Oscar Grant Murdered by Oakland Police Officer (shortened video to moment of slaying) BART Shooting

[Divine Discontent]

Run time: 00:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXAETrZghn0   Posted on YouTube: January 05, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 05, 2009 By DU Member: Divine Discontent Views on DU: 9179

 
!!!

[Shardik]

1. That pretty much says it all.

Damn.

[mecherosegarden]

2. OMG!

That is terrible.

[mt13]

3. he plainly shot him in the back.

this is disgusting.

[peace13]

4. Did that *ss think he was reaching for his handy dandy taser?

Why in the world would he shoot a man when there were so many witnesses? this is insanity.

[NM Independent]

5. He didn't anticipate a video...

which is the ONLY reason he will do time for it. Better do time, anyway.

[peace13]

6. Hope to *ell this cop is not an Iraq vet.

This scene is played over and over around the world. It comes home to roost. With all of these phone cameras the cops are going to have to change their ways!

[sasquatch]

7. Isn't California a death penalty state

Maybe he needs to go to the gas chamber so this stuff will stop happening.

[grahamhgreen]

15. Death penalty is not a deterrent, in fact it's why we are such a brutal country

[bertman]

22. ". . ., in fact it's why we are such a brutal country."

That has to be the absolute stupidest thing I have read in a LONG time. And that's sayin' something.

[grahamhgreen]

42. Wow, what a cogent, concise, and intelligent rebuttal! Thank you for your comment.

[keepCAblue]

8. BART Police, not the Oakland Police

Oakland PD was not involved in this shooting. It was the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) police.

[mythyc]

36. that's right. BART police are their own entity out here, and

and are the scariest ones in the whole Bay Area. I've lived in SF, Oakland, and Berkeley and in all three of those cities the cops are actually pretty decent on the whole (not at all my experience in other parts of the country), but BART cops, virtually every one of them that I've encountered has this attitude that gives you stress being anywhere reomtely around them.

[proud progressive]

9. for all you cop-worshipers, not to worry. cops, investigators, d.a., judges all on the same side

cop feels threatened...he blows you away. no problemo!

[Piewhacket]

12. People here in the Bay Area are pissed, make no mistake.

I live in the California Bay Area where this occurred, and ride BART from time to time.
Some folks here in DU may not know this, but BART police have exactly the same police authority
as city police officers and deputy sheriffs. They ARE police officers, not some kind of
rent-a-cop. In the video these are police officers, presumably fully trained.

Now I don't like it, I never have liked it, but accept the necessity of police security rather
rent-a-cop security for BART. Its a matter of training and accountability. That said I knew,
as did everyone else, that the day we armed BART officers and made them policemen was the
day we also knew this would someday happen.

Police have urged "patience". BART Police Chief Gary Gee has said he is "committed to
completing an unbiased, thorough and detailed investigation" of the shooting death of Oscar Grant.

The family's attorney John Burris has said that this was not a deadly force situation and
that the shooting was intentional, that Grant posed no threat to officers when the officer
leaned in and straddled over Grant, pointed his gun directly into his backside and shot a bullet
that entered Grant's back and ricocheted to his lung area, killing him almost instantly. Grant's
corpse was thereafter handcuffed, according to the attorney.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11370583

Now we all know that sometimes a police shooting is justified, but that sometimes it is NOT.
We sort that out by orderly investigation. Many people see a conflict in fact that the very
agency who will be charged with the claim of misconduct is in charge of the investigation.
Too often such investigations have been cover-ups.

It is for this reason that an investigatory agency headed by civilian board should be
created in California to pursue these matters, and that safeguards be placed to assure that
agency does not become an instrumentality of the executive authority, but remain accountable
to the people of the state.

Likewise, a conflict is perceived in the local district attorney being in charge of
prosecuting such crimes, as DA's must rely symbiotically for the prosecution of
ordinary crime on police departments who they are now charged with prosecuting.
For that reason a (assistant) State's attorney general should have principle jurisdiction,
and funding, for reviewing and prosecuting these cases.

Finally, judges are very often elected from the DA's office, which in ordinary crime cases
may be sensible but in THESE CASES and some thought must be given to the degree to which
such relationship biases the fair prosecution of police cases.

