Skip to main content

On New Year’s Eve about three blocks from my apartment at a the Fruitvale BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station, the transit police shot and killed 22 year-old Oscar Grant. Grant was lying on his stomach with his hands behind him on the train platform when a single shot was fired by a BART officer. The police claim that it was an accident, and the gun that killed young father of a four year-old girl, went off by mistake. Witnesses say Grant was not resisting when the gunshot was fired.

On New Year’s Eve about three blocks from my apartment at a the Fruitvale BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station, the transit police shot and killed 22 year-old Oscar Grant. Grant was lying on his stomach with his hands behind him on the train platform when a single shot was fired by a BART officer. The police claim that it was an accident, and the gun that killed young father of a four year-old girl, went off by mistake. Witnesses say Grant was not resisting when the gunshot was fired. The transit agency police officers claim to have been responding to reports of fighting on an arriving train. Again, according to eyewitnesses there were no movements and he was not trying to overrun the police officer. Agency spokesman Jim Allison stated; "It's clear that it was a volatile situation with young men who were arguing and in fact had continued to argue even in the presence of multiple police officers." Although no one involved in the "alleged" fighting were arrested following the shooting. Two men were detained for questioning, but later released. Despite the fact that a gun cannot discharge accidentally, (you must have your finger on the trigger). The BART Police then shut down the Fruitvale station until 2:50 a.m. to "collect" physical evidence after the incident. One item they missed however was an amateur video showing the officers beating the unarmed men and yelling and cussing at them as they tried to cooperate. The tape barely catches the victim being shot but it is believed that other tapes are out there. The young woman who made the recording says that she was five feet away from the victim when the incident happened. She also claims that a female officer tried to confiscate her camera when she realized what happened. BART spokesman Linton Johnson stated that the video feed that goes to BART's police department did not record any footage of the incident, as it normally doesn't record incidents. Later his story changed to say the video feed that goes to the transit agency's operations center did record the incident, and initial review of that video did not show "anything of significance." While Officials have not publicly identified the officer, it is known that he has served on the force for just less than two years. The officer has been placed on "standard" administrative leave, as an investigation into whether proper procedures had been followed and whether or not the shooting was a crime. WHETHER OR NOT THE SHOOTING WAS A CRIME!!! One thing being currently overlooked is that the BART police are not "real" police. According to the official BART website;

In 1969, three years before BART opened for revenue service, the transit district's board of directors recommended that local police and sheriff's departments patrol the stations, trains, rights-of-way, and other BART-owned properties that were within their respective jurisdictions. The police chiefs and sheriffs, forecasting that BART's proposal would create jurisdictional disputes and inconsistent levels of police service, rejected the board's proposal. As a result, legislation was passed to form an autonomous law enforcement agency, the BART Police Department. Chief Gary Gee heads the department of 296 personnel, of which 206 are sworn peace officers. Community-service officers, communications/9-1-1 dispatchers and supervisors, revenue-protection guards, clerical staff and supervisors, and a CAD/RMS administrator comprise the department's civilian employees. The BART Police Department provides the full range of law-enforcement services. To prepare for major emergencies, critical incidents, and tactical call-outs, the department is a signatory to the Bay Area's mutual-aid pacts. Select officers receive training in SWAT, crowd management, and hostage negotiations.

Recent statistics published by the Stolen Lives Project estimate that the number of cases in the United States relating to police brutality has reached the thousands, yet many of these instances are never officially reported due to fear of reprisal. If you have been detained, questioned, arrested or otherwise handled by the police, you do have rights. However, you are in a bit of a difficult position if you've suffered from and been a victim of police brutality. You aren't in a position to defend yourself realistically, as fighting back will generally only serving to exacerbate the situation at hand. Whether they even have the right to do what they did is inevitably beside the point. I have no delusions that the BART police will be punished for what they have done. Police brutality happens every day across the globe. Recently when it happened to a 15 year-old kid named Alexandros Grigoropoulos in Greece the people took action. The riots have lasted for five weeks and just today (January 5th) two gunman attacked a group of riot police and the gunmen fired about 40 shots before tossing a hand grenade at police to cover their escape. A 21-year-old policeman was taken to hospital with serious injuries from three bullets. While here in Oakland but about 20 people rallied outside the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's headquarters. A single protest is planned for Wednesday at the station where Oscar Grant was murdered in cold blood. When will we as the alleged "greatest nation on Earth", step up and say that enough is enough. We have become so complacent in our acceptance of this police state that we live in. We are more concerned about what shitty products we can afford than about our freedoms, rights, and very lives are being taken away from us by these gun toting Nazi’s that patrol our streets each day. There must come a time when we the people stand up and fight back. There are organizations out there that have provided information to help you and me fight back but we cannot rely on words alone. Direct action will have to be taken to stop these animals from getting away with murder every damn, day! Here are some simple rules to remember when you find yourself in the line of fire.

IF THE POLICE ARREST YOU...

•You may be handcuffed, searched,

photographed and fingerprinted.

•Say repeatedly, "I DON’T WANT TO TALK

UNTIL MY LAWYER IS PRESENT."

Even if your rights aren’t read, refuse to talk,

Until your lawyer/public defender arrives.

•Do not talk to inmates in jail about your case.

•If you’re on probation/parole, tell your P.O.

you’ve been arrested, but NOTHING ELSE.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT...

•to be in a public place and to observe

police activity.

IF THE POLICE STOP ANYONE...

•STOP AND WATCH.

•Write down officers’ names, badge

numbers, and car numbers. COPS

MUST BE IDENTIFIED BY NAME OR

BADGE NUMBER (PC sec. 830.10).

•Write down the time, date, and

place of the incident and all details

as soon as possible.

•Ask if the person is being arrested,

and if so, on what charge.

•Get witnesses’ names and contact

info.

•Try to get the arrestee’s name, but

only if they already gave it to the

police.

•Document any injuries as soon as

possible. Photograph them and

have a medical report describing

details of the injuries.

IF THE POLICE STOP YOU...

•Ask, "AM I FREE TO GO?" If not, you

are being detained. If yes, walk

away.

•Ask, "WHY ARE YOU DETAINING ME?"

To stop you, the officer must have

a "reasonable suspicion" to suspect

your involvement in a specific

crime (not just a guess or a stereotype).

•It is not a crime to be without

ID. If you are being detained or

issued a ticket, you may want to

show ID to the cop because they

can take you to the station to

verify your identity.

