NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-bart-shooting7-2009jan07,0,1962746.story
Oscar J. Grant III, 22, was shot early New Year's Day by a transit officer responding to a fight. His lawyer says the incident 'cries out for criminal prosecution.'


Reporting from San Francisco -- Graphic video of Oscar J. Grant III's death at an Oakland train station has roiled emotions in the Bay Area, leading to a demonstration at Bay Area Rapid Transit district headquarters and calls for more oversight of the agency's police force.

The family of the 22-year-old father, who was shot to death by a BART police officer early on New Year's Day, filed a $25-million wrongful death claim against the agency Tuesday.

John L. Burris, the long-time civil rights attorney representing Grant's family, called the death "the worst I've ever seen in a shooting case" and said that it "cries out for criminal prosecution."

In amateur videos, the BART officer can be seen shooting the unarmed man in the back as he lay face down while other officers restrained him.

BART spokesman Linton Johnson said in an e-mail that "we have received the claim, and we are carefully reviewing it but cannot comment on it."

In an earlier written statement, BART Police Chief Gary Gee said his agency was "committed to complete an unbiased and thorough investigation" and asked the public to "refrain from jumping to conclusions" about the circumstances surrounding Grant's death.

"We want to express our condolences to the family of Oscar Grant," Gee said. "I want to assure Mr. Grant's family and the public that we are taking this investigation very seriously."

The Alameda County district attorney's office is also investigating, Gee said.

BART officials have not publicly identified the officer involved in the shooting but described him as a two-year veteran of the agency's police force. He underwent drug and alcohol testing after the incident and is on paid administrative leave, Gee said, "which is standard procedure."

But the claim filed Tuesday by Grant's mother and 4-year-old daughter identifies Johannes Mehserle as the BART officer who "stood over Mr. Grant and mercilessly fired his weapon, mortally wounding Mr. Grant with a single gunshot wound to the back."

Mehserle could not be reached for comment.

BART spokesman Johnson said late Tuesday that the officer has not given a statement to BART officials or to the district attorney's office because his lawyers have not made him available. "We're hoping soon to get an interview," Johnson said, adding that the officer has "received death threats and has moved twice."

There has been speculation that Mehserle may have believed he was reaching for his Taser to stun Grant rather than reaching for his gun to shoot him. To Burris such a distinction is not that important.

"If the officer had a Taser and he thought he was pulling it, to me that's still a criminal act," Burris said. "It means you're negligent, as opposed to knowing you pulled your gun." That, he said, would be "murder."

"I don't want to believe that an officer would just kill someone this way," said Burris, who called on BART officials to say whether Mehserle carried a Taser. "On the other hand, I'm not going to disbelieve my eyes either."

Grant had been celebrating New Year's Eve in San Francisco and was heading back to his East Bay home on a BART train when a fight broke out between two groups of riders about 2 a.m.

BART police met the train at Oakland's Fruitvale station and ordered passengers -- including Grant -- onto the platform.

Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXWSgG-KNng) taken by spectators with cellphones shows a chaotic scene, with uniformed officers pulling riders out of a train and then shoving one man onto the ground. With the man face down, an officer stands over him, draws his gun and shoots.

The videos have been posted on YouTube, leading to a welter of angry comments, like one Tuesday afternoon declaring, "This is an outrage! That murderer should be captured and prosecuted."

The videos have also been broadcast on local television stations.

According to the claim filed Tuesday, Grant was unarmed "and offered no physical resistance" to BART officers.

"Mr. Grant, fearing for his life, made a valiant effort to de-escalate the situation by appealing to the officer's sense of humanity, telling the officer that he had a four-year-old daughter and asking the officer not to taze him," the claim said. "Witnesses recount that Mr. Grant continuously repeated this prayer for relief to no avail."

Grant's funeral, scheduled for this morning in Hayward, is expected to be heavily attended. A protest at the site of his death has been planned for this afternoon.

And a large turnout is expected Thursday at the regular meeting of the BART board of directors. The shooting is not on the agenda, but board member Tom Radulovich said he planned to introduce a measure to ensure greater oversight of the agency's police force, which has approximately 200 sworn officers.

"The San Francisco Police Department has a police commission. Most other large cities have the same thing," he said. "I actually want to see the BART board step up and give BART police the degree of civilian oversight and review that is the norm in the Bay Area."
"....asking the officer not to taze him....." Be careful what you wish for.
In b4 "Don't taze me bro"

I'll have to make a point of keeping an eye out for a result from the investigations into this. I'm really drawing a blank about what threat an unarmed man who was already physically restrained posed that called for a lethal response. It could be the case, as some speculate, that the officer was reaching for his tazer. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" and all, but is having an armed officer who can't tell the difference between a tazer and a handgun that much better than the alternative?

Whats BART?

"If the officer had a Taser and he thought he was pulling it, to me that's still a criminal act," Burris said. "It means you're negligent, as opposed to knowing you pulled your gun." That, he said, would be "murder.

What a shitty lawyer. Criminally negligent homicide is manslaughter, not murder.

Whats BART?

Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority. Subway cops.

Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority. Subway cops.

Ah I see. Do they have the same legal standing as regular cops?

Ah I see. Do they have the same legal standing as regular cops?

I don't know much about california police jurisdictions, but if they're carrying guns, I'd imagine so.

I wonder why, if he was physically restrained and really was not offering any resistance, the officer was even going to taze him.

Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority. Subway cops.

They're one step above Mall Cops.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-bart-shooting7-2009jan07,0,1962746.story

"....asking the officer not to taze him....." Be careful what you wish for.
In b4 "Don't taze me bro"


Don't taze me bro! Don't taze me!:p

They're one step above Mall Cops.

well mall "cops" are security guards. most transit authority officers are actual COPS, belonging to a task force that monitors the transit systems. They're not security guards, they're actual cops, and will arrest you.

I'll have to make a point of keeping an eye out for a result from the investigations into this. I'm really drawing a blank about what threat an unarmed man who was already physically restrained posed that called for a lethal response. It could be the case, as some speculate, that the officer was reaching for his tazer. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" and all, but is having an armed officer who can't tell the difference between a tazer and a handgun that much better than the alternative?

IMO, and just from seeing that short video clip, it does sorta look like he could have been confused and meant to get his taser.
two-year veteran of the agency's police force
Wow a whole two years. What a veteran.

But $25 million? Jeez, where'd that come from?

well mall "cops" are security guards. most transit authority officers are actual COPS, belonging to a task force that monitors the transit systems. They're not security guards, they're actual cops, and will arrest you.

And, apperantly, shoot you.

IMO, and just from seeing that short video clip, it does sorta look like he could have been confused and meant to get his taser.


But again, it didnt look like there was even a need to taze him.

But $25 million? Jeez, where'd that come from?

probably due to the fact that he threw an unarmed, unresisting man to the floor and then shot him in the back, killing him.

probably due to the fact that he threw an unarmed, unresisting man to the floor and then shot him in the back, killing him.

But is that figure just plucked randomly out of the air by the defence counsel? $25 million seems a rather..... round figure to pick.

Ah I see. Do they have the same legal standing as regular cops?
Presumably just with the subway, but otherwise yes, AFAIK.
IMO, and just from seeing that short video clip, it does sorta look like he could have been confused and meant to get his taser.

Wow a whole two years. What a veteran.
Two years and he still doesn't remember which thing goes where on his belt. Man, that was embarrassing when his wife wanted to get a bit kinky in the bedroom and he tazed her.

But $25 million? Jeez, where'd that come from?
I imagine they added a few million onto what they figure one would normally sue for.

Two years and he still doesn't remember which thing goes where on his belt. Man, that was embarrassing when his wife wanted to get a bit kinky in the bedroom and he tazed her.



Yeah, she better not want to get really kinky, she might get shot.

IMO, and just from seeing that short video clip, it does sorta look like he could have been confused and meant to get his taser.

He's not rushing though...

Also, can the tazing of subdued people stop now? Please? Regardless of whether it was an accident or an execution?

25 million? I think it's fair. Just my opinion, please don't flame me, or taze me for that matter.

Also, can the tazing of subdued people stop now? Please? Regardless of whether it was an accident or an execution?

Agreed. Even if he meant to go for the tazer, there was still no reason to taze the person, and I dont take it as a good excuse.

Seems to be a mighty screw-up on the officer's part.

What a shitty lawyer.
Well he was appointed by Blagojevich, wasn't he? :p

Well he was appointed by Blagojevich, wasn't he? :p

This happened in Cali man:p

What a shitty lawyer. Criminally negligent homicide is manslaughter, not murder.

To be fair, the placement of the quotation marks suggests it may be a shitty reporter instead.

How the fuck do you confuse a taser with a gun? I call bullshit.

To be fair, the placement of the quotation marks suggests it may be a shitty reporter instead.

well, someone's shitty.

How the fuck do you confuse a taser with a gun? I call bullshit.

why don't you go into you wife's "special" closet and tell us if they're at all similar?





.....what? His wife's a cop. What the hell were you people thinking?




pervs

Also, can the tazing of subdued people stop now? Please? Regardless of whether it was an accident or an execution?

There does seem to be quite a fetish for the old taser.... and not in any good way :tongue:

well, someone's shitty.

This can generally be counted upon. :p

why don't you go into you wife's "special" closet and tell us if they're at all similar?





.....what? His wife's a cop. What the hell were you people thinking?




pervs

In case you didn't post it already: http://www.fashionfunky.com/2008/05/pink_tampon_taser.php

In case you didn't post it already: http://www.fashionfunky.com/2008/05/pink_tampon_taser.php

Bahahahahahaha!

Suddenly, the common male terror of feminine products makes just a little bit more sense. :p

Bahahahahahaha!

Suddenly, the common male terror of feminine products makes just a little bit more sense. :p

great, they're weird, they get their whole own isle in the supermarket, they have this annoying tendency to NEVER scan properly when you're trying to do a favor for your sick significant other and hurry through a checkout line without incident, prompting a minimum wage semi retarded teenager to show up and start shouting over the intercom looking for a price check on the medium flow pantex

But now they deliver 50,000 volts.

great, they're weird, they get their whole own isle in the supermarket, they have this annoying tendency to NEVER scan properly when you're trying to do a favor for your sick significant other and hurry through a checkout line without incident, prompting a minimum wage semi retarded teenager to show up and start shouting over the intercom looking for a price check on the medium flow pantex

But now they deliver 50,000 volts.

I just really want to turn to a mugger and say, "Back off, asshole. I've got TAMPONS." :D

why don't you go into you wife's "special" closet and tell us if they're at all similar?





.....what? His wife's a cop. What the hell were you people thinking?




pervs

:D

:eek:

:D

What a shitty lawyer. Criminally negligent homicide is manslaughter, not murder.

How is that negligent?

Negligence means you didn't do anything to stop it when you could have. The cop pulled a gun and fired. That's not negligence. Negligence could be when the other Transit Cops let their colleague shoot the guy in the back, but not the shooting.

How the fuck do you confuse a taser with a gun? I call bullshit.

Some tasers apparently have grips and triggers like a handgun.

Some tasers apparently have grips and triggers like a handgun.

Still - the weight.

What a shitty lawyer. Criminally negligent homicide is manslaughter, not murder.
What about the third degree murder? I would think it fits under that quite precisely.

