As Charles commented 
in the other thread, the verdict in the Bell shooting case 
is in -- all NYPD detectives acquitted of all charges. I guess firing 50 shots at the unarmed occupants of a car, even stopping to reload, killing one and wounding the other two, doesn't rise to the level of manslaughter if you're a NYC cop and you claim one of the victims "made a sudden move."
Both before 
and during 
the trial the victims were attacked, as if their pasts were somehow relevant to whether the police used unnecessary force. Wait, according to the judge they were 
: Justice Arthur Cooperman said he found problems with the prosecution's case. He said some prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves, and he cited prior convictions and incarcerations of witnesses. He also cited the demeanor of some witnesses on the stand.
Bloomberg's reaction:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued a statement saying, "An innocent man lost his life, a bride lost her groom, two daughters lost their father, and a mother and a father lost their son. No verdict could ever end the grief that those who knew and loved Sean Bell suffer." However, he said, the legal system must be respected. "America is a nation of laws, and though not everyone will agree with the verdicts and opinions issued by the courts, we accept their authority."
Open thread.
Comments :
hey Brendan
were you in the courtroom and heard all the evidence?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I've read a fair amount about the case,
including descriptions of testimony.
But let's use a little common sense here. An unarmed guy is shot 50 times and nobody is guilty of anything?
We should have higher standards for our police force. The lack of consequences for these sorts of incidents puts everyone at risk in the future, as citizens distrust the police and police believe the legal guidelines for using deadly force are if (they claim) someone "made a sudden move."
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
sorry but absent the circumstances
Is meaningless to me and yes sure I can accept that no one is guilty of anything when an unarmed guy is shot 50 times depending on the circumstances. If lets say someone is attacking me, yet without a gun, I can see it justified.
Since I wasn't there I am not going to make a judgment call, but your statement is not convincing.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Why are you presenting irrelevant hypotheticals?
I agree with you that obviously the circumstances are relevant but they are explained in detail in the links I provide.
Even accepting the police version as 100% true the justification for opening fire is that Guzman "made a sudden move."
This is the same "defense" as in the Diallo case, where the guy reached for his wallet and undercover cops shot at him 41 times, hitting him 19.
Although the officers were also acquitted in that case, the city settled the lawsuit. I would not be surprised to see the same thing happen here.
It would be nice if the NYPD took more pro-active steps to prevent these unjustified shootings from happening.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
the only way to prevent
stuff like that is by impairing police ability to defend themselves. Sure, it might've been a mistake this time, but in another case it might be an armed criminal.
Settle the lawsuit if necessary. Keep the police viable.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Shoot first, ask questions later
That's a false dilemma. The police can be "viable" without having to resort to shooting unarmed people 50 times. IIRC, there were 3 officers who shot the man. I believe at least one of them would have had to reload to shoot someone 50 times, unless the NYPD is packing some oversized magazines.
Police officers like to complain that non-cops don't understand the stresses and strains of the job. They're absolutely right; I don't, and I don't think I'd want to do that job. That's why I didn't become an officer. These people weren't drafted into the NYPD. They made a career decision. As an aside, I find that most officers aren't in the force in order to make the world a better place. They join because they like the authority over other people.
In the end, this is about police officers wanting carte blanche to pull out their gun and start firing at the first sign of trouble. Their job is much easier if they don't have to think about the situation at hand and determine if such a show of force is warranted.
And this is by no means a personal attack, but I'm consistently bewildered by your defense of state power when you cite Ayn Rand as a hero and/or ideological anchor.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Ender. Have you EVER heard of the NY PD shooting a white
guy 50 times?
Now, two of the five cops were black, so it isn't simply a race issue, and in fact, the fact that the guy was black isn't the big cause for concern here, just a curious point in a racially tinged case.
The fact that cops felt they had to pop a cap in an unarmed citizen 50 times is what pisses me off. UNARMED citizen. And they shoot him down on his wedding day.
I wouldn't have called it first degree murder. I wouldn't have called it second degree murder. I would have called it manslaughter though. They shot a man who paid taxes to pay their salaries. They shot on of their comapny owners and they walk because they are cops.
If any one of us did that, we'd be up in Attica right now.
