Allow me this indulgence.  On Friday, I hear from an ABC TV reporter about the Sean Bell indictments.  It seems that the Queens courthouse is abuzz with news that the Grand Jury returned indictments against 3 of the 5 police officers involved in the killing of Sean Bell, but no word on what charges were voted. 

The reporter is left to speculate on the grand jury action, what it means and what the 3 officers are facing, and my job (if I decide to accept it) is to divine an answer that will accurately predict the future.  So, I repond that I bet they are indicted for Manslaughter 2 and Reckless Endangerment 1, a “C” and “D” felony in NY, with top sentences of 5-15 and 2a-7.  A few hours later, I hear back from the reporter that the word is out.  I nailed it. 

“So how’d you do it?” he asks.  Easy.  They’re cops.  We give them every benefit of the doubt, as does the DAs office.  We look for explanations, rationalizations, excuses.  Gestalt kicks in and even without a defense presentation, the grand jurors feel compelled to view the outcome in the light most favorable to the police.

To be fair, it would be unreasonable for the grand jury to assume malevolent intent by the cops.  It’s not like they had some personal beef with Sean Bell, or that they were out on the street that night itching to shoot and kill some poor mutt.  But could this have just as easily been Murder 2 under a depraved indifference theory?  Let’s be frank, if it was anyone but a cop who had killed Sean Bell, you could bet the farm that the charge would have been Murder 2.

So why is it different when it’s a cop?  Society gives them a gun and shield, and we expect them to be used.  Is this too much to expect of any human being, or is this the job and they are responsible for performing it without killing innocent people in the process?