NYPD Officers Aquitted

[Guest American Woman]

NYPD officers cleared in killing

NYC police officers charged in the shooting of an unarmed groom on his wedding day in 2006 were aquitted. They thought he was armed, but even so, one officer fired 31 shots; he emptied his semi-automatic gun, reloaded, and emptied it again. I can't understand how he could have been aquitted of the "reckless endangerment" charge.

Edited April 26, 2008 by American Woman

[WCN]

NYPD officers cleared in killing

NYC police officers charged in the shooting of an unarmed groom on his wedding day in 2006 were aquitted. They thought he was armed, but even so, one officer fired 31 shots; he emptied his semi-automatic gun, reloaded, and emptied it again. I can't understand how he could have been aquitted of the "reckless endangerment" charge.

Yeah when you think of it, it is unbelievable. Though they will get huge settlements from the city and the COPs that did this will probably be on desk duty for the rest of their lives or be forced to retire. But I do hope a higher body reviews this (like a commission) and makes recommendations to prevent it from ever happening again.

[GostHacked]

Yeah when you think of it, it is unbelievable. Though they will get huge settlements from the city and the COPs that did this will probably be on desk duty for the rest of their lives or be forced to retire. But I do hope a higher body reviews this (like a commission) and makes recommendations to prevent it from ever happening again.

But the precident has been set. So cops can get away with this shit in the future without much reprocussions.

[eyeball]

But the precident has been set. So cops can get away with this shit in the future without much reprocussions.

I'd say an established precedent was reinforced and that stardards of repercussions were lowered. Crackin' down and gettin' tough is the in thing in the paranoid post 9/11 world.

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah when you think of it, it is unbelievable. Though they will get huge settlements from the city and the COPs that did this will probably be on desk duty for the rest of their lives or be forced to retire. But I do hope a higher body reviews this (like a commission) and makes recommendations to prevent it from ever happening again.

I remember reading about it at the time it happened and thinking we'd never hear any more about it, so at least we know they were charged and brought to trial. I can see the cop who only fired four shots getting aquitted, but it's like you said-- it's unbelievable that a cop who fires 31 rounds wouldn't be found guilty of reckless endangerment. I'm surprised there wasn't more of an uproar in response to the verdict. Perhaps there will be a review by a higher body, but yet I somehow doubt it. And I have to agree with GostHacked; the precedent likely has been set.

I'd say an established precedent was reinforced and that stardards of repercussions were lowered. Crackin' down and gettin' tough is the in thing in the paranoid post 9/11 world.

I think the standards of repercussions may have been lowered when Giuiliani was 'cleaning' up NYC. The city is much better in some areas now, but at what price?

[bush_cheney2004]

What's the big deal? They were charged, tried, and found NOT GUILTY (which does not equal INNOCENT) in a court of law. That's how the system works. Just ask OJ Simpson.

[Wilber]

What's the big deal? They were charged, tried, and found NOT GUILTY (which does not equal INNOCENT) in a court of law. That's how the system works. Just ask OJ Simpson.

Too bad we don't use the Scotish model. They have a third option, not proved.

[jbg]

NYPD officers cleared in killing

NYC police officers charged in the shooting of an unarmed groom on his wedding day in 2006 were aquitted. They thought he was armed, but even so, one officer fired 31 shots; he emptied his semi-automatic gun, reloaded, and emptied it again. I can't understand how he could have been aquitted of the "reckless endangerment" charge.

Because the successful use of the defense of justification precludes a conviction on that. The problem is that the Judge found, IMHO correctly, that the environment and activities of the victim and his buddies were threatening, fast moving and apparently dangerous. Having been in that neighborhood, I see his point. Frankly, I don't see what someone about to be married was doing in such a notoriously vicious club (which was recently shut down by the State Liquor Authority or some regulatory agency for fights).

But the precident has been set. So cops can get away with this shit in the future without much reprocussions.

Acquittals at the trial level never set precedents under US law; convictions do.

