"Citizen videos" spread online showing BART police officer shooting unarmed man to death
(Warning, explicit content: the video below shows a man being shot to death).
In the early hours of New Year's Day, 27-year-old BART police officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed 22-year old Oscar Grant. A number of people who were riding the BART train that night witnessed the shooting, and shot video or photos on handheld cameras or phones. The victim's family today filed a lawsuit for $25 million. Five days after the shooting, the accused officer still has not given a statement. He is said to be have received death threats and authorities are apparently moving him from place to place to protect him from harm. Some people are speculating the shooting may have been an accident -- the officer may have grabbed his gun by mistake because he thought he was instead grabbing a Taser device. I have operated both devices, though certainly not in those extreme stress conditions, and I find that argument hard to understand. The weapons are so different. Snip from SF Chron article, to that point:
[Use-of-force training and research firm founder Bruce Siddle] said changes in how the brain processes information in a stressful situation might have led the officer to mistake the butt of his service weapon for the Taser. But other experts found the idea that the shooting resulted from such a mix-up hard to believe.The fact that so many videos and images are surfacing in this case is significant, because each set of images provides a different view of the killing, with different visual information. Snip from that same SF Chron article:"That's as reflexive as you getting in on the driver's side of the car (instead of) the passenger side if you want to drive it," [Florida criminologist George] Kirkham said. "There's no remote similarity to a conventional firearm. ... The Taser is just like apples and oranges."
Roy Bedard, who has trained police officers around the world, advanced a different theory after his first viewing of the video: that the shooting was a pure accident, a trigger pulled because of a loss of balance or a loud noise.I first heard about the story from Jake Appelbaum's blog: BART Police (in Oakland) murdered a man on NYE. Here is one video (nsa.org). Here is another released by a Bay Area CBS affiliate -- first, we see the entire, raw footage a 19 year old eyewitness shot on her camcorder, then we hear her explain what she saw and experienced -- she says a female BART police officer tried to forcibly confiscate her camcorder.But in an indication of how the videos might move the investigation, Bedard reached a different conclusion after viewing the shooting from a different angle.
"Looking at it, I hate to say this, it looks like an execution to me," he said. "It really looks bad for the officer. ... We have to get inside his head and figure out what he was thinking when he fired the shot."
Here is still another video (YouTube), and many YouTube users are annotating and re-uploading video to offer amateur opinions on what's going on, and who did what, why.
Update: via Feministe, "There is a protest planned for today from 3-8 PM PST at the Fruitvale BART station, and another one being planned for Saturday."
the latest
latest episodes
I've asked once before, what are we actually doing about this shit? Uploading all this video, while graphic, is a perfectly good start.
Keep it up.
Blame the victim comments in 3... 2... 1...
"Stop resisting!"
im sure something happened off camera that completely justifies this fine officer's executioner-esque actions.
the police will investigate the police. They will be cleared of all wrong-doing. As usual.
Not in San Francisco.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Oh, right. I think we're supposed to guard the guards. We need to take back our ceded powers. Yes, documenting crimes of police officers is a good first step, but little will change for the better until it's possible to fire a police force and hire a different one. Grant monopoly power to anyone or any group and suddenly you find there's very little you can do when the barrel wrongly gets pointed in your direction.
I watched the CBS video and now understand where the actual shooting takes place, but can I request that someone post a YouTube minute/time the shooting happens.
And yes, this is appalling and sick. The S.F. Gate article on the cop not giving a statement says he is a "two-year veteran". Really? Two years makes you "veteran"? If the cop is mainly a public transportation cop, that means he has practically no experience compared to a regular street cop... Rake me across the coals, but every MTA cop I have ever seen in NYC is wet behind the ears. Cops on the street see more and do more and know how to react.
Good lord is this sad and a mess.
#5 Takuan, we've argued about the police before. but he straight up murdered that kid. Thats my bart station. If the cop is cleared you can bet there'll be a riot.
I'm not trying to say what happened had any good explanation, nor saying that I am a cop. (Probably because neither is true.)
However, I have had the minimum amount of training required to be given a gun by the federal government and roam the countryside all by myself. Scary, eh? Anyway, in the Firearms Training Simulator (FATS - it's an awesome video game) one of the scenarios has someone coming at you with a motorcycle helmet as their only weapon and on my first run through I shot the person toot sweet. Adrenaline is not usually your friend. I wonder if like so many of us, the officer himself thought of himself as Cop Lite, and didn't have enough experience or training to be successful in that situation. Still, even with just a helmet, someone running towards you is mightly different than someone on the ground.
I hope there is a clean and quick investigation and clear and open trial. And that whatever the outcome, BART police receive a lot more training. Cops in general receive so much training on guns that it makes all other trainings pale, and I think that should change. The majority of the training should be focused on the majority of how they spend their time: driving, crowd control, hiring defense lawyers, non-lethal force, etc.
I'm thinking of making a lapel pin or button of some sort that says "Don't forget Officer, we are watching back now." or something to that effect...
Cory could probably come up with the best wording.
@jack
If you click the nsa.org link there's a local newscast. The second video shown during the story is from inside the train, and the tv station highlights what to watch in a big oval.
#10 POSTED BY CRAYONBEAM , JANUARY 6, 2009 11:38 PM
Training isn't the issue. It's defusing the "blue wall of silence" that makes cops feel there's one thing they are "trained" to do and there's another thing they "should" do.
There's no way to completely eliminate that kind of politics, but you can minimize it if the punishment is swift and clear.
The sad thing is not only did the victim have a kid, the cop's wife now has a newborn in the middle of this.
Two other lives that barely understand the world have been scarred for life thanks to this mess.
Holy shit, that's four or five stops away from me. I've been seeing handmade signs around but hadn't looked into it yet.
I gotta say I agree with Capt. Tim - if this guy goes free, there will be riots.
Every year, law enforcement becomes more and more corrupt. I wish there were more exposure of the way they were acting during Hurricane Ike. I watched a man get arrested for charging his cell phone (with permission) in front of a CVS ten minutes before the curfew they were enforcing. Police Officers seem to think they rule the roost, and they do.. because no one does anything about it.
oops, a ps:
One way to custodiet ipsos custodes is to sign up for your local Community / Citizen's Police Academy. Many cities have them, including San Francisco and Oakland. They're free; just a time commitment. You don't need to do push-ups or eat doughnuts to take part.
This will give you insight into most aspects of police officer training. In SF, you get to try FATS and the driving simulator, as well as seeing demonstrations and hearing information that is exactly the same as what new recruits are taught, plus ask questions of the officers who train them.
If you don't have time for that, contact your local station about doing a ride-along.
"Every year, law enforcement becomes more and more corrupt. "
I think things like this have always gone on, but in the past it would have been the words of several police officers against those of a few people they were arresting. The cameras change the dynamic quite a bit - Rodney King was a harbinger of things to come.
@boingboing
as a request, could you edit the entry to have the warning BEFORE the video and in bold ?
I first saw a video of this yesterday , and it was incredibly disturbing. I'm glad that people are linking to it all over - but when i got it from a friend, I clicked thinking I'll see a few seconds of police brutality and the fucked up stuff would not be there. It is. And very clear.
I don't know if this is the same video that i saw, but the one I saw was literally and clearly watching police hold someone down , and shoot them in the back.
@#16 POSTED BY CRAYONBEAM
What exactly are you suggesting? Because a cop executed a man for no reason people should spend time "getting to know" police training by doing ride alongs?
Excuse me, but why should anyone have to see any training to better understand things?
This officer killed a man who was face down and restrained AND had lots of other cops around him.
Don't suggest people waste their time. Anyone in S.F. has better things to do. Like protest and be active in any supportive way they can to get this cop off the streets and pushing a broom or something more productive.
so not cool
no riots followed this:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hbLG_sW7Xv0yYj5qNTIt1otyEGZA
Another reason to have Qik or similar video streaming software on your phone -- kinda hard to confiscate the video if its already on the net.
Jack,
I think crayonbeam's point is that cops would have a hard time doing anything illegal if they had citizens sitting in the squad car with them. In a perfect world, we'd have a civilian observer in every cop car.
every moment of a cops day should be recorded. video and audio. it should be able to be pulled and examined in the event of a citizen complaint.
if i as a tech support rep can have my activity monitored for customer satisfaction, law enforcement should be doubly so.
@takuan
Because Tasers are safe, Silly.
they will delay and delay. By the the time a trial arrives, if there is a trial, the emotional momentum will be gone and the acquittal will stir a few angry letters and some hostile glares.
Takuan,
This is what happens in case of a false acquittal in the Bay Area. The citizenry takes its rights very seriously.
This happened right near my hometown, while I was home for the holidays, and it freaked me the fuck out. We grew up making fun of the BART cops behind their backs for not being real cops. I had no idea they even carried guns.
I'm not watching snuff videos, and I'm certainly not going to defend ayone here, but this:
"That's as reflexive as you getting in on the driver's side of the car (instead of) the passenger side if you want to drive it,"
I've actually done before. And probably under a lot less stress.
yeah, which was followed by a police riot (that they got away with)
nope, they'll just stall and stall. Maybe all the witnesses will "die".
any charges filed against the police woman that tried to destroy the evidence?
*shiver*
Request unicorn chaser.
just checked the dates, Milk was murdered six months before the White Night Riots. I'm sure they learned their lesson and will stretch the process out to at least one year or longer. Or you never know, if they decide this two year guy is not worth it, maybe he will "kill himself in remorse" and the problem will go away for the department.
@ #33 Takuan
Or you never know, if they decide this two year guy is not worth it, maybe he will "kill himself in remorse" and the problem will go away for the department.
Which would be even worse, especially considering that the cop in question had new kid born just a couple of days after the shooting.
Pretty messed up situation all around :/
you are thinking like a human. The old dragons that will debrief this 27 year old father with a new baby and life insurance are master dealers in physical and mental/emotional coercion. He won't even know what is happening.
This is what they will have to do to me someday to get me to shut up.
If he gets off lenient, just farm out his information to 4chan and let them grief him for a while. I can think of 5 or six ways to screw up his life that don't require leaving home, and I'm nowhere near as messed up as the /b/tards
he is not the problem. Omerta is.
Call the BART police to complain about the officers' conduct and demand immediate action:
Internal Affairs: Sergeant David Chlebowski
Chief of Police: Gary Gee
Call them toll free and press the last four digits of the phone number you wish to reach.
What a sad situation.
