The wait is finally over. This MSNBC article confirms that the officers who shot Sean Bell are not guilty. Phew. As I look at the angry mob at the court house, I can’t help but think: This case was not even half as cut and dry as the OJ murders. Where was Al Sharpton and company then?
I don’t know if there will be a “civil disturbance” over this, although I am sure Al Sharpton would like nothing less. I do know the system worked here. Here are a few reasons why:
1. If you try and run over a peace officer (or any one else for that matter) then it seems fair for the officer to defend themselves. Especially when you do it a couple of times, and your friends are there to help.
2. Assume for a minute — which I do not — that this is a bad shooting. That doesn’t make it a crime. I have warned many a time that if we start prosecuting, as opposed to disciplining, officers for uses of force that are out of policy, we will lose our cops by the dozens.
3. The court apparently heard “conflicting” testimony on what happened that night. We are all innocent until proven guilty, and beyond a reasonable doubt is a tough, tough standard. Even the witnesses for the prosecution couldn’t nail this thing down consistently. Given that ambiguity, the verdict appears just.
Finally, and let’s not forget the good Dr. Sharpton (where is that PhD from?) and his antics here, the judge must have been swayed by the negative publicity here. I have long believed that Sharpton, Jackson, and the others are all just hurting themselves when they rile up the populous around these events. No doubt the judge heard them loud and clear - which probably made him think even harder on whether he was being swallowed up by the publicity machine. Good work, Al.
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. I wonder, by the way: Do those angry folks in NYC think the OJ verdict was a rip off, too?
Apr 25, 2008 at 4:09 pm
PC said: “I wonder, by the way: Do those angry folks in NYC think the OJ verdict was a rip off, too?”
Hell no! They thought that for OJ to have even been CHARGED was nothing but racially motivated.
I’m glad the judge in Queens had the good sense to uphold justice AND the law in this case!
406, OUT
Apr 29, 2008 at 8:23 am
I tell ya, it’s SAD…
I’ve seen a few sites where this topic is discussed. There are some SERIOUS cop-haters out there. One discussion site run by TOPIX for a local newspaper has discussions on subjects they run as news articles. Although, I’m happy to report, the only ones responding on this subject who sound like they are literate and have an IQ higher than that of pond scum are PRO the decision of the court in this case, numerically there are lots of posting from what I call the Community of Ignoramuses (or is that Ignorami?). They almost always refer to the cops in question as rascist or haters of black people (ignoring the fact that 2 of the 3 ARE African-American).
It’s sad that good cops have to give their lives to protect people like this. Talk about the gene pool needing some chlorine!
406, OUT
Apr 30, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I don’t know exactly what happened in this case, and I’m not going to make any assumptions. However, the problem is that because the death was caused by a cop there isn’t going to be a fair investigation. There never is. I think that this is the reason there are so many “cop-haters out there”. People feel (myself included) that cops can, and do, get away with anything, including murder. You can’t tell me that this isn’t the case because I have personally had a situation like this happen in my family. My uncle was murdered by a cop, after he had called for their help. The officer shot him in the head, claiming he attacked her with a knife. I’m not going to go too much into detail but it was an obvious lie. The witnesses (saying he didn’t have a knife), and the coroner’s report proved it. Not to mention he was the kind of guy who would NEVER hurt a woman, ever. It didn’t matter though, the press had their story. We all had to hear him called a “knife wielding maniac” after we learned of his death (including his teenaged son). Because of this and the simple fact that it was a cop that killed him, no lawyer would take the case (after they gave us all kinds of advice, and told us we should absolutely take it to court).
Apr 30, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Kerri,
I am sorry to hear about your uncle. I, for one, will never say that all cops out there are good. There have been murderers, rapists, and robbers among us.
I believe you. What I meant by my post, and what happens more often than a tragedy like yours is that the COPS don’t get a fair shake because the hate mongers get the juries all riled up prior to any evidence being presented.
I guess you and I actually agree completely on this subject — EVERY DEFENDANT deserves an impartial and fair trial. And sometimes that doesn’t happen for either of the sides of this issue.
Again, I am truly sorry about your uncle.
PC
Apr 30, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Kerri,
One other thing. I am surprised no lawyer would take the case. In most major cities, there are scores of lawyers that LOVE to sue the police. I don’t know why this happened in your instance, but I assure you the opposite is the norm. Too many people sue the police too often in most metro areas.
PC
May 1, 2008 at 5:41 am
It’s true. Everyone deserves a fair trial and too often they wont get one because of all the bias people have. It’s a shame. I guess in the police’s case many people only have negative experiences with cops. Again, myself included, even besides this case. Also, especially around my age group people spend alot of time on the internet, which I’m sure you know is flooded with all kinds of “police brutality”, tasing deaths etc.
