Key Element in Bell Case
Why Shots Can Be Contagious

By REUVEN BLAU

With the trial of three Detectives charged in the fatal shooting of Sean Bell under way, police experts and former law-enforcement officials last week stressed that cops are forced to make split-second decisions in response to potentially deadly threats, which often leads to high shot counts.

The Chief-Leader/Michael O'Kane READY TO BE JUDGED: Det. Michael Oliver, center, who fired 31 of the 50 bullets in the Sean Bell case, enters Queens Supreme Court with Detectives Endowment Association President Michael J. Palladino (left) for the opening day of his trial Feb. 25. Mr. Oliver and two of his colleagues, Gescard Isnora and Marc Cooper, contend they acted in self-defense.

The concept, colloquially known as "contagious shooting," has been used in recent years to describe the "terrifying dimensions to a deadly force confrontation," said Eugene O'Donnell, a Professor of police studies at John Jay College.

Say Bell Was Startled

Many local African-American community leaders have assailed the shooting on the Saturday morning after Thanksgiving in 2006. They contend that the undercover Detective outside the Kalua Cabaret startled Mr. Bell, who didn't realize he was a cop.

EUGENE O'DONNELL: Cops fire from uncertainty.

At the time of the shooting, the NYPD had the strip club under surveillance for possible illegal activities, and Det. Gescard Isnora was exiting when he witnessed a potential confrontation between Mr. Bell and two friends celebrating his bachelor party and another group.

According to the Detective, one of Mr. Bell's friends, Joseph Guzman, stated that he was going to retrieve his gun. Detective Isnora alerted his backup team about possible trouble and then followed Mr. Bell, Mr. Guzman and the third person in their party, Trent Benefield.

He said that he identified himself and displayed his shield but that Mr. Bell rammed the car into him, then put it in reverse and hit a responding van carrying the back-up officers. When the car lurched forward, Detective Isnora told the grand jury that produced the indictments, he began firing, as did four other officers.

JOSEPH POLLINI: Perception determines action.

Two Face 25 Years

Officer Isnora, who fired the first shot, and Det. Michael Oliver, who fired 31 shots, have been charged with first-degree and second-degree manslaughter. They face up to 25 years in prison if convicted of the most serious charge.

Det. Marc Cooper, who fired four times, was charged with two counts of reckless endangerment, a misdemeanor. He faces up to one year in prison if convicted. No charges were brought against the two cops who discharged the remaining four shots.

Mr. Bell was killed in the shooting and Mr. Guzman and Mr. Benefield, were each shot multiple times in the barrage of 50 rounds fired by the five officers.

"Cops are operating without the benefit of knowing how it's going to end, and with the very real risk of death to them or somebody else hanging over the whole thing," Mr. O'Donnell said.

'Shoot to Stop Threat'

Joseph Pollini, an Assistant Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said that officers are trained at the firearms range to focus on the target. "It's not like one person shoots three times and turns to the next guy and says, 'Now it's your turn,''' he remarked. "We shoot to stop the threat."

The three Detectives have waived their right to a jury trial, instead choosing to have Queens State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Cooperman decide the case. Their lawyers initially tried to move the case out of Queens, arguing that the jury pool in the area had been prejudiced against the officers by media coverage and public protests.

Critics of the department have questioned why some of the officers at the scene barely fired their guns while others shot multiple times, with Detective Oliver even reloading his gun.

But Mr. Pollini stressed all of the officers were in different locations and "perceived the threat in a different fashion."

'What Did They See?'

He added, "Where were they? Did they see what happened? Were their lives threatened? Did the subject who was fired upon stop moving or threatening to move?"

The retired Lieutenant pointed out that it often takes several shots to stop a dangerous assailant. "I've seen cases where people have been hit by two double-zero Buck shotgun rounds, which contain nine .32 calibers each, and the person continued to advance for a good 30 seconds," he remarked.

The former police supervisors both noted that during violent confrontations everything happens in a flash. "They have to operate in nanoseconds," Mr. O'Donnell said. "And their hit rate is 20 percent in a real gun battle, so it's impossible to have a magic number of shots."

He added, "It would be terrific if after X number of shots you knew that the confrontation had ended, but unfortunately you don't. Even after people are grievously wounded, the confrontation is not always over."

Conflicting Stories

The trial last week began with lawyers for the officers contending that Detective Isnora was wearing his badge around his neck and clearly identified himself. The lead prosecutor, Charles Testagrossa, however, argued that the officers acted carelessly and recklessly and were poorly prepared and coordinated.

The following day, exotic dancer Marseilles Payne testified that she never heard the officers identify themselves before the shooting started. She also told the court that there was no dispute outside.

But that version of events was contradicted by two friends of Mr. Bell, who later testified that he had gotten into a dispute with a man dressed in black near a sport utility vehicle outside the club before the shooting. The friends, Larenzo Kinred and Hugh Jensen, said they saw the man, who has been identified by lawyers as Fabio Coicou, put his hands in his pockets, as if to grab a gun.

Their testimony appeared to support the Detectives' version of events. The officers have told authorities they believed Mr. Bell's friends were carrying firearms and looking to carry out a drive-by shooting in response to Mr. Coicou's behavior.