NYPD officers cleared in killing of unarmed man. It took 50 bullets.

Johnny_Ray_Wilson

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Posts
14,888
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 NYPD detectives acquitted in 50-shot killing By TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writer



NEW YORK - Three detectives were acquitted of all charges Friday in the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day, a case that put the NYPD at the center of another dispute involving allegations of excessive firepower.

Scores of police officers surrounded the courthouse to guard against potential chaos, and as news of the verdict spread, many in the crowd began weeping. Others were enraged, swearing and screaming "Murderers! Murderers!" or "KKK!"

Inside the courtroom, spectators gasped. Sean Bell's fiancee immediately walked out of the room; his mother cried.

Bell, a 23-year-old black man, was killed in a hail of gunfire outside a seedy strip club in Queens on Nov. 25, 2006 as he was leaving his bachelor party with two friends. The case ignited the emotions of people across the city and led to widespread protests among those who felt the officers used unnecessary force.

Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren't charged. Oliver squeezed off 31 shots; Isnora fired 11 rounds; and Cooper shot four times.

The case brought back painful memories of other NYPD shootings, such as the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo — an African immigrant who was gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets by police officers who mistook his wallet for a gun. The acquittal of the officers in that case created a storm of protest, with hundreds arrested after taking to the streets in demonstration.

Though emotions ran high, there were no immediate problems outside the courthouse Friday, where many wore buttons with Bell's picture or held signs saying "Justice for Sean Bell." Some people approached police after the verdict was read, but they were held back and the jostling died down quickly.

William Hardgraves, 48, an electrician from Harlem, brought his 12-year-old son and 23-year-old daughter to hear the verdict. "It could have been my son, it could have been my daughter" shot like Bell that night, he said.

He didn't know what result he had expected.

"I hoped it would be different this time. They shot him 50 times," Hardgraves said. "But of course, it wasn't."

Justice Arthur Cooperman delivered the verdict in a packed Queens courtroom. The officers, complaining that pretrial publicity had unfairly painted them as cold-blooded killers, opted to have the judge decide the case rather than a jury.

Cooperman indicated that the police officers' version of events was more credible than the victims' version. "The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was not justified" in firing, he said.

The nearly two-month trial was marked by deeply divergent accounts of the night.

The defense painted the victims as drunken thugs who the officers believed were armed and dangerous. Prosecutors sought to convince the judge that the victims had been minding their own business, and that the officers were inept, trigger-happy aggressors.

None of the officers took the witness stand in his own defense. Instead, Cooperman heard transcripts of the officers testifying before a grand jury, saying they believed they had good reason to use deadly force. The judge also heard testimony from Bell's two injured companions, who insisted the maelstrom erupted without warning.

Both sides were consistent on one point: The utter chaos surrounding the last moments of Bell's life.

"It happened so quick," Isnora said in his grand jury testimony. "It was like the last thing I ever wanted to do."

Bell's companions — Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman — also offered dramatic testimony about the episode. Benefield and Guzman were both wounded; Guzman still has four bullets lodged in his body.

Referring to Isnora, Guzman said, "This dude is shooting like he's crazy, like he's out of his mind."

The victims and shooters were set on a fateful collision course by a pair of innocuous decisions: Bell's to have a last-minute bachelor party at Kalua Cabaret, and the undercover detectives' to investigate reports of prostitution at the club.

As the club closed around 4 a.m., Sanchez and Isnora claimed they overheard Bell and his friends first flirt with women, then taunt a stranger who responded by putting his right hand in his pocket as if he had a gun. Guzman, they testified, said, "Yo, go get my gun" — something Bell's friends denied.

Isnora said he decided to arm himself, call for backup — "It's getting hot," he told his supervisor — and tail Bell, Guzman and Benefield as they went around the corner and got into Bell's car. He claimed that after warning the men to halt, Bell pulled away, bumped him and rammed an unmarked police van that converged on the scene with Oliver at the wheel.

The detective also alleged that Guzman made a sudden move as if he were reaching for a gun.

"I yelled 'Gun!' and fired," he said. "In my mind, I knew (Guzman) had a gun."

Benefield and Guzman testified that there were no orders. Instead, Guzman said, Isnora "appeared out of nowhere" with a gun drawn and shot him in the shoulder — the first of 16 shots to enter his body.

"That's all there was — gunfire," he said. "There wasn't nothing else."

With tires screeching, glass breaking and bullets flying, the officers claimed that they believed they were the ones under fire. Oliver responded by emptying his semiautomatic pistol, reloading, and emptying it again, as the supervisor sought cover.

The truth emerged when the smoke cleared: There was no weapon inside Bell's blood-splattered car.
 
the most unconstitutional prick on the face of the earth is a NYPD detective:mad:
 
You speak from experience Gunner?

I do not see how they can be cleared of this. The first 20 or so bullets would have been a pretty good sign. Hell, I do not blame those men for running into the police van.
 
I'm not sure how exactly the judge reached this verdict. Most cops --- even NYPD or LAPD --- never fire their weapons on the job throughout the entire course of their careers and yet one of these guys emptied an entire clip, reloaded and then emptied a second clip before realizing that none of the bullets were headed in his direction?
 
I'm not sure how exactly the judge reached this verdict. Most cops --- even NYPD or LAPD --- never fire their weapons on the job throughout the entire course of their careers and yet one of these guys emptied an entire clip, reloaded and then emptied a second clip before realizing that none of the bullets were headed in his direction?

