officers felt that a.) the guys were armed & b.) they were threatened in an escalating confrontation, than it's hard to fault them. Adreneline is tough to control.

If, OTOH, the guys were JWA (Just walkin' Around) to their car and this occured...well it's clearly excessive.

Don't know the judges predisposition, and haven't reviewed the testimony so it's very difficult to make a judgement.

Len

I agree. We don't know enough to take sides and we aren't likely to at any point.

Why are we so upset? There was a trial and they were found not guilty.

Why do you all know more than the jurors?

Why are we so upset? There was a trial and they were found not guilty.

Why do you all know more than the jurors?

Therre was no jury...if you read the article....both sides waived a jury and put it before a judge.

I agree with you though BTW

Len

Why are we so upset? There was a trial and they were found not guilty.

Why do you all know more than the jurors?

verdict from da bench.

Justice Arthur Cooperman delivered the verdict in a packed Queens courtroom. 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.

verdict from da bench.
I just skimmed it.

I do water law in Colorado. I don't know squat a bout criminal law, let alone NY crim law.

They have criminal bench trials?

Therre was no jury...if you read the article....both sides waived a jury and put it before a judge.

I agree with you though BTW

Len
I didn't know you could have criminal bench trials . . . and I skimmed the article. :blush2:

I suppose this was a unique situaiton. Normally, criminal defendants would want I jury, I would think. Very intersting to waive it.

Just wait for the street verdict.

verdict from da bench.

Seems these decisions with the exception of OJ tend to go against the AA dudes more often than not! The truth doesn't always come through at a trial, but for outside observers who have even less insight than the judge or jury, it's hard to see how they can comment on the trial either for or against the verdict. Comment about the system, perhaps.

Or maybe, just maybe, the shooting was actually justified and the judge's ruling vindicated them..........

I'm surprised both sides elected to forgo the jury. Sounds like bad decision from the prosecution. One that heavily favored the defense.

I'm surprised both sides elected to forgo the jury. Sounds like bad decision from the prosecution. One that heavily favored the defense.
Not necessarily. It's hard to compare against an unknown variable.

Not necessarily. It's hard to compare against an unknown variable.

IMO, police can justify the use of force much easier to a judge than the 'excessive' use of force to a jury.

Personally, I'm appalled at the number of shots the one cop got off. I'd have a hard time getting over that kind of excessive use of force if I were sitting on a jury. There would have to be some serious Death Race 2000 shat going on. :nonod:

judging from the media coverage, they screwed the pooch....however, there is probably more to the story than what has been presented publicly so far. Bad PR though. 50 bullets is excessive in almost any situation.

IMO, police can justify the use of force much easier to a judge than the 'excessive' use of force to a jury.

Personally, I'm appalled at the number of shots the one cop got off. I'd have a hard time getting over that kind of excessive use of force if I were sitting on a jury.
I see your point, and I had a similar reaction, but the prosecution must have had some reason. For example, all the defense has to get is one person on the jury who's afraid of percieved thugs or a law and order type and you've got a hung jury. Picking jurors is a bit like reading teas leaves. Also, judges are people too, just very rational people. They must have thought an objective observeor would see it your way.

wrong thread...

Your question/comment is linked to my post; I'm not sure why. Have a nice day.

the post is to discuss the topic . That is my contribution . I can care less if you don't like it . Thats why it's attached to your thread . ... I feel horrible that an innocent man just minding his own business was shot at 60 times by police . . It's amazing how lucky I am . I'm almost 40 years old and never had a confrintation with an police officer . Oh wait , it's not luck . It's how 99.9% of law abiding reasonable people go through life . I think he was just unlucky and 3 cops should spend some serious jail time... Have a real nice day ?????????

i'm sure they were a sweat bunch of (BLACK) guys enjoying a night at the strip club ...lol

Peace :rolleyes:


As always play the race crap . I bet if they were white this would have never even made the media ..lol

Yes it would. Two of the cops were black. Good ol' Al Sharpie would be out yellin' about how those white perverts attacked those fine officers.

the post is to discuss the topic . That is my contribution . I can care less if you don't like it . Thats why it's attached to your thread . ... I feel horrible that an innocent man just minding his own business was shot at 60 times by police . . It's amazing how lucky I am . I'm almost 40 years old and never had a confrintation with an police officer . Oh wait , it's not luck . It's how 99.9% of law abiding reasonable people go through life . I think he was just unlucky and 3 cops should spend some serious jail time... Have a real nice day ?????????