Tazer excuse is lame, man, when ever you get something that can be abused, it will be. The tazer is a perfect example.

However, fuck this shit. I feel like shooting that pig in the back. Revenge is only useful when used on people with authority, though. ;)

He's not rushing though...

Also, can the tazing of subdued people stop now? Please? Regardless of whether it was an accident or an execution?

Agreed. Even if he meant to go for the tazer, there was still no reason to taze the person, and I dont take it as a good excuse.

How the fuck do you confuse a taser with a gun? I call bullshit.

These..

Fuck. I'm sick of police getting all power-trippy with tasers. Like this.. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/stun-guns/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501075&objectid=10430737)

But this story is yuck. Hope policeman gets owned.

Oh, man...the three guys in the picture at the opening of the link...."We're fucked", "We're fucked", and "When does 'Lost' start airing again?"

These..

Fuck. I'm sick of police getting all power-trippy with tasers. Like this.. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/stun-guns/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501075&objectid=10430737)

But this story is yuck. Hope policeman gets owned.

You live in Wellington don't you? Or you used to? Isn't that one of the cities where they'e introducing tazers? Y'know, to deal with the out of line politicians, ;), Winston Peters is lucky he got out in time.

You live in Wellington don't you? Or you used to? Isn't that one of the cities where they'e introducing tazers? Y'know, to deal with the out of line politicians, ;), Winston Peters is lucky he got out in time.

Split my time between Wellington and Dunedin, yeah. Fuck if I saw a cop tasering someone.. I think I would be almost compelled to hit the cop or do something to intervene. Unless it was Winston, then I'd just chuckle and keep walking.

I've been simultaneously keeping tabs on this and trying to avoid it in the paper. Good to see cops are doing their part to help keep the homicide rate sky-high. /disgust

I also like how BART cops apparently have enough leisure time to shoot people in the day, when you don't see a single sign of them at 11 at night when people are riding back to the East Bay drunk as fuck and harassing you.

These..

Fuck. I'm sick of police getting all power-trippy with tasers. Like this.. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/stun-guns/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501075&objectid=10430737)

But this story is yuck. Hope policeman gets owned.

Would be nice to hope, but I doubt he'll get much. Hell, an EX cop who ADMITTED she was under the influence drove the WRONG WAY on the freeway and killed a person, and as soon as the cops showed up they hustled her off without doing a breathalizer, and as far as I know she's had nothing happen to her.

Well, if he didn't intend to shoot the guy with a bullet, then it's manslaughter. Simple as that

Would be nice to hope, but I doubt he'll get much. Hell, an EX cop who ADMITTED she was under the influence drove the WRONG WAY on the freeway and killed a person, and as soon as the cops showed up they hustled her off without doing a breathalizer, and as far as I know she's had nothing happen to her.

I don't get that. I mean it's the same all over the world -- cops protecting cops who clearly fucked up. Even the judicial system at times seems to enjoy covering up. Everyone would be a lot more trusting of police in general if they knew that bad ones got owned. As it is, I dislike police... Dislike them quite a lot. And I know most students/people my age, tend to feel the same.

BART didn't make its usual stop at Fruitvale today because of protests. They're making a huge mistake if they don't give this guy what he deserves.

truuusssst the police.... they're your friiiieeennnnds... they only want to heeeeeeeelp...

BULLSHIT! When I hear of so many things like this, do they really expect me to trust them with my life? When they aren't acting as revenue collections agents for their jurisdiction, they're shooting people who are not causing trouble! Even if he HAD been going for his tazer (and I call BS on the "wrong weapon" idea - they feel different, even if the light is dim and you can't see what you're holding) the resultant spasms from electric shock would have given them the excuse for brutality due to 'attempted resistance to arrest".

truuusssst the police.... they're your friiiieeennnnds... they only want to heeeeeeeelp...

BULLSHIT! When I hear of so many things like this, do they really expect me to trust them with my life? When they aren't acting as revenue collections agents for their jurisdiction, they're shooting people who are not causing trouble! Even if he HAD been going for his tazer (and I call BS on the "wrong weapon" idea - they feel different, even if the light is dim and you can't see what you're holding) the resultant spasms from electric shock would have given them the excuse for brutality due to 'attempted resistance to arrest".

OBJECTION!

You are broad-brushing all police officers with the actions of a few crooked ones. That is unfair gross generalization, and simply not true of all police officers.

For instance, the police officers where I live are not only not corrupt, they're heroes of the community too.

As for the actions in the article: I find them extremely disgusting and abhorrent. I don't understand how someone could screw up this badly. I almost want to say this was clearly intentional, but I don't know the facts of the situation well enough to start saying that yet.

Wow a whole two years. What a veteran.

But $25 million? Jeez, where'd that come from?
It's almost an oxymoron innit? A 2 year veteran.

As for $25 mill - pretty fair, considering they'd be lucky to see 1/2 that. Usually what happens is they'll agree to an out-of-court settlement much lower rather than have it drag on for months or even years through the courts and threats of appeal after appeal after appeal.
Considering this isn't just for loss of income but punitory to teach them the difference between shooting and tazering, $25 mill is very fair.


I'm surprised this thread has gone on this long without someone making a Bart Simpson joke.

OBJECTION!

You are broad-brushing all police officers with the actions of a few crooked ones. That is unfair gross generalization, and simply not true of all police officers.

For instance, the police officers where I live are not only not corrupt, they're heroes of the community too.

As for the actions in the article: I find them extremely disgusting and abhorrent. I don't understand how someone could screw up this badly. I almost want to say this was clearly intentional, but I don't know the facts of the situation well enough to start saying that yet.

It's really hard to judge, just going by the two cell phone videos (it's also hard to judge because I could only stomach watching each of them once). The officers both look shocked after the gun goes off--but is the shooter shocked because he thought he'd pulled a taser, or did the shot just snap him awake?

OBJECTION!

You are broad-brushing all police officers with the actions of a few crooked ones. That is unfair gross generalization, and simply not true of all police officers.

For instance, the police officers where I live are not only not corrupt, they're heroes of the community too.

As for the actions in the article: I find them extremely disgusting and abhorrent. I don't understand how someone could screw up this badly. I almost want to say this was clearly intentional, but I don't know the facts of the situation well enough to start saying that yet.

You're lucky. I hope it stays that way where you are. Here, the cops are looking at getting training from Blackwater. I don't like that in the least.

You're lucky. I hope it stays that way where you are. Here, the cops are looking at getting training from Blackwater. I don't like that in the least.

What the fuck?! Training from Blackwater? Something is seriously wrong at your end.

What a shitty lawyer. Criminally negligent homicide is manslaughter, not murder.

I doubt the lawyer worries about such distinctions in front of the press. Murder is much easier to say.

What a shitty lawyer. Criminally negligent homicide is manslaughter, not murder.

No, he's saying knowingly pulling a gun and shooting would be murder.

What the fuck?! Training from Blackwater? Something is seriously wrong at your end.

Well, while I'm usually not one to defend Blackwater, they have an advanced training program for everyone from cops, to women's self defense to unarmed security guards.

Here's their training schedule:
http://www.bwtrainingcenter.com/moyock/MYK_2008Schedule.htm

Well, while I'm usually not one to defend Blackwater, they have an advanced training program for everyone from cops, to women's self defense to unarmed security guards.

Here's their training schedule:
http://www.bwtrainingcenter.com/moyock/MYK_2008Schedule.htm

"Extreme Officer Survival". Sounds very mountain dew.

Seriously, though, some of that looks like it would be interesting training.

What a shitty lawyer. Criminally negligent homicide is manslaughter, not murder.

<paraphrase>If it was an accident, it was manslaughter, if he knew it was a gun, it was murder.</paraphrase>

But is that figure just plucked randomly out of the air by the defence counsel? $25 million seems a rather..... round figure to pick.

They take into account all the lost wages to the family of the dead man, all the potential lost wages, pain and suffering (that's always a big payout), mental/emotion anguish (toss a few more zeros on there) and many many other factors.

Oh yeas, and I think that fucking pig should be drug out onto the street by an angry mob and beaten to death by the general public.

Oh yeas, and I think that fucking pig should be drug out onto the street by an angry mob and beaten to death by the general public.

What you just said is horrible, absolutely disgusting. I'm appalled.

Its "dragged".

What you just said is horrible, absolutely disgusting. I'm appalled.

Its "dragged".

Grammar nazi!:mp5:

Really, if you can't tell the difference between a tazer and your pistol, you've spent WAY too much time at the donut shop and WAY too little time at the range. The cop is a murderer. Besides, your gun stays in the holster unless you are in imminent danger. Merely drawing the gun under those circumstances was wrong.

What a shitty lawyer. Criminally negligent homicide is manslaughter, not murder.

Well, it does look like he thought he was pulling a Taser.

Maybe they should redesign Tasers so that they neither look nor feel like pistols.

Grammar nazi!:mp5:

Really, if you can't tell the difference between a tazer and your pistol, you've spent WAY too much time at the donut shop and WAY too little time at the range. The cop is a murderer. Besides, your gun stays in the holster unless you are in imminent danger. Merely drawing the gun under those circumstances was wrong.

Have you ever seen Cops? The only way you see a Officer of the Peace is with a pistol in hand.

I wonder why, if he was physically restrained and really was not offering any resistance, the officer was even going to taze him.

Maybe the idiotic cop thought the poor guy was going to karate himself out of restraints. Too much time watching Chuck Norris. :(

Grammar nazi!:mp5:

Grammar naziness rules.:hail:

Grammar naziness rules.:hail:

Are you going to taze people with bad grammar?

Well, it does look like he thought he was pulling a Taser.

Maybe they should redesign Tasers so that they neither look nor feel like pistols.

or perhaps we should not allow cops to use tasers on people who are already on the fucking ground. in fact, perhaps we should start charging every cop that uses a taser without a damn fucking good reason with assault with a deadly weapon, and every cop that uses chemical weapons without a damn good reason with torture, at least.

or perhaps we should not allow cops to use tasers on people who are already on the fucking ground. in fact, perhaps we should start charging every cop that uses a taser without a damn fucking good reason with assault with a deadly weapon, and every cop that uses chemical weapons without a damn good reason with torture, at least.

A taser isn't a deadly weapon.

If you compare deaths per use to fists, fists are far more deadly.

A taser isn't a deadly weapon.

all the people that die from them seem to suggest otherwise. the fact the we call it a 'non-lethal' weapon is what got us to this point in the first place.

cops don't get to shoot people if it is not absolutely vital to their own safety or the safety of others. not with bullets, not with electricity, not with beanbags, not with chemicals. we need to stop letting this shit slide and start making some examples.

all the people that die from them seem to suggest otherwise. the fact the we call it a 'non-lethal' weapon is what got us to this point in the first place.

cops don't get to shoot people if it is not absolutely vital to their own safety or the safety of others. not with bullets, not with electricity, not with beanbags, not with chemicals. we need to stop letting this shit slide and start making some examples.

AMEN Brother! Can I get a Hallelujah from my brothers and sisters in the back row! Let me hear you now!

all the people that die from them seem to suggest otherwise. the fact the we call it a 'non-lethal' weapon is what got us to this point in the first place.

cops don't get to shoot people if it is not absolutely vital to their own safety or the safety of others. not with bullets, not with electricity, not with beanbags, not with chemicals. we need to stop letting this shit slide and start making some examples.