True. How hard can it be to figure out all the bullets were coming from 3 detectives aimed at 3 unarmed men? They killed the groom. It would not surprise me if a hitman is placed on the two survivors.
 
You speak from experience Gunner?

I do not see how they can be cleared of this. The first 20 or so bullets would have been a pretty good sign. Hell, I do not blame those men for running into the police van.

yup I used to live in a city that hired former NYPD cops the Chief was NYPD they were pricks that went out of their way to "close" a case had friends who got hurt legally:mad: fucking pricks
 
True. How hard can it be to figure out all the bullets were coming from 3 detectives aimed at 3 unarmed men? They killed the groom. It would not surprise me if a hitman is placed on the two survivors.


I was going to say that I wouldn't be surprised if somebody takes out Oliver and Isnora.

It might could be argued that Isnora made a rookie mistake -- although he seems a little old for that -- but Oliver went way overboard. He fired 31 shots with time to reload in there and never even noticed he wasn't being fired on? Nope. No way. And if he couldn't tell then the very best that can be said for him is that he's criminally inept.
 
51 rounds and only 1 dead. They need to learn to shoot.



And think before you start calling me names
 
51 rounds and only 1 dead. They need to learn to shoot.



And think before you start calling me names


I'd agree with you except that they were firing at suspects who were in a car --otherwise all three guys would be dead. I'm still not sure how a fuck up of these proportions could happen with no fault found on the part of any of the cops.
 
Unbelievable.

Really though not unbelievable.

Those badge heavy losers will get theirs.

With any luck (and it wont take much) they will continue drinking, become drunks, and eat their pistola when they retire.

If they live that long.

I sanction their execution.
 
This is absolutely disgusting. 50 shots? 50 shots? And they somehow are cleared? 10 shots, maybe, but to empty an entire clip, reload, and go again, that says something else. It must be nice to be above the law while us peons have to obey it.
 
This is absolutely disgusting. 50 shots? 50 shots? And they somehow are cleared? 10 shots, maybe, but to empty an entire clip, reload, and go again, that says something else. It must be nice to be above the law while us peons have to obey it.

Dude there were bullets flying everywhere.

I cant find it but theres a you tube video of a security camera at a train or bus station across the street and this guys standing there reading a paper and whammo! Bullets started coming through the big pane glass window.

Almost killed innocent bystanders as well.

Besides the innocent victim.
 
I'm just curious if any of the people posting on this have actually followed the details of the testimony.
 
i'm going with 'no'.

what were the exact charges?

The charges were manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment.

There are a number of factors regarding the verdict:
1) The prosecution did not put up a very good case. One big problem was contradictory statements by the witnesses or lack of credibility.
2) The defense did do a good job by explaining the officers actions based on evidence, expert testimony and the exact training they had received.

Personally I thought the guy who fired the 31 shots should have been found guilty of the reckless endangerment charge. Based on the actions of the victims/witnesses that night, and some of the testimony, the manslaughter and assault charges couldn't be proved.
 
The charges were manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment.

There are a number of factors regarding the verdict:
1) The prosecution did not put up a very good case. One big problem was contradictory statements by the witnesses or lack of credibility.
2) The defense did do a good job by explaining the officers actions based on evidence, expert testimony and the exact training they had received.

Personally I thought the guy who fired the 31 shots should have been found guilty of the reckless endangerment charge. Based on the actions of the victims/witnesses that night, and some of the testimony, the manslaughter and assault charges couldn't be proved.

why is the 31 guilty?
 
why is the 31 guilty?

Firing 31 shots requires at least one reload and probably two depending on what he was shooting. You don't do that without having some kind of clue of what's going on.
Don't get me wrong, from what I've read so far I think the verdict is fair but that guy maybe should have at least gotten that one charge against him.
 
The charges were manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment.

There are a number of factors regarding the verdict:
1) The prosecution did not put up a very good case. One big problem was contradictory statements by the witnesses or lack of credibility.
2) The defense did do a good job by explaining the officers actions based on evidence, expert testimony and the exact training they had received.

Personally I thought the guy who fired the 31 shots should have been found guilty of the reckless endangerment charge. Based on the actions of the victims/witnesses that night, and some of the testimony, the manslaughter and assault charges couldn't be proved.

That contradicts the explanation given by the prosecuting and defense attorneys in the case.

They say that its because of the way the policies/laws and regulations of officers and that the way the rules are written for cops that they were justified in the shooting basically.
 
That contradicts the explanation given by the prosecuting and defense attorneys in the case.

They say that its because of the way the policies/laws and regulations of officers and that they were justified in the shooting basically.

He's covering what the judge said, not the attorneys.
If you don't know what you're talking about then shut the fuck up.
 
Firing 31 shots requires at least one reload and probably two depending on what he was shooting. You don't do that without having some kind of clue of what's going on.
Don't get me wrong, from what I've read so far I think the verdict is fair but that guy maybe should have at least gotten that one charge against him.

:rolleyes:

Three clips.
 
He's covering what the judge said, not the attorneys.
If you don't know what you're talking about then shut the fuck up.

I've followed the case and made several threads about the topic after it happened.

It's classic we're the cops you're just niggers shut the fuck up and watch your back bullshit power trips and you look like a pompus idiot just going along with the fucking badge heavy pigs and corrupt legal system.

I bet you think Kwame Kilpatrick is guilty though.

Hey wanna go to my next KKK meetin wif me? Youd look hot in some punk ass white mini skirt, cheap white blouse and some cheap dirty shoes.

The boys would love you hun.
 
Back
Top