The system of holding police accountable for misconduct is broken beyond a doubt, in
California and elsewhere, and so is (for different reasons) the criminal justice system.
While overreaction is not necessarily desirable, after all law and order has its place,
sometimes the problem has become so distorted and entrenched that an overwhelming
reaction is needed.

It begins to look like we have finally arrived at that point. The day of "law and order
at any cost", police state, state of constant "war on" people insanity
MUST END sometime. How about NOW?

[proud progressive]

21. well said, amigo

as a father-in-law of 3 cops (1chp, 1city, 1 fed) i hear and feel both sides. most cops are good people who do good work - thank goodness for them. the few who are not, should be prosecuted and not be protected by the 'system', which is exactly what usually happens.

[Piewhacket]

39. Thank you.

Law enforcement is a necessary part of any society which has
rule of law, and such service is a high responsibility and honor.

I know you are aware that many problems go beyond individual
officers and have their origin in policies and procedures, written
and unwritten, which are problematic, contoversial, unnecessary,
overaggressive, and flatly and blatantly illegal. There are also
bad laws which are abusive or invite abuse, and sure enough they
are abused.

In particular, as I explained previously, the state of the law
for holding officers and their superiors accountable
for illegal conduct is in such a state of dysfunction that it is not
at all worthy of the men and women who seek to give honest and honorable
public service as officers.

Thus, as an example, we see that a guard who abuses a prisoner is a criminal, but if
the system protects him then the system itself is corrupt. If the system is
corrupt a guard may be commanded to participate in abuse, and accede to it and thereby
becomes tainted and degraded, thereafter perhaps concluding it all proper and
thus losing his way. An uncorrected cycle of misconduct is created.

The cycle must be brought to an end, even if it is a bad end. This is no
disrespect to officers honorably serving. It is a correction to the system.
Let it begin.

[BrightKnight]

10. murder - n/t

[JDPriestly]

11. It will be hard to argue that the officer felt threatened.

He felt secure enough to stand and had the time to think about what he was doing. They will probably try to get a favorable jury by changing venue, but that may be difficult in the San Francisco, Oakland area.

[deathrind]

13. Wow

This is murder, plain and simple, a man held down by others while being shot in the back. Everyone of those cops should be charged not just the cop that shot also. If I agree to drive the car for a hold up and the one inside kills someone, I get charged with murder as well nothing different here. Amazing and cops wonder why people don't like them so much.

[avaistheone1]

14. Wow! That poor man was executed for no reason at all.

That BART officer should be put away forever. What a sick dude.

[keepCAblue]

16. I really wish you'd change your subject line...It was NOT the Oakland Police

It was a BART police officer. The two are completely separate departments.

[Arugula Latte]

17. WTF?!

:wow:

[Divine Discontent]

18. really...

most stations show the poor video from the opposite side with the lady being interviewed that shot it, this one that shows him being shot is far more disturbing - to even see this on VIDEO was horrendous - he was on his belly, and the guy stands up and kills him like a mob murder!

[wroberts189]

28. cold blooded redrum. nt

[SpookyCat]

19. Fuck. I heard witnesses say that is how it happened,

but there it is.

One witness said he heard the victim say, don't shoot me, I have a daughter. That cop better go down, and hard. There is no gray area I can see on this one, none at all. If - IF - the victim was struggling, there were what, 4, 5 cops right there? 4 or 5 cops couldn't restrain him? Bullshit.

This makes me sick. Right in my backyard.

And the letters on SF GAte? Who are these people? WTF are they doing in the BAy ARea? When did my home become freeperville?


Peace to his family and friends, and his little daughter.

[Divine Discontent]

20. not sure if it matters, but

as I have learned, this is "BART" cops (transit) and not Oakland police dept, but they ARE cops then, and my GOD in heaven, this could have happened to ANY OF US, to imagine laying on my stomach and a COP shoots me from above, how horrible - the cop needs put in prison for life once the jury sees the evidence and the cop has his say (I cannot see how what he did as anything other than murder).

[SpookyCat]

24. It doesn't help, but thank you for trying.

Cold blooded murder is correct. It just makes me sick. Yes, it could happen to any of us, even if we cooperate, apparently.

Many times I feel bad for a cop if he "has" to shoot someone, but not this time.