I have relatives in Attica
My grandparents have lived in Attica
for years. In fact, both were born there!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Attica, an ok place to live
My mom went to old Attica High School. Attica later consolidated with Republic, Ohio to form Seneca East High School, but they made sure those hooligans from Bloomville had to go to Tiffin's public school.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Here's a longer version
at the Forvm
that includes this useful summary 
of the trial.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The stereotypes are
rampant on both sides.
I don't see 50 bullets as a well trained or professional response to a sudden movement.
(I don't think Ender was at the trail either.)
It is the economy, stupid.
In a country where suspects often have high-powered firearms...
...police are going to have hair-triggers. And they are going to make mistakes. The police erred in this Bell case it appears, but if I were a juror, I'd probably set a pretty high bar for convicting a police officer in a case like this, so I'm not sure I could convict just based on the evidence presented here in this thread. The 50 shots thing is not damning in itself to me, because if police believe they are threatened and there's a bunch of police around, when one shoots, they're all going to shoot, repeatedly.
There are policemen who would be dead if they hadn't shot when a suspect made a sudden move. I wasn't there on that day, and I wasn't on the jury hearing the testimony, so I'm not going to judge.
This is why when I'm stopped by the police, even when it's some unfair BS (like one time when they put in a new "no turn on red" sign on me overnight at the end of my street, and posted a cop at that corner in the morning), it's always "yes sir", "no sir", "here's my license sir", and other than that, I just sit there like a statue and follow every single order to the T.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
There was no jury
The defendants opted to let the judge decide the verdict.
Cops have a tough job. That doesn't mean they get automatic benefit of the doubt when they shoot someone who posed no threat.
Keep in mind that these were undercover officers, and it is debated whether they properly identified themselves.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
"posed no threat" is hindsight.
The fact that the suspect was unarmed is not enough in itself for me to say that the police should have been convicted. I'd have to believe that the police did not have any reason to feel threatened at the time, given what they saw and heard at the scene.
Just because the police shoot a suspect and the suspect turns out to have been unarmed does not mean that a crime has been committed IMO.
If the police did not properly identify themselves, then that would weigh in favor of convicting them, because then the suspect might have had reason to move defensively. But I wasn't in the court, and if there was doubt as to whether they identified themselves properly or not, I probably couln't hold that against them.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Sorry, but that is a ludicrous standard
The undercover cops provoked the confrontation. Their mistake in judgment created a situation in which the victims were trying to escape. Their additional mistake in identifying a potential threat led to them shooting unarmed victims. Repeatedly. Reloading to continue shooting, in one case.
By the standard you suggest an undercover cop could confront some random person on the street, then when the guy tried to leave the cop could pull a gun, then if the person reacted in any way the cop could justifiably shoot him. Because the cop felt threatened... by the situation his repeated mistakes in judgment created.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Absolutely agreed.
The police cannot simply shoot any unarmed person that they choose, claim that they felt threatened, and therefore receive a complete pass ... just because they are police officers.
They are supposed to be held to a HIGHER standard of conduct in these respects, not a LOWER one. You can't claim that they are "highly trained professionals" and then let them off the hook on things like this, IMHO. If they are highly trained they should not be making this kind of mistake.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
We agree!
Yippee!
It is the economy, stupid.
Better mark your calendar! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Friday Arpil 25th, 2,008
was a very special day. :)
It is the economy, stupid.
My lord!
That's by far the most reasonable thing you've ever said.
Is this GR's wife posting? :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
"recieve a complete pass" = strawman
would you say that:
1. Being fired
2. Losing pension and benefits
3. Being possibly liable for damages in civil courts
is the same thing as "receiving a complete pass?"
And again, the use of the word "mistake" to describle the officer's actions. Is a mistake a crime?
The officers' story is this, according to Wikipedia:
If you believe that story, does it not add up to a situation where the cops might have felt threatened if they saw "sudden movement" in the car? It's not like it would have been just a routine traffic stop situation, where someone might make a sudden movement simply to retrieve their registration from their glove box but there would be no reason to necessarily believe that the movement involved retrieving a dealy weapon... the officers had been told by another officer that there was possibly a gun in the car, the suspects had been in an altercation in the bar, and the suspects had threatened to retrieve the gun. The driver displayed reckless behavior in crashing the vehicle.
According to news reports, the judge found the police's story "credible". If you, as a hypolthetical juror in this case, found the police's story credible, would you be able to convict for any crime?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
If you are suggesting that the first two apply here,
please link and quote.
