A short time ago a judge acquitted 3 New York cops in a murder trial over the shooting death of Sean Bell. Sean Bell case has been reffered to as the "Groom Shooting." As Mr. Bell was set to be married the day he was killed by police. The situation surrounding the shooting remains a complete mess and a mystery.
All we know is the following:
- Sean Bell and friends planned a last minute bachelor party at a strip club the day before his wedding.
- The strip club in question was under survelliance by the police for several illegal activities.
- This all went down in the wee hours of the morning.
- Sean Bell was shot to death in his car attempting to leave. The police fired 50 shots. 5 officers involved means each would average 10 shots a piece. However the majority of firing was down by three.
The Police claimed:
- One of Sean Bell's friends was drunk and started a fight in the club, which lead to an undercover officer being involved.
- One of Sean Bell's friends said "Get my gun."
- The undercover called for back up and others undercovers showed up.
- As the confrontation moved outside the police I.Ded themselves and drew guns, Bell and his friends split with Bell heading to his car possibly for a weapon.
- Bell got in his car and rammed a police car, unmarked, with an officer in it and began hauling ass down the street towards the undercovers.
- The undercovers unloaded on the car as it was a weapon threatening them. Bell had already rammed a cop car and showing his willingness to injure officers on the scene.
Sean Bell's Friends Claim:
- They were enjoying themselves when the undercovers pulled guns on them.
- The undercovers did not I.D themselves.
- The friends and Bell decide to run for it thinking its a hold up.
- No one said "Get my gun."
- Sean got in his car to escape the potential hold up.
Naturally its these claims that were highly debated in the media and in court. Public opinion over the matter was heated to say the least. The defense asked for a change of venue, a reasonalbe request as no one wants to hold a jury trial in a place that is so emotionally charged the jury will act on feeling not fact. That was denied. Instead the defense opted for a bench trial. The judge has a record of both ruling for and against police in cases like this and is a veteran of the bench.
The trial quickly became a he said she said event. The evidence could not show whether the officers murdered Sean Bell in cold blood or acted in self defense. The trial came down to the eye witnesses, the officers had good records and Sean's friends had checkered pasts with question motives in the eyes of the judge. The judge sided with the police in the case.
A lot of people were pissed off with the verdict. Al Sharpton said it should have been a jury trial, and several protesters said that the only way to have justice was a revolution....
Sigh...
First, the defense has the right to a bench trial. It happens to the tougher route to go as the judge is a trained legal authority and knows the law, fancy lawyering has difficulties with manipulating a judge. A jury is more easily swayed by emotional arguments and fancy legal manuevering.
Second, justice was served. While we do not like what the Court may rule based on laws and the burdens of proof the charges against the officers did not meet the standards and burdens.
In the end you have a tradgey as the police thought that they were being attacked while Mr. Bell thought he was escaping a potential hold up. Does the number of shots really matter either? Whether its 5 or 5000 Sean Bell remains dead and the circumstances surrounding his death will be heavily debated for sometime to come.