NationStates Jolt Archive

Rather surprised no one posted this... since it was all over these boards when it happened.

CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/26/sean.bell.trial/)

AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gzt5F_LdL__hNuiNlnZ4CzfSfgJQD909L1IO0)

NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/nyregion/26decision.html?em&ex=1209355200&en=ebcd2c947729c456&ei=5087%0A)

Reuters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080426/ts_nm/newyork_shooting_verdict_dc;_ylt=AthWm5Y_nFWdBqunrnoBqw9Z.3QA)

Three officers on trial for the shooting of Sean Bell were aquitted.

I'm glad that calmer heads prevailed and that rioting did NOT take place. tho the story isn't over yet. those three (as well as the police force/state of NY) face civil lawsuits that were filed but held pending the trial.

Edit: Fox news (http://search2.foxnews.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=my_frontend&proxystylesheet=my_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&site=story&getfields=*&filter=0&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&q=sean+bell)

Please wait for poll

CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/26/sean.bell.trial/)

AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gzt5F_LdL__hNuiNlnZ4CzfSfgJQD909L1IO0)

NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/nyregion/26decision.html?em&ex=1209355200&en=ebcd2c947729c456&ei=5087%0A)

Reuters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080426/ts_nm/newyork_shooting_verdict_dc;_ylt=AthWm5Y_nFWdBqunrnoBqw9Z.3QA)

Three officers on trial for the shooting of Sean Bell were aquitted.

I'm glad that calmer heads prevailed and that rioting did NOT take place. tho the story isn't over yet. those three (as well as the police force/state of NY) face civil lawsuits that were filed but held pending the trial.


Didn't one of the officers fire 31 times? As for justice being served I would say no.

Didn't one of the officers fire 31 times? As for justice being served I would say no.

yep. and the CNN article has a link that shows how 31 shots can be fired in less than 13 seconds (including reloading.)

I'd panic too if people in civilian clothes pointed guns at me.:eek:

The question is "Did they shoot?". If they didn't then it's fair that they didn't get convicted for it. If they did then it isn't.

I don't have enough of a grasp on what happened to state either way. I don't trust the legal service enough to think that an acquittal is a result of innocence, but for the moment, all I can state is that I would like to see the case made in prosecution and in defense and to judge for myself.

EDIT: having read all five articles, it doesn't seem as though the shooting itself is in doubt. Consequently, I rule that the three men were indeed responsible for the victim's death, and that at least some form of state action needs to follow.

yep. and the CNN article has a link that shows how 31 shots can be fired in less than 13 seconds (including reloading.)
The relevant question here is "why did he reload?" Reloading shouldn't be standard procedure. Emptying the clip is arguable, but emptying the clip, reloading and doing it again? Right. Totally surprise self-defense.

I'd panic too if people in civilian clothes pointed guns at me.:eek:

Without a doubt. If they didn't know they were police how do they know what is going on. If it were me I would have drawn a gun myself if I thought my wife and I were in danger. I may as well shot at least one of the police before they killed me. I think this was a case of police being to aggressive.

The relevant question here is "why did he reload?" Reloading shouldn't be standard procedure. Emptying the clip is arguable, but emptying the clip, reloading and doing it again? Right. Totally surprise self-defense.

This is what I question too. Without shots being fired from the other side one would have to wonder what this guy was doing.

This is what I question too. Without shots being fired from the other side one would have to wonder what this guy was doing.

Likely because he was being incompetent and scared.

The relevant question here is "why did he reload?" Reloading shouldn't be standard procedure. Emptying the clip is arguable, but emptying the clip, reloading and doing it again? Right. Totally surprise self-defense.

It's easier than you think. What I wonder is the ratio of shots fired to shots hitting the victim. Too lazy to read and find out, though. At a 10-meter distance at a shooting range you're lucky to hit a man-sized target with 50% of your bullets if you empty your gun as fast as possible even with much practice. Under a stressful situation, accuracy is going to be far worse. Also, if adrenaline takes over, you will shoot until you're out of bullets. now, if your accuracy sucks because you're shooting under fear of death, and you emptied your gun and the guy you think is going to kill you is still up, you reload and shoot again. I could empty a high-capacity 9mm in 5 seconds and not hit a damn thing.

