AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Update: The NYPD will have to be on alert on Monday now? Earlier, WNBC reported that the grand jury investigating the fatal police shooting of Sean Bell has reached a verdict but will wait until Monday to release it. But now a defense lawyer says the jury voted to indict three of the detectives involved: Michael Oliver who fired 31 shots, Gescard F. Isnora who fired the first of 11 shots, and Marc Cooper. Cooper's lawyer Paul Martin said, "I am disappointed with the grand jury’s decision but this is just the first stage of a long process and I am confident that once all the facts are considered by a jury of Detective Cooper’s peers, that he will be exonerated of all charges."
Update: Here's video of the Reverend Al Sharpton's comments about the possible indictments. Here's some of his remarks:
One of the ugliest things that occured was the killing of those two auxiliary police officers the other night. But it was just as ugly for the police to break the law and kill Sean Bell. We've got to have one standard of law and one standard of enforcement. We hope this grand jury brought us closer to that enforcement. We don't know. We're determined not to stop until we have a city and a nation that has one law for everybody.This comes the day after the grand jury's deliberations were interrupted by testimony from the last-minute witness. The witness, a Spanish-speaking janitor whose timing seemed to be all too convenient for the NYPD, testified that he saw a fourth man fire a gun at police. And he also said the undercover officer identified themselves as police to Bell and his friends. (Bell, Joseph Guzman, and Trent Benefield were all unarmed when the police shot at them 50 times.) The boss of a witness, who works for an AirTrain contractor, apparently told him not to get involved. A Daily News source deemed the witness "a waste of time."
Still, his sudden appearance caused community leaders already suspicious of the Queens DA's investigation to speak out angrily. State Senator Malcolm Smith said, "I think at this point the community is very concerned." The Reverend Al Sharpton said, "This story, as told, smells" and renewed calls for a special prosecutor. But Newsday had this quote from Detectives' Endowment Association president Michael Palladino said, "The mere fact that a pro-police witness comes forward, why does that trigger the need for a special prosecutor? If [the Rev. Al] Sharpton had an anti-police witness that was denied access to the grand jury, he would be marching from now till kingdom come."
And Guzman, who spent many months in the hospital after the shooting, said he wouldn't cooperate with prosecutors if only one police officer is indicted.
Photograph of a sign outside the Queens building where the grand jury has been meeting by Frank Franklin II/AP
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
great, get out the riot gear. anything less then a lynching of these cops is gonna get sharpton and crew riled up. idiots don't understand the point of a jury.
'“I wouldn’t cooperate, not at all,” Mr. Guzman said during a news conference'
what a hypocritical ass.
Detectives' Endowment Association president Michael Palladino said, "The mere fact that a pro-police witness comes forward, why does that trigger the need for a special prosecutor? If [the Rev. Al] Sharpton had an anti-police witness that was denied access to the grand jury, he would be marching from now till kingdom come."
Ba-zing!
Does this mean Al Sharpton is done trying to find out if he's related to white people? Or did he just fail at that too and he's trying to use this as a diversion?
The police are supposed to be public servants not public executors. It appears that indictments are warranted in this case. Convictions should follow.
maybe they should indict you for your tinfoil hatness
There will be no convictions with a grand jury, only indicement—and sadly, these indicements will be for the revenge of an unrelated grand jury hearing in 1999 (Amadou Diallo).
Sharpton is a racist media whore.
NYT is reporting that 3 of the cops will be indicted on monday.
good
edEx,
please shut the fuck up. this has nothing to do with any past case - it's about the facts of this one. you said in previous posts that we shouldn't base judgement, because "we don't have all the facts", now take your fucking advise and SHUT THE FUCK UP.
thank you.
Agreed that indictments only open the door to trial. But the trial will follow and so should convictions (unless the cops get a pass from bungled lawyering which happens too often in these cases). Whether Sharpton is stirring the pot or not is immaterial. The cops did something wrong by performing what amounts to the execution of an unarmed man.
Don't wanna get shot? Don't try to run the cops over.