I find it disgusting too, that we are learning ALL about the victim, incl. that he had "prior issues", but they won't release the cops name for privacy? Why tell us this guy had a record? WTF does that have to do with anything? (I know I know...rhetorical question...)

[Seldona]

30. It helps a whole lot. We don't need this precedent set.

This was an execution imo. It is made worse by the fact that the people involved are sworn to uphold the law. If this police officer walks, we could all subject to this at any given time.

Personally I don't care if he called them every name in the book and decked a couple of them. That does NOT warrant on the spot execution after he was in custody. Nothing does imo.

[SpookyCat]

31. I'm not 100% clear what you read in my post...

What I meant by "it doesn't help" was that the offereing that this was BART cops, not Oakland cops...what I meant was I don't care what flavor of cop it was, it was a horrible thing to happen anywhere, but specifically in my backyard.

I'm not sure what I said to make you think I'm on the cops side here, but let me be very clear..

This was cold blooded murder and the cop should do hard time.

I'm on your side dude/dudette...

[keepCAblue]

33. Duh. .. it matters in terms of accuracy. If people want to get angry...

...write letters, make phone calls, then it matters WHO they direct that anger and action AT. It also matters from a liability perspective, in that if DU admin continue to allow false allegations against an agency, they could be subject to a libel suit.

[SpookyCat]

37. ...sigh...

I didn't say it didn't Matter...I said it didn't Help...those are two different words...sound them out! :hi:

When I saw this my heart was hurting...this is my home. My point was in terms of the pain, knowing it was BART cops not Oakland cops didn't help.

The "Duh" there was really uncalled for puppy.

[bertman]

23. This is the first I have seen or heard of this, so someone please fill me in on what

transpired. Why was Oscar Grant being arrested?

I couldn't see it well enough to see what the victim was doing, other than laying on his belly surrounded by cops.

What the fuck could he have done to provoke the imbecile to shoot him when there are four or five cops on top of him?

[SpookyCat]

25. Here's the article

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/04/BA0R153LGU.DTL&tsp=1

In the archives of SFGate, they will have the unfolding story as well.

In a nutshell, there was a fight on a BART train, the train was stopped in Fruitvale station, and the two groups were arrested or detained, I think IIRC some got away, not 100% sure about that.

Anyway, this guy from what I was told was NOT resisting in any way, begged the cop not to shoot him, was down on the ground on his FACE when that cop..well you can see.

This has all unfolded really fast, but I think that's the basic facts.

[valerief]

27. Holy shit. No one deserves that. Well, no one outside BushCo. nt

[bertman]

29. Thanks, SpookyCat. And therein lies the cop's alibi: Well, I thought I was gonna tase him.

He's lucky the ricochet didn't hit one of the other cops. That fucker just lost his mind--for some reason.

Now he needs to lose his freedom for a long, long time.

[Swagman]

26. badly trained police are everywhere. Hold their bosses to account

[provis99]

48. why do you assume this happened because of bad training?

Looks to me like the cop just cold-bloodedly murdered the guy.

[grahampuba]

32. As soon as that officer was issued that gun,

he takes responsibility for anything that happens as a result of its existence. Whether he was reaching for a taser or did not mean to fire, he did and he should face the charges. Another interesting note, if anyone watched the breakdown of the cell phone vid with the girl that took it, she mentioned that another officer tried to take her phone from her after the car doors had closed. Its a tragedy and my heart goes out to all involved.

[Jefferson23]

34. Incredible and disgustingly so.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

35. Considering that he shot him in the lower back,

I bet he meant to taze him but grabbed his pistol by mistake. I'd be interested to know if his pistol has a double action trigger pull for the first shot and if it has a manual safety or not. It may be that he actually meant to draw his pistol and had a negligent discharge. Wouldn't be the first time...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VNB7Z40w00

[Fedja]

38. If I shoot a cop like that

it won't be accidental, negligent discharge, or any other bullshit like that. I even have an excuse, I'm not trained to handle weapons. He should be tried as a civillian would be.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

43. I never said he shouldn't be tried as a civilian.

AFAIK, cops ARE civilians. Saying it may have been an ND is not making an excuse for the shooter. It is trying to figure out what happened.

[Fedja]

47. well..

The tazers are worn on the opposite hip from the gun. They're also specifically designed to make sure you can't mistake it for a gun.

