Not Guilty, all counts, all three officers.
Queens is going to fucking explode.
Printable View
Not Guilty, all counts, all three officers.
Queens is going to fucking explode.
Blacks in NYC will go apeshit.Quote:
April 26, 2008
3 Detectives Acquitted in Bell Shooting
By MICHAEL WILSON
Three detectives were found not guilty Friday morning on all charges in the shooting death of Sean Bell, who died in a hail of 50 police bullets outside a club in Jamaica, Queens.
Justice Arthur J. Cooperman, who delivered the verdict, said many of the prosecution’s witnesses, including Mr. Bell’s friends and the two wounded victims, were simply not believable. “The testimony of those witnesses just didn’t make sense,” he said.
His verdict prompted several supporters of Mr. Bell to storm out of the courtroom, and screams could be heard in the hallway moments later. The three detectives were escorted out of a side doorway. Outside, a crowd gathered behind police barricades, occasionally shouting, amid a veritable sea of police officers.
The verdict comes 17 months to the day since the Nov. 25, 2006, shooting of Mr. Bell, 23, and his friends, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield, outside the Club Kalua in Jamaica, Queens, hours before Mr. Bell was to be married.
It was delivered in a packed courtroom and was heard by, among others, the slain man’s parents and his fiancée. The seven-week trial, which ended April 14, was heard by Justice Cooperman in State Supreme Court in Queens after the defendants — Detectives Gescard F. Isnora, Michael Oliver and Marc Cooper — waived their right to a jury, a strategy some lawyers called risky at the time. But it clearly paid off with Friday’s verdict.
Before rendering his verdict, Justice Cooperman ran through a narrative of the evening, and concluded “the police response with respect to each defendant was not found to be criminal.”
“The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt” that each defendant was not justified in shooting, he said, before quickly saying the men were not guilty of all of the eight counts, five felonies and three misdemeanors, against them.
Mr. Bell’s family sat silently as Justice Cooperman spoke from the bench. Behind them, a woman was heard to ask, “Did he just say, ‘Not guilty?’ ”
Roughly 30 court officers stood by, around the courtroom and in the aisles.
Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, speaking at an event in Brooklyn, declined to comment on the verdict, saying the that officers could still face disciplinary action from the department. He did say, however, that the United States attorney’s office had asked him to delay such disciplinary action until it had decided whether or not to pursue federal charges against the officers.
At the same time, he said the police were prepared should any unrest develop.
“We have prepared, we have done some drills and some practice with appropriate units and personnel if there is any violence, but, again, we don’t anticipate violence,” Mr. Kelly said. “There have been no problems. Obviously there will be some people who are disappointed with the verdict. We understand that.”
Detectives Isnora and Oliver had faced the most charges: first- and second-degree manslaughter, with a possible sentence of 25 years in prison; felony assault, first and second degree; and a misdemeanor, reckless endangerment, with a possible one-year sentence. Detective Oliver also faces a second count of first-degree assault. Detective Cooper was charged only with two counts of reckless endangerment.
During the 26 days of testimony, the prosecution sought to show, with an array of 50 witnesses, that the shooting was the act of a frightened, even enraged group of disorganized police officers who began their shift that night hoping to arrest a prostitute or two and, in suspecting Mr. Bell and his friends of possessing a gun, quickly got in over their heads.
“We ask police to risk their lives to protect ours,” said an assistant district attorney, Charles A. Testagrossa, in his closing arguments. “Not to risk our lives to protect their own.”
The defense, through weeks of often heated cross-examinations, their own witnesses and the words of the detectives themselves, portrayed the shooting as the tragic end to a nonetheless justified confrontation, with Detective Isnora having what it called solid reasons to believe he was the only thing standing between Mr. Bell’s car and a drive-by shooting around the corner.
Several witnesses testified that they heard talk of guns in an argument between Mr. Bell and a stranger, Fabio Coicou, outside Kalua, an argument, the defense claimed, that was fueled by bravado and Mr. Bell’s intoxicated state. Defense lawyers pointed their fingers at Mr. Guzman, who, they said, in shouting for Mr. Bell to drive away when Detective Isnora approached, may have instigated his death.
