To follow-up on my brief reference to the innocent verdict via a bench trial of three cops (two black) on trial for criminal homicide / reckless endangerment arising from the death of one man on his wedding day and the injury to two friends.
I am not shocked at the results, but it boggles the mind some that it is not criminally "reckless" to set off a barrage of bullets (including re-loading) on a public street against someone you just think might be reaching for a gun. In fact, though the judge seemed to elided past it, especially when there was no clear (if any) announcement that you were the police. Surely, the locale made Bell's decision to try to rush out -- banging the undercover police car in the process -- rather reasonable to boot. Or, the anger on the stand of one of the witnesses that apparently upset the judge. Police officers have obligations with their special authority to use deadly force. This is where recklessness is different from some sort of manslaughter count.
Did this all really happen in a "few seconds" as the judge stated? Does the reasonable nature of the victims' -- hell even if they really were reaching for a gun for self-protection (they had no gun) -- actions not warrant more care by the police? What of innocent bystanders, even if they were armed and criminals? As in the past, homicides of this sort are only the worst of a situation that pops up in lesser degrees in other less flashy situations. If some officer is going to set forth a barrage of bullets in this situation, another might use non-deathly, but still very significant, use of force in another case.
Or, even mistreat civilians in other ways with very serious consequences. This is why the quite -- but not quite totally -- unique situation of this sort is an important talisman. I also think it suggests some force to the argument of a few on the importance of jury trials in all cases. The rule probably can be shown to be unworkable, but for a case of this sort (another in a different context that comes to mind is an obscenity trial), is it really a good idea to have a bench trial? Some voiced deep concerns about the sentiments and reasoning process of the judge here. A diverse decider of fact, better reflecting the community at large, can benefit both the community and the defendant. Due process very well might not demand the right to waive a jury trial in all cases.
The shooting of Sean Bell in New York (a story also fronted by the Post) did not spark the same level of outrage as previous police shootings have, the Times notes. "This was due in part to the race of the officers—two of the three on trial were black—and to the response of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who reached out to the victim's family in a stark contrast to the response of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after Mr. Diallo was killed[.]"
Let me also suggest that the hope the feds will step in is problematic on various levels. First, especially with this Justice Department, it is unlikely that a violation of federal civil rights will be deemed present. This is not only because black officers were involved -- gender equality does not occur just because [see also comments] women are among the decision makers -- though that (along with more respect for the victims than when Rudy was mayor ... Bloomberg even suggested early on it "appeared" to be an excessive use of force*) does help. Second, especially since it was not a patent case of racism including in the local trial, I think there is a serious double jeopardy problem there.
It is telling that the center/right editorial board of the NY Daily News, surely not the consistent sympathetic liberal mind-set of the New York Times, argued that this was a very close case, one which could have gone the other way with a different judge or jury. And, that it was clearly a case of recklessness, even if not criminal. It argues the officers must go. A more liberal minded black columnist, whose voice on Obama and other issues provides consistent sense, was much more angry and upset. He thought the verdict a travesty and that strong protest was not only justified, but deeply patriotic:
It would also illustrate what George Orwell called "the moral dilemma that is presented to the weak in a world governed by the strong: Break the rules, or perish." People should not have to paralyze the city to make everyone see that police actions in the Bell case - whether viewed as a crime or horrible blunder - cannot be excused as "just one of those things." IN THIS CASE, they must. ...
Protest in the face of unacceptable conditions is as patriotic as singing the "Star-Spangled Banner" on the Fourth of July. And while many will heap scorn and gleeful contempt on demonstrators, the protesters should do what any patriot would if someone tries to drown them out during the national anthem. Sing louder.
This rejoinder to the "my country, right or wrong" mentality of some is woefully needed these days. I am no big fan of Al Sharpton, who divides even when he acts in the promotion of rightful causes, but where are all the rest out there "ensuring there will be no more situations in which undercover officers rush up on unarmed, innocent people and unleash deadly force as if they're in a war zone."
It's not a white or black issue alone. The war on drugs has led to some lethal uses of force that are a result of a similar reckless mind-set that is dangerous even in war zones. Will we do more than have a Sharpton rally and another Bruce Springsteen song? Upsetting as that was to some, at least the person in that song knew to be careful when facing a police officer. Here an unarmed black man, who left his criminal past behind him to marry the mother of his child, was killed in reckless fashion.
Criminal/provable beyond a reasonable doubt or not.
---
* Respect tends to reap benefits on both sides, as one side finds it harder to mistreat those they respect while the other finds it harder to be as suspicious of the motives of those that do consistently offer such due care. Bush, for one, missed the value of the maxim that a bit of sugar helps the medicine go down.