March 19, 2008
Bell Shooting Trial: Cop Claimed He Only Fired Once
A Queens DA took the stand yesterday, to testify about a detective who fired at Sean Bell, an unarmed man killed in a barrage of police gunfire hours before his wedding. DA Michelle Cort, who took Detective Marc Cooper's statement after the November 25, 2006 shooting, said, "He told us he fired a single shot. He was certain he fired one time."
Cooper, (pictured) who actually fired four times and is charged with reckless endangerment, had reasoned the missing rounds were left at home. Additionally, Cort said Cooper "fired where he thought he heard the shots coming from" - even though he didn't see the shooting.
He also claimed that his badge was visibly looped around his neck as he leaned out of an unmarked Camry to take his one (or four) shots at the Nissan, but didn't recall whether his fellow undercover cops displayed their police badges or hearing police commands. A spokesman for the Detectives Endowment Association, said Cooper's actions were caused by a "tunnel vision" reaction to a combat situation to survive.
And on Monday, the NYPD's forensics chief seemed to support defendant Detective Gescard Isnora's claim that Sean Bell, driving in his Nissan Altima, tried to run him down. A jeans-print on the Nissan's bumper matched Isnora's pants, and Dr. Peter Pizzola said, "It would be more than casual contact. It would require heat. I can't determine what speed would have been required."
|
"a "tunnel vision" reaction to a combat situation"
AKA "Barney Fife Syndrome"
damn racist cops. they all hate black people.
wait, what??
If I'm ever taken to court for anything, I'm going to use the "I can't recall" defense. Seems to work for everyone else.
How long has this case been in the news and on trial? It seems like a complete waste of money, with a prosecution motivated at appeasing certain agitators, as opposed to the true administration of justice. Those cops do not appear to have committed a crime. The real crime seems to be that they are in court defending themselves against criminal charges.
You're right, Art. How about next time cops shoot some unarmed civilians, we just let ME decide if it was OK or not. I could get a title like "chief arbitrator" and just call 'em the way I sees 'em. I wouldn't fuck around with lawyers and evidence and stuff - who need that. Obviously that would be a lot cheaper and quicker.
Hey bklynd - there is a difference between whether they committed a criminal wrong or a civil wrong. I never suggested they not bear some culpability. But what 'evidence' have you seen that they committed a crime? With only the luxury of following news reports of what happenned in court at the criminal trial, with lawyers and evidence, and stuff, it does not appear they committed a crime. Which means this seems like a waste of money.
"With only the luxury of following news reports of what happenned in court at the criminal trial, with lawyers and evidence, and stuff, it does not appear they committed a crime. Which means this seems like a waste of money."
So, based on what came out during the trial, they appear not to be guilty... so having the trial was a waste of money? Wouldn't that make any trial that results in an acquittal also a waste of money?
This is a non-story which the prosecution is attempting to make into something. My comment here is directed only at this aspect of Detective Cooper's statements, not on the whole thing.
However, it is not uncommon that officers who have just been in a shooting situation do not remember the number of rounds they fired. In post-shoot studies, many times officers will underestimate the number of rounds they fired or be adamant that they did not fire at all. They are not trying to be deceptive, they just genuinely don't know.
Read up on the effects of stress and adrenaline which come into play in shooting situations or really any intensely stressful situation. There is the sense of things moving in slow motion, tunnel vision, and auditory blocking. It's a very real phenomenon and anyone experiencing it is not too likely to accurately remember minute details of the situation after the fact. Especially in a situation like this where there's a training aspect that comes into play. When the situation goes to shit and you get that big dump of adrenaline into your system, you revert automatically to your training. You'll shoot the way you've been trained to shoot without even realizing it sometimes. You sure as hell won't be counting your rounds.
Said it before, said it again:
You shoot to stop the threat.
Real life isn't like the movies where you can just wing someone in the leg or shoulder (because apparently there aren't those little things called arteries in the movies, either) and they'll just STOP. I mean, heaven forbid a cop DID do that and the perp/"victim" bled out -- what would people be saying then?
There's just so many things that a lot of folks just don't understand and the media certainly doesn't want to educate you or themselves about 'em. And not for a good reason.