If it'll make all you copbashers happy, Isnora, Cooper, and Oliver have been indicted.
There will be no way that there can be a fair trial in this thanks to, you guessed it - Al Sharpton.
Now what would you do if you were a cop and you had some perps with a 2000 pound weapon bearing down on you?
In the words of former NY State chief judge Sol Wachtler ... a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if it so chooses.
Too bad.
It keeps the Rev. Charlatan in the news once again.
Toby,
Based on some of the comments from some of the folks, they'd expect the cop to ask them very nicely to not run them over. In Spanish AND English.
What do you think they were indicted for - murder, manslaughter?
Wouldn't it have been amusing and ironic if only the non-white cops had been indicted?
"Don't wanna get shot? Don't try to run the cops over."
Or threaten a fellow club goer that you are going to get a gun and shoot them...you never know who may be listening.
now sharpton will cry about the two black cops indicted.
Hey ed, what's an indicement?
And now hedgehog feels the need to dump on the DAs. Some of you losers should try working a civil service job - especially one in which you don't get to be in a union and you make far less money than the private sector.
Ugh. This is the type of comment thread that'll eventually cause Gothamist to screen comments before they're posted.
And with threads like this, I wouldn't blame them.
Either way, I think this should go to a Jury. IMO, This needs to be resolved in a court of law.
they already do, stephen. sometimes gratuitously.
that poll is worthless. first off, grand juries don't reach verdicts - that's up to the trial court. secondly, this case is just starting, so how can you conclude that this result is "...should have been more/less". this was not a trial, the three cops will get their day in court and once the verdict of the trial is reached, only then can you truly ask someone whether justice was served.
jen, please remove the poll - all it does is show how ignorant you (ie. gothamist) are.
I would be much less negative about this whole thing if that dummy al sharpton didnt attach himself on to this case like a leech. he adds NOTHING, all he does is make people on both sides more angry. he is scum. how does this guy even make money? why do black people listen to him? he isnt fighting for the african american cause, he just likes to see himself in the paper.
Murder indictments are unwarranted if that's what they are. However, criminally negligent homicide, manslaughter, and reckless endangerment are all fair charges. Firing 50 shots in public shouldn't be taken lightly.
A jury should decide if these guys did anything wrong. If it was anyone who wasn't a cop, no one would be asking if the charges were fair.
#23, the poll question asks if there should have been more or less indictments, it has nothing to do with verdicts. maybe you should take some reading comprehension classes before commenting and making disparaging remarks.
There does not seem to be any situation that the Rev. Al and his pal Baron cannot "Tawanize" for their own glory and for dinero.......
Predictable - Sharpton is comparing the assasination of those two young auxillary cops to the Bell shooting. Two completely different circumstances - Garvin set out to kill, the cops set out to protect. And if Garvin were black, somehow you know Sharpton would be with his family right now demanding an investigation as to why the cops shot him so many times.
"A jury should decide if these guys did anything wrong. If it was anyone who wasn't a cop, no one would be asking if the charges were fair."
Once again the ignorance of the average New York citizens comes to light. The laws on the use of deadly physical force are not the same for sworn police officers according to the New York State Criminal Procedure Law and Penal Law as they are for regular civilians. Therefore your entire statement is immaterial to this discussion. What matters is whether or not a police officer (not a civilian) finding himself in those same or similar circumstances would reasonably perceive there to be a deadly threat to himself or another person. That is all that matters, and if that standard is met in the affirmative then the use of deadly physical force is justified. Personally, given the fact that Mr Bell was operating a motor vehicle (intoxicated, no less!) and attempting to run over at least one or more police officers that night sounds like a deadly threat to me. Ending such a threat seems more than reasonable. I wouldn't expect you to stand around waiting to be hit and go home as a paraplegic or in a body bag if you had the means to end such an overwhelming deadly threat either, so why does everyone expect these officers to do so?
Unfortunately, however, the grand jury probably used the same reasoning you did, which is incorrect and outside the law. Having sat on a grand jury during the summer I can easily imagine just how these "deliberations" went down.
