I hadn’t commented on the Oscar Grant case because I figured everyone had already seen the video, and because what is there to say? The cop pulled a gun on an unarmed man who was pinned to the floor, and then shot and killed him. Twenty years ago, some ridiculous self-defense excuse would have been manufactured, and nothing would have happened. Fortunately, something will happen in this case.
At any rate, things are starting to get ugly:
Protesters angry over a deadly New Year’s Day shooting of a young black man by a transit police officer erupted into violence in downtown Oakland on Wednesday night while investigators struggled to determine what prompted the officer to fire his gun into the unarmed man’s back.
After an afternoon of peaceful demonstrations and a memorial service, protests turned chaotic after dark as a small clutch of protesters set trash cans and cars afire and busted windows on police cruisers and storefronts. Police in riot gear responded with tear gas and billy clubs and at least 14 arrests were made, according to local television reports. Several major downtown streets were closed, and helicopter footage showed small groups of protesters roaming through the city’s deserted center. There were no immediate reports of injuries, but sirens continued to echo into the late evening.
I have watched the video a number of times, and I just can not figure out what is going through the cops head. Did he mean to pull a taser? Did he mean to pull his gun but not fire? Why did he even pull the gun in the first place? And the best question, since Oscar Grant was described as the victim, why were they even restraining him?
The whole thing is awful, makes no sense, and I really hope Oakland calms down and justice is served.
Zifnab
Believe there was a request some time back for torches and pitchforks. I guess this is better late than never.
Keith
I’ve heard the taser defense before (it was successfully used in some other state), but having never held a police taser before, anyone know if they normally have pistol grips and triggers? Ones I’ve seen demo’ed do not, so you have to be a complete dipshit, stoned out of your mind, or lying to mistake one of the kinds I’ve seen for a pistol. I’d like to give the police the benefit of the dou….wait, no, I don’t.
Jennifer
Even if the cop thought he was pulling out his taser, what the fuck is up with tasering someone who’s already been restrained?
A taser isn’t an excuse to torture and inflict pain on people who are not resisting.
That fact in and of itself raises this incident to the level of first degree murder.
Conservatively Liberal
You are probably right about how this would have been swept under the rug (planted gun, fighting arrest, etc.) and everyone would have walked (except the dead).
What he did is inexplicable. He shot a man in the back, his attorney arrives less than two hours later, the guy quits his job and clams up. From the reaction of the other cops on the scene, what he did was completely unexpected.
Sorry, but I can’t help but feel that if this was a rich white guy who was killed then this cop would be in jail right now. I hope justice is served but I know how the ‘Thin Blue Line’ works.
Really sad, but the worst part is that it is going to happen again. It always does.
Conservatively Liberal
There is a considerable difference in the heft alone between a real gun and a Taser. IMO, there is no way you could mistake one for the other unless you were maybe in a panicked rush to pull and fire. Cop friends of ours use them and I have seen them up close, IMO there is no f’ing way someone could mistake one for the other.
John Cole
The only thing I can think is that he just lost his mind- maybe he was reaching for his cuffs, pulled his gun instead, and not thinking, instinct kicked in and he pulled the trigger. He may not have intended to shoot him at all or even pull his gun, but when he did, reflexes kicked in.
And that isn’t excusing him, just that this whole thing is so bizarre that seems to be the only plausible answer.
robertdsc
I think this is the most remarkable part. Amazing how that happened so quickly.
Zifnab
Really? What the hell are they training our cops when, "Draw firearm, aim into suspect’s back, and pull trigger" is the instinctive response? Has this happened more than once? Is three rounds to the back SOP for the Oakland police office?
At the very least, I’ll say this makes an excellent argument for tasers. If you can’t control your cops, at least give them weapons that aren’t quiet as fatal.
ksmiami
Oh yeah – did I mention that I REALLY REALLY HATE COPS in the current form. Currently the US has too many criminal codes, too many prisoners and too many police. Maybe firemen should be the ones enforcing the laws – they at least understand the general meaning of protect and serve
John Cole
No, and again, I am just trying to make sense of it. For me, the best way I can describe it is a muscle memory sort of thing- once the gun was drawn, pulling the trigger was a familiar muscle memory action.
Think of it this way- have you ever been in a car with someone, and they go to brake suddenly, miss the brake, hit the accelerator, and even when it is obvious they are on the wrong pedal, they still keep clamping down accelerating? Sort of a short circuit of the brain, if you will.
Again, this is the only thing I can think happened. Otherwise, your option is he, in cold blood, pulled his gun and executed the guy in front of a large crowd with videotaping devices. Given the choices, my option suddenly seems more plausible.
As to him immediately quitting his job, that suggests to me someone traumatized by the incident, not someone guilty of intentional crime (they would just stay under the protection of the force and go on unpaid leave). And clamming up, from a legal perspective, is not a sign of guilt, it is just the smart thing to do. What happened to Grant is horrifying, but this cop still has legal rights.
Joshua Norton
Another case of people just reading the headlines and drawing their own conclusions. The "victim" was part of a crowd on punks who were brawling on a free BART train being provided to take people home on New Years Eve and there were innocent passengers being attacked. They were tearing the place apart and when the BART system stopped the train running in Oakland so police could control the situation, the melee spilled onto the platform. That’s why there were people in handcuffs.
The local TV stations and press are having a field day with this running the videos and pictures 24/7. No one knows what exactly happened during the shooting yet, but as usual the talking heads have started to interview "experts" to put their own uninformed spin on it and to keep the population wound up.
Punchy
Allow me to translate: "while fellow officers struggled to formulate a decent bullshit excuse they will use to cover for their peer".
I’m awaiting the accompanying Ice Cube rap along the lines of "We Had to Tear This Mothafucka Up".
cleek
i want a riot of my own!
Bob In Pacifica
The problem in Oakland is that a week after the incident no one has even questioned the cop. By regulation he can be compelled to answer questions in front of a review board (he is a cop for the BART system, not the City of Oakland) which explains why when he was scheduled to appear yesterday he abruptly resigned.
It’s now been a week and no one in authority has even questioned this guy, much less arrested him. The only thing in doubt is what was going on in this guy’s head because there is no doubt about what he did. That is why it is so frustrating that it’s taken so long. The guy has been given a week now to invent an excuse.
Grant, while being held down, begged not to be tased because he had a child. So the cop shot him in the back. The bullet passed through Grant’s body, hit the concrete floor and then ricocheted back into Grant.
Some speculation: 1.) The cop’s wife gave birth within a day or two of the incident and he may have not had enough sleep. 2.) It was New Year’s. Maybe he was drinking too. 3.) Maybe he’s a vet of Iraq or Afghanistan and was having a flashback. 4.) He can’t tell the difference between a taser and his gun. 5.) He’s the dumbest rent-a-cop in history.
In any case, it seems like BART and Oakland have failed failed failed in not bringing this cop in for questioning. Let us hope that he hasn’t already flown out of the country.
"Mall Cop"? How about "BART Cop"?
matt
There are other plausible explanations, for example, the cop had a grudge against the victim.
John Cole
@Joshua Norton: That was the worst trolling effort ever, and in particularly poor taste to blame the victim, who not only is a victim in the shooting, but was alleged to be a victim in the fight that led to the shooting.
Jennifer
Having read the other comments, again, I ask: what possible excuse could this cop have had for even reaching for his taser when the victim was already lying on the ground and was not fighting or resisting?
Cops, the justice system, and too many people in this country tend to dismiss tasering because it’s not lethal (or at least it rarely is). That’s the wrong approach. Since when it is ok for law enforcement officers to inflict pain on people who are restrained in their custody? That’s the central issue here.
Michael D.
@John Cole:
I get what you are saying, John, but this didn’t even look like a TENSE situation to me. At least not as tense as BART cops might see on a regular night in San Fran. It looks like an annoying situation that occurs regularly. Looks to me like there were enough people there to handle it manually.
Obviously, cops have guns for a reason. The reason CANNOT be "I thought this handcuffed guy was going to punch me in the face and give me a bloody nose"
Look, I’m a person who defends cops against a lot of odds, but I think this was murder.
I give cops a LOT of latitude. But not so much to excuse them from obvious crimes.
I saw NOTHING in that video that said "Suspect posed a danger to officer’s life." Far from it. "Suspect was an asshole" is not a reason to shoot him.
Bob In Pacifica
As far as investigators struggling, it’s kind of hard to figure out "what prompted the officer to fire his gun into the unarmed man’s back" if you don’t ask him.
By the way, if that young man was standing over a dead cop with a smoking gun there wouldn’t be much concern over the shooter’s motive. No one would be waiting a week to have him drop by the station house to give his side of the story.
Joshua Norton
That’s where all the he-said/she-said is coming in. Members of the gang involved are saying he was with them and other people are claiming he wasn’t.
The killing isn’t justified at all, but there’s more to it than a cop arbitrarily shooting someone at random. And that’s the story that’s being told out here.
Rob R
If I shot an unarmed man under any circumstances, the investigation would be performed while I was in a cell. If the tables were turned and I shot an unarmed cop, the investigation would be performed while I was hanging in a cell.
At minimum the videos show probable cause for manslaughter. The fact that this cop, in the face of all this video evidence, is allowed to wander around lawyered up while the investigation is underway is disgusting, and I don’t blame the people of Oakland for being enraged. Clap the bastard in irons, arraign him, and let him convince a jury "Whoopsie! I tot I haz tazer, kthx?"
The Other Steve
Isn’t this obviously the fault of Obama?
The Other Steve
I thought the story was about a guy restrained on the floor and shot in the back?
Michael D.
@The Other Steve:
WTF are you talking about? The proper statement is that “This is good for McCain!”
Punchy
Wow. If your first instinct when confronted by adversity is to instantly pull a gun and start squeezing, you most certainly aren’t cop-material.
4tehlulz
@The Other Steve
So true. If he had just allowed Hillary to be the nominee, blacks in Oakland would have been depressed and stayed at home, avoiding this whole regrettable incident.
[/PUMA]
The Other Steve
Good point. Clearly electing Obama was the worst thing to ever happen to race relations in this country.
Zifnab
Honestly, I think this is more plausible. The guy did or said something that pissed him off – maybe he called the cop a "pig", maybe he started professing his innocence to loudly, maybe he was just being too much of a nuisance for the cop to handle – and the cops threw him on the ground to cuff him. And when the kid decided not to go down peacefully enough, the cop decided the easiest thing to do was shove a gun in the kid’s back.
And whether he did or didn’t mean to pull the trigger – maybe you’re right, and at that point squeezing off a round was just instinctive – at some level he was still more than willing to end this kid’s life if it meant getting him in line. Shoving a loaded gun into someone’s back is a de facto indicator that you are ready to kill that person. Crowds and video cameras be damned.
The Other Steve
Whoa, I just realized I could get a job at the National Review writing for The Corner.
MikeJ
I’m waiting to hear from the people who always pop up after a school shooting. If more people in the crowd had been armed they could have taken the scumbag cop down.
TheFountainHead
If I lived in Oakland, I’d be calling everyone, even the goddamn dog catcher, 24/7, to arrest this guy. I mean, it’s one thing to claim there’s an explanation for this (there really can’t be though) but it’s another thing entirely to treat him differently just because he’s a cop. Unacceptable and inexplicable.
4tehlulz
@Punchy: At least outside LA or NY.
Dork
Completely explicable. Suspect Black. Thus probably guilty. Nuff said.
Signed,
Rush L.
Face
BART police officers are very nice people.
liberal
Don’t forget the harsh punishments meted out in Britain for executing that guy in the subway by mistake.
Not.
John Cole
Who you going to believe, Josh norton or your lying eyes. No one here is claiming he was shooting people at random, everyone here is stating that for no valid reason whatsoever, he pulled his gun and shot an unarmed restrained man in the back.
TheFountainHead
Apparently right up until they shoot you in the back.
TheFountainHead
It’s also pretty clear from the video that everyone on the train thought the situation was fucked from the word GO. My guess is that even if there hadn’t been a shooting, there would have been some sort of outcry over the whole situation. I can only assume that there’s more to this story we just don’t know. Maybe because everyone involved seems to have clammed up completely.
benjoya
jennifer asks the right question:
creeping fascism. sorry, that’s what it is.
Joshua Norton
By "out here" I mean in San Francisco, not on this blog. There’s so much crap and confusion being spun out here that you don’t know if you can believe your "lying eyes". And Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums is as useless as they come so if people intend to get to the bottom of the story, they really shouldn’t plan on his help at all.
The Other Steve
If your intent is just to push the gun into the guys back, you wouldn’t have your finger on the trigger. Certainly not with a Glock or Sig without an external safety switch. If the guy were to jerk with the gun held there and the finger on trigger there’d be a damn good chance the gun would fire.
bedlam UK
Regarding the ‘wanting to pull his taser’ theory, I understood that to avoid this kind of mistake cops wear the taser on the weak side – butt first, so that you have to reach across the body to pull the taser?
Plus the weight difference is quite dramatic.
That ignores the question of why a cop would need to pull a taser on an unarmed guy laying on the ground held by 2 other officers, begging not to be tasered because he had a kid – and presumably had heard of all the taser deaths.
The draw of the cop was long too, so it wasn’t somekind of quickdraw and fire like the cowboy movies.
The only slightly saving grace for the copper is the hands going to his face in what seems to be shock or horror after firing. Though that does go against the ‘angry response’ defence from any curses that the victim may have been making.
The Moar You Know
@Joshua Norton: Understatement of the year.
It is the usual Berkeley Hills rich kid anarchy-punks doing the rioting or is the demographic different this time?
TheFountainHead
Maybe I am misinterpreting the video, but it seems pretty clear to me that the gun muzzle is a foot or two away from the man’s back when it goes off.
The Moar You Know
@bedlam UK: BART police had just gotten tasers in late December and I’m not sure they instituted rules on where/how to wear them (sloppy, you should figure out those rules before deploying the weapon), but I’ve fired a Taser and there is no way you could mistake a real pistol for a Taser unless you were in a life-or-death, total adrenalin flood kind of situation. From what I saw on the videos, they weren’t even close to that.
FWIW, I don’t think the cop intentionally shot the guy. It didn’t have that vibe to it, and he looked pretty shocked afterwards. But I’ll be damned if I can figure out what happened. He didn’t have a reason to even draw his firearm – at least not one that I could see.
Andrew J. Lazarus
I think it’s likely the victim was participating in the mayhem on the train, but that doesn’t explain the cop. Cop action = major FAIL.
MikeJ
Why?
Adam C
Perhaps he drew the gun to intimidate anyone else in the crowd from getting rowdy. And then got clumsy, Pulp Fiction-style. Not a justification, but at least an explanation.
Plus, perhaps, an argument against providing guns to people who don’t have the training to respect them properly.
Fwiffo
I don’t know much about firearms, but how common is it for police to be armed with guns that lack safeties? I’m surprised to learn such things are even made these days.
Patrick
Does anyone else think it is incredibly poor taste for the TV station to run a "Friends" commercial before the clip?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Joshua Norton:
Jesus Christ, if you’re not spoofing you’re a total asshole. What the Hell does this shit have to do with shooting an unarmed, handcuffed man dead?
libarbarian
" Why should I worry? Cops don’t shoot good people like ME in the back while I lie down in handcuffs. Besides, he was just another Ghetto rat, so what’s the big deal?".
Face
If Bob in Pac is correct, just what is the official excuse to have not interviewed the shooting officer a week later? I thought the police union had something in the contracts about the protocol of taking the officer off the street and taking his deposition immediately? What could investigators possibly proffer as to why he’s allowed to walk free sans statement and interrogation this many days later?
After hearing this, I have suddenly done a 180 and now support the rioters. The cover-up just seems so patently brazen at this point.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Joshua Norton:
No, see, because that’s about the only part of the story that matters. Otherwise, the guy’s still alive, it’s probably just another arrest, and no one gives a fuck about it.
This was a murder. Other than idle speculation as to WHY the policeman committed murder, the murder itself is about the only part of the story that matters to us. I don’t care what the guy did before he was placed in handcuffs; if we start splitting hairs over that, we’re moving toward justifying murder.
