http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/12/BAMF1585T4.DTL&tsp=1
What are your thoughts on this issue? Should the officer be arrested? Even if its against the currently established laws, should he be detained? If he was not, would we have on our hands another LA riots?
The facts are not clear yet, but it seem to be a charged topic.
I was talking to someone that witnessed it at the Bart station. This is how it went down(the important parts).
The officer had already detained the suspect and the other officer was looking down upon him. The suspect shouted out "I won't fight back just don't taze me". At which point the officer pulled out his gun while the other officer was talking down to the suspect, tell him to shut up and the such. That's when the gun went off, the officer looked really surprised and dumbfounded.
Some facts.
Officers are required to have their firearm safety on.
The officers safety was not on as he did not remove the safety when he pulled it out(you can see this in the video).
So my guess is, that the officer pulled out his gun as a scare tactic and squeezed the trigger assuming that the safety was on. The shot went off and he was surprised because he had not PLANNED on actually shooting him.
Mentally I believe the officer just imagined doing it but didn't actually want to do so.
Should he be arrested? Yes... it's manslaughter and negligence on his part as a trained/'armed officer. You can't just 'accidentally shoot someone' and not get put in prison. It happens all the time where someone will accidentally shoot someone, and they will get thrown in prison for negligence and manslaughter, the officer should not get any special treatment.
That's ideal though. Chances are he will get special treatment because he's an officer. They are covering it up quite a bit. Multiple witnesses saw what happened, and there is so many videos that exist but are not being released. Bart videos alone. They're bullshitting with the "it takes time to find the correct video" because it's all right there. There is no having to find the right video because they know exactly which videos were on the scene.
However, I DESPISE the public even more for how they are dealing with it. The gov't trying to cover one of their own, that's understandable. The public setting cars on fire, getting bart stations closed causing riots, this isn't acceptable and in no way helps the people they are "trying to protect" nor does it bring justice in anyway. The idea of the protests were to protect the public from officers, whether the officers were negligent or malicious. How does SCREWING OVER EVERYONE THAT USES BART do this? How does causing innocent pedestrians to be stranded for hours help this cause? How does causing physical damage to cars, trains and other such matters help at all?
The shooting is a pretty simple case. An officer did something he shouldn't have. He should be tried and sentenced. The public shouldn't be sending him death threats or vandalizing his house... and this is the media's fault. The media should not have released his name and his picture expecting things to go fine and dandy.
Ahhh yes, The account seems to imply that the intent was not to shoot him. The safety could have been off for any number of reasons. The gun could have been misfired as a result. His only mistake was to pull the gun.
In my view, this would fall under the umbrella of involuntary manslaughter. This does carry jail time. Although, The CA penal code provides that peace officers may commit homicide for various reasons. That is why the officer cannot be arrested until the action is determined not to be inline with his duties. This is soon to be determined by the Alameda District Attorney.
Like Pyron I am unhappy about the public's response.....Anger and mob mentality can lead to such ugly ish....and yes, media had a big hand in it too. *sigh*
For ref: CA Penal Code §187-199 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199)
Quote from: ewu on January 12, 2009, 04:17:10 PM
Ahhh yes, The account seems to imply that the intent was not to shoot him. The safety could have been off for any number of reasons. The gun could have been misfired as a result. His only mistake was to pull the gun.
In my view, this would fall under the umbrella of involuntary manslaughter. This does carry jail time. Although, The CA penal code provides that peace officers may commit homicide for various reasons. That is why the officer cannot be arrested until the action is determined not to be inline with his duties. This is soon to be determined by the Alameda District Attorney.
Like Pyron I am unhappy about the public's response.....Anger and mob mentality can lead to such ugly ish....and yes, media had a big hand in it too. *sigh*
For ref: CA Penal Code §187-199 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199)
The thing was he had no reason to draw his gun, or even a tazer. The suspect was clearly not struggling and the other officer had completely subdued him. The only time an officer would draw a gun in that situation is if the suspect had shown cause to.
This is what I also heard about the fight. It was nothing major. It's questionable if the cops should had even pinned down the suspect because it was a scuffle at best. Pushing and yelling. There were no major blows thrown. Everything about this case seems pretty straight forward from what I've seen and what I was told from a witness.
Also keep in mind, the witness I talked to was rather factual. He didn't put his opinion into anything he told me and pretty much said exactly what happened, and only the major points. No needless details or interjection on his part. It's the only reason I actually cared what he had to say. So many witnesses give false interpretation.
