Not for the faint of heart. This is incredibly disturbing. I still can't, for the life of me, get at what this guy was thinking. Props to Sg for the link.
UPDATE: You guys are right. Murder is to strong. I don't know what happened. This is why you cultivate commenters who are smarter than you. They will save you from yourself.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Let's be careful what we call it, although it certainly looks like a murder.
I feel like I need to watch it again to figure out what exactly is happening, but I can't keep watching this at work.
This is as you say incredibly disturbing. However, it's very difficult to draw any conclusion from this video.
To me, the officer looks surprised and terrified after firing the shot. Not the reaction of a cold-blooded killer. And if you're going out there to murder someone, you certainly don't do it in the presence of your supervisors and in front of scores of bystanders who you know are videotaping you. So either this guy is the most vicious sociopath ever to wear a badge or this was a dreadful mistake by a shaky officer who either thought he was using a taser, or more likely squeezed the trigger accidentally.
actually to be honest, it doesn't look like an actual murder. it seems more like the gun accidentally went off. for anyone to be sort of waving a gun around carelessly, much less a cop, is just amazing - i cannot imagine this could be anything but a serious crime.
I agree with sv and labor - doesn't look like murder, though it's impossible to be certain about that. Of course, if it's not murder the cop should absolutely be convicted of manslaughter and maybe a few other things.
Actually, it looks like a dude who is either high or drunk making a HUUUUGE mistake and realizing what he did about a second too late. But he's a cop, so he must have been sober, right?
Wow. Have to agree with the above comments, much as I don't want to. I'd say he either thought he had a taser or the gun accidentally went off. The latter would be the worse charge. Guns should not be waved around carelessly.
Along with the above noted circumstances (other cops, a big crowd videotaping) that make a cold-blooded murder hard to imagine, he does look genuinely (and immediately) horrified. What the hell is the other cop doing slowly and laboriously turning the victim this way and that, though? Christ, man. Give the guy some help.
This is not to say the cop is blameless. At the very least, this is an accident that should carry criminal charges of malfeasance and manslaughter. But still, I don't see malice of forethought here.
The only facts that are relevant are:
1) suspect was restrained and in custody
2) gun was pulled for no apparent reason (suspect was unarmed, restrained and supine)
3) the gun's safety was off
This is, at the least, manslaughter I. That police officer was grossly, grossly negligent.
Though I would agree that perhaps we shouldn't assume malice. Honestly, the other suspect that was literally 3 feet away from the shooting probably has the whole story. Too bad he's in county.
Accident or no there was clearly no threat to the officers posed by the individuals nor any real flight risk that might (and I emphasize might) legitimize even drawing a gun.
Now I may be wrong about this, but I believe that tasers are an entirely different shape from handguns so the taser/gun mistake is not made.
I think that is the hardest thing for me to get my head around. Police gun holsters have snaps on them, so he had to know he was drawing a gun not a taser, not handcuffs, not anything else.
Plus this is a situation where the suspects are sitting against the wall in a well light public place so there is certainly no reason to be 'shaky'.
I think I'd be more optimistic about justice being served if I saw that more often in the case of accidental shootings (perhaps an officer losing his/her job). However, the rule seems to be: accidental shooting = cops get off + dead victim. Hopefully not this time, but the cynic in me wins out here.
I'm not sure how an officer could mistake their tazer for the revolver. Most police officers (unless they are a lefty) would carry their pistol on their right hip and their tazer on the left, with the handle facing the opposite way. The two really don't feel the same in your hand either.
That being said how and why on earth would you intentionally do that? Murder somebody in front of at least a dozen witnesses? With cameras running? Wierd. Damned disturbing too.
After watching that video - Plus two or three others from different cellphones/angles - I'd say the cop thought he was going for his taser. It doesn't look to me like he had much cause for the taser, but it's become the calm-'em-down of choice for a lot of cops.
The station security video should clear up a lot when it's released. There's no way the BART authorities will be allowed to sit on that video.
Something else that deserves mention as to whether this was a mistake is the overall picture of what is going on here. The police were responding to a fight (I believe) and they have what appears to be approximately 4 cops dealing with what looks like at least 5 suspects (I assume their adversaries are out of camera-shot). Now I'm not a police officer (although i work with them almost exclusively) but what's very clear is that the police do not have control of the scene, which is really the worst of situations for any police officer. The suspects are not following orders (I raise this only on the control point, not shifting blame) and it appears that there are alot of pissed off people standing around. The female officer is the best indication of the lack of control, as she appears to clearly be calling frantically for assistance from other units.
With all of this going on, the officer may have thought that the best way to control his suspect would be to pull his gun, and as the scene got hotter, be may have accidentally pulled the trigger. Now I admit to having some bias here, but this is the best conclusion I can draw from this video.
I believe that if a civilian were in the same situation and had pulled out a gun, trained it on someone and it goes off even on accident that person would be charged with some degree of murder other than 1st degree or some form of homicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
Regardless of the charge, the fact that the officer is out on the street is fucking egregious period.
"Stop squirming or I'll shoot!"
Seems to me that lying still while someone's dragging you across the floor and putting a knee in your back would take years of practice. I miss the good ol' days when squirming around would just catch you a 5 minute beat down. It's getting real in the 2009 yall.
I can't speculate as to the officer's motives, but I can't think of ANY reason for him to have pulled his gun. Whether this was cold blooded murder or criminally negligent homicide, I think that the officer's lawyer stonewalling the investigation and handing in his resignation to avoid having him questioned without his Miranda rights says something.
The "taser mistake" angle rings completely false to me, for the following reasons: Unarmed suspect, restrained by fellow police officers, tasers and pistols are holstered on opposite sides, a Glock weighs 3 times as much as an X26 taser and has a longer handle, none of the officer's peers pull their weapons.
I don't think the mistaking it for a taser excuse looks valid. There was no reason to pull a taser or a handgun in that situation.
I also doubt the cop actually meant to fire the weapon. If he did he should write a book about his future prison experience called "A Sociopath Less Taken".
The cop may not even know why he pulled the gun.
Some instinctual fear because of the drunken rowdies nearby celebrating the New Year? Was he drinking himself? Could be. Wouldn't be the first cop to drink on duty.
The only thing I'm clear about is that there was no reason to pull his weapon at that point. This death was unnecessary.
Some police departments now outfit their employees with head mounted cameras and microphones. I fully support that. It would make for better behaved cops and better behaved citizens. Video may distort and only tell a part of a story, but it doesn't purposefully lie or mistake things as human being may.
MURDERER PLAIN AND SIMPLE
Yeah - what makes the most sense given what i know so far is that the cop meant to pull his gun because he felt threatened by the large, unruly crowd, and then the gun went off while it was pointed at the suspect on the ground, Grant. How awful. I'm no lawyer but given what I know about the law, wouldn't that be manslaughter of some kind, as other commenters have suggested? any lawyers here?
also, any cops or people who work with them (labor i'm looking at you): what are the normal police procedures/circumstances for drawing a weapon? were people moving towards the cops or just talking/shouting at them? (seems to be the latter)
Even if it was an "accident" this cop is a clown who is guilty of negligent homicide - at the very minimum.
Police officers not being able to control the situation is not an excuse (I'm not implying that anybody here said it was).
No reason for a tazer, no reason for a gun, no reason that I can see for handcuffing people, and no ability by anyone there to take tension out of the situation. This is a sad, needless, and totally avoidable death.
The police were responding to a fight (I believe) and they have what appears to be approximately 4 cops dealing with what looks like at least 5 suspects
One was in handcuffs, and a second was face down on the ground with his hands behind his back and a police officer on his head with a second on his back. If a cop can't handcuff a person from that position without resorting to deadly force (a taser can be deadly) then they shouldn't be a cop. A third had his hands up and was sitting against a wall. All three suspects in view appeared to be cooperating fairly well.
Secondly, it's ridiculous to think that you wouldn't squirm in that situation. It's like on Cops when the dog is attacking a suspect and they tell him to relax and it will be fine. Like anybody can relax with a dog biting you and acting like it wants to rip your throat out.
One other point; even if the suspect wasn't "cooperating" the state has absolutely zero right to use this level of force to control the situation.
Making excuses for this is basically giving the state license for tyranny.
Then again, most Americans sold liberty down the river a long, long time ago. For some, it never really existed.
I don't see why the idea that it was an 'accident' means that it wasn't murder. That actor from "The Sopranos"was up on a murder beef in NYC and HE WASN'T EVEN HOLDING THE GUN. It was during the commission of a robbery and the guy he was with shot a cop. Now, that doesn't make him innocent, but the courtroom was packed with cops in full uniform demanding that the kid be charged with murder. How is this case, where the cop clearly drew his gun on purpose (even if he then somehow shot by accident), on the accidental side of the one in NYC?
I guess my general question is, why do we have different, more relaxed standards for cops than we do for individual citizens? Shouldn't cops be held to a HIGHER standard?
I don't buy the reaching-for-Taser bit. Police officers have hours of training, and in Oakland, hours of training/scenarios where high-pressure situations are presented. The fact that the dude has a knee in his lower back while other officers are pulling him in various directions can be quite painful, making it very difficult to "keep still."
Second, very few people are not "horrified" at a shooting. First-degree murder? I doubt it. But I don't believe the weapon just "went off." If he cannot handle a gun in high-pressure situations as he is supposedly trained to do, especially against an unarmed, face down individual, he should not have his job anymore.
Tasers are generally much lighter than guns, and considering the time he spent fumbling for his weapon indicates he had time to process what he was doing. Perhaps the officer just panicked and was scared; but perhaps he's in the wrong line of work--and he should also be dealt with as the law provides. Manslaughter probably.
It baffles me that anyone could argue that that situation was not in control. The guys were on the ground. Some of them were cuffed.
Scared ass cops. If you're that terrified of guys that got in a fight, you shouldn't be a cop.
Tyler,
I'm glad you can view this situation so clearly because the rest of us see the overall situation as being ambiguous, but the shooting clearly being wrong.
None of us know exactly what happened or what was going on in the cop's mind. You can't see the crowd beyond this video. I don't think he meant to fire his weapon. That doesn't mean he is not responsible for the needless death.
There should be video of the incident from any station cameras. There was an unjustified police shooting in a Chicago transit station and video brought light to the situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrOzJo0KhKs
My god. That was horrendous. And it should be terrifying for the rest of us out there. That could have been anyone.
At what point are we going to hold our law enforcement officials accountable for these sorts of deaths?
I agree with sg ... how is that not murder? Of some degree, if not the first? I don't think a civilian gets off with that. Or even leaves that scene without handcuffs.
Regardless of the charge, the fact that the officer is out on the street is fucking egregious period. -Sarge
This is what gets me. I'm willing to go with accidental firing of a weapon that shouldn't have been pulled as most likely explanation. Was he drunk? High? Combat flashback? You'd determine that by questioning him right afterward, like you would any non-cop who shot someone. The fact that a cop gets to evade questioning, drug testing, et cetera--now for over a week--is just bizarre. It makes no sense. It's not like there's a question of who killed the man, for heaven's sake.
(Those with relevant experience seem to lean toward a tazer and gun being way too different to mix up. At least if you aren't high.)
Stacy:
The suspects were getting up off of the ground, and there appeared to be a minor scuffle with grant. They were also surrounded by drunken revelers. There was no control over that scene.
SV, I'm not an expert on tactics (so feel free to discount my statement above if you don't agree with it Stacy) and have never gone through an Academy, but in my City, although there's no black-letter rule that I'm aware of on when you can unholster your weapon, you only draw your firearm where you have a reasonable belief that you may have to use deadly physical force. Firearms are not used for crowd or uncooperatice suspect control.
I'm not expert on tactics either, so maybe I'm wrong. It just didn't appear to be a scene that was out of control. I've been with around cops in situations way more out of control than that, and no guns were drawn.
I've also been pulled out of a car by cops with their guns drawn, so what do I know?
I strongly endorse this comment. And while I think there is some ambiguity here, I also think I agree with Tyler that we have been going, for decades now, down a path where we've traded our liberties (as well as our individual responsibilities to some extent) to the state for a false sense of security, and not not just with respect to law enforcement and the justice system. That's a broader topic, though.
The police officer needs to go to jail, plain and simple. Anyone else would. Most private citizens would still be in jail waiting to come up with funds to make bail. I remember a call I once made to the Fairfax County Police about police officers speeding without lights or sirens (in excess of 20 miles over the speed limit on roads adjacent to schools) and was told the police don't have to follow traffic laws. I'm not sure if that's the case, but it's indicative of the problem. So was the Prince George's police officer who shot two unarmed furniture movers. Or the off-duty federal marshall who shot a guy in a parking lot a few years back.
I was at a shopping center 6 months back and a car was standing in a fire lane 2 feet from a sign. I went and knocked on the guy's window and explained that he was parked in a fire lane. He flicked me off. I knocked again and he got of his car shoved me roughly and pushed a badge in my face saying "People could get killed for stuff like that." He then showed his federal marshall's badge. I took down his license and he got out of his car again and said "do whatever you like -- whose word do you think they're going to trust?" I filed a police report with the Fairfax County Police and 2 months later got a nasty phone call from the federal marshals asking a bunch of questions about the incident and telling me the marshall had accused me of vandalizing his car. Thankfully no charges were filed against me, but that's what seems to be the attitude of many folks in "law enforcement."
I'm lucky this rageaholic marshal didn't shoot me. It's lovely knowing our nation is trying to do its best impression of a police state. This incident should be a big wakeup call, but unfortunately it'll be placed on the back burner like everything else. That is, unless they find a way to blame the victim.
The worst part is it's once again white cops abusing black people. Why must my Caucasian brothers and sisters be such idiots?
i personally think murder is perfectly appropriate. he took out his gun and shot an unarmed man in the back for no known reason at all...
but let's check the dictionary:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
so i guess it hinges on whether or not this killing was lawful. from all the video i've seen, there's no way it is. i'll grant that it probably wasn't premeditated, but one has to wonder what exactly you think the outcome will be when you shoot someone at close range in the back. is death an outcome that could be reasonably foreseen? yes.
so, it all boils down to intent. did he intend to kill mr. grant? and if he didn't, why did he shoot him in the back at close range?
but regardless, "premeditated malice" is not necessary for a murder to be a murder.
I think it boils down to whether or not he intended to shoot Mr. Grant at all. There is certainly no way to prove that he DIDN'T. I'd guess he gets charged with 2nd degree murder and pleas down to manslaughter. But I don't know shit.
He was EXECUTED.
If this were Central America or Africa, you'd be calling it for what it is.
I don't think calling it an execution is accurate. Frankly, if he was going to execute him, he would have shot him in the head.
Anybody seen any news what the background of this cop was? Anything that would give any insight on just what the hell he was thinking (not that Grant's friends and family care at this point)? Undiagnosed PTSD maybe? It's the only thing that makes any logical sense. Because as all the posters above mentioned, the situation didn't warrant a drawn gun and you'd have to be severely outside your mind to deliberately execute a suspect for NO DISCERNIBLE REASON in front of that many witnesses and cameras.
I'm a lawyer (corporate) but I remember my crim law classes well enough to know that this guy should be facing depraved indifference/reckless homicide charges.
I'm just wary of overkill. Remember the Amadou Diallo case in NYC? Those of you who were around here should remember it well. I was a college student in the village at the time. Those 4 cops were charged with 1st degree murder. That means that all their defense attorneys had to do (of course they pleaded not guilty) was show that the cops didn't come out that night already intending to kill Mr. Diallo or anyone else, but simply had a 'reasonable expectation' that they needed to defend themselves on the spot, that what happened was a sudden reaction to a confusing situation and a mistake. That's what happened and they got off scot-fucking-free.
Why weren't they instead charged with the more reasonable crime of some form of manslaughter? I do think that the standard for that ought to be higher for cops (or lower - you know what i mean, tougher), by the way. That one hit me hard because there was a racial divide over it in the city at the time, and I realized how something similar could easily happen to me. 5'6", dark-skinned, non-thug-looking, hard-working non-criminal immigrant, killed on the stoop of his own building at 2 AM for taking his black wallet out to show ID to a bunch of plain-clothed white guys in a plain-colored car with guns out, yelling at him.
