Ender wrote:Something I might have missed, did they slap a set of cuffs or otherwise restrain the officer who pulled the trigger? If they took any action to apprehend the officer in question (like they would a criminal) I'd be more likely to believe that they were confiscating the media devices to help prosecute a case against a criminal.
You didn't miss that. I doubt it happened. I'm sure they just followed policy in regards to a officer involved shooting. All officer involved shootings are treated as a criminal investigation. I doubt the policy is detailed enough to include a situation like this. Also, this does not apply to just police officers.
Police say the security guard has been very cooperative with them and, as of about a half hour ago, they have decided not to book him. They say they will meet with the district attorney very soon to discuss the case.
"paid administrative leave" pisses me off so much. For anybody who is not a police officer, murdering somebody would get you a free trip on the Pink Slip Express and a new home in a cell.
At the time, you might think that it's a mistake you can never undo.
Even if it is, if we kick and scream and fight like hell, we'll move forward, even just a little bit.
I was taught to believe in the me that believed in myself. Maybe that's how it should be.
- Simon the Digger
ASVS Vets | Class of 2000
La Maupin wrote:"paid administrative leave" pisses me off so much. For anybody who is not a police officer, murdering somebody would get you a free trip on the Pink Slip Express and a new home in a cell.
Murder will be tough to reach for a conviction. You'll have to show that this officer intended to shoot Mr. Grant with his firearm, and not his taser. Even if you managed to show that he should have been able to tell the difference between his taser and his firearm you still would need to show that he didn't have an accidental discharge.
He's certainly guilty of manslaughter or the local authority equivalent. As for paid administrative police officers often live paycheck to paycheck so cutting them off during a pending investigation could be very harmful to his/her family. However, in certain situations like this one it's pretty clear what took place, but they are required to follow their policies.
Broomstick wrote:Obviously. Obviously, this was an after-the-fact attempt to cover up a crime committed by the police.
I'll let others to argue the legality of the confiscation.
It's a sad thing when people automatically assume a cover up when the action the police have taken is legal under law. Though I can't it's not undeserved.
Remember, too, that I lived 15 years in Chicago, one of the most corrupt cities in the nation, with a police force every bit as corrupt as the politicians, and where we still have torture-by-police cases in the courts. Certainly I know some fine police officers - hell, I had 5 uncles on the St. Louis force, including one in internal investigations - but as always the bad minority smears the good majority.
I suppose what disturbs me most is that my cellphone is vital to people getting ahold of me either to offer me work or while I'm at work and if it's lost/stolen/taken I can't replace it, I just don't have the money to do so. Meaning confiscating my cellphone - legally done or not - could be crippling for my family's finances and the straw the breaks the finances' back.
Yeah. I would hope that the officers were objective in what they took. If a particular cellphone offered a different angle of view then hopefully they arranged for some sort of compromise. I imagine there weren't a whole lot of video cameras there, and the majority were cell phones with varied quality.
The stupid thing is that MY cellphone doesn't even have camera - but the assumption tends to be that it does. I do worry about stuff like that.
Actually, even if the officer is guilty as fuck he is still entitled to a trial rather than mob justice (which is a possibility, hopefully remote) so protecting his identity is actually appropriate at this point.
The officer in question has been placed in protective custody because of threats made against his life.
As I said - protecting his identity is entirely appropriate. Nothing is served by hanging even vile and corrupt police officers from lampposts.
In other words, arrest everyone at a scene, shoot anyone that makes noise for any reason. This shit has gone down in Chicago, too, and Detroit, and I expect every American city at one time or another.
Without reasonable suspicion of a crime that would make even detaining these people illegal.
Yes, yes it would. However, that sort of thing has happened in the past. Civilians have limited protection from rogue police officers, which makes them very frightening.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Murder will be tough to reach for a conviction. You'll have to show that this officer intended to shoot Mr. Grant with his firearm, and not his taser. Even if you managed to show that he should have been able to tell the difference between his taser and his firearm you still would need to show that he didn't have an accidental discharge.
I don't see the practical difference between manslaughter and murder here. If he were anyone but a police officer accused of either crime he'd be rotting away in a jail cell unless the judge was feeling somehow generous enough to consider letting him post bail.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:
I don't see the practical difference between manslaughter and murder here.
