The problems I have with the cops' side of this story are as follows:
- If the suspects were talking about going to get a gun out of their car, shouldn't the officers have found one in the ensuing investigation?
- Why do the accounts of both the defense and witnesses say the officers never identified themselves? (Could it be that, being far enough away from a speeding car to fire 31 rounds before it reaches you, the driver of that car perhaps might not be able to tell that you're pointing a gun at them because you're an UNDERCOVER OFFICER?!)
- The police weren't there investigating Bell or his friends. If they were, you can bet it would've come up in court, and it would've totally changed the precedents involved. I don't know NYPD procedures, but I believe it was pretty far outside of the officers' assignment to use such great force with so little information about the situation. Weren't they there under the presumption that this establishment was party to some sort of criminal activity? What happened to that investigation? You can bet the real crooks have long since packed up and found a better front.
- Killing is killing. If a guy broke into my house and I mistakenly thought he had a weapon and went to defend myself with lethal force, there's pretty much a 0% chance that I'll get away without any charges placed on me. Even if he did have a weapon, I might still be liable if he ends up being the one who dies. It's one thing to call this case "not murder," or to aim for reduced sentencing in the understanding that law enforcement officers are placed in some really tough spots as a part of the job. But to just let them walk away free, with no disciplinary action whatsoever, really speaks poorly of the system. "OK, go serve the people. Take this gun and, if people happen to get shot, it shouldn't be a problem." Regardless of whether or not any individual cop is good or bad, it's simply terrible policy. Beyond being an absurd double-standard that is unconstitutional to the core, it makes the police look really horrible in the eyes of the public.
All ethical judgments aside, the police are no good whatsoever if the general public cannot trust and rely upon their benevolence and good judgment. Any actions that undermine the reputation of the police are unacceptable, for they simply cause greater civil unrest and through it more crime and disorder. Police are not merely enforcers of the law, but public representatives of it; if the public is made to fear the police, then the law too becomes something to be avoided and reviled. It is simply necessary to maintain a positive standing between the public and authorities; to do otherwise is antithetical to the purpose of law and police. Being that they are the ones who presume to offer the service of law enforcement, it is naturally the police that have the power to affect this relationship, for good or for bad.
~Joe
PS - On the issue of bad cops; in my experience, most cops are genuinely good, tolerant people. The job definitely attracts a higher-than-normal ratio of jerks, but besides for some bad attitude issues most of them have their heart in the right place. However, a bad cop is a truly terrifying thing, and the system is ripe for exploitation. I think the abuses of bad cops, plus the waste and mistakes caused by those "mediocre" cops, arguably outweighs what good is done. This is not to say that we should do away with police; merely, the system needs profound reformation. Checks and balances, please!