Video of San Francisco BART police officer appearing to execute suspect who is lying on the ground

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Drift3r
It's a horrible incident. I am sure though that the BART officer had no intention of killing that guy. It was a horrible screw up on the officer's part that ended the life of the guy he was arresting. Unlike the extremist here who want to label it a "assassination" it was nothing but a horrible mistake on the officers part. The officer himself should face charges and pay for his gross negligence but the people using this incident to justify destroying downtown Oakland are a bunch of freaking criminal opportunists and nothing else. Also this whole incident only happened because the guys in the video were being arrested for fighting with other passengers on BART.

Just as you are right to defend the officer from excessive attacks, you are wrong to make excessive attacks on the protestors. Putting aside the most who did not vandalize anything, the ones who did were wrong, but you seem to fail to understand the motive as being more about frustration at ongoing injustices (that don't justify the vandalism) rather than being for nothing more than the desire to hurt business owners.

The comments in the thread about how this may well have been covered up had there not been videos appear not to benoticed by you, the implications.

Now, I think that sort of coverup happens, but not so much with BART. I've spoken with enough BART officers that they seem to be have a pretty good culture..

And I've seen plenty of the thuggish behavior from people like those being arrested, and they well deserve arrest. I've followed such people before trying to find officers to arrest them, while a guy screams at me trying to get me not to do so. I've seen simply crazy, hostile people behaving to threaten others.

The mob was wrong but you are wrong to say their only motive was criminality.

Wow you really have no idea about who was behind this protest and why it turned into riot do you? The main instigators of this riot were a group of well know anarchists who had a past history of showing up to protests, turning them violent and attacking police. There were also a group of local thugs who saw the opportunity to destroy and loot along side this rabble of anarchists. The riot had nothing to do with the outrage about the BART shooting. Hell Oscar Grant didn't even live in Oakland and the shooting itself did not occur in Oakland. Even the march organizer admits that those who rioted had concern about the reason of march and that they only wanted to "wreak havoc". The riot itself was criminal in nature as it had nothing to do with "rage" over the shooting.

"I was devastated by it," said Shamar, 24, a photographer who lives in Oakland. "I worked diligently for the past 72 hours, and for it to be destroyed by a group of anarchists was extremely upsetting. I felt like my integrity had been compromised."

"Shamar and other organizers said their cause was exploited by those who simply wanted to wreak havoc. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...9/01/09/MNON15696D.DTL

Typical of the Chronicle to blame the Black Bloc. Funny how there are NO actual pictures of Anarchists, even on Indymedia sites.
I have heard of one case of someone who threw a plastic water bottle. And it was not someone in black even.
If the Bloc showed up 100 people would not have been arrested so easy. The cops would have chased them around for most of the night as they are trained in Police Tactics as much as the Police are (I doubt Oakland PD has very good training against BB tactics as SFPD mainly has to deal with them).
Chronicle is just looking for a "Evil Anarchist" story since Greece is getting tired.
This was local people pissed off, if the BB moved of en masse from the City that night it would be huge pictures of hordes of ppl in black coming off the BART trains.
Where are the pictures? The BART cops would have called a beatdown before the BB got off the trains.

Not exactly easy to miss alleged trainfulls of these guys.

A simple search through revleft, flag.blackened.net, libcom, or infoshop's activism forums show no pictures either.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Wow you really have no idea about who was behind this protest and why it turned into riot do you? The main instigators of this riot were a group of well know anarchists who had a past history of showing up to protests, turning them violent and attacking police. There were also a group of local thugs who saw the opportunity to destroy and loot along side this rabble of anarchists. The riot had nothing to do with the outrage about the BART shooting. Hell Oscar Grant didn't even live in Oakland and the shooting itself did not occur in Oakland. Even the march organizer admits that those who rioted had concern about the reason of march and that they only wanted to "wreak havoc". The riot itself was criminal in nature as it had nothing to do with "rage" over the shooting.

"I was devastated by it," said Shamar, 24, a photographer who lives in Oakland. "I worked diligently for the past 72 hours, and for it to be destroyed by a group of anarchists was extremely upsetting. I felt like my integrity had been compromised."

"Shamar and other organizers said their cause was exploited by those who simply wanted to wreak havoc. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...9/01/09/MNON15696D.DTL

You did not show my post wrong at all with your information and your wrong comments.

Here's what I actually said:

Putting aside the most who did not vandalize anything, the ones who did were wrong, but you seem to fail to understand the motive as being more about frustration at ongoing injustices (that don't justify the vandalism) rather than being for nothing more than the desire to hurt business owners.

Now that's a generalization; there can be exceptions. But let's look at your own source for seeing how many are consistent with my statement.

Let's even start with the guy you quoted who organized it and was upset by the violence:

Shamar and Blackmon empathized with the vandals' anger, but deplored their tactics.

So, here's the guy who organized the peaceful march and deplored the tacts of those who went violent.

Does that sound like what you said - nothing but criminals for the sake of destruction - why woudl this peaceful protestor against the violence 'empathize with the anger' of the purely destructive street criminals? - or what I said, because the anger behind the vandals had something to do with what I said it did, while not justifying the vandalism (just as the organizer you quoted said), but their frustration about ongoing injustices - THAT'S what it was about and what the organzier said it was about:

"The mayor was forced to come out and acknowledge that the citizens of Oakland are angry and that we want Justice," Shamar said. "I'm not condoning violence, but sometimes to get justice, you can't just sit around holding hands singing 'Kumbaya.' "

Can it be any clearer for you? I said the violence is not justified and he said the volence is not justified. I said the anger is about injustice, he said it was about getting justice.

Were there people who fit your description? Probably there were. But for you to paint all the people who vented as nothaving any political frustration, while that does not justify this vandalism, and only being there to do violence for the sake of violence, is something you have now shown evidence to support; your evidence suggests the opposite.

We can look at others in your article, let's take an 'anarchist':

"I uphold the whole protest from start to finish," said Reiko Redmond, one of several people from Revolution Books in Berkeley who were in downtown Oakland on Wednesday night. She called the events a "righteous rebellion" that stemmed from a long history of oppression and police brutality.

Hey, whaddya know. As wrong as she might be, her motive is anger from a sense of injustice with the system, not destruction just for destruction - as I said.

And another:

Others described the violence in other ways. The victims of vandals had little to do with Grant's killing, acknowledged Hillary Lehr, a 24-year-old from Berkeley who is starting a nonprofit aimed at democratizing the UC Regents and who was also present Wednesday night.

"But if your systems of government to make change are unavailable, if your justice system isn't just, if your police department is attacking and murdering citizens, people are going to show that anger and frustration in people's immediate surroundings," she said.

There's someone who was there who says people were 'showing anger and frustration' at the immediate surroundings because of a 'justice system that isn't just'. As I said.

Your original description of the vandals - who were not justified - was:

freaking criminal opportunists and nothing else

That says nothing about their motive involving any anger of any political issue, any sense of injustice, any frustrations with 'the system'. And I rightly said you were unafair.

They *were* criminals - not, in large part at least, simply for crime for its own sake; and not 'nothing more'. The 'more' was 'citizens politically frustrated rioting criminally'.

You are confusing a politically motivated riotous vandalism with a non-political mob's riotous vandalism. They may look similar, but there is that difference.

Which does not justify the vandalism.

While the BART protest probably had some people who show up to protests more for trouble than naything else, you are wrong to say that about all of them generally.

 

[Craig234]

There are references to 'injustice'; for one example, see this story.

 

[Steeplerot]

Best video I have found of the alleged vandalism is here
A few drunk looking frat kids, probably Asian and a few African American locals.
If it was the Bloc they would have marched down the street with flags on full display torching capitalist institutions such as banks and corporate chain stores. Not a random car/window or two.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
The family settles with BART for, say, $1,250,000. The Taser people are untouched, because I don't think much of the theories of product liability people seem to envision against Taser.

Fvck that. BART is a non-profit public transit system. Sue Taser, they have deeper pockets and I have always thought that they don't really give a sh!t about their product's lethality, only for profits and sell as many to PDs with dumb cops who, as you said, can't tell a P226 and a taser.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
The family settles with BART for, say, $1,250,000. The Taser people are untouched, because I don't think much of the theories of product liability people seem to envision against Taser.

Fvck that. BART is a non-profit public transit system. Sue Taser, they have deeper pockets and I have always thought that they don't really give a sh!t about their product's lethality, only for profits and sell as many to PDs with dumb cops who, as you said, can't tell a P226 and a taser.

The thing is, it's not as though the plaintiff (or the court) has his pick of potential defendants based on personal preference. I am not convinced the Taser itself is an unnecessarily dangerous product by virtue of its color and use of a trigger. There may be viable theories of liability against the cop and/or the BART police, but not against the Taser company. I tend to think this is the case. If it is, the court can't tag Taser with liability just because it has deep pockets. The decedent's family in this case will probably sue anybody and everybody, but I am not sold on the idea that Taser should be held liable for this shooting.

 

[Vic]

The thing is, if we allow a police officer this level of incompetence, even on accident, then there will be nothing to stop another from doing the same on purpose and pretending it was out of incompetence.

I see no reason to sue Taser. Their design is fine, and not at all similar in grip feel or trigger pull to a P226 despite the misrepresentations made here and perhaps elsewhere.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic
The thing is, if we allow a police officer this level of incompetence, even on accident, then there will be nothing to stop another from doing the same on purpose and pretending it was out of incompetence.

I see no reason to sue Taser. Their design is fine, and not at all similar in grip feel or trigger pull to a P226 despite the misrepresentations made here and perhaps elsewhere.

I don't think anyone is advocating "allowing" this officer his poor judgment. He killed a man who didn't deserve it (though Oscar Grant was not a good guy in any meaningful sense). IMO this was, to borrow your phrase, incompetence, and it should be punished as manslaughter.

I agree this death is not the fault of the Taser company and can't reasonably be pinned on them.

 

[Vic]

I don't care if Oscar Grant was a saint or if he raped and murdered little children. We have courts for a reason, and no police officer has the right to make himself judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care if Oscar Grant was a saint or if he raped and murdered little children. We have courts for a reason, and no police officer has the right to make himself judge, jury, and executioner.

Agreed 100%, but since you've said this was a crime of "incompetence," it appears you're agreeing that the officer didn't intentionally act as judge, jury, and executioner. It seems he merely acted as a careless police officer (not a great thing either, but not at all the same thing as a deliberate killer).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care if Oscar Grant was a saint or if he raped and murdered little children. We have courts for a reason, and no police officer has the right to make himself judge, jury, and executioner.

Agreed 100%, but since you've said this was a crime of "incompetence," it appears you're agreeing that the officer didn't intentionally act as judge, jury, and executioner. It seems he merely acted as a careless police officer (not a great thing either, but not at all the same thing as a deliberate killer).

And there you go again. I've already conceded manslaughter as a reasonable outcome several times over in this thread, but you gotta keep playing the prick and pretending I'm arguing otherwise, i.e. for nothing but murder. And you wonder why you get called names. Duh.

But... I just finished watching the video several times over again, and IMO it is indefensible to defend the officer in this case. "Incompetence" and manslaughter is being extremely kind considering that there is no evidence from the video that Grant was putting up any kind of resistance to arrest, much less the kind of resistance that would require deploying the taser, nor is there any indication that Mehserle even had a taser on his person. Especially damning is the clear evidence that Mehserle unholstered his weapon a good 5 seconds before pulling the trigger, and that the weapon was clearly in his line of sight before he pulled the trigger, making these comments that "oops he thought was his taser" that much more idiotic.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Best video I have found of the alleged vandalism is here
A few drunk looking frat kids, probably Asian and a few African American locals.
If it was the Bloc they would have marched down the street with flags on full display torching capitalist institutions such as banks and corporate chain stores. Not a random car/window or two.

Many business from small local stores ( they smashed the windows of a store called "Creative African Braids" owned by a black women witnessed the rioters smashing her windows up ) to a McDonald's were vandalized along with many cars parked on the street some of which were burnt or smashed up. These guys weren't just limiting their targets to the "Institutions of the Man".

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Wow you really have no idea about who was behind this protest and why it turned into riot do you? The main instigators of this riot were a group of well know anarchists who had a past history of showing up to protests, turning them violent and attacking police. There were also a group of local thugs who saw the opportunity to destroy and loot along side this rabble of anarchists. The riot had nothing to do with the outrage about the BART shooting. Hell Oscar Grant didn't even live in Oakland and the shooting itself did not occur in Oakland. Even the march organizer admits that those who rioted had concern about the reason of march and that they only wanted to "wreak havoc". The riot itself was criminal in nature as it had nothing to do with "rage" over the shooting.

"I was devastated by it," said Shamar, 24, a photographer who lives in Oakland. "I worked diligently for the past 72 hours, and for it to be destroyed by a group of anarchists was extremely upsetting. I felt like my integrity had been compromised."

"Shamar and other organizers said their cause was exploited by those who simply wanted to wreak havoc. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...9/01/09/MNON15696D.DTL

You did not show my post wrong at all with your information and your wrong comments.

Here's what I actually said:

Putting aside the most who did not vandalize anything, the ones who did were wrong, but you seem to fail to understand the motive as being more about frustration at ongoing injustices (that don't justify the vandalism) rather than being for nothing more than the desire to hurt business owners.

Now that's a generalization; there can be exceptions. But let's look at your own source for seeing how many are consistent with my statement.

Let's even start with the guy you quoted who organized it and was upset by the violence:

Shamar and Blackmon empathized with the vandals' anger, but deplored their tactics.

So, here's the guy who organized the peaceful march and deplored the tacts of those who went violent.

Does that sound like what you said - nothing but criminals for the sake of destruction - why woudl this peaceful protestor against the violence 'empathize with the anger' of the purely destructive street criminals? - or what I said, because the anger behind the vandals had something to do with what I said it did, while not justifying the vandalism (just as the organizer you quoted said), but their frustration about ongoing injustices - THAT'S what it was about and what the organzier said it was about:

"The mayor was forced to come out and acknowledge that the citizens of Oakland are angry and that we want Justice," Shamar said. "I'm not condoning violence, but sometimes to get justice, you can't just sit around holding hands singing 'Kumbaya.' "

Can it be any clearer for you? I said the violence is not justified and he said the volence is not justified. I said the anger is about injustice, he said it was about getting justice.

Were there people who fit your description? Probably there were. But for you to paint all the people who vented as nothaving any political frustration, while that does not justify this vandalism, and only being there to do violence for the sake of violence, is something you have now shown evidence to support; your evidence suggests the opposite.

We can look at others in your article, let's take an 'anarchist':

"I uphold the whole protest from start to finish," said Reiko Redmond, one of several people from Revolution Books in Berkeley who were in downtown Oakland on Wednesday night. She called the events a "righteous rebellion" that stemmed from a long history of oppression and police brutality.

Hey, whaddya know. As wrong as she might be, her motive is anger from a sense of injustice with the system, not destruction just for destruction - as I said.

And another:

Others described the violence in other ways. The victims of vandals had little to do with Grant's killing, acknowledged Hillary Lehr, a 24-year-old from Berkeley who is starting a nonprofit aimed at democratizing the UC Regents and who was also present Wednesday night.

"But if your systems of government to make change are unavailable, if your justice system isn't just, if your police department is attacking and murdering citizens, people are going to show that anger and frustration in people's immediate surroundings," she said.

There's someone who was there who says people were 'showing anger and frustration' at the immediate surroundings because of a 'justice system that isn't just'. As I said.

Your original description of the vandals - who were not justified - was:

freaking criminal opportunists and nothing else

That says nothing about their motive involving any anger of any political issue, any sense of injustice, any frustrations with 'the system'. And I rightly said you were unafair.

They *were* criminals - not, in large part at least, simply for crime for its own sake; and not 'nothing more'. The 'more' was 'citizens politically frustrated rioting criminally'.

You are confusing a politically motivated riotous vandalism with a non-political mob's riotous vandalism. They may look similar, but there is that difference.

Which does not justify the vandalism.

While the BART protest probably had some people who show up to protests more for trouble than naything else, you are wrong to say that about all of them generally.

I am going to have to completely disagree with you here because I know for a fact that the local group of anarchist here in the Bay Area were a large part of ensuring that the protest turned destructive and those rioting really didn't care about the shooting or the damage they were doing to Oakland's local downtown businesses some of whom were damaged were black owned businesses.

 

[Drift3r]

Incidentally this isn't the first time a police officer has mistakenly fired a firearm in the field when they did not intend too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...d.php?t=278738&page=33

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic

And there you go again. I've already conceded manslaughter as a reasonable outcome several times over in this thread, but you gotta keep playing the prick and pretending I'm arguing otherwise, i.e. for nothing but murder. And you wonder why you get called names. Duh.

Your first post in this thread said:

This was murder. Plain and simple.

I had assumed that was your position because, well, that's what you said. As you know, I disagree with that.

You then went on to say:

This wasn't an accident. You're looking at it backwards. It'd be an 'accident' if a regular citizen made that kind of mistake. Being a trained law enforcement officer, he had a professional responsibility to make sure he pulled out the right weapon. The public has a more than reasonable expectation to this level of competency from its police forces.

Most recently, you falsely accused me of lying in this thread, when you posted this:

You also intentionally misrepresented the workings of a P226 pistol in order to add strength to your argument.

Your accusation was categorically false. You have neither substantiated nor withdrawn it. You'll forgive me if I don't really respect your take on things any more than you respect mine.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

I am going to have to completely disagree with you here because I know for a fact that the local group of anarchist here in the Bay Area were a large part of ensuring that the protest turned destructive and those rioting really didn't care about the shooting or the damage they were doing to Oakland's local downtown businesses some of whom were damaged were black owned businesses.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with your previous false statements about my comments.

And even if you're right, anarchists have a different motive than 'nothing more than simple criminality'. However much you might disagree with them, they have political motives.

That might not mean some or all of the might not *enjoy* the violence; that some or all fo them might not *partly* share traits with people who are 'just criminals'; but it does make it inaccurate to say that all of them are *only* doing destruction for destruction's sake, when many have some political agenda, however misguided.

Anarchists are acting with at times the same *actions* as people who are just being violent for no reason, but they have a different reason for the same acts.

Even the acts you describe - smashing a random car, beaking a random store window - can have different motives from the thug who simply does it for 'fun', to the misguided protestor or anarchist who thinks that they are 'bringing attention to their cause', disrupting the 'system' as the government and policie have to deal with angry victims etc.

 

[Cogman]

This (former) cop needs to go to jail. Cops shouldn't have special rules that make it ok for them to kill someone on accident (IE they get discharged as a punishment). It is BS that we have some double standards for them just because they have a uniform and are in charge of enforcing the law.

IMO a cop should never be able to fire his gun without the fear that there might be criminal charges as a result. Just because the state gives you a firearm doesn't mean that they sanction every bullet you fire.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Cogman
This (former) cop needs to go to jail. Cops shouldn't have special rules that make it ok for them to kill someone on accident (IE they get discharged as a punishment). It is BS that we have some double standards for them just because they have a uniform and are in charge of enforcing the law.

IMO a cop should never be able to fire his gun without the fear that there might be criminal charges as a result. Just because the state gives you a firearm doesn't mean that they sanction every bullet you fire.

You do realize that all police officers have to already account for every bullet they fired in the field and they have to give valid reasons as to why they decided to discharge their weapon in front of a police commission after a shooting has occurred? Second having police officers second guess themselves all the time is not a policy I would like to see implemented period. A police officer second guessing each and every action would basically give criminals the upper hand and our society based on law and order would degenerate rather quickly in chaos.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Cogman
This (former) cop needs to go to jail. Cops shouldn't have special rules that make it ok for them to kill someone on accident (IE they get discharged as a punishment). It is BS that we have some double standards for them just because they have a uniform and are in charge of enforcing the law.

IMO a cop should never be able to fire his gun without the fear that there might be criminal charges as a result. Just because the state gives you a firearm doesn't mean that they sanction every bullet you fire.

You do realize that all police officers have to already account for every bullet they fired in the field and they have to give valid reasons as to why they decided to discharge their weapon in front of a police commission after a shooting has occurred? Second having police officers second guess themselves all the time is not a policy I would like to see implemented period. A police officer second guessing each and every action would basically give criminals the upper hand and our society based on law and order would degenerate rather quickly in chaos.

Tell me then, what is happening to this cop who clearly should be charged with manslaughter? Is he being charged for anything? Yes, they have to account for the bullets they fire, but so what? The most that will happen to them in 99% of case is they loose their badge. Other then that, nothing, maybe a 3 week vacation.

Somehow, I expect it to be a more serious issue when an individual is killed/endangered.

The only thing the cop should be (and validly so) second guessing is the use of firearms. I am all for somebody by necessity having to take in consideration the consequences of using a firearm. Surprisingly, most situations that cops run into don't require the use of their firearm, so I doubt very highly that the world will descend into anarchy because cops become more cautious when using them.

There are even a few countries that don't allow their cops firearms, and they haven't descended into complete chaos. Surprising I know.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Cogman
This (former) cop needs to go to jail. Cops shouldn't have special rules that make it ok for them to kill someone on accident (IE they get discharged as a punishment). It is BS that we have some double standards for them just because they have a uniform and are in charge of enforcing the law.

IMO a cop should never be able to fire his gun without the fear that there might be criminal charges as a result. Just because the state gives you a firearm doesn't mean that they sanction every bullet you fire.

You do realize that all police officers have to already account for every bullet they fired in the field and they have to give valid reasons as to why they decided to discharge their weapon in front of a police commission after a shooting has occurred? Second having police officers second guess themselves all the time is not a policy I would like to see implemented period. A police officer second guessing each and every action would basically give criminals the upper hand and our society based on law and order would degenerate rather quickly in chaos.

Uh, your false dillema that the only choices are police officers unable to safely perform their work and gettling killed all the time, or giving them carte blanche to shoot first and ask questions later, is wrong. There is a middle ground. Police work will always have risks, because of this balance rather than letting police officers always be safe. Should every traffic stop involve a SWAT team ordering the driver out of the car? No - but that leaves every traffic stop where the driver could suddenly pull a hidden gun and shoot.

But the answer isn't for every time a driver reaches for the glove box for registration while the officer approaches for the officer to assum they're for a gun and shoot them, either.

You're just off base here in portraying the demand for a reasonable policy as some impractical end of our society's law and order police will get killed all the time problem.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Cogman
This (former) cop needs to go to jail. Cops shouldn't have special rules that make it ok for them to kill someone on accident (IE they get discharged as a punishment). It is BS that we have some double standards for them just because they have a uniform and are in charge of enforcing the law.

IMO a cop should never be able to fire his gun without the fear that there might be criminal charges as a result. Just because the state gives you a firearm doesn't mean that they sanction every bullet you fire.

You do realize that all police officers have to already account for every bullet they fired in the field and they have to give valid reasons as to why they decided to discharge their weapon in front of a police commission after a shooting has occurred? Second having police officers second guess themselves all the time is not a policy I would like to see implemented period. A police officer second guessing each and every action would basically give criminals the upper hand and our society based on law and order would degenerate rather quickly in chaos.

Tell me then, what is happening to this cop who clearly should be charged with manslaughter? Is he being charged for anything? Yes, they have to account for the bullets they fire, but so what? The most that will happen to them in 99% of case is they loose their badge. Other then that, nothing, maybe a 3 week vacation.

No one in this thread has suggested that this police officer should not be charged with manslaughter. Right now there is an ongoing investigation about what exactly happened. I know it's easy to get into a knee-jerk emotional lynch mob mentality but the legal process must be allowed to proceed forward. We are after all a nation of laws first and foremost.

Somehow, I expect it to be a more serious issue when an individual is killed/endangered.

Well that is an assumption you are making based on your opinion.

The only thing the cop should be (and validly so) second guessing is the use of firearms. I am all for somebody by necessity having to take in consideration the consequences of using a firearm. Surprisingly, most situations that cops run into don't require the use of their firearm, so I doubt very highly that the world will descend into anarchy because cops become more cautious when using them.

Do you have any idea how many bullets are fired nation wide by cops? Believe it or not it is ridiculously low compared to the number of arrests made nation wide each year. You have more of threat of being killed by a fellow citizen then you do by a police officer. In fact the biggest killer of youth in the inner city by those wielding firearms are other youth.

There are even a few countries that don't allow their cops firearms, and they haven't descended into complete chaos. Surprising I know.

That is a very naive view. Those countries have very different cultures then ours and the prevalence of guns and violence amongst their citizens are no doubt lower then ours. Even in the US we have different levels of crime from city to city which means there is no one perfect solution. Do yourself a favor and take trip to Oakland and go live in some of the higher crime areas for about month and lets see if you come back with this view of yours. Oakland as whole ( It only has 400,000 residents ) based on the number of homicides is proportionally a more dangerous city to live then New York city which is way larger by a few million more people.

http://www.cityrating.com/city...?city=Oakland&state=CA

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Cogman
This (former) cop needs to go to jail. Cops shouldn't have special rules that make it ok for them to kill someone on accident (IE they get discharged as a punishment). It is BS that we have some double standards for them just because they have a uniform and are in charge of enforcing the law.

