Johannes Mehserle and the killing of Oscar Grant - When will he apologize in tears for the wrongful

[Divine Discontent]

Run time: 00:54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNWw0jTMPy4   Posted on YouTube: January 09, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 09, 2009 By DU Member: Divine Discontent Views on DU: 2085

 
A skilled cop would know you just do what you need to do and physically maneuver around the young man and search as needed, he's cuffed without drawing a deadly weapon - what kind of threat could he pose to elicit the gun being taken out and its safety being turned off (correct?) to begin with!?

This is at the least involuntary manslaughter and demands some time be served, right? Wouldn't any of us be in jail from moments after the shooting and killing of a cop (or not even a cop!) - why is this guy free?

I guess the other cop standing there didn't see this as a crime of negligence like most people do? Some call it murder, in some ways it certainly is b/c I don't understand why the gun would be drawn when he's cuffed, and aimed at him - regardless if he meant to (take it off safety) and pull the trigger!

[proud progressive]

1. to answer your question - we will never learn, never!

this had to be a mistake by the cop, but he will do time.

[Divine Discontent]

2. ty

I agree, as soon as one generation dies off, another new ignorant one is born!

thanks for your thoughts on the case, too.

[rhett o rick]

3. Regardless of what the victim did, the cop drew his weapon, stepped back, aimed and shot.

It wasn't a reaction. It was deliberate.

[HPD]

5. All this is front of a train load of people??

It doesn't add up. They could try to confiscate cameras. But that doesn't mean they intended to kill a man. It could mean they want to cover up a mistake.

Either way, the officer should be charged with something and serve time in prison.

[BREMPRO]

18. looking at the vid, my impression was that the cop was surprised his weapon went off

not to justify his actions, but to me looks like he trying to pull his weapon to hold it on him and for whatever reason, adrealine, confusion, he accidently pulled the trigger. Look at his reaction right after the gun goes off, he looks at the gun and seems befuddled. he looks like a young cop, a rookie or one that couln't make the regular force so he's demoted to the transit cop. NO cop should be issued a gun without years of training and experience with conflict resolution. I'm also disturbed by the other cops seeming to be indifferent to what just happened, and drag him around instead of immediately seeking medical assistance without moving him.

[1monster]

4. To pile insult on grievous injury, the BART cops immediately tried to

confiscate all videos of the shooting and kept quiet about it until videos started showing up on news casts and on YouTube.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. They are required to gather all available evidence.

I'll grant, it would have kept these videos from being available to us at this stage of the investigation, but it's a requirement. They must do it. There's not necessarily any ominous overtones to it.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

6. BART issue weapons do not have a manual safety. (apparently)

This video gives a pretty good demonstration:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=6590193

Whether he did it on purpose or not, I can't think of any excuse for the fact that he hasn't been arrested yet.

[nyc 4 Biden]

7. If it was a Glock then

there was no safety.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

9. AFAIK,

The officer was issued a SIG. DA/SA or DAO - no safety.

[rhett o rick]

10. Why do they sell guns without safetys?? nm

[Brucie Kibbutz]

13. The idea is

that it simplifies the procedure of drawing and firing. It's one less thing an officer would have to do if they need to fire their gun quickly.

It's really not that uncommon. For a long time, cops carried double action revolvers. The thinking is that the heavier double action trigger pull negates the need for a manual safety lever.

Glocks are probably used by more departments than any other brand. They are also double action only, no safety.

[rhett o rick]

8. What is this with "a safety". The officer drew his weapon, stepped back, aimed and shot.

What difference does it make if the gun had a safety?

[Brucie Kibbutz]

11. Nobody is disputing that

he is responsible for killing the suspect. Now, however insignificant you may deem it, I would imagine any competent investigator would inquire about the manual of arms on the gun that was fired.

Furthermore, the OP stated that the gun used had a safety. I was just pointing out that it didn't have a safety.

[rhett o rick]

12. And I am trying to point out that it doesn't make a difference whether it had a safety or not. nm

[Brucie Kibbutz]

14. I just explained to you

why it does matter.

[rhett o rick]

19. Sorry but I read your response 14 times and still see no explaination as to what

difference it makes.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

21. I have a feeling I know where you're going with this.

But I'll go ahead and explain it further. Any safety measure that would have to be defeated in order to fire the weapon would be of interest to an investigator. If the shooter had to switch a safety off, it could give more insight as to the intentions of the shooter. IMO, it would be harder to prove an accidental shooting if a safety lever had to be switched off in order for the gun to be fired.

In any case, they don't choose just any gun to issue to law enforcement. Each department will specify certain features in an effort to make the operation of the gun as safe as possible while still allowing the officer to draw and fire quickly. If those features weren't enough to keep an accident from happening, they will want to know about it so they could make any changes such as maybe switching to a gun with a different manual of arms or making a change in tactics or procedure.

I'm personally interested in any of the specifics I can find out about the gun that was used because I own one that is very similar to the gun used in this shooting. I consider it my responsibility to seek out any information that I can find on it because I have to handle it in a safe and lawful manner.