I didn't think the notion that life isn't always fair was very debatable. I suspect something tragic and less than fare has occurred (perhaps to the officers or the dead and wounded and their families) but I don't expect anyone to care about what I think. It's not my thread and I'm not the OPer. I'm not sure how your replies couple with what I've written... discussions usually involve a connected give and take. That is... if you're interested in discussion but no matter, you're free to contribute as you see fit as long as you abide by the rules. Have a nice evening.

Why are we so upset? There was a trial and they were found not guilty.

Why do you all know more than the jurors?

It was a bench trial, already discussed.

You had no problem with the outcome of the OJ case?

How about the Rodney King beating trial?

What do you think of Bush v. Gore? And that was the SCOTUS.

The Dred Scott case made sense at the time too?

Back to your initial question, why are we upset.

I'm upset because the judge made a horrendous decision and it's not like even the highest judges and also juries for that matter haven't made horrendous decisions before..

I didn't know you could have criminal bench trials . . . and I skimmed the article. :blush2:

I suppose this was a unique situaiton. Normally, criminal defendants would want I jury, I would think. Very intersting to waive it.

the defense has a right to waive their right to trial by a jury of their peers.

Bundy did it when he was on trial for kidnapping in Utah. The pretrial publicity was so bad that he knew a jury would convict no matter what. He had been linked to many murders in Seattle when the kidnapping trial took place.

Plus there was very little evidence except an eyewitness id which can prove to be unrealiable, especially if the defense attorney can shake up the witness.

Apparently, I was wrong, It appears that if the defense waives a jury trial, the prosecution must agree to it..

http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_bench_trial.htm

June 12, 2006
Criminal Procedure: Jury Trial vs. Bench Trial
By: Vince Imhoff, Attorney at Law and Ariella Rosenberg

It is common knowledge that defendants in the United States have the right to a trial by jury, as is clearly stated in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. However, what many defendants dont realize is that there is the possibility of waiving the right to a jury and having a trial that is only before a judge. Although perhaps not intuitive, this type of trial, known as a bench trial, can in some situations be preferable to a trial by jury.

In July of 2005, Richard Hawkins, a former executive facing fraud charges in San Francisco, saw the benefits of waiving his right to a jury when U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins acquitted him of all charges. Amid the growing public resentment of white-collar criminals, Mr. Hawkins may not have fared so well had he been tried by a jury of his peers.

What is a Bench Trial?

A bench trial is a trial before a judge instead of an entire jury. The general provisions for a trial by bench are laid out in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: In a case tried without a jury, the court must find the defendant guilty or not guilty. If a party requests before the finding of guilty or not guilty, the court must state its specific findings of fact in open court or in a written decision or opinion. (Fed. R. Crim. P. 23(c)). In a bench trial, a judge must determine all questions of law and be the trier of fact, whereas in a jury trial the judge is responsible for questions of law and the jury is the trier of fact.

In general, bench trials are governed by the same rules as jury trialsthe rules of evidence and procedural methods are the same in both. Specific procedure is determined by the applicable state code. New York State Consolidated Law specifies, for example: The provisions governing motion practice and general procedure with respect to a jury trial are, wherever appropriate, applicable to a non-jury trial. (N.Y.C.L. 320.10).

Despite similar procedural guidelines, however, bench trials are often less formal that jury trials. For example, the court may allow the admission of provisional evidence in a bench trial, as this evidence could always be struck in the future without fear of misleading a jury. Additionally, bench trials can often be faster than jury trials, as time is not spent selecting, sequestering, and instructing a jury.


Who Is Eligible for Bench Trials?

Under the rules of Federal Criminal Procedure: If the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be by jury unless: (1) the defendant waives a jury trial in writing; (2) the government consents; and (3) the court approves. (Fed. R. Crim. P. 23(b)). Although this is the general rule, specific criminal procedure varies by state. In New York, for instance, Except where the indictment charges the crime of murder in the first degree, the defendant may at any time before trial waive a jury trial. (N.Y.C.L. 320.10).

Even if a defendant is eligible for a bench trial, it is important to recognize that both the defendant and the prosecution have the right to present the case to a jury . Therefore, the prosecutor assigned to the case must approve the waiver of the jury trial. Thus, a defendant going before a judge who is known to be more likely to acquit may not receive the prosecutions approval of a bench trial, if the prosecution thinks that the judge would be inclined to rule in a defendants favor.

Finally, it should be noted that in certain situations, such where the charge is for a petty offense (such as an infraction in California, or any crime where the maximum sentence is less than six months in a federal prosecution), or the defendant is a juvenile, the right to a trial by jury may not apply, and the defendant will be subject to a mandatory bench trial. Persons accused of violating probation in most jurisdictions are entitled only to a court trial. In the event that the probation violation is also charged as a new criminal offense, the court may, on the prosecutors motion, simultaneously hear a bench trial on the probation violation while the jury hears the evidence and delivers a verdict on the new charge. Thus, even if the jury acquits the defendant of the charge, the judge may be convinced that the defendant violated her probation, and impose punishment for that violation. In general, however, defendants charged with offenses for which they face significant jail or prison time may have the opportunity to choose whether or not to waive the right to be tried before a jury, making it important to seek the advice of a trained, legal professional when considering ones options.

What Are the Advantages/Disadvantages of Bench Trials?

An experienced attorney will weigh the pros and cons of a trial by bench with a client to determine if this type of trial would be to a clients advantage. Generally, defense attorneys view juries as the safer option. This is in part due to the fact in the event the jury cannot reach a verdict, the defendant may be let free, or offered a highly advantageous plea bargain if the prosecutor does not wish to retry the case, and at the very least, will have a chance to fight the case again. Out of a jury of 12, it is more likely to find at least one sympathetic ear than when going before a single judge. Furthermore, unlike judges, jurors do not see hundreds of identical cases in any given year and are may be more sensitive to the particular circumstances of a defendants case than a judge might be. In some jurisdictions and in some cases, however, a jury may be composed of less than 12 people, and not all jurisdictions require a unanimous verdict from a jury. For example, Colorados Constitution, Article 2, Section 23, provides that The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases; but in criminal cases in courts not of record, may consist of less than twelve persons, as may be prescribed by law. Floridas Rules of Criminal Procedure only guarantee a 12-member jury in capital casesother cases may have as few as six jurors

In certain instances, however, a bench trial could prove to be to a defendants advantage. This type of situation might arise if the legal question in the case is based on technical arguments requiring the type of legal distinctions that only a judge is likely to understand. Also, a defendant who faces a weak case, but has an extensive prior record, may fear that if he testifies, a jury would tune out the facts of the case and focus on the prior record.

In some jurisdictions, bench trials are common, and judges appear more willing to truly weigh the evidence and acquit a defendant in the event the prosecutor cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In other jurisdictions, bench trials are quite rare, and it is possible that judges are not entirely used to the ramifications of acquitting a defendant. In the local slang of some courthouses, a bench trial is known as a slow plea, meaning that the local culture understands that the purpose of a bench trial is to find the defendant guilty, and present details of the case to the judge for purposes of sentencing. In such a jurisdiction, a defendant who believes in her innocence would be ill-advised to waive a jury.

Even if you ultimately choose the more common option of invoking your right to trial by jury, it is important to know your right to request that the prosecution consent to a trial by bench, and to work with an attorney who can advise you on the nuances of your particular situation to ensure the best possible outcome.


Back to Imhoff & Associates, P.C. Criminal Defense Attorneys - Firm Articles

If, (& it's a big if) the officers felt that a.) the guys were armed & b.) they were threatened in an escalating confrontation, than it's hard to fault them. Adreneline is tough to control.
Something else (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/opinion/26sat1.html)that might be relevant:
The commissioner is also reforming undercover operations, including requiring breathalyzer tests after an officer fires a weapon. In the Bell shooting, undercover officers said that they stayed within the allowed limit of two alcoholic beverages, but they were not tested.