The buzz out there is that the cop (btw, why are they called "veterans"? I find that somewhat disturbing...) might have mistaken his firearm for his taser. And apparently, training is (as indicated) woefully inadequate.
Is it me or are cops shooting and killing more unarmed citizens these days? (see: Inglewood, CA) I remember now-quaint stories of NYC cops who went their whole careers without ever firing a shot.
It feels like police officers in North America have been getting away with more and more recently.
This is troubling and wrong. If he's not convicted of murder he and his family deserve whatever they have coming to them.
I mean, if the justice system is not just - then what's the point?
Please do not post telephone numbers in comments.
For those struggling to work out what went on from that clip (I did), here's the news clip mentioned in #12, with a better angle, commentary and simple graphics. (The footage is from about 1 minute onwards.)
The shooting in this footage is from around 1:15. with the shot at around 1:19. At 1:20, you can see the guy (the one behind) look up, look down, look up, briefly raise his hands to his face, then start looking like he's checking if the guy's OK.
It's hard to tell, but to me the body language post-shooting says "Oh my God, what have I just done?"
I do wonder about the mistaking gun for taser theory. I recall, many years ago, they were considering arming the South African Police with taser dart guns. They explicitly cited the danger of an officer mixing the two up and applying lethal force when (s)he meant to apply nonlethal as a major factor giving them pause.
The other cops stood back just as he was about to shoot. Question is, was this to avoid powder burns, or to avoid being shocked by contact with the victim?
Then again, just tazing a guy lying on his stomach on the ground is excessive force. Once he's there, he isn't going anywhere.
I doubt he meant to shoot the guy with his firearm, but the police should be trained never, ever to use their firearms unless necessary. (Or better still, most cops should just not be armed.)
"and his family"?
as mentioned in #17, it is not that it is more common,it is just better noticed. Time for the camera coverage to be total.
r w sppsd t b trgd tht cnvctd drg dlr gt sht?
'call to complain' LOL, you people are funny
Should subway cops even have guns in the first place?
I'm going with Kieran: The guy's body language during the shooting gives no indication he felt he was in the process of killing someone.
I don't think that means he thought he was reaching for a Tazer, however. In situations like this your body tends to react abstractly: STOP THE PERP WITH BULLETS.
Of course, even if the guy wasn't thinking, I'm not talking about exoneration here, in fact quite the opposite. Society needs to kick this guy's ass so that we short-circuit such mindless impulses.
Ok, fair enough, Takuan. But I guess I just meant that anytime someone is willing to use excessive force, they should ultimately think about how it will impact their family.
It's only reasonable to assume that the family of victims will retaliate against the family of perpetrators.
Also, EVIL JIM -> was this drug dealer "convicted"? And if so, who convicted him? Even if he was "convicted" does that mean he deserved to die? And also, outside of criminal law - what makes drug dealers/users "criminals" - and do they deserve the treatment they get by officials?
victims = victim.
I should really proofread. Sorry.
Interesting what's coming up high in the searches: BART cop shoots unarmed man in the head with a shotgun. 1992. (BART police cover it up and he never gets charged. He does hang himself in 1996, and the father of the victim gets a little money in a civil suit, but that's it.)
I'm wondering if the investigation into the killing of Jean Charles de Menendez (London Tube) would have been diffferent if there had been as much citizen journalism as in this case.
@Ryganas
Yes, he was convicted. It's in the first article linked by BoingBoing. He was also sentenced to 16 months in state prison in 2007 after he fled from a traffic stop while armed with a loaded pistol. Ths, th drg dlng, gttng nt fghts n sbwys, tc. ds nt snd lk cmptnt, prdctv mmbr f scty. n thr wrds, n bg lss.
"No big loss" is your value judgement. While I may agree that he was obviously not a "contributing member of society" - I strongly disagree with the notion that even people like him somehow "deserve to die".
That's a value judgement far beyond anything I'd be willing to make and feel content about.
In the UK it's been perfectly acceptable for the police to execute unarmed perfectly innocent civilians for a while now - I thought the US usually led the way with this kind of thing?
Some time recently - pretty sure it was in 2008 - there was a BART meeting at which they discussed the food/drink policy. One board member was pretty fired up about loosening the policy, in response to which the BART police chief played the "Scary scary terrists might bring liquid bombs on board!" fear card. To his/her credit, another board member admonished the BART police chief, rightfully pointing out that the scary terrists are substantially less likely than the average person to adhere to a no food/drink policy. I wish I could find a link to the transcript of this meeting - 5 minutes of Googling and I got nuthin'.
Seems to me that BART police have a history of unprofessionalism. It's all fun and games when they try to use fear to stop us from drinking coffee on the way to work, but in this case it seems to have gotten someone killed. That's not OK.
By the way, drug dealer or not, nobody deserves to be executed the way this guy was executed. We are either a civilized society with the rule of law or we're a bunch of animals killing each other. I choose the former.
Ryganas, I agree. We will never know what we have lost, will we? Though we do know what his family lost.
Evil Jim, I've got an idea. Why don't we give you a gun and a badge and you can kill all no productive members of society. Unemployment is about to hit 8%, get busy.
The ubiquitous cell phone camera/video cam, and security cams, prompted someone on another thread to ask, how many views of the Kennedy assassination would exist beyond Zapruder's lone piece of film if the assassination happened today. Then a response came that the revolution will be televised, by everyone. However, then they restrict or shutdown the web, the same way the GPS system is controlled.
This is why it is critical to those in power that the web be brought under control, and it is equally critical to the other 95% of us that the web remain open and neutral.
For thousands of years the average person was prevented from learning how to read and write. Now the ruling class' worst nightmare is becoming reality, the people of the Earth are starting to communicate and share unfiltered ideas, information, and images across borders, instantaneously. Their control over public opinion is not only vanishing, but being put out of business.
We not only don't need them to read or validate our mark for us, but we are no longer dependent upon them for information. We are becoming a community, with internet access the only frontier.
@Evil Jim
Yes, we should be outraged that a convicted drug dealer was shot in the back by a police officer - because it is illegal: the job of the police is to enforce the laws, and we already have a system of punishment that would probably work quite well if we put enough effort into it. The purity of the victim is irrelevant.
If you're only willing to consider the practical, and not ethical, consequences: if we tolerate an act like this when the victim is a criminal, we'll be at greater risk that someone innocent will be harmed in this way due to a case of mistaken identity. Humane treatment of offenders is important because we often do not know who really is and is not an offender.
If he were shot in the back by one of his fellow criminals, wouldn't you want to see the shooter convicted of murder? The police officer in question should be punished in accordance with the facts - manslaughter, if the shooting was the result of his inadvertently drawing a gun in place of a taser; murder, if the shooting was deliberate, and motivated in some way not including a credible threat to the life or safety of the officer or other person. Only if there were a genuine and credible threat to someone's life and safety should this officer not face criminal prosecution (and from the reports I'm seeing - I won't watch any video showing an actual killing - it sounds like that is unlikely).
Tragic. My prayers are with the family of the victim, and, if it was an accident, the officer involved.
That said, I can't help but notice an interesting contrast between the comments in this post and the comments regarding the "border crossing camera" story (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/01/06/webcam-border-stakeo.html#comments).
In those comments there was an outpouring of, to paraphrase, "we shouldn't encourage citizens to use cameras to to help enforce the law."
In these comments there is much support for, to paraphrase, "citizens should use their cameras to help enforce the law."
I'm sorry folks, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either citizen-driven surveillance of illegal activity is good, or it is bad. Make up your mind.
Big loss or not, the policeman deserves to be behind bars. A basis of law is that it should target anybody, no matter who they are or who are the victims of their actions. If it would be otherwise, maybe people who attacked you, Evil Jim, for contemptuous opinions like that should not be behind bars. Fortunately for all, law, in theory, is applied equally. And they would have to be put in jail, even for such an obvious case of no big loss like you.
I was a little surprised to not find anything much about the taser excuse in the comments here.
I remember there being a lot of posts here about people killed by tasers, or being 'tasered' under questionable circumstances.
I believe the official line on tasers was that they were only supposed to be used in situations where they would use a gun (which should be almost never). So the argument that he was trying to use a taser seems pretty toothless to me, in that the victim didn't seem to be doing anything that would warrant a taser shot either. He appeared to be successfully restrained.
This tragic story could be a good opportunity to revisit taser policy and reduce abuse.
Watching this video I am reminded of the one with the soccer fans going banshee on the thugs disguised as refs. That's what this video from BART needed. Passengers rising up and overpowering these P.O.S.'s
Usually what happens in these situations is that the offending officer declines their right to trial by jury. They then only have to go before a judge who usually lets them off the hook. This kind of thing happens all the time and this time just happens to be on video. Anyway, the minority population in this country has been complaining about these incidents for the last 50 years and we are only starting to believe them now that personal video recoding devices are so readily available. Seriously, take a look at any minority comedian. Every single one of them has a â€getting beat down by the police’ story.
@60 ScissorFighter:
The difference is, as I can best determine, is that most people posting in the other thread you mention, do not believe that people crossing the border to be illegal activity.
Also, despite the video, this man deserves his day in court. As much as I hate it, and as much as after seeing the video I believe his guilt, he deserves time in court. A fair justice-driven court. I doubt we'll see that though. As someone mentioned above he'll either be overcome with remorse or acquitted after a few days of deliberation in a year or two.
Scissor fighter: Citizen video to reveal/report violent crime by Authority - no problem.
Citizen video to catch non-violent fellow peons - big problem.
Spot the difference.
Note too the diff here between the serial-killers' snuff film and this video. Ask the victims' families about this diff, if you are unclear on it.
Scissorfighter- You make an excellent point. On thinking about it, however, I think there's a significant difference between taking a camera out of your pocket to videotape a fracas, and staring at a constant feed from a CCTV camera. In the first instance, the potential for danger has been observed prior to recording, and a conscious effort made to get things on tape: i.e., it's a reactive situation.
In the latter, someone's staring at a tape feed, possibly for long hours, with the preexisting anticipation that they are going to see a crime: i.e., it is a predictive situation. I think the person watching a CCTV feed may be more likely to interpret actions as criminal activity, precisely because they've been sitting on the edge of their seat looking for them.
(And if the above is true, maybe the same could be said for officers on duty. Police may be more likely to interpret someone as posing a danger/being a criminal than the average citizen judging a situation...including themselves, when they are off duty. Which still excuses nothing, here.)
@ #2 Chris Tucker:
Careful, your smug is showing.