Guns are very loud, so the victim wouldn't have been heard saying "don't shoot" or anything of that nature once the lead started flying. From my perspective, it looks like an issue of poor training in both firearms handling, marksmanship, and (obviously) the judgment that should have been used before the guns came out.

*edit* read article. Gross incompetence on the part of the police. How the **** was the victim to know that undercover cops were law officers??? he probably thought he was about to be the victim of a crime. I continue to lose respect for the police.

The relevant question here is "why did he reload?" Reloading shouldn't be standard procedure. Emptying the clip is arguable, but emptying the clip, reloading and doing it again? Right. Totally surprise self-defense.

only speculation since the details as to what was said in the trial are not available.

Bell and party tried to flee the scene in their car (plausable when you got people with guns coming at you)

Their car reportedly rammed into an Undercover Van used for the operation that was also used to block the egress when officers moved in.

so you got a moving vehicle that is endangering you (or other officers since it's not known where each officer was standing) yes, I can see an officer emptying his clip, reloading and emptying most of that second clip at a moving car.

Dunno about procedures, but if the threat still exists, then reloading is a viable action. If the car was still in motion under it's own power and not by momentum alone (again unknown since details are lacking,) at the time he needed to reload, then reloading and firing again is permissable.

Yes. If anything the cost of the bullets and repairs to the police van should have been deducted from the estate of the deceased.

yeah one officer panicked and fired 31 rounds, which means all the other officers together fired about 20 rounds.
try to run over the police get shot end of story. If someone tries to run me over i hope i have the right to shoot them first.

In the end, it looks like poor training, poor decision making, and poor communication on the part of the officers involved. I'd need to hear more evidence, but this seems to come close to summing up my opinion on the matter.

I'm not going to join Al Sharpton's "Hang the pigs!!!!" POV, but I am going to hold a negative opinion of the actions of the officers.

As to what occurred in the trial, I'll need to know more, but going off of what the judge and other individuals said about what happened, apparently the prosecution did a poor job, their witnesses botched their stories, possibly trying to make the cops seem even more guilty than they already were, and a whole lot of internal theatrics.

yeah one officer panicked and fired 31 rounds, which means all the other officers together fired about 20 rounds.
try to run over the police get shot end of story. If someone tries to run me over i hope i have the right to shoot them first.less actually, 5 officers actually did the shooting but only three were on trial for endangerment and manslaughter.

In the end, it looks like poor training, poor decision making, and poor communication on the part of the officers involved. I'd need to hear more evidence, but this seems to come close to summing up my opinion on the matter.

I'm not going to join Al Sharpton's "Hang the pigs!!!!" POV, but I am going to hold a negative opinion of the actions of the officers.

As to what occurred in the trial, I'll need to know more, but going off of what the judge and other individuals said about what happened, apparently the prosecution did a poor job, their witnesses botched their stories, possibly trying to make the cops seem even more guilty than they already were, and a whole lot of internal theatrics.
I agree with this. I have a feeling the Prosecuting attorney must've been like :headbang: as people's stories changed.

I agree with this. I have a feeling the Prosecuting attorney must've been like :headbang: as people's stories changed.

When your witnesses ruin their own credibility, it's got to be awful. In theory, this should have been a straightforward case, but because of how our justice system works, and the burden that is placed on the prosecution, and that how the witnesses reacted, allowed for a significant amount of doubt to develop to ruin the case.

The relevant question here is "why did he reload?" Reloading shouldn't be standard procedure. Emptying the clip is arguable, but emptying the clip, reloading and doing it again? Right. Totally surprise self-defense.

Automatically reloading a clip is standard military and police procedure.
If by the time he reloaded the vehicle was still moving it was justified to keep shooting.

