wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

At issue is equal justice under the law. 14th Amendment. These cowboys murdered an innocent man Bonnie and Clyde style. It's the same tried and true Bernie Geotz defense which justifies any amount of force against blacks as long as you claim "fear". Basically, any white person can say they were afraid and they are in the clear because society says your fear is understandable and you can act upon it. That standard transfers to cops of any race. Remarkably, with blacks being killed routinely it is still not acceptable for a black person to fear the police. If an innocent black man flees the cops for fear of being brutalized or killed - he is considered wrong. NY is not unique in this respect. That rule extends to vigilante justice as well. Check out the Stan Moretti case in NC where a civilian murdered a theft suspect. In the Bell case one shot was not ok, the number actually fired makes this outrageous. Does anyone really think Americans are that fearful (some want you to be)or is it an excuse for a license to kill. If you are scared, all I can say is Boo Boooo-booooo-Boo!

Give "Lady of Spain" the heave ho!

As a classical musician, I am sooooo tired of hearing certain classical tunes, such the opening of "The Four Seasons" by Vivaldi when it's used as background music for commercials.

Also, My wife, who was born in the Caribbean, LOVES The Star Spangled Banner as a song.

Bob,

Obviously an undercover cop doesn't have his badge out during an investigation (when people are allegedly discussing gettng their guns). The question is, did they take out their badge before confronting the suspects?

To me, this case is not too complicated. Someone pulls a gun on you (even a car jacker), you can not legally run them over. Although it is my understanding that NYPD guidelines discourage it, it seems reasonable to shoot at the driver in this situation. The cops should be punished since: someone shot 31 times (although he probably thought he was being fired at in the confusion), they did not follow NYPD guidelines and badges may not have been visible, but that does not make this a case of murder. Maybe manslaughter.

Argh! I am not sure my comment made it. I apologize if it is reposted.

You said the film did not resemble an Alger Hiss novel, but the name you wanted is Horatio Alger.

Subjective is as subjective does.

First, a disclaimer: I have only tried civil cases, never a criminal one.

However, virtually all my practice has been before judges, even at trial, so I may have a bit of a feeling about this.

Arguing before a judge as finder of fact allows a lawyer the luxury of focusing his case toward a (hopefully) sophisticated legal mind, one who is, presumably, not as easily swayed by emotional arguments. Thus, it tends to encourage a "just the facts" approach. In my experience, judges in this situation regard emotional arguments as just this side of unseemly, that there are clear legal issues to be addressed through the evidence.

I understand why the defense attorneys decided to seek a bench trial, but despite all the community uproar, they might have had a better chance with a jury: For example, an experienced judge in the Criminal Part is not likely to be sympathetic to a policeman defendant's trashing the police crime scene investigators. An experienced judge will know that every piece of testimony has some caveats included.

Again, you hear this from someone who never tried a criminal case, but I might have followed the same strategy in a bench trial.

Judges regularly steer lawyers toward a simplification of the legal arguments in a case, and that may ultimately be detrimental to the defendants.

Justice is subjective.

The integrity of any system must constantly be called into question in order for that system be kept in check. The court system is no different.

David, sadly you are correct. Way too many prosecutors see their role is to get a conviction and ignore what the People means and their ethical duties. The DA offices all produce conviction rates and rarely discuss the justice that they do.

I will point out, in all fairness, that the Queens DA's Office has been successful is dealing with wrongful convictions from their office.

Some people always have to be right.

Does it make any sense that Sean Bell or one of his companions would talk about going to get a gun if someone wearing a police badge was standing next to or in front of him?

Brian (1),
Would your comments reflect reality. I am aware of prosecutors who compromise integrity in order to secure convictions, pushing true justice aside.

How is justice defined?

Based on the facts that are still being determined or on popular opinion?

Prosecution shouldn't be placed in this conflict of interest position, however, the judge seems to be neutral and no one is calling the integrity of the judge in question, I do think we need to question the whole integrity of our system however.

Vanessa (on air) from Westchester is correct. Lets also remember, the porsecutor represents the People of the State of New York and that includes the defendants.

The role of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not a conviction.

There are differences between the conduct of bench trials and jury trials.

Questions should be asked about why any DA would not seek a Special Prosecutor

Sadly, because I am attorney in the court system, I cannot comment this case.

The police need to be able to do their jobs.

Let them go. This is a tragedy but not racism or malicious murder in cold blood.

They will be acquitted and released because they are innocent.