The Police, The Supreme Court, & The Death of Sean Bell

It’s late.

It’s very late.

It’s so late, it’s early morning… about 4 A.M.   In a nightclub, an undercover police officer hear snippets of conversation: Men, apparently drunken men, talking about “getting guns” when they leave the club.

The officer alerts his partners, and contacts a supervisory officer, the supervisor arrives, and when the men leave the club, the cops follow.

When the men got into their car, and appeared ready to drive off, an officer, with his gun drawn, identifies himself and tells the driver to stop. The driver attempts to flee, but is boxed in by an unmarked police vehicle, which is struck by the suspect vehicle. The driver of the suspect vehicle bumps or hits one of the on-scene police officers with his vehicle while the suspects attempt to flee. At least one of the officers sees either the passenger or driver make a furtive gesture towards a pocket. The officers on the scene open fire with their service weapons, striking and killing the driver, and grievously wounding the two other passengers.

After an investigation, four of the officers are indicted for murder and lesser charges by a Grand Jury. The officers, knowing the emotional weight of the case, waived the right for a jury trial, opting instead for a verdict from the bench.

During the trial, the prosecution’s best witness, the front seat passenger at the time of the incident, contradicts his own written statements and Grand Jury testimony.

After the conclusion of arguments, the judge, stating that the prosecution had failed to present evidence that would lead to the conviction of the officers beyond a reasonable doubt, acquitted all of the officers accused of any crimes.

Simple, right? Something bad happens and justice is served.  Or is it?  I suppose your answer depends on your perspective.

We have arrived at our starting point.

The friends and family oThe friends of the deceased, Mr. Sean Bell, immediately began to protest about racism and several other things, claiming that it’s “open season” on black Americans, etc… some of my fellow bloggers have made similar statements, so I thought I should take a moment, considering what I do for a living, to talk about why those officers were acquitted.

It's very simple really, and the reasons have nothing to do with institutional racism, or police brutality, etc...

Those officers were acquitted because, according to supreme court case law, their actions were perfectly justifiable. 

That's right, their actions were perfectly justifiable.

Now, now... before you go calling me a "sellout", "tool of whitey", "self-hater", "pig" and other unpleasant things, please attempt to think about this rationally and devoid of emotion. 
Sure, it is incredibly difficult to look on this case and not get emotional about it, after all, Mr Bell was leaving his bachelor party... he was to be married the following day.  Sean Bell was someone's was a father, a son, and friend.  By many accounts, he was a great guy.  I won't even begin to dispute any of that... but this case isn't about any of that, is it?  Of course not.

What this case was about was whether or not the officers that shot Mr Bell and his friends, that terrible night, were justified in doing so.

"NO!" you scream, "Those men weren't armed!".

You're right. They weren't, but this case isn't about that either.

"But they fired 50 rounds at those men."

True... but guess what?  This case wasn't about that, either.

No, this is about justification, and the laws governing the use of force, including deadly force by police.

This case is about the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Graham V. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner.

To summarize, the Supreme Court held, with no Justices dissenting, that any judgment on the use of force by police must pass the "reasonableness standard", which must be whether or not the officers actions were reasonable to a "reasonable officer on the scene" at the time of the incident, and not viewed with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.  In other words, were the officers actions reasonable, knowing what he or she knew at the time of the incident.

So, here we have officers who already believe that the people in the car are armed (it doesn't matter that they weren't... it matters that the cops reasonably believed that they were, based on what one of the officers heard).  A confrontation ensues, wherein an officer is struck by the vehicle driven by the suspect in an attempt to flee.  One suspect, according to testimony, reached into his shirt/coat/jacket/pants... knowing what the officer reasonably believed at the time, was it reasonable to think that the suspect was reaching for a weapon?  Apparently, the court believed that it was.

When an officer thinks that he is about to be assaulted, he may use force... it is important to note that the officer is under no requirement to be assaulted before defending himself.

So, believing that the suspect was going for a gun, the fight was on, and the shooting started.

