Quantcast

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,212
17
Blindly running into cactus
Once again, if an officer can't tell the difference between a taser and a gun...
most department policies coincide with taser training that mandates the taser be worn on the weak side (non gun side) or on the strong side but in a manner that i can only be a cross-draw with the weak hand; in order to avoid any confusion.

my idea of what happened: rookie cop struggles with suspect, can't get him under control and decides to become the cover officer and let the other cops handle him. rookie has his finger on the trigger like an idiot and bam...career over.
 
Last edited:

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
Thread Closed.

(01-07) 14:20 PST OAKLAND -- The BART police officer who shot an unarmed man to death on the platform of the Fruitvale Station in Oakland early New Year's Day resigned from the force today, BART spokesman Linton Johnson said.
Officer Johannes Mehserle, 27, was supposed to have been interviewed today by BART police internal affairs investigators about why he shot Oscar Grant, 22, of Hayward as Grant lay face down on the station platform, Johnson said.

However, Mehserle did not show up for the interview. Instead, his lawyer appeared and handed over a short resignation letter, Johnson said.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
for real?
Yeah. There are lots of legal reasons a cop can and will shoot someone in the back. If you shoot at a cop, then run away (even if you throw down your gun before running, making it "unarmed man shot in the back!"), don't expect that the cop will consider you protected because your back is to him. Just one blatantly obvious example.

This case is not similar to that, but it's the "shot in the back" statement in the media that gets people to think a cop is automatically guilty of murder if the entry wound is on the subject's back.

There are plenty of cases where shooting someone in the back is blatantly wrong. Or shooting him in the face or the stomach.

I don't want to speculate ad nauseum on the myriad examples of how and why a subject in this guy's position could justify the use of deadly force because the hystrionic know-it-alls who think they understand the legal parameters for use of force, but don't, will just end up making it a long tit-for-tat and I've been through that on the Internet too many times. But reaching for guns, concealed weapons, etc. is quite possible. Alas, the Internet umpire super-men who can somehow comprehend through a pixelated cell phone video what is going on with the subject's hands and hear the possible dialogue through the silent vid are better men than I, so you should just count yourself happily among them.

However, if I was forced under pain of torture (not waterboarding, though...already been there...) to guess what happened from watching the tiny bit I can see, I'd make a wild, wild guess that the cop felt the subject under restraint should be covered by a cop with a drawn gun, as is reasonable and fairly standard. (And/or the guy cuffing said, "I have him. Cover me.") The officer in question, however, looks like he has trouble drawing his gun, and yanks it out pretty awkwardly, and I'd guess he put his finger on the trigger when he didn't intend to, shooting the subject in the back. That would be manslaughter in a pretty high degree, I'm sure, but I'm not an expert on CA state law, either. But you own everything that comes out of that gun, mistaken or not. (Edit: Hadn't even read to Manimal's similar guesswork...odd we should think just about the same thing... There's an awful vid of a cop in, I think New Orleans who negligently shoots her gun onto the cement inches from the head of the subject she's covering...pretty ****in' scary to watch; it's probably on YouTube somewhere.)

His resignation certainly serves to remove the benefit of the doubt from him in the public eye...but again, speculation. He could have been completely justified in the shooting, but realized he never wants the chance to take another human life and resigned for that.
 
Last edited:

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
Yeah. There are lots of legal reasons a cop can and will shoot someone in the back. If you shoot at a cop, then run away (even if you throw down your gun before running, making it "unarmed man shot in the back!"), don't expect that the cop will consider you protected because your back is to him. Just one blatantly obvious example.

This case is not similar to that, but it's the "shot in the back" statement in the media that gets people to think a cop is automatically guilty of murder if the entry wound is on the subject's back.

There are plenty of cases where shooting someone in the back is blatantly wrong. Or shooting him in the face or the stomach.

I don't want to speculate ad nauseum on the myriad examples of how and why a subject in this guy's position could justify the use of deadly force because the hystrionic know-it-alls who think they understand the legal parameters for use of force, but don't, will just end up making it a long tit-for-tat and I've been through that on the Internet too many times. But reaching for guns, concealed weapons, etc. is quite possible. Alas, the Internet umpire super-men who can somehow comprehend through a pixelated cell phone video what is going on with the subject's hands and hear the possible dialogue through the silent vid are better men than I, so you should just count yourself happily among them.