The weapons less than a pistol are meant for restraining someone without using deadly force.

Are you suggesting that police have zero options short of deadly force?

Tasers are even markedly less dangerous than pepper spray. And every cop who carries a Taser has been shot with one during training. If it were lethal, you would have heard about police killed by them in training.

AMEN Brother! Can I get a Hallelujah from my brothers and sisters in the back row! Let me hear you now!

If a suspect is not complying with a lawful order, the police are authorized by law to use any means short of lethal force to enforce compliance.

That is, they can wrestle you, taze you, pepper spray you, and dogpile on you until you comply.

Are you saying that a person should simply be able to walk away from any policeman, even if they are truly a criminal suspect, and that the police should have zero options?

When I read the title I thought it was about Nancy Cartwright shooting at people.

If a suspect is not complying with a lawful order, the police are authorized by law to use any means short of lethal force to enforce compliance.

That is, they can wrestle you, taze you, pepper spray you, and dogpile on you until you comply.

Are you saying that a person should simply be able to walk away from any policeman, even if they are truly a criminal suspect, and that the police should have zero options?

I'm saying that the police should not be allowed to use unnecessary force such as tazing someone who has obviously surrendered, or more to the point of this thread shooting someone who was not even resisting and was already restrained by other officers.

Police officers are supposed to be protecting people and upholding the law, not using their authority to bully people. Police need to use judgment too, and by fucking God they need to be held to the same standards as everyone else when it comes to making those judgments.

If a suspect is not complying with a lawful order, the police are authorized by law to use any means short of lethal force to enforce compliance.

That's actually not true. Use of force is a "sliding scale" situation. Police for example are allowed to legally order someone to show his driver's license when pulled over. However, if someone refuses, by simply saying "no", the police are not thereby authorized to taser him, even though that individual was not complying to a lawful order.

Use of force, even non lethal force, can only be utilized in a few circumstances. To effectuate an arrest, to stop resistance, and to prevent flight. That's it. And considering this guy was lying prone on the ground, neither resisting nor running, it seems to me that there was no justifiable use of any force.

Are you saying that a person should simply be able to walk away from any policeman, even if they are truly a criminal suspect, and that the police should have zero options?

No, he's not. And only a foor or a troll would suggest otherwise.

That's actually not true. Use of force is a "sliding scale" situation. Police for example are allowed to legally order someone to show his driver's license when pulled over. However, if someone refuses, by simply saying "no", the police are not thereby authorized to taser him, even though that individual was not complying to a lawful order.

Use of force, even non lethal force, can only be utilized in a few circumstances. To effectuate an arrest, to stop resistance, and to prevent flight. That's it. And considering this guy was lying prone on the ground, neither resisting nor running, it seems to me that there was no justifiable use of any force.



No, he's not. And only a foor or a troll would suggest otherwise.

Here in Virginia, if you say "no" they can pepper spray you after the first "no".

It's not always done, but it's the option available.

Walking away can get you tased. If you're wanted for a felony, they can shoot you as you run.

That's actually not true. Use of force is a "sliding scale" situation. Police for example are allowed to legally order someone to show his driver's license when pulled over. However, if someone refuses, by simply saying "no", the police are not thereby authorized to taser him, even though that individual was not complying to a lawful order.

Use of force, even non lethal force, can only be utilized in a few circumstances. To effectuate an arrest, to stop resistance, and to prevent flight. That's it. And considering this guy was lying prone on the ground, neither resisting nor running, it seems to me that there was no justifiable use of any force.

And in the given circumstances, I am prone to think that they officers were hardly justified in the way they treated the man in the first place.


No, he's not. And only a foor or a troll would suggest otherwise.

Thanks, you may have just saved me from a mini-ban.

I'm saying that the police should not be allowed to use unnecessary force such as tazing someone who has obviously surrendered, or more to the point of this thread shooting someone who was not even resisting and was already restrained by other officers.

Police officers are supposed to be protecting people and upholding the law, not using their authority to bully people. Police need to use judgment too, and by fucking God they need to be held to the same standards as everyone else when it comes to making those judgments.

The video looks more like a mistake and less like bullying.

Here in Virginia, if you say "no" they can pepper spray you after the first "no".

It's not always done, but it's the option available.

Walking away can get you tased. If you're wanted for a felony, they can shoot you as you run.

I think you ought to cite some relevant documents to support your claim that VA police are legally justified in using force after any resistance, no matter how mundane.

The video looks more like a mistake and less like bullying.

Its a mistake that would land you or me in prison. The same should apply to the officer.

Walking away can get you tased. If you're wanted for a felony, they can shoot you as you run.

Utterly untrue. The Supreme Court has articulated that the use of deadly force constitutes a "seizure" of the person, as discussed under the fourth amendment. As such, constitutional limitations upon seizures, such as the necessity of probable cause, come into play. As such, use of deadly force is, as a matter of constitutional law, only permissible:

1) in self defense or in the defense of others
2) when the officer reasonably believes that the fleeing individuals is, has, or soon will, commit, or threaten to commit, an act of violence.

Moreover, the Supreme Court specifically stated that it was a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. As such, the statement "if you are wanted for a felony, they can shoot you as you run" is patently, and utterly, untrue. It is unconstitutional and thus illegal to use deadly force on someone who is known to be non violent and unarmed, even if he's a "fleeing felon"

See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985) which held:

The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]


(a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.

(b) The Fourth Amendment, for purposes of this case, should not be construed in light of the common-law rule allowing the use of whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon. Changes in the legal and technological context mean that that rule is distorted almost beyond recognition when literally applied. Whereas felonies were formerly capital crimes, few are now, or can be, and many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies. Also, the common-law rule developed at a time when weapons were rudimentary. And, in light of the varied rules adopted in the States indicating a long-term movement away from the common-law rule, particularly in the police departments themselves, that rule is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute. There is no indication that holding a police practice such as that authorized by the statute unreasonable will severely hamper effective law enforcement. Pp. 12-20.

(c) While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22.

emphasis added

Stop pretending to be a lawyer DK.

I'll have to make a point of keeping an eye out for a result from the investigations into this. I'm really drawing a blank about what threat an unarmed man who was already physically restrained posed that called for a lethal response. It could be the case, as some speculate, that the officer was reaching for his tazer. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" and all, but is having an armed officer who can't tell the difference between a tazer and a handgun that much better than the alternative?
Dunno, but I would be interested in the results of the investigations also.

I think you ought to cite some relevant documents to support your claim that VA police are legally justified in using force after any resistance, no matter how mundane.

he's going to have a hard time, considering SCOTUS has clearly articulated that statutes authorizing deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect are unconstitutional.

Sure, the statute might exist "on the books" but it's illegal.

he's going to have a hard time, considering SCOTUS has clearly articulated that statutes authorizing deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect are unconstitutional.

Sure, the statute might exist "on the books" but it's illegal.

I'm not convinced that the statute exists even "on the books", except perhaps the book, "How to Pretend to Be a Lawyer" that DK cracks open now and then.

Utterly untrue. The Supreme Court has articulated that the use of deadly force constitutes a "seizure" of the person, as discussed under the fourth amendment. As such, constitutional limitations upon seizures, such as the necessity of probable cause, come into play. As such, use of deadly force is, as a matter of constitutional law, only permissible:

1) in self defense or in the defense of others
2) when the officer reasonably believes that the fleeing individuals is, has, or soon will, commit, or threaten to commit, an act of violence.

Moreover, the Supreme Court specifically stated that it was a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. As such, the statement "if you are wanted for a felony, they can shoot you as you run" is patently, and utterly, untrue. It is unconstitutional and thus illegal to use deadly force on someone who is known to be non violent and unarmed, even if he's a "fleeing felon"

See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985) which held:



emphasis added

Stop pretending to be a lawyer DK.

"Fleeing felon" here in Virginia means that in addition to being a felon, you're armed.

In fact, if you flee while armed, and have no prior convictions or warrants, you're by definition a "fleeing felon" in Virginia.

They shoot them all the time here. One recently here in Fairfax County.

Of course he was armed. But he hadn't fired a single shot.

"Fleeing felon" here in Virginia means that in addition to being a felon, you're armed.

Uh huh, and I'm sure you can find the statutory definition for that, right? Because the word "felon" (and in fact most statutes use "suspected felon") specifically has a meaning, one who has committed (or suspected of committing) a felony. The concept of "armed" plays no part in it.

But sure, go ahead, show me the statutory definition.

Its a mistake that would land you or me in prison. The same should apply to the officer.

It would be worse if the officer did make a mistake of reaching for a gun instead of a taser. if found guilty of manslaughter, I freverently hope he is never assigned a gun in the future.

on second thought... I hope they don't give him a taser either.

It would be worse if the officer did make a mistake of reaching for a gun instead of a taser. if found guilty of manslaughter, I freverently hope he is never assigned a gun in the future.

on second thought... I hope they don't give him a taser either.

I don't much matter to me if it was an accident or deliberate, he's guilty.

I don't much matter to me if it was an accident or deliberate, he's guilty.

the question is though, guilty of what, manslaughter or murder?

I don't much matter to me if it was an accident or deliberate, he's guilty.

No one's questioning that. The debate is, what is he guilty of?

Uh huh, and I'm sure you can find the statutory definition for that, right? Because the word "felon" (and in fact most statutes use "suspected felon") specifically has a meaning, one who has committed (or suspected of committing) a felony. The concept of "armed" plays no part in it.

But sure, go ahead, show me the statutory definition.

Fleeing from police while armed in Virginia is a felony. Get it?

Here's a recent example:

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8053909&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

He fled the scene - and when police caught up with him and saw he was armed, shot him dead right there. Completely legal. He never fired a shot, and until the point they saw he was armed, were probably only interested in questioning him and verifying that he indeed was the suspect.

Showing a gun is a first class ticket to being shot dead by the police, no questions asked.

Do I see the police in jail? No. Charged, even? No.

MCLEAN, Va. - Police say the person who robbed a McLean bank on Wednesday was a teenager from Arlington.

Investigators say the 19-year-old suspect, Hailu Brook, went to Yorktown High School.

Police say that around noon on Wednesday, Fairfax Police were called to the BB&T Bank on Old Dominion Drive in McLean for a bank robbery. Officers were alerted to a crash at Old Dominion Drive and Valley Wood Road, not far away in Arlington. According to police, the suspect ran from the scene when police caught up with him, and when he showed a gun, officers opened fire, killing him.

Students are in disbelief that Brook was the person police shot and killed on Wednesday after he robbed the bank. His friends noticed he wasn't in class on Wednesday or Thursday, but word spread throughout the day that he was the person behind the robbery and chase through nearby neighborhoods.

Brook had been a student at Yorktown High for the last three months, and he was a junior.

"Today in my math class, someone went online and figured out that it was him," said Virginia Shutler, a fellow Yorktown student.

"All my friends today were so upset," said Hannah Adams, another student. "He was in a lot of our classes. I have a couple friends that had him in photo class, and they all say he was the nicest guy ever."

Lucy Sgroi sat next to Brook in one of her classes, and she says she considered him a friend.