Haon123
I’ve seen BART cops attack a (white) culinary student with police dogs with my own eyes for carrying a knife bag on the tranist ride home from class. The entire train sat shocked and silenced as the police officers had the dog attacking the guy on the ground. When someone got up to object, an officer threatened him with violence too.
After that incident, they have always felt a bit like brownshirts to me. I was saddened but not shocked to find out this had happened.
Joshua Norton
One of the main problems is that BART officials are trying to control the message and conflicting stories keep leaking out. This current tape was never seen until recently because either a. it was being intentionally hidden away or b. simply overlooked. It all depends on which spokeshead from which side has the microphone at that particular time.
Evinfuilt
I don’t understand why our cops of have engaged in an arms race with gangs, it didn’t work for the soviets, it won’t work for our own police.
Time to just step back, re-educate our police into being productive members of society instead of bullies, and only have 1 squad of SWAT per city, not every police officer needs to be outfitted like a SWAT team.
I’d like to imagine a time in our future that when people see a police officer they’re not afraid to approach them and ask a question, or for help.
Haon123
I’d like to imagine a time in our future that when people see a police officer they’re not afraid to approach them and ask a question, or for help.
Ever been to Oakland?
The Moar You Know
@Fwiffo: Most police departments require DAO (double action only) weapons that require a very powerful trigger squeeze to fire; the squeeze must cock the gun and then fire it. A DAO weapon is a lot safer than a gun with a garden-variety trigger safety.
JR
@TheFountainHead: Totally. In at least one video, you can see other people filming with phones and cameras and there is audible booing when the shot is fired.
@Joshua Norton:
No blind man knows.
Comrade Stuck
Hadn’t seen this video. The first was hard to see what happened and I thought it could have been an accidental discharge. This one looks to me like the officer intentionally pulled his gun and executed a handcuffed man.
gopher2b
Reason not to shoot him??..there was no reason to unholster his weapon. He’s guilty of manslaughter (reckless endangerment) without a doubt. He should have already been charged, without question.
Also, keep in mind that anyone taught to use firearms, including and especially police, are trained from day one to never rest you finger on the trigger and not to even touch it until they have target and are prepared to fire. Given that, I would charge him with second degree murder today and bump it up to first degree if other evidence came out (victim or the cop were talking trash, any prior history with the guy, etc).
The Moar You Know
@Haon123: No shit.
TheHatOnMyCat
The shooting appears to be a tragic accident or mistake. It could be criminal neglect, a chargeable homicide. Or, not, depending.
Absent any additional information, I can’t see any point in speculating about it. Mob behavior is no more acceptable on our part that it would be on the police’s part. Mob behavior is mob behavior, period.
The citizens in Oakland certainly have a right to be outraged. It’s disquieting to think that "protect and serve" just means to protect and serve the police department, I hope that is not the case here. In any case, I am interested in seeing what a full investigation reveals. Meanwhile, I don’t see the point in forming a lynch mob.
Yes, that.
Edmund Dantes
Just be lucky there were video cameras there.
Cops and prosecutors are getting wise to this, and you will note more and more jurisdictions are putting laws on the books to make it illegal to videotape or photograph police officers in the course of their duties.
As usual, I suggest going over to The Agitator blog to see stuff like this is not as isolated as we like to believe. Look at the rash of "Puppycides".
It’s looking more and more like the people going into the police force are the worst kinds of people. They want the power. They want the adrenaline rush without the consequences. They are in it for the hero worship. On top of that the Blue Wall of Silence makes it so even the honest cops aren’t worth shit anymore. They’ll cover up for the bad ones or just remain silent for fear of reprisals.
Look up the cases of the DWI cop in Maryland, I think. Talk about insane double standard.
Look at how people woken up in the middle of the night by their windows and doors being broken down and shooting back at the intruders are held to a different standard than the guys doing the damage when they accidentally kill someone in one of those raids
TheHatOnMyCat
Well, I can tell anecdotes about Washington DC and Glendale, AZ that would be great tongue-clucking material. And of course, who can forget Rudy Giuliani’s Shoot First and Ask Questions Later approach to policing when he was mayor? Oakland can’t be much worse than that, can it?
Justin
If you watch the video a couple times, you’ll see a few things that make it obvious that the officer didn’t think he had his taser in hand. For one thing, he points the gun, then uses his left hand to either cock it or press something, and then points again and fires. Tasers have no cocking action, and they’re lighter, but much bulkier than a gun. Even if he mistakenly drew a gun instead of a taser, he had ample time and action to realize his mistake.
When Sean Bell was shot in New York, one officer fired 32 times–emptied his magazine, reloaded, and emptied another one. Apparently the sort of muscle memory autopilot John mentions is non-trivially common among cops, who don’t know how they’ll act in a shooting until their first one. Most will shoot a couple times and stop, keeping their wits about them; others will look down at an empty gun and realize they just sprayed everything they had without even being conscious of it.
In terms of ‘how the hell did this happen’, I’m betting that the initially bad decision to draw his weapon, maybe due to tiredness, overreaction, misperceived threat, was followed up by that adrenalized autopilot. It’ll turn out to be a godawful mistake on the cop’s part, and should send him to jail for killing a man. What’s more beyond my understanding is how the BART police could screw up the aftermath so badly, waiting a week to interview the guy. Anyone who saw that video should have known that riots were coming if they didn’t appear to lock down the officer in question.
TheHatOnMyCat
Really? Data, please.
OriGuy
@The Moar You Know: The reporter on one of the news radio stations said it was the usual anarchists who were doing the rioting–she recognized some of them from prior demonstrations.
The memorial itself was peaceful.
Joshua Norton
I’d say it’s on par with D.C.
Napoleon
But regardless of what the protocol in the contract is, that only applies to actions they take against him as part of his employment. That tape shows a flat out execution style murder and there is no reason that, like any other suspect would had had happened to him, he should not have been arrested that day and charged.
Michael D.
@TheFountainHead:
WRONG!!
It wasn’t the BART cops as a whole who shot this guy. It was ONE BART cop.
Perspective, people!
Olly McPherson
Yeah, justice is probably not going to be served here…
RandyH
I’ve never felt it was appropriate for BART cops to carry guns at all. These are transit cops in a train system that is pretty tame. The club and handcuffs are all they should ever need. They should almost never have a reason to draw a real gun and could call in local (armed) police for backup in any of the cities that they pass through, if needed.
DougJ
The police shot a kid in the back as he was walking away on BART when I lived in the Bay Area in the 90s. I’ll try to dig up the story if I can.
TheHatOnMyCat
Sorry to hear that. I had two occasions to encounter the DC police dept and they left me with the impression that those guys had some serious anger issues. Which tells me nothing about why they had those issues, I know nothing of the conditions under which they work, but I assume they must be bad. But these guys needed some time off and some PR training, I’ll say that.
There are urban policing situations out there that aren’t fit for any reasonable person to have to put up with. Personally, there is no way I could put up with the crap they take and keep a level head on every shift. In other words, I am not cut out for that line of work, at all. I’m not sure what the remedy is.
Conservatively Liberal
Based on what I have seen so far I would call this a murder. That young man had no idea he was going to die and there was no reason for him to die, yet he was killed in cold blood. Nothing is going to change those facts. This young man went out that night not knowing he was going to die at the hands of someone who was trained and paid to protect him, while being held down by two other people whose jobs too were to protect him.
Regardless of who breaks what laws to what degree, the job of a peace officer is to maintain peace and to bring criminals (or people accused of being a criminal) to a court of justice. You use as much force as necessary and no more, and you do not lose your temper (or control). They are trained to respond according to the situation and this cop felt he had to kill this guy. For whatever reason, this officer killed a man and a week later he has yet to explain why and it seems that nobody is in a hurry to ask him. Why?
Because he killed a man ‘in the line of duty’. Damn right people should be getting pissed off. The "Thin Blue Line" is real people, and this is not to say all cops are bad because we have a few of them as friends. Even when presented with contradictory evidence in a court of law, cops will lie and protect their own . It has happened in the past and it will happen again. Criminality is human and cops are not immune from it.
Cops can talk about how people don’t respect them, but for some reason most people will excuse a cop from anything they have done ‘in the line of duty’. If a cops says it happened, it must have happened and that is the end of it. Unfortunately some bad cops have used this to their advantage.
TheHatOnMyCat
Which tape are you watching? I’ve seen two, and I can’t characterize the event in any particular way.
liberalcop
Take a good look at the video, and the reaction of the cop and the others.
http://cbs5.com/video/[email protected]
The victim was not yet handcuffed, and from the way the cop who pulled the trigger and the other cops react, my guess is that they were not expecting a gunshot.
And yes, it is common to wear the taser on your weak side so that you either have to draw with your weak hand, or crossdraw.
As to why he was being restrained, it’s common to end up with a lot of guys in cuffs for a bit when you’re responding to a fight. First priority when you respond to any call is scene security. When you’ve got a group of guys that have been fighting, first thing is going to be to separate them so they can’t have another go at each other. Tempers are running high, so you check them for weapons and sit them down. If possible, you position them where the parties can’t see each other so they don’t start shouting at each other, get worked up again, etc. If they calm down and can follow orders, they’ll just be sat down. If they’re still agitated and not following verbal commands, then they’ll get put in restraints.
Martin
I blame the Raiders.
Comrade Stuck
No one can know what was going thru this cop’s mind when he pulled the trigger. Maybe he was flashing back to some cop movie or show, or something similarly nutty causing a kind of vapor lock. Though it looked to me as though right before firing he even straightened and stiffened his arm a bit, which is something most people reflexively do when they are about to fire a handgun.
Justin
@TheHatOnMyCat:
The one where a cop pulls out his gun and shoots in the back an unarmed man who’d already been subdued and was under control by two other police officers, and who wasn’t struggling with them, who’d already made apparent his willingness to co-operate. There was no reason to even draw a weapon, let alone shoot him or taser him.
Josh Hueco
Joshua Norton is a piece of shit. It doesn’t matter if the victim was in a group of toughs or not. He was face down with his arms cuffed behind his back. He posed no threat.
Somewhat OT but not, The Nation reported last month that white vigilantes in New Orleans were freely shooting at black flood refugees as they sought higher ground in the days following Katrina.
These incidents taken together remind me of what Chris Rock once said, that he was more afraid of Al-Cracker than Al-Qaida.
Rainy
The cop is a murderer. It doesn’t matter if he wears a badge or he is just a regular person. You shot someone you should be investigated thoroughly. Also, if a police officer shoots any person armed or not. They should be investigated by the FBI or some new task force. Police officers need to put in their place if they go above the law.
malraux
@Michael D.: If the BART cops as a whole are covering for a murder, doesn’t that involve more than just an individual bad actor. Had this guy been arrested, as would have been the standard for any other individual, then your claim would be correct. When the hierarchy protects the cop, then its fair to make much broad claims against the system as a whole.
shecky
fwiffo:
Glock-style guns don’t have manual safetys. They are designed this way to allow quick, fumble free operation. This isn’t really a new idea. The old .38 Special police issue revolvers functioned essentially the same with no manual safety. Just pull the trigger and it fires.
Generally, these guns are designed to not have a hair trigger response, so they take some effort to fire.
TheHatOnMyCat
Yeah, okay, I’ll stand on what I said earier: Wait for all of the facts to come out. I don’t have much use for mob mentality. Be careful what you wish for, if you really want mob response then don’t bitch about it when it affects you adversely.
I seriously doubt that this cop is a sociopathic maniac. It’s more likely that he fucked up, possibly to the extent of criminal neglect (homicide). But calling it "execution style murder" is just bullshit, unless the guy says, yeah, I shot the ni–er because I am sick of them clogging up my train stations. If he turns out to be a crazy bad cop, fine, but that fact is not in evidence at the present time, unless there is more to the story than I have seen.
Face
Depending on what? You’ve watched the video, and yet you can envision a honest defense of a man who stopped, drew, aimed, and fired a gun thrice into the back of a excited yet cogent handcuffed and restrained man? You’re either disingenuously baiting other commenters or you’re blind.
Tim Fuller
White cop illegally kills black guy.
Black response: Let’s burn OUR neighborhood down.
The solution to the problem of racist cops will come soon enough if the riots ever start in the neighborhood of the folks doing the shooting. Until then, it’s just really exciting TV for all those new high def flat panels mounted in the Hollywood Hills.
Enjoy.
The Moar You Know
@OriGuy: Thanks, that’s what I figured. Fucking shitbags.
Sarcastro
The sole fault for this rioting lays upon the BART police. In particular, the officers present at this shooting who did not IMMEDIATELY detain and arrest their comrade (preferably with a couple of taser blasts to "calm him down"). If the cop who shot the man was sitting in jail right now, without bail and pending a trial for 2nd degree murder and abuse of power then I seriously doubt you would be seeing any rioting in the streets.
However, after the trial and inevitable acquittal…
TheHatOnMyCat
Oh, cut the crap you lying sack of shit. The video does not explain what happened. We don’t know why he had the gun out, what his intentions were, we don’t know shit except that he had a gun drawn and it discharged.
I’ve already said that it could be negligent homicide, but there are people in here calling it "execution style murder."
That’s bullshit, and I am calling it bullshit.
Fuck you.
Napoleon
@TheHatOnMyCat:
All the tapes show it. That cop is human slime and should get nothing short of the death penalty.
NonWonderDog
@The Moar You Know:
Well, yes and no.
Yes, a DAO gun, with a 12-15 lb trigger, is probably safer than something with a 3 lb trigger and a safety switch. (And revolvers, as a rule, do not have external safeties.)
However, it seems like most police departments issue Glocks. The Glock has it’s own action, ironically called "safe action" by the company. It’s a blend of single action and double action, as the striker is half-cocked after each shot. Pulling the trigger will fully cock the gun and fire it in one 5-6 lb pull. It has a slightly heavier trigger pull than most single action automatics, but it’s nothing like a DAO trigger.
You can buy heavy trigger sets for ’em, but I’m not sure how many police departments do. I would hope all of them, but I doubt that for some reason.
TheHatOnMyCat
Apparently you don’t know how the system works. Even under the best of circumstances (from an evidence point of view) no comprehensive or formal complaint or indictment would be in existence a few days after the shooting. The determination of the exact nature of the crime, if there is one, could not have been made and turned into a formal indictment in that period of time.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
More cops behaving badly. And by behaving badly, I mean shooting people for no good reason.
"As they walked up the driveway to their home, Anthony Cooper said an unidentified man emerged from the darkness with a flashlight and a gun pointed at them.
"We did not know it was a police officer," said Cooper. "He said, ‘Stop. Stop.’ And we were like, ‘Why? Who are you?’"
The officers ordered both men to lie down on the ground. Tolan’s parents heard the commotion and came outside. Police will only say an "altercation" took place. Tolan’s family say it involved his mother.
"The cop pushed her against the wall," said Tolan’s uncle, Mike Morris.
Relatives say Tolan started to lean up from the ground to ask the officer what he was doing to his mother. That’s when the family says Tolan was shot in the chest, the bullet piercing his lung and then lodging in his liver.
But Tolan’s SUV wasn’t stolen. Both men were unarmed and relatives say they were hardly a threat to the police officer. Anger over the shooting has been building over the last week."
DBrown
Does not appear that the man was handcuffed – note his arm falls onto the floor after they roll him over just after the asshole Cop shoots him. Yes, he was being held down by other Cops. So, how can this be murder since for Cops there really is no such thing, just normal use of minor force on a typical black suspect who dares to breath while the gods of our land hold their power of life and death? Here in DC (really) the PG county area, Cops just recently killed a victim while the man was locked in the jail cell and no charges were brought after a complete ‘review’ (yes, the death was rule a homicide and only Cops had access but so?) Expect same whitewash – anyone who wants to wait for the fact’s is either too stupid to care about the outcome or already wants the whitewash to be done. Get real.
