BART Shooting Cop Defense Claims He Meant To Use Taser

[New_England_Patriot]

Source: KTVU

The former BART police officer accused of fatally shooting an unarmed man on a transit station platform told a fellow officer moments before firing his gun that he was going to discharge his Taser, according to a document released Friday.

Johannes Mehserle, 27, was ordered Friday to be held on $3 million bail on charges that he shot Oscar Grant III, a 22-year-old Hayward man, in the back while Grant was lying face down on the ground at the Fruitvale station platform after police responded to reports that there had been a fight on a train.

<...>

Mehserle was armed with both a Taser and a handgun. He then allegedly drew the handgun and shot Grant once. According to the court documents submitted by Rains, Mehserle had attended a six-hour training class in use of the X-26 Taser and passed the user certification test on December 3, 2008.

<...>

"It's a real nightmare not just for the judge but for the DA also," Hammer said. "If you look back at the most recent case -- the Rodney King beating trial -- you have video of alleged police misconduct played over and over. What that means is that the jurors in Oakland probably have already made up their minds about it." "The defense will make a motion to move it out of the hothouse atmosphere here in Oakland and Alameda County," he added.

Read more: http://www.ktvu.com/news/18604909/detail.html

---

It's been shown that the officer had the taser in the cross position, yet he went for the gun on his hip...

Not only that, but the police said themselves that Grant was restrained. I don't believe for a minute this crock of shit would say "He was going to taze" when Grant's face down, handcuffed, and restrained.

[my2sense]

1. It took him a whole month to finally admit to "something"

I call bullshit on this. Also, the other officer that punched Grant and help him down while Mesherle shot him should be charged as well.

[CreekDog]

15. the other cop, the one that punched Grant in the face is this witness quoted here

:wtf: :eyes:

[shanti]

25. smacks of

CYA, doesn't it?

[Evergreen Emerald]

43. please

This was tragic and horrific. But to suggest that he purposefully killed the guy is extreme-tinfoilhattish.

It did not take him a month to admit "something." Defendants don't speak to anyone. They have constitutional rights not to speak. The witness (other officer) likely reported the statement during an investigation. And likely, the press got the information.

[psychopomp]

76. What country are you from?

Because in America police shoot young black men all the time for less; this is too routine in the USA.

[slackmaster]

48. It's not wise to hold a press conference after you shoot someone and are facing charges

At least until you have consulted with a criminal defense lawyer.

[pleah]

2. When did they start making gun shaped tasers?

How could you mistake the grip of a gun for a taser? He will still probably get off, though.:(

[truthisfreedom]

5. Someone posted a pic of a gun-shaped taser when this story first broke.

It's very stupid. They shouldn't be anything like guns.

[pleah]

11. Holy shit!

:wow: Yep, he will probably get off.

[CreekDog]

16. do you believe he tried to tase Grant while other officers were touching him?

uh huh.

[DRoseDARs]

23. You say that like cops haven't done dumber things. They aren't EMTs. n/t

[TexasProgresive]

30. That shouldn't be a problem

the current flows between the electrodes and does not energize the whole body.

[slackmaster]

50. You don't have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to qualify for a law enforcement job

Except at the FBI.

[DRoseDARs]

22. Yeah, that was me. Since that first taser-defense thread, I no longer buy his use of it.

I saw the incident from a better angle in a different video than the one in that thread and it was clear as day to me the officer wanted blood. This change-of-heart on my part doesn't lessen the fact that gun-like tasers are a baaad idea and one of these days, someone somewhere IS going to accidentally reach for his or her gun-like taser, only to find that he or she has grabbed and fired their sidearm by mistake. An honest, tragic mistake.

[Piewhacket]

83. Mistakes have already happened...

suspect handcuffed in the back of the squad car,
making a fuss, officer grabs weapon to tase him, and shoots...
prisoner dies instantly.
she's actually holding her service pistol.

all this before witnesses, who agree she
obviously intended to use her taser.

she is tried (and acquitted).
real case somewhere.

[davepc]

104. Everardo Torres -- Madera, Calif

Shot and killed by a cop who claimed she mistook her firearm for a tazer.

She was acquitted.

[Abq_Sarah]

33. His story is still bullshit

His taser wouldn't be in his pistol holster. It would have a separate holster on the opposite side of his body.

[RamboLiberal]

59. No - some cops carry their taser in a thigh holster

on their strong side(shooting hand). Some do carry butt forward on their weak side.

I'm not saying this is the case for this cop. But I could see it happening that some cop could have a brain fart and shoot someone forgetting he/she had their handgun out and not their taser.

