Sean Bell Verdict

The coppers fire 50+ shots on unarmed men, yet they walk away from the criminal case unscathed. Can someone please tell me how that is ok?

No Justice...

Query: Would the prosecution's chances been better with a jury than it was with a judge? What would you have said at the outset? Why?

Comments

[Och Ocho]

Basically, its ok to be afraid of black men and that fear it being legitimized by acquitting people of gross misuses of deadly force. Even black officer's can now use that as an excuse.

And black men are not wholly unresponsible for this predicament.

[Aaron]

I think they get to play up to the emotion of the case with a jury much more - unarmed man shot up seems to demand justice by itself. With a judge, he's bound to consider "reasonable doubt," and has full knowledge what that term is supposed to mean, so he's less swayed by emotion (and reason?) and if Bell's partners change their story, that's exactly what reasonable doubt is.

[Ocho Ocho]

OK Assume Bell and his boys were manacing and threatening. 50 shots? Still seems extreme to me.

[Jackie]

Yes, one cop shot around 30 times, I believe. That is not 30 consecutive shots. He unloaded a full clip of what I believe was about 15 and then RELOADED the clip and took 15 MORE shots. How the fuck is that acceptable?

[Crazy Joe Davalo]

I'll take the cops side.

[BIG SEXY]

BIG SEXY SAYS:

"IT WOULD HAVE HELPED IF BELL'S FELLOW VICTIMS HAD NOT OFFERED TESTIMONY THAT WAS DIRECTLY REFUTED BY THIRD-PARTY WITNESSES. THEIR CREDIBILITY WOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN BOLSTERED HAD THEY NOT BEEN SIMULTANEOUSLY PURSUING A $50 MILLION PAYDAY IN CIVIL COURT."

[phil]

I believe a jury may have been more sympathetic to the prosecution in this case. It is difficult to imagine how this thing went down. These guys were at a rough strip club, bad neighborhood, middle of the night, drunk and disorderly, and later couldn't tell a credible story that was supported by uninvolved third parties. It may be easy to see how the cops were expecting the worst. From their own words, it sounds like they were terrified. But kept shooting, hearing their own gunfire, concluding it was "the bad guys" returning fire. Sounds like they just lost it. The first thing you would have to say is, 50 shots fired at unarmed men is clearly excessive force. Period. Can't believe the judge's ruling.

And, 50 shots fired, and only one guy dies. These guys weren't looking, just shooting.

[Mr. Kruger]

It's hard to understand how they expect to get a decent decision on this when they're not cross examining the cops. They're taking transcripts of a testimony from a year ago. Still, Benefield and Guzman should have gotten stories straight before they took the stand.

[daveNYC]

If it was a Jury it would have hung, not returned a not-guilty. It would have been tough to get a conviction because it'd be hard to get a jury without one member willing to cut a lot of slack because the cops felt threatened.

Hell, a cop could probably get away with shooting the Pope if he said that he felt threatened. That's probably why they haven't had a black Pope yet, too worried about the possibility.

[Dr. Strangejazz]

50+ shots are excessive. The problem is that the victims were put on trial instead of the cops.

If Bell (and his friends) didn't have criminal backgrounds this would not have ever had happened.

The bottomline is that a JUDGE is going to come down on the side of the cops. If this had been a jury it would have been a little different.

IMO if you have any thing shady in your background and you just happen to get killed by a cop that cop will get off. It is what it is.

[Crazy Joe Davalo]

Or hanging with known felons; at a strip club; which is being investigated for prostitution and drug trafficking; at 3a.m.; and you're drunk; and you don't obey police officers directions.

Yeah, I can't believe these guys weren't taken seriously. I mean, what could these guys have done to have changed the outcome of this situation?

[Dr. Strangejazz]

@ Joe Davalo:

Not be black.

[Crazy Joe Davalo]

@ Dr. Strangejazz.

That's the Al Sharpton approach. Instead of focusing on the felonies, the drugs, the drinking, the strip clubs, the failure to obey officers of the law; it must be because they were black (despite two of the officers being black as well).

Let's not learn from this situation. Let's throw up our hands and claim we'll never get a fair shake. Let's sue for $50 million and shut down New York City.

If it were my parents (since I don't have a wife) and I were the one shot; my parents would be the first to say "What the hell was my misdeanor, out-of-work son, doing at a strip club at 3a.m.?"

[Dr. Strangejazz]

@Joe Davalo

It doesn't matter what color the cops were. What matters is how cops are trained to react. 50+ shots is excessive. This is more about how black men are considered easy targets.

This is not about what club the victim went to or if they drank. This is about COPS not identifying themselves.

And to get a little deeper; this is more about a person not having any rights if they have any sjit in their past. That's the bottomline. If you have any kind of an arrest record you can be killed by a cop and the cop gets off even if you are trying to get your life straight.

If you don't see a problem with that then there's no hope and we will never get any where.

See by your logic the fact that Sean Bell had some sjit in his past negates him having any rights.

[Jack Klompus]

"What matters is how cops are trained to react."

And they are trained to keep using force until they have determined a threat to have been quelled. I'm not saying the threat wasn't quelled long before 50 shots. But that's how cops are trained.

"This is about COPS not identifying themselves."

No. That was what Guzman alleged. It could not have been proven either way beyond reasonable doubt. At which point it all comes down to Guzman's credibility as a witness. Which of course was shit, given his criminal past and his inconsistent testimony throughout this trial.

"And to get a little deeper; this is more about a person not having any rights if they have any sjit in their past."

Disagree again. By having shit in your past, you don't lose rights -- you lose credibility. You forfeit the "benefit of the doubt." That's humanity 101.

"If you have any kind of an arrest record you can be killed by a cop and the cop gets off even if you are trying to get your life straight."

Single-lens once again. You could also have an arrest record and kill a cop, but still get off. It's the prosecution's job to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not a social matter, it's a legal one.

[Dr. Strangejazz]

@Joe:
"You forfeit the "benefit of the doubt." That's humanity 101."

That's bullsjit. Because the sjit in your past has NOTHING to do with the crime commited against you in the present.

I'm not looking at this from a single lens.

The fact is if a person has a criminal record it is easier for the cop to get off. Again you are blaming the victim.

So by your logic; if an ex-prositiute gets raped she has no creditability.

[Jack Klompus]

"That's bullsjit. Because the sjit in your past has NOTHING to do with the crime commited against you in the present."

Sure it does. The burden's not on the defense to prove innocence. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the case relies almost solely on witness testimony, there's no question the witnesses' credibility will be challenged by either side (i.e. Mark Furman). This is true in any case.

"The fact is if a person has a criminal record it is easier for the cop to get off."

No shit. It's also easier for a non-cop to get off if they don't have any priors. That's pretty much universally understood. Another reason why it's advisable to not have shit on your record.

"Again you are blaming the victim."

Not at all. If I were blaming anyone, it would be the prosecution. IMO, they caved to political pressure and rushed this case, hoping to get a quick conviction because of all the emotion involved. Again, I'm looking at this from a legal perspective, not a social one.

"So by your logic; if an ex-prositiute gets raped she has no creditability."

I wouldn't exactly say NO credibility. But if an ex-prostitute alleges rape, then most certainly her credibility will be called into question. How could it not be? Even if the woman was never a prostitute, her past sexual behavior would undoubtedly be examined by the defense attorneys. Why is that so illogical?

[Dr. Strangejazz]

@Jack Klompus

"Even if the woman was never a prostitute, her past sexual behavior would undoubtedly be examined by the defense attorneys. Why is that so illogical?"

Because that had NOTHING to do with the crime that was commited against her.

You are putting the victim on trial and not the criminal.

If someone with NO priors kills a cop you cannot sit there and tell me it's easier for that person to get off. There's no way I will believe that.

The prosecution screwed up because this should have been tried by a jury and not a judge.

[Crazy Joe Davalo]

@Dr. Strangejazz

Isn't it the defendents choice? I thought the cops chose the judge.

