Support NeoGAF

[duckroll]

look at them, they look like rookies, for sure it was a mistake and non-intentional

Right, but they should be more careful. There's no "be more careful next time" warning because well, the guy's dead now. When there's a possibility of mistake concerning human life, there should be little to no room for error. He'll have to answer for his actions, and being haunted by it for the rest of his life is just something else he'll also have to live with, unfortunately.

 

[Xapati]

Yes, life isn't fair, but if it's investigated and made clear that the gun was drawn and fired because he made an error, it doesn't matter if it's accidental at all, there should be a punishment. If a guy driving a car accidentally shifts gears or accelerates instead of braking and runs someone over just because he had a really long day and he was tried, should he be let off the hook because it was just an accident? Let's say he isn't drunk, and he's a great guy, has a nice family, contributes to charity, volunteers are church, liked by everyone at work, etc. No. The fact of the matter is that the only reason he has accesss to a weapon at his hip is because he is a cop, and with that comes a responsiblity not to allow an accident to happen, because he knows it's a deadly weapon. Sure, it sucks to go to jail for an accident, but in this case, it would be fair.

This.

 

[TheHeretic]

Yes, life isn't fair, but if it's investigated and made clear that the gun was drawn and fired because he made an error, it doesn't matter if it's accidental at all, there should be a punishment. If a guy driving a car accidentally shifts gears or accelerates instead of braking and runs someone over just because he had a really long day and he was tried, should he be let off the hook because it was just an accident? Let's say he isn't drunk, and he's a great guy, has a nice family, contributes to charity, volunteers are church, liked by everyone at work, etc. No. The fact of the matter is that the only reason he has accesss to a weapon at his hip is because he is a cop, and with that comes a responsiblity not to allow an accident to happen, because he knows it's a deadly weapon. Sure, it sucks to go to jail for an accident, but in this case, it would be fair.

Sorry, but a genuine accident isn't punishable. An accident caused by negligence is.

 

[Flo_Evans]

eh... looks like the dude was still tossing and turning on the ground. To me it looks like the cop did think he had his taser in his hand. Everyone including the idiot pig looked shocked when the gun went off.

If I was the judge I would give him the max manslaughter sentence and you can never own a firearm again. I would also award the family large punitive damages that this fucker would work off but never quite pay off the rest of his life.

 

[PhoenixDark]

eh... looks like the dude was still tossing and turning on the ground. To me it looks like the cop did think he had his taser in his hand. Everyone including the idiot pig looked shocked when the gun went off.

If I was the judge I would give him the max manslaughter sentence and you can never own a firearm again. I would also award the family large punitive damages that this fucker would work off but never quite pay off the rest of his life.

Not gonna happen. Watch this dude get exonerated. I think it was an accident but it was still reckless. The dude seemed to be cooperating, and was in cuffs facedown on the ground.

 

[ColdDeckEd]

Sorry, but a genuine accident isn't punishable. An accident caused by negligence is.

And how exactly is this not negligence? Are you telling me pulling out your gun (or even taser) is the standard procedure in this circumstance (restraining an unarmed suspect, who's already facedown on the ground) , and that oh whoops it just happened to go off?

This is not a genuine accident, it was absolutely caused by negligence.

 

[jko]

Yes, life isn't fair, but if it's investigated and made clear that the gun was drawn and fired because he made an error, it doesn't matter if it's accidental at all, there should be a punishment. If a guy driving a car accidentally shifts gears or accelerates instead of braking and runs someone over just because he had a really long day and he was tried, should he be let off the hook because it was just an accident? Let's say he isn't drunk, and he's a great guy, has a nice family, contributes to charity, volunteers are church, liked by everyone at work, etc. No. The fact of the matter is that the only reason he has accesss to a weapon at his hip is because he is a cop, and with that comes a responsiblity not to allow an accident to happen, because he knows it's a deadly weapon. Sure, it sucks to go to jail for an accident, but in this case, it would be fair.

