Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Detective Michael Oliver, the undercover cop who fired 31 times at Sean Bell in the fatal November 2006 shooting, told a grand jury last year, "I didn't want to die. I reloaded the gun, and I continued to fire."
The 14-year NYPD veteran's testimony was entered into evidence in the trial where he and fellow detective Gescard Isnora face manslaughter charges; detective Marc Cooper faces reckless endangerment. Bell, who was to be married hours later, died from one of Oliver's bullets--a total of 50 were fired from police--while Bell's friends Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield were also seriously injured.
Oliver believed Guzman was armed (he wasn't) and had shot Isnora. He even said he was aiming at Guzman and Benefield, not Bell: "You are trained to keep shooting until you eliminate that threat. Unfortunately as a result, sometimes people die, and it was the last thing in the world I ever wanted to do, was to kill someone or to hurt someone in their family. I have to live with that also for the rest of my life.”
The Times also found Oliver's grand jury testimony to be more defensive, whereas Isnora's was "sorrowful and apologetic." The Bell family's lawyer thought Oliver's words were "damning" to his case. The Daily News has a PDF of Oliver's testimony.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm thinking that 31 shots -vs- 0 shots almost guarantees that you're not going to die. Unless you're up against a wild animal of some sort impervious to bullets of course.
Not panicing usually improves your chances of survival.
Panic and random gunfire seems more like the choice of someone not fit to be a police officer.
I believe I heard Commissioner Kelly himself say that officers are trained in the "3 shots/evaluate" rule, where an officer takes three shots, then assesses the situation to determine if it's still hostile. I imagine in some situations, its pretty damn evident if the situation is still hostile or not, but when noone's shooting back at you?
So basically what he's telling the jury is that he's a pussy that's not fit to be a police officer.
Shouldn't they have caught his inability to react appropriately in a difficult situation during the psychological evaluation that every cop is supposed to go through before they are put on the streets to 'serve and protect'?
"3 shots/evaluate"? I think Mr. Oliver heard "3 clips/ask partner for more clips".
I always believed these cops should have charges against them dropped, they had all reasons to suspect and shoot. What bugs me however is the hugely overly excessive number of shots fired. If someone fires 3 shots and continues rapid firing without pausing to assess the situation, it makes me think this person is in rage, is mentally unstable, and should NOT be kept on the force.
P.S. I had army training do not tell me i do not know what i am talking about.
P.S.2: Again, cops should be freed, it was a tragic accident mostly caused by the victims.
P.S.3: I had many many friends married, and none of them was out partying at 3am with the ceremony scheduled for the afternoon. Most of them spent the night in their beds recuperating from all the preparations, to be fresh for one of the most important days in their lives.
I see this Sean Bell incident as a horrible tragedy, except for this guy's 31 shots. He does need to be held accountable.
I play over the events in my head, and unless this guy has some amazing quick-shooting talent, I would bet that at the end, he was the only one shooting. The few rounds that the other guys shot must have been long over by the time this guy unloaded one, reloaded, and emptied the next.
Unfortunately, there's no way to determine how someone will behave in such a scenario until they are in it.
Cops should simply be taught to NOT shoot unless shots are fired at them. You shoot first - you are discharged and prosecuted for unnecessary endangering civilians.
Also, how good a cop has to be to shoot-to-kill 31 times at ONE person (Gusman) from 10 feet away, and not kill that person?
My taxes go into their training, and I want to expect at least good shooting from these guys, if not calm thinking that is hard to eval and predict.
I bet if any of you were in his shoes you would've shot off 500 rounds.
Was there any mention of how long it took to fire 31 shots?
I also think his choice of weapon is interesting, if he did pick it. It is a minor point, but there is a variation of the sig sauer p226 that the SEALS use. You don't see them on cops very often. Rambo complex?
How many more events like this before they require real combat handgun training on a regular basis? Not some range BS that is nothing like the real world. He deserves to be held accountable if he did something wrong (jury we wait for you. But the department how it is runs can't escape free and clear.
GOP - agreed. I think a lot of these comments are very one-sided. Yes, 31 shots is too much. But, there are reasons. The cop wasn't angry or in rage, he wasn't trying to murder someone. Come on!