[truthisfreedom]

3. Tazing someone who is already restrained and face-down is torture, plain and simple.

So he was intending to torture, not kill.

[liberalhistorian]

7. Bingo. I call total bullshit on his

excuse of getting the taser mixed up with the gun. There's so much untruth and so much wrong with that so-called "defense" that I don't even know where to begin. But leaving that aside for the moment, let's look at it hypothetically and say that he did, indeed, get them mixed up. What in the hell reason was there for him to want to use the taser in the first fucking place? Grant was totally unarmed, he was already restrained and lying on his face, with another officer's foot on his back. So what in the FUCK reason was there for a taser to even be considered?

[DoctorMyEyes]

41. He killed Grant during the commission of a crime

Whether he meant to shoot him with a gun or a taser I don't think matters. Grant was being assaulted and the officers were using excessive force.

[TheDebbieDee]

13. I agree. I never saw the video but several DUers stated

that the victim was restrained and not resisting. I honestly believe the BART Officer thought he had his TASER in hand. But if the victim wasn't resisting, there was no reason for the BART guy to be reaching for his TASER either.

[CreekDog]

17. why would he tase him while other officers were touching the suspect

wouldn't they get shocked too?

[TheDebbieDee]

20. According to Michael, the spy in "Burn Notice", why, yes!

Yes, his co-workers would be also stunned by the stun gun.

[vadawg]

24. according to experience, no when you dry stun

when you do a contact taze, as he claims he was attempting you dont stun your patners.

[October]

100. He was restrained

It looked like the cop was kneeling on his back or something, too. Can you tazer someone while physically touching them? Wouldn't you get a shock, too? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

[Alameda]

71. face down, restrained, what possible need was there to taze him?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. Lets not throw the torture word around that easily.

It's is likely assault, it is not torture.

David

[Occulus]

90. Tasing a compliant,restrained man isn't torture?

How the fuck do you figure that, Sparky?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. It's assault, it doesn't meet the legal definition of torture, fido.

[ronnie624]

102. Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. The United Nations Convention Against Torture would not be the legal standard in this case.

[HardWorkingDem]

77. I'm just curious...

If what you say is correct, what would you do if a person were kicking, hitting their own head against a surface, spitting or continuing to fight under similar circumstances? (And I'm not claiming Grant was doing such things, but in other circumstances).

I'm just curious if you were in such a position what would you do?

[Junkdrawer]

4. His acquittal may come in the middle of summer....

Could get ugly...

[MrMickeysMom]

6. I'll guaran-damn-tee you that cop had pistol training-

... a hell of a lot more comprehensively than taser training.

This is a load of shit.

[liberalhistorian]

9. Not to mention that it took him a whole month

to come up with this bullshit "defense." If it were really true (and that possibility, although admittedly not quite as bad as him deliberately shooting Grant in the back, is truly frightening and sickening), he wouldn't have refused to talk/cooperate in any way at all at first. He would have said it from the beginning. Fucking murdering douchebag liar.

[MrMickeysMom]

12. I wonder if a third party investigates this?

[CreekDog]

19. Yes, now that BART has botched the investigation completely

BART's shooting probe missteps

Friday, January 30, 2009

BART police allowed a train full of witnesses to pull out of the Fruitvale Station in Oakland early New Year's Day after Officer Johannes Mehserle shot Oscar Grant, then made little effort to contact the witnesses as they got off at other stations.

None of the seven officers at Fruitvale radioed that an officer-involved shooting had taken place. Supervisors sent to the Fruitvale Station initially were in the dark, while officers at stations down the line did not know to expect a train full of witnesses.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/29/BAOP15JI6F.DTL

AND:

BART asks for help in shooting probe

Friday, January 30, 2009

(01-29) 18:10 PST OAKLAND -- BART said Thursday that it will hand off its internal affairs probe of the fatal police shooting of Oscar Grant to an outside law firm or public agency in an attempt to bring credibility to the investigation.

"A lot of people have said they have no faith that the BART Police Department can police itself," said Carole Ward Allen, a member of the transit agency's Board of Directors. "By authorizing an independent, outside investigation, we hope to reassure the public that we are transparent and accountable."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/30/MNK415JU19.DTL

[Evergreen Emerald]

54. I disagree with you

Suspects have the Constitutional right not incriminate themselves. The "defense" you call it, came from a statement he made at the time of the shooting, from a witness. It is not uncommon for suspects to keep silent as ANYTHING they say can be used against them.

And, the idea that he mistakenly used his gun instead of his tazer has been suspected from the beginning by many (even on du). I cannot believe anyone actually thinks he purposefully and intentionally wanted to kill the guy.

What a horrible horrible tragedy.

[CreekDog]

8. Big problems with his story:

1) witness to him saying he was going to tase Oscar Grant is Officer Pirone who was shown on video punching Grant in the face shortly before Grant was shot. Pirone is shown on video punching Grant in the face while Grant was standing against a wall.

2) Shooter Officer Mehserle thought he was tasing Oscar Grant while other officers were touching Grant and holding him down

3) Mehserle was on video bringing his taser out during the same incident and the taser is worn on a different side as his gun.

4) The other witness that said Mehserle intended to tase also said that another officer had his knee on Grant's neck when Mehserle fired.

5) Mehserle thought Grant was reaching for a gun, so he grabbed his taser intending to tase him in response. :wtf:

[liberalhistorian]

97. How the fuck could Grant have been reaching for a gun

when he was lying facedown, fully restrained, with his hands behind him and other officers restraining him as well? What a crock of Cover-Your-Ass shit.

[valerief]

10. He's bought into the torture culture cultivated by the Grand Torturer Bush.

[noiretextatique]

14. they will probably try to move the case to an area with less black people

like concord or walnut creek to try to get an acquittal. i will make sure i'm out of town when they announce that verdict.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. If he has a good attorney they will, it's the smart thing to do at this point.

[DesertDiamond]

18. "Oops, accidentally killed him with my gun; really meant to kill him with my taser."

[RoccoR5955]

21. The cop is full of bovine fecal matter! He should serve a life sentence at hard time! n/t

[8 track mind]

26. yep,

Last time i heard, about 99% of the prison population HATES ex cops. I hope the douche bag has a wonderful time......

[RoccoR5955]

69. Then some homie in the joint could pop a cap in his ass! n/t

[TXDemGal]

27. Ignorance of your weapon is no defense

Or something like that.

[RoccoR5955]

93. Ignorance of weapon, my keister!

Are you going to tell me that a gun and a taser look alike, and the safety/trigger mechanisms are in the same place, or are you going to tell me that he didn't look where he was shooting his load? Either way, the cop is GUILTY of murder one.

[awoke_in_2003]

28. My problem with this...

if I thought I pulled a tazer and fired, and a gun went off, I would have been very surprised. I would have looked down immediately and turned the gun to look at it. From the video I saw, he did not act surprised.

[MadMaddie]

29. Shouda, Couda, Wouda... doesn't make him less

culpable. He was a police officer, if he was so stressed that he couldn't figure out if he had a gun or taser in his hand, then he should not have passed the acadamy.

A man is dead and the officer must be prosecuted.

[Ticonderoga]

31. The photo of the taser gun

shows a safety switch lever above the handgrip. The problem I see with the defense alibi is that if the officer was using a standard glock as most prefer, the saftey release is built into the trigger itself. Therefore to operate the taser weapon, one would have to make an additional move to "unlock" the safety on the taser usuing aa thumb as opposed to merely squeezing the trigger on the glock. This additional move clearly would have clued in even the most clueless that something was amiss. This dog won't hunt.

[Wizard777]

34. He also intended to use a weapon and do bodily harm. Murder still applies.

[slackmaster]

47. Police are allowed to use tasers on people who are not complying with instructions

Murder does not necessarily apply.

[liberalhistorian]

98. And how was he not complying with instructions?

He was fully restrained and wasn't resisting. What the fuck "instructions" was he not "complying" with?

[slackmaster]

101. I haven't seen all of the evidence, so I have no opinion on that question

You can be sure that the cell phone videos are only one view that's going to be presented to the jury.

[slackmaster]

46. I believe his sidearm was a Sig Sauer P226

Which has a decocker lever above the handgrip (normally operated by the right thumb).

[whistle]

32. "Ooops, I could'a used da taser"

[Regret My New Name]

35. If I was too shoot someone with a gun but then claim I meant to use a taser

what would happen to me?

Actually, let's say for some odd reason I was walking around with a gun(legally) and a taser at my sides. Then someone comes out and attacks me. The people I'm with take the guy down and restrain him... He's on the ground and under control. Then I decide to pull out my 'taser', which happens to accidentally be a gun, and then I shoot the guy and kill him. What would happen to me?

[Regret My New Name]

36. Also, any ideas on the weight difference between a fun and taser?

I tend to doubt the cop actually intended on shooting the guy. However, I don't see how him either being careless with his weapon or being ignorant of what was in his hand is an excuse for killing him... Anyway, shouldn't he have been able to tell the difference? I would imagine a police officer has had a bit of training with both weapons and would be able to tell, right? Well, at least one who was doing his job correctly and paying attention to what he was doing.

