Gothamist: Bell Shooting Trial: Cop Claimed He Only Fired Once

The Edge

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:12:33 -0500

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.

sj

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:09:04 -0500

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.

jaycjay

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:40:06 -0500

"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?

Art Stewel

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:06:23 -0500

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.

bklynd

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:22:31 -0500

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.

Art Stewel

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:54:48 -0500

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.

HowBoutDemCowboys

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:43:02 -0500

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.

zodak

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:13:34 -0500

damn racist cops. they all hate black people. wait, what??

chuzzlewit

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:10:09 -0500

"a "tunnel vision" reaction to a combat situation" AKA "Barney Fife Syndrome"