Is Justice at hand?
National NewsOver the weekend, three of the New York police officers accused of shooting more than 50 bullets at 3 men outside of a nightclub in November of 2006 turned themselves in to face those charges.
This case really struck a chord with a lot of people for many reasons. First of all, the men were completely unarmed. How in the world could anyone, let alone a police officer, justify firing a single shot at an unarmed suspect, let alone 31. 31 bullets? That means, in a standard issue 9 millimeter, the officer had to empty his first clip, eject it, reload and empty a second clip into the vehicle. Excessive?
The second concern is that the men were black. While one of the officers was also black, the scandal still immediately rings of prejudice. The assumption being that these "hoodlums" were out causing problems simply because of their skin color. No more poignant than in this quote:
Police have said the officers were involved in an undercover investigation at the nightclub when they overheard a conversation that convinced them the men were going to their car to retrieve a gun. They have said that Bell's car hit the unmarked police vehicle and that the officers believed someone in Bell's car was reaching for a gun when they opened fire. No gun was found.
Lastly, and some would argue, most aggregiously, the poor guy was celebrating his Bachelor Party. Sean Bell was to be the groom at a wedding the very next day.
Now, I wasn't there, I don't know what their attitude was like and I certainly didn't see the encounter. I don't believe, however, that firing 50 bullets at 3 men in a car was necessary. This comes at a time when we see that maybe 1 in 3 police walking the street even complete the Police Academy. Many officers in locations with a great need aren't even sent right away before they're given a badge and a gun and told to "serve and protect".
~Dubya
Vaughn Tolle said:
Dubya, just noticed on cnn.com that two of the policemen were indicted for manslaughter, the third for reckless endangerment.
Is this justice? I don't know; but it is clearly some attempt to bring the officers to trial for their actions, which is the best that can be expected.
Is this justice? I don't know; but it is clearly some attempt to bring the officers to trial for their actions, which is the best that can be expected.
CF said:
In the wake of the shooting of Amadou Diallo, the torture of Abner Louima, and the general ability of the NYPD to kill black folks with impunity, this wasn't going to happen yet again.
On this and other matters regarding race and NYPD, I regard Steve Gilliard (for whom I requested prayers and good wishes) as the authoritative voice. Here's a post of his from back in December, when the head of the Police Union tried to say there'd be no indicments. Interestingly, VT, Gilliard sets the bar at murder in the second degree. Like you, I wonder how this is playing in the city.
*****************************************************
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_steve...
Predicts no indictment in Bell slay
BY CORKY SIEMASZKO and JONATHAN LEMIRE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
The head of the NYPD detectives union boldly predicted yesterday that the cops who fatally shot Sean Bell on his wedding day would not be indicted.
Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives' Endowment Association, also blasted the Rev. Al Sharpton for making the shooting a "racial incident."
"When the dust settles and the smoke clears, reasonableness will prevail in that grand jury," Palladino said on Brian Lehrer's show on WNYC 93.9 FM, "and we'll be able to articulate that the shooting, although tragic, was not criminal and was justified."
Palladino praised the investigation led by Queens District Attorney Richard Brown into the Nov. 25 event, when officers unleashed 50 shots on Bell and his friends outside a Queens strip club.
Palladino's prediction angered Sharpton, who called it evidence of a too-cozy
................
Palladino and Sharpton - who verbally sparred after last week's protest march down Fifth Ave. - traded barbs again yesterday, as the union chief accused the civil rights activist of trying to tamper with the potential pool of grand jurors by making the shooting about race.
"Race has nothing to do with it," Palladino said. "In fact, three of the five people who discharged their weapons are people of color ... [but] now if you're a cop, you're a racist."
Sharpton shook off the accusation and claimed that "if all of those officers were black, I'd still be there demanding justice."
"It doesn't matter about the race here," he said. "It matters about the deed."
[Gilliard's response follows]
If they don't indict the cops, don't expect to go anywhere in New York City in January. This isn't 1999. People will not just turn their back and let this happen. You cannot shoot at three men 50 times and walk away. Giuliani is no longer mayor. Bloomberg was elected with black votes, twice.
This city will turn into strike-bound Paris if those cops, who have not testified to anyone, are not charged with murder in the second degree. Nothing less is going to fly. People believe Sean Bell was murdered by the NYPD. Saying it's an accident will not fly without a ton of evidence. And even then, the demand for a Special Prosecutor and FBI probe will bring city politics to a halt.
Palladino is a fucking idiot. He dragged Steven Pagones down here, a man who many people think was paid for raping Tawana Brawley. And now he complains about race? But the unions think it's about Sharpton. It isn't. The family wants a special prosecutor, and if Brown doesn't indict, Spitzer is going to HAVE to appoint one, leaving a large turd on Bloomberg and Kelly's desk.
