17 months to the day

this will be the longest entry I have, where I personally said absolutely nothing...

April 25th,
2008
7:57 am
The difference between police officers and the rest of us is that police officers always have guns and can always kill us. Therefore, they need to pause before they act. Now, clearly in pausing, they may be killed. But given the statistics, they are still less likely to be killed by one of us then we are to be killed by one of them. Oh, and if we happen to be black or hispanic or male or in poor neighborhood, we are even more likely to be killed by them then they are to be killed by us. Now, this is not to fault all police officers. Being a police officer is an incredibly difficult job where a person’s life is always on the line. But when you hold the power of life and death, you have an ethical responsibility to wield it carefully and with clearly defined limits. Is that not the basis of our democracy? To check unlimited power?
Clearly, the judge needs to punish every officer that fired his gun that night. To kill an innocent, unarmed man is criminal.
— Posted by Liz

April 25th,
2008
8:53 am
Time after time again, young black men are killed with impunity by members of the police force. Years ago, a young immigrant named Amadou Diallo was shot and killed under a barrage of bullets because he reached for his wallet. Now, a young man is killed on the morning of his
wedding. There are many,many, other examples also. All the vitims were unarmed. The poilice were, on every single occasion, found not guilty. Whether one accepts this or not, the common thread is the victims’ skin color. That-and that alone- made them easy targets. Racism is alive and well and prospering in America and, frankly speaking, it’s the five hundred pound gorilla in the room that all pretend to ignore. We’ve come a long way? Hardly.
— Posted by anastasios sarikas

April 25th,
2008
9:26 am
bill: What does sean’s pre-marital or for that matter, marital behavior have anything to do with this case?The question has to be only whether the police acted not according to their standards but to the standards acceptabale to society as a whole. It is the these police people who are essentially on trial and not Sean Bell. In actuality, it is our society which is on trial and which has to set standards of operation for our para-military police forces and decide just where that line between liberty and protection lies. We have a tendency of reacting emotionally in times of stress and are willing to give up a massive amount of our freedoms at that moment and when we begin to realize that we have allowed the use of police powers,
para or military or even presidential to impinge upon our very freedom of life, it is too late for it becomes almost impossible to reghain that balance without massing the forces to do such. Beware just how much liberty you give up for what you think is your protection because as we have seen since the beginnming of time, once you allow that line to be crossed all you have left is destruction.
— Posted by Howard

April 25th,
2008
9:27 am
I think it is appalling that this case was tried without a jury, and that the verdict was not guilty on all counts. This is justice? What about justice for the victim, his fiancee, and their families? Also, what does this say to the larger community (especially to those in the police force)–that excessive force and violence, and murder of innocent people will be tolerated without consequences. This is the mark of an injust judicial system, a passive society and prejudiced people, and manipulated court system. Shame, shame, shame on this judge, and
even greater shame on the trigger-happy cops.
— Posted by sophelet

April 25th,
2008
9:29 am
If you want mob rule go to Russia..if you can find a better system then I suggest you pack up and move…let’s move on…
— Posted by Bill

April 25th,
2008
9:29 am
Thank God. Justice was done. A sad incident for all, but when you drive a car at a police officer after they’ve told you to stop, only bad things can happen.
— Posted by Dan Gutin

April 25th,
2008
9:30 am
By all accounts, Mr. Bell got what he asked for. Had he kept his mouth shut and not threatened the officers, he would be alive today.
— Posted by william


April 25th,
2008
9:31 am
A simple observation from Australia is that this is a gross obscenity and a travesty of justice if justice still exists in America. When Australian police kill people it generally takes one or two shots. 50 shots appears to be a tad excessive if responsible use of force is still considered necessary or desirable. Perhaps NYPD could send their cops to our training colleges so that they can learn to kill with one shot.
— Posted by Greg Angelo