Now that I've explained this I'll say that it appears to me that you don't want any discussion of this incident to be had aside from saying this was a cold blooded execution carried out by a bloodthirsty cop. As if any discussion that strays outside those guidelines is an attempt to excuse the officer's actions. You couldn't be more wrong.

I didn't enter this discussion in an effort to convict or acquit anyone. I've made it clear that there is no dispute between us about that this was an illegal shooting so don't bother asking me again to justify why I'm mentioning things that don't matter to you.

[rhett o rick]

32. In your words, "You couldn't be more wrong".

"appears to me that you don't want any discussion of this incident to be had aside from saying this was a cold blooded execution carried out by a bloodthirsty cop. As if any discussion that strays outside those guidelines is an attempt to excuse the officer's actions."

Oh contrary my friend. I prefer to hear all sides. I was trying to understand the safety argument and I appreciate your patience. To me the fact that he drew his weapon, stepped back, aimed and fired, makes the safety issue moot. But I will agree that it may have some relevance. It would look worse if he also switched off a safety.

However, those that are saying he may have thought he was using his Taser are not considering that he should have realized when he tried to switch off the safety and couldn't find it, that he had his gun out. Also, the treatment of the shot man after the shooting does not help the case that a mistake was made. Doesn't look like anyone cared if he lived or died at that point.

I sympathize with our officers that are on the front line. However, I think there are way too many suspicious officer shooting deaths that are considered justifiable.

[Divine Discontent]

15. b/c if there was a safety, it takes away the much commented counter-argument that he might have

thought it was a taser he pulled, regardless of how far-fetched that seems. Without a safety, some will say that he thought it was a taser. I think not - I think he did it to try and scare him and it went off - he looks terrified the moment he shoots it like, oh shit, Sir, what did I just do! (looking up at the cop that seems in charge)

[rhett o rick]

20. Good luck selling that load to the jury. He thought that his gun safety would prevent him

from mistaking it for a taser and killing someone.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Police officers are human.

They make mistakes, especially easily in stressful situations. No amount of training, no matter how high quality, will ever ELIMINATE those risks. Where I live, the Police are required to wear the taser in a holster on the opposite leg, out of normal position, so they are forced to draw with their weak hand, helping them memorize with muscle memory which is the less-lethal weapon. Why? Because mistakes HAVE happened. Some police departments don't have that requirement (yet). The Taser M18 HAS a manual thumb safety, the Glock 17 and many other duty pistols DO NOT. That's part of the reason some officers have shot themselves in the ass, just holstering their weapons. There are a lot of factors here that could have contributed to a negligent error. No one is making excuses for the officer. Even if this was a mistake, and he meant to go for the taser, he was still negligent, and killed the victim. There will also be questions of whether using the taser at all would have been justified in this event. One way or another, what he did was wrong, and it disqualifies him from any further employment at the Police Department. But he may not have intended to murder anyone. Lets let all the facts come out.

I am awaiting more evidence, the most useful of which will probably come from the testimony of the two detainees, one on either side of the victim. If they were paying attention, we should discover if this was an intentional shooting, or if perhaps the officer that shot the victim announced that he was going to taser the kid, and a gun went off instead.

Watching the video, at the moment the victim is shot, the second officer that was attempting to restrain the victim has moved off the kid. No longer in contact. Both officers have moved back, something I would expect if a taser was to be deployed. The reactions of all three officers seem to indicate to me, none of them were expecting a firearm to go off. Particularly the fact that the other two detainees on each side of the victim move, startled, away. Neither officer immediately moves to restrain them. The third officer on the far right immediately goes to draw his firearm, after the gunshot, and stops, when he realizes the source of the shot.

But that's my assessment through a fairly narrow piece of evidence. I am grateful for this video, the first released video was completely useless, this one sheds some light. I eagerly await the testimony of the people who were much closer to the shooting, than the camera was. They will help establish INTENT, which is a pretty critical piece of information to have, before calling this an execution, a murder, OR chalking it up to manslaughter and letting the issue drop. This isn't just about punishment. Fully understanding everything that happened here may help save lives in the future.

[rhett o rick]

31. Yes, the very fact that they are human makes is very important that they have the proper training.

And less guns. Less cases of drawing weapons and pointing at other HUMANS. How backwards is it to have a safety on a taser but not a pistol?
They don't want to shoot someone with a taser by accident but it's ok to shoot the gun? I don't buy the schtuff about the need to have no safety so the officer can draw and fire quicker. This isn't Dodge City. And they point their weapons at people way to often. When they point their weapon and say get on the ground, they are meaning "or die". They shoot people that flee, when often these people are not major felons but just scared. No reason to die. And another thing. Killing suspects with 30 or 50 bullets is insane. Once an officer shoots the others generally jump in and lots of bullets. Innocent bystanders are endangered. Fortunately in this case the other officers didn't start shooting also.

There was a case locally where an mentally ill man climbed a tree. He had no record and wasn't a danger to the public. After failing to talk him down, the police were going to tase him. Why? I can't imagine. Maybe so he would fall down. They ended up shooting him by accident. He died from the gunshot wound instantly.

I believe in protecting our officers but I think the pendulum has swung too far. Way too many people (mostly African Americans) are dying in error.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. I agree.

We can influence every aspect of this, as citizens. We can influence police department policy around the use (over-use in my opinion) of less-lethal weapons like the Taser, when other methods might work better. De-militarize our police departments a bit. It's important they be able to respond to an active shooter, but that they employ heavy weapons only when absolutely necessary. We can give them more funding for more training around de-escalating a situation, negotiation, more officers so they can rotate people out to non-stressful environments more often, etc.

There's a lot we can do, nation-wide to help prevent these incidents from taking place. I encourage everyone to get involved, go for ride-alongs, attend city council meetings, attend feedback sessions the police department holds with the public, even if you live somewhere you don't think these problems exist.



I can offer you maybe a little hope. Here in Seattle, an officer was accused of smashing a suspect from a high-speed pursuit in the head several times with his knee. He was acquitted, but the hopeful piece was, two Officers that were on-scene came forward, and testified against the Officer who made the arrest/was accused of misconduct. That two Police Officers were willing, and able to come forward, cross that 'thin blue line' and testify in court against a fellow Officer on a Civil Rights violation, is very encouraging to me. Sue Rahr, our police chief, made it very clear, every step of the way that she would tolerate no backlash against these two officers, and that even though no conviction was secured, they did the right thing by coming forward. We aren't 'there' yet, but some improvements are being made, little by little. The more involved you get, the better things will get.

[rhett o rick]

34. And I agree. Yikes. JK. Bytheway I live in Kitsap County. nm

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Greetings fellow Northwesterner!

I grew up in Seattle, but I live in North Bend now.

[rhett o rick]

36. Greetings back at ya. I grew up in Portland and now live in Bremerton. nm

[AtheistCrusader]

24. The Taser M18, often used by law enforcement DOES have a safety.

It has a manual thumb lever safety on the right hand side, just like you might see on many auto-loader pistols, such as a 1911, etc.

The Glock 17, the most popular service handgun in use by Police Departements across the country, has NO manual safety. There are safeties, one is a falling block that prevents the hammer from moving forward if the weapon is jarred, and the trigger is not pulled. The only 'manual' safety is the trigger safety, a small, thin metal piece in the trigger itself, that must be pressed before the entire trigger assembly moves. Basically, if the weapon is cocked and a round is in the chamber (as is normal), if you pull the trigger, it will fire. Period.

The Springfield XD series duty pistols also have no manual safety. They have the falling block hammer safety, a DAO trigger safety like the Glock, and a grip safety, that ensures that the grip must be firmly held by a human hand, before the trigger can move properly. If it is cocked with a round in the chamber (as it is normally carried) if you grip it with your hand and pull the trigger, it will fire. There is no manual lever safety.

It's possible this Officer may have had a different gun, different departments have different sidearm requirements and allowances, but odds-on, it was a Glock 17, and had no manual safety.

[Divine Discontent]

16. that's why I put (Correct?) when I said safety, that fact I had not heard the official word on yet

as to which type of weapon was used. Thank you for also pointing out that any worthwhile investigation is certainly going to ask that.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

17. sure, man

I hoped it wouldn't seem like I was calling you out.

[Divine Discontent]

22. right on

the big issue is nothing we say, but what the jury will eventually see regarding this (I assume there will be one someday), and I'm trying to be as fair as possible, but I feel taking out his gun when the guy is already cuffed and face down is 100% unnecessary and therefore the accidental pulling of the trigger (as you know he'll say is what happened and video does seem to imply he was shocked a bit - either by realizing in his rage he shot him, or that he didn't mean to) shouldn't matter, and I see it as, at the least, involuntary manslaughter.

Whatever that penalty holds, he deserves it or more. I wish you could see his face in detail in the seconds before he pulls out the gun, OR, here what he says to the cop (maybe they'll be able to find that out asking the 2 other close witnesses).

[Brucie Kibbutz]

23. You make some good observations.

Sometimes LEOs are given the benefit of the doubt to the extent that it's beyond reason. That's why I have a bad feeling about the way this might play out.

There was a cop in Madera, CA that shot a guy after they already cuffed him and put him in the car. The officer was never even charged with anything.

Considering that, I don't think it's too far fetched to imagine a scenario where the same thing happens in this case.

If it does, all hell will break loose.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Unless the bullet passed through the handcuffs and broke them

the victim was not cuffed. After the officer in the foreground rolls him over, you can see the victims right arm flopping loose. I do not SEE one half of the handcuffs on that arm, but it's possible it's just not clearly visible on the video. Based on what I CAN see, I do not believe he is handcuffed.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

28. It does appear that they finished cuffing him

after they were done killing him.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Not in this video.

(he is alive and looking around when the subway doors close) But I would not be surprised. If he was actually a suspect for something, that is expected. They will also handcuff someone to a gurney for transport to the hospital if they have some reason to expect resistance or flight from a suspect.

Please note that I am using the technical definition of Suspect. I do not know why this man was detained in the first place, and am not hinting at any sort of guilt.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

30. I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

It's late and I'm tired so don't pay me any attention. :crazy: