Except that once you arrest the guy, the clock starts ticking due to the speedy trial statutes. That means you’ve now just put a limited time frame on your investigation. You now start tailoring investigation and evidence analysis towards proving the charges you already filed, narrowing your investigation as opposed to using the evidence you have to determine the criminal charges your case can prove.
If there were ever a case a DA does not want to screw up or breeze through like it’s any other case, it’s a high profile one. Just ask Marcia Clark and Chris Darden.
Since when is taking refuge in audacity considered a valid counter to physical evidence? We have video of him shooting a man who is face-down on the floor.
Congratulations. You now have to prove intent to kill. His defense is that he did not intend to pull the trigger, but the gun went off. If he didn’t intend to fire his gun, like you say, there is no malice. Being willing to use his service weapon (what cop isn’t?) and intending to use it are two different things. Case dismissed.
Theyre estimating that the investigation will take a couple of weeks. Do you have any evidence that this would place an undue burden on the “speedy trial” issue, based on California law, or on the typical time between arrest and trial in the state of California?
Surely you realize that the time from arrest to trial, especially in homicide cases, is considerably longer than a few weeks in the vast majority of cases? You’re doing nothing now except looking for excuses.
I’ll tell you this much, if they haven’t done a custodial interview, hell, if the interview wasn’t done in the hours just after the shooting and the officer’s gun taken for evidence (correct rounds in the chamber, condition of the firearm etc). The entire law enforcement community in the the Bay area, nay, the entire state of California needs an immediate turnover in administrative personnel and an officer-involved shooting seminar, as well as a slap along side the head.
This isn’t something that detectives have lightly glossed over. I would bet everything in my pocket (it’s friday night, I just got paid) that the first of the interviews have already taken place. It’s true he may not have talked to outside investigative agencies yet, but he’s talked to the BART IA division, he’s talked to city dicks, it’s so out of the realm of possibility that this wouldn’t have happened…
About the news? Well, I suspect the news doesn’t know either. This is one of those incidents in which every official door will be shut and every news mic will hear only the reporters voice asking questions. The brass isn’t going to get specific, at least until they KNOW something.
Why’d he draw it? He had zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothing, bupkis, reason to draw it. It’d say that means he was intending to shoot to kill Grant. He’s trying to cover his ass by saying otherwise.
Negative. BEG’s right on the money. You’re rushing at this thinking you know the outcome. The details have to come to you, you cannot go to the details.
He’s guilty of something, given the correct time, we’ll all know what.
Uh-uh. You have no way of knowing that. You’re making assumptions based on facts not in evidence. You don’t know what was going on outside of camera range, only what you THINK you saw on the footage. It may turn out that he had the zero reason, until the investigation is complete, we don’t know. There may have been movement behind one of his fellow officers that he saw that the other didn’t and in preparation to address that movement that he assessed as a threat, drew his weapon, accidentally discharging it. I don’t believe that’s what happened, but I don’t KNOW.
Was San Francisco a maximum security prison on your last trip? I always thought that’s such a waste of a pretty eclectic town.
Last time I checked supermarket employees weren’t issued service weapons nor are they legally permitted to use a gun or any other weapon against their customers? There’s a lot more to take into consideration when you’re dealing with a peace officer whom the law allows, under certain circumstances of course, to shoot people.
Once again, because I don’t want you to misunderstand, Grant should not have been shot. There are many unanswered questions that need to be addressed. The current investigations are necessary. Now, how about we wait and see what the investigation reveals?
I’m not rushing at anything. I want the investigation to proceed with exactly the speed it requires to achieve a fair and honest outcome. But until that happens, a guy who is on video shooting an unarmed man in the back should have been placed under arrest.
Exactly. And he should have been arrested, charged with something, and released on bail.
Why thank you
I have the right to have my rights trampled like anyone else, is all I’m sayin’
True, but you don’t know that the response is proportionate to what prompted it. Anything short of total compliance will get you a forceful response. It doesn’t always have to be on the level Mesherle et. all (thanks:)) display here, it can be as mild as intimidating language and staring looks, but I’ve seen brutal violence happen for nothing more than verbal defiance (the protest against which led to my close encounter with a taser, and subsequent feelings against them. OK, so my rights can still be trampled, but now I have to work for it. It’s not *fair *!)
I’ll get back to you on that Katie. I mean Brown Eyes.
So would I, but how could they make such a statement prior to investigation ? Based on what evidence ?
He can be in protective custody in his own cozy PD if he likes - it’s the principle of the thing.
Isn’t the second part of the Miranda right “… but anything you say can and will be held against you” ? I dunno, I guess you’re right - the Blue Wall of Silence frightens the shit out of me, that’s all.
I can feel for the guy to a point, but you could say the same about any busted criminal. I’m sure a guy who killed his beloved wife in a burst of emotion will feel the same crushing remorse - it doesn’t preclude him from having to face the consequences of his actions in speedy fashion, nor being held and questioned for them.
Oh. My. God. They need to disband that joke of a “police” department and allow the city to absorb the duties under their division standards. “Frustrating!?!?” Says BART? THAT is the largest and stinkiest pile of male bovine excrement I’ve heard in years, and I live in Chicago. This is being bungled, and bigtime.
Y’all seem to be forgetting that BART’s investigation is purely administrative and anything he says to BART is inadmissible in court. Since he’s already resigned, any interview, at this point, is merely academic.
