Video: The Oscar Grant shooting
posted at 12:45 pm on January 9, 2009 by Allahpundit
Three clips, the first a TV news report so you’ll have an idea of what happened and then two different close-ups via cell phone. The shooting comes at 1:15 of the second video and 2:55 of the third. In brief: It’s early New Year’s Day, there’s a fight on the Oakland subway, the transit cops come and pull a few men aside, one of whom is Grant. He ends up sitting against a wall, then two cops maneuver him face down, presumably to cuff him. There’s a slight struggle, whereupon one of them stands, pulls his pistol — and fires, sending his colleagues backpedaling in shock. Look closely in the second clip and you’ll see that even Mehserle, the cop who pulled the trigger, seems surprised. The theory is that he meant to grab his taser and wasn’t paying attention, but (a) the gun’s in his hand for a second or two before he shoots and (b) the other cop appears to still be holding Grant down. Wouldn’t that have transferred the zap from the taser into his body?
The bullet went through Grant’s back, bounced off the floor, and ended up in his lung. He died a few hours later. There have been demonstrations ever since, with Mehserle first being put on paid leave and then quitting the force on Wednesday. It happened in full view of dozens of people, obviously, so it’s hard to believe it was deliberate, but all I can come up with by way of explanation is that he had some sort of brain freeze.
You’re watching a man die here so please observe this, your official content warning. Exit question for our police readers: Have you ever absentmindedly reached for your taser and grabbed your pistol instead? If so, don’t they feel sufficiently different in your hand that you’d know instantly? Are the two weapons even on the same side of your belt?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
There sure were a lot of racial slurs being used. Al Sharpton better get down there to protest those people using that language. I wonder how many of those folks voted for McCain.
mindhacker on January 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM
If he’s convicted of a felony, I’m pretty sure that’s a life ban anyway.
apollyonbob on January 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Agreed. There are no ‘accidental’ discharges, only negligent ones.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:21 PM
And my best friend wonders why I have NO desire to live and work in CA. Yah great, take BART to the A’s game and get cuffed and shot. I grew up in the SF Bay Area and have no desire to go there except to visit my best friend and my family. Other than them and the A’s and Giants and some of the national and state parks, CA is no place to live and/or raise a family. It has so many problems and most of them self-induced.
I had a high school friend who was my roommate for my last two years of college and he knew a guy in our same grade at our high school who later went on and became a beat cop for the Oakland Police. My friend told me this cop told him that he “Gets paid to beat n*****s”. I found out in later years he was off the force but was working as a cop in another Bay Area town. Amazing. Have they not learned anything? I won’t give you the name, but I’m sure a media search and stuff would find out who I’m talking out due to probably legitimate claims of abuse about this guy.
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 2:21 PM
IT is SO easy to get around that law.
omnipotent on January 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM
He should go to jail even if it was a mistake? You cannot tell people ‘go out and protect against the bad guys’, give them guns, then send them to prison if they have an accident. That’s absurd.
TheBlueSite on January 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM
What law is it not easy to get around if you’re willing to break the law?
apollyonbob on January 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Perused it long ago. What do you think I might have missed?
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM
I was just noting that due to personal gun sales (no background checks) all sorts of f*cktard have weapons in violation of the law, that’s all.
omnipotent on January 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM
her picture
upinak on January 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM
This was what I was saying – not the absurd bit.
They have to be held to a higher standard. I think it should be min security and it shouldn’t be long, but he has to be punished. He killed a man with no justification. Come on, we’ve got to be a nation of laws on this one.
apollyonbob on January 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM
I disagree. If you want to see a war zone, go to Laredo or many major cities.
Johan Klaus on January 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM
You thought I was unaware that I was corresponding with a black woman? I’ve been here long enough to know that….geez!
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM
The officer might have (likely mistakenly) believed he was acting as cover officer in something that he interpreted as a “felony stop” situation during which he thought his role would be to cover the subject with his firearm. The officer likely didn’t really know what to do or let poorly thought out instincts take over resulting in the inaccurate and imprecise response action of displaying and aiming his firearm.
I would also venture to guess that the officer might unintentionally have positioned his finger in the firearm’s trigger well instead of positioning it alongside the trigger well (like pointing his finger along the side of the gun to avoid accidental discharge). Depending upon the gun (especially if it is a semi-automatic pistol) the trigger pressure required to fire the weapon might have been less than accidental, reflexive pressure from the officer’s trigger finger. I have known instances before in which shootings have occurred due to these tactical errors.