I’m not really sure why they wouldn’t take the case. I would have to bring it up with my aunt. It didn’t happen in a city though. I don’t know if that would have something to do with it?
Kerri
May 1, 2008 at 6:09 am
To add on to your comment, PC, there’s another factor:
People like Kerri, who have unfortunate incidents where there may be a cop who has run afoul of the law and what is right, see their experience as the norm rather than the aberration. It is a matter of the misuse of logic that paints from the specific to the general: I *KNOW* for sure this cop was bad and we got a raw deal, therefore ALL cops are bad and people always get a raw deal. That kind of logic simply doesn’t get it in the world of reality.
It’s the same logic as saying “I know for a fact that 406 is fat because he eats too much. Therefore all people who are fat are that way because they eat too much.” It doesn’t work for fat people and it doesn’t work for bad cops.
I wouldn’t dare say that Kerri isn’t telling the truth. But I would urge Kerri to use the brain God gave her to see past the fallacy of that kind of thinking. It simply doesn’t represent the facts. It simply isn’t true that because a cop is involved there isn’t going to be a fair investigation. In fact, if you look at the total number of investigations about possible cop wrongdoing, you’ll see far more of them are weighted, as far as pure fairness is concerned, against the cop rather than for the cop. Looking at cops through glasses tinted by this experience is not likely to produce an accurate picture of cops.
406, OUT
May 1, 2008 at 7:49 am
It’s arrogance like this,406, that only adds to the problem. I wasn’t saying all cops ARE bad. Only that because people only have negative expiriences they end up cynical, with a bias against cops.
Much like because I have only read these few posts you have written, I have the impression that you’re an arrogant person because that’s all I have to go on. Although I could probably read a post on a completely different topic and think your a really nice guy.
May 6, 2008 at 5:59 am
Holy moly – I’m shocked. I was trying to relate to what you were saying, Kerri, not to be arrogant. I must have mis-typed. I DO appreciate your willingness to let me know that you felt what I typed was arrogant – many would have either just had a temper tantrum or ignored it altogether.
Let me try to re-group so you will hopefully better understand what I was going after.
First – I was not in any way trying to demean the experience you had or to say it wasn’t true. What happened, happened, and I sure wasn’t there, so I have no position to judge it from. I can only take what you say at face value, and I have no cause to believe you are or would falsify. I hope that clears up any misconception you may have from that angle. If not, tell me how I need to clarify.
Kerri, Here’s the statement of yours that first grabbed my attention: “However, the problem is that because the death was caused by a cop there isn’t going to be a fair investigation.” That SOUNDED to me like you felt cops were bad. But I can see how, in re-reading what I wrote, that you could feel that I fell prey to the same over-generalization I was complaining about. You didn’t say all cops were bad. But you did say that if a cop was involved, there could not be a fair investigation. I took issue with that then, as I do now. But perhaps I can be clearer that I understand you’re not claiming all cops are bad cops.
In your response you said: “Only that because people only have negative expiriences they end up cynical, with a bias against cops.” So let me ask you: Are you saying that the only experiences people have with cops are bad experiences? That seems to be it from what I read. I suppose that would be true of people only had ONE experience with a cop, and it was bad. But how many people only have ONE experience with a cop? I suppose it’s possible, but I could think it unlikely. So do you mean that you never had a cop treat you nicely, never had a cop do something for you or a friend that was positive? Nothing? If so, that’s a shame, and truly sad. IF I am reading the sentence I quoted correctly, and IF it is true the people in general only have bad experiences with cops, it’s a sad thing.
If that is the case, I think there really needs to be some more outreach by the cops that have given only this negative experience, and, on the other side of the coin, there needs to be some seeking of real understanding by these folks who say they only have bad and no good experiences with cops. Because at this point, I’m not quite on board with the idea that an entire department of police officers could exist that only gives negative experiences to all with whom it has contact.
I still it’s not a good way to recognize reality to paint from the specific to the general based on one experience. I stand by that. I hope that’s not sounding arrogant, but simply logical.
I personally have seen instances of cops being investigated, and I can say that the persons making the complaint or wanting the investigation were treated every bit as fairly as the cops, and that more often than not the cops had a greater burden of proof than a John Doe off the street would have had. PC – do you find this to be true, too, or am I just a bit off the mark?
Let’s see where we stand now, Kerri, OK?
406, OUT
May 10, 2008 at 9:50 pm
They tried to make it a race issue even with black cops involved. I’m so tired of the race card. How about the do what the cop says card.