TheHatOnMyCat
Nope, that is not the case, and no amount of repeating it in here will make it so. The tapes show what they show, and nothing more. They show a gun going off, but provide no explanation as to why. I don’t know of a single fact in evidence so far that purports to address that question, do you?
smiley
Apparently it happens with some frequency. It’s one of digby’s crusades. Check her site.
Face
That’s exactly the point. There was no reason at all for him to have drawn his weapon. Yet he did and fired. That’s all I need to see from the tapes to know that this was a breech of protocol and at the very least, manslaughter. To suggest this wasn’t criminally negliegent is farcical (although I fully anticipate the Oak cops to "invent" some new reason why he needed to off the guy).
BTW, if the video "doesn’t show what happened", what kind of fucking evidence to you demand? You want satellite photos? Depositions dont tell the whole story most of the time; videos just dont lie.
Ryan S.
@DougJ: Like this one
liberalcop
A heavier trigger just makes it harder to shoot accurately. The problem is that people don’t always follow the rule of keeping the finger off the trigger until they’ve the decision to shoot.
Duke of Earl
@TheHatOnMyCat:
The gun went off because someone pulled the trigger, guns don’t kill people, people do.
Furthermore the gun was aimed by someone at the back of another person for no reason that anyone can rationally describe.
TheHatOnMyCat
Are you just clowning around now? Do you know what is required in order to alledge a crime that rises to the death penalty level?
According to one summary of the Calif penal code:
first-degree murder with special circumstances[5]
for financial gain (1)
the defendant had previously been convicted of first or second degree murder (2)
multiple murders (3)
committed using explosives (4) ; (6)
to avoid arrest or aiding in escaping custody (5)
the victim was an on-duty peace officer; federal law enforcement officer or agent; or firefighter (7) ; (8) ; (9)
the victim was a witness to a crime and the murder was committed to prevent them from testifying (10)
the victim was a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor; judge or former judge; elected or appointed official; juror; and the murder was in retaliation for the victim’s official duties (11) ; (12) ; (13) ; (20)
the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity" (14)
the murderer lay in wait for the victim (15)
the victim was intentionally killed because of their race, religion, nationality, or country of origin (16)
the murder was committed during the commissioning of robbery; kidnapping; rape; sodomy; performance of a lewd or lascivious act upon the person of a child under the age of 14 years; oral copulation; burglary; arson; train wrecking; mayhem; rape by instrument; carjacking; torture; poisoning (17)
the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture (18)
poisoning (19)
the murder was committed by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle (21)
the defendant is an active member of a criminal street gang and was to further the activities of the gang (22)
Do you have any idea the amount of casework that has to be done to satisfy these requirements and have this level of crime charged? The review processes that have to be satisfied? The evidence requirements?
TheHatOnMyCat
Yeah, no disrespect, even though you certainly deserve disrespect, but when the facts are available, those kinds of determinations can be made. They are not available now.
End of story.
Justin
@TheHatOnMyCat:
You’re missing the point. Whether or not it was an accident or an execution, it looks just like an execution, hence "execution style". All the senselessness of Grant’s death is contained in that phrase. It’s not that they believe the cop wanted to kill Grant–most people I’ve read think it’s a horrible mistake by the cop–it’s that the absolute stupidity of Grant’s death is that he died that way, subdued, face down, not struggling, and shot in the back.
Punchy
I’m no cop, but I’m pretty sure I know it’s not allowed for a cop to shoot a restrained man who poses no threat to himself or other officers, which is what the tape shows. Not sure what else you’d need to see to understand.
Pretty sure you aint gunna get a lot of "facts" from the shooter, and zero facts from the dead guy.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
Oh, fer christ’s sake.
The dead guy was a nigger, the shooter was a cop.
What’s the big deal here? Haven’t cops been used to kill niggers in this country since Reconstruction?
Jesus. You’d think a white man had been hurt, the way you’re carrying on.
MikeJ
You could make an argument for any of 14 through 18 inclusive plus 22.
JWeidner
@TheHatOnMyCat: I think that, when referring to this as an "execution-style murder" people are referring to the fact that gangland executions are commonly thought to conform to the "single shot to the back of the head". Granted, this man was shot in the back and not the head. But I don’t think the description is too far off the mark.
I’m NOT claiming the officer was intending to act as an executioner, I have no idea what his state of mind was at the time. But the appearance of the video? Yeah…execution-style doesn’t seem too far off the mark.
Duke of Earl
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko:
Well yeah, but we have one of *those* people as PE now so we have to be a bit more respectful of them.
Damn those unintended consequences.
Face
Because the guy at fault is likely to tell an accurate and honest story, and the guy shot dead is likely to offer his version.
Shorter Hat: I just saw one man shoot another unarmed man in the back, but until I get the forensic results, including gun powder residue, bullet casings, scene reenactments, and 15 more versions of it on video, I’m willing to believe it didnt happen.
Ed in NJ
Until we do away with this Blue Wall of Silence surrounding these police incidents, they will always escalate. In no other situation do you have a crime committed, and then days pass whereby several trial balloons are floated until they come up with the most effective defense (I’m going with the taser excuse here as the one they choose).
Btw, take the PATH late at night in Hoboken one day and see if any trouble occurs. Drunk belligerency is not limited to those of color, especially on New Year’s Eve. But almost always, the police don’t end up with a dead guy on their hands.
NonWonderDog
@TheHatOnMyCat:
What the fuck?
(Actually, it looks like it’s specifically written such that killing someone during sex doesn’t rise to a death-penalty case as long as you’re puttin’ it in the vagoo. Must be some politician with a choking fetish.)
TheHatOnMyCat
No, I am not missing the point. You are missing my point.
My point is that you cannot make a determination about what happened here by looking at the video. Additional information, which will be gathered laboriously and under some considerable difficulty, will be gathered, and a case will form around it in all liklihood. At that point we might begin to understand what happened here. Not before, despite the ugly and disturbing shouts of a few idiots around here.
Many scenarios are possible going forward. Just one of many that you might see down the road: Cop pleads guilty to a homicide charge considerably below the level of first degree murder. He states that he had a problem with his gun, and wrongly tried to help out with the situation on the floor while holding his gun in a dangerous manner, and thereby caused this death. He acknowledges that the correct response would have been to move away from the scene of action, deal with the weapon and properly stow in his holster if possible, and then and only then return to the action on the floor. He gets a reasonable sentence and life goes on, and police everywhere use the incident as a training example. For all we know, the officer simply isn’t the brightest bulb in the flashlight and panicked for some reason. Perhaps he wasn’t cop material to begin with, and the problem lies with the selection and training process.
My point is that we don’t know. Therefore we serve no useful purpose by shouting a bunch of crap that we don’t know. I am right about that point, it is beyond obvious.
Like I said, if tomorrow the guy shows up saying that he is glad he shot the ni–er and we can all kiss his ass, then we know something that we didn’t know today, and we can act accordingly. Until we know, we don’t know.
Ryan S.
Take your pick… Cat
I put this kind of crime on par with treason.
Personally I think all of the officers there need to be immediately fired.
I think this is about as bad as criminality can get. NO IM NOT CLOWNING!!
TheFountainHead
Shooting someone for giving bad head is pretty fucking cold.
Brick Oven Bill
I can’t watch videos on my computer, but it is wrong to shoot a restrained man.
A friend of the wife got married to a cop last year. He works in a diverse area. I sat at the table with his co-workers. One of them, a part Mezito, took a bullet in the face earlier in the year and had a scar on the left cheek. This man’s actions were being scrutinized in the local press. His wife sat at the table and they had a nice kid. The whole group was very negative towards the system. They were very decent people.
As an aside, many policemen are shot each year. But the majority of the wounds are self inflicted accidents. Policemen have to simply qualify with their sidearm once every six months. This from a man in a position to know. Time at the range, my friends.
Although I can’t see the video, I can see the TV crew, who are four attractive-looking White People. If there was a true system of justice, these White People would have to spend two years policing the streets of Oakland.
TheHatOnMyCat
And until I have all the available facts, I am not deciding what happened.
Period, end of story. You go ahead and rant your stupid ass off, Face, that’s what you do. I will decide based on evidence and facts, which are not now available unless my internet connection is broken and I am seeing yesterday’s news.
JL
@Tim Fuller: There was a protest march in which a few anarchists started burning dumpsters and smashing windows. The riot then ensued. It is now January 8th and the BART policeman has attained an attorney and has remained close mouthed. I assume that he is sitting at home on a comfortable chair.
If I lived in Oakland, I would not mind joining in a lawful protest. We are still a nation of laws.
TheHatOnMyCat
There is no "kind of crime" until there is a body of evidence, and a statement of charges, and then a defense is constructed. And evidence presented. Then we’ll know, or at least we will be in better position to know.
That’s the way we do it here in America, unless the rules were changed since I worked in one of the largest capital crime offices in the country.
JWeidner
One more thing….did anyone find it strangely disturbing to have ktvu.com show a commercial for Seinfeld before running the segment showing a young man being killed? At least, that’s the commercial I got when I clicked on John’s link. Just….bizarre.
And yeah, I’m sure it’s just an automated process in which commercials are inserted before any clip…it was just unsettling to have Seinfeld run before this particular clip. I dunno…
TheHatOnMyCat
So what? Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with retaining an attorney when faced with possible homicide charges?
Face
Because the video is in no way "evidence". Okay, enjoy your reality. I’d love your take on the Rodney King verdict.
Zifnab
Mob behavior occurs when the authorities don’t take charge. The active assumption among the rioters is that the police are going to protect their own and no one is going to get punished. Since the public demand justice – or at least revenge – and the standard avenues aren’t going to hold water, they take things into their own hands.
This is what happens when the system breaks down and it is no less the fault of the cops than the mob. If the derelict cop had been arrested and processed like any other non-cop putting a round in someone’s back, we probably wouldn’t see this. As it stands, there’s a notion that if the offender doesn’t get punished, its the police office itself at fault.
Is it the best way for events to proceed? No. But its the only way left available. In the future, I think cops who don’t like having their windows smashed in will act with more restraint.
So there’s this video on the internet, right? And if you watch it, you can see what happened.
John PM
Based upon my review of the two videos at the links provide by John Cole, I can declare that Terry Schiavo is not permanently brain damaged…
Seriously, however, I am willing to meet TheHatOnMyCat part way on this. The video is only part of the story. The video cannot take us into the mind of the cop. It looks to be no more than five seconds between the time he pulled the gun and the firing of the gun. We cannot hear what is being said. It could be that one of the other cops told the shooting cop to take out his weapon in order to keep the other people being detained from trying anything.
However, to my observation, the cop does not pull out his gun until about twenty seconds or so after he and two other cops (all large individuals) have pushed the victim onto the ground and apparently subdued him. I have to agree with the other commentors here that there does not appear to be any reason for the cop to pull his gun. My dad was a Chicago police officer for forty years and only fired his gun once, and he worked in some really crappy areas in the 1970s and 1980s. He has said many times that pulling the gun is far and away the exception.
I would say that the cop appears to have committed second degree murder. Leaving aside the question of whether he intended to kill the victim, at the very least he was reckless in pulling out his firearm, which in most jurisdictions fulfills the intent requirement for second degree murder. Supporting the recklessness suposition is the presence of all the other people, both on the platform and on the train. There was another individual about one foot from the victim when he was shot. Instead of ricocheting into the body of the victim, the bullet could have hit that person, some else on the platform (including a fellow officer) or someone on the train.
This actually brings up another point. In addition to the video, which looks bad enough, you have several eyewitnesses who were right there when the shooting took place. I am curious whether authorities have spoken to those individuals yet, and what they have to say. Also, have statements been taken from the fellow officers. If all the statements match up, then we will know what happened. However, if the statements of the witnesses and the other cops diverge, then we will know something is suspicious.
gopher2b
TheHatOnMyCat is adorable. Nothing is "in evidence" by the way until trial.
With regard to this gem:
Unless "unknown" fact you are alluding to falls along the lines of the victim yelling he was going to fart and release sarin gas in the station (and the cop actually believed him) then well, this cop is guilty of manslaughter (at least). I don’t need to know anymore than the fact he unholstered his weapon, stood up, and fired it into the back of a man who was face down on the ground and restrained.
There is no excuse.
And the idea that the cop hasn’t been arrested yet because shooting investigations take this long and its "normal" is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read on this blog. If this guy wasn’t a cop, you know what the investigation would be: (1) cops show up and see victim on the ground and ask, was this guy shot, (2) cops turn to witnesses and say, "who shot this guy", (3) witness all turn and point at shooter, (4) cops arrest shooter. I know they wouldn’t give him a week to think about his feelings first.
TheHatOnMyCat
Whatever crap you want to spew, Face. I said what I meant, and meant what I said, and it bears no resemblance to the bullshit you wrote about it.
The posts are there for all to see. If you want to join up with the mob here that has tried and convicted the cop of murder and sentenced him to death, go ahead. That confirms my opinion of you.
I’ll wait for the facts to come in before I decide. We’ll have to disagree on this one.
Crusty Dem
TheHatonmyCat (1st comment at 64)
TheHatonmyCat (120)
You’re drifting a bit Cat. Just from the video, it’s obviously a crime. "But he’s a police officer" excuses nothing, that means he’s trained in precisely these situations and should never have pulled his gun, let alone used it. I’m not going to say this is murder vs manslaughter (and if it is, it’s almost certainly 2nd degree), but just with this video, I can’t see how it’s not one or the other.. That the shooter has not been arrested, let alone questioned, is simply absurd. It’s not our job to explain the why, let the shooter provide his explanation and judge accordingly, but under no circumstance should he be walking the streets (unless out on bail).
Justin
@TheHatOnMyCat:
No, I’m confident that you’re the one that’s not getting it. We do know quite a bit. We don’t know what was in the officer’s head or heart at the time, but we know a lot about what he did thanks to a pretty clear video of the incident. You’re right that whether or not he was a racist who snapped, or a n00b who made a series of stupid mistakes, will be determined going forward. But what we have now is enough to see that the killing was entirely unwarranted, and that fact alone is enough to justify the anger that led to riots (which aren’t justified, but are pretty damn understandable).
TheHatOnMyCat
Yes, very sensible discussion you are having there. With whom, I have no idea.
Really? What is the prescribed procedure for police shootings in Oakland, what are the protocols, and how long does it normally take? Be specific to this municpality, please.
J Royce
TheCatHat: Which tape are you watching? I’ve seen two, and I can’t characterize the event in any particular way.
That is because you are a Conservative that hasn’t figured out what you WISH to see.
TheHatOnMyCat
In which post did I state that his being a police officer "excused" anything?
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
We know for a fact there’s a dead guy.
We know for a fact that the dead guy was on the ground with two large officers holding him there.
We know for a fact that the shooter pulled is weapon and discharged it into the back of the dead guy.
Claiming that there’s more evidence that needs to be witnessed in order to determine whether a criminal act has occurred is, well, arrant fucking bullshit.
The ONLY question is whether its manslaughter, murder two, or murder one.
Of course, since the shooter’s a cop and the dead guy’s a nigger, the shooter will almost certainly never see the inside of a jail cell, regardless.
Welcome to America, which has been a police state for black people for over a hundred years.
TheHatOnMyCat
Well, good for you. I’ll stand on what I have said. The posts are there, others can read them and decide for themselves.
The facts are not in, and we are in no position, legally, ethically, or morally, to make a judgment about what happened here, until they are in evidence. If you want to argue otherwise, that’s up to you.
If you want arrest, charge, trial, conviction and execution based on a cell phone video, then I just hope that you don’t live to see a country where we have that kind of response. Unless you really like the last eight years, because what you are suggesting is going to make the last eight years look like a picnic.
In my world, process matters. And if someone tried to take the process you are entitled to away from you, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs. Luckily for you, the system will provide you the process when you need it, thanks to people who have thought it through a little better than you have.
Crusty Dem
Cat, "But he’s a police officer" is the only conceivable reason the shooter isn’t in jail right now. You don’t have to say it, it’s implied in every statement made by anyone defending the officer. If he wasn’t a police officer, can you conceive of any way he would’ve walked away from the scene w/o cuffs on?