It is also possible, of course, that the officer decided to fire into the subject. Although that possibility isn’t excluded, a more likely cause are poor tactics, like described above, leading to an accidental (albeit possibly negligent) discharge of the weapon.
VitalRoar on January 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Really? You think police agencies don’t conduct the most thorough, rigorous background checks? California law prohibits anyone with a felony conviction from ever being a police officer, no ifs, ands, or buts. And most agencies will reject for misdemeanor convictions as well
Trafalgar on January 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Uh, yeah.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to expect a cop to not shoot someone if they aren’t defending themselves.
SouthernDem on January 9, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I meant it’s easy for a felon to get a gun. Period.
omnipotent on January 9, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Yeup! Straw purchase is probably more popular than “personal gun sales” but like most laws, its fragility is inversely proportional to its enforcement.
apollyonbob on January 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM
**Smack**
Then apologize. Dingleberry.
upinak on January 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Sho’ nuff.
omnipotent on January 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Trafalgar on January 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Thanks for your service BTW.
Oaktown can be a very frightening place at times.
omnipotent on January 9, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I disagree. If you want to see a war zone, go to Somalia.
As war zones go, they don’t get much more warier or zoneier than Somalia.
Oh wait, were you talking about a “war zone” being an area where a war is happening, or “war zone” being an area where crime occasionally happens?
I get confused on those sometimes, as people seem to think of them as interchangeable.
apollyonbob on January 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM
/me insults Baldi so he can get a slap from upinak too.
- The Cat
P.S. Sorry Baldi but it must be done. :P
MirCat on January 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM
So, anytime an accident happens, we’ll toss people into jail? I can imagine where that’d lead- cops would NEVER draw their guns, whether they needed to or not, out of fear of being thrown into prison for the rest of their lives.
TheBlueSite on January 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM
apollyonbob & omnipotent
Thank you both
Trafalgar on January 9, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Not this time. I mean every word. There are real issues that are not being addressed with all this namby-pamby racial pantomime PC-duncery.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:31 PM
They are serving you. I remember once in Tennessee late at night on 65 heading south and I got pulled over and ticketed for speeding. It was only a revenue ticket and cost me I think around $75 bucks, and didn’t go on my record (I still have a perfect lifetime record of NO moving violations ever). The cop was right. It was night and I was going 75 miles per hour, I think 10 MPH over the limit and I was tired. Of course, I thanked the trooper and apologized. I could have fell asleep or run off the road and hit a tree or in a pond, who knows.
However, there are some situations where they can be very intimidating.
By the way, Trooper Wooten wouldn’t have lasted very long in Oakland. He would have been off the force long ago after several incidents due to the public outcry. Guys like him don’t do as well when they are not in a smaller state unionized force where political pressure can be marshalled in greater force than simply the husband of the gov.
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Yes, the difference would be the killer’s intention.
We can’t tell for sure if the cop meant to kill that guy, but it seems highly unlikely given all the witnesses.
Yes, he should still go to jail, but we don’t execute people for making a mistake. And in a country where the Second Amendment protects our right to own a gun, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to ban cops from using one. It would make far more sense to simply get rid of the cops.
Esthier on January 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I asked you why you said what said. I asked straight-forwardly and without adornment. I got called ‘obtuse’ for my trouble. Yet you claim that it is I who am “pathologically phobic unwillingness to actually talk seriously about uncomfortable truths”
I did not say or imply anything of the sort. Guilty conscious.
I have five years of evident stress on my brain cells and several adult conversations (my blog) contained therein . But it’s interesting that you automatically assume that I’m calling you a racist.
Funny how a one-word question (‘Why?’) can conjure all sorts of unwarranted assumptions in some people, assumptions that. And it’s hilarious to watch them blame their own pre-judgments on others.
On topic: in the Basic Pistol course I took some weeks ago, trigger discipline is hammered hard. One can imagine that it is even more so in police academies. The guy screwed up.
baldilocks on January 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Trafalgar on January 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Funny how a one-word question (’Why?’) can conjure all sorts of unwarranted assumptions in some people
, assumptions that. And it’s hilarious to watch them blame their own pre-judgments on others.baldilocks on January 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Same results.