April 25th,
2008
9:34 am
I wasnt there but 50 shots seems excessive. Having said that, as an Obama supporter I BEG the African-American community not to act out of anger because the world is watching. Any violence will hurt our chances to take the White House and begin changing this nation. — a white man.
— Posted by nathan


April 25th,
2008
9:35 am
I think the Judge in the case ruled the right way. On paper it looks like a cut and dried case that the cops acted recklessly, umpteen bullets fired, etc. But in court the testimony wasn’t so clear, a lot of those testifying for the prosecution changed stories between grand jury and the trial, and there were absolute facts like the fact that Sean Bell drove that car at the cops (whether because he thought they were cops or not is irrelevent). I sympathize with the family of the victim, and I think there are questions to be answered from this case, but from a legal standpoint the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the cops acted with reckless indifference, not the defense to prove the cops were acting properly. To show reckless indifference they would need to show that there was absolutely no justification for firing, that the cops had no basis for thinking they were in danger. The fact that someone with Bell claimed to have a gun before the shooting, and then the fact that Bell drove the car towards the cops makes for a background where the cops had reason to believe their lives were threatened. It is easy looking back to say why, and given the number of young blacks and hispanics shot by cops it is not surprising people are upset. But quite frankly, look at
the scene of what happened here. It is early in the morning, it is outside a place known to have problems, you have alchohol involved (Sean Bell was drunk, which means his judgement was probably not the best, he could freak out easily) and so forth. The evidence as to whether the cops identified themselves or not was not that clear, and the judge has to weight that against the burden of proof rule. And may I remind you that in other cases this judge has handled, he has ruled against cops, so you cannot argue that it is because he is biased for cops or against black or hispanic victims, that he was working on the law. And does it dawn on you why cops are armed in the city? People make it sound like the cops are armed and few other people are, and while that may be true with law abiding citizens, it isn’t true among a lot of people on the shady side in this city, and cops face real uncertainty,
especially in areas of the city that are high crime areas. That said, in this case I think there will be civil action. Even if not criminally negligent (and people, criminal weight of evidence is quite different then civil burdens) there are serious questions here about supervision and training, it sounds like this operation was allowed to get out of control, and there should be penalties for that and the cops themselves should be looked at quite closely to see if they are fit for duty, and that would be legitimate.
— Posted by wdef

So an unarmed man is killed in a hail of gunfire and no one is to blame. But another man is convicted of 3 first time tax misdemeanours and goes to jail for 3 years. So out of balance, isn’t it?
— Posted by Meesy

April 25th,
2008
12:45 pm
“Keystone cops confronting an innocent man is what fueled this
incident.”

No, what fueled this incident was a drunken sense of bravado. Bell was no “innocent” having been arrested on drug dealing and illegal gun possession charges multiple times. “This seems like such a common sense solution to these cases of mistaken identity, which can so easily spiral out of control, and end as this one did.” It’s not mistaken identity that causes these situation to “spiral”. It’s drunken criminals with a contempt for law enforcement and society and believe that they are above the law that causes scenes like this to “spiral out of control.” Had Bell done the correct thing and not tried to run over a person wearing a badge and
who identified themselves as a police officer he would still be alive today. You need look no further then Bell and his cronies with their contempt of a lawful society as the culprit of this incident.
— Posted by Keith

April 25th,
2008
12:45 pm
Two out of three of the detectives were black! But that seems to go unnoticed. As a white man, those of you who insist on playing the black race card will be trumped by the white race card. All reliable statistics clearly indicate that African-Americans…a misnomer since if you were born in the U.S. you’re an American- by the way- in any event, commit far more felonies than white folks. Perhaps when, if ever, the violent crime rate of American blacks equals or is less than those of white Americans, our police officers will be less forceful in dealing with potential criminals. But even if 1 bullet killed Bell, the race card would still be played.
— Posted by b. alan


...thats both sides speaking. For and against verdict. and clicking here will take you on a journey through history