Umm, actions matter. I agree that intent is important, but unless you want to come up with a plausible reason why it’s ok to shoot an unarmed, incapacitated man, I’ll trust the video…
JR
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko: I’m not sure what other facts Cat is waiting for. The "fact" that the videos are a hoax and the real Oscar Grant is sitting on a Mexican beach drinking mojitos right now? The "fact" that the officer was temporarily possessed by a demon?
Man A shot a restrained, face-down Man B in the back. It was captured by multiple cameras. Why has Man A not been arrested? Until that question is answered, there will be anger and angry speculation. I don’t understand why Cat is so upset about the way people are reacting in this case.
gopher2b
"Police shooting"…I don’t know. I guess to the extent that there are and should be a different set of rules for cops who shoot unarmed, defenseless people in the back than when regular ol’ civilians do it then I guess this process is following the normal track.
If you mean just you regular, run-of-mill shooting in the back of a defenseless, unarmed person that happens to be captured on video. Hmm…well, (1) there’s the shooting, and that last about .000002 secs, (2) then people have to call 911 and wait for police to show up – let’s go conservative here and say 15 minutes, (3) then the police have to assess the situation and let’s assume – to be fair – the two videotapers take videos to the cops immediately and not the media, and the cops watch the videos on the scene. So, cops identify some witnesses (1 hours) and watch videos which are about about two minutes. So, back of the napkin figure, 1 hour, 17 minutes, and .000002 secs to wrap up the probable cause investigation (I think Chicago PD could do it in 45 minutes).
Because as the legal scholar you appear to be, you do realize the issue here is probable cause right (and not guilt which can only be established by a jury).
TheHatOnMyCat
Not only have I not disagreed with that assertion, I have unabiguously made the same assertion.
However, the public’s response is not the basis for a legal response. We don’t employ mob rule at the courthouse in this country.
Yet.
Catsy
Dingdingdingdingding! We have a winner, people!
Seriously. Where’s the NRA on this? Where are all the second amendment cultists? All those warhawk conservatives with military service?
You do not draw your weapon unless you are prepared to fire it.
You do not point your weapon at anything you are not prepared to shoot.
You do not place your fucking finger on the trigger unless you have immediate intent to shoot what you are pointing at.
That’s not even getting into whatever regulations the transit police have regarding the handling of firearms. This is rudimentary shit that my eight year old son knows. The shooter is, at minimum, an idiot who should never be allowed to touch a firearm again.
Also, everything that Ivan Ivanovich Renko said.
AhabTRuler
TZ is making a fine, but ultimately correct, distinction here. While the justice system is flawed, it is better than no system or worse systems, and it requires that we reserve judgment until we have collected more details than are presently available.
OTOH, I understand that many people recognize that in a great majority of cases similar to this, the system has favored the police as both individuals and institutions. That the video reveals far more about this situation than we would otherwise have makes it easier to come to an early conclusion, but it is no more correct for being so.
TheHatOnMyCat
You don’t understand why we might thing twice before convicting people of crimes without process and based on what we see on tv?
Just say that in so many words, and I won’t bother you any more. I’m content to let the matter rest on that.
If that isn’t what you are saying, then what exactly have I said, which is nothing but process 101 stuff, the most basic and routine presumptions in our system, do you have a problem with?
Do you have the statements of the officers on the scene, and all the witnesses? Do you have any forensic evidence? Do you have the statement of the officer who fired the shot?
Are you going to sit here and argue that the existence of cell phone video obviates the need for that process and for that evidence? Then just say so in those words, and we’re done. There would be nothing further for us to talk about at that point. I rest my entire set of assumptions about what kind of country I live in on the notion that there is process and deliberation based on facts and evidence, and I am not throwing that out over a sensational cel phone video.
You go ahead and throw it out if you want to.
Face
Sorry Crusty, there’s apparenly just no evidence of this. Even though video clearly shows it, there’s no evidence this actually happened. And until actual evidence comes forward to explain the scene, such as a video, you cannot judge the officer’s actions.
Or so I’m told.
TheHatOnMyCat
I’m quite aware of that. That’s why I carry an ACLU card, and argue aggressively against excusing police excesses. And I have firsthand knowledge of those from both personal and professional experience that I cannot share without going TMI, but I assure you, I understand the issues pretty goddam well.
Justin
@TheHatOnMyCat:
Did I say there shouldn’t be a trial? Did I say there shouldn’t be an investigation? Did I say the officer should be lynched?
Can you honestly look at that video and tell me there’s a plausible reason to believe that the investigation might exonerate the officer? It might happen; in God’s eyes, it might be the right thing to do. But for fuck’s sake, to sit here and tell people to wait, to withhold judgement, to just chill and let the system work it out when we have a good evidence in front of us, in a state and a country with a history of unjustified killings by police of innocent black people, is to ask people to allow the system to fuck them once again.
You remind me of the people defending Abu Ghraib and their defense-in-depth. 1) Nothing’s going wrong there, 2) A bit of rough stuff might have happened, but nothing out of line, 3) the pictures show some inappropriate stuff by a couple people, a few bad apples, 4) Tikrit and Bagram also have a few bad apples, 5) Guantanamo, ditto, 6) okay, the bad apples go up the chain of command a bit, but certainly not to the top, 7) you don’t know that those memos had any impact, 8) Okay, now that we have Bush’s signature authorizing torture, you can get upset about it.
You’re committing bigotry-by-high-standard-of-proof, demanding patience and process when white cops are accused, when patience and process have long been demonstrated to fail the black community.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
Those rules apparently only apply to us liberal firearms owners.
It’s long been one thing that has always impressed me about the NRA types I’ve known– they’re absolute fanatics about firearms safety. Fanatics.
By the way, my nephew was once a cop– and its from him i learned the cop-triage:
About a third of cops joined the force because they genuinely want to help people, to protect and serve.
About a third of cops joined the force because its a relatively safe, secure, well paid government job (far safer than, say, a farmhand)
And about a third of cops joined the force because they’re power-hungry thuggish bullying assholes.
Survival as a black man in America dictates that you assume all cops you meet are in the last third, until proven otherwise.
TheHatOnMyCat
The video does not explain the event. That’s the problem. And that’s why there is process in our system.
And will be, even after nuts like you do their best to tear it down.
Shygetz
Oh, so unless he confesses to it being intentional, we all should assume he accidentally drew his gun, trained it on an unarmed and handcuffed suspect, and fired it all on accident?
"He tripped and fell on my knife twelve times, Your Honor. It was horrible."
What I saw on that video was AT LEAST involuntary manslaughter, if not second degree murder due to the willful indifference for human life displayed by drawing and aiming a loaded gun at a restrained and unarmed suspect. It would certainly NOT be negligent homicide, which involves death of a person under your care through your inaction (e.g. child neglect, elder neglect, etc.). I think reasonable people can agree that shooting someone in the back is NOT death due to your inaction. The fact that you think it might be negligent homicide CLEARLY shows you have no clue what you’re talking about, so maybe you should stop accusing other people of having no idea how the legal system works until you figure it out yourself. Police arrest and detain people all the time after suspicious shootings, indictments and preliminary hearings are held without release of the suspect, and judges can and do deny bail–but apparently not when the killer is a cop. No way this guy should still be out, unquestioned, with evidence this overwhelming of a crime of some nature. If the shooter hadn’t been a cop, but rather a citizen claiming self-defense, do you think we’d be in this situation? Of course not.
comrade rawshark
Sure you can. Speculation is fun. No one said you can get a complete picture out of it but you can get a pretty good idea.
Let people have their opinions.
JWeidner
That’s all fine and good. I think what people object to is that police quite obviously enjoy a different "process" than civilians. As was pointed out earlier, if a civilian had shot a man in the back in front of so many cops, said civilian would have been immediately placed under arrest (if not shot).
Why do police get to enjoy a different standard when they’ve shot someone? Whether justified or not, cops don’t get arrested at the scene. They’re free to go home. Not so for civilians.
JR
@TheHatOnMyCat:
If what we see on TV is multiple videos of a man shooting another man in the back when there is no immediate threat, and furthermore, the shooter has not given an explanation even to investigators and is walking around as a free man, then yes, I’m going to make some judgments.
Crusty Dem
Thanks Face, I think that’s what Cat is saying.
Unlike so many, I don’t really care that much about what was going through the officer’s mind. Or at least, I don’t think it in any way can justify his actions, you can unshit the bed, you can’t unshoot the dead guy, etc. Of course, I lack the experience and knowledge of the brilliant Cat, who seems to have determined that only by peering into the soul of the officer can we determine what exactly happened (video be dammed!!)..
Face
Because a few of us called bullshit on his comments and, true to form, he cannot let that stand. He must defend them, no matter how nonsensical and ludicrous they appear.
TheHatOnMyCat
I don’t know, I am seeing posts here and not keeping track of who is saying what. I am arguing against premature judgement, in accordance with the principles of our system. If you are in agreement with those, then I have no argument with you.
Already answered, and quite clearly. I have never used the word exonerate in this thread, my position is clear, and I do not tolerate other people putting strawman words in my mouth. I say what I mean, not your version of what I mean.
I demand process in every case. That’s what distinguishes our system from less civilized systems. If you are willing to throw away process because you are all pissed off, then we will not agree, and I will consider you a threat to what I consider to be the American system.
Punchy
This appears to be the very reason why so many people here are angry. Becuase they dont. And they should by now.
TheHatOnMyCat
Good for you. I will wait for the facts to come in.
To do otherwise is basically a version of mob rule, and I have no respect for mob rule. No matter whose side the mob is on.
If you don’t think that trying a case on tv based on a cel video is mob rule, then we are not communicating.
TheHatOnMyCat
No, I don’t agree with that presumption at all.
But even allowing it for the sake of discussion, I refer you to my earlier suggestion that we take a look at the police shooting procedures in effect here, and what the rules are, and what the expected output is from that.
Are those rules being followed? Or are they being circumvented in order to cover something up? I don’t know the answer to that any more than anyone else here .. in fact, I just realized, we are talking about BART procedures, not Oakland, so that is noted. But in any case, without knowing that, I have no basis to be in the street with a pitchfork. And just for the record, I have been in a street or two with a pitchfork, so I am not exactly unfamiliar with that type of response.
deanosaur
I knew when I watched the video that the victim was unarmed. That definitely skewed my view of it.
Its possible that the cop didn’t know the guy was unarmed. What if one of the cops pinning the guy down shouted "he’s got a bomb"! Would that change things?
Seems unlikely, but I would at least like to hear what everyone has to say before I draw conclusions.
gex
Apparently HatCatWhatever believes one of three things:
1) The cops are legally allowed to mete out punishment, including shooting a suspect, for behavior they witnessed before the suspect was subdued or
2) The cops are legally allowed to mete out punishment against a unarmed, subdued suspect who says something that pisses them off or
3) The cops are legally allowed to kill someone if they are anxious about a situation.
Which part of subdued do you not understand, Cat? It is not the role of the police to prove guilt or decide punishment. Once the guy was down on the ground, they should be pulling out cuffs, not guns.
What the hell is wrong with the cops that they need to use deadly force to control someone when there are three of them there and the guy is already face down on the ground?
Crusty Dem
Jeebus Cat, we’re not on the god damn jury here. You’re not the defense lawyer. You’re allowed to watch and think, stop being so deliberately obtuse…
AhabTRuler
Nor is it the role of the mob.
gopher2b
Who’s trying a case here? Forming judgments based on facts and "pre-trying" a case are entirely different things. Do you understand that? Do you understand that no one on this board has the power to put this cop in jail?
What I am saying is that if this guy was not a cop, he would be in jail now. Period. He is not in jail right now because he is receiving special treatment (because he’s a cop). This is unacceptable and I do not need to wait for "all the facts to come in" before reaching this conclusion.
Right now, based on those videos, there is probable cause to arrest and charge him with manslaughter and 2nd degree murder. All the other unknown facts you mentioned you were waiting on (whether he is a racists, his statement, etc) would only elevate his charges to 1st degree.
And, btw, if you are waiting for his statement, don’t hold your breath. Only a complete and total idiot would give a statement to the police.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
@AhabTRuler: And its clearly not the role of the police to be held accountable for shooting unarmed, unresisting citizens, either.
And guess what? They usually aren’t.
Jenkins
The reason the cop hasn’t been questioned yet is because the BART police operate under their own jurisdiction with different rules and procedures. They have no police commission or civilian over-site:
link
Haon123
Is he in jail for being suspected of committing a crime?
No?
Well, he must have paid bail?
No?
Well, he must have given sworn testimony before a review board?
No? He resigned to avoid it?
Cat, do you really see no problem with that? Not calling for his head, but calling for him to be treated like the spirit of the law demands?
Punchy
Any cops out there want to comment? I find it absurd to the point of impossibility for the protocol in this situation to be: 1) allow shooter cop to go home, 2) dont take any statement or deposition for at least one week, 3) don’t appear to be taking any steps to recitify the insane cop double standard associated with steps 1) and 2).
AhabTRuler
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko: Who has said that? And why be such a jackass about it?
tavella
Gosh, funny, I don’t see anyone convicting him. What I see is a bunch of people pointing out that if he was anyone but a cop and had pulled out a gun and shot an an unarmed, restrained man in the back, he’d be arrested by now. If they wanted to present excuses as to why the charge should be lowered or thrown out, they would do so to a judge.
People are merely asking that a cop be treated the same as a citizen.
libarbarian
Which is something people, and departments, should take into account when they choose to buy the fucking Glock – which is probably responsible for more accidental shootings than any other weapon around today.
TheHatOnMyCat –
When a 2 year police veteran shoots a man in the bak because he doesn’t maintain trigger-finger-discipline THAT IS NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE !!!
It is NEGLIGENT not to keep your finger off the fucking trigger until you intend to shoot – especially when your a trained professional. It is NOT a casually forgivable mistake.
The shooter is ALWAYS responsible for his shot. . ALWAYS. It is his job to obey the basic safety rules, which includes appropriate trigger-finger discipline, and his fault if someone gets hurt because he didn’t do them.
grey_hawk
@TheHatOnMyCat – 140
The problem with your objections is that no one here has yet demanded an overturning of the constitutional order, or extrajudicial executions of the officer in question, or shifting the formal procedures of trials and conviction in a court of law to the basis of rumor and YouTube.
Bootlegger
If I may digress from the cogent and rational lynch mob v. innocent-until-proven-guilty debate, I’m curious if this guy spent any or all of the last 7 years in parts of Iraq or Afghanistan. PTSD anyone?
Barbar
Come on guys.
Aren’t you being a bit quick on the trigger finger with your blaming of the cop?
Why are you so hasty to leap to judgment and give him the death penalty?
He hasn’t had his say yet. Why are you so eager to shoot him while he’s lying face down on the ground?
libarbarian
The ONLY excuse for this would be mechanical failure of the gun.
Anything else would AT LEAST fall under "gross negligence" deserving of punishment. "Accidentally" shooting someone because you left your finger on the trigger is like "accidentally" crashing into someone because you were playing with your radio and not looking at the road – its not a fucking legitimate excuse and, while not the same as "murder", is still worthy of punishment and censure./
Jenkins
There supposedly were earlier reports that night of armed people on the BART trains. This led to some speculation that the cops were "on edge". But let’s remember: this was early New Years morning in Oakland, CA. The BART station that Grant was killed at is one station away from the Oakland Coliseum, home of the Raiders, A’s, Warriors, and a whole lot of fights like this. BART police are not rent-a-cops.
AhabTRuler
I recognize that the system favors the police in these situations, but that is no excuse to rush to judgment. Some have done so, while others have not. I think that the situation appears clear-cut from the video, but I still want to wait for an investigation, not because I believe that it will exonerate the officer, or that it should, but because that is the way the system works.
And I will be furious when the systems fails to deliver justice yet again. Being the citizen of a democracy is kind of like being a battered spouse.
