OPINION & EDITORIAL
Legal system elitist, void of justice
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kyle Szarzynski:
- 'War on drugs' cloaks oppression (April 23, 2008)
- Candidates betray King's radicalism (April 16, 2008)
- Media coverage favors U.S. interests (April 2, 2008)
- Irrational fears fuel crime focus (March 26, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Jena 6 give hope to justice movement (September 25, 2007)
- Assumptive guilt contrary to justice (December 2, 2004)
- 'Jena Six': attacks don't void rights (September 24, 2007)
- With great power... (October 17, 2007)
- Duke case exposes media's flaws, unfair legal system (January 18, 2007)
Share This:
by Kyle Szarzynski
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
For grieving families like those of Sean Bell, a 23-year-old black man gunned down by police on the day of his bachelor party, it’s hard to say if justice is elusive or just illusory. With his assailants now acquitted of all charges, this story — one of an unarmed black man gunned down by unaccountable law enforcement members — has tragically become all too familiar.
At his bachelor party Nov. 25, 2006, Mr. Bell and two friends headed for their car after departing from the Kalua Cabaret, a nightclub under investigation for prostitution. After Mr. Bell ran into an undercover officer and an unmarked NYPD minivan, five plainclothes police officers opened fire. Fifty rounds were fired, hitting the car 21 times. One officer went through two full magazines.
While the cops claim they were concerned with a possible violent threat made by one of Mr. Bell’s companions, no weapon was found in his car. The cops, not in uniform, approached the vehicle with their weapons drawn, giving Mr. Bell reason to believe he was being carjacked and likely accounting for his knee-jerk car maneuvers. Although they conflicted with police accounts, witnesses claim the cops did not identify themselves and started shooting without warning.
Mr. Bell’s autopsy showed he was hit four times in the neck and torso. His two companions, one in critical and the other in stable condition, were shot three and 19 times respectively. Police had them handcuffed to their hospital beds.
The murders sparked widespread outrage and protest. Three of the five assailants were indicted by a Queens grand jury. Fearing the reaction of community members, they waved their right to a jury and submitted to a bench trial. They were acquitted on all counts.
This case, however unbearably tragic, is merely the most recent drop of blood in the overflowing bucket of victims of police violence. Amadou Diallo, Ousmane Zongo and Frank Jude Jr. are other unfortunate names that have achieved fame for the same reason as Mr. Bell.
As if to compensate for the obvious racial element involved in the case, much has been made of the fact that Mr. Bell’s assailants were themselves not white. In truth, all this shows is the culture of racism endemic to police departments across the country is strong enough to infect officers of all races. If you are black and even remotely suspicious-looking, the potential for abuse is empirically staggering, regardless of the race of your assailant.
The Sean Bell murder is also significant in its demonstration of the limits of achieving justice through the courts. If the assailants were not police officers, it’s hard to imagine a circumstance in which they would not have received harsh sentences. Cops are de facto above the law in many cases, allowing even their worst behavior to rampage unchecked. In this context, various forms of community surveillance of law enforcement — “policing the police” — are not only desirable but necessary in keeping a check on their abuses.
Of course, the problem is not necessarily with individual police officers — most of whom likely have decent aims — but with the institution itself. In its service to elite interests, police departments clearly have a double standard in the way they deal with poor and minority communities. Current problems with law enforcement need to be corrected at a fundamental and systemic level if the worst abuse is to be mitigated.
Meanwhile, for Sean Bell’s fiancée and two young daughters, there is still the possibility of achieving something resembling justice through a civil lawsuit. For now, it is more than harrowing to know his killers will be back working the streets again, armed and commanding.
Kyle Szarzynski
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 2:09am):
While I have not followed this case closely enough to say whether the requisite burdens of proof were met, all accounts I've read was that they weren't. Trials are about charges and burdens of proof, and you mention nothing of this here.
However, here's a basic in trial law. Judges are less likely to be swayed by emotion than jurors, and more likely to follow the law as written to a T. What this likely means is that the police officers in this case likely had a strong case, the prosecution had a weak case, and the officers and their attorneys did not want the potential emotions of the juries coming in play.
That said, this is under New York law, and New York law has some quirky things about it, although I doubt their homicide laws vary from most other places. There are a significant number of cases where people who have committed the crime they are charged with are acquitted, either through lack of evidence, a technicality, or sloppy prosecution work.