Once again the ignorance of the average New York citizens comes to light.
And the pretentiousness of the average New York citizen comes to light.
It's an opinion, douchebag. Mine is that cops and regular citizens should be held to the same standard of deadly force, so they don't get to use the Uncle Jimbo defense of "they're comin right for us."
I think their use of force was probably justified. I also think it's completely reasonable for a jury to decide.
I apologize if I don't feel as though two years of C-level college performance and a training course makes someone better than me.
Sharpton: maybe the Bell family has chosen him as an advocate because the family needs the media attention he would bring to the case. Think of similar cases that garner zero attention or investigation.
The focus on Sharpton shouldn't overshadow that other orgs and attorneys are also assisting/advisng the Bell family. It's the Bells right to choose who they want to help them understand the reality behind their son's death. Since I'm not in their shoes, I can't judge them for this.
To me, Sharpton is a media whore who is ably enabled by the media. It's a sick parasitic relationship that has worked out very well for so long and you know how difficult change is.
The reality is that anyone who wasn't there on the night of the shooting or heard the grand jury testimony will never know the truth.
But I do hope that whatever the outcome that everyone involved will have some measure of peace.
"It's an opinion, douchebag. Mine is that cops and regular citizens should be held to the same standard of deadly force, so they don't get to use the Uncle Jimbo defense of "they're comin right for us."
Your opinion is irrelevant. This is about the law, not some Joe Blow layman's opinion. A grand jury is legally bound to rest its decision on the law, not on personal feelings or opinions. So, again, entirely irrelevant because your opinion is legally way off the mark. If you want police officers to be held to the same standards then write to your state senator/assemblyman. A grand jury is no place for citizens to legislate from the jury bench.
"I think their use of force was probably justified. I also think it's completely reasonable for a jury to decide."
If there is no legally reasonable basis for a true bill then there should be no jury trial. These officers should not be subjected to a jury trial if they haven't broken the law. Unfortunately, an irrational grand jury seems to have decided otherwise, more than likely due to ignorance and political propaganda.
"I apologize if I don't feel as though two years of C-level college performance and a training course makes someone better than me."
I never claimed to be better than you. I am merely pointing out your ignorance in this particular matter.
Sharpton: maybe the Bell family has chosen him as an advocate because the family needs the media attention he would bring to the case. Think of similar cases that garner zero attention or investigation.
The focus on Sharpton shouldn't overshadow that other orgs and attorneys are also assisting/advisng the Bell family. It's the Bells right to choose who they want to help them understand the reality behind their son's death. Since I'm not in their shoes, I can't judge them for this.
To me, Sharpton is a media whore who is ably enabled by the media. It's a sick parasitic relationship that has worked out very well for so long and you know how difficult change is.
The reality is that anyone who wasn't there on the night of the shooting or heard the grand jury testimony will never know the truth.
But I do hope that whatever the outcome that everyone involved will have some measure of peace.
As per Anonymous Citizen,
I did not know this and if it's true then that places 'sworn police officers' above the law. It should be struck down as it permits all sorts of illegal behavior with some vague notion of justification and accounts for the arrogance of those in uniform.i see, ching aka the edge is back to his attempt at being smart. too bad, he's just a nerd.
right, ching?
"I did not know this and if it's true then that places 'sworn police officers' above the law."
Nonsense. Something that is clearly prescribed by law cannot be "above the law" nor can it be "illegal." Your statement is highly illogical.
"It should be struck down as it permits all sorts of illegal behavior with some vague notion of justification and accounts for the arrogance of those in uniform."
