NDRU said:

That's all I'm saying.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I agree. This guy will be crucified, don't know if I am ok with that.

GetAwayFromMe said:

well it took the people to push this into be delt with.

and i hope it scares the shit out of other police and police departments to take their jobs and screenings more seriously.

maybe everyone of them shouldn't carry a gun.

did you know that certification to control a police dog is about as simple as attending a 4-H meeting on training dogs?
[Edited 1/15/09 11:26am]

horatio said:

That is truly the fucked up thing about this situation. Even when you see that stupid ass Rodney King resisting arrest and high off his ass, all of LA gets burnt down cuz people are pissed at the cops and had this not been caught on video, absolutely nothing would have been done. We can't have a system that protects law enforcement to that degree.

GetAwayFromMe said:

it all depends on if he meant to do it. if he did, he deserves no sympathy. if he didn't he might deserve sympathy, but he still needs to pay the price of taking a life for no good reason

SCNDLS said:

are we fighting?

NDRU said:

I think it's going to go beyond that as this is now political.

i mean, what situations actually warrant the use of a gun or recklessly chasing down someone endangering the entire population?

not many, yet the worst of it happens all the time when its not warranted.

murders occur and its hours even day maybe weeks before anyone notices and police get involved. the suspect is long gone.

thats the only time where i see deadly force could be a necessity.

not many others, so why have every police renta cop armed?

its cool? its why they apply for the job?

horatio said:

now you're leading to bigger questions. Why are there ANY damn guns in this country?

NDRU said:

You're asking someone who loves his gun

NDRU said:

i dont mind guns,
but i do mind the criteria for what persons are given authority to wield them publicly. Especially those paid for by tax payers dollars.

horatio said:

yes, that's the problem. The deaths by guns are so often a result of access to them by people who have no business having access to them.

I'm sure plenty of people have them and never have accidents, but the 5 year old who shoots his brother has a parent who had no business having a gun.

But as you point out, you hear the tragedies, but do you hear about the guy who saved his entire family from a violent criminal because he had a gun? Maybe it happens I have never heard of it. It's not just high speed chases & rent a cops that are the problem, it's MOST of the guns that have no business being owned but their owners!
[Edited 1/15/09 12:03pm]

NDRU said:

Those are the ones the NRA has flipped out the most. I hope someday to see that organization brought to destruction. They perpetuate violence in our society.

I'm not unsatisfied with this charge, but I wonder if it's sellable to a jury. Juries are historically quite sympathetic to police.

The officer is clearly guilty of killing an unarmed man, but the premeditation and intent to kill (not tazer) is open to debate, as evidenced in this thread. While an involuntary manslaughter charge would almost certainly stick, I just hope prosecutors are not overplaying their hand with alleging murder.
[Edited 1/15/09 12:20pm]

Lammastide said:

I fear the same thing. A murder charge may actually be a benefit to the cop if they aren't able to prove he meant to do it. Manslaughter is basically a given.

The cospiracy side of me says they charged him with murder not only to calm the citizens of Oakland but also to ultimately get the cop out of doing any time.

NDRU said:

I hate to admit it, but this notion also passed my mind.

Lammastide said:

Especially when the victim is a Black man, whom society has historically presented as "dangerous and violent".

Lammastide said:

agree

Lammastide said:

They aren't overplaying their hand. Unless he's pleading insanity (hard to do when you're on the job . . . ) what he was thinking doesn't matter. He doesn't even have to take the stand.
It's premeditated murder because again;
1. No immediate threat to the officer or another citizen or officer from the victim. So there is no self-defense.
2. He drew his gun - that's premeditation. It was a conscious act (no one is really going to try to argue that he automatically pulls his gun . . . He's only been an officer two years. I'll stop there . . . .)

If the gun had been in his hand and discharged, it would be manslaughter even if it were clearly murder. It would be very hard to argue that the gun didn't go off accidentally. Despite the video evidence, that reasoning would give a jury an out to not punish a police officer.

In this situation, the incident was clearly under control. No other officers had drawn their weapons and were visibly rocked by the death of the guy they have under control. The presumption with an officer pulling a loaded weapon is that he is ready to use it. It's even more damning when no one else, including the officer on the guy's back has a weapon drawn, club, Tazer, or gun.

NDRU said:

We'll know at the arraignment but I don't think the cop's attorney is going to argue for a manslaughter charge. Although that would be the time to do it or request a hearing on the request. I doubt the attorney would go that route because being denied is prejudicial to his client because there is no jury yet.
I do think the trial will be moved to Santa Clara or San Mateo county. It should be easy to get it out of Oakland. The rioting was enough to do that . . .
Again, what happened is legally murder. That's why he was charged with murder.
Also the state and Federal government can also bring charges, so if he walks in this trial, he'll probably just face another one. No, that's not double jeopardy.

Lammastide said:

Very good point. But if they're overplaying their hand, it's the play the public wants to see. How many times have you seen this type of thing from law enforcement and public skepticism says they'll never get charged as a civilian would? But you're correct, juries can be manipulated into some verdicts, but I have to believe the public at large approves of this charge.

SUPRMAN said:

Do you think the prosecution may have a hard time proving a premeditation to kill if the defense can make a convincing case the officer really thought he was drawing a taser?

violator said:

I definitely think the public at large approves now... but it's based exclusively on the videos we've seen and a certain inertia around the case. When the defense takes the room and starts spinning their story -- especially to a sequestered jury in Santa Clara or San Mateo, for example -- I just wonder what those jurors will be prepared to believe to the benefit of this officer. I hope my concerns are unfounded.
[Edited 1/15/09 20:48pm]

Lammastide said:

No. There is no convincing case that he made that mistake. If that IS there defense, they've handed the family a fortune in a civil suit against the manufacturer of the Tazer and the BART police and potentially the police academy if his training there was a factor.
Also if you use that as a defense do you want to jury to handle both a gun and a Tazer to see if were reasonable for someone trained to use both mistake one for another?
And how is he the first known officer, out of all the officers using Tazers and guns for years through million of incidents? That also makes it seem more unlikely not less.
Again, the presumption of an officer pulling a loaded weapon is he intends to use it. It's that threat of force that he uses to gain control of the situation. He's only been a BART police officer for two years and went through the academy at BART and he showed no evidence of mental incapacity.

SUPRMAN said:

Good points.

2elijah said:

another problem also is you have cops that have no connection to the environment or the culture of the neighborhood they're patrolling (those cops live somewhere else) or the cops are just plain racist.... right away those type cops stereotype the people cause they can't relate to them or understand them... they should hire cops who are from the same neighborhoods..