Let's hope this time it is done right and properly.
I meant to say "Why weren't they instead given the more appropriate crime of manslaughter in some form?"
Allow me to be an asshole for a moment
Lets say the situation was somewhat reversed. The kid who got shot pulls a gun on a cop on videotape. Now the gun goes off but its obvious he didn't mean to shoot the cop. What charge would damn near every person in America call for that cat to get?
Now again I said yesterday that I thought it was an accident and I think from the cop's facial expression after the fact its evident. But when you aim a gun at someone you are responsible for the consequences. Period. Why is his ass out of jail? Because he is a cop and no other reason.
And this is why people are outraged.
It was murder. Reckless endangerment statue cannot be met because absolutely not another officer on that platform had their pistol drawn. that officer administered street justice because they guy would not just do what he said to do.
He is a dead manwalking because in jail he will be killed.
I looked up the CA Penal Code. Thanks to Snoop, I knew that 187 was the relevant code section.
§ 187. Murder defined
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
Sec. 188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite such awareness is included within the definition of malice.
You're not being an asshole SG White, it's simply true that he is out of jail because "he is a cop and no other reason." That's for real.
I don't like authoritarian personalities, and most cops have them, and I find stories of police brutality and even simple over-reach infuriating. And I agree with the "manslaughter" interpretation based on what we know so far. This was wrong, and it was also about race (and class and gender): the cop probably would not have gotten his gun out if the suspects were white (or obviously bourgeois, or women.)
That said, to answer your question: the police spend a lot of time in difficult, tense and potentially violent circumstances, far more than the average citizen. And while the average citizen generally is allowed to do what he can to exit those situations, a cop is mandated to stay in them and control them. When there is malice, bigotry or arrogant and conscious violation of human rights (as in the Diallo case) - in other words, willful abuse of the unique authority given to law enforcement officers - I favor the higher standard. If and when, however, the tragic episode is based on a poor judgement call, panic, or accident - even when, as may be the case here, that panic or bad judgement call has roots in racism or other types of prejudice - I believe in a lenience that I would not give to a civilian, simply because a civilian has the option to back away from making any such decisions. (Even given that lenience, someone who evinces poor judgement or panic should be removed from law enforcement for life.)
I understand that this latter scenario provides a cover for the former. That's a hard problem.
If he were a normal citizen, he would be charged and convicted of 2nd degree murder (homicide with intent to kill but no premeditiation). Since he's a cop, he'll probably get voluntary manslaughter (homicide with mitigating circumstances: heat of passion, provocation, false assumption of self-defense).
"I've learned one thing as a school principal, son: always lower the stakes." - James Raven, Jena, Louisiana
Lemmy Caution,
I see your point, but countering that, shouldn't we also consider the deterrent effect of holding police to a more stringent standard for the lawful use of deadly force? Also, the mitigating circumstance of, basically, being a cop (being required to stay in dangerous situations, having to constantly make difficult and consequential decisions, etc) is going to be considered anyway during a cop's day in court if s/he is charged with unlawful use of force, isn't it? They're being tried by a system that lawyers judges etc. consider them a part of. Like anyone, cops deserve a fair trial, and the aforementioned mitigating circumstances and any others should at least be considered, but if laws don't apply equally to them, then that should at least be made explicit.
BTW I think a huge part of the problem is that there are too many laws for cops to enforce, making almost all of us criminals at one point or another and also making life much harder for cops, but that's a different topic.
Why was his safety off? Nobody else in the room (who wasn't a cop) had any weapons. Isn't it standard operating procedure for cops to not pull the safety on their weapon unless they are physically threatened with deadly force?
BTW - holing up with a lawyer and not cooperating in the investigation, as we all know from TV, probably not the best tactic. He should probably watch more Law & Order.
@SGWhite - Not only would that cop be charged with murder if he were a civilian, all his buddies standing around WATCHING him do that would have a degree of criminal liability. (I realize this is a murky legal situation since it's totally hypothetical, but it's certainly true that in SOME situations, his friends would have legal culpability.)
@Lemmy Caution - Your point about the special responsibility of cops, and your conclusion that the difficulty of their job should buy them some leeway, makes sense on paper but collapses in reality. Consider the following: An airline pilot crashes his plane because of negligence, and he is the only survivor. Afterward, he tries to claim that he should not be punished for his negligence because "he is placed in stressful airplane-flying situations that most people don't have to deal with." Is that going to fly? Hardly. (And that's assuming negligence...it says nothing about what would happen if there was some question he might have intentionally crashed the plane.) Same for doctors who botch surgeries, same for a high-school soccer coach who has sex with an underage player. (Although wouldn't that be great..."Well Judge, it's just that I'm placed in so many 'could-screw-a-hot-17-year-old' situations...)
The fact is that WHATEVER job one chooses, there will be some situations that are unique and difficult to that job. That's why we call people 'professionals', because they are capable of handling specific situations in specific fields that an average person is not capable of handling. The difficulty of the job is not an excuse for the kinds of spectacular, grossly negligent failures that get people killed. Period.
Why was his safety off?
I used to work at a police academy, and in the firearms training simulators, I noticed a quirk about the standard Glock pistol: it doesn't have a manual safety. There's a sort of lever-catch on the trigger, looking like a second trigger, so the gun won't go off if dropped or jostled, and there may be some sort of pressure safety on the grip, but there isn't a switch on the gun that has "safe" on one side and "fire" on the other. Stick your finger in the trigger guard, and the gun's ready to fire.
Which is one reason why the range-master was adamant about people not putting their fingers in the trigger guards until they're ready to shoot.
To build on the post above with the CA standards for murder/manslaughter, these sections are also relevant:
189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.
As used in this section, "destructive device" means any
destructive device as defined in Section 12301, and "explosive" means
any explosive as defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety
Code.
As used in this section, "weapon of mass destruction" means any
item defined in Section 11417.
To prove the killing was "deliberate and premeditated," it shall
not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully
reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.
---------------------------
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.
--------------
It's been a little while since law school, but under CA law, my quick take would be:
1) Did he have "malice aforethought" as defined under CA law. I think it's possible a jury could find this. It depends whether a jury feels he had a "deliberate intention [to] unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature" or "no considerable provocation." If either is found, he's probably guilty of 2nd degree murder.
2) If no "malice aforethought", then he'll probably be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the killing of man either for the commission of an unlawful act or "in the commission of a lawful act...without due caution and
circumspection." I don't think the "sudden quarrel/heat of passion" clauses apply here. I believe those clauses are more for situations like fights where you accidentally punch someone too hard or you walk in on your wife with another man and shoot him with a shotgun.
"They're being tried by a system that lawyers judges etc. consider them a part of."
sv this really isn't true. Cops distrust and dislike lawyers almost universally (even ones that work for them sometimes). DA's think cops are incompetent and vice/versa, and many DA's prosecute cops more aggressively than citizens. I have never judges (save one) to show any special affinity for cops.
This idea that cops need more stringent rules and oversight is bizarre to me. In most Department's, rules against the use of force are already more stringent than for private actors, and there are already several layers of scrutiny, from civilian review, to internal affairs, to private citizens groups, to federal investigations. For better or worse, every cop already knows that every action he takes will be second-guessed, usually by a non-professional, and that if he is perceived to have slipped up, he will lose his career and pension.
What else do you think is necessary? Aside from the sensational cases that pop up every few years, do you think PO's actually overuse deadly force? I don't think more oversight is needed, particularly since the trend has been to remove traditional due process protections for police officers.
JRC - agreed with you. Manslaughter without caution or due circumspection looks like what it was to me. This could hinge on what the witnesses say the cop was saying right before he shot the guy. If he was saying something like, "Hold still or I'll have to hurt you," etc, etc., or otherwise threatening the guy in pursuit of compliance, then the 'heat of the moment' may apply, or possibly second degree murder (if he was threatening in a more general way).
"It baffles me that anyone could argue that that situation was not in control. The guys were on the ground. Some of them were cuffed.
Scared ass cops. If you're that terrified of guys that got in a fight, you shouldn't be a cop."
My Response: THANK YOU! Let's call this for what it is. Cops (mostly white) are put out on the streets to deal with people (mostly black) who they ARE NOT COMFORTABLE DEALING WITH! You scared of me hell I'm scared of you. When a white cop sees a white teenager goofing off/fighting/belligerent/etc they see their nephew, cousin, brother, friend, etc. That's not the case with young black men. Young black men are the other to white cops. Half of these cops are scared of these guys - on the really real, I think there are many whites who are scared of black people in general (fear of a black planet - anyone?). They can't empathize with them because they aren't able to humanize them and that's a frightful thing because if you can't humanize a people how are you going to be able to gain their trust/respect in order to keep the peace. THERE WON'T BE PEACE!
well - i dont want special laws for cops, i just want them to be subject to the same laws and for those involving the use of deadly force to be applied stringently to them. in other words, the mitigating circumstances involved with the stressful situations in which these shootings etc usually occur should be balanced against the fact that these are cops, professionals who have a responsibility to protect, hence NOT SHOOT citizens if it can be avoided. i know that's vague that's why we have courts, it just seems like the courts feel that if cops are held liable for excessive force, their authority and ability to do their jobs is undermined. I think that's pretty debatable. also, for every excessive force case that gets this sensational, there are surely many which dont get much or any press attention, or where there's no one to say it was excessive, or where it gets swept under the rug. not saying that use of excessive force is the norm; just saying that i think it's significantly more common than these once-in-a-while media circuses suggest. check out Radley Balko on reason.com for a fair-minded journalist who follows this stuff.
Wow Terry. You have amazing insights into white people's subconscious thoughts. What do you think I want for dinner tonight?
This guy may have been too shaky to be a cop, but it has nothing to do with him being white. Aside from personal attributes (maybe he'd never been in a fight before, who the eff knows), it has alot to do with lack of experience.
And as for your one factual assertion, most PD's are pretty integrated these days. You must be thinking of the fire department.
Murder or manslaughter... who cares? In my militant opinion the police only exist at this point to further the class division and keep poor (and not white) people in their 'place.'
With shootings and muggings on the rise in my BK neighborhood (Clinton Hill/Bed Stuy), the police tell us 1: to quit are bitching because the hood isn't nearly as bad as it use to be, and 2: to BLOG ABOUT IT - no I'm not kidding, find it at the societyforclintonhill-dot-org website. But when a traffic cop was "fired at" on the same streets they went block by block and door by door in their investigation. Compare all this to what happens when the cops shoot someone.
Growing up in the white, liberal bastion of Seattle, I couldn't not see a cop at all times, and their sole purpose it seemed was busting kids for drinking in parks and keeping the blacks out of Starbucks. Fortunately I'm white so we didn't have to worry about being shot, not even after someone punches a cop, they also don't pull out anything worse than pepper spray. Yes, if you didn't know, this is what it's like in white America. And this is why the police keep getting away with these murders, because it doesn't affect the people with any control.
So we should just get rid of the cops. Seriously.
I'm sure most here will disagree and consider me ignorant and reactionary, but I've seen things from both sides and haven't been able to come to a different conclusion. So thanks to the pigs for constantly reaffirming it for me...
No reason to pull a gun? Seriously? This is Fruitvale, Oakland. It's not murder central but it's not far away. A fifteen minute walk and you get to the Colliseum Area which is where it starts to get that fucked up eerie feeling of the worst-worst ghettos. Not just poor and downtrodden, but like you suddenly just took some drugs or something and the rules are different. Where even the people who aren't gonna kick your ass have their eyes light up when you walk by.
So that night is New Years Eve. Even if nothing is going to happen it definitely feels like the entire area is poised on a knife's edge waiting for something to pop-off. And this is a train system. If shit pops off in Fruitvale and they don't put the kibosh on it will show up in three other suburbs in ten minutes. So the authorities need to respond quickly and with FORCE and believe me we are all of us who use the train system glad that they do, because that's the only way there is a train system at all in that area.
So with literally hundreds of kids in the area, some already fighting, and 4 or five transit cops (which is as low as you can go on the totem pole and still get a gun) trying to control the situation, trying to keep the peace...those cops were scared shitless. I don't care what they might say, or what attitude they might put over to save face, they were all loosing weight at that very moment, so to speak.
Looking at the film I can garauntee you that cop did not mean to kill that kid. He meant, I'm sure, to kick some ass and do it in full view, to give himself (the cop) a feeling of control over the situation, to assuage his own anxiety and probably to demonstrate that the cops were in charge so don't start any shit. I know a lot of people think that cops do this just because cops are assholes, and I know some of them do, but most of them I think are just trying to do their impossible jobs (keep the peace in Oakland? Is that a joke?).
Still, the outrage is that the guy is out on the street, released to his own recognizance and ultimately this is simply typical Oakland government: no nefarious grand plan, no plan at all. Just cronyism and utter, total, rank incompetence. They should have just put the guy in jail and let him cool it in solitary. Better for him, better for his family, better for the entire freaking area. But no, that's not possible, not in Oakland. Now we got idiot Berkley "revolutionaries" and "anarchists" breaking windows in the freaking ghetto. Perfect.
Meanwhile Dellums the mayor is apprehensive that an HBO drama set in Oakland about pimps will portray the City in a bad light. Like the Wire made Baltimore look bad. What a moron.
Sorry, I seem to have started a rant here...
That's clearly murder. What kind, I could give a fuck as long as that piece of shit who did the shooting spends a lot of time in jail, preferably among the normal population where he'll have to fend for himself.
Cops shooting unarmed and restrained guys and not going to jail for it is bullshit, but it happens again and again. All the apologistas here make me sick.
Put that fucker in jail where he belongs.
You can quible over the degree, but there is no question that this is atleast manslaughter, and this guy needs to do time. I don't buy the taser angle at all, (I'm with the pulled-the-gun-for=-control-and-it-went-off-accidentally crowd) but it doesn't really matter.
You cannot invest power over life and death in an officer of the government and then not come down hard on a fuck-up as collosal as this one. He needs to be held to the highest standard.
sv:
I see what you are saying. I think the thing that has to be remembered in most cases (not this one) is that unlike in shootings involving private actors, firing a gun is, under certain prescribed circumstances, required by the job. This makes it that much harder to determine (except in this case) whether a shooting that took place over a matter of seconds in a very tense situation was justifiable. I think that this is where you get the benefit of the doubt going to the PO, even from mixed juries like in Diallo.
As for whether these cases are representative of police shootings or peculiar, I would say the latter based on what I've seen. At least in big cities, the Department, the press and citizens scrutinize all of the close call shootings. You don't hear about most police shootings because the majority are justified.
Stop and frisks...well...I won't talk about those.
"Wow Terry. You have amazing insights into white people's subconscious thoughts. What do you think I want for dinner tonight?"
You can be cute but let's be real here: There are whites who regard blacks with a certain amount of disdain. The whole "blacks stole my job/I'm not responsible for slavery/"welfare queens" sucking up the system/thugs are ruining my neighborhood" mindset is definitely there among many white police officers whether they want to admit it or not. These are the Joe Six Packs/Real Americans/Blue Collar Men that we saw during the election - they have jobs you know. Wonder where many of them are working?
@LaborLibert - There are two ways to address your points, first as they relate to this specific case, and second as they generalize to police as a whole. I'll take them in order, with an emphasis on the first.
THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR: The first thing I think is necessary (to answer the question at the beginning of your last paragraph) is that this cop should have been arrested at the scene, questioned immediately, and held in jail, like any ordinary citizen would have. He should not have been permitted to skip the questioning session arranged for him. Those two points are critical because it's the only way possible to establish if he was intoxicated or not. He received this special treatment, I would add, at the hands of other cops.
As to what else is necessary in this specific case, it's impossible to note yet because this case is just beginning. As this goes along, it's entirely possible that I will be satisfied as to his treatment and trial. But I would point out that, as I noted above, even at this early stage, the shooter has already been accorded significant special treatment which would not have been given to a civilian.
MORE GENERALLY: Your conclusions about the strained relations between DAs and Judges and Cops are so general and unsupported that I can't even really respond to this. You make what should be a psychological point as if it were an a priori conclusion, and, while I can't prove to you that judges and cops and lawyers all conspire together, I would suggest that is actually closer to the truth than the suggestion that they all hate each other.
Your suggestion that: "every cop already knows that every action he takes will be second-guessed, usually by a non-professional, and that if he is perceived to have slipped up, he will lose his career and pension."
The above takes the same over-generalized form as your previous statements, but here I am willing to press back, first of all by asking: "Do you really believe that? Seriously?" Do you believe that COPS get the short end of the stick from this country's political, legal, and intellectual elite?
Quite to the contrary, cops are DEIFIED in this country beyond all reasonable expectation. When was the last time you remember a white politician saying something bad about cops? Ever? I honestly tried and I couldn't think of an instance. Cops are given the benefit of every doubt possible by anyone who wants to get or hold political power, because cops have a great union, and criminals don't.
I make the following statement from anecdotal, personal experience, both as a one-time defendant in the Justice System and as the son of a former DA/Criminal defense attorney: Cops lie. And not just a little bit, and not just a few bad apples. Most cops are perfectly willing to lie most of the time, and they firmly believe they are doing so in the service of justice. But make no mistake, the cop who did this crime will lie if he can to get out of it, and his buddies on the force will lie to cover up for him. They (and the politicians who support them) care much more about protecting cops, good or bad, than they do about honesty. So lots of cops who ought to lose their jobs and pensions don't, we just don't hear about them because they aren't 'sensational cases'.
By the way, a word about 'sensational cases', as you so blithely refer to them: What makes a case sensational is when THERE IS A FUCKING VIDEO OF A COP KILLING SOMEBODY. It's not that a cop shooting a black guy is such a rare occurrence, what makes it sensational is that the way this was done makes it impossible to sweep under the rug. So, yes, I do think cops consistently overuse deadly force. I've never carried a weapon in my life, but I've been roughed up and treated badly by cops who assumed I was out to do them harm. It's that presumption that ruins the relationship between cops and the public, and in this case got a relatively innocent man killed.
Finally, your last sentence: 'I don't think more oversight is needed, particularly since the trend has been to remove traditional due process protections for police officers.'
What trend are you talking about? Is there something specific to which you are referring, or are you just making another blanket statement?
Terry, I've been white for a long time and have never heard a white complain that his job was stolen by a black.
But seriously, there are people who hold (sort of) the views you list that are police officers (and garbage men and librarians and everything else). I don't think holding these views disqualifies you from being a police officer, nor do I think that it makes them shake-in-their-boots scared of black folk.
I know cops from the liliest white suburbs who can spot a gun from a block and a half away. My point is that sort of unfamiliarity and fear if it exists goes away pretty quick once you've been out there for a little while and gained some experience.
Now I gotta go home. Peace
@bakum - Am I to understand from your opening statement that being in a bad neighborhood (like Oakland) means that cops can pull their guns whenever they want to, because they don't feel as safe, but if they're in an upper-class neighborhood they have to exercise caution? Should they be allowed to search people in bad neighborhoods without PC as well? How far can we take this?
This cop might walk. Let's just call it what it is. It's hard to prove to a majority-white society that a police officer that shoots a black man was not justified.
I'll wait until the case plays out and the media is able to determine if Oscar Grant was or wasn't involved in the fracas that broke out on the train, his criminal record, if any and see where the case leads.
But, to me, I'm jaded when it comes to police officers (all stripes and hues) getting away with this type of brutality against the people they are "sworn to protect."
"[Cops] care much more about protecting cops, good or bad, than they do about honesty."
@OGWiseman -- THANK YOU! This is one of the most important things the average citizen isn't aware of. You are not alone in your anecdote. There are so many Americans who have had their lives ruined just because the cops want to protect their own, and will lie (under oath) to do so.
"This cop might walk. Let's just call it what it is. It's hard to prove to a majority-white society that a police officer that shoots a black man was not justified."
That's funny. There were a lot of white people on the train. They didn't seem to think the shooting was justified.
"Cold-blooded murder" doesn't really fit here, in my estimation, mainly becasue it doesn't make any sense. I can see one or two cops offing a black guy in an ally, where no one is watching and they can say whatever they want and be believed. But in a subway absolutely pacted with people and covered with cameras? Doesn't make sense. Thats why the "gun went off by accident" therory is more plausable.
Like I said before, that doesn't excuse anything; te guy needs to do time. But I highly doubt he'll get off. Not with all that evidence all over the news and accessable to everyone.
Now, if you are looking for racism, then wait until the sentence comes to see if it is lighter than usual...
OG:
I'm not ducking you but I have to go. So I'll be brief. I don't know why he wasn't arrested. The cops on the scene will have to answer for that. In many other jurisdictions he would have been arrested, particularly by now. Also, see my later comment to sv on why police shooting trials differ from those of private actors.
I'll only say that my experience differs from yours on the point about treatment of cops by the justice system. I don't really know what your backgroud is but I see cops get effed on almost a daily basis, usually by their own department and often for doing their jobs. If your going to hold me to a standard of proof here you'll have to read your own comment and hold yourself to it too. Yes cops are deified by politicians and the press, but these same assholes run for the hills if a cop's ass is on the line. It's all PR, and it never benefits police officers.
On the sensational shooting point, the fact is that disputed cases are few and far between. Most shootings are witnessed and all are investigated. I've seen alot of these reports myself. There's not alot of controversy here. Aside from all that, for reasons I've explained above, shooting your gun in the LOD is the last thing any cop wants to do. There's a pretty good chance of ruining your career and reputation every time you do it.
On the due process point, courts stripped PO's of many of their procedural rights and bargaining rights in favor of giving Dep't executives complete control over discipline. Meaning essentially that Police Chief's and Commissioners get to act as the gods of their departments and mete out justice as they see fit.
More next time.
I'm told the trigger pressure on the gun the officer shot Grant with (BART police carry a Sig 226 in 40 S&W) is twelve pounds. Beyond the obvious fact that he shouldn't have had his finger on the trigger to begin with (that should lose him his job outright, basic gun safety 101) there is no way that pulling the trigger could have been an accident. At best, he lost control in a high pressure situation and killed a completely innocent man. At worst, it was an outright execution. It is unlikely to the point of impossibility that the gun went off unintentionally, and the grip on a pistol bears no resemblance to a taser so there's simply no way that he didn't know he had just pulled his gun.
Only questions now are whether this was heat of the moment or an expression of deeper sentiment, and whether they'll let him get away with it.
To these eyes, it seems completely irrelevant whether Grant was involved in any fracas. Since he was down on the ground and unable to defend himself when that cop shot him. There is no question from the video that the cop was clearly NOT acting in self-defense. Whether he made a mistake and discharged his gun by accident is another matter, but again, irrelevant to these eyes. Because what the hell is he doing pointed a loaded weapon at a man on the ground like that anyway?
In my experience, most cops are douchebags who are pissed off at the world that they were too stupid to become anything but cops. Or course, there are good cops out there, lots of them, but there a lots of bad ones too, and the good ones tend to let the bad ones run wild because cops don't like policing themselves.
Which is evident from the way these asshole cops reacted to the shooting. A good cop would have taken that shooter and put him on the ground and in cuffs the moment he shot that unarmed guy. But of course that didn't happen, because at heart those guys on the scene are scumbags.
"In my experience, most cops are douchebags who are pissed off at the world that they were too stupid to become anything but cops."
Cops are deified allright. I can't count the number of times I've heard things like this from people, usually from ignorant jack-offs who didn't even know a cop.
Too bad LaborLibert had to leave, I felt the discussion was actually in a good place, contentious without becoming too personal. Since he (I assume he? Man, English needs a non-gender-specific pronoun.) is gone, I won't go into the points too far, but briefly:
2D PARAGRAPH: Your first point here is actually one I don't really disagree with. The ultimate irony here is that I DO believe that cops often get 'effed' when they are doing their jobs, for political reasons, etc. But when cops actually, really screw up, the others close ranks fast and hard. I think we're making compatible points here.
Second in this paragraph, with regard to my standard of proof, that's why I included the line "anecdotal, personal experience", was to indicate that my statement wasn't going to be backed up by statistics. And as I indicated, my background is as a sometime defendant and son of a criminal lawyer. (I'm also white, BTW)
Last point in this paragraph, if you're saying that politicians have no spine and don't care about anybody, I'm right there with you. But lots of politicians, PARTICULARLY at the local level, side with cops as a knee-jerk reaction to anything, and stick by it. See: Kevin Mannix in Oregon (my home state) and the insane Measure 11 he helped pass.
3D PARAGRAPH: If shooting his gun in the line of duty was the last thing that cop wanted to do, he would not have done it. Murder or not, what is clear is that it was flatly unnecessary.
FINAL PARAGRAPH: We're sort of talking past each other here, because of the complex interplay of departmental/IA discipline, legal/criminal proceedings, and media attention. Frankly, I'm just not going to get into it right now.
No way around it, you need cops.
I don't have time to post more but I just wanted to throw out there that the cop can also be prosecuted federally by the US DOJ for civil rights violations. It's how the feds were able to try the Rodney King cops after they were acquitted on state charges.
Whatever your opinion of police officers, the fact that this coward resigned rather than take responsibility and co-operate with the investigation into the matter should disgust all of us.
BART cops, when carrying both pistol and taser, carry them on opposite sides of their body. He had to have intended to pull his gun rather than the taser.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155BAH.DTL&type=printable
On a personal level, though, I do have to say that I agree that he should have been immediately arrested by the officers on the scene, so the fact that his defense will be paid for by the CA state police brotherhood really does nothing but lower my opinion of cops as a whole.
Ah, so LL is not gone! Let me just add that I used 'deified' in reference to politicians and power-brokers, not in reference to individual citizens, who, I freely admit, are often disparaging of cops.
I should add that I don't hate cops, nor do I think they are douche-bags. I think that lots of cops often forget who they work for, and lots of cops are deeply, deeply cynical. It's a very real problem in our society, and one that, because it is so difficult to address, is largely ignored.
Final thought: What is we required that all police officers have college degrees? Impossible? Yeah, probably. But if cops had some of the perspective imbued by education we would have a much better, more effective police force.
@laborlibert
You make some good points, but part of the issue here is that this shooting was not done by an officer from a municipal, county, or state law enforcement agency. BART Police have a special place here in the Bay Area with no oversight by any external committee, board or commission. This is not the first time that BART police have shot and killed an unarmed man. In 1992, they shot and killed a young man from behind with a shotgun because he looked like the black man who was reported to have stolen someone's Walkman. In 2001, they shot and killed a homeless man who was naked and mentally ill.
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7813&catid=4&volume_id=398&issue_id=413&volume_num=43&issue_num=15
Among the other issues triggering hostility here is that BART waited a week to schedule an interview with the officer in question. In the interim, he lawyered up and rather than cooperate with the internal investigation, he submitted his resignation.
Now, as I understand it, in most cases an officer is not arrested immediately after an officer-involved shooting. Rather, an internal investigation is conducted to determine whether the shooting was warranted or justified, and if not to make a determination as to whether charges should be brought.
What angers me is that having resigned from his position, the officer can no longer be compelled to discuss the shooting with his former employer's investigators and he is still a physically free man. I'm sure there may be some legal out that would disallow my suggestion, but in my opinion, when an officer quits the force rather than cooperate in the investigation, he should forfeit all privileges as an officer. What that means to me is that, upon receipt of the resignation, an arrest warrant should have been issued charging him with homicide.
Any officer who shoots an unarmed, subdued man in the back while that man is lying on the ground is liable for manslaughter if nothing else. Since Officer Mehserle chose not to participate in the investigation, he should now be in jail pending arraignment for homicide charges and a bail hearing. Charges can be amended, dropped or dismissed, or a plea bargain can be reached, but if the shooter had been a gang member or just some guy on the street, there would have been an immediate arrest.
Instead, the DAs office is saying it may be two weeks before the decide IF they will bring charges.
Excellent commentary here crew! I would just add the following:
When black teens see cops they become more guarded and distrustful and think "nothing good can come of this." When cops see black teens they become more distrustful and guarded and think "nothing good can come of this."
k1
ryanculver.blogspot.com
and then there's this shit outta houston (bellaire), tx...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6195571.html
@ Triumvere,
The white people on that train will NOT be jurors, so their opinion in a court of law is only testimony, not verdict. And we've seen numerous cases, of the years, where white witnesses that saw an officer of the law do something similar to this be discounted by good lawyering, cross examination or just plain old jury nullification by giving the witnesses little or no weight if the police contradicted their account. But you already knew this. ;-)
I never used the term "cold-blooded" in my post. I don't know what the police officer's motives were. All I know is that even if a million white folks saw the cop shot an unarmed black man in the back, it won't get a jury to put a cop in jail just on its face.
"Looking for racism?" Please. Maybe black folks will stop "looking for racism" in cop killings of this sort when shooting folks in custody stops. Or do I need to refer you to the case in Bellaire, Texas where the guy suspected of stealing his own car was shoot three times in the chest in his driveway? Bullet lodged in his kidney that might have to remain there for life. And for what? A frickin' police stop that didn't have to happen. The police were told, by the victim's mother who resided at the home where the shooting occurred, that the car was NOT stolen. The cops manhandled her and when her son protested, he was tapped in the chest three times. Nice job, Men in Blue. Nice job.
And my father IS a retired DC cop. And even he'd tell you that shooting a guy that didn't steal a car that you decided to go Sherlock Holmes on and follow home one night only to shoot him for "protesting" how you handled his aged mother? You don't get dap in the police locker room for that. Other good cops understand that stuff happens, but bro: you didn't even shoot A CRIMINAL in the chest, man. That ain't cool. No cop gets dap from other cops for manhandling a middle-aged woman on her own property over a bogus police stop of her son over a car that wasn't even stolen.
Ugly.
Has the head of the transit police explained why the officer wasn't disarmed and arrested on the spot?
Think about it. You're a cop and you watch a guy pull a gun and fatally shoot another guy in the back. And you don't arrest him? WTF?
Chalk me up as a mild-mannered white guy who has been victimized by lying cops and who has friends who have been victimized by lying cops, and who watched most of the OJ trial and knew that most of those cops were lying their tongues off. Cops lie more often than politicians.
To my eyes, the cop clearly didn't accidentally pull the trigger. He meant to. He wigged out and shot the guy. From the law quoted in a comment above, it looks like it's probably manslaughter, possibly second-degree murder.
MURDER "too strong" a word???!! Really??? And who says that the only way it can be an execution is to have the person get shot in the head?! Retarded ass reasoning...
I don't care about the whys, hows or whatever that made the officer pull out his weapon. Why is anybody on here trying to analyze this to death?! It is what it is, whether he did it in cold blood or not, he pulled a deadly weapon on an individual who posed NO threat to him at the time WHATSOEVER.
I am so beyond pissed with the blatant disregard that is given to the worth of the lives of our Black men, particularly by the police. I am sick of it. Absolutely sick of it. And by now, with all the past cases of these types of unjustified shootings having occurred over the years, WE ALL SHOULD BE FED UP. NO MORE EXCUSES for these types of incidents...
There is no justification for this to have happened at all. And if this victim was White, there would be none of this "reasoning" & "wait & see" type shit going on right now, trust...
I'ma be like Mookie in Do The Right Thing, be the first one to throw the garbage can thru the window, cause I'm so over the dumb shit...
I'm still not sure what I think about all of this...I lived in the Bay Area for 8+ years (mostly in SF, but my sister has lived in various parts of Oakland during the same time period) and I was actually out in SF when this went down. While I know that the Fruitvale and the West Oakland stations are not places I would want to especially be alone late at night, I see nothing on that video that makes me think those young men being detained by the police were being especially difficult. In fact, they seem pretty restrained.
Dude did look shocked when the gun when off, but the police looked they had the situation in hand. Pulling out the guns seemed a bit much.