Couple of interesting points. The undercover policemen were in the strip club too. When the bachelor party guys came out they were approached by the undercover cops. They did not know these guys were cops. They just thought there were fellow club patrons.

Mayhem ensued.

Something else (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/opinion/26sat1.html)that might be relevant:
The commissioner is also reforming undercover operations, including requiring breathalyzer tests after an officer fires a weapon. In the Bell shooting, undercover officers said that they stayed within the allowed limit of two alcoholic beverages, but they were not tested.

and I hate to admit it, but I've been in those types of places many many, times. So I would say, IME and it's vast, something is fishy.

First of all, you are frisked every time in a place like that when you walk in the door. Every black dancer club I've been in they frisk you, without exception.

Second, I'm almost positive it was a black club, if you're white, you are assumed to be a police officer by everyone in the place, owners, bartenders, waitresses, patrons, everybody looks on you with suspicion, until you start drinking a decent amount and enjoying the entertainment. Then there is no problem whatsoever. I've been asked more than a few times whether I'm a cop.

you really cannot hang out in these places for any length of time unless you're socializing with people and drinking a fair amount without arousing suspicion.

No one is going to conduct drug deals or other illegal behavior in the presence of some questionable white guy who's just observing sh*t and not participating. There is really no reason to be in such a place unless you're partaking of the nonsense that's in there.

you really cannot hang out in these places for any length of time unless you're socializing with people and drinking a fair amount without arousing suspicion.That's fine, but if you've been drinking it impairs your judgment too much for you to be using a firearm, badge or no badge.

If you can't do your investigating without endangering innocent bystanders then drop the investigation. It's that simple.

That's fine, but if you've been drinking it impairs your judgment too much for you to be using a firearm, badge or no badge.

If you can't do your investigating without endangering innocent bystanders then drop the investigation. It's that simple.

100%. I think those cops were guilty as charged. My point was that you can't go into one of those places being white and looking a certain way and not arousing a ton of suspicion. You're going to sit there, not drink, and scrutinize everyone? The waitresses are there to sell drinks. If you're not spending money in a place like that, the people running it are going to throw you out or at least keep an eye on you. Criminals are also going to be wary of you.

It's an unsavory business that attracts an unsavory crowd. It you go to an opium den no one is going to let you just sit around and look at sh*t. It's the same sort of thing in a black strip club, if you're white.

some updated commentary about how Bell's friends were unreliable and basically BLEW the case for the prosecution..

Link:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/25/sunny.bell/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Couple of interesting points. The undercover policemen were in the strip club too. When the bachelor party guys came out they were approached by the undercover cops. They did not know these guys were cops. They just thought there were fellow club patrons.

Mayhem ensued.

What would you do, if you were drunk and feeling good at 4 AM, and some cats approached you outside a club as you were leaving, trapping you by pulling a car in your way, then yelling something like "Freeze!" WTF?

Those cops were looking for action and grossly misinterpreted their target, from the banter in the club, to the reaction outside. Why? Because the target was a bunch of swaggering black men at a strip club, one joking like he had a gun. The astounding naivete, filtered through frankly racist viewpoints, is what drove the cop to empty two magazines of bullets into a man who had shown no hard evidence he had a gun or was dangerous.

The cops should at least be banned from police work for the rest of their lives. They proved their incompetence and stupidity, if not pathological criminal behavior, no different than the gangstas they go after. In fact, worse, because they don't get put away in the pokey, but are emboldened to go out and do it again.

What would you do, if you were drunk and feeling good at 4 AM, and some cats approached you outside a club as you were leaving, trapping you by pulling a car in your way, then yelling something like "Freeze!" WTF?

Those cops were looking for action and grossly misinterpreted their target, from the banter in the club, to the reaction outside. Why? Because the target was a bunch of swaggering black men at a strip club, one joking like he had a gun. The astounding naivete, filtered through frankly racist viewpoints, is what drove the cop to empty two magazines of bullets into a man who had shown no hard evidence he had a gun or was dangerous.