[LostinVA]

42. Tasers are lighter AND the grip is totally different

[slackmaster]

53. Taser M26 weighs about 19 ounces, Sig 226 unloaded about 28 ounces

FWIW.

[Regret My New Name]

57. I know you're a gun fan, right?

(I don't mean that in a snarky way, btw) Would you say that someone trained with both devices would easily be able to tell the difference?

[slackmaster]

60. Yes, a person who is trained on both should be able to tell the difference by weight and feel

However, I cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility of someone who is under stress making the kind of mistake suggested by the defendant.

I'll be watching the case closely. It could be a tough call for a jury.

[jberryhill]

95. This is what would happen to you:

You would be given a trial, and you would be provided an attorney to defend you, even if you could not afford one.

Initially, the prosecution and your counsel would exchange motions over the admissibility of evidence in the case, expert reports and so forth.

Then, a jury would be selected and seated.

The prosecution would present its evidence and arguments to the jury.

You would be provided with the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses for the prosecution.

Then, you would be provided with your own opportunity to present evidence and arguments to the jury.

After all of that, the jury would be asked to determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, your actions and state of mind fit any of several offenses, for which the elements will be explained to the jury.

If you are convicted by the jury, you will then receive a sentence based upon sentencing guidelines, along with any aggravating or mitigating factors shown in your particular case.

Also if convicted, you will then have the opportunity to appeal your conviction to determine whether any legal rules or procedures were violated during the conduct of your trial.

That is precisely what would happen to you. It is also what will happen to this cop.

[HardWorkingDem]

37. Goint to type something provocative.....Let's just suspend the constitution for people not liked...

Just love it. Let's just suspend the US Consitution and Rule of Law for all people not liked here.

I find it quite bizarre how so many around here scream about how wrong it is detainees in Cuba are being denied due process while on the flip side seem to demanding the same thing for a US citizen.

And this on top of that the poor dead man's attorney has even publicly stated he does not believe a first degree murder charge is appropriate.


Do we believe in the US Constitution and the rule of law here or not?!?!?

[slackmaster]

52. Some of them just hate cops

I felt that way at one time in my life.

[dkofos]

38. Great. You just admitted to the world you are not qualified to handle either.

People that fucking stupid should not be allowed to handle weapons of any kind.

[The Second Stone]

39. He really has to use that defense

and hope he gets convicted of a charge less than murder two. He's going to do time in any event. And this claim isn't unexpected, it's the only plausible thing he can come up with.

[slackmaster]

45. I can see him getting convicted for involuntary manslaughter and serving one year

Which will be unsatisfactory to a lot of people.

[Thickasabrick]

64. I can see him being murdered shortly thereafter nt

[rocktivity]

40. Well, why taze someone who's lying face down and restrained?

Sounds like he's going for accidental death at best; manslaughter one at worst.

:shrug:
rocknation

[Jamastiene]

103. That's why I keep asking with this "Tazer" defense.

I mean, Grant was already being held down by the other cop. There was no need to even Tazer him. So, that is yet another reason the Tazer defense is bullshit.

[slackmaster]

44. It's probably going to be a tough case for the jury too

But because it's going to be interesting and difficult, I wouldn't mind serving as a juror on the case.

[bitchkitty]

49. So let's get this straight...

His defense is that he wasn't going to kill him, he was just going to torture him? He was going to taser a man who was restrained and face down on the ground?

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. Not quite

He was fighting them and refusing to cooperate.

[bitchkitty]

55. I call your attention to this paragraph:

"Johannes Mehserle, 27, was ordered Friday to be held on $3 million bail on charges that he shot Oscar Grant III, a 22-year-old Hayward man, in the back while Grant was lying face down on the ground at the Fruitvale station platform after police responded to reports that there had been a fight on a train."

[Evergreen Emerald]

56. watch the video

he was struggling and refusing to cooperate. All he had to do was cooperate. The police were in a bad situation with a mob mentality growing. They were trying to stop the aggression and get the guys out of there.

He was not cooperating. Why? Why not just get to the damn police station? He fucked up. And his behavior contributed to this horrific accident. He is not an innocent bystander in this. Of course he did not deserve to be shot. But, he contributed.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bitchkitty]

88. At the time he was executed,

he was lying facedown on the ground. If you can't take that into consideration in your "assessment" of the situation, then I see no point in continuing this exchange.

