Law and DIS-order

Three New York Detectives who were charged with manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment were cleared on all charges stemming from the November 2006 shooting of Sean Bell. The verdict was handed down by State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Cooperman today in what has since become the perfect bull’s-eye for civil, racial, and religious organizations. But, I feel that these groups are missing the point of this tragedy. This case should not be made into another useful piece to hold up a racial or civil platform. Instead, it should be the measuring bar for future police cases to determine if reasonable force was used to resolve a given situation.

A brief case summary states that on the night of November 25, 2006 Sean Bell and 2 friends were on the final stretch of Mr. Bell’s Bachelor party. Around 4 AM a skirmish took place outside the Club Kalua between the victim and another party. Following this incident, Bell and his friends went to their car. What the undercover officers at the club assumed was that these individuals were going to the vehicle to get a firearm. Reacting to this assumption the officers followed the group back to the car.

Undercover officers had been staking out these types of locations “because establishments known as "strip clubs" often generate criminal activity including prostitution and narcotics, the Police Department club enforcement unit was given the task of infiltrating such places and pursuing violations of law that would lead toward shutting them down.” It was because officers had been working this angle to take down these criminal rings that officers were monitoring the altercation closely.

When the officers arrived at the car they drew their weapons on the individuals. Remember, the officers where in street clothes as part of their undercover work. Throughout the trial they were never able to prove that the officers identified themselves as policeman. While the undercover officers had their weapons drawn, an unmarked police van arrived effectively closing off the potential escape route of the individuals. Not knowing that the unmarked vehicle and the people with guns drawn on them were police officers, panic set in. Remember, it is early in the morning, alcohol is involved, and you have been trapped by individuals who have guns drawn you…what would you do?

Bell started to drive, narrowly missing one of the undercover officers before running into the unmarked police van. Bell then proceeded to reverse his course, backing the car up into a store front window and taking one more attempt and forcing his way pass the van. In the second attempt to pass the police vehicle, one of the officers declared “gun;” which was his gut reaction to the defendants moving in the car, after which the bullet storm began. In total over 50 shots were fired. Detective Michael Oliver in particular was responsible for firing 31 of these shots. The storyline and actions of the victims seems to warrant some type of police response. But, to what degree that response was should have been at the center of this case.

The beginning of Justice Cooperman’s opinion outlines the definition of a trial, which he says stated is a “formal examination of the facts of a case by a court of law to decide the validity of a charge. It is also defined in the dictionary as a hardship.” But, the key definition that Judge Cooperman overlooked was intent. The Law states that intent is the state of a person’s mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object. The critical piece missing from this decision was what was the intent of the officers who fired 50 rounds at the victims?

Justice Cooperman speaks to this notion in the first third of his decision when he rationalized “It is important to note that in analyzing what happened here, it was necessary to consider the mind-set of each defendant at the time and place of occurrence, and not the mind-set of the victims.” If this is up for serious consideration, Cooperman seriously fails to go much further than this statement. This is the core of the case. What is the intention of a police officer who fires 31 shots at a victim? How does this incident not constitute criminal behavior? Where is the line between reasonable and excessive force? Unfortunately this was not included in the opinion.

The Bell case is a good representation of a situation that can create social unrest. In fact, I agree with the anger. I empathize with the community. But, I also understand the need for police to use force. However, future cases will need a clear interpretation of what constitutes a police officers right to use of force. This issue has been consistently overlooked over the last 20 years of court rulings. There is no standard. The moral code of wrongful death does not have its protection in the legal code. It is one issue that a young man is dead. It is another that the death came at the hands of the police. But, when the death seems to be excessive in nature and no criminal conduct is found, then what type of message is being sent or reinforced to our communities at large.

If the officers responsible for Bell’s death had been working undercover casing a specific group, then I would find it impossible to rule on the case without assessing the officer’s assumptions as they approached the car. What was their intention for confronting the individuals? As mentioned above, Judge Cooperman said that it was necessary to consider the mind-set of each defendant. Yet, near the end of the opinion, Cooperman steers away from his own introductory logic and concluded that “Questions of carelessness and incompetence must be left to other forums.” Doesn’t an individual’s mind-set encompass questions of carelessness and incompetence? If the mind-set is imperative to reaching a verdict, then how can this core question be passed along the judicial food chain?

Second-degree manslaughter is defined as recklessly causing someone’s death. To define an individuals recklessness, I would argue that the individual’s intention needs to be uncovered. I would not conclude that firing 31 times at a stationary vehicle is a reasonable use of force. Therefore, Judge Cooperman successfully passed along the ‘gray’ area of reasonable force to the next tragic incident. Until the courts are ready to provide a comprehensive definition of police force, social unrest will likely be the forgone conclusion for the time being.