No, I agree and well said. He SHOULD be punished according to what the judge decides on...even if it's an accident. I just don't think he deserves to be condemned to hell like many of the posters here are suggesting... :\

 

[MWS Natural]

Dude, little kids feel bad when they spill milk all over the floor - that doesn't mean that they're immune from cleaning that shit up. He feels bad, so that makes it okay? No, fuck that. And since its been going on for so long, we should make an example out of him. So much so, that the next cop that even thinks he's in a similar situation will think twice.

lol just give up man, I've given up years ago trying to explain shit like this to many white people. They will think what they want to think and justify anything and everything till the cows come home. The officer could have thrown on a white hood and shot 3 handcuffed black guys and someone would find a way to defend his actions. There are actually people who believe racism doesn't exist in America so trying to argue that these things are racially driven is pointless.

"Don't fit he stereotype and you won't have any problems with Police!"

*goes and washes the brown off his skin*

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

lol just give up man, I've given up years ago trying to explain shit like this to many white people. They will think what they want to think and justify anything and everything till the cows come home. The officer could have thrown on a white hood and shot 3 handcuffed black guys and someone would find a way to defend his actions. There are actually people who believe racism doesn't exist in America so trying to argue that these things are racially driven is pointless.

"Don't fit he stereotype and you won't have any problems with Police!"

*goes and washes the brown off his skin*

I would be saying the same thing if the officer was black.

Pulling out the race card :lol

 

[Justin Timberlake]

I would be saying the same thing if the officer was black.

Pulling out the race card :lol

I understand why you are incredulous. It takes a little life experience to realize how wrong you are. I am not black, but I can tell you from multiple first-hand experiences that there are serious issues of racism in our law enforcement.

 

[PhoenixDark]

lol just give up man, I've given up years ago trying to explain shit like this to many white people. They will think what they want to think and justify anything and everything till the cows come home. The officer could have thrown on a white hood and shot 3 handcuffed black guys and someone would find a way to defend his actions. There are actually people who believe racism doesn't exist in America so trying to argue that these things are racially driven is pointless.

"Don't fit he stereotype and you won't have any problems with Police!"

*goes and washes the brown off his skin*

Isn't DY Nasty black?

Dumb strawman post. There's no need to bring race into this. The officer didn't purposely shoot the black guy; hell look at his reaction afterward, he's clearly shaken up.

Some white people do go into defensive mode whenever an issue of race comes up, just as some black people automatically go into victim mode - in this case yourself.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

Isn't DY Nasty black?

Dumb strawman post. There's no need to bring race into this. The officer didn't purposely shoot the black guy; hell look at his reaction afterward, he's clearly shaken up.

Some white people do go into defensive mode whenever an issue of race comes up, just as some black people automatically go into victim mode - in this case yourself.

I agree that this topic shouldn't devolve into a race war. It is hard to say, from what we know, that race had anything to do with what happened.

However, it is incredibly likely that it did. Race will probably play a role in the ultimate outcome of this case also.

 

[LAUGHTREY]

And how exactly is this not negligence? Are you telling me pulling out your gun (or even taser) is the standard procedure in this circumstance (restraining an unarmed suspect, who's already facedown on the ground) , and that oh whoops it just happened to go off?

This is not a genuine accident, it was absolutely caused by negligence.

Pulling the gun out, aiming it at him, hitting the safety AND pulling the trigger? That's definitely negligence.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Yes, life isn't fair, but if it's investigated and made clear that the gun was drawn and fired because he made an error, it doesn't matter if it's accidental at all, there should be a punishment. If a guy driving a car accidentally shifts gears or accelerates instead of braking and runs someone over just because he had a really long day and he was tried, should he be let off the hook because it was just an accident? Let's say he isn't drunk, and he's a great guy, has a nice family, contributes to charity, volunteers are church, liked by everyone at work, etc. No. The fact of the matter is that the only reason he has accesss to a weapon at his hip is because he is a cop, and with that comes a responsiblity not to allow an accident to happen, because he knows it's a deadly weapon. Sure, it sucks to go to jail for an accident, but in this case, it would be fair.

Well, then, let's first start of with what's "fair". If you're driving drunk -- definitely jail time. But if we're taking your example of the nice guy who for a split second doesn't pay enough attention and crashes, causing the death of someone else. Tell me, how is putting him in prison "fair"?