Very simply, this is an, at least, intriguing case. But when you talk about a trial, tying it up in rhetoric and emotion is just playing to the crowd. The people who already agree with you are going to spout on about how right you are, but you aren't going to make anyone think twice about the opinions they've already formed. If you actually want to convince people that you are right on this count (and in many respects you are, the law is applied unevenly, and cocaine laws are a prime example of that), there are a lot of questions that you leave unanswered. What evidence did the prosecution present? What were the prosecution's witnesses like? What were the defense witnesses like? Did the defendants testify? Did the judge seem to favor one side over the other when dealing with objections? How competent did the prosecutors seem to be? Etc. etc. Instead of dealing with all those important legal questions, you simply call the policemen involved murderers, stating which would have been enough to call for a mistrial if you were the prosecutor in this case and called them murderers in your opening statement, and bring up the fact that the victim had a fiance and two children, which, while tragic, is completely immaterial to the case at hand, and will be immaterial in any civil case until/unless damages are discussed.
The shame is, Kyle, that you actually do have some talent. You've just got to get off your socialist high horse for once. You've got to stop being so freaking sure you're right all the time. If you go through the steps that everyone has to go through, and provide the evidence for what you believe in instead of saying things along the lines of "here is what I believe, here are eminent people who believe the same thing, see, look how smart I am," you'll convince a lot more people.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 10:39am):
Seriously, Kyle. A few examples of black men being wrongly killed by police hardly proves a greater scheme by police departments everywhere to oppress and murder black people.
Paul Heideman (April 30, 2008 @ 3:26pm):
Read any account of the trial and you'll see that the prosecution waged the least zealous case possible. This is, of course, to be expected. Prosecutors work hand in hand with police departments every day, and are part and parcel of the apparatus of oppression which Kyle describes.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 4:04pm):
Paul, you cannot be serious.
The "apparatus of oppression?" Even I won't buy into that one. There was a reasonable argument to make that could have actually convinced some people (see "rule of law") and you somehow turned this into another Marxist rant.
Next time you get mugged or assaulted or shot, I hope you're not oppressed too much by the police who help you find who did it to you. Oh the humanity!
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 6:24pm):
Wait, government prosecutors going easy on the government police? Say it ain't so!
I'll bet those prosecutors can park wherever they like now.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 6:29pm):
Ok, I just read the New York Times depiction of the case, and there was one major snafu the prosecution may have made: They brought all potential witnesses to the scene up to the stand, whether they helped them or hurt them. This, however, is a reasonable strategy. Had the prosecution not brought them up, the defense would have (discovery rules and the US Constitution demand that the names of all witnesses are given to the defense). The idea is one of pulling the sting, introducing the evidence yourself so that it doesn't look like you were hiding it. However, with a judge that isn't as important as it is with a jury, but that evidence would have been there anyways.
Aside from that, the prosecution case had two big problems that neither Kyle nor Mr. Heideman brought up. First, Mr. Bell hit one of the detectives with his car while attempting to flee the scene. Second, many of the prosecution's witnesses, and key witnesses, gave changing and inconsistent stories, and many of those who had changing stories that pointed to guilt stand to directly benefit if the police department is found liable in the civil trial.
That said, the officers appeared to react overzealously at the least. There is a federal investigation that just started up, which may lead to more evidence that could lead to a conviction. Additionally, following the federal investigation, the police are waiting to do their own investigation for internal disciplinary hearings, which could lead to the detectives being fired.
That said, though, the prosecution simply did not appear to meet the heavy burden of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for first degree murder. Their witnesses flunked the biggest test for credibility: Giving inconsistent statements.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 6:40pm):
"hit one of the detectives with his car while attempting to flee the scene."
Yeah, that's usually a death sentence, one way or another.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 8:25pm):
to 10:39 - one instance is one too many. this is not OK.
Michael Johnson (April 30, 2008 @ 9:06pm):
6:29-1) New York State law prohibits officers from firing on a moving vehicle even if it is being used as a weapon. 2) Mr Bell was intoxicated, so it is safe to say, his ability to drive was impaired, likely resulting in hitting the officer(which he could not prove was one) as well as the van(which was preventing him from getting away from the officer that he does not know is one). 3) Mr. Bell and his friends were never proven to have taken part in the criminal activity, prostitution, that was going on in the club, which was the reason for the undercovers being there in the first place. 4) If Mr. Bell is hit while driving, his weight may continue to hold down the accelerator, which may explain why the officers reloaded their weapons, as the vehicle likely was still moving even after Mr. Bell was shot. One may wonder then, why the cops did not shoot the tires, which is standard practice in dealing with cars, even if they are not suppose to shoot cars in the first place. 5) In a city like New York, were car jacking is common, nobody believes you are the police just because you say you are one. I don't know where you are from, but most people black or white, would not believe that a group of plain clothed AFRICAN AMERICAN males with guns pointing at them are cops.
Anonymous (May 1, 2008 @ 1:09am):
If I was going to a BROTHEL for my bachelor party, I'd be fairly inclined to at least not be surprised when the cops show up, even in plain clothes. And you've got to connect a link to that New York state statute, because it's difficult for me to believe that a police officer would not be able to protect himself from a moving vehicle used as a weapon against him. Sorry, but I don't believe you just because you say so.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