"He told me that he wanted to go to GW University and that he wanted to be a diplomat for the United States," said Sgroi.

"He was very nice, always said hi to everybody," said Nick Gunn, another Yorktown student. "Didn't have a problem with anybody."

Brook had family members living in both McLean and Arlington. All of them were too distraught to talk about their death of their loved one on Thursday.

Oh, and he was "such a nice boy". Probably had the same stupid idea that somehow, he didn't qualify as a felon until after conviction.

Fleeing from police while armed in Virginia is a felony. Get it?

I get that while coffee is a brown liquid, not all brown liquid is coffee. I don't think you do.

You specifically stated that a felon, fleeing from the police, may be shot. This, as demonstrated, is demonstrably false, as that's the case only for violent felons. Now, while it's true, that fleeing from police while armed is a felony, felony doesn't just mean "fleeing from the police while armed". Ergo, while the statement "a fleeing felon may be shot dead" is true when the felony discussed is "running while armed", it is not, as a universal statement, true, as there are a plethora of felonies that are non violent, and one can be a felon without ever indicating a propensity towards violence.

Which makes what you said....wrong.

Just admit that. We all know it already anyway. You being wrong is pretty much what happens every time you talk about the law. We're used to it.

the question is though, guilty of what, manslaughter or murder?

No one's questioning that. The debate is, what is he guilty of?

There isn't enough evidence to prove murder but he is guilty of manslaughter no matter what; I just hope he is actually put on trial really; I've heard of too many times where the officer in question isn't even charged with anything when its almost perfectly clear what they did wrong.

I'm just stating that police need to be held to the same standards, and the same judgment, as the civilians they protect.

Murder or manslaughter is sort of irrelevant to me since I am not personally involved. But I do say this, if I were a prosecutor I would go straight for the manslaughter charges.

I don't much matter to me if it was an accident or deliberate, he's guilty.

I would rather a court decide his guilt or innocence.

The facts that
1) He pulled a weapon and fired it while an officer was subduing the person
2) His claim that he thought he was pulling out a taser instead of his gun
3) The fact that the person was being subdued without apparent trouble

tells me that Guilty or Innocent... he shouldn't be allowed a weapon more sophisticated than a baton.

There isn't enough evidence to prove murder but he is guilty of manslaughter no matter what; I just hope he is actually put on trial really; I've heard of too many times where the officer in question isn't even charged with anything when its almost perfectly clear what they did wrong.

I'm just stating that police need to be held to the same standards, and the same judgment, as the civilians they protect.

Murder or manslaughter is sort of irrelevant to me since I am not personally involved. But I do say this, if I were a prosecutor I would go straight for the manslaughter charges.

If I were a prosecutor I'd charge murder with an alternate manslaughter charge, since one is not a lesser included offense to the other, given substantively different elements.

I get that while coffee is brown, not all brown liquid is coffee. I don't think you do.

You specifically stated that a felon, fleeing from the police, may be shot. This, as demonstrated, is demonstrably false, as that's the case only for violent felons. Now, while it's true, that fleeing from police while armed is a felony, felony doesn't just mean "fleeing from the police while armed". Ergo, while the statement "a fleeing felon may be shot dead" is true when the felony discussed is "running while armed", it is not, as a universal statement, true, as there are a plethora of felonies that are non violent, and one can be a felon without ever indicating a propensity towards violence.

Which makes what you said....wrong.

Just admit that. We all know it already anyway. You being wrong is pretty much what happens every time you talk about the law. We're used to it.

Incomplete is more like it. I think you want to drill to specifics when talking to me, rather than addressing the issue in the thread. You're making the argument that a loose statement by me is a universal.

I'm comfortable with the "they don't shoot non-violent felons" part.

However, it takes very, very little to become a "fleeing felon" here in Virginia, who can be shot down on the spot.

the boy in question here didn't even fire his gun - all that he had to do was run from the police, and illustrate that he was armed - and they riddled him with bullets with no repercussions to themselves.

I would rather a court decide his guilt or innocence.

The facts that
1) He pulled a weapon and fired it while an officer was subduing the person
2) His claim that he thought he was pulling out a taser instead of his gun
3) The fact that the person was being subdued without apparent trouble

tells me that Guilty or Innocent... he shouldn't be allowed a weapon more sophisticated than a baton.

Batons can kill, too.

Incomplete is more like it. I think you want to drill to specifics when talking to me, rather than addressing the issue in the thread. You're making the argument that a loose statement by me is a universal.

if you don't like me pointing out the errors in your statements, don't make statements with errors. More to point the "issue in the thread" doesn't involve a fleeing anyone, so you're the one who sidetracked it.

But nice attempt at a dodge there.

if you don't like me pointing out the errors in your statements, don't make statements with errors. More to point the "issue in the thread" doesn't involve a fleeing anyone, so you're the one who sidetracked it.

But nice attempt at a dodge there.

How is a man tied up on the sidewalk, "fleeing"?

If I were a prosecutor I'd charge murder with an alternate manslaughter charge, since one is not a lesser included offense to the other, given substantively different elements.

I'm not a lawyer, and did not know that was even possible; and I never claimed I did. All I know for sure is that laws were very obviously broken deliberately or not does not matter. If you accidentally break a law and someone gets killed its still a punishable offense, unless your a cop in a big city I guess.

I'm not a lawyer, and did not know that was even possible; and I never claimed I did. All I know for sure is that laws were very obviously broken deliberately or not does not matter. If you accidentally break a law and someone gets killed its still a punishable offense, unless your a cop in a big city I guess.

You speak as though police who make mistakes like this are never, ever punished. When it's pretty obvious that police who do fuck up either go to prison or get the life sued out of them in civil court, or both.

Batons can kill, too.

but not at a distance and rarely with ONE strike.

And if this 'cop' proves to be just as... professional, with a baton... then he should be kicked off the force.

but not at a distance and rarely with ONE strike.

And if this 'cop' proves to be just as... professional, with a baton... then he should be kicked off the force.

Batons are statistically more lethal than Tasers.

Batons are statistically more lethal than Tasers.

But a hell of a lot less dangerous than guns, and he mistook one for a taser.

Batons are statistically more lethal than Tasers.

Prove it.

Batons are statistically more lethal than Tasers.

You can go ahead and source that statement too.

Prove it.

The TASER ECD has played an important role in reducing excessive use-of-force litigation against law enforcement agencies and individual officers and, consequently, related criminal prosecution of officers and employment practices liability. Statistics from law enforcement agencies show a marked decrease in excessive use-of-force claims when TASER ECDs have been deployed. The reason is simple: Suspects are not getting injured as often in the course of arrest or control when the TASER ECD is used.
The risk of injury to suspects during arrest has increased in recent years due to the U.S. drug epidemic. Fresno (CA) and Olympia (WA) report that over half of the suspects arrested were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A suspect high on drugs typically will not comply with law enforcement commands, will resist arrest and can be impervious to pain. As a result, pain
compliance tools such as impact weapons and pepper spray are often ineffective and injuries typically ensue when additional and higher escalations of force are resorted to. For example, Denver (CO) reports a 100% injury rate to suspects from canines, 71% injury rate from impact weapons, and a 66% injury rate from strikes and takedowns.

Statistics from law enforcement agencies confirm this reduction in injuries when TASER ECDs are used. For example, Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC) Police reported a 79% decrease in suspect injuries for the period 2002-2004; Phoenix (AZ) Police reported a 67% decrease in suspect injuries in 2004 and a 54% reduction in use of deadly force; Austin (TX) Police reported a 82% decrease in suspect injuries in 2004; Cincinnati (OH) Police reported a 35% decrease in suspect injuries in 2004, a 50% reduction in citizen complaints in 2003 and a 50% reduction in overall use of force from TASER deployment; Seattle (WA) Police reported a 100% decrease in officer involved shootings in 2003 compared to the prior 15 years; Miami (FL) Police reported
zero firearm discharges in 2003, the first year of TASER ECD deployment, compared to 54 firearm discharges for the prior 3 years; Chico (CA) reported only 2% of suspects exposed to the TASER ECD were injured while 79% of suspects who were batoned were injured and 53% of suspects who were physically taken to the ground were injured; and Columbus (OH) Police
reported a 25% reduction in impact weapon use, a 32% reduction in strikes, kicks and punches and a 38% decrease in use OC spray from TASER ECD deployment.
Charles Mesloh, PhD, a researcher with Florida Gulf Coast University, looked at every TASER ECD incident in Orange County (FL) Sheriff's Office from 2000-2003 and compared TASER ECDs with the use of police canines, batons and chemical agents like pepper spray. He found that there were fewer injuries related to TASER ECD use.
TASER technology is saving lives as well. Houston (TX) Police reported that in 39 instances between December 2004 and October 2006, incident involved officers would have been justified in using deadly force instead of stunning them; Dallas (TX) Police reported that in 23 events, the TASER X26 prevented the high likelihood of deadly force; Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC) Police reported 19 incidents where deadly force was averted in 2004 with TASER ECDs; Columbus (OH) Police noted that 14 lives may have been saved with TASER ECDs; St. Paul (MN) Police credit TASER ECDs for saving at least four lives, including an officer's; and Maui (AZ) Police report two lives saved with the TASER ECD.

The TASER ECD ...two lives saved with the TASER ECD.

That says nothing about the relative deadliness of tasers and batons.

Try again.

Batons are statistically more lethal than Tasers.
three points.

1) what's your point?

2) never heard of anyone claiming they mistaking either their gun or baton for the other.

3) cite those statistics please. Edit: Your source does not prove that Batons are more leathal only that with the use of tasers, Baton use is down.

Most departments that I am familiar with make the officer wear the tazer on the opposite side from their handgun. It is so that you have to consciously reach for the "wrong" location. That way, you don't accidentally grab your service weapon instead of the tazer.

Either way, we need to remember that the first thing that gets cut off from PD budgets when the economy goes to crap is the training budget. Seems to me that I would want the officers of my community to be more trained in order to prevent serious mistakes.

Are you going to taze people with bad grammar?

Hmmm....

"Please don't use a taser against me!" (OK)
"Dun taze me bro!" *BZZZZAP*

:D

You speak as though police who make mistakes like this are never, ever punished. When it's pretty obvious that police who do fuck up either go to prison or get the life sued out of them in civil court, or both.

Only if they are caught on camera and are investigated by a civilian, rather than police, agency.

This particular cop made the mistake of being filmed. He may still get away with it if this crime is investigated by other cops.

That says nothing about the relative deadliness of tasers and batons.

Try again.

Also, it'd be nice if he sourced someone else's work.

Only if they are caught on camera and are investigated by a civilian, rather than police, agency.

This particular cop made the mistake of being filmed. He may still get away with it if this crime is investigated by other cops.

Plenty of police who kill out of malice or error are sent to jail without being on camera. Show me the proof of your assertion that "only if they are caught on camera and investigated by a civilian, rather than police, agency".

three points.

1) what's your point?

2) never heard of anyone claiming they mistaking either their gun or baton for the other.

3) cite those statistics please. Edit: Your source does not prove that Batons are more leathal only that with the use of tasers, Baton use is down.

Read please. Since injuries and deaths are down, it means that police are using the taser, and not the baton (or wrestling, or punching, or kicking).

Plenty of police who kill out of malice or error are sent to jail without being on camera. Show me the proof of your assertion that "only if they are caught on camera and investigated by a civilian, rather than police, agency".

Lol. The irony of you demanding another poster source their statement burns like acid.

Maybe they should redesign Tasers so that they neither look nor feel like pistols.

I'm wondering how their load bearing equipment is set up. Is the Taser holster right next to the pistol holster? If so, that strikes me as a bad idea. If not, that raises some questions.

I'm wondering how their load bearing equipment is set up. Is the Taser holster right next to the pistol holster? If so, that strikes me as a bad idea. If not, that raises some questions.

If it is, the officer is still at fault and the department deserves the law suit.

Read please. Since injuries and deaths are down, it means that police are using the taser, and not the baton (or wrestling, or punching, or kicking).

I did read.

and you still failed to show the fatality comparisons between tasers and batons. after all, they mixed in wrestling, punching, kicking and Sprays.

but you missed my point.

the point isn't that a taser is 'deadlier' as you assumed. it's the use. when an officer uses his baton, it is for the purpose of causing pain and possibly injury. thus no "it was a mistake" excuse.

also, the OP article claims the officer mistook his GUN for a TASER. never heard of that mistake being made with a BATON!

and to add on, a BATON is a melee weapon, no ranged attacks like with a TASER or GUN. Meaning he would have to get up close and personal.

If it is, the officer is still at fault and the department deserves the law suit.

I think they deserve the suit regardless of where the taser was positioned. That officer fucked up (assuming it was accidental) and someone died. He knew from the start that in being given weapons to carry he was responsible for the lives of those around him and he wasn't paying enough attention. It's harsh, but I've had jobs with similarly harsh consequences and if I'd fucked up then I expected to get nailed.

Not that I think he should be put in prison for the rest of his life, assuming he fucked up, but at the very least he shouldn't be entrusted with that sort of responsibility any more.

Now, if he shot the guy on purpose that's murder and he should be thrown in prison to rot.

no ranged attacks like with a TASER or GUN

Not all tasers fire a projectile. Many of them are like the one below, where you touch them with the end of it. I had one of these when I was in Iraq (probably not entirely legally) because it made getting our civilian semi truck drivers to do what I say much easier. I never had to come anywhere near actually shocking anyone with it, just snapping it gets the point across very well.

http://youredge.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/taser_533_1.jpg

Plenty of police who kill out of malice or error are sent to jail without being on camera. Show me the proof of your assertion that "only if they are caught on camera and investigated by a civilian, rather than police, agency".

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/dec/02/police-brutality-rare-reality/

In each case, Internal Affairs investigators found that the officers broke departmental rules by using excessive force. But none of the officers involved was fired or charged with a crime.

None of the cases was referred to the Knox County Distict Attorney General's Office, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation or the FBI for independent review.

A detailed example of an investigation wherein there was actual physical evidence (you can watch the handicapped woman get tased repeatedly on an embedded video) but no one was prosecuted due to the investigation being done entirely by the Internal Affairs department, which is not a civilian body.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/dec/02/police-brutality-rare-reality/

A detailed example of an investigation wherein there was actual physical evidence (you can watch the handicapped woman get tased repeatedly on an embedded video) but no one was prosecuted due to the investigation being done entirely by the Internal Affairs department, which is not a civilian body.

A single example is the best you can do?

Sorry, I'm waiting for your blanket statement proof.

A single example is the best you can do?

Sorry, I'm waiting for your blanket statement proof.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/motivator4314276.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/motivator4314276.jpg

What's good for DK is good for everyone else...

Not all tasers fire a projectile.
ok, so... which model did the officer have?

which model do Police officers tend to carry?

what has this got to do with the fact that a police officer stood up, drew his weapon (claiming he thought he was drawing a taser) and fired his weapon (still thinking it was a 'taser'). if you are thinking that the officer had the model you shown, then the officer should be fired due to gross stupidity. activating a touch taser when neither he nor his taser was in contact with the perp.

A single example is the best you can do?

Sorry, I'm waiting for your blanket statement proof.

Wait. Do you expect me to bring up every single successful police brutality case and then show you how in each case there was both?

I would have thought that was obvious when I showed how it was impossible to get a conviction if you only had one of them. Do you somehow imagine it would be easier to get a conviction with neither of those two things?

It's okay. I did your work for you. I found a case where police got nailed for shooting an 88-year old woman in her own house. Apparently they got caught when the informant they paid off to say he had bought drugs there went to the news media with the truth, which forced the police chief to call in the FBI and other independent agencies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18328267/

But there was no video-tape. Just massive amounts of forensic evidence showing that the cops broke into her place and shot her.

I will now change my claim to say that a successful investigation into police brutality requires overwhelming physical evidence and independent oversight. Videotape is too specific, I guess.

By the way, do you have a link showing a successful conviction of police brutality that does not involve physical evidence and independent oversight? Because that would destroy my argument.

Wait. Do you expect me to bring up every single successful police brutality case and then show you how in each case there was both?

Your assertion, not mine, so you need to bring up the evidence.

You speak as though police who make mistakes like this are never, ever punished. When it's pretty obvious that police who do fuck up either go to prison or get the life sued out of them in civil court, or both.

Your assertion, not mine, so you need to bring up the evidence.

I'll get right on that. Meanwhile, can you find any evidence at all to back the claim that police "who do fuck up either go to prison or get the life sued out of them in civil court, or both," because I don't believe you.

I'll get right on that. Meanwhile, can you find any evidence at all to back the claim that police "who do fuck up either go to prison or get the life sued out of them in civil court, or both," because I don't believe you.

Often enough that a website for police officers has a running feed on officers who are investigated, are jailed, etc.

http://www.officer.com/article/index.jsp?siteSection=5

They don't even have to kill or injure anyone - feeding a bad meal or conducting an illegal search is enough.

Often enough that a website for police officers has a running feed on officers who are investigated, are jailed, etc.

http://www.officer.com/article/index.jsp?siteSection=5

They don't even have to kill or injure anyone - feeding a bad meal or conducting an illegal search is enough.

That's a list of editorials written by cops. That does not prove what you claim. In fact, it does not even discuss what you claim. It is merely a list of articles discussing IA investigations. You would have to open all of them and show me that all those officers are actually receiving jail time and/or being sued.

But I won't ask that of you. Just show me one (1!) case where a cop was peosecuted with excessive force without overwhelming physical evidence and independent oversight.

That's a list of editorials written by cops. That does not prove what you claim. In fact, it does not even discuss what you claim. It is merely a list of articles discussing IA investigations. You would have to open all of them and show me that all those officers are actually receiving jail time and/or being sued.

But I won't ask that of you. Just show me one (1!) case where a cop was peosecuted with excessive force without overwhelming physical evidence and independent oversight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Ramos

I'm wondering how their load bearing equipment is set up. Is the Taser holster right next to the pistol holster? If so, that strikes me as a bad idea. If not, that raises some questions.

From what I've heard, the taser is positioned on the off-hand side of the body. Or maybe the gun is, I can't remember. Whatever it is, they're on two separate sides of the body.

Pretty sure it's the taser, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Ramos

An investigator from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General tracked down Mr. Aldrete-Davila in Mexico, where he was offered immunity in exchange for testimony. The department oversees the Border Patrol.

Independent oversight. (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2006/aug/23/20060823-122228-3575r/)

And the overwhelming physical evidence includes the bullet in the Mexican's ass, and the shell casings picked up by the other cop.

My turn:

In examining human rights violations committed by police officers and barriers to investigation, redress, and prosecution, we found common shortcomings in all of the cities we examined. These failings fall into three basic categories: lack of effective public accountability and transparency, persistent failure to investigate and punish officers who commit human rights violations, and obstacles to justice. We offer recommendations addressed to officials at all levels - departmental, municipal, and federal - and emphasize that reform at all levels and in all three areas is required to secure real change.

This is part of a summary of a study done on police brutality in the USA.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/reports98/police/uspo06.htm

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/reports98/police/index.htm

Independent oversight. (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2006/aug/23/20060823-122228-3575r/)

And the overwhelming physical evidence includes the bullet in the Mexican's ass, and the shell casings picked up by the other cop.


You obviously believe in convicting police in the absence of evidence.

You obviously believe in convicting police in the absence of evidence.


the trail of evidence as well as the procedures must also be followed.

can anyone confirm if there was a fight that the officers were called for?
if so, can anyone confirm if any weapons were present (not used, just present)?
anyone knows the cause of the struggle before the fatal shooting?

normally I would've asked these questions, but the fact that the OP's article had his defense as "he thought he was pulling out a taser" made these questions unimportant.

You obviously believe in convicting police in the absence of evidence.

Okay, so I found a study that corroborates my claim that independent oversight is necessary.

You were unable to find a single example of a successful conviction of police brutality that did not involve independent oversight.

By overwhelming physical evidence, I mean a quantity of physical evidence such that it is more than the cops can cover up or is outside of their control. Examples include the bullet in Aldrete-Davila's ass that went with him to Mexico and probably ended up in the hands of the local Mexican police force, and the huge pile of forensic evidence showing that several cops broke into Kathryn Johnston's house and shot her.

I believe that police should be convicted when there is evidence, and that they are rarely convicted even if such evidence exists when they are investigated by other cops in the same agency.

I have yet to find evidence to the contrary.

Okay, so I found a study that corroborates my claim that independent oversight is necessary.

You were unable to find a single example of a successful conviction of police brutality that did not involve independent oversight.

By overwhelming physical evidence, I mean a quantity of physical evidence such that it is more than the cops can cover up or is outside of their control. Examples include the bullet in Aldrete-Davila's ass that went with him to Mexico and probably ended up in the hands of the local Mexican police force, and the huge pile of forensic evidence showing that several cops broke into Kathryn Johnston's house and shot her.

I believe that police should be convicted when there is evidence, and that they are rarely convicted even if such evidence exists when they are investigated by other cops in the same agency.

I have yet to find evidence to the contrary.


In most American courts, police or not, if you don't have physical evidence, you have next to nothing. So you're asking for convictions based on "he said, she said" testimony, where it's the word of a policeman vs. the word of a suspect.

The idea that I haven't found "evidence to the contrary" doesn't mean such evidence does not exist, and means only that you're lazy in your efforts (probably, you don't want to find any).

I doubt if you'll find large numbers of anyone convicted in the US with zero physical evidence.

In most American courts, police or not, if you don't have physical evidence, you have next to nothing. So you're asking for convictions based on "he said, she said" testimony, where it's the word of a policeman vs. the word of a suspect.

The idea that I haven't found "evidence to the contrary" doesn't mean such evidence does not exist, and means only that you're lazy in your efforts (probably, you don't want to find any).

I doubt if you'll find large numbers of anyone convicted in the US with zero physical evidence.

You can find them on death row though.