*edit* read article. Gross incompetence on the part of the police. How the **** was the victim to know that undercover cops were law officers??? he probably thought he was about to be the victim of a crime. I continue to lose respect for the police.

it was a case of he said he didn't.

the officers claimed they identified themselves as police. but the victims say they never heard it. Without audio, it's difficult to know which side is speaking the truth... or both can be telling the truth, the officers did ID themselves and Bell and his party just never heard it.

it was a case of he said he didn't.

the officers claimed they identified themselves as police. but the victims say they never heard it. Without audio, it's difficult to know which side is speaking the truth... or both can be telling the truth, the officers did ID themselves and Bell and his party just never heard it.

The last scenario is entirely plausible, given that at that point in time, Bell was drunk, and if I know anything about what happens to my hearing when I'm drunk, it disappears.

The way it went down was like this.


There is no doubt those cops deserved to be locked up. No doubt.


However, Justice was served in a way. They werent let off because of racism or some pro-cop leaning. The prosecution just put together a shitty case.


From what I gather, the prosecutions witnesses contradicted themselves on a regular basis.


The jurys job is to convict or aquit on the evidence given. They did. The blame here lies with a half assed prosecuting effort.

Automatically reloading a clip is standard military and police procedure.
If by the time he reloaded the vehicle was still moving it was justified to keep shooting.
Hmm. 50 shots fired. 1 cop fired 60% of the shots. Seems like the other cops didn't think this was standard procedure.


The jurys job is to convict or aquit on the evidence given. They did. The blame here lies with a half assed prosecuting effort.
There was no jury trial.

The way it went down was like this.


There is no doubt those cops deserved to be locked up. No doubt.



Unless of course their story that the suspect involved tried to run them over knowing they were police officers.

In which case it is not only legitimate self defense but also prevention of a crime. and the officers involved would deserve commendations not condemnations

Hmm. 50 shots fired. 1 cop fired 60% of the shots. Seems like the other cops didn't think this was standard procedure.


There was no jury trial.

one cop panicked it happens in life or death situations where someone is trying to run you over. also he maybe have been the one most inline to be run over. Or had better shots.

It was the equivalent of a jury defendants by and large are allowed to select trial by judge if they fear a jury would be too emotional.

Shooting the driver isn't the best way to avoid being run over, surely?

I don't know much about the case, but I do ride a bicycle. I have some experience getting out of the way of cars ...

Hell yes. These officers deserve medals, not a trial. I'm so sick of these bleeding heart types whining about police force and the like. Cops are just trying to make it through the day without getting popped by some crackhead.

Unless of course their story that the suspect involved tried to run them over knowing they were police officers.

In which case it is not only legitimate self defense but also prevention of a crime. and the officers involved would deserve commendations not condemnations

With 50 bullets?


There is no excuse for firing that many bullets into a body.

Hell yes. These officers deserve medals, not a trial. I'm so sick of these bleeding heart types whining about police force and the like. Cops are just trying to make it through the day without getting popped by some crackhead.

You dont know much about this case do you?

You dont know much about this case do you?
did you read the judges ruling? the Prosecution witnesses kept changing their story, providing inconsistancies between original accounts and what was now being said
One witness swore officers shot him while he was running. evidence didn't support that.

To me, this is just like the OJ case. an airtight case that the Prosecution f$*ked up (or at least the witnesses did.)

it was a case of he said he didn't.

the officers claimed they identified themselves as police. but the victims say they never heard it. Without audio, it's difficult to know which side is speaking the truth... or both can be telling the truth, the officers did ID themselves and Bell and his party just never heard it.

and then it's he sayd they said. And in our justice system, tie goes to the defendant.

Even more of a reason to dislike those pig scumbags. :mad:

Even more of a reason to dislike those pig scumbags. :mad:

The prosecution blowing the case is more of a reason to hate those cops?

The prosecution blowing the case is more of a reason to hate those cops?

No, the fact that even though we all know that something crappy like this takes place, nothing will be done EVER to solve problems, regarding cops vs minorities.

and then it's he sayd they said. And in our justice system, tie goes to the defendant.

and in this case, the defendants were the officers. :cool: Reasonable doubt.