You have added nothing of worth to the conversation.
@ Evil Jim:
Y r hypcrt. wndr wht lng lst f drgs y hv ngstd n th pst 48 hrs. Srly sm sbstnc ffctd yr physlgy.
Most drug dealers in this country are well paid and have government contracts. Surely this man's only crime was being black and, perhaps, poor.
This officer, and the abetting ones, surely deserve lengthy prison sentences and should never again see the light of day.
I watched the videos and I'm 99% sure that the rookie officer simply grabbed the wrong weapon. I feel sorry for the officer - starting a family with this on his conscience and his record will be difficult.
This is incredibly sad. Even if the guy were some sort of vile criminal, this is a terrible injustice and a horrible situation all around.
However, and this is probably unpopular, I honestly find it unlikely that an officer would just grab his gun and pop off a shot with so many witnesses around.
I know, I know, our cops are terrible corrupt monsters blah blah blah. But a taser is one thing, and a gun is another entirely. With a taser there is a lot more leeway - only very recently has the view that a taser is an acceptable nonlethal begun to change. So a lot of people still have it in their head that it's okay for officers to use them without restraint. So a cop may go taser happy in front of a room full of people. But it's a BIG jump to have that attitude about a taser and to have that attitude about a handgun.
The guy was killed. point blank, in front of a BUNCH of witnesses. Even if he or she didn't know the witnesses had cameras, I don't believe that even the most corrupt cop would have those kind of huevos, unless he was going to "censor" the rest of the witnesses too. So I'm not buying the idea that this was an intentional execution.
Maybe he was getting out his gun to scare the guy (would have been crazy in my opinion, and in that case he should be charged with negligence and manslaughter) - but I just can't believe that he would have purposefully and intentionally executed someone in cold blood in front of so many people.
according to my reCAPTCHA, we should "charge Kinsella." Whoever that is.
"No big loss"
Perhaps this is the same attitude that contributes to situations like this. If we can't be better than that, then we are all doomed. Every human life has meaning or none do. You can't straddle the fence.
This would not have happened if the police wasn't trained to use tazers as a way to get compliance, instead of as an alternative to lethal force. The tazers should be used as a substitute to the gun in situations where you would normally have used lethal force. Not as a substitute for common sense..
#69:
Two years is a "rookie?" I don't see him fumble; he pulls his service weapon, points, and shoots. As the article above relates, a taser and a service weapon are not the same thing.
He may not have meant to fire, but he certainly pulled his weapon. At best, he created a situation for misusing the weapon.
My heart goes out to Grant's family. It sounds like he had some problems and was trying to straighten out. Despite Evil Jim's parsing of a human life's value, it is sad and enraging that this happened.
ScissorFighter - There is an important differences.
In the case of the border crossings, you're encouraging constant surveillance looking for crimes; in the this case, the recording is reactive to a situation as it is happening. I think that eyewitnesses actually filming someone in the commission of a crime aren't as likely to harass people who aren't actually criminals as those who are engaging in constant surveillance looking for "suspicious activity."
#54 POSTED BY EVIL JIM
Ridiculous. No police officer has the right to execute someone this way no matter what the circumstances are.
Here in NYC, I've seen tons of white collar—and very, very, very white—brokers on coke act like belligerent jerks around "party time"... Whether that be after work or at clubs and bars.
And you know what? I bet 100% none of them have ever been restrained and placed face down on the ground in their lives. Let alone shot in the back by an arresting officer.
And if you're going to play the "no big loss" card I'm pretty sure if you were to take the worst of the brokers who have screwed over people in this country and contributed to the massive recession we're in put them in a bus and drive it of a big cliff it's "no big loss".
Bernie Madoff screws over tons of people, has caused lives to be destroyed, yet he's under house arrest and alive.
A guy gets into what is ultimately a minor scuffle on a subway train and is dead because a rookie cop has no clue what they are doing.
THAT is the problem, Evil Jim.
At 1:16 what you see is an execution.
Also, speaking generally and aside from this video,the screams of stop resisting are very unreliably, as those being detained are often not moving or being moved by one officer while being screamed at by another. It's also standard practice to be loud (yelling/screaming) and forceful/authoritative until the suspect is in custody, and "stop resisting," is just one of those phrases that gets yelled until the cuffs /restraints are on and secure; sometimes it just takes x amount of seconds to detain someone, and if you need to be yelling, rather than an incoherent "aaahhhh," stop resisting sounds goods, regardless of the amount of resisting going on; half the time it comes down to partners mis-communicating, fumbling about and the general tension of the situation, etc, as opposed to active, aggressive resistance. It also sounds good as background noise for a judge if something does end up happening. And I've been told this (more or less) by many friends in law enforcement.
Evil Jim: At least you are living up to your handle. You can now be proud of something.
This is definitely something to be pissed about - nervous rookie or not, these mistakes can not happen, and when they do happen, enough of a stink should be raised that the offending police department is forced to increase standards and training to ensure that this sort of incident doesn't occur again.
Jack, you said:
"Ridiculous. No police officer has the right to execute someone this way no matter what the circumstances are."
AND
"A guy gets into what is ultimately a minor scuffle on a subway train and is dead because a rookie cop has no clue what they are doing."
Pick one
Carry a video recorder in public.
Record police activity, whether it's illegal or not.
Practice standing up to cops who try to stop you.
Use these practices to one day capture serious abuse.
copwatch.org
wikipedia copwatch entry
Evil Jim is a troll. First rule of the interwebs is DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. Sheesh, you guys should know better than that....
zikzak @ #76 - How about this, Carry a video recorder in public, record criminal activity, whether its a thug, a police officer, or both. Use these practices to one day help capture a criminal.
I'm betting you will capture a lot more non police officers committing crimes, but every little bit helps.
By the felony murder law this is a murder. Even if the cop genuinely made a mistake, he was involved in an ongoing felony (excessive use of force, violating civil rights, assault & battery) and any death resulting from the commission of that crime is murder.
For that matter all the cops holding him down are guilty of murder too.
@#75 POSTED BY TOM HALE:
You're splitting hairs on my changing of tone in one description or another. Even if grabbed the taser it would have been a case of abuse. That's why I don't even buy the taser argument: What exactly was a guy who was restrained and immobile doing to cause this to happen?
Ergo, Lynndie England participated in the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison. She was doing so under orders and damaged the lives of others. But the system she was trained under is at fault as well.
Whatever. A man is dead for 100% no valid reason even if the "accident" angle is taken.
Losing eviljimbo would also be no big loss (IMO).
Turnabout on your "judgment" is fair play, as the worth of anyone is beyond your judgment and ken (as to the Law, it in its Majesty has the Wisdom to judge of actions, not of persons), boyo; by your comment, we see quite well what you feel is the worth of human life.
eviljimbo, you describe yourself.
I feel like this is one of those magic eye puzzles. I just don't see a shooting happening. Am I the only one?
Sure Tom, if you want to use your camera for other things as well, that's allowed. In fact, I find carrying a video recorder is useful in all kinds of ways.
Rather than a shitty cellphone camera or an expensive DV cam, I use a hacked disposable digital camcorder: http://www.maushammer.com/systems/cvscamcorder/
That way if it gets lost or destroyed it's no big deal. In fact, if I end up shooting something important, I can pass the camera off to someone else without a second thought to avoid having it seized.
Another interesting tactic is to put postage and your address on the camera, so that you can either drop it in a mailbox immediately (where it's safe from the cops), or slip it to another bystander and say "mail this".
@ 64 Cadfael: Alternately, people might consider illegal immigration a crime, but consider murder or manslaughter (especially at the hands of a government authority) a far worse offense.
Record everything that you cam, let history sort it out.
I second the unicorn chaser request...
While I'm no student of injustice, it strikes me that comments along the lines of "nothing will happen to the officer since these things are always covered up and allowed to die through attrition" is a very cynical position in this day and age, particularly when events such as this one are documented in pictures and videos. I don't think video necessarily equals proof, especially of intent, but it removes a level of abstraction between the event, those who prosecute it, and those who evaluate the results of the prosecution (the citizens). It definitely becomes much more difficult to sweep these types of events under the blue carpet, so to speak. The Rodney King beating and the more recent NYC cop vs. Critical Mass rider come to mind.
I'm hoping this is an accident.
-abs is trying to restrain himself from calling for vigilante action, but stories like this make it hard not to hope someone goes all "V" on our government
The cams take these things beyond the ol' "who ya gonna believe, the cop or the 'convicted drug dealer'/'dirty poor person'" justifications.
Gives them something the cops have to explain, the case now being beyond the simple "Cop A says X, Citizen B says Y, I believe Cop A", which typically a Court would go through, where there is only a cop's word against the citizen's word.
Video cameras making Official corruption and criminality more difficult? Then I'm unequivocally in favor of more of it. Who would not be?
THIS is what I'm talking about when I call for the facts.
Whether or not the officer intended to shoot, panicked, or grabbed his gun instead of his taser, we have proof the incident actually happened the way the story says it did.
This wins a Pulitzer compared to the last cop story on BB.
Something is seriously wrong here. Not even the dumbest, most evil cop is going to execute a guy when surrounded by a large number of other cops and a ton of witnesses.
Some questions I'm interested in hearing answered - does BART even carry tasers? If so, how long had the officer in question been carrying one? The muscle memory statement is invalid if he's only been carrying a taser for a short while and/or had never had to draw it. (My husband's department does not carry tasers, so I can't make any informed comments the topic.)
If they don't carry tasers, then what the fuck was he thinking pulling his pistol? Was he in the military before joining up with BART? That's really the only reason I can think he might have pulled his gun - prior ingrained training.
The whole incident is horrifying regardless of the whys and hows. The repercussions for both families are unimaginable. (I frequently wonder how I would handle it if my husband were involved in a shooting. I only hope I'll never find out.)
I'd also like to comment that this is the first time I've ever seen someone killed on the evening news. That, in itself, is very interesting and worthy of discussion (unless showing people being killed is common in California).
@ #82 Mark: No, you're not the only one. Even after watching this clip and the linked news one a bunch of times, I'm not even sure which cop I'm supposed to be watching. It's dark, blurry, and shaky, and I can barely tell what's going on. Kind of like the last time I had sex. :D
If there's one lesson I've learned in all this, it's that we need to educate the public about better camera techniques.
The cop pulls his gun, aims and shoots. There was no mistake.
@90 BugDog:
From the reports I've read, some BART rent-a-cop's carry tasers, but they don't have enough for everyone. Training in taser use began 3 months ago. When they do wear the taser, it is on the opposite side of their body so as not to confuse the two. It is not clear if the person was carrying a taser and gun, however, even if they were, the two are very different. The gun is 3 times as heavy, and two inches larger (can't remember if that's length or height, sorry).
Even in the heat of the moment it seems difficult to confuse the two, though I can't say as I've never been in that position.
Also, I can't recall what site I read that on, but it was in a statement given by the attorney for the murder victim's family.
Also, along with the BART training for tasers, I found this snippet:
SF Gate:
"Mehserle was a 2006 graduate of the Napa Valley College Criminal Justice Training Center, a 22-week police academy program that includes instruction on how to use force and when to use weapons such as guns, batons, Tasers and pepper spray, said program director Damien Sandoval.
Although low in profile, BART's Police Department is full service and has more than 200 officers who investigate the same types of crimes as their city counterparts. The training standards are the same as well, and the pay is similar."
My apologies for calling them rent-a-cops earlier.
I had not read anything stating they were a full-fledged force.
@geobarefoot: The reason for such cynicism is that even though the mechanisms for gathering and distributing evidence of police crimes to the public is improving, the process for holding them accountable is not - and the process we have almost everywhere is fundamentally corrupt.
Have you heard of "internal review boards"? They're the local entities which are tasked with investigating police crimes and determining whether wrongdoing has occurred. They're also a branch of the police department, so everyone doing the investigating is either a cop or at least on the police department payroll.
The courts usually suspend prosecutions of cops until a review of the incident can be completed, and the result of the review is considered extremely strong evidence. Not surprisingly, since the review is done by the police department itself, it tends to be very forgiving. As in: cops lie to protect other cops.
Now, have you heard of "civilian review boards"? This is a newer concept which was developed to counter the corruption of the above arrangement. It's an independent entity which is supposed to investigate police crimes. Most places don't have one. Some places do, and it's better than nothing, but only marginally.
Unlike IRBs, most CRBs have little or no access to the police or authority to pursue a real investigation. Cops can just refuse to speak to the CRB, give them documents, or cooperate in any way. Additionally, most CRBs have no authority to discipline cops in any way, even suspending with pay.
Essentially, CRBs are usually a token institution that isn't taken seriously by the cops or the courts because they can't do anything.
These things need to change in order to really stop police crime. Public video of crimes will help, but ultimately we need to reclaim civilian control over our local police departments. We need CRBs with teeth.
Seems to me that transit cops shouldn't have guns- at least not all of them. Do they really encounter situations where they need them that often?
And of course, there is the statement that, gun or taser, nothing was happening at that time that warranted the use of ANY weapon. dude already had three people on him and was possible handcuffed (can't really tell). If your training in subduing people isn't good enough where that works, then one questions the training.
Your assumption is just as invalid as Evil Jim's. And just as inflammatory.
There was a mistake. A really bad one. Like bugdog said, if he meant to shoot an unarmed man, he wouldn't have done it in front of lots of other cops and witnesses.
Keep in mind this officer is 27 years old (likely a rookie at that age) and probably didn't get the same quality of training from BART as a SFPD officer would get. Poorly trained police are far more common and far more dangerous than intentionally abusive ones.
@97 WeightedCC:
While I agree on the first part of your statement, it appears that this guy was trained, at least twice, in the usage of deadly weapons. Whether that was as good as a full force training regimen, he was trained and allowed to pass through.
even if he is going for the taser, this is still totally unjustified. Arent tasers supposed to be for self defense? I dont see how someone lying on the ground being subdued by three officers poses much of a threat.
hp th ffcr s tstd fr drgs nd lchl. Th sttn lkd wll ndr cntrl t m, s h mst hv hd n ltrd mntl stts t drw nd dschrg th wrng wpn. t ws r;y Nw Yrs Dy, s h'd prbbly bn prtyng hrd bfr hs shft tht nght nd plc ffcrs r ntrs hrd prtyrs. Wht crm wld h b chrgd wth fr dschrgng frrm whl ndr th nflnc nd ccdntlly kllng smn? ctlly, h wld hv knwngly wnt n dty whl ndr th nflnc, s t wld rlly b n ccdnt wld t?
a) I don't know anything about how BART "officers" are trained, but I've seen this kind of problem before (though never with such a well-documented ending) with the transit cops down here in San Diego. Real cops get at least 6 (but more often 9) *months* of training at the academy. Transit cops here get a week. They don't know what to do in situations like these, they aren't placed in these situations regularly, and they just haven't been properly trained for it. They don't know what the rules are. Ironically, though they have less training, Transit Cops have more protections and less accountability. Because they're not real cops, you can't file a Pitchess motion to take a look at their personnel file, and they often get away with unreasonable searches and seizures because of the security concerns associated with public transit. Say what you will about cops, but I think ridiculously undertrained and undersupervised Transit "Cops" are a serious problem that I hope the legislature will address as a result of this travesty.
b) Can anybody see if the suspect/victim was in handcuffs at the time of the shooting? I can't tell. If he was, then there is no conceivable defense the shooter can raise whatsoever.
c) If I was the shooter's partner (the guy with his knee on the victim's neck), I would be *pissed.* He was *right there.* He should never have shot in the direction of his partner, no matter how serious the threat was. A slightly astray shot, or a bad ricochet, and we'd have a dead cop on our hands, too. Even if, as the hullabaloo is true and he thought he had drawn his tazer, then he shouldn't have fired *that* either, because he ran the serious risk of shocking his partner. More evidence of poor, poor training, I suppose.
Isn't this situation the exact same reason people are rioting in Athens?
@#93 Cadfael
Thanks for the info. I'm not sure that 3 months is long enough to develop muscle memory with an object that he probably hadn't drawn since training. I'm not trying to excuse the officer's actions, believe it or not. I just don't think he shot that kid on purpose and I feel like intent matters.
I do know there's a huge difference between a taser and the pistols cops carry, but in an adrenaline fueled situation, I can see where a mistake could be made. The thing is, this situation looks like it should have been routine, so is training at fault? I'm not a fan of tasers for a large number of reasons, but getting one confused with a pistol has never been a consideration for me.
How could someone make that mistake?
My dad was in the academy with an officer who shot herself in the leg during a night fire exercise. She thought she was turning on her flashlight, but instead pulled the trigger on her pistol. Yes, they were in opposite hands. There should have been no way that she could have confused the two objects, but she did. Some people are just wired wrong.
Of course, if he didn't have a taser, then all this is moot and I'm back to WTF was he thinking...
>> if i as a tech support rep can have my activity monitored for customer satisfaction, law enforcement should be doubly so.
Agree 100%.
It's ridiculous that employees at Wal-mart, McDonald's, the Gap, Blockbuster, or pretty much any business that can get away with it uses surveillance to make sure their employees don't steal burgers, DVDs, or pants, but police more or less operate in secrecy.
Attach cameras to all police from the minute they begin their shift to the minute they're done. Archive all of the video and make it available to all citizens under FOIA. In case anyone recalls, police are no different than any other citizen. That's the way it's supposed to work anyway. They are granted the ability to deploy lethal force purely at the whim and discretion of the people who grant them that authority.
The system is corrupt and will go out of its way to protect "law enforcement officials" from consequences. Any investigation into this will either: 1) absolve the officer, 2) slap his wrist. The only reasonable check is for the citizens to reestablish control over our completely out of control "law enforcement" which is mostly just rent-a-thug for the plutocracy.
And BTW it's not enough to wish or hope for these kind of safeguards to be put on police. We as citizens need to insist, to vote for, demand that this legislation is passed. Of course there will be push back from media shills on behalf of the plutocracy, but fuck the talking heads. Only imbeciles still cull information from CNN, NPR, and other media echo chambers.
In my last post, where I used the words ear;y and would, it should say early and wouldn't.
-Thx
CADFAEL - 22 weeks in a police academy isn't good enough. Maybe it will teach you how to shoot, and give you some textbook scenarios of when to use lethal vs. nonlethal, but let's see how well you do in a panic situation.
People panic and do really stupid things. The only real way to prevent that is experience. The real problem is that new cops are given guns. You should only get the gun after you get promoted.
Rookie cops should not carry lethal weapons. They should be partnered up with one or more senior officers until the job gives them some experience with tense situations.
If only the police had the manpower to do that.
All firearms carried by cops should have video cameras mounted directly on them.
article
As for this fiasco, the victim is face down, on the ground, with a knee on his neck from one cop. The other cop gets up adn shoots point blank? wtf?
Even if the guy was struggling, he's face down, on the ground, with a cop's knee on his neck. That doesn't even justify tasering, let alone firearms.
As for the idea that he thought he was grabbing his taser, they gotta be smoking crack. If the police try to use that excuse to justify letting this cop off, a lot of cops are going to start mistaking their sidearm for a taser in future investigations.
Grant definitely looked cuffed.
Mehserle shot him. It was murder.
What now?
Healing and learning from this tragedy that the overreactions that can arise in an angered state rip open hearts far and wide.
@#99 mightymouse1584
"I dont see how someone lying on the ground being subdued by three officers poses much of a threat."
What I'm about to say is not specific to this case, so keep that in mind.
If someone is on the ground and you can't see where they have their hands, they may be a very large danger. You have, at this point, no idea what they have in their hand, pocket, waistband, etc. Until you can get both hands cuffed, you, your fellow cops and everyone nearby is in danger (potentially, granted, but how do you determine potential danger by looking as someone?).
As for training, cops get the training that their department can afford (or worse, is willing to pay for). You can learn a lot in the academy, but there's no replacement for field training followed by getting out there and doing the job. 2 years on with BART isn't like 2 years on with SFPD. I'd call him a rookie, too.
Seems so strange to me that the CBS station posted a raw interview tape. Never seen a news station do that before.
@Bugdog in #103
Intent matters, for one thing and one thing only, the determination of whether this officer should be in court on a murder or a manslaughter charge.
For any other reason it's irrelevant.
He killed a man who was restrained and on the ground. What he thought or wanted at the time is utterly incapable of changing that fact.
-abs
if he meant to shoot an unarmed man, he wouldn't have done it in front of lots of other cops and witnesses.
say what?
I don't know what exactly happened on this particular incident, but that's just one crazy assumption to be making.
If you think you're cause is right and the other side is evil, you can do all sorts of horrendous and heinous things, and do them proudly, in front of the whole goddamn world.
All the cop has to be thinking is that the victim is "bad", that the cops are "good", that the bad victim is fighting good and righteous cops, and then throw a little spark of fear in there, and presto, self righteous and panicked cop shoots innocent man. On video.
@ 107 GregLondon
Pistolcams. Genius. No cop could even pretend this was a bad thing. And they'd be right, in a lot of cases it would exculpate them from wrongdoing. But they would definitely have to think twice about taking a questionable shot. Win-win.
$700 seems steep, though. Has this company patented this? I can't imagine it would take more than $100 or so to produce.
Ugh. I'm inclined to give the police a considerable benefit of the doubt in use-of-deadly-force situations, but that was murder. Plain and simple.
@106 WeightedCC:
I'm not disagreeing with you at all.
Was the officer given enough training?
a) If yes, why did he fire?
b) If no, why was he allowed to have a gun?
Despite these questions, this guy needs to be prosecuted to the full extent whether he had training or not.
Presuming he wasn't given enough training, but still allowed to have a deadly weapon (aside from a tazer, which is also deadly) then there needs to be outrage directed at BART and the training regimen they provide.
Keep in mind that this isn't the first time Alameda County has been in the middle of controversy after an "officer" shooting.
SF Chron:
"The most recent controversial police shooting in Alameda County happened July 25, when Oakland police Officer Hector Jimenez shot a drunken-driving suspect in the back as the man ran from an early morning traffic stop in the Fruitvale District.
Police said Jimenez shot 27-year-old Mack "Jody" Woodfox III because he thought Woodfox was reaching into his waistband for a gun, although no gun was found. Jimenez gave the same reason for taking part in the fatal shooting New Year's Eve 2007 of another man, Andrew Moppin, who, like Woodfox, turned out to be unarmed."
:(
@greglondon: agreed. it's hard for civilians to grasp the level of superiority and unaccountability towards anyone that cops tend to feel. http://video.aol.com/video-detail/put-this-on-your-website-cops-oinking-away/3367970655
none of the cops had any idea who or what this man was at the time. All they knew is there had been a disturbance or fight on a train full of New Years revelers, they grabbed the usual suspects, tossed them on the ground and waited for more cops in the face of a crowd. The killer had a brain fart, his hands did what his ape-brain wanted,no one there expected it.
It could have happened to any one of you.
@#111 abs
I think we're in agreement on this.
I didn't say he shouldn't be punished. He should be punished accordingly.
Someone needs to clean up the video with that magic software they use on the CSI TV shows.
There's a video on another site that shows the victim on the ground, and it looks like his hands are tied behind his back. Then the cop gets up, and it looks like the shot went off before the cop was fully standing. i.e. he pulled his gun in a panic and fired, or he pulled his gun out of stupidity and accidentally fired.
After the shot, the partner who had his knee on the victims neck jumps up. The shooter looks at his partner for a second and seems to freeze. Like he just realized how seriously he just fucked up. The shooter doesnt' move, but his partner bends down to look at the victim.
then the shooter bends down and is doing something with the victim. exactly what,I can't tell. But they're rolling him over, and a few seconds later, I can see the victim's arm is out to the side.
The question is, did the cop just uncuff the victim so he could claim the victim wasn't cuffed, had a free hand, and could be a threat?
Do we need recorders on police handcuffs now too?
As a side note, keep in mind that these same "officers" tried to confiscate, forcefully, cel phones and video recorders.
the level of superiority and unaccountability towards anyone that cops tend to feel.
Actually, I wasn't limiting it to just cops. Anyone can do that.
Takuan - No, I don't allow myself to be in that sort of situation. Even back when I partied on New Years or any other opportunity that presented itself, when there was trouble - fights - I made sure I wasn't around when the police arrived. The one time I was arrested was for littering on a public beach at Gulf Shores. Yes, arrested and taken to jail for littering during spring break 1985 - I was drunk - good times!
@95 zikzak
I completely agree with you. Oversight is one thing and accountability is another. This has been a hot topic here in San Jose, CA recently:
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/entries/a_new_model_of_police_oversight/
What I should have said is that video/photos + unfiltered mass media (the Internet) *should* attenuate cynicism with time. The combination is a powerful, and more importantly, non-institutional force that must be reckoned with. Plausible deniability becomes much more difficult.
On a related note, can anyone here speak to the public's access to the ever-burgeoning CCTV system in the UK? Has/can footage be acquired and used in cases related to police misconduct?
interesting Tom, you do understand the statement was phrased to elicit a response? Very interesting you choose the victim instead of the shooter.
Yeah - I realized, "It could happen to any one of you," could be applied to a victim or a killer. I can't see myself pointing a gun at someone I didn't intend to kill, so of course I chose a victim's point of view. Then again, I'm not in law enforcement.
"Are we supposed to be outraged that a convicted drug dealer got shot?"
If you don't protect everyone's rights, your rights are the next to go.
at the time, the shooter had no idea of the victim's record.
That's got to be the most cowardly shit I've ever seen. His newborn might be better off without him.
the others they had handcuffed would have watched the entire thing from a few feet away. Their testimony will tell the tale.
cubie, it amazes me that even when i somewhat agree with you, you still come off sounding dickish. amazing.
Require camera's on police guns.
Small and cheap; under the barrel.
Start recording audio and a video when the safety goes off (in a loop). store it when the trigger is pulled (5 seconds before and after)
Time to watch the watchers.
The Animal Cop.
Ah, Kid Creole & The Coconuts.
Heartbreaker.
Ah, The Rolling Stones.
Rock on.
So, why didn't the shooter's fellow officers immediately place the cop under arrest?
What, it wasn't obvious to them that he had just shot someone for no reason? Or is that not a crime when a cop does it?
#29 -- I came here to say the exact same thing. Several times, I've accidentally walked up to the passenger door of my car when I intended to drive.
I'm more concerned about this: http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/5692/187/, and, in particular, what it spells out for the future of ubiquitous 'two-sided' surveillence.
maybe they should have a minimum standard for police so they don't mix up their gun and cellphone then.
"Are we supposed to be outraged that a convicted drug dealer got shot?"
Yes.
@132: because the very first thing that went through the heads of the other cops was: "oh shit, one of US fucked up BIG time, how are we gonna cover this up? If we don't successfully bury this, we could be next,plus all the other cops will think we're assholes for not covering it up, quick,act normal,get the cameras, compromise the witnesses, plant that throw-down and the baggie of crack on the closest, damage control!, if this sticks, how can I get clear myself?, what's this guy worth to us anything? has he got anything on me?"
Seems like a lot but all that ran through the nearest to the shooter cop's head in about one second.
@Javreeder in #132
Of course if a cop does it it's not illegal, just ask a cop.
-abs doesn't like it, but can't deny it
at 2:18
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibxs_2nDXUc
" #67 posted by FredicvsMaximvs , January 7, 2009 6:09 AM
@ #2 Chris Tucker:
Careful, your smug is showing.
You have added nothing of worth to the conversation."
And YOU have?
Primate, PLEASE!
Note that there were indeed blame the victim posts. Including the one from the troll that thought it was a good thing that the victim was murdered.
I count a full 5 seconds from hand on holster to trigger pull. Tell me again that it's reasonable to believe that he thought he wasn't holding his gun.
Abs, just ask a better cop.
Tom,
I'm giving you a week off for deliberately trying to upset people. By your own previous admission, you find trolling somewhat irresistible. Next time it will be 30 days, then 90.
This is kind of a personal story for me. My son's best friend was on that train and witnessed this tragedy. He was just coming home from the Les Claypool New Years Eve concert in SF when the train stopped at the Fruitvale station. He told us that the cops pulled these gentlemen off the train and everyone on the platform and on the train witnessed the shooting. No one could believe their eyes. The victim was not resisting arrest, was unarmed and to B's eyes at least, appeared to be cooperative. He was not even handcuffed until after he was dead. BART security chief Gee told the news media (KTVU-TV) that this is standard BART policy (i.e., that handcuffs are affixed to a suspect only after they are subdued).
What B told us that has not been widely reported was that another BART officer began confiscating cell phones and digital cameras from everyone on the platform immediately after the shooting. Whether this was to collect evidence or prepare for a cover-up I will leave to the jury, but confiscating private property from customers does not sound to me like standard BART policy, especially when said property contains evidence of a crime.
The Oakland Tribune reported later that BART surveillance cameras at the Fruitvale station did not record any footage of the incident, or the angle of view did not give a clear picture of what happened. How convenient.
Fortunately for justice, there were apparently plenty of passengers on the train recording the scene on their own, and they were cautious enough to hide their property to avoid having it confiscated when the police later swept through the cars trying to seize mobile phones and cameras. Two witnesses over the weekend made copies of their videos and leaked them to the news media (which is where all the most shocking footage has appeared). Now, there are even more people coming forward and posting recordings of the event from multiple angles, and the more I see of them, the more shocking the whole thing appears. I'm sure we'll probably never see the footage recorded from the cameras collected by the police at the scene.
Another ironic twist to this story is BART's new "snack-n-snitch" campaign (my own personal name for the policy). Beginning on January 2, 2009 (the first business day after the holiday), they began a public awareness promotion encouraging passengers to report violations of the "No Food or Drink" policy by taking cell phone photos of other passsengers who commit such crimes as bringing coffee cups and bagels onto the trains. They have posters in the stations encouraging passengers to take pictures of these scofflaws and send them to BART headquarters to shame people enough to dump their coffee cups before they go through the turnstiles.
Can we skip the BART Cop as "Rent-a-Cop" nonsense? They're sworn officers of the state and need to be held to the same standards as if this guy had been CHP or LAPD or whatever. BART police may be not as well trained, but let's not undercut their commission. If anything, that would make him seem less culpable. And he's not.
@142
so there clearly WAS a police conspiracy to conceal murder. Maybe there will be riots after all.
I have been saying for years that if a police officer has a Taser (the one that fires the darts, not the stun gun only kind) on his or her belt that he should not also have a pistol, as the gun-like Taser is too easy to confuse with the pistol in a stressful situation.
Yes, in good lighting, and even at the range, it's easy to tell the two apart, but it's also easy to confuse them. And in a high stress situation? Why make it easy to fail? (one thing which _might_ help is to make tasers not be black, but international safety orange or safety green)
I had a little situation with some bike cops about two and half years ago and the younger cop had a pistol and a taser and quite frankly she scared the shit out of me. As she was constantly grabbing/fondling the butt of her pistol, I asked her how she kept from getting confused which was which. She said it was easy, the one up front was the taser, the rear one was the pistol when it was the exact opposite on her belt. The older officer noticed that, too, and quickly ended our conversation. Hopefully he took her aside and chewed her ass out and she got some more training.
