Video of California police shooting spurs investigation

[Carol]

* 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]

* 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]

* 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]

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]

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]

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.

The officer remains free and has not been charged with any wrongdoing. And some experts have questioned whether he fired his gun deliberately or mistakenly believed he was using his stun gun instead.

At a rally Wednesday attended by hundreds of people, Shawanda Thomas held a fluorescent yellow sign that read: "Oscar Grant: Murdered! The Whole Damn System is Guilty."

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."

But George Kirkham, a professor of criminology at Florida State University who also viewed the footage, said he finds that hard to believe because most Taser stun guns do not look or feel like pistols, and the officer fired in a manner consistent with a handgun, not a Taser.

Kirkham, who works as an expert witness in criminal cases, speculated the officer fired because he thought he saw something in Grant's waistband or pocket that appeared to be a gun or other type of weapon.

"It's not believable that any officer can mix up a Taser and a firearm," said Kirkham, who has examined almost 500 police shootings over the past 30 years.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Cops can flee too.

 

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.