Transit police execute rider

[Cecelia5578]

BART police are actual cops who have arrest powers, blah blah blah. They are not rentacops, despite their extreme lack of professionalism. I think I remember reading somewhere that they do go to the standard state police academies.

I guess its just annoying that one of the cultural tropes in the US, is that we are not allowed to criticize cops-or that if we do, we are merely lawless liberals who want to go back to the zany and fucked up 70s, who don't care about hard working blue collar men and women who put their lives on the line everyday. Sorta like the modern GOP talking point on the military.

No, I don't hate cops, and generally support them, but there are very extreme problems that all too often get swept under the rug. Cops routinely bend the law and do sometimes commit illegal acts. Arrogance, thuggery, and overreacting to situations isn't going to improve the public image of police.

[General Zod]

And did all the officers involved shoot the subject or did just one? Or right just one. Now did he collect the evidence? I haven't read anything to suggest that he did. So, that would make the other officers involved witnesses would it not? Yeah. Fuck off.

It does however, make them potential accessories and means they should have precisely dick to do with investigating the case.

That just means that the officer has a legal right to be where they are when they observed the evidence.

Again, one of the exceptions to the fucking fourth amendment is the plain view doctrine. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

I think you're ignoring one teensy tiny bit about plain view doctrine, notably that it has to be an inadvertent discovery. Demanding people turn over their cellphones that they don't know for certain was pointed their way is not inadvertent.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Did you read the fucking link or just harvest it off the wikipedia page, it states clearly that the item in question must be contraband.

OMG. Keevan. Look. It also includes evidence. The point is the plain view doctrine is an exception to things that would require a warrant. Seizure of evidence is one of these. The first link I posted explains this. Your hanging onto the "prior valid intrusion" as if it stands against my point. It doesn't. It just means that the officers must have viewed this evidence from a place where they either obtained the right or had the right to be.

[Kamakazie Sith]

BART police are actual cops who have arrest powers, blah blah blah. They are not rentacops, despite their extreme lack of professionalism. I think I remember reading somewhere that they do go to the standard state police academies.

I guess its just annoying that one of the cultural tropes in the US, is that we are not allowed to criticize cops-or that if we do, we are merely lawless liberals who want to go back to the zany and fucked up 70s, who don't care about hard working blue collar men and women who put their lives on the line everyday. Sorta like the modern GOP talking point on the military.

Yeah. I've seen that too. However, despite what you may think. That is not happening here. My first post should make that clear. I've been debating law and policy with some people who believe that citing those things means I'm defending their actions.

No, I don't hate cops, and generally support them, but there are very extreme problems that all too often get swept under the rug. Cops routinely bend the law and do sometimes commit illegal acts. Arrogance, thuggery, and overreacting to situations isn't going to improve the public image of police.

Agreed.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If you're in any way familiar with any kind of reading comprehension and/or textual analysis of narrative, this part here is contiguous with NO break in time or a shift of scene where other officers unaffiliated with the suspect ones arrived and did anything. Quite the contrary, all indications are that the seizing of video cameras and cell phones began immediately after the shooting when these turds realized just how badly they had fucked up. You look like you're stretching for excuses, even if you honestly believe that.

I find it interesting that the videos which did make it to the internet failed to show this immediate action.

Again, the officers who did not shoot Mr. Grant are still police officers and have a duty to collect evidence. The officer who did kill Mr. Grant should have been removed from the scene and placed on administrative leave pending the investigation. He should not have any part in the investigation.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Chances are their policy doesn't allow them to investigate crimes that they themselves are involved in.

An important question. Which officers seized the evidence? If the article stated which officers seized the cameras then I missed it. It just says "officers".

I realize it's hard, but try and think this through. The article states that one woman who was recording the incident nearly had her camera snatched by an officer as her train took off, one of the ones who was confiscating cameras. Given that she had been recording it, and that trains generally don't stick around for long once they're boarded, it's not unreasonable to assume that the people who were doing the confiscation were, in fact, the ones responsible for the shooting with the timeframe we have to work with.

Only one officer was responsible for the shooting. I'm sure this fact will eventually sink in.