So it played out rather basically, and no matter how you look at it, the cops did things they shouldn't have, and it resulted in a death. Bad decisions upon the officer caused a man to die. It's tricky though... because the cop knows he made a terrible mistake. It's not like he meant to kill the guy, and I'm fairly certain he regrets everything that was done.
That's where the line of morals is made. Personally I think he should be punished, but not for murder. He didn't murder the guy. He made a huge mistake.
Quote from: PyronIkari on January 12, 2009, 05:17:47 PM
Bad decisions upon the officer caused a man to die. It's tricky though... because the cop knows he made a terrible mistake. It's not like he meant to kill the guy, and I'm fairly certain he regrets everything that was done.
That's where the line of morals is made. Personally I think he should be punished, but not for murder. He didn't murder the guy. He made a huge mistake.
agreed.
Unfortunately, many people will wrongfully refer to this as a murder, and not manslaughter.
I had not ever heard about this case until last week when I was in the Bay area. It's not barely being covered in the news in Southern California.
Quote from: PyronIkari on January 12, 2009, 05:17:47 PM
Quote from: ewu on January 12, 2009, 04:17:10 PM
Ahhh yes, The account seems to imply that the intent was not to shoot him. The safety could have been off for any number of reasons. The gun could have been misfired as a result. His only mistake was to pull the gun.
In my view, this would fall under the umbrella of involuntary manslaughter. This does carry jail time. Although, The CA penal code provides that peace officers may commit homicide for various reasons. That is why the officer cannot be arrested until the action is determined not to be inline with his duties. This is soon to be determined by the Alameda District Attorney.
Like Pyron I am unhappy about the public's response.....Anger and mob mentality can lead to such ugly ish....and yes, media had a big hand in it too. *sigh*
For ref: CA Penal Code §187-199 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199)
The thing was he had no reason to draw his gun, or even a tazer. The suspect was clearly not struggling and the other officer had completely subdued him. The only time an officer would draw a gun in that situation is if the suspect had shown cause to.
This is what I also heard about the fight. It was nothing major. It's questionable if the cops should had even pinned down the suspect because it was a scuffle at best. Pushing and yelling. There were no major blows thrown. Everything about this case seems pretty straight forward from what I've seen and what I was told from a witness.
Also keep in mind, the witness I talked to was rather factual. He didn't put his opinion into anything he told me and pretty much said exactly what happened, and only the major points. No needless details or interjection on his part. It's the only reason I actually cared what he had to say. So many witnesses give false interpretation.
So it played out rather basically, and no matter how you look at it, the cops did things they shouldn't have, and it resulted in a death. Bad decisions upon the officer caused a man to die. It's tricky though... because the cop knows he made a terrible mistake. It's not like he meant to kill the guy, and I'm fairly certain he regrets everything that was done.
That's where the line of morals is made. Personally I think he should be punished, but not for murder. He didn't murder the guy. He made a huge mistake.
100% agree.
And it's murder charges for him (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/BAM615A08A.DTL&tsp=1).
It'll be interesting to see what the basis is for charging him for murder, as opposed to manslaughter.
yup, murder is all about mens rea....state of mind/guilty mind
There arent enough facts to decide. That is the problem with getting your information from news/online articles.
If it is true that it was entirley an accident, by law it would be manslaughter, and that should be the charge.
Unfortunatly, I dont think there is anything that can really be done to ensure that it never happens again. If I have learned anything, it is that such laws only complicate issues, never fix them.
This is kind of smart to be honest.
It's a lot harder to prove a murder case. All the defense has to do in this case is prove that he didn't mean to kill the guy, and he's innocent. With that, proof that the safety SHOULD have been on, or that it was a misfire and he's innocent, and gets off scott free. With manslaughter it would have been a guaranteed conviction.
So what happens if he's tried for murder and found innocent? By then most of the people won't even care. It'll be months to years before this trial finishes and by then people won't remember it or care.
The LA riots were after the officers were aquitted. Although, those officers were charged wiht excessive force.
There may be additional charges lodged with the murder charge, but media only says murder cuz it is the one that gets the ratings....
Quote from: ewu on January 14, 2009, 02:56:12 PM
The LA riots were after the officers were aquitted. Although, those officers were charged wiht excessive force.
There may be additional charges lodged with the murder charge, but media only says murder cuz it is the one that gets the ratings....
He'll get charged with other stuff, but you can't really be charged with both man-slaughter and murder for the same crime. Since if it's man-slaughter it's not murder, and if it's murder it's not man-slaughter.
I was talking about this to a recently retired officer, Cindy Lee of Oakland police.
Apparently the tazers that are on officers are shaped like guns. Tazers are on one side of the belt, gun on the other. Her guess is that in the heat of the moment he went for his gun thinking it was his tazer.
IMO, the guy didn't want to kill anyone. He just had a kid, too.
Quote from: questionette on January 14, 2009, 04:57:46 PM
I was talking about this to a recently retired officer, Cindy Lee of Oakland police.
Apparently the tazers that are on officers are shaped like guns. Tazers are on one side of the belt, gun on the other. Her guess is that in the heat of the moment he went for his gun thinking it was his tazer.
IMO, the guy didn't want to kill anyone. He just had a kid, too.
Uh... the tazer thing is bull. Grabbing the tazer he might have made a mistake, squeezing the trigger on the other hand is not. As soon as you feel the gun in your hand, you know it's a gun. The weight of it, the shape, the feel, everything about it. It'd be like picking up a plastic knife and picking up a 8in hunting knife. The delay shows more than enough time that there's consciousness there. Not only that, the guy is a veteran. He shouldn't be making a rookie mistake like that.
I heard the guy had only been working for BART for 2 years, that's really bad if he didn't know to have his safety on (or not to pull a gun out on an unarmed, detained man) if he's a veteran.
Either way, I agree completely with Pyron.
They also should have been trained to immediately get the guy help. They sort of stood around looking at the crowd and the guy on the floor for a while before calling for help (or at least, so a news report said).
Some people had called and said they had knives and/or guns, but it was *quickly* determined that wasn't the case, so they shouldn't have pulled the gun out.
It seems like it was a dumb, dumb, dumb mistake and a horrible accident. ....That resulted in senseless and needless riots T.T
and a senseless and needless death
Quote from: ewu on January 15, 2009, 05:40:32 PM
and a senseless and needless death
needless to say. lol
Quote from: PyronIkari on January 14, 2009, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: questionette on January 14, 2009, 04:57:46 PM
I was talking about this to a recently retired officer, Cindy Lee of Oakland police.
Apparently the tazers that are on officers are shaped like guns. Tazers are on one side of the belt, gun on the other. Her guess is that in the heat of the moment he went for his gun thinking it was his tazer.
IMO, the guy didn't want to kill anyone. He just had a kid, too.
Uh... the tazer thing is bull. Grabbing the tazer he might have made a mistake, squeezing the trigger on the other hand is not. As soon as you feel the gun in your hand, you know it's a gun. The weight of it, the shape, the feel, everything about it. It'd be like picking up a plastic knife and picking up a 8in hunting knife. The delay shows more than enough time that there's consciousness there. Not only that, the guy is a veteran. He shouldn't be making a rookie mistake like that.
My friend, who's an Oakland police officer, confirmed that the tazer that the Bart police uses is actually shaped and feels like a gun. I get the feeling that the Bart Officer, in the heat of the moment, didn't realize this. Veteran or not, he screwed up in more ways than one.
I'm glad that the higher powers got involved and this is getting the attention that it needed. The Bart Police screwed up by letting the guy go without asking for a written statement and tried to ignore it, but this is why they are looking to redo the Bart Police policies.
I can confirm from one of my friends that the fight wasn't really even a fight... Pushing, shoving, and generally what you would see from a playground fight. It was pathetic that the end result is something as serious as a death.
Quote from: MPLe on January 22, 2009, 01:40:28 AM
My friend, who's an Oakland police officer, confirmed that the tazer that the Bart police uses is actually shaped and feels like a gun. I get the feeling that the Bart Officer, in the heat of the moment, didn't realize this. Veteran or not, he screwed up in more ways than one.
I'm glad that the higher powers got involved and this is getting the attention that it needed. The Bart Police screwed up by letting the guy go without asking for a written statement and tried to ignore it, but this is why they are looking to redo the Bart Police policies.
I can confirm from one of my friends that the fight wasn't really even a fight... Pushing, shoving, and generally what you would see from a playground fight. It was pathetic that the end result is something as serious as a death.
I've held the tazer before. It's shaped and feels like it only in shape and handle. It feels nothing like holding a gun though. The weight difference is huge, and the grip etc. If he grabbed it and fired it INSTANTLY, I could believe it was just a heat of the moment issue. But he didn't fire the gun instantly, there's a pause. He knew what he was holding.
Let me know when the verdict from his trial is reported.
So much misinformation. One the officer involved was issued a Glock and Glock's don't have a manual safety or decocker. Which means it only goes off if you pull the trigger, their is no switch to disable the gun that you have to remember to actuate on or off. I think you guys are thinking about the old standard issue Beretta 92 series which does have a safety but SOP is not to have it on and the gun in Double Action mode.
Personally I think that his poor training, inexperience, and the heat of the moment that he wasn't concentrating pulled his taser which they were just issued. It was a big accident, was he negligent yes, liable more than likely no. Really people like at that time he was thinking I going to shoot someone/execute a man for no reason and think he could get away with it, and all those witnesses around.
Cops are not the most proficient gun handlers/shooters. Hell I have more training and experience than most cops.
Still 25 million dollars what a crock. We all know they are going to settle out of court for money but no one gets that much money for a accidental death it's not suppose to be a windfall. Will he see any jail time I doubt it. It's like when they have a police chase and someone gets hit or in a accident as a result. They have laws so that they don't have to worry about hey are we going to be sued so we better let the suspect go vs being criminally and civilly liable.
Will their be riots, maybe in ghetto-ass oakland if it happens where I live, not really a chance I'll be prepared.
Quote from: dfens on April 28, 2009, 06:51:12 PM
So much misinformation. One the officer involved was issued a Glock and Glock's don't have a manual safety or decocker. Which means it only goes off if you pull the trigger, their is no switch to disable the gun that you have to remember to actuate on or off. I think you guys are thinking about the old standard issue Beretta 92 series which does have a safety but SOP is not to have it on and the gun in Double Action mode.
Personally I think that his poor training, inexperience, and the heat of the moment that he wasn't concentrating pulled his taser which they were just issued. It was a big accident, was he negligent yes, liable more than likely no. Really people like at that time he was thinking I going to shoot someone/execute a man for no reason and think he could get away with it, and all those witnesses around.
Cops are not the most proficient gun handlers/shooters. Hell I have more training and experience than most cops.
Still 25 million dollars what a crock. We all know they are going to settle out of court for money but no one gets that much money for a accidental death it's not suppose to be a windfall. Will he see any jail time I doubt it. It's like when they have a police chase and someone gets hit or in a accident as a result. They have laws so that they don't have to worry about hey are we going to be sued so we better let the suspect go vs being criminally and civilly liable.
Will their be riots, maybe in ghetto-ass oakland if it happens where I live, not really a chance I'll be prepared.
So much misinformation by someone trying to "educate others". I never read that the officer involved had a glock. If this *IS* true then, that makes it even worse. The trigger on a glock is insanely heavy and you have to WANT to fire a glock to fire it. If you pull back the trigger like you would a standard fire tazer then a glock WILL NOT FIRE. He either pulled it full force out of shock(which is impossible based on proof of the video even in that horrible quality), or he pulled the trigger all the way back. In which case there is 0 way he couldn't have realized it was his glock and not the tazer. And you're wrong about police not having fire arm training. All officers have mandatory fire arm training.
I'm curious where you heard that it is SOP to not have the safety on.
I am a Marine reservist with two deployments to Iraq. I worked for a short time in the Oakland Police cadet program, and as a reservist, I serve with many Marines who are police officers in the civilian world. I have never heard of rolling with safeties off as being official policy.
And on a different note, don't underestimate sheer human stupidity. In Iraq we witnessed a Lieutenant Colonel (no small rank) point his weapon at the clearing barrel, chamber a round, fire, and proceed to walk to the chow hall as if nothing happened until a Ugandan security guard chased after him.
Quote from: PyronIkari on April 28, 2009, 08:36:46 PM
So much misinformation by someone trying to "educate others". I never read that the officer involved had a glock. If this *IS* true then, that makes it even worse. The trigger on a glock is insanely heavy and you have to WANT to fire a glock to fire it. If you pull back the trigger like you would a standard fire tazer then a glock WILL NOT FIRE. He either pulled it full force out of shock(which is impossible based on proof of the video even in that horrible quality), or he pulled the trigger all the way back. In which case there is 0 way he couldn't have realized it was his glock and not the tazer. And you're wrong about police not having fire arm training. All officers have mandatory fire arm training.
I don't know where you get your information from, but standard issue Glock triggers are notorious for being light.
The standard Glock trigger pull is about 5.5 pounds, while a tradional DA/SA in single action mode is about 4.5 pounds. Now in new york and other cities they have a trigger connector that increases it to anywhere between 8-12 pounds which greatly affects accuracy and makes it highly unlikely to have a neglegent discharge with such a heavy trigger pull.
Oakland PD like most LEO's now a days carry Glocks which own about 60-75 percent of the law enforcement market. If you want to know for sure look it up.
I've never seen a officer ever have the safety on, with his duty weapon unless it was a 1911 which it has to be on for cocked and locked carry or else they would be rolling around with a gun in SA mode that can easily go off. If it was on 9 times out of 10 I bet you they'll forget to remove it and when they try to shoot it nothing will happen and they'll be scratching their head. It's hard to accidentally pull the trigger on a 10-12 pound full length trigger in DA mode like on a Beretta.
Ever wonder why so many people accidentally shoot themselves with a Glock it's because they snag the trigger and it's 1 measly pound heavier than other guns out their.
In the heat of the moment grabbing something shaped like the grip of a handgun and having a brain fart don't go together. To most people how could he not know it wasn't the taser which is yellow or some off color and is way lighter. All it takes is 1 second to not be paying attention or lose on concentration and bam it all goes bad.
As for officer firearm training it's a joke. They qualify what 1-2 times a year if that. Maybe a mag or two and these are the people they put on the streets to protect us. It's not like they never touch a gun but I've been shooting since I was 6 over 20 something years now. I break down and clean/oil my weapons every 3-4 months even if it's not needed. Not every officer is this bad but I know most don't practice or put as much importance on their weapon as they should. Look at Heather Fong the SFPD cheif she went like 5-6 years with out qualifing on her sidearm and only did so after the media made such a fuss about how can she carry a gun if she hasn't proven she can use it like all the other officers under her command that mandated to do so. I bet being at the top didn't allow her to get away with it for so long. Or the fact that she never would have if the story never broke. Like I want her to make a shot in a life and death situation.
Well, with the Glock all this discussion about carrying with a manual-safety is kind of moot.
I don't doubt the Glock is a popular firearm.
I do find it hard to imagine, and if it's real it's piss poor firearms training, if they really do prefer to teach people to roll around with safeties off. You'd think if they can teach Marines to disengage a safety, they would bother to teach police officers.
In the heat of the moment, would you really want the safety to be on. Pulling out your weapon only to find the safety on could mean the difference between taking down a criminal or getting shot because you forgot your safetey was on.
Yes, because the less-than-a-second it takes to disengage a safety is negligible, especially considering it can be done while shifting into a firing stance. It's certainly better than all these negligent discharges and accidental shootings constantly happening. That's just sloppy, and like I said, piss poor training.
It's very easy to train to disengage the safety as the weapon is drawn. That is how the military trains their weapons handling procedures, why should civil protection be taught differently?
Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point you weapon at anything you intend to shoot.
Keep your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.
Keep you finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.
Simple right?
If you can't remember how to handle your weapon, you probably shouldn't be handling one. If you don't have the presence of mind to disengage your safety, maybe you should rethink your prospects in a job where you have to deal with stress and firearms at the same time.
I'm not saying anything that I know about the case, but the result would have been the same if the BART officer was trained to automatically switch the safety as he drew. I assume that a tazer has a safety too and possibly even in the same place.....but what do I know? I like knives:) projectile weapons are so dishonorable
Well, technically the safety was on, because as other people pointed out, they're using the Glock, which has its safety built into the trigger. =P So the manual-safety discussion is kind of an off-topic tangent.
But, the safety on the taser is in the same spot as most pistols, so that's a good point.
Another important reason departments need to better train to differentiate the taser and the handgun by putting the taser on a different side of the body. It's typically that way these days, but apparently not with BART training. =| You'd think they would have learned their lesson from that one woman officer that shot some guy thinking she was using her taser.
I remember one of my friends who used to be in the LAPD complaining about the procedures it took to actually shoot a guy. You had to fill out a form justifying removing your weapon from the holster, another form if you disengaged the safety, and god help you if you actually shot at something because you'd be doing paperwork for the rest of the week.
Considering the environment police operate, they should be discouraged from going to deadly weapons unless the situation actually warrants it, which the BART situation appears to have not. It's not the wild-wild-west so they shouldn't be rolling that way. If you have a safety, use it. (again, moot point with the damn glocks)
I'll go with the theory that he really was so poorly trained that he thought he was going for a tazer and decided to pull the trigger without even really looking at the situation, or aiming, maybe accidently pulling it. Because, as other people said, I really doubt he's some evil man that was thinking "Hey look, a large crowd. I will now execute this man, and then I shall take over the world one BART station at a time."
I respect and admire the police, but holy crap that is some serious training fail.
I say we go back to slings and really heavy rocks. Or yo-yos and boomerangs.
At the very least if you give someone a handgun, invest a little more time in teaching them how to use it.
Same goes for Tasers
Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying that if the police never used trigger/grip only safety firearms accidents like this wouldn't happen or that those type of weapons are worse than weapons with manual safeties.
I'm ranting about the safeties because it's nonsense that if you have a safety you should leave it off because you might forget in the heat of the moment. It's not that hard a concept to teach or wrap your head around. That the military would stress weapons safety more than civil services is ridiculous.