Anger, Sadness as Three Acquitted in Sean Bell Case

yeah..a dead man hit an officer,hit a van,backed up and hit the gate. you like conspiracies,dont you? Saltnlemons

Eye: just like I thought...salt of the earth..that man/sarc heavy...bring napkins

Gee, whiz, how did it happen that the cops were shooting an unarmed man, and how did it happen that the unarmed man lost control of his car? Could it be that he had already been shot and killed?

Muawiyah, have you ever seen the film, Dead Men Don't Throw Cars Into Reverse?

Re: "The car lurched forward, hitting Isnora's leg, and stopped in front of a van driven by Detective Michael Oliver. It then backed up into a wall before accelerating forward again and hitting the van."

In any case, here's a long excerpt from a Sept 4, 2007, New York Post article titled: "Sean Bell Was Looking For Sex: Cops". The piece sheds further light on the matter.

"According to a motion filed by the defense team, Detective Gescard Isnora said he saw Bell, 23, and his bachelor-party buddies exit the strip joint Club Kalua early that morning and proposition the woman as she talked to a man seated in an SUV.

The woman "refused to go to a hotel with them where they wanted to have sex with her," the court papers say.

An argument broke out, and the man in the SUV made several "unpleasant comments" to Bell's group, according to the documents.

Isnora said he heard Bell's pal Joseph Guzman yell, "Get my gun! Get my gun!" and Bell add, "Let's f- - - him up!"

Sanford Rubenstein, who represents Bell's would-be bride, Nicole Paultre-Bell, as well as Guzman and the third pal, Trent Benefield, dismissed the court papers as "pure fiction."

"First, there was a fourth man in the car," Rubenstein said, mocking the NYPD's initial claim that a gunman fled the scene.

No weapon was found in the car, nor was a fourth person found to be involved in the shooting.

But the motion outlines what it calls a "valid defense of justification" for the slaying of Bell, saying Isnora was "convinced" the men were "going to do a drive-by shooting" in front of the strip club.

The papers say Isnora "saw Guzman reach down toward his waistband" after the trio got into a Nissan Altima, and yelled, "Police! Don't move!"

The car lurched forward, hitting Isnora's leg, and stopped in front of a van driven by Detective Michael Oliver. It then backed up into a wall before accelerating forward again and hitting the van.

"Convinced that if Guzman ever got to raise that hand, Detective Isnora would see a gun in it, he yelled, 'Gun!' and, 'He's got a gun!' and began firing," the motion states.

Isnora, Oliver and the third cop, Marc Cooper, are due in Queens Supreme Court this week.

It will be the first chance Judge Arthur Cooperman has to act on the defense's motion to dismiss the indictment against the cops.

'Their previous appearances were clearly no big deal. [But] this one, something is going to happen, something,' one source said.

Rubenstein said, "A grand jury indicted these police officers, and they testified before the grand jury."

"We look forward to a jury in Queens hearing this case and doing justice."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09042007/news/regionalnews/bell_sex_shock.htm

BEFORE DEALING WITH THE BUSINESS AT HAND, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO HONOR THE DECORUM OF THE COURT AND REMAIN QUIET AFTER THE VERDICTS ARE RENDERED.

...snip...

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WAS AFFECTED BY A COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES’ PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONY AMONG PROSECUTION WITNESSES, THE RENUNCIATION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS, CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, THE INTEREST OF SOME WITNESSES IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE, THE DEMEANOR ON THE WITNESS STAND OF OTHER WITNESSES AND THE MOTIVE WITNESSES MAY HAVE HAD TO LIE AND THE EFFECT IT HAD ON THE TRUTHFULNESS OF A WITNESS’S TESTIMONY.

THESE FACTORS PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT PART IN THE PEOPLE’S ABILITY TO PROVE THEIR CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND HAD THE EFFECT OF EVISCERATING THE CREDIBILITY OF THOSE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. AND, AT TIMES, THE TESTIMONY JUST DIDN’T MAKE SENSE.