Detective Isnora told grand jurors last year that he clipped his badge to his collar and drew his gun, shouting, “Police! Don’t move!” as he approached Mr. Bell’s Nissan Altima.
Other witnesses, mostly friends of Mr. Bell, said they never heard shouts of “Police!” Mr. Guzman and Mr. Benefield testified that they had no idea that Mr. Guzman was a police officer when he walked up with his gun drawn.
As they should.
edt: Heck, "human beings" in NYC should go apeshit.
I didn't even know about this case before seeing the verdict on MSNBC. Don't follow the news very well.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...ad.php?t=50592
M-m-m-m-m-m-merge 'em.
This may go against the grain but I don't think the Police (in todays world) would abuse their power in such a blatant way as to shoot a man in public without good cause. If they had any reason to think Sean Bell & the other dude were a threat they had every right to act accordingly.
NYC will get over it and Al Sharpton will eventually go back to his office until the next photo op introduces itself.
Are you kidding? They shot the dude fifty goddamn times.
"Nervous cop syndrome" has rarely been that over the top.
which means there must have been a more serious threat present then you realize. Until I am in that officers shoes I can't say what I would do but if a judge found them not guilty then there must not be enough evidence to prove 50 shots was too many.
Maybe the officers acted excessively but there had to be a threat present for them to fire at all. It's hard to believe they just walked up to the guys for no reason whatsoever and decided to pop 50 bullets in them on a city street.
And you're making a pretty big assumption that all police think the same.
Good point, though. He must have tried to get up after they shot him 20 times.
Fuck tha' police.
Comin' straight from the underground?
One of the cops was responsible for firing 31 times. He reloaded his gun. If he knew the perp must have been dead by then, why reload and squeeze some more off?
There was no, and I mean no discretion used in the incident. Forensics showed that bullets pretty much went everywhere, even through a window of a residential building.
You know how I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
When a cop has to reload his gun to shoot a guy 15 more times, that has got to tell you something is up. No wonder they waived their rights to a trial by jury.
Seriously, this is criminal.
at least in this case.Quote:
Fuck tha' police
Obviously I don't follow this type of news, but did he have a criminal record? I know his friends did.
If he did, put me in the "I really couldn't care less" camp.
You suck at reading the first post in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
I meant the obvious exploitation and getting out of jail in what should be an open and close case.
You suck at comprehension.
Lawyers said this was risky. So it was probably risky. I would imagine there was risk involved, risk meaning, a chance it would pay off more, but a lower probability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhydant
*dies from unprecedented lack of grammatical error*Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I didn't even know you could waive a jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destin
There's still the civil trial, which means that at least the rest of society can pick up the slack where the justice system has failed.
Means you only have to be able to 'persuade' one corrupt official instead of 12 civilians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destin
There's some quality writing in that report:
Quote:
Mr. Guzman and Mr. Benefield testified that they had no idea that Mr. Guzman was a police officer when he walked up with his gun drawn.
Until my ass is ready to go out and deal with the BS the police are dealing with everyday, I can't judge their tactics. Rodney king was bad... why? the shit was caught on video. This may have been just as bad but we'll never know, why? no video.
Boy am I glad you're not a judge. "Boy, all this pesky, complicated forensic evidence. I'll just chalk it up to the police having a bad day."Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
I like to look at different news sites and see how they portray news stories on their front pages:
msnbc: Front, center, crying woman. Headline, "Anger at N.Y. Officers' Acquittal"
cnn.com: Prominent on left, picture of woman crying. Headline, "Acquittals in Groom's Shooting spark Outrage"
Foxnews.com: 12 pt. font, listed in a block with other news stories. "NYPD Trio Acquitted in Groom Slaying"
CBS News: Towards the top, 12 pt. font. "NYC Cops Cleared in 50-shot Groom Killing"
I find the allegations of racism a bit strange, because if this photo is indeed of the three detectives, aren't two of them black? Was it because the judge was white?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...dcops226ap.jpg
"If it's not on video, it didn't happen".