Sorry, but a genuine accident isn't punishable. An accident caused by negligence is.

This.

lol just give up man, I've given up years ago trying to explain shit like this to many white people. They will think what they want to think and justify anything and everything till the cows come home. The officer could have thrown on a white hood and shot 3 handcuffed black guys and someone would find a way to defend his actions. There are actually people who believe racism doesn't exist in America so trying to argue that these things are racially driven is pointless.

"Don't fit he stereotype and you won't have any problems with Police!"

*goes and washes the brown off his skin*

What the fuck? I'm not american nor do I live in the US and I'm not saying that there isn't any racism in the US. But I'm not gonna try to pin everything on what dude just for the sake of it. If racism was a part of it -- yeah, definitely, get him for that. I'm not seeing how that's the case here, though. What you're saying is that you want one guy to take the hit for the negligence of society -- how is any good gonna come outta that?

 

[MrSardonic]

Every single person who gets pinned down and has a knee put on their neck will toss and turn. That position cuts blood off to your brain and limits your ability to breath, it's a natural response to move around to avoid potential death, and it's a poor police tactic that gets overly used on people who don't even warrant that form of disabling.

The man was clearly cooperating, doing pretty much nothing to warrant such aggressive police force, and had his life wasted because of some cunt.

The video evidence makes it ridiculous to suggest the policeman's actions are anything other than disgraceful. He stands up, draws his gun (and how can he not be aware that it's his gun?), takes it off safety, and then a shot goes off. There is no way to sugar-coat that or claim it is an accident. Even if the final shot accidentally went off, there are numerous events prior to that action that should not be taking place. He should not be drawing his gun in that situation; he shouldnt be pointing it at a man whole is restrained on the ground, etc.

Just lucky it was caught on film or some bullshit story would have been cooked up to excuse this officer. He should be tried for manslaughter at the least. If he was a private citizen he'd be getting done for murder.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Every single person who gets pinned down and has a knee put on their neck will toss and turn. That position cuts blood off to your brain and limits your ability to breath, it's a natural response to move around to avoid potential death, and it's a poor police tactic that gets overly used on people who don't even warrant that form of disabling.

The man was clearly cooperating, doing pretty much nothing to warrant such aggressive police force, and had his life wasted because of some cunt.

The video evidence makes it ridiculous to suggest the policeman's actions are anything other than disgraceful. He stands up, draws his gun (and how can he not be aware that it's his gun?), takes it off safety, and then a shot goes off. There is no way to sugar-coat that or claim it is an accident. Even if the final shot accidentally went off, there are numerous events prior to that action that should not be taking place. He should not be drawing his gun in that situation; he shouldnt be pointing it at a man whole is restrained on the ground, etc.

Just lucky it was caught on film or some bullshit story would have been cooked up to excuse this officer. He should be tried for manslaughter at the least. If he was a private citizen he'd be getting done for murder.

I'm guessing you haven't read the thread, huh?

But yeah, he definitely did do several wrongs.

 

[MrSardonic]

I read the thread. The tazer story sounds pretty implausible, although I'm not closed to the possibility if it was successfully demonstrated to be the case.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I understand why you are incredulous. It takes a little life experience to realize how wrong you are. I am not black, but I can tell you from multiple first-hand experiences that there are serious issues of racism in our law enforcement.

His post wasn't even about racist police officers, it was about racist white people finding any and every way to justify or make excuses for police officers shooting black people.

 

[itsinmyveins]

I read the thread. The tazer story sounds pretty implausible, although I'm not closed to the possibility if it was successfully demonstrated to be the case.

Tasers do look a lot like guns and I've seen it mentioned that not all weapons used by police even has a safety. Someone even mentioned this possibility on the first or second page and refered to some other similar story.

 

[demigod]

just in case anyone didn't get to see the video.

here's a new clear one:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ba_1231550246

In this video, it looks like Mr. Nice Officer was beating another victim before cuffing him.

 

[adamsappel]

I'm sure most of you are also familiar with Vinzer Denzig's "Road Rager" thread. Let's use that as a hypothetical. Say the road-rager continued to advance threateningly on him and Vinzer shot his gun. But instead of hitting his assailant (or in addition to), he misses and kills a bystander. Accident, right? He surely didn't mean to kill the bystander, and he was even perfectly within his rights to shoot the man coming menacingly towards him. Should he be punished?*

I can accept that the BART officer wanted to tazer the suspect. Boogie says police weapons don't have safeties (do tazers?), so that lends further credence to an accidental shooting. But he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. I don't understand why people hold police up as shining beacons of society for the dangerous nature of their jobs, but absolve them of greater responsibility when they abysmally fail to earn those accolades. The officer killed someone in negligent dereliction of his sworn duty. Resigning from the force and "feeling terrible" about it isn't enough.




*Of course he should, and harshly. Taking the law into your own hands (that's not a pejorative about vigilantism) also comes with the burden of public safety. You don't get to protect your life by endangering mine.

 

[WickedAngel]

His post wasn't even about racist police officers, it was about racist white people finding any and every way to justify or make excuses for police officers shooting black people.

Which doesn't make sense either, since the vast majority of us who thing this officer was absolutely in the wrong are white.

 

[Smiling Bandit]

Let's forget about the officer for a minute. What about the wife/daughter/parents/relatives of the suspect? I doubt putting the officer in jail will be a big enough compensation for them. Should they get some of the $20 something million they are aiming for? Remember that this money in the end is just tax money.
What should be done for them?

 

[Smiling Bandit]

Taser look like this, really?

I always thought they'd look like Star Trek phasers.

 

[MrSardonic]

Tasers do look a lot like guns and I've seen it mentioned that not all weapons used by police even has a safety. Someone even mentioned this possibility on the first or second page and refered to some other similar story.

Not all tasers look a lot like guns. A police officer should be fully aware of whether or not they are carrying a taser or a gun. The guy had 22 weeks of training including tasers and guns so he should realise when something he is holding is not a taser. We don't know the "safety" issue. There was no need to pull out a taser or a gun. The other story referred to involved someone going ape-shit inside her car; this young man was doing nothing of the sort and there was no need to even think of using a taser based on the video footage.

If he genuinely thought he had a taser, then it's negligence of the most serious kind because an officer (someone with weapons that can do serious injury or kill) cannot make such a basic mistake. He should still face criminal proceedings for the consequences and there should be an investigation into why he felt the need to escalate the level of "restraint" used.

There is nothing to excuse here. If you're a policeman you've got to be prepared to deal appropriately with what you encounter. There should not be any use of force that is disproportionate. Even the physical force used in the video goes beyond what appeared to be necessary. Drawing an offensive weapon on a man face-down and restrained is incomprehensible.

Like most people, police should have to face the consequences for their actions. But this event should be used to shine a light back on the tactics used, or excused, by some police forces. Often we see completely disproportionate and unjustified use of force. When it is applied to people of non-white appearance it serves only to severe the connection between communities and those who are supposed to help protect them from crimes that affect the lives of normal people.

There should not be the impression that police are above the law, that you should fear them because of what they might do to you irrespective of your innocence, that they are engaged in a "them vs us war", or that they are allowed to use excessive force.

 

[Agent Ironside]

Im sure this may have been said or debated, mybe the cop was so caught up in everything and wasnt completely focused that he thought he grabbed his taser :/ Just a thought. NVM, right above me :lol

 

[xnipx]

wow that new clear video really is disturbing....hearing the actual gunshot go off and all the commotion going on with people remarking how fucked up they were being treated....and the man is clearly restrained as u can see his hands remain behind his back after he is shot. the "officer" is the one who cuffed him in the first place which is why his knee was in his back..... THEN he decided to get up and pull out his "taser". why would he pull out his taser after he already just cuffed the man unless he was some asshole cop who was going to inflict some pain regardless and he happened to end up shooting the man because of his negligence. the very fact that he pulled a weapon AFTER cuffing the victim shows how fucked up a cop he is and why he deserves to go to jail for a very long time. people saying that these cops are human and have stressful jobs so they should be excused make me sick. they should be held to a higher standard and should face HARSHER punishments than the rest of us because with great power comes great responsibility. that is why doctors pay out the ass in malpractice insurance because they are in positions controlling peoples health and safety and should be held to high standards. a cop is supposed to serve and protect the citizens of this country and if you can't trust your own life with them then who can you trust? crooked cops are the lowest form of criminals to me and i feel like if punishments were more severe they would understand how much power they have in their hands