[General Zod]

Only one officer was responsible for the shooting. I'm sure this fact will eventually sink in.

The officers were illegally confiscating cameras. I'm sure this fact will eventually sink in.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Only one officer was responsible for the shooting. I'm sure this fact will eventually sink in.

The officers were illegally confiscating cameras. I'm sure this fact will eventually sink in.

Not according to the plain view exception to the fourth amendment which protects people from unlawful search and seizure. Though I've heard that there is talk that the plain view doctrine should not apply to digital evidence, but that is still on the chopping block. Until then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Based off my training and experience as a police officer in the united states that seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine.

[Keevan_Colton]

Did you read the fucking link or just harvest it off the wikipedia page, it states clearly that the item in question must be contraband.

OMG. Keevan. Look. It also includes evidence. The point is the plain view doctrine is an exception to things that would require a warrant. Seizure of evidence is one of these. The first link I posted explains this. Your hanging onto the "prior valid intrusion" as if it stands against my point. It doesn't. It just means that the officers must have viewed this evidence from a place where they either obtained the right or had the right to be.

Did you read the Findlaw page you fetid sack of goat shit?

It's your link after all?

Well?

It says that the plain view exception is strictly limited to contraband or items that the officer has a probable cause to believe are contraband.

Not evidence, CONTRABAND.

Do you want a dictionary to help you with this shitfucker?

[Keevan_Colton]

Only one officer was responsible for the shooting. I'm sure this fact will eventually sink in.

The officers were illegally confiscating cameras. I'm sure this fact will eventually sink in.

Not according to the plain view exception to the fourth amendment which protects people from unlawful search and seizure. Though I've heard that there is talk that the plain view doctrine should not apply to digital evidence, but that is still on the chopping block. Until then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Based off my training and experience as a police officer in the united states that seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine.

Well, wouldya look at that, once again we've got a police officer that doesnt know the law from his own fucking arsehole.

Did you read the findlaw page you linked to?The plain view exception is clearly stated to apply to contraband, not the very nebulous evidence term you're throwing about.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Did you read the Findlaw page you fetid sack of goat shit?

It's your link after all?

Well?

You are nitpicking. The point is that the plain view exception applies to anything where a warrant would be required. Whether it be the seizure of evidence which can be contraband.

It says that the plain view exception is strictly limited to contraband or items that the officer has a probable cause to believe are contraband.

And in the other I cited it used the word "evidence. You're nitpicking.

[Keevan_Colton]

CONTRABAND NOT EVIDENCE YOU LYING MOTHERFUCKER.

[Eulogy]

I never thought I'd see the day when a poster who has been here since the beginning would fellate the police so much, even in the face of multiple Youtube videos.

Have you seen the videos in question, Sith?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, wouldya look at that, once again we've got a police officer that doesnt know the law from his own fucking arsehole.

Pretending to be an expert because you read a couple words from a webpage? Fascinating. I'll tell you what go get an education in US law and then come back to me and tell me I'm wrong.

Another link
The plain view doctrine is an exception to the warrant requirement which allows officers to seize items which they observe and immediately recognize as evidence or contraband while they are lawfully present in an area protected by the 4th Amendment.

Thus, the significant elements in any plain view doctrine seizure are: (1) the officer must already have lawful presence in an area protected by the 4th Amendment. In a house, that would mean that the officer must have entered with a warrant, exigency or consent. (2) The officer must observe an item in plain view. (3) The officer must immediately recognize the item as evidence or contraband without making a further intrusion. It should be recognized that officers routinely make plain view observations, but that does not necessarily mean that the item may be seized unless the officer has met the elements above.

Oh, and I know it says Policelink, but the court cases are clearly referenced for your review.

Did you read the findlaw page you linked to?The plain view exception is clearly stated to apply to contraband, not the very nebulous evidence term you're throwing about.

That's just how findlaw.com worded it. You can do a search and find it defined differently. Which is why the first article I cited said "evidence" and not "contraband". I cited findlaw.com so you would stop nitpicking the "prior valid intrusion" and trying to twist it to your advantage.

[Alyeska]

I never thought I'd see the day when a poster who has been here since the beginning would fellate the police so much, even in the face of multiple Youtube videos.