The cops should at least be banned from police work for the rest of their lives. They proved their incompetence and stupidity, if not pathological criminal behavior, no different than the gangstas they go after. In fact, worse, because they don't get put away in the pokey, but are emboldened to go out and do it again.

so concerned with the criminal history of the victims here. I wonder if he was aware of the history of the cop that emptied two clips.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/04/24/2008-04-24_det_oliver_has_never_shown_any_remorse_s-1.html

Before the shooting, Oliver was a regular on the Chelsea club circuit, earning the nickname "Undercover Mike" with the party crowd at Bungalow 8. He also infuriated Bell's parents - and even some of his own supporters - by noshing on a $4,200 meal at celebrity eatery Nello's the day after the indictment.

A high school dropout with a wild streak, Oliver, 36, grew up to be a formidable cop - logging more than 600 arrests during a 13-year career.

As a rookie, he allegedly put a cab driver's head through a car window in 1995 when the man was too slow to move his double-parked car, according to a complaint. The city settled the resulting suit for about $10,000 and Oliver admitted no wrongdoing.

He had never fired his gun on the job before shooting 31 times into Bell's car on Nov. 25, 2006, the 23-year-old's wedding day.

This thing isn't over for the cops and I'll bet Oliver will never work as a police officer again.

here's what i'm reading now.

"KKK" shouts by the crowd after the two black and one white (but apparently non-caucasian) officers were aquitted. :rolleyes:

sharpton: "i'll shut this city down." :rolleyes:

one of the "shooting victims" is a convicted thief and crack dealer.

there was a FOURTH officer on the sting, inside the club.

one of the three officers who discharged weapons was struck by Bell with the car before bell proceeded to hit the undercover van with the car. then made sudden movements as if going for a weapon.

someone's reply said "wait for justice on the streets" or something along those lines.

i'm always on the lookout but have been a little more careful in memphis since this ruling. if it were a local case instead of one in NY, we'd have rioting for sure. and i **guarantee** the rioters would be razing and burning their own neighborhoods.

in our little corner of heaven here, the cove on which i live has an "enhanced neighborhood watch" plan and coop setup for just this occasion.

and, who did the prosecution/defense think the judge would believe? four cops on a sting operation or these three guys (one for sure a convict/thief/drug dealer) coming out of a strip club at 4AM making threats and ramming vehicles with their car?

"Justice Arthur Cooperman said that the inconsistent testimony, courtroom demeanor and rap sheets of the prosecution witnesses — mainly Bell's friends — "had the effect of eviscerating" their credibility.

"At times, the testimony just didn't make sense," the judge said.

The verdict elicited gasps as well as tears of joy and sorrow.

Detective Michael Oliver, who fired 31 of the shots, wept at the defense table, while Bell's mother cried in the packed courtroom. "

No winners.

It was a bench trial, already discussed.

You had no problem with the outcome of the OJ case?

How about the Rodney King beating trial?

What do you think of Bush v. Gore? And that was the SCOTUS.

The Dred Scott case made sense at the time too?

Back to your initial question, why are we upset.

I'm upset because the judge made a horrendous decision and it's not like even the highest judges and also juries for that matter haven't made horrendous decisions before..
Regarding the OJ and Rodney cases: I have no problem with a judge or the jury making a binding, final deteminaiton of the facts of what is alleged to have happened in a disputed matter. I may disagree, but most of the time, my disagreement is based on my limited understanding of the factual scenario. I might even disagree if I knew all the accounts of what happened and other evidence. We can all argue the facts, what they are and/or may be endlessly, but we need someone to make the final determination based on a fair process. The judge or the jury is in the best position to make that decision in our system. I thus submit to the determinaiton of the OJ and Rodney verdicts.

Regarding Dred Scott and Bush v. Gore: Those cases are really about are legal determinations. There is no real dispute about what happened in those cases. There is a lot more room for argument about how the abstract principles of the law (or politics) apply or should apply to those facts. Nonetheless, just like cases with disputed facts, we need a final determianiton on that dispute to resolve it and to be able to move on. Wrong legal decisions can be later overturn, just like Dred Scott, or as another example, Plessy v. Ferguson.

This is the essence of the rule of law.

Apparently, I was wrong, It appears that if the defense waives a jury trial, the prosecution must agree to it.
It's so much easier in the area I practice in . . . at least in this one, limited respect. :D

one of the "shooting victims" is a convicted thief and crack dealer.

