Lessons from a Tragedy

Sean Bell died tragically on his wedding day, cut down in a hail of 50 bullets outside a New York nightclub in 2006. On Friday, the three detectives who shot the 23-year-old were cleared of charges, but the case continues to resonate throughout the city and beyond. The unarmed Bell was black, raising fears that tensions from the racially charged case might spill over into violent protest outside the courthouse. That didn't happen, but resentment over the case is lingering.  "This verdict is one round down, but the fight is far from over," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, who accompanied Bell's family to the courthouse and to Bell's grave afterward. NEWSWEEK's Katie Paul spoke to Eugene O'Donnell, a lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, about the city's handling of the sensitive issues brought up by the shooting and whether the case could affect race relations more broadly. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: What kind of precedent does this verdict set?
Eugene O'Donnell: I think it underscores the reality that the police have broad power in our society to do their job. When police officers are assigned to activities designed to make people safe, they are entitled to defend their lives and the lives of other people, so there is very broad legal protection for them to do that.

We could still see some [departmental] disciplinary action in this case, right?
Yes. One of the downsides to the whole idea of having a criminal prosecution is that it diverts attention from the reality that there are many remedies for police bungling and police mistakes--and I think you could have a strong argument that there should not be a criminal prosecution in a case like this. The range of remedies for police misconduct includes a civil suit against the city, disciplinary action or, with the NYPD in recent times, having the officer removed from enforcement activities. Basically, it's a career-ender.

It seems that, even if they're not guilty of manslaughter and the other criminal charges against them, 50 shots fired on an unarmed man should still raise some red flags.
The only time the police should be shooting is if they have an actual, legitimate fear that they're going to die, that someone else is going to die, or that someone is going to be seriously injured. And if that is the reason they're firing, it's really impossible to dictate to them a magic number of shots that should be fired … Police officers in the NYPD have about a 20 percent hit rate, so 80 percent of all shots are misses. If the only reason they should be firing is if they think they're going to die, how can you step in and try to tell the officers how many shots to fire?

It seems clear that fault extends far beyond the individuals involved in the case.
This case has caused the NYPD to undertake a whole review of its undercover policies. Because, you could also argue that [the real issue] is decision-making about sending undercover officers into a club like that. Police officers should be sent into these kinds of situations only after the most searing kind of thought and deliberation. Their mission should be clear. The rules of engagement should be clear. They shouldn't just be sent in at the drop of a hat. 

We haven't seen quite as outraged a reaction to this verdict as there was to the Amadou Diallo case, which was likewise high profile and racially charged. Why do you think that is?
Policing really is a street-level operation of government, but the most important operations of government take place in city hall at the municipal level. This city hall that we have in New York now is one in which the mayor prides himself on relationship he has had with the African-American community. This is in contrast to the last mayor [Rudy Giuliani], who perversely seemed to pride himself on the poor relationship he had with that community. So, there's a much higher trust level. And, of course, in this case, the officers are multi-ethnic, so it's not the old story of white officers shooting black people with impunity.