Have you seen the videos in question, Sith?

Perhaps you are unaware, but Sith is a Police Officer.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I never thought I'd see the day when a poster who has been here since the beginning would fellate the police so much, even in the face of multiple Youtube videos.

Have you seen the videos in question, Sith?

You might want to go back and read my first post. Then I recommend seeing a doctor so your foot can be safetly removed from your mouth.

I'm citing law, and police policy. The murder of Mr. Grant is irrehensible, and I hope that the officer who killed him be sent to prison.

[Broomstick]

Please feel free to move to NandP, as I'm not sure if crime stories belong there or someplace else. I know these things get debated ad nauseous on this forum, so feel free to move it someplace else.

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/oscar-gra ... rt-police/Oscar

Grant, young father and peacemaker, executed by BART police
Demand justice for Oscar Grant Wednesday, Jan. 7, 3-7 p.m., Fruitvale BART Station, Oakland

by Davey D
Oscar Grant, 22, murdered in cold blood by BART police just two hours into the new year, was the loving father of a 4-year-old daughter, a fact he told the police just as he was shot. He worked as a butcher at Farmer Joe’s Marketplace.
Oscar Grant, 22, murdered in cold blood by BART police just two hours into the new year, was the loving father of a 4-year-old daughter, a fact he told the police just as he was shot. He worked as a butcher at Farmer Joe’s Marketplace.

Not to single any particular poster out (this just happens to be an example) when we get repetitious lines like this in quote of a news article can they be edited down to just one? I'm assuming this was some sort of picture caption, but it makes it harder to read.

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.

Well, no, actually I haven't seen it. And I don't particularly care to actually see it. But thanks for letting me know about the incident.

For reasons unknown to us, the police officer pushed Grant to the ground. One officer kneeled on his neck while the other officer pulled out a gun and shot him point blank in the back.

OK. For the life of me I can see no excuse for this. Cuffed, on the ground, knee on the neck -- WTF? "Execution style" indeed. A very brutal form of both murder and intimidation. I'd call it second degree murder at the least.

The police then ran around and terrified witnesses by taking away their cell phones and video cameras for “evidence.” The video, which was shot by a witness named Karina Vargas and has been seen by everyone on KTVU, was also going to be confiscated, except her train started moving as police attempted to snatch away her camera. The cops obviously did not see the other video cameras buzzing away.

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.

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.

Police Chief Gary Gee says the tapes are inconclusive and he has thus far refused to even release the name of the police officer who is now on paid leave.

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.

We have also come to find out that the young men along with Oscar Grant were snatched off the train by BART police who did not know whether or not these young men were involved in any sort of altercation. In short, it could’ve been any one of us pulled off the train that night.

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.

Between the economy and the general desperation that people are feeling an event like this could easily spark a riot, either at the time it occurs or afterward. And, frankly, riots are not something I want to see again.

[Eulogy]

Between the economy and the general desperation that people are feeling an event like this could easily spark a riot, either at the time it occurs or afterward. And, frankly, riots are not something I want to see again.

Unfortunately, if shit like this keeps happening, then riots are inevitable.

In fact, I can easliy see riots happening at places like pharmacies, insurance headquarters, banks, and yes, police stations; it'd be hard not to sympathize with the riotrs.

[Kamakazie Sith]

OK. For the life of me I can see no excuse for this. Cuffed, on the ground, knee on the neck -- WTF? "Execution style" indeed. A very brutal form of both murder and intimidation. I'd call it second degree murder at the least.

I certainly can't either. There were enough officers there that even if he was going for a weapon it wouldn't be considered an immediately threat to their life or the lives of others. The officer used the excuse that he mistook his firearm for a taser, but those two are significantly different. It's a pathetic excuse.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Cecelia5578]

Between the economy and the general desperation that people are feeling an event like this could easily spark a riot, either at the time it occurs or afterward. And, frankly, riots are not something I want to see again.

Unfortunately, if shit like this keeps happening, then riots are inevitable.

In fact, I can easliy see riots happening at places like pharmacies, insurance headquarters, banks, and yes, police stations; it'd be hard not to sympathize with the riotrs.