KDP
@TheCatOnMyHat
In principle, I agree with your stand. In principle, I agree with the standing protocol that an officer involved in shooting is not arrested for that shooting, but instead is required to cooperate with an investigation by the agency by which he is employed pending any criminal charges. There are circumstances in which a shooting is justifiable, hence the existing protocols. That being said, what action is warranted when the involved officer chooses to resign his position rather than participate in the required investigation by the agency involved? According to the article below, upon the officer’s resignation, he is no longer bound to cooperate with the BART administration’s investigation.
BART Officer resigns before scheduled interview
I won’t pretend to know the legal ramifications of this, but it seems there ought to be a mechanism under which an officer who chooses to resign, rather than cooperate with an investigation into a shooting death that he effected, loses the protections afforded by his former position. If the shooter had not been a police officer, he would have been arrested and held for arraignment, thus beginning due process through the criminal justice system. In this situation, the shooter was a police officer for the transit agency, and an overriding protocol existed to conduct an internal investigation of the incident. Now though, having resigned his position, the former officer is neither bound to comply with the agency investigation into his actions nor detained by the municipal authorities, and still a young man is dead through this man’s actions.
I am not passing judgment on the officer. I agree with you that an investigation and appropriate legal actions based on facts and evidence must take place. As he elected to avoid cooperation in the internal investigation through his resignation from BART, I think the DA’s office in Oakland should bring charges against him as they would in any other shooting in which the shooter was observed to have shot the victim. The criminal investigation may find, on the basis of facts and evidence, that the shooting was justified in which case the charges will be dropped, dismissed, or he will be found not guilty. Of course, the resignation occurred only yesterday, so the DA’s office may still be planning to take action against this former officer.
In closing, despite what is generalized about violence in Oakland and other Bay Area cities, the Bay Area is not a war zone. There are organizations and agencies that actively work to provide support and services to the community in order to effect social changes that may reduce violence. I live here, and provide what financial support I can to organizations that seek to provide the resources needed to offer alternatives to the gangs, violence, drugs, and life-diminishing activities so prevalent in urban areas. I have felt encouraged by the growth of the anti-violence movements in the Bay Area’s troubled cities. So, despite the horrific circumstances of this young man’s death, as a community, I think we should be seeking not revenge, but justice.
Bootlegger
@AhabTRuler: Interesting contradiction Ahab,
I kind of see the Hat’s point here, if its guilty-until-proven-innocent, why even have a trial?
Mrs. Peel
Oh really?
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=15310#comment-1119430
Bootlegger
@KDP:
On what charge? Clearly there will be charges filed and he will be arrested. But since they know where he is and I’m sure are making sure he doesn’t go anywhere, they don’t need to arrest him until they interview all the witnesses, collect material evidence and file charges. Once you arrest someone you have to provide evidence of the charge within a matter of days or the person goes free.
I know it easy to forget habeas corpus after the last 8 years, but it still applies. This guy will see the inside of the jail soon enough.
AhabTRuler
@Bootlegger: Um, there were some early block quote issues, and I don’t think I said what you think I said.
Brachiator
@Conservatively Liberal:
A partial description of events from local witness accounts:
Anytime, anywhere, any group who fight in public and continue to fight when the cops arrive increase the risk of something stupid or deadly occurring.
There are riots in Greece surrounding the shooting death of a minor in a scuffle with the cops. Different country. Same result.
Typically, the taser is marked differently (yellow tape), carried on the opposite side as the gun, and officers are supposed to announce that they are tasing so that fellow officers know that a handgun is not being pulled and so that they stay out of the way of any of the electrical wires. None of this happened in this shooting incident.
The reaction in Oakland is self-defeating. Again, from local news stories:
Punchy
I wish we could wager on this. I’d be willing to place $20 that he never sees the pokie. Absent these riots today, I’d bet he’d have never seen the inside of a courtroom. At least the latter part seems almost guarenteed at this point.
Bootlegger
@AhabTRuler: Ok. I’ve had problems working these damned things too. But the way I read the post you said, "Hang him!" "Don’t rush to judgment" "If you don’t rush to judgment I’ll hang you!" If that’s not what you meant, o’tay with me.
malraux
There are really two issues: First, is proper procedure being followed by the cops investigating this? If it isn’t, then obviously that’s a problem.
Second, if proper procedure is being followed, is that procedure just? If the proper procedure is significantly biased toward the police, then that’s as unjust as mob rule.
scarshapedstar
How about the all-purpose whoopsy-daisy catch-all:
Who can argue with that?
AhabTRuler
@Bootlegger: I was quoting Napoleon from above on the ‘Hang ’em’ thing. Frist Block Quote FAIL evar!!!!1!!11!
Bootlegger
@malraux: He is free until they charge him with a crime, just like any of us would be if we were not a flight risk. The latitude he is granted as a cop is he is not considered a flight risk (I’m sure they’re watching him) so they can bide their time and arrest him on the correct charges. If it were you or me they would invent a charge if they needed to in order to make you put up bail.
Ryan S.
Manslaughter for starters, Theres, a fricken video tape of him shooting him for god sakes grow a brain.
If he wasn’t a cop and there was a video of someone shooting someone else in the back would you have any hesitation calling for his arrest.
Bootlegger
@AhabTRuler: First one eva? Better than I sir, better than I.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
@AhabTRuler: Has the cop been interrogated? Questioned? Deposed? Has there been any movement consistent with that we would see had the shooter NOT been a fucking cop?
Quite frankly, I don’t expect a goddamn thing to happen to the cop. He wears blue and he shot a black guy.
Beside other black people, who really gives a flying fuck? Not the goddamned just-us system, that’s for goddamn sure.
Why be a jackass about? I don’t know… because this ain’t the first goddamn time a white cop shot an unarmed black man and was not held to account for it, and it almost certainly won’t be the last.
If recognizing that fact, pointing it out, and being sorely pissed about it is "being a jackass," then fucking HEE-HAW.
Crusty Dem
Well, first we’d need the suspect questioned, then an arrest, and then a trial. I wouldn’t be so irate if we’d seen, at a minimum, questioning (and fail to see how this would fall under BART’s jurisdiction, the Oakland PD and DA should be investigating this).
Manslaughter. The videos are more than enough evidence to warrant a trial.
Habeas corpus? Really? I don’t think that means what you think it means (or we’ve got a very different definition of what would constitute "unlawful detention"). Additionally, you have far more faith in the justice system than I do.
Bootlegger
@Ryan S.: What if they want to charge him with capital murder instead? The only reason to arrest him now is to make him post bail (or have bail rejected, which it wouldn’t be). Period.
Ninerdave
Yeah I read that last night and she’s not even an Oakland resident. Made me want to trash her apartment and then see how she feels about it. Fuck the anarchists. It’s the main reason I don’t go to protests anymore.
These situations bring out the worst of the lefty douche bags.
lawsipan
The main problem in this situation is that the BART police are beholden to no civil authority, unlike "real" police officers, and thus are not under the same laws as other cops, and I do believe they do not get the same kind of extensive training.
As a friend of mine says, "There have been a few BART-cops-shooting-people-in-the-back instances in the past 15 years…It seems like something they just got to do every now and then. They must be so annoyed at the cell-phone camera phenomenon.
Most of the cops had the smarts not to do it in front of witnesses, though."
Every time there’s a shooting incident involving BART police there’s a huge uproar and a whole bunch of articles in the local dailies about how having BART police report to nobody but a BART board is stupid and blah blah blah but nothing EVER happens to change it, and everybody forgets about it until another BART cop shoots a defenseless person in the back again.
Hopefully this time will be different, since it was all caught on camera.
And those of you saying that we don’t know what happened and there’s not enough evidence and meow meow meow? It is NEVER OK for a cop to shoot an unarmed suspect in the back. Ever. Under any circumstances. I don’t think it’s EVER OK for a cop to shoot an unarmed, subdued man in the back with a fucking taser. It just shouldn’t ever be done. What is wrong with you that you think it’s just dandy for cops to be able to come in whenever they want, guns blazing? Are only some civil liberties sacrosanct?
Bootlegger
@Crusty Dem:
Are you for real? Video evidence is never "more than enough for trial". Its enough for charges to be brought, and as I said they will be, but that is not the same as having enough evidence for trial.
Actually, you don’t know what it means if you believe it means "unlawful detention". It refers to a motion whereby the state has to give the court grounds for detaining you, including why they will or won’t grant you bail. The court then either agrees with the state and sets bail or remands you to custody, or they let you go free. In this case once the cop is arrested he is given the chance to apply for bail, otherwise he submits a writ of habeas corpus.
Could they arrest him right now, charge him, and set bail? Of course they could. Probably they could charge him with assault, and he would make a very low bail.
Or, and this may be hard for the lynch mob to comprehend, they could wait and charge him with a far greater charge than they could get with just the videotape as evidence and possibly get no bail at all.
Ninerdave
Another thing, can we stop calling this a riot?
Besides some property damage, a police car that got rocked, a few minor injuries and a trash can lit on fire, it’s was for the most part a peaceful protest. From all available evidence, the "rioters" were the normal shit starters that show up for most Bay Area protests.
jj
Yeah, if only they had a videotape of what hap…oh wait. Nevermind.
Geez,
I find it saddening and creepy that so many people fail to see the appalling double standard here.
This man should have been arrested and charged. The tape is sufficient in and of itself to at least justify a charge of manslaughter.
As it stands, there is no justifiable reason why he has not been arrested. A crime has been committed, and when that happens, you don’t just get to go home, lawyer up and start working on your defense without at least seeing a judge first.
Remember, a citizen is dead and his killer is still walking around free as a jaybird. The fact that he is a police officer does not obscure this fact. And certainly anyone captured on videotape taking the life of a police officer would not be afforded the same latitude this policeman has recieved.
But that’s America for you, even with a black President Elect, you can still get gunned down by the police if you are black man, with the usual cadre of apologists running interference until "all the facts come in".
As citizen, a taxpayer and coincidentally as a black man, I am personally sick and tired of this bullshit.
I have too many personal stories that mirror this incident and I’m weary of unarmed black men being needlessly sacrficed to the gods of "scared cop overreaction" on a seemingly bi-annual basis, and I’m weary of all the assholes who search high and low to justify the insane amounts of latitude the guilty officers are typically afforded.
The calculus amongst law enforcement in this nation has been clear for some time now: If you are a person of color, your safety, dignity and life are of lesser value.
This shit needs to stop. Yesterday.
Ninerdave
Just proof that authoritarians exist on both sides of the fence.
gopher2b
He has no idea what it means or how it is used. Get me the detention first, then he can worry about his habeas rights.
Bootlegger
@lawsipan:
Breaking out the straw man eh? Make sure you wear your helmet.
An unarmed man has your 8 year old niece in a choke hold and won’t let go. The cop has a clear shot but if he tries to break the guys hold it will hurt the girl. Guys has his back to the cop. Can he shoot then? Hunh? Hunh? Can he?
How do you like them reducio ad absurdum apples?
John Cole
Say what? A cop, for no legal reason, pulled a gun and shot an unarmed restrained man in the back. That is pretty damned clearly what happened here, and that is a pretty rock solid determination.
The only thing missing from the story is why- which will just go to determine how long he should spend in jail.
Ninerdave
What the hell are you talking about? BART has an elected board. They are every much "real" police officers as any other cop on the street.
Brachiator
@malraux:
People really need to follow this story via local news sources. The BART police (the officer was a transit cop) and the DA are looking into the case.
But the officer resigned from the force, which may result in the bypass of the standard Internal Affairs investigation. An officer must answer some IA questions, but a private citizen does not have to do so, and can assert rights against self-incrimination. The officer lawyered up very smartly.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
Yes, if the "unarmed man" is black.
Otherwise he could do the sensible thing and walk up and hit the fucker upside the head with his goddamn nightstick.
Don’t you agree??
Ryan S.
@Bootlegger:
Then they can amend the charges, they can always do that until they have the actual trial.
JR
@Bootlegger: Uh… he’s got her in a chokehold with his hands behind his back, face down on the ground and 2 other officers restraining him?
It’s not necessary to make up imaginary situations when actual real ones have been caught on camera.
Bootlegger
@jj:
And you know this how? He will not walking around long and when they do arrest him it will on a charge that will stick and demand the highest bail possible.
If were you, yes they’d arrest you and charge you with whatever they could think of, because you would be a flight risk. You would make bail on whatever lame charge they had and then you, yes you sir, would be walking around free.
Learn the fucking law before making shit up.
Bootlegger
@gopher2b: Facist.
Bootlegger
@John Cole:
First, it will determine what they charge him with, which will determine his bail. Then we can go on our merry way to trial.
Bootlegger
@Ryan S.: And until then the guy is walking around free on bail from the lesser charge. You ALL are bitching about him walking around free, but then arguing for a process that will have him walking around free.
I DON’T FUCKING UNDERSTAND THIS.
Ninerdave
While we’re at it, just ship him the fuck to Guantanamo eh!
idiot
Bootlegger
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko:
No. In my lame-ass hypothetical the blow with the nightstick will hurt the girl because there isn’t enough time before he chokes the life out of her. Only a shot in the back will save her. And before any moron says this isn’t what happened go back and read why I’m posing this lame-ass hypothetical.
Brachiator
@Ninerdave:
Besides some property damage, a police car that got rocked, a few minor injuries and a trash can lit on fire, it’s was for the most part a peaceful protest.
Can I come and smash the windows at your house?
And of course, a mob is defined as much by their attitude as by the damage that they actually cause:
Ryan S.
@Bootlegger: They can amend the fricken bail too if they want. It not that hard at least make it look like they give some kind of shit.
Laura W
This brings to mind one of the recent interviews with the Obamas wherein Michelle is asked if she feared that Barack might get shot if he ran. Her response, and the almost sorrowful look of acknowledgement on his face as she delivers it, give me hope, as unjustified as my hope may be. She says (paraphrasing): "As a black man, Barack could get shot walking to the gas station."
libarbarian
Also, they are all on a ledge of a cliff with a man-eating tiger below and another man-eating tiger above.
WHAT DO YOU DO?!?!?!?!?!
Sarcastro
That’s the way we do it here in America, unless the rules were changed since I worked in one of the largest capital crime offices in the country.
Let me get this strait; Here in America if I were to shoot a bound man in the back while in the presence of a half dozen police officers I would not be arrested on the spot? I would not be held in jail until a bail hearing was held? The DA would contact my lawyer before even issuing an arrest warrant?
No god damned wonder it was one of the largest capital crime offices in the country, it was obviously staffed with fucking morons who wouldn’t know a crime if it bit them square on the ass.
Bootlegger
@Ryan S.: And jeopardize the case? Cuz you know they’ve never done that before. You seriously want them to rush to do something just for the symbolism and raise the possibility that the fucker will walk free because you made some stupid error?
Let’s get something straight here, there is no Thin Blue Line protecting the BART cops. Any DA in America would give his left testicle (or ovary) for the chance to nail this guys prick to the inside of a prison cell and the other country and state law enforcement are not going to stand behind the transit cop who freaked out. I’ll bet my farm (and I actually own one) that the other cops on the platform with him are telling all and blaming it all on him, they don’t want to hang for his idiocy.
Ninerdave
@Brachiator:
Read my post a few more down. My point is this was not a RIOT. A Riot is Watts or LA after Rodney King. It was a peaceful protest, with some assholes thrown in. It’s the same in a lot protests in the Bay Area.
And yeah Sykes is a fucking idiot, who came to my town to do nothing but vandalize. Still doesn’t make it a riot.
Punchy
Pretty sure protocol here is to shoot him in the leg, or some other non-lethal area. Not sure you’d be allowed to smoke the guy when an also-successful non-lethal method is viable.
Bootlegger
@libarbarian: If I shoot the tiger below I can jump on him, then shoot the tiger above and eat tiger steaks for dinner. Mmmmmm, tiger steaks……
monad
@Brachiator:
Man oh man, would I laugh my ass off if the mob burned down ‘Revolution’ Books, or busted into Nia Sykes’ apartment and trashed everything she owns.
jj
You mean other than the dead man?
Jeezus.
Note I did not say he would be convicted of manslaughter, I said "charged". At the very least held until a bail hearing. Not at home before ever having been detained by the authorities.
Are you sure about that, beacuse I have shitload of American history that causes me to have some doubts.
