Friday afternoon, everyone throughout the city saw how much Sean Bell life meant to Judge Arthur cooper when he acquitted the police officers of all charges. He stated that witness testimonials, the criminal history of the victims, and position the police were in had helped him make this decision in this case. It's obvious there is something wrong with this judge because there's no need to fire 50 bullets into one vehicle even if you suspect someone has gun. Second, detective Michael Oliver reloaded his firearm more than once therefore he had time to see if these individuals had a gun or not. Also the testimony of the police appear to be somewhat inconsistent because they say that Sean Bell and his associates bumped into their car and later they changed their story into that he had a gun. I don't think I was the only one that observed that. Is Judge Cooper trying to convey that it is perfectly find to shoot and murder someone if they supposedly "bumped" your car and that they had a prior record of convicts which may not mean anything because everyone knows how public defenders force their clients to plea guilty to something even if they know they didn't do it?
