Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

[Double Eights]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/...ation_shooting

Former officer has been charged with murder.

I'm glad to see they didn't back down and go with the lesser charge.

However, chances are he gets a pretty good plea bargain.

[Heelfan71]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

Murder won't stick unless the prove he killed him on purpose. who knows, would be nice if he made a statement or something on what happened.

[bjf1377]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

Yeah, and with only ~170 cops being killed per year, must be some "pattern."

Statistics indicate that about six hundred criminals are killed each year by police officers in the United States. Some of these killings are in self-defense, some are accidental, and others are done to prevent harm to citizens. By comparison, about 135 officers are killed in the line of duty each year.

167/800,000 = .00020875%

600/7,200,000 = .00008333% (7.2 million = people in the US in jail, on parole, or on probation by the end of 2007 according to the Bureau of Justice, because I figured we'd go off that number, rather than total people in the US)

So if I did my math correctly, then cops are two & a half times more likely to be killed by criminals than criminals are to be killed by cops

[Scottdau]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

I'm not deflecting anything. I'm stating a fact that I love the way the media words things. The wording in that article tends to lead the reader to believe the guy is a douche bag. He may have resigned after being asked to answer some questions, but that doesn't mean he resigned as a direct result of the questions being asked. The fact he cooperated with authorities in Nevade makes me question that line even more.



I just don't understand the violence part of it. I'm not really upset at the protesting. Peaceful protest would be much more effective IMO. Violence just brings up a negative conotation on the protestors.




Most Law Enforcement Involved Shootings I've dealt with in the past haven't had an arrest this quickly. Usually the officer just gets put on paid administrative leave pending the completion of the investigation. Unless there is an obvious negligence on the officer's part.

I will tell you why the violence happens becasue when people do violence it gets result. You think he was arrested the night before another rally is coincidence? No. They feared another violent rally. Now the problem you have some that just want to cause violence because they are violence people. Some they come with that in mind and you have the some come to make a point. When you have those two kinds there it is going to cause a problem. After seeing the tape it looks like he was shocked. But how do you let that happen. I mean that is a HUGE mistake.

[Double Eights]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNJE15A6O2.DTL&tsp=1

The unarmed man killed by former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle on an Oakland train platform early New Year's Day put up a brief struggle with officers but had been restrained and had both arms behind him when he was shot in the back, police investigators said.

"After careful analysis of the video, it is clear that both Grant's hands were behind his back, a position hands are commonly placed in by police officers in order to handcuff individuals," the police filing said. It concluded that Grant had been "restrained and unarmed" when he was shot.

Anyone still on the fence about this?

[Scottdau]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...A6O2.DTL&tsp=1



Anyone still on the fence about this?

Yeah the only question I have is why? And why was he so shocked when it happen? If he was acting he should get an Academy. Because it just looked weird.

[The Chef]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...A6O2.DTL&tsp=1



Anyone still on the fence about this?

I guess I will bite and say that Im on the fence until all the facts come out, not just a report but all facts concerning this case. I have a really bad feeling about this in some ways, it wouldnt surprise me if they offered him a deal as it happens all the time to spare the tax payers dollar in the event of a long trial but if that happens then these riots might get really out of hand so I hope everything works out one way or the other and the public keeps their cool during it no matter what the outcome.

[jmood88]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...A6O2.DTL&tsp=1



Anyone still on the fence about this?

He could've been taking something out of his back pocket!!! I refuse to believe this!!

[Keirik]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

easily still on the fence about it. All we've seen is a video from a cell phone and not many actual facts about the case..

[RAZRr1275]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

easily still on the fence about it. All we've seen is a video from a cell phone and not many actual facts about the case..

We saw the only facts that we need. Him pulling a gun and shooting an already restrained man. Intent is as interpreted by those deciding the verdict of this case

[Keirik]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

We saw the only facts that we need. Him pulling a gun and shooting an already restrained man. Intent is as interpreted by those deciding the verdict of this case

actually, no we didn't see all the facts "we" need. maybe for a person who's never dealt with actual law, you have, but for me there's not enough yet. What "facts" have you seen outside of a video?

Pretty sad representation if the only thing a person needs to see is a video and nothing else...

you'd fail as a juror.

[Cebby]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

actually, no we didn't see all the facts "we" need. maybe for a person who's never dealt with actual law, you have, but for me there's not enough yet. What "facts" have you seen outside of a video?

Pretty sad representation if the only thing a person needs to see is a video and nothing else...

you'd fail as a juror.

So tell us ignants what else we should need?

[Keirik]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

i already showed you how one video can skew what actually appeared to happen in an earlier post. Another angle would be nice, although not available it seems. How good was his training? Was he trained properly in how to handle critical situations? Was he also trained how to use a taser properly? He said he thought that he was grabbing for his taser. Was his taser in the proper place on his rig? How about some testimonies from those close to the scene. Does this officer have anything in his past that would show he has predispositon to this? What had happened prior to that video? Did the guy have something on his person or reached for anything? Was he already given instructions to not move?


There's a million different questions that need to be answered. A few of these questions could easily turn this into a manslaughter rather than murder case. Trying to convict someone of murder requres very specific facts.


Do you actually think basically it goes to trial, a video is shown, and then the judge just says "okay, that's all we need folks. Make your decision fellow jurors" ?

[RAZRr1275]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

i already showed you how one video can skew what actually appeared to happen in an earlier post. Another angle would be nice, although not available it seems. How good was his training? Was he trained properly in how to handle critical situations? Was he also trained how to use a taser properly? He said he thought that he was grabbing for his taser. Was his taser in the proper place on his rig? How about some testimonies from those close to the scene. Does this officer have anything in his past that would show he has predispositon to this? What had happened prior to that video? Did the guy have something on his person or reached for anything? Was he already given instructions to not move?


There's a million different questions that need to be answered. A few of these questions could easily turn this into a manslaughter rather than murder case. Trying to convict someone of murder requres very specific facts.


Do you actually think basically it goes to trial, a video is shown, and then the judge just says "okay, that's all we need folks. Make your decision fellow jurors" ?

Those questions do not need to be answered. He still killed the dude. None of those questions being answered would be able to get him off IMO. If his taser was in the wrong place it's still his problem because the guy was restrained. You'd have plenty of time to look into your hand and check to see that you had the right weapon. And even if he did use a taser that was excessive and unnecessary

[jmood88]

Re: Man shot in the back by cops, while on the ground

Those questions do not need to be answered. He still killed the dude. None of those questions being answered would be able to get him off IMO. If his taser was in the wrong place it's still his problem because the guy was restrained. You'd have plenty of time to look into your hand and check to see that you had the right weapon. And even if he did use a taser that was excessive and unnecessary

Pretty much. I could understand if the guy was moving around and grabbing for a weapon but he had two people on him with his hands behind his back. There was no way that there was any kind of threat and if this guy is so jumpy that he felt like he needed to shock someone who was lying on the ground, unarmed, and in no position to hurt anyone then he never should've been an officer in the first place.