Transit police execute rider

[Plekhanov]

Kamakazie Sith earlier in the thread in your attempts to excuse the conduct of the BART Police you claimed that "All officer involved shootings are treated as a criminal investigation" yet a whole week after being witnessed and videoed shooting a restrained man in the back Johannes Mehserle hasn't even made a statement yet.

Do you honestly expect us to believe that this is how 'criminal investigations' into murder regularly go in the US? Are such strong suspects usually given a full week or more coming up with and rehearsing a defence with their lawyers before the investigating officers question them?

[Coyote]

Please bear in mind that KS never excused or justified what the BART officer did; in fact, he said the guy was in deep trouble from the beginning. He's been patiently trying to point out the possibile legalities and difficulties with this situation and the way it was handled, and a lot of people who cannot see beyond their own ideological blindness are dogpiling him with distortions of his position and veiled ad-hominems about his character and ethics.



WAKE UP.

[Khaat]

I've been following this in a detached manner, as my general opinion is "people are really stupid". I believe what we see in this situation is everybody at their worst, which is usually closest to the truth.

Grant was resisting, or he would have been sitting against the wall with the others. The video shows him repeatedly trying to rise from his seated position. This is "noncompliance."

The crowd on the train were being typical "armchair quarterbacks" by shouting out their bias (also irrelevant to the matter at hand.) Do they have anything useful to add? No, just slurs and defiance.

The officer who fired clearly fucked up. You can see it. There was no "I said 'stay down', bitch!" swagger after the shot, there was only the "ohshi..!" moment. In the plus column, everyone shut up for a second.

The article at the top of this is intentionally distorting the truth to incite distrust and possibly violence against the BART police. "Not that it's an 'us vs them' thing, but it's us vs them!"

"By now everyone has seen the horrific videos of an Oakland BART police officer shooting an unarmed Black man, Oscar Grant, while he lay face down on the ground and was fully cooperating."

(emphasis mine)
Except for the part where he kept getting up.

It’s not a Black thing.

Really? It sure looked like you were "racially profiling" Mr. Grant earlier, Davy D., paragon of journalistic integrity!

Morally right? Sure, Perfect World: everyone would be working, or at home with their families, or having a safe, socially-neutral (at worst, meaning non-harmful to others) good time, or on their way (orderly) to do one of these, and police wouldn't be needed at all, ever. The End.

Where did things go wrong? When Mr. Grant didn't stay on his butt, thinking of his darling little 4-year old daughter, letting the men in his company take the heat for their own non-compliance. When he defied the orders of the BART police and attempted to do something else.

I'm sorry for Mr. Grant's family's loss.
I deeply regret that the incident will never get impartial consideration by the "average person" (someone who couldn't get out of jury duty).
I mostly regret that humans are so selfish, lazy and irresponsible.

Here's a black comedy moment:
Oscar approaches the Pearly Gates.
St. Peter looks up from his book with an eyebrow raised.
Oscar shrugs, "yeah, I was shot."
St. Peter shrugs as well.
"At least they didn't tase you, bro!"

[Kamakazie Sith]

Kamakazie Sith earlier in the thread in your attempts to excuse the conduct of the BART Police you claimed that "All officer involved shootings are treated as a criminal investigation" yet a whole week after being witnessed and videoed shooting a restrained man in the back Johannes Mehserle hasn't even made a statement yet.

Do you honestly expect us to believe that this is how 'criminal investigations' into murder regularly go in the US? Are such strong suspects usually given a full week or more coming up with and rehearsing a defence with their lawyers before the investigating officers question them?

You might want to look up the bill of rights. I'll see if you can figure out which right that even police officers have when being investigated from criminal action. Shocking, I know, that police officers are also protected by these same rights.

I look forward to your response.

[Graeme Dice]

Please bear in mind that KS never excused or justified what the BART officer did; in fact, he said the guy was in deep trouble from the beginning. He's been patiently trying to point out the possibile legalities and difficulties with this situation and the way it was handled, and a lot of people who cannot see beyond their own ideological blindness are dogpiling him with distortions of his position and veiled ad-hominems about his character and ethics.

Explaining how morally indefensible actions are legal _is_ one of the standard techniques used to defend those actions. You're also sidestepping the issue quite a bit. KS has not defended the shooter, but he has definitely defended the other officers, and those other officers had a probable conflict of interest in the investigation.

[Plekhanov]

Kamakazie Sith earlier in the thread in your attempts to excuse the conduct of the BART Police you claimed that "All officer involved shootings are treated as a criminal investigation" yet a whole week after being witnessed and videoed shooting a restrained man in the back Johannes Mehserle hasn't even made a statement yet.

