[City] Justice for Sean Bell One Step Closer

Over three months after the police fired 51 bullets killing Sean bell on the morning of his wedding, and wounding two of his friend, in front of a Queens' nightclub, a Queens' grand jury has indicted three of the five officers involved in the shooting. The case reignited the controversial subject of police brutality, specifically when the victims are minorities of color, but even Al Sharpton was hesitant to deem the incident racist.

No, racism would be an easy excuse. The case goes to the heart of a much bigger problem: the police department's authority and its lack of restraint that leads to abusing that authority, specifically in low-income neighborhoods. For one detective, Michael Oliver, who fired his weapon 31 times in the incident, an indictment should not have taken this long. The New York Times reports.

The indictments come only two days after a man went on a rampage through Greenwich Village killing a pizzeria bartender as well as two auxiliary police officers. Now, certainly the police department is concerned that indictments in the Bell case could give them less leeway in compromising situations, but can there not be a middle ground?

The fact is, officers like Mike Oliver who abuse their authority and lack restraint in using their weapons make a middle ground hard to find. The focus should actually be on another officer, one who was not indicted because he fired his weapon only once. That officer, Paul Headley, had been trained in the army, and represents the level of intelligence we should demand from our city's police officers, though granted it is difficult with rookie cops making only $25,100 a year. But when the city government hands someone a gun so that they may protect the streets, there must be accountability on whether or not that person, or the department itself, practiced due diligence in being sure that said made the streets safer. Michael Oliver's was a dangerous gun and one sponsored by the city to be active on the streets.

Michael Palladino, President of the Detectives' Endowment Association, said prior to the announcement regarding the indictments that "There was no criminality in their hearts, nor in their minds, when they took the actions they took."

But that point is not relevant. Cops are people, just like civilians, and everyday civilians are charged with crimes that were not "in their hearts." Shouldn't the same course of action apply to police officers? Admitting that your actions were a mistake do not let you off the hook for committing a crime, particularly murder. When a teenage girl neglects her baby in a way that results in its death, the girl is charged with murder (click here). How can an untrained teenage girl neglecting a child be more worth punishing than a trained police officer shooting at an unarmed suspect 31 times?