|
Sean Bell Verdicts (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Eco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Frequency Frank
Let's shoot the outta anyone who think is going to cause trouble! |
Yeah, well, we don't hear people at Love or Sully saying audibly Yo get the gun!" (from the car outside) to settle a fight going on inside or a bouncer would beat the outta him. Not to mention, when they told him to put his hands up, he accelerated the car and hit them!
The cops messed up, but I'm sorry, I'm with the cops on this one, whether the victims were Black, White, or Asian. Like Keryn said though, 5 shots woulda been enough, they could have gotten the license place as/if he drove away.
EDIT: I could be wrong though.. We'll never know EXACTLY what happened, so our opinions are just opinions based on what version of the story we accept as true. |
|
|
| trunks1022 |
IF the cops identified themselves, then the first move isn't to run over the cop with your car.
too many conflicting statements obviously. and all the defense has to do is plant reasonable doubt within the judge's mind (non-jury trial). the defense attorneys did that, so the cops are off the hook.
al hasn't been trumping the race thing because of the racial makeup of the cops. i think this time al has been playing more the cops vs civilian angle. |
|
|
| trunks1022 |
Justice Cooperman's statement in court
| quote: | Before dealing with the business at hand, I would like to remind everyone how important it is to honor the decorum of the court and remain quiet after the verdicts are rendered.
A trial is defined as a formal examination of the facts of a case by a court of law to decide the validity of a charge. It is also defined in the dictionary as a hardship. and, in many ways, this trial was a hardship.
But, it was not a competition. To overreact to the outcome while you are in this courtroom, whether you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the result, would detract from the great effort that was expended to assure a fair trial - - by the court personnel and the attorneys who handled their responsibilities with the highest level of professionalism and skill.
Because establishments known as "strip clubs" often generate criminal activity including prostitution and narcotics, the Police Department club enforcement unit was given the task of infiltrating such places and pursuing violations of law that would lead toward shutting them down.
So it was that the detectives charged in this case found themselves in the vicinity of Club Kalua in the early morning of November 25, 2006.
And as a result of the events of that morning, they are accused of the crimes alleged in the indictment.
Now, after eight weeks of trial, this court has the responsibility of making a determination of guilt or lack of guilt as to each of the charges set forth against each of the defendants.
As the trier of fact, this court must determine what the facts are, apply those facts to the applicable law, and render a verdict.
The court will do so. But before announcing a decision, a brief statement is in order.
In weighing the evidence, the court examined the testimony of the witnesses and the factors to be considered in determining credibility.
An objective consideration of the proof ruled out sympathy and prejudice and any other emotional response to the issues presented. The court did not view the victims or the NYPD as being on trial here.
The burden of proof was on the people to prove each defendant guilty of the crimes of which he was charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. And as with all criminal cases, each defendant was presumed to be innocent.
Because justification was raised as an issue, the people had the burden of proving as an element of each charged crime that each defendant was not justified.
It is important to note that in analyzing what happened here, it was necessary to consider the mind-set of each defendant at the time and place of occurrence, and not the mind-set of the victims. What the victims did was more pertinent to resolving the issues of fact than what may have been in their minds.
Also, carelessness and incompetence are not standards to be applied here, unless the conduct rises to the level of criminal acts, as defined by the law relating to each count charged.
What happened outside the Club Kalua on November 25, 2006, and the ensuing incident that occurred around the corner on Liverpool Street are the two significant events about which proof was elicited.
We instruct juries that it is expected that multiple witnesses to the same event may vary in their recounting of minor aspects of what had been observed.
However, where there are significant inconsistencies related to important facts, they should be considered.
Reference was made earlier to the credibility of witnesses. The court has found that the people's ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt was affected by a combination of the following factors: the prosecution witnesses' prior inconsistent statements, inconsistencies in testimony among prosecution witnesses, the renunciation of prior statements, criminal convictions, the interest of some witnesses in the outcome of the case, the demeanor on the witness stand of other witnesses and the motive witnesses may have had to lie and the effect it had on the truthfulness of a witness's testimony.
These factors played a significant part in the people's ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and had the effect of eviscerating the credibility of those prosecution witnesses. And, at times, the testimony just didn't make sense.
Yet, it was apparent from the testimony of the participants that the confrontation that took place in front of the club was heated. The SUV owner, Fabio Coicou, gave the impression that he had a gun, causing at least one of the group to threaten to take it away from him.
And, the court finds, another threat was made by Joseph Guzman to retrieve a gun. At that point, nothing of a criminal nature had taken place. But, having witnessed that provocative confrontation between Mr. Coicou and the group, the undercover officers became concerned and followed the group around the corner to Liverpool Street.
Defendant Isnora approached the Nissan Altima into which Mr. Guzman and Sean Bell, two of the more active participants in the heated exchange, entered.
The Altima, which was driven by Mr. Bell, sped away from its parked position, struck defendant Isnora and collided head on with the police van that had entered Liverpool Street. The Altima then went into reverse, backed up on to the sidewalk, struck a gate and then went forward and to the right, striking the police van again.
As this was happening, defendant Isnora -- who testified in the grand jury --observed Mr. Guzman, the front passenger, move his body as if he were reaching for a weapon. Defendant Isnora yelled, "gun" and fired.
Other officers, indicted and unindicted, joined in from different locations on the street.
The court has found that the incident lasted just seconds. The officers responded to perceived criminal conduct; the unfortunate consequences of their conduct were tragic.
The police response with respect to each defendant was not proved to be criminal, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt. Questions of carelessness and incompetence must be left to other forums.
Although there were aspects of defense testimony that were not necessarily credible, the focus must be on the people's proof to determine whether they have satisfied their burden of proving the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
To the extent that the defense of justification was applicable to the charged crimes, counts 1, 2, 3, 4 in part, 5 in part, 6, 7, and 8, the people have not proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that each defendant was not justified in the actions that each took.
With respect to counts 4 and 5, Trent Benefield, whose credibility was seriously impeached, testified that he was shot while running down Liverpool Street forensic evidence demonstrated otherwise. Thus, although the justification defense would not have applied to that aspect of counts 4 and 5, it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the court finds each defendant not guilty of each of the respective counts in the indictment of which they were charged. |
|
|
|
| southbound24 |
I once heard g-monye yyell that towards anothe promoter sellin tix
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Eco
Yeah, well, we don't hear people at Love or Sully saying audibly Yo get the gun!" (from the car outside) to settle a fight going on inside or a bouncer would beat the outta him. Not to mention, when they told him to put his hands up, he accelerated the car and hit them!
The cops messed up, but I'm sorry, I'm with the cops on this one, whether the victims were Black, White, or Asian. Like Keryn said though, 5 shots woulda been enough, they could have gotten the license place as/if he drove away.
EDIT: I could be wrong though.. We'll never know EXACTLY what happened, so our opinions are just opinions based on what version of the story we accept as true. |
|
|
|
| chimera66 |
| don't really see how anyone can justifiy 50 shots. if it were me or anyone without any type of training alright maybe being motivated by fear you could shot someone like 6 times hoping ot hit them at least once but someone who is supposed to know better, supposed to know how to access the situation and has good aim that's just not forgiveable imo. |
|
|
| gmoney44 |
| quote: | Originally posted by southbound24
I once heard g-monye yyell that towards anothe promoter sellin tix |
oh u have no idea how promoters have been murked haha..another thing that has been proven in the past is how the cops get that tunnel vision or whatever and they just keep shooting and reloading...may not be the nail on the head but im close right? |
|
|
| phuzzyfish12 |
| quote: | Originally posted by chimera66
don't really see how anyone can justifiy 50 shots. if it were me or anyone without any type of training alright maybe being motivated by fear you could shot someone like 6 times hoping ot hit them at least once but someone who is supposed to know better, supposed to know how to access the situation and has good aim that's just not forgiveable imo. |
I totally agree with you....50 shots is just inexcusable imo.
I figured that this is the verdict that would come down.
