Anger Over Cops' Acquittal In Groom Slay

Emotions Run High After 3 Detectives Cleared Of Charges In 50-Shot Killing Of Unarmed Man

(CBS/AP)  Three detectives were acquitted Friday in the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day, a case that put the NYPD at the center of another dispute involving allegations of excessive firepower.

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

"Murderers! Murderers!" many in the crowd shouted as the officers exited the building, reports WCBS-2 in New York. Some of the spectators jostled with police outside the court house.

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

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

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

Hours later, the officers appeared at a news conference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[student500]

The point of all of the controversy is that the cops shot "50" times. To shoot 50 times is ridiculous. Come on. There are many people that like to think of police officers as highly trained combat officials. Come on. The truth is that to be a police officer there is only (2) years of schooling. One year of high school level classes in English, Math, Sociology and Ethics and one year in skills training. Where they drive a car, shoot a gun for a few weeks and learn a few simple hand to hand takedowns. I think many of the problems that we expereince coincide with the training. Most corporations require a 4-yr degree to start even a basic sales position, yet our hiring policies for a gun slinging peace officer are a simple (2) year degree. Give me a break. Maybe if we trained these officers and put forth higher educational requirements we could potententially place smarter officers, with more refined abilities.

[obama8years]

VOTE FOR OBAMA, HE WILL MAKE SURE ALL COPS PAY.

Go to his website and read the Hate Crime expansion.

[lynne_m1]

KILLER COPS ON THE LOOSE AGAIN AND AGAIN.........

[ranger1948]

dejay1507
That is not how it went down. The DA has a burden to prove his case. The defense had enough doubt so that the judge could only find a verdict of not guilty. They were smart to choose a judge rather than a jury. People on juries are there because they are not smart enough to know how to get out of jury duty, and have little if any understanding of the law. I will allow some people serve because they think it is their duty, but i met very few while waiting in the jury pool. Most were in line trying to find a way to get out of doing jury duty.

[ranger1948]

beehive21
The criminals know the police have a rule they can only fire if they see a weapon pointing in their direction. In this case the officr believed the man was trying to run him down. At least that is my opinion. The officer that fired 31 times i think this matter needs to belooked into. This whole situation probably took 15 to 20 seconds.

[ranger1948]

In college my law professor had 40 years experience as a police officer, had been a police chief three times and had 30 years teaching experince. His big issues of teaching were morality and respect. He was a great mentor for me. I also had black classmates who i respected, sometimes we had discussions that we did not agree on. I had a black lady say she didn''t like rednecks. She said she wwas brought up to believe rednecks were uneducated and racist. I told her i considered myself a redneck and believed that it was a compliment because i was raised to believe it meant raised with christian values, morality and respect. I didn''t dislike or disrespec her for saying something she believed and i think we both learned something that day.

[dejay1507]

The thugs should be jailed. But they won''t be. This is how it all went down. The judge knows they will die in jail so he didn''t want that on his hands, although the thugs have blood on theirs.he believes a civil suit will replace the young man. I''m guessing that''s what was on the judges mind. The NYPD policy states, the last time I checked was 2 years ago,after and if an officer unloads his weapon while shooting at a suspect, he must reevaluate the situation befor firing. Sounds like the thug that unloaded his clip twice was looking to kill someone he hunted those guys down.

[billorights]

I don''t think anyone here can judge these guys unless you have been in the same situation. If you were afraid for your life you''d do the same thing whether you fire one shot or ten...You have no idea how you would react. - Posted by guyfrompa45 at 10:20 AM : Apr 25, 2008

The question is not, and should not be, how you or I, as civilians, would react in this situation, but rather how a trained professional police officer should react. I would like to think that we should be judging the actions of these men at a standard higher than we would judge ourselves.

The police are usually judged by whether their actions are within policy. This situation does not sound to me like it should have been within policy.

On the other hand, if you or I had done the same thing because we were %u201Cafraid for our life%u201D there would be no question as to our guilt.

[whatisit21]

It is hard being a cop. A situation can go bad quickly. If you go to work and go home the chances are slim that you will be wrapped up in police affairs. Deal drugs, pimp girls, and have a bad rep, people take notice including the cops. It is sad to die such a way but you are responsible for your safety.
What is society to do? Overlook Black criminals because Al Sharpton will protect them? Wait until someone is run down before action is taken? Gangs, drugs, robbery, rape, murder. what a mess.