Do you honestly expect us to believe that this is how 'criminal investigations' into murder regularly go in the US? Are such strong suspects usually given a full week or more coming up with and rehearsing a defence with their lawyers before the investigating officers question them?

You might want to look up the bill of rights. I'll see if you can figure out which right that even police officers have when being investigated from criminal action. Shocking, I know, that police officers are also protected by these same rights.

I look forward to your response.

He obviously has a right not to remain silent but that doesn't mean that those investigating the shooting shouldn't atleast try to get him to say something. Before he resigned his employers had 5 days to order him to speak to IA and they conspicuously failed to do so.

Why don't you respond to what was quite obviously my main point which was; is this investigation proceeding at anything like the usual speed for a "criminal investigation" into somebody witnessed and videoed shooting someone in the back?

[General Zod]

He obviously has a right not to remain silent but that doesn't mean that those investigating the shooting shouldn't atleast try to get him to say something. Before he resigned his employers had 5 days to order him to speak to IA and they conspicuously failed to do so.

What makes you think that they didn't try? The only thing that we know is he hasn't issued a statement. That means that no matter what they asked him he's not saying dick, which is really the best thing he can do to save his ass. That doesn't mean they can't still put him on trial.

Why don't you respond to what was quite obviously my main point which was; is this investigation proceeding at anything like the usual speed for a "criminal investigation" into somebody witnessed and videoed shooting someone in the back?

The case is less than two weeks old. You don't honestly expect a thorough and competent investigation, trial and conviction into a possible murder charge in less than two weeks, do you?

[Coyote]

Explaining how morally indefensible actions are legal _is_ one of the standard techniques used to defend those actions. You're also sidestepping the issue quite a bit. KS has not defended the shooter, but he has definitely defended the other officers, and those other officers had a probable conflict of interest in the investigation.

But that only underscores the difficulty in the case. The very people charged with maintaining order at such a scene are also viewed as being participants in the problem. At this point, we have no idea what is going on in the mind of the officer, nor do we know the rationale or motivations for the other officers on the scene. They are thrust into a situation they probably were not prepared for-- one of their own suddenly --accidentally? It sure looks like it-- shot a man in the back in front of a huge crowd with recording devices.

Let's think about that-- even the most hateful racists are at least operating with enough neurons to know that shooting an unarmed Black man in the back in front of colleagues and witnesses with recording devices is a stupid idea. So this is almost certainly an accident. The cops on the scene know they're supposed to "do something", but they also know they just became part of the problem. What are they supposed to do? It's easy, days later, to say they should have asked their colleague for his gun and disarmed him, put him in the back of a car, and asked the witnesses for their cooperation.

But instead, you're an officer, facing a stressful but routine incident, with a screaming crowd of uncertain intentions almost in arms reach, and your butterfingers partner just did something fucking goddamn nuts that is way out of your expectations and you have to do something right this second. Don't think about it. Do something NOW.

Since this incident, the officer was placed on "paid leave" but he resigned afterwards. A person who feels all "I'm going to fight this!" doesn't resign, although I am guessing at his actions. Did it occur to anyone, after seeing the shocked expression on his face, the resigning, the silence, that he may well be wracked with guilt and confusion, and wondering how or even if he should fight this? He may be telling his attourney "I deserve to go to jail" and his attourney-- who is hired to do anything he can to keep his client out of jail-- may be saying "hold on, let's see what we can do, don't go crazy on me..." We don't know! All I see is a "HANG THE FUCKING NAZI PIGS! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!" call from some folks.

That certainly won't help matters at all.

[Kanastrous]

I may have missed it, but was there any effort toward getting a blood or urine sample off the shooter, within reasonable time of the shooting?

I wonder if he wasn't intoxicated on the job. Seems like the sort of blind-stupid deadly shit people do, when they're impaired.

[General Zod]

I may have missed it, but was there any effort toward getting a blood or urine sample off the shooter, within reasonable time of the shooting?

I wonder if he wasn't intoxicated on the job. Seems like the sort of blind-stupid deadly shit people do, when they're impaired.

I don't recall anything like that mentioned in the article, but if he was intoxicated it wouldn't do anything but make his case much worse for him.

[Kanastrous]

I wasn't suggesting that it was exculpatory; yeah, impaired-on-the-job plus-shooting-a-restrained-prisoner-as-consequence would pretty much have to be worse.

