The decision handed down
Friday morning by a New York judge in the police
slaying of Sean Bell was as shocking as it was
predictable. A 23-year-old, unarmed man was cut
down in a hail of 50 bullets on the morning of
what was to be his wedding, and no one is held
accountable.
The not-guilty verdicts for
the three New York City detectives in the
November 2006 shooting follow a long pattern of
court decisions and prosecutorial abstention
that have served to exonerate the city’s police
force in the killings of unarmed civilians, the
vast majority of them carried out in New York’s
poorer black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
For the friends and family of
Bell—who is survived by his fiancée, Nicole
Paultre, and two daughters, ages five and one—as
well as for far wider layers of people in the
Jamaica, Queens neighborhood and across the
city’s working-class communities, the verdict
nonetheless provoked disbelief and outrage.
At the Queens courthouse,
Supreme Court Judge Arthur Cooperman’s verdict
was met with cries of "Shame!" and "No!" while
many were left in tears of rage. People in the
crowd outside shouted "murderers" as cops and
police union officials left the courthouse. Over
1,000 police ringed the area, significantly
outnumbering the crowd that had come to hear the
verdict and support Sean Bell’s family. Police
helicopters hovered overhead.
In finding the three
detectives—Michael Oliver, Marc Cooper, and
Gescard Isnora—not guilty, Judge Cooperman
claimed that the testimony of several key
prosecution witnesses "just didn’t make sense."
Cooperman added in his verdict that among the
factors he had taken into account was that some
of the prosecution witnesses, including the two
who were shot and seriously wounded on the same
morning Bell was killed, had criminal records.
This was something that was obviously unknown by
the cops who unleashed a barrage of gunfire that
ended Bell’s life.
Testimony by the non-police
witnesses in the trial indicated that Bell and
his friends had no knowledge that the men that
confronted them with guns and then shot them
were police officers.
The judge dismissed not only
the charges of manslaughter, but also
misdemeanor counts of reckless endangerment in a
shooting that saw bullets tear through the
surrounding neighborhood, in one case smashing
into a busy transportation hub a football
field’s length away. One of the
cops—Oliver—fired 31 times, reloading his pistol
in order to keep pouring bullets into the
unarmed men.
The cops had been sent to the
Club Kalua in Jamaica Queens, where Bell and his
friends were celebrating a bachelor’s party on
the eve of his wedding. They were there
undercover, in plainclothes, investigating
allegations of prostitution and drug sales at
the location.
Failing to make any arrests
in connection with their assigned mission, they
got into a confrontation with Mr. Bell and his
friends, allegedly because they suspected they
had a gun. No gun was ever found. Why the
cops—who were supposedly undercover and
therefore not supposed to reveal their
identities—chose to initiate such a
confrontation has yet to be clarified.
Bell’s friends—one of whom,
Joseph Guzman, barely survived 19 bullet
wounds—testified that they never heard the cops
shout "Police!" and had no idea that the man
approaching their car waving his gun—Isnora—was
a police detective. Their understandable
reaction was to try to drive away and save their
own lives. The cops responded with the fatal
fusillade, claiming afterwards that they thought
they saw the car’s passenger—Guzman—reach for a
gun.
The incident recalled nothing
so much as the 1999 police killing of African
immigrant Amadou Diallo in the Bronx. He was
gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets as he stood
on his own doorstep, reaching for his wallet,
which the cops in that incident also said they
suspected was a gun.
In that infamous case, the
four accused cops managed to secure a change of
venue on the grounds that press coverage of the
brutal killing made it impossible to get a fair
trial in New York City. Their trial was moved to
Albany, and they received acquittals.
The three detectives in the
Bell killing also had good reason to believe
that a jury of 12 average New Yorkers would
convict them, and opted to have the case heard
by a judge.
There have been attempts by
the police and some sections of the media to
draw a distinction between the two cases on the
grounds that, while the four cops in the Diallo
case were all white, two of the three detectives
on trial in the Bell killing were, like the
victim himself, black.
Whatever the background of
the individual cops who pulled the triggers,
however, the social and political realities that
give rise to such police killings remain the
same.
Michael Bloomberg, New York
City’s billionaire Republican mayor, issued a
statement on the verdict feigning sympathy with
the Bell family, noting that "an innocent man
lost his life, a bride lost her groom, two
daughters lost their father, and a mother and
father lost their son." He added, "No verdict
could ever end the grief that those who knew and
loved Sean Bell suffer."
The statement—which
essentially dismissed the injustice of the
verdict itself—stood in stark contrast to that
of Bloomberg’s predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, whose
standard reaction in similar police shootings
was to vilify the victim. Nonetheless, the
bottom line was the same. Bloomberg demanded
acceptance of the abortion of justice handed
down in the Queens courthouse, while warning
that any form of violent protest would be
swiftly suppressed by the city’s police force.
This message was backed up by
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, who told the
media, "We have prepared, we have done some
drills and some practice with appropriate units
and personnel if there is any violence."
The same sentiments were
echoed by the front-runner for the Democratic
presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama.
Campaigning in Indiana, Obama declared, "We’re a
nation of laws, so we respect the verdict that
came down."
The real significance of the
verdict, however, is that the so-called "nation
of laws" keeps double books. There is one set
for average working people, and quite another
for the police and the privileged social layers
whose interests they defend.
New York City’s 35,000-member
police force has as its principal task that of
policing the social divide—one of the deepest in
the world—that cuts through the 8 million people
sharing the city’s 23 square miles.
According to an analysis of
tax data released earlier this month, the city’s
top 1 percent—some 82,000 people—account for
fully 37 percent of the city’s total income.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
while the average annual salary in New York City
stands at $40,899, the top fifth of Manhattan
residents pull in an average of $351,333.
Manhattan is an island shared
by hedge fund manager John Paulson, who recorded
$3.3 billion last year, with the bottom 20
percent—over 300,000 people—somehow surviving on
an average household income of $8,855 a year.
It is a city where former
Citigroup chairman Sanford Weill can spend more
than $42 million for an apartment on Central
Park West, while a record 9,300 families sleep
in the city’s homeless shelters each night.
Boasting the most expensive
restaurants in the country, it is also a city
where 1.3 million residents—including over
400,000 children—periodically go hungry for lack
of sufficient money to buy food.
Protecting the interests of
the haves against the have-nots under conditions
of such stark social polarization requires a
police force that knows it can kill with
impunity. Judge Cooperman’s verdict has
reaffirmed this fundamental bulwark of a grossly
unequal society.