Johan Klaus on January 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM
No, but if a cop draws his weapon on a guy cuffed and on the ground and kills him, there should be justice.
I’m talking this specific case, not all instances.
SouthernDem on January 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Are you serious? If so, _thumbs up_ ;)
Refer to A1:S8:C15
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Are you going to take Shot Gun or a Muzzle Loader course? You wanna talk about trigger disapline! Whoa
upinak on January 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM
That “why” and “white racist” aren’t equal in my book.
baldilocks on January 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM
That’s ridiculous. Accidents happen everyday. The training and the cop would have to be perfect. Nothing is perfect. Thus, accidents exist.
TheBlueSite on January 9, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Yes, people go to jail for mistakes. Even police officers. If his mistake was especially egregious, he can go to jail for a long time. Being a police officer doesn’t mean you can be Officer Klutz and shoot people accidently all the time with no consequence.
The trial will most likely center around whether the officer made a reasonable mistake that can be excused, or an unreasonable mistake that cannot be excused. That’s for the jury to decide.
Sydney Carton on January 9, 2009 at 2:36 PM
The “why?” there indicated that you couldn’t understand why a white cop would feel pressured by a hostile crowd of mostly black people, many of whom hate cops in general and white cops in particular. In Oakland.
It seems … it does seem obvious.
apollyonbob on January 9, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Having seen this from 3 different angles, I don’t see cause to pull a taser, let alone a pistol. If this is a brain fart, it’s the biggest one ever.
Pablo on January 9, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Excuse me, but what racial pantomime PC-duncery have I perpetrated? Point to something specific.
Or are you assuming that that is what I am perpetrating because you know that I am black?
baldilocks on January 9, 2009 at 2:38 PM
So in this case presented, the person breaking the law less than others is the casue of any resulting accidents?
DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 2:38 PM
How about quoting yourself in context. Your response was “No. Why?”, indicating (no assumptions needed) that you had not thought about the pressures involved, and were confused as to why you would do so. That qualifies as “obtuse”. Perhaps “thoughtless” would be more charitable, but I happen to consider you as a rather smart person.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:38 PM
No. My issue is with the larger atmosphere surrounding all walk-on-eggshells discussions revolving around ‘race’.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Sorry. I was mostly skimming. There’s a lot to read here.
Then do the right thing and report this guy. We don’t need officers like that.
Yes, he should. It’s the law. That’s why they have to go through training.
And yes, even citizens can be sent to jail for an accident that results in murder. It’s the law. Cops aren’t exempt from it. In fact, they’re held to a higher standard as they should.
Esthier on January 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM
No, it’s not ridiculous at all. Guns do not fire without the trigger being pulled. Officers are trained to NEVER put their finger on the trigger unless they are morally and legally justified in killing someone. Pulling the trigger is a volitional act. If we can assume that this officer did not in fact intend to kill this man then he should never have had his finger on the trigger. Since he did and the gun was fired, the only answer was that he neglected his training resulting in the unfortunate death. It was not an accident, it was a failure to follow the rules.
Trafalgar on January 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Absolutely :) I didn’t think it was that hard to grasp either.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM
And let’s not forget cops are citizens as well.
omnipotent on January 9, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Let’s try it from a different tact -
I think everyone’s agreed that the Kent State shootings were bad and accidental (or at least STARTED accidentally). The cause for the start is probably similar to what happened here. The difference is that, at Kent State, both sides were white but the police/guard were in a hostile environment against people who HATED them.
It still doesn’t justify the shootings in either case but it leads to understanding of why the guns were drawn.
Skywise on January 9, 2009 at 2:41 PM
For sure. Different contexts – accidental vs negligent.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Of course there are accidental shootings. Training is designed to reduce them. Training does not make accidents impossible. The definition of accidental is “not intentional” If this was not accidental then it’s murder since the act of pulling that trigger (the only act that mattered) was either intentional or not, period. Don’t get fuzzy with logic.
bagoh20 on January 9, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Yes, but there’s a huge difference between drawing a gun and actually firing it. I drew my firearm hundreds of times on duty but never fired it.
Trafalgar on January 9, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Jesus Christ. Can you imagine the import of this fact BY ITSELF? Regardless of all the other crap that was going on up to and during this incident, being surrounded by an (at the very least) agitated mob – and people in all directions are POINTING things at you?
And btw, that’s not a rhetorical question. Let me answer it for you: No. You can’t imagine that. And neither can I. There’s maybe one person out of ten thousand who can.