Wikipedia says they were placed on paid administrative leave, and I haven't seen any reference to them being fired or losing their pensions. All the press accounts I can remember refer to them as officers or detectives, present tense.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The list is of three items is not specific to this case
GoRight had a false dichotomy in his argument-- by "absolutely agreeing" with you, he indicates that a police officer should be held criminally liable in such cases as this, and then he implies to believe otherwise is to believe that officers should be given a "complete pass" in such cases, ignoring all other possible repercussions the officers could be presented with including my short list of three items, and also suspensions, demotions, on down to lesser remedies like written reprimands in their record.
A lot of times, I think that the unwashed mobs seek justice in the criminal courts for police incidents like this precisely because the police unions are too strong in defending officers from these kind of non-criminal remedies and there ends up being truly no consequence for making serious and perhaps repeated mistakes in the line of duty.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Gotcha
You could be right about the last bit.
My gut feeling is that there will be a settlement in the civil case here. I don't think there will be any further federal action taken.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
So your point is ...
that they end up receiving a complete pass. Seems like that is what I said.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well perhaps you should have specified...
...that by "complete pass", you meant "incomplete pass".
If you underpaid on your tax, but the when the IRS audits you, they just make you pay the back tax, interest, and penalties instead of prosecuting you for filing false returns, did they give you a "complete pass", just because there was no criminal charge? Of course not.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Well perhaps YOU should have specified ...
... that by "no consequence", you actually meant "consequence".
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Not sure what you're getting at.
I meant exactly what I said there.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
In what way is ...
"having no consequence" different from "receiving a complete pass"?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I don't understand the connection
I know what problem I had with your statement "receiving a complete pass", and I know what I meant by "having no consequence", but I do not see the similarity that you do. Not being deliberately dense here-- I just don't know what connection you're making here. My best guess is that you are attempting to justify your "receive a complete pass" statement by pointing out that I admit that officers do get a free pass in practice oftentimes if there is no criminal remedy in a case like this, but I think my statement which you quoted already addresses that point, and suggests the remedy-- breaking down any structures or institutions which help keep incompetent or dirty cops on the job.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Stuff your strawman rhetoric.
My comment was regarding the criminal charges. They shot the guy down in cold blood and were acquitted of all criminal charges. That's a complete pass.
If they receive any kind of sanctions less severe than criminal prosecution in this case such sanction will be grossly unjust. By your standard here they could shoot anyone they want down in cold blood, claim they felt threatened, and receive a slap on the wrist.
Is shooting and killing an unarmed individual worth no more to you than having to make a career change? Dude you need to get your priorities in order.
Bottom line, anyone who empties two clips into a car when they could not possibly have even seen a weapon, much less a muzzle flash of having been fired upon, is guilty of manslaughter on that evidence alone, IMHO. There are no circumstances that can be used to justify such an action.
The dead guy's past history, what the undercover guy "thinks" he heard, the fact that the dead guy was legally drunk, the fact that the dead guy rammed a mini-van while trying to escape? None of these things justifies shooting the man down in cold blood.
If I shot someone for any of these reasons I would be in jail right now, as should these irresponsible louts.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Distortions of my arguments as usual
Not true. In my initial comment, I merely said that there had been nothing offered here so far which had convinced me that there had been a crime committed. If I had heard all the testimony and seen all the evidence in this case, perhaps I would have seen or heard something convincing in that regard.
Perhaps I wouldn't have found the story of the police to be credible-- just because they claim to feel threatened doesn't mean that I have to buy it, or conclude that it was reasonable to feel threatened. Perhaps I would have found some aspect of the police's actions so reckless as to deserve criminal punishment. Perhaps not. It is you who has chosen to judge here without reviewing all the facts, not me.
And, going one step further, you're taking this one instance, where I am simply reserving judgment, and distorting that into some kind of lifetime free pass for all police everywhere.
It's not always a crime for the police to shoot an unarmed individual IMO-- if they reasonably believed the suspect is a deadly threat to them. I don't think that the police should have to wait around to see muzzle flashes in every single instance.
So, if you can see the head of the suspect and believe that they are firing on your partner or at least have a weapon aimed at your partner, you can't shoot because you can't see the weapon? There was testimony that one of the other officers shouted "He has a gun!".
How about your priorities-- railroading a defendant when you can't possibly know all the relevant facts and testimony in the case! If you reload a weapon in a shootout, you're guilty, apparently, as are any of the other law enforcement officers who take shots during the incident!