[Broomstick]

Courts sometimes like to have the actual device. In my department chances are if you use your own digital camera to document the scene of a crime then chances are it won't be yours for very much longer if it goes to court. The red tape of the US court system makes every step subject to scrutiny.

And that is one reason why a lot of people are reluctant to help the police. Nevermind if you need some item, if it's important to your livelihood, whether you can replace it or not - your property is confiscated, you have zero chance of getting it back, there is no compensation, and you can just go fuck yourself.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Courts sometimes like to have the actual device. In my department chances are if you use your own digital camera to document the scene of a crime then chances are it won't be yours for very much longer if it goes to court. The red tape of the US court system makes every step subject to scrutiny.

And that is one reason why a lot of people are reluctant to help the police. Nevermind if you need some item, if it's important to your livelihood, whether you can replace it or not - your property is confiscated, you have zero chance of getting it back, there is no compensation, and you can just go fuck yourself.

As far as I remember, after the trial some items you can get back. I think. It is just hard and you might even have to pay them...

[General Zod]

As far as I remember, after the trial some items you can get back. I think. It is just hard and you might even have to pay them...

Which isn't terribly helpful when you consider some trials can take years and people might need those items much sooner.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As far as I remember, after the trial some items you can get back. I think. It is just hard and you might even have to pay them...

Which isn't terribly helpful when you consider some trials can take years and people might need those items much sooner.

Exactly.

[Bilbo]

As far as I remember, after the trial some items you can get back. I think. It is just hard and you might even have to pay them...

Which isn't terribly helpful when you consider some trials can take years and people might need those items much sooner.

Exactly.

In effect buying back your own possessions. Now that is justice.

[Ender]

Explaining how morally indefensible actions are legal _is_ one of the standard techniques used to defend those actions. You're also sidestepping the issue quite a bit. KS has not defended the shooter, but he has definitely defended the other officers, and those other officers had a probable conflict of interest in the investigation.

He has not defended the officers in their choice to do so, he has only made statements as to whether their actions were legal or not. Further, you may want to watch your rhetoric. While the execution was "morally indefensible", the confiscating of cameras, while unethical, is hardly deserving of being put on a comparable level.

[Ender]

He obviously has a right not to remain silent but that doesn't mean that those investigating the shooting shouldn't atleast try to get him to say something. Before he resigned his employers had 5 days to order him to speak to IA and they conspicuously failed to do so.

Why don't you respond to what was quite obviously my main point which was; is this investigation proceeding at anything like the usual speed for a "criminal investigation" into somebody witnessed and videoed shooting someone in the back?

Oh, you had a point there? All I saw was another example of not reading the statements in the thread and bandwagon hopping in going after KS by strawmanning him.

And if you want to charge that the speed that this is being conducted at is unusual, do you have any comparable examples of how long it takes BART IA to conduct a prosecution and hand it over to the DAs office?

[Bilbo]

He obviously has a right not to remain silent but that doesn't mean that those investigating the shooting shouldn't atleast try to get him to say something. Before he resigned his employers had 5 days to order him to speak to IA and they conspicuously failed to do so.

Why don't you respond to what was quite obviously my main point which was; is this investigation proceeding at anything like the usual speed for a "criminal investigation" into somebody witnessed and videoed shooting someone in the back?

Oh, you had a point there? All I saw was another example of not reading the statements in the thread and bandwagon hopping in going after KS by strawmanning him.

And if you want to charge that the speed that this is being conducted at is unusual, do you have any comparable examples of how long it takes BART IA to conduct a prosecution and hand it over to the DAs office?

Does that really matter though? Any officer will tell you that the sooner a witness or anyone else is questioned the better the recollection is. So asking sooner is better than asking later.

Also by sitting on this for 5 days without questioning the guy you create a huge PR issue. You have what "appears" to be an execution style murder of a black man by a white cop and you let at least 5 days pass without questioning the guy who pulled the trigger? That is a huge PR mistake in anyones book. No matter what the reality of the situation is the police just made this look like a coverup. Also they earned themself a small riot which might have not happened at all if they had at least "shown" the public that this was important by working quickly on this. I would find it hard to believe that IA has so much on its plate that a murder can go this long without interviewing the shooter. My guess is they wanted him to resign so that anything he does from this point forward is as a civilian and not as an officer.

[General Zod]

Does that really matter though? Any officer will tell you that the sooner a witness or anyone else is questioned the better the recollection is. So asking sooner is better than asking later.

