Show of Force

It's not the law, but the execution of the law.

by Mikel D. Jones Sr

	print	email	reply	rss feed

Published: Jan 23, 2008

When Sean Bell was murdered by undercover police officers outside a club in Jamaica, Queens, in 2006, noted African-American leaders and community activists declared it an act of racial injustice. Bell, 23, was celebrating his impending nuptials with a couple of friends at Kalua Cabaret — a strip club under police surveillance. Bell and two friends died in a hail of 50 bullets fired by a group of five police officers.

Tragedies occur, and community activists lead the public in demanding change in the laws that govern their communities. But it is not the laws that need reform, but rather the execution and interpretation of them.

When newly elected Mayor Michael Nutter proposed the stop-and-frisk policy to be implemented upon his entering office, many questioned its legality and most argued that it would create an environment of fear. In Terry v. Ohio (1968), an 8-1 Supreme Court decision gave police the right to temporarily detain someone if there are specific articulable facts leading a police officer to believe a crime may be occurring. Known as "reasonable suspicion," it is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime they think is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances lead a reasonable officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. Arrest, search and seizure require probable cause, or what a "reasonable person" would believe. Stop-and-frisk, by contrast, requires what a "reasonable officer" would believe.

So it is not the legality of stop-and-frisk that can be questioned, but how police officers enforce the law.

In the Bell case, officers were assigned to the citywide Club Enforcement Initiative. Generally, two undercover officers work inside the club while the others work outside as backup for an eventual arrest. Due to an earlier altercation that occurred in the club, one undercover officer — suspecting Bell and his friends were armed and about to shoot an adversary — left the club behind them and ordered them to stop.

Instead, Bell and crew got into the Altima and fled. In the process, the Altima struck an unmarked police minivan bearing several plainclothes officers, hit a storefront's protective gate and nearly struck an undercover officer before slamming into the police van again, police said. In response, five police officers fired at least 50 rounds at the Altima.

As it relates, courts have ruled that a stop for a reasonable suspicion may be appropriate when a person runs at the sight of police officers. Bell and friends fled after the officer allegedly yelled stop. The problem arises with the 50 rounds that were fired. Considering there were no shots fired from Bell's vehicle and no guns found in the car, this is a case of excessive force.

After Bell's killing, critics questioned why officers used such force. In response, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly commissioned the Rand Corp. research group to review its weapons training programs. During the media session at the range, police sought to show that officers are often forced to make snap decisions. They say the average shooting incident lasts less than four seconds, under highly stressful conditions.

Most people can only imagine how hard it is to make a quick decision that means protecting your life and the lives of your fellow officers. However, police officers are still charged with upholding the law.

When it comes to the laws governing our communities, the issue is not with lawmakers, but with officers of the law. While individuals must educate themselves on civil rights law, police officers, as executors of those laws, are responsible for carrying out the law in a way that upholds the principles upon which the law was constructed.

Mikel D. Jones Sr. is a trial attorney specializing in civil rights violations.

 

Beating Vince
A Vendetta on Autopilot
Letters to the Editor