Letters to the Editor
Unlikely to Convict 'Bell' Cops

To the Editor:

Thanks to Richard Steier for an excellent article on the Bell shooting (Dec. 8 column), but I think he's a little harsh on Times columnist Bob Herbert, who breathes some life into the "Gray Lady." Sure, Herbert makes some rather large assumptions, but in such emotionally charged cases, if journalists wait until all the facts are crystal-clear (months? years?), the anger and racial animosity fester and do serious social damage that is hard to measure. Herbert is demanding the truth now, and he obviously doesn't think the police officers involved (and their legal representatives) are being completely candid.

Furthermore, one problem for everyone from District Attorney Richard A. Brown to Mr. Bell's family is the difficulty of proving criminal charges in cases like this one or the Diallo case. Based on what we know right now, if the defense attorneys do their jobs, it is likely that no police officers will be convicted of any crimes. In fact, it's possible that no police officers will even be indicted.

It would be more realistic to focus on violations of police rules and regulations that can be handled in police administrative (disciplinary) trials, such as firing at a car from which there is no legitimate threat of deadly force besides the car itself.

If the civil lawsuits go to trial (doubtful, since the city will probably settle), the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is much lower than that required for a criminal conviction (proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

Giving a forum - and credibility - to charlatans like Al Sharpton and Charles Barron is a serious mistake by Mayor Bloomberg. Hopefully, he will give Sharpton & Co. a wide berth and listen to reasonable observers like Bob Herbert.

MICHAEL J. GORMAN
Editor's note: The writer is a retired NYPD Lieutenant and an attorney.