# Video of California police shooting spurs investigation



## elder999 (Jan 7, 2009)

Seen here

WARNING: Video on the website stops just short of the prone, restrained subject being shot.



> -- A New Year's Day shooting in which a subway police officer fired a deadly shot into the back of an unarmed man has the San Francisco Bay Area demanding answers as authorities appeal for patience.
> Oscar Grant, 22, was killed January 1 in a shooting at a subway station in California's Bay Area.
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think what happened is he had one of those Tasers that llooks and feels like a Glock, and he grabbed his sidearm, thinking it was the Taser, but I've got to question why he felt he had to use his Taser.....


----------



## Big Don (Jan 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I think what happened is he had one of those Tasers that llooks and feels like a Glock, and he grabbed his sidearm, thinking it was the Taser, but I've got to question why he felt he had to use his Taser.....


A deputy sheriff one county over had exactly the confusion you describe, of course the suspect was kicking, swearing and spitting at her when she shot him.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Seen here
> 
> WARNING: Video on the website stops just short of the prone, restrained subject being shot.
> 
> ...


I've seen those and I would imagine that an officer who would have many hours handling his weapon on the firing range would definitely know the difference when holding the taser or his firearm. 
Since there is no audio it's difficult to say who said what to whom, and if the witnesses who were on the ground with the shooting victim words will be weighed against the officers. 
Tragic end to this is the daughter of the man won't get to know her daddy. 

Have to wait and see how this turns out.


----------



## MJS (Jan 7, 2009)

The cops in the dept. where I work, are required to wear the Taser on the opposite side from their gun and its usually facing the opposite direction.  In other words, they carry their gun on the right, the Taser is on the left with the butt of the gun facing out.  Yeah, it does look odd and one would have to wonder how it could be deployed quick, but it has, and it seems to work for them.

As for the cops in this case, I have no idea, but I would be interesting to know where the taser was, how it was positioned, etc.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 7, 2009)

The cop failed the scenario, period. He let his adrenaline get the better of him, and capped a submitted, prone, suspect. He screwed up, and video from other sources demonstrates this well. His fellow officers also know he screwed up: One vid has one of his crew shaking his head in disbelief, with an expression that clearly says, "Aw, hell. This is bad. This is a serious screw up".

Human error factor cannot be accounted for all the time. No matter how well candidates are screened or trained, there will always be human error that rears it's head in some fashion. Unfortunately, human error with guns is a bit more dramatic than human error with a tight pair of tennis shoes. BART po-po has a bit fo a steep history of these sorts of whiffs, however. I suspect this will lead to a training and command issue within the department(s).

D.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 7, 2009)

Big Don said:


> A deputy sheriff one county over had exactly the confusion you describe, of course the suspect was kicking, swearing and spitting at her when she shot him.


 
There's been a few of these, actually-it led to Taser altering the shape, as well as some implementation of the cross draw mentioned by another poster.


----------



## Carol (Jan 7, 2009)

Oy...that looks bad.  I hope this can be resolved as peacefully as such a situation can be.


----------



## MJS (Jan 7, 2009)

Some interesting points:

1) States that some of the men were hand cuffed, but not the one who got shot.  One would think that until the situation issorted out, everyone would be cuffed.

2) I hate to use the video as a base to form a full opinion.  I would like to know what happened from the beginning all the way to the end, including anything that was said.  

3)  Is it safe to assume that when he was placed chest down that he was going to be cuffed?  I don't want to say that he was submitted at that point, because technically, he was not.  Nothing says that he still can't resist and someone in the article states that is what he was doing.

4) Seems that there is video from the train station that caught this incident.  I hope it becomes public so that we can have another point of view.


This is certainly a tragic incident.  Nobody wins in cases like this.  It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

MJS said:


> The cops in the dept. where I work, are required to wear the Taser on the opposite side from their gun and its usually facing the opposite direction.  In other words, they carry their gun on the right, the Taser is on the left with the butt of the gun facing out.  Yeah, it does look odd and one would have to wonder how it could be deployed quick, but it has, and it seems to work for them.
> 
> As for the cops in this case, I have no idea, but I would be interesting to know where the taser was, how it was positioned, etc.


 That is the current standard recommended by Taser.....I go one step further and recommend that the Taser be be carried on the support side and the officer learn to fire it with his SUPPORT HAND!  That's the way I carry mine.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 7, 2009)

Could have been a misfire. 

