Gescard Isnora, first cop to fire in 2006 Sean Bell shooting, sues NYPD for reinstatement

Gun Control? 50 Shots Fired at Unarmed Innocent Black Man. From [HERE] A former NYPD detective, who was the only officer involved in the 2006 police shooting of Sean Bell to be booted from the force, is suing for reinstatement. Gescard Isnora charges in a suit in Manhattan Supreme Court that the NYPD arbitrarily singled him out for dismissal, while brass allowed two other detectives, who were previously acquitted of manslaughter raps along with Isnora, to resign.

Those detectives, Michael Oliver and Marc Cooper, cut plea deals and resigned, keeping all or part of their pensions. Isnora, who was the first to fire at Bell outside a Queens strip club and squeezed off 11 shots, was canned after a departmental trial earlier this year. He was never offered a plea deal. Officer Micheal Carey, who rejected one, was found not guilty at the same departmental trial. The only other cop who fired, Officer Paul Hedley, was reprimanded, but not charged, by the department.

The Sean Bell shooting incident took place in the New York City borough of Queens, New York, United States on November 25, 2006, when three men were shot at a total of fifty times by a team of both plainclothes and undercover NYPD officers, killing one of the men, Sean Bell, on the morning before his wedding, and severely wounding two of his friends, Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman.[1] The incident sparked fierce criticism of the police from some members of the public and drew comparisons to the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo.[2] Three of the five detectives involved in the shooting went to trial[3] on charges ranging from manslaughter to reckless endangerment, and were found not guilty.[4]

“Everybody was given the opportunity to resign except Gessie,” said Isnora’s lawyer, Philip Karasyk. “It wasn’t as if he got the offer and rejected it. They needed a scapegoat.”

The NYPD would not comment. It tried Isnora for violating protocols for use of firearms and taking enforcement action while undercover. His suit alleges that the department’s decision relied heavily on an assessment by a deputy chief who did limited undercover work.