The media said a few hundred people protested on Wall Street. It's the Thursday before Christmas.
You want a repeat in January, with no indictment, it won't be 300 people.
What Palladino misses is people see it as racial because the victim was black. It doesn't matter what the cops were.
But what he doesn't get is that is way past Sharpton. Bill Thompson, likely to be the next mayor of New York, the heads of the major unions, all marched Saturday. While they're letting the radicals do their daily protests, make no mistake, Sharpton is only one player here. I would look closely at Roger Toussaint and Calvin Butts. They are recently energized from various issues, and bring a great deal of weight to any protests. The UFT and SEIU are also major players here.
Attacking Sharpton is a mistake. He's not leading the band here. Because he doesn't have to.
Sean Bell was a middle class black New Yorker. He had a family, a job and one hell of a fiance. He is what people want their kids to be. If there were bumps, he was moving towards a responsible life. Not that they proved any. His parents don't speak with accents, there is no exile community politics, and black and Latino New York is united behind them like nothing I've ever seen. There is a depth of resolve which simply didn't exist under Giuliani, partly because there were too few people willing to stand up to him and the media was on his side.
The Transit strike changed that. The Daily News realized that their readers were, uh, minorities and their coverage changed the day after they saw polling backing the workers. The White ethnic rule of New York was over.
Now, make no mistake, no indictment, a wave of protests we have not seen in years. Not riots, but well planned, well orgainzed, city grinding protests, which will force Ray Kelly from his job as the first step.
A line has been crossed in the city's history."
On this and other matters regarding race and NYPD, I regard Steve Gilliard (for whom I requested prayers and good wishes) as the authoritative voice. Here's a post of his from back in December, when the head of the Police Union tried to say there'd be no indicments. Interestingly, VT, Gilliard sets the bar at murder in the second degree. Like you, I wonder how this is playing in the city.
*****************************************************
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_steve...
Predicts no indictment in Bell slay
BY CORKY SIEMASZKO and JONATHAN LEMIRE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
The head of the NYPD detectives union boldly predicted yesterday that the cops who fatally shot Sean Bell on his wedding day would not be indicted.
Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives' Endowment Association, also blasted the Rev. Al Sharpton for making the shooting a "racial incident."
"When the dust settles and the smoke clears, reasonableness will prevail in that grand jury," Palladino said on Brian Lehrer's show on WNYC 93.9 FM, "and we'll be able to articulate that the shooting, although tragic, was not criminal and was justified."
Palladino praised the investigation led by Queens District Attorney Richard Brown into the Nov. 25 event, when officers unleashed 50 shots on Bell and his friends outside a Queens strip club.
Palladino's prediction angered Sharpton, who called it evidence of a too-cozy
................
Palladino and Sharpton - who verbally sparred after last week's protest march down Fifth Ave. - traded barbs again yesterday, as the union chief accused the civil rights activist of trying to tamper with the potential pool of grand jurors by making the shooting about race.
"Race has nothing to do with it," Palladino said. "In fact, three of the five people who discharged their weapons are people of color ... [but] now if you're a cop, you're a racist."
Sharpton shook off the accusation and claimed that "if all of those officers were black, I'd still be there demanding justice."
"It doesn't matter about the race here," he said. "It matters about the deed."
[Gilliard's response follows]
If they don't indict the cops, don't expect to go anywhere in New York City in January. This isn't 1999. People will not just turn their back and let this happen. You cannot shoot at three men 50 times and walk away. Giuliani is no longer mayor. Bloomberg was elected with black votes, twice.
This city will turn into strike-bound Paris if those cops, who have not testified to anyone, are not charged with murder in the second degree. Nothing less is going to fly. People believe Sean Bell was murdered by the NYPD. Saying it's an accident will not fly without a ton of evidence. And even then, the demand for a Special Prosecutor and FBI probe will bring city politics to a halt.
Palladino is a fucking idiot. He dragged Steven Pagones down here, a man who many people think was paid for raping Tawana Brawley. And now he complains about race? But the unions think it's about Sharpton. It isn't. The family wants a special prosecutor, and if Brown doesn't indict, Spitzer is going to HAVE to appoint one, leaving a large turd on Bloomberg and Kelly's desk.
The media said a few hundred people protested on Wall Street. It's the Thursday before Christmas.
You want a repeat in January, with no indictment, it won't be 300 people.
What Palladino misses is people see it as racial because the victim was black. It doesn't matter what the cops were.
But what he doesn't get is that is way past Sharpton. Bill Thompson, likely to be the next mayor of New York, the heads of the major unions, all marched Saturday. While they're letting the radicals do their daily protests, make no mistake, Sharpton is only one player here. I would look closely at Roger Toussaint and Calvin Butts. They are recently energized from various issues, and bring a great deal of weight to any protests. The UFT and SEIU are also major players here.
