Transit police execute rider

[General Zod]

Isnt it on the ex-cop and defense attorny to prove otherwise? We know he pulled his gun and shot the man in the back. Its the cop that will have to prove that he didnt mean to do exactly what he did.

Innocence is always (should be, anyway) assumed, even in cases like this where guilt is pretty obvious. So whether you like it or not, the burden of proof is on the DA.

[Bilbo]

Isnt it on the ex-cop and defense attorny to prove otherwise? We know he pulled his gun and shot the man in the back. Its the cop that will have to prove that he didnt mean to do exactly what he did.

Innocence is always (should be, anyway) assumed, even in cases like this where guilt is pretty obvious. So whether you like it or not, the burden of proof is on the DA.

What is he proving? That the cop pulled his gun, aimed at a pinned mans back, then pulled the trigger? All of this is a given.

It would be the defense attorney who will argue that under the stress he mixxed up his tools and pulled gun instead of taser.

[General Zod]

What is he proving? That the cop pulled his gun, aimed at a pinned mans back, then pulled the trigger? All of this is a given.

It's called due process. You may wish to familiarize yourself with it at some point.

[Bilbo]

What is he proving? That the cop pulled his gun, aimed at a pinned mans back, then pulled the trigger? All of this is a given.

It's called due process. You may wish to familiarize yourself with it at some point.

Don't be a dick. Just pointing out that there is very little here that needs to be truly proven. While it technically has to be proven there is not much that can be disputed. The victim was held down. The officer drew a weapon. He fired said weapon at point blank range. That weapon was his sidearm.

None of this can be disputed or argued.

The Defense attorney can try to argue that they officer under stress grabbed his gun instead of taser but that is the defense. The DA doesnt have to prove that he pulled his gun because we all see that he did.

[General Zod]

Don't be a dick. Just pointing out that there is very little here that needs to be truly proven. While it technically has to be proven there is not much that can be disputed. The victim was held down. The officer drew a weapon. He fired said weapon at point blank range. That weapon was his sidearm.

None of this can be disputed or argued.

The Defense attorney can try to argue that they officer under stress grabbed his gun instead of taser but that is the defense. The DA doesnt have to prove that he pulled his gun because we all see that he did.

It doesn't matter if it can be disputed or not. The DA still has to do his job, even if there's minimal effort required, or the court system may as well be a joke.

[Bilbo]

Don't be a dick. Just pointing out that there is very little here that needs to be truly proven. While it technically has to be proven there is not much that can be disputed. The victim was held down. The officer drew a weapon. He fired said weapon at point blank range. That weapon was his sidearm.

None of this can be disputed or argued.

The Defense attorney can try to argue that they officer under stress grabbed his gun instead of taser but that is the defense. The DA doesnt have to prove that he pulled his gun because we all see that he did.

It doesn't matter if it can be disputed or not. The DA still has to do his job, even if there's minimal effort required, or the court system may as well be a joke.

I know. It just seems that some people in this thread are suggesting that it is the DA's job to prove that the cop didnt screw up and grab his gun by mistake.

[Alyeska]

I know. It just seems that some people in this thread are suggesting that it is the DA's job to prove that the cop didnt screw up and grab his gun by mistake.

Thats exactly what we are saying. That is the DA's JOB. This is what the DA must do in order to prove the case. And as KS pointed out, the DA is going to have a difficult time. The video evidence does not provide a very good indicator of Murder. Either the DA is trying to scare the cop into pleading out by using Murder as leverage, or the DA is a fracking idiot who doesn't appreciate the circumstances. The video shows what looks like Manslaughter.

[Bilbo]

I know. It just seems that some people in this thread are suggesting that it is the DA's job to prove that the cop didnt screw up and grab his gun by mistake.

Thats exactly what we are saying. That is the DA's JOB. This is what the DA must do in order to prove the case. And as KS pointed out, the DA is going to have a difficult time. The video evidence does not provide a very good indicator of Murder. Either the DA is trying to scare the cop into pleading out by using Murder as leverage, or the DA is a fracking idiot who doesn't appreciate the circumstances. The video shows what looks like Manslaughter.

Or some of the "confiscated" cameras had better videos that remove some of the uncertainty.

[Broomstick]

It is also possible that some of the other officers at the scene have testimony that has a bearing on this case as well. The shooter may have said something incriminating in front of officers who are now willing to be witnesses.

[Alyeska]

Most likely the DA was urged by the Mayor and the Mayor wanted to avoid further civil unrest.

[CmdrWilkens]

For it to be murder, they have to prove he intended to kill the guy when he reached for a weapon, right?

All you have to prove is that he pulled his gun on purpose. We already know he pulled the trigger on purpose and shooting someone at that range is pretty much a lethal shot.

Actually a couple things in your statement are wrong:

1) We don't know that he pulled the trigger on purpose
2) Proving that he pulled his gun and not his taser isn't exactly easy
3) Both of the above have to be done beyond a reasonable doubt


In other words yes the officer clearly is responsible for the death, there is no way around that, BUT murder requires either intent, willful negligence, or reckless disregard. Proving those is not exactly an easy thing because they all go to state of mind. The officer would have a pretty easy defense in terms of offering up that in the heat of the moment he reached for his taser (which is similair in feel to service sidearm) and then pulled the trigger in an attempt to subdue someone in the manner he was trained. If the cop can succesfully argue that it was unintentional to pull the gun instead of the taser...then the whole case is lost because that would disprove murder. If they don't file charges at the same time for manslaughter or possible negligent homicide then the double jepardy rule means he gets off clean because the DA decided to buck for the bigger charge.

Its a shitty way to go so I hope that the DA is just using it as a scare tactic because the other thing I can all but garuntee is that the defense will file, and be awarded, a change of venue motion, that will drastically shift the jury pool in his favor.

[Posner]

Double jeopardy only applies when you have been aquitted. The prosecutor can amend the charges during the trial, but the jury can always go with voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Even in your scenario a prosecutor is would know not to only go for murder.

Edited for unintentional snarkiness.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Double jeopardy only applies when you have been aquitted. The prosecutor can amend the charges during the trial, but the jury can always go with voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Even in your scenario a prosecutor is would know not to only go for murder.

Edited for unintentional snarkiness.

Right. I never meant to imply that the prosecutor was stuck. I just think it's a stupid move. Charge them up front with the crime you have...not the one you want.

EDIT - Removed response to Bilbo as others have already made the same comments.

[Stuart]

We already know he pulled the trigger on purpose and shooting someone at that range is pretty much a lethal shot.

Do we know that? According to some reports, the pistol used was a Glock. Glock's don't have safety catches and are notorious for having a high negligent discharge rate. To make a murder conviction stick, the DA would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't a negligent discharge. If he can't do that, the murder charge flies out if the window (what you believe or think is irrelevent here, all that is important is what can be proved in court and the burden of evidence is on the prosecution)

In other words yes the officer clearly is responsible for the death, there is no way around that, BUT murder requires either intent, willful negligence, or reckless disregard. Proving those is not exactly an easy thing because they all go to state of mind. The officer would have a pretty easy defense in terms of offering up that in the heat of the moment he reached for his taser (which is similair in feel to service sidearm) and then pulled the trigger in an attempt to subdue someone in the manner he was trained. If the cop can succesfully argue that it was unintentional to pull the gun instead of the taser...then the whole case is lost because that would disprove murder. If they don't file charges at the same time for manslaughter or possible negligent homicide then the double jepardy rule means he gets off clean because the DA decided to buck for the bigger charge.

All I'd add is one phrase "and I only realized it wasn't my Taser when it discharged." With a Glock, he doesn't even have to get around the fact he pulled the trigger. (By the way, I hate Glocks). In fact, if one wanted to be really, really evil, the officer could sue BART for negligence in that they issued a sidearm with a known propensity to discharge on little or no provocation and that could be confused with a Taser and that negligence was reponsible for the death and thus the pain and mental suffering resulting from this (sobs) terrible accident (/sobs)

Its a shitty way to go so I hope that the DA is just using it as a scare tactic because the other thing I can all but guarantee is that the defense will file, and be awarded, a change of venue motion, that will drastically shift the jury pool in his favor.

