|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > LC's Crimes & Trials > police acquitted in Sean Bell case |
| Moderated by: Lady Cop |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lady Cop Pioneer100© Member 
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 updated 4 minutes ago Cops not guilty in groom shooting A judge acquitted three New York Police Department detectives of all charges Friday morning in the shooting death of an unarmed man. Sean Bell was killed in a 50-bullet barrage, hours before he was to be married. developing story
  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marie5656 Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member  Just hanging out
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know the story, but did not follow the trial, so I do not have much of a comment except to say it is very sad. I know you usually follow trials, LC. Was this one televised? If you were able to watch it, or follow closely, what is your opinion of the verdict? edited for spelling error. Last edited on 05:03 pm by Marie5656 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lady Cop Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
it wasn't televised. further, it was a bench trial, no jury. bench trials tend to be more cut and dried, no histrionics which are typical in jury trials. i think i understand why the events took place, and although i feel for the Bell family, i think the verdict was proper according to the facts of the case. i am certain there will be a civil action, and the feds may get involved in another trial to determine whether there were civil rights violations of the people who were shot.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UsedToRide Original500© Member  ^^^That is LOVE!!^^^
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I heard about this case, too. And right now I am shaking my head in disgust at this insane verdict. From the article:
No losers????? How about the dead guy and the others who were hit, one of whom walks around with FOUR bullets lodged in his body??? Lynch is obviously as intelligent as a cucumber.
Oh, boo-f**kin'-hoo. We also have a dead father, son and would-have-been husband.
Pffft. They rarely are. What a JOKE.
Aww....and did poor widdle Oliver have a nasty owie on his leg?? Gee, the poor man. How will he ever go on? This shit pisses me off.
Respect some, trust one, fear none ~~Bullet A hundred criminals may be set free, but one innocent man should not go to prison, for that will make the entire system criminal ~Chief Justice T.L.Venkatraman |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lady Cop Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 updated 12 minutes ago Acquittals in groom's shooting spark outrage Nicole Paultre Bell bolted from the courtroom as a judge acquitted three New York City detectives of all charges today in the shooting death of her fiance. "I've got to get out of here," she said. Outside the courthouse, there was shock. "Fifty shots is murder. I don't care what you say," said one woman. developing story
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lady Cop wrote:
Without going into the specifics of the case (which I'm not really well versed on) I'd have to say I don't buy the argument that "fifty shots is murder". I could easily see a situation where you need 50 shots to stop someone coming at you in a vehicle. The question in my mind (and the question I guess the judge resolved to his own satisfaction) is whether the police were shooting to prevent Bell from getting away, or whether they were shooting to prevent him from mowing them down. If the shooting was really defensive, I don't see how it matters how many shots were fired.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lady Cop Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
it's my understanding that one of the men in the car had said "get me my gun" or something to that effect. the police were at the north and south ends of car. when shooting started both sets of police thought the bullets were coming from inside the car...they thought they were being fired upon. that really is the crux of the case. In announcing the verdict, Judge Cooperman said he found problems with the prosecution's case. He said some prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves, and he cited prior convictions and incarcerations of witnesses. "At times, the testimony just didn't make sense," Cooperman said, according to a transcript released by his office.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this explains the actions of the judge pretty well. In light of this, I understand his actions. While it may not seem to be "justice", I can understand the judge's reaction to the witnesses As the final comment says-- this was the criminal trial. The civil trial will probably be different, and so will the Federal one. I've highlighted some things In reading, remember that the "prosecution" here is trying to sink the COPS, not the people who got shot. I mention that because most cases you hear "prosecution", you automatically think "the cops and the DA .vs. the "criminals""' "Sunny Hostin is a legal analyst on "American Morning." NEW YORK (CNN) -- None of us was there that fateful night when a young man lost his life on his wedding day, the night three New York Police Department detectives lost their careers and lives as they knew them. But the people who were there told their version of events. And the judge, also sitting as the jury, decided whom to believe. Isn't that the very crux of our judicial system? I predict that the Sean Bell case will be examined in law school classrooms across the country. It has given us a bird's-eye view into a courtroom practice that many had never heard of: the bench trial. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution ensures that we have the right to a trial by a jury of our peers in a serious criminal case. But as with all rights, you can voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive that right and instead have your case tried by a judge. That is what Michael Oliver, Marc Cooper and Gescard Isnora did. Many thought it was a gamble. It was a gamble that paid off. Justice Arthur Cooperman, a 74-year-old bench veteran, acquitted all three detectives. The public is outraged. But it shouldn't be. Cooperman did what we ask every juror to do: consider and determine the facts of the case -- that is, what he believed to be the true facts -- from among all of the evidence in the case. In a criminal trial, jurors are instructed that a defendant does not have to prove his innocence. It is the prosecution that has a very high burden, to prove the charged conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors are also given specific instructions on how to weigh evidence in every single criminal case. In fact, I've heard it so many times that I can recite it from memory: As judges of the facts, you alone determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the testimony of each witness. You must decide whether a witness told the truth and was accurate, or instead, testified falsely or was mistaken. You must also decide what importance to give to the testimony you accept as