The state maintains a monopoly on force. This is neither vague nor does it have to do with arrogance. The law merely accounts for the fact that the police, as the sole entity allowed to exercise force on behalf of the people, are going to find themselves in situations requiring a deadly physical force response more often than Joe Citizen. Police officers seek out criminals and actively terminate (whether by deadly force or lesser force) criminal behavior in order to prevent harm to the people. In this specific instance, the officers were trying to take a gun off the street which they reasonably believed was going to be used to murder or seriously injure someone that night. When attempting to stop what they reasonably believed was going to occur, they were confronted with a vehicle being utilized as a deadly instrument against them. If, given those facts and circumstances a reasonable officer in a similar situation would perceive there to be a deadly physical threat, then the deadly physical force used to terminate the threat was justified. Whether such a threat in fact existed actually does not have any bearing on the justification.
To clarify why this matters:
Joe Citizen does not go around looking for criminals. Joe Citizen does not perform enforcement operations, he does not go undercover, or do anything else that voluntarily places him into direct confrontations with dangerous individuals who may not particularly appreciate the prospect of being sent to prison.
Sworn police officers are treated differently under New York state law because they perform activities that vastly differ from those of Joe Citizen. Joe Citizen would not have tried to confront Sean Bell's group to stop and question them when overhearing talk about retrieving a firearm to settle some stupid "beef." He would probably call 911, thus bringing us full circle back to the police. I am not sure how else you expect this to work.
Guess the people in Kew Gardens saw it differently.
they heard all the FACTS and came with with 3 indictments, one of them manslaughter.
So all of you people who are still interjecting your views have it all wrong, per usual.
they heard the facts and the facts say, 3 indicted for the shooting. Yep, three, three, three.
put that in your tinfoil hat and smoke it.
and Jen, I love you for all the work you put in on this story. Sorry I missed your NPR interview though I have some conflicting thoughts, you're still a good egg. And, I mean it. babe.
chong chong ka chong.
So, as a native Midwesterner, I'm tired of hearing this mid-country, unwashed masses bullshit. So much of this stream is calling Sharpton everything short of an n-bomb and claiming the NYPD can do no wrong. I'm sorry A) this case merits indictments. B) The NYPD in general merits deeper investigation. Cubscout cops are soaking up bullets without vests from the force or even pay, unarmed black men keep getting shot...and yet, WE, the Midwesterners (who made Obama a Senator) are the backwoods, racist regressive types? I'm sorry. Bite me. This town is more racist and classist and backwoods than the supposed flyover country of Chicago which I left. I'm disgusted. I know my opinion does not count given that I grew up as part of the unwashed masses in the "REST OF THE COUNTRY" but I cannot get over how sick of this bourgeois "i-know-how-it-is" bullshit I constantly get from New Yorkers.
What is the rationale for waiting until Monday to release a verdict - that will probably be leaked and making headlines around the world in mere hours?
Some of you posters are vicious in your posts ! Where's the Gotham Gestapo when you need them ? Anyway, I think they got it right this time . The cops that fired the most shots are the ones facing charges . Let's think about this for a minute, Ever since the cops shot up the guy in the Bronx [41] times . The city has been feeling the brunt of the storm . It took some time, But they finally got themselves on the right track . Did these cops being charged overreact ? Maybe, Did the ones who fired minimal shots betray their fellow officers on the scene ? Definitely, Why you ask? Because the other officers that shot minimal shots were seen as being "responsible in "Holstering" their fire arm by the jury . Maybe they were the last to fire & realized what was going on and thought "That's enough, There's no need for me to fire unnecessarily, The guy's down ." Maybe they saw these officers peeling off and thought that this was going to be a problem and limited there fire . Who knows the exact reason for their limited participation in the mess . I say no kid gloves for these cops ! They're being charged with killing this man & they should get the max !
You have a point "Zak" .
[24] Posted by: whatever | March 16, 2007 5:11 PM
You will forever be consumed by fear...
Sharpton speaks for Sharpton.
This comment by #24 is like saying why do all (Euro-Ethnics) so called white people like the 'edge' Listen to George Bush, Karl Rove Dick Cheney, Sean Hannity, AnnCoulter, Bill O'Reilly, Hitler, Tom Delay, Rudy G, Benard Kerik, and I could go on...I mean do you?
