I read the article on Yahoo and it says the one cop EMPTIED the clip of his SEMI AUTOMATIC weapon and then RELOADED! This was a cop trying to detain a suspect which might have been understandable, he was out for blood. 41 shots fired...acquitted. Whose palms got greased is what I want to know and how can that judge live with himself now.
I feel so terrible for Sean Bell's family. The were so robbed of justice here.
When I first heard about this, I cried for his fiancee. I cannot even imagine the pain that poor girl has gone through, and now this? No wonder no one trusts the cops.
No he specifically declared they would not be giving the usual response every one is expecting. They want to show that New Yorkers will not stand for unacceptable actions like this anymore.
Sharpton is actually speaking calmly and logically, I hope it keeps up.
I'm not familiar with the evidence, but from what I've read, there were enough conflicts among the various eyewitnesses (that is, the cops, the survivors, and whatever bystanders there were) that it wasn't clear what actually happened, so the judge decided the police officers were the most credible of the lot.
It's maddening, but I can understand the thought process. Disagree, certainly, but understand. The whole problem was that the case hinged on evidence that could only be determined by eyewitnesses (whether the cops had identified themselves, whether the victims had said anything about getting a gun), and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable even when they aren't lying to influence the case's outcome, so we get the Coin Flip of Justice instead.
I'm sorry, but even if the cops WERE justified in firing, there is no WAY the amount of bullets fired was necessary. If you are unable to control yourself in stressful situations well enough to stop shooting at someone, you should not be a cop.
I thought long and hard about posting this, to be honest, because it's almost begging for me to be misinterpreted.
I wish I could get a hold of the verbatim verdict. I have a criminal law exam Tuesday and it would be food for thought. As it stands, I don't think their rationale for imagining a threat and deciding to shoot is credible, but I also don't feel entirely comfortable deciding guilt or innocence by how good someone's aim is.
You cannot separate justification for actions from justification for their inevitable (or extremely likely) consequences. IF they were defending themselves from a deadly threat, and justified in using deadly force to end that threat, then whether "deadly force" is one bullet or fifty makes no difference, unless something occurs in the intervening time to end the perceived threat.
And that "unless" is a question I can't speak to, because I wasn't in the cops' heads that night, and I've never been in a gunfight to know how it affects your senses. That's why I focus on the initial condition of "was deadly self-defence justified?". If you can't reliably judge when a situation actually requires deadly force, then you shouldn't be a cop.
It's better to keep the guns from coming out in the first place than to hope that people exchanging fire at close range in the dark wee hours won't be too hopped up on adrenaline and fight-or-flight instincts to stop when the situation no longer requires it.
It just scares me that people who are supposed to be in control of themselves in these types of situations went SO overboard, and it's being let go by the authorities. What will happen the next time one of those officers perceives a threat? It's scary.
It is scary, and a question worth asking. People defer to police officers while forgetting that they're human with human foibles only slightly counteracted by training.
A certain degree of leeway is necessary to make their job feasible, but the law provides enough of that without judges (and a lot of mainstream society) usually presuming in their favour, as happened here.
None of what I've read has said whether or not any action at all is being taken. I would like to know if they're still on the street, with guns. Have they been psychologicaly evaluated? Are they fit to return to duty? THAT bothers me, too.
All police shootings automatically result in mandatory psyche eval... Now that they have been cleared (pending an investigation into whether or not they violated Bell's civil rights), yeah, they'll be back on the streets. Also not being fully familiar with the actual evidence and testimony, I can't "judge the judge". Does 50 shots seem ludicrous? Yeah, but we don't know what actually happened, just what the media tells us - and that is a distillation of what *they* were told, which in turn was a version of what someone percieved.
But yes, there will indeed be protests of some form.
Read some more... Apparently Guzman (Bell's friend) wound up ruining the case for the prosecution. He's the one who allegedly said "yo, go get my gun". He told the defense lawyer "you know what needs to happen? This needs to happen to your family". And his credibility took a major hit when it was revealed that he had recently served 5 years for robbery and drugs AND has a $50million civil suit pending (which gives a major motivation to lie). All-in-all, that one witness collapsed the prosecution's case.
Oh yeah, a 4th cop (who was at the club undercover investigating neighborhood complaints of drug and prostitution activity at the club) testified that Guzman said "yo, go get my gun"
There is still an internal investigation to happen and now the feds are getting involved. Civil lawsuits are guaranteed. In the interest of public harmony, these cops will be sitting at desks for a little while longer.
You'll be fine. If there is any trouble, it won't be in Manhattan. My mom worked OT in Brooklyn this morning and all was quiet (well, as quiet as Bklyn ever is). TPTB were prepared which is why the judge announced this morning instead of last night.
But I was expecting Dinkin's Era Crown Heights all over again. That was fun . . . NOT!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 02:59 pm (UTC)I feel so terrible for Sean Bell's family. The were so robbed of justice here.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 05:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 05:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 05:31 pm (UTC)Sharpton is actually speaking calmly and logically, I hope it keeps up.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 05:58 pm (UTC)Why are you not answering your phone, monkey?
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 06:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 06:35 pm (UTC)It's maddening, but I can understand the thought process. Disagree, certainly, but understand. The whole problem was that the case hinged on evidence that could only be determined by eyewitnesses (whether the cops had identified themselves, whether the victims had said anything about getting a gun), and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable even when they aren't lying to influence the case's outcome, so we get the Coin Flip of Justice instead.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 07:21 pm (UTC)I wish I could get a hold of the verbatim verdict. I have a criminal law exam Tuesday and it would be food for thought. As it stands, I don't think their rationale for imagining a threat and deciding to shoot is credible, but I also don't feel entirely comfortable deciding guilt or innocence by how good someone's aim is.
You cannot separate justification for actions from justification for their inevitable (or extremely likely) consequences. IF they were defending themselves from a deadly threat, and justified in using deadly force to end that threat, then whether "deadly force" is one bullet or fifty makes no difference, unless something occurs in the intervening time to end the perceived threat.
And that "unless" is a question I can't speak to, because I wasn't in the cops' heads that night, and I've never been in a gunfight to know how it affects your senses. That's why I focus on the initial condition of "was deadly self-defence justified?". If you can't reliably judge when a situation actually requires deadly force, then you shouldn't be a cop.
It's better to keep the guns from coming out in the first place than to hope that people exchanging fire at close range in the
darkwee hours won't be too hopped up on adrenaline and fight-or-flight instincts to stop when the situation no longer requires it.no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 07:55 pm (UTC)A certain degree of leeway is necessary to make their job feasible, but the law provides enough of that without judges (and a lot of mainstream society) usually presuming in their favour, as happened here.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 08:49 pm (UTC)But yes, there will indeed be protests of some form.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 08:53 pm (UTC)Apparently, NOBODY knows what really happened. Not even the people who were there.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 09:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-26 03:30 pm (UTC)Oh yeah, a 4th cop (who was at the club undercover investigating neighborhood complaints of drug and prostitution activity at the club) testified that Guzman said "yo, go get my gun"
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 10:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 07:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 08:00 pm (UTC)I'm still going to the city tomorrow. There isn't much that can stand between me and my soap. :D
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 10:51 pm (UTC)But I was expecting Dinkin's Era Crown Heights all over again. That was fun . . . NOT!
Have fun storming da LUSH!