Dealer: I was shot by Bell

[phantasm]

Dealer: I was shot by Bell
Sources call story 'credible' in July turf war

BY ERNIE NASPRETTO and ALISON GENDAR
DAILY NEWS POLICE BUREAU

Posted Tuesday, March 27th 2007, 4:00 AM

A Queens drug dealer has told police that he was shot by Sean Bell in a turf battle last summer, sources told the Daily News.

The allegation emerged Sunday night, when the 26-year-old ex-con was arrested in Queens on new drug charges.

"He hoped to cut a deal somehow with this information, but so far his account seems credible," a high-ranking police source told The News last night.

The alleged shooting occurred July 13, 2006, nearly five months before Bell was shot dead by police on his wedding day outside a Jamaica, Queens, strip club.

Two of Bell's friends, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield, were wounded; none of the three men was armed.

While NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau detectives say the dealer's tale is credible, it has no direct bearing on the police shooting of Bell.

But legal experts say it could help the defense's attempts to portray Bell as violent, possibly armed and dangerous.

"We expected them to throw dirt at us and they are throwing dirt at us," said Sanford Rubenstein, who represents Bell's would-be bride, Nicole Paultre-Bell, Benefield and Guzman.

Police officials could not rule out that the dealer - who had served nearly three years in state prison for selling drugs - is falsely identifying Bell just to get out of a jam.

But according to police records reviewed by The News, the dealer, whose name is being withheld by The News, was shot on July 13, 2006, and described his attackers as "two unknown black males."

He was treated at Jamaica Hospital for a gunshot wound, but a search for witnesses and ballistics yielded nothing, according to the police report.

When he was arrested Sunday, he told cops that once Bell was killed - and his picture plastered all over newspapers and TV - he immediately recognized him as the man who shot him.

The dealer told detectives that he had been hawking drugs at Rockaway Blvd. and 146th St. last July.

As he was selling his wares, a rival dealer, whom he later identified as Bell, told the man his drug crew owned the turf and ordered him to leave, sources said.

The outraged dealer refused, only to be confronted a short time later by two men in a black Toyota Camry.

In broad daylight, the car pulled alongside the dealer and one of the occupants shot him in the right buttocks as he fled.

"He said the dealer didn't want any competition. He didn't take no for an answer and shot him in the a-- as he ran," another police source said. "He was quite clear: Bell was the man who shot him."

Police sources said they were looking into whether the dealer may have known Bell had shot him - but kept quiet after getting a cut of the drug business in the area.

Since his death, Bell, 23, has become a symbol for alleged police brutality and a flash point for how the NYPD patrols predominantly black neighborhoods.

Police officials have said Bell's history - with an arrest for selling drugs in April 2006 - shows he had reason to flee the law.

None of that - even the dealer's story - should matter, Rubenstein said.

"What relevance does it have to what happened that night?" he said. "None. Does that justify what happened? Absolutely not."

agendar@nydailynews.com

With Scott Shifrel


http://nydailynews.com/news/2007/03/...t_by_bell.html

[Ducky]

OK, Bell was a known drug dealer with a voilent streak. Nothing really unsuspected there. Oh, gosh, can't say that though, can't say "Bell, who had a prior criminal record for dealing drugs..." Nooo, gotta say "Bell, who was to be married the next day to the mother of his two children..." because cops are the scary bad guys, not the friendly neighborhood drug dealers.

[Growler]

maybe I should plan a nice even and do something really horrid the day before the event.

Whatever.

[Vendetta]

I read the Rant all the time and this case makes me understand what they mean when they say " The Job is dead"

[HudsonHawk]

A quote from the Rant in the thread "Partial Truths and Misleading Facts":

I've noticed that even though the media hasn't outright lied, they've done a lot to conceal things. Even when they tell the truth, they tell it by placing them out of context so that it furthers their anti-cop agenda.

Please help me compile a list of specific things. I'll start us off with a few specific examples so we can get things rolling:

"No ballistics evidence found indicating a fourth man fired a gun." - Ballistics evidence (specifically, a shell casing) isn't left behind by a revolver. Further more, there is nothing to say that a round fired by a fourth man would even land anywhere in the scene. Rounds can travel quite a long distance and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to find it if it landed outside of the scene.

"Sean Bell and his friends were arrested before but never convicted. They were released on their own recognizance. Therefore, they were never guilty and never did anything wrong." - The failure, inability, or unwillingness to convict these individuals is something to be taken up with the revolving door court system. We, the police, don't mistakingly arrest the SAME people over and over again. In fact, I honestly don't personally know a single cop that made an arrest by mistake. All of the arrests I've seen made first hand the 'defendant' is 100% guilty of what they are charged with, but I suppose technically no one is guilty until they've been convicted.