truthful and accurate. It is the quality of the testimony that is controlling, not the number of witnesses who testify. If you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact, you may disregard that witness's entire testimony. It is so very clear that Cooperman did exactly what any juror was supposed to do. He listened to the evidence. He learned that Club Kalua, the strip club that Sean Bell and his companions were at that night, had been at the center of neighborhood complaints, drug activity and prostitution arrests, which is why undercover officers were there in the first place. He heard the consistent grand jury testimony of all three defendant police officers. He heard the testimony of Detective Hispolito Sanchez, an undercover officer inside the club who heard Bell's companion, Joseph Guzman say "Yo, get my gun" and heard Sean Bell threaten to beat up a man near an SUV. And he heard the testimony of Guzman, who denied, contrary to the testimony of other witnesses, that he uttered the words "Go get my gun." Cooperman also learned that Guzman had spent five years in prison for robbery and drug convictions for selling crack and was suing for $50 million in civil court. It was clear that Guzman was the linchpin of this case. If you believe him, that the officers shot at Bell and his friends for no reason at all, the officers are guilty. If you don't believe him, then his statement -- "Go get my gun" -- sent the night into mayhem, causing the officers to believe that the men were armed and justifying the officers' actions that night. Guzman was combative on the stand, irreverent. During his cross-examination by attorney Anthony L. Ricco, who represented Isnora, he shot back: "You know what needs to happen? This needs to happen to your family." (poster's comment): As is mentioned Guzman LIED about what he said -- many other witnesses CONFIRMED that he DID say "get my gun" He immediately SCREWED himself as a witness when he LIED about not saying that--- If he had said "I did say that, but I didn't actually go get my gun" --- everything might have been different. That, and if he hadn't communicated threats RIGHT ON the witness stand. That's about the #1 way to -ensure- that no judge or jury is going to give a CRAP about anything you say after that. In explaining his decision, Cooperman said prosecutors had not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt because of a combination of factors. Chief among them: inconsistent statements by prosecution witnesses, their demeanor on the stand, their interest in the outcome of the case and their motives to lie. "These factors," the judge said, "had the effect of eviscerating the credibility of those prosecution witnesses." Translation: The government could not prove its case against the officers because the judge didn't believe Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman. They are suing the police department for $50 million. They blew the case for the prosecution. This is not over. There is a civil case pending, and the standard of proof is much lower. The feds are now looking at it. And we will be watching and deciding what and whom to believe. Poster: I will say that I DO NOT think that it's fair that the criminal record of one witness be considered as a permanent and forever statement of character when the cops are often given the lily-white automatic benefit of the doubt merely for being sworn officers, no matter their past. That is indeed a double standard. But Guzman did in fact prove by communicating threats on the stand that the judge WAS right to think twice about the moral character of his witness. Now as to all the bullets, the shooting to kill before the defendants even drew weapons, that will be a matter for the civil case, I think, and perhaps the Federal case. But did the officers have reason to believe that the men WERE about to start something and that the officers should be prepared for violence to begin any second? YES--- that was proven. The officers didn't walk into a daycare full of napping children ---- they walked into a place where people were KNOWN (by their own statements) to be just seconds away from going weapons free in a dark crowded place. The next question will be "Did the officers have to open fire with no warning and without any intention to do anything less than kill as many of the victims as they possibly could" That will be the question for the civil trial. Last edited on 04:17 am by sirlamre |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UsedToRide Original500© Member ^^^That is LOVE!!^^^
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He said some prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves, and he cited prior convictions and incarcerations of witnesses. Oh, my ASS. In Bullet's case one of the witnesses showed up to testify IN PRISON BLUES AND SHACKLES after being arrested on drug dealing and robbery warrants. Give me a huge break, please. 
Respect some, trust one, fear none ~~Bullet A hundred criminals may be set free, but one innocent man should not go to prison, for that will make the entire system criminal ~Chief Justice T.L.Venkatraman |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lady Cop Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UsedToRide wrote: He said some prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves, and he cited prior convictions and incarcerations of witnesses. jail snitches are always taken with several grains of salt when testifying...usually they have rolled over on somebody to get some sort of break for themselves. it goes to cred. but in this case it was flat-out perjury by guzman, who was the guy who the cops heard say he was getting a gun.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UsedToRide Original500© Member ^^^That is LOVE!!^^^
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
but in this case it was flat-out perjury by guzman, Thankfully I know you're not trying to sell me on the accuracy or fairness of the injustice system. You know me too well to attempt that. But I have to add here; the POS in Bullet's case is also now a proven liar, with the new evidence we have. Does that change anything for Bullet? Not a f&*%ing thing, it doesn't.
Respect some, trust one, fear none ~~Bullet A hundred criminals may be set free, but one innocent man should not go to prison, for that will make the entire system criminal ~Chief Justice T.L.Venkatraman |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lady Cop Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UsedToRide wrote: but in this case it was flat-out perjury by guzman, i knew exactly what you were referencing since i read the lying 'witness' statement and discovery in Bullet's case. just another SOB looking out for his own arse and screw the truth. a good appellate lawyer will rip him to pieces like a junkyard dog...and somehow i hope that sustains your hopes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > LC's Crimes & Trials > police acquitted in Sean Bell case | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Supporters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posts Of The Day | Mock Forums | WowClassic | |
Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez