NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't find the original thread, so I'll post it here. After a full investigation, the ex-officer involved with the shooting was arrested on a fugitive warrant for homicide. This is after an investigation from his department.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/14/BART.shooting.arrest/

Finally.

How the fuck was he not arrested sooner? :confused:

How the fuck was he not arrested sooner? :confused:

Unlike the rest of us, he has a union.

Unlike the rest of us, he has a union.

Then he gets 2 paid 30 minute breaks on an 8 hour shift.

He freakin' got caught on tape!

How the fuck was he not arrested sooner? :confused:

Part of it, I assume, is the presumption that he was acting correctly. When a cop shoots someone, it isn't like if you or I were in the road and shot someone. As such, more of the investigation happens before the arrest warrant is issued. And, although it seems longer, the shooting happened on 1/1, the warrant was issued on 1/12, and he surrendered on 1/14. I know at my work 10 business days is a standard time to inspect something someone did and decide if it was wrong or not (Sexual Harassment charges, surfing porn on the web, etc)

Took em long enough.

Part of it, I assume, is the presumption that he was acting correctly. When a cop shoots someone, it isn't like if you or I were in the road and shot someone. As such, more of the investigation happens before the arrest warrant is issued. And, although it seems longer, the shooting happened on 1/1, the warrant was issued on 1/12, and he surrendered on 1/14. I know at my work 10 business days is a standard time to inspect something someone did and decide if it was wrong or not (Sexual Harassment charges, surfing porn on the web, etc)

Yeah, but he wasn't stealing post-it notes.

Part of it, I assume, is the presumption that he was acting correctly. When a cop shoots someone, it isn't like if you or I were in the road and shot someone. As such, more of the investigation happens before the arrest warrant is issued. And, although it seems longer, the shooting happened on 1/1, the warrant was issued on 1/12, and he surrendered on 1/14. I know at my work 10 business days is a standard time to inspect something someone did and decide if it was wrong or not (Sexual Harassment charges, surfing porn on the web, etc)

That would be a reasonable presumption, if he had not been filmed shooting a person in the back while they were pinned to the ground. The default view at that point should be that there has been a crime committed on the part of the shooter, no matter what their job is. If they want to argue about it, they can do so in court.

Then he gets 2 paid 30 minute breaks on an 8 hour shift.

He freakin' got caught on tape!

We're talking about a union that makes political trouble. It's not like a situation where one of us was caught shooting someone in the back on video.

We would be truly fucked.

Police, on the other hand, will get an army of lawyers from the police union, a police union spokesman doing PR, and police union leaders talking to politicians.

I bet he pleads to involuntary manslaughter ("made a mistake").

We're talking about a union that makes political trouble. It's not like a situation where one of us was caught shooting someone in the back on video.

We would be truly fucked.

Police, on the other hand, will get an army of lawyers from the police union, a police union spokesman doing PR, and police union leaders talking to politicians.

I bet he pleads to involuntary manslaughter ("made a mistake").

Perhaps, but with proof that concrete, I'm stunned he wasn't charged on the spot.

Perhaps, but with proof that concrete, I'm stunned he wasn't charged on the spot.

Still, even with the video, it looks like he could claim it was an accident.

That would be a reasonable presumption, if he had not been filmed shooting a person in the back while they were pinned to the ground. The default view at that point should be that there has been a crime committed on the part of the shooter, no matter what their job is. If they want to argue about it, they can do so in court.

I disagree. There are all sorts of extenuating circumstances that could have been present calling for the officer to draw his gun and shoot the victim, and a video would very easily miss a great deal of them. In this particular case there were none, but the fact that there could have been warrants the police investigation at least. The potential for police collusion exists, of course, but I personally believe that we don't want police to be hesitant to use their firearms in legitimate situations because of how it might appear on someone's cell phone video after the fact. Allow the police to conduct their investigations, then the officers can have their day in court.

Still, even with the video, it looks like he could claim it was an accident.

Even accidental, it's still a crime.

Even accidental, it's still a crime.

Nuh uh. That would be some kind of "criminal" negligence.

Even accidental, it's still a crime.

I'm just saying it's unlikely he's convicted of first degree murder.

I'm just saying it's unlikely he's convicted of first degree murder.

I understand.

I'm just saying that I'm surprised he wasn't in custody earlier.

I understand.

I'm just saying that I'm surprised he wasn't in custody earlier.

And I think that has everything to do with the police union.

I understand.

I'm just saying that I'm surprised he wasn't in custody earlier.

However, if they determined he was justified in firing, then there would be no crime. Hence the lack of an immediate arrest.

However, if they determined he was justified in firing, then there would be no crime. Hence the lack of an immediate arrest.

Have you seen the video? I doubt it.

I disagree. There are all sorts of extenuating circumstances that could have been present calling for the officer to draw his gun and shoot the victim, and a video would very easily miss a great deal of them. In this particular case there were none, but the fact that there could have been warrants the police investigation at least. The potential for police collusion exists, of course, but I personally believe that we don't want police to be hesitant to use their firearms in legitimate situations because of how it might appear on someone's cell phone video after the fact. Allow the police to conduct their investigations, then the officers can have their day in court.

No. Officers damn well should be hesitant to use their firearms, because their firearms are deadly weapons. Maybe I'm a little biased on that, coming from a country where police normally carry a baton at most, but I don't see why the servants of the law should be anything other than hesitant when using something that is designed to kill.

He should have been arrested straight away, on the weight of the evidence directly available. The police can then conduct an internal investigation into whether the shooting is justified, which could be used at trial or at preliminary hearings, but his recorded actions were quite enough to arrest and charge him straight away.

Edit:

However, if they determined he was justified in firing, then there would be no crime. Hence the lack of an immediate arrest.

No, if he was justified in firing, they could present this as a defense, or as an argument about why the case should be thrown out. However, he should still have been arrested. We don't get to determine whether anyone else is justified in killing without going through the legal system, why should cops get a special privilege there?

However, if they determined he was justified in firing, then there would be no crime. Hence the lack of an immediate arrest.

Unless there was a credible threat of a leopard leaping out of the man's back, "justified shooting" is hard to swallow.

Unlike the rest of us, he has a union.

Yes. What other reason could there be.

Unless there was a credible threat of a leopard leaping out of the man's back, "justified shooting" is hard to swallow.

I'm told his counsel is currently crafting a defense based around the existence of a martial art form that allows one to kill in 11 different ways from the "on-my-stomach-and-handcuffed" stance.

Its actually quite deadly, and includes an arsenal of effective weapons including ball-gags and lube.

Many practitioners of this style keep their mastery secret, so the cop had no way of knowing.

It's good to see justice being served. Did anyone ever find out if the BART officer was carrying a taser? I know that there was speculation he was reaching for that instead of his gun.

I'm just saying it's unlikely he's convicted of first degree murder.

No shit. He'd be on a second-degree murder charge.

Im thinking hes more likely to be charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence.

I'm told his counsel is currently crafting a defense based around the existence of a martial art form that allows one to kill in 11 different ways from the "on-my-stomach-and-handcuffed" stance.

Its actually quite deadly, and includes an arsenal of effective weapons including ball-gags and lube.

Many practitioners of this style keep their mastery secret, so the cop had no way of knowing.

The clowns invented it. It's called Perp-fu *nod* Actually, the mime, Marcel Marceau invented it, but as she was the only mime to master the art and the clowns have adopted it as one of their three sactioned forms of self-defense along with Shaq-fu and Clown-fu, and actually put it to real world use, I think we can let this factoid slide.

Unless there was a credible threat of a leopard leaping out of the man's back, "justified shooting" is hard to swallow.

I know. Don't confuse my argument for a defense of what he did. But regardless of how apparent someone's guilt is, they're still entitled to the same due process as anyone else. If this happened with no video, people wouldn't still be clamoring for his arrest without an investigation.

I know. Don't confuse my argument for a defense of what he did. But regardless of how apparent someone's guilt is, they're still entitled to the same due process as anyone else. If this happened with no video, people wouldn't still be clamoring for his arrest without an investigation.

To be honest, though, would that investigation have to be much more than the other cops having seen what he did?

There are times when an investigation can meet a standard of thoroughness without much more than "Holy shit...did you see what he just did?"

Nobody likes to arrest their own partner, but man...

Yay!

No. Officers damn well should be hesitant to use their firearms, because their firearms are deadly weapons. Maybe I'm a little biased on that, coming from a country where police normally carry a baton at most, but I don't see why the servants of the law should be anything other than hesitant when using something that is designed to kill.

He should have been arrested straight away, on the weight of the evidence directly available. The police can then conduct an internal investigation into whether the shooting is justified, which could be used at trial or at preliminary hearings, but his recorded actions were quite enough to arrest and charge him straight away.

Edit:



No, if he was justified in firing, they could present this as a defense, or as an argument about why the case should be thrown out. However, he should still have been arrested. We don't get to determine whether anyone else is justified in killing without going through the legal system, why should cops get a special privilege there?

No. Absolutely not. We are not going to arrest every single cop who uses their gun. Cops get a special privilege specifically because they are cops, specifically because we as a society afford them all sorts of special privileges in order to BE law enforcement.

To be honest, though, would that investigation have to be much more than the other cops having seen what he did?

There are times when an investigation can meet a standard of thoroughness without much more than "Holy shit...did you see what he just did?"

Nobody likes to arrest their own partner, but man...

Probably not. With that video, I doubt much else was required in the way of evidence before the investigation was concluded. The point, still, is that we shouldn't just abandon the process of law just because of a condemning video.

No. Absolutely not. We are not going to arrest every single cop who uses their gun. Cops get a special privilege specifically because they are cops, specifically because we as a society afford them all sorts of special privileges in order to BE law enforcement.

I think universe is talking about this particular case. In the video it looks pretty intentional.

Which brings me back to my previous post. Does anyone know if the officer was carrying a taser as well???

Probably not. With that video, I doubt much else was required in the way of evidence before the investigation was concluded. The point, still, is that we shouldn't just abandon the process of law just because of a condemning video.

I agree, but an arrest with sufficient cause can be part of the process of law, not just the abandoning of it.

No. Absolutely not. We are not going to arrest every single cop who uses their gun. Cops get a special privilege specifically because they are cops, specifically because we as a society afford them all sorts of special privileges in order to BE law enforcement.

Right, but this wasn't just a cop using their gun, it was using it in a very specific way, and there was immediately available, compelling evidence of that.

Right, but this wasn't just a cop using their gun, it was using it in a very specific way, and there was immediately available, compelling evidence of that.

What's that old saying...

..."The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind fine."

About damned time.

What's that old saying...

..."The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind fine."

You're taking it out of context. The original complete axiom is:

"The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind fine, like an around-the-way girl, so fine, she grinds, on the dance floor, in my bed, on my mind."

-Supreme Court Justice Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar

How the fuck was he not arrested sooner? :confused:

Due process. It applies to everyone, in every situation. 14 days in the current justice system is pretty damned quick.

The clowns invented it. It's called Perp-fu *nod* Actually, the mime, Marcel Marceau invented it, but as she was the only mime to master the art and the clowns have adopted it as one of their three sactioned forms of self-defense along with Shaq-fu and Clown-fu, and actually put it to real world use, I think we can let this factoid slide.

Marcel Marceau had a sex change? When was that?

Marcel Marceau had a sex change? When was that?

Oops. Typo. I knew she was a she. :p

Oops. Typo. I knew she was a she. :p

No, the typo was "she", I just bolded what you wrote -- I'd never presume to correct you words, Your Supreme Hilarity. Marcel's a dude.

Based upon what the video shows, if I was his partner on that beat I would have said the following:

"Bro, I hate to do this, but I am afraid I must. Hands on the wall. *cuffing officer* I am placing under arrest for involuntary manslaughter (giving him the benefit of the doubt). I know you know the following, but it is standard procedure. You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to forfeit this right, anything you do or say will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney during questioning and the trial. If you cannot afford an attorney, and you desire to consult one, one will be provided for you at the state's expense. Do you understand these rights that I have said to you?"

Thus I would have arrested him on the spot. That is permissible under some circumstances.

Haven't read the thread except for the OP, but I'll say that's both surprising and damn good.

Unlike the rest of us, he has a union.

Speak for yourself.

*flings math dittos in your face and runs*

No, the typo was "she", I just bolded what you wrote -- I'd never presume to correct you words, Your Supreme Hilarity. Marcel's a dude.

*pulls up some pics of Marcel Marceau*

*squints*

Are you sure?

We must perform an exhumation! I'll get my kit.

I don't mind that it took some time to get him arrested. Let the investigation take as long as it takes; rather that then the accused walk on a missed fact or loophole.

We must perform an exhumation! I'll get my kit.

*hands you an invisible prybar* You'll need this to get the box open. *nod*

you can't ALWAYS hide cold blooded murder behind a badge and a uniform. good on the state of nevada for arresting him.

*hands you an invisible prybar* You'll need this to get the box open. *nod*

I have to say that I object to mime-phillia, in all its forms.

Finally.

Even if the man is not guilty of homicide he is guilty of manslaughter, and I think the charges should reflect that.

Perhaps, but with proof that concrete, I'm stunned he wasn't charged on the spot.

simple. Once the arrest is made, the defendant has a right to a speedy trial. meaning, you don't build a case after the arrest is made but before. The video, while damning, doesn't give the whole story and after the OJ decible, prosecutors may want to make sure all the evidence is ready before the arrest is made.

Referring to Mehserle's arrest, BART said, "This comes after the BART Police Department conducted a thorough investigation that involved nine detectives, which BART Police turned over to District Attorney Thomas Orloff on Monday, January 12."

So this takes time. can you imagine the outcry if he got off due to some technicallity?

So this takes time. can you imagine the outcry if he got off due to some technicallity?

This is the best reason I've heard to keep him out until the case was built. I started off on the side of the officer, then saw the videos and changed my mind. I still don't think he did it intentionally, but there is no question that a crime was committed (at least in my mind, legally, of course, he is innocent.)

Brings to mind a new question. To those of you who think the mini-riot held in "protest" helped or hindered him being charged, and do you feel the violence and criminal acts of those in the riot should be forgiven?

This is the best reason I've heard to keep him out until the case was built. I started off on the side of the officer, then saw the videos and changed my mind. I still don't think he did it intentionally, but there is no question that a crime was committed (at least in my mind, legally, of course, he is innocent.)

Brings to mind a new question. To those of you who think the mini-riot held in "protest" helped or hindered him being charged, and do you feel the violence and criminal acts of those in the riot should be forgiven?

Hopefully, it did neither; the persons responsible for the decision to prosecute should not have considered it at all. As to the rioters, let them pay for their crimes. They have the right to protest; there is no right to violent riot.