And you think it’s OK that a cop be given a pass on not only being a flight risk but also on the matter of public safety (a person is dead at this man’s hands after all)?
Yeah, because black men who shoot police officers are never, ever held without bail (or at the very least have their bail set so high as to be unaffordable). Nope, nosiree Bob. That never happens.
And you have the temerity to accuse me of making shit up?
Please.
Bootlegger
@Sarcastro: It is true that the cop gets the benefit of the doubt in a shooting that takes place on duty. You would not get that benefit and you would be detained and bailed as a flight risk. The cop is not deemed a flight risk (though as I said he is surely being watched) so yes he is free while they work up the charges. This isn’t a matter of subjective bias either, it is actually part of the written statues regarding the police use of deadly force.
Crusty Dem
Yes, that’s pretty clear. You don’t understand why people want to see the officer arrested. You don’t understand that video of someone shooting an unarmed, restrained man might be sufficient to warrant an arrest and would lead to a trial (obviously there will be other evidence, moron). But you will bring up habeas corpus about someone who’s been videotaped shooting an unarmed, restrained man. I can only assume you’re a first-year law student and a full-blown moron (although the two often appear mutually inclusive).
Bootlegger
@Punchy: Sigh. My point was simply responding to whoever said that it was NEVER-EVER ok to shoot an unarmed man in the back. Obviously there are crazy circumstances where this is not the case. Yes, you are correct, they could shoot to maim, but frankly with a kid in front of the guy only a head shot would be sure to miss the kid as it passes through the perp.
Mrs. Peel
Problem is you’re dealing with people 3,000 miles away who are reading news feeds and putting their own spin on things. I haven’t really read "hang the SOB’s" rants from people on the west coast who are actually living through the situation in real time. Just from people who are tsk, tsking from the comfort of their arm chairs at a safe far distance.
brent
The tape is sufficient in and of itself to at least justify a charge of manslaughter.
Everyone seems to be focused on the video tape but the fact is that there were numerous witnesses to the incident including several officers who would, in any sane universe, consider it their immediate duty to arrest him. The notion that an investigation needs to occur before a person is arrested for an action that several people watched him commit is completely absurd and based entirely in fantasy.
Ohshit
Clearer video. Listen to the crowd in the Bart. Then the door shuts. Unbelievable.
Bootlegger
@jj: You are freakin’ hysterical man. Find your wandering uterus and put it back so you can calm down and think rationally. NO WAY this guy gets away with this and when they do take him it will be for a very, very long time. The matter of arrest versus non-arrest is a matter of legal protocol whenever an officer on duty discharges a firearm. If you are not an officer on duty do not compare your circumstances to these.
Ohshit
Face
You’re obtuseness doesn’t excuse you here. Let’s keep this simple: we are not angry that this guy will at some point walk around free, we are angry that he hasn’t even been questioned. Or deposed. Or charged. Or needed to make bail. And every goddamn one of us knows that if anyone other than one-time had pulled this shit, they’d be sporting bracelets and orange clothing.
For you to pretend that we’re demanding this guy get the chair without a trial is pure bullshit. Give us at least a fucking interrogation and/or deposition and most of us will shut the fuck up.
Bootlegger
@Crusty Dem: Ooooo, another fool who likes to wear his helmet when taking down the straw man.
I never said, go check it for yourself, that I didn’t understand why people want him arrested. I want him arrested. I never said it was "sufficient" to warrant an arrest. He will be arrested. What I did say was that the way this is being handled is perfectly within normal protocols (not conspiracy) for when an on-duty officer discharges his or her firearm. When the charges are ready they will arrest him, he will receive a very, very high bail, and I have no doubt he will be convicted, probably of manslaughter if his defense can successfully argue some kind of mental issues like PTSD.
I’m not a first-year law student, but if ad hominen is more to your liking than the straw man, the eat shit and die you fucking needle-pricked douchebag.
gwangung
Actually, I can think of SEVERAL ways for this guy to get away with it. There have been several incidents in the past where officers have, indeed, gotten away with it.
That’s not being hysterical. That’s just citing historical facts.
Bootlegger
@brent:
And yet, there it is, happening in real life, not on some fantasy island. It is normal protocol they are following, nothing more, no conspiracy, no hooded-Klan handshakes. This tool will see the inside of a cell for a very long time. Don’t act like a tool in the meantime.
brent
The cop is not deemed a flight risk (though as I said he is surely being watched) so yes he is free while they work up the charges.
Flight risk is only one of the reasons that people are held after committing acts of violence. They are also held because the police have sufficient evidence to suspect criminal activity, which is obviously the case here, and because their actions suggest very strongly that they are a danger to the community, also an obvious factor in this case. There is really no reason that this BART officer should be walking around free. If the argument is that police procedure prevents an immediate arrest in this circumstance than those procedures need a very serious overhaul.
monad
@Bootlegger:
Plus, I’m thinking the bald cop who was kneeling down, in front of the gun, about 2 feet away as it fired would dearly enjoy having the opportunity to beat the shooter’s ass before he gets sent to prison.
Crusty Dem
We’ll see. I’ll hold you to this, you atavistic shitheel.
brent
And yet, there it is, happening in real life, not on some fantasy island.
Please try and pay attention. The fact that it is happening is not the fantasy. Your suggestion that it needs to happen is the absurdity.
kay
I don’t think the taser-mistake argument works. Tasering isn’t the default. It isn’t "I meant to use the standard taser, but instead mistakenly shot this person".
Without a good reason, and "repeated" warnings, tasering in the course of an arrest is excessive force. He doesn’t look like he’s resisting.
Ninerdave
@Mrs. Peel:
Well put.
Punchy
So discharging firearm = killing a defenseless person, with respect to police protocol, eh? I had no idea. So the protocol really is to give the guy 7 days to formulate a story with the assistance of a lawyer instead of taking his statement the next day? I find this impossible to believe.
Catsy
I really don’t get what is so hard for some people to understand about this: a man discharged a firearm into the back of a prone, restrained, unarmed man.PERIOD. FULL STOP.
There is no sequence of events, psychological or otherwise, that is possible from any of the multiple camera angles from which this was filmed that changes the certainty that this was an unjustified, unlawful shooting. None.
This isn’t the same thing as saying that he is obviously guilty and should be punished, his guilt prejudged by the court. What it does say is that this event, recorded from multiple angles and witnessed by at least two other uniformed LEOs in addition to dozens of civilians, is prima facie probable cause by any standard in any jurisdiction in this nation.
I absolutely defy anyone here, to conjure up a favorable interpretation of what occurred that comports with the known facts: the victim was unarmed, face-down, prone, and restrained by two officers. If he had a hidden weapon, or was going for one of the officers’ weapons, or otherwise taking action that mitigated the shooting—or if there was any way they could even plausibly claim that he was, whether or not it was true—we’d be hearing about it. And it still wouldn’t make it a clean shoot.
We have laws and rights governing due process, and it is good that we do. But requiring due process under the law does not exempt us, as private citizens, from exercising our brains and forming reasonable conclusions about the actions of others based on available facts. I do not need to prove to my neighbor beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that their kid hit my son when he’s standing in front of me with a bloody nose and the other kid is nursing sore knuckles. I have a brain.
Bootlegger
@Face: And the straw man gets up again!! Nice tackle!
I never said anything about the Chair now did I? No, I don’t understand your hysteria. They are following normal, and legal, protocols for a police shooting. You would be in jail, or out on bail probably by now, because you were not an on-duty cop when you shot whoever it was (me perhaps).
He has not been "interrogated" because he invoked his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination (bet you wish you supported torture NOW, don’t ya). So, they will question all of the witnesses, view all the tapes, draw up the appropriate charges, and when the case is Air-Fucking-Tight they will go and get his stoopid ass.
In the meantime you’ll simply have to clutch your pearls and pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
OniHanzo
@Bootlegger:
Pop quiz, hotshot. There’s a ticking bomb somewhere in America.. You only have two hours to extract information from a subject and you are Jack motherfucking Bauer.
What. do. you. DO?!
libarbarian
@Bootlegger
A billion Chinese can’t be wrong.
Bootlegger
@gwangung: And history always dictates the present? Could I just as easily argue that way more cops have been convicted than acquitted? Would that calm you down?
Bootlegger
@brent: Perhaps they do need to be overhauled. But to your two points. First, there is no evidence of an ongoing criminal conspiracy, so your first point doesn’t apply. Second, the fact that he shot one person while making an arrest, as repugnant and horrifying as it is, is not evidence that he is an imminent danger to himself or others. I wish it were other than this, but we do not, as I pointed out, live on Fantasy Island.
Bootlegger
@monad: No doubt. In fact if you catch a glimpse of his reaction I have zero doubts that he is telling the DA what an awful tool that bozo is. No way he wants to go down for that.
Catsy
By the way, this comment editor still sucks a humongous amount of assvapor. Please, John, for the love of god, get rid of this piece of shit, and replace it with something that doesn’t try to perform an interpretive dance with any HTML you enter. I like the ability to edit comments. But the HTML-parsing aspect of the editor is the worst kind of choad code.
Bootlegger
@Crusty Dem: You’re calling me vile names, but I’m the one that’s atavistic? Ironic.
jj
Again, you’d think it was an open and shut case, but history and personal experience tells me otherwise.
I personally know two people, one a juvenille with down’s syndrome, the other my best man’s uncle; both unarmed black males, who have been killed by police in the presence of witnesses. The incidents are separated by over a decade (one in the late 1980s, the other about 4 years ago) and in both cases, there was mistaken identity (the victims were mistaken for suspects). In both cases the victims were shot by a police officer at close range and the officer was exonerated.
So pardon my skepticism. Cops have been shooting unarmed black men and getting away with it for a long, long time now.
This is called a double standard and while "protocols" may allow for it, that does not make it right. Moreover, such protocols are clearly counterproductive in the long term.
Let me state this unambiguously, the rules for what happens when a police officer discharges his weapon need to be changed. ESPECIALLY when the action leads to injury or death.
As for this statement
You can kindly go fuck yourself. Either you have no firsthand experience dealing with abuse and negligence at the hands of people who are supposed to be protecting you OR you are just another L3 asshole who can’t see the forest for the trees. Or maybe you’re both.
Bootlegger
@brent: Who said anything about "needs"? I said it is simply the protocol, i.e. the law, as it is written. Does it suck? Apparently.
Ninerdave
@Punchy:
No, the protocol is that everyone has a right to a defense in the court of law. It’s obvious he shot Oscar Grant, and I can’t dream of any extenuating circumstances that would justify the shooting, but we have a process, flawed as it may be, to deal with shit like this. It’s called the court system.
I seem to remember people on this blog being out raged not to long ago about Bush circumventing the legal system. This is no different.
Bootlegger
@OniHanzo: I fuck my wife, drink a bottle of 80 year old bourbon, then kiss my children goodbye. What would you do?
Bootlegger
@libarbarian: Indeed. LOL
liberalcop
Nope. If lethal force is justified, then lethal force can be used.
People, listen to Bootlegger. He’s right. So far, there’s nothing fishy about how this is being handled.
Bootlegger
@Punchy: No one is compelled to give a statement. Heard of the 5th Amendment have you?
Brachiator
@Ninerdave:
Point noted. Maybe I’ve been away from the Bay area too long, and have lost the nuance of the protest movement. However, this description from the San Francisco Chronicle does not sound like "just a peaceful protest" —
But I also take your point about a core of deliberate troublemakers…
gopher2b
@Bootlegger:
I’m not "facist" (sic) – I just know what habeas corpus means.
JL
After watching the video, it was pretty clear that the other officers were taken by surprise. I’d be surprised if they stand by their fellow officer, in this case.
Has anyone heard about the case outside of Houston, in Bellaire where a young man was shot in his driveway?
I heard about it yesterday on CNN. Since the young man is still alive, it is not receiving as much attention. A young man was returning home with his cousin, when the local police followed them into the driveway and pulled them out of the car and onto the ground. The young man’s mother came out of the house and was pushed back against the house. The young man tried to get up, to assist his mom and was then shot. He is still in the hospital with a bullet lodged in his liver.
There had been several reports of auto thefts but no report of his stealing his own car. Since the young man, in question is black, I guess he was not suppose to drive a nice car.
Bootlegger
@jj: Look dickhead, you started flinging the poo, don’t get mad when it comes back at you.
I actually agree with you that bad shit has happened before, I too have seen it, I even had a cop threaten to shoot me when I tried to help a guy the cops were beating the shit out of. That doesn’t mean I should get all hysterical about THIS CASE and call for the lynch mob. Apparently I’m in the minority here but I understand why they haven’t arrested the guy yet and it has nothing to do with whether or not he’s going to get away with it. Will he get away with it? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it. But nothing that has happened so far is indicative of that possibility.
So yeah, chill out.
brent
First, there is no evidence of an ongoing criminal conspiracy, so your first point doesn’t apply
I am not talking about a criminal conspiracy. I am talking about evidence of a crime. People are generally arrested when they are witnessed committing actual crimes and they are almost universally immediately arrested when they are witnessed committing violent crimes. That is because the fact that the officer can actually see them commit an act which is to all appearances criminal is sufficient evidence to hold and charge that individual.
Second, the fact that he shot one person while making an arrest, as repugnant and horrifying as it is, is not evidence that he is an imminent danger to himself or others.
First, – "he shot one person while making an arrest" – that’s a rather odd way of describing the shooting of an unarmed and prone civilian in the back. It rather deliberately elides an awful lot of the questionable circumstances that occurred during this incident.
Second, the notion that that there is any question that someone who would do such a thing is not presumed to be a danger to the community is entirely nonsensical to me. If such is not evidence of danger to the community than I cannot imagine what one would have to do to be considered as such.
Bootlegger
@gopher2b: Apparently not. Fascist.
liberalcop
If he had a gun in his waistband and went for it, or got a hand free and attempted to grab another officer’s gun, that would absolutely be a clean shoot.
From watching the video, I’m guessing that they were having a hard time getting Oscar’s hands behind his back for cuffing, and the cop thought he was pulling his taser.
Face
He did? Got a link? Doesn’t he have to be questioned before he decides to invoke the 5th? Or does he just do this over the phone?
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
And that, dear boy, is the fucking problem.
gopher2b
@Ninerdave:
Exactly. And it would be great if the cops participated in the system by arresting and charging this guy for manslaughter (which they clearly have enough evidence to support)
Bootlegger
@brent: I’ll try to be nice here, but then I have to go pick up my kids.
The cop was not arrested, no matter what anyone saw, because the shooting was by a cop, on duty, in the performance of that duty. He is free until a determination is made regarding the shooting, at which point he can be charged with a crime. This is normal police/legal protocol whether we like it or not (and I’d agree with not, but there it is).
My description was the way the defense will portray it. I probably agree with you that its worse than that and that the guy is mentally unstable. But your and my opinion don’t matter here, only the law does, and the law about imminent danger would not apply here.
lawsipan
This is such a rehash of the "24" argument that I don’t even want to engage it but there are plenty of non-lethal ways to deal with this situation that do not involve a gun.
Tigers, indeed.
Bootlegger
@Face: Are you serious? All I have to do is say nothing, period. His lawyer showed up, he left, 5th Amendment invoked.
Bootlegger
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko: Why? Because you’re angry? Justice will be served here. Think for a minute about why we have the protocol, for the legal shootings. Should we arrest every copy involved in a shooting. No. So it goes the other way until malfeasance is ascertained.
Its been fun ladies, have to run and get the kiddos.
brent
Who said anything about "needs"?
I did. You then implied that my discussion of what needed to happen in this situation was silly and made me a "tool" because that was not what actually happened. I pointed out to you that your comment made no sense and wasn’t addressing what I actually said and here we are.
I said it is simply the protocol, i.e. the law, as it is written. Does it suck? Apparently.