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
You are way off base here skymutt
I doubt if you would be so caviler about this verdict if it was your unarmed brother who had been murdered with a spray of 50 bullets by police who were not in uniform.
It is the economy, stupid.
And if one of the police officers were your brother,
...you might not be so quick to judge. For one thing, there was more than one officer involved here. In my mind it's pretty cavalier to lump them all together, when each acted in different ways with a different view from their repsective vantage point. I see virtually no attempt from my opponents here to distinguish guilt and innocence in individual officers here-- when it seems to me that the the argument for argument for guilt made in this thread keeps centering on the officer who took 31 shots. So maybe you convict him and the others walk?
But the fact is, that we are not related to the victims or the police officers. We can discuss the issue without being so emotionally invested that we can't recognize the facts. That's not being cavalier-- it was not our turn to be personally touched by tragedy this time, and let's just be thankful for that. Let's not pretend that any of us have the moral high ground occupied to the exclusion of others, that some of us are feeling true empathy for the victim and some of us are not. To suggest otherwise is merely ad hominem attack, not real argument.
As to your use of the word "murdered": do you really believe that the man was murdered, or are you just using that as a synonym for "killed"?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
The police officer is still alive
What else needs to be said.
An unarmed black man is dead because a hail of 50 bullets was aimed at him from three ununiformed officers.
It's ludicrous to pretend like there is no emotion involved here.
If there is a larger point, is it that the officers were untrained and afraid, and that there is a presumption of guilt in lower income black neighborhoods?
Why not spend more money on training for the police. Why put untrained, inexperienced officers on the beat? No one wants to pay taxes.
Why not spend more money on education for lower income neighborhoods. No one wants to pay taxes.
If there is a lesson here, I would say that there is class warfare in this country and both whites and blacks are the victims.
It is the economy, stupid.
More distortions/strawmen on your part ..
I agree with this point. Each individual is entitled to have their individual actions examined and judged independently. So if someone acted as I have stated elsewhere, perhaps firing a round or two and then halting because they did not see a weapon they certainly should have that fact considered in determining their indiviudal responsibility and/or sentencing.
You claim that I distort your positions, this is clearly a case of you distorting (fabricating?) a position that I never expressed.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
In fact, the officers who fired one and three rounds
were not charged, and the officer who fired four rounds was only charged with reckless endangerment. It was the officers who shot 11 times (the entire pistol clip) and 31 times (reloading) who faced manslaughter charges.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well then, I feel vindicated on the chargings anyway.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If you weren't aware of the distinctions in the charges till now
...then I think it's fair to say that you were lumping the officers at the time you called them "these yahoos". So I stand by my charge of "lumping" on your part.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
You can stand by your charge all you want ...
but that doesn't make you any more correct.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
When you characterized the officers as "these yahoos"
I took the liberty of interpreting that as lumping them all.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Anyone who fires two full clips ...
or even one full clip ... without having positively identified a threat with their own eyes is, in fact, a yahoo. It's a technical term! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
And your distortions of my undistorted account in return ...
I respectfully disagree.
The crux of your argument throughout this entire thread has been that if the police feel threatened they are justified in using deadly force. I am not over stating your position here. So, by THAT logic all a police officer has to do to get a free pass [on criminal charges] for killing someone is to make a case that they felt threatened.
Further, by this example, you are also stating that the officer's burden of proof for being threatened is quite low. I heard someone say that they were going to get their gun. I heard one of the officers yell that he had a gun. Sorry, but those are not good enough to justify shooting someone down.
You actually HAVE to have SEEN the weapon AND you have to have reason to believe that they INTEND to fire it before you could shoot. Even if the guy had a gun, which in this case he clearly did NOT, unless he was actively aiming it at one of the officers they were not justified in shooting him. That's what the CCW classes teach permit holders. Apparantly the police training that these individuals received didn't cover this aspect of the use of deadly force or they wouldn't have acted as they did.
As I said in my original post above, I could give someone the benefit of the doubt on having fired a couple of rounds under these circumstances given the split second realities at play, but if you take the time to empty a full clip, reload, and then empty another clip you don't get to claim the split second decision defense any longer. After a couple of rounds, assuming that you were actually directing your fire at a specific target as you are supposed to be doing, you no longer have any excuse for not realizing that the target is unarmed and that you should halt firing.