I'd say an established precedent was reinforced and that stardards of repercussions were lowered. Crackin' down and gettin' tough is the in thing in the paranoid post 9/11 world.

Police have always been given a wide berth of discretion and properly so. Remember the Vancouver taser incident?

What's the big deal? They were charged, tried, and found NOT GUILTY (which does not equal INNOCENT) in a court of law. That's how the system works. Just ask OJ Simpson.

I'm betting OJ didn't do it. Apparently one of the two juries agreed with me.

[jbg]

Too bad we don't use the Scotish model. They have a third option, not proved.

That's the same as the US's not guilty.

[Guest American Woman]

What's the big deal? They were charged, tried, and found NOT GUILTY (which does not equal INNOCENT) in a court of law. That's how the system works. Just ask OJ Simpson.

I'm perfectly aware of "how the system works," but thanks just the same. I just don't see it as no big deal when the system doesn't work the way it should and innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found not guilty; and despite your lackadaisical attitude, other people feel the same way. Just ask Nicole Simpson's family.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm perfectly aware of "how the system works," but thanks just the same. I just don't see it as no big deal when the system doesn't work the way it should and innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found not guilty; and despite your lackadaisical attitude, other people feel the same way. Just ask Nicole Simpson's family.

So write a book or make a movie, but the system worked just as it's suppose to. The prosecution did not prevail. It happems all the time....win some...lose some. Next up, the Feds get a crack at it.

My "attitude" is whole lot more realistic than those who really believe that "justice" is always served.

[GostHacked]

So write a book or make a movie, but the system worked just as it's suppose to. The prosecution did not prevail. It happems all the time....win some...lose some. Next up, the Feds get a crack at it.

My "attitude" is whole lot more realistic than those who really believe that "justice" is always served.

Your attitude is realistic and defeatists at the same time. Only will you cry foul when the situation involves you or someone you love. Stop being a mouthpeice for the current state of messed up, and change things. You actually make things worse by saying 'whatever, it has always been this way and I am happy about it'.

Things need to change and it is as simple as that. It starts or dies with you.

"The hopefull depend on a world without end.

Whatever the hopeless may say."

Rush - Manhattan Project

[Guest American Woman]

...the system worked just as it's suppose to. The prosecution did not prevail. It happems all the time....win some...lose some. Next up, the Feds get a crack at it.

So when a wrong verdict is made, the system is working "just as it's supposed to?"

My "attitude" is whole lot more realistic than those who really believe that "justice" is always served.

Who believes justice is always served? Doesn't mean one has to like it when it's not served; in fact, it's pretty odd to be ok with it when it's not.

[guyser]

So when a wrong verdict is made, the system is working "just as it's supposed to?"

It may have been a wrong verdict , who knows, but from what I have read it was the poor ability of the Crown to prove the case is where it went south.

Same as OJ.

The one white guy of the three might not live long though. His smug grinning face at a press conference would be enough for a few people to do something.

Bring on the civil case and make these men poor.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your attitude is realistic and defeatists at the same time. Only will you cry foul when the situation involves you or someone you love. Stop being a mouthpeice for the current state of messed up, and change things. You actually make things worse by saying 'whatever, it has always been this way and I am happy about it'.

Things need to change and it is as simple as that. It starts or dies with you.

Nonsense....I'm old enough to know of changes that you can't even imagine. I am the "mouthpiece" for a system that continues to change even as it stays the same. If you don't like that, cry "foul" till you're blue in the face...even though it's not about you anyway. Please stop whining......to me.

Edited April 29, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

So when a wrong verdict is made, the system is working "just as it's supposed to?"

There is no such thing as a wrong verdict. It can be vacated/set aside by a judge if there is reason to do so. All part of the same system.

Who believes justice is always served? Doesn't mean one has to like it when it's not served; in fact, it's pretty odd to be ok with it when it's not.

There is no such thing as justice once we get past what you do or do not like. The groom will still be forever late to his wedding.