[liberalhistorian]

99. Bullshit. He was fully restrained and lying facedown

with an officer's foot on his neck and wasn't resisting at that point. Jesus Christ, the lengths people go here to defend any and all cop actions and blaming victims for being in the way of trigger-happy cops is simply unbelievable.

[Nevernose]

58. That makes it 2nd degree murder instead of 1st degree murder.

Still murder.

[slackmaster]

61. No, that would make it involuntary manslaughter

Still a felony but not murder. Here's a link to the code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[Evergreen Emerald]

62. manslaughter

Murder 1st is intent with premeditation
murder 2nd is intent without premeditation
Manslaughter 1st: recklessly causes the death of another
manslaughter 2nd: negligently causes the death of another

It does not appear that Murder fits the actions of the officer.

[Piewhacket]

63. murder 1st

the professed defenses are not going to fly (thought he had a gun, was going to taze him...)

premeditation is obvious. watch the video as he pulled his weapon.
did he know he was drawing his weapon? so why DID he pull his weapon?
that's enough premeditation.

plea of manslaughter 1st possibly accepted, but it wasn't.
it was murder.

police have no right to assault citizens without legal justification.
(are there any here who say they do?)
the officer had no right to assault the restrained prisoner with any deadly weapon.
the officer had no right to assault the restrained prisoner with a tazer weapon.
there was no cause, no legal justification to draw ANY weapon to threaten the
prisoner (who could not even see him).
thus he was already engaged in a criminal act as he TWICE tugged his
pistol from its holster.
thus he was already engaged in a criminal act as his finger pulled
the trigger.

murder 1st.

[Evergreen Emerald]

66. You are wrong.

It is obvious that he had no intent to kill the guy. His intent was to control the scene. Unfortunately, the guy chose to fight instead of comply. His fighting actions condoned the taser.

[Xicano]

68. Yeah, laying face down on the ground is so threatening

The cop is a FUCKING MURDERER and had NO justification for tasering someone laying face down on the ground. And don't sit there and tell me that he thought he was reaching for his taser either because that's the biggest crock of shit. That's worse than Bush thinking he did a good job during his eight years in the White House.

I suggest you go back and look at that video. Do you see that murderer reaching for any other place other than right where his pistol was located? No you don't. Do you see that murderer stand up and look down the sight of his out stretched arms and pistol? Yes you do. I know you're not going to think that a person who has hundreds and hundreds of hours firing his pistol isn't going to instantly recognize he's holding his pistol. Cops are required to shoot so many hours a week.

Anybody who buys this murderer's excuse that he thought he was firing a taser at the victim is completely clueless. I am sorry.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc << advance video to 2:00 min.



Another thing to note about this video. You do not see the murderer work the slide on his pistol meaning it already had a round in the chamber. That would mean that there's a 99.9% probability that the safety was engaged on the weapon. That is critical because that would mean that the murderer would of had to disengage the safety before firing it. Conclusive evidence that this murderer either walks around with a loaded weapon while its not on safe, or, that he's a fucking liar about claiming he thought it was his taser.

Check out the video again to see for yourself my two observations.

[HardWorkingDem]

78. Quit watching tv....

Any cop who walks around with out a round in the chamber is a fool. Racking the slide is an idiotic fantasy created by TV and movies.

On top of that, not all firearms come with a safety you have to disengage. For example, a Glock has a safety on the front of the trigger that must be depressed along with the trigger.

Lot of arm chair quarterbacks around here that need some more information.

[Piewhacket]

81. Effective argument does not require insulting remarks HardWorkingDem.

Besides such would violate forum rules, don't you agree?
It leads to reprisal, recrimination, flame wars, tears...
all so unnecessary. So we all try not to do that.

Why not simply provide the information you think is needed.
Are you saying you think the officer was carrying a Glock?
Are you saying police routinely carry a weapon that is unsafe
or in an unsafe condition?

What is it you are trying to say here (that isn't mere veiled insult).

[HardWorkingDem]

82. This was a response to an above thread.....

But since you asked...

There are too many people jumping to too many conclusions too quickly and apparently use fictional tv/movies to base their opinions on.

I did not state I thought the officer in this incident carries a Glock, but pointed out, firearms like the Glock do not have what many would call a traditional safety. Several firearms, like the Glock, now come with the safety on the trigger.

Lastly, as I stated, any officer who carries a firearm without a chambered round is not abiding by any training I am aware of. That, too, is a product of dramatic fiction.

And sadly, due to the passions involved in this incident, it makes it quite hard to even attempt to offer information or explanation, lest one be accused of many vile things.