But back to the BART officer, whether he knew he had the pistol in his hand or thought he had the taser, his finger should not have been on the trigger!
Cops are bad enough with the four rules of gun safety as it is, but I've noticed that the ones trained on tasers are much, much worse, since it's not a "bad" thing if you accidentally shoot someone with a taser, and their trigger discipline goes out the window, which then carries over to when they are employing a pistol, too.
A police officer I used to work with (he did security at our store) worked at the police officer's only range here at their training facility (and I'm still annoyed that I don't get to use that tax-payer funded range, but whatever). He said he hated doing yearly qualifications, because 75% of the officers had not touched their firearm in the last year, other than maybe to take it out of their holster at night but many don't even do that. He said all four gun safety rules were routinely violated, and that guys would turn around to ask a question or say "What?" when he issued a command and they'd be pointing their pistol at him as they did that and their finger would be on the trigger!
If they are doing that when they've just been told the four rules, and advised not to behave that way, what are they going to do out in the field?
I have not worked with that one cop for many years now, but I have also noticed when talking to other cops that many of them think the four rules _only_ apply on the range or in the house, and not "on the street" when that is not the case at all. The four rules are to be used "on the street" and in the field and on the battleground, they're there to keep you and everyone else you don't absolutely mean to shoot safe.
Look, it's real easy to make mistakes, I've seen a seasoned veteran champion at a pistol match turn clockwise to go from one target to the next, instead of counterclockwise, and thus he pointed his loaded firearm at the rest of us as he turned. He was promptly disqualified and asked to leave, as he should have been, and he, and the range officer who ended up with a pistol pointed at his gut from two feet, were visibly shaken, and very upset. And I can almost guarantee you that he'll _never_ do that again. So it can happen to the best of us. But that just means you have to practice and train more, not less. And I don't see cops doing that, other than swat types. And that's a Bad Thing.
They need to change their training.
The first time I was in a three-gun match was the first time I'd ever shot at a human shaped target with no visible bullseye. I was used to shooting targets that were round and had concentric rings with the inner most rings black. So I spent several seconds just trying to figure out where exactly to shoot. Even shooting coke cans and cardboard boxes at the farm we usually had an aiming point. This was very new to me.
And I didn't do so great at that match.
For several reasons, but one of them was that I'd never shot at something that didn't have a defined target area.
Also I'd not shot at moving targets. I'd shot (at) clays a few times but did not enjoy it as I did not hit very many, and I'd never shot at a moving target on the ground, even armadillos I'd wait till they were still.
Also there is a difference between going to the range and taking your position in the shaded and out of the elements station, getting your feet just right, breathing in and out, and squeeze, take your time, frontsight, squeeeeze and bang! and competitions like three gun, where you stand there at ease, then a alarm goes off near your head to signal you to draw, BZZZZZZZZZZ! and then you've got to move in the mega hot Texas sun and get into position and shoot and some of the targets are moving? wtf! and is that a no-shoot? not sure, crap! better not shoot just in case, and I can't get a good angle on that one and crap! out of ammo, gotta reload! and fumble... and fumble.. ok reloaded, now where was I? oh yeah, that target was next I think... wait, was I shooting left to right or front to back?... breathe. seriously breathe dammit... settle down... nice and easy... frontsight!... oh noes! my gun jammed! Oh wait, it's just out of ammo again... reload... fumble... whoops dropped the magazine, better bend over to pick it up... and.... why can't I hit the stupid slide release? fumble fumble... and... reloaded... bang... BZZZZZZZZZ! crap! the time is up!
Me: "That was fun! But I don't think I did so great."
RO: "Yeah, you'd be dead now."
Me: "Oh..."
Of course I was used to planting my feet and never moving, and at competitions like that you are encouraged to move to get a better shot or to take cover behind a barricade, and rather than stand up straight and with perfect shooting posture you are encouraged to squat uncomfortably behind a barrel and lean out to shoot at the targets and it is just a whole world of difference between that and shooting a nice relaxing day at the range. And while I _knew_ all that, and I _knew_ that I was supposed to kneel down behind something for cover when I reloaded, it's one think to _know_ and another to _do_.
The stress is a big difference, too, which is good because it helps to mimic what happens in a "real" shooting event. I've said for a while now that soldiers and cops should be required to do jumping jacks or sit ups or run a mile or two before they shoot at the range, just to better simulate the higher heart rate and sweatiness and heavy breathing of a real shootout.
Unfortunately most police departments don't train their guys like that, they just have them go out once a year and shoot at nice round targets (or maybe an osama bin laden one) that don't move and the distance is known and it's bright daylight so you can see the target clearly and you're in the shade and out of the sun yourself and there is nothing behind the target but a huge berm of dirt.
One of the matches I went to had a no-shoot target a few feet behind a shoot target. If you shot the "bad guy" your round would go through and hit the "innocent civilian". It was a great stage, and to successfully complete it you had to move laterally so that you could safely shoot the bad guy. That stage really opened my eye, because well, because it really drove home the point of rule four: be aware of what's behind your target. It really reinforced that the four rules are the four rules no matter what situation you are in. Period.
And unfortunately I do not see most cops getting that kind of reinforcement through training.
A lot, possibly even the majority, of the competitors at the matches I have been to were police officers and the vast majority of them were there on their own dime, their departments did not offer any training like that and they were there, in their issue gear, to see how they'd do in real life. A very few were from departments that would pay the entrance fees. Maybe two or three, total out of several hundred competitors. None of the ones that I talked to though came from departments which had training like the competition we were about to do. None. At least not for regular, non-swat, officers. Although that may be changing now with simunitions which are a kind of paintball round which allows most any building to be used as a impromptu range and lets you do force on force training, ie people shooting at other people. Although that training is not cheap and it's still mainly for swat guys.
Sorry to ramble, but bottom line, unless there is more, and better, training, with the increase in the number of cops we have, and that number only rising, we'll have more such incidents.
@Ugly Canuck in #140
Alas, I only know one good cop.
(Actually I can't say that of a certainty, he might be a bad cop, but he is a good person so it's pretty damn likely he's a good cop.)
I'd like to say he's the only cop I know, but that would be a lie.
-abs will leave inferences from that last sentence as an exercise for the student
@#53: A friend of my dad's was on that tube train when De Menezes was shot. She said she thought she'd witnessed some kind of gangland killing, not a police action.
This incident was pretty ugly, but I'd like to add my voice to the calls for calm and reason.
BART police aren't amateurs - I've ridden BART to work for years and years (though not at the moment), and the BART police have always behaved properly when I've seen them around. They see a lot of crazy - and enough real crime. Not as bad as Oakland PD or Berkeley PD or San Francisco PD, perhaps, but some of the stations are in rough neighborhoods (Fruitvale is one of them) and they're primarily responsible for crimes on stations as well as trains. They're not a huge department, but the reputation in the area is that they're decently trained and responsible behaving.
Regarding the shooting, it's clear from the videos that it was unprovoked, and legally unjustified. I don't think anyone can or should try to minimize that.
A lot of people are saying that the victim was handcuffed before he was shot. That's not true - he was handcuffed immediately afterwards, not before, and that's not unusual or improper... The police had a large fight on their hands to start with, and need to gain positive control over the scene to make sure that the fight doesn't start back up again while they deal with the shooting.
A lot of people are reporting one of the officers asked for and got a lot of cellphone cameras from witnesses. But clearly not all, and they didn't threaten or arrest witnesses who refused to give up cameras. If they were trying to cover it up, that would be pretty lousy work. The obvious explanation is that they need some evidence to work with to figure out what happened, and that they considered the recordings to be evidence. Is it a coverup if the police investigators take blood samples or pick up the gun or shell casings from an officer involved shooting in the course of investigating it? They have to gather the evidence, that's their job. Social and legal standards regarding cellphone cam and handheld video cam images which contain crimes being committed are still being defined. Perhaps we should work to establish a standard requiring police to immediately return a camera, on scene and with original images/video intact, after downloading a copy for evidence purposes. But no such standard exists now.
Regarding the officers' intent, I've seen people who were in danger and ready to shoot at / shoot back at the source of the danger. There's a distinct body language to "responding to a lethal threat / about to have to use lethal force". There's none of that there in the videos, the officer who fired looks more suprised than anything. All the other officers look more suprised than anything else. As I said earlier, there was no sign of legal justification or provocation.
Some people are looking at the lack of provocation and justification and concluding that it was cold blooded murder. I would prefer to assume that police departments screen out people who are psychologically inclined to commit cold blooded murder - I've heard about the psych interviews and training process from a lot of police, including training officers, and they've all said that they do flunk people for psych incompatibility.
Do police make mistakes? Sure. Really big mistakes? Obviously. Hopefully not often.
A mistake that rises above random accident to the level of some sort of negligence and kills someone is probably a crime. I think in California, that an act that was not known before/during to be particularly reckless but was ultimately negligent in some serious way is second degree manslaughter.
A couple of statistics to round this out...
1. Only about 20% of people shot with a handgun die - the victim here was unlucky all around.
2. Around 80% of the police who shoot and kill someone retire from police work within 2 years.
I interpret the latter to indicate that most police really aren't mentally prepared to be killers, and don't want to be.
This situation was fucked up - and needs to be straightened out, and the officer held accountable. But it justifies serious investigation and response, not hyperbole or mad screams of police abuse or oppression. Those things happen... but this was overwhelmingly likely just a really fucked up mistake, which has probably ruined two lives and two families.
Evil Jim @46, am I supposed to feel bad about you getting disemvoweled? We've got a rule about "he deserved it" comments in a civil-rights thread.
RampantIdiocy @68, surely you can argue with Evil Jim like a reasonable person, without insulting him.
is there a scorecard? Anyone keeping track of how many people get killed by police and how many police get killed on the job? Any sense of proportionality here?
It is time to re-start the policies which require officers to live in the towns they work in. In the case of BART, this could perhaps be expanded to a cluster of towns since it seems unlikely they all patrol the system freely.
If you wouldn't let yourself and your family live there, the danger that you will racially profile and thereby escalate these situations is simply too great for society to risk anymore.
