But it appers that until Wensday no one was going to ask questions. You or I shoot someone we are going to be detained and asked questions the same day not latter in the week.
And the police were trying to collect all cell phones that they thought had recorded the event.
This is a valid contribution to the discussion.
Your previous theme, claiming the victim would be discovered to have a criminal record, was nothing but a hijack.
If anyone wants to pursue that other point, they may open a new thread to do so, but that topic is not part of this thread and it will not be resumed.
[ /Modding ]
This is also off-topic for this thread.
Take it elsewhere to pursue it.
[ /Modding ]
Fifty bucks says he’s indicted.
Thanks for the clarification; I must have skipped over this part. I hope they do a proper investigation and don’t just sweep it under the rug.
If this officer wasn’t caught “red handed” on video there would be more room for smearing the victim and making up a scenario to explain what happened. The whole squad would of course close ranks, especially if they believed it was a mistake that would feel sorry for the officer and do what they could to help him out since the wouldn’t want his life destroyed etc, etc. That’s how the lying and the cover up works, the officers don’t identify with the person that’s shot, they identifiy with the person that they work with and that have their back.
I agree but there are times when officers draw their guns as a precaution. This didn’t appear to be one of them. I don’t know what his training was but pulling a gun out in close proximity to a suspect doesn’t seem like a good idea.
Wow. I hadn’t expected this much response.
I honestly thought Grant was cuffed at the time he was shot, but the clip on page 2 shows he was still under definite restraint. One cop appeared to have been kneeling on his neck, unless I greatly miss my guess, and seems to have still been doing so when the shot was fired. (I’ve been running the YouTube video a couple of times to try to get a good look.) Nevertheless, whether he was cuffed or not, Oscar Grant did not deserve to die. Period.
It is not bigotry to say that the existence of a police force in capitalist society carries within it the potential for these atrocities to occur. It would be stupid to say all cops are pig-headed murderers (not unlike the argument from some radical feminists that all men are rapists), however.
I frankly will be very surprised if Mehserle will see the inside of a courtroom over this, much less the inside of a prison. It’s intolerable that such things happen and that for the most part the police involved don’t go to public trial but are rather subject to voluntary internal investigations generally closed off from public scrutiny. That has to change.
Briefly, for those who asked, there wouldn’t be a police force as we know and understand it today, but there would still be policing. Instead of it being a special group of people largely unaccountable to society at large, it would be society at large - armed as necessary and fully accountable for their actions while on duty. Of course the goal of a socialist society is the elimination of crime primarily through the elimination of poverty and want, so over the long haul the real need for police would diminish and eventually disappear.
How does this differ to what we have now?
They don’t call you the *Cynic *for nothing, eh?
So, there are only good cops (i.e., decent, professional and ethical) and bad cops (i.e., cruel, unprofessional and unethical)? Good cops never make grave mistakes due to the fact that they’re, well, human? Of course not, because then they would be bad cops which, by your argument, is equivalent with unethical cops. Which slot do inexperienced cops belong in?
Having watched the videos, I think there’s a distinct possibility that he made a mistake. It even seems to appear that he’s immediately aware he made a serious mistake. I believe it’s possible the cop had no intention at all of shooting that guy, although I do find it difficult to accept he thought he was firing a taser. (He wasn’t paying enough attention, IMHO, if that’s the explanation.) I also believe the investigations are completely justified and necessary. There needs to be some answers to obvious questions. IANAL and I’m not sure exactly what specific charges should come down, but it seems pretty apparent that there ought to be something related to negligent homicide.
In no way, would I say this is murder. Anyone that does is obviously dealing with some negative emotion toward the police in general.
Sure, good cops can make terrible mistakes, They still get the ranks closed around them and Departments and cities are stil loathe to take the PR hit of making them take responsibility for them. This guy should have at least been interviewed by now. He took a life. He needs to justify it. I actually do think an accident is a possibility, but I’d like to hear him say so, and it would be nice to hear an “I’m sorry” once in a while.
Regardless of whether it was a gun or a taser he intended to use, he drew a weapon to use on a man who was already being restrained and could not possibly have presented a real danger to the arresting officers. If a civilian shot and killed a man in similar circumstances he’d be very lucky to get off with manslaughter. Why do cops get a pass? Because it’s their job? To me that says they need to be held just as, if not more, accountable. There’s no room for this kind of lethal ‘mistake’.