I know the level of vitriol in cases like this is inversely proportional to the level of experience, but this isn’t a John Woo video. Most of the pencil-necked armchair Rambos passing judgement on this guy, if they were in the same circumstance, would have tried to piss their pants – and missed.
The option of using force in the first place is a choice. The acts of drawing a gun and drawing a Tazer are conditioned responses – which most of the people commenting on this don’t understand. It’s always possible to get wires crossed.
If somebody tries to carjack you and “accidentally” shoots you, that’s too damned bad. That’s what the Felony Murder rule was designed for – there is no defense in that case. But this is not that case.
logis on January 9, 2009 at 2:44 PM
You going to explain it or not?
Nobody asked you to walk on f***ing eggshells!
Should the white cops be scared of blacks specifically? Why? Give evidence. If it makes sense, I’ll say so.
Because I’ve seen plenty cases in which rowdy, unruly, drunk, high mobs/individuals of all races have blown cops (of all races) away.
baldilocks on January 9, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Very much so. If we’re going to disarm them, we may as well disband them.
Esthier on January 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Intuitively, we know that ‘accidents’ with firearms are possible. The psychological tweak being applied when we say “no accidental discharge, only negligent” is a reflection of the terminal severity of such a mistake.
Somehow, saying “it was an accident” doesn’t come close to explaining a corpse. Why was the gun pointing at them? Why was your finger on the trigger? Why did you fire? Why did you _neglect_ to follow the most elementary rules of gun safety?
No excuses.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Trafalgar, your theory is so insane, I’m thinking you might be kidding.
I assure you, someone can have top notch training and follow it to a T, but still have an accident. That’s like saying people walk all their lives, their taught as babies how to walk, they choose to walk and use their own will to move their legs, but if they fall it’s never an accident, it’s simply a failure to follow the lifelong training they’ve had in walking.
We can assume the likely accident here, if it is an accident, is he thought he had his finger on the trigger of a taser. Or he erred in thinking he was in mortal danger.
I disagree with anyone who says that, if a trial takes place and it’s found that the shooting was an accident, we should toss the guy into prison. Prison isn’t to destroy lives due to accidents, it’s to punish those who knowingly violate the law. The cases where accidental shootings end in prison time- any I’ve ever seen involve people playing with guns or handling them recklessly. If there’s no evidence he handled it in a reckless manner…
TheBlueSite on January 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Hello! My name’s Bob. I answered why for Limey a few posts up.
apollyonbob on January 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM
HAN SOLO SHOT FIRST!
- The Cat
MirCat on January 9, 2009 at 2:49 PM
If you cannot read the other posts in this thread that are doing a perfectly good job of explaining what I was getting at, then that “obtuse” label is gonna have to stick. For a while, at least.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM
In the Oakland Police Dept we had three classifications of shootings: Justified. Non-Justified. Accidental. In my entire career there we never had a single shooting, whether in the locker room or on the street, that was classified as accidental. The definition of an accidental shooting was that the weapon went off without any input from the handler. Old guns may have done that occasionally, but modern police weapons do not.
Now, the fact that the shooting occured as a result of negligence (not accident) doesn’t necessarily amount to murder, which requires criminal intent. But it might rise to the level of manslaughter.
Trafalgar on January 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM
In fact, I can’t find any cases of accidental shootings ending in prison unless another crime is involved (ie, illegal handgun, no license for the gun, that sort of thing.)
TheBlueSite on January 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Sadly, while there are so many good cops, there are not nearly enough cops who treat their sidearm as the tool they need the most training with. Look at the ceiling of an average police station. Those holes are discharges due to officers taking out the magazine without clearing the chamber, and then testing it. I need to find a link, but I saw a report claiming that two-thirds of officers spend the minimum or less time practicing on the range, and even more have rarely or never practiced with the rifle or shotgun they carry in their patrol car.
You would think that they should spend the most time training with the tools that are capable of ending lives. There needs to be a real crackdown on this.
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
That doesn’t mean what the cop did isn’t illegal. It’s not felony homicide, but it’s still homicide.
Esthier on January 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
I now feel a little less lonely in my convictions ;)
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Yep. Especially the gangs out there…which come in every race, creed, and color that there is.
*****
btw, you can’t win an argument with baldilocks…Lord knows I’ve tried…
;-)
JetBoy on January 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
The dead body is all the evidence needed.