Unless you can personally see the weapon, hear the shots there from, or see the muzzle flashes there from, you do NOT have an affirmative confirmation of a threat and therefore should not discharge your weapon. Why take this position? Because it prevents the killing of unarmed persons as happened in this circumstance.
I believe that the average CCW holder (a) would know the above constraints per their training, and (b) would adhere to it. The fact that these individuals did not adhere to these standards suggests either that their training was inferior OR that they were not competent to carry it out. Either way they should be help liable for their own actions just like anyone else.
How about your priorities-- railroading a defendant when you
can't possibly know all the relevant facts and testimony in the case!
If you reload a weapon in a shootout, you're guilty, apparently, as are
any of the other law enforcement officers who take shots during the
incident!
Again, you are mischaracterizing my stated position. They are not guilty because they reloaded. They are not even guilty in my mind after the first couple of rounds had been fired given the split second timing involved. They are guilty because they obviously acted recklessly if they emptied two clips without having observed their target sufficiently to discern that they were, in fact, unarmed.
They are not justified in spraying bullets haphazardly into a vehicle. They are expected to direct their fire at a specific target based on a specific and undeniable threat. The number of rounds fired in this case when the target was, in fact, unarmed clearly suggests that they were not acting in a manner consistent with the above expectations, so therefore they were being reckless and manslaughter is not an unreasonable determination.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Misstatement of the crux of my argument.
Not quite. My argument has been that if the police feel threatened and end up using deadly force on what turns out to be an unarmed suspect, the police aren't necessarily guilty of a crime on those facts alone. Even to this point, I have never said that every officer in this incident was justified in every shot they took. I've read the testimony of officer Carey which Brendan posted, and I found that testimony to be fairly convincing of justification of the three shots that Carey took at the passenger in the vehicle. By the time Carey took his shots, he had seen the vehicle accelerate into Detective Isnora, clipping him in the leg. Then he had seen the vehicle accelerate in reverse back into some kind of fence, and then accelerate forward into the van which Carey was in the passenger seat with the door ajar and his leg out, injuring Carey's leg. Carey had heard around this time Detective Isnora yell "He's got a gun!" as Isnora approached the passenger side of the vehicle with gun trained on the front passneger. Carey could observe the front passenger moving thru the windshield and knew that the driver had his hands occupied on the steering wheel and the shifter from the maneuvers of the car, so he believed that it was the passenger who had the gun, and he fired three shots at that passenger. So at this point all I can say is that I'm pretty convinced that at least some of the shots were justified, if the story of Detective Carey can be believed. But I will say this: once shots are fired in a situation where the police are around the suspct's vehicle at different angles, it becomes more believable to me that other officers might have felt that they were being fired on from within the vehicle, because of the crossfire coming thru the vehicle. Such a situation might be a case where I would conclude that the officers involved made errors in judgment that were not crimes. Being wrong about the source of weapons fire would be an error, but not a crime.
Do you know that the police recieve this exact same instruction? Remember also that the vehicle is allegedly being used as a weapon in this case, which might justify shooting the driver without seeing a weapon in some circumstances, might it not?
Read Officer Carey's testimony-- he specifically testifies that his target was the passenger only. He explained his thought process, which I summarized above. So, at least one of the shooters involved was not haphazardly spraying bullets into the vehicle if we believe his story. So perhaps you'd need to isolate each shooter and prove that one or more of them was indeed spraying bullets into the car. Nobody in this thread has done that so far. So if one of them was spraying bullets into the car, you're okay with it if they all go down for the crime, even if the others involved had justification for the shots they took? There was 50 shots fired by five officers; they shot 31, 11, 4, 3, and 1 times respecively. If I am convinced by what you say that the number of shots is evidence in itself of manslaughter, then could you understand my concern if all the officers were getting lumped with the one officer who took over 60% of the total shots? Because "they" didn't "empty two clips" into the suspects. Only one of them did.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I have already stipulated that ...
each individual officer is only responsible for his own individual actions. While I never stated this explicitly up front I find this determination to be rather obvious on its face. When is this NOT the case?
This is especially true for someone who advocates for individual responsibility, is it not?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I've known red-bar types to have double standards
In this thread, you did eventually admit that each officer was responsible only for their own actions. But in my view that was only a bit of lip service on your part, as you have continued to fail to distinguish between the various officers in the incident. Now recently you've indicated that everyone who took 3 shots or more in this incident should go down for manslughter, yet you continue to seize on "reloading" and "emptying two clips", the actions of only one officer, and offer no real reason why the guy who took three shots at a specific target in defense of his fellow officer is also guilty of manslaughter.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
OK, let's use your account to walk through the specifics ...