So they should be shot at 50 times by undercover officers who didn't identify themselves?

one of the three officers who discharged weapons was struck by Bell with the car before bell proceeded to hit the undercover van with the car. then made sudden movements as if going for a weapon..

Bell and his friends had been in an altercation just minutes before with a guy both they and the undercover officers believed was armed. Shortly after this altercation a guy in plainclothes is standing in front of their car with a gun drawn. The passenger, Guzman, was the guy the officer said appeared to be reaching for a gun.

and, who did the prosecution/defense think the judge would believe?

Maybe that's part of the problem with these "sting" operations. As the NY Times said in their editorial, couldn't NYC find some code violation to shut the place down with? They have to go to some dump in the hood with 4 undercovers to make prostitution or drug arrests. You know, it's odd that you never hear of sting operations in Scores on the East Side of Manhattan which is frequented by a more upscale clientele, corrupt in their own way.

Shouldn't the onus be on the cops when they unload 50 shots on a car because they suspect someone in the car may have a gun, and then no gun is found?

four cops on a sting operation

whose jobs require them to be duplicitous.

or these three guys (one for sure a convict/thief/drug dealer) coming out of a strip club at 4AM

they forfeit their civil rights? They don't have a right not to get shot at 50 times for very little reason at all.

making threats and ramming vehicles with their car?

They did not threaten the police before the shooting started and only tried to take off when an unidentified man in a bad neighborhood pointed a gun at them from right in front of their car.

These cops should be able to shoot up the place like the Wild West with no responsibility or repercussions at all if they were wrong? Subsequent evidence proved they were btw.

The judge believed the cops? This is just ignorance because the cops were wrong and have every reason to coverup and coordinate their stories. They thought they were in danger? Well they weren't, the proof is in the pudding.

So they should be shot at 50 times by undercover officers who didn't identify themselves?



Bell and his friends had been in an altercation just minutes before with a guy both they and the undercover officers believed was armed. Shortly after this altercation a guy in plainclothes is standing in front of their car with a gun drawn. The passenger, Guzman, was the guy the officer said appeared to be reaching for a gun.



Maybe that's part of the problem with these "sting" operations. As the NY Times said in their editorial, couldn't NYC find some code violation to shut the place down with? They have to go to some dump in the hood with 4 undercovers to make prostitution or drug arrests. You know, it's odd that you never hear of sting operations in Scores on the East Side of Manhattan which is frequented by a more upscale clientele, corrupt in their own way.

Shouldn't the onus be on the cops when they unload 50 shots on a car because they suspect someone in the car may have a gun, and then no gun is found?



whose jobs require them to be duplicitous.



they forfeit their civil rights? They don't have a right not to get shot at 50 times for very little reason at all.



They did not threaten the police before the shooting started and only tried to take off when an unidentified man in a bad neighborhood pointed a gun at them from right in front of their car.

These cops should be able to shoot up the place like the Wild West with no responsibility or repercussions at all if they were wrong? Subsequent evidence proved they were btw.

The judge believed the cops? This is just ignorance because the cops were wrong and have every reason to coverup and coordinate their stories. They thought they were in danger? Well they weren't, the proof is in the pudding.
This post pretty much sums up why we need a person or persons, who see(s) all the reliable evidence, to make a final decision.

Regarding the OJ and Rodney cases: I have no problem with a judge or the jury making a binding, final deteminaiton of the facts of what is alleged to have happened in a disputed matter. I may disagree, but most of the time, my disagreement is based on my limited understanding of the factual scenario. I might even disagree if I knew all the accounts of what happened and other evidence. We can all argue the facts, what they are and/or may be endlessly, but we need someone to make the final determination based on a fair process. The judge or the jury is in the best position to make that decision in our system. I thus submit to the determinaiton of the OJ and Rodney verdicts. .

Judges and juries do have predjudices and biases.

It's interesting to note that while politicans and lawyers are generally reviled by most of the public, judges garner a huge amount of respect. This is odd because in most cases judges are both lawyers and politicians.

Regarding Dred Scott and Bush v. Gore: Those cases are really about are legal determinations. There is no real dispute about what happened in those cases. There is a lot more room for argument about how the abstract principles of the law (or politics) apply or should apply to those facts. Nonetheless, just like cases with disputed facts, we need a final determianiton on that dispute to resolve it and to be able to move on..