In any case, outside of the fact that a young man is dead over nothing, the other issue is why hasn't the cop been questioned at all?
The "unruly crowd" was mostly on the opposite side of the track.
so the fact that his defense will be paid for by the CA state police brotherhood really does nothing but lower my opinion of cops as a whole.
Especially if the officers who were with him aren't forced to testify by the DA. As soon as that officer resigned, the DA should have had officers waiting for him and arrested him on the spot and charged him with homicide. He should have then brought in all of the officers who were there and forced them to make an affidavit of the events. Anybody who doesn't cooperate gets charged with obstruction of justice.
And if this victim was White, there would be none of this "reasoning" & "wait & see" type shit going on right now, trust...
If he were white, he wouldn't have been shot to begin with. There would have been the same shit on those lines though, racism is reflected in the crime itself, not the analysis here.
I agree that this can be called murder by any realistic view, whether it was accidental or not it doesn't change that fact. I wouldn't say cold-blooded, I agree with LL that the cop appears shaken as far as I can see and it looks like he panicked, but we don't forgive civilians for that and I think we should hold the police to a higher standard rather than a lower one.
The 5 train just shot above-ground so I'm back. Trouble is you all wore me out.
Final points: OG, many dep'ts reqire college education. Usually 60 credits, sometimes a bachelors. Some pay premiums for higher education, which is a great idea.
As to whether the union would pay for legal represent representation, this is an interesting question. If he was a member, they would arguably be obligated to represent him based on their fiduciary obligation to him as a member. Union's also often take the position that they have an obligation to assume their members are innocent and defend them to the fullest extent, particularly in cases like this where no one else will. I think this is a reasonable position and it sends a good message to the r and f that you're behind them 100 percent, politics aside.
I don't think there is a fiduciary obligation here and I don't think they'll pay for the defense, but I suppose we'll see.
Have read all the comments. Good stuff, though after all this hashing out, I'll be repetitive in saying points I think are accurate.
First, is there at least a possibility that the cop was reaching for pepper spray? I know DC transit police use it in similar situations and I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere. That could be a defense argument, although my gut rebels against that as a factual account for what happened (different feeling from a gun handle, etc.).
Second, looking at that video, it's going to be hard to show malice aforethought, which whether we like it or not is the legal requirement for murder in CA (as multiple others have pointed out before me). So expect that a jury will not find murder. Which means the DAs should not charge murder (unless they want the officer to walk, like Diallo). We may not feel it's right, but that's what's going to happen. The shooter's reaction alone will convince a jury that he didn't have malice, so it's voluntary manslaughter at best, I suspect.
Third, I think part of the thin blue line attitude, i.e. cops lying and covering for other cops, comes from cops being more intimately acquainted with the justice system than most citizens. From this contact, they know that the justice system doesn't have truthfinding as its primary goal. They see guys get off on "technicalities" like the 4th Amendment's exclusionary rule, when it's clear the guy had a gun or drugs and should be punished. They're taught from day one to write good reports that'll hold up in court, which often means to fudge the truth. Some cops feel free to lie, therefore, when a guy whom they feel they know to be bad will get punished. This is a percentage calculation: "Sure, this guy may not have done this crime, but he's done other crimes and deserves to be punished in general." Likewise, protecting your buddy, even if he fucked up, is a percentage play (in addition to a quid-pro-quo with brother officers): "he's not a bad guy, and even though he accidentally shot this guy, he doesn't deserve to go to jail." I think this attitude is short-sighted and self-defeating; it makes every citizen such a cop encounters distrust cops. But it's an understandable reaction of people who deal with criminals all day (actually guilty people, I mean) in a system that's designed to protect individual rights to such a great extent. Wrong, but understandable.
flygyrl72 -- You and I may have a different interpretation of why Mookie throws that trash can. Could he have been actually doing the right thing for Sal, i.e. protecting him? Sal's store was insured, after all; his life was worth a lot more and was quite possibly in danger. To me, the last scene of the movie argues that Mookie's was not an act of blind anger--I mean, he asks Sal for his money, for god's sake--but of a sense that the crowd's rage needed to be appeased and he knew the best (less overall damaging) way for doing so.
LL: if you take a quick glance over the SF Chronicle article I linked, they're reporting that his defense will still be paid for by a statewide policemen's fund even though he quit in order to avoid answering questions. I can't be sure of the accuracy of the article but as far as I know that is usually how things are done in these sorts of cases. I agree that it's a reasonable position for the union to take, my anger over it is just another part of the frustration I felt from the fact that the other officers on the scene didn't act to disarm and detain him immediately. Feels too much like closing ranks.
As far as the college thing goes, unless you're forcing them to take humanities courses and requiring some kind of education in philosophy, sociology, and history (what i wouldn't give for a police force made up of men who read Zinn and Chomsky) I don't think it would do anything at all. Especially given, as LL pointed out, that many departments require it anyway and a basic college education simply doesn't touch on the root causes that lead to this kind of situation. I know too many racist college graduates to think otherwise.
I'd say that would be a good reason to ask for his gun....
Right now, I think the process past-shooting is all screwed up. If he's an officer, he should have been stripped of weapon, assigned to desk duty and questioned (with representation from his union). If he resigned, he's a civilian, he should get arrested, he should get questioned, he shouldn't get union representation (Because he's not IN the union anymore).
As it stands, he's getting the best of both worlds---which is an altogether undeserved situation. He's either a cop or a civilian. Anything else is BS.
This looks like involuntary manslaughter to me.
Dude, your commenters are crazy! The cop just flat out blasted that guy point blank! Believe me, this isn't part of the police handbook, and it's not standard procedure *anywhere*. Maybe the cop's a good guy & just panicked, but he's going to jail, NQA.
LL, way too many excuses for cops in general. I think this is Murder 2. Yeah he looks surprised but his actions afterward aren't the actions of a man sorry he just shot someone. There is no reason for him to fear for his or any other officer's life. Therefore no reason he should have pulled a gun or a taser. He looks like a guy who got shook & killed someone 'cause he was paranoid. Wouldn't be surprised at if he was drunk.
Personally I think it'd be very interesting to see all of BART's records WRT the firearms and taser training programs for their officers and what certifications their trainers hold.
If he thought he was drawing the taser, was he properly trained in it or was he just handed the thing and told to practice using it a few times?
If he meant to draw his sidearm, what kind of firearms training and requalification program does BART run for their officers?
If the BART training and qualification program for their officers after leaving the police academy is as half-assed as I've heard, it would explain much about this incident, including why the department is acting in CYA mode.
Phil Deeze,
Ah. Think you got me slightly wrong. "Cold blooded murder" was my term; clearly a lot of angry posters think thats what it was, but - as you point out - you can't know what the cop was thinking, so you can't make that call, no matter how shocking the tape is. I said before the cop is pretty clearly guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
As to the "looking for racism" remark, I wasn't refering to the cop, but the trial-that-hasn't-happened-yet. I have know idea if the cop is a "racist", though I'd bet that other posters are right when they say he probably wouldn't have pulled his gun on a white guy. You see, while I am a where that cops get away with killing black men in questionable circumstances, I don't see any possibility that fancy lawyering or law-and-order type jurors are goin to get this guy off; the jury will see the tapes, just as we have and most likely have the same reaction. So, the interesting part to watch would be the sentencing to see if he gets of light because he's a cop and Grant was black.
Overly optimistic? Naive to the realities of racism in America today? Maybe. But I don't think the cop's going to get away this time.
Follow-up:
The white guys on the train do matter. Here is why: The situation you talked about, the one where a white jury trusts the words of a white cop over a white whitness to the death of a black man, happens because of (often unconcious) predjudice. Predjudice causes people to want to believe the cop, and to question the victim. If you are used to thinking of cops as heroic protectors and blacks as potential criminals its easy to predispose yourself to beleiving the cop's story, regardless of the race of the witness.
But not here. Here the jury IS the witness. They will see exactly what the people on the train saw, and will react the same way.
The hell it wasn't murder. The first thing you're taught as an officer or military member when you're issued your weapon is that you NEVER, under any circumstances, point your weapon at anyone or anything that you don't intend to kill or maim. You only draw your weapon in defense of self or defense of others. Period. Whether he intended to squeeze the trigger or not, he made a conscious choice to use lethal force the minute he drew his weapon. There was no conceivable justification for use of lethal force. That's murder.
As for the theory that perhaps he was reaching for his taser, there are a number of facts that shoot it full of holes. First, according to BART it is department policy to wear your taser opposite your firearm on your duty belt, or in the center of your duty belt with the handle facing away from your firearm, so that you have to turn your shooting hand over in order to draw it. Second, all BART officers wear a Sig-Mauer .40, which weighs 32 oz. when loaded. BART uses X26 Tasers, which weigh 7.2 oz. and require activation of the safety switch before use.
Moreover, the BART spokesman stated that it isn't clear whether or not officer Mehserle even had a taser, because everyone isn't issued one, as they don't have enough to go around. Assuming officer Mehserle had a taser, it is difficult to understand how a trained officer could not only forget which hand is left and which hand is right, but mistake a significantly heavier and larger firearm for a lightweight taser with an activation switch.
My husband and watched this a couple times on different videos with different angles.
First, it looks to me that the guy was already down and didn't look at all like a threat. Why the officer would be pulling out any weapon other than handcuffs is beyond me.
Second, do handcuffs or tasers feel like a gun with a trigger? I hope not. I hope there are no cops running around with tasers that feel like handguns or vice versa. Think of how ridiculous that even sounds. Someone had to be smart enough to figure out that those weapons shouldn't look and feel or be activated the same way.
Third, what bothered me most is the reaction to shooting this man in the back. They just stared at the guy, and I saw no reaction like, "Shoot, we accidentally shot an innocent man, get an ambulance!" In fact, it looked like they just flipped him over or moved him or something, without any concern of his injuries. Isn't it possible that this could have excerbated his gunshot wound? The way they treated this man was like he wasn't even human.
After witnessing what happened, the officer should have been detained and questioned immediately. Are we saying now that officers are above the law and can pretty much do anything, include shoot a man in the back and not have to answer questions? This seems to be the pretty strong message that BART Police is sending us.
I'm sorry, but this simply does not look like murder. The required mental state for an unintentional murder is a killing "resulting from conduct involving wanton indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury." Now, if the cop thought he had a tazer in his hand, and not a gun, this was involuntary manslaughter which is "an unintentionally kiling resulting without malice aforethought caused either by criminal negligence..."
I'm studying for the bar, lol.
Now, if the cop thought he had a tazer in his hand, and not a gun, this was involuntary manslaughter
What if he knew that he was pulling a gun? Then that would make it murder, because he is trained to only draw a gun with the intention of shooting to kill. Secondly, I am disgusted with the behavior of our police force despite knowing multiple officers personally. Not from a "I was arrested" by them point of view, but family members and friends. If the other officers present don't testify against this officer, then they are now corrupt and above the law. What liberties do we have if officers can shoot us in the back and get away with it?
It's truely impressive how many people know so much about this case.
I have an unsubstantiated suspicion that maybe there are all sorts of legal events happening behind the scenes.
Maybe even stuff that the more hot headed posters here know little about.
Do you think the guy is sitting at home thinking it's all going to be alright because he is white or a cop?
Mark my words, I expect this officer to be in some serious trouble, and probably already is. I know I wouldn't want to face the legal tsunami of poo that is headed at him. Just a guess is that there will be some serious prison time in his future.
As for his resigning and not taking the heat from his department, well, that's probably on his lawyers advice, not that it will really make any difference.
SHIT! This is the first time I saw the full video, only read about it before cuz I couldn't bring myself to watch it.
If I was in Oakland right now I'd be rioting too...
Uh no. Murder is NOT too strong.
Cal Penal Code - The famous 187
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.
@ Triumvere,
The "fancy lawyering" I'm talking about will be the frame-by-frame review of the tape by the defense and hundreds of repetitive showings of the tape of the shooting in court to numb the jury. It worked in Simi Valley and it could work here.
You show the tape enough and show one frame "See? The suspect squirmed and the officer feared for his life, and lethal force was justified. The suspect could've had a gun."
You play on the fears of a jury. "This could've been you on the train afraid of the suspect involved in a fight, etc."
Fancy lawyering could be to get as many people on the jury, white folks, that have been on public transportation. And let the prosecution deal with jurors like that.
I am waiting for the testimony of the cuffed friends. While we can see the minute(s) before the shooting we can hardly tell what the officers are saying. That's going to give us a lot more information on the mindset that led to a loaded gun being pulled.
Unfortunately it won't be very helpful for trial purposes. In a stressful situation the nearby witnesses will not have an exact, second-by-second recall of exactly what was said and done. Defense lawyers will poke all kinds of holes in their testimony. Plus, they will be outnumbered by BART officers who will lie to cover up the situation.
(That's part of the outrage. Cops are MORE likely to lie than civilians, AND they will have the time and inclination to get their stories in synch. Yet their word is seen as more believable than the 18-yr-old black men they arrest.)
If this guy ends up spending 5 years in prison I'll be surprised.
And just imagine what would have happened with no videos at all...
I write this not to depress the readership but to help those in denial see the large social issues we have when officers will lie to protect each other.
I can cosign the Oakland City incompetence posted above but cannot ride for the strange and odd description of East Oakland. East Oakland has drug blocks, sure. Bad stretches, foul projects, dead zones. But like I said before... it's NOT SOMALIA. I used to hang down around Fruitvale and Colliseum when I was younger and it was bad, no doubt. You had to be very careful. There were blocks to avoid and you didn't go running around the projects at 2am. But it's not some kind of twilight zone "Where even the people who aren't gonna kick your ass have their eyes light up when you walk by." What is that, Dawn Of The Dead? Come on now. This is the kind of attitude that I'm sure many cops have, that leads them to perpetrate this kind of violence. That they're in "goddamn Falluja". But it's not that. Just the ghetto, is all.
Also yeah, whoever said it above, a lot of Glocks don't have a safety. Doubt police would have it on anyway but there you have it.
Mark my words, I expect this officer to be in some serious trouble, and probably already is.
Ummm...Everyone knows that. What's stunning is that the "serious trouble" does not seem to extend to being taken in for questioning, much less arrested. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing he'll be back on the beat tomorrow, and never answer a question. He is in some sort of trouble--may even have legal fees!!!--but nothing that, to date, seems proportionate to what one would expect. (i.e. Answering police questions, especially for the immediate aftermath of "does he seem drunk? high?" which a week later are moot.)
I know I wouldn't want to face the legal tsunami of poo that is headed at him.
And yet we all suspect you would choose the cop's shoes over Oscar Grant's shoes right now. Cheap shot, I know, but come on--"He'll face some legal questions at some point! So who's the real victim here?" is not a compelling argument. He shot an unarmed restrained suspect in the back--legal repercussions are to be taken for granted, still--this is not the Jim Crow south. But the speed of any action is laughable.
Just a guess is that there will be some serious prison time in his future.
Possibly. We can't argue over what happened in 2011; we can argue over what's happened in the past week--which is, no questioning. None of the stuff normal people, us, would have to face even if the cell phone videos showed that we shot in clear-cut self defense, much less what looks like accidental discharge of a weapon that should never have been drawn (or cold-blooded murder, or murder brought on by being so high he had zero judgment, or ....). You determine those, in part, by questioning everyone there--leaving the killer out is a rather large Ooops.
Phil,
The the handcuffed suspect with a knee on his neck "could've had a gun?" I'm thinking that that particular supposition is going to fly like a stone, but hey, anythings possible I guess.
Jay,
Does the tape show the "malace" of an "abandoned and malignant heart," or a cop that got scared, drew his gun, and accidently applied too much pressure to the trigger? It was a little too grainy for me to tell.
I think the numerous guidlines he must have violated to get to that point are surely enought to demonstrate a criminal negligence, but nothing in the video indicates his intent. That will have to come from the witnesses, namely the two other officers on scene and Grant's companions.