First, protocol is not the same as law. So your use of "i.e" is incorrect. Second, I am quite certain that it is not the law that officers after witnessing what they believe is a criminal act by anyone, including an officer, must allow that person to walk away from the crime while they conduct an investigation. That is just plainly foolish but if you can show me something in the Oakland statutes that suggest that that is the way that officers are required to behave when witnessing what they believe is a criminal act by a fellow officer than I will gladly take it all back. I doubt very seriously that you can do so.
demimondian
@Face: Unless a warrant has been made out for his arrest, the simple question "Will you come down to the station to talk to us about it?" was answered "No." Unpacked, that one word answer should read "As answering your questions might tend to incriminate me, I decline to do so, as is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment."
Most people, though, don’t realize that they’re actually saying that huge mouthful when they look at a cop and say "No, officer."
Face
I’m not sure people are arguing about his lack of defense.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
You must be white, if you believe that shit.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Bootlegger:
That’s kind of scary. It raises a lot of questions.
So, a cop could go on a killing spree, shooting unarmed men, women and children in the head at point-blank range, pausing only to reload; and as long as they were on duty when it happened, they’d be free at the end of the day?
Should this cop have eliminated all the witnesses to the crime, before calling it a night and being permitted to head home? Or would it be necessary to handcuff a witness before shooting them, under this rationale? Could the other cops stop the killer cop, or would they just have to sit back and watch?
liberalcop
This is such a rehash of the "24" argument that I don’t even want to engage it but there are plenty of non-lethal ways to deal with this situation that do not involve a gun.
It’s not the same. We do in fact get trained on these types of situations. The safety of the victim and the officers come before the person putting another in danger. If lethal force is justified and has the best chances of success, then that is what should be used.
jj
What poo? I said I was sick and tired of the double standards. One for police the other for citizens. It’s bullshit. Period.
I stated this kind of thing needs to stop. Meaning the rules for what happens when a police officer shoots someone need to be changed. I stand by that statement.
That’s when you burst in blaterhing about uteri and other slurs. For that I responded that you should go fuck yourself. You still can.
I also stated that the people running interference for this type of double standard being afforded to cops are assholes. I stand by that as well.
I also called BS on your whole assertion that I would be afforded the same latitude vis a vis bail if I shot a police officer.
I also notice that you have retreated from your statement
to
Which is nice, but it still doesn’t mitigate the fact that you seen no problem with how this, or any similar situation is handled. And that is where we disagree.
This whole imbroglio is about the fact that there are two sets of rules, one for regular people and one for cops. Until this kind of inequity is addressed, the effectiveness of the legal system and law enforcement will be stymied by a certain amount of distrust and resentment by the citizenry.
It ain’t rocket science
gopher2b
@Bootlegger:
Haon123
And until then the guy is walking around free on bail from the lesser charge. You ALL are bitching about him walking around free, but then arguing for a process that will have him walking around free.
No, we are bitching because NO ONE HAS SO MUCH AS QUESTIONED THE POLICE OFFICER. AFTER A DEFENSELESS MAN WAS SHOT IN THE BACK. ON VIDEO. IN FRONT OF HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES.
I DON’T FUCKING UNDERSTAND THIS.
No Shit.
Mnemosyne
For the people who are still confused by the fact that people are outraged that a man who shot a face-down, unarmed man in the back in front of witnesses has not even been ARRESTED yet, much less charged, much less questioned, this would be the reason why. It gives the impression that police officers are not required to follow the law like the rest of us.
OniHanzo
@Bootlegger:
Continue to enjoy watching you make a capital ass out of yourself. :)
This, by the way, is your best action hero hypothetical.
Please, i beg you, keep them coming.
libarbarian
Let me second you on this.
Shooting to injure is playing with fire.
Even if you shoot to injure you can easily kill. You can miss and hit the torso or head OR you can hit and still kill him because you hit a major artery, or you can miss him and hit some bystander like the little girl in the example.
Seriously – it is NOT a legitimate substitute for shooting to kill. Odds are you will either miss and accomplish nothing (or even make things worse) or hit and still kill the guy and then have to explain yourself anyways.
Maybe not technically, but I think it would have been a good PR move to at least put him in a private cell for a day or two to make it clear to the community that this is being taken seriously.
Like many have said, enough innocent black men have been killed by police, without punishment, that the community has a legitimate (if maybe not correct) fear that the lack of action signifies a lack of intent.
Ninerdave
@Haon123:
Well, at first since it was New Years Eve, all the investigators were out on vacation until Monday. Should they have come back to work? Probably, but they didn’t. Then he invoked his 5th amendment rights.
He doesn’t owe you, me or anyone else anything. I’m sure his lawyer told him to keep his trap shut, and that’s his right. That’s the way our system works. For a look at other ways to do it, see Guantanamo.
Face
He left? Left where? Pretty sure this guy hasn’t shown up anywhere police-related. And therein lies the problem.
Great point. At what point of obvious lawlessness–is there one?–does a cop’s actions require him to simply be arrested on the spot, or can an on-duty cop do pretty much anything? Doesn’t a lack of an arrest and deference to his badge allow him to scuttle the crime scene at a later time?
Crusty Dem
Perhaps someone who says "eat shit and die you fucking needle-pricked douchebag." shouldn’t be so sensitive. I’m just glad you didn’t accuse me of violating your right to habeas corpus…
Ninerdave
@Face:
What the fuck are you talking about? Since when are you required to show up to plead the 5th?
gopher2b
Imagine if he never removed his uniform and badge. He could literally never be arrested. Rob a bank, rape a girl, set a building a fire…all anyone can do is shrug their shoulders and try to not make eye contact. Its like a force field to justice.
demimondian
@gopher2b:
He could never be arrested as long as he was on duty and no warrant had been issued. That’s quite true.
Ummm…so what? Just because he was in uniform doesn’t mean he’s on duty, after all — or even on the force.
Crusty Dem
New video game: GTA:BARTCOP
Comrade Stuck
@liberalcop:
He started out sitting passively against the wall and when cops started hassling him he raised his hands in compliance. It wasn’t until they rolled him over and 2 or 3 200 pound plus cops stuck their collective knees on his back that he started to struggle a bit. Probably an instinctive response to so much weight restricting breathing. It was unnecessary for the cops to do that. And, the pulling the taser defense is THE only possible explanation in the cops favor as being a tragic mistake. Though it is very, very hard to fathom how a two year vet could make such an error. If this is the case argued, then the onus will fall on the BART admin for giving an obvious moron a badge and gun.
gopher2b
What if he said he was on duty. There would have to be an investigation into whether he was actually on duty. Worse, what if while he was on duty he forged the time sheets to make it look like he was on duty when in fact he wasn’t. First, you would have to conduct an investigation into whether he was on duty when he forged the timesheets, then if it was a crime to forge time sheets while he was on duty, and only then determine whether he committed a crime while he was not on duty. The possibilities are endless.
Catsy
This is a question that we, as a society, have to resolve. It’s not enough to say that we have processes in place for this and they work pretty well, or words to that effect. While generally true, they are also beside the point.
The problem is that there is a perception in American society–and among blacks in particular–that police are above the law, especially when the victim is not white. The fact that the vast majority of LEOs are decent public servants, and that there are processes for evaluating a discharge of firearm, don’t address why such a perception exists.
That fact of the perception alone demands that we take a serious second look at how we deal with incidents where a uniformed officer injures or kills a civilian in the line of duty. It doesn’t matter whether or not the perception is reality, if that perception creates an actual and pervasive lack of confidence in our system of justice. The lack of confidence and faith in law enforcement as a PR problem is real, and the effect it has on public safety is equally real.
There were at least two other uniformed officers present who had an unobstructed view of everything that occurred. Indeed, as the officers restraining the victim, they were in a unique position to understand the facts of the situation. Did they have a duty, an obligation to evaluate the lawfulness of this shooting as they would any other potential crime? Not with the intent of substituting their judgment for that of a jury, but with the intent of ascertaining whether or not there was probable cause for an arrest?
demimondian
@gopher2b: Nope. It’s illegal to impersonate a police officer acting in the line of duty.
comrade rawshark
So what DID happen after the shooting? Did the other officers take his weapon and take him some place to be debriefed (or to relax)?
Anyone who discharges a weapon in such a situation should have that weapon taken away immediately. They can arrest him later but he damn well better have been disarmed and removed from the scene.
Mr Furious
Thankfully, no.
But I have been a passenger in a car, and something happens to cause the driver to slam on the brakes—and I stomp on a non-existent brake pedal on my side. I suppose that is a muscle-memory reaction…
Mr Furious
Thankfully, no.
But I have been a passenger in a car, and something happens to cause the driver to slam on the brakes—and I stomp on a non-existent brake pedal on my side. I suppose that is a muscle-memory reaction…
comrade rawshark
Uniform or not they’d put him on his back.
Face
I’m no lawyer, but my assumption was by pleading the 5th, you’re actually declining to testify or talk to an investigator. From what I’ve read, he hasn’t even been asked to come in and testify/be deposed. So does the lawyer just call up the police and say "Just in case you’re thinking about it…..5th, bitches", or must he actually go in for questioning first? Not trying to pretend I know the finer points of pleading amendments.
comrade rawshark
LMFAO
liberalcop
I’ve watched the videos too, and there’s no way to tell if he was being compliant or not.
Plenty of guys respond to an order to turn around and put their hands on the back of their head by raising their hands like that and saying something to the effect of "no godamn way are you arresting me", "no way in hell are you going to search me", etc. So, they get taken to the ground and put in handcuffs.
JL
@liberalcop: Have you heard about the case that I referred to at my post at 260? It happened 1/5 in Bellaire, TX outside of Houston!
The case seems as though the young men were guilty of driving while black. I have black older friends who are pulled over in the south in rural areas but at least they are asked for a license.
Zifnab
@liberalcop:
Oh, in that case, I guess he would have deserved two to the brainpan.
Nylund
The people who like to bring up this person’s past criminal behavior, or his actions on the train are completely wrong.
It does not matter what crime you commit, once you have been restrained and are no longer a threat to anyone, there is absolutely no reason to be executed on the spot.
People have killed US Presidents and once subdued and taken into custody, they, like everyone else, get their day in court. If our legal system says people like Sirhan Sirhan, Saddam Hussein, Ted Bundy, etc. all get their day in court (even if the outcome is certain), there is absolutely no crime that this person could have committed to justify a policeman executing him on the spot after he had been restrained and controlled.
If a person is still at risk to take someone else’s life, then yes, deadly force can be used. But once restrained, there is nothing that justified deadly force, even if the person just committed rape or murder. Period. That is the law.
I do believe the cop did not intend to kill him, but that does not make him any less responsible for the death. Whether the law says its 2nd degree murder, manslaughter (voluntary, or involuntary), or what, I do not know, but it is homicide. In California, if the unintentional conduct is due to gross negligence it can be enough (under the right circumstances) to make it 2nd degree murder.
As a Bay Area native, I will be mad as hell if the cop isn’t prosecuted under the full force of the law, regardless of any prior actions by Oscar Grant.
Rick James
Cocaine is a helluva drug
Keith
JL: I live in Houston and didn’t even know about it until this afternoon (chron.com makes you hunt for it). Unfortunately, the only part of that that doesn’t surprise me is that it hasn’t already happened Jersey Village (a more middle-class version of Bellaire). Same overzealous neighborhood watchmen-turned-cops who tail anyone (including this middle-class white male talking to you now) they don’t recognize. Both townships are civil rights disasters waiting to happen, and I hope the tide is turning on ending the sweep-under-the-rug/protect-your-own mindset that these places foster. At least at the end of the day, there’s about to be a new Attorney Generals office that will no longer be de-emphasizing civil rights issues.
And don’t even get me started on Hammond, LA… My mother (and her non-white movers) were searched for 4 HOURS on the side of I-12, and I was pulled over by a K9 cop who was 2nd in a line of *5* cops along a 5 mile stretch pulling over everyone (my case was apparently because of the thin – and legal in TX due to the logo/state being visible – plastic border that Nissan puts around its plates when installing them)
liberalcop
Come on, can we keep this sane? I think it’s getting obvious from the video and the cop’s subsequent resignation that he at the very least made a horrible mistake that cost a man his life. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a good reason for trying to cuff him.
FourtyTwo
I think it’s getting obvious from the video and the cop’s subsequent resignation that he
at the very least made a horrible mistake that cost a man his lifehe knows he is hosed because they got him on tape. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a good reason fortrying to cuff himshooting that darkie.NO ONE CARES THAT DUDE WAS TAKEN DOWN. GRANT WAS MURDERED WHILE SUBMITTING TO ARREST. ON TAPE. If you can’t tell, watch the video again. What concievable reason could possibly justify a peace officer (snort) shooting a man in the back while being held down by two other peace officers?
Shouldn’t he at least have justify it if he is walking around the streets of Oakland today?
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
No, there couldn’t have been. After all, he is a brother officer.
Dork
There was a NBC news special about this about 10 years back or so (Dateline, I think). They wired the entire car with cameras to prove they weren’t swerving, speeding, or in any way breaking the law. With out of state plates, they were pulled over 100% of the time on either I-10 or I-12. Were always told they had been swerving. Were searched 100% of the time. LA law even allowed them to confiscate any and all cash under the guise of it being "drug money". Pretty f’ed up.
liberalcop
Sorry, I meant a good reason for trying to cuff Oscar.
What I’m trying to clarify is why they might have been trying to cuff Oscar, and why the cop might pull a taser under those circumstances. If you’re trying to cuff a strong guy, and he’s got his hands underneath him, and you haven’t frisked him for weapons, that can be a dangerous situation. That would be a situation in which an officer might go to his taser so that the other officers on Oscar could get his hands free and put him in restraints.
Comrade Stuck
@liberalcop:
What I said was that he was being cooperative until large cops put their knees on his neck and back with their weight. At that point it looks like he squirmed a bit. And I have witnessed similar situations while living in "The War Zone" of SE Albuquerque some years back. Where cops were making an arrest of a compliant person on their stomach until the cops sat on or kneed them, whereupon some struggle ensued. Cops to dumb or untrained to apparently understand doing this causes a natural panic reaction from anyone, compliant or not. And then there is the girl who who was next to him and taking one of the videos. What she said, though obviously a biased perp/snark
** After watching the vid again, I will give you this, that the cop who fired looked genuinely surprised at what he had just done. He threw his hands up to his face in a " WTF did I just do fashion". I don’t know what that means though.
bago
From watching everyone’s reactions in the video it’s pretty clear that everyone agrees something was fucked up.
demimondian
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko: Hold on. Cuffing him at the scene is almost certainly exactly the wrong thing — who knows what he actually was thinking when he pulled his gun? It’s entirely possible that he saw asomething that noone else did — and you can’t take that risk.
Should he have been arrested since? Yeah, I can’t see how he’s still walking free (except for being out on bail). But the behavior at that moment is not incorrect.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
@demimondian: Fair enough– but I still never expect him to ever get cuffed.
JL
@Keith: Rick Sanchez on CNN covered this yesterday. The only thing that I could find in the Chron today was a city council meeting where they expressed their regret to the family. I guess they are hoping the law suit won’t be to large. Decades ago, I lived in Beaumont and then LakeCharles so I’m familiar with their style of Law and Order.
Youngblackmale
In respsonse to the question about police tasers… yes, they usually have tasers with pistol grips, but they are on the opposite side of the holster as the normal firearm, and they require a bit of "activation" to work. On many of them, you pull out something on the front that lets you know the taser is ready to be fired… as a young father, this situation seriously saddens me… my condolences to the victims family, especially his young child
Tsulagi
@John Cole:
Is that common in WV? Anytime someone has a firearm in hand they’re immediately and uncontrollably pulling the trigger? And drivers there often get their car accelerator and brake pedals confused? Whoa, surprised anyone’s still walking around there. Can see why your ride of choice would be an M1.
Definitely believe in giving any soldier or police officer the full benefit of any doubt in a shooting. You weren’t there, you wouldn’t know the full circumstances, and sometimes they need to make a decision in an instant that can’t always be counted on to be perfect.
But this officer’s decision/action seems to be far less than a bit imperfect. He had a suspect in a brawl prone in front of him, already known to be unarmed, and subdued by other officers in front of him. Just prior to the shooting doesn’t even appear to be materially resisting. Possibly the suspect was talking a lot of trash. Don’t know, but I’m guessing Oakland doesn’t endorse lethal force to suppress profanity.