•If a cop tries to search your car,

your house, or your person say

repeatedly that you DO NOT CONSENT

TO THE SEARCH. If in a car, do

not open your trunk or door – by

doing so you consent to a search

of your property and of yourself.

If at home, step outside and lock

your door behind you so cops have

no reason to enter your house. Ask

to see the warrant and check for

proper address, judge’s signature,

and what the warrant says the

cops are searching for. Everything

must be correct in a legal warrant.

Otherwise, send the police away.

•The cops can do a "pat search"

(search the exterior of one’s clothing

for weapons) during a detention

for "officer safety reasons".

They can’t go into your pockets

or bags without your consent. If

you are arrested, they can search

you and your possessions in great

detail.

•DO NOT RESIST PHYSICALLY. Use your

words and keep your cool. If an

officer violates your rights, don’t

let them provoke you into striking

back. Wait until you are out of

custody then you can organize for justice.

Originally posted to hanumansboi on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:16 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  rawstory had someone's cell video of this (10+ / 0-)

    event online yesterday. It might still be findable there if you want to add it to your diary. I'd see if it went up on youtube also.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:24:10 PM PST

    •  Latest video of the crime (8+ / 0-)

      I've seen those in thread who are trying to excuse this officers behavior, and are questioning the chain of events leading to Oscar's execution, in which case i dare you to watch this video and listen to the commenters words and keep that opinion.

      The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

      by Adept2u on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:29:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Almost seems like the cops says, after (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        debedb
        his head goes up and down to the other officer in apparent shock, "My gun shot off." Listen close.
        •  Perhaps (7+ / 0-)

          Does that lesson the situation to you in any respect.  He in no way should have drawn his fire arm.  Thats why they have the latch over them so that drawing it is a positive act, then followed by aiming and pulling the trigger.  I hope his time in jail gives him time to reflect upon his actions.

          The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

          by Adept2u on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:40:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course it lessens it. If you accidently killed (0+ / 0-)
            somebody, Adept2u, I would feel horrible for you, too. It's a potential life wrecker.

            You don't know any more than me whether what the hell he was thinking. It looks very bad and it may be very bad. Even in the case of an accident I think he probably deserves jail time. he possibly deserves a whole lot of  it.

            Here's what I think your problem is: you want this to be a horrible cop killing innocent guy scenario. You wouldn't rather that it was actually something less hateful and hopeless. You have an addiction to that particular form of hate. Lots of people do, unfortunately. Lots of people here.

          •  Well, there's the point. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shadan7, esquimaux, RAZE, justCal, chrome327

            Truthfully, I've sympathy for anyone who works a job where any nut at all can walk up to them and instantly do damage. And I don't think it's within human nature to be in a confrontation and not have adrenalin pumping and testosterone ramped up...

            And that's precisely why you have training, and you have rules of behavior. There's no excuse.

            I see this in the context of literally hundreds of taser-deaths in the US, UK & Canada, and repeated outrageous tasering--but let's call its real name: torturing--of people without limbs, people in stretchers, 80-yr old women, children, people arguing over a ticket...

            I feel these kinds of events can't be separated from the culture of impunity our political class enjoys and protects. For the physiological reasons above, I'm sure people in the role of police are going to step over the line, and probably forever. Hopefully in ever-decreasing degrees.

            But when the top people in politics and business can fucking do whatever they want, to whoever they want, however they want, whenever they want... well, the discipline down the ranks goes to shit real fast and real wide.

            Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

            by Jim P on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 06:11:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well said, Jim P. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              debedb, esquimaux, chrome327

              these kinds of events can't be separated from the culture of impunity our political class enjoys and protects.

              when the top people in politics and business can fucking do whatever they want, to whoever they want, however they want, whenever they want... well, the discipline down the ranks goes to shit real fast and real wide.

              We should all be outraged that an unarmed man was shot in the back.

              We should all be outraged that our culture not only allows this type of event to occur but fosters it.

  •  F-ckin unbelievable (12+ / 0-)

    This cop has to be charged with murder.

  •  Cellphone Video at (8+ / 0-)

    http://cbs5.com/...

    If anyone knows how to embed videos, perhaps you can do so. It's pretty hard to believe that the officer fired a shot in this situation.

  •  The problem here was (6+ / 0-)

    The cop probably thought he was reaching for a taser.

    Which is bad enough. Cops WAY overuse the taser. Few police agencies in the nation should be carrying those torture devices.

    The cop in question ought to be brought up on some form of murder charges, but I expect instead the usual whitewash.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
    Neither is California High Speed Rail

    by eugene on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:29:04 PM PST

  •  This is still under investigation by everyone (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Goldfish, GlowNZ

    The title and diary are inflammatory and present only one side of the story.

    Let's see what the investigation turns up as to circumstances and events. And for those that don't know the area, the Fruitvale station is in a moderately rough neighborhood.

    Just my .02

    Not another dime to an out of state race until CA has equality for all. Period.

    by SallyCat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:30:53 PM PST

    •  What is there to investigate? (10+ / 0-)

      Watch the video. It's an execution.

      •  Are you judge and jury without all evidence? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Goldfish, Little

        How GOP of you....

        Not another dime to an out of state race until CA has equality for all. Period.

        by SallyCat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:34:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Looks like other stuff was going on... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Goldfish

        Officials have only said that Mehserle's gun discharged, killing 22-year-old Oscar Grant of Hayward. He had been detained and forced to lie chest down on the ground at Oakland's Fruitvale Station after 2 a.m. in the chaotic aftermath of a fight on BART on New Year's Day.

        Not another dime to an out of state race until CA has equality for all. Period.

        by SallyCat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:36:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's details. (15+ / 0-)

          Mario Pangelina Jr., whose sister had a 4-year-old daughter with Grant, said he was on the same train as Grant that night, but on a different car. He said he saw Grant's interactions with police immediately before the shooting.
          "First, an officer grabbed Oscar by the neck and pushed him against the wall," Pangelina said. "Oscar didn't fight him, but he didn't go down either. He was like, 'What did I do?' Then another officer came up with his Taser and held it right in his face. Oscar said, 'Please don't shoot me, please don't Taser me, I have a daughter,' over and over again, real fast, and he sat down."
          Grant was the only man in a small group sitting against the wall who was not handcuffed, Burris said, so officers grabbed him away from the wall and pressed him belly-down onto the ground.
          "One officer was kneeling over his neck and head, and another standing over him," Burris said. "He was not kicking, and one officer was pulling on his arm. The standing officer pulled out his weapon and, within moments, fired the gun into Mr. Grant's back."
          Burris said the bullet went through Grant's lower back and ricocheted off the ground up into his lungs, killing him.

          http://www.mercurynews.com/...