"But... 50 rounds?"

Well, it sounds like a lot, doesn't it?  Hell, it is a lot... but was the number of shots unreasonable?  I'm asking you.  Yes, YOU.  Was 50 rounds too many?  How many should they have fired?  40? 30? 2?  How many rounds in enough in a gunfight?  I'll give you a hint:  As many as it takes to neutralize whatever threat that you perceive.

There we have it.  A reasonable belief that the suspect had access to weapons and or intent to use them.  A suspect attempting to use a vehicle as a weapon, A furtive gesture by a subject that one could reasonably conclude was a reach for a gun. 

Friends, all of those things put together say that the cops were authorized to use force.  Deadly force.  The fact that those men were unarmed never entered into the decision.

Never.

Sean Bell is dead, and it is a terrible tragedy, but he wasn't murdered.

Comments

[jen of a2eatwrite]

As you may remember from my e-mail, I've been sitting in on a citizens police academy over the past few weeks. I've found it fascinating and have new found respect for the edge-of-the-seat dangers that officers face every. single. day. How the mundane can fly to the life-threatening in seconds.

And everyone has a right to protect themselves and their loved ones. If the officers believed there was a weapon involved, and if Mr. Bell and his friends appeared threatening based on their actions with their vehicles, the actions of the officers tragically make sense.

Thanks for putting it so clearly.

[sherri]

Does the fact that Bell was a young Black man in the company of a few other young Black men have anything to do with what happened? I honestly believe that his "profile" may have led to a "heightend" sense of anxiety among the officers. I can't deny that all of us (Black/White/Everyone else) have certain racial biases.

In my mind, the fact is that police officers do a dangerous job, and part of their job requires that they deal with a the criminal element. Situations happen, tension and adrenilin is running high and they sometimes have to make split second decisions. No one wants to hurt or kill an inncocent bystander. Sometimes, mistakes are made. That doesn't make them racist, it makes them human.

A mistake like this is tragic and unfortunate for everyone. Sometimes accidents happen and there really is no one involved to take the blame.

[Tasha]

Thank you for putting it so eloquently. As you know, my guy is a police officer and when the officers were aquitted, my immediate knee jerk reaction was that of anger on behalf of the family. I looked at it from an emotional standpoint ("open season on blacks, etc"), but he explained to me, just as you did here, why the officers were found not guilty. Then I had to look at it from a different perspective.

If he were one of those cops and felt threatened, but was not allowed (by law/regulation) use force and ended up getting injured or killed, I'd be angry that he wasn't allowed to protect himself in the line of duty.

I hope that makes sense. Either way, thank you for taking the time to explain so well.

[amy]

Thank you - very well said as are the follow up comments. A tragic situation for sure, but bottom line, when a cop is pulling you over for ANY reason, you do so in an openly compliant manner. You don't reach in pockets or glove boxes or under seats. You keep your hands in view.

Yes - there may have been some profiling that played into this but I can almost guarantee that had the same situation gone down and those guys had been any other race, the events would have resulted the same.

I (white female middle class) have been pulled over on the freeway in Seattle and been approached in the car by the officer with his hand on his gun. Before reaching in my glove box I let the officer know that my registration is there and get his ok to open it first. I keep my hands in my lap or on the steering wheel where they can be seen.

I do these things not necessarily because I think I am in any danger, but as a courtesy to the officer so he does not have to be put in a situation of having to second guess what my actions or intentions are. Officers have to make quick decisions in life threatening positions on a daily basis with little or no information to go off of other than the observations they have made in a few seconds or minutes. Their lives are on the line and they don't have the luxury of waiting for more information. By the time those officers knew whether or not a gun was coming out of that guys pocket, it may have been too late. Bottom line, don't care who you are, when the cops are after you, you DON'T REACH INTO YOUR POCKET!!!!!

[Smiling Mom]

Bill,

Excellent write-up. I've forwarded it to my husband. He'll really enjoy your post. Taking emotion out of it is always so hard.

Well said.