Regardless of the person's past we are only judging the events that happened that night and in those moments. IMO at that time 50 shots should not have been fired and the cops should receive consequences for there actions which were wrong. |
|
|
| AY STAR |
i honestly feel that someone should have got somethin out of those 3 cops
but to me the prosicustion had no credible witnesses so it was really hard to prove their case
my personal feeling that like the dialo case is that once you fire off your whole clip and dont just sit back for a second or 2 and dont see anyone fireing back at you or reaching for a weapon, then you shouldnt reload and fire more thats just my personal view and i feel that they should teach cops that in training
on to that night if i was a cop and i saw the car trying to hit one of my fellow officers i would have just shot the tires out on the car and fired 2 rounds into the front window to show them iam not fukin around and told them to show me their hands, they did not do that
so yea its very sad that no one went down for this and cops are still going to be brutal and trigger happy this case is not gonna solve nothing
onto sharpton hes another one i dont even wanna start about i dont really wish death on no one but i wish someone would put 50 shots in him |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Konijn
this case is going to rematerialize at the federal level. oliver should've gone down.
the 3 cops didn't follow procedure by calling in uniformed officers because they wanted (what they thought was) a prized gun collar for themselves and once again an unarmed black guy ended up full of holes. |
they can't be charged again for the same crime, so no, it won't materialize at a federal level. Furthermore, i don't know of any federal crime they committed. This could only go up to federal court if it was a crime across state boundries or in violation of a federal statute. as for a civil trial, that's a different story.
as for 50 shots, why does it matter? if he died on shot one, does shot two, five, or twenty mean anything? if you think someone is going to kill you i'm sure you would unload your clip just as fast. The way i see it is that the 31 shots by the one officer showed how truly scared he was for his life. I'm not a defender of cops by any means, but making a conclusion based on the number of shots is stupid. you have no idea about the circumstances. |
|
|
| Konijn |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
they can't be charged again for the same crime, so no, it won't materialize at a federal level. Furthermore, i don't know of any federal crime they committed. This could only go up to federal court if it was a crime across state boundries or in violation of a federal statute. as for a civil trial, that's a different story.
|
if an investigation finds that civil rights were violated, sean bell's case will absolutely reappear at the federal level, though obviously not under the same charges...
| quote: | | as for 50 shots, why does it matter? if he died on shot one, does shot two, five, or twenty mean anything? |
it means a number of things, not the least of which is the fact that if shot #1 didn't do the job, then shots #2-#50 exponentially increased the chances that bell wasn't walking away from the encounter.
it also means that oliver didn't adhere to the rule of shooting twice, stopping, and re-assessing the situation. had he done that, bell might be alive.
the final point relates to the public's perception of police attitudes and competence. considering the nypd's abysmal recent history, the fact that a 50-shot fusillade was unloaded at another unarmed black guy is vitally important. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scoops
Myabe it was since he was out at 4am with proven criminals at a known drug bar (undercover cops at the ing place)that has a huge rep for guns, prostitution, etc. It was more then just a strip club |
That describes half of the dance clubs in NYC. |
|
|
| DJ Eco |
| quote: | Originally posted by AY STAR
on to that night if i was a cop and i saw the car trying to hit one of my fellow officers i would have just shot the tires out on the car and fired 2 rounds into the front window to show them iam not fukin around and told them to show me their hands, they did not do that |
C'mon man, it's not the movies. Think about how quickly that situation happened: someone accelerating, hitting your partner and obviously posing a threat. My friend, who's a cop, said he was shown a video, which I don't think is on YouTube, and you can clearly hear and see the cop announce that he's a cop and to put his hands up several times, until the car accelerates for him. According to my cop friend, who could be wrong or right, but is a very good cop, he said it's not like war where you want to injure the guy for questioning or something. You're shooting to kill in that instant and you don't stop shooting until you can safely say you've eliminated the threat. To one of the guys it took 31 shots to eliminate the threat. I'm sorry, but the more my friend told me about the case, the more I am on the side of the cops. I'm sure he's biased, but he's not making stuff up completely. |
|
|
|
|