People here are tossing around words like "murder" too quickly and incorrectly. On top of that, even the attorney of the dead man has stated he does not think first degree murder is an appropriate charge.

[Piewhacket]

84. Good. Much more cogent. And since you have offered your view..

I'll happily offer response to your multiple points.

1) "There are too many people jumping to too many conclusions too quickly and apparently use fictional tv/movies to base their opinions on."
That may be that people are "jumping to conclusions" but the person you said that to did not offer any fictional TV examples that I saw. Actually I think they were referring to the video of the shooting which was certainly not fictional. Perhaps you jumped to a conclusion?
The point he made (even if it was somewhat impassioned) is that there was evidence of a round already in the chamber. His point was WELL made. Very articulate indeed. Indeed you derided his comment then conceded his point. Not very effective debate, that. Nosir. It undermines confidence in the reasonableness of your assertions.

2) I did not state I thought the officer in this incident carries a Glock, but pointed out, firearms like the Glock do not have what many would call a traditional safety. Several firearms, like the Glock, now come with the safety on the trigger."

Such saftey is Meant to prevent the weapon from going off if it is dropped. yes?
Not meant to require an additional act of deliberation before firing. not much of a real "safety", is it?
And the officer with a glock knows this, that once a round is chambered there is nothing left to do but
pull his weapon and pull the trigger? then shouldn't he be VERY F* careful when he does that?

3) Lastly, as I stated, any officer who carries a firearm without a chambered round is not abiding by any training I am aware of. That, too, is a product of dramatic fiction."

Training manual can contain errors, be out of date, can be misunderstood, can advocate illegal conduct.
Law is not derived from training manuals, it is the other way around. But whether a round was chambered
has been (properly) conceded by you. It is therefore the case that if the officer held a Glock he is presumed
to know that and to be expert in its use, for the alternative would be even more incredibly serious.
With this reasoning you surely do not reasonably disagree.

So IF it was a Glock with a round chambered and safety in the trigger and the merest pressure on the trigger
will set it off (the officer looks about 300# to me) THEN it follows the officer knows this and that this is a DEADLY WEAPON and that he must use EXTREME CARE and be VERY DELIBERATE about drawing and using this weapon. And knowing this and drawing the weapon must serve to place him on HIGH ALERT that his next action may be deadly, and when he places his finger upon the trigger it CANNOT BE SAID INADVERTENT, we cannot allow such incompetence or even pretend it might exist in trained officers, and when he aims the weapon in this condition at a HUMAN BEING, there is no sane person who should allow him to argue it was not DELIBERATE act, and when he PULLS THE TRIGGER it is either in a condition of sober intent and deliberation or it is such a state of extreme reckless abandonment of his humanity that we must simply call it intentional and be done with it.


4) And sadly, due to the passions involved in this incident, it makes it quite hard to even attempt to offer information or explanation, lest one be accused of many vile things."

No it isn't, no it doesn't. Just make your point cogently and respectfully, even passionately. There will be no trouble. People will see it. In any event, you address more than the person you respond to. Make your points,
I'm sure you have good ones to make. It takes courage to stand before an angry mob, eh? It also takes some skill
to avoid becoming the lynchee. But it is not impossible. (Hint, insults are not going to work well for you here, use something else)

5) People here are tossing around words like "murder" too quickly and incorrectly. On top of that, even the attorney of the dead man has stated he does not think first degree murder is an appropriate charge."

Some are tossing "murderer" rhetorically. They conclude him guilty in their eyes. It doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean such cannot be jurors in the case. Nor can I (I live in a neighboring county, and would be excused by the DA anyway, if it was transferred). Some (me) are seeing this as chargeable as murder while others think lesser charge may be appropriate. Few to none think (or say) that no charges should be brought. The DA will have his opinion. But the public will have its opinion too.

Burris (the attorney) is a good attorney. Many factors go into his advocacy of the case, but he is not unbiased. He has his clients interest in view when he makes ANY statement. The judge has expressed doubt as to the defense in this case, a warning shot across the bow to the defense attorney to consider his strategy more carefully.

[HardWorkingDem]

85. First off....and then some clarifications/additions...

How the heck do you get the bold print and italics in postings?


1. Jumping to conclusions: When this case eventually hits court, there are going to be so many more pieces of information that are entered and discussed it will make peoples' heads spin. There will be the videos, testimony of eye witnesses and things the officers saw, thought and perceived. Training issues are going to be brought in as well. On top of that, at this point right now, no one but a very small handful of people even know what was in the mind of the officer involved in this shooting or what he is going to claim what happened. That will be key. One thing I am very confident in stating is the jury is going to hear a great deal of information about training issues as well.