I'm cynical enough to wonder if they're going for a murder charge in the knowledge the jury will toss it out and thus they can wash their hands of the whole business. "Well, gee guys, we went for him with everything we had, you can't blame us for the jury acquitting."

[Ekiqa]

KS-

Going back to the other officers confiscating videos, if you were one of those officers present, would you take the evidence? Despite the fact that you would now be under investigation?

How can you make a case thet their seizure of videos was legal, when they had no legal authority to investigate the murder? They themselves are witnesses, and partners of the murderer. The only officers who should have done the confiscating would be either the Oakland PD, or an internal investigations unit. Not the ones who were witnesses, possibly even accomplices to the crime!

Also, apparenlty the officer, or BART, carries Tasers on the off-side of his gun arm, from a Toronto Star news report.

[Bilbo]

Do we know that? According to some reports, the pistol used was a Glock. Glock's don't have safety catches and are notorious for having a high negligent discharge rate. To make a murder conviction stick, the DA would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't a negligent discharge. If he can't do that, the murder charge flies out if the window (what you believe or think is irrelevent here, all that is important is what can be proved in court and the burden of evidence is on the prosecution)

Not being a gun nut can I assume at least that Glocks are inexpensive guns? I would hate to think law enforcement is carrying around a piece of shit firearm AND is paying more for the weapon.

[Kamakazie Sith]

KS-

Going back to the other officers confiscating videos, if you were one of those officers present, would you take the evidence? Despite the fact that you would now be under investigation?

I would have performed my job as my department policy dictates. Which is securing the scene, identifying witnesses, and identifying evidence. Whether I would secure that evidence or not depends on several factors. I'd probably have secured the closest camera that I could see which provided the best view and left it at that.

How can you make a case thet their seizure of videos was legal, when they had no legal authority to investigate the murder? They themselves are witnesses, and partners of the murderer. The only officers who should have done the confiscating would be either the Oakland PD, or an internal investigations unit. Not the ones who were witnesses, possibly even accomplices to the crime!

No legal authority? They are still police, and that doesn't disappear just because you witnessed a shooting involving members of your own department. You might want to do a bit of research on police shootings. They're almost always investigated by that department along with the DA.

The involvment of Oakland PD IIRC was by a special request from either the Mayors office or the DA's office I don't remember which. Furthermore, the other officers involved are clearly not accomplices to the crime, but using your logic police should freeze any scene where they've used any type of force and await a third party to come and process the scene which just waiting can take hours. Those people who had their cameras taken away would have had to wait a very long time.

I'll also clarify that I don't find your logic particularly bad. It makes sense to have a third party come in and complete the investigation. However, you will always have the blue wall stigma from citizens.

Also, apparenlty the officer, or BART, carries Tasers on the off-side of his gun arm, from a Toronto Star news report.

Yeah. This would make sense. Still doesn't prove knowingly or intentionally...

[Kamakazie Sith]

Do we know that? According to some reports, the pistol used was a Glock. Glock's don't have safety catches and are notorious for having a high negligent discharge rate. To make a murder conviction stick, the DA would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't a negligent discharge. If he can't do that, the murder charge flies out if the window (what you believe or think is irrelevent here, all that is important is what can be proved in court and the burden of evidence is on the prosecution)

Not being a gun nut can I assume at least that Glocks are inexpensive guns? I would hate to think law enforcement is carrying around a piece of shit firearm AND is paying more for the weapon.

I carry a glock on and off duty. I've never had a problem with it because I follow the four rules of a firearm safety. They're roughly around $500.00...

[Bilbo]

Do we know that? According to some reports, the pistol used was a Glock. Glock's don't have safety catches and are notorious for having a high negligent discharge rate. To make a murder conviction stick, the DA would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't a negligent discharge. If he can't do that, the murder charge flies out if the window (what you believe or think is irrelevent here, all that is important is what can be proved in court and the burden of evidence is on the prosecution)

Not being a gun nut can I assume at least that Glocks are inexpensive guns? I would hate to think law enforcement is carrying around a piece of shit firearm AND is paying more for the weapon.

I carry a glock on and off duty. I've never had a problem with it because I follow the four rules of a firearm safety. They're roughly around $500.00...