At any rate, the officer will have to suffer the consequences whatever they may be. 

What really rubbed me wrong was how quickly the family stated they were going to sue for 25 million. I guess we see where their priorities are, eh? Who do they think is going to pay for it? Where do they think that money comes from?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 7, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> What really rubbed me wrong was how quickly the family stated they were going to sue for 25 million. I guess we see where their priorities are, eh? Who do they think is going to pay for it? Where do they think that money comes from?


 
That's the family's _*lawyer*_, who probably rushed to them as soon as he saw the video....(it kind of looks like a "slam dunk.")


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 7, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Could have been a misfire.
> 
> At any rate, the officer will have to suffer the consequences whatever they may be.
> 
> What really rubbed me wrong was how quickly the family stated they were going to sue for 25 million. I guess we see where their priorities are, eh? Who do they think is going to pay for it? Where do they think that money comes from?


 
Ya I think the point is they probably don't care, they simply see an opening for the big payday.


----------



## Carol (Jan 7, 2009)

Tort Attorneys aren't paid to care, they are paid to win money.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 7, 2009)

Im thinking that it was most likely either a "Taser Confusion" or he intended to hold him at gunpoint and had his finger in the trigger guard when he shouldnt have.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Im thinking that it was most likely either a "Taser Confusion" or he intended to hold him at gunpoint and had his finger in the trigger guard when he shouldnt have.


 

Either one should probably wind up a fair sized payday for the family. Even without the best ambulance chaser in San Fransisco.....


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 7, 2009)

Yup. Money seems to be the solution for everything these days.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> That's the family's _*lawyer*_, who probably rushed to them as soon as he saw the video....(it kind of looks like a "slam dunk.")


 I wonder how many trial lawyers were injured trying to be the first to get to the family?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 7, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Could have been a misfire.
> 
> At any rate, the officer will have to suffer the consequences whatever they may be.
> 
> What really rubbed me wrong was how quickly the family stated they were going to sue for 25 million. I guess we see where their priorities are, eh? Who do they think is going to pay for it? Where do they think that money comes from?


 'Nothing can assuage the anguish of my loss.....but 25 MILLION DOLLARS WOULD CERTAINLY HELP! '


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 7, 2009)

There is a SECOND video that is hard to find, it was a Channel 2 exclusve that was shot and shows EXACTLY what happened, It was not the one that Vargas girl shot thats all over the news and the web.  I have seen it.

The Shooting victim was seated against the wall.  He presented his hands and was taken from a seated position to a prone position.  An officer kneed across his shoulders, took his hands behind him, restrained him.  Then one stands up and shoots him.  It never really appeared on video that he was fighting, struggling or was a threat.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 8, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Yup. Money seems to be the solution for everything these days.


Well it is for those who are GETTING it... as for the rest... 



> *Shooting by Oakland, Calif., officer sparks anger*
> 
> 
> By TERRY COLLINS, Associated Press Writer        Terry Collins, Associated Press Writer               27 mins ago
> ...


----------



## Carol (Jan 8, 2009)

* bangs head * 

So, violence against the victim was wrong, but violence against other people and property in Oakland is OK (in the eyes of the protesters) ?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 8, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> * bangs head *
> 
> So, violence against the victim was wrong, but violence against other people and property in Oakland is OK (in the eyes of the protesters) ?


Yep... Mob logic 101.  Along with "let's celebrate our teams victory by trashing the campus/city."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> * bangs head *
> 
> So, violence against the victim was wrong, but violence against other people and property in Oakland is OK (in the eyes of the protesters) ?



Any excuse to break things and steal property in Oakland is good enough. 

It's a fool look for logic in the 'minds' of thug rioters.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> There is a SECOND video that is hard to find, it was a Channel 2 exclusve that was shot and shows EXACTLY what happened, It was not the one that Vargas girl shot thats all over the news and the web.  I have seen it.
> 
> The Shooting victim was seated against the wall.  He presented his hands and was taken from a seated position to a prone position.  An officer kneed across his shoulders, took his hands behind him, restrained him.  Then one stands up and shoots him.  It never really appeared on video that he was fighting, struggling or was a threat.