[Guest American Woman]

It may have been a wrong verdict , who knows, but from what I have read it was the poor ability of the Crown to prove the case is where it went south.

Same as OJ.

I haven't read that, but it just seems to me that firing 31 shots in a public area in this situation would definitely be regarded as "reckless endangerment." There were three cops involved, but only one shot that many times. Two were also charged with manslaughter, which would be more difficult to prove, but I just don't see how emptying a semi-automatic weapon, reloading, and emptying it again could be seen as anything but reckless endangerment.

The one white guy of the three might not live long though. His smug grinning face at a press conference would be enough for a few people to do something.

I wonder which one he was? Do you happen to know?

Bring on the civil case and make these men poor.

Agreed.

[jbg]

There is no such thing as a wrong verdict. It can be vacated/set aside by a judge if there is reason to do so.

In the US a defendant's verdict can never be set aside unless there's jury tampering, once the matter has gone to jury and the jury reaches a verdict (i.e. is not a "hung" jury).

[bush_cheney2004]

In the US a defendant's verdict can never be set aside unless there's jury tampering, once the matter has gone to jury and the jury reaches a verdict (i.e. is not a "hung" jury).

Respecting your experience, the matter is only relevant in the case of a finding of guilty. Judges cannot set aside a finding of not guilty, but can declare a mistrial for the reasons you cited. In the case of a guilty finding, the defense can petition the court to set aside the verdict for other reasons besides jury tampering.

[jbg]

Respecting your experience, the matter is only relevant in the case of a finding of guilty. Judges cannot set aside a finding of not guilty, but can declare a mistrial for the reasons you cited. In the case of a guilty finding, the defense can petition the court to set aside the verdict for other reasons besides jury tampering.

That is correct.

[bush_cheney2004]

That is correct.

I think your clarification is useful for the matter at hand. The "system" is less concerned with getting the verdict "right" compared to due process that places the burden of guilt on the prosecution. I always felt sorry for District Attorney "Hamilton Burger".

To AW's point of contention, I don't know if "reckless endangerment" was part of the original indictment, or that it is considered a lesser included offense to manslaughter.

[jbg]

To AW's point of contention, I don't know if "reckless endangerment" was part of the original indictment, or that it is considered a lesser included offense to manslaughter.

If it isn't part of the original indictment the People have to move to have it added. Judges do not automatically grant such a motion as when a trial is going badly the people often make a sudden decision not to "go for broke". The Judge's reasoning is that the People need to settle on their strategy at the outset, much as the Defendant must choose early on and give notice of such special matters as insanity or alibi.

[bush_cheney2004]

If it isn't part of the original indictment the People have to move to have it added. Judges do not automatically grant such a motion as when a trial is going badly the people often make a sudden decision not to "go for broke". The Judge's reasoning is that the People need to settle on their strategy at the outset, much as the Defendant must choose early on and give notice of such special matters as insanity or alibi.

Good...that makes sense to me. The People should not be able to automatically hedge their bet on the fly.

[Guest American Woman]

To AW's point of contention, I don't know if "reckless endangerment" was part of the original indictment, or that it is considered a lesser included offense to manslaughter.

According to my link: Oliver and Gescard Isnora were acquitted of charges that included manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment. The third officer, Marc Cooper, faced lesser charges.

[HisSelf]

Police have always been given a wide berth of discretion and properly so.

No. Not properly so. In our system, the police run a black-box operation in order to keep armed force away from the hands of the politicians and so they are self-enforcing. Because of this, they should be held up to intense scrutiny whenever anything like this happens, and they should be given much less of the benefit of the doubt.

The neighbourhood was dangerous? Doesn't that make the victim responsible for something over which he has less control than the police do?

In Toronto, there was recently a similar case where police got off under questionnable circumstances.

I have to wonder if this is the result of too many cop shows that make these guys out to be some kind of angels. Anybody with as much power as the police hold in our society rarely turns out to be an angel.