Irrelevant. The justice system should be concerned about any victim of a police shooting regardless of whether the victim had children. You want to start playing emotional poker then how about this? The officer has a one-week-old baby and is now apparently getting death threats presumably due in no small part to the fury these videos are whipping up. Are we really *that *concerned about “the children?” Please.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think it was cold blooded murder. I don’t think even the most idiotic, rotten, drunk with power cop would do that in full view of so many witnesses. My opinion is that it’s an accidental shot from a weapon he had no reason to draw in the first place. Or maybe an accidental discharge from a weapon he thought to be another weapon he had no reason to draw in the first place (making him a moron on top of having bad judgment).
Either way, he’s not really defendable, is he ?
Err no. I was making a joke, following gonzomax’s more serious play of that card.
Why not? He’s a citizen of the US, is he not?
I didn’t mean he shouldn’t have a legal defense. I meant that you can’t make it look good any way you look at it. Krav, apparently, has Superman’s vision.
There is no serious play of the race card. I am just saying what our bigots are thinking. I am not a bigot and get real pissed when people go through mental gyrations to try and justify any police action . No matter what the cops do, someone will defend them. No matter what. I think the cop should have been immediately tossed in jail and charged with manslaughter or murder. This is another shameful police action . There are so many. Being a cop is not that hard. All they had to do was arrest him if he did something wrong. He was clearly under control, overpowered and defenseless. Tasering or shooting were uncalled for. The cops and cop defenders always jump into defense at all costs mode. It could not possibly be an overuse of police power. It had to be something the civilian did.
Hmm…maybe I do, too, because I can’t say it was cold-blooded murder. To be fair, I haven’t seen **Krav **try to make it look good for the officer. I don’t see how the victim’s previous criminal history makes the shooting look justified, and I don’t remember **Krav **ever saying that.
But just because the shooting is indefensible, doesn’t mean the shooter is. An accidental discharge is a whole lot different than murder and carries with it a whole different set of consequences. As it should.
[hijack] I assure you I have very little fondness for the police. However, I recognize that being a good cop *is *hard. Which is why so many of them fall short of the mark.[/hijack]
What other reason would there be to make such a statement ? Like you said, it has absolutely no fucking relevance re. what transpired whatsoever. Yet **Krav **felt it was important to not only make that statement, but state it multiple times and try to substantiate that claim. Why, in your opinion ?
Similarly, his arguing that the victim wasn’t “fully restrained” and “in the process of being restrained” implies that in that case the shooting can be seen in another light. I don’t know what kind of restraint there should have been be to satisfy him that there was no need to pull a goddamn gun on Grant, the penultimate possible police action there is. Possibly some kind of airtight sarcophagus. With leather straps. *Tight *leather straps.
Yup. But so far, Lady Justice still hasn’t got out of bed. No indictment, no investigation, no questioning. She must have one hell of a New Year hangover.
Bolding mine.
No investigation? Really? Other than the three that are ongoing?
You would prefer to charge and jail another citizen without due process because of his occupation?
I think this was a horrible mistake, which will haunt both the family and the officer forever. I do not believe this was murder, nor do I believe it justified. For all intents and purposes, Grant was restrained. While he may or may not have been “in custody” (one could argue he was not, technically) he was restrained. Being shot in the back is also a clue that this shooting was not a just one.
Gah! Because I didn’t ever say that! You quoted me right above: “I don’t see how the victim’s previous criminal history makes the shooting look justified…” I didn’t say it had no relevance on what transpired whatsoever. **Krav **is suggesting it was relevant and I can extrapolate that IF the criminal history is indicative of the victim’s attitude toward police authority it COULD have made him more combative during the incident, which COULD have triggered the officer’s reaction but even that WOULDN’T justify shooting him in the back. Is that any clearer?
See above. Plus it was a throw-away remark that people decided to pick up and chew on like a dog with a shoe. I guess that’s why **Krav **was forced to keep revisiting his initial statement.