Phil & Jay,
Now, if the DA is smart he'll leave an option for manslaughter, rather than just go for full on murder (can you do that in CA?). Both reasonable doubt and racism could get the cop of the hook if the jury is asked to find malice aforethought (or whatever), but a crminal deriliction of duty resulting in an unlawful death? Hell, his partners are lucky they didn't get shot, they were so close. Bullet ricocheted. Could have easily hit one of them.
Days later, after viewing that bit of video at least 30 times, its still astonishing to me that the police standing there didn't train their weapons on that officer immediately and relieve him of his weapon. I am even mildly surprised that they didn't shoot him. That certainly would have been my first instinct upon watching anyone, cop or otherwise shoot an unarmed person in the back.
Honestly, how is it even possible that this cop was allowed to walk away from the scene on his own recognizance? I understand that there are police procedures that handle certain types of shootings by cops differently than they might for civilians. I even understand why those rules are often different even if I don't exactly agree. But these officers witnessed what was quite clearly a violent crime. There should simply be question that the individual who committed that crime, whatever the final charge might be, was dangerous and needed to be taken into custody immediately. Is there anyone, anywhere that can provide anything like a reasonable justification for why this officer was not immediately arrested?
It's morbidly fascinating to watch excuses evolve in the days following a major act of police misconduct. Especially when that misconduct is videotaped. Then the excuses always take on that "who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes" quality that make me want to laugh and make me want to smack the shit out of someone in equal measure.
Oscar (The victom) was shot around 2:00am , The first call from the officers was made at 2:13am. Why did it take them 13mins to call an ambulance? The victom was still at the scene breathing at 2:22am when the rescue arrived. 22 min. passed before victom was even sent to the hospital. If it were an accident he wouldv'e made sure victom was rushed to the hospital.
Victom didn't do anything wrong! Records show that they have been using tasers for only 3 months, so what! He has been a officer for 2 years, he knows the difference between a taser and a gun! And how do you accidently pull the trigger of a gun? It is MURDER the victom was shot for no reason at all.
The Victom was on the ground on his belly, He had the knee of the other officer at his neck. Why in the hell would he shoot or tase someone in that position.
**send his ass to prison! I hope he never see daylight!
@ Triumvere,
The prone victim in handcuffs was INFINITELY less dangerous to the officer's well-being than the individual in custody, but not restrained and on his knees. Can't wriggle or soothsay your way out of that.
As for the idea that the guy on his knees may have had a weapon? Police have shot naked people on the subway (previous case) and the only weapon those people have had are only useful after a few rounds of Henny and some Barry White. If you look at an officer wrong these days, you're going to get shot full of lead.
For the life of me, why they chose to shoot Oscar Grant is beyond comprehension. But, hey, sounds like help wasn't called for Grant for just under 15 minutes, so maybe he "deserved" to die for squirming or just being in custody, etc?
It's amazing to me how many people commenting on this incident know exactly what happened and exactly what will happen in the future.
All I know for sure is that the cop shot someone unnecessarily and death resulted.
As for the comments here justifying rioting the rioters should hope some scared cop, citizen, or storeowner, doesn't shoot their "militant" asses.
Now the suggestion that the other officers on the scene should have immediately arrested the shooter doesn't account for police procedures or what the other cops likely knew happened. Their reaction was probably "what the fuck just happened"? They may know more about what happened in that instant from the video than from actually being there. Although being there will give them background on overall what was happening.
I hope some of the assholes who were watching that incident prior to the shooting are smart enough to realize the role they may have indirectly played by their yelling and foolishness. The shouts of "let him go" before the shooting and the general sense of disorder may have contributed to this cop unjustifiably taking out his weapon. I don't know what was in his mind, but odds are he was scared. If BART is anything like the Chicago Transit Authority on New Years Eve there are groups of dumbass kids and young adults running around looking for trouble. In Chicago there were numerous incidents of groups of teens jumping people in train stations just for shits and grins.
Bringing up the Rodney King beating and the Simi Valley jury is "silly, silly, silly" as the Mayor of Chicago might say. Reasonable people could differ on whether the amount of force the cops used on King was appropriate. Hell even the "use of force" experts hired by the prosecution said many of the blows struck by the police were appropriate. No reasonable person would say this shooting was appropriate.
Those of you who suggested we get rid of the police are forons. That's a moron with an added "fucking". You don't like living in a world with police? Try living in a world without police.
The real answer is to try to get better police and policing.
Those of you who suggest cops are all "douchebags" and authoritarian nuts don't know any police. There are some who fit that description. Too many in fact. They are far from a majority of cops. Most cops are either folks just looking for steady work to support their families or just people who joined hoping to make a bit of a positive difference. Then there is what I would call the "asshole 20 percent".
Now there are all kinds of fucked up aspects of police culture. It's imperfect.
It's also fucked up that these cops "police" a society with all of the problems we have. What kind of sane person thinks rioting is an answer?
There are 400 incidents in this country yearly where cops kill people. Unless some of you choose to believe there is a great hidden conspiracy where cops kill people and hide their bodies. I don't think we live in the world of "Mississippi Burning" any longer.
Now even if you are a "foron" and believe every single killing by police is wrong 400 killings in a nation of 300+ million is not a large number.
Now what solace will that bring to the family of the dead Mr. Grant? Probably none. He was killed unjustifiably. The cop who did the shooting needs to be held accountable and BART will undoubtedly pay out a large settlement to the family.
Hopefully, this incident will lead to better police procedures and perhaps be a learning moment for everyone.
Grant was a punk street criminal who was arresting for brawling with passengers on BART. The video clearly shows he was resisting arrest.
Plus the station was full of drunks surrounding the police and showing hostiltiy towards the police. Did any of the drunks have guns? Perhaps. The situation was dangerous for the police.
Now my opinion, and one shared by most decent people, is that I would rather see a cop go home safely to his family after a dangerous shift and I don't care that much if a street punk gets killed.
Sure the police should not shoot people when other options are available but when someone like Grant gets killed most people don't shed a tear or get terribly upset about his death.
The fault lies with society that allows people to carry guns around that put the lives of the police in jepordy. If the police did not fear for their lives and have to wear bullet proof vests to work every day then police would not have to carry guns themeselves.
As long as society remains full of violent people with access to guns we will have a police force that occasionally shoots and kills someone they ought not to have shot. It is the price we pay for way we live.
Sure as shit looks like a straight up execution to me. Maybe it wasn't intentional, but I didn't see any meaningful resistance, the kid was on his face and the cop just fucking shot him in the back.
Stay tuned, the show has yet to begin. Whatever one's view may be something is clearly wrong; it does not appear the police officer in question should have been one. The video demonstrates a lack of supervision and training by all of the officers; all the nonsense about the heat of the moment is bull, the nature of these circumstance did not warrant the use of deadly force. Apart from the obvious of the numbers of nearby citizens, if the men being detained were dangerous all of the police offices would have been in trouble as they were in such close quarters; five to seven adults in about 50 to 80 square foot area with three begin armed, and two of the three going RAMBO is kinda dumb.
Do not think the D.A. will be of much help; a likely possibility as some have suggested is to improperly charge the officer or making legal determinations counter to facts. Apart from the potential bias inherent in the criminal justice system as regard law enforcement, am not convinced these folks are the brightest lights in the room. The state attorney general may elect to use oversight; this person is the former mayor of Oakland.
Another factor is his resignation that freed the now former officer of administrative hearing by his employer, but with the benefit of a state funded defense for any criminal court proceedings. A real sweet deal. This suggest that this guy has been down this road before or more simply has worked for other police agencies and been involved in some serious allegations and/events that would preclude him from employment by other police forces if fully investigated. Resignation would stop the administrative review and enhance possible employment in other police forces; the point being this fool may intend to be a police officer again.
This is a small transit police force that does not have the resources or personnel of larger systems or police agencies; the initial attempts by the transit district to downplay the matter was not helpful and others attempted to gain exposure for their own ends due the the killing of the young man. These officials could have handled this better but it appears they are in shock as much of the public. I suspect that the subject former officer was a bad apple and this transit police force knew he was one; the least experienced taking change is not a good sign,reality t.v. remains t.v. Comments by many are misplaced, we do not live in a perfect world but to suggest riots or disruptions are needed to obtain that which they view as justice is nothing more than them trying to bask in the spotlight for the infamous 15 seconds to further their ends. This is no different from those who see the police as some barrier to the mad horde of criminals, let this one rest. If criminal proceedings begin, motions for a change of venue will be front and center in large part due to these folks seeing 15 seconds. Stay tuned, but stop looking at that reality t.v. stuff and grow up!
The responsibility for this killing lies squarely on the shoulders of the officer in question, no one else. Don't get distracted from that fact. It amazes me that anyone could.
My God, there's an appalling amount of (bad) amateur lawyering going on here. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but at least I have a CA bar admission.
To address some points/questions:
Whether this was cold blooded murder or criminally negligent homicide, I think that the officer's lawyer stonewalling the investigation and handing in his resignation to avoid having him questioned without his Miranda rights says something.
Yeah, it says he knows he's in a world of trouble and he's availing himself of his Constitutional right against self-incrimination, just like any potential criminal defendant can (and should). Ninety percent of posts on this thread have already convicted him of some degree of murder - why in the world would he be making statements right now?
I don't see why the idea that it was an 'accident' means that it wasn't murder. That actor from "The Sopranos"was up on a murder beef in NYC and HE WASN'T EVEN HOLDING THE GUN. It was during the commission of a robbery and the guy he was with shot a cop.
Murder requires intent. The Sopranos thing is called Felony Murder. Look it up. The criminal intent to commit murder is inferred from the defendant's participation in a felony. (The concept dates from the time when all felonies carried the death penalty. The idea now is that it's fair to punish people for the consequences of a serious crime gone wrong).
This is a horrible incident, but it's so inexplicable that it's almost silly to assume a criminal motive. In any event, the law requires that you PROVE, not ASSUME such a motive. The prosecution may be able to prove Murder, based on "wantonness and a conscious disregard for life" but I suspect the standard there won't cover this situation.
Much more likely is a charge/conviction for involuntary manslaughter (a killing caused in "the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.") That's 2-4 years, which isn't much for taking a life; but is supposed to be a fair punishment for a horrible, but avoidable accident/mistake.
I believe the prosecution will be allowed to present both charges to the jury, based on these facts, and the jury can decide which is the more appropriate fit.
"All I know for sure is that the cop shot someone unnecessarily and death resulted."
Isnt that enough? You write this sentence as if you were writing about someone going to the grocery store. This is a travesty not something matter of fact.
First you say:
"It's amazing to me how many people commenting on this incident know exactly what happened"
Then you say:
"I hope some of the assholes who were watching that incident prior to the shooting are smart enough to realize the role they may have indirectly played by their yelling and foolishness. The shouts of "let him go" before the shooting and the general sense of disorder may have contributed to this cop unjustifiably taking out his weapon. I don't know what was in his mind, but odds are he was scared."
Hey Irish, wake up. You just did the same thing. Except you did it for the cop instead of against him. You just showed you own bias & did exactly what you accused other folks of doing. FAIL.
@ DB
I can't question your knowledge of the law but let's not assume that people always get charged with what they deserve. That Sopranos kid probably doesn't get charged with murder if it wasnt a cop killed. There are politics involved in what people get charged with by DAs.
"but it's so inexplicable that it's almost silly to assume a criminal motive"
I disagree; that's exactly why it seems reasonable to assume a criminal motive.
"Much more likely is a charge/conviction for involuntary manslaughter"
Why? As others have noted, cops are instructed not to pull out their weapon unless they are ready to kill. This guy was ready & he did.
Eddy,
you notice I used the word "may" in my sentences. Because I don't know. You don't know. The cop who did the shooting may not even exactly know why he pulled his weapon.
People here have used the word "execution" and said it was clear to them the shooting was intentional. How that is justified by the video is beyond me.
Then others suggest the cops will get off and be rehired by another agency. That's a comment a "foron" would make.
None of the cops directly involved in the Rodney King beating were ever police again. That includes the cops who were found not guilty in the state and the federal trials.
This guy will never be a cop again and will likely spend a few years as a guest of the State of California. Of course I could be wrong. Perhaps Governor Ahnold will pardon him and President Obama will also pardon him to avoid any federal civil rights trial. Yeah, that will happen. Also the actress Anne Hathaway is waiting for me in my bedroom as I type this. I like to keep her waiting.
FORONS.
Now the suggestion that the other officers on the scene should have immediately arrested the shooter doesn't account for police procedures or what the other cops likely knew happened.
Police procedure is not any kind of reasonable issue here. Whatever police procedure is, it certainly does not prohibit a police officer from arresting another police officer that he/she witnesses comitting a violent crime. As I suggested above, it is somewhat surprising to me that they did not immediately draw their weapons on the guy. I actually have no idea why they didn't. Certainly if they had witnessed a non-police officer do the same thing, it is quite probable that that person would now be full of bullet holes.
If you are arguing that they could have had some reason which we cannot see on the video to react to this particular situation as something other than an obvious violent crime then OK. I am willing to be convinced that that is possible. You merely need to provide some reasonable scenario that accounts for the things that we do know that would also account for that possibility. Perhaps I lack imagination but I simply don't see it. we know for instance that the victim was not some sort of supervillian who was going to blow up the train station if he wasn't immediately shot. Until I am provided with a reasonable alternative scenario, what it looks like to me is that these officers watched a man pull out a gun and end the life of another human being for no reason they could discern. Their reaction was to let that individual walk away from the scene of his crime. This may very well jeopardize us getting at any sort of truth as to why this officer did what he did and I don't care what police procedure says, there is simply no way that they are required by law to do that. They most certainly should not have.
Ken - what evidence do you have that Grant was a street punk?
That's a baseless insult to a man who's not alive to defend himself. GTFOOHWTBS
Jonathan,
Grant had a prison record, was arrested for fighting with passengers on BART, and was caught on video resisting arrest. I'd say that qualifies him as a punk street criminal.
One thing for sure, travelling on BART is now a little safer than it was before he was shot. This does not justify his death, it is just a factual observation about reality.
I don't wish him dead but I do wish people like him did not pollute our public spaces with their criminal activity. The riders of BART deserve to travel to their destinations in peace without being accosted by punks.
Brent,
T-Coates has asked people to be respectful so I'm going to restrain my sarcasm about how you know exactly how everyone in this should have responded in the immediate aftermath. After all you know exactly what they saw and how they perceived it.
As for Grant himself even if he was a street punk, and I have no idea if he was or was a good guy, the shooting at that moment was unjustified.
That's about all I am sure of regarding this incident.
Now if you will excuse me Anne Hathaway can't wait.
One thing for sure, travelling on BART is now a little safer than it was before he was shot. This does not justify his death, it is just a factual observation about reality.
You're fucking filth.
As someone who grew up, and works, with people working the night shift, I'm surprised there's not more discussion of the time of shooting. (2 AM). There's a bit of research on the impairment of mental efficiency in night workers. A sleep-deprivation-related major fail -- microsleep or attention lapse, for example -- might explain the cop's behavior, if an explanation is sought.
jake,
Don't be mad at ken. He's just expressing the all-too-common American opinion that black life isn't worth shit. He's just not clever enough to dress it up with bullshit about 'oh, it's so unfortunate' and 'the cop was in a bad situation' and 'the video doesn't tell the full story.'
ken,
One thing is for sure is that the police officer that discharge a bullet into Grant's back won't be policing anyone anymore. What if you were on the platform on the other side from the "arrest" taking place and that bullet ricocheted and hit you in the larynx. Blame Oscar Grant or the guy that fired at close range with intent to kill?
Do you care to comment on the shooting in Houston. Three tap wounds to the chest for someone "resisting arrest" when, he shouldn't have been under arrest in the first place?
@ IrishPirate,
You bring very little to this discussion. It's obvious that you've taken a side from your posts yesterday about blacks being soft on black-on-black crime v. police shootings. That part I'm sure of. Why don't you go watch Anne Hathaway's turn as a wannabe street tough in "Havoc?" I think you'd probably blame hip-hop music for why she removes her top and flashes her dewy bosoms.