IMO a cop should never be able to fire his gun without the fear that there might be criminal charges as a result. Just because the state gives you a firearm doesn't mean that they sanction every bullet you fire.

You do realize that all police officers have to already account for every bullet they fired in the field and they have to give valid reasons as to why they decided to discharge their weapon in front of a police commission after a shooting has occurred? Second having police officers second guess themselves all the time is not a policy I would like to see implemented period. A police officer second guessing each and every action would basically give criminals the upper hand and our society based on law and order would degenerate rather quickly in chaos.

Uh, your false dillema that the only choices are police officers unable to safely perform their work and gettling killed all the time, or giving them carte blanche to shoot first and ask questions later, is wrong. There is a middle ground. Police work will always have risks, because of this balance rather than letting police officers always be safe. Should every traffic stop involve a SWAT team ordering the driver out of the car? No - but that leaves every traffic stop where the driver could suddenly pull a hidden gun and shoot.

Slow down there buddy you are really putting words in my mouth here. To believe that I am making the statement that cops should go around shooting first and asking questions later without regard of safety is wrong. I have no problem with cops being well trained on when and when not to use force. Though the fact remains that they should not have to ask permission or second guess themselves to stop a violent suspect who is a threat to their lives or the lives of citizens.

But the answer isn't for every time a driver reaches for the glove box for registration while the officer approaches for the officer to assum they're for a gun and shoot them, either.

The assumption is made because they don't know who the hell they are dealing with period. There have been many incidents of police officers pulling over individuals over traffic infractions and only for it to turn bad very fast once the police officer starts noticing suspicious behavior or conditions in the vehicles.

You're just off base here in portraying the demand for a reasonable policy as some impractical end of our society's law and order police will get killed all the time problem.

I am not off base in believing that police officers should have the right to use lethal force if they feel that their lives are threatened. You though are off base in twisting my words and jumping to far reaching conclusions.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Cogman
This (former) cop needs to go to jail. Cops shouldn't have special rules that make it ok for them to kill someone on accident (IE they get discharged as a punishment). It is BS that we have some double standards for them just because they have a uniform and are in charge of enforcing the law.

IMO a cop should never be able to fire his gun without the fear that there might be criminal charges as a result. Just because the state gives you a firearm doesn't mean that they sanction every bullet you fire.

You do realize that all police officers have to already account for every bullet they fired in the field and they have to give valid reasons as to why they decided to discharge their weapon in front of a police commission after a shooting has occurred? Second having police officers second guess themselves all the time is not a policy I would like to see implemented period. A police officer second guessing each and every action would basically give criminals the upper hand and our society based on law and order would degenerate rather quickly in chaos.

There is no law and order if those enforcing the law and order are above the law.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Cogman
This (former) cop needs to go to jail. Cops shouldn't have special rules that make it ok for them to kill someone on accident (IE they get discharged as a punishment). It is BS that we have some double standards for them just because they have a uniform and are in charge of enforcing the law.

IMO a cop should never be able to fire his gun without the fear that there might be criminal charges as a result. Just because the state gives you a firearm doesn't mean that they sanction every bullet you fire.

You do realize that all police officers have to already account for every bullet they fired in the field and they have to give valid reasons as to why they decided to discharge their weapon in front of a police commission after a shooting has occurred? Second having police officers second guess themselves all the time is not a policy I would like to see implemented period. A police officer second guessing each and every action would basically give criminals the upper hand and our society based on law and order would degenerate rather quickly in chaos.

Tell me then, what is happening to this cop who clearly should be charged with manslaughter? Is he being charged for anything? Yes, they have to account for the bullets they fire, but so what? The most that will happen to them in 99% of case is they loose their badge. Other then that, nothing, maybe a 3 week vacation.

No one in this thread has suggested that this police officer should not be charged with manslaughter. Right now there is an ongoing investigation about what exactly happened. I know it's easy to get into a knee-jerk emotional lynch mob mentality but the legal process must be allowed to proceed forward. We are after all a nation of laws first and foremost.

Somehow, I expect it to be a more serious issue when an individual is killed/endangered.

Well that is an assumption you are making based on your opinion.