          •  Sounds like the cop had every intention of (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            debedb, LaFajita, bvig

            causing Mr. Grant a great deal of pain and suffering with the taser (*for no legitimate purpose*).

            That cop had every intention of pulling out a weapon and inflicting pain upon Mr. Grant. Unfortunately, the cop pulled the gun instead of the taser.

            Wonder if the begging (not to taser) caused the authoritarian reaction.

            <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

            by bronte17 on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 06:57:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  And more details (10+ / 0-)

          A preliminary investigation indicates that Mr. Grant was not restrained when the officer's firearm was discharged," Allison said.
          Grant was unarmed and no weapons were recovered at the scene. Authorities said they were still investigating whether the gun was fired on purpose or accidentally.

          The BART spokesman’s version of events stands contrary to the claims of some eyewitnesses to the incident interviewed immediately following the incident. Several witnesses who did not know Grant told KTVU they saw him lying on the ground already restrained when the shooting happened.
          "He had the zip ties around his ankles and wrists," claimed one witness.
          Grant's girlfriend says she talked to him just before he was shot.

          "All I know is I heard a loud pop," explained the girlfriend. "I thought it was a gunshot. My last phone call he said 'They’re beating me up for no reason. I gotta go.' And I heard the gunshot. I didn't want to think the worst"

          One of Grant's friends who was with him on the train asserted that the officer who shot Grant was heard shouting "Oh my God!" repeatedly immediately after the shooting.

          Grant was transported to Highland Hospital and underwent surgery, according to family members.

          In the hours that followed, friends and family members gathered at the hospital, offering each other support and worrying about his survival.
          Grant's family says his lungs were damaged in the shooting when the bullet went through him and then ricocheted off the ground and re-entered his body. He leaves behind a four-year-old daughter.

          KTVU spoke to one young man at the incident who says he got the entire shooting on tape. He says BART police confiscated that tape, but says the video shows the officer pull his gun and fire two or three seconds later.

          http://www.foxreno.com/...

        •  Yeah. (9+ / 0-)

          Officials have only said that Mehserle's gun discharged.

          "The gun did it!"

          Problem is...guns don't do anything on their own.

          It takes someone to pull the trigger.

          I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

          by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:44:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  May not have been intentional (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rex Manning, LaFajita

            but what's the meaning of reckless homicide?

            One of Grant's friends who was with him on the train asserted that the officer who shot Grant was heard shouting "Oh my God!" repeatedly immediately after the shooting.

          •  Yeah, you're wrong about that (0+ / 0-)

            as this video shows.

            But I'm sure the idiot cop in that video meant really meant to shoot himself.

            •  That video... (0+ / 0-)

              ...proves I'm right.

              Dickwad mishandles a gun and shoots himself.

              The gun didn't do anything.

              I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

              by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:00:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, it doesn't prove you're right (0+ / 0-)

                your contention is that this police officer murdered this man. An accidental discharge would be definition not be murder, even if it was caused by human error (much like that video).

                •  You draw a gun... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bvig, brwnsgr

                  ...point it at someone's back, put your finger on the trigger, pull the trigger and kill the guy....where's the accident?

                  Anyway, the BART police are claiming the cop thought he had a tazer in his hand instead of a gun. Why would they claim that?

                  Where does the "accidental discharge" occur?

                  If you're right then you've opened a whole new loophole for anyone who wants to commit murder by claiming it was an accident.

                  Let's say you stepped outside your apartment tomorrow morning (or your house or bungalow or whatever) and you see a guy with a gun, standing over another guy (who is pleading for his life), pointing the gun at the guy's back and the gun goes off and the guy on the ground dies.

                  Are you going to think 'murder' or are you going to think "innocent accident that could have happened to anybody"?

                  Eh?

                  I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                  by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:21:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Did you not just see the video (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    2lucky

                    Of a guy shooting himself in the leg? Are you seriously going to stand here and argue that guy meant to do that?

                    This "loop-hole" you speak is more commonly know as "reasonable doubt," that is, the standard a prosecute has to prove their case past for a jury to convict a defendant. Any defendant is fee to claim they didn't mean to shoot their victim -I'm sure it's been tried many times. Other evidence in each case will decide whether or not the jury accepts this defense.

                    In this case, we don't have any evidence that it's not true. We have no motive, we have nothing but a video showing graphically what happened, with little context besides. If you want to turn that into murder, you are not going to get a jury to accept the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

                    There is a strong case here for negligent homicide (an accidental discharge is prima facia negligent, as is confusing a gun and a taser, and the use of force was likely excessive without the discharge), but that's not what you're talking about. What you are talking about is murder, which is an accusation there is not presently evidence to support. This is why I agree with the calmer heads who earlier said we should wait for all the facts, but instead you seem hell-bent on calling this what you will, facts be damned.

                    •  Sure. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      brwnsgr

                      I've seen people accidentally cut themselves with knives too.

                      If I saw someone cut another person's throat though I wouldn't say it was equal to a slip of the knife that cuts the hand of the person holding the knife. Would you?

                      the standard a prosecute has to prove their case past for a jury to convict a defendant.

                      Fine, we should let a jury decide. Meanwhile the so called police officer should be charged with murder and should sit in a jail cell until trial...like anyone else would.

                      We have no motive...

                      Don't have to prove motive in a murder case. Means an opportunity are enough, especially with video evidence of the killing.

                      There is a strong case here for negligent homicide..

                      There's a stronger case for murder. Again, knock someone to the ground, point a gun at their back, listen to them beg for their life, then pull the trigger and see how much traction you get with a jury while claiming it was an "accident".

                      What you are talking about is murder, which is an accusation there is not presently evidence to support.

                      Yeah? Is there ever then? Maybe we should strike murder from the list of things someone can be charged with?

                      I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                      by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:58:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Do you even know what murder is? (0+ / 0-)

                        While there are slight variations in the exact statutes, the one thing they have in common is "the intentional killing of a human by a human."

                        If it isn't intentional, it isn't murder, end of story.

                        Don't have to prove motive in a murder case. Means an opportunity are enough, especially with video evidence of the killing.

