yankeeforever2
Member
He said cops guns don't have safety's already god people read his posts.LAUGHTREY said:
edit: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14270308&postcount=208
there
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
BART Officer Kills Young Man in Subway Updated: Further Misconduct Unearthed Post#436
- Thread starter WickedAngel
- Start date
- Status
edit: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14270308&postcount=208
there
radioheadrule83
Banned
If I remember rightly Boogie got into a big thing with Amir0x when he announced he wanted to be a cop -- just thought that might lend some context to his posts. In fact, reading his posts again, it seems he is one now?... congrats if so! and I misread him, he's not making excuses for the guy.
Regarding this guys resignation - will there still be an investigation?
Regarding this guys resignation - will there still be an investigation?
joeblackisback
Member
LAUGHTREY said:
I used to have a Glock 17 9mm that didn't have a safety. I don't know what cops carry, though.
Bumblebeetuna
Banned
Belgand said:
Cool, so he has come out and said he resigned just so he wouldn't have to talk to people? He's still going to have to answer to prosecutors.
You only use tasers when they are running away or could hurt someone? Cops use tasers ALL THE TIME when people are resisting. Shooting someone with a taser and pretty much immobilizing them is a much more attractive scenario than wrestling and fighting with a guy, which puts the officers and the suspect in danger. Hell, I have seen videos of people in traffic stops being tasered because they won't get out of their car.
All the responsibility, none of the respect.
Most cops are very responsible. Most cops do their jobs with great success. Sometimes mistakes happen. Holding people who already have very dangerous and very stressful jobs to some super high standard doesn't make sense. He's a human, he made a mistake.
domokunrox
Banned
Can someone catch me up about this?
Is this what all that riot danger was all about a while back? or was that a different situation?
I used to frequently ride BART, but now all my business is in the south bay now.
Is this what all that riot danger was all about a while back? or was that a different situation?
I used to frequently ride BART, but now all my business is in the south bay now.
Because they use it improperly all the time, it's okay? :lol Tazers should be a last resort before using a firearm, not something to make apprehending people more convenient for the officer, damn. Using a tazer is dangerous and can be lethal in some cases, it shouldn't be used without discretion.Bumblebeetuna said:
Bumblebeetuna
Banned
msv said:
Well clearly you are more qualified to say when it is applicable and what the reprecussions could be than police forces around the country, who no doubt have puts tons of money into researching these things.
You hear about taser deaths a couple times a year at the most and most of the time there are contibuting factors such as drugs. Tasers are safe :lol
I don't know, but the same goes for you. And I never callously approve of another's opinion, research or whatever it may be. I try to find evidence for my own opinion. Though most 'research' would disagree with your opinion anyway, since they're rarely used in most countries. Especially not in the way you're describing.Bumblebeetuna said:
Only a few deaths.. you call that safe? :lol
Smiling Bandit
Banned
The officer resigns? I don't know what that implies. Could be he feels guilty, could be he knows he will/could never work this job again, could be it boils down to his general legal strategy to minimize any punishment. Is it advantageous to resign in such a case?
Edit: If you have problems with your heart I imagine that getting a load of Tazer won't exactly help you.
Edit: If you have problems with your heart I imagine that getting a load of Tazer won't exactly help you.
Smiling Bandit
Banned
Tamanon said:
That's weird. Sounds like a loophole. I could imagine he himself doesn't know what happened. Or he know too well.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Smiling Bandit said:
I guess it might be all of the above too, not just a single one.
LAUGHTREY said:
Absolutely I can tell you that. The service firearm of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (S&W 5946, I think it's also the service firearm of the NYPD), the largest police force in Canada, does not have a safety. Many other forces use firearms without safeties as well.
Oh, but it's not without ANY sort of safety mechanism. There are safety features, such as not firing when the magazine is removed. I'm just talking about external safety switches.
The point of a safety in a police firearm would be to get the police officer killed because he had to fuck around to turn off the safety in the event, God forbid, that he is facing a lethal threat and has to respond in a split-second.
In my mind, a safety is just another split-second delay in a police officer's reaction time if he ever has to use lethal force.
A competant officer should have no need for a safety. When the gun is in its holster, it's not going to go off. And when the gun is drawn from its holster, well, its because you might have to shoot someone, and a safety only impedes that objective.
radioheadrule83 said:
Thanks!
It's a great career for me, and I'm having a lot of fun. And though I may occassionally be an asshole poster on GAF, I try hard to make sure I'm not an asshole cop in real life. 
I'm certainly not here to make excuses for this officer, I'm just trying to clear up any ignorance about the police and offer some perspective from "the inside".
msv said:
Safer than shooting the suspects? Yup.
adamsappel
Member
Yeah, but what we are seeing are cops tazering naked guys on balconies, guys on freeway overpasses, people in cars, college kids in computer labs, etc. Granted, these are the "failures" that get all the press while the successes go unremarked, but the choice shouldn't boil down to "shoot with gun or tazer?" I don't like a cop being in genuine danger, but I think they're often quick to use it. Honestly, I watch youtube videos of cops speaking calmly to suspects right before they taze them and I think it's a procedural error that lulls the suspect into thinking he can disobey. A cop screaming "ON THE GROUND MOTHERFUCKER!" probably works better.Boogie said:
KTVU is reporting that Johannes Mehserle has been arrested and booked into a Pleasanton jail, and will most likely face manslaughter charges. It will probably be up to a jury to determine if it was voluntary, which would mean 9 years in prison, or involuntary, which means probation.
MWS Natural
Member
sonarrat said:
Do they have special protective custody in prison for ex-cops?:lol
sonarrat said:
This sounds like the most obvious case for change of venue I've heard in a long while.
Honestly, it sounds like it was involuntary (i.e. negligent) but the issue is likely going to come down to whether it classifies as grossly negligent. I can see the excessive use of force (e.g. whether Tazering was even necessary or would itself have qualified as unnecessary use of force) being an issue here as well as the likelihood that pulling the wrong weapon could easily qualify as criminally negligent.
My personal IANAL take it on it based on what I've seen so far is that he acted with unnecessary force even if he was trying to Tazer the guy and was most definitely negligent to the degree that it should qualify for a stiffer sentence. If he was clearly trained to not keep his Tazer and service weapon anywhere near each other he was also properly informed of how necessary this was and I would say that alone is enough to qualify for negligence on his part. He knew how dangerous it could be and he did not take the proper precautions (be they physically separating them or simply paying very close attention if he had).
It fits the classical sort of definition of involuntary manslaughter (so far as I am aware), but the punishment should be closer to the one for voluntary manslaughter.
Man, the whole issue of sentencing and crimes charged always bothers me. In my mind there is a set and specific crime that fits and just because of various mitigating factors and such you don't get to move it up or down because you want it to be considered more
or less severe.
The guy accidentally (most likely) killed someone when he had no intent to do so. He did, however intend to use unreasonable force and screwed up with deadly consequences when he had plenty of opportunity to be certain that he was not shooting someone. As an officer of the law and someone given the authority to decide when deadly force is necessary and given the right to carry and utilize a firearm he should be held to a high standard regarding its use and, in this case, he grossly misused it.
At the very least he needs to be made an example of so that police are aware of the degree of caution that must always be exercised when even considering discharging a firearm (of any type, including the damn Tazer).
TheHeretic
Banned
Belgand said:
Judges should never "make examples" of people. Its a roundabout way of saying a person should receive a harsh punishment for appearances sake, which is an awful perspective on the judicial system. He should get what he deserves, no more, no less, and his peers in a courtroom get to decide that.
Giganticus
Member
the holster a service pistol is kept in is very hard and clumsy to open, that's the safety. a police officer is only meant to take out their pistol if they might have to use it.LAUGHTREY said:
that's basically it. for this officer to even take the gun out of the holster would normally mean that he intends to shoot it. officers aren't meant to wave guns as a threat.
also, about involuntary manslaughter charges etc. the prosecution will simply point out
a) he intended to use unreasonable force.
b) he was most likely taught proper gun safety, trigger discipline etc. and the lethality of the weapon.
c) he was most likely taught the difference between a taser and a gun and if he has any history of using his taser then they'll point out he knows where it is. (in this case, based on pictures, he was wearing a taser but it's on the other side of his body ie. the left. gun and taser are as far apart as possible.)
d) he was most likely taught the relative lethality of shots in the torso compared to say, the limbs, which were just as easily shootable in this situation.
.'. he knew or should've known that the gunshot to the torso would have likely killed or mortally wounded the suspect
Solideliquid
Member
Seems like he tried to run and got caught in Nevada.
TheKingsCrown
Banned
Yeah I just read this. This looks more and more like something incredibly sketchy. thank god it was captured on videoSolideliquid said:
TheHeretic said:
Very true. Perhaps I could have phrased that better. The punishment ought to be harsh (though still reasonable) because this is not an area where we can have people being careless. There needs to be a serious punishment for accidentally shooting and killing someone when it could be so easily prevented. Carelessness is not an excuse when a human life is on the line.
For that matter we shouldn't be equally careless with his.
TheKingsCrown said:
As long as everyone is taping everyone else, justice will be done.
I did read (and they have a bit of a point, but really) that the police were upset about the video footage being out there due to the claim that it would pollute people's memories of the event. I can see where they're coming from and there is certainly a flaw in placing too much absolute trust in the video. At the same time there are something like three videos out there all from different angles. It's much, much better to have video than have to just rely on notoriously unreliable eyewitness accounts. It also prevents it from being easily hushed up with an internal investigation.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Tamanon said:
Yup and discredits those bullshit "police reports" that they would try to file without them.
Bumblebeetuna
Banned
Manslaughter is cool with me, fits the situation much better than the life in prison murder charge some people want :lol
Don't see how they can charge him with voluntary manslaughter though as that still implies intent to kill or seriously injure.
Don't see how they can charge him with voluntary manslaughter though as that still implies intent to kill or seriously injure.
Combine said:
You don't need motive to convict someone of murder, at least not in California. Also, as far as I know manslaughter is a lesser included offense to murder, so you can be convicted of manslaughter when charged with murder
Giganticus
Member
you don't need motive if you have direct evidence like this.Combine said:
motive is technically circumstantial evidence; the point of most trials is to collect a large amount of circumstantial evidence that basically makes the crime undeniable. such as you were at the murder scene at the time, you had a reason to kill them, you lied to the police about your whereabouts, you have strange injuries indicative of a struggle etc. this is usually due to the fact that direct evidence of the person killing the victim is extremely rare.
is this case, there are multiple camera angles showing the death of the victim. so, the question doesn't become "did he do it" but "why did he do it". "all" the prosecution needs to prove is that he intended to kill or seriously harm the victim.
DataStream
Member
Actually, I believe here in CA if you can prove the actions constitute a gross neglect for the fragility of life then you can go for 2nd degree murder.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
Boogie said:Absolutely I can tell you that. The service firearm of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (S&W 5946, I think it's also the service firearm of the NYPD), the largest police force in Canada, does not have a safety. Many other forces use firearms without safeties as well.
Oh, but it's not without ANY sort of safety mechanism. There are safety features, such as not firing when the magazine is removed. I'm just talking about external safety switches.
The point of a safety in a police firearm would be to get the police officer killed because he had to fuck around to turn off the safety in the event, God forbid, that he is facing a lethal threat and has to respond in a split-second.
In my mind, a safety is just another split-second delay in a police officer's reaction time if he ever has to use lethal force.
A competant officer should have no need for a safety. When the gun is in its holster, it's not going to go off. And when the gun is drawn from its holster, well, its because you might have to shoot someone, and a safety only impedes that objective.
Thanks!
I'm certainly not here to make excuses for this officer, I'm just trying to clear up any ignorance about the police and offer some perspective from "the inside".
Safer than shooting the suspects? Yup.
hey you made cop? congrats man!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/14/BART.shooting.arrest/index.html
He's charged with murder. I'm sure he can plead down w/o much resistance..
He's charged with murder. I'm sure he can plead down w/o much resistance..
TheKingsCrown
Banned
I'd imagine it would be difficult to prove murder here no?
WickedAngel
Banned
Flo_Evans said:
That's sort of what I was thinking.
The fugitive aspect of it seems like it would damage any argument for innocence, though.
Tamanon said:
At the same time the seeming objectivity of cameras can be problematic on its own. They don't always show everything perfectly, but people treat them like they are infallible. I think it's great that we have so much video of this, don't get me wrong, but there is a bit of a point to be wrung from this. I'm just saying that we can't rely on them completely.
Ideally the balance of justice is not favor of people, but in favor of the objective truth as much as possible.
Giganticus said:
Yeah, that's my understanding as well. Based on the last time I read Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets motive is almost never a consideration of the police and hard evidence is almost unheard of. Most murder trials tend to work because the police have enough circumstantial evidence that they can bring it to bear on the suspect during questioning and convince them to confess. Most of the rest end up going into a plea-bargain or working out a deal based on providing other information. Very few ever go to open court and of those there are not a lot of convictions. Many times the DA will also try to charge on a lesser sentence because they feel they can get a conviction for it. That, to me, is a bigger problem. We need to be charging people with the crime they committed, not a lesser sentence because it's easier or a greater sentence because we feel they need to be punished more.
DataStream said:
I read that on Wikipedia too.
--
Charging murder, even second-degree, is a bit crazy. This seems to be a clear-cut case of manslaughter. The degree of that, of course, is the tricky issue. Quite simply I cannot believe that this was a murder in any sort of first or second-degree manner. In front of two other officers, the other people being arrested, and a trainload of bystanders you don't just stand up and shoot someone in the back. Nobody is that stupid.
I don't think he intended to kill him, but he is most definitely responsible for killing him and should be held accountable for acting in a manner that directly and preventably led to his death.
DataStream
Member
Belgand said:
It seems like a hard case to prove indeed.
I can only assume that the interviews conducted with other officers must have had some impact on the charge.
The other option is that they are trying to appease an angry community, but the possibility of a botched case due to going for a harder charge is a bigger risk than I would take personally.
StopMakingSense
Member
Belgand said:
Maybe its more for the purpose of a plea negotiation. Obviously whatever there is he will want to plea, given all the video, etc., maybe the DA just doesn't want to start at too low of ceiling for negotiation.
(for example they start at 20 years (or whatever 2nd Deg murder is) and talk it down to 10 years, as opposed to starting at 10 years and talking it down to 3-5)
Not an expert, just seems possible.
Agreed - at this point trying to go for a bigger case to appease an angry community is stupid especially seeing how this case is very likely a casualty caused by the officer's negligence in duty, which is pretty much manslaughter.DataStream said:
I don't think there was anything pre-meditated in that video that showed that the officer was trying to kill/murder the guy other than using the really really wrong type of force.
Bumblebeetuna
Banned
WickedAngel said:
I haven't read anything about a fugitive aspect. All the articles I have read say he was in Nevada or somewhere and when his lawyer told him the prosecutors had issued a warrant for his arrest, he peacefully turned himself in to the local sherrif's office.
LOL @ 2nd degree murder. Good luck proving that :lol
He'll walk if that charge remains. Hopefully they want him to plea down from that.
- Status