It's like trying to pin down the reason for road rage, he simply snapped and did something he had no control over. Whether he thought it was another device or not, he was not in control of his actions that second (as he didn't even follow tazing protocol and warn other officers to stand back).

[Brucie Kibbutz]

49. You said I was making excuses for the cop,

which is entirely false.

[Fedja]

55. I did?

Citation needed.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

57. my mistake

Had your post mixed up with someone else. Sorry about that.

[Piewhacket]

40. Mistake? You are describing gross negligence.

That is to say, criminal negligence.
And that is the most generous thing that can be said for it.
But I have no doubt his lawyer would argue it.

Yet could he have been reaching for his tazer? Really?
Where is the tazer kept on the belt?
Is it next to the firearm? What insane lunatic would put it there?
Wouldn't that be criminal negligence all by itself?

And why is he reaching for his tazer anyway in this circumstance?
It may be the best defense but its a bit problematic, don't you think?
You weren't anticipating him testifying, were you? Surely not.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

44. once again

I'm not making excuses for anybody.

[Piewhacket]

46. OK, we're cool. Just responding to your comment

Brucie Kibbutz sez:
I bet he meant to taze him but grabbed his pistol by mistake. I'd be interested to know if his pistol has a double action trigger pull for the first shot and if it has a manual safety or not. It may be that he actually meant to draw his pistol and had a negligent discharge. Wouldn't be the first time...

where you provocatively likened matters to a "mistake" and "negligent discharge".
Some other folks might think the officer plain lost his cool. Wouldn't be the first time...

I wasn't suggesting you were defending anyone or anything, though, and if I did it
was not so intended. I was merely suggesting the scenerio you painted would be CLEARLY
and radically more serious than negligence, and that such a defense would have various problems.

Nonetheless tempers are running a little high, folks are touchy, the officer
is now in "protective custody" because of death threats, a $25 million claim has been filed, and
that looks pretty meritorious to me, we all have seen that video, so this is going to be expensive
to the BART ratepayers, ie me, and I'm sitting here wondering if other officers should face serious
charges too, and to cap it off instead of balanced reporting the local channels are doing the
"law enforcement coverup tango" , and it is going down badly. All we need now for a riot is some
halfwit to suggest the victim was asking for it.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

50. OK

[Brucie Kibbutz]

51. So...

... were supposed to assume it was a cold blooded execution in front of an entire group of witnesses? I think that would be much more difficult to prove than an ND.

It may very well be the case, but I have a feeling that if he intended to shoot, he would have fired more than once and he wouldn't have immediately re holstered the weapon and stood around with his arms out as if to say, "WTF?"

[Piewhacket]

52. So...

we are supposed to assume it was an accident, a harmless mistake? A "WTF?" deal?

My own feeling is an officer who stands his prisoner wobbling on the edge of a tall building,
then turns away to answer his cellphone as his prisoner plunges to his death
is NOT going to overly impress a either a prosecutor or jury (or me) with a "WTF?" defense.

But whether the officer intended the prisoner to plunge to his death, or merely didn't
give a F* about the grave peril he created is fairly something that should be put before
a jury.

And whatever the outcome, citizens are not required to permit such a man to wear a badge,
for reckless disregard for the value of human life is no standard for a police officer.
And those who hired, trained, and supervised this officer should also be examined,
whether they implicitly or explicitly condoned the officer to conduct himself
improperly, or aided and abetted illegal conduct.

In THIS case of the police shooting of Oscar Grant on New Years day 2009 we have gone
beyond debate of some questions. This is no negligent discharge case, it is a homicide.
There is no doubt the officer shot and killed a man in custody. The video demonstrates,
beyond any doubt, the officer deliberately pulled his weapon with the intention of using it on
the prisoner, jerked on it twice to get it out of its holster, deliberately pointed it at the prisoner
and fired, killing him. There is no question of a deliberate and willful act, or of the proof of it.
ND? Hardly. There is ample here for a charge up to willful murder.

Yet you have raised the question, WTF was the officer thinking????
Indeed, your point is well made. Do you suppose the officer will testify about what
he was thinking? Because I can think of some questions he should be asked.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

56. When did I ever say it wasn't homicide?

Just because he pulled his gun doesn't mean he intended to fire it. Cops draw on suspects all the time and far more often than not, they put the gun back in their holster without firing. So the fact that the video shows he did indeed draw his pistol and fire doesn't necessarily mean he intended to shoot.

Here is yet another video of a cop who pulled the trigger by accident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PYHR72u51Q
Obviously the gun went off so he must have meant to shoot himself, right? I mean, we all saw the video. Using your logic, he must have been trying to commit suicide in front of a classroom full of kids because there is no way a trigger ever gets pulled by accident.

Now, you can say all day long that you know for sure he shot the guy on purpose but you don't know any more than I do about what his intentions were.

Another thing is that you keep acting like the term "negligent discharge" is an attempt on my part to absolve him of any responsibility in this. It absolutely does not and it may very well be exactly what happened. If so, it would mean that he is still criminally responsible for his actions but didn't meant to shoot the guy. It's not a get out of jail free card.

[Piewhacket]

62. so when did you say it was homicide?

Oscar Grant's funeral was today. The 27 yo officer (Johannes Mehserle), presumably acting
on advice of counsel, has resigned rather than submit to questioning. BART is not
answering questions. A riot at the BART has occurred. 50 civic leaders met with the
Alameda DA to demand filing of charges. Press was excluded.
Things are not going well.

No officer should draw and point a weapon at anyone without legal cause. Period.
If he has cause and points his weapon he better be very damn careful with it.
Here there was no apparent legal cause to draw or point any weapon, whether tazer or gun.
Yet in the video Officer Mehserle, without apparent cause, pulls out his pistol,
jerking on it twice to get it out of its holster, then without apparent cause
he deliberately points it and fires, killing his subdued prisoner.

Now you can say all day long that Mehserle didn't intend to fire his pistol,
but that seems completely refuted by the evidence. He drew his weapon. WHY?
He pointed his weapon. WHY? Is he mental. He unlocked the safety. Sweet Jesus
what the fuck is he going to do next, shoot? YES. Exactly what he did.
Not intentional? What do you think intentional means?

You make appeal that we don't "actually know" what was in the officer's mind, but so what,
we didn't "actually see" the bullet come out of the gun either. The law does not require
these things. That the bullet actually came from the gun is inferred from evidence.
That the defendant acted with requisite malice is inferred from the evidence. Nothing
requires that we "actually know" what is in the mind of the officer.

Personally I don't care what was in his mind. I'll never know. A jury will decide it,
but they won't know either. They will look at the video and the other evidence and decide.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

63. Evidently, it does matter.

His exact intentions seem to be a key issue for some people:

"Three videos made public so far show Grant's final moments from multiple angles in a way that could help investigators, attorneys and use-of-force experts determine whether the shooting was accidental, intentional or inexplicable."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MNOV154P0R.DTL

I guess maybe they want to be 100% sure before they nail him to the cross.

[Piewhacket]

64. What matters depends on what matters

here we have a homicide and no serious question of self defense.
the action of drawing the weapon and pointing it at Grant does
not appear supported by legal cause , and it appears recklessly done.
These indicate an unlawful killing whether or not there was also
unlawful intent.

Criminal homicide in California is :
1. first degree murder
2. second degree murder
3. voluntary manslaughter
4. involuntary manslaughter
5. vehicular manslaughter

when an unlawful killing is done with malice aforethought (malice) it is murder,
otherwise it is manslaughter. here it appears any of 1-4 could be charged in this case.

yet despite this the officer wasn't promptly interviewed, arrested, nor tested
for drugs or alcohol. someone at BART needs to have their head handed to them
on a plate, don't you think?

[Brucie Kibbutz]

69. Yeah, I'd say it was reckless.

Not once have I said he shouldn't be charged. I only left open the possibility that the shot itself was unintended. I never said he should not be prosecuted and I never said the guy deserved to be shot. I sure as hell never said it was self defense.

This conversation started with you completely misunderstanding my comments:

"He should be tried as a civillian would be."

This was my response:

"AFAIK, cops ARE civilians. Saying it may have been an ND is not making an excuse for the shooter. It is trying to figure out what happened."

Despite clarifying my position, you are still carrying on as if I'm saying the cop is innocent.

I'll say it one last time: I AM NOT SAYING HE SHOULDN'T BE CHARGED. I'M NOT SAYING HE IS INNOCENT. I AM ONLY SAYING I THINK THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT HE PULLED THE TRIGGER BY ACCIDENT.

That's at least the third time in this thread I've tried to make that clear to you and you are still pretending that I'm saying there is a possibility the shooting was justified.

Since you are only interested in distorting what I've said, I'm going to leave you to your "courtroom".

[Piewhacket]

70. or maybe intentional..

I'm sorry you think I've been distorting what you have said. Actually, no offense, but
the things you are claiming I'm doing I'm not actually doing, you are doing them.
But I'm not complaining, merely explaining.

Here you claim I misunderstood your comment, then quoted a comment
you made that I didn't reply to. Actually I replied to your post #35
in this thread.

Here above, you complain that you are not saying something... as though I was
claiming you were saying it. That could be regarded as false attribution, an abusive
argument style. I pay attention to my posts and haven't claimed you
said things you didn't say. But I'm not complaining, merely explaining.

In #35 you made cogent points, raised some good questions,
and got my response (#40) with an alternative view. What's wrong with that?
Discussion and debate is a skill like any other. But these skills are
not idle, they are used to help us examine our views, to test them against
others, to help us move through a complex world. It isn't a "battle of wits"
or about the theater of "winning", lets save that for debating the
whack-wings on the stupid channel, shall we? Here in DU lets keep it about
communicating, examining, and understanding. It can be a little heated,
however, no problem, that spices it up a bit, we sometimes need that.
We just won't forget what its about.

Now I appreciate engaging you on this thread, you have skill and make
intelligent points. We have discussed that an "unfortunate accident" would
legally excuse the officer, but appreciate that this defense is, and needs to be,
very limited in the context of a homicide. Society demands accountability for a
killing, unless in the unusual case the homicide is justified or excused.

In the BART shooting you have raised points about the intent of the officer.
I have explained how I think that fits in, and how the facts as we know them
actually refute defenses to this homicide. At present there appears ample probable
cause to charge the officer, and no apparent good defense, and if so
he should face charges.

What is unfortunate is that both BART and society at large bears some significant
blame for setting up this tragedy which has killed one man, destroyed another,
and has devastated many others including Grant's family. WE NEED TO FIX THE
PROBLEM by examining and adjusting how law enforcement works. We can't do that if
we don't talk about it.

So thanks for the discussion. It was worth the doing.

[Raineyb]

41. Mistake? No shooting in this situation was a mistake

Why the hell would the man need to be tazed? He was already on the ground and subdued. This is a sadist who happens to wear a uniform who needs to be locked up. There is no excuse for what happened. This is straight up murder.

Regards

[Brucie Kibbutz]

45. I never said anybody needed to be tazed.

Never tried to make excuses for the cop.

[smiley]

54. no reason to draw a gun or a taser on the victim

This man has already been detained and under control. end of story. Even if he didn't mean to discharge his weapon, this is still cold blooded murder

[Brucie Kibbutz]

58. You contradict yourself.

"Even if he didn't mean to discharge his weapon, this is still cold blooded murder."

If he didn't mean to shoot, then it's not murder. Either way, he alone is to blame for the unlawful killing of the suspect. Whether it was murder or manslaughter has yet to decided.

[smiley]

67. just semantics

manslaughter - as you wish.

Either way he should be sitting in jail until it is decided. If the table were turned and a cop had been accidentally shot, you can bet the alleged shooter would be sitting in jail while they figured out the facts of the case.

[jacksmind]

53. Ok I'll play devils advocate

The first thing I said was, "I can't see any reason what-so-ever that would EVER justify this". But IF he did make a mistake--say you were in that position, such an intense moment, and thought you were grabbing your tazer, but you didn't. If it was a mistake, yes it was horrible, and yes maybe he shouldn't even have tazered, and yes hes was poorly trained, and yes maybe he was overzealous, and yes maybe he had some vindictive steak in him, and yes he should probably be severely punished (life in prison?). But IF it was a mistake, how could you not feel a little sympathy for someone who makes the biggest mistake that you could ever possibly make. But in reading the comments, I am astounded by (and pity) the people here that are out for blood for something in one sense wasn't his fault (mmens rea v.s. actus rectus).

All this assumes it was a mistake, and god I hope it was--for so many reasons.

[Wizard777]

59. I'm seeing it as express malice aforethought v implied malice aforethought.

It could go either way. He's some more latin for you. Exteriora acta indicant interiora animi secreta. Basically it is a universal rule, that a man shall be taken to intend that which he does, or which is the necessary and immediate consequence of his act. This goes toward intent. The officer intended to fire a weapon at him. So nevermind what he was thinking. It's about what he actually did. That was draw his weapon, aim it(opportunity to notice he has his gun and not the Taser), and pulled the trigger. He's also gonna have problems with the reasonable person test. Out of all te officers there. He was the only one that felt the need to draw a weapon of any kind. So either he was acting reasonably and all the other officers were being reckless. He was being reckless and all the other officers were being reasonable. The absolute very least I can see him being charged with is involuntary manslaughter. But I would call it implied malice aforethought and go with murder.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

61. Never mind what he was thinking?

Evidently what he was thinking is a key issue for some people:

"Three videos made public so far show Grant's final moments from multiple angles in a way that could help investigators, attorneys and use-of-force experts determine whether the shooting was accidental, intentional or inexplicable."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MNOV154P0R.DTL


Prosecutors considered intent in deciding whether to prosecute in this case:

They had the suspect handcuffed and in the patrol car. Officer said she meant to taze him instead of shoot him.

"Several cases have been documented of police officers in the United States accidentally shooting people with handguns when they intended to use Tasers, including a 2002 case in which a Madera (Fresno County) police officer shot and killed a 24-year-old man. The officer was not charged criminally; a civil case brought by the dead man's family is still pending."

http://www.maderatribune.com/news/newsview.asp?c=56821

“In a 1,100-page report, District Attorney Ernest LiCalsi told Madera Police Chief Kime ... (the DA’s office) would not be filing charges against Marcie Noriega,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Wyatt read from a prepared statement during a press conference Friday afternoon.

Wyatt explained that without the intent of criminal negligence, criminal charges against Noriega could not be sustained.

“The required aggravation ... did not occur in this case,” he said.

[Wizard777]

65. He intended to discharge a weapon. Be it taser or gun, The intent is clear.

When you consider that the man wasn't resisting at the time. Even the use of a Taser would have been excessive force. The officer intended to assault the man and killed him instead. Even accidentally, it's still implied malice aforethought and murder. There is still no conclusive proof that the Officer was carrying a Taser to confuse with his weapon. At this point that is nothing more than supposition in hearsay.

[Wizard777]

66. I got your mens rea right here.

The officer did indeed have a taser. He was wearing it on the front of his belt faced away from his gun hand to prevent confusion. So I don't want to hear about the taser anymore. Exteriora acta indicant interiora animi secreta applies. He's done exactly what he intended to do. In firing his weapon downward with concrete beyond his target in close quarters with his fellow officers. Ricochet is highly likely in a miss or exit. That did indeed happen. The bullet passed through Mr. Grant, ricocheted off the concrete, and reentered Mr. Grant. If Mr. Grants body did not stop that bullet. The next person likely to be stuck by that bullet was the officer holding Mr. Grants head down. The officer has an legal obligation to take his target and anything beyond it into consideration before firing his weapon. His failure to do this (actus reus)demonstrates an indifference to human life (mens rea). Not only the life of Mr. Grant. But also the life and safety of his fellow officers. In this case the actus reus + mens rea = Murder.

They will never prove what in his mind at the time of the shooting. The physical evidence indicates this was no accident. You're going to have even more problem on the resonable person test. His actions shocked the other officers.

[Wizard777]

60. I'm hearing the officer has resigned.

[Divine Discontent]

72. kinda figured what was best for him, eh?

he wouldn't have lasted long at the BART stations after having shot and killed a man in cold blood, so I guess it's a wise choice by him - too bad he didn't make a wise choice on the 1st...

[JNelson6563]

68. Words fail.

Stunned beyond words.

[wundermaus]

71. I don't know how much more it could be cold blooded murder

I don't believe in capital punishment but that is a perfect example of an exception if I ever saw one. What a shame that young man's life was taken from him... horrible.

[Caution]

73. Just saw the footage of this on CNN while out to lunch. Nearly vomited as a result

That was cold-blooded murder, plain and simple. The police officer who took the shot should be tried and at a minimum the other officer who stood there and watched him do it should be tried as an accessory. One of the most sickening things I have ever seen.