Premeditation, I would guess.
If you'd bothered reading the rest of my post instead of snipping it off at that point, you'd realize I was referring to the treatment of the officer. Not the circumstances of the crime.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Murder will be tough to reach for a conviction. You'll have to show that this officer intended to shoot Mr. Grant with his firearm, and not his taser. Even if you managed to show that he should have been able to tell the difference between his taser and his firearm you still would need to show that he didn't have an accidental discharge.
I don't see the practical difference between manslaughter and murder here.
The mental state. Otherwise you could charge people who killed someone in a traffic accident with murder.
If he were anyone but a police officer accused of either crime he'd be rotting away in a jail cell unless the judge was feeling somehow generous enough to consider letting him post bail.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
The mental state. Otherwise you could charge people who killed someone in a traffic accident with murder.
Once again, read my whole fucking post. I'm talking about the treatment he's getting when I'm saying this.
Obviously, I did. Otherwise responding to the whole fucking post wouldn't be possible. It seemed like you were saying you didn't understand what the difference between murder and manslaughter is in this case. Then went on to comment that police officers are treated differently.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
The mental state. Otherwise you could charge people who killed someone in a traffic accident with murder.
Once again, read my whole fucking post. I'm talking about the treatment he's getting when I'm saying this.
Obviously, I did. Otherwise responding to the whole fucking post wouldn't be possible. It seemed like you were saying you didn't understand what the difference between murder and manslaughter is in this case. Then went on to comment that police officers are treated differently.
Perhaps I should have quoted Maupin's post as well, but I dislike large quote boxes. Since that's what your post was responding to I mistakenly assumed it would have made sense in that context.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
KS:
Let's say that I was there recording this with my phone.
Cop comes up to me and demands my phone.
I say 'sure, just a sec'. duplicate the video file to the internal phone memory so the cops do have the video if they need it for evidence, eject the card and hand him the phone and show him how to play the video.
Then he demands the memory card as well.
In your state (I have no idea what CA or IN laws are in this situation), could I then legally refuse to give him the card?
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Ender wrote:Something I might have missed, did they slap a set of cuffs or otherwise restrain the officer who pulled the trigger? If they took any action to apprehend the officer in question (like they would a criminal) I'd be more likely to believe that they were confiscating the media devices to help prosecute a case against a criminal.
You didn't miss that. I doubt it happened. I'm sure they just followed policy in regards to a officer involved shooting. All officer involved shootings are treated as a criminal investigation. I doubt the policy is detailed enough to include a situation like this. Also, this does not apply to just police officers.
A "criminal investigation" you say?
As of the 6th January the officer in question had still not given a statement on the shooting nor had he been required to do so (source) 5 days after being witnessed by many people shooting a restrained man in the back. That hardly sounds like a "criminal investigation" to me.
Are people suspected of murder habitually given 5 days to come up with a story in the US?
La Maupin wrote:"paid administrative leave" pisses me off so much. For anybody who is not a police officer, murdering somebody would get you a free trip on the Pink Slip Express and a new home in a cell.
Murder will be tough to reach for a conviction. You'll have to show that this officer intended to shoot Mr. Grant with his firearm, and not his taser. Even if you managed to show that he should have been able to tell the difference between his taser and his firearm you still would need to show that he didn't have an accidental discharge.
Give it a fucking rest. You going to tell me that while the victim was restrained on the ground this dumb motherfucker was too fucking STUPID to know his taser from his firearm? They are shaped different. They are holstered different. One or both have safeties on the that you release before you can fire them.
The next time you get stressed and fuck the family dog instead of your wife you can tell us that someone could really make this sort of mistake.
Bilbo wrote:Give it a fucking rest. You going to tell me that while the victim was restrained on the ground this dumb motherfucker was too fucking STUPID to know his taser from his firearm? They are shaped different. They are holstered different. One or both have safeties on the that you release before you can fire them.
The next time you get stressed and fuck the family dog instead of your wife you can tell us that someone could really make this sort of mistake.
Pathetic.