However, if I was forced under pain of torture (not waterboarding, though...already been there...) to guess what happened from watching the tiny bit I can see, I'd make a wild, wild guess that the cop felt the subject under restraint should be covered by a cop with a drawn gun, as is reasonable and fairly standard. (And/or the guy cuffing said, "I have him. Cover me.") The officer in question, however, looks like he has trouble drawing his gun, and yanks it out pretty awkwardly, and I'd guess he put his finger on the trigger when he didn't intend to, shooting the subject in the back. That would be manslaughter in a pretty high degree, I'm sure, but I'm not an expert on CA state law, either. But you own everything that comes out of that gun, mistaken or not. (Edit: Hadn't even read to Manimal's similar guesswork...odd we should think just about the same thing... There's an awful vid of a cop in, I think New Orleans who negligently shoots her gun onto the cement inches from the head of the subject she's covering...pretty ****in' scary to watch; it's probably on YouTube somewhere.)

His resignation certainly serves to remove the benefit of the doubt from him in the public eye...but again, speculation. He could have been completely justified in the shooting, but realized he never wants the chance to take another human life and resigned for that.
yeah the guy was asking to get shot really, something about they way he was pinned to the floor was ever so threatening
 

DaveW

Space Monkey
Jul 2, 2001
11,160
2,685
The bunker at parliament
The fact that he was pinned to the ground and was resisting quite probably did make him a thread.
But like MD I'd be picking it as accidental discharge till proven otherwise.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
yeah the guy was asking to get shot really, something about they way he was pinned to the floor was ever so threatening
I'm sure you could have kept him pinned safely down in a state of comforted satori bliss with naught but the power of your smug self-righteousness.

Please do tell us exactly what happened with his hands. Were they near his waistband? Did he tell the cop "I'm gonna ****ING KILL YOU PIG!" and make a grab for his ankle or wrist as one hand came free? What? Do tell, since you know so much.

You are not fit to judge this situation simply because you believe you know enough to make a call. (Ed: You are, however, a prime pick for the plaintiff's side of the jury pool in the resulting lawsuit...)
 
Last edited:

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
I'm sure you could have kept him pinned safely down in a state of comforted satori bliss with naught but the power of your smug self-righteousness.

Please do tell us exactly what happened with his hands. Were they near his waistband? Did he tell the cop "I'm gonna ****ING KILL YOU PIG!" and make a grab for his ankle or wrist as one hand came free? What? Do tell, since you know so much.

You are not fit to judge this situation simply because you believe you know enough to make a call. (Ed: You are, however, a prime pick for the plaintiff's side of the jury pool in the resulting lawsuit...)
law enforcement shouldn't pin a man to the ground with two men and then shoot him in the back, it just isn't right
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
If that man presents a deadly-force level threat while on the ground and held down, they should.

Did he? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not saying it's even the most likely prospect. But to dismiss the possibility outright is completely unreasonable.

Again, however, your level of ignorance and prejudice is what the plaintiffs will be looking for in the jury pool. Me, I'm not jury-pool material, because I won't 1) support that man's actions simply because he's a (now ex-) cop or 2) condemn his actions because of it. I'd rather take a look at the totality of actual evidence in the case, of which the videos are only part part.
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
Violence begetting more violence. :huh:

From the San Fransisco Chronicle: Protests Over the Bart Shooting Turn Violent
(01-08) 00:17 PST Oakland --

A protest over the fatal shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed man mushroomed into several hours of violence Wednesday night as demonstrators smashed storefronts and cars, set several cars ablaze and blocked streets in downtown Oakland.

The roving mob expressed fury at police and frustration over society's racial injustice. Yet the demonstrators were often indiscriminate, frequently targeting the businesses and prized possessions of people of color.

They smashed a hair salon, a pharmacy and several restaurants. Police in riot gear tried to control the crowd, but some people retreated along 14th Street and bashed cars along the way.

The mob smashed the windows at Creative African Braids on 14th Street, and a woman walked out of the shop holding a baby in her arms.

"This is our business," shouted Leemu Topka, the black owner of the salon she started four years ago. "This is our shop. This is what you call a protest?"

Wednesday night's vandalism victims had nothing to do with the shooting death by a BART police officer of Oscar Grant on New Year's Day - but that did little to sway the mob.

"I feel like the night is going great," said Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco, one of the demonstrators. "I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It's for the murder of a black male."

Sykes, who is black, had little sympathy for the owner of Creative African Braids.

"She should be glad she just lost her business and not her life," Sykes said. She added that she did have one worry for the night: "I just hope nobody gets shot or killed."

The protest had started calmly shortly after 3 p.m. at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland, where BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle shot 22-year-old Grant of Hayward a week ago. BART shut down the station well into the evening commute, although the demonstration there was peaceful.

However, shortly after nightfall, a group of roughly 200 protesters split off and headed toward downtown Oakland, prompting the transit agency to close the Lake Merritt and 12th Street stations. The group wreaked havoc through much of downtown, drawing hundreds of police in riot gear. It wasn't until roughly 10:40 p.m that police clamped down on the mob, arresting dozens who were cornered near the Paramount Theatre, and bringing an end to the mayhem.