Nearly 18 years ago, Davis was convicted of the murder of police officer Mark MacPhail. The crime took place outside a Burger King, and no DNA or other physical evidence was found. Davis was convicted solely on the testimony of nine witnesses. But since the August 1989 shooting, seven of these witnesses have recanted. Several people have said that one of those who testified at Davis's trial, Sylvester "Redd" Coles, has admitted to them that he was the killer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092603351.html
Since he arrived on Texas’ Death Row in 1999, Michael Roy Toney has proclaimed his innocence to anyone he thought might listen.
No physical evidence connects Toney to the bombing. Toney, who was 19 when it occurred, was convicted on the testimony of his ex-wife and a former best friend. His lawyers say one need only look at the recent string of exonerations in Dallas County for proof that eyewitness testimony can lead to false convictions.
http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/1106350.html

Also in the news:

A protest over the fatal shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed black man mushroomed into several hours of violence Wednesday night as demonstrators smashed storefronts and cars, set several cars ablaze and blocked streets in downtown Oakland.

The roving mob expressed fury at police and frustration over society's racial injustice. Yet the demonstrators were often indiscriminate, frequently targeting the businesses and prized possessions of people of color.

They smashed a hair salon, a pharmacy and several restaurants. Police in riot gear tried to control the crowd, but some people retreated along 14th Street and bashed cars along the way.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155CN1.DTL


The BART police officer under investigation for the fatal New Year's Day shooting of an unarmed man quit his job Wednesday rather than speak with investigators, an official said.

Former officer Johannes Mehserle, 27, has given no comment to BART investigators since the incident in which cell phone videos appeared to capture Mehserle shooting Oscar Grant III as Grant lay facedown on the ground at the Fruitvale station, BART spokesman Linton Johnson said Wednesday.

"We had a meeting scheduled for him to talk, and his attorney and a union rep came in his place and dropped off a letter of resignation instead," Johnson said. "It's interesting, because he was supposed to be talking for the administrative
part of our investigation, which is privileged information and couldn't have been used in any criminal investigation anyway."

While BART officials said they've been trying to get Mehserle to talk ever since the shooting, Mehserle's attorney said he hadn't received any requests for an interview from Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff's office as of Wednesday night.

"In general, a prosecutor would contact the attorney of anyone under investigation for a crime," said Christopher Miller, Mehserle's Sacramento-based union attorney. "So that would have come to me."
http://www.mercurynews.com/localnews/ci_11394377

His refusal to explain himself makes me suspect this wasn't simply a mistake...

What I don't understand is, this cop was recorded shooting an unarmed man, in the back, while he lay on the ground, restrained.

Why the fuck has he not been arrested yet? The fact that he's even allowed to walk free right now is an afront to justice.

What I don't understand is, this cop was recorded shooting an unarmed man, in the back, while he lay on the ground, restrained.

Why the fuck has he not been arrested yet? The fact that he's even allowed to walk free right now is an afront to justice.

Well he's hanging around, and it doesn't look like he's going to flee to Mexico any time soon...

But yeah, I understand why you take issue with it.

"Fleeing felon" here in Virginia means that in addition to being a felon, you're armed.

In fact, if you flee while armed, and have no prior convictions or warrants, you're by definition a "fleeing felon" in Virginia.

They shoot them all the time here. One recently here in Fairfax County.

Of course he was armed. But he hadn't fired a single shot.

In which case those cops should be thrown in jail as well. Is it supposed to be a good thing that being armed while not cooperating with police is punishable by summary execution?

Well he's hanging around, and it doesn't look like he's going to flee to Mexico any time soon...

But yeah, I understand why you take issue with it.

yes, I understand he's being watched, and all that. But he shot and killed an unarmed man. If that was you, or I? There'd be no "opportunity to explain", no "hearing scheduled", no "let's see what he has to say about it." We would be handcuffed and dragged to the police station, immediately.

This happened a week ago, and he hasn't even been touched.

ok, so... which model did the officer have?

which model do Police officers tend to carry?

what has this got to do with the fact that a police officer stood up, drew his weapon (claiming he thought he was drawing a taser) and fired his weapon (still thinking it was a 'taser'). if you are thinking that the officer had the model you shown, then the officer should be fired due to gross stupidity. activating a touch taser when neither he nor his taser was in contact with the perp.

I honestly have no idea what cops generally carry. They don't have tasers where I live.

It has nothing to do with what that officer did. It has to do with you claiming that tasers are ranged weapons when they aren't always.

You're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I'm saying. I'm saying he should be at least fired for gross negligence regardless of what taser he was carrying, or did you miss that part of my earlier post?

From what I've heard, the taser is positioned on the off-hand side of the body. Or maybe the gun is, I can't remember. Whatever it is, they're on two separate sides of the body.

Pretty sure it's the taser, though.

That'd make it kinda hard to grab the wrong one, wouldn't it?

yes, I understand he's being watched, and all that. But he shot and killed an unarmed man. If that was you, or I? There'd be no "opportunity to explain", no "hearing scheduled", no "let's see what he has to say about it." We would be handcuffed and dragged to the police station, immediately.

This happened a week ago, and he hasn't even been touched.

I don't believe you. Go do what he did, and let's see what happens. Then I might take you seriously.

I don't believe you. Go do what he did, and let's see what happens. Then I might take you seriously.

prove it omg!

Also in the news:



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155CN1.DTL



http://www.mercurynews.com/localnews/ci_11394377

His refusal to explain himself makes me suspect this wasn't simply a mistake...
I could chalk up his refusal to explain as 'leaving it for the trial.'

I honestly have no idea what cops generally carry. They don't have tasers where I live.

It has nothing to do with what that officer did. It has to do with you claiming that tasers are ranged weapons when they aren't always.

You're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I'm saying. I'm saying he should be at least fired for gross negligence regardless of what taser he was carrying, or did you miss that part of my earlier post?
and you jumped to conclusions to what I posted. I too suggested that he be fired or at least kept away from firearms and tasers in general since he has a difficult time telling the two apart (if he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter that is.)

then Hotwife piped up claiming that batons are more dangerious than tasers which again wasn't my point. I explained my point by saying using a baton is rarely an 'accidental use' such as Ooops, I though I had [something else]. and the fact that he stood up and 'discharged' what he thought was a taser showed he did not have the model that was skin contact only (some can do both, fire the needles and be pressed up to the skin.) because this 'officer' admitted his incompetence I put forth the idea to keep any and all forms of 'ranged' devices out of his hands.

That's when you piped up that not all tasers are 'ranged'. which isn't the point since the officer STOOD UP to fire what he thought was a taser.

That'd make it kinda hard to grab the wrong one, wouldn't it?and yet he still though he was grabbing his taser. :(

prove it omg!

'zactly, otherwise you're just a liar, liar, pants on fire.

if you are thinking that the officer had the model you shown, then the officer should be fired due to gross stupidity. activating a touch taser when neither he nor his taser was in contact with the perp.

That's the conclusion that I was taking issue with.

and yet he still though he was grabbing his taser. :(

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. He was probably scared out of his mind and didn't know up from down or left from right. Of course, that doesn't excuse him because his job is to handle situations like the one he thought he was in without accidentally killing people.

yes, I understand he's being watched, and all that. But he shot and killed an unarmed man. If that was you, or I? There'd be no "opportunity to explain", no "hearing scheduled", no "let's see what he has to say about it." We would be handcuffed and dragged to the police station, immediately.

This happened a week ago, and he hasn't even been touched.
Speak for yourself, dude. I have... connections :p

That said, I didn't mean that he's being watched, I meant that he seems to actually be staying there of his own volition. Of course, that's just my impression based on two articles so it means nothing.

But appart from the general feeling of the public: Why should he be locked up pending trial? Is there any substantial reason for it? It's unlikely that he'll tamper with the evidence or try to influence witnesses. He doesn't seem inclined to flee. It doesn't appear like he'll perpetrate a crime while awaiting crime. So should he be put in jail just to appease the public anger?

I could chalk up his refusal to explain as 'leaving it for the trial.'

For what reason?

'zactly, otherwise you're just a liar, liar, pants on fire.

Are you trying to trick him out of his pants again? Seriously! :rolleyes:

:p

and yet he still though he was grabbing his taser. :(

At least, that's what he claims.

We can't really know what he truly thought. We can only assess the claim to see if it is reasonable.

Now I wonder what type of taser they carry. If they don't carry one that works at range, his claim that he was trying to use his taser would be even less convincing.

Are you trying to trick him out of his pants again? Seriously! :rolleyes:

:p

No.:p

But appart from the general feeling of the public: Why should he be locked up pending trial? Is there any substantial reason for it? It's unlikely that he'll tamper with the evidence or try to influence witnesses. He doesn't seem inclined to flee. It doesn't appear like he'll perpetrate a crime while awaiting crime. So should he be put in jail just to appease the public anger?



For what reason?
I'm in class, so paying only partial attention here...but from a quick skim, it doesn't appear he was even arrested yet?

That is what seems unconscionable. He should be arrested, charged, and have to apply for bail just like anyone else.

If this has happened, then ignore me.

I'm in class, so paying only partial attention here...but from a quick skim, it doesn't appear he was even arrested yet?
Seems like he isn't.


That is what seems unconscionable. He should be arrested, charged, and have to apply for bail just like anyone else.
But while I agree with the part about being charged, my question is Why should he be arrested? (especially at this point in time)

...since, as I mentioned above, he doesn't appear to be a flight risk, he's unlikely to tamper with evidence, and he's unlikely to commit another crime while waiting for a trial? Appart from pleasing the public, what gain is there?

If this has happened, then ignore me.
Unpossible!

That's the conclusion that I was taking issue with.
that he was Stupid?
or that he was planning to activate a 'touch' taser when the device is not touching the person? :p


Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. He was probably scared out of his mind and didn't know up from down or left from right. Of course, that doesn't excuse him because his job is to handle situations like the one he thought he was in without accidentally killing people.yep. never said it did.

For what reason? orders by his lawyer? there are reasons why officers under investigation rarely give public statements.

At least, that's what he claims.

We can't really know what he truly thought. We can only assess the claim to see if it is reasonable. and for that, I can wait till the trial/verdict.

Now I wonder what type of taser they carry. If they don't carry one that works at range, his claim that he was trying to use his taser would be even less convincing. I know some can be duel use. both range and touch. depending on the attachment on the taser.

If a suspect is not complying with a lawful order, the police are authorized by law to use any means short of lethal force to enforce compliance.

That is, they can wrestle you, taze you, pepper spray you, and dogpile on you until you comply.

Are you saying that a person should simply be able to walk away from any policeman, even if they are truly a criminal suspect, and that the police should have zero options?

In with the loaded questions to throw muck in the water eh?

Seems like he isn't.


But while I agree with the part about being charged, my question is Why should he be arrested?

Because the use of a taser in the circumstances would have been unwarranted.

But while I agree with the part about being charged, my question is Why should he be arrested? (especially at this point in time)

...since, as I mentioned above, he doesn't appear to be a flight risk, he's unlikely to tamper with evidence, and he's unlikely to commit another crime while waiting for a trial? Appart from pleasing the public, what gain is there?
he just quit. could be that he's preparing to run... could be that he feels guilty... who knows.

At least, that's what he claims.
Actually, I don't think it is. He hasn't said anything; I think it's speculation in the media that he went for his Tazer and accidentally got his gun. He hasn't made any statements yet.

orders by his lawyer? there are reasons why officers under investigation rarely give public statements.
Thing is, I wasn't talking about a public statement:

"We had a meeting scheduled for him to talk, and his attorney and a union rep came in his place and dropped off a letter of resignation instead," Johnson said. "It's interesting, because he was supposed to be talking for the administrative part of our investigation, which is privileged information and couldn't have been used in any criminal investigation anyway."