Child, allow me to correct you in a much more patient manner than your bandwagon hopping deserves:
Learn to read. KS specifically said that he didn't believe the cops story. He merely repeated it, and when pressed pointed out that, implausible as it is, disproving it is going to be difficult for the prosecutor. So difficult, that manslaughter is the far more likely charge, as you cannot readily prove what someone was thinking beyond a reasonable doubt. We are all intelligent enough to know the difference between a pistol and a taser. We do not need you to reiterate it. We are all intelligent enough to know that the cop is in the wrong. No one is contesting that. No one is defending him, nor saying his defense is at all believable. KS is merely stating the facts that the prosecutor must face when bringing charges. Your response indicates either a willful strawman, or a demonstration in the dangers of illiteracy
Now sit down and shut up.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
Bilbo wrote:Give it a fucking rest. You going to tell me that while the victim was restrained on the ground this dumb motherfucker was too fucking STUPID to know his taser from his firearm? They are shaped different. They are holstered different. One or both have safeties on the that you release before you can fire them.
The next time you get stressed and fuck the family dog instead of your wife you can tell us that someone could really make this sort of mistake.
Pathetic.
You seem to be confusing your opinion with fact. KS was describing the difficulty of proving intent of murder given the situation and the practical realities of courts of law. And you go off guns blazing against him as if he shot your dog. Given that KS is a police officer, he has practical experience on the particular issue you are disagreeing with him on.
There are important distinctions between Manslaughter and Murder. Intent is a very big issue. Decisions to kill that occur in the heat of the moment are often Manslaughter, not Murder. Murder requires intent. Intent typically takes time. A rash decision in the heat of the moment is not the same thing as intent. You might disagree with such distinctions, but they are very important in the law.
For a more literal reading, you should read up on Mens rea. Its the core concept behind the differences in Murder, Manslaughter, and even lesser charges.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
I frankly hope they find this guy dangling from a lamp post one morning if he doesn't do a bid for at least second degree murder. It would certainly prevent him from murdering again.
Bilbo wrote:Give it a fucking rest. You going to tell me that while the victim was restrained on the ground this dumb motherfucker was too fucking STUPID to know his taser from his firearm? They are shaped different. They are holstered different. One or both have safeties on the that you release before you can fire them.
The next time you get stressed and fuck the family dog instead of your wife you can tell us that someone could really make this sort of mistake.
Pathetic.
You seem to be confusing your opinion with fact. KS was describing the difficulty of proving intent of murder given the situation and the practical realities of courts of law. And you go off guns blazing against him as if he shot your dog. Given that KS is a police officer, he has practical experience on the particular issue you are disagreeing with him on.
There are important distinctions between Manslaughter and Murder. Intent is a very big issue. Decisions to kill that occur in the heat of the moment are often Manslaughter, not Murder. Murder requires intent. Intent typically takes time. A rash decision in the heat of the moment is not the same thing as intent. You might disagree with such distinctions, but they are very important in the law.
For a more literal reading, you should read up on Mens rea. Its the core concept behind the differences in Murder, Manslaughter, and even lesser charges.
I went off on him because he based his intent in a large part on suggesting that the officer mixed up his taser with his sidearm. Which is so beyond stupid it defies words.
Bilbo wrote:I went off on him because he based his intent in a large part on suggesting that the officer mixed up his taser with his sidearm. Which is so beyond stupid it defies words.
Perhaps you should reread what KS has stated. KS stated he believes the taser mixup claim is bullshit. KS then discussed the reasons why a murder charge by the prosecutor is difficult.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Bilbo wrote:Give it a fucking rest. You going to tell me that while the victim was restrained on the ground this dumb motherfucker was too fucking STUPID to know his taser from his firearm? They are shaped different. They are holstered different. One or both have safeties on the that you release before you can fire them.
The next time you get stressed and fuck the family dog instead of your wife you can tell us that someone could really make this sort of mistake.
Pathetic.
Child, allow me to correct you in a much more patient manner than your bandwagon hopping deserves:
Learn to read. KS specifically said that he didn't believe the cops story. He merely repeated it, and when pressed pointed out that, implausible as it is, disproving it is going to be difficult for the prosecutor. So difficult, that manslaughter is the far more likely charge, as you cannot readily prove what someone was thinking beyond a reasonable doubt. We are all intelligent enough to know the difference between a pistol and a taser. We do not need you to reiterate it. We are all intelligent enough to know that the cop is in the wrong. No one is contesting that. No one is defending him, nor saying his defense is at all believable. KS is merely stating the facts that the prosecutor must face when bringing charges. Your response indicates either a willful strawman, or a demonstration in the dangers of illiteracy
Now sit down and shut up.
