« "Pardon me, May I get by," Dr. Hawking, Go Hill, Go Suns, and even MORE! | Main | The Rocket is Crashing and Burning and the Court Gets One RIGHT! »
April 28, 2008
Rev. Al takes the Stage Again
Last week, a judge acquitted three New York City police detectives, two of whom are black, of all charges relating to the 2006 death of Sean Bell, a 23-year-old black man. Officers fired nearly 50 shots at Bell, ultimately killing the unarmed man. As a result, two of the officers were charged with manslaughter while a third was charged with reckless endangerment. In finding the defendants not guilty, the judge said prosecutors failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
After the verdicts were announced, Reverend Al Sharpton, who happens to be one of the biggest media whores on the planet (he and Gloria Allred ought to get together), vowed to shut down New York City for a day to protest the acquittals. Sharpton said that authorities "have shown now that they will not hold police accountable. Well, guess what? If you won't, we will!"
This one I don’t understand. If the New York City Police Department had refused to investigate the officers’ actions, then authorities would have shown that they would not hold police accountable. If the District Attorney’s office had refused to indict the officers, then authorities would have shown that they would not hold police accountable. If the judge had dismissed the case before hearing all the evidence, then authorities would have shown that they would not hold police accountable.
However, that’s not what happened.
This is an example of a judge not finding three defendants guilty after conducting a bench trial. (I am curious how this case ended up in front of a judge instead of in front of a jury.) Now, I realize a lot of people might disagree with the result, and if I actually knew the facts of the case, perhaps I’d disagree as well. I have no idea whether these guys should have been convicted or not.
What I do know, however, is that Sharpton will use anything he can to generate attention for himself. What exactly does he want in this instance? Does he think the D.A. threw the case? Did the D.A. assign some rookie trial attorney to handle the matter? Does he think the judicial system should have refused to afford these officers any trial at all? Should we have immediately sent them to jail instead?
Assuming the prosecution didn’t tank the case, the only person Sharpton has any right to target is the judge. Maybe the man in black is a cross-burning New York City Klansman who just wanted to exonerate cops for offing a black man. Sounds implausible, but I suppose one never knows.
The New York City police department has had a rocky relationship with the city’s black citizens. That’s undebatable. But, when cops are put on trial and are ultimately acquitted, I’m curious as to whom Sharpton wants to blame. Guess we'll find out as time marches on. I wonder if the I-Man will weigh in.
Comments
The I-Man has been weighing in on race issues pretty frequently lately, and with the attitude that what happened to him was completely approriate.
It wouldn't surprise me if he did.
Posted by: butterflyfish at April 28, 2008 12:38 AM
The defendants first moved for a change of venue out of Queens, which was denied. They then decided that they would have a better shot (no pun intended) with a bench trial rather than a potentially over-emotional Queens jury.
I didn't really follow the evidence, and so I agree with everything you said.
Posted by: Harmless Error at April 28, 2008 10:08 AM
Harmless got it exactly right as for why it was a judge hearing this case. I followed the trial a little bit. There were two very different stories about what happened. From what I could gather, the story the police told really made no sense at all, but the guys telling the other story had prior convictions and weren't real credible witnesses. Of course, the police probably weren't real credible either, but the judge seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt. I certainly didn't sit in the court and hear all the evidence, so I'm not going to question the verdict, but I think it's interesting that the defendants felt their best chance was avoiding a jury of their peers.
Posted by: Philosofer at April 28, 2008 11:49 AM
i think gloria allred might be more annoying than rev. al & that is damned annoying!
good post t.f.
Posted by: acali at April 29, 2008 02:47 AM
HA! Everyone in NYC thinks Al Sharpton hasn't met a camera he doesn't like. Actually, the same goes for Chuck Schumer, the NY Senator.
My beef isn't so much the reason why the incident happened when it happened. My beef is with the number of shots fired. Was 50+ shots necessary? One of the undercover policemen shot 30+ times. Do you know how many reloads that is?!?!
Posted by: ming the merciless at April 29, 2008 03:10 AM
I agree that Al S. is a media whore. I think his involvement with all of those cases has, in recent years, led to a backfiring effect against him. Turning everything into a racial issue is not the smartest way to go.
Posted by: teahouseblossom at May 5, 2008 08:47 AM
