The Sean Bell Verdict Ignites My Students' Fury

The young black student who appeared at my office this morning was practically in tears. "Hey Professor Ricci," she said. "Did you hear?"

"No, Jahqueena, what's wrong?" She just shook her head.

"Sean Bell. Those three cops just got acquitted on all counts."

"Oh my God Jahqueena," I moaned. "It can't be true."

But of course it's true. Why should I be surprised? We all lived through the Amadou Dialou case back in 1999. Dialou was the West African immigrant leveled in a hailstorm of 41 police bullets. The four officers in that case were exonerated by a jury trial. In Bell's case, it was a single judge's ruling.

I'm an English and Journalism professor at a state university in upstate New York, where I teach in a program called Educational Opportunities. EOP caters to low-income students, mostly from inner-city neighborhoods in New York City. The way it works out, most of those indigent students are African American or Dominican or Haitian or Jamaican or Puerto Rican. Often I'm the only white person in the classroom.

Jahqueena, a freshman I've been mentoring since she took my literature class last fall, walked me to class this morning and all the way there, she poured her heart out, carrying on about how unfair and racist the legal system is. I would have loved to disagree, but honestly, what other conclusion can we draw? Those three cops pumped 50 bullets into Sean Bell, who died just hours before he was supposed to head to the altar.

In Queens, people are up in arms. (Jahqueena was on her cell phone, getting on-site reports from her mother, who phoned with the bad news.)

Is it any wonder people are enraged? That 23-year old bridegroom had just emerged from his bachelor party. He had no gun. The cops brought him down, and then, reloaded their guns and filled him with bullets.

I got to class and before I could begin a discussion of the memoir we are reading, a second student, Joely, who hails from Panama, yelled out. "So what do you think of the Sean Bell decision?"

I inhaled. I knew where the class was headed. I told her I thought the decision seemed incredibly unfair. I asked the students - this particular class is about 50-50, black and white -- if they wanted to discuss the verdict. I told them they were free to express their opinions - one by one, by raising their hands in turn - to say what they think.

"Cops are the most despicable people on earth," called out the young black woman sitting next to Joely. "They are the lowest of the low."

Just when I thought she was finished, though, she added: "So I am going to take the test to become a corrections officer. I'm going to change the system, all by myself."

Curiously, there were some students in the classroom - mostly whites - who had never heard of Sean Bell. We in the "know" briefed them on the details. Bell: Bridegroom. Bachelor party. Bullets galore.

A young white woman, blonde and blue-eyed, raised her hand.

"I don't understand," she began, and for a moment I tensed, wondering what she was going to say. "My father is a cop," she went on, "and I know how it works. When somebody has a gun, the cop is just supposed to shoot to disarm. You aim maybe for the leg, or the arm, just so you get the shooter to drop the gun."

I nodded. I waited for more comments. Suddenly I recalled a classic book by a fellow English professor, noted feminist Judith Fetterley. Called The Resisting Reader, the book offers a feminist approach to literature. Fetterley suggests that you can test for sexism in a work of literature simply by flipping the gender of the characters. If the situation makes no sense with the gender flip, then you've probably got a case of sexism on your hands.

I decided to try the Fetterley strategy, modified slightly, to test for racism in the Sean Bell case. "Ok, class," I said, "I have a question for you: would the Bell verdict have come down the same way if the victim of the shooting had been a 23-year old white man?"

The chorus swelled up. "Hell no," some of them yelled.

And then, Nadine, who today was wearing her hair neatly corn rowed, made the final statement.

"If it had been a white man, the cops wouldn't have gone after him in the first place," she said, "and then none of this ever would have happened."

Amen, Nadine.

Amen.

Follow Claudia Ricci on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RicciCJ

Comments

[dclar]

HuffPost's Pick

"My father is a cop," she went on, "and I know how it works. When somebody has a gun, the cop is just supposed to shoot to disarm. You aim maybe for the leg, or the arm, just so you get the shooter to drop the gun."

That is total bullshit. Recruits are taught to shoot to stop. If the officer reaches the point where he decides he needs to fire his gun to stop someone, he is not taught to try and take a leg out. Just shoot to bring down, he is taught. I'm sure we'd all love for P.O.s to be able to clip a leg, but to be frank, despite what you may believe from the movies, it is extremely difficult to do so. These officers who put their lives on the line should not be forced to add unnecessary risk trying to shoot a perp's leg.

I have no comment on the Bell situation. Just felt the need to clarify a common misconception with the public.

[JadedAggie]

This is true you are taught to shoot center of mass in order to maximize the chances of you hitting your target.

[bentenrai]

What I heard a while ago, although I can't confirm the source is 100% trustable seems to confirm your point. He said NYPD cops are trained to shoot until the target goes down. In the case of Diallo, the poor guy was leaning against a door and didn't fall on the first shots. He took 19 bullets out of the 40 discharged by the officers. When they checked the body he had his wallet in his hands, one of the cops broke down and tried to revive him but it was too late. The trial was initially presided by a black judge in Harlem, but then the case was moved by the defendants' lawyers to upstate NY where the cops' trial would be "fairer".
In Bell's case, Bell and his two friends were in the car when the cops pulled heat on them. I mean, if I saw dudes who don't look like cops coming at me with heat, I'd panic, try to get away, they're trying to kill me after all. Thing is both sides were freaking out and it ended up into that bloody mess. I'm not excusing the cops involved in either case for what they have done. The racial bias is definitely present, there's a sociology study I read posted by someone here which showed that cops and regular folks alike would shoot a black person with no gun without hesitation and show more doubt or restraint at shooting a white person with a gun.

[Blackspeare]

You make a good point that many are forgetting that the cops were undercover and no doubt dressed for the strip club they were investigating----in other words they probably looked like thugs. Firing over fifty rounds when there is no return fire is a bit excessive, but that is the fog of battle----the frenzy of the moment. Maybe the cops were following the current rules of engagement, but in a supposedly civilized society they were overboard and must receive some form of punishment----essentially removal from the police force.

[bentenrai]

Part 2:
Cops are supposed to be trained professionals. The Diallo, and Bell cases tell me that those cops are either not properly trained, and flunked the ultimate test. They are given the power to apply lethal force under certain regulations. Those cops saw "black + guns = dead cops" and freaked out instead of following regulation.
I guess it all started with slavery, discrimination enforced by the law. That did leave a lasting impression that we still feel and see today in the 21st century. That's why I'm glad Obama made his speech about race. He was on target, it is an issue this country can no longer afford to put under the carpet. I particularly find the likes of Sean Hannity to be cowardly. "I had no part in slavery, I'm not responsible for the suffering of blacks, they have to pull themselves up". Well they do, but there are still remnants of an institution of racism that remind blacks they are not there yet.

[dadw5boys]

Yeah recruits are also taught that they do not shoot unless their partner does. So the Partner the more experienced one makes the orginal decision and fist shot to disarm.
Recruits need a lot of target prastice.

[qdemn7]

Very true. This is taught to LEO and those with CCW.

You DO NOT shoot to warn.
You DO NOT shoot to disarm.
You DO NOT shot to wound.
You DO NOT shoot to kill.

You shoot to STOP. You shoot until the threat is terminated.

That means until the aggressor runs away, surrenders, or is down and no longer posing a threat.

This BS about shooting to disarm, or wound is considered the use of deadly force. And you can be prosecuted the same as if as if you killed someone, and found to be in the wrong.