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.