I've seen it......it appears to be a negligent firearms discharge that struck the guy.  NOT intentional, but certainly negligence......apparently in Oakland, if it's a cop, and the guy isn't lynched promptly within 2 days, the system isn't working and needs a nudge!


----------



## Carol (Jan 9, 2009)

I like it better at home on Vulcan.  People are logical there and no one laughs at my green blood.  You humans can have Oakland!  :lol2:


----------



## MJS (Jan 9, 2009)

From my paper this morning...
Link




> AKLAND, Calif.  - In grainy cellphone videos played over and over on the Internet, police officers force an unarmed black man to the ground and hold him face-down on a crowded train platform. Suddenly one of the officers draws his gun and fatally shoots the man in the back  then looks up.
> 
> The New Year's Day death of 22-year-old Oscar Grant has led to angry street protests amid allegations from the family's attorney that some of the officers used racial slurs.
> 
> ...


 
A few interesting bits:



> Bruce Siddle, a use-of-force expert who viewed the video clips, theorized that Mehserle was working under stress in a hostile situation and did not realize he was firing his pistol.
> 
> "I suspect he thought he was reaching for his Taser," said Siddle, founder of PPCT Management Systems, an Illinois company that trains law-enforcement officers in use-of-force. "If he was under stress, he would not be able to distinguish between a Taser and his firearm."
> 
> ...


 
And yes, I really rolled my eyes at this.  I mean, I fully understand that these people must have a million things running thru their head, but come on, it seems that they want the guy arrested, convicted with no trial and sent up the river.  These people seem to forget that everyone, no matter what the crime is, gets a trial.



> "They want justice, but they don't want any more violence," said John Burris, an attorney for Grant's family. "That officer hasn't been prosecuted. ... That's why people don't have confidence in the system right now."


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 9, 2009)

What exactly do these people think the cop did this for? It wasnt like an execution in a back alley for drug money. IMO it was a negligent discharge. For right or wrong this one mistake will probably cost this guy his job, a lawsuit, probably wreck his marriage and numerous other things..Murdered? where is the intent? Yes there should be a price to pay, we cops know that one mistake..if its bad enough..is going to result in all this. But riots and demands for immediate lynching is ridiculous.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 9, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> apparently in Oakland, if it's a cop, and the guy isn't lynched promptly within 2 days, the system isn't working and needs a nudge!



Lynched perhaps not, but any "civilian" who shot and killed someone in such circumstances would definitely have been arrested and held, and a high bail set.


----------



## Carol (Jan 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> What exactly do these people think the cop did this for? It wasnt like an execution in a back alley for drug money. IMO it was a negligent discharge. For right or wrong this one mistake will probably cost this guy his job, a lawsuit, probably wreck his marriage and numerous other things..Murdered? where is the intent? Yes there should be a price to pay, we cops know that one mistake..if its bad enough..is going to result in all this. But riots and demands for immediate lynching is ridiculous.



Arch, one mistake can cost anyone their job and marriage if its a big enough mistake.  

I think in all the hubbub, the people of Oakland missed the fact that the policeman in question resigned on Wednesday.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 9, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Lynched perhaps not, but any "civilian" who shot and killed someone in such circumstances would definitely have been arrested and held, and a high bail set.


 
Except that police officers are expected to use deadly force when necessary as part of their jobs. They have to intervene in situations that may result in a shooting. Civilians are not. That is why police involved shootings are handled differently. Should all cops who shoot someone be arrested immediately until its proven that it was justified? Bail is set to assure the appearance of a subject, not as punishment.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Arch, one mistake can cost anyone their job and marriage if its a big enough mistake.


 
True but most peoples jobs dont include being expected to to shoot people who require it.


----------



## Carol (Jan 9, 2009)

Arch, what is going to happen to the investigation now that the policeman has resigned?  If he is not on the force anymore then he cannot be part of the investigation, yes?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 9, 2009)

Well the shoot occurred while on-duty so it will continue to be investigated as such. No officer involved in a shooting would be involved in investigating that shooting anyway. Most are placed on paid leave while the investigation takes place. The guy probably resigned because this was an obvious **** up and he either did it out of remorse, was given an ultimatum by the dept or a combination.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 9, 2009)

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW and run off into the hills, or wherever. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I _do_ know - when a man like my client is shot and killed by a subway cop while lying prone on the ground, then his family is entitled to no less than twenty-five million in compensatory damages. Thank you.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Should all cops who shoot someone be arrested immediately until its proven that it was justified?