Wouldn’t buy the “he thought he pulled a taser instead” argument for a lot of reasons. Blindfold me, and I can identify each one of my handguns by its weight, balance, feel, etc., and tell you whether its magazine is loaded or not. It’s not that difficult.
Don’t think he thought he was pulling handcuffs either. Never saw a set with a trigger on them to pull.
I’d give that officer the benefit of the doubt that it wasn’t intentional, that he didn’t wake up that day thinking it wouldn’t be a good one unless he could shoot an unarmed guy he didn’t know in the back. But if I’m the prosecutor, unless there is a credible account from at least one of the other officers or witnesses of what I’m not seeing in the circumstances and cell video, I’d charge him with unpremeditated murder and include manslaughter. Let him make his case in court as to why he’d deserve the lower manslaughter conviction or outright innocent verdict.
Randall
@liberalcop: You and bootlegger
are full of shit. If that cop had shot me like that he would be in custody
within hours.
At least TheHatWhoFucksHisCat just does it for the attention.
Average Midwest
I’ve read most of if not all the comments included here, many of which include a great deal of personal vilification and abuse. S’okay, flame wars are normal and in this instance at least there’s something of very serious substance to fight about. I’ve viewed both the videos. The second view from the left perspective gives a better view – and is more horrifying. What seems to be yanking folks’ chains in this case, and seems nuts to me also, is that a week – a full freakin’ week – after the incident, the officer in question hasn’t been questioned or interviewed, much less arrested. So….what does that mean? He’s a uniformed, on duty officer who pleads the 5th and refuses to be interviewed, and therefore he cannot be interviewed or arrested either one? He’s in some sort of undefined and unchargeable limbo?
He may or may not deserve to be formally charged and arrested, although the video seem clear enough, but the idea that he hasn’t even been interviewed throws me for a loop. Even without the officer’s testimony, it’s not like there weren’t plenty of witnesses available from whom to obtain sufficient information upon which to base a decision to arrest or not to arrest. I mean, isn’t that what the cops do when someone gets shot and the shooter isn’t available or isn’t talking? They interviews witnesses, review the physical evidence and make a decision accordingly. There are just so many things that seem just plain wrong about this whole scenario.
Why in hell would he be drawing a) a pistol, with fellow officers within inches of his line of fire or b) a Taser, unless he was improperly trained and didn’t realize he’d – oops – also light up the two cops holding Grant down? That whole electricity/conductivity thing, you know. In either case, it would seem that the most generous interpretation is that the officer’s training was…..inadequate. As any civilian hunter or concealed weapons permit holder can (or should be able to) tell you, "I fucked up" or "I forgot basic firearms safety" or "I was stressed out" is not an adequate defense against an assault with a deadly weapon or manslaughter charge, and it sure as hell is no defense against a civil lawsuit. Although I gotta admit it seems to have worked for our honorable (soon to be ex-, praise gawd) VP.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a kneejerk liberal (generally liberal yes, kneejerk no). Police officers have what I view as rotten jobs, generally speaking, and take their lives in their hands every day. There are many fine and dedicated officers who do their best every day. There are also many officers who from experience or temperament are brutal and/or corrupt assholes and actively enjoy being so. Cops are just like everybody else, good, bad or indifferent, the difference being that they have the badge, gun and authority of the law with which to be good, bad or indifferent. There’s a quote out there which is to the effect that police work requires the highest type of men, but there’s nothing in the work to attract the highest type of men. Nobody ever called the cops because things were going fine, and you couldn’t pay me enough money to have to inspect a body that’s been in the water for two weeks. But…..
It just seems to be one ore "tragic/regrettable/unfortunate incident" (the words are always the same) incident in which for whatever reason an unarmed person is dead in a police action shooting.
And nothing…ever….seems….to….happen.
I’d venture to predict that if the officer is ever charged, he’ll be acquitted. Because if an officer was ever actually charged and convicted….well, clearly that won’t do – civilization would collapse. Where the anger comes from is the (justifiable) perception that there’s one set of laws for poor and middle class citizens and another for the well-to-do and the cops, especially if you’re black.
(Sidebar: seems to be a whole lot of that going around these days. As far as I’m concerned there are any number of Wall Street asshats who have stolen megabucks and ought to be hanging from lampposts like Mussolini, and they’ll never even be fined, much less do time. Guy who sticks up a Citi branch because he’s losing his job, house, self respect and family? That’s a direct assault on the financial system and may God have mercy on him because the prosecutor and judge sure as hell won’t.)
It’s always been the case for cops to administer "street justice" when it seemed called for, and I’d be among the first to admit that rules and the law don’t cover everything. But in recent years there seems to be a greater and greater tendency for officers in many jurisdiction to do pretty much as they damn well please, legally or not, and a increasing tendency to use the maximum force available (not the maximum necessary) in every situation. Blame it on the drug war (which we lost a long time ago) and consequent militarization of civilian "peace" officers into paramilitary forces, among other things. As to the use of Tasers as punishment or compulsion devices….don’t even get me started.
An additional comment on the video – without it, this conversation/debate/discussion wouldn’t be happening. It does show why various jurisdictions have passed laws against filming police officers carrying out their duties, warts and all, and further puts a whole different slant on that "if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" so beloved among authoritarians.
I will now climb off my soapbox.
J In SF
There is an important bit context lacking in this discussion (and in most of the media coverage, even here in the Bay Area): BART police have a long history of questionable tactics, including killing unarmed people in highly dubious shootings.
1) In 1992, a BART officer shot an unarmed man in the BACK OF THE HEAD with a 12 gauge. Needless to say, that guy didn’t live to tell his story either:
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7799
2) In 2001, a BART officer killed a (naked) mentally ill man:
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7798
Neither of these two incidents were taped. The media barely covered them. BART swept them under the rug.
This history is a big reason why there’s rioting, folks.
A la lanterne les aristos!
All I know is that I’m (essentially) white and privileged and have never been in legal trouble but I am pretty damned scared of the police.
rawshark
Same as LA. They didn’t riot because of the Rodney King verdict, the Rodney King verdict was just the final straw.
Comrade Stuck
@J In SF:
I for one have never opposed a well planned riot.
though I do oppose commas on principle.
Wile E. Quixote
Where’s Jello Biafra to rewrite this classic for the BART rent-a-cops.
Police Truck
by the Dead Kennedys
Tonight’s the night that we got the truck
Were goin’ downtown gonna beat up drunks
Your turn to drive I’ll bring the beer
Its the late, late shift no one to fear
And ride, ride how we ride
We ride, lowride
Its roundup time where the good whores meet
Gonna drag one screaming off the street
And ride, ride how we ride
Got a black uniform and a silver badge
Playin’ cops for real/playin’ cops for pay
Lets ride, lowride
Pull down your dress here’s a kick in the ass
Lets beat you blue til you shit in your pants
Don’t move, child got a big black stick
Theres six of us babe, so suck on my dick
And ride, ride how we ride
Lets ride, lowride
The left newspapers might whine a bit
But the guys at the station they don’t give a shit
Dispatch calls ‘are you doin something wicked?’
‘No siree, jack, were just givin’ tickets’
As we ride, ride, how we ride
Lets ride, lowride
LiberalTarian
@TheHatOnMyCat:
Jeebus. Just shut the fuck up already. You’ve made a series of stupid statements that just end up being "I’m smarter than everybody else no matter what."
Man up buddy. The guys only defense is that he is … was … a cop. It appears that his claim is that as a cop, he can shoot any damn person he pleases. "Wait for the evidence" my ass. Wait for the "grounds" is what you are saying, as if life is some stupid Chicago rehearsal and you are playing Billy Flynn. Get over yourself.
Meanwhile, my daughter lives about half a mile from the BART station downtown. I’d like them to put the bastard in jail and do something effective, like last week already. People like you and your prevaricating are making her life dangerous.
Wile E. Quixote
Punchy wrote, stupidly:
Have you ever fired a gun before? Do you know anything about firearms? Let me explain this to you, there is no such thing as "shoot to wound", there isn’t. There are no magical "non-lethal" areas on the human body that you can put a bullet into that will disable someone without running a near certain risk of killing them. If you shoot someone in the leg, to use your example, and hit the femoral artery they’ll be dead in minutes. Anyone who thinks you can "shoot to wound" should not only be prohibited from ever owning or even touching a firearm but they should probably be sterilized as well to prevent the spread of their obviously defective genes.
When I was a kid learning how to shoot, and later in the Army one of the things I learned was that you don’t point a gun at someone if you’re not prepared to shoot them and that you don’t shoot someone unless you want them dead. No "shoot to wound" bullshit, and as far as I’m concerned "shoot to kill" is redundant. Also I have to say that I hate and despise retards like you who try to sound tough and knowing by using euphemisms such as "smoke" for "kill". Save your pathetic "tough-guy" bullshit for your Medal of Honor deathmatches with your dickhead poseur buddies, this is real life we’re talking about here.
The Raven
Local news reports that the overwhelming majority of protesters were peaceful. Krawk!
(Forgive me if this is a repeat–I didn’t want to read 326 comments before posting.)
liberalcop
The current travels between the two probes that strike the target. That’s why the closer the probes are, the less effective the shock is. The first probe that comes out shoots level, the other one is at a slight downward angle, about 11 degrees. If you’re too far, the bottom probe will go into the ground, and you won’t see any effect because you don’t have a closed circuit unless you run up to the guy and press the muzzle of the taser to him and complete the circuit. You get the best effect when you max the distance between the probes, ie have one probe hit high on the body, and the other hit below the waist. If you aim dead center on the body, it’s real easy to have that second probe miss by going between their legs. Best to aim off center so that the leg becomes a target as well.
The cops holding Oscar would not have gotten shocked unless they put a hand in between the probes.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
Per my NRA Personal Protection class, you always "shoot to stop." You do not "shoot to kill," you shoot to stop the attacker.
Which begs the question- just how much "stop" do you need for a guy who already has a two-hundred pound cop kneeling on his neck?
Chuck Butcher
@Ninerdave:
Seems to bring out the worst in assholes like yourself, Hey dumbass does the word anarchist hold any meaning for your pin sized intellect – it is the ultimate small government, ie: none, stupid shit it is the ultimate end of your right wing bullshit.
Obviously you’re just smart enough and well enough informed to hold your beliefs.
Darkrose
@The Moar You Know:
From the pictures I’ve seen, it’s the usual anarchist-fashonistas who started to actual violence–the protest was initially peaceful, despite the police copters circling overhead.
Darkrose
@TheHatOnMyCat:
Sucks that Oscar Grant didn’t have the benefit of "process" before he got shot in the back. Really sucks for his daughter–you know, the one he mentioned when he was begging the cop not to tase him?
Darkrose
@JL:
And yet, the police chief is insisting that there’s no possible way racial profiling is involved here.
demimondian
@Darkrose: It does — and it’s awful that he’s dead. It’s even more awful that he’s dead *because of a failure of process*.
Punchy
Oh shut the fuck up. The whole fucking point, which you’re clearly too fucking dense to grasp, is that if you smoke (yep, I said it) someone through their head, they’re dead 99.99% of the time. The leg, maybe 50%. The arm, probably 25%. Maybe if you shot them in the leg you might not kill them. Might not. Maybe you should try wiki, you lazy shit.
Sorry my grasp of simple physiology prevents me from owning a gun. You just keep shooting people in the head, since you’re so interested in killing anyone you shoot.
Comrade Stuck
@Darkrose:
You Californian’s are always setting new trends.
demimondian
@Punchy: Actually, no. If I shoot you through the leg with a heavy-gauge revolver, you’re more likely than not dead. The rounds impacting you tumble, and turn your leg into minced meat. There are a lot of big arteries in your leg. (Same for your arm.)
If you are *lucky*, and somebody gets a tourniquet on the limb fast enough, you won’t bleed out. But, seriously, the odds are against you; instead, you get to lie on the ground and watch your life pour out of your body, then pass out and start convulsing, then, finally, die.
As far as a gun is concerned, there is no such thing as non-lethal force. If you shoot at someone and hit them, they are probably going to die. Hand guns are for killing people, and they do that very well.
In addition, the odds that the bullet passes through your leg — after the person meat to shredded meat transformation — ricochets off a hard surface, and turns a second person into a corpse are pretty good in that case.
Comrade Stuck
@demimondian:
I think Punchy’s main point was mostly metaphorical, that less than lethal force was more indicated than firearm use. At least that’s how I took it.
Chuck Butcher
Regarding shooting, you shoot to hit (unless you’re a sniper). You don’t shoot to kill and you don’t shoot to wound, you shoot to hit. Here’s the deal, motion is firearm accuracy’s enemy. It is worse the shorter the firearm is.
Adreneline is the worst offender.
A firearm doesn’t come out unless it is intended to be used and it gets pointed at something safe or desirable to shoot. If you point a firearm you intend to shoot, you may lay your finger on the frame while acquiring the target but unless a reason is presented to not shoot, it is happening.
Protocol horseshit to the side, if a police officer is observed in clear comission of a crime he’s arrestable(?). There is no exclusionary process in that case.
At a minimum this cop has negligent homicide on his hands. It pays to remember that a cop put in jail requires very special handling.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
@Punchy: You don’t aim for the head. It’s a small target and "center mass" is where the vital organs are.
The commenter you replied to is right: people who are in a profession that requires the use of firearms are taught two things: 1) If you pull the gun, you are mentally committed to using it and 2) you aim center mass. Wounding is not an option.
As John mentioned in the very beginning of the thread, firearms training requires a great deal of muscle memory training, so that aiming and engaging your target is an instinctive act.
Secondly, the Glock is your typical police weapon and has no external safeties built into it (one reason I don’t like them). All the safeties are built as internal components of the weapon.
This looks to me to be a case of negligent discharge resulting in homicide. Criminal yes, but premeditated, no.
Michael D.
@Napoleon:
I’ve rethought my previous comment : and I am going to agree with TZ.
First of all, the tapes show an officer drawing his gun and the gun discharging.
It could be that this is a cop who intentionally shot a kid.
It could also be a cop who drew his weapon to scare people into complying and accidentally pulled the trigger.
This cop could be a cold-blooded murder, or he could be a man whose life is ruined because he fucked up royally.
The thing is, you can’t make the call from just looking at that video.
Punchy
Thanks Demi. There’s arteries in your extremeties? I had no idea!
I’ll slow this down so you get it — if an estranged father is holding his child and you’d like him not to, maybe you shouldn’t blast him thru the head where he’s guarenteed to die and the child be fatherless. Perhaps you shoot him in the leg where he’ll certainly be wounded but may not die. Can he die? Of course. Is he nearly as likely to compared to tapping his noggin? Hell no.
I cannot believe you dont get my point. As to the argument that "you dont shoot unless you mean to kill someone", all I can say is I hope to fucking god you’re not my neighborhood policeman.
gopher2b
@Punchy:
You’re neighborhood policeman probably can’t shoot a tin cup of a bench from 5 yards. It’s better if he shoots for the body ("center mass") or doesn’t shoot at all. You start aiming for ankles and knees and you’re more likely to hit the sidewalk and that bullet is going to start flying all over the place.
I do wonder, however, where trained snipers and marksmen are trained to shoot. They must get to pick their target?
Robbie Taylor
Two words for you –
Jack Ruby.
Very similar situation. In a highly emotional atmosphere, a man restrained by two police officers is approached and shot. Entire incident is caught on video.
Was Mr. Ruby allowed to walk away from the incident? No, he was immediately detained, arrested and jailed. The video of him actually shooting Oswald was, rather obviously, the most damning evidence against him.
So, here we have an example of what should happen when one person shoots another person in full view of several cops and civilians, and the entire thing is filmed.
If one of the gang members allegedly brawling on the train had come up and shot poor Mr. Grant while the cops held him down and crowds of onlookers videotaped him, you can be dead sure that that gang member would have been restrained, arrested and jailed immediately.
Why wasn’t the cop?