So are they safe weapons or not? Also how does $500 compare to other firearms? Stuart suggested that the weapon has a history of misfires or accidental discharges which makes me wonder why any law enforcement would carry them. Or is the poor quality of the Glock an example of exxagerated gun lore?

[Kamakazie Sith]

So are they safe weapons or not? Also how does $500 compare to other firearms? Stuart suggested that the weapon has a history of misfires or accidental discharges which makes me wonder why any law enforcement would carry them. Or is the poor quality of the Glock an example of exxagerated gun lore?

I'm not aware of a single accidental discharge (AD) that wasn't caused by something other than the the user failing to follow the four rules of firearm safety. I'd say $500.00 is about average, but I'm not a gun enthusiast. The reason Glocks are so prone to AD is because they don't have a safety and when the trigger is pulled whether intentional or not it will fire.

[Kanastrous]

The trigger pull on a Glock is consistently more like a double-action pistol's, on every shot: longer and harder. There's no safety per se; the actual mechanical safety is built into the trigger and is released by the first pound or two of trigger pull.

Personally can't stand Glocks, and wouldn't want to carry one, but very large numbers of professionals obviously feel differently.

For your +/- US$500, get yourself an H&K USP, IMHO an entirely superior product.

[Vain]

The Glock has no external safety beyond a flange on the trigger (Safe Trigger Action). If you pull the trigger on a loaded Glock it /will/ go off. Glocks are in wide circulation, and are notorious for being accidentally discharged, but my understanding of the prevailing expert opinion is that the vast majority of these accidental discharges are due to poor training, rather than poor design. I am not an expert.

As a civilian hobbyist shooter, I am much more comfortable with the idea of carrying a single action weapon in Condition 1 (loaded, with the hammer cocked and an external safety engaged), but as I live in Maryland and lack a CCW, I have no experience with carrying a weapon for an extended period of time.

I think there is no doubt that the BART officer in question was poorly trained and I really have no opinion as to whether the outcome would have been different if he had been issued a different weapon with an external safety.

[General Zod]

I think there is no doubt that the BART officer in question was poorly trained and I really have no opinion as to whether the outcome would have been different if he had been issued a different weapon with an external safety.

Given you have to make a conscious decision to flick the safety off, it's pretty much guaranteed the outcome would be completely different, the guy might even still be alive. Either that or at least the doubt of a murder charge would be virtually non-existent.

[CmdrWilkens]

The Glock is safe in the sense that it will not fire unless you pull the trigger. The problem is that many folks are used to an external safety that is not integrated with the trigger. If you are used to that and then use a Glock you could easily have an accidental discharge because you might have a weapon that is Condition 1 (loaded, round in chamber, safety on) but if you are used to having to flip an external switch to disable the safety then you won't be ready for the glock to go off since the safety switch is integrated with the trigger.

I use a S&W model with the same feature as a personal defense weapon in the house because it allows for the most rapid transition from COndition 1 to a weapon that is engaging a target...BUT it does have the risk that an undertrained user will not recognize a live weapon (since we have no kids in the house and I also have a chamber lock per MD regulations I'm not concerned with that).

Virtually every misfire that could arise from such actions could be averted by proper safety training the principal rules of which are:

- Treat EVERY weapon as loaded
- Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot
- Keep your finger STRAIGHT and OFF THE TRIGGER until you intend to fire
- Keep the weapon on SAFE until you are ready to fire

The critical thing there is that if you don't touch the trigger until you have already made the decision to shoot then you won't have a misfire with the Glock (or really just about any other weapon). It either poor training for the officer to have drawn with his finger on the trigger or intent and I'm inclined from the video to believe the former.

[Bilbo]

Question for Sith or anyone else with personal experience. Do tasers carried by police officers have the same trigger design as sidearms?

Ok did a little checking and assuming the images I pulled are prety standard who in their right mind decided to design tasers to look like handguns? They have the same shape, they have the trigger guard, they have the trigger. I can easily see lots of poeple mistaking the two in a heated situation. A smart design should have been for the taser to have a button on top with a shape that allows that button to be hit with the thumb. Basically something that makes the two different.