Earlier in the evening, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums met the mob on 14th Street, urging calm and leading them on a walk to City Hall, where he gave a speech.

"I sense your frustration," he told the crowd. "I understand that you've lost confidence in a process because you've seen what you believe is a homicide ... But listen to me, we are a community of people. We are civilized people. We are a nation of laws.

"I'm asking people to disperse," the mayor said to the couple hundred people in the crowd. "Let's leave in a spirit of peace."

But soon after, a man shouted "that's the modern day lynching" and the mob quickly continued its rampage, smashing at least seven storefronts on 17th street between Franklin and Webster streets. They also smashed eight cars, including four belonging to the City of Oakland.

Near 14th and Alice streets, Myron Bell was taking dance lessons in "step," a form of dance popular among African Americans, when he looked out the window and saw people jumping on his Lexus sedan.

Bell, 42, came out to find that almost all of the car's windows, including the front and back had been smashed and it appeared that someone had tried to set the car on fire.

"I'm for the cause," said Bell, who is black. "But I'm against the violence and destruction."

Nearby, Godhuli Bose stood near her smashed Toyota Corolla as a man walked by, repeatedly called her a misogynist slur and then added, "F- your car."

Bose, a high school teacher, said: "I can't afford this."

Earlier in the evening, when the mob first appeared downtown, Oakland Police Officer Michael Cardoza parked his car across the intersection of Eighth and Madison streets, to prevent traffic from flowing toward Broadway and into the protest. But he told The Chronicle that a group of 30 to 40 protesters quickly surrounded his car and started smashing it with bottles and rocks.

Cardoza jumped out of the car and said some protesters tried to set the car on fire, while others jumped on top of the hood - incidents repeatedly shown on television. Cardoza said the protesters "were trying to entice us into doing something." A Chronicle reporter saw a fist-sized rock in the back seat.

A group of protesters also set a trash bin aflame, moving it adjacent to the police car.

Police threw tear gas into the group to disperse it, said BART Sgt. Mark MacAulay. After 8 p.m., there were numerous arrests.

"When you get that mob mentality, it can be dangerous," MacAulay said.

Other protesters marched on BART's 12th Street Station about 7 p.m., prompting the transit agency to close the downtown hub station even as it was reopening the Lake Merritt and Fruitvale stations.

The mob blocked the intersection of 14th and Broadway, near the downtown BART station entrance. As police put on helmets and gas masks and stood in a line formation, some demonstrators held signs that read, "Your idea of justice?" and "Jail Killer Cops."

One man lay in the intersection with his face down and his hands behind his back - intentionally evoking the position that Grant was in when he was shot.

Some in the mob wore masks over their faces as they yelled at police. Roughly a dozen stood just a few feet away from police as they screamed at them. Chants included "pigs go home," "the fascist police, no justice, no peace" and "we are all Oscar Grant."

Mandingo Hayes, who is black, said he participated in the protest because "we're tired of all these police agencies getting away with shooting unarmed black and Latino males."

Hayes, 36, downplayed the attack on the police car.

"For a police car to get abused, and for a person to get shot and killed, which would you rather be?" said Hayes, a construction worker from San Pablo.

As the night wore on, Hayes tried calming people down, asking for peace.

The core group of the mob appeared to be about 40 people, several of whom were with Revolution Books, a Berkeley bookstore. A man distributed the "Revolution" newspaper - whose tagline is "voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S.A." - as he shouted "This whole damn system is guilty!"

Soo Jung Sung didn't understand why she was to blame. She wept as she looked at the shattered front windshield of her Nissan Montero.

"Emotionally, I totally understand them," she said of the upset over Grant's shooting. "But it's not nice."
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
^^^ looks like the police shot the wrong guy(s)

i bet bomberzQReleventy read that article & cried for his hometown...tears of joy
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
All I'm saying is that you don't publicly execute citizens. The man didn't appear to be resisting (he even was holding up his hands before they got him on the ground) and even if he was resisting, they had 3 officers on him, why did they need to draw a gun and shoot him in the back? He wasn't armed or anything...

The cop is a scumbag and karma is gonna fvck him back sooner or later.
 
Last edited:

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
All I'm saying is that you don't publicly execute citizens. The man didn't appear to be resisting (he even was holding up his hands before they got him on the ground) and even if he was resisting, they had 3 officers on him, why did they need to draw a gun and shoot him in the back? He wasn't armed or anything...

The cop is a scumbag and karma is gonna fvck him back sooner or later.

All you have said and continue to say is bull****.

You don't know if he was armed, or if the officer reasonably perceived him to be (again, where the Constitutional standard holds the officer), or if he had access to a weapon, or if some other factor made the shoot justified.

