Look, there is nothing left that is useful to say about this case. I figured this one out within a week of when it happened, from the ample eye-witness accounts, and wrote it up back on December 3rd, 2006: "Drunken Undercover Cops 'Spray and Pray.'" I see nothing in the subsequent trial record or any other news coverage that would change my mind. One group of drunks got into an argument with another group of drunks at a strip club. When one of those groups left, the other group decided to continue the beef outside, then got stupid, went into circular firing squad formation around the other group of drunks' trapped car, and slaughtered as many of them as they could before the ammo ran out, killing an unarmed man and crippling his equally unarmed friends. And because the group that did the shooting are all New York City cops, they're getting away with it. Because they're cops, the judge let them testify via affidavit without having to submit to cross-examination. Because they're cops, the judge doesn't even notice that they've changed their story even more often than the victims did, didn't factor that in when deciding who to believe.
Un. Fucking. Believable.
Other than that, there really isn't anything else to say about it. And that wasn't anything new, was it? I just feel like I needed to say it, out loud, in public: "Un. Fucking. Believable."
Because there's nothing else worth saying, I'm damned tempted to lock the comments on this entry, and for that matter on the earlier one. This is not a good one to argue with me about. If you think there is something worth arguing with me about, say it on your own damned web page or blog. Oh, and here, here are the links to the New York Times articles on today's verdict; unsurprisingly, the hometown newspaper has the fullest coverage:
- Michael Wilson, "Judge Acquits Detectives in Bell's 50-Shot Killing," NYT, 4/26/08.
- John Eligon & Corey Kilgannon, "Outrage and Uncertainty After Verdict in Bell Case," NYT, 4/26/08.
- Jim Dwyer, "Outside Court, an Unmistakable Police Presence," NYT, 4/26/08.
- Mood:
outraged
Profile
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
bradhicks- J. Brad Hicks
- about the author
Comments
Since these people said much the same thing the day of the shooting... does that mean they can now sue him for liable? He has stated that he thinks they would lie under oath for cash.
What a lapidary quote. This is pretty much the first I've heard of this case. But, if ever there was a statement that all by itself suggested a monstrous arse-about-face of justice...
And more than that... I'll be surprised if there aren't riots over the weekend in New York City, or at least some serious violence against police there. I hope there isn't, of course. =(
I don't know if it matters, but how much of this would you say is racism, and how much is police-worship?
Two black cops and a white cop are almost certainly lying through their teeth, under oath, when they claim that they thought that at least one member of the bachelor party had a gun. (Remember them turning the city upside down, and bullying the entire neighborhood, trying to find the mythical 4th member of the bachelor party who ran off with the gun, before dropping that BS story altogether? They have no credibility with me.) But whether they're lying or not, nobody questioned the possibility that a black man might be carrying a concealed weapon; the judge certainly didn't criticize them for thinking so, or claiming to think so. See my previous comments about the Terry Stop about our national and irrational fear of black men, one that even black cops share.
But for the non-racial aspect: calling it cop worship is over-stating the case. But there has always been a problem in that judges, and juries, almost always believe the cop over the non-cop when they give conflicting testimony. Don't forget, either that this took place outside a strip club. From the judge's perspective, he was being asked to judge which of two groups of drunks was telling the truth, the cops who were only there in the performance of their duties, or three guys who went there specifically to see the strippers. Think that he didn't factor that into his estimate of the respective credibility of the witnesses? Never mind that the NYPD has zero entitlement to the benefit of the doubt on the shooting of unarmed young black men, after all the lies they've told over the last couple of decades; I'm sure that to the judge, this was less relevant than the fact that the people testifying against the cops were guys who were hanging out in a particularly notorious strip club, bachelor party or no.
No matter how you slice it, this is a case where a judge let his prejudices severely impair his ability to fairly evaluate evidence.
(Later edit): Found it: Shielded from the Truth, a 2-part article series in the Chicago Tribune from December 2007.
Edited at 2008-04-26 03:02 pm (UTC)
I wonder if the verdict would have been different had the victims been wealthy white boys.
Back in the 90's, a new mayor was elected. His very first act upon being sworn into office was to pull out a folder and sign the papers inside of it, right in front of everybody.
It was a document giving an order to terminate the employment of every single police officer within the village and township of Northampton, effective immediately. Every officer who'd been with the force for more than 2 years was fired. On. The. Spot.
Mysterious, strangely, inexplicably, every single "crime problem" the town had been suffering from for the last 15 years vanished overnight.
Article here and a GoogleSearch here.
Edited at 2008-04-27 06:02 am (UTC)
Al Sharpton is involved, so there is money and incentive to bring civil actions. (I think that is a violation of double jeopardy, but that is just me.)
The Criminal and Civil courts are (usually) separate.
Criminal cases, the plaintiff is the state, and the defendant(s) are the ones being charged with the crime (in this case, the 3 cops.) A guilty verdict will result in prison(>1 year) or jail (<1 year) time, and/or a fine (which goes to the state, not the victims/families.)
A person v. person case is always going to be civil court. This allows money damages to the victims/families. (Think OJ Simpson... found not guilty criminally, but civilly, he was found guilty of wrongful death.)
There are also different standards of proof in criminal and civil cases.
Criminal = beyond a reasonable doubt. (because you are depriving the defendant of their freedoms)
Civil = preponderance of the evidence. (because it is 'just' money that is in dispute.)
canmay always sue them back. ;-)However, I man definitely not a lawyer and this is just what I can surmise based on the quote to which I linked.
So, yeah, it was a drunken altercation between two groups of assholes, one of which happened to be armed. There is nothing about this case that doesn't stink.
In reading the above comments, yes, all a defense attorney has to do when defending police is sufficiently muddy the waters and a jury will generall give accused policemen the benefit of the doubt.
-Justthisguy AKA rnk35