Riiiight.
what evidence? a lot of bullets were fired? a broken window? show the judge the evidence that proves the officers didn't have to act accordingly? they couldn't. Not about right and wrong... it's about reasonable doubt, they couldn't prove any.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrialSword
in cases like this... you're right, the only thing that would have saved the prosecution would be a video or a credible witness, I guess they didn't have either.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Let's be clear, the use of force is a final approach. For an officer to have to reload in a single incident almost never happens. REAL shootouts between real criminals posing a clear and present threat don't involve this much fire. Of course besides the fact that none of the victims were armed. It was an egregious use of force, something that I feel the defense did not at all justify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
The judge took it from a bad angle, I understand that it's "innocent until proven guilty" but I still feel the defense needed to justify their use of force, seeing as how it was an established fact that they killed him.
valid point, perhaps digging deeper into that angle wouldn't have done much to change the verdict. All the defense needs to prove is they had a reason to fire one bullet... the other 49 could be argued as necessary due to the circumstances (as ridiculous as that sounds).Quote:
Originally Posted by TrialSword
What circumstances? Did the first few shots reveal a fucking metal endoskeleton?
Tupac took like 6 or 7 bullets, and 50 cent has taken the same and he isn't even dead! They had to be sure.
LOL!!! I don't fucking know... I wasn't there.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
yeah maybe the guys weren't going down and the officers were scared for their lives, maybe... just maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by stormy
The defense never has to do anything. It's the prosecutor's job to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. You can have the shittiest defense (or no defense at all), but if the prosecutor didn't meet his burden, then you go home.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrialSword
Apparently you don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrialSword
Hence the conditional "innocent until proven guilty." I agree with you, but the fact that they waived their right to trial by jury means that reasonable doubt (at least within the mind of a typical juror) existed with just the facts of the matter, that being 51 shots were fired at unarmed men. It shouldn't have been hard to make it clear that unjustifiable use of force was employed. That's why it's such a tragedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash
yeah unfortunately the law is a game and if you don't play it well, you lose. Sure you could have been in the right but you missed your chance to prove the other party was wrong. This is why the Mob was invented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash
and the bullet count goes up... when it hits 60 I may agree with you. It is a fucking tragedy for the families involved... something made those officers draw guns, the rest (to me) is irrelevant... and yeah, good thing I'm not a judge.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrialSword
You still don't understand. It's not "reasonable doubt that they didn't do it"... it's "reasonable doubt that they did it".Quote:
Originally Posted by TrialSword
There could be all the doubt in the world that says they could be guilty. Doesn't matter.
But if there's any doubt that says they they could be innocent, game over. They walk no matter how much "they could be guilty" doubt remains.
That is what innocent until proven guilty means. It's kind of important in this country.
They killed him. If the killing was justified, what difference does it make if they shot him 3 times or 300?
Short and sweet.
:lol: I'd rep you if I could. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
I already did.
Me too.
I can't... but I would as well.
I agree. What a great guy!
The amount of bullets is moot, Police are taught and expected to kill someone when they shoot at them. If it gets to the point where they are shooting at you, they aren't shooting to wound you or to get you to stop.
That being said, if it was an unjustified shooting and it happened to someone in my family, I'd be investing in a rifle and all bets would be off.
Usually, I'm on the reasonable doubt side in these cases - Amadou Diallo, for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
I don't feel doubtful that these cops could be innocent of excessive force/murder at all, actually. I haven't heard the testimony that they are claiming is misleading or conflicting, though, so who knows.
I last heard the detectives are still shooting Sean Bell's rotten corpse at the cemetery.
it's hard to believe that 10 years ago nyc cops shoved a plunger up abner louima's ass but it happened. but i think we all know there must have been some reason for them to pull the plunger out, and once it's out they're forced to sodomize away until the suspect stops moving. it's dangerous out there on the streets and safety is their first priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
Weren't 2 out of the 3 cops who killed this man black themselves? How is this a racially motivated crime, if so? America is so unreasonably fucked up.
Cover up. They were really trying to kill this:
http://www.stuffwelike.com/stuffweli...terminator.jpg
... Yeller already made the Terminator joke
I take it you went to the Carlos Mencia school of comedy?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
He's just being retro.