We agree 100% that an officer should not shoot anyone who doesn't present a deadly-force level threat.

I think it's quite possible this guy did not, based on the evidence we've both seen. I've even made my speculation on what might have happened, and if what I speculate is true, the shoot was not justified. But I do not know. Neither, despite your ignorance of the matter, do you.

If it turns out your assumptions and guesses are correct (again, which they may be) you're justified in feeling outraged.

MD
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
All you have said and continue to say is bull****.

You don't know if he was armed, or if the officer reasonably perceived him to be (again, where the Constitutional standard holds the officer), or if he had access to a weapon, or if some other factor made the shoot justified.

We agree 100% that an officer should not shoot anyone who doesn't present a deadly-force level threat.

I think it's quite possible this guy did not, based on the evidence we've both seen. I've even made my speculation on what might have happened, and if what I speculate is true, the shoot was not justified. But I do not know. Neither, despite your ignorance of the matter, do you.

If it turns out your assumptions and guesses are correct (again, which they may be) you're justified in feeling outraged.

MD
Are we watching the same videos?
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
I guess you win. You're either a master baiter or really ****ing thick.
 

chicodude

The Spooninator
Mar 28, 2004
1,054
2
Paradise
I guess you win. You're either a master baiter or really ****ing thick.
Uh...check the link I posted earlier. They came and got him, he had his hands up. It was obvious he wasn't reaching for a weapon. He had two cops on his back when the third one stood up and shot him.


I know you are standing up for your police brethren, but come on. Even manimal, the coppiest (LOLZ) of cops had a better plot for what happened.

At any rate, he should be charged with murder. Manslaughter at the very least. If I accidentally hit someone with my car because I thought the brake was the gas I would be going away for a very long time.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
Haven't seen your link; bandwidth issues. Could be more definitive than the one I've seen. I'll try to get it going, but I don't live in Kansas anymore.

If you've actually read any of what I've written, which is already too copious, you'd know that accusing me of 'standing up for the cop' is completely off the wall. I'm standing for a fact-based conclusion made by people who actually know the legalities of the use of force, and against verdict-by-Internet-video.
 

chicodude

The Spooninator
Mar 28, 2004
1,054
2
Paradise
Haven't seen your link; bandwidth issues. Could be more definitive than the one I've seen. I'll try to get it going, but I don't live in Kansas anymore.

If you've actually read any of what I've written, which is already too copious, you'd know that accusing me of 'standing up for the cop' is completely off the wall. I'm standing for a fact-based conclusion made by people who actually know the legalities of the use of force, and against verdict-by-Internet-video.
its pretty daunting to read all of that. :twitch:


I do agree that you are a better source to consult on this topic. I am just going on what I saw in the link, which is security cam footy(if you have already seen it.) Looks pretty definiative to me, but I'm not a cop (Thank god)
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,335
2,448
Hypernormality
Cop or not, what I see on the videos above is pretty much unjustifiable unless the dead guy was a suicide bomber with a mind controlled bomb.
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
Cop or not, what I see on the videos above is pretty much unjustifiable unless the dead guy was a suicide bomber with a mind controlled bomb.
Seriously. Sorry to the police supporters, but the po po got this one way wrong. New video clearly shows the victim (yes, that's the right word) lying face down with his hands behind his back when he is shot.

Video

Whether it was an accident or something more sinister, that cop is done.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
The fact that he was face down with his hands behind his back isn't exactly news. That new video still doesn't show me anything in detail about what might have caused the cop to shoot. It does provide a clearer picture of what was going on in general and afterward, however.

I could present you with a deadly-force level threat lying on my back with my hands behind my back and you on top of me. Especially if you had a gun inches from my hand (as could happen when prone-cuffing a subject) or if I had a concealed weapon in my waistband. Or if the totality of the circumstances led you to believe I was armed and dangerous (say, I whispered "you're gonna die") and broke one of my hands free, moving it towards my waistband or ankle (common places for concealment of a knife, gun, or other weapon). This is mere example, by the way--I'm NOT saying this subject did any such thing, just that it is possible to present a threat while being handcuffed.

That said, my best *guess* from the vids I've seen is that the cop shot unintentionally, ie negligently, as I've already said. The better video reinforces this initial opinion for me. The cop's face certainly seems to register suprise and disbelief after the shot, nor does he remain in an aggressive posture and continue to assess the threat; he gets a very deer-in-the-headlights look.

Also, if the cop had reasonable belief that the subject posed a potential deadly threat, I think we'd have heard something about it by now in the media. But again, that's my supposition. I'm willing to wait for an investigation before I consider my own uninformed opinion of the situation to be, well...informed.

MD