Cop Shoots Apparently Helpless Man In The Back (Update: Officer quits to avoid IA questions)

Not sure if this has been posted already but:

Officer in BART shooting quits force, avoids internal affairs quizzing
www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2009/01/07/BA2N155BAH.DTL&tsp=1


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

reply to post by mr-lizard



if you would have read my entire post i said that there was no justification in this circumstance however the man was not exactly subdued he still had his hands underneath of him and there are 2 other officers attempting to pull his arms free to cuff him and he is obviously not cooperating or he wouldnt be on the ground i have never seen anyone get taken to the ground for complying maybe you have who knows and the intial call to the scene was a fight on one of the subway cars and the man who took the bullet was a suspect who was uncooperative no he isnt justified but whos to say it could have turned out different and the perp roll over with a gun in his hand then it would have been 3 bart officers shooting him would it have been justified then ? i also noticed in the video there are 2-3 officers with tazers in hand but no one ever pulled the trigger i can not figure why as i stated my post was a reply to another post explaining the "safety" issue on a firearm

Originally posted by ryant7
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

if you would have read my entire post i said that there was no justification ...

So what are you arguing then? If this was a completely different situation where the guy had a gun it would have been justified? Fine, maybe...even though if the officer shot him in the back, how would he know there was a fire arm? Didn't they already search him? And more importantly, who the hell cares!? that's not what happened. That A-hole decided he wanted to kill that man, and that's it. "he could have.." "or maybe he..." or "He was a 'bad man' " Does NOT give the cop any right to do that, nor was it a display of proper judgment....so once again. what are you arguing or are you just pointing out that in a different situation when a person is struggling and armed, the cops might shoot them?

Yeah probably....what's that have to do with this case?


Pure speculation time....

hard to tell, but at .40 seconds, it almost looks like he cocks the gun (pulls the slide back to chamber a round) I can't tell, but his hand motion caught my eye and it seems congruent with that kind of action:




[edit on 7-1-2009 by Shakesbeer]

RIOT NOW HAPPENING IN OAKLAND
local radio station live
player.play.it...

more info and footage
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7-1-2009 by orgyofthedead]

[edit on 7-1-2009 by orgyofthedead]

reply to post by orgyofthedead


Crap...This just isn't good.


This is kind of like that part in V for Vendetta when the cop talks about someone doing "something stupid..."

Let's hope this calms down quickly & that ex-cop gets his chance to stand trial.

UNNNBELIEVABLY APALLING!!

I just can't believe to what heights the stupidity of some cops goes up to.

This is just sickening, that cop will pay a high price for what he's done he knows that himself.

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
That A-hole decided he wanted to kill that man, and that's it.

This way of thinking has to stop. You are basically judging this man, and his actions, when you don't know what happen, you just think you know.

You and most people on this thread did the same thing, you jumped to conclusions when you have no clue what the intentions of the officer are.

You are blindly hating someone for what could be an honest mistake.

Why don't you get mad at this guy:
en.wikipedia.org...

He accidentally mistook his gas pedal for his brake pedal on his car("pedal error"), and killed 10 people and injured 63!

How could someone possibly mistake their gas pedal for their brake? They both feel different, they both do different things when you push them! Yet, it happened! (much like mistaking a taser for a gun)

I know why people care so much about this shooting! Because it is a cop and an African American. Can't let officers make human errors now can we... we got to spin it and turn it into a racially motivated use of force type of death, and not an accident. Oh no, can't possibly be an accident. It just has to be some type of racial attack, and or abuse of power. -sarcasm-


[edit on 7-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]

[edit on 7-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


"can't let officers make human errors now can we..."

You say "Human Error"

I say Summary Execution.

*Can't let officers make Summary Executions now can we...

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Exuberant1]

The guy was resisting in a more than tense situation. Probably trying to incite violence with the crowd. More than tough situation...yet.

The cop murdered this man in cold blood and hopefully will be treated accordingly. A sad situation. I am sure the cop would take it back a thousand times if he could but no...there is no taking back lethal force.

In my opinion he will be prosecuted and we will witness another Rodney King moment. What will the jury do? What would you do if you were on that jury?

Manslaughter? Murder in the 2nd degree?

On the other hand these kids need to calm down! When you are in a situation this dicey you should cooperate. Simple as that. If he had let himself be handcuffed he would be alive today. Right or wrong that is the truth. This is not a game. You need to be aware of your surroundings and act accordingly.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Seriously dude, you're spewing nonsense, and I wouldn't care if it was a black cop shooting a white guy, a Chinese cop shooting a Mexican, etc etc. YOU apparently are the one hung up on race and exonerating this guy because of it for some unknown reason.

What has to stop is the unnecessary police violence. We know BOTH sides already and it's obvious who has the power and who is exerting excessively...

ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY SHOOT AN UNARMED MAN IN THE BACK WHILE HE'S BEING HELD DOWN BY TWO OTHER COPS

I want to put that in caps just so you can understand what actually happened, no bias, just observation...get that in your head already.

And if he was innocent, made an "innocent mistake" why run from Internal Affairs and resign? It would be much more honorable for him to own up to what happened then. I'm sorry dude, this is you not being able to get over your own ideals that cops can't do any wrong because they're in stressful situations, or you're trying to be Mr. Compassion or something, but no. Take the idealistic bias glasses off and look at the situation plainly. hell look at body-language wise for that matter...listen, to the audio....no sorry, that intention was clearly projected.

I'm not talking about other examples of times with cops that ARE NOT THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, or examples using a driver and a gas pedal in analogy to an on the job decision which the man is specifically paid for?! Guess what would happened to that driver if he was being paid by someone to drive that car? That's right, they'd be fired and if they killed someone while doing, they might get manslaughter(oh wait, he did! 10 counts! ). And if there was evidence to prove specific intention to drive through people, they'd get murder. Not to mention that was a 92 year old man now tell me, is that a fitting analogy for this situation really?

As far as jumping to conclusions. I'm not going to be on the jury, and I specifically said "I hope he stands trial". I did not advocate any kind of mob rule or lynching, and I am more then entitled to my opinion. Calm down....


[edit on 7-1-2009 by Shakesbeer]

reply to post by Leo Strauss


"Probably trying to incite violence with the crowd."

Whilst face-down on the ground with two Cops kneeling on him?

Apologist.



[edit on 7-1-2009 by Exuberant1]

I love how people are commenting and making it out like it's the victims fault. The man is reported as saying that he has a child or children and does not want trouble. The man was also on his stomach with his hands behind his back (easily controllable by 2 very large men) and looks as though he is cooperating. This is event is also not an isolated incident. As far as tazers go in today's society they train officers to shoot first and ask questions later (also they are not Constitutional and should be considered as cruel and unusable punishment) plus giving more pain compliance to police is never a good idea. This officer should be convicted for murder or at least manslaughter but instead he probably won't be and will continue to abuse his power. Take a look around people we are going into a classic tyranny police state. Please do research about the Constitution and find out how many rights we have already lost. If this can happen to one person this could happen to anyone!!!!

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY SHOOT AN UNARMED MAN IN THE BACK WHILE HE'S BEING HELD DOWN BY TWO OTHER COPS

I want to put that in caps just so you can understand what actually happened, no bias, just observation...get that in your head already.

Your observation is JUNK. Open your eyes.

I already know how the situation ended, the guy got shot. What you nor I know, is why.

It is obvious that the victim was resisting arrest, it doesn't matter how many cops were holding him down, he was resisting arrest. Most officers these days use their tasers on people who are resisting arrest, and people who they are having trouble handcuffing.

If you watch the video the victim was kicking his legs and moving his arms. This is grounds for being tasered in the back! Officers do use tasers, instead of their muscles, to get a suspect to stop moving. It is much easier.

Unfortunately, the officer grabbed his gun instead of his taser, and unfortunately because of some error by the officer, the gun went off.

Officers usually do NOT keep a bullet in the chamber, but in the video you clearly see that cop NEVER pulled back the slide to put a bullet in the chamber. So obviously, when the cop got dressed for work, he put his gun in his holster with a bullet in the chamber, which is a mistake.

Then when this incident happened, the second mistake happens, and the vicitim gets shot because the officer had a bullet in the chamber and shouldn't have.

Exactly like what happened here:
www.youtube.com...

Study the video above, and notice the left hand (the hand on the right). Right when the cop touches the gun with his left hand, the gun goes off, and the left hand instantly flies away from the gun (probably from the kick back of the slide).

If you watch the BART officer, the same thing happens. Right when the officers left hand touches the gun, the gun goes off, and the hand flies back. Look:



Obviously the officer did not mean to shoot his gun, or he wouldn't have his left hand on the slide! When the gun shot, the slide kicked the officers hand back into his chest/belly. No officers shoot their guns with their hand on the slide, it could seriously injure you!

Notice at 0:15 seconds the officer puts both hands to his face in shock.

It appears that it was a complete accident.

Yes this officer probably will face manslaughter charges, but still, STOP SAYING IT WAS ON PURPOSE!



[edit on 7-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I can say whatever I want first of all. 2nd, I said his intention was to shoot him, and obviously that was the case, even if it was a taser, a squirt gun, & fake-gun with a little "bang" flag, whatever. Is that what cops are supposed to do today? Shoot someone who's being held down?

Struggle you say? Kind of like when three people jump you and drag you to the ground & by force putting you in a different position then you're consciously moving your body? Do you think you might move if someone is putting their knee on your head & neck? Have you ever been wrestled to the ground by someone manipulating you into a position? Even if you're limp there is natural resistance, so what does that mean? By definition a cop has the choice to shoot someone in lieu of taking them down? Those are their two only options? Really?

He fired on purpose. If he randomly holsters his damn taser in the same place as his fire arm, he's an ass hat, and his poor judgment killed a man. So once again, from the bottom of my heart :


He shot him on purpose

Get over it, you're obviously not calming down either...

Maybe you should wonder why the Police felt the need to lie about it first:

reply to post by Exuberant1


So you think this cop wanted to kill a man on this night??? In front of a train load of witnesses??? Sorry not buying your logic. This was a mistake.

As I stated in my post above the cop is guilty of a crime. What will the crime be in your opinion?

[SNIP]


-on that note-
The officer probably resigned and avoided internal affairs because he would have been forced to make a statement way to early, without first talking to his lawyer, and reviewing the evidence available.

Mod edit: Removed off-topic part of post.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by Gemwolf]