OK, so you are the under cover officer. You hear the argument and the stated intent to retrieve a gun. You (presumably in this case) do not observe any of them with a gun throughout the argument.
1. At this point in time, you have reason to believe that these individuals are?
(a) Armed.
(b) Unarmed.
(c) Don't know.
I argue (b) but will accept (c) as reasonable. (a) is clearly unreasonable IMHO.
2. At this point in time, you have reason to believe that these indiviudals intend to retrieve a gun from?
(a) Their car.
(b) Their apartment.
(c) The dumpster out back.
(d) Any of the above.
(e) None of the above.
I would argue (d) to be on the safe side, but accept (e) as applicable since they may not really be intended to retieve anything and it was all just a bluff. The point is, you don't know anything with any certainty at this point ... or even any significant probability.
Based on your underlined part the officer in question obviously chose 2(a) but does he have an "objectively reasonable" basis for having made that selection? I argue not.
3. Having chosen option 2(a) above and thus indicating that you feared a gun was accessible from the car, does a reasonable officer on the scene:
(a) stop the suspects BEFORE they enter the vehicle?
(b) allow the suspects to enter the vehicle thus giving them access to the gun?
I argue (a) but this obviously raises the question of the grounds upon which you stop them. At this point they have not broken any laws, but if you truly fear 2(a) giving them access to the vehicle is folly.
OK, now as a reasonable officer on the scene we have some mental checks that we can perform on our selection of 2(a) above.
4. Under the assumption of 2(a) and consistent with your requirement that you suspect an imminent threat of the use of deadly force against the women in the club, who do you expect to enter the vehicle?
(a) The suspect who intends to retrieve his gun.
(b) The owner of the vehicle to retrieve the gun.
(c) All three suspects.
I could argue that (a) or (b) might be consistent with 2(a) above but (c) should give one some pause. Why? Because if they actually intended to simply retrieve a gun and return to cause trouble why would all three get into the vehicle?
5. Under the assumption of 2(a) and consistent with your requirement
that you suspect an imminent threat of the use of deadly force against
the women in the club, you might reasonably expect the suspects to:
(a) start the vehicle.
(b) not start the vehicle.
I would argue (b). Why start the vehicle if they intended to just turn around and go back into the club with a gun?
Given the account you provided it seems obvious that all three suspects were allowed to enter the vehicle and that the driver had started the car before being confronted by the undercover officer (since the statement merely asserts that Bell (immediately?) accelerated after being confronted). Now, it could be that Bell started the car then accelerated but this is not consistent with the account as provided. If they started the vehicle after being confronted then question 5 is irrelevant. Otherwise it is further evidence to give a reasonable officer on the scene pause with respect to their assumption of 2(a) above.
From your post elsewhere in this thread we have:
6. At this point in time, who do you have "objective reason" to believe is armed and posing an imminent threat to yourself or someone else?
(a) The driver.
(b) The passenger.
(c) The rear passenger.
(d) All of the above.
(e) None of the above.
(f) The individual being fired upon by the person who yelled "he's got a gun."
Since you cannot identify any suspect as having a weapon, and therefore cannot discern that any suspect is posing an imminent threat to anyone, I would argue (e). The statement you heard was in the singular so you only have reason to believe that there is one gun.
I would accept (f) as acceptable under the circumstances in deference to the allowance of the split second decision that had to be made, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. If you are unsure who yelled "he's got a gun", you shouldn't fire on anyone IMHO since you have a duty to not endanger the lives of the unarmed suspects.
You wanted some individual analysis, so here it is ...
Headley: Fired 1 shot.
I have no information on Headley who only fired one shot. Lacking
further evidence to analyze I will rely on the Grand Jury's decision to
not indict him and assume they had good reason.
Carey: Fired 3 shots.
Carey obviously chose option (f) above and in addition had reason to believe that Bell was otherwise occupied with the steering wheel and the shifter. I accept that he had reason to fire upon the passenger in spite of the fact that he did not observe a weapon himself. So in my assessment he gets a pass, especially with respect to Bell whom he did not fire upon. Apparantly the Grand Jury agreed.