[Jack Klompus]

"Because that had NOTHING to do with the crime that was commited against her."

But you're already assuming it's a fact there was a crime committed. Just because she said she was raped, doesn't make it so. That's why they have the trial.

"You are putting the victim on trial and not the criminal."

Oh wow. No, once again -- the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If physical evidence is both present and compelling enough, the accuser's background will have little impact. However, when physical evidence is lacking, the case depends heavily/completely on witness testimony. The accuser is perhaps the most crucial witness. If her word is rape and the defendant's word is consentual, why wouldn't it matter that she used to sell her body? The judge or jury didn't know either party before the trial. So how else are they supposed to gauge who's telling the truth without analyzing past and present behaviors?

"If someone with NO priors kills a cop you cannot sit there and tell me it's easier for that person to get off. There's no way I will believe that."

More Jazzywocky. Yeah, I can sit here and tell you that, but I wouldn't -- because that's fuckin' stupid. What I was unsuccessfully trying to point out was that having no priors is always an advantage, whether you are the plaintiff or defendant. It's not just limited to victims of police shootings.

[Jackie]

"The prosecution screwed up because this should have been tried by a jury and not a judge."

You sure about that, Strangejazz?

"A [criminal] defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. US Constititution, Amend VI; NY State Constitution art 1, § 2; art 6, § 18. The exercise of this right is a major decision: whether to go with a jury trial, or for a trial before a judge. In the New York State court system, the choice whether to "go bench" is reserved to the defendant, subject to the court's approval. CPL 320.10(2)."

[Jack Klompus]

"In the New York State court system, the choice whether to "go bench" is reserved to the defendant, subject to the court's approval."

Wait a minute, I think you left out the part "the court is especially favorable to approval in cases wherein defendants are police officers and plaintiffs have sjit in their past. CPL 320.10(3)."

No?

[Dr. Strangejazz]

@Jack Klompus

"What I was unsuccessfully trying to point out was that having no priors is always an advantage, whether you are the plaintiff or defendant. It's not just limited to victims of police shootings."

Yes I agree there is an advantage. But it is unfortunate that the victim's character has to come into question when the victim is not the one who commited a crime.

[daveNYC]

If it were my parents (since I don't have a wife) and I were the one shot; my parents would be the first to say "What the hell was my misdeanor, out-of-work son, doing at a strip club at 3a.m.?"

You stupid fuck, if you did have a wife you'd know damn well why someone would be drunk at a strip club at 3AM, it's called a bachelor party.

Klompus, you'd be a defense lawyer's wet fucking dream in the jury box.

[Jack Klompus]

"Klompus, you'd be a defense lawyer's wet fucking dream in the jury box."

How so?

[Crazy Joe Davola]

I would think there are higher priorities for an out-of-work convict with kids.

[Jack Klompus]

"I would think there are higher priorities for an out-of-work convict with kids."

Come on, Davola. It was the dude's bachelor party.

[jackie]

I'm waiting for Strangejazz to acknowledge his anal secretions in light of the well-established New York Penal law set forth above.

[SL22]

Strangejazz has a point. I mean, we talked and talked about the fact that the accusers had questionable reps in the Duke lacrosse case, but then history came with a bukkake of justice all over our wanton faces.

Wait...actually, I think the strippers just made it up. My bad.

[Jack Klompus]

"but then history came with a bukkake of justice all over our wanton faces."

Very powerful words. Zap.

Great work, SL22.

[Dr. Strangejazz]

@jackie

Yeah I totally didn't know the law in that one. Glad there are some lawyers around here to explain how the defense choosing the judge over the jury.

Bottomline:
It was a bachelor party and the guy was at a strip club. He had a lot of sjit in his past that was taken into consideration when he was shot at 50 plus times.

IMO 50 shots are excessive. But if the victim was a guy with no criminal record we would be outraged. Amadou Diallo didn't have a criminal record but the cops got off there.

So what's the explaination for that??

[SL22]

If you say sjit one more time I'm going to kill Reverend Wright.

[SL22]

Thanks, Klompus. My parole officer always said that I had a way with words.