Siths EXACT words were:
Murder will be tough to reach for a conviction. You'll have to show that this officer intended to shoot Mr. Grant with his firearm, and not his taser.
He is basing his entire statement here on the idea that the officer could mix both up.
Bilbo wrote:I went off on him because he based his intent in a large part on suggesting that the officer mixed up his taser with his sidearm. Which is so beyond stupid it defies words.
Perhaps you should reread what KS has stated. KS stated he believes the taser mixup claim is bullshit. KS then discussed the reasons why a murder charge by the prosecutor is difficult.
And in that statement he clearly says:
Murder will be tough to reach for a conviction. You'll have to show that this officer intended to shoot Mr. Grant with his firearm, and not his taser.
Which means again he is suggesting that someone can argue that they mixed up a taser with a sidearm. Which if fucking stupid.
Also to be a little more clear. My fucking the dog statement meant someone would have to be so fucking stupid that they mixed up their wife and their dog and fucked their dog instead for them to be so fucking stupid that they draw and fire a firearm instead of a taser.
Hundreds gather on Oakland streets to protest BART shooting
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 01/07/2009 07:24:38 PM PST
OAKLAND — Chanting "murder, murder, murder" and being moved by police toward Madison and 15th streets, protesters set another car ablaze at about 8:35 p.m. Its gas tank exploded at 8:43 p.m. The street lights on Madison and 15th streets went out and then came back on.
Reporters saw one police officer with what appeared to be a rubber bullet rifle and scores of protesters have been arrested.
The protesters set a Honda CRV on fire at 14th and Webster streets, and cars along 14th have their front and back windows completely smashed out. The protesters are throwing bottles in the direction of officers.
AC Transit bus lines 1R and 72 have been affected by the melee. A bunch of store windows on 14th Street, including Creative African Braids on and Oakland Yoon's Pharmacy, had their windows smashed out.
The Oakland Fire Department is on scene and beginning to put out the flames. Protesters also knocked out a street light at 14th and Franklin streets as well.
At least 50 police are on scene wearing gas masks, and Oakland's Tactical Operations Team is also on scene but has not been deployed, according to a Tribune reporter on scene.
Property damage has begun to occur, as some windows of businesses have been smashed. The majority of the protesters have been peaceful, but a small group has caused the problems. Traffic is blocked off between Broadway and 13th Street, as well as problems breaking out around Franklin Street near 13th.
The demonstrators from a protest against the fatal BART police shooting of Oscar Grant III took to Oakland streets Wednesday night, lighting fire to a Dumpster near 8th and Madison streets and prompting police to shut down the Fruitvale and Lake Merritt BART stations.
Protesters rammed the Dumpster against a police car, bashing in the front and back windows and denting the passenger side.
Scores of police, including BART police, Oakland Police Department and officers from the Housing Authority responded in special helmets for added protection.
Earlier at the demonstration, Grant's younger sister, Audrena Gilbert, said former officer Johannes Mehserle, who appears in cell phone videos apparently drawing his gun and shooting at an unarmed, restrained Grant on New Year's Day, has not talked to the bereaved family.
"I want him to start. I want him to apologize for what he did," Gilbert, a 19-year-old Oakland woman, said. "I want him to tell the truth, why he shot him, what he shot him for. That's all I want."
The protest was led by speakers for the Coalition Against Police Executions and drew a crowd police estimated as 500 people.
"It's not enough the officer resigned today," said Sean Dugar, president of the California National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Youth and College Division. "We demand he be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. ... We shut down one BART station this afternoon. Let's do another one next week
Murder will be tough to reach for a conviction. You'll have to show that this officer intended to shoot Mr. Grant with his firearm, and not his taser.
He is basing his entire statement here on the idea that the officer could mix both up.
Yes, because that is the cops defense, and what the prosecutor must argue against. Again, there is sever difficult in showing intent in this situation. Do you truly not grasp this, or are you simply to arrogant to admit you leaped before you looked?
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
Once again, read my whole fucking post. I'm talking about the treatment he's getting when I'm saying this.