Perhaps it should apply to more than just policing actually; it should apply to any public service within a major city. When they are allowed to drop in from their subdivisions to take up work in the city, suburbanites (whites in particular) bring a dangerous bias into policing, urban planning, homeland security and media (the Bay Area has 3 right-wing talk stations licensed out of either Oakland or SF, and all they do is trash the cities whose licenses they have been given - so much for public service for those cities.)
The time honored rural/suburban-vs.-urban tension organic to life in the USA has become toxic to a degree that no amount of good intentions is going to correct for a long while. Maybe one day people everywhere will be able to trust that any government representative is equally capable of protecting the rights of those different from themselves, but we aren't there, and that failure is a life-and-death struggle. This presents greater dangers to many than terrorism does.
Maybe they should make tasers a different color (bright red) or shape or something obvious.
Around 80% of the police who shoot and kill someone retire from police work within 2 years.
that's a number I wouldn't have expected.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/taserST2006_468x342.jpg
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/beretta92fs.jpg
http://objurgate.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/advanced-taser.jpg
also on New Year
http://www.afro.com/tabid/456/itemid/2576/Outrage-over-Racial-Profiling-Police-Shooting-i.aspx
Wow! my first disemvowelment.
Perhaps I was misunderstood. I only called him a hypocrite in the most literal sense of the word. And the long list of drugs he has probably taken was, likewise, literal, though also ironic since many, if not all, of those substances he uses are probably legal.
A bit ubiquitous in your censorship I contend, considering the cruel and ill-motivated remarks to which I was replying.
Ths cmmnt s fr MNTPHRSH:
Hw stpd cn y b?
Y hv smn wh s hndcffd, fc dwn n th grnd, nd srrndd by t lst thr ffcrs. Wht th hll jstfs tht crl ct? D y rlz tht yng mn s dd nd hs fmly wll nvr s hm gn. ts stpd fcks lk y wh lt ths g-strckn, crrpt cps gt wy wth ths crms.
f t ws r brthr r fthr wht th hll wld y d?
FWIW, Officer Johannes Mehserle quit the force today.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/BA2N155BAH.DTL&tsp=1
Dear unique, do familiarize yourself with someone's post history before completely missing the sarcasm.
resigned, thereby avoiding the department being splashed. Probably got to keep a few benefits and will also now reap the Omerta benefit of the other officers on scene losing their detail memory.
A public prosecution then, dependent for conviction on testimony for the public present at the time. He'll get five years, serve one and a half.
FWIW, Officer Johannes Mehserle quit the force today.
An officer has a right to remain silent, like anyone else. But they have to speak with internal affairs or be fired. And apparently statements made to internal affairs can't be used directly in a court of law, but can give direction to the prosecution. That's my understanding.
If so, he may have quit the force out of guilt, or out of advice from his lawyer to avoid an Internal Affairs interview at all costs because it might help convict him of murder/manslaughter/etc.
uniquemj,
MinTphresh is making a meta-comment about the fact that somebody always shows up and says that anytime a cop abuses somebody.
It looks like his lawyer doesn't believe the standard "he was reaching for something" defense will work. With one cop stepping on the victim's neck and another sitting on his legs, it should have been trivial to cuff him. Instead, Mehserle reached for... something. He should have reached for handcuffs. Even a Taser would have been excessive use of force under the circumstances, though I'm not quite sure I buy the torture conspiracy suggested earlier; it's entirely plausible that the other officers expected him to reach for cuffs. I think he planned to get in a little gratuitous fun before reaching for handcuffs. The "it just went off" defense fails, since it wasn't reasonable for him to have his gun drawn at that point; there were two cops already on top of the suspect. His best defense against a murder charge still involves a confession to criminal wrongdoing, and he's going to have a hard time fighting a manslaughter conviction, given the clear recklessness of his actions. All those videos, from so many angles, are pretty damning.
If this goes to a jury, his resignation will look like a confession of guilt; it totally undermines the "I'm just a cop doing my job, thin blue line, yadda yadda" defense. He might have been better off talking to internal affairs and relying on the department to sweep it under the rug.
It's possible that his resignation will actually speed the criminal investigation, since they won't be waiting six months for internal affairs to go through the motions. This removes a critical excuse for delaying the criminal investigation. Since he's no longer a cop, maybe the department will decide that it no longer has a motive to whitewash this incident, and they'll start treating him like a criminal suspect. If he's lucky, the arresting officers will know how to use handcuffs and won't be so interested in getting in some sport before they haul him off.
The situation is very different when viewed on a video with sound. The soundless video above does not convey the overwhelming chaos of the scene, with a howling crowd of drunken revelers pitched against a handful of BART cops, as in the video linked in the article above. It ain't a TV-cop "alright youse, keep it down," kind of scene.
None of the videos I've seen are very clear at all, and the darkest areas, where the suspect is on the ground are nearly impossible to see clearly.
What is clear in this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJukcFzEX4
is the cop who drew his gun wasn't prepared to fire it.
You can see him sort of kneeling over the man on the ground, his hands searching the man's body, then he suddenly reaches for his gun and draws it. He pushes himself up with his right (gun) hand on his knee(!) and stands with the weapon pointed down at the ground. He then brings his left hand and the weapon up together. You hear the report and see his left hand immediately recoil toward his chest, away from the gun. It is not clear what he was doing with his left hand and the gun, but he was not holding the gun in preparation to fire.
Regardless of whether he should or shouldn't have drawn his weapon, he did not intend to fire it at the moment he did.
The cop (and the others around him) seem genuinely shocked - "wait, what? no. wait..."
If one were to use the car analogy - say you're used to your spouse driving the car and you in the passenger seat.
Now one day, coming out of the supermarket your spouse hands you the keys and tells you to drive.
You walk to the car, keys in hand, talking to your spouse like you usually do - and then find yourself on the passenger side anyway even though you know you're going to be driving.
The action of pulling out a gun and firing is as instinctual (in the mind its a single action - not broken into components - pull out gun, aim, pull trigger) as that of pulling out the taser. And perhaps more immediate then reaching for the taser.
So I actually believe that part.
Having said that, Tasers are ONLY supposed to be used in situations where you would use a gun - so the Taser defense is kind of flimsy anyway.
Cops are too Taser happy anyway.
why draw when you don't intend to fire?
Why pull a gun in a crowded room unless there's an immediate threat to life? And even then it's not usually a good idea. Even if nobody had been hurt, discharging a firearm in that situation would be a serious crime.
The more angles of this I see, the more it looks like an accidental discharge. And a very careless one. Propping himself up? You do NOT do anything with the hand holding the gun except aim and fire.
Which really begs the question, careless or not, why did the officer feel the need draw his gun right after searching the victim?
Hell, why draw a gun in a crowded space with concrete walls? Any bullets fired would ricochet all over the place, and could hit anything or anyone.
(Which raises the question: Why issue guns to transport police? Is there any situation where engaging in a firefight inside a subway train station is a good idea?)
kieran: amen! uniquemj: sarcasm, homes. sarcasm. woah.
perhaps because the cops found themselves exercising their usual prerogatives of racial profiling, excessive use of force, arbitrary detention and illegal search and realized they were only a half dozen with guns against a trainload of drunks with venomous tongues (some with cameras even). Their fear amplified and fed back among themselves and the least experienced and most afraid reflexively went for maximum threat display.
He drew clumsily and bumped the trigger.
Manslaughter looking at the moment, murder if you consider his voluntary participation and profiting from a system that set the stage.
@ Takuan
"A public prosecution then, dependent for conviction on testimony for the public present at the time. He'll get five years, serve one and a half."
They can't keep weapons and drugs out of the prison system. Do you think he'd last one and a half years in a US prison?
The video posted by #176 (Brettt Spiell) has a reporter saying that there are two videos - one obtained by BART and one provided directly to the station.
There is a second video - @ 2:10, from a distance, to the rear left of the shooting officer, but it veers away at the critical moment. It also shows that although it was noisy, the amount of space around the four men and the officers is rather large. The idea that the crowd was closed in or confusing the situation seems unlikely.
I think that plenty has been said about the shooter in this case, but there is much to discuss about the alleged seizure of cameras after the event. If some of the witnesses cameras were taken, were proper procedures followed? Are cops securing evidence at a crime scene required to provide a receipt for seized personal property? I assume at minimum they would need to log it.
Were any cameras, etc. logged as evidence that night?
Any cop involved who seized a camera and did not follow the procedures to the letter for logging of evidence should be dismissed from the force and/or prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
Has anyone come forward who claims that their camera or phone was seized? This would be an excellent follow-up for local news media...
http://www.ktvu.com/news/18434205/detail.html#-
here a policeman explains why it was all the victims fault
http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/1772254-BART-shooting-raises-issue-of-TASER-confusion/
@Justin France
In this video
http://cbs5.com/video/?id=43974@kpix.dayport.com
you can see at least three men run up to the cops still dealing with the other men. It looks to be very early in the confrontation. Shortly, two more cops run up to clear the three away. Bystanders continue to approach the altercation for some time. When the crowd clears back and the camera stops shaking, the two new cops (man and woman) have taken up 'guard' positions. You can see the cop on the right, facing the crowd with his back to the other officers, has either a gun or a baton held like a gun (held like a sub-machine gun, under his arm).
Most of the crowd is on the train, though some are off. The cops seem to be yelling at them to get back on the train.
They forgot to put a fancy graph that explains why the guy needed to draw anything other than his cuffs.
Debating if he confused his gun for his taser is pointless and a diversion - why he felt the need to draw a weapon at all, that's (one) of the questions.
Expect a whole lot of diversionary white noise about that issue.
@Justin France
Also, listen to that video and imagine it at live volume in a BART tunnel. Noise has been used as a psychological weapon.
"I shot him, your Honor, because someone was yelling hurtful things at me"
Which is it Takuan? Ape brain or execution?
I dare say if a BART officer can't deal with the noise of a BART station (even on NYE) without accidently drawing a gun and shooting someone... well, I don't need to finish the sentiment, do I?
Reading about how you cuff someone once they're subdued - these guys were subdued from the start of almost every video i've seen.
If they were under arrest they should've been cufffed when they had their hands face height, palms out. What anyone could do in that situation to warrant being dragged to their stomach and tasered is beyond me, unless it involved the word "pig", or similar. Which brings us back to Takuan (192)...
you're the one to suggest a defense is needed by bringing up noise.
Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009
Amnesty International Calls Oscar Grant Shooting a "Clear Cut Abuse of Power"
Contact: Wende Gozan at 212-633-4247 or Dalia Hashad at 202-675-8571
(Washington)--Oscar Grant, a 22-year old unarmed black man, was shot in the back by a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer on New Year’s Day. On the day of his funeral, Dalia Hashad, director of Amnesty International USA’s identity-based discrimination program, released the following statement:
“When an unarmed man is shot in the back after police put him face down on the ground, it is the time for authorities to demand action, not patience. Days after the incident, the officer still has not been interviewed. The delay in this critical part of the investigation hints at the callousness to the worth of human life to a public that is all too familiar with racial profiling, police brutality and cover-ups. Whatever the final investigation reveals, the bottom line is that there is never justification to shoot an unarmed person, especially one who is restrained. It is an obvious violation of the most basic human rights standards, and a clear cut abuse of power.”
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7814&catid=4&volume_id=398&issue_id=413&volume_num=43&issue_num=15
If you are filming cops and they tell you to stop, or they try to take the camera, how should you respond?
http://www.ktvu.com/news/18412851/detail.html#-
No, I was just trying to illustrate for Justin that a train load of loud, angry drunks, some of whom have already proven to be willing to interfere with the arrest, can, indeed, lend chaos to an already-racially-charged situation.
I'm not making excuses for the cop. It doesn't look to me that there was a good reason for him to draw his gun, but there is that moment in the video where it appears *he* is convinced he needs to draw his gun - the moment when he goes from patting down the waist area of the man on the ground to recoiling and grabbing for his weapon.
The point is, it is very difficult to see from any of the videos exactly what was going on.
perhaps the "numerous confiscated cameras" will reveal more.
@198: first, don't let them know you are filming unless there are a LOT of other cameras there as well. If you are too close,best to surrender the camera. No sense in getting shot in the back trying to save the images.
there are people marching in the streets right now in Oakland!
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11401338
repost
#89 posted by zikzak , January 7, 2009 8:05 AM
Sure Tom, if you want to use your camera for other things as well, that's allowed. In fact, I find carrying a video recorder is useful in all kinds of ways.
Rather than a shitty cellphone camera or an expensive DV cam, I use a hacked disposable digital camcorder: http://www.maushammer.com/systems/cvscamcorder/
That way if it gets lost or destroyed it's no big deal. In fact, if I end up shooting something important, I can pass the camera off to someone else without a second thought to avoid having it seized.
Another interesting tactic is to put postage and your address on the camera, so that you can either drop it in a mailbox immediately (where it's safe from the cops), or slip it to another bystander and say "mail this".
I go to school with the cousin of the man who was killed. very sad. I grew up in the bay area and I had no idea that BART police even had guns.
I could go on about BART and its lovely police system but I'd just be preaching to the coir.
if you have a story, share it.
The government now requires papers to travel.
Government officers kick in people's doors without even announcing themselves, innocent citizens who defend themselves are jailed for attempted cop killing.
All financial, library, and travel records are available to the government without warrant.
Our government can detain any accused person without trail or warrant.
Almost every man, woman and child carries a tracking device with its records retained and available to the government at its whim (mobile phones).
Trillions are taken from the people by taxes and monetary inflation with no legal recourse.
The government's paramilitary officers execute citizens shooting them in the back while they are handcuffed.
So, please tell me, when does it become time to shoot back?
ummm, when they tell you?
pictures i took tonight of the civil unrest in oakland
http://www.flickr.com/photos/captaintim/sets/72157612314064126/
Indymedia coverage of the protest/riot yesterday in response to this murder:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/08/18559668.php
Let us not forget: there is hope.
Brett@176: with a howling crowd of drunken revelers pitched against a handful of BART cops
Yeah, when cops start dealing with drunk people, that's one thing, but when the drunk people start howling they need to be prepared to use deadly force.
Oh, and by the way, pithced? A bunch of drunk people were crammed into the subway car, watching through the open door and the windows. Some were standing on the side, either waiting for their train or getting off a train and heading up. This wasn't a mob that was in any way physically confronting the police in some sort of pitched battle.
Nice choice of words, from an emotional poitn of view. "howl" and "pitched". Very poetic. Doesn't say much about the facts, but very emotive.
As I learned in a recent training, under stress, when you got a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That why I can believe the accident thesis. Something like "f*ck, this ain't my tazer ? what am I doing ? OK, I pull the trigger now".
It seems that last night's protests were what it finally took to bring this to the attention of the national media. Admittedly, I don't have CNN on my screen 24/7, but since this story broke I've been keeping an eye on the tube to see what kind of coverage this was going to get. Until this morning? Nothing.
Makes me wonder...do the major networks have some sort of an agreement not to nationalize events that make the police look bad? Is it only okay to spread the news after the story changes to one of "irresponsible rioters burn down their own neighborhood"?
The actions of some of these people may have been out of line, but if this is what it takes for those who don't follow indymedia to know what's happening, then hell. Smash another window. Burn another car. Throw another rock. Again and again until this is no longer a secret.
mark@175: Since he's no longer a cop, maybe the department will decide that it no longer has a motive to whitewash this incident,
Except, BART is being sued for 25 million and if BART finds their man guilty, then BART doesn't stand a chance against any civil lawsuit.
The investigation should be immediately kicked up to the state police. It wasn't a state trooper who pulled the trigger, it isn't the state police getting sued. There is a whole lot less incentive for the staties to whitewash.
BART could have done internal affairs investigation, but the criminal investigation should always be done by an outside department.
Cpt. Tim, thanks for the pics, love the one of the cop looking tough with Mickey Mouse ears on his helmet.
I just cannot imagine why a BART police officer needs a firearm. Is there any situation where a taser device would not be enough?
This was not an accidental shooting, this was a negligent shooting.
Maybe y'all thing it's the same thing, but in the firearms community an accidental shooting is a shooting caused by mechanical failure. You're decocking the gun and the hammer breaks causing the firearm to discharge without the trigger being pulled. Or maybe in a well worn semi-auto rifle loaded with soft primered ammunition the firing pin strikes the primer upon loading and fires, again, with out manipulation of the trigger. Those are accidents.
A negligent shooting is when you manipulate the trigger when you should not have. The cop that shoots himself in the ass while holstering his pistol, the guy practicing his quick draw that shoots himself in the leg or foot, "Oh, this isn't loadedBANG!" are all negligent shootings.
Basically if it's a failure to follow the four rules of gun safety then it's not an accident, it's negligence.
@ 212 Kaosmonkey: Smash another window. Burn another car.
Umm...as some one who has windows and a car, please don't smash or burn my shit because you are pissed that someone else did something. If you are smashing the police officer's involved in this incident's stuff, then ok, I guess. (I'd say no to burning cars on general principle as that causes a lot of pollution and fires can be tricky and get out of control very easily so why risk burning people to death?) But smashing anyone else's stuff? Nope, sorry. No go. Even smashing other BART or city equipment is a no-go, as it's just the rest of us that have to pay to replace/repair the damages, so how does that help?
Just thought I'd add that there are some rather simple things that can be done to prevent officers from confusing their firearm from their Taser.
First off, and I think best, would be for Taser armed-cops to not have firearms! Period. Especially on transit cops, wtf do they need firearms? And if they do, then maybe a few of them can have them, don’t they work in pairs anyway? So have one dude with a firearm and one with a Taser. There, now there is no way to confuse the two.
Second, require all Tasers to be bright ass green or orange or yellow. I know Takun posted a picture of a yellow one, but I have seen ones in officer's holsters that were black. With this change the officer holding the Taser as well as anyone else can clearly tell that it is a Taser and not a firearm. If the department already has black Tasers, buy some Krylon Fusion spray paint and paint them!
Third, since the new Tasers have a laser sight, require that they be holster on the “weak” side and fired with the weak hand. So if an officer is right handed, his Taser must be on his left hip and he has to fire it left handed. Tasers are close range weapons, so this should not be a problem, especially with the laser dot.
Oh, and fourth, let’s make damn sure that the laser on the Taser is not activated by putting your finger on the trigger: it better be activated by squeezing the grip or something like that, so as to not train our officers to point a loaded weapon and someone and to put pressure on the trigger when you do not mean to be killing them.
smashing other BART or city equipment is a no-go, as it's just the rest of us that have to pay to replace/repair the damages, so how does that help?
You answered your own question. Obviously the death of an innocent young black man is a cost that the city is willing to accept. Smashing increases the cost. At some point, if the cost of police murders like this becomes high enough, the city will clean up their police department out of purely financial concern.
It's a basic rule of economics. If you want change and you want it fast, hit them in the pocket book.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99120914&sc=nl&cc=nn-20090108
@ Gandalf23
"This was not an accidental shooting, this was a negligent shooting."
My thoughts exactly. Poor trigger finger discipline combined with a (most likely) unnecessarily drawn weapon. I'm betting he's charged with negligent homicide.
Probably, but if you or I had done it, the charge would be murder.
http://www.strimoo.com/video/14403869/Police-Officer-MURDERS-Oscar-Grant-in-BART-SAN-FRANCISCO-CA-MySpaceVideos.html
this is the best angle of the event that I've found, yet it's sort of buried in the search results
Also, on the other angle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OJTa9F2O14
if you watch closely at about :35 (just after the commentator says "fired" and the actual shot) it seems that Grant reached up/grabbed at the officer, at which point the officer immediately stands up and pulls his weapon.
I'm in no way defending the cops actions...this is nothing that warrants being killed...I'm just trying to get everything I can from the video.
does anyone else see this?
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11416226
The DA has filed charges against three of the protesters. But not against the cop who killed an unarmed man! WTF?
related note: another reason why the Canadian police airport taser murder went unpunished; Omerta again:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/01/10/7978656-sun.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_11431439
"should decide"
http://news.google.com/news?q=bart%20shooting&sourceid=navclient-ff&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-32,GGGL:en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Maybe justice will prevail?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/14/BART.shooting.arrest/index.html
http://www.kcbs.com/Murder-Charge-Against-Officer-in-BART-Shooting/3660570
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/BABQ15AD8U.DTL&tsp=1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNJE15A6O2.DTL
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/BART.shooting.plea/
http://www.contracostatimes.com/columns/ci_11471311
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/15/MNS8156O8U.DTL&tsp=1
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/01/21/do-police-have-the-right-to-confiscate-your-camera/
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/New-Attorney-For-Former-BART-Cop.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_11552758
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/29/BAOP15JI6F.DTL&tsp=1
http://cbs5.com/local/BART.police.shooting.2.922477.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Cold-Blooded-Murder-of-by-Revolution-writers-090320-558.html