One thing for sure, travelling on BART is now a little safer than it was before he was shot. This does not justify his death, it is just a factual observation about reality.
Ha! What reality is this? I've been riding BART since the early 80s... back when I was seven, eight years old. A scrawny little white kid, riding through Dark, Dangerous Oakland? 1989, 1990, with crack cocaine and gang murder at their zenith? How did I emerge alive? Your characterization is one hell of a stretch.
The rest of that BS just isn't worth the time. You're wrong, dead wrong.
T-Coates has asked people to be respectful so I'm going to restrain my sarcasm about how you know exactly how everyone in this should have responded in the immediate aftermath. After all you know exactly what they saw and how they perceived it.
I will ask again, and as far as I am concerned you are welcome to use as much sarcasm as you like, what reasonable case can you make for that officer being allowed to leave the scene of what, to all appearances, is a criminal shooting? Quite contrary to your claim, I have not suggested I know what everyone was thinking at the moment of the shooting. This is a strawman. What I have said, and what you have yet to dispute, is that there is no scenario that I can imagine that did not involve this officer committing a violent criminal act. Police officers who commit violent criminal acts in front of other police officers should not be allowed to walk away from the scene of that crime and there is nothing that would prohibit those officers from preventing that. If you have in your mind a reasonable set of circumstances that would alternatively explain what we can see and what we know here, or evidence that the police officers were compelled to let the other officer go or even an argument that that is the right thing to do then, I am all ears and completely open to persuasion.
dwwhite,
Grant had twelve seperate criminal cases against him in just the last four years and spent time in a California prison in 2007 and 2008. Given the crowded conditions of our prisons it is probable he got an early release and never paid his full due to society. He was probably on probation but I did not see any stories confirming that. He was only 22 years old and records of juveniles are sealed so we don't know about any criminal history he may have had prior to age 18.
With this background Grant should have known better than to engage in a criminal assault by fighting on BART. He should have known that he would be arrested. And after spending time in prison he should have known that it was futile to resist a police officer when he was arrested.
That that he chose to fight and then to resist arrest tells us what kind of person Grant was.
Are you seriously going to argue that it is improper to considered him a menace to society?
Decent people don't have rap sheets and do prison time and then come out and brawl on BART and then fight arrest. Decent people just don't live that way.
And what does his being black have to do with any of this?
My concern regarding police shooting is that we will continue to have them as long as police carry guns and go to work wearing bullet proof vests. Society must eliminate the danger of gun deaths before we will eliminate the danger of police shooting in misjudgement of the danger to themselves.
Police shooting are the price we pay for having a gun culture along with so many criminals walking free amongst us. Giving the circumstances it is fortunate we do not see more of them.
My concern regarding police shooting is that we will continue to have them as long as police carry guns and go to work wearing bullet proof vests.
Strawman. This isn't the police shooting someone who was reaching for their id. Shooting a restrained suspect in the back as he lies on the floor is avoidable no matter how many bullet proof vests everyone wears or does not wear.
What many people have asked and all your street punk answers have avoided is why the officer doesn't even need to answer questions. "Tough shift" or not, I thought that was de rigeur when an officer shot someone even in clearly justifiable circumstances. When "Was he high? Or just confused? Or scared and tired?" are the questions being asked, failing to question him--that night, the next day, a week later--is an outrage. And so here we are in the thread, outraged.
And what does his being black have to do with any of this?
Drunk, rowdy, brawling white folks coming from NYE festivities (or even your garden variety sports game) don't get arrested half the time let alone shot. That's what his being black has to do with this.
Being a BART police at West Oakland station isn't exactly the Bahamas but it's not even the toughest beat in West Oakland. The platform at West Oakland BART station is about the safest place you can be in that part of town!
Ken,
I'm going to write this in crayon so you can understand, OK? When the bullet enetered Oscar Grant's back, he wasn't resisting. He was face-down with his hands cuffed behind his back.
His criminal record meant very little to the officer since he was out of jail on early release. Now if Grant were an escapee? Different story, to a degree, but the guy that dishcarged a bullet into Grant's back couldn't have known that.
But go ahead and be an apologist. If a white guy gets shot by a black cop over some bullshit, I'm sure you'll be here wondering why the black bloggers don't give a flying fig. Oh, wait, there's that Samuel L. Jackson movie that might make you afraid to date pretty black women. My bad.
BRENT,
Your point sounds good; it practice for a variety of reasons it does not work. It is called due process.
If the act was violent or not is irrelevant; the question is was it justifiable? Indeed it was a violent act but if this act was "a violent criminal act" is another question! To sort these questions out on the spot is a bit much; the most knowledgeable officer had his knee on the deceased neck and was within two feet of the actual shooting.( It could be argued that this officer is culpable as well.)
It was reported that the officer who fired his weapon was put on administrative leave the following date, which is normal procedure for officer involved shootings.
In my view the substantive question is: What did his superiors do in the first twelve hours? (I live in the area.) Superficially, their actions were appropriate, the need to complete an investigation; other public responses by spokespersons were misleading, and, I believe, intentionally so. Once the videos came out, all hell broke loose.
KEN,
Can you explain the relationship to that knee on Grant's neck during the shooting and prison crowding? Are you suggesting these officers were reading a text message on Grant police record? This is something like they do on t.v., right? Maybe you need to change channels, Ken. Korean dramas with sub-titles are good. Since you are up with the records and things, Ken please let us know if this officer has some complaint issues in his record.
Deborah,
What would you have them do? Should they pick up the cop and torture an answer out of him?
In case you didn't know, in the USA no one has to talk to the police if they don't want to. Fourth admendment rights and all.
And he cannot be arrested without due cause. So until a prosecutor gathers enough evidence, if any exists, for a criminal charge to stick the policeman will remain a free man. And as he is no danger to society and presumably not a flight risk the prosecutor does not have to rush his case along before it is fully developed.
So you are outraged about one of our basic liberties? I am amused at your outrage.
I think your anger is misplaced. It is not the police you should be mad at. It is the society we live in that allows so many guns to be loose in a culture that is full of violence that is at fault.
We ask the police to protect us from criminals and to do so they carry guns and wear a bullet proof vest to work every day. Just think about that. What would it mean to you if your job was so dangerous that in order to increase the odds you can return home at night to your family you had to strap on a gun and put on a bullet proof vest before you left the house?
Punishing this police officer, and he will be punished, is not going to solve the problem. He will lose his job and never be able to work as a cop again but that is about all he will suffer. In the meantime the problem will only pop us agains somewhere else and nothing is solved.
Phil, watch the video.
You will see two perps on the right, one sitting calmly with hands cuffed on his lap, the other kneeling with hands cuffed behind his back. You will see Grant on the ground, on his stomach, resisting arrest and fighting two officers trying to cuff him. You will see one perp on the left sitting against the wall with hands in the air waiting to be cuffed after the cops were finished with Grant.
Now just because he was resisting arrest does not give adequate reason for him to be shot. But he was resisting arrest and he was shot.
Tragic, but Grant should have known better. The others were not causing any problems for the cops.
Grant is not a wholly innocent person whose actions were unrelated to his untimely and tragic death.
Your point sounds good; it practice for a variety of reasons it does not work. It is called due process.
There is absolutely nothing about arresting someone who you've just witnessed shoot someone without apparent justification that violates due process in any way. Unless you want to argue that the cops never have the right to arrest anyone who they have just witnessed commit such an act until there has been a lengthy investigation or you want to argue that the cops in this case have some reasonable belief that a crime may not have been committed, then this point is not especially relevant.
To sort these questions out on the spot is a bit much;
Is there any doubt how this issue would have been "sorted out" if this had been someone other than a cop who pulled the trigger? If the cop had decided instead to openly start firing in an elementary school would it have been "sorted out" by allowing the officer to walk away from the scene without a significant accounting for his action? Why is there, or why should there be any special deference given in this particular scenario? I am asking seriously. What is it about this situation that makes anyone think it is appropriate for the person who violently ended the life of another person in this manner to walk around free?
In case you didn't know, in the USA no one has to talk to the police if they don't want to. Fourth admendment rights and all.
I assume you mean fifth amendment rights.
And as he is no danger to society...
Is that supposed to be a joke?
A police officer isn't arrested after shooting somebody, because it's something that can happen on the job. The police officer is given the benefit of the doubt about the shooting, and I'm 100% fine with that. However, the police officer must cooperate fully with the investigation to make sure it was justified. This police officer is not cooperating, and also gets the special privilege given other officers of not being arrested while not cooperating with the investigation.
If I shot somebody who broke into my house and refused to answer questions about it I'd be arrested. I'd also be charged with murder, since I've given no good reason why I just killed somebody. He should be arrested and charged for murder until he can give an explanation of why he shot that man because that's how anybody else would be treated.
Punishing this police officer, and he will be punished, is not going to solve the problem
Not punishing him will make it worse. Police officers will then know, no matter the circumstances you won't be punished for shooting and killing somebody. Murder isn't too strong of a word, because the only reason you pull a gun and point it at somebody is to kill them.
Now just because he was resisting arrest does not give adequate reason for him to be shot. But he was resisting arrest and he was shot.
He was not resisting arrest. I'll tell you what, you have to lie absolutely still while my buddy jams his knee into your neck and I jam my knee into your back. If you squirm in pain, then I get to shoot you in the back while you lay there. The police are justified in doing this IMO, but they should know that nobody is going to lie still for it. Even when the officer got off of him and pulled his gun, Grant continued to lie on his face with nobody restraining him. The most he could have done to those officers was make fun of them verbally.
My guess is that the officer was piss drunk, Grant said something to make him mad, and the officer pulled his gun and shot him.
If the act was violent or not is irrelevant;
It is relevant to the question of how urgently it needs to be treated. If this were a case of an officer being accused of say, selling marijuana, I would not be especially concerned about him being free pending investigation.
the question is was it justifiable? Indeed it was a violent act but if this act was "a violent criminal act" is another question!
All true. And I am saying that I don't see how this gets resolved accept with the conclusion that it was a criminal act and certainly there is due cause to strongly suspect that that is the case. What police officers do in cases where such is the case, especially in the case of extreme violence, is arrest the person involved. An unjustified shooting is a criminal act. The particular flavor of criminality is immaterial to whether or not he should be arrested. Only how he should be charged. Again, if someone has some imaginable scenario that concludes that the police on the scene could have had some reasonable belief that the shooting could be justified, I will be happy to hear it.
JordanT, watch the video.
Two guys on the right on under arrest and handcuffed. One is sitting peaceably against the wall with his hands cuffed on his lap. The other is kneeling with his hands cuffed behind him and with a female officer's hand on his shoulder.
One person on the left is sitting peaceably against the wall with his hands in the air.
None of these people were resisting arrest.
Grant was on the ground and one officer had to restrain him with a knee on his neck while the other tried to put handcuffs on him. Grant was clearly resisting arrest. It is senseless to deny that.
If Grant had obeyed their requests and allowed himself to be cuffed these officers would not have had to resort to force. Use your common sense. They still had another perp to handcuff and a large unrully crowd to deal with. They did not need to waste time with some punk and abuse him just for the fun of it. They wanted to get things under control and get out of the situation unharmed.
Grant was on the ground and one officer had to restrain him with a knee on his neck while the other tried to put handcuffs on him. Grant was clearly resisting arrest.
I've seen officers do that when somebody isn't resisting arrest. That the officers are doing it, is no proof that he was resisting arrest.
Ken, you're ridiculous.
New detail on the incident. Immediately after the shooting the cops started confiscating cell phones and cameras from people in the area. Not everyone acceded. Thankfully.
What's more, according to bystanders he was already cuffed, and not resisting at all. Apparently he yelled from a knee being driven into his back once he was prone and that was enough provocation to be shot in the back.
These reports may be biased but they're out there.
Brent,
Much of what you have stated rests on the following:
"Again, if someone has some imaginable scenario that concludes that the police on the scene could have had some reasonable belief that the shooting could be justified, I will be happy to hear it."
In sum "could have" and could have been justified" are meaningless terms. A police officer who decides to shoot up and kill fellow officers in a police station does have due process rights but would be subject to deadly force by other officers is such a case. Also, in a school or at the transit station if an officer persist with such behavior the application of deadly force would likely occur, arrest is after the fact. In the instant case such behavior did not occur as the subject officer returned his firearm to his holster. You assume that the police officers somehow ought to make determination on a fellow officer on what most did not witness or in the alternative the officer whose knee was on the neck of the deceased was supposed to make that determination. The video did not clearly demonstrate the certainty you assert on this point; the officer whose knee is implicated may have a few problems as well. This is not t.v. crime shows.
Law enforcement does have after the fact review processes, and do note reports that the subject officer did contact a criminal attorney within 24 hours of the killing. Candidly, little confidence in these processes given existing practices and relationships within the criminal justice system, but it is what it is. I suspect oversight by the Attorney General's Office and the DOJ may be the resolve in this matter.
Football and hockey are often violent but rarely criminal; application of deadly force in law enforcement is always violent, determination of criminality is after the fact. Using phrases or sentences as "An unjustified shooting is a criminal act." does not strengthen your argument. In sum they are specious.
KEN. Next year, t.v. may have a few more realty shows.
"Grant had twelve seperate criminal cases against him in just the last four years"
Proof please. If you are going to make incendiary comments about Grant's alleged criminal record, you would do well to back it up. Sounds to me like you are just slandering the victim. But then again you are already on record referring to this poor young man as a "pollutant" a "street punk" and a "menace to society." Funny how you can glean all that from video footage of a prone young man, shot in the back at close range while bystanders look on in horror. It is one thing to suggest the gun went off accidently or the officer was reaching for his taser, it is another thing entirely to justify this shooting by denying Oscar Grant's humanity. That you have systematically (and gleefully) chosen to do so in post after post on this thread, reveals absolutely nothing about Grant and everything about you.
In sum "could have" and could have been justified" are meaningless terms.
I am not entirely sure of what you mean here. If your assertion is that we do not have enough evidence to conclude that the police officers were in a position to make a determination of what "could have" been the case here in order to make an arrest, then I suppose that's fair enough. But "could have" and "could have been justified" are the sorts of questions that police officers ask all the time when faced with situations that seem as if they might be likely involve criminal activity. If they see a person climbing out of a window where someone has just been killed, they will ask a number of reasonable questions about what that person was doing there and what they have to do with the dead body. They do that because there could be a reasonable non-criminal explanation for what that person is doing. Absent that explanation, they will arrest them or at the very least, hold them while they continue their investigation. They don't let them go home and take a shower while they investigate further. That is exactly what I am asking here and I really don't think its an especially unfair question when an unarmed and prone civilian gets shot in the back.
Football and hockey are often violent but rarely criminal;
Why do you think that is relevant to anything I have written? Again, the issue with violence in this circumstance is the urgency with which the matter is treated. You seem to be trying to rebut the argument that this action is criminal because it was violent. That is not an argument that I have made regardless of how many times you rebut it.
application of deadly force in law enforcement is always violent, determination of criminality is after the fact.
I have asked if you think this is universally true because I very much doubt that it is. I can think of numerous scenarios where the application of deadly force in law enforcement would likely result in immediate arrest. I used the example of an elementary school. You mentioned a cop shooting up a police station. Do you doubt that if either such incident ended in a way that the officer in question was alive, absent some reasonable possible innocent explanation determined at that time, they would be allowed to simply leave the scene? If that is the case, then that essentially means that a police officer can commit any crime at all while say, drunk or stoned, and count on being able to leave the scene of the crime to sober up before they are arrested. I doubt quite seriously that this is the case. I simply don't see why this case should be treated differently than those.
Using phrases or sentences as "An unjustified shooting is a criminal act." does not strengthen your argument.
Please clarify. Is it your assertion that an unjustified shooting can somehow be non-criminal or are you saying that it is reasonable to think that the police in this case were not in a position to make a determination of whether a shooting by their fellow officer was criminal? If you mean the former, then I am not sure what sort of unjustified but non-criminal killing you have in mind. If the latter then we are basically back to the same point of disagreement.