 

[TheKingsCrown]

Wait, so the guy is saying he thought it was his tazer? Ugh. I agree with the mod, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Agent Ironside]

Basically, even the way he was holding the gun, didnt really look strong handed, almost non-chalantly, not even being prepared for the recoil. Id say its a good chance he meant to pull his tazer.

 

[WTFing]

Of course there is no weight difference between a tazer and a real gun.

 

[Agent Ironside]

Of course there is no weight difference between a tazer and a real gun.

Im assuming mybe there isnt that much of a diff? That tazer is probably pretty heavy duty.

 

[duckroll]

Well, then, let's first start of with what's "fair". If you're driving drunk -- definitely jail time. But if we're taking your example of the nice guy who for a split second doesn't pay enough attention and crashes, causing the death of someone else. Tell me, how is putting him in prison "fair"?

Not paying enough attention when you're in control of something that could cause a fatality is not a pure "accident." A pure accident is if the cop's gun went off without being drawn. Here he made a mistake, it could be an accidental or innocent mistake, but it had fatal results. The driver example i gave is the same. If you're in a car, I don't expect people to fall asleep or make a silly mistake that results in ramming into someone else.

It's not something anyone wants to happen, sure, but it doesn't mean something didn't happen. Consequences of actions, etc. It's not ideal that he goes to jail, but it's fair because there has to be a consequence of such an action. If there is none, then you will introduce a lot of cases where someone not as innocent could argue that it was a mistake and an accident, what then?

 

[Cipherr]

LOL @ murder and life in prison. It was an accident, a tragic accident. Obviously he deserves to be fired and all of that but send him away for life? :lol

You are already assuming intent. What if the suspect was verbally threatening the officers, claiming he had a gun on him, the officer drew his gun and it accidentally went off?
If he indeed drew his gun and shoot the suspect point blank in the back for no reason at all as the visuals might indicate than the case is clear.



Exactly. And exactly the reason why you should try not to do something criminal. And if you still happen to get arrested not put up a fight on top of it because it's better to minimize any risks. Especially when you're up against people who already are under a lot of pressure.

Lesson to be learned from the above bullshit is that some people, somewhere will defend ANYTHING no matter how heinous. Doesn't matter what it is, how it happened, nor who did it. Theres always someone who can find a way to justify the shit.

Oh well, heres hoping this whole damn planet goes up in flames 2012. :lol :lol

 

[Smiling Bandit]

Lesson to be learned from the above bullshit is that some people, somewhere will defend ANYTHING no matter how heinous. Doesn't matter what it is, how it happened, nor who did it. Theres always someone who can find a way to justify the shit.

There's a chain of events and it doesn't start with the guy on the floor and the police officer drawing the gun.

 

[TheHeretic]

Not paying enough attention when you're in control of something that could cause a fatality is not a pure "accident." A pure accident is if the cop's gun went off without being drawn. Here he made a mistake, it could be an accidental or innocent mistake, but it had fatal results. The driver example i gave is the same. If you're in a car, I don't expect people to fall asleep or make a silly mistake that results in ramming into someone else.

It's not something anyone wants to happen, sure, but it doesn't mean something didn't happen. Consequences of actions, etc. It's not ideal that he goes to jail, but it's fair because there has to be a consequence of such an action. If there is none, then you will introduce a lot of cases where someone not as innocent could argue that it was a mistake and an accident, what then?

Again, I don't like your reasoning. People shouldn't be punished in such a way, to reinforce this idea that if someone dies someone else has to do jail time. Sometimes things in life happen, the true definition of a crime is an act of evil. Drunk driving is a crime because its putting others in harms way, your decision to drive whilst under the influence is an act of evil. Some middle aged guy caught up in a freak accident where he reacted poorly isn't a crime at all.