If they shoot an unarmed, restrained, prone suspect?  Yes.



Archangel M said:


> Bail is set to assure the appearance of a subject, not as punishment.



Cops can flee too.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 9, 2009)

This is the least grainy angle I have seen:

*warning, link shows the shooting and isn't suitable for everyone*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tmh9B8LVxM&annotation_id=annotation_235914&feature=iv

Whatever the reasons this happened, this is a very bad situation. It is sad for the young man that was killed and his family.

The officer will be punished for his actions. Any way you slice this, it is only a matter of gravity of punishment based on what comes out from the court case. In the unlikely case that it was an intentional execution, he would obviously be facing murder charges. But in the more likely case that he intended to taze the person and ****ed up, it is still a negligent discharge that cost a persons life. And unfortunatily, there is no good excuse for a negligent discharge like this.

As to the money; well, no amount of money will bring the guy back. But, they should get something; but I would guess no more then the same amount that an average officers family would get (via insurance offered and whatever benefits the state provides) if he were killed while on duty. 25 mil is a bit excessive, it seems.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 9, 2009)

Cruentus said:


> As to the money; well, no amount of money will bring the guy back. But, they should get something; but I would guess no more then the same amount that an average officers family would get (via insurance offered and whatever benefits the state provides) if he were killed while on duty. 25 mil is a bit excessive, it seems.


 
Can you say _"punitive damages?"_ I knew you could.

In all seriousness, the city will make a generous offer to settle. For a lot. Whether they take it or not is up to their attorney, but I bet they'll wind up taking "an undisclosed settlement."

Thanks for the video, btw. Even without sound, I could hear the _"Holy ****!"_


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 9, 2009)

Question: When did a tragic event become an acceptable means of becoming rich? 

Show me some proof that this fellow would have provided 25 million to his family in his lifetime and I may agree with it. 

This type of mentality is what's led to a multi-billion dollar industry that used to be shunned....the ambulance chaser...sorry..the personal injury attorney. 

I'm not trying to come off as insensitive, I do have genuine sympathy for the victim's loved ones but...

Money doesn't grow on trees. Especially when people are suing an agency funded by tax dollars...do I have to spell that one out for you? It's not the police department that will suffer; it's the tax-payer. 

Frivilous law-suites have also lead to increased prices for goods and services in all industries. 

It's tragic that this fellow lost his life, but it's also tragic that people see this sort of thing as an opportunity to get rich.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 9, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Question: When did a tragic event become an acceptable means of becoming rich? *snip!*
> It's tragic that this fellow lost his life, but it's also tragic that people see this sort of thing as an opportunity to get rich.


 
The _lawyer_ sees the opportunity to get rich. A litigious society _provides_ the opportunity.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 9, 2009)

elder999 said:


> The _lawyer_ sees the opportunity to get rich. A litigious society _provides_ the opportunity.


 
Exactly. When did either become ethically acceptable in our society? That could be the topic of a good research paper for Sociology.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 9, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Exactly. When did either become ethically acceptable in our society? That could be the topic of a good research paper for Sociology.


 

It's questionable whether the *are* _ethically_ acceptable. The fact remains that they are _legally_ acceptable-and, more to the point, expected. If it wasn't the first thought upon receiving the news, for most Americans, it was surely the second thought that _"That's gonna co*$*t_!"


----------



## Carol (Jan 9, 2009)

Most politicians are lawyers so attempts for tort reform get crushed by lawyers protecting their own.  

"Tort law is the name given to a body of law that addresses, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs not arising out of contractual obligations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 9, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> If they shoot an unarmed, restrained, prone suspect? Yes.


 
Based on what? An internet video? There are many situations where what we saw may have been justified.. a gun in a waistband..a movement not visible via a cell video. 

The cop should be placed off-duty while an investigation takes place and if the DA determines it needs to go to a grand jury and they "yes bill" it because it looks like a "bad shoot" then its up to the DA to determine if bail is appropriate.

Not because a bunch of yahoos on the internet or on the street demand it or start riots.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Based on what? An internet video? There are many situations where what we saw may have been justified .