As Brendan pointed out, he wasn't charged because his rounds didn't hit anyone. From the distance he had to be from Guzman, his intended target, this doesn't bode well for the marksmanship skills of the NYPD.
Cooper: Fired 4 shots.
From (K) we know that Copper fired 4 shots and didn't hit anyone, but one of his rounds ended up in the AirTrain building at the end of the street. This means he most likely completely missed the vehicle and sent a round down the street which might have hit anyone. Reckless endangerment sounds about right on this guy.
Isnora: Fired 11 shots.
Based on his testimony
, Isnora's actions went down pretty much exactly as I had expected. For anyone familiar with firearms this is a classic case of manslaughter.
The reality is that Isnora was scared. Real scared. Pissing himself scared. Now I feel sorry for him and everything. I don't think that he intended to kill anyone, but the reality is that he was reckless and ill prepared to be in the position in which he found himself.
Isnora states that he was 6 feet away from the car (plus or minus) and aiming exclusively at Guzman's center of mass. At six feet it is inconceivable to me that anyone with any real training can't hit a man's torso. That means that if he was firing in a controlled fashion that Guzman should have had 11 rounds in his center of mass from Isnora alone. You ain't walking aware from 11 rounds through or even near your center of mass.
So the reality is that as he was firing he most likely faded completely out (not fainted, but was unaware of his actions as his mind tried to deal with the situation) during which time he is firing rounds who knows where. I am not saying he was completely wild or anything, but he clearly wasn't directing his fire any more accurately than in the general direction of Guzman. Given this and the fact that he was shooting rapid fire it is quite likely that some of his rounds were stray and, given the direction of fire, went right in Bell's direction.
Bottom line, Isnora cannot account for what his target was doing while he was firing which means that he wasn't actually processing the details of what was happening. He was scared out of his wits, he didn't want or mean to shoot anyone, and given some of his testimony I figure that he actually blacked out his own memory of the event because he couldn't deal mentally with what he was doing (he stated that he never dreamed that in his whole career he would shoot someone ... paraphrased).
Involuntary manslaughter
is when you recklessly kill someone but you didn't mean to do it. Isnora was clearly reckless in both the number of rounds fired AND in his disregard of Bell's position while engaging Guzman.
Oliver: Fired 31 shots.
He was the driver of the minivan. He ended up on the sidewalk next to Isnora according to Isnora's testimony. Presumably he exited the minivan after the crash and crossed around in front of his vehicle, and engaged the Altima from Isnora's right side. From (H), (I), and (J) we find that Oliver was directing his fire at Guzman yet two of his rounds killed Bell. Oliver ended up a few feet to Isnora's right, so that would put him about 8 or 9 feet from Guzman with a clear view.
The fact that he claims to have directed his fire at Guzman, to not have even noticed Bell in the car, and yet two of his rounds ended up killing Bell says all we need to know about how carefully he was directing his fire. He simply ripped off 31 rounds, supposedly at a single individual, as fast as he could and we know that at least 2 of the rounds missed the mark by what, a foot and a half to two feet (the distance between the driver and passenger seats), when he was firing from maybe ten feet distant? And this from a supposedly trained police officer? He is either lying or was being totally reckless.
Either way, this too sounds like involuntary manslaughter to me as well.
So, let us recap a bit here.
Between Isnora and Oliver they fired 42 shots (11 + 31) which were all supposedly directed at Guzman from a distance of 6 to 10 feet. From (M) we know that Guzman was hit 19 times. So their hit ratio was less than 50%. These are the trained police officers you trust so much in public?
You complained about my characterization of them having, effectively, sprayed the vehicle with bullets indiscriminantly? Intentional or not, that is exactly what they did. Their act was reckless on its face, again as I said originally, and as such a conviction for manslaughter is justified IMHO.
There's your analysis of the facts. Happy now?
------------------------------------------------------
Some facts from the news and testimony.
(A) As far as I can tell from the reports Bell was driving, Guzman was the passenger, and Benefield was the rear passenger.
(B) Isnora is the one that yelled "he's got a gun." which occured AFTER the crash with the minivan.
(C) Isnora was on the passenger side of the Altima and fired at Guzman in the passenger seat at a minimum, possibly others.
(C) Cary was in the minivan and fired at Guzman based on Isnora firing at him after yelling "he's got a gun" and assessing that Bell was not a threat.