Attacking Sharpton is a mistake. He's not leading the band here. Because he doesn't have to.
Sean Bell was a middle class black New Yorker. He had a family, a job and one hell of a fiance. He is what people want their kids to be. If there were bumps, he was moving towards a responsible life. Not that they proved any. His parents don't speak with accents, there is no exile community politics, and black and Latino New York is united behind them like nothing I've ever seen. There is a depth of resolve which simply didn't exist under Giuliani, partly because there were too few people willing to stand up to him and the media was on his side.
The Transit strike changed that. The Daily News realized that their readers were, uh, minorities and their coverage changed the day after they saw polling backing the workers. The White ethnic rule of New York was over.
Now, make no mistake, no indictment, a wave of protests we have not seen in years. Not riots, but well planned, well orgainzed, city grinding protests, which will force Ray Kelly from his job as the first step.
A line has been crossed in the city's history."
Paul said:
Had the victim been white, would we have even heard about the incident?
The stories have made more mention of his death falling on his wedding day rather than the fact that he was overheard saying he was going to get his gun. The fact that he ran into a police car and a police officer. Last I heard, intentionally running over someone was assault with a deadly weapon and required lethal action to protect the standers by and police officers.
The police involved were detectives. One with 7 year’s experience. When fellow officers came upon the scene and found officers under fire, there was obviously confusion. As shots were fired, it was too late to have a quaint sit down with the suspects and determine the reason for the suspect’s departure from the club after having been heard mention retrieving his gun.
The question should be 1) did the officers identify themselves and 2)if so, why did the suspect continue into his car, start his car, hit a police vehicle, then hit a police officer?
The race card will be played to the hilt. When the case is weak, bring race into it.
The stories have made more mention of his death falling on his wedding day rather than the fact that he was overheard saying he was going to get his gun. The fact that he ran into a police car and a police officer. Last I heard, intentionally running over someone was assault with a deadly weapon and required lethal action to protect the standers by and police officers.
The police involved were detectives. One with 7 year’s experience. When fellow officers came upon the scene and found officers under fire, there was obviously confusion. As shots were fired, it was too late to have a quaint sit down with the suspects and determine the reason for the suspect’s departure from the club after having been heard mention retrieving his gun.
The question should be 1) did the officers identify themselves and 2)if so, why did the suspect continue into his car, start his car, hit a police vehicle, then hit a police officer?
The race card will be played to the hilt. When the case is weak, bring race into it.
CF said:
Paul,
First point: find the last time NYPD officers fired 51 rounds at an unarmed white suspect or group of suspects. I can tell you the last time they fired 41 rounds at one unarmed black suspect: Amadou Diallo. My point? There's a precedent for the NYPD's use of unjustified lethal force against suspects when those suspects happen to be black.
Second question: you have no grounds to say Bell "intentionally" ran over police officers, thus provoking the shooting. The officers were in plainclothes, and the evidence is mixed as to whether they notified the occupants of the vehicle they were officers or not. And if someone is pointing a gun at you and yelling, then presumably running into them with a car could be construed as self-defense.
There is also a substantial question as to whether the claim that one of the suspects mentioned a gun, the ostensible reason for the whole incident, was not merely concoted ex post facto to provide a justifying rationale for police actions.
Given all of this, the whole thing needs to be sorted out. The questions go well beyond the narrow issues of whether the officer identified himself.
And to the contrary, I'd say this is a STRONG case for the prosecution. If it were "merely" racial sensitivity, it's hard to see how the grand jury would have brought charges.
First point: find the last time NYPD officers fired 51 rounds at an unarmed white suspect or group of suspects. I can tell you the last time they fired 41 rounds at one unarmed black suspect: Amadou Diallo. My point? There's a precedent for the NYPD's use of unjustified lethal force against suspects when those suspects happen to be black.
Second question: you have no grounds to say Bell "intentionally" ran over police officers, thus provoking the shooting. The officers were in plainclothes, and the evidence is mixed as to whether they notified the occupants of the vehicle they were officers or not. And if someone is pointing a gun at you and yelling, then presumably running into them with a car could be construed as self-defense.
There is also a substantial question as to whether the claim that one of the suspects mentioned a gun, the ostensible reason for the whole incident, was not merely concoted ex post facto to provide a justifying rationale for police actions.
Given all of this, the whole thing needs to be sorted out. The questions go well beyond the narrow issues of whether the officer identified himself.
And to the contrary, I'd say this is a STRONG case for the prosecution. If it were "merely" racial sensitivity, it's hard to see how the grand jury would have brought charges.