 
Nope, sorry. It looks like it wasn't justified  to the cops standing right next to him. It sounds an awful lot, since he resigned, and his commander has reported him as being "inconsolable," like it wasn't justified to the officer that did the shooting. Frankly, it's growing more and more obvious, based on eyewitness statements, the video, and the behavior of the authorities, that it wasn't one of those "many situations" you speak of.Hard  to imagine that it was any of those, since one thing that is clear from the videos available is that the person who was shot was compliant, prone, and in the process of being restrained, and the one thing that is clear from the aftermath is that he was unarmed.


----------



## Carol (Jan 9, 2009)

Study Explores Threats Posed By Prone Suspects



> One of the most dangerous positions a suspect can assume on the ground is prone with his hands tucked under his body, either at chest or waist level. What&#8217;s hidden in those hands? And if it&#8217;s a gun, how fast can he twist and shoot if you&#8217;re approaching him?
> 
> 
> This month [1/09], the Force Science Research Center, in cooperation with Indiana University and the Northeast Wisconsin Technical College, will launch the first study of its kind in an effort to clearly define your risk and, hopefully, identify your best approach tactics in dealing with this common street problem.
> ...


More info on link.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Study Explores Threats Posed By Prone Suspects
> 
> 
> More info on link.


 
THe other thing that's clear from the video is that the subjects hands were controlled, or at least within sight and grasped. It appears as though the officer who did the shooting has actually handcuffed him before drawing his weapon and firing, but you can't be certain-though, in the clip Cruentus posted, they do roll him over and his hands remain behind him, which seems to support this notion.....

This is just a bad, bad, bad thing. The cop ****ed up, pure and simple, whatever the "reason."


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 9, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Nope, sorry. It looks like it wasn't justified to the cops standing right next to him. It sounds an awful lot, since he resigned, and his commander has reported him as being "inconsolable," like it wasn't justified to the officer that did the shooting. Frankly, it's growing more and more obvious, based on eyewitness statements, the video, and the behavior of the authorities, that it wasn't one of those "many situations" you speak of.Hard to imagine that it was any of those, since one thing that is clear from the videos available is that the person who was shot was compliant, prone, and in the process of being restrained, and the one thing that is clear from the aftermath is that he was unarmed.


 
My point was not that this situation was justified. But that arresting a cop after a shoot like this "out of hand" is a knee-jerk reaction. Police shootings are all invesitgated and handled alike. We dont just lock cops up out of hand in a situation like this unless its an obvious case of intentional murder because we may be locking up a cop who was just doing his job properly due to political pressure before a full investigation is completed.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> But that arresting a cop after a shoot like this "out of hand" is a knee-jerk reaction.



It's the standard that the rest of us are held to.  It would be nice if the police were held to a greater, not lesser, standard in this matter than the general public.  After all, as you point out, it is their job.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 9, 2009)

elder999 said:


> This is just a bad, bad, bad thing. The cop ****ed up, pure and simple, whatever the "reason."



Yup. And that is the case. As much as I hate to say it, I unfortunatily cannot find a justifiable defense for this particular officer. The only thing that the courts will sort out is if the lethal discharge was intentional or negligent.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 9, 2009)

Cruentus said:


> Yup. And that is the case. As much as I hate to say it, I unfortunatily cannot find a justifiable defense for this particular officer. The only thing that the courts will sort out is if the lethal discharge was intentional or negligent.


Sadly, I don't think there is a defense.

He ****ed up.  I haven't been able to see the video, though I will say that it is possible for a person to be very resistive and non-compliant without really seeming to be doing much if they simply lock themselves up.  The Taser can be an appropriate tool under those circumstances -- but I just don't think that there's much more to say than "he ****ed up."

I do take exception to Dr. Kirkham's comment that the Taser and the handgun are automatically distinguishable under stress conditions.  The older M26 taser looks and feels and aims a whole lot like a pistol, on purpose.  They kept most of that with the X26, but changed the size enough to make it more easily distinguished.  I think it's telling that they did so...  and that the weak-side, cross draw is encouraged for carrying the Taser.  Dr. Kirkham, unlike many academics, has walked the walk (he actually, after being challenged by some students, took a leave of absence and became a cop) -- but he doesn't do so currently, and didn't work as a cop when the M26 was in use.  While I'm reasonably sure he's handled one -- he hasn't tried to distinguish them on the street.  It's just too big a blanket statement for him to have made.  Note that I am not saying that this is what happened, nor would it excuse the officer, any more than an innocent mistake of not noticing a one-way sign would excuse someone who caused a fatal crash driving the wrong way on a one way street.

