PDA

View Full Version : Police Shoot Handcuffed Man in the Back


eriadoc
January 7, 2009, 01:49 PM
The bolded part is pretty amazing,

Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/04/MN0R153LGU.DTL)

BART's police chief asked for patience from the public on Sunday after video footage surfaced showing one of his officers fatally shooting an unarmed man who was on the ground on a station platform on New Year's Day, and after an attorney for the dead man's family said he planned to sue the transit agency for $25 million.

Officials have not said whether the officer intended to shoot Grant. One source familiar with the investigation said BART is looking into a number of issues, including whether the officer had meant to fire his Taser stun gun rather than his gun. Alameda County prosecutors are conducting their own investigation, as is standard in officer-involved shootings.

Evidently, it's OK to taser a suspect that is cuffed, on his face, and surrounded by three officers.

Also, you have to be pretty arrogant or stupid (or both) to do something like this in the day and age when everyone has video capability in their pockets. This was all over CNN last night as well. Warning - Graphic videos:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXWSgG-KNng&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/7/1124/60429/344/681056&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQxBg5Jxp7c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstoryonly%2F2009%2F1%2F7%2F1124%2F60429%2F344%2F681056&feature=player_embedded

hogdogs
January 7, 2009, 02:06 PM
UMMM.... WOW... What else can I say?
Brent

JuanCarlos
January 7, 2009, 02:25 PM
Officials have not said whether the officer intended to shoot Grant. One source familiar with the investigation said BART is looking into a number of issues, including whether the officer had meant to fire his Taser stun gun rather than his gun. Alameda County prosecutors are conducting their own investigation, as is standard in officer-involved shootings.

Evidently, it's OK to taser a suspect that is cuffed, on his face, and surrounded by three officers.

This'll vary based on a department's use of force guidelines...in some departments, I'm pretty sure this is okay.

The question I have is, even assuming for a moment the "I mean to fire my Taser" argument is absolutely true, what kind of criminal liability the officer could face and what kind of civil liability the officer and department could face. Seems like that goes well beyond "oops."

Brian Pfleuger
January 7, 2009, 02:45 PM
It's pretty obvious that is was "accidental", no sane person would do that intentionally. Stupid, negligent, inexcusable? No doubt. But accidental.

A tragedy all around.

Double Naught Spy
January 7, 2009, 02:47 PM
There have been several such incidents where officers have meant to draw tasers and instead drew their gun. I didn't see in the video, but in two previous incidents, tasers were draw from holsters and the tasers carried like pistols and as such, it would appear that while the officer intended to draw a taser, in the short period of time in the draw to firing, no realization occurred that the wrong tool was in hand.

Evidently, it's OK to taser a suspect that is cuffed, on his face, and surrounded by three officers.
Yes, sometimes it is. There is no reason for the officers to risk being harmed unnecessarily by a combative suspect and officers have been injured by downed and cuffed suspects. So sure, there are certainly cases where such use of force may be necessary.

With that said, the thread's title is misrepresentative and sensationalistic. The victim was not a "kid" as claimed, but a 22 year old man. We don't like it when the MMM, VPC, and Brady Bunch classify adults as kids or children when it comes to their arguments to ban guns because of their use against "kids" and we should not make the same misrepresentative claims.

teeroux
January 7, 2009, 02:53 PM
All officers i've seen don't carry a tazer on there strong side. In the vid he draws pauses to walk back giving him plenty of time to notice he has his duty weapon drawn and then fires on a handcuffed man belly down. I hope they get him for murder. IMO

miboso
January 7, 2009, 03:15 PM
According to some TV new reports, he had earlier had his taser out.

This may be getting OT, if so, mods snap my mouth shut.

What was the original use of tasers? My belief is that it was to provide a non-leathal alternative to using a firearm. If so, then there has been much mis-use of the taser in situations where no sane person would have used a firearm due to an absence of a taser.

hogdogs
January 7, 2009, 03:37 PM
Peetza said...
It's pretty obvious that is was "accidental", no sane person would do that intentionally
I bet a bunch of folks have been murdered by people who would pass as "sane" in much the same execution style slaying. Actually most convicted of such heinous crimes likely tried to say they were insane to some degree or other and were shot down as sane enuff to stand trial.
Brent

alloy
January 7, 2009, 03:39 PM
spent a night in jail once for standing up after a MARTA officer told some 13/14 year old that he was going to break his arm if he didnt drop that cigarette he was palmin, leaving the OMNI, after a Aerosmith concert. i said "what did you say that for, you arent really going to break his arm"

those guys got no sense of humor.

Wuchak
January 7, 2009, 03:41 PM
I'm thinking that it was not smart of the cop to try to get the camera and I'm glad she was smart enough not to surrender it. If she had I suspect the video would have somehow disappeared.

The officer should be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter which according to CA Penal code 192(b) is:

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

Sad day for everyone involved.