                        I mentioned motive, because motive goes to intent. Without evidence of motive it would be very hard to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, and intent is the key element of the offense that separates murder from lesser forms of unlawful homicide. Even in states with the broadest possible definition of murder, such as my home state of Illinois (where intent to kill is not required, only intent to do bodily harm that could result in death), intent is still an element of the offense.

                        If I saw someone cut another person's throat though I wouldn't say it was equal to a slip of the knife that cuts the hand of the person holding the knife. Would you?

                        Invalid analogy, for reasons that I feel have already been clearly established.

                        Fine, we should let a jury decide. Meanwhile the so called police officer should be charged with murder and should sit in a jail cell until trial...like anyone else would.

                        I'd rather see the charge fit the crime, not to mention, I'd like to see the guilty convicted rather than see them acquitted due to prosecutorial over-reach. I find it darkly ironic that in a diary decrying police brutality, you advocate heavy- handed enforcement of the laws. This presents something of a paradox in your moral world view that I'm having trouble digesting.

                        And finally,

                        There's a stronger case for murder. Again, knock someone to the ground, point a gun at their back, listen to them beg for their life, then pull the trigger and see how much traction you get with a jury while claiming it was an "accident".

                        You ignore the key fact that we're dealing with a police officer who is empowered by law to hold someone at gunpoint. This is an inescapable fact that separates this case from the theoretical one you propose.

                        That authority does not grant carte blanche, in fact, it is in my estimation at the heart of the case for negligent homicide (that is to say, someone trained in the proper use of firearms and empower by statute to use them should be able to use them without accidentally killing someone). However it definitively separates this crime from a crime without a police officer involved, because the defendant's sate of mind is one of a police officer performing his duties. Without some evidence of malicious intent against the victim's life (and who knows, maybe there is some), the question becomes did the defendant carry out their duties in a reasonable and proper manner. The answer, on the face of it, looks like a resounding NO. But once again, that does not meet the legal standard for murder.

                        Maybe you'll get your wish. Maybe some politically ambitious prosecutor will decide this case is their ticket up in the world and charge it as murder. But if you are as upset by police brutality as you claim to be, the idea should send chills down your spine.

                        Police brutality is a result of the break down in the rule of law, which police substituting their own human judgment in its place. Over-zealous prosecution, in spite of the letter of the law, is a legal form of the same brutality. It is a violence done against not only its victim, but the rule of law itself.

                        Why you would want to compound this tragic situation, which is if nothing else, a failure of the law, with a deliberate abuse of it is beyond me.

    •  The title is not inflammatory. (15+ / 0-)

      KFWB uses it:
      "VIDEO: Police Fatally Shoot Unarmed Man in Back"
      http://www.kfwb.com/

      Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

      Did you watch the video?

    •  And another article (4+ / 0-)

      New video shows BART officer shooting Hayward man in the back

      San Jose Mercury News
      Oakland Tribune

      http://www.mercurynews.com/...

    •  What part of the title (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      memiller, Shadan7, esquimaux, RAZE, teemel, BlueHead

      is inflammatory?

      "Police Shoot"--The shot in question came from the weapon of a BART police officer

      "Unarmed Man"--The victim did not have a weapon on him.

      "in the Back"--The video shows this, as would an autopsy.

      "At Oakland BART Station"--That's where it happened.

      What's inflammatory about that?

  •  Here's another article (6+ / 0-)

    "BART officer has yet to give account in shooting"

    San Francisco Chronicle

    Big Joe Helton: "I pay Plenty."
    Chico Marx: "Well, then we're Plenty Tough."

    by Caelian on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:34:15 PM PST

  •  A quibble over warrants (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pd, bronte17, Greg in TN, debedb, brwnsgr

    You state that in the case of a warrant being served at your residence, you should step out of the house and lock the door behind you.

    The National Lawyer's Guild recommends that you do not step out of the house, because the police can detain you then and there. They recommend you remain behind your (hopefully locked) door and examine the warrant in the safety and security of your own home. The rest of your advice is spot on, AFAIK.

    I had some recent training as a legal observer, and thought I should share this. If I'm all wet here, and I don't think I am, please let me know.

    •  I believe the police (0+ / 0-)

      can legally enter a residence to execute a valid search warrant, forcibly if necessary, so unless you don't mind cops in your house, you probably should go outside.

    •  I'm more curious (0+ / 0-)

      as to why you would rec the first comment in this diary?

      I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

      by route66 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 08:43:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  here (0+ / 0-)

        I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

        by route66 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 08:44:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dude, I don't understand! (0+ / 0-)

        Do you mean Lava20's comment?

        •  this one....it's hidden now (0+ / 0-)

          No one here cares about this. People much rather (6+ / 76-)
          Recommended by:
          Mister Gloom, bobdevo, elliott, The Red Pen, LaFajita, Lava20
          Hidden by:
          decisivemoment, Guaunyu, Tuffy, scrape, wu ming, phenry, iconoclastic cat, frsbdg, route66, conchita, Haole in Hawaii, josephk, Beelzebud, SneakySnu, Admiral Santa, Guinho, PaulVA, kismet, The Gryffin, BDA in VA, ebbinflo, chumley, jrooth, UncleCharlie, Lying eyes, ChemBob, Skid, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, lcork, Clytemnestra, Naranjadia, ruleoflaw, IvanR, bubbanomics, Dauphin, NearlyNormal, means are the ends, Pandoras Box, dotdot, nipit, dogdad, yg17, Uberbah, Rumarhazzit, Argyrios, The Bagof Health and Politics, juancito, elwior, LarsThorwald, temptxan, Abra Crabcakeya, Piren, rigso, AndrewMC, Hope08, m4gill4, h bridges, smash artist, Nailbanger, Meng Bomin, Septima, RadioGirl, BA BarackUS, Vita Brevis, fatherofdragonwagon, drache, LaughingPlanet, Gangster Octopus, Hope Reborn, Murchadha, nosleep4u, InfinityLincoln, ChiTownBlue2000, JerichoJ8, atheistben, Wolf Of Aquarius

          I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

          by route66 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:01:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I may have fat-fingered it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            route66

            Philosophically I tend to counter-recommend TR'd comments because some people are too quick to go for the doughnut when they get their knickers in a knot. I prefer frank, even provocative discussion, and I think doughnuts should be reserved for incidents where some participant starts calling somebody a doodyhead, or words to that effect. I truly cannot remember what the comment was that I supposedly recommended. I'm not sure I would have knowingly done it this time, considering the way everybody unloaded on this particular stinker. I like to think there is a limit to my orneryness.