As for "fictional examples" - if the poster who posted about it being wrong or unsafe to have a firearm with chambered round or how he didn't see the officer jacking the slide did not learn such fiction from tv or movies, then I don't know where he or she did learn it from. It doesn't happen in real world policing. There is always a round in the chamber. Cops do not rack the slide in dramatic action in real life. The mere suggesting as such shows ignorance.


Most quality semi automatic firearms are made so as not to fire by dropping them. (Revolvers are a bit different - if the hammer is hit hard enough that is a different story). And I typed "most." There is one brand of firearm, Jennings, that has a model where a striking could cause it to fire. And as I stated, I do not know what type of firearm this officer has. Someone suggested it was a Sig Sauer. I am not entirely familiar with the operation of this particular firearm.


As for trying to point out issues and certain items, I have learned from past experience how people here tend to toss out the most outrageous of claims when it comes to some points brought up by others. I could sit here and type until I am blue in the face offering insights regarding this terrible incident with only the end result being....well, you get the idea.


And if you and people with similar thinking as you, believe this man should be charged with murder, then I suggest you get ready and prepare for an acquittal and if not an acquittal a later overturning of the verdict.

[Piewhacket]

86. Look in message options ...

How the heck do you get the bold print and italics in postings?
enclose the material in special html tags
for bold it is left bracket b right bracket text to bold left bracket
backslash b right bracket
like this
click the html lookup in the message options (when editing reply) for other features.

0) I am of the opinion he could and should be charged with 1st degree murder.
Personally I'm presently inclined toward a 2nd degree. I can see manslaughter possible also.
1) The officer will not testify at trial.
2) A conviction is very likely. For what is the question. This is ripe for a plea deal.
3) There will be a subsequent civil trial (unless it is settled) in which training will be central.

Police officers are given substantial authority. It is an offense to disobey an lawful order of an
officer and unlike ordinary citizens they are not required to retreat in self defense.
These powers are extraordinary, but they are not unlimited. They are also subject to abuse.
Step outside the bounds of the protection of that authority and the officer becomes a criminal
A very dangerous criminal. Such must be weeded out.

The job requires careful training, but training is not especially relevant to whether actions
were within the bounds of law. The law directs the training, not the other way around.
But what we saw in this video were thugs, not police officer properly discharging their duty.
They crossed the line. If they were poorly trained, then their superiors might also
face (theoretically) criminal and civil liability.

[RoccoR5955]

70. Control the scene my ASS! He was trying to kill the kid.

He pulled out his gun on someone who was cuffed, face to the floor, and prior to it, had his hands up and LET THE OFFICER HANDCUFF HIM! How freakin' much control does a cop need? Oh, I guess a dead prisoner will save the system money. Nah, this cop is guilty of murder one. Meant to pull out his taser, yeah, and if you believe that I have a bridge for sale, cheap. This cop is one of the examples of what this country has turned into, the Police States of America, where the cops don't have to obey the law, because they ARE the law. They don't shoot to disarm any more, they ALL shoot to kill. They used to be trained to shoot to disarm, what happened? Did they come up with some 'legal' explanation why, or do they have some contorted statistic that says that they should? Either way, this country is becoming a country of the corporate interests, not WE THE PEOPLE.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. You really think he drew his weapon with the intent of shooting a handcuffed man in the back?

[RoccoR5955]

87. If he didn't intend to shoot the kid, he wouldn't have taken out his freakin' gun! n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. Yes and according to him he meant to draw his taser.

He is at fault either way, I just don't believe it was his intent to draw his service weapon and shoot an unarmed handcuffed man in the back in front of scores of witnesses.

David

[RoccoR5955]

92. Believe what you will... I know too many cops, and they ALL are alike...

...they don't have to obey the law, because they ARE the law!

If he meant to pull out his taser, he should have pulled out his taser. You mean to tell me that the safety on his service piece is in the same exact location as his taser? You mean to tell me that they look alike, or he wasn't looking when he shot off his load? Give me a freakin' break! I stand in my belief that the cop MEANT to shoot the kid in the back.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. He could be carrying a Glock they are among the most common service weapons in the country.

So your assertion is that the officer meant to commit 2nd degree murder in front of witnesses? Got it, thanks.

David

[RoccoR5955]

105. It's not second degree, it's FIRST degree murder...

...because it's premeditated. They are not shooting to disarm, but to KILL, so he meant to kill the kid, it's part of their "training."
Welcome to the Police States of America.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. Ok so you think all police are trained to kill unarmed handcuffed prisoners.