Because the use of a taser in the circumstances would have been unwarranted.
And?

he just quit. could be that he's preparing to run... could be that he feels guilty... who knows.
Yes, but is it likely that he'll run? Now, after a week?

Actually, I don't think it is. He hasn't said anything; I think it's speculation in the media that he went for his Tazer and accidentally got his gun. He hasn't made any statements yet.


Thing is, I wasn't talking about a public statement:Ah, my mistake.

but his actions so far, can indicate a cutting of ties. getting ready to run...

Yes, but is it likely that he'll run? Now, after a week?
depends on what else he's been doing during the week...

but his actions so far, can indicate a cutting of ties. getting ready to run...
How so?

How so?

he's quitting. so no work ties. we don't know about any family he may have... the fact that he did this via third person (his lawyer) while there is an on going investigation...

I hope he's not, but his actions are suspicious. including the 'not showing up for the interview with superiors and investigators' bit.

he's quitting. so no work ties. we don't know about any family he may have... the fact that he did this via third person (his lawyer) while there is an on going investigation...

I hope he's not, but his actions are suspicious. including the 'not showing up for the interview with superiors and investigators' bit.

I'm not convinced, and I don't suspect him for wanting to flee based on him not showing up for the interview.

And I know that if I wanted to flee, I wouldn't bother quitting my job :p

How the fuck do you confuse a taser with a gun? I call bullshit.
Human stupidity is a powerful thing.
why don't you go into you wife's "special" closet and tell us if they're at all similar?





.....what? His wife's a cop. What the hell were you people thinking?




pervs
IMS, LG knows the business end of a taser better than most.
In case you didn't post it already: http://www.fashionfunky.com/2008/05/pink_tampon_taser.php
I knew tampons could induce toxic shock, but this is ridiculous.
I just really want to turn to a mugger and say, "Back off, asshole. I've got TAMPONS." :D
I know I'd run away. Especially if they were pink.
Well, it does look like he thought he was pulling a Taser.

Maybe they should redesign Tasers so that they neither look nor feel like pistols.
Do they look or feel like pistols now? I wouldn't have thought so, but I don't really have any experience with either of them.
all the people that die from them seem to suggest otherwise. the fact the we call it a 'non-lethal' weapon is what got us to this point in the first place.
I think "less-lethal" is the term preferred now. Because they can kill people, they just probably won't.

cops don't get to shoot people if it is not absolutely vital to their own safety or the safety of others. not with bullets, not with electricity, not with beanbags, not with chemicals. we need to stop letting this shit slide and start making some examples.
I agree.
If a suspect is not complying with a lawful order, the police are authorized by law to use any means short of lethal force to enforce compliance.

That is, they can wrestle you, taze you, pepper spray you, and dogpile on you until you comply.
And what lawful order was the victim refusing to comply with when he was being held face down on the ground?

Are you saying that a person should simply be able to walk away from any policeman, even if they are truly a criminal suspect, and that the police should have zero options?
Are you saying the police can shoot dead a man they already have restrained just as much as they can shoot someone who's shooting at them?
I would rather a court decide his guilt or innocence.

The facts that
1) He pulled a weapon and fired it while an officer was subduing the person
2) His claim that he thought he was pulling out a taser instead of his gun
3) The fact that the person was being subdued without apparent trouble

tells me that Guilty or Innocent... he shouldn't be allowed a weapon more sophisticated than a baton.
He didn't claim that he made a mistake. Unnamed other people did. He, as far as I know, has not said a word to anyone except his lawyer.
Batons are statistically more lethal than Tasers.
Nobody cares.
Also in the news:



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155CN1.DTL



http://www.mercurynews.com/localnews/ci_11394377

His refusal to explain himself makes me suspect this wasn't simply a mistake...
That is the biggest load of shit ever. What's the chances by time the cops actually decide that they really need to interview this guy he'll have killed himself or fucked off to Mexico or something?

if you don't like me pointing out the errors in your statements, don't make statements with errors. More to point the "issue in the thread" doesn't involve a fleeing anyone, so you're the one who sidetracked it.

But nice attempt at a dodge there.

How is a man tied up on the sidewalk, "fleeing"?

That's his point, Hotwife, that this situation DOESN'T involve a fleeing person (hence his use of the contraction "doesn't), yet YOU brought up the premise of when people can shoot at fleeing people, thus YOU sidetracked it before accusing him of doing so.

In most American courts, police or not, if you don't have physical evidence, you have next to nothing. So you're asking for convictions based on "he said, she said" testimony, where it's the word of a policeman vs. the word of a suspect.

You obviously have lots of trouble understanding what I've written.

The idea that I haven't found "evidence to the contrary" doesn't mean such evidence does not exist, and means only that you're lazy in your efforts (probably, you don't want to find any).

The evidence disproving me might exist. I wouldn't know. You haven't found it.

I found a study which supported my argument. You can do the same.

I doubt if you'll find large numbers of anyone convicted in the US with zero physical evidence.

This has nothing to do with my argument. Try again.

That is the biggest load of shit ever. What's the chances by time the cops actually decide that they really need to interview this guy he'll have killed himself or fucked off to Mexico or something?
I don't know, but I'm guessing it would beabout the same as if he was arrested and then let out on bail.

Don't know if he could be let out on bail either, for that matter...

I think the issue is that if any civilian had been filmed shooting an unarmed person in the back while the victim was being restrained on the ground, they would have been arrested and held without bail with absolutely no questions asked.

If we are all equal under the law, then the cop should also be immediately arrested and held without bail.

Since the former police officer was left to his own devices, this represents a severe example of inequality under the law.

He didn't claim that he made a mistake. Unnamed other people did. He, as far as I know, has not said a word to anyone except his lawyer.

agreed. I did mis-read that as coming from him or his lawyer in an unoffical statement.

Human stupidity is a powerful thing.

I don't see why "complete incompetence" keeps coming up as a defense.

I don't see why "complete incompetence" keeps coming up as a defense.

Stupid cop is a small step up from homicidal cop.

Stupid cop is a small step up from homicidal cop.

In rate of disastrous outcome, I guess, since a homicidal cop will go out of his way more to kill...I guess...

At least there are also some "Smart, well-trained cops"....but then, that means there may also be also "Smart, well-trained, homicidal cops"....

In rate of disastrous outcome, I guess, since a homicidal cop will go out of his way more to kill...I guess...

At least there are also some "Smart, well-trained cops"....but then, that means there may also be also "Smart, well-trained, homicidal cops"....

At least the stupid, badly trained, homicidal cops won't be too hard to find.

At least the stupid, badly trained, homicidal cops won't be too hard to find.

See, this is why I think multi-classing is a two-edged sword...

Batons are statistically more lethal than Tasers.

and statistically you're more likely to be killed by an asteroid hitting the Earth than from crossing the road.

In other words: If you had a pencil and a sharpener, you might have a point.

How is that negligent?

Negligence means you didn't do anything to stop it when you could have. The cop pulled a gun and fired. That's not negligence. Negligence could be when the other Transit Cops let their colleague shoot the guy in the back, but not the shooting.
...you're defining legal terms for a lawyer?

I wish there were parallel Universes and we could compare outcomes with all else equal if the event had and had not been recorded.

Seems like he isn't.


But while I agree with the part about being charged, my question is Why should he be arrested? (especially at this point in time) Because to simply lay the information and charge him would bring the administration of justice into disrepute?

Generally there is no arrest made in summary (misdemeanour in the US) matters...that is to say, in less serious situations, charges are often laid without needing to resort to arrest. In more serious situations, indictable (felony) offences, an arrest is 'expected'.

The message being sent here is that this was not a serious crime.

...since, as I mentioned above, he doesn't appear to be a flight risk, he's unlikely to tamper with evidence, and he's unlikely to commit another crime while waiting for a trial? Appart from pleasing the public, what gain is there?

I think pleasing the public is a good enough reason in this situation. The determination about flight risk, etc, is made during a bail hearing, not by the police. Let him go through the process, just like anyone else would.

Stupid cop is a small step up from homicidal cop.

Except for Dexter of course.

Except for Dexter of course.

Dexter isn't a cop - he's a forensic analyst. Totally different species.

Batons are statistically more lethal than Tasers.

Car accidents are statistically more lethal than plane crashes, but very few people walk away from a plane dropping out of the sky.

I finally saw the video on CNN. It was just uncalled for, I don't blame the people for rioting against it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203345.html Related topic.

I have heard far too many stories of police brutality against restrained or handicapped individuals on national news and through local stories distributed through the internet. I really wonder sometimes how many "killed for resisting arrest" victims are people who the cops shot for fun or out of spite when there was no video evidence to counter their official report. If I can't trust the police to act professionally under such circumstances, how can I ever trust them for anything? I don't trust any cop I don't personally know now.

Only if they are caught on camera and are investigated by a civilian, rather than police, agency.

This particular cop made the mistake of being filmed. He may still get away with it if this crime is investigated by other cops.

I want to see the cameras from the BART station itself. When the original news article came out, the story was that the guy who got shot was extremely drunk and had started to beat up (along with several friends) a middle-aged man. Pulling the taser (or even the gun) at that point makes more sense, even though shooting the guy is still tragic. It feels to me like a mistake.

I want to see the cameras from the BART station itself. When the original news article came out, the story was that the guy who got shot was extremely drunk and had started to beat up (along with several friends) a middle-aged man. Pulling the taser (or even the gun) at that point makes more sense, even though shooting the guy is still tragic. It feels to me like a mistake.

By the time they shot him, he was restrained on the floor.

If some group of citizens had done the same thing, their asses would be in jail now while they're waiting for trial. Why is this cop not arrested?

I want to see the cameras from the BART station itself. When the original news article came out, the story was that the guy who got shot was extremely drunk and had started to beat up (along with several friends) a middle-aged man. Pulling the taser (or even the gun) at that point makes more sense, even though shooting the guy is still tragic. It feels to me like a mistake.

I found two videos of him being shot on the internet without much trouble.

I won't post either here because a video of a man being shot to death would probably break forum rules.

Go to google video, and type in Oscar J. Grant III, and BART and you'll get all the video you want.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11410622

At least 105 people were arrested for a variety of offenses Wednesday night. Police said charges for those arrested included assault on a police officer, looting, vandalism and arson. Some of those detained were found to have drugs, which added another count to the charges.

Angry about the New Year's Day shooting by a BART police officer, protesters smashed businesses and set fires in downtown Oakland, and confronted Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums on the steps of city hall.

So, ya think public pressure will make a difference?

If some group of citizens had done the same thing, their asses would be in jail now while they're waiting for trial. Why is this cop not arrested?

Because justice isn't equal. Are you shocked?

Just because something works quickly for one person, doesn't necessarily mean it should work quickly for others. Police have more responsibility than a normal person, and cannot be treated like they don't. I'm not taking sides, simply saying that things don't always work the same in different situations.

Because justice isn't equal. Are you shocked?

Just because something works quickly for one person, doesn't necessarily mean it should work quickly for others. Police have more responsibility than a normal person, and cannot be treated like they don't. I'm not taking sides, simply saying that things don't always work the same in different situations.