No, the fact that even though we all know that something crappy like this takes place, nothing will be done EVER to solve problems, regarding cops vs minorities.

especially when those cops are members of the minority... wait...

the cops are still under investigation that could strip them of their badges and the family still has a civil suit that was held pending the trial. so those cops are not going to get away scott free...

OJ can probably feel for them.

especially when those cops are members of the minority... wait...

the cops are still under investigation that could strip them of their badges and the family still has a civil suit that was held pending the trial. so those cops are not going to get away scott free...

OJ can probably feel for them.


They might or might not go scott free. However, how many cases of police brutality in the last 7 years alone can we count? How many of those people actually get caught and demoted from their positions or arrested? Not many. Police brutality is on the rise, and really, I don't think that any one can doubt that. But, we are seeing less people held accountable for their actions, and if they are held accountable, something happens and get off free.

Police brutality is on the rise, and really, I don't think that any one can doubt that.

Or at the least public awareness of police brutality is on the rise.

Police brutality is on the rise

I highly doubt it. What has been rising is our awareness of it. "Don't tase me bro" makes CNN and gets throughout youtube. However 20 years ago when the cops beat confessions out of people, nobody ever heard.

I highly doubt it. What has been rising is our awareness of it. "Don't tase me bro" makes CNN and gets throughout youtube. However 20 years ago when the cops beat confessions out of people, nobody ever heard.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-Copmisconduct_N.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/210907_b_brutality.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-Copmisconduct_N.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/210907_b_brutality.htm

That really just proves that awareness of brutality is on the rise; more people are aware of it being a problem and are turning said cops in...

Hell yes. These officers deserve medals, not a trial. I'm so sick of these bleeding heart types whining about police force and the like. Cops are just trying to make it through the day without getting popped by some crackhead.

I'll remember that when you invite me to your bachelor party. There will be no strippers and no drugs.

Don't take offence if I decline. My grandmother puts on a better party than that, with meds and a singalong in the old folk's home.

Hell yes. These officers deserve medals, not a trial. I'm so sick of these bleeding heart types whining about police force and the like. Cops are just trying to make it through the day without getting popped by some crackhead.

50 bullets though...

That really just proves that awareness of brutality is on the rise; more people are aware of it being a problem and are turning said cops in...

Oh, I don't disagree that awareness is on the rise, but I simply cannot buy into the notion that police brutality is on the decrease or is plateaued.

Oh, I don't disagree that awareness is on the rise, but I simply cannot buy into the notion that police brutality is on the decrease or is plateaued.

Plateaued, maybe on the decrease - I doubt that as well, although as the rules are enforced more it is reasonable to expect it to decrease.

If crime is increasing faster than police numbers, it would be expected that police brutality will increase!

Brutality is about creating fear in the "criminal" and to a lesser extent, it's summary justice. Sure, some of them might just be doing it for fun.

In any case, it's counterproductive in creating real respect for the law and probably puts police in more danger in the long term.

It was a bad situation, and the cops overreacted. It happens.
When you are in a situation where you could very likely die in the next few minutes, and a little hesitation could kill you, decision making is nothing like you sitting at your desk talking about what you would have done.

If someone starts shooting, you probably start shooting too. Either in response to someone else shooting at you, or you assume your friendly has seen something you haven't (in a life or death situation, you trust your friendlies, not sit around discussing the philosophical implications of that).

The real problem I have is with the cop who fired 31 bullets - it is simply not humanly possible to fire that rapidly with any reasonable accuracy. You can do it at a range just to see how fast you can fire, but you do not fire wild in a populated area. That cop displayed negligent fire control.

Lack of appropriate training is a problem in many police departments - they need more money for training so they can improve their decision making under stressful situations, and improve control of their weapon. I'm not saying for traffic cops, but these were plainclothes cops investigating likely organized crime (guns, drugs, and prostitution says gangs to me), and thus have a significant probability of needing to know how to handle a bad situation.