Strangely, I think I hear angels singing and trumpets blaring. Why yes, it’s possible for different people to come to different conclusions after seeing that video. Imagine that. Even what you see with your very own eyes is processed and interpreted by your brain, which is unlike every other brain in the world, in terms of experience and bias.
And once again, you’re missing the point. You can’t prove from that video alone that he was sufficiently restrained as to not be a threat, but that still doesn’t justify the officer shooting him in the back. Are you dense enough to suggest that handcuffs or even wrist ties are not considered restraint by the police? Why didn’t they just cuff him? Not surprisingly, the video doesn’t answer that.
Yup, you *are *that dense. Or you can’t read that not one, but three different agencies have been conducting their own, separate investigations. Whelp, guys, all those angry YouTubers are saying he’s guilty, so don’t bother trying to make a case because we’re just gonna string him up from a tree downtown to appease everyone.
If a private citizen were caught on camera shooting this guy, he’d be in choky for sure, regardless of whether he was charged. Instead, this dude is on paid leave.
Or was… I think I read earlier that he’s resigned.
You’re right. We can’t forget the real victim here which is obviously the poor cop who has to live with this mistake.
Listen, this was obviously an error, even the worst of the worst of the bad cops isn’t going to execute a restrained citizen on a crowded train platform. Your apparent hatred for “teh man” clouds your judgement of the human being that held the gun that accidentally killed the innocent victim. What’s happened here is akin to the officer, while in pursuit of a bad guy, striking and killing a pededstrian with his vehicle, a sad and avoidable accident that should have never happened. I feel for both.
First, it depends on the situation as well as the location, second, resigning does not stop the investigation or remove the possibility of any criminal charges, should the investigation lead in that direction. It was an accident, not murder.
What?
Sorry, but i don’t think it’s anything of the sort. In the case you describe, the officer would (presumably) at least have a logical and defensible reason for engaging in the chase. The striking of the pedestrian would (again, presumably) be completely involuntary on the officer’s part.
In the case here, the officer was on the ground with the guy, then he stood up, removed his weapon from its holster, and fired it into the guy’s back. While he may have meant to aim his gun but not fire it, or he may have thought he was firing his taser rather than his gun, the fact is that the action of standing and drawing the weapon was, in itself, a completely voluntary act. Very different from an incidental car accident that occurs during a pursuit.
Which… is pretty much my point. It’s an insidious, or at the very least ambiguous remark, and when called on it Krav didn’t try to clarify what he meant but resorted to insult and deflection.
I am not a precious and unique snowflake ! 
I’m not suggesting anything. **Krav **is, with another snide snippet. I am however dense enough to suggest a downed man under two cops, pleading not to be tased and described by witnesses and my own eyes as non-combative is acceptably well restrained.
But they haven’t put the main suspect in custody, which would 1) be, I don’t know, expected ? Normal procedure ? 2) do a world to calm down the riots. They haven’t interrogated him, for chrissakes ! I’m not saying “tag 'im, book 'im and throw away da key, NAOW”, but in such a high profile case generating so much emotions all around, the lack of action or even communication is disquieting.
Without a proper investigation, we don’t know the reason the officer drew his weapon, we don’t know what caused him to fire, what we DO know, at least to the extent it’s possible, is that he was in the lawful discharge of his duties when it happened. I will grant that I should have have said in my previous scenario that: “this is akin to an officer pursuing a suspect at too high a rate of speed for conditions or driving recklessly and striking a pedestrian with his vehicle” thus adding the element of negligence.
How do we know that? :dubious:
Are you suggesting that if I were cuffed and locked in the back of a squad car, a cop sitting in the front seat would be “lawfully discharging his duty” if he turned around and shot me in the head?
Negligent or not, any private citizen who was clearly identified as the shooter in a homicide would be in lockup, whether or not the shooting was justifiable.