Sean Bell: “Observed” Reaching for a Non-Existent Weapon?
Friday, April 25th, 2008I want to discuss how, at night, someone outside a moving vehicle can observe someone inside the vehicle and reasonably determine that the passenger has “move[d] his body as if he were reaching for a weapon.” This observational conclusion seems key to the policeman’s decision to open fire (in which other police immediately joined) upon Sean Bell and his friends (all of whom were unarmed), and to the Judge’s decision to acquit the policemen. Before discussing this point, some background.
This morning at Queens County Criminal Courts Building in New York City, Judge Arthur Cooperman acquitted three NYPD officers charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment after an eight week bench trial.
Sean Bell was killed by a 50+ bullet barrage as he left his bachelor party at the Kalua Cabaret with friends Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield who were wounded multiple times in the shooting.
Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged only with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren’t charged. Oliver squeezed off 31 shots; Isnora fired 11 rounds; and Cooper shot four times.
The defense, which requested a non-jury trial, relied upon self-defense (statute text, see Sec. 35 et. seq.) as justification for the shooting. The District Attorney’s Office, which found itself in the unusual position of prosecuting city police officers (but did not opt to appoint a special prosecutor) had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that self-defense was not justified.
Judge Cooperman read his opinion (transcript) from the bench. Let’s examine that opinion to deduce the facts as the Judge found them to be after hearing the evidence. The police were there undercover, investigating possible prostitution at the club. One officer witnessed a verbal altercation between Bell’s group (including Guzman) and another group of men.
And, the court finds, another threat was made by Joseph Guzman to retrieve a gun [from a car outside]. At that point, nothing of a criminal nature had taken place. But, having witnessed that provocative confrontation … the undercover officers became concerned and followed the group around the corner to Liverpool Street [where the three men got into the Nissan Altima].
…
The Altima, which was driven by Mr. Bell, sped away from its parked position, struck defendant Isnora [who claimed the car bumped his leg] and collided head on with the [unmarked] police van that had entered Liverpool Street. The Altima then went into reverse, backed up onto the sidewalk, struck a gate and then went forward and to the right, striking the police van again. As this was happening, defendant Isnora — who testified in the grand jury — observed Mr. Guzman, the front passenger, move his body as if he were reaching for a weapon.
Defendant Isnora yelled, “gun” and fired.
Other officers, indicted and unindicted, joined in from different locations on the street.
Note that nowhere in the opinion did the Judge find that any officer ever identified (or successfully identified) himself as such to the men in the car — a point that was disputed at the trial. Bell’s group could have easily believed they were being assaulted by persons following them out of the club. For a very nice NYTimes graphical walk-through of the incident, see here (but remember this is not evidence).
Judge Cooperman could have relied on the ramming of the unmarked (see photos from previous link) police van as a display of deadly force justifying a like response — but he did not so rely. Neither did he rely on the bumping of officer Isnora as Bell accelerated away in the Altima. Not surprising really, since either of these incidents — especially at the low speed at which they must have happened — is arguably not demonstrative of deadly force. Instead, the key evidence relied on to justify the gunfire is that which seems most unreliable: Isnora’s claim that he saw a passenger “move his body as if he were reaching for a weapon,” upon which Isnora yelled “gun!” and opened fire.
Think about this for a moment. It was dark. There is no indication that an interior light was on inside the Altima. Any outside lighting would reflect off the car windows, making observation of the interior more difficult. As the Altima moved around, presumably trying to maneuver/muscle past the blocking van, what could Isnora really have seen? What sort of body movement, exactly, visually translates as “reaching for a weapon” as opposed to something else — any of the infinite other purposeful or non-purposeful movements Guzman may have made as the car jolted around in the alley?
Isnora’s claimed observation being of the most self-serving variety possible (justifying a homicide!), one would think that a more rigorous evaluation of the forensic validity of the observation would have been conducted, and presumably the prosecutor attempted to refute the claim. What we know from the Judge’s verdict is that he seems to have wholeheartedly accepted the fact and accuracy of the Isnora’s physically dubious observation, and used it as the keynote of his written opinion.
I realize the burden of proof was on the DA to show that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the shooting was unjustified, but it seems from the opinion that the Judge relied on Isnora’s “observation” as the chief obstacle to the DA’s meeting his burden of proof. I will be watching for more news out of the trial with an eye to this issue, and will update my opinion here as new facts warrant me adjusting it.
Upcoming will be a civil case and a potential federal civil rights prosecution.
Paultre Bell, Guzman and Benefield have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in federal court that has been stayed pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Guzman was shot 16 times, and four bullets, too dangerous to remove, remain in his body, according to his lawyer, Sanford Rubenstein.
Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York have been monitoring the trial. In the event of an acquittal, it is likely authorities would conduct a review to determine whether there were any civil rights violations.
I’ll add news on those as it develops.
B