This is not the first time this has happened where an officer means to use their Taser but uses their gun instead. I see a good case for a suit against Taser for producing a non-lethal weapon that even in trained hands is so easily confused with a lethal one. Bad, bad, bad, design. The fire control system on the Taser should be in some way radically different than that of a handgun. IMHO Tasers are one of the worst products ever unleashed upon the population. There are dozens of cases of deaths by them and of police using them excessively. There is one case where they Tasered a 9 year old mentally handicapped child. Whatever you may think of the group the documentation of the cases where they were used inappropriately makes for some chilling reading http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/139/2004

Disturbing cases continue to be reported. In May 2004 a police officer from South
Tuscon, Arizona, used a taser on a nine-year-old girl who was a runaway from a residential
home for severely emotionally disturbed children. According to reports, the child was already
handcuffed with her hands behind her back and sitting in the back of a police car when the
taser was used as an officer struggled to put her into nylon leg-restraints. The officer is
reported as saying that the girl was “screaming, kicking and flailing, and would not listen”.


An intoxicated man, arrested at a residence after complaints of loud noise, refused to
allow police to attend to a cut on his eye and was taken out of the house in handcuffs
and leg restraints. He was placed on a gurney to be taken to hospital. When he
resisted having his hands tied to the gurney, an officer shot him in the chest with a
taser. After going limp, the man again began to “thrash about” on the gurney and the
officer “pulled the trigger for another five seconds”. After the man became compliant
and was placed in the ambulance, the officer handed his taser to one of the transporting officers “in case she needed to use it again”. When the officer went to
retrieve the taser later, the transporting officer told him that “she had to use the Taser
for one five-second cycle while on the way to hospital because J again became
resistive”. The suspect was in full restraints at the time. 67 (Lakeland Police
Department, Colorado)

Portland, Oregon: elderly, bind woman paid damages
In April 2003, the City of Portland, Oregon, agreed to pay $145,000 to 71-year-old Eunice
Crowder in an out-of-court settlement of an excessive force claim. The claim arose from an
incident in June 2003 in which City employees arrived at her home with a warrant to remove
rubbish and debris from her yard. Police were called when Ms Crowder, who was blind and
hard of hearing, failed to follow orders not to enter a trailer where items from her premises
were being placed. The lawsuit claimed that two officers struck Ms Crowder in the head with
a taser, dislodging her prosthetic right eye from its socket. It also claimed that she was tasered
in the back and on the breast as she lay on the ground.
In legal briefs filed by the City, police reportedly acknowledged that Ms Crowder was
“pushed onto the dirt next to the sidewalk” when she ignored their orders not to enter the
trailer. The police also reportedly admitted that Ms Crowder’s eye became dislodged; that
they pepper-sprayed her (when she reportedly refused to stop kicking them) and stunned her
three times with a Taser (twice in the lower back and once in the upper back). The City
argued that the officers’ actions were “lawful, justified and privileged” and that they used a
“reasonable amount of force to defend themselves”. 86 Nevertheless, City commissioners
voted to approve the settlement rather than defend the case in court. The case is believed to
have been one factor in a decision by the Portland Police Department to review its policies
and impose restrictions on use of the Taser in the case of vulnerable people such as the elderly,
children and pregnant women

Playboypenguin
January 7, 2009, 03:46 PM
I can think of many circumstances where it IS okay to taser someone that is already cuffed, but to confuse your gun with your taser??? :confused:

grymster2007
January 7, 2009, 03:47 PM
It looks like the officer grabbed the wrong weapon, nothing more. It happens. The idea of charging him with murder is ridiculous. There should certainly be some sort of disciplinary action for the officer and lessons learned exercise for the department. Civilly, the the victim's family should pursue a wrongful death claim but compensation should be made with complete regard to the facts of the case. Meaning that if the facts show the victim resisting arrest (which looks likely) and he was committing a crime which resulted in the confrontation with the police (which also seems likely), compensation should be much, much lower.

Playboypenguin
January 7, 2009, 03:50 PM
The idea of charging him with murder is ridiculous
He should still be charged with manslaughter and tried....and his ability to actually perform his job is seriously in question after such a mistake. I would be one that would call for his removal from active duty regardless of criminal charges.

eriadoc
January 7, 2009, 03:57 PM
If a guy is cuffed, face down, with three officers surrounding him, how much of a threat is he really? I'll tell you what - I'm no police officer, but let me handcuff a guy with two of my buddies (hell, pick any two, don't care), and I'll guarantee that I don't have to taser him or shoot him to control the situation. That is utter incompetence and he shouldn't be a police officer.

These are the guys we should expect more from, just as more is expected from people who carry concealed. Justifying or rationalizing this behavior is akin to enabling it.

Al Norris
January 7, 2009, 04:02 PM
There is a specific legal issue here. Let's keep that in mind, and not the idle speculation we seem to be starting with.

Continued speculation; LEO bashing in general; Off topic posts or Political rants will get this thread closed and the offender(s) will face consequences. There's a sticky at the top of this forum that explains the special rules that will be enforced, along with the general board rules.

johnwilliamson062
January 7, 2009, 04:14 PM
I am guessing this was accidental in which case he should face charges whatever they call negligent manslaughter. My understanding is the officer was holding the gun low at a spot hat would not be lethal. It hit the floor ricochet and came back up through his "lungs." Not sure how it could hit both, but that is what the article I read stated.
Watch the video again and keep an eye on the officers visible off to the right. It appears they are also dealing with a subject that is making a lot of trouble. There are officers screening what is going on from people entering the subway. Makes sense that they would just to make sure someone doesn't get involved accidentally, but it all looks very suspicious.

divemedic
January 7, 2009, 04:37 PM
I work in public safety. I drive emergency vehicles, I supervise emergency responders. I perform emergency medicine.

In each of these cases, I am held liable for every decision I make, and for every action my subordinates perform. I can be held criminally liable for a traffic accident if I am driving an emergency vehicle that kills someone. I can be held criminally liable if I order a rescuer to do something, and that order results in the death of a member of the public, or a rescuer. I can be held criminally liable if I give the wrong medication to a patient and it results in the death of that patient.

As a concealed weapons holder, I can be held criminally responsible for shooting a bystander by accident. I can be held criminally liable for shooting a person as the result of an ND.

I do not see where using a pistol to kill a person, when the LEO meant to use a Taser is a defense. In each of the above cases, the death would have been accidental, but I would still go to jail. I don't think the LEO in this case should get a free pass. Let a court decide, which is why we have courts and juries to begin with.

Wuchak
January 7, 2009, 05:10 PM
If, "I meant to use my Taser but mistakenly used my pistol" is a valid defense then shouldn't "I meant to serve oatmeal for breakfast but mistakenly served rat poison?" also be? How about, "I meant to hit him in the head with the Nerf bat but mistakenly used the wood one".

Negligence is negligence and some mistakes carry a steep price but it has to be paid in a just and civil society. The Police are entitled to special rules when using force but that also means they should be held to a higher standard of accountability when using it. With increased privilege comes increased responsibility. I feel bad for the officer and his family but I feel worse for the person that died because of his negligence.

No matter how you slice it this is a tragedy for all involved.

popeyespappy
January 7, 2009, 06:21 PM
I saw several of the videos on the news last night. The first time I saw it my thought was, "That was an execution."

The officer should be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter

That’s not what the dead man would have been charged with if their positions had been reversed.

The idea of charging him with murder is ridiculous.

What is so ridiculous about it? That is exactly what the dead guy would have been charged with if their position had been reversed. In my opinion what the officer did was criminal. Around here getting drunk and having a car accident that kills somebody sometimes rates a murder charge. If that rates a murder charge then shooting someone laying face down on the ground with their hands restrained behind them sure as he11 does too. If the jury decides it wasn't murder then they can convict on a lesser offence.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. People like the police who voluntarily put themselves into positions of great trust should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, not a lower one.

chibiker
January 7, 2009, 06:47 PM
I won't comment on legal issues, that is for the courts to decide. I also have the deepest respect for police officers, I have family members that are cops.

As far as this incident goes though, having been a former resident of the Bay Area I wonder how many people know what the BART police are. These guys are basically supposed to be the elite. They are trained in emergency response and so on and so on, above and beyond the requirements of regular police officers. More training, usually more education, ect. I won't argue if the use of a taser in this situation would be considered justifiable or excessive however I will say that pulling a sidearm, mistaking it for a taser and pulling the trigger is inexcusable in my opinion. These aren't rent-a-cops or mall commandos.

vranasaurus
January 7, 2009, 07:33 PM
The officer should certainly be charged with a crime. What that crime is will depend on the details of the incident.

Whether or not he is guilty of that crime is for a jury to decide. Let's remember he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

maestro pistolero
January 7, 2009, 08:09 PM
I am guessing this was accidental in which case he should face charges whatever they call negligent manslaughter. My understanding is the officer was holding the gun low at a spot hat would not be lethal. It hit the floor ricochet and came back up through his "lungs." Not sure how it could hit both, but that is what the article I read stated.

No way. No LE agency trains 'shoot to wound'. And I doubt a ricochet would retain enough velocity to penetrate a lung. He was shot in the back and this is a homicide. The DA will specify what sort of homicide. IMO this goes way beyond any disciplinary action. This officer will be terminated, after due process, probably charged and convicted of something, but probably will not do time. His life is ruined, but at least he still has one.

RocketRider
January 7, 2009, 08:39 PM
:confused::mad::confused::mad::confused::mad::

Hkmp5sd
January 7, 2009, 09:27 PM
,,its about cops and who they think they are,,,cops are born week humans, to get a sense of power or whatever,, they become cops just so they can get even with society for always picking on them,,,

As Antipitas previously stated, please refrain from police bashing. It serves no useful purpose and is a good way to get banned from this board.

PS. It is "weak".

RocketRider
January 7, 2009, 09:29 PM
well I'm very sorry,,

Playboypenguin
January 7, 2009, 09:31 PM
do you know a good cop?
Yup, and I was