But it also doesn't mean the officer's actions rise to criminal behavior.  It's going to be a hell of a mess for the prosecutor and BART civil attorney to sort out.  And that's without any political pressure!


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 10, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Question: When did a tragic event become an acceptable means of becoming rich?
> 
> Show me some proof that this fellow would have provided 25 million to his family in his lifetime and I may agree with it.



25 million is a lot, I agree.  But I do think the family should be entitled at the very least a reasonable settlement based on what could be projected income for the expected lifespan for the man killed.  

But I also have to question as well, why is it acceptable if I say, fail to pay for 6 99 cent downloads of songs that's on Itunes, RIAA can hit me for 500k or more?  That seems to be acceptable damages for a 6 dollar loss... so if the system can inflate things that far for a corporation, why not for an individual?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 11, 2009)

Given the fact that this department recently introduced the Taser within the last few weeks, I strongly suggest an error in thinking he was deploying a Taser as the most likely cause of this incident.

At any rate the issue is one of negligence, and the former officer will be prosecuted for negligent homicide.....and may or may not be convicted.....if he's not convicted he'll be charged in FEDERAL court as the Obama administration pushes the Justice Department to push civil rights charges.

Also, he and the department will be sued in federal court, where they'll win if there isn't an out of court settlement.......$25 million?  Probably ball park at least.


----------



## MJS (Jan 11, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I do take exception to Dr. Kirkham's comment that the Taser and the handgun are automatically distinguishable under stress conditions. The older M26 taser looks and feels and aims a whole lot like a pistol, on purpose. They kept most of that with the X26, but changed the size enough to make it more easily distinguished. I think it's telling that they did so... and that the weak-side, cross draw is encouraged for carrying the Taser. Dr. Kirkham, unlike many academics, has walked the walk (he actually, after being challenged by some students, took a leave of absence and became a cop) -- but he doesn't do so currently, and didn't work as a cop when the M26 was in use. While I'm reasonably sure he's handled one -- he hasn't tried to distinguish them on the street. It's just too big a blanket statement for him to have made. Note that I am not saying that this is what happened, nor would it excuse the officer, any more than an innocent mistake of not noticing a one-way sign would excuse someone who caused a fatal crash driving the wrong way on a one way street.
> 
> But it also doesn't mean the officer's actions rise to criminal behavior. It's going to be a hell of a mess for the prosecutor and BART civil attorney to sort out. And that's without any political pressure!


 
My question is...when was the last time the Dr held a Taser?  If he has either recently or in the past, fine, but if he's basing his opinion off of something he's never done...well, he should keep his opinion to himself, because its comments like he made, that paint a very bad picture in the rest of the uneducated minds.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Given the fact that this department recently introduced the Taser within the last few weeks, I strongly suggest an error in thinking he was deploying a Taser as the most likely cause of this incident.
> 
> At any rate the issue is one of negligence, and the former officer will be prosecuted for negligent homicide.....and may or may not be convicted.....if he's not convicted he'll be charged in FEDERAL court as the Obama administration pushes the Justice Department to push civil rights charges.
> 
> Also, he and the department will be sued in federal court, where they'll win if there isn't an out of court settlement.......$25 million?  Probably ball park at least.


I fear that, as well.  But Eric Holder, Obama's pick for AG, might be a little more reasonable... or he might not.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 11, 2009)

MJS said:


> My question is...when was the last time the Dr held a Taser?  If he has either recently or in the past, fine, but if he's basing his opinion off of something he's never done...well, he should keep his opinion to himself, because its comments like he made, that paint a very bad picture in the rest of the uneducated minds.


I didn't and don't know for sure.  Guessing from his history, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's handled one.  Especially with the extent that he's been called on to be an expert witness on use of force.   But handling one in a courtroom or a classroom is a far cry from handling one under pressure on the street.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I fear that, as well.  But Eric Holder, Obama's pick for AG, might be a little more reasonable... or he might not.



An AG aggressively prosecuting civil rights cases is unreasonable?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 12, 2009)

The officer made a horrible mistake. The case will most likely focus on why his taser was on the same side as his firearm, and on whether he had cause to draw EITHER of those weapons. 

