Protest Over BART Shooting Turns Violent

reply to post by DataWraith


I’ll tell you that it looked to me like the guy drew the wrong weapon, from his stance, and the proximity of the second officer. I cannot imagine an officer endangering another officer who is trying to restrain a wiggling person by shooting where a sudden movement could put the second officer in the way of the shot. As to the gun, many police agencies in the US issue Glocks as their standard sidearm. You don’t have to cock a Glock, as most police I know walk around with a round in the chamber already. Glocks, and the Sigs that my law enforcement friends use either don’t have safeties, or have a safety that is built right into the trigger, and pretty much only stops accidental discharge in the holster.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by IceColdPro
I don't consider shooting an unarmed man (who is co-operating.

You police hating propaganda spinners need to give the “Co-operating” thing a rest.

Right. Do you think that I indiscriminately hate the police and don't appreciate them? I didn't state that so please don't jump to conclusions here.

Eye witnesses and the video show what appears to be a co-operating person. So YES I am saying he was co-operating because more evidence suggests he was than the contrary and you are welcome to show me why YOU feel he wasn't co-operating. I see no evidence to suggest he was trying to run/resist the police.

The police officer could have discharged his taser but he decided to shoot the guy. This was a decision not an accident.

A person is not co-operating if they require two police officers to be on their back pinning them down. Just because you cannot see movement on the persons part, that does not imply lack of resistance.

Strange. From what I can see the chap who was murdered was sitting down next to others for some time and didn't attempt to escape the police.

You may call me a propagandist or a police "hater", but I rather be labelled that than to be openly supporting what could potentially be a cold blooded murder and acting in the defence of this police officer.

Police do commit crime just like everyone else and act unlawfully. Wake up!

[edit on 8-1-2009 by IceColdPro]

Originally posted by IceColdPro
Right. Do you think that I indiscriminately hate the police and don't appreciate them? I didn't state that so please don't jump to conclusions here.

I don’t mean you specifically, I am just tired of seeing that written all over about this incident in general.

Originally posted by IceColdPro
Eye witnesses and the video show what appears to be a co-operating person. So YES I am saying he was co-operating because more evidence suggests he was than the contrary and you are welcome to show me why YOU feel he wasn't co-operating.

The police have a very specific matrix of escalation that they use, and the fact that they are having to physically manhandle him tells me they are in the top three levels already, which implies he is not co-operating. That is unless you are accusing the other police officer of misconduct as well?

Originally posted by IceColdPro
I see no evidence to suggest he was trying to run/resist the police.

Passive resistance is still resistance. If I recall correctly he has his hands in front of him, and not behind his back, which means he was beyond passive resistance and into actively resisting. You don’t have to flee to be resisting, simply pulling away from an officer who is trying to cuff you is resisting arrest. Not following a lawful verbal command, while being arrested can also be considered resisting.

Originally posted by IceColdPro
The police officer could have discharged his taser but he decided to shoot the guy. This was a decision not an accident.

What possible reason would the officer have to intentionally kill this guy, thereby ruining his career and life? Do you go to work everyday thinking, “man lets do something really stupid, to someone I have nothing personal against, and throw years of school, training, and my life right out the window just cause I feel like doing something mean today”?
I doubt you do. So what makes you think that this guy would do something so foolish?

I can only see two possible things that happened, A) the guy just snapped and went momentarily nuts, B) he made a mistake. I am thinking that B is the more logical from looking at the tape.

At this stage there is no reason to believe that the officer was even carrying a taser.

Burris and BART police Chief Gary Gee have said the facts remain unclear whether Mehserle had been carrying a Taser that day.

BART police began training to use Tasers about three months ago, BART spokesman Linton Johnson said.

The department does not have enough of the stun guns to equip every officer with one, Gee said. When officers do carry Tasers, he added, they are kept on a separate part of their belts from their service pistols.

"They keep those Tasers on the opposite side of their gun hand, or in the middle, pointed the opposite direction so you have to turn your hand to get it," Burris said. "No movement (on the videos) suggests (the officer) was reaching for anything other than the location where the gun was."

Source


If the officer was carrying a taser wouldn't they (BART) be upfront and say that yes, the officer was carrying a taser?

If the officer wasn't carrying a taser then it more-than-likely rules out a mistake.


Oh and BTW, one does not need to be a "police hating propaganda spinner" to be abhorred at the apparent cold-blooded shooting carried out by one of the very people given the job of protecting us, the people.


[edit on 8-1-2009 by GobbledokTChipeater]

Originally posted by defcon5
Passive resistance is still resistance. If I recall correctly he has his hands in front of him, and not behind his back, which means he was beyond passive resistance and into actively resisting. You don’t have to flee to be resisting, simply pulling away from an officer who is trying to cuff you is resisting arrest. Not following a lawful verbal command, while being arrested can also be considered resisting.

I'm sorry, I had to read this several times to make sure I had read this correctly.

Passive resistance is the refusal to follow commands. Like when a protester sits on the ground and refuses to move at the request of an officer.

This DOES NOT justify the use of excessive force.
You cannot excuse an officer for shooting someone who is resisting. I don't even see how the use of a tazer would have been justified in this case. And that is from seeing the VIDEO EVIDENCE.

It is becoming increasingly clear that many law enforcement officers in the US seem to believe that their job is to control the public rather than maintain safety and order. This is a completely warped view of Policing in a democratic country. Are Police trained in the US to control the people rather than maintain order and safety? Because that's certainly how it seems from my perspective.

The victim had been detained, on the ground, surrounded by officers. How is there any justification for even using a tazer?

That new video is very telling. Would someone explain to me one good reason WHY that officer needed to pull his gun AT ALL? He had help, and the guy was on the ground. The crowd was not threatening them or trying to get in the way. He had no reason whatsoever to pull his gun, otherwise, if there was a valid reason, ALL officers would have had theirs drawn too.

That is total BS. I'd love nothing more than to see a few thugs wrestle that cop to the ground, pull out a gun and shoot his sorry ass, and then claim it was an accident. The act of pulling your firearm is no accident. And since when does a taser gun even feel like a pistol? And from what I have seen, police will warn profusely (usually) that they will taser you if you do not cooperate, BEFORE they fire with one.

There was no physical threat to the officer whatsoever requiring he use deadly force. This is just not making sense to me. AT ALL.

[edit on Thu Jan 8th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

reply to post by defcon5

What possible reason would the officer have to intentionally kill this guy, thereby ruining his career and life?

What possible reason would an officer have to sodomise someone?

Why would a group of policemen strip a women until she is naked filming it?

Both of those atrocities were committed in the past 6 months, were those officers thinking about their career and life? No.

This is illogical because you are painting them all with the same brush.

I respect your opinion but not everyone thinks about their career, life or family, ALL the time, before they carry out an action. You may do this, I may do this, but not everyone thinks like me and you.

You should THINK before you carry on defending this type of action as an acceptable action that could do with some justification.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by IceColdPro]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

People don't know how to protest peacefully. I have actually never seen that happen. One example being in this very thread.

Here's something you can watch where there are peaceful protesters.. with an exception....

Police pretending to be protesters are stopped from causing violence in Quebec!

Originally posted by Willbert

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

People don't know how to protest peacefully. I have actually never seen that happen. One example being in this very thread.

Here's something you can watch where there are peaceful protesters.. with an exception....

Police pretending to be protesters are stopped from causing violence in Quebec!

And this is what they'll do all over the US to give them permission to move in and arrest in any protest against government.

There is a thread about it here,www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is my recent post on it.

News video shows damning evidence against the BART copper.

1)Grant was clearly handcuffed.(and for those who say the copper put his hands to his head in shock,go back a few pages to a link I posted that shows the copper struggling to get the cuffs off of Grant.That is not the actions of a man in shock)

2)At one point the cop had his taser out (hence Grants pleads not to be tasered) and had then put it back in his holster to handcuff Grant.

3)His taser was on his left hip,his gun was on his right.Video footage clearly shows him reaching for his gun,not his taser.

Note that the taser has yellow colouring on it,which is not seen in the weapon used to shoot Grant.

www.ktvu.com...

It is clear that the copper knew exactly what he was doing.

reply to post by DantesLost


Wow...I had not seen that video yet. If those video analyses are accurate, then the officer should be charged with the highest offense. A handcuffed individual, being held down by several officers should not have even been tasered in my opinion.

Please forgive me, but what exactly would be the point of a "peaceful" protest? One could protest silently in their own room, but who the hell would know you are doing it, and what would be the point?
A protest has to draw attention to itself so that it is noticed; otherwise its message would not be heard.
Protests have to be loud. They have to in some ways be alarming so that people stand up and take notice.
They do have to do something to disrupt the inertia of the sleeping masses in order to be effective.
Loud, noisy, disrupting to people's routines. That is what a protest has to be.
They do not have to destroy personal property.
Sometimes a Ghandi like passive protest works too, but is much harder to commit to and much more time consuming.
I applaud this protest and hope it keeps up, loudly, until justice is served.

Accident or not he killed the guy in cold blood. I'd probably be a little shocked and surprised too if I just murdered an innocent man in front of a group of people. Anything less than prison for this 'cop' is a joke. Wouldn't be surprised if we see more rioting in the bay area.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by MetatronCubensis]

Originally posted by MetatronCubensis
Accident or not he killed the guy in cold blood. I'd probably be a little shocked and surprised too if I just murdered an innocent man in front of a group of people. Anything less than prison for this 'cop' is a joke. Wouldn't be surprised if we see more rioting in the bay area.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by MetatronCubensis]

I bet the liquor and electronics stores are hit first

reply to post by DantesLost

Originally posted by DantesLost
1)Grant was clearly handcuffed.

This is proof that the channel 2 news, and probably other news channels are spreading lies and misinformation, and the general public is blindly following and believing, including YOU.

In the following video, the News channel 2 says that Oscar was already handcuffed, but they are showing the hands of a completely different person!!!!

www.ktvu.com...



The proof: www.youtube.com...

Sorry to tell you that you have been lied to by the News channel, probably to further the chaos and to cause riots.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Well,after looking at different footage I agree with you,Grant is not the one handcuffed in the picture.

That doesn't change the fact that the taser was on his left hip and the gun was on his right.He can't have been confused as at one point he had his taser out.

He clearly reaches for his gun,not his taser.
He clearly,stands,takes aim,and pulls the trigger.

i think he drew the gun and had it out for a while just walking around with it out, he probably had his finger inside the trigger gaurd and accidentally pulled the trigger. Law Enforcement officials are taught to keep their finger OUTSIDE the trigger gaurd, until you need to pull the trigger. The reason being, cross movement. If you pull on something with your left finger, your right hand has a tendency to want to do the same thing at the same time. Hence, if you make a fist with your left hand, your right hand will try to do the same thing, if even only slightly. He probably pulled his weapon, trying to be a tough cop, held it in his right hand and carried it around and kept his finger inside the trigger gaurd. Made a motion with the trigger finger of his left hand and his right hand duplicated the motion and the gun went off. i hope he is arrested and gets his day in court and he goes to jail. We will see.