Esthier on January 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM
He should go to jail even if it was a mistake? You cannot tell people ‘go out and protect against the bad guys’, give them guns, then send them to prison if they have an accident. That’s absurd.
TheBlueSite on January 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Uh, yeah.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to expect a cop to not shoot someone if they aren’t defending themselves.
SouthernDem on January 9, 2009 at 2:26 PM
You’re truly living in a dreamworld SouthernDem… accidents happen. If a court find that it was negligence then he should be punished. It’s also quite likely, though difficult to discern from the vid, that the victim was not heeding the officer’s commands — a dumb thing to do in every case.
on a slightly different subject. I wonder how many of the “brawlers” in the crowd who were intending to bash Grant’s head in suddenyl turned around and found themselves defending his rights so loudly.
We don’t live in an anarchistic society, much as these mobs and thugs would like it
max1 on January 9, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Not getting at you personally, but this reminds me…
*pet peeve alert*
Please stop using “homicide” as a synonym for “murder”.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:53 PM
It was not an accident, it was a failure to follow the rules.
Trafalgar on January 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM
It was an accident AND failure to follow the rules, they are not mutually exclusive. Of course shooting an nonthreatening man in the back is always “against the rules”. If your saying he broke the rules intentionally then it’s murder, which it is not.
bagoh20 on January 9, 2009 at 2:53 PM
How does that saying go?
Never attribute to malice what simple incompetency can explain?
I’m not going to make a claim one way or the other on a blurry image of an event I didn’t witness.
Count to 10 on January 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Listen – him putting his finger on the trigger, even, no especially if he didn’t intend to shoot anyone was a mistake. It was a poor choice.
And the result of that choice was a violation of the law – a homocide.
I’m sorry, but we actually have laws specifically for “you killed someone but didn’t mean to” and the punishment is still pretty severe. Because someone died.
apollyonbob on January 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM
More cops have been murdered by individuals than mobs. As others have mentioned, the guy probably should have been in another line of work.
Perhaps. But what’s the big deal about explaining it? Can a person ask for clarification without getting called on the carpet about motives and getting called ‘obtuse?’
It’s not hard to grasp. It is, however, hard to read your mind–which is the reason I asked for clarification. (And you are terrible at reading mine.)
I guess it was too difficult for you to explain your reasoning so you sprayed all that octopus ink aka assumptions of being called a racist.
Economic times are tough; you should pay apollyonbob for being your spokesman.
baldilocks on January 9, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Alright…I’m not kidding or ridiculous. Please understand that my beliefs and comments come from a long career as a police officer where it was drummed into us over and over and over that there are no accidental shootings. It may be parsing words, or nit-picky to some, but from my background and my reality the difference between ‘neglegent’ and ‘accidental’ is huge.
Trafalgar on January 9, 2009 at 2:55 PM
At least the corpse would be well dressed.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I think the poster who said her husband was an officer for 28 years and only used his weapon once is a clue here.
If you don’t use it often, you probably don’t think about it much either. You’re right though; it shouldn’t be that way.
Esthier on January 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
You could have pointed to them. But I guess being obnoxious easier to you.
baldilocks on January 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
This isn’t my blog, and you’re not the center of my world. I am not about to spout essays upon your demand. Just read the other opinions and I’m sure you’ll figure it out.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM
TheBlueSite,
The law punishes people who make mistakes that cause grevious harm, including death. That is why there is a crime called “reckless endangerment,” “reckless homocide,” “reckless driving,” etc. Tossing caution to the wind and then saying that just because an injury wasn’t intended is NOT A DEFENSE. You can go to jail for making a mistake. That’s a fact of life as plain as the sun rising in the east. Deal with it.
Police officers are subject to that standard as well. In the case of this shooting, if his mistake was not reasonable and cannot be excused, he will go to jail. Period. The facts will tell whether his mistake was reasonable or not. The jury might very well find that in a case where the person was handcuffed facing the ground, for the officer to even touch his gun was reckless.
Sydney Carton on January 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Stupid latins and their stupid conjugations
apollyonbob on January 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I AGREE WITH BALDILOCKS!
apollyonbob on January 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
I guess I’ll have to add “lazy” to the charge of “obtuse”.
Get off your arse.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
I’ll buy you a beer.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
I’m very glad you feel that way.