Judging by the video, and I know it's not the most reliable POV, it appears that the suspect was under control. That is the crucial piece of the case. The decision to draw a weapon flows from that. The locations of the weapons on the officer's belt lead to the mistake.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 12, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> 25 million is a lot, I agree.  But I do think the family should be entitled at the very least a reasonable settlement based on what could be projected income for the expected lifespan for the man killed.
> 
> But I also have to question as well, why is it acceptable if I say, fail to pay for 6 99 cent downloads of songs that's on Itunes, RIAA can hit me for 500k or more?  That seems to be acceptable damages for a 6 dollar loss... so if the system can inflate things that far for a corporation, why not for an individual?



When in the world has someone been hit with 500K or more for downloading?

Your point is taken though; however it is impossible to accurately project his lifetime income. I think that going with the amount that would be awarded to an officers family killed in the line of duty based on max insurance policies generally provided. It puts the number between 500K and 1mil.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 12, 2009)

Cruentus said:


> When in the world has someone been hit with 500K or more for downloading?


 
Ok, that was a bit of an exaggeration,the most the RIAA has been awarded thusfar is 150k.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 13, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> An AG aggressively prosecuting civil rights cases is unreasonable?


Was there a deliberate act or an act so wantonly negligent that it violated civil rights?

Should a *federal* case be the first recourse -- or perhaps it should wait until we see what the state does?  Or at least for the investigation to be complete...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 13, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> An AG aggressively prosecuting civil rights cases is unreasonable?


 If he's only doing it for political pandering it is!

It takes an intentional act to deprive someone of their civil rights.....one CAN commit negligent homicide.  I strongly believe this case to be negligent homicide, not an intentional act of homicide.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 13, 2009)

MJS said:


> My question is...when was the last time the Dr held a Taser? If he has either recently or in the past, fine, but if he's basing his opinion off of something he's never done...well, he should keep his opinion to himself, because its comments like he made, that paint a very bad picture in the rest of the uneducated minds.


 Since there HAVE been cases of officers doing exactly that.....the Dr's 'theories' are trumped by reality.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 13, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I fear that, as well. But Eric Holder, Obama's pick for AG, might be a little more reasonable... or he might not.


 You're kidding about Holder, right? :rofl:


----------



## arnisador (Jan 14, 2009)

*Ex-cop charged with murder in Calif. shooting*




> A former transit officer has been charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed black man that set off violent protests, officials said Wednesday.
> 
> Johannes Mehserle, 27, was arrested Tuesday in Nevada and on Wednesday appeared briefly in court, where he waived extradition to California. He was expected to be returned to California later Wednesday.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 14, 2009)

So it begins, for good or ill.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 14, 2009)

I will be interested to see the evidence to support an intentional murder charge, and what the defendant will say about the incident.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I will be interested to see the evidence to support an intentional murder charge, and what the defendant will say about the incident.


 I predict a plea bargain to manslaughter......but this case isn't going to trial for the next couple years.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 15, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I predict a plea bargain to manslaughter......but this case isn't going to trial for the next couple years.


 
The good old "charge high" tactic.


----------



## spectrex (Jan 15, 2009)

Big Don said:


> A deputy sheriff one county over had exactly the confusion you describe, of course the suspect was kicking, swearing and spitting at her when she shot him.




yeah just not this time.... it lokks like an execution, for which the cop gets prison time and deserves it.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 15, 2009)

spectrex said:


> yeah just not this time.... it lokks like an execution, for which the cop gets prison time and deserves it.


 
"Looks" is the key word here. We dont judge based solely on how a situation "looks". There is a LARGE difference between an unjustified killing and intentional murder. And nobody is in "prison" yet.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> "Looks" is the key word here. We dont judge based solely on how a situation "looks".


 
OH MY GOD.

If we go thru things like the good cop bad cop thread all we hear about is how cops make judgements based on how things look. The way you dress, the way you appear to be acting etc...

Please.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 15, 2009)

Spare me.."judgement calls" on the street by a cop are way different from convicted/judged in a court of law. Intentional or accidental, this cop was wrong..nobody has said otherwise.

Dont be a hater.


----------



## Carol (Jan 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The good old "charge high" tactic.



Sarge and Arch, how often does that happen?  

