I said that I thought that the officer who fired off two clips was supposed to be indicted as well as the officer that started the shooting. The other fellow I'm not sure about but in each case these are the officers that fired the most shots.
Personally, I'm not at all concerned that the other two officers (Carey and Headley) were not indicted because from what I know, those two only fired a single shot and therefore it would be reasonably argued that they fired because they heard a shot but they followed police proceedure by not shooting numerous times. Since I, if I was on the jury, would likely be convinced of reasonable doubt on those two. This post will be updated as more information is made available.
Update: According to the NY Times:
The jury charged two of the detectives — Gescard F. Isnora, an undercover officer who fired the first shot, and Michael Oliver, who fired 31 shots — with manslaughter, two people with direct knowledge of the case said. The third detective, Marc Cooper, who fired four shots, faces a lesser charge of reckless endangerment, those two people said...
The person with direct knowledge of the case who said Detectives Isnora and Oliver faced manslaughter charges did not know if they were first- or second-degree counts. Second-degree manslaughter is defined as recklessly causing the death of another person. The three officers may also face additional lesser charges.\
According to Letlaw manslaughter is defined:
The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
The distinctions between manslaughter and murder, consists in the following: In the former, though the act which occasions the death be unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice, either express or implied, which is the very essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter.
It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation. Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.
The cases of manslaughter may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.
The provocation which reduces the killing from murder to manslaughter is an answer to the presumption of malice which the law raises in every case of homicide; it is therefore no answer when express malice is proved and to be available the provocation must have been reasonable and recent, for no words or slight provocation will be sufficient, and if the party has had time to cool, malice will be inferred.
In cases of mutual combat, it is generally manslaughter only when one of the parties is killed. When death ensues from duelling the rule is different, and such killing is murder.
The killing of an officer by resistance to him while acting under lawful authority is murder; but if the officer be acting under a void or illegal authority, or out of his jurisdiction, the killing is manslaughter, or excusable homicide, according to the circumstances of the case.
Killing a person while doing an act of mere wantonness, is manslaughter as, if a person throws down stones in a coal-pit, by which a man is killed, although the offender was only a trespasser.
When death ensues from the performance of a lawful act, it may, in consequence of the negligence of the offender, amount to manslaughter. For instance, if the death has been occasioned by negligent driving. Again, when death ensues, from the gross negligence of a medical or surgical practitioner, it is manslaughter.
Here at the Ghost, we think that definition 5 would be the basis for a manslaughter indictment. I also think this may be the best charge (even though we have called it murder before) because to go to trial and attempt to prove intent, necessary for a murder charge, would leave a wide door open called reasonable doubt as it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that the officers did not intend to kill Sean Bell.
To me the biggest hurdle faced now is to prove that either of the three killed Sean Bell. I'm not sure if that is legally necessary, but assuming it is, then that may be a problem for the prosecution and the officers may well walk or be found guilty of reckless endangerment charge which I think is unavoidable given the number of shots and the fact that bullets entered a home and the train station and the one officer emptied two clips in clear violation of his training.
Update (3-19-2007):
OK. So I stand corrected, well actually I stand clarified. The evidence shows who shot Sean Bell and co. so the charges are in fact related to the specific bullets that struck the victims as well as those that went into one of the houses as well as the AirTran station. The NY Times has a link to the indictment document which I want to highlight some important problems.
The first count is for 1st degree manslaughter. The problem with that is I think it will be very very very hard to prove intent on the part of police officers. I said earlier that any charge with intent would not work. I don't know what evidence the grand jury heard, that made them think 1st degree manslaughter was appropriate, but from what little I know, that charge is NOT going to stick.
The second count of second degree manslaughter is, in my opinion, provable because it only states that the officers acted "recklessly" using a "loaded pistol". To me, that is basically a statement of fact. Again, I don't know what evidence is going to be entered into evidence but even though the officers will claim they feared for their lives, police regulations are quite clear about shooting at moving vehicles. Secondly, because an alternate (and I believe regulation) procedure would have been to call in uniformed backup as to not blow the cover of the undercover officer(s).
on the third and fourth charges of 1st degree assault, I have to restate my doubt that intent will be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The fifth count of second degree assault is provable beyond doubt. Again to me the charge is a statement of fact, unless some seriously exculpatory evidence comes to light.
On the 6th, 7th and 8th counts of reckless endangerment, I simply don't see how they will get off on those. Discharging 50 shots in such a manner that houses are shot into, and the public is put into danger is simply shoddy police work and shows a blatant disregard for the lives of civilians.
So to close, my position is that anything requiring intent will result in an acquittal and anything else is provable but depends on the jury (or judge).
Technorati Tags: Jamaica Queens Shooting, Sean Bell
No comments:
Post a Comment