What you're saying is basically what John Yoo said about Bush v. Gore and he was just about the only legal scholar to make that assertion.

Secondly, cases should be decided on the merits, applicable law, and never because of politics. In Bush v. Gore the facts and the settled law relating to the case were very clear, and yet 5 Justices who worshipped at the altar of States rights intervened because of politics when they otherwise never would have. There was no novel legal issue of unsettled law whatsoever. In their per curiam opinion they said Bush v. Gore could not even serve as precedent(stare decisis) because election law is very complex. This is what's know as complete bullsh!t and was undoubtedly treasonous.

Wrong legal decisions can be later overturn, just like Dred Scott, or as another example, Plessy v. Ferguson..

A ten year old with only a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, who had read The Emperor's New Clothes would have the ability to formulate a successful argument in the Dred Scott case or Plessy v. Fergusson if he didn't have to appeal to corrupt cowards.

This is the essence of the rule of law.

The essence of the rule of law is justice, plain and simple, no matter how much someone is trying to cloud the issue or shirk their responsibility.

Lookrider, I know you're pissed, but it's a tragic series of events leading to a tragic outcome. Excessive force, definitely. Does that mean the judge screwed up? I don't know.

But, if you're an officer and someone tries to run you down, or one of your fellow officers, then their response, although excessive, would be somewhat justifiable especially to a judge.

Why the prosecutor ever allowed this to go to a bench trial is beyond me. :nonod:

Lookrider, I know you're pissed, but it's a tragic series of events leading to a tragic outcome. Excessive force, definitely. Does that mean the judge screwed up? I don't know.

But, if you're an officer and someone tries to run you down, or one of your fellow officers, then their response, although excessive, would be somewhat justifiable especially to a judge.

Why the prosecutor ever allowed this to go to a bench trial is beyond me. :nonod:

I don't understand why the prosecution signed off on the bench trial either. If you're an attorney you'd know more of the wrangling than I would and maybe they were compelled to do so.

Judges and juries do have predjudices and biases.

It's interesting to note that while politicans and lawyers are generally reviled by most of the public, judges garner a huge amount of respect. This is odd because in most cases judges are both lawyers and politicians.

What you're saying is basically what John Yoo said about Bush v. Gore and he was just about the only legal scholar to make that assertion.

Secondly, cases should be decided on the merits, applicable law, and never because of politics. In Bush v. Gore the facts and the settled law relating to the case were very clear, and yet 5 Justices who worshipped at the altar of States rights intervened because of politics when they otherwise never would have. There was no novel legal issue of unsettled law whatsoever. In their per curiam opinion they said Bush v. Gore could not even serve as precedent(stare decisis) because election law is very complex. This is what's know as complete bullsh!t and was undoubtedly treasonous.

A ten year old with only a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, who had read The Emperor's New Clothes would have the ability to formulate a successful argument in the Dred Scott case or Plessy v. Fergusson if he didn't have to appeal to corrupt cowards.

The essence of the rule of law is justice, plain and simple, no matter how much someone is trying to cloud the issue or shirk their responsibility.
The simplicity of your perspective is almost endearing. People dislike lawyers except for their own. Law and politics cannot be cleanly disected. History in retrospect and based on one's own perspective, is always much more clear than the present. Justice is ultimately subjective. And yet, we need final decisions on disputed matters or else we are lost to our passions. The process we have works quite well.

It's so much easier in the area I practice in . . . at least in this one, limited respect. :D

Water issues? I would expect that that would be a lot more complex than criminal stuff. I would think that there would be a lot more legitimate conflicting claims in the stuff you deal with..

I have a friend who actually represents a lot of the bishops in black churches in NYC on landlord tenant issues, and I can't follow anything he tells me, it's difficult for me at least.

The ironic thing here is that my attorney friend of 35 years/college roommate would probably sympathize more with the NYPD in this matter. We've had a few heated discussions on this kind of stuff, and I'm finding as I get older, it might be better to keep this stuff to myself.

I would think, in the criminal defense area, you might have to deal with a lot of people you'd rather not deal with, in order to make a living.