I think cops in general are trained to view particular cultures a certain way. On the streets a group of black men being rowdy raises more red flags then a group of white kids would. Doesn't matter if they were all black cops they would still have been stereotyping against there own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Sticking a plunger in a mans ass for the fuck of it and drawing a gun on a group of men that pose a possible threat are two different things. None of us were there, this is all speculation... had those cops been shot for not acting sooner there would be a different set of families crying right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint of Killers
Cops make mistakes all the time, they even kill there own by accident but they are trained to act when they feel it's necessary, unfortunately this time it wasn't but they still shouldn't be found guilty for doing their job. The judge should have just fined them for firing too many bullets if that would have made the families happy, that seems to be the only thing pissing them off.
A cop would never make this mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
or maybe they would?Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Impossible. Police have an excellent grasp of grammer.
You can't kill a T-100 with a couple of handguns, anyway.
never looked at it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
All three had prior arrests for illegal firearm possession, Bell also had two arrests for dealing drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
One cop was black, one was half black/half white, and one was hispanic. Anyone who calls this "racially motivated" is a retard.
A retard draws near. Command?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080426/D909P8SG0.html
I agree that this clearly isn't racially motivated, but just to play devil's advocate a bit, it's not like it's impossible for a black man to have negative prejudices toward people of his own race. Especially if you're a cop working an uptown beat where you have to deal with a lot of predominantly black criminals and a community with a lot of resentment for the police. The shit does happen. Racial prejudice isn't limited to racial elitism.
And you are apparently the retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
Please feel free where in that article there's anything about the shooting being "racially motivated".
Possible? Yes. It's also possible that Mariah Carey is going to knock on my door this evening and offer me a complimentary blowjob.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
If you want to blame overzealous police officers for using excessive force, that's one thing. There might not be any evidence to back such an accusation, but at least I could understand where you're coming from. But racial prejudice? No dice.
Silly me. I forgot that the Rev. Al Sharpton was a crusader in the field of civil rights for all people, without regard for skin color. He has no history of any such thing, and it was indeed retarded of me to shoot my mouth of like that. Thanks for setting me straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Are you really that dumb that you don't understand the concept of calling the CRIME racially motivated? Yeah, Sharpton is all over it because he's black, but that doesn't mean he's calling the crime racially motivated.
Try thinking before posting. It does wonders.
It's one less black man in my world, so I'm alright with this.
"All three had prior arrests for illegal firearm possession, Bell also had two arrests for dealing drugs"
So there you go, sympathy=zero
Wow. I think you actually believe what you're saying. Okay then.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
I think I'm actually reading what has been said, not making up bullshit.
So after reading whatever has been made available, you honestly believe that Sharpton is pursing the matter as a simple police brutality situation, race notwithstanding? I just want to make sure I understand what your position is here.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Sharpton is pursuing it because it was a black guy, plain and simple, so yeah, he's doing it as a matter of race as always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
But he's not fucking calling the crime racially motivated, because the crime itself was not racially motivated.
What's so fucking complicated about this?
I'm not inclined to take advice from one who resorts to personal attacks as a primary defense in a conversation. But thanks anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
The victim was black, as were two of the three cops. (Yes, I'm counting the half-black cop as black for the sake of argument.) That makes race irrelevant as a talking point in this matter. What we're left with is a situation where police officers are accused of using excessive force on a civilian with priors.Quote:
Sharpton is pursuing it because it was a black guy, plain and simple, so yeah, he's doing it as a matter of race as always.
But he's not fucking calling the crime racially motivated, because the crime itself was not racially motivated.
What's so fucking complicated about this?
So Sharpton's role would be...?
Do you guys realize you're arguing the same point?
Hence my confusion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
You don't think that's it's possible that a black man might be apt to assume another black man is more likely to be packing a gun than a white man based on applying his own anecdotal experience? This is a kind of prejudice that everyone is susceptible to on one level or another. We all make assumptions on people before we get all the fact, and when it comes to this particular assumption in question, that's a dangerous one.Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
People of all races own and carry guns. I'm white, and I'm armed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Be that as it may, I'll humor you for a bit. Let's presume that it is truly as you say. Let's just go with the idea that these cops could have been acting on some form of racism ingrained in them through professional experiences with a disproportionate number of armed, angry blacks.