This is such a ridiculous statement. Atrocities occur in spite of a police force. What are you gonna do? And it has not a damn thing to do with capitalism. I think you might be meaning to say “democratic” as opposed to “capitalist” society, but regardless, atrocities will occur even more so in a lawless, anarchist state. As noted above, given enough time and human resources, every institution will eventually have blood on its hands. So what exactly is your point?
It’s not necessarily the institution that’s corrupt, it’s the individual.
Have you honestly never seen a cop on trial? You make it sound like all cops can get away with anything, any time, and never answer for their actions. I’m not sure what world you’re living in, but that’s the way it is. That’s not to say that justice is *always *served, however, and there is room for improvement, to be sure. See, that’s how we avoid inaccurate sweeping statements.
Guess what, different rules do apply to cops (especially when it comes to drawing a weapon) and when they break those rules, the institution that employs them investigates and takes the necessary action based on its findings. This is obviously outside of the criminal justice system, just like the publicly held corporation that fires an employee for stealing paperclips. If they decide to file criminal charges to boot, that’s a matter separate from their termination of employment. Generally, corporations don’t involve their stockholders in those types of decisions. Why would you expect the police to involve the public on internal employment matters?
So, the cop resigned before he’s fired for breaking internal rules of engagement. But that’s not the end of it; they’re still investigating. Criminal charges are a separate matter from his, now former, employment as a law enforcement officer. Honestly, I expect criminal charges out of this.
Wait, what? Society polices itself? Sounds like anarchy to me. And what does “on duty” mean wrt armed society? And exactly which socialist society–hell, any society–has eliminated poverty and want in the entire recorded history of mankind? Is it even remotely possible to eliminate want? Hey, I want a new car, and my house, while adequately sheltering, is kind of cramped. In your utopia, can I have a bigger house and a new ride?
I can agree with you there, and I’m not pleased that evidently the cop has not actually had to invoke his fifth amendment right, which is what I would expect him to do at the point he does have to start answering questions. I find it understandable to be irritated that an arrest warrant hasn’t already been issued yet. I do think it’s a grave error on law enforcement’s part that they don’t seem to charge officers as often as they should. I don’t understand why that would be other than to protect their own and the idea that admitting error undermines public confidence.
Sorry if I don’t jump to conclusions on this case, though. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt that they won’t do the right thing here. I’ll wait to see how this plays out before I make any judgments about whether they’re protecting the officer.
Well, for starters, there’s a vast difference between stealing a paperclip and shooting someone under restraint at point blank range. It’s a lot easier to pay for a box of paperclips than it is to make restitution for taking someone’s husband and father away for good. Let me re-emphasize this: A man died a needless and preventable death at the hands of a policeman. A man died.
Furthermore, there’s a difference between a corporation supported by the voluntary investment of individuals and a public service supported by the collection of tax revenue. Shareholders do have the right, though obviously not frequently exercised, of involving themselves in every aspect of a corporation’s operation and we, as citizens whose taxes support the functioning of the police department, have that exact same right. A policeman kills someone while on duty, the police don’t get to close the doors and say “We’ll handle this ourselves.” Our tax dollars pay their salaries, they’d damn well better expect to be held accountable. And not just through internal investigations - that special little chunk of metal on an officer’s chest doesn’t magically make it not murder.
I have heard of police going on trial, but the ones that come immediately to mind are all long ex post facto cases - like Jon Burge, on whom there is massive evidence that he tortured confessions out of men who were sent to Death Row in Illinois in the 1980s, and who is only now possibly standing trial… for perjury committed during the investigations.
Wait, so you were there? Which one in the video are you? No. You’re making this judgment based on a blurry, shaky video, from a removed perspective, that you watched on the internet. You’ve not heard any testimony of anyone directly involved as to whether he was posing a risk of injuring himself or any of the officers attempting to restrain him. Sorry, but you don’t get to armchair quarterback this thing.
And a taser is a very different weapon than a gun. While it’s debatable whether it’s less-than-lethal status is appropriate to use as restraint in law enforcement, the fact is that tasers are issued to officers for this very purpose and so that they can avoid potential injury to themselves and resisting suspects.
Yes, they need to be held accountable for their mistakes, especially the fatal ones. What makes you think this cop is getting a pass? He’s already given up his career to start with. Did I miss the announcement that the police have closed their investigations? Jump to conclusions much?