  •  Local municipality just issued cops tasers (7+ / 0-)

    and there was a photo of the cops, big beefy red faced guys at some 250+ lbs. one holding one of the new tasers while another had his riot gun on his hip and all had semiauto pistols on their belts along with a nightstick and pepperspray.

    Headline: Officers keep peace against violent element.

    They had just instituted a 11PM curfew for all under 18 and the cops did not want to be overmatched by some scofflaw 14 year old.

  •  Ask, "WHY ARE YOU DETAINING ME?" (13+ / 0-)

    LOL.

    Try using that one on the LAPD. Or the next time you are in New York start reciting your litany of civil liberties to the Dirty Harry-wannabe wearing the badge.

    You will soon discover why you are being detained: for vandalizing the officer's nightstick with the blood from your head.

    Keep your mouth shut until you can contact an attorney.

    "They can’t go into your pockets or bags without your consent."

    And yet, they do. Then they lie about it. The best approach is to refuse permission for them to do ANYTHING. They will do what they want anyway, but you might luck out and have the incident captured on tape.

    There are two rules in dealing with cops.

    Rule Number One: Shut your mouth. There is nothing to be gained by reasoning with people possessing authoritarian personalities and the license to kill.

    Rule Number Two: Never forget Rule Number One.

    •  That made me laugh too (0+ / 0-)

      I'm from SoCal too and I could just imagine at age 22 even thinking about asking Darryl Gates force why am I being detained.  I know the answer would have probably been to catch a beat down of the day.  

      This poor sob couldn't surrender enough.

      The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

      by Adept2u on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:24:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My opinion is that there is a cop living on puke (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ggrzw
    right now because he accidently killed somone and he's likely in danger of suicide still. And here on DKos he gets nothing from the majority of people I would expect to have a bit more empathy for everyone involved in a tragedy like this than Bush Republicans. he could have been the greatest guy in the world - lots of cops are fantastic people - and he gets fucked up the ass here. Really disheartening.
    •  My opinion is that there is a family beyond (11+ / 0-)

      distraught right now because a boyfriend, father and son have been taken from them much too early and for no reason.

      •  Ther is no doubt that there is. I said (0+ / 0-)
        "everyone involved," and that of course means all of them, and first. But there may also be a terribly broken human whoaccidently took someone's life. It's possible. We should care about that possibility and not convict this man without knowing much more.
        •  Really? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Greg in TN, debedb, esquimaux

          ...a terribly broken human whoaccidently took someone's life...

          Who's jumping to conclusions now? How are you certain it wasn't cold blooded murder?

          I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

          by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:19:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Jesus fucking christ. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Goldfish
            You have crossed over to really offensive now. You don't give a fuck about honest back and forth.

            Here's what I wrote:

            But there may also be a terribly broken human whoaccidently took someone's life.

            That's not a fucking conclusion you fucking asshole.

            P.S. Wow. That really pissed me off. You're probably not a fucking asshole. But I'm going to leave it i there because it was honest emotion.

            •  Problem is... (5+ / 0-)

              ...it wasn't an accident. Was it?

              He drew his gun, pointed it at the guy's back and pulled the trigger.

              That is a very deliberate chain of actions.

              How the f*ck could you possibly imagine that it could have been otherwise?!

              I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

              by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:36:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because guns go off accidently. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Goldfish, ggrzw
                The fact that you don't acknowledge that makes me question your honesty Rex. Can any adult not know that about guns?
                •  No. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Shadan7, debedb

                  Guns do not "go off accidently". They don't.

                  I happen to be life long gun owner (since I was a kid anyway), target shooter gun enthusiast and NRA life member. I know about guns, shooting and firearms safety to a very high level.

                  If you were talking to someone who didn't know anything about guns you might have a chance with that kind of nonsense.

                  I also know plenty of cops and I am familiar with how well trained cops are with firearms. Cops, straight out of the academy, are better firearms experts than most civilians who own guns. That a trained police officer could "accidentally" shoot someone in the back is not even plausible. He drew his gun, pointed it at the victim's back and pulled the trigger. That's murder.

                  You try it. See how long it takes a DA to send you to the death chamber. "It was just an accident!" Yeah...

                  I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                  by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:49:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What nonsense. In seconds I could find you dozens (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Goldfish
                    of articles about accidental shootings. You can no be for real.
                    •  Show me. (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                      by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:55:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Here's one. (0+ / 0-)
                        video and everything

                        http://www.yikers.com/...

                        •  A comment under the video: (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Shadan7, esquimaux, jdw112

                          Here's a news flash - Guns don't "accidentally" go off. The "accidents" happen when the weapon is mishandled. This is why idiots should stay away from them.

                          Well said.

                          Guns don't do anything on their own.

                          I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                          by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 06:00:31 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You do a whole long thing about the NRA (0+ / 0-)

                            and lifelong gun owner and yada yada yada and make a big pronouncement about how guns don't go off accidently - I show you videos that conclusively show that you're wrong, and you play semantics.

                            Daily Kos at its finest.

                        •  I love that video. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          esquimaux

                          What an assh*le! Notice the gun didn't do anything. The DEA agent pulled the gun out, mishandled it and shot himself.

                          Now, let's say he had put on a demonstration. Let's say he got a volunteer from the kids in the class, put the kid on the ground, face down with his hands behind his head and the DEA agent pulled his gun, pointed it at the kid's back and pulled the trigger...killing the kid.

                          Would you have any sympathy for the DEA agent? I wouldn't.

                          The BART cop deliberately pulled the gun from the holster (fact), deliberately pointed the gun at the guy's back (fact), deliberately put his finger on the trigger (fact), and deliberately pulled the trigger (fact). So where's the accident?

                          The guy was laying supine, was no threat to anyone and was cooperating. Why would a cop pull his gun and point it at the guy's back with his finger on the trigger?

                          Think about it.

                          Don't forget now...the BART police are trying to claim he drew the wrong weapon! He didn't know it was a gun! He though it was a tazer!

                          Why would they make that claim?! Because it's obvious that he pulled the gun, aimed it at the guy, and deliberately pulled the trigger!

                          I hope he does choke on his own puke. Every day, while trying to defend himself from all the other murderers in state prison.

                          I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                          by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 06:32:28 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Hey Rex... and Sallycat... if I could offer a.... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Goldfish, beagledad, justCal, Rex Manning

                            few suggestions and a few comments.  I recently retired from the military, always in units that shoot shoot shoot as their mission.  I have virtually every instructor qualification and have trained (and shot with) military, police, and civilians.

