<img attachment="picture_1.jpg" align="left" class="frame" caption="Sean Bell Shooting Crime Scene">Sean Bell was murdered in Queens, NY early one morning in late November. He died in a hail of 50 bullets fired by New York City police officers. See <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/nyregion/20061129_SHOOTING_GRAPHIC.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" source="New York Times">A Fatal Police Shooting in Queens</a>, an interactive graphic of the crime scene (Flash). As usual in these situations, the officers involved have been remanded to administrative positions (taken off the street). Regardless of the circumstances, police officers get the full "innocent until proven guilty" treatment, not only being able to stay at large during the subsequent investigation (go shoot someone with witnesses and see how long you remain on the street), but being able to continue working their jobs as well. It was like this during the Amadou Diallo shootings and not much has since changed. The question to ask is why different laws apply to police officers than the rest of us? <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/nyregion/29shoot.html?ex=1180414800&en=d5b4c94a391ded26&ei=5087&excamp=GGGNnycpoliceshooting" source="New York Times">For 5 Officers, No Shots Fired for Years, and Then 50 at Once</a> fills in some background details about the officers involved: <h>The Five Cops</h> <bq>...a handpicked team of officers responsible for several hundred arrests between them without ever having fired a round in the line of duty.</bq> Ok, so that more or less rules out incompetence and, with two of the officers Latino, two black and one white, it pretty much rules out racist motivation. The sad fact remains that they killed one young man and severely injured two of his friends in a phenomenally mishandled situation that night. They fucked up big time. They panicked on the job---one of them firing so many bullets he had to reload in between---and all without a single weapon sighted or a single shot returned. Nothing. Just the echoes of their own shots making them shit their pants and empty their clips. It's not like it's an easy job, but nobody said it was. All we ask is that you don't kill innocent people and you keep your head. These guys did not; so don't talk about <iq>contagious fire</iq> and other crap. No one wants to hear cheap justifications for why it happened; the best form of apology is to get those guys off the streets and out of the force. Period. It doesn't matter what their previous records were, what kind of cops they were; that's the risk in that job: you kill one guy for no good reason and you're shitcanned. No arguments. Seems like a pretty fair rule. That, however, is not to be the case. Commissioner Kelly is defending the officers and deriding the community, sending gestapo raids of friends and family of the deceased to see if they can find out any dirt that will somehow "prove" that this shooting was justified. Read the aforementioned article; even that describes the human side of all of the officers, almost as if to say it can happen to the best of us. Aw shucks. No. Since Sean Bell doesn't get a do-over, neither do you guys. Life sucks like that. <h>What Went Down</h> <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/01/1456217" source="Democracy Now" author="Graham Weatherspoon" title="Hundreds to Attend Sean Bell Funeral, Community Leaders Criticize NYPD For Raids">Community Leaders Criticize NYPD For Raids</a> provides more information about the police raids to search homes---dragnet-style and not always with warrants---throughout Queens. Weatherspoon is a former NYC detective with a lot of field experience of his own; he notes that officers <iq>assess the situation, determine what the target is, and then respond accordingly</iq>. Police reports that not one of the five veteran officers (the "rookie" had 41/2 years of experience) did any of those things, that they just shot wildly. He describes the shooting in clearer terms than the New York Times: <bq>You don't just contagiously open fire, because you hear a shot. If you don't know where the shot is coming from, where are you shooting? Who are you shooting at? We had bullets that went into the home of residents. I don't think that the lamp sitting on the table in the living room of the house across the street was a suspect in this matter. I don't think that the Airtrain, 50 feet above the ground, was a suspect in this shooting.</bq> They panicked, plain and simple.<fn> Perhaps anyone would have, but that's why not just anyone can be a cop. And that's why the punishment has to be harsh when it turns out they shouldn't have been on a beat. Maybe they had a bad day; maybe they'll never have another one. It doesn't matter. The community needs to know that the police cares more about them than they do about themselves. And the blue wall forming around the officers in question is proving the exact opposite. Again. The contagion theory of weaponry continues in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/nyregion/27fire.html?ex=1322283600&en=357cf73362b1de61&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" source="New York Times">50 Shots Fired, and the Experts Offer a Theory</a>. In this one, the theory that officers only shoot with good reason was put forward, that there must have been a clear threat. <iq>Eugene O'Donnell, a professor of police studies at John Jay College, said a high number of shots fired underscores the threat the officers felt.</iq> That may well be. But the risk is, if an officer makes a mistake, he doesn't get another chance ... or shouldn't. They're duty is to protect the innocent, not mow them down. Having made such a mistake, they should be jailed for involuntary manslaughter, <i>just like any one of us would if we had done the same thing</i>. What makes them so special that they have their own laws? <h>The NYPD Overall</h> The department probably doesn't want to lose what they would doubtless call "otherwise good officers" from their ranks. They have excellent service records except for this one little thing: mowing down a car full of innocents one night in November. Enforcing our laws instead of making special cases for the police wouldn't cost that many officers; it's not like police shootings are exactly an epidemic in New York. <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/12-01-2006/02e5004833cd58f0.html" source="Findlaw">Statistics Reflect NYPD Restraint</a> writes that with<iq>more than 37,000 uniformed officers, the NYPD is by far the country's biggest ... police force.</iq> With that many officers, <iq>last year's toll [of] nine people</iq> killed is extremely low---especially when compared to the numbers from other cities in the country. In other terms, though, review are less glowing, showing that <iq>citizen complaints filed with a review board about alleged NPYD abuses had increased by 60 percent from 2001 to 2005</iq>. Fatal shootings are down, but complaints of non-fatal abuse have risen massively. Instead of closing the blue line, <iq>the city should try to learn what went wrong - not be defensive, but try to identify problems and solutions.</iq> One potential trouble spot is the use of these roving "special units", comprised of crack officers who know policing, but don't know the area well or at all. In the Diallo shooting as well as the recent Bell shooting, the officers involved were special units, which, despite their elite training, caused them to panic when they were unable to properly assess the situation. A teacher of police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice was convinced that <iq>the local beat cops would [not] have shot Diallo. They know the area better. There's less fear.</iq> And that's why, intentional or not, they have to go. They are no longer fit for their duty and the police have to work on community trust instead of covering their asses. Cops, who carry weapons in our society, should have stricter rules, not laxer ones. They've already killed one innocent; there's no need to spit on his grave. <hr> <ft>Seriously. They shot into people's living rooms. <i>Christ</i>.</ft>