If police have more responsibility than the rest of us then being irresponsible should be a greater offence for them. In how many other professions can you shoot an innocent man in the back in front of witness and on camera and suffer no legal consequences for the next week?

If police have more responsibility than the rest of us then being irresponsible should be a greater offence for them. In how many other professions can you shoot an innocent man in the back in front of witness and on camera and suffer no legal consequences for the next week?

I agree, but if its a greater offense our justice system would beg greater caution in approaching the matter as well. The end result should be harsher, but there should (that dreaded word, should) be a corresponding direct correlation between harshness of punishment and caution of investigation.

In how many other professions can you shoot an innocent man in the back in front of witness and on camera and suffer no legal consequences for the next week?

To be fair, he has resigned from the force and im sure is awaiting charges. Do you really think when trials take months/years that a week is going to make any difference?

I found two videos of him being shot on the internet without much trouble.

I wish I could find a clearer video. In the ones I found the officer appeared to consciously aim down the sights of the weapon before firing. One would imagine he'd realize (if he were going for his taser) at that point that he grabbed the wrong one, even if he were scared out of his mind like the cops appeared to be.

I wish I could find a clearer video. In the ones I found the officer appeared to consciously aim down the sights of the weapon before firing. One would imagine he'd realize (if he were going for his taser) at that point that he grabbed the wrong one, even if he were scared out of his mind like the cops appeared to be.

Im still not buying this one. He had no business drawing a Taser any more then he had any business drawing a gun with a suspect cuffed and on the ground with plenty of backup.

Also if he consciously aim down the sights before he fired how did he miss at near point blank range? The bullet hit the pavement first and richoceted hitting victim in the lung on the rebound.

Im still not buying this one. He had no business drawing a Taser any more then he had any business drawing a gun with a suspect cuffed and on the ground with plenty of backup.

I have to agree on this one. If, once the suspect is cuffed and face down, the officer feels the need to even taser him, much less be so scared as to draw and fire a gun, that person doesn't belong in law enforcement.

I wish I could find a clearer video. In the ones I found the officer appeared to consciously aim down the sights of the weapon before firing. One would imagine he'd realize (if he were going for his taser) at that point that he grabbed the wrong one, even if he were scared out of his mind like the cops appeared to be.
I would like to see a cleaner video. the one in the OP shows something happening at the 18 sec mark. that's when the BART closest to the camera, looks down and suddenly moves to put his knee on the subject's back. Grant looks to be moving at that point but it's not clear. that's about the time the officer in question stands and pulls out his gun.

If police have more responsibility than the rest of us then being irresponsible should be a greater offence for them. In how many other professions can you shoot an innocent man in the back in front of witness and on camera and suffer no legal consequences for the next week?the article doesn't make it sound like 'Regular Police'.
And a large turnout is expected Thursday at the regular meeting of the BART board of directors. The shooting is not on the agenda, but board member Tom Radulovich said he planned to introduce a measure to ensure greater oversight of the agency's police force, which has approximately 200 sworn officers.

"The San Francisco Police Department has a police commission. Most other large cities have the same thing," he said. "I actually want to see the BART board step up and give BART police the degree of civilian oversight and review that is the norm in the Bay Area."

and if those officer's are carrying guns, they SHOULD have some oversite.

Im still not buying this one. He had no business drawing a Taser any more then he had any business drawing a gun with a suspect cuffed and on the ground with plenty of backup.

Also if he consciously aim down the sights before he fired how did he miss at near point blank range? The bullet hit the pavement first and richoceted hitting victim in the lung on the rebound.

I have to agree on this one. If, once the suspect is cuffed and face down, the officer feels the need to even taser him, much less be so scared as to draw and fire a gun, that person doesn't belong in law enforcement.

I agree a taser most certainly was not called for. I'm merely stating why the idea he was reaching for his taser is probably quite wrong. As for missing, as I said, he was probably scared shitless and shaking like a leaf and while he may have tried to aim it's not hard to miss with a pistol, even from that range when your hands shaking.

I say he was scared because in my experience doing police type crap in Iraq shit only gets out of hand and crazy like this when the cops are scared.

To be fair, he has resigned from the force and im sure is awaiting charges. Do you really think when trials take months/years that a week is going to make any difference?
To be fair he resigned from the force in response to being called in for an interview about the incident.
the article doesn't make it sound like 'Regular Police'.
I don't know if BART officers are distinct from "regular police" in some way.

To be fair he resigned from the force in response to being called in for an interview about the incident. are you sure that's why he resigned?

I don't know if BART officers are distinct from "regular police" in some way.
from the sound of it, it's run by a different entity.
"The San Francisco Police Department has a police commission. Most other large cities have the same thing," he said. "I actually want to see the BART board step up and give BART police the degree of civilian oversight and review that is the norm in the Bay Area."
the quote from the article makes it sound like the BART Police is under supervision of a board, and that they don't have the same oversite.

are you sure that's why he resigned?
Of course not, but the timing seems convenient. Why not attend the interview and hand in his letter of resignation in person?


from the sound of it, it's run by a different entity.

the quote from the article makes it sound like the BART Police is under supervision of a board, and that they don't have the same oversite.

Could well be, I don't know.

from the sound of it, it's run by a different entity.

The BART police department appears to be like any other police department:
http://www.bart.gov/about/police/

They even have their own SWAT and K-9 units.

Of course not, but the timing seems convenient. Why not attend the interview and hand in his letter of resignation in person?
A number of reasons.

Guilt for what he did (which is not to say he's guilty)
the shock of taking a man's life,
not wanting to go out in public (Seeing how people are reacting to the viral videos)
perhaps the Lawyer was the one that suggested he resign via proxy... we don't know and will find out when the trial comes around.

The BART police department appears to be like any other police department:
http://www.bart.gov/about/police/

They even have their own SWAT and K-9 units.

yet it doesn't sound like they report to the same body politic (police Commissioner). They function as any police department but it appears with less oversight.

yet it doesn't sound like they report to the same body politic (police Commissioner). They function as any police department but it appears with less oversight.

It actually appears more as if they are a state police department, rather than a county or city department. This would make sense, as the BART runs through multiple jurisdictions.

If this cop gets off without charges Dexter will take care of him.

If this cop gets off without charges Dexter will take care of him.

I can already picture the episode being written.

if not Dexter, it will appear on Law & Order...

It actually appears more as if they are a state police department, rather than a county or city department. This would make sense, as the BART runs through multiple jurisdictions.

that makes more sense.

Im still not buying this one. He had no business drawing a Taser any more then he had any business drawing a gun with a suspect cuffed and on the ground with plenty of backup.

Also if he consciously aim down the sights before he fired how did he miss at near point blank range? The bullet hit the pavement first and richoceted hitting victim in the lung on the rebound.

And important thing to note is I don't believe the actual autopsy has been released yet. Only info I've seen in regards to it is from the victim's family's lawyer, and he's an ambulance chaser who isn't worth a damn-all of respect.

I want to see the cameras from the BART station itself. When the original news article came out, the story was that the guy who got shot was extremely drunk and had started to beat up (along with several friends) a middle-aged man. Pulling the taser (or even the gun) at that point makes more sense, even though shooting the guy is still tragic. It feels to me like a mistake.

There ye go....
http://www.ktvu.com/video/18406930/index.html

I want to see the cameras from the BART station itself. When the original news article came out, the story was that the guy who got shot was extremely drunk and had started to beat up (along with several friends) a middle-aged man. Pulling the taser (or even the gun) at that point makes more sense, even though shooting the guy is still tragic. It feels to me like a mistake.

Oh yeah, he was obviously kicking the crap out of some one while restrained face down on the ground.

Also, that officer was obviously pulling a gun on purpose.

Also if he consciously aim down the sights before he fired how did he miss at near point blank range? The bullet hit the pavement first and richoceted hitting victim in the lung on the rebound.

From reading the article I was under the impression that he shot the guy through the back, the bullet exited the other side, ricocheted, then went back in. No idea if that's possible or not, but that's the impression I got.

I can already picture the episode being written.

The L&O episode is probably already finished.

Also, that officer was obviously pulling a gun on purpose.
Is this obvious to you? In at least the video I saw, he pulled his gun, shot the man, and then looked like he had just swallowed a puffer fish. Or an elephant. He was surprised off his ass.

Is this obvious to you? In at least the video I saw, he pulled his gun, shot the man, and then looked like he had just swallowed a puffer fish. Or an elephant. He was surprised off his ass.

Yeah, I saw that too.

Is this obvious to you? In at least the video I saw, he pulled his gun, shot the man, and then looked like he had just swallowed a puffer fish. Or an elephant. He was surprised off his ass.

In that case, what the hell had he been smoking/snorting/mainlining before his shift???

The L&O episode is probably already finished.

They've already done episodes with this general plot. In fact, my first thought when reading this was, "This sounds like an episode of Law and Order."

To be fair, he has resigned from the force and im sure is awaiting charges. Do you really think when trials take months/years that a week is going to make any difference?

He resigned so he wouldn't have to give a report, and I don't believe he is awaiting charges.

So, ya think public pressure will make a difference?

Not a damn bit. The victim's family has pleaded for an end to the violence--which probably also won't make a damn bit of difference.

And important thing to note is I don't believe the actual autopsy has been released yet. Only info I've seen in regards to it is from the victim's family's lawyer, and he's an ambulance chaser who isn't worth a damn-all of respect.

No, the only info you've seen is two videos showing a cop shooting a civilian in the back, point-blank. But I'm sure the autopsy will clear up that confusing scenario.

Is this obvious to you? In at least the video I saw, he pulled his gun, shot the man, and then looked like he had just swallowed a puffer fish. Or an elephant. He was surprised off his ass.

He looked shocked, and the other officer looked shocked. That doesn't mean he didn't mean to do it. Have you ever lost your temper and gone off on someone, and then been shocked by what you said? At the very least, the videos show that the shooting was entirely unprovoked, and it should dispel the rumors that the victim was fighting/resisting/beating someone up from the minds of reasonable people.

There ye go....
http://www.ktvu.com/video/18406930/index.html

okay.
The shooting appears to be a grave wrong on the officer's fault.

What makes this tragedy worse is it appears the family has hired the worst attorney in the world. Not only could he not be bothered to put on a suit (or at least something with a collar) before he went on TV. He talked way too much and any jury formed may be considered tainted.

The tazer that is used by cops is made so similar to a regular gun that it gets the cops used to the idea of pulling out something like a pistol and shooting. witch may explain his reaction, he was so high on his power trip didnt pay much attention to what he pulled out and bang.

The tazer that is used by cops is made so similar to a regular gun that it gets the cops used to the idea of pulling out something like a pistol and shooting. witch may explain his reaction, he was so high on his power trip didnt pay much attention to what he pulled out and bang.

Which not only points out lethal incompetence, but severe abuse of power.

The tazer that is used by cops is made so similar to a regular gun that it gets the cops used to the idea of pulling out something like a pistol and shooting. witch may explain his reaction, he was so high on his power trip didnt pay much attention to what he pulled out and bang.

Even pulling a taser at that stage would be an unnecessary use of force. I don't see how saying "Well, I didn't mean to shoot him, just tazer him unnecessarily, and I'm incompetent enough to get a gun instead" is any improvement.