[beehive21-2009]

We would like to see the police shoot more of the ones that run especially after a car chase.The punks drive the car at high speed thru stop signs,red lights, putting society at the risk of death,etc.crashes and runs ,shoot the punks.

[flajoe1]

I''''m not saying they didn''''t over react. I''''m saying the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. NOT GUILTY was the only legal outcome.
----

Posted by smiley676 at 02:36 PM

I agree.

Well, Gota go mow the lawn. Have a good day :-)

[smiley676]

They shot a guy because he may have had a gun that they never saw.

Actually they were charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment not murder. I think if it was a jury trial they would have been found guilty. Their lawyers made a good choice having the judge decide the case.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Flajoe1

The point is no sane person runs a car into a van.

And the standard is still the same, you cannot be guilty of manslaughter if you reasonably believed your life was in danger.

It was the prosecution''s job to prove that they did not reasonably believe their lives were in danger and the prosecution failed to do that.

I''m not saying they didn''t over react. I''m saying the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. NOT GUILTY was the only legal outcome.

[smiley676]

I believe it is something like 65% that have college educations.

To assume that someone is uneducated because he is a police officer is really an ignorant assumption. That is why colleges offer criminal justice as a degree course.

[flajoe1]

It doesn''''t matter if they were in police uniform or if the van was marked. The question is were they guilty of murder or did they have a valid defense?
---
Posted by smiley676 at 02:14 PM

I guess my point was, if you were in that type of neighborhood and someone not in police uniform told you to stop, would you? Then while you are trying to get away from this person claiming to be a cop a strange van blocks your escape. Would you think they were the police or would you think that it could be a robbery?
They shot a guy because he may have had a gun that they never saw.

Actually they were charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment not murder. I think if it was a jury trial they would have been found guilty. Their lawyers made a good choice having the judge decide the case.

[hungry1968]

You do realize that most police officers today have gone to college, right?

Posted by smiley676 at 02:01 PM : Apr 26, 2008




Not in NY they don''t. That''s part of the fallout of offering your new officers only $28,000 / year salary. You don''t get "college educated" applicants - you get trigger happy, sanitation department flunkies.

[smiley676]

It doesn''t matter if they were in police uniform or if the van was marked. The question is were they guilty of murder or did they have a valid defense?

First, there is a presumption of innocence in the USA. Remember that? You are presumed innocent? It is the DA''''s job to PROVE that you are guilty. To be proven guilty, the DA had to prove that these police officers were not in fear of danger when they shot. He couldn''''t prove that.

Why you ask?

My second point. There were mentions of an armed person. In fact Bell and his friends were talking about a man with a gun. The police asked them to stop, but instead of stopping what did they do? They ran their car into the police officers'''' van.

Yes, obviously, the police overreacted. Obviously Bell''''s family must be devasted. However, it also seems obvious that those police officers were in fear of danger.

Therefore NOT GUILTY.

[flajoe1]

they were out at night in a police uniform

Posted by linfinster at 01:44 PM

Were did it say they were in uniform? I thought it was an undercover prostitution sting operation. One of the cop''s wasn''t carrying a gun; the article said he had to "arm himself". The article also said that the van was unmarked.

[beehive21-2009]

We would like to see the police shoot more of the ones that run especially after a car chase.The punks drive the car at high speed thru stop signs,red lights, putting society at the risk of death,etc.crashes and runs ,shoot the punks.

[smiley676]

Patrolling my own neighborhood instead of relying on useless, low-educated doughnut snarfers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by FloydZepp

You do realize that most police officers today have gone to college, right?

[smiley676]

It''s always so nice to read the posts from people who are completely oblivious as to the law or what actually happened.

First, there is a presumption of innocence in the USA. Remember that? You are presumed innocent? It is the DA''s job to PROVE that you are guilty. To be proven guilty, the DA had to prove that these police officers were not in fear of danger when they shot. He couldn''t prove that.

Why you ask?

My second point. There were mentions of an armed person. In fact Bell and his friends were talking about a man with a gun. The police asked them to stop, but instead of stopping what did they do? They ran their car into the police officers'' van.

Yes, obviously, the police overreacted. Obviously Bell''s family must be devasted. However, it also seems obvious that those police officers were in fear of danger.

Therefore NOT GUILTY.