From the NY Times:
A Queens judge on Friday acquitted three detectives charged in the shooting of Sean Bell, who died on his wedding day in a hail of 50 police bullets. He said that prosecutors had failed to prove their case and that wounded friends of the slain man had given testimony that he did not believe.
The shooting of Mr. Bell, 23, outside a nightclub in Jamaica, Queens, early on Nov. 25, 2006, the morning of the day he was to be married, was the city’s latest crucible for distilling questions about police treatment of people of color and the use of excessive force on unarmed black men. The shooting lasted seconds, but offered a glimpse of what it is to live in a neighborhood where black men and women are stopped and frisked at a higher rate than elsewhere in the city.
So what am I missing here? It’s OK for plain-clothes cops to shoot a man in the back with 50 bullets if the victim is black?
There must be an element to this case that explains why it’s OK for undercover cops to shoot a man in the back before they identified themselves as police.
Is it just me, or is this case seriously fucked up?