I read murder and thought that was too high for the incident, and wondered if this will end in a mistrial and allegations of corruption.  (Then again that could happen if they put him up for manslaughter.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 15, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Sarge and Arch, how often does that happen?
> 
> I read murder and thought that was too high for the incident, and wondered if this will end in a mistrial and allegations of corruption.  (Then again that could happen if they put him up for manslaughter.


It's pretty routine.  As a rule, I almost always charge the highest or most serious charge I can, as well as often charging as many charges as I think I reasonably can.  I know that the prosecutor will probably deal, if they can.  So I want to give them as much to work with as I can.

I'm not talking about stacking charges purely to stack them, or looking at the facts to get the most serious charge I possibly can.  The charges have to be reasonable and make sense, based on the totality of the circumstances.  In other words, I'm not going to push for charging someone with attempted murder just because they said "I'm gonna kill you" and pushed someone.  Now... if they pushed them off a multi-story parking garage, or in front of an oncoming semi... different situation.

The charges are a tool.  In this case, there's room for a murder charge; the officer did intend to use force of some level, and clearly reached for something.  I believe and hope he intended to use a Taser...  which is why manslaughter or negligent homicide is probably an appropriate place to end up, unfortunately.  Meanwhile -- you can be sure he'll be sued for wrongful death to the tune of several million, at least.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> "Looks" is the key word here. We dont judge based solely on how a situation "looks". There is a LARGE difference between an unjustified killing and intentional murder. And nobody is in "prison" yet.





Cryozombie said:


> OH MY GOD.
> 
> If we go thru things like the good cop bad cop thread all we hear about is how cops make judgements based on how things look. The way you dress, the way you appear to be acting etc...
> 
> Please.



Appearances or "how things look" is PART of what may call a cop's attention to you.  Perhaps you'll recall that the cops follow that initial suspicion based on appearances with an investigation to confirm or dispel the suspicions...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The good old "charge high" tactic.


 Oh yeah!

Though in defense of the prosecutors, the murder charge is the one applicable at this point.......as the former officer has not even given a statement that offers a defense......I believe very much this was a negligent discharge resulting from grabbing his gun instead of the Taser......but without him injecting the issue there, it's only speculation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> OH MY GOD.
> 
> If we go thru things like the good cop bad cop thread all we hear about is how cops make judgements based on how things look. The way you dress, the way you appear to be acting etc...
> 
> Please.


 You're not convicted based solely on those things.......lets not start CONVICTING police officers, based on the standards you feel they use to make arrests.......arrest and conviction are two different issues.

In essence it's apples and bowling balls.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Sarge and Arch, how often does that happen?
> 
> I read murder and thought that was too high for the incident, and wondered if this will end in a mistrial and allegations of corruption.  (Then again that could happen if they put him up for manslaughter.



No, on the face this is a murder charge......the video supports the charge, even if that's not what is convicted on.......and since the officer has not yet made any sort of statement, the video and statements of other officers and witnesses are the only source.

Ultimately this former officer will inject his defense........but in the mean time the charge is, correctly, murder.

I still predict a plea in a year or two to manslaughter.......and then the morons and race baiters will burn the city down because they don't think manslaughter is enough......


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> It's pretty routine.  As a rule, I almost always charge the highest or most serious charge I can, as well as often charging as many charges as I think I reasonably can.  I know that the prosecutor will probably deal, if they can.  So I want to give them as much to work with as I can.
> 
> I'm not talking about stacking charges purely to stack them, or looking at the facts to get the most serious charge I possibly can.  The charges have to be reasonable and make sense, based on the totality of the circumstances.  In other words, I'm not going to push for charging someone with attempted murder just because they said "I'm gonna kill you" and pushed someone.  Now... if they pushed them off a multi-story parking garage, or in front of an oncoming semi... different situation.
> 
> The charges are a tool.  In this case, there's room for a murder charge; the officer did intend to use force of some level, and clearly reached for something.  I believe and hope he intended to use a Taser...  which is why manslaughter or negligent homicide is probably an appropriate place to end up, unfortunately.  Meanwhile -- you can be sure he'll be sued for wrongful death to the tune of several million, at least.



I completely agree.......on the suing end, suing him will be irrelevant as he's likely got zero assets, or he won't by the time his defense from criminal charges is done.

The big lawsuit will be against the department for failure to properly train and supervise.......I suspect a settlement on that to the tune of several million dollars.


----------