How many civilians, as a part of their jobs, are regularly faced with potentially deadly situations that requires arming themselves and dealing with armed clients who are often only too willing to break rules that put people, including themselves, at risk of bodily harm and death? It must be a regular thing where you live in which civilians are breaking up random fights in train stations. How often do civilians find themselves in these similar circumstances?
The guy is on the ground another office is holding him down allowing the shooter to stand up, pull his weapon and fire at point blank range. That’s clearly seen even in the phone video, there’s no nuance about it, he shoots him in the back. Everyone there see it and we luckily see what they saw, it’s pretty clear what happened what’s not clear is why.
Yes, I know a man died. And another one, a new father has lost his career and means of supporting his family. And the cop isn’t the only one that could have prevented that death. I’m thinking there’s some culpability to spread around, quite frankly. But, of course, that doesn’t bring the dead man back to life. Nor does it justify any acts that resulted in a tragic death. I understand that. I think you missed the point, though.
There is breaking your employer’s rules and breaking the law. They are two separate things, regardless of whether we’re talking paperclips or people. Forget the paperclips. You said:
Bolding mine. There’s no indication that the internal investigation is the end of this. There is no internal investigation to determine whether performed his job properly because the officer has resigned. The question now becomes is he criminally negligent? The County DA’s investigation (separate from the police department’s internal affairs investigation) indicates a criminal investigation and highly suggests criminal charges are on the table, whatever they may be. We, as the tax-paying public, can only speculate until they are filed because, just like any other case, investigations are not public until the trial. It doesn’t matter if the person charged is a civilian or a police officer. No law enforcement organization has any obligation to make the details of its investigation public. Nor should they. It is fully their prerogative what to share with the public to maintain the integrity of the investigation and protect the innocent until proven guilty in a court of law from street justice.
As much as people like you love to try cases for yourselves outside of a court of law, generally law enforcement and the judicial system prefers not to encourage that. That doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in seeing justice served. Your particular brand of justice is distasteful and goes against everything this country stands for. You’ve already convicted the guy before he even has a chance to defend himself. That’s despicable.
And without intent (the why), there’s no murder. There’s a victim and a shooter. All else needs to be determined in a court of law.
Oh, and apparently I didn’t make it clear enough that I watched the videos as well. At least three of them. Is there one in which you could clearly see into the minds of the players?
Why are we still insisting that the police officer “should have been interviewed”? Almost certainly, a police officer will be advised well and quickly, and that advice is usually to STFU. Indeed, I expect his lawyers will have told the investigators that will be his attitude, so there was no point in going through the mere gesture of confirming that. While his account might have been compelled from him while he was a police officer, it would not have been admissible at trial. Nevertheless, the prosecution would then have had access to it, thereby arming them with at least the parameters of what he might later say. To avoid giving the prosecution even that advantage, he has resigned.
I imagine that the delay in the investigation has much to do with locating and interviewing all the witnesses and films, and, very importantly, testing the gun for risk of accidental discharge. Just because a weapon is the property of the police doesn’t always mean that it isn’t old or poorly maintained. That possibility necessarily needs to be investigated. I doubt anyone here knows how long the queue of weapons awaiting testing is, or the triage principles applied in determining priorities for such things.
It is obviously highly unlikely (but not impossible) that the police officer, knowing of the presence of other witnesses and the possibility of security footage or amateur footage, cold-bloodedly murdered a restrained man. That puts him in a different position from the case of the random person in the street who blazes away and shoots someone (and is arrested immediately). There is some reason to be confident the police officer isn’t going to commit further violent offences in the interim. Considerations like those above probably explain the lack of an immediate arrest.
I have no idea what caused this devastatingly sad event. But the devil is in the detail, and leaping to conclusions based on a default assumption depending on the idea that the police are always right, or that they are always wrong, is just silly. Why the compulsion to draw a conclusion right now, instead of waiting for events to unfold?
While it might presently appear that there is likely to be at least a case for culpable homicide/manslaughter, prosecutions of police are not ever at all easy. The police defendant is well-represented (funded by the union, generally), and the case for that reason is exposed to very close scrutiny. Moving too soon with an arrest merely to satisfy those who imagine that there is somehow some failure of equality before the law is risking a huge own goal. Risks might include, for example, putting the prosecution under pressure before the investigation is completed to comply with “speedy trial” obligations.