"Sean Bell and his friends' criminal records shouldn't have anything to do with the shooting because none of the cops knew who they were shooting at in the first place and even if they did, it doesn't justify it." - Their criminal records don't have anything to do with the events leading up to the shooting, per se. However, their records have to do with issues of credibility. When you have three individuals that have each been arrested numerous times for various serious crimes, many of which are associated with weapons possessions and violence, the likelihood that one of them actually was in possession of a gun goes up significantly. CREDIBILITY. And that is what matters. You have 3 detectives, all with impeccable records (1 of which is a UC at GREAT RISK to his own safety attempting to clean things up) giving their word and testimony versus 2 career criminals (albeit not convicted : guess a whole bunch of different cops arrested the same guy by mistake a whole bunch of times). It shouldn't take an Einstein to figure out who is more credible.

"Detective Oliver went out for a night out on the town. Doing this right after he was indicted shows he doesn't care." - Sean Bell was out at a prostitution and drug prone club the night before his wedding but no one seems to care about that little fact. He apparently was also trying to pick up one prostitute, possibly to engage in group sex with him and all of his friends according to one account of things. Detective Oliver went out to a fancy restaurant with a few people to have a nice dinner. Probably one of the last good ones he'll be able to have before a very stressful time (trial time anyone?) He was hardly celebrating and I am positive that the death of Sean Bell weighs very heavily on his mind. NO COP wakes up before work and contemplates the best way to kill another person.

"Sean Bell and Nicole Paultre were getting married the day after the shooting. This is very tragic." - Sean Bell and Nicole Paultre were NOT getting married the next day. Sanford Rubenstein, who represents the Bell family, has stated and is quoted in several articles that Sean Bell and Nicole Paultre did not have a marriage license and due to that, she was unable to wed him posthumously. In NYS, a marriage license is required PRIOR to the wedding ceremony. Its procedures are outlined right here but the relevant bit of information is this: "Is there a waiting period? Yes. Although the marriage license is issued immediately, the marriage ceremony may not take place within 24 hours from the exact time that the license was issued." Therefore, this would-be couple was NOT getting married the next day at all.

Although they were not married the 'would-be bride' changed her name to Nicole Paultre-Bell. A nice touch to put a little mist in the corner of some eyes before she makes a civil suit, I'm sure.



A ballistics report showed that Det Oliver fired all bullets that struck the perps in December:

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index...id=6&aid=68022

Report: One Officer Fired All Bullets That Hit Victims In Bell Case
March 26, 2007

A new bullet-by-bullet analysis shows that one officer fired all the shots that hit the three victims in the Sean Bell shooting.

The New York Post says ballistics evidence shows that Detective Mike Oliver fired all 22 shots that hit the victims. Sean Bell and Trent Benefield were both hit three times. Joseph Guzman was struck 16 times.

Bell, 23, was killed outside Club Kalua in Jamaica, Queens, in the early-morning hours of November 25, when undercover police officers fired 50 shots into his car after it struck an unmarked police van. He was to have been married later that day.

Oliver fired a total of 31 shots outside Club Kalua in Jamaica, Queens on November 25th. He's been indicted on two counts of manslaughter.

Undercover detective Gescard Isnora was also indicted on two manslaughter charges, even though the Post says none of his 11 shots hit anyone. A third cop, Marc Cooper, was indicted for reckless endangerment.

The case is due back in court next month.

Here is a copy of the INDICTMENT:http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...indictment.pdf

In order to be convicted of Manslaughter 2* (let alone Manslaughter 1*) the prosecution would have to prove that Isnora and Oliver "recklessly caused the death of another person".

Oliver shoots to save his partner who was struck by the vehicle - and at suspects making furtive movements. I don't think it is reckless of him to shoot. The law says he has to have a "reasonable" fear that they were going to use deadly force against himself or another person. It seems reasonable to fear that when the suspects made furtive movements, struck the undercover with their car, etc.

Isnora didn't hit anyone. I don't see how his being struck by a drunk driver make him reckless. He yelled gun and fired because he reasonably believed the suspects were armed (their statements and furtive movements). That doesn't seem reckless either. Not to mention the prior arrests and the new witness who claims BELL SHOT HIM - which go to show the character of the suspects.

Isnora was also indicted for Assault 2* by "recklessly causing serious physical injury by means of a deadly weapon". If ballistics show Cooper was the only detective to hit anyone, Isnora couldn't possibly have caused the injury.

For Cooper to be convicted of Reckless Endangerment 2* they would have to prove he "recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person". Cooper fired 4 shots. One of the other Detectives fired 3 shots and was not indicted. Was he indicted for firing one more bullet? There is no rule that you can only fire 3 not 4 bullets when you are justified.

One of Cooper's bullets allegedly hit a train station across the street. This is not reckless either. When police officers qualify with their firearms they do not always shoot with 100% accuracy. If we sometimes miss a stationary paper target it is not unreasonable to miss a moving vehicle that is striking your partner and ramming your car! It is not known if Cooper's bullet missed the car and struck the train station or if it ricocheted before hitting the train station. Cooper would still be justified if the perps were surrounded by a hundred kids in a schoolyard, because he meets the criteria of Justification.

Two detectives were not indicted - they were deemed as being justified. These detectives fired 1 and 3 shots respectively. If they were justified to fire, the other detectives were justified. The events that night do not match the definitions of the offenses they were indicted for. I hope for the sake of the job that the detectives will be found NOT GUILTY of these absurd charges.