Cops arrest and charge people all the time because they have just witnessed them commit what they determine, based upon what they saw and the circumstances surrounding the scene, to be a crime. Knowing what we know about this case, I simply cannot see any reason why it should be any different from any of those cases. But this will just have to be an impasse I guess.
Anyone notice at the beginning of the video a cop walks in from the left side (same cop that had the knee on the neck) and appears to point at Grant? The officer says something and Grant stands up and the situation escalates from there. The cops were targeting him for some reason. Not saying that makes it right, but I was surprised that hasn't come up in the thread.
I've been saying this forever. Guns are pretty old technology, meaning, they are simple to make, and they work properly often. Guns do not just "go off." If you lay a gun on a table, it will not just go off. It probably never has happened and never will. A bullet fires because you pull the trigger with the appropriate amount of force. If you are drunk, or your adrenalin is pumping, you can easily misjudge how much force will fire the weapon.
Mistake? Murder? Manslaughter? Negligent Homicide? My answer to all of those questions is the same: Prison. This is inexcusable.
Very good discussion going on here. I've got a couple of points.
I talked this over with several martial arts friends in the area (one such friend is a PD in Oakland, it turns out). We feel that either the officer in question is a homicidal sociopath or he has had woefully inadequate training. The odds favor the latter.
I couldn't tell when the gun was pulled from watching the video. It seemed to come from nowhere. My best guess is that he probably pulled out the gun to intimidate, not to cause harm, put his finger on the trigger out of habit, and then twitched. This is incredibly stupid, at each point, and should have been drilled out him in training. Lots of civilians do this, but cops should know better. He should have understood not to point a gun at anyone he doesn't want to shoot. He should have known that he would lose control of his fingers in highly charged situations. He should have been trained for all this stuff. And if he wasn't doing well in the training, he should have been bumped off the force.
Another point that police officers should be competent on: too much restraint will lead to squirming. Heck, I get massages regularly and when he presses too hard I squirm, try as I might to relax. And I have lots of practice. The procedure that works is: pain when you move, no pain when you don't. They will get the message, quickly.
I shake my head to think that I know these things, but these cops didn't. Or maybe they'd been told but blew it off, or didn't pay attention. Shameful.
Phil,
Not "on his knees" but handcuffed, prone and "with a knee on his neck." A that point, even if he had a weapon there would be no way to retrieve it let alone fire it. They could have found a gun (or planted one, if you like) in his waistband at this point and it wouldn't make any difference.
The 13 min delay in calling for the ambulance is inexcusable. Will that factor in at trial? When did Grant die? Could the ambulance have saved him? If they just let him bleed to death there on the floor then the ALL could be up on murder, rather than manslaughter. (Unlikely I know...)
"Shoot first ask questions later" is something I'm concerned about, too, especially as it applies to SWAT and no-knock warrants. I also think the police have gone taser-happy, and are willing do despense jolts to anyone who looks at them the wrong way. This is ok, apparently, becasue a guy at the taser company gave them two-thumbs up while mouthing the word "non-lethal".
To all,
I know a lot of people are angry here, but don't think that just because some people are questioning the "murder" label that they are necessarily excusing the cop's actions. Heinous as they were, from a legal standpoint things are kinda hazy right now (hinging on, for one, the intent of the officer, which you can't realisitcally determine). Hopefully clarity will come in time.
Heh. Just got done reading all of the comments. Maybe a few people are trying to excuse the cop. I'll let you sort out who.
It worked in Simi Valley and it could work here.You play on the fears of a jury. "This could've been you on the train afraid of the suspect involved in a fight, etc." Fancy lawyering could be to get as many people on the jury, white folks, that have been on public transportation. And let the prosecution deal with jurors like that.
You're comparing apples to oranges. If they get a lot of white folks on the jury who've ridden public transit, the cop is screwed. The whole point of the Simi Valley jury was to get people who AREN'T around minorities a lot; I bet many of them wouldn't have known public transit if it bit them on the ass. A bunch of white people who ride the MTA or the CTA or the DC Metro every day are much less likely to see a young black male as a threat. You're less likely to fear that which you see every day.
Grant had twelve seperate criminal cases against him in just the last four years
If true, how is this a) obvious in the field, and b) relevant to the situation?
Answer: a) it's not, b) it's not.
You're being prejudicial here (that's a nice way of saying you're being stupid and not using your brain; rights belong to everyone, not just nice, well mannered people).
I'm shocked at people making excuses for this cop. This was an execution. Plain and simple.
If a cop can't tell his gun from a taser, he shouldn't be a cop.
If that kid was white and suburban first off, he probably wouldn't have been shot, but you can bet it would be all over the news. But killing young black men in Oakland isn't really news, I guess.
Reading through this comment thread is just . . . I'm speechless. All of the excuses and justifications for what is an inexcusable and unjustifiable action.
The man was shot in the back while lying on the ground restrained. There were SEVERAL officers on the scene who did not feel justified in pulling their weapons or discharging them.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
And let's be clear, Grant put his hands up (in a plaintive manner) while talking to the bald officer and he was subsequently knocked to the ground by the officer who ultimately ended his life. He was resisting arrest, he was TALKING to the BART officer. After restraining Grant, this officer stood up, unholstered his weapon and fired. I don't know what the look on his face was afterwards, but he didn't look distressed.
Again, for all you amateur psychologists and police apologists, how many other officers pulled their weapons? How many discharged their weapons? One.
People are comparing this to the Simi Valley trial which acquitted the officers who beat up Rodney King. I saw a video of the trial, and was surprised at how convincing the case was for acquitting the officers. The policemen's lawyers went through the entire scenario, which included King's actions before the famous videotape. Then they had expert witnesses who talked about the beating from the policeman's perspective, going blow by blow and showing how it was standard procedure in a case of resisting arrest. I don't think it was merely a racial decision. The lawyers simply made a good case for acquittal.
@zacksback and treebeard,
The strategy for the Simi Valley jury in the Rodney King trial was to de-sensitize the jury to the beating in the video, blow-by-painstaking-blow. And for your "apples and oranges folks," this will be similar to the trial in that there's a videotape and the acquit the officer who fired the fatal blow, it will take a frame-by-frame analysis to show the fear the officer had for his life of a prone victim.
The problem I have with the shooting isn't merely racial. I had a problem with Carlton Jones (the black police officer) following, against orders, the wrong black man (Prince Jones, no relation) from PG County (Maryland,) the District of Columbia and into Fairfax County, Virginia. Two of these places, he had no jurisdiction or authority to discharge his weapon. So, (treebeard) let's just dispense with this racial crap. Some of my best friends are white (doesn't feel good when we saydo it, does it?) The cops seems to get away with things like this and people end up dead. It's disproportionate and the citizenry that sits on juries allow the police to get away, largely, scot-free.
The officer that discharged his weapon into Oscar Grant's back didn't do so to intimidate or to protect his own life. He certainly didn't do it to protect his fellow officers who were close enough to be very close to the line of fire and/or a ricochet. The people on the other platform were at-risk and could've been hit by a ricochet off the platform. Some of those folks were white.
Resisting arrest isn't what you punish someone for AFTER they've stopped resisting or are in no position TO resist. The point of putting down a resistance is to put it down. Now if it's a life-or-death struggle and a suspect is trying to grab your gun and the gun's not in the holster, sure, THEN you can get your gun off and shoot all the black folks you want. In this case, Oscar Grant didn't even SEE the gun. Know why? He was face down on the ground. I guess he lifted his head up like the dude in Houston, so folks can feel better that the police are protecting and serving?
Oscar Grant's criminal record might not come into play at the trial. Thanks to the idiot officer, Grant's not taking the stand. (Good job, po po.) I don't know if his criminal record means anything since he's not around to answer for it. Unless there's police dispatch tape where his rap sheet went out over the police band or there was a warrant out for him killing Buddy Holly, Princess Di, Natalie Wood, Elvis and JFK and he had a bazooka in his pocket that the police used x-ray vision to find in his waistband while seeing THROUGH his body to the "threat" he posed.
As for voir dire, we'll see what happens at trial. And the "people don't fear what they see every day" shit you posted doesn't hold water. Black folks see cops every day, and even your Brooks Brothers wearing, no criminal history having black dude didn't want to be the one on that platform with cops bugging out like they did. All those cops up there and you wear the wrong tie that morning and THAT's the fool standing over your prone body with a gun.
In a court, the officer’s actions will be judged by the standard of a “reasonable police officer.” It does not matter what the people shouting for the BART train felt. In fact, their shouting undoubtedly contributed to the general sense of danger the officer felt.
My guess... but I don’t know (let’s remember that none of us know; we weren’t there)... My guess is that the officer will be charged and criminally convicted of something like manslaughter that is based on negligence but not dependent on intent.
Is this a racial issue? Yes and no. No, police don’t go out saying let’s kill black people. In this situation, would white frat boys have been treated differently by police? Who can say for sure. It always depends on the situation. But it's very likely.
Anybody who thinks that police behavior isn’t affected by race and class is crazy. In different neighborhoods, both the the public and the police act differently. Don't think for a second that all police act like the police you know and see and deal with.
A few points on guns:
1) Police handguns (at least all the ones I know) do not have a safety.
2) Guns fire when the trigger is pulled. You may accidentally pull the trigger. But guns don’t “accidentally” fire. That’s important to remember. Your finger shouldn’t be on the trigger unless you’re taking aim and are seriously considering shooting. As a police officer, you are responsible for each discharge. Period.
3) In most jurisdictions, pulling a gun from the holster is not considered “use of force.” In my time on the street, I probably had my gun out of its holster every other shift. But I only pointed it somebody two or three times. And I never pulled the trigger.
I was free to pull the gun out whenever I felt the need to. That was very often (say when searching a vacant building).
But when dealing with suspects, the gun is often just an intimidating bluff. If the suspect calls your bluff and nobody’s life is in immediate danger, you can’t shoot them. You have to holster up and pull out something use can actually use as a compliance device. In my case that was mace. And even that I only used once. (But I wasn’t on the street for long.)
Like it or not, police will assume you might be armed until you prove otherwise. Especially on New Year’s Eve when you hear the constant crackle of gun fire.
If police think you might be armed and you won't follow orders... well, it's on you. Sorry. It may not be right, but that’s just the way it is.
But that’s all in general.
Look, this shooting certainly looks terrible. Facts may come out that justify the officer’s action. But I doubt it. From the officer's reaction immediately after firing, it looks like he's surprised and didn't mean to fire. That makes it both a horrible mistake and a crime.
And finally, let’s give some credit to Oscar Grant's mother, Wanda Johnson. She has been quoted as saying: “I am begging the citizens not to use violent tactics, not to be angry.... You’re hurting people that have nothing to do with the situation. Please stop it, just please stop.” That's a very noble thing to say after your son is killed.
I can't see the video from my computer. Just your title. I think it's horrifying that you would post a link to a video of a murder. There are some things that just aren't appropriate for a blog. This is one of them.
To things,
1. Ken is a troll, don't bother with him.
2. Elizabeth, than don't read it. Spare us your whining.
I want to append something to what Peter says about race and class. The thought experiment "what if they were white" becomes somewhat more nuanced if it, say, it compares middle-aged black men in business attire to a group of white Hells Angels. There is a semiotics of perceived threat that law enforcement deals with, and there's an intuitive element (which is definitely sensitive to the effects of racism.) This is why Grant's record matters: it suggests that he was producing some of those semiotics. It isn't a question of whether Grant deserved to die - he didn't - but it is a question of the extent of the culpability of the officer.
This is why Grant's record matters: it suggests that he was producing some of those semiotics
So the officers can read minds now? Criminals put off a wave of negative energy that police can pick up on? I'm calling BS on this excuse. The only reason you know it's a Hells Angel is because they ride Harleys and wear black leather jackets saying they are the Hells Angels. Do you think that everyone who rides Harleys and wears unadorned black leather jacket is a violent criminal?
Lemmy Caution,
Your post is very odd. What do you mean by suggesting Grant "produced these semiotics?" Spell this out clearly. Are you suggesting that whether or not the officer was aware of Grant's record, he (Grant) despite being face down on the ground and restrained, posed some sort of threat to the officer, such that deadly force was warranted? If not, what is your point exactly?
Furthermore, the construction of your prior sentence, "There is a semiotics of perceived threat that law enforcement deals with, and there's an intuitive element (which is definitely sensitive to the effects of racism)", is again peculiar. If you are suggesting that cops intuitively perceive a greater threat from middle-aged black men in business attire than white Hells Angels, there is no explanation for this save racism. Blackness, then, in and of itself, is a determining factor with respect to the "semiotics of the perceived threat law enforcement deals with." Ok, so by your own analysis, it would seem Grant's record did not matter, his blackness did. This brings me back to my initial question, since presumably he could not shed his skin, what do you mean by suggesting he produced these semiotics? What could he have done to prevent his body from giving off all these signs? Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you wrote, but this post seems to come uncomfortably close to exonerating the cop on the basis of his own racism.
No, Molly, I am saying that Hells Angels produce those semiotics more than middle-aged black man, and that cops do, in fact, shoot bikers with less provocation than they shoot members of the bourgeois (or women, etc.)
If you want to see the "semiotics of threat," think of gangster posturing (or, for that matter, biker posturing.) The pervasive racist code - one in which everyone participates, including lumpen-proletarian African Americans, as well as cops of all races, hip-hop artists, film makers and actors, television producers, and politicians - encodes black as "more aggressive" than white, but doesn't do so in isolation.
My post explicitly does not deny the reality of racism, which codes blackness as marking criminality more than it codes whiteness as doing so. However, it never does so in isolation. In order to create a dramatic narrative, Grant's own identity has been re-assembled by protesters' posters and narratives as that of a loving father and grocery clerk. That he has a history of legal problems suggests that his comportment may not have been so neutral.
It isn't a matter of exonerating the cop based on "his" racism, but rather in unpacking the situation as a collective participation in those codes. As the details of Grant's life-decisions emerge, there may be more clarity, but the fact of a history of legal problems suggests that he was "encoding himself" as criminal before this incident.
This isn't to completely let the cop off the hook. If things went as I imagine they did (and we all have a range of imaginaries about this, don't we?) then not only should he never wear a badge and carry a gun again, but he should also be indicted for something in the range from criminally negligent homicide to manslaughter. Of course, this case has become politicized beyond belief, and here are a couple legal realities:
1. As I understand it, he must be charged within one day of arrest. The reason the cop hasn't been arrested is that they are trying to determined exactly which charge to come up with. Which leads to...
2. These politically-charged police shootings often fail because of over-reach: trying for a murder-one or murder-two charge that will never stick, instead of going for the manslaughter charge that will. Trying to determine the right charge - and then to manage the political fallout that will occur - is slowing the process.
3. If poor training is really the culprit, then that is actually partially exculpatory in itself, and this sets up the possibility of a massive civil suit against the BART Police - perhaps even on behalf of the officer himself!
Another factor hasn't come into this story yet (disclaimer: I'm from Oakland originally, know people in city government, and sometimes hear things a little bit before it hits the news, but I have nothing like that here...) is the past history of the cop in question. Does he have a history of complaints about him, of over-reacting, of racist sentiments and statements? Or not? We know almost nothing about him yet. The BART police en-masse seemed to be over-reacting to the situation; this creates a different picture than that of a racist vigilante on a short fuse.
The problem I have with the shooting isn't merely racial.
Some of my best friends are white (doesn't feel good when we say it, does it?)
And the "people don't fear what they see every day" shit you posted doesn't hold water.
You're right. Silly me, your problem isn't racial at all.
You know, you keep saying that black folks fear cops (with good reason). I don't disagree. I say white urban commuters are less likely to fear black folks, and you tell me it's bullshit. The white folks on the jury are going to do X, the white folks who witnessed the shooting are going to testify on the stand like Y, the white folks who taped the incident are going to collapse under cross like Z....
Don't fucking explain to us how we feel, what we think or who we fear, okay?
And I hope the cop goes away for whatever maximum the DA can get. Whether that's from a neg homicide charge or murder 3 is quibbling, to me. Just get him the years.