People caught in crimes do argue it was a mistake and an accident, and they will be judged by their peers in a fair system. They won't be thrown in jail because of your misguided idea that accidents never "really" happen: because they do.

 

[duckroll]

Again, I don't like your reasoning. People shouldn't be punished in such a way, to reinforce this idea that if someone dies someone else has to do jail time. Sometimes things in life happen, the true definition of a crime is an act of evil. Drunk driving is a crime because its putting others in harms way, your decision to drive whilst under the influence is an act of evil. Some middle aged guy caught up in a freak accident where he reacted poorly isn't a crime at all.

People caught in crimes do argue it was a mistake and an accident, and they will be judged by their peers in a fair system. They won't be thrown in jail because of your misguided idea that accidents never "really" happen: because they do.

You don't have to like the reasoning, but that is the law. You can argue whatever you feel the "true definition" of a crime is, but a crime is not always an act of evil. A crime is when someone breaks the law, that's really simple. An act of negligence that results in death is against the law. It can be an honest mistake, but it's still an act of negligence. I could rebutt what you said by simply saying that the "true definition" of an accident is when there is nothing you could have done to prevent it. In this case there's clearly something he could have done, he could have checked to see if he is holding a gun or a taser before pulling the trigger. Do you disagree?

 

[TheHeretic]

You don't have to like the reasoning, but that is the law.

If you think people are punished for accidents you have no understanding of the law. Willingness to commit the crime is a very important part of any conviction. The circumstances between pulling the trigger of a gun aiming at a person and not braking properly are completely different, its a dumb analogy.

What the officer did here was an act of negligence, if not straight up murder.

 

[itsinmyveins]

You don't have to like the reasoning, but that is the law. You can argue whatever you feel the "true definition" of a crime is, but a crime is not always an act of evil. A crime is when someone breaks the law, that's really simple. An act of negligence that results in death is against the law. It can be an honest mistake, but it's still an act of negligence. I could rebutt what you said by simply saying that the "true definition" of an accident is when there is nothing you could have done to prevent it. In this case there's clearly something he could have done, he could have checked to see if he is holding a gun or a taser before pulling the trigger. Do you disagree?

You do realize what an accident is, don't you? Most accident are probably caused on some degree of negligence if you want to look at it closer, or something the people in it could have done better. Yes, in this case with the police officer there's certainly a case for negligence because of the degree of it, but not in your car example -- that sounds more lika a typical accident to me.

 

[duckroll]

If you think people are punished for accidents you have no understanding of the law. Willingness to commit the crime is a very important part of any conviction. The circumstances between pulling the trigger of a gun aiming at a person and not braking properly are completely different, its a dumb analogy.

What the officer did here was an act of negligence, if not straight up murder.

Maybe I should have made my example much clearer. Say you're travelling on a road and you're tired. You're approaching a red light and you take your feet off the pedal and slow down, then as you approach the light you step again to hit the brakes, but you mistakenly step on the accelerator again and MAN you ram right into the person crossing the road. Does that sound like a typical accident? I don't think so. The person involved would most likely be charged with manslaughter or causing grievous hurt, but there would be no INTENTION for him to have committed a crime, simply a lack of focus after a hard day's work. Still a crime.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Maybe I should have made my example much clearer. Say you're travelling on a road and you're tired. You're approaching a red light and you take your feet off the pedal and slow down, then as you approach the light you step again to hit the brakes, but you mistakenly step on the accelerator again and MAN you ram right into the person crossing the road. Does that sound like a typical accident? I don't think so. The person involved would most likely be charged with manslaughter or causing grievous hurt, but there would be no INTENTION for him to have committed a crime, simply a lack of focus after a hard day's work. Still a crime.

That would probably be considered an accident, yes, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be charged for manslaughter.

 

[duckroll]

That would probably be considered an accident, yes, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be charged for manslaughter.

How do you prove it though? How would that seperate him from someone who decided to ignore the light at the last moment and accelerate? It's just his word. He can claim he blacked out, or made a mistake, or whatever, but in the end he caused a fatal accident with his car. People like that have been charged and will continue to be charged. Circumstances differ from case to case, and sometimes charges won't be made, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't. I don't expect people with any means of killing someone else to make a mistake. If you do, well, tough.

