BART Police Officer Executes Hand-Cuffed Man?!

[kdailey4315]

I'm almost of the opinion that this may end up being an accidental discharge....:dunno:

That's what I think also.

 

[ECKSJAY]

Let's assume that those two officers are holding him down and he's struggling for whatever reason. But, he's detained and the officers have control of him.

Then, he start yelling that he hates cops, or is going to kill a cop, or kill himself; THAT justifies shooting him?

You could play the 'what if' game until you're blue in the face. NONE of us were there, NONE of us saw or heard what ACTUALLY happened. There ARE many questions that need to be answered, but speculation at this point does nothing but get people worked up. :roll:

And Troy...firearms don't go of 'accidentally'. They discharge 'negligently'. It's like saying that you smell alcohol on someone's breath vs. the odor of an alcoholic beverage, no?

 

[bigalpha]

You could play the 'what if' game until you're blue in the face. NONE of us were there, NONE of us saw or heard what ACTUALLY happened. There ARE many questions that need to be answered, but speculation at this point does nothing but get people worked up. :roll:

And Troy...firearms don't go of 'accidentally'. They discharge 'negligently'. It's like saying that you smell alcohol on someone's breath vs. the odor of an alcoholic beverage, no?

I'm just trying to figure out what your view is. You seemed to think audio was pretty important in the police shooting in this case.

 

[besthaticouldo]

i thought it was hard to tell

however...he was shot in the back. two officers were on top of him...im curious to see the investigation report...

 

[ECKSJAY]

I'm just trying to figure out what your view is. You seemed to think audio was pretty important in the police shooting in this case.

Yeah it's just one of the senses.

And of course I think it's important. Did someone see something that they communicated? Another officer see something, hence the reason they pulled him out and an apparent struggle took place? Was there a weapon in his front that he was going for? Like I said...so many questions that NONE of us can answer because we weren't there. I just hope for that officer's sake the intent, means, and purpose were all there to justify the course of action taken.

 

[ECKSJAY]

however...he was shot in the back.

For the sake of argument... Bad guy is drawing a weapon from his waistband with intent to use it against your partner, who is on the other side of bad guy. Bad guy is facing away from you, but you can clearly see his weapon and that he's advancing toward your partner (or other innocent person, for that matter). Are you telling me you'd magically race around the guy and hope you get to the front so you can take a shot? Or do you do everything within your means to stop the armed assailant, even if it means shooting him in the back? :doh:

 

[bigalpha]

For the sake of argument... Bad guy is drawing a weapon from his waistband with intent to use it against your partner, who is on the other side of bad guy. Bad guy is facing away from you, but you can clearly see his weapon and that he's advancing toward your partner (or other innocent person, for that matter). Are you telling me you'd magically race around the guy and hope you get to the front so you can take a shot? Or do you do everything within your means to stop the armed assailant, even if it means shooting him in the back? :doh:

Yes, shoot him in the back. You can see he pulled the gun and is threatening someone with it.

However, when you have the man ON THE GROUND, ON HIS STOMACH, with at least one police officer on top, there's probably no need to shoot the man in the back.

 

[ECKSJAY]

Yes, shoot him in the back. You can see he pulled the gun and is threatening someone with it.

However, when you have the man ON THE GROUND, ON HIS STOMACH, with at least one police officer on top, there's probably no need to shoot the man in the back.

Take my above scenario and move it to the ground. Why does 'ground' change this for you? Again, we could keep playing 'what if', but it doesn't change what and how it happened.

 

[kcjeep6]

For the sake of argument... Bad guy is drawing a weapon from his waistband with intent to use it against your partner, who is on the other side of bad guy. Bad guy is facing away from you, but you can clearly see his weapon and that he's advancing toward your partner (or other innocent person, for that matter). Are you telling me you'd magically race around the guy and hope you get to the front so you can take a shot? Or do you do everything within your means to stop the armed assailant, even if it means shooting him in the back? :doh:

ECKSJAY are you a cop?

 

[ECKSJAY]

ECKSJAY are you a cop?

Former MP, armed private security, and lots of private training. I like to think I'm fairly practiced and informed.

 

[bigalpha]

Take my above scenario and move it to the ground. Why does 'ground' change this for you? Again, we could keep playing 'what if', but it doesn't change what and how it happened.

Because he wasn't reaching for a gun, he wasn't threatening the officers in a way to warrant deadly force. Yes, if he was laying on the ground and actually pulled a weapon and threatened the officers/bystanders it's warranted to shoot him.



Maybe we're not looking at the same video. This is what I'm watching; there are 3 angles. In one, you can clearly see the Office is like, "OMFG, WTF?"
http://www.ktvu.com/video/18406962/index.html

 

[ECKSJAY]

Because he wasn't reaching for a gun, he wasn't threatening the officers in a way to warrant deadly force. Yes, if he was laying on the ground and actually pulled a weapon and threatened the officers/bystanders it's warranted to shoot him.

There wasn't a clear view on ANY of these videos to see that though.

Maybe we're not looking at the same video. This is what I'm watching; there are 3 angles. In one, you can clearly see the Office is like, "OMFG, WTF?"
http://www.ktvu.com/video/18406962/index.html

I hear shouting, I see a struggle, camera goes to outer space, back to the struggle, bang, and then I'm not seeing the officer's expression you're describing. I've watched this all a dozen times and I'm confused on your 'clearly' part, lol. I heard shouting, saw a struggle, and a shot was fired. :speepin: I saw no hands, I saw no weapons. :tv:

 

[bigalpha]

At the bottom there are other videos from different angles to watch.

 

[ECKSJAY]

At the bottom there are other videos from different angles to watch.

The only 'clear' things I see are that he was A) not handcuffed and B) upon being put on the ground, his right hand went to the ground and subsequently under his body. The rest is between the officers involved, the clown who resisted, and God.

 

[Darky]

Because he wasn't reaching for a gun, he wasn't threatening the officers in a way to warrant deadly force. Yes, if he was laying on the ground and actually pulled a weapon and threatened the officers/bystanders it's warranted to shoot him.



Maybe we're not looking at the same video. This is what I'm watching; there are 3 angles. In one, you can clearly see the Office is like, "OMFG, WTF?"
http://www.ktvu.com/video/18406962/index.html

I've seen Karina Vargas' video and it doesn't show much.

What I saw from the main video is a lot of the ceiling, random space, a bunch of idiots who weren't helping the guy on the ground by constantly approaching the cops, one guy who threw something then some black chick saying they just shot him and cussing the cops out. On to the next video.

What I'm seeing here is the officer who fired the shot had a negligent discharge. He may have been reaching for a tazer and grabbed his gun, He may have meant to grab his gun but didn't mean to fire. However, in the second instance he was still wrong. In the Marine Corps, the basic rules of firearms safety are:
1.)Treat every weapon as if it is loaded.
2.)Never point the weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3.)Keep you finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire.
4.)Keep the weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

#1 wouldn't have helped in this case, #2 would've been fine as he did intend to fire if the suspect was a danger, #3 would've been the one he went against as you wouldn't intend to fire as you're pulling your gun out of the holster nor would you intend to fire with your partners all right there on him.

 

[ECKSJAY]

I've seen Karina Vargas' video and it doesn't show much.

What I saw from the main video is a lot of the ceiling, random space, a bunch of idiots who weren't helping the guy on the ground by constantly approaching the cops, one guy who threw something then some black chick saying they just shot him and cussing the cops out. On to the next video.
.

Check out the one from straight across (in front of) the group...where you see the kid sitting against the wall, facing camera. Watch when they pull him off the wall. Do you see his right hand up in the air? There isn't really anything useful after that part...but combine that with the one from his right, taken from inside the train. When they pull him away from the wall, match up when you see his hand in the air. It goes back down and they pull him away...then see if you notice his hand going under him. I combine this with the body language and intensity of the officers. I think he was either going for something or implying that he had something, which then got him shot. After watching them all again, that's what I see. I don't see a cop ruthlessly drawing his weapon and executing a young, handcuffed Father. I see an unrestrained, dangerous struggle that was neutralized. Whether it was ultimately justified is up to the investigators.

 

[bigalpha]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say the cop executed that guy for no reason.

A few things stand out to me:
1. The cop who pulled his weapon took almost a full 2 seconds to pull it and squeeze the trigger.
2. The other cop, located at the victim's head, did not exhibit the same reaction as the other cop. This cop did not seem as though he felt his life was in danger as he did not rear back and pull his weapon either.

I also wouldn't classify this as a "struggle". They weren't wrestling the man trying to get him down, they were just trying to handcuff him (as it appears to me). It did not seem to me that he was trying to escape to cause harm to the officers or civilians.

Just my untrained .02.

 

[ECKSJAY]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say the cop executed that guy for no reason.

A few things stand out to me:
1. The cop who pulled his weapon took almost a full 2 seconds to pull it and squeeze the trigger.
2. The other cop, located at the victim's head, did not exhibit the same reaction as the other cop. This cop did not seem as though he felt his life was in danger as he did not rear back and pull his weapon either.

I also wouldn't classify this as a "struggle". They weren't wrestling the man trying to get him down, they were just trying to handcuff him (as it appears to me). It did not seem to me that he was trying to escape to cause harm to the officers or civilians.

Just my untrained .02.

Ever try steer wrestling? How about wrestling a steer with thumbs? Yeah man, those guys were wrangling that kid and fighting for his hands. If that dummy had sat still and kept his trap shut, I'm sure things woulda been sorted out and they wouldn't have to yank him from the wall to cuff and search him. I'm sure they were going for someone else and kept everyone detained until they got it sorted...but there's always a joker who smarts off and gets twisted up. The couple seconds to draw was also while leaning on a guy to restrain his legs. Go find a guy on the street and wrestle him to the ground sometime. See if he fights back or just flattens out. Lemme know if it was easy or kinda difficult.

 

[bigalpha]

Never wrestled a steer.

I agree, that dude shoulda just sat there and not been a douche. If he was innocent, it'd been sorted out eventually. I'm also not saying that there wasn't a struggle and that it's not hard to detain a person who's fighting back.

What I am saying, though, is that I didn't see any reason for the officer to pull his weapon. If it was going that badly, they should have called one of the other 5 officers over to taze him. At no point did I see reason for the officer to intentionally shoot him.

 

[macgyvr]

I wasn't there...none of us where there...as was stated the video doesn't show anything clear...believe me when I say that there are things that happen when you are in the middle of a situation that a video may or may not capture...

i hate how conclusions are jumped to so fast...

I am certain that it will be investigated to the fullest but it won't happen over night.

mac 'tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving' gyvr