I was with you up until the very end when your logic went all pear-shaped. Per your conclusion, there is never a need to examine whether a cop's actions are justified. That last sentence especially is just plain bullshit. The threshold may in fact be higher, but that doesn't mean that the sky's the limit, no matter what a cop may PERCEIVE the threat to be. His perception is entirely irrelevant, which is why the grand jury is involved.
I don't think anyone does not consider this a tragedy for many different reasons: a life was lost, police officers are indicted for protecting the city and the worst aspect: racial politicians have another incident to garner attention and polarize the citizens of NYC.
I find it truly amazing that it took the Grand Jury many days and hours to consider their decision, while the officers had how many seconds to react, with a car careening at them, knowing that one of these men "threatened to get a gun" to settle a fight in a club that is known for guns, drugs and prostitution.
I also found it telling that there were 56 shots involved in stopping the threat of the village shooter's carnage and mayhem. Could it be that it is a "stopping the threat issue" not a racial issue. Hmmmmm.....
#35 - listen, if what you really want is to make hot, slippery love to my butt, why don't you just say so?
sheesh.
sorry, ching.
I'm not a rice queen.
Only difference is brooklyn native,
the village shooter was armed with not one but TWO guns. the sean bell case is still looking for the imaginary gun and fourth person.
It's really simple, see?
did you hear, the grand jury indicted 3 cops.
Wrong. Stop wasting everyone's time until you've reviewedappropriate research material (www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-R-0321.htm") on this subject.
The officer's perception is in fact highly relevant. A police officer is justified in using deadly physical force if he reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to defend himself or another against a deadly physical threat.
More specifically (as quoted from the link):
The fact that a grand jury was "involved" is immaterial to the facts of the case. The state is not going to be able to disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore a trial is a complete waste of time. Meeting the probable cause standard required by the grand jury proceeding is a cake walk compared to what the prosecution is up against for the trial. And I venture to say that the grand jury probably should have returned with a no true bill for all officers. If they only indict some but not all then they have already admitted that all they are going by is the number of shots fired (no doubt inspired by Sharpton/Barron and their ridiculously ignorant, spiteful, and racist blatherings on TV), which again is completely irrelevant if the officer firing reasonably believed such continued firing (over the range of a few seconds at best) to be necessary.
Who cares about a gun? Trying to run over police officers with your car, I suppose, isn't deadly physical force? If that's true, why don't you go outside and jump out in front of the next car that drives down your street. Post a report from your hospital bed when you wake up from the coma next year, if you ever wake up at all.
And by the way, I'd take the word of an honest hard working janitor on the AirTrain over that of two losers with rap sheets longer than the Empire State building any day.
Those 3 officers will be vindicated and found not guilty at trial. If you feel that this exercise in futility by the prosecution is an appropriate use of your taxpayer dollars, enjoy the show. I for one would rather not have the state's time wasted with stupid anti-police vendettas. But whatever floats your boat.
You sound like Charles Barron. Before you keep spouting off unfounded nonsense, please do list all those "unarmed black men" who "keep getting shot" (define this, is this every day/week/month/year/decade?). I'd like a rundown of brief facts such as exact names, dates, and locations. It should be easy since it "keeps" happening. By the way, you should let Google know about it, too. I can't seem to turn up much in my searches for these frequent occurrences.
I'm not on an anti-police vendetta; frankly I don't have much of a care one way or another regarding the outcome.
My problem is in your interpretation of the law, which is flawed. You seem to feel that a police officer has a blank check to use force and I don't think that's what the law intended, and I'm sure that's not how it will be interpreted in this case.
You are the one displaying strong feelings - I'm guessing you either work for the PD yourself, have a close relative who does, or you have some military affiliation. That's fine. The problem is, you don't understand the rule of law. You stated in bold that it's not an affimative defense and then go on to claim that there is no way to disprove justification or prove that an excessive use of force was displayed.
I guess you skipped this part from your same link:
So, again, the officers' perceptions are materially irrelevant when you get right down to it. It's an objective measure that determines what an appropriate response is, from a legal standpoint.
