In the aftermath of the Sean Bell verdict, emotions are running high. When emotions runs high, logic tends to run low. As a result, unfortunately, so will justice. For the reasons outlined below, the protests that have ensued, led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, are hindering, rather than helping, the cause of justice.

Everyone involved seems to have staked their hopes for justice on a guilty verdict against the policemen involved in Mr. Bell’s death. The problem, however, is that a guilty verdict in a case like this would have been almost impossible to secure. Between the various legal definitions involved in the charges and the safeguards built into the system in favor of criminal defendants, it is very difficult to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a case in which policemen must decide and act quickly in a rapid-fire, tension laden, potential life-and-death situation. Indeed, after the acquittals in the Amadou Diallo case, this really should have been obvious. The reason it is evidently not obvious to many is that justice advocates cling to a notion that it is an inherent pro-police bias, rather than an inherent near-impossibility to kill reasonable doubt, that leads to the acquittals. As a result of this notion, advocates continue to pursue the criminal indictment option every time an innocent unarmed black man is killed by police, in hopes that one day such a case will come before that “right-minded” judge and jury that we all dream of.

Any pro-police bias in these matters operates in addition to, not instead of, the above inherent difficulties. Therefore, in the fight for actual change, it should not be the primary scapegoat. It is important to understand that we face an outrageous miscarriage of justice anytime an unarmed, innocent civilian is killed by police. However, it becomes all the more unacceptable when the police are plain-clothed and the victim believes that he is being attacked by a civilian criminal, rather than a cop. Plainly, this should never happen. The fact that it happens so frequently in New York City illustrates an evil disregard on the part of the City. Sean Bell clearly believed he was being attacked by street thugs, and evidently, that belief was reasonable. As far as I am concerned, anytime that happens, the police clearly must have done something wrong.

The problem, though, is that everyone’s first recourse is the criminal justice system. In part for the reasons I mentioned above – and certainly in light of the Diallo verdict – this is plain foolishness. “The police clearly must have done something wrong – let’s fight for an indictment?” The better course of action would entail a civil lawsuit against the NYPD. I would have to research this a little further, but I wonder if a plaintiff could probably prevail on a theory of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine, with a legal Latin name that means “the thing speaks for itself,” originated in the context of a patient who goes to the hospital to have something like a tonsil removed, but who wakes up to find his leg was amputated. While the plaintiff would never be able to state with specificity exactly where in the chain of activity the defendant acted wrongfully, res ipsa loquitur applies to the plaintiff’s benefit, on the grounds that the harm to the plaintiff, under the given circumstances, was of the sort that normally would not occur in the absence of malfeasance on the part of the defendant.

Again, with some more research to do on the subject, it seems to me that this theory could work in the context of the Bell case. The proofs would have to establish, first, that the victim was innocent and unarmed; second, that the police were undercover and/or not in uniform; and third, that the victim acted under a reasonable unawareness that he was being confronted by an undercover policeman, rather than some civilian criminal. If these elements (and maybe one or two more that I haven’t thought of yet) are proven by preponderance of the evidence, then res ipsa loquitur would then apply. Somehow, an unarmed, innocent man was killed or injured by undercover policemen whom the innocent man reasonably thought was a civilian criminal attacking him. Clearly, the police must have done something wrong. Perhaps they violated procedure. Or perhaps the procedure is flawed. But rather than presume to claim exactly what the wrong was, and then go all out with that claim, set the whole community up for disappointment, and fail to win justice, it should be sufficient to stand on the fact that “the thing speaks for itself.”

I understand that the family and the organization around them, led by Rev. Sharpton, are pressuring the US Attorney to pursue a civil rights case. But I hope that a civil lawsuit is also pursued, and taken as far as it needs to go, without settlement, in order to establish a legal doctrine that will force change at the police department. At least two such deaths in New York since Diallo (R.I.P. Patrick Dorismond), it is time for strategies that have a chance at actually working to bring justice and to bring about change.

Thanks for this post Vox.

I remain disturbed about the Sean Bell case, and the Martin Lee Anderson case, among others. Still, I would have to disagree that Sharpton's activities are in any way hindering justice.

If what you say is true, that a guilty verdict is nearly impossible to secure becasue of legal definitions and safeguards which seem to favor criminal defendants, what then, accounts for the cornucopia of innocent black men who are prosecuted on the flimsiest of evidence in other criminal cases? Twenty years later, the easily obtained guilty verdict must be overturned due to DNA testing. To me it looks like a guilty verdict is easy to obtain, and especially so if the defendant is a black civilian.

I do agree however that all avenues should be pursued including a civil suit and a civil rights case.

I'd like to hear a judge read out a 100 million dollar judgement for Nicole Paultre Bell.

^ ^ ^ ^

Excellent observations NegroSpiritual.

To Vox.

If your observations turn out to be plausible, why did'nt you make the attempt to inform sharpton (or his representatives,) as NO MAN has all the answers at any one given time---and since anything concerning Black Folk in this society are obliged to come from a 'grass-roots' level to effect any semblances of 'justice' against this amerikkkan legal beast, maybe this knowledge eariler, could have been useful?

I have no use for al sharpton.

But the death of the Brutha Sean Bell requires recompense. And if 'black folk' don't help each other rather than a continual 'critique,' WE can most certainly resolve OURSELVES to being the 'bait' in a krakkka judical feeding frenzy.



ROARIN.....

If I'm not mistaken, Ms. Bell had already started civil procedures against the police before the end of the criminal trial.

Sharpton's call for a civil rights violation investigation and trial would be a completely different litigation in that it would be a federally-filed case.

I see no reason for not pursuing all three options. There's bound to be justice done somewhere down the line.