(Apologies for the language but this honky went to a junior high right out of Season 4 and has very little tolerance for Let Me Tell You About You White Folks bullshit.)
zacksback, I think you're right that white transit commuters are less likely to feel threatened by their black co-passengers is true up to a point, insofar as their familiarization with the nuances of African-American class structure leads to a better literacy about different "types of blackness."
The best way I can illustrate this is to describe the evolving education of a Japanese woman I knew who had recently moved to the US. At first, she did the whole "cross the street when you see a group of black man" thing, and one time when I was with her, I saw her doing it when the group of black man were, to me, clearly middle-class, college-educated or young-professional club-goers that had absolutely no hostile intent whatsoever. Eventually, she developed enough social literacy in the American west coast urban milieu that she got over the "cross the street" thing, all without being hectored for racism (and, also importantly, while leaving intact the sense that there really are good times to cross the street.)
Frequent transit riders who are white will eventually realize that most of the transit riders who are black are just that: other transit riders. However, they will probably have also experienced enough bad behavior by various types to make somewhat more nuanced distinctions that could, in turn, lead to them identifying the individuals being detained at that BART station as threatening. I'm actually surprised by how few narratives we have of the events of the whole evening.
Though it seems impossible to understand from the videos what exactly happened and why, I agree with the many commenters who think it's difficult to imagine information coming to light that would justify this shooting. It's awful, and it sure looks criminal. I do think, however, that some of the comments seeking to emphasize this awfulness and criminality by undermining or denying the chaos of the scene (or its being out of the control of the officers) are probably misguided. I don't think the videos can really capture it.
On New Year's 2000, shortly after midnight, I had to walk west down Market past several BART stations before I found one that I could actually enter. Police were blocking them off because so many people were in the underground stations that it began to seem some might get accidentally pushed onto the tracks. The one I entered was blocked off shortly after I entered it, and it was madness inside. Trains would edge up to the station and not enter it because so many people were standing on the yellow line next to the platform. Tired, intoxicated (though public drinking was forbidden at the big, official celebration), stressed people were screaming at each other to get the hell off the yellow line so the trains could enter the station, and people were trying, but were packed so close to the people behind them pushing forward that many of them struggled to move back just a few inches. As eastbound trains did slowly enter the station, everyone groaned at the sight of people pressed against the windows inside -- packed full at stations further west. Several trains stopped, opened their doors, and were so packed that literally not one person could squeeze in. Finally trains arrived that a few people could push and squeeze themselves into.
At one point a fight broke out in that underground station. I was far enough to not make out details of what was going on -- close enough to see that some kid on the ground was being repeatedly kicked and stomped. As far as I know the fighters disappeared into the crowd. Some time later paramedics struggled to get down into the station to where I assumed that kid must still have been lying there. I don't know what ended up happening with him -- it certainly looked possible that he could have been permanently disabled or killed.
The station where this shooting occurred is a few stops east of there. Since I don't think there is any such big, public party in that neighborhood, the platform would be much less crowded, and a few people from the packed train probably already got off at one of the intermediate stops. But I assume (and the videos seem consistent with this assumption) that the train with all the shouting bystanders was still this-kind-of-packed, and was full of people who a few minutes and a few stations west ago were in the middle of a scene like the one I described.
I don't know if the victim and other young men who were involved in a fight were pulled out of such a train, or if the fight spilled over from the train onto the platform. But I doubt they were on the platform trying to catch a train, and this is probably the sort of scene the cops were faced with trying to control.
I want to reiterate that I don't think this exonerates the officer who shot the man, but I do think it is important to keep this tense backdrop in mind in order to understand what happened. Whether or not this station is in a dangerous ghetto, as several commenters have argued back and forth about, seems totally immaterial to me. At that moment on and around that train, there was a situation more chaotic and dangerous than in the neighborhood around it, and it would have been the same just east of the City shortly after midnight on New Year's even if the neighborhood that happens to be there were affluent.
Apologies for misreading you then, but something still doesn't sit right with me. First, Grant was indeed a grocery store clerk, and a young father with two jobs. This is not simply part of a compelling narrative, but actual fact. Two, a few posters on this thread have made references to Grant's"history of legal problems." This is a very loaded statement and should be supported by fact. One arrest (or bid) for minor drug charges is not equivalent to a "history of legal problems." Having said that, of course Grant's record (or lack thereof) will play a part in determining what verdict the jury renders (assuming this goes to trial), and may even play a role in determining what the officer is charged with --it should not, but it will. But that is entirely separate from the issue of the role Grant's record played in his videotaped death. I take issue with the notion that Grant "encoded" himself as anything other than cooperative in the videotapes that have surfaced to date.
I am not sure than anyone on this thread suggested the officer was a "racist vigilante on a short fuse," that's a strawman. What most are questioning, is the validity of using Grant's past as a factor in determining the culpability of the officer (the subtext of such discourse is a devaluation of Grant's humanity). What we have on tape, is an unarmed man, shot in the back, while lying prone and restrained on the ground, moments after he can be seen in video footage sitting passively against a wall. You can speculate as to what was going on in the officer's mind, but we can see, for ourselves, what Grant was doing. To suggest that Grant's "comportment may not have been so neutral," because of his "past," is just plain wrong. To argue, that because of his "history," Grant interpellated himself in a particular way in this encounter (and that the officer responded to his intuition) comes close to suggesting Grant triggered the response that led to his shooting (a much more genteel version of Ken's odious comments above).
Molly - Didn't Grant jump up in the beginning of the video and not sit back down when ordered? Doesn't mean someone should get shot, but doesn't mean someone is being cooperative.
I think it's also important to understand that BART stations aren't very old, they are fairly secure, they close gates fairly early (around 1:30 most nights - they do stay open later NYE I believe), there are cameras on at all times that pretty much cover the entire station, there are usually officers on duty (obviously, in this case) and NONE are as cavernous and isolated as your average subway station in New York City. This is not the same as being on the downtown 5 platform at 149th Street in the Bronx.
Dd, I don't see him jumping up. They seem to be saying something to him as they walk towards him, he gets up (rather slowly) as they approach and appears not to resist as they take him down to the ground. Where do you see/hear him refusing to sit back down after being ordered to do so?
Molly - Agree jump was a bit strong way of saying stood up. At 19 seconds you can hear the shooting officer say "stay down"...but after a second look they didn't really give him much of an opportunity to comply before taking him down.
Molly, the characterization of Grant that was made of him as a "peacemaker" and the description of him as a father and grocery-store clerk were tactical. Apparently, his grocery store job was a condition of his recent parole; a year ago, he began a fight in which a friend of his, Fumar, was killed. (I'm getting this information in dribs and drabs from people in Oakland - I agree that all these characterizations are really hearsay, but it is disingenuous to think of the "Oscar Grant as heroic, innocent victim" is any more neutral than "Oscar Grant as thug."
Indeed, one description of Grant said that he was "showing signs of maturation." I find that a fascinating phrase in its own right.
We have fewer characterizations of the accused police officer: the range goes from trigger-happy racist to clumsy and frightened ingenue. Even more than Grant, he is a cipher in which the range of characterization of white police officers in general are getting challenged. He has no complaints on his record, and the impression I get at this point is of a career and life of amiable mediocrity.
If the question is, "did Oscar Grant deserve to be shot," there is very little to suggest that he did. Even if he was combative and uncooperative, there is nothing that suggests he deserved summary execution. What may turn out to be a more significant question: did Johannes Mehserle have valid reasons to believe he needed to have his gun drawn? Did he have a particular animus against Oscar Grant at that moment? What was his state of mind at the time?
Let me correct my last post: where I said "he is a cipher in which the range of characterization of white police officers in general are getting challenged", I meant "channeled" rather than "challenged."
"He has no complaints on his record"
How do you know this? Has this information been made publicly available?
"Apparently, his grocery store job was a condition of his recent parole; a year ago, he began a fight in which a friend of his, Fumar, was killed.I'm getting this information in dribs and drabs from people in Oakland - I agree that all these characterizations are really hearsay, but it is disingenuous to think of the "Oscar Grant as heroic, innocent victim" is any more neutral than "Oscar Grant as thug."
If this is hearsay, why post, seems both irresponsible and unethical. And again, you've constructed a strawman, I'm not aware anyone referred to Grant as a "heroic, innocent victim."
Molly:
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/oscar-grant-young-father-and-peacemaker-executed-by-bart-police/
The characterizations are, generally, hearsay, but not completely random hearsay: like I said, I know people working in City Hall in Oakland. The information about Grant's record seems well-founded: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/10/MND8156MDK.DTL. It is intellectual dishonest for you to call any of this irresponsible unless you, too, have direct access to the primary sources in this subject. Blogs and blog posts are a way of thinking and working things "out loud," and are not evidential themselves. I get the sense that you are trying to protect a very simplistic narrative.
Lemmy - 2nd link doesn't work
Sorry, this is it: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/10/MND8156MDK.DTL - the sentence-ending period got added to the auto-URL when I cut and pasted, it seems.
The source of that claim about Mehserle is Gary Gee, the director of BART Police. This might make us skeptical, on one hand; on the other hand, it would be a lot easier for him if they could identify Mehserle as a rogue element and let him take the fall for department-wide problems, so that skepticism could cut both ways.
In my last post on this subject, let me clarify another typo/thinko - I said that the claims about Grant's record seem to be justified. What I meant was that the claims about Mehserle's record (as being without a history of complaint or problems) seem to be justified. Those about Grant's record can be verified by public records. I'm sure they will all come out at some point. Apologies for any confusion.
I'm not sure why you feel asking for facts is "intellectually dishonest," or indicative of a desire to "protect an overly simplistic narrative." In my book, something is hearsay or its not. If what you suggest is true, I'm sure it will surface shortly in the press--right? Lastly, what is the source for your info about (zero) complaints on the officer's record? If this is so, I am surprised it has not been more widely circulated.
OK, this will be my last post on the topic: the source for that is in the sfgate link I posted above, in which the director of BART Police is interviewed. I am not surprised this hasn't been circulated, because if the contrary were true - that there had been a history of complaints with this officer, it would have been all over the place.
Like I said, Mehserle is treated as a cipher in too many tellings of this story. His own girlfriend was in labor when this episode occurred: this is, in one light, a tale of two fathers. That's how I'd film it, anyway.
The language used is certainly interesting: "Mehserle, an officer for two years, had never been the subject of a sustained complaint from the agency's internal affairs department." Not sure this backs up your claim about zero complaints, note the use of the word sustained here--seems to be some deliberate ambiguity. And of course, there is no reason to assume any (or all) civilian complaints would result in an internal review process.
@zacksback,
Your words: "Don't fucking explain to us how we feel, what we think or who we fear, okay?"
and
"Apologies for the language but this honky went to a junior high right out of Season 4 and has very little tolerance for Let Me Tell You About You White Folks bullshit.)"
Zack,
You sound very angry right now. You haven't been listening to rap music have you? And I'll tell you precisely what I think and you'll need to open up and swallow it. That's the beauty of you not being a cop and me not having handcuffs on: I can tell you exactly where to step off and you can't shut me up.
Posters on here have surmised about whatever it is they've wanted to. I'll do what I damn well please. And you folks like to tell us not to fear the police "if you haven't done something you have nothing to fear" or "even if the arrest is bogus, if you resist, you're guilty so take your beating/shooting and be glad you're alive" or "the subway is safer now that Oscar Grant's gone." And you're worried about what I posted? Please.
Ta-Neshi,
Don't back down on the use of the word murder. Language isn't constricted by precise definitional meaning. At the very lease, the above video depicted an unjust killing, which means murder to a vast portion of the English-speaking world. To make the douchbags happy, tell them you don't mean the legal definition of murder.
Bradford
What may turn out to be a more significant question: did Johannes Mehserle have valid reasons to believe he needed to have his gun drawn?
The short answer to this is: No.
None of the other officers felt threatened enough to have their guns drawn, and they were in the exact same "chaotic" situation, with the exact same "suspects," and were within just as much close physical proximity to Grant as Mehserle. His defense attorney would be extremely foolish to argue that Mehserle felt in imminent threat of his life, or even threat of injury.
@ Phil Deeze:
I never want to shut you up. If you've ever actually read my comments on this thread, or others about the incident, you'd know where the hell I stand on the murder of Oscar Grant. You want to tell me what you think? Go right ahead, and I'll listen respectfully. But what you've been doing is telling me what *I* think. ("You haven't been listening to rap music" - I mean, seriously???). And that's not respectful at all. So, damn right I'm angry.
But hey, congratulations: you've succeeded at your objective -- you shut up another whitey's participation in a discussion about race. If you want to know why racism is still so integral to life here in the U.S., it's because you chase people like me off the field, leaving only the Kens of the world. I give you a round of applause: the slow-hand golf clap. It's very stereotypically white, which should suit you just fine.
Peace out to the Comment Posse. Y'all know who you are. I'll see you in another T-N thread someday, maybe.
Congrats to Ta-Nehisi for having this blog mentioned on the New York Times Weekend Opinionator.
Website: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/weekend-opinionator-oaklands-tragedy-and-black-americas/?ref=opinion
One more item of interest -- a take on the incident and its aftermath written by an Oakland resident.
http://counterpunch.org/maher01092009.html
I'm not sure exactly what happened there, but the one thing that struck me after watching a couple of different angles a couple of different times was the pace that he stood, drew, and fired. It was almost...detached.
I agree with the above poster that said the way the cop drew his gun and fired was almost completely and utterly detached from reality, and liquid smooth. It completely sends chills up my spine. If someone told me that this guy was an Iraq vet suffering from post traumatic stress disorder I would almost believe it. Almost.
Even if Oscar had not initially struggled its pretty obvious he was a dead man the minute that cop put his hand on the gun. If that doesn't disturb you then you need help.
One thing has to be said though, you have to love this modern technology and proliferation of video recording devices in cell phones. As half drunk and celebratory as some of these people were the videos were chillingly good.
What is clear is that these officers are completely incompetent. Suspects should be handcuffed and separated for their own safety let alone the officers. problem solved. then there is no need for the cluster f*^% you see in the video.........poor oscar was a victim of a lack of following police, or bart security procedure........
I don't understand all you people who act like this is cold blooded murder. I guess people see what they want to see. What about the obvious facts? Why was a recently released from jail/prison convict, with a four year old daughter, doing out in public fighting at two-a.m. without his child and child's mother? That doesn't sound like someone "going straight" to me and someone who was trying to avoid trouble. What about the chaos going on, people yelling obscenities, taunting, acting the fool, refusing to cooperate, throw in armed police officers, etc. and you have a recipe for disaster. Why were all those people standing around?
I don't know about the rest of you but when I see the police I mind my P's and Q's and either go the opposite way or pass by on my best behavior because quite frankly I've had enough crap thrown my way in life and don't prefer to experience any more if I can avoid it. I'm a Native American with hair down to my waist so I know what it's like to be singled out and harassed by the police for my appearance. I've been illegally searched and detained, assaulted by authorities and have a permanent reminder of when I had my nose broken by a policeman every time I look in the mirror. On one particular occasion I looked down the barrel of a handgun aimed at me by a police officer while playing a video game at a pizza parlor and ended up face-down in the parking lot surrounded by officers and a circling police helicopter all due to the fact that the idiot pizza shop employees accidentally set off the silent alarm. So don't talk to me about I have no idea what it's like to be in this situation.
In my half century of life one thing I've come to thoroughly understand: all humans make mistakes, some more costly than others. I've read where the officer who shot and killed Grant became a father the next day. This whole thing is quite a sad state of affairs and my thoughts and condolences go out to the family of Oscar Grant and the mother and child of the BART officer. I'm not absolving the police here but I think everyone needs to cool off and not rush to judgement. This officer used some bad judgement, if he deserves jail time or some other punishment then let's mete it out. Grant made some bad choices himself that night by being there in the first place and not getting the hell away from a bad situation when he saw it happening and totally cooperating with the police. I don't think he should have been killed but he should have, could have done things differently to avoid the events that occurred and bears some responsibility for the choices that resulted in his own death.