The only thing the cop should be (and validly so) second guessing is the use of firearms. I am all for somebody by necessity having to take in consideration the consequences of using a firearm. Surprisingly, most situations that cops run into don't require the use of their firearm, so I doubt very highly that the world will descend into anarchy because cops become more cautious when using them.

Do you have any idea how many bullets are fired nation wide by cops? Believe it or not it is ridiculously low compared to the number of arrests made nation wide each year. You have more of threat of being killed by a fellow citizen then you do by a police officer. In fact the biggest killer of youth in the inner city by those wielding firearms are other youth.

There are even a few countries that don't allow their cops firearms, and they haven't descended into complete chaos. Surprising I know.

That is a very naive view. Those countries have very different cultures then ours and the prevalence of guns and violence amongst their citizens are no doubt lower then ours. Even in the US we have different levels of crime from city to city which means there is no one perfect solution. Do yourself a favor and take trip to Oakland and go live in some of the higher crime areas for about month and lets see if you come back with this view of yours. Oakland as whole ( It only has 400,000 residents ) based on the number of homicides is proportionally a more dangerous city to live then New York city which is way larger by a few million more people.

http://www.cityrating.com/city...?city=Oakland&state=CA

There is no investigation going on. The DA is just dragging his feet before he announces that the shootings was justified in two weeks. Why two weeks? you ask well that is when the biggest story of the year is planned and the DA will be able to announce the finding with no press coverage.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Cogman
This (former) cop needs to go to jail. Cops shouldn't have special rules that make it ok for them to kill someone on accident (IE they get discharged as a punishment). It is BS that we have some double standards for them just because they have a uniform and are in charge of enforcing the law.

IMO a cop should never be able to fire his gun without the fear that there might be criminal charges as a result. Just because the state gives you a firearm doesn't mean that they sanction every bullet you fire.

You do realize that all police officers have to already account for every bullet they fired in the field and they have to give valid reasons as to why they decided to discharge their weapon in front of a police commission after a shooting has occurred? Second having police officers second guess themselves all the time is not a policy I would like to see implemented period. A police officer second guessing each and every action would basically give criminals the upper hand and our society based on law and order would degenerate rather quickly in chaos.

Tell me then, what is happening to this cop who clearly should be charged with manslaughter? Is he being charged for anything? Yes, they have to account for the bullets they fire, but so what? The most that will happen to them in 99% of case is they loose their badge. Other then that, nothing, maybe a 3 week vacation.

No one in this thread has suggested that this police officer should not be charged with manslaughter. Right now there is an ongoing investigation about what exactly happened. I know it's easy to get into a knee-jerk emotional lynch mob mentality but the legal process must be allowed to proceed forward. We are after all a nation of laws first and foremost.

Somehow, I expect it to be a more serious issue when an individual is killed/endangered.

Well that is an assumption you are making based on your opinion.

The only thing the cop should be (and validly so) second guessing is the use of firearms. I am all for somebody by necessity having to take in consideration the consequences of using a firearm. Surprisingly, most situations that cops run into don't require the use of their firearm, so I doubt very highly that the world will descend into anarchy because cops become more cautious when using them.

Do you have any idea how many bullets are fired nation wide by cops? Believe it or not it is ridiculously low compared to the number of arrests made nation wide each year. You have more of threat of being killed by a fellow citizen then you do by a police officer. In fact the biggest killer of youth in the inner city by those wielding firearms are other youth.

There are even a few countries that don't allow their cops firearms, and they haven't descended into complete chaos. Surprising I know.

That is a very naive view. Those countries have very different cultures then ours and the prevalence of guns and violence amongst their citizens are no doubt lower then ours. Even in the US we have different levels of crime from city to city which means there is no one perfect solution. Do yourself a favor and take trip to Oakland and go live in some of the higher crime areas for about month and lets see if you come back with this view of yours. Oakland as whole ( It only has 400,000 residents ) based on the number of homicides is proportionally a more dangerous city to live then New York city which is way larger by a few million more people.

http://www.cityrating.com/city...?city=Oakland&state=CA

There is no investigation going on. The DA is just dragging his feet before he announces that the shootings was justified in two weeks. Why two weeks? you ask well that is when the biggest story of the year is planned and the DA will be able to announce the finding with no press coverage.

Really can you provide us with a link that backs up your assertion? I'd love to know where you got this top secret info from or is it that maybe you are just using hysterics to rally up more knee jerk responses?