Even if all this were true, one question still remains:
On what planet is Al Sharpton ever a part of the solution?
Who is saying that he is, aside from him?
Apparently quite a few people. He has, after all, received enough support over the years to keep going in his quest for civil rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
You don't live in Harlem. I'm not talking about broad statistical truths, I'm talking about anecdotal experience in a particular neighborhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
For instance I know people who work in retail that really aren't racist, but have been robbed at gunpoint by young, black males enough times that they're intuitively more guarded around them. That isn't because they think all black people are bad, but it IS a kind of prejudice.
He isn't, my initial response was directed at Dolemite.Quote:
On what planet is Al Sharpton ever a part of the solution?
I'm white and have many negative stereotypes about white people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
What a race traitor. :td:Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
So are you of the opinion that these cops were trigger-happy due to said ingrained prejudice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I think they were just trigger happy because they're assholes.
How the fuck should I know? I just said it's not a ridiculous notion.Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
That about sums it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
The cops were wrong. They shot an unarmed man 51 times.
This is one of those cases where someone needs to just be repeating this simple fact every time someone has anything to say about this case.
Example:
"It wasn't racially motivated, but they did shoot an unarmed man 51 times."
"He might have had a gun, but he didn't and they shot him 51 times."
"He was reaching into his car, so they decided to shoot him. And shoot him they did, 51 times."
"But they were intimidated, so they shot him 51 times."
Everyone here is getting completely twisted around and forgetting the ABSURDITY of what happened. You can't go, "I know they shot him 51 times, but lets keep in mind they were scared and nervous." You can't. When you shoot someone 51 times, your not allowed to take that defense. You shot an unarmed man 51 times. In the best case scenario (one where it was all a complete, nervous mistake), that its still a completely unacceptable mistake and the officers need to be punished for making it.
Jesus everyone in here defending this verdict, just move to a fucking dictatorship already, where law enforcement can do whatever it wants and never get called on it, because your thinking on this is just so sickeningly anti-democratic.
You forgot, "He had a record of arrests and drug dealing, so they shot him 51 times."
I have friends in the NRA and various police departments. Both are unanimous on this: 51 times does not qualify for imperfect self-defense. Police officers go through training to remain calm enough not to shoot someone like that. Distressed housewives who shoot their abusive husbands in a fit of nervousness don't shoot that many times and they have just cause.
just got that... funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Dick Head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
It's the TNL way.Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
this was his first mistake, err sorry... his last mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy
Dear noob,
Do not tell me how TNL works. Also, post less, sit back for a while, and observe more like a good noob shoot.
Dear Frog, I wasn't telling you shit... looks like you need to observe more before responding to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
edit: A good noob shoot? sounds like a sex toy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Then again, I have a long history of siding with the police on these matters, race notwithstanding. It's a thankless, life-threatening job with shit pay. And one tense encounter with a drug-dealing shithead can bring on the wrath of Sharpton. Yeah, I don't think I'm out of line for throwing more sympathy in their direction.
Did anyone ever tell this woman that she was marrying a drug-dealing shithead, and that such things often happen to drug-dealing shitheads? Just saying.
And yet I responded to you anyway. You've been ruffling a lot of feathers around here, and I'm telling you why for your own sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
All of us here started posting slowly, and either gradually got acclimated to the culture, or decided it wasn't for us and left. This is what you should do. You don't fit in yet, but you post 700 times a day. Pull back a bit, ok?
good point. They make it sound like all three cops sat in front of Sean Bell and counted each shot while high fiving each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
Piggybacking a bit... Frog might sound like he's coming off as a dick on your end, but what he says is true. You've gotta slowly ease your way into something like this. Just relax and enjoy yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
(And fuck Sean Bell.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
LOLQuote:
Join Date: Feb 2008
And also, fuck you. Criminal history or not, it doesn't entitle the police to stuff you full of lead on an occasion that doesn't warrant it.