Go back to watching your Matlock reruns- I'm sure you appear much smarter when you already know the outcome.
I doubt AC is a cop. Cops rarely, if ever know the law they are paid to enforce.
Probably a cop wannabe, mall ninja, internet commando and definately a gun fanatic. Same with edex and the edge aka "ching".
oh, add in a bush conservative and pro military to the group.
In this particular instance, given this particular situation and set of circumstances, I do not believe justification can be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not mean this to be a blanket statement to apply to every officer involved shooting, only the Bell controversy.
No, as your own quote states the officers' perceptions are one component. So they are relevant, though you are right that they are not the only standard to be applied. Though I'm pretty sure I mentioned a few times the word's "reasonable" and what a "reasonable" person in the same or similar situation would do. So what's your point? Didn't I already acknowledge this?
How clever, an ad hominem attack. Very convincing.
so anyway, it's chilly out. wear a sweater.
A little bitter about a parking ticket you disagreed with? The injustice of it, those damned ignorant cops!
I do not follow your reasoning here, if you are even using any.
As if any of that was even remotely relevant to this discussion. What does Bush or the military have to do with Sean Bell?
AC- according to my friend there, apparently anyone who isn't on the "Sean Bell Was Innocent! Cops Are Bad!" bandwagon is a Republican.
I guess maybe I oughta go tag some windows and trucks for some street cred, yo.
Edge your a cop aren't you? Or your a wanabee cop and they LOST YOUR FILE.
squidfly- You got me. I am, indeed, of the constabulary. Excellent deduction there, detective.
Might you be heading back to Baker Street now, Mr. Holmes?
nah, ching ain't no cop.
He's on here 24 hours a day. and, if you know a cop, cops don't yap their mouth off on every goddamn subject. cops won't tell you they're a cop.
in fact, they usually lie about their occupation if you ever meet them socially.
ching, ain't no cop, just a giant nerd.
60- Well, since you're my #1 fan and you follow me everywhere on this site.. what's that make you, then?
Btw pajama party @ my place tonight, wanna come? I'll be serving s'mores and ovaltine.
I told you, ching.
I ain't no rice queen.
no, you're just a queen.
LOLLOL
qqmore
Number of shots NYC cops fired at Sean Bell and his two companions on 11/26/06: 50
Number of shots NYC cops fired at David Gavin on 3/15/07: 56
Understanding that the number of shots fired to eliminate a perceived threat has nothing to do with racism or negligence: Priceless
BTW, Bell incident works out to 16.6 shots per suspect. In the Gavin case it's 56 per suspect. In retrospect looks like the indicted cops were rather restrained in their actions.
There are some critical differences between the Bell and Garvin shootings:
- Bell and his friends were unarmed.
- Garvin was firing at the police, and he had just shot three people.
- Garvin clearly had a gun, but refused to drop it.
Sorry Jen, to the cops involved, they were very similar. Cops and a witness report that the Bell crew shot at them. Cops also knew they boasted having a gun in the club prior so the perceived threat was there. What's more, they used their car as a weapon against the cops...hurting one officer.
More importantly, you ignore the larger narrative being promoted by Sharpton and his ilk. The myth they're spinning is that the number of shots fired somehow correlates to the level of "guilt" or “racism” -- ironic considering the first cop to shot and two of the three indicted are black. Hence the "50 shots" chants. This is of course absurd.
If the cops had the right to shoot 10 times (and they did) they had the right to shoot 50. It's all about eliminating the perceived threat. Perceived being the operative word. Besides you're no less dead if one bullet kills you or 100 do.
Sharpton, the protests and now this indictment are pure demagoguery. If we get sucked into that trap the city will eventually become an intolerable place to live and work.
Garvin shot 3 people before getting shot by one cop on the scene, then others fired.
Bell didn't shoot anyone, if so, where is the witness?
Yes, the level of shots fired means something.
We all know, the good guys and bad, that dead people are not witnesses. then it will be just the cops word to be relied upon. And, we all know the outcome of such cases.