|
NYPD: 31,209,320,149,021 - New Yorkers: 0
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RJT |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425...5iq0ZqLd1Ss0NUE
| quote: |
NEW YORK - Three detectives were acquitted of all charges 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.
Justice Arthur Cooperman delivered the verdict in a Queens courtroom packed with spectators, including victim Sean Bell's fiancee and parents, and at least 200 people gathered outside the building.
The verdict provoked an outpouring of emotions: Bell's fiancee immediately walked out of the room. His mother cried.
Outside the courthouse, which was surrounded by scores of police officers, many in the crowd began weeping as news of the verdict said. Others were enraged, swearing and screaming "Murderers! Murderers!" or "KKK!"
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 — his wedding day — as he was leaving his bachelor party with two friends.
Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged only with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren't charged. Oliver squeezed off 31 shots; Isnora fired 11 rounds; and Cooper shot four times.
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 indicated that the police 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.
A conviction on manslaughter could have brought up to 25 years in prison; the penalty for reckless endangerment, a misdemeanor, is a year behind bars.
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.
The mood surrounding this case has been muted by comparison, although Bell's fiancee, parents and their supporters, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, have held rallies demanding that the officers — two of whom are black — be held accountable.
Still, a phalanx of police officers, some uniformed and some in the department's community affairs polo shirts, was stationed outside the courthouse Friday. The building was ringed by metal barricades. Some in the crowd wore buttons with Bell's picture or held signs saying "Justice for Sean Bell." After the verdict was read, some in the crowd approached officers but were held back; the jostling quickly died down.
After the verdict, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly acknowledged that some people were disappointed with the acquittals.
"We don't anticipate violence, but we are prepared for any contingency," 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.
None of the officers took the witness stand in his own defense. Instead, Cooperman heard transcripts of the officers testifying before a grand jury, saying they believed they had good reason to use deadly force. The judge also heard testimony from Bell's two injured companions, who insisted the maelstrom erupted without warning.
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 his grand jury testimony. "It was like the last thing I ever wanted to do."
Bell's companions — Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman — also offered dramatic testimony about the episode. Benefield and Guzman were both wounded; 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.
"I yelled 'Gun!' and fired," he said. "In my mind, I knew (Guzman) had a gun."
Benefield and Guzman testified that there were no orders. Instead, 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. |
Makes me sick to my stomach. :(
And I'm certain I'm reading too much into this, but I really hated this quote:
| quote: | | "The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was not justified" |
That just sounds to me like a load of bull. |
|
|
| trunks1022 |
speaking hypotheticals djrjt - if the cops identified themselves, the first thing i WOULDN'T do is run over the cop.
unfortunately no one's going to know what really happened that night.
great news, i live near that courthouse. i'm staying away from queens tonight and sleeping in manhattan! |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
Jesus Christ.
Massive overkill on firepower, . How do you fire that many shots? Doesn't a standard gun only hold 6-12???
Did they reload? |
|
|
| trunks1022 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beat Blog
Jesus Christ.
Massive overkill on firepower, . How do you fire that many shots? Doesn't a standard gun only hold 6-12???
Did they reload? |
i think during testimony, the cop that unloaded 30 shots said he wasn't sure if his gun was working or something so he kept on firing. i think an expert witness also testified that that many rounds can be unloaded in about 12 seconds. |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
| quote: | Originally posted by trunks1022
i think during testimony, the cop that unloaded 30 shots said he wasn't sure if his gun was working or something so he kept on firing. i think an expert witness also testified that that many rounds can be unloaded in about 12 seconds. |
Sorry, I didn't explain properly.
If the cops thought their lives were endangered, lost the plot and started firing wildly, you could excuse their actions to *some degree*.
However, my point was that if he had to stop and reload, it wasn't exactly a "heat of the moment" thing, and there is obviously something fishy going on? |
|
|
| MeLLyMeL |
they also proved how if you shoot at a window the debris will fly back at you making it appear that they are shooting from the inside.
It's sad what happened but the testimony from the survivors was at times - plain stupid. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by trunks1022
speaking hypotheticals djrjt - if the cops identified themselves, the first thing i WOULDN'T do is run over the cop.
|
I thought the only people who testified to that were cops... :conf:
Which is why...
| quote: | Originally posted by trunks1022
unfortunately no one's going to know what really happened that night.
|
I really don't have any reason to believe police testimony above anyone else's, and in fact I might find it far more dubious. Same with "expert witnesses."
Any way you slice it, I haven't read or heard anything that justifies this kind of brutality - especially in light of the NYPD's less than sparkling reputation. |
|
|
| trunks1022 |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Any way you slice it, I haven't read or heard anything that justifies this kind of brutality - especially in light of the NYPD's less than sparkling reputation. |
yep... could be just me, but i don't know whether to feel safe or endangered with them around sometimes. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
| Scoops |
i feel bad for the tax payers....
the cost of bullets is pretty high these days |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
| quote: | | 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. |
Sounds like the kind of guy I'd think "wow, if only Darwinism had killed him off during childhood."
The officer with reckless endangerment should be looked at closest. Other than that, I don't see anything offensive.
Much different case than the Amadou Diallo case. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by trunks1022
Justice Cooperman's statement in court |
I'm concerned with the last part of that statement, particularly it's reliance on the testimony one officer. Beyond that, is anyone really surprised that a group of young black men made for questionable witnesses?
:conf:
All I'm saying is that regardless of the above statement, I have trouble buying the accepted version of events. Even if I did, there's still one part that I just struggle with more than any other:
| quote: | | 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. |
It never says that Isnora identified himself as a cop, and the cry of "gun" seems to be all too easy a way for officers to get off the hook. That, or they just don't teach NYPD cops that things like wallets aren't guns.
|
|
|
|
|