To a certain degree, yes. Though after a certain point you're headed towards a degree of, (dare I say it for sounding like I'm repeating conservative talking points of the past 40 years) societal breakdown that must be stopped.

This was a black man murdered in Oakland, not a white yuppie IT worker in the suburbs. That is certainly ominous for future rioting.

[Ender]

I certainly can't either. There were enough officers there that even if he was going for a weapon it wouldn't be considered an immediately threat to their life or the lives of others. The officer used the excuse that he mistook his firearm for a taser, but those two are significantly different. It's a pathetic excuse.

It also begs the question as to why you would tase a man who is down on the ground, covered by police, and who has not only been cooperating but encouraging others to do the same.

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.

Just because it is legal doesn't mean it isn't a cover up. It just means they used legal means to enact said cover up. And honestly, this absolutely smacks of a cover up - as you say the guys defense is pathetic. This screams that the guy for some reason just executed the victim, the rest of the cops going "oh shit" and running around to try and do damage control.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It also begs the question as to why you would tase a man who is down on the ground, covered by police, and who has not only been cooperating but encouraging others to do the same.

Well, that goes into another debated issue on this board being the acceptable use of tasers. Though for the most part I agree even a taser wouldn't be acceptable here. Unless, the officers weren't physically able to get his arms behind his back.

Just because it is legal doesn't mean it isn't a cover up. It just means they used legal means to enact said cover up. And honestly, this absolutely smacks of a cover up - as you say the guys defense is pathetic. This screams that the guy for some reason just executed the victim, the rest of the cops going "oh shit" and running around to try and do damage control.

Right, and that could be the case. However, I suspect that we'll never really know because chances are now that the evidence will show up unmolested in court since there is now a lot of public attention. The people claiming cover up in this thread will be able to say that the police were forced to pony up because of the evidence that did escape police confiscation.

Basically, people are claiming coverup for circumstantial reasons. They scrambled to seize the evidence is the argument that I'm seeing. I guess maybe they should have walked, and seized it without a sense of urgency.

It's almost as if people have completely disregarded the possibility that the other officers have integrity and seized it because they knew it would be important evidence against the officer who shot Mr. Grant. Can we at least agree that this is a competing possibility?

[Ender]

Well, that goes into another debated issue on this board being the acceptable use of tasers. Though for the most part I agree even a taser wouldn't be acceptable here. Unless, the officers weren't physically able to get his arms behind his back.

Yeah, the OP comes off as kinda biased, but if the original description of events is correct - that he wasn't the troublemaker but a bystander trying to get the troublemakers to calm down and cooperate, I have to wonder why force was even used against him at all, rather than just asking him to come with them.

Right, and that could be the case. However, I suspect that we'll never really know because chances are now that the evidence will show up unmolested in court since there is now a lot of public attention. The people claiming cover up in this thread will be able to say that the police were forced to pony up because of the evidence that did escape police confiscation.

Basically, people are claiming coverup for circumstantial reasons. They scrambled to seize the evidence is the argument that I'm seeing. I guess maybe they should have walked, and seized it without a sense of urgency.

It's almost as if people have completely disregarded the possibility that the other officers have integrity and seized it because they knew it would be important evidence against the officer who shot Mr. Grant. Can we at least agree that this is a competing possibility?

I'll grant that that is a possibility, but my cynicism doesn't lead me to think it is a very likely one.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yeah, the OP comes off as kinda biased, but if the original description of events is correct - that he wasn't the troublemaker but a bystander trying to get the troublemakers to calm down and cooperate, I have to wonder why force was even used against him at all, rather than just asking him to come with them.

According to the document filed against the police they had been dispatched their to deal with an altercation that had taken place on the train. Mr. Grant was one of those who was ordered off the train. The document does state that he was assaulted by the police while exiting the train. Anyway, you can read it here. PDF

I'll grant that that is a possibility, but my cynicism doesn't lead me to think it is a very likely one.

I have no problem with that. Cynicism in these circumstances is not unwarranted.

[Ender]

I'll grant that that is a possibility, but my cynicism doesn't lead me to think it is a very likely one.

I have no problem with that. Cynicism in these circumstances is not unwarranted.

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.