 

[itsinmyveins]

How do you prove it though? How would that seperate him from someone who decided to ignore the light at the last moment and accelerate? It's just his word. He can claim he blacked out, or made a mistake, or whatever, but in the end he caused a fatal accident with his car. People like that have been charged and will continue to be charged. Circumstances differ from case to case, and sometimes charges won't be made, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't. I don't expect people with any means of killing someone else to make a mistake. If you do, well, tough.

So you're saying the lack of proof should mean that he ought to get a punishment just in case he lies?

Either way, you know -- witnessess, what he says, what's found around the scene of the accident and whatever. It probably comes down to if it was intentional and if it's based on negliegence, then what degree and if it's even considered negligence.

With the logic you're trying to get through here pretty much every accident should have a prison sentence attached to it. That would then rather suggest that these aren't accidents but crimes, since your "fairness" (which is a ridiculous word in this context) wants them imprisoned?

 

[duckroll]

So you're saying the lack of proof should mean that he ought to get a punishment just in case he lies?

Either way, you know -- witnessess, what he says, what's found around the scene of the accident and whatever. It probably comes down to if it was intentional and if it's based on negliegence, then what degree and if it's even considered negligence.

With the logic you're trying to get through here pretty much every accident should have a prison sentence attached to it. That would then rather suggest that these aren't accidents but crimes, since your "fairness" (which is a ridiculous word in this context) wants them imprisoned?

I don't know where the idea is that I feel that EVERY accident should have a prison sentence attached. There are other punishments for crimes - heavy fines, revoking licenses, etc. But in a case where a death is caused, and it's found to have a strong supporting element of negligence that could have been avoided but proper care was not taken to prevent the accident, I do not feel that saying it wasn't "intended" to happen is enough to protect the person.

I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough, but I simply feel that even in accidents, things should be investigated and the person responsible given the proper punishment in accordance to the crime, regardless if he intended for it to happen or not. If it's his fault, he should pay for it, and in this particular case we have a dead person so it's clearly more much more serious.

I'm arguing against the belief that just because he didn't mean to shoot the guy, he shouldn't go to jail. I'm not asking for a specific punishment here (10 years jail, rot in hell, whatever other people are saying), but I'm saying he should not be spared just because he "didn't mean it". There's a very good chance that if convicted, he's going to spend some time behind bars here, on top of losing his job as a cop. What I'm saying is that people should not be saying that he doesn't deserve what's coming to him, simply because he didn't mean it.

 

[Belgand]

Ugh... again, dude wasn't cuffed. Every article I have read states the man was not restrained by any sort of handcuffs and was on the ground because he was resisting. Videos have shown him resisting. When people resist, officers use non lethal force to stop them from resisting. That's what this officer tried to do but pulled out his gun instead of his taser. A tragic, horrible mistake that should cost him his job and his right to ever carry a gun again. But it doesn't make him a cold hearted killer, a coward, or a bully looking to intimidate people.

Should lose his job? He resigned already in order to avoid having to answer an internal inquiry. By doing so he was able to avoid them compelling his testimony.

It's a complex issue, but I certainly don't see how even using a Taser was justified. I have not, however, watched the videos* so I'm largely going from what I read in the paper (I live in San Francisco so it's pretty much daily that something comes up about it), but just like the UCLA Taser issue from a few years ago you don't just Taser someone because they aren't doing what you want or they're resisting. You restrain them physically if need be, but a Taser is going too far until they start running away or are in a position to hurt someone.

As for punishment? If you're a police officer and are given a gun to do your job and entrusted with the judgment to use it responsibly you need to be held to a higher standard of conduct and judgment in order to maintain the safety of everyone else. With great power comes great responsibility. When the issue in question is a matter of shooting someone you don't get the option of making mistakes.

*Finally saw the video, doesn't change my opinion one bit. There were three officers and they clearly had him subdued and under control. Tasering him would be equivalent to just hauling off and whacking him with a baton. It's completely unjustified and there would have been even greater complaints about racial violence in that case (even if they were as unjustified as they appear to be in this case).

 

[Socreges]

My interactions with police officers have been mixed. Seen both good and bad. ... Police officers are not intelligent people. Generally. That's a generalization. Deal with it.

it's actually a faulty generalization, a logical fallacy. since i could see you would dismiss every reply that came your way with unsettling confidence and stubbornness, i thought it was time to throw you something that's impossible to deny.

Your dad is ignorant.

huh? you're just out for attention. too bad you're so irresistible!

 

[itsinmyveins]

I don't know where the idea is that I feel that EVERY accident should have a prison sentence attached. There are other punishments for crimes - heavy fines, revoking licenses, etc. But in a case where a death is caused, and it's found to have a strong supporting element of negligence that could have been avoided but proper care was not taken to prevent the accident, I do not feel that saying it wasn't "intended" to happen is enough to protect the person.

I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough, but I simply feel that even in accidents, things should be investigated and the person responsible given the proper punishment in accordance to the crime, regardless if he intended for it to happen or not. If it's his fault, he should pay for it, and in this particular case we have a dead person so it's clearly more much more serious.

I'm arguing against the belief that just because he didn't mean to shoot the guy, he shouldn't go to jail. I'm not asking for a specific punishment here (10 years jail, rot in hell, whatever other people are saying), but I'm saying he should not be spared just because he "didn't mean it". There's a very good chance that if convicted, he's going to spend some time behind bars here, on top of losing his job as a cop. What I'm saying is that people should not be saying that he doesn't deserve what's coming to him, simply because he didn't mean it.

I agree with some of what you say, and some I don't. If it really is an accident then of course there shouldn't be any punishment. I'm kind of reluctant to the idea that "decent" people gets thrown into jail for an accident, since there's no point in that. You don't rehabilitate them or anything. It's simply out of the notion that "you fucked up -- now let's fuck you up!", which, imho, is far from a fair if we're talking about an accident.

If there's a strong element of negligence, that definitely should be taken into account and possibly lead to jail time if it's severe. I don't think your example of the person in the car should lead to jail time, though, since it's clearly an accident. It'd be different if he was speeding a lot or was drunk or something.

 

[Boogie]

Even if the cop was going for his tazer, it shows how poor of a police officer he is. Wouldn't tazering someone while your partner is touching him, shock your fellow officer as well?

Allow me to answer this:

NO, it would not shock the fellow officer.

I got a better idea, how about cuff the guy who's on his back instead of trying to tase/shoot him. IT"S NOT HARD ya know, especially when someone else is next to help you.

:lol :lol :lol

You have no idea. Thanks for the laugh.

Pulling the gun out, aiming it at him, hitting the safety AND pulling the trigger? That's definitely negligence.

The video evidence makes it ridiculous to suggest the policeman's actions are anything other than disgraceful. He stands up, draws his gun (and how can he not be aware that it's his gun?), takes it off safety, and then a shot goes off. There is no way to sugar-coat that or claim it is an accident.

Cut out this "safety" bullshit. Do people even read my posts?

 

[Ronok]

Can those defending the cop please explain to me the moment the victim was resisting arrest? Then can you please somehow explain to me how it required even a tazer to be used?


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7GjSHxAD2iY

I see nothing even close to resembling this and they still didn't need to use a tazer... :-/


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OvlUcPmayPQ&feature=related

An American version for you as well....... Although this guy would have been justified in using a tazer. lol

 

[Deleted member 284]

Why hasn't anyone addressed the bigger issue of the officer resigning from the BART police force so that he wouldn't have to give a statement to IA? It just makes him more complicit in his actions if you ask me. Oh and the union suggesting he take this action doesn't really help my perception of good cops.

 

[LAUGHTREY]

Allow me to answer this:

NO, it would not shock the fellow officer.



:lol :lol :lol

You have no idea. Thanks for the laugh.






Cut out this "safety" bullshit. Do people even read my posts?

Can you tell me a modern pistol that doesn't have some sort of safety mechanism? I'm curious to know. Just a brief sort of google search shows that almost every single semi-automatic gun has some kind of safety.


and lol at walking around with the safety off, are you serious? Do you even know what the point of a safety is?