Also by sitting on this for 5 days without questioning the guy you create a huge PR issue. You have what "appears" to be an execution style murder of a black man by a white cop and you let at least 5 days pass without questioning the guy who pulled the trigger? That is a huge PR mistake in anyones book. No matter what the reality of the situation is the police just made this look like a coverup. Also they earned themself a small riot which might have not happened at all if they had at least "shown" the public that this was important by working quickly on this. I would find it hard to believe that IA has so much on its plate that a murder can go this long without interviewing the shooter. My guess is they wanted him to resign so that anything he does from this point forward is as a civilian and not as an officer.

Once again, the only thing we know is that he hasn't issued a statement. That doesn't mean they haven't questioned him. Do I need to start pulling out the dictionary to show what the difference is?

[Bilbo]

Does that really matter though? Any officer will tell you that the sooner a witness or anyone else is questioned the better the recollection is. So asking sooner is better than asking later.

Also by sitting on this for 5 days without questioning the guy you create a huge PR issue. You have what "appears" to be an execution style murder of a black man by a white cop and you let at least 5 days pass without questioning the guy who pulled the trigger? That is a huge PR mistake in anyones book. No matter what the reality of the situation is the police just made this look like a coverup. Also they earned themself a small riot which might have not happened at all if they had at least "shown" the public that this was important by working quickly on this. I would find it hard to believe that IA has so much on its plate that a murder can go this long without interviewing the shooter. My guess is they wanted him to resign so that anything he does from this point forward is as a civilian and not as an officer.

Once again, the only thing we know is that he hasn't issued a statement. That doesn't mean they haven't questioned him. Do I need to start pulling out the dictionary to show what the difference is?

Nope. My apology, I read the thread I quoted and it implied that he had not been questioned at all.

[Graeme Dice]

He has not defended the officers in their choice to do so, he has only made statements as to whether their actions were legal or not.

Which, as I've already mentioned, is a standard method of defending their actions. If he's not defending them, then whether their actions were legal is immaterial to the discussion.

While the execution was "morally indefensible", the confiscating of cameras, while unethical, is hardly deserving of being put on a comparable level.

Their confiscation is almost certainly born at least partly of a desire to keep the footage out of the public eye. They are, after all, police officers, and have a conflict of interest when dealing with one of their own.

[CmdrWilkens]

I have to point out that until you've actually restrained a resisting person then you have no fucking clue how difficult it can be to get someones hands into handcuffs. That's why pain compliance techniques are used in order to *gasp* gain compliance. While I agree that shooting him with the probes would be excessive a drive stun by the taser (without probes) would not have been. They also could have manipulated pressure points or used personal physical force on large muscle groups to gain compliance.

Having seen one of the videos, it doesn't look to me like he was putting up a whole lot in terms of any kind of resistance; at least none that we can see. Which makes me wonder why any type of weapon was needed at all.

Not to echo KS too much but I can offer that if you have ever trained in any form of grappling (wehterh freestyle wrestling or any of several forms of martial arts) then you begin to understand just how damn hard it is to actual force a person into a position of compliance if they resist. Perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate this is to watch a Greco-roman style wrestling match, despite the relative lack of motion you can see just how much reisitance each person has to the force of the other. Now wrestling may be less than perfect example since we are talking about trained athletes but wrestlers (and martial artists in contest matches) have the advantage that they know what their opponent intends to do. For a person in the real world you are confronted with a series of problems:
1) People who resist have impressive capacity to prevent you from gaining leverage
2) You have no idea HOW they will attempt to prevent you from gaining leverage
3) You are limited by all sorts of constraints placed by space and time
In other words placing someone in restraints who is not willing can be VERY complicated.

That said I will leave it for trial until we can sort out the salient issue of how much resistance was being offered and what was done prior to the shooting itself.

[Ender]

Which, as I've already mentioned, is a standard method of defending their actions. If he's not defending them, then whether their actions were legal is immaterial to the discussion.

Which, as has been pointed out, is a strawman. He quite explicitly has condemned the actions taken by BART, and has been debating the questions raised about the legality of their actions. Given that the legality of their actions was the topic, I fail to see how it is immaterial. Unless of course you are trying to make the topic something it isn't. Which is, again, a strawman.

Their confiscation is almost certainly born at least partly of a desire to keep the footage out of the public eye. They are, after all, police officers, and have a conflict of interest when dealing with one of their own.

Which has no bearing on by statement that your hyperbole is overblown. Unethical conflicts of interest are not on the same level as executing a cooperating bystander, and you should not paint it as such.

[Ender]

Question on this: Isn't it standard policy for tasers to be cross-grab specifically to avoid the situation that the officer claims caused this? I know it is in a lot of places, what about California in general and ART in particular?