YET, IT WAS APPARENT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PARTICIPANTS THAT THE CONFRONTATION THAT TOOK PLACE IN FRONT OF THE CLUB WAS HEATED. THE SUV OWNER, FABIO COICOU, GAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT HE HAD A GUN, CAUSING AT LEAST ONE OF THE GROUP TO THREATEN TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM HIM.

AND, THE COURT FINDS, ANOTHER THREAT WAS MADE BY JOSEPH GUZMAN TO RETRIEVE A GUN. AT THAT POINT, NOTHING OF A CRIMINAL NATURE HAD TAKEN PLACE. BUT, HAVING WITNESSED THAT PROVOCATIVE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN MR. COICOU AND THE GROUP, THE UNDERCOVER OFFICERS BECAME CONCERNED AND FOLLOWED THE GROUP AROUND THE CORNER TO LIVERPOOL STREET.

DEFENDANT ISNORA APPROACHED THE NISSAN ALTIMA INTO WHICH MR. GUZMAN AND SEAN BELL, TWO OF THE MORE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THE HEATED EXCHANGE, ENTERED.

THE ALTIMA, WHICH WAS DRIVEN BY MR. BELL, SPED AWAY FROM ITS PARKED POSITION, STRUCK DEFENDANT ISNORA AND COLLIDED HEAD ON WITH THE POLICE VAN THAT HAD ENTERED LIVERPOOL STREET. THE ALTIMA THEN WENT INTO REVERSE, BACKED UP ON TO 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.

THE COURT HAS FOUND THAT THE INCIDENT LASTED JUST SECONDS. THE OFFICERS RESPONDED TO PERCEIVED CRIMINAL CONDUCT; THE UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR CONDUCT WERE TRAGIC.

THE POLICE RESPONSE WITH RESPECT TO EACH DEFENDANT WAS NOT PROVED TO BE CRIMINAL, I.E. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. QUESTIONS OF CARELESSNESS AND INCOMPETENCE MUST BE LEFT TO OTHER FORUMS.

ALTHOUGH THERE WERE ASPECTS OF DEFENSE TESTIMONY THAT WERE NOT NECESSARILY CREDIBLE, THE FOCUS MUST BE ON THE PEOPLE’S PROOF TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY HAVE SATISFIED THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING THE DEFENDANTS GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEFENSE OF JUSTIFICATION WAS APPLICABLE TO THE CHARGED

CRIMES, COUNTS 1, 2, 3, 4 IN PART, 5 IN PART, 6, 7, AND 8, THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT PROVED, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT EACH DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE ACTIONS THAT EACH TOOK.

WITH RESPECT TO COUNTS 4 AND 5, TRENT BENEFIELD, WHOSE CREDIBILITY WAS SERIOUSLY IMPEACHED, TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS SHOT WHILE RUNNING DOWN LIVERPOOL STREET. FORENSIC EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED OTHERWISE. THUS, ALTHOUGH THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED TO THAT ASPECT OF COUNTS 4 AND 5, IT WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT FINDS EACH DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF EACH OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNTS IN THE INDICTMENT OF WHICH THEY WERE CHARGED.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/bell_verdict_statement.pdf

He’s reposting it, because, like a brick wall; none of this evidence is getting through to you. You are even making up evidence to support your own conclusion, the age of the judge has nothing to do with his ability to deliberate a fair and just judgment. Please read it again.

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WAS AFFECTED BY A COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES’ PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONY AMONG PROSECUTION WITNESSES, THE RENUNCIATION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS, CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, THE INTEREST OF SOME WITNESSES IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE, THE DEMEANOR ON THE WITNESS STAND OF OTHER WITNESSES AND THE MOTIVE WITNESSES MAY HAVE HAD TO LIE AND THE EFFECT IT HAD ON THE TRUTHFULNESS OF A WITNESS’S TESTIMONY.

THESE FACTORS PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT PART IN THE PEOPLE’S ABILITY TO PROVE THEIR CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND HAD THE EFFECT OF EVISCERATING THE CREDIBILITY OF THOSE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. AND, AT TIMES, THE TESTIMONY JUST DIDN’T MAKE SENSE.