I’m not. I’m using it in place of kill.
Esthier on January 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Can someone please tell me if they know the race of the victim here? I have a hunch he’s white, because I haven’t seen Sharpton and Friends being outrageously outraged yet. Is my hunch right?
RightWinged on January 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM
That’s why I said I wasn’t getting at you. Your use of the word just reminded me s’all ;)
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Very tragic. Listen to the crowds yelling. Imagine how loud it must have been there. It’s no excuse,,, good people screw up all the time. Doctors prescribe the wrong medicine, truck drivers fall asleep,, it happens.
He had a stressful day, maybe he’s behind in his car payments, he had a horrible fight with his wife, his teenage daughter swore at him, he’s got a touch of the flu and now here he is in the subway trying to subdue a scumbag,, people are yelling so loud he can’t even hear himself think,, then he gets frustrated, angry and just decides to finish this with his tazer and bang!
OMG! That was not my tazer!
Very, very sad.
JellyToast on January 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Although, ahem, homicide means “human death”, not “kill”.
I’ll go clean my room now.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Don’t saddle Baldilocks with my “obtuse” statements.
You overstate my position. I have no problem with good policing. I love it. Problem is that your assertion that a “black” group of people is some inherent threat is ridiculous.
Nobody called you a racist either. Your self recriminations are clouding your self-image.
Luckily most cops are far more rational than you are and can discern between real threats and those inflated by prejudice.
I await your snappy insult. Thank you in advance.
The Race Card on January 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Placing your finger on the trigger= homicide? You’re trained to not put your finger on the trigger unless you intend to shoot someone and harm them in a major way. The theory is that he thought it was his taser. That was my point. Some here have said, no matter what conclusion- he should be jailed.
And Sydney- I specifically noted recklessness. From the videos, there’s no evidence he was being reckless. There’s no evidence that he tossed caution to the wind.
TheBlueSite on January 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Not to pile on, but I’ve never known Baldilocks to give anyone other than a fair shake. If you think it’s obvious, why not just spell it out rather than insulting her? “I think that the white cops had more to fear from a large black mob as opposed to black cops fearing in a large white mob.” or “Traditionally, large black mobs are more violent than large white mobs.” could be 2 concise examples. Either they can be stated as opinion or as fact with a backup. That’ll be .02, please. :)
theotherKate on January 9, 2009 at 3:04 PM
I’m not describing what any department policy might call accidental, although that will be very important in the end for him, but:
It certainly was not “Justified”,
“Non-Justified” seems intentional but against policy.
It in my opinion: It was accidental since it was not intentional, as if he was bumped from behind, but was still the one who pulled the trigger. This was a brain fart, or unconscious hand reaction to the stimulus of the environment. Still punishable due to his position as a trusted weapon carrier of the state.
bagoh20 on January 9, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Actually, I think it’s more like “utterly blind conjecture” on a blog full of hot air ;)
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM
You are the one who brought up your other comments on this thread! I didn’t ask you to spout an essay. Why would I? If one of your earlier comments explained your reasoning, how hard is it for you to simply say “I explained this at XX:XXAM on this thread?” Or you could have linked to it. Do you know how to do that?
You know (heh) if the particulars of having an Internet conversation are too stressful for you, you might want find another hobby. Just a suggestion.
baldilocks on January 9, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Do you think it’s reasonable for an officer to draw a gun on a man already handcuffed, facing the ground? Under what circumstances would that be reasonable? Would it be reasonable to mistake a gun for a tazer, even while pulling the trigger?
I think the jury is going to call B.S. on those questions. The officer’s actions are not reasonble to excuse his mistake. This officer is going to go to jail. The only way he gets out of a lengthy prision sentense is if he pleads guilty to reckless homocide and throws himself on the mercy of the court.
Sydney Carton on January 9, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Just trying to help a brutha out. LOL.
baldilocks on January 9, 2009 at 3:09 PM
FOAD
baldilocks on January 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
The concept of “legal terminology” really escapes you, doesn’t it? Get off the toy pony that you think is a high horse.
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I’m no cop, but isn’t it common to tell a person to get on the ground and lie face down while another officer stands to the side with his gun drawn for backup??
And yes, humans are imperfect, so it’s reasonable when you’re filled with mind-altering adrenaline to mistaken a gun from something that has the same similar shape, size, etc.
TheBlueSite on January 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »