Police Execution?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So you were there? you know what they told him to do? They had the others handcuffed, logic would say that somehow he was resisting that idea? Maybe when he raised his hands the first time, and was described by an onlooker as saying its ok, is actually when they first attempted to handcuff him, and he pulled his hands back and told the security guards to back off. I was not there, we don't hear the conversation, and clearly the girl was more sympathetic to the fighters than the guards. Go figure.

R u a cop? As I said the burden of proof from what i understand is the suspect must pose a life-threatening risk to the officers or bystanders to justify lethal force. R u seriously contending anything about that looked life threatening?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Well, all this may be true and the officer will have his opportunity in court to present any and all explanations. But police kill people a lot in this country, especially minorities, and I think it's sad that so often the burden of proof seems to fall on the guy that got killed. In this case, in which both a witness and a video strongly suggest excessive violence on the part of the police officer, your reaction is to give presumption to the officer, questioning the credibility of the witness and even the video itself.

I think this reaction is far too common - to assume that the victim must have been doing something wrong - and it helps explain the shocking frequency with which police officers walk away from these types of incidents unpunished.

Well said. Thank you!!!

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by The Goat

R u a cop? As I said the burden of proof from what i understand is the suspect must pose a life-threatening risk to the officers or bystanders to justify lethal force. R u seriously contending anything about that looked life threatening?

I was a military policeman for a few years, and personally I don't really trust or like most cops. That said, from the video presented you don't see the victim clearly, or I couldn't. You can't hear what is said, or what is happening on the ground. Believe me, the burden of proof absolutely lies with the group of security guards. They had 3 men trying to control one man, they will have to show that the victim indeed did have a weapon and was in a position to use it.
My point is that female witness did not see it, she said she was distracted. And that the video that did show the shooting is not clear enough(again no audio, no clear view of the victims hands), and that the victim was resisting. As I said before-
I hope that the truth comes out (whichever way it goes) and that justice is served. I don't have very much faith in our system that either of those two things will happen.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Well, all this may be true and the officer will have his opportunity in court to present any and all explanations. But police kill people a lot in this country, especially minorities, and I think it's sad that so often the burden of proof seems to fall on the guy that got killed. In this case, in which both a witness and a video strongly suggest excessive violence on the part of the police officer, your reaction is to give presumption to the officer, questioning the credibility of the witness and even the video itself.

I think this reaction is far too common - to assume that the victim must have been doing something wrong - and it helps explain the shocking frequency with which police officers walk away from these types of incidents unpunished.

My reaction is to not be knee jerk about it. If the killing was unwarranted he should be treated as a murderer. But to say based on that video that you have the insight of being on the scene is outrageous. The reason a cop gets the benefit of the doubt is simple:
At the start of the incident the guard is not involved in any illegal activity, the victim is. The victim was initially the aggressor. That is why the guard came into contact with him to begin with.

And I would like to know the stats on "police kill lots of people" vs the number of people that interact with police in potentially dangerous situations. Or the "shocking frequency" that they walk away. Those two statements sound more like media/cultural myth then real facts.

[CRedskinsRule]

Police brutality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the prevalence of police brutality in the United States is not comprehensively documented, statistics on the use of physical force by law enforcement are available. For example, an extensive U.S. Department of Justice report on police use of force released in 2001 indicated that in 1999, "approximately ]422,000 people 16 years old and older were estimated to have had contact with police in which force or the threat of force was used."[13]

Statistics on police brutality are much less available. The few statistics that exist include a 2006 Department of Justice report, which showed that out of 26,556 citizen complaints about excessive use of police force among large U.S. agencies (representing 5% of agencies and 59% of officers) in 2002, about 2000 were found to have merit.[14]

The whole article is very interesting, and various numbers and statistics provide reasons to be cynical.
I tried to find some sort of statistic that showed the statement "But police kill people a lot in this country" from djnemo65 to be factual, but couldn't. Partly, it depends on your definition of "a lot".
Googling "police brutality statistics" gives several interesting articles.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by The Goat

R u a cop? As I said the burden of proof from what i understand is the suspect must pose a life-threatening risk to the officers or bystanders to justify lethal force. R u seriously contending anything about that looked life threatening?

I like others here do not really have a clue why the officer fired at the kid but watch the second video again. It looks to me that the officer is trying to get the guys arm out from under him and behind his back. When he finally gets his arm out thats when he steps back and fires at the boy. To me it looks like the officer saw something in his hand that may have looked like a gun and he reacted. Then again he could have just shot the kid but that to me just does not make sense with all the witnesses standing around.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I like others here do not really have a clue why the officer fired at the kid but watch the second video again. It looks to me that the officer is trying to get the guys arm out from under him and behind his back. When he finally gets his arm out thats when he steps back and fires at the boy. To me it looks like the officer saw something in his hand that may have looked like a gun and he reacted. Then again he could have just shot the kid but that to me just does not make sense with all the witnesses standing around.

He has one officer knee on his head and this guy on his bottom side, on top of that he is faced down. I don't know if he had anything on him but it doesn't makes sense for the officer to get off of him, stand back, wait for the other officer to get off of him, take a few seconds to get his gun out and shoot. Something is wrong with your mental picture, not the video.


This is not Brazil, we're "a nation of laws."

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

He has one officer knee on his head and this guy on his bottom side, on top of that he is faced down. I don't know if he had anything on him but it doesn't makes sense for the officer to get off of him, stand back, wait for the other officer to get off of him, take a few seconds to get his gun out and shoot. Something is wrong with your mental picture, not the video.


This is not Brazil, we're "a nation of laws."

Yea, the whole thing is strange I guess I just have a hard time believing that the officer in that situation with all those whitnesses would do that.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Police brutality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The whole article is very interesting, and various numbers and statistics provide reasons to be cynical.
I tried to find some sort of statistic that showed the statement "But police kill people a lot in this country" from djnemo65 to be factual, but couldn't. Partly, it depends on your definition of "a lot".
Googling "police brutality statistics" gives several interesting articles.

It was an anecdotal claim, one that can't be verified with statistics since those types of statistics aren't kept by the DOJ. Even if they were, you can't qualify "a lot" as "factual" since it's a relative term.

Anyway, the issue is not the incidence of police violence in this country (which I'm guessing falls somewhere between Denmark and Zaire, although I don't know and neither do you) but rather the acquittal rate of police officers accused of excessive violence, often in spite of inculpating evidence. Again, speaking anecdotally, the police have walked with little to no punishment in almost every case I can remember. I found it particularly illustrative that, in this case, in which a video and witness testimony appear to be pretty damning for the officer, you have taken it upon yourself to be this cop’s Jonny Cochran - questioning the credibility of the video and witness and everything but the officer himself. I think in such a case as this it is important that we hold the officer to the same standards we hold other citizens. While we all accept the officer’s right to use lethal force when necessary, this comes with limits, and in this case they appear to have been breached.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I like others here do not really have a clue why the officer fired at the kid but watch the second video again. It looks to me that the officer is trying to get the guys arm out from under him and behind his back. When he finally gets his arm out thats when he steps back and fires at the boy. To me it looks like the officer saw something in his hand that may have looked like a gun and he reacted. Then again he could have just shot the kid but that to me just does not make sense with all the witnesses standing around.

I have to disagree with you. I think that if the officer felt that the victim may have had a weapon he would have acted faster, and altered the other officers. He just seemed to pull his gun out kind of slowly, IMO, like maybe he was just going to threaten the victim and it went off. I also think that if the cop thought he saw a weapon that would have been reported right away because it offers at least some kind of justification.
I kind of agree with MRedskins in that it almost seems like he was going for his taser, but I have no idea how he could have made a mistake like that.

In any case, that is completely horrible and I think that officer needs to be fired immediately and he should face some at least some kind of negligence charges.

[The Goat]

Spokesman: Officer in subway shooting has resigned - CNN.com

Witnesses say the poor kid had been encouraging those in his group to cooperate and stay calm. He also asked not to be "tased" because he had a young daughter.

[RedskinRat]

Negligent discharge would be my best guess.

'Execution' is way too incendiary a word but 'Accident' doesn't go far enough.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Negligent discharge would be my best guess.

'Execution' is way too incendiary a word but 'Accident' doesn't go far enough.

What about the Brazilian Police video?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

It was an anecdotal claim, one that can't be verified with statistics since those types of statistics aren't kept by the DOJ. Even if they were, you can't qualify "a lot" as "factual" since it's a relative term.

Anyway, the issue is not the incidence of police violence in this country (which I'm guessing falls somewhere between Denmark and Zaire, although I don't know and neither do you) but rather the acquittal rate of police officers accused of excessive violence, often in spite of inculpating evidence. Again, speaking anecdotally, the police have walked with little to no punishment in almost every case I can remember. I found it particularly illustrative that, in this case, in which a video and witness testimony appear to be pretty damning for the officer, you have taken it upon yourself to be this cop’s Jonny Cochran - questioning the credibility of the video and witness and everything but the officer himself. I think in such a case as this it is important that we hold the officer to the same standards we hold other citizens. While we all accept the officer’s right to use lethal force when necessary, this comes with limits, and in this case they appear to have been breached.

I really wasn't trying to question the credibility, just pointing out limitations on what was shown. The same standard as other citizens would theoretically be "innocent until proven guilty" but we all know that is a joke.

finally, here is another view, this one is much clearer, I believe as you can hear the onlookers comments and get a better feel. And yes it does look like the guard came in with a purpose and intent to "get this guy".

New Footage of Oakland Man Murdered By BART Cop : Indybay

[724Skinsfan]

I'm going overly aggressive dumb cop committing gross negligence. IF he freaked out and meant to grab the taser but grabbed his gun and still followed through with his intent to fire at the victim then he needs to find a different, less stressful job. He's already resigned but I don't think he should ever be employed as a law enforcement official and the BART should pay the $20 million, or whatever, to the victim's family.

No matter what angle you see this with, this sucks all around for everyone.