Water issues? I would expect that that would be a lot more complex than criminal stuff. I would think that there would be a lot more legitimate conflicting claims in the stuff you deal with..

I have a friend who actually represents a lot of the bishops in black churches in NYC on landlord tenant issues, and I can't follow anything he tells me, it's difficult for me at least.

The ironic thing here is that my attorney friend of 35 years/college roommate would probably sympathize more with the NYPD in this matter. We've had a few heated discussions on this kind of stuff, and I'm finding as I get older, it might be better to keep this stuff to myself.

I would think, in the criminal defense area, you might have to deal with a lot of people you'd rather not deal with, in order to make a living.
Water trial are all bench trials. This is what I was referring to.

The factual issues are extremely complex and based almost entirely on hydrological engineering. Any alleged truth" on such issues is arguably even less ascertainable that decifering what happened to the victims of criminal acts.

There are always legitimate conflicting claims. We each percieve reality through our own limited perspecyive and try to extrapolate from that whatever "truth" we can.

The simplicity of your perspective is almost endearing..

This is one of my charms.:)

I do feel strongly about things like Bush v. Gore and in a lot of areas I speak about, I have knowledge that others don't or direct experience others are lacking. I usually don't make strong claims when I don't have the info required and your arguments here sometimes assume that because the issue may be muddy for you or others we'll let the judge or jury decide. Does everyone have to live with these decisions? Yes, however, that doesn't mean that these decisions aren't demonstrably wrong or corrupt as was Bush v. Gore. I will say this, anyone who doesn't believe that Bush v. Gore was incorrect and based soley on politics does not know the issues involved. Even (politically) conservative legal scholars regard it as a horrendous decision based on the political leanings of the 5 justices who were ashamed to put their names to it. I am not referring to you here, but people should not argue stuff they know nothing about with dismissive comments, like 'they all do it' or some other such bs.

People dislike lawyers except for their own..

I like lawyers just fine, (especially in comparison to doctors who I can't stand generally) and I wasn't referring to my preferences in my prior post. What I was referring to is the esteemed position the SCOTUS holds in our public consciousness in light of the lowly place that both lawyers and politicians are held in public opinion. Many justices of the SCOTUS are or have been both.

Law and politics cannot be cleanly disected..

They can and absolutely should be. If your position is that they can't or shouldn't be, I would argue that till the end of time. I'll take that argument if it was advanced by an illiterate homeless street person over the opposite argument advanced by a lawyer every time. The court is supposed to act as an impartial arbiter of law, not as a surrogate for a political party. While politics may enter the picture, defending that possibility as ok or part of the game or system, is ill informed and completely against the Constitution of the U.S.

History in retrospect and based on one's own perspective, is always much more clear than the present. Justice is ultimately subjective. And yet, we need final decisions on disputed matters or else we are lost to our passions. The process we have works quite well.

I'll grant that it works, but I'm more in Churchill's camp, to paraphrase that it just sucks less that other systems do. That's not a ringing endorsement.

Of course justice is subjective, words are indeterminate, but we do come to a consensus about what most words mean.

The simplest argument in Bush v. Gore that it was a corrupt decision is this, In anyone's wildest dreams, if the facts of the case were the same except that Gore was ahead at the time the recounts were stopped, the SCOTUS would NEVER have ruled the way it did. Please try to answer this if you don't think the decision was politically motivated. There are supposed to be rules of law and not of men.

In the Sean Bell murder, the irrefutable non subjective physical evidence is that the victims were shot at 50 times by Police and the Police had no objective reason to fire 50 times; they did not find a gun. Their guidelines are to fire 3 shots and reassess the situation. Those are the facts which are not subjective at all.

There has been a lot of discussion on these threads about the justification of Jeremiah Wright for making his supposedly racist comments. I see the tremendous outrage of whites who were never subject to the kind of Jim Crow bs that Wright was subjected to. At least Wright didn't go in with guns ablazing..

One last thing is that we judge these proceedings the same whether they are looked at in the present or as historical events. We rely on transcripts, testimony and facts. You do not have to be in the court room if you have access to these materials and the suggestion that you have to be is just an attempt to muddy the waters on something that is crystal clear.

I'm with Sharpton, shut the cesspool down!