Paul said:
A history of violence…
“
Race and Homicide
While African Americans constitute only about 12 percent of the U.S. population, they are overrepresented in the homicide category for both offenders and victims. Department of Justice statistics delineated that African Americans were seven times more likely than whites to commit homicides and six times more likely than whites to be murdered in 1999.
“ http://www.deathreference.com/Gi-Ho/Homicide-Epide...
It wouldn’t take me too long to figure which suspects were more willing to go for a gun than others.
“
Race and Homicide
While African Americans constitute only about 12 percent of the U.S. population, they are overrepresented in the homicide category for both offenders and victims. Department of Justice statistics delineated that African Americans were seven times more likely than whites to commit homicides and six times more likely than whites to be murdered in 1999.
“ http://www.deathreference.com/Gi-Ho/Homicide-Epide...
It wouldn’t take me too long to figure which suspects were more willing to go for a gun than others.
CF said:
Paul,
So by your argument, black suspects are more justifiably shot than are white suspects.
And when they are shot, is the punishment for doing so accordingly less, since they are statisitically more likely to be involved in violence?
So by your argument, black suspects are more justifiably shot than are white suspects.
And when they are shot, is the punishment for doing so accordingly less, since they are statisitically more likely to be involved in violence?
Paul said:
My argument states nothing about any race being justifiably shot. What I am pointing out is that blacks are “statistically more likely to be involved in violence” thereby the officers are going to be on a higher level of alertness to danger to themselves and bystanders.
Let’s say you patron three eating establishments on a daily basis. One of those establishments short changes you 7 of 10 times. Are you going to be more suspicious of said establishment and count your change?
I was not at the scene, but from what other officers have said their first order of business is to identify themselves; “Freeze Police” and a shield hanging from their necks. Second is to establish with the suspect that he is at gunpoint. Third is to eliminate any threat the suspect may impose – get him/her out of a vehicle, hands exposed.
If an officer comes upon a scene where fellow officers are being shot at, the newly arrived officer supports his comrade. Now this new arrival begins shooting at the car, the original officer hears the shots and thinks he is being fired upon…
It all sounds pretty standard. There were mistakes made in this case and the officers should lose their jobs. But to bring the race card out this early in the investigation reeks. And old Al Sharpton is just so ready to parade that card up and down the street.
Huh, I haven’t heard old Al speaking about the riots after the basketball game though.
Let’s say you patron three eating establishments on a daily basis. One of those establishments short changes you 7 of 10 times. Are you going to be more suspicious of said establishment and count your change?
I was not at the scene, but from what other officers have said their first order of business is to identify themselves; “Freeze Police” and a shield hanging from their necks. Second is to establish with the suspect that he is at gunpoint. Third is to eliminate any threat the suspect may impose – get him/her out of a vehicle, hands exposed.
If an officer comes upon a scene where fellow officers are being shot at, the newly arrived officer supports his comrade. Now this new arrival begins shooting at the car, the original officer hears the shots and thinks he is being fired upon…
It all sounds pretty standard. There were mistakes made in this case and the officers should lose their jobs. But to bring the race card out this early in the investigation reeks. And old Al Sharpton is just so ready to parade that card up and down the street.
Huh, I haven’t heard old Al speaking about the riots after the basketball game though.
CF said:
Paul,
You said:
"My argument states nothing about any race being justifiably shot. What I am pointing out is that blacks are “statistically more likely to be involved in violence” thereby the officers are going to be on a higher level of alertness to danger to themselves and bystanders."
If this is what you're claiming, then the race card is already on the table: you've put it there by giving a statistical and existential rationale for NYPD officers to view black suspects differently than white ones.
Moreover, supplying your own statistical context crowds out the historical context in NYC: that unarmed black men have been frequent targets of unpunished police violence.
That said, I agree that the officers obviously made mistakes, and that they should be subject to appropriate discipline depending on the outcome of a criminal trial.
You said:
"My argument states nothing about any race being justifiably shot. What I am pointing out is that blacks are “statistically more likely to be involved in violence” thereby the officers are going to be on a higher level of alertness to danger to themselves and bystanders."
If this is what you're claiming, then the race card is already on the table: you've put it there by giving a statistical and existential rationale for NYPD officers to view black suspects differently than white ones.
Moreover, supplying your own statistical context crowds out the historical context in NYC: that unarmed black men have been frequent targets of unpunished police violence.
That said, I agree that the officers obviously made mistakes, and that they should be subject to appropriate discipline depending on the outcome of a criminal trial.
Paul said:
OK, let’s live in your word for a while. The cops shot him solely because he was black. Had nothing to do with him failing to follow orders from the detective, running into a police vehicle, running into a police officer. Nope, only because he was black. Oh yeah, that black officer, he shot the subject because they were both black?
Loading....