(D) The officers fired 50 rounds
: Headley fired one, Carey three, Cooper
four, Isnora 11, and Oliver 31, which means he stopped to reload before
continuing to fire.
(E) But attorney Steven Worth said Michael Oliver, Gescard Isnora and Marc
Cooper were indicted by the grand jury. Worth represents Michael Carey,
who he said was not indicted. Paul Headley is the fifth officer.
(F) Oliver was driving the minivan
.
(G) Testified she last saw
Mr. Bell turn on his headlights on Liverpool
Street and pull away from the curb. “As he came out, a minivan came
from behind me and they crashed,” she said. “The driver of the minivan
got out of the car. He got out and he started shooting.” She crouched
in someone's shrubs.
(H) The undercover detective [Oliver] who fired 31 of the 50 shots at Sean Bell said
he was "totally devastated" when he learned two of his bullets had
killed the Queens groom on his wedding day.
(I) Culleton said Oliver told him "he hadn't even seen Sean Bell in the
car" and was focused on Bell's friend Joseph Guzman, who was sitting in
the front passenger seat. Guzman was shot and survived
(J) "I see [Guzman] lifting his arms
," Oliver told a grand jury last year.
"I didn't want to die. I reloaded the gun, and I continued to fire, and
the shots still are going on around me."
(K) None of Detective Cooper's shots hit anyone, although one bullet sailed
.
away from the crime scene, striking the AirTrain station nearby
(L) "Please don't shoot me. I don't have nothing to do with nothing,"
.
Benefield said he shrieked as he lay wounded on the sidewalk after he
was struck by three police bullets
(M) Another friend, Joseph Guzman - who was shot 19 times
and survived - was in the front passenger seat.
(N) Bell was pronounced dead Saturday at Jamaica Hospital in Queens. An
in the neck and torso.
autopsy showed he was struck four times
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well done
I'll just repeat that it is contested whether Guzman actually said "Yo, go get my gun" and that Carey was inconsistent as to whether Isnora said
"He's got a gun!" before or after shooting.
Edit: also, there are various accounts for how many times Guzman was shot -- 13, 16, or 19. I'm inclined to accept the NYT description of the medical testimony, which would make it 13.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Which, of course, just makes them look all that more reckless...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Just because you're not paranoid...
Spot on.
Question "2"
Alerting the backup that the "suspect" was going to the car to get a the gun was the fatal misstatement..
Isnora got it in his head that the "suspect" had a gun and panicked, when the "suspect" complied with police orders to raise his hands.
Oliver is an awful shot and events in this case make me think he became an officer just to have authority over people. 31 shots from 3 yards away and constantly "missing" the "intended" target.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Now we're getting somewhere
Positively jubilant, I am :-)
I can't possibly take on this whole lenghty post at once, at least right now. Work was kicking my butt yesterday and I've been up all night. Let me hone in on just one part of this. Regarding Isnora, you say:
I do think that recklessness should be the standard in cases like this, but I think it's important that we pin down what "reckless" means in the legal sense before we can say that Isnora was "clearly reckless":
According to here
, reckless legally means:
So, it looks like recklessness equals negligence plus indifference to consequences. The same source says that "a person has acted negligently if she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances," but that in emergencies, "the law recognizes that even a reasonable person can make errors in judgment in emergency situations. Therefore, a person's conduct in an
emergency is evaluated in light of whether it was a reasonable response under the circumstances, even though, in hindsight, another course of
action might have avoided the injury."
I think that your characerization of Isnora's actions, which I find reasonable, constitutes negligence, even in an emergency situation. He gave conflicting directions to the suspect. He failed to fire his weapon in a controlled fashion. He did not consider that the driver was in his line of fire due to tunnel vision. A reasonable person with Isnora's training ought to have done all those things
But did Isnora take his shots with indifference to the consequences, or was it simply that he was unaware of the consequences, given his state of mind? My opinion is that he was simply unaware of the consequences of his shots. I think he was extremely scared and panicked, and in that in that state of mind, consequences simply did not occur to him at that moment in time. Lack of awareness of consequences due to a scared or panicked state of mind is not the same as lack of awareness due to an indifference to consequenses that causes consequences to fade from awareness.
So I would probably not vote to convict Isnora of manslaugter on that basis.
Of course there is still another basis on which Isnora could be convicted-- namely, that his prior actions, such as not identifying himself as an officer, were reckless and ended up resulting in a death.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...