Kreo - help us out here. You were in the military. It is a fact, that was recently discussed in another NY shooting where some 40+ shots were fired by several cops, that when you hear shots being fired, your natural reaction is to start firing your weapon, and there is very little that can be done to overcome this reaction. Training does not help. "Cease Fire!" In war, one side often continues firing while the other has stopped. You don't necessarily know you're the only one fired, because you are still hearing gun shots. Someone needs to tell you to stop.
Was that the case here? I'm sure most of you commenting can't even imagine holding a gun, and hearing a shot go off, and then having to judge what to do next.
GOP, In his place I would have applied for a bank teller. There are free donuts in that line of work sometimes too. Although you probably feel less manly with no gun on your belt.
Seriously, this guy was in the van. He got out, had time to say "police, do not move" twice. Then he proceeded to discharge, alternating line of fire and reloading.
It sounds to me like a desperate battle justified only if there was clear and present danger, for example if he was surrounded by two dozens of thugs armed with kalashnikovs and throwing grenades at him.
For me, the most damning quote from the testimony was in the times coverage..
"But when asked if he felt he should have reassessed the threat at some point, he said: "I reassessed after every single shot, and after my second magazine I had no more bullets. I then had no choice but to assess the situation."
Typical cop stupidity, flying in the face of all logic.
I think you have to question the judgment that lead them to follow these guys and confront them in the first place. From the testimony, it sounds like they were basically assuming people in the club were packing - they were first tracking some other person in a White Sox cap and then turned their attention to Bell & Co.
And then you've got the confrontation and the excessive force. Perhaps an involuntary manslaughter conviction is possible after all.
Kreo, Are you kidding? Don't fire unless fired upon? I won't be taking that job anytime soon. And in an urban situation when your peers are shooting and you have a real belief of danger and losing your life... I don't think its unreasonable. I do think something should happen, eg he shouldn't be carrying a gun anymore. I find it hard to put myself into a contagious shooting situation and I imagine most of us can't so its pretty hard to say.
This is what 25K a year to start gets you.
Enjoy.
WER1212, yes that happens too, many in combat situations fire instinctively.
If I recall correctly the details of Pat Tillman's unfortunate death in Afganistan, a friendly started firing in all directions and hit Pat by accident.
But this is no combat, you are not on hostile territory, you are not ambushed, and there is no return fire at all - he could see (clearly - I assume) the guy in the car from 10 feet.
My point is, if you are issued a gun and are charged with authority, you must be responsible for your actions and the careful use of your weapon.
If I walk out of a club tomorrow, all innocent and good, and there is a cop outside that thinks i have a weapon, and I incidentally happen to reach into my jacket to get my geeky iphone, do I want the cop to fire at me? I want to safely walk the streets and not steer away from cops suspecting each of them has itchy trigger finger and is eager to try out his cool macho manly gun.
JNGUY, i am not kidding, it is their job to risk their lives. I do not want to risk mine, I do not want to be deciding in a critical situation if firing is justified, and hence I never considered a police officer or detective career.
We all walk the streets of NY and we all risking out lives. So lets then permit owning and carrying weapons and lets all start shooting at whoever we suspect is packing.
The only test to pass to get a gun would be a) have a hand with at least one finger b) have at least one eye c) be able to identify the trigger.
The guns should be accompanied with a short quick-start guide "the city does not guarantee that your shot will hit the target, and so we suggest you fire at least 30 times to be sure; in case of panic, double the number of shots to 60; if target still not hit, follow up with a grenade (sold separatelly)"
Everyone here acts like an expert, but how many people here have ever fired a gun, much less in a possible life or death situation?
I know almost everything I know about guns comes from the media and I assume most people here are in a similar boat.
Real life is not a first person shooter, an action movie or a short slanted news piece supporting the Brady Bill.
If I spent as much time trimming my eyebrows as he obviously does, I wouldn't want to die either. What a tragic waste that would be.
Kreo, if you were in the military, I'd think that by now you'd know the difference between a clip and a magazine.
Unless, of course, you were a pogue.