[RoccoR5955]

109. You didn't get my point, which is...

...it used to be that cops shot bad guys to DISARM them, not kill them. TODAY, they are being trained to KILL, and not disarm. There's a BIG difference. And being that they are only trained to KILL, they are, in fact, guilty of premeditated murder, by their training.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. Shooting to disarm got a lot of cops killed, deadly force is just that.

I'd love to see a link to some of that shoot to disarm training. If they charge him with 1st degree murder he'll walk. So the cop that accidently shot his daughter a few months ago while unloading his weapon should have been charged with 1st degree murder according to your logic.

David

[RoccoR5955]

111. that stuff about shooting to disarm getting cops killed is pure propaganda.

would you rather have citizens getting innocently killed, or people who go into the job, knowing that they could get shot at get killed? I would rather have neither, but this eye for an eye stuff just makes a whole lot of blind people. there is no link, because the training predates the 'net. all i remember is cops saying drop it or i'll shoot. now they don't do that, they just shoot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

112. Watch cops sometime I can't believe the number of times they tell someone to drop a weapon...

before shooting. It often borders on ridiculous, in my opinion. One clear warning and then the criminal is getting killed if I'm the one dealing with him or her.

David

[RoccoR5955]

114. "criminal getting killed?!?!" What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

This is what is wrong. Police are becoming Judge Dredds, where they are cop, judge and jury. By doing something like this, they are not giving the person their right to trial.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. People who are brandishing firearms and not following police commands sometimes

get shot and killed. The police shouldn't be blamed for that.

David

[slackmaster]

116. Yes Rocco, what DID happen to "innocent until proven guilty"???

"...Nah, this cop is guilty of murder one.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3715745&mesg_id=3718275

[HardWorkingDem]

113. Some much needed clarification....

First, point to any place in modern history that shows police are trained to disarm by shooting. It simply does not happen. Police do not shoot to disarm and have never been taught such a thing.

For one thing, 99 percent of people who fire firearms probably could not to such a thing on a consistent basis. Police are trained to stop a threat.

Second, plenty of times police will have their firearms out without having the explicit intent of killing someone. Human reaction is much slower than action.

Third, as others have pointed out, and as John Burris (the attorney to the family of Grant)has pointed out, first degree murder is an inappropriate charge for this man and if people demand he be charged with it, then get ready for an acquittal.

Lastly, when this case comes to trial, the defense will put on its evidence and the state will do the same. More information will come about and then people can get a better insight into all of the information.

This is why we have courts of law.

[Alameda]

72. He was flat on the ground, he was NOT resisting at that time.

[Piewhacket]

80. He intended to control "the scene" with his PISTOL????

WTF are you saying???
"Controlling the scene with his loaded and unlocked pistol?
Where the F* do you think this was happening, IRAQ?

[Xicano]

67. QUESTION:

If I were playing the role of a prosecutor the one question I would like to confront the cop with is:

- Do you keep your taser in the same location your service pistol is located?

- No? Then why in the video do we see you reaching for and grabbing your service pistol if its in a different location than your taser?

[Piewhacket]

79. If I were playing defense counsel....

I would never let you ask such a question of the defendant.
In fact, wouldn't I be insane and incompetent to let you ask him ANY questions.
Don't you think?

But the other question I most certainly and definitely would never let you
ask the defendant is:

Q: When you reached with your right hand down to your holster on the right side of your belt
then tugged on your pistol and it didn't come out of the holster and had to jerk on it
again until it finally came out, and stood there with your service pistol in your hand
and your finger upon the trigger, and when then reached with your thumb to unlatch the safety on
the pistol... at those moments did you ever think you were holding a TASER??

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Response

Our Tasers sit right in front of our holsters and during the struggle my belt must have slid slightly backwards. I grabbed what I thought was my Taser, our service weapons are Glocks so there is no thumb safety and when I heard the shot it was at that time I realized I had my pistol in my hand and to my horror I realized I had shot the victim. I immediately began to provide first aid but my efforts were futile. Of course I would have the cop crying the whole time and have his wife and kids on the front row balling their eyes out.

David

[jberryhill]

96. Nope.... you wouldn't ask those questions

You wouldn't ask him those sorts of questions, because he doesn't need to take the stand.

Second, even if he did take the stand, you can bet he would be prepared for those sorts of questions. It doesn't work like Perry Mason.

What you would do, however, is put on an expert in training cops how to handle these sorts of weapons, in order to persuade the jury that the type of mistake claimed is not plausible.