                            The videos all lack just a little bit of information before a determinatin can be made between murder and manslaughter.  What I want to know, most, after seeing the videos, is:

                            1. What handgun and what holster for the gun.
                            1. Which Tazer and which holster for the Tazer.
                            1. Where and how he carries the Tazer on his equipment belt.  

                            I think without this information we're all mostly speculating.  

                            When you watch the video, you see him struggling a little with removing the weapon from the holster.  But it's not a struggle that requires him to look at what he's doing.  He's done it before, and it's part of his procedure.  If he carries his Tazer right next to his pistol, in a similar holster with similar retention mechanisms, there's a possibility that he's an incredibly dumb and negligent cop in an incredibly dumb and negligent department.  A chance.  

                            If the Tazer is carried on the left side or behind him, and has a completely different size grip and/or a completely different retention mechanism.... then we watched a homicide, possibly a negligent homicide, but a homicide.  Certain mistakes are too far outside the range of muscle memory to be a mistake.  They are deliberate.  

                            I'd love to see how his "tools" were configured on his belt before I come to a definitive conclusion.

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 07:47:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Excellent. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joesig

                            I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                            by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:10:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know much about much.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rex Manning

                            but what I know, I know much about.

                            The thing really is infuriating, though, regardless of the level of guilt and culpability.

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:18:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Both Goldfish and I recommended your comment. (0+ / 0-)

                            That says something right there.

                            Were I the prosecutor and Goldfish the defense attorney, we would probably both be trying to hire you as an expert witness.

                            I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                            by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:27:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, once we get a look at the... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rex Manning

                            Bat Utility Belt, probably only one of you will want me.  

                            So much is in the details.  You use a Tazer when there is both time and no lethal threat.  In a department with a little sense, the lethal gun will be on the strong side, and the non-lethal Tazer will be on the weak side.  In a worst case, ohmyfuckinggoddrawthegunandshoot scenario, it should all be strong side muscle memory.  

                            If it's "the jackass won't comply", then deliberately take out the Tazer with the weak hand, or at least in a position far from the normal draw, show it to the guy and let him know his choices, then shoot the dart.  

                            It's not often we get to talk about guns on the Kos.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:44:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  One of my favorite subjects. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joesig

                            It's not often we get to talk about guns on the Kos.

                            I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                            by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:46:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here here. If the ACLU ever figures out (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rex Manning

                            the 2nd amendment is one of our civil liberties....they'll be an organization to be reckoned with once again.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 10:09:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That'll be the day. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joesig

                            Perhaps they are worried about losing their "liberal" base if they take up the cause.

                            I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                            by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 10:40:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Emphasis on the quotes. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joesig

                            I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                            by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 10:40:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Facts not in evidence (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Little

                            and deliberately pulled the trigger (fact).

                            What evidence is there that he deliberately pulled the trigger?

                          •  His finger was on the trigger... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...(fact), his finger contracted (fact), that put pressure on the trigger which caused the hammer to trip which detonated the primer which propelled the bullet down the barrel and out the muzzle of the gun (fact).

                            Maybe the guy had some kind of spastic, minor epileptic seizure which caused him to draw the gun, point it at the victim, put his finger on the trigger and pull the trigger? It's remotely possible...it's not at all likely.

                            Listen, the gun discharged while his finger was on the trigger. What else could have cause his finger to pull the trigger? The devil made him do it?

                            I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                            by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:06:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Once again.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Little

                            ...(fact), his finger contracted (fact), that put pressure on the trigger which caused the hammer to trip which detonated the primer which propelled the bullet down the barrel and out the muzzle of the gun (fact).

                            Once again, I refer you to the guy who shot himself in the leg because of all the same facts you just listed.

                            I ask you again, did the DEA agent who shot himself in the leg do so with an intent to shoot himself, or even to discharge his weapon at all?

                          •  I ask you again... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...did the guy who accidentally cut himself with a sharp knife have the same intent as the guy who slit his neighbor's throat with a sharp knife?

                            Ya know, yer pretty good.

                            If we were arguing both sides before a jury I have no doubt they would be in deliberation for a long time before they came back with a verdict.

                            They would find the defendant guilty but still...it would take them a while to come to that conclusion.

                            I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                            by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:35:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  invalid analogy (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Little

                            the situation you describe corresponds so poorly to this one, I'm unable to even start unraveling it. It's not that it's wrong, it's not even wrong, it simply doesn't apply.

                            As for if we were arguing this in front of a jury...

                            I know of a judge in Wisconsin who nullified a jury verdict because the idiot prosecutor charged the defendant on a statute in which all the elements of the offense were not present -the defendant had committed the act in question, but the law it was charged under did not, as a matter of fact, apply. Maybe there won't be such a courageous judge hearing this case, but I would hope every judge would be willing to put their career on line to uphold the law.

                            If this case went before a jury as a murder, it might very will result in a conviction. But if I were a member of that jury I would deadlock it before I gave a verdict that was contrary to the law.

                          •  Oh? (0+ / 0-)

                            But if I were a member of that jury I would deadlock it before I gave a verdict that was contrary to the law.

                            Based on evidence? Or something else?

                            I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

                            by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:58:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  No reason to pull a weapon out here. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RAZE, Rex Manning, BlueHead

                    I/P Conflict - cui bono? Iran, Bush

                    by JerichoJ8 on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:55:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Why is it so (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    memiller, 2lucky, Little

                    Inconceivable to you that improper training or a failure to follow proper training may be to blame here rather than malicious intent?

                    Properly trained police officers are taught to keep their finger outside the trigger guard unless they intend to fire. Why would they be trained to do this, unless there was a chance that having ones finger in the trigger guard might cause an unintended discharge?

                •  it's also because guns go off accidentally (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheLoneliestMonk, bvig

                  that you shouldn't draw, much less point them at people whenever you feel like it.

              •  I'm going to post this again (0+ / 0-)

                Because you clearly don't understand this whole "accidental discharge" thing.

                This video is real, I'm pretty sure the guy rightly lost his job over it.

        •  "everyone involved" is a sweeping term for the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rico, esquimaux, jdw112

          man who was killed, who was a father and had a girlfriend.

          You give so many more words and details to describe the cop

          cop living on puke right now because he accidently killed somone and he's likely in danger of suicide still.

          than you do the dead man's loved ones

          everyone involved

          Kind of off balance to me.

        •  Just because it may have been accidental (0+ / 0-)

          (and it appears he intended to pull out his taser to use instead of the gun)... doesn't mean there is no liability nor responsibility for bad actions.

          People's lives are destroyed all the time in the blink of an eye. Bad decisions made in a moment.

          But retribution is required if people are to believe in rule of law.

          <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

          by bronte17 on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 07:08:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't see anyone (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            memiller, 2lucky, beagledad, Little

            suggesting there is no liability. I do see people objection to "hang 'em high" mentality of the diary's author and many of the commenter who want to view this as "an execution" with out any evidence to support that accusation. It's an unseemly attitude in a progressive community, and carries an eerie echo of exactly the sort of authoritarian thuggery this diary claims to be against.

            But that irony seems to be lost on many, if not most.

            •  Well, there are communities in this nation (0+ / 0-)

              that are not equals among others when it comes to violence perpetrated against them.

              There is no uniform definition of force amongst our police departments and no standard reporting requirements.

              Black civilians are 4 times as likely to be killed by police as whites. And it was 8 times as many in 1976. Furthermore, the DoJ reports ALL victims of police shootings as "felons justifiably killed." That is an abomination.

              Despite widespread public interest and a provision in the 1994 Crime Control Act requiring the Attorney General to collect the data and publish an annual report on them, statistics on police shootings and use of nondeadly force continue to be piecemeal products of spotty collection, and are dependent on the cooperation of local police departments. No comprehensive accounting for all of the nation's 17,000 police department exists.

              ...

              The Bureau of Justice Statistics, the statistical arm of the Justice Department, has tried to fill in some of the blanks on police behavior, issuing a number of surveys and reports on the topic. Most recently, the bureau quietly released a report, "Policing and Homicide, 1976- 1998." But the report itself underscores the continued problems in knowing what is really happening.

              On its cover, for example, the report refers to all the victims of police shootings as "felons justifiably killed by police," a categorization that Samuel Walker, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, termed "deeply offensive and legally incorrect." In fact, a Justice Department official said the bureau was so embarrassed by the term, and the lack of distinction between justifiable police shootings and murders, that it did not send out its usual promotional material announcing the report.

              ....

              "One statistic that is impossible to obtain" from the Justice Department's database, it said, "or from any other currently existing database, is the number of murders by police," because in reporting their shooting figures, the police don't distinguish between justified and unjustified killings. The report also fails to break down the number of police shootings by city, unlike other Justice Department reports on crime, making it impossible to compare police performance.

              Many here are voicing their despair that justice may well not turn for this young man who died too soon for no logical reason.

              That was cold blooded something... that cop's actions were deliberate and precise. He drew a weapon without any justificaton. Granted... he thought it the was the taser, but he still deliberately pulled it out to use on an unarmed man who was pleading not to be tasered.

              <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

              by bronte17 on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:43:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah? (6+ / 0-)

      ...because he accidently killed somone...

      Looks to me like he intentionally killed someone.

      Forgive me for not feeling sympathy for a murderer.

      I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

      by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:17:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  F him i hope he never sleeps again (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux

      Oscar Grant on the other hand is going to sleep forever.

      The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

      by Adept2u on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:21:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fuck that cop! He pulled his gun because he saw (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bvig

      a young black man whose life was not worth much to him.  Otherwise he would not have pulled his gun when it was clear as day that this kid, yes kid, had no weapon.  He wanted to kill that kid or someone who looked like him or he would not have drawn his weapon.  

    •  I think part of the problem is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      memiller, Little

      People don't realize guns can and do accidentally discharge. This is almost always the result of human error, and might amount to criminally negligent homicide, but the people calling this an execution because of what they saw on the video need to seriously get some fucking perspective.

      The video shows a gun discharging and killing someone. It doesn't show if the discharge is intentional, it doesn't tell us what the state of mind of the shooter was.

      The sad part is, most of the people reacting with the most violence against the police officer are probably are the first to call out Bush et al for shredding the rule of law, yet they don't get that it applies to this situation as well.

      •  It may be a strong word (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        debedb, TheLoneliestMonk, BlueHead

        but how would you feel about your freedom if you  had a gun pointed at your back while being held down.  If guns go off that easily then they should not be pointed at unarmed peoples backs.

        Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. ~ Reinhold Niebuhr

        by bvig on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 07:48:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which is why I'm leaning to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          memiller, beagledad

          This being a negligent manslaughter, because a properly trained LEO should know not to have their finger in the trigger guard unless they're going to fire.

          But that's not what people here are saying, people here are calling this "an execution" despite having no evidence to back up that claim.

          •  It may be something like that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            debedb, TheLoneliestMonk

            but I think it makes people fear for their safety over cops authority to point a gun at an unarmed man.  I think that's why people are reacting that way, this man had no way to defend himself and had to submit to having a weapon pointed at him for no reason apparent on the video.  
              If a man came up to me and pointed a gun at me and then said whoops, went off, i guess it's not an execution, but it's not exactly an accident either.  

            Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. ~ Reinhold Niebuhr

            by bvig on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:02:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I can tell you that (0+ / 0-)

        it doesn't tell us what the state of mind of the shooter was.

        That state of mind is called "power trip". Also known as "I'd be a back-alley bully without my badge and my gun".

  •  A very similar thing recently happened in Houston (6+ / 0-)

    but there is no video.  A man was shot, a baseball player, in his own driveway because the cops mistakenly thought the car he was driving was stolen.  Here is the link.

  •  I suppose your last rec addressed the one... (3+ / 0-)

    ...and only rule my NYC parents taught us to use when being approached by the police...

    Don't say anything but polite answers to their questions, keep your hands out in the open, and obey all of their commands, they can kill you of they get even slightly surprised.

    Defending rights is done in front of a judge, not a cop.

    As far as we were taught, cops have a dangerous job and getting killed by one accidentally can happen easily.

    And that was NYC. If dealing with the LAPD, I would just lay down on my stomach and surrender (praying).

    This incident stinks to hell. A tragic mistake that will devastate both victim's family and the shooter's as well as the shooter.

    The sad reality is that even if it was a taser the cop grabbed, the same outcome is possible. Policing certainly could be more of a science today and we need to demand it.

    HR 676 - Health care reform we can believe in.

    by kck on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:16:55 PM PST

    •  You don't have to answer their questions. (9+ / 0-)

      You SHOULDN'T answer their questions if there is even the vaguest hint of a slight chance that you might become a criminal suspect, because those answers most surely will be used against you, in ways that you can't even begin to imagine at the time the apparently innocent answers are being given.

      "...we all of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

      by beagledad on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:19:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, like the cop who tasered a guy on an awning (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, kck, teemel, bvig

      The guy fell down and died.

      The guy who got tasered was acting erratically but it was determined he was not a threat to anyone. But cops nowadays respond aggressively to anyone who acts erratically even if they are not violent or a danger. I recall another situation of a person who had a panic attack and tried to exit a plane before it took off. I can't remember how he was killed, but he was.

      BTW, the cop who gave the order to taser the guy on the awning committed suicide. It was a tragedy for both him and the guy he ordered tasered, but why are cops so quick to act when they do not need to? Why is restraint and respect for human life no longer a goal and virtue?

      The too-frequent occurrences of cop-caused deaths demands attention and investigation. I actually fear death by cop more than I do terrorism or the Taliban or earthquakes or natural disasters or radioactive poisoning or even death from products made in China.

      •  Good questions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RAZE

        why are cops so quick to act when they do not need to? Why is restraint and respect for human life no longer a goal and virtue?

        Any particular cop may have "restraint and respect for human life" AND be unnecessarily "quick to act" in a particular/peculiar situation. The public deserves to see the end of these sloppy situational  tragedies. To whatever extent racism is a factor, the public must be protected. I don't believe these events are disciplinary problems - there are too many of them - but an overarching professional failing, a structural one.

        I suspect there's lots of vital data not being included in scientific projects not being done to answer your questions and get the police the tools and processes they need to do their jobs.  

        HR 676 - Health care reform we can believe in.

        by kck on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 06:44:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I just want to link to a comment I made (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        debedb, RAZE, kck, TheLoneliestMonk, brwnsgr

        way back in July relating a bad experience I had with a cop.  And here is another: I grew up in a poor, black neighborhood.  One day a man was beating the crap out of a woman right outside my window.  My mother called 911 right away.  This is what the dispatcher said "Is she white?" My mother, stunned, replied honestly "No".  A cop arrived 45 minutes later well after the man had beaten the woman to a bloody pulp and dragged her off the street.  Although my aunt was a cop (she was the first black and first woman Florida State Patrol from Sarasota), that experience has shaped my idea of what police are like more than any other.  And yeah, as a bisexual black woman I'm more afraid of death or brutalization by cop than a terrorist attack (although isn't police brutality a type of terrorism?)

        •  I have several disabilities and I really fear (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          debedb, AmericanRiverCanyon, teemel, bvig

          going places where cops may be. I got shoved to the ground in a line at the Charleston airport because I did not respond to a TSA officer's request to step out of line so I could be searched. I'm deaf in the right ear, the person who asked me was not the officer standing next to me (I don't know who it was) and I still don't understand why someone could not have made sure their question was heard before knocking me down and frisking me in front of everyone.

          And of course I became emotional and rather incoherent. I also have a brain injury and tend to react this way. Luckily it was a small airport and there was only a handful of TSA agents. If a large force had surrounded me and drawn weapons, I am sure I'd be dead for my failure to hear.

  •  just based on the videos. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shadan7, Greg in TN, debedb, esquimaux, RAZE

    it looks like an execution.

    The the burden of proof should always be on the police to prove their use of force was justifiable.  

    What is so disturbing about this is how often these kinds of things happen.  

    Police can randomly and without cause or suspicion commit violence on random citizens.  It is absolutely disgusting.

    Even if these kids were fighting on the train, this kind of excessive force is uncalled for.  

    •  The burden of proof should be on the police? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shadan7, Goldfish

      Ummm, there are these things called the Vth and XIVth Amendments that say the burden of proof is never on the accused.

      •  What are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        debedb

        How is it 5th and 14th amendment relevant to the agent of the state shooting a citizen execution style?

        This police officer was acting as a agent of the state, not as a private citizen murdering another private citizen.  

        Far too often police violence is assumed to be justified with no qualifications.  Their violent acts toward citizens should always have a very high burden of proof of justification.  

  •  My brief survey of fatal BART-cop shootings (8+ / 0-)

    over the past 30 years came up with two unarmed men, both of whom were shot fatally in the back, plus a naked guy shot and killed after he managed to lay hold of Officer Hairtrigger's nightstick and dent his patrol car.

    I shudder to think of the reaction if someone actually does pull out a real live dangerous non-toy actually-existing-in-temporal-space GUN near a BART cop.  Simple proportionality suggests they'd drop a tactical nuke on the BART station in question.

    Wow! I can see America from my house now!

    by turbonium on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:26:31 PM PST

  •  Unless he had a siamese twin on his back - no (0+ / 0-)

    taser was necessary -

    I/P Conflict - cui bono? Iran, Bush

    by JerichoJ8 on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:28:14 PM PST

  •  Cops should not be allowed... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg in TN, debedb, justCal, teemel, JerichoJ8
    ...to carry guns. Period.

    The cops in England don't carry guns. We should have the same system here.

    I'm lost..I'm angry..and I'm armed!>>Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

    by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:29:58 PM PST

  •  This is what happens when Paul Blart get a gat (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    memiller, debedb, esquimaux, teemel

    Even if this incredibly inept person thought he was reaching for his taser he should go to jail in that this young man didn't deserve any form of aggresive action he was trying his damndest to follow directions.  To take a persons life like this demands criminal sanctions.

    The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.

    by Adept2u on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:37:54 PM PST

  •  Both cops got off because they were going to tase (5+ / 0-)

    him and they didn't want to get shocked.

    That was criminally unnecessary. They had him subdued. They required little to cuff him at that point.

    Instead of applying pressure, they pull out their weapon.

    It's dominance. Abuse. It's incompetence.

    It's voluntary manslaughter.

    I/P Conflict - cui bono? Iran, Bush

    by JerichoJ8 on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 06:00:10 PM PST

  •  I don't get to see video of many murders (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    debedb, esquimaux, RAZE, jdw112, JerichoJ8

    these days.

    This gives me slight PTSD style flashbacks to my own recent encounter with the police, and guns. I am glad none of them decided to murder me that night. He had no right to pull a gun, he had no need to pull a taser if ineptness is his excuse.

    This cop deserves to burn. If he is seriously wracked with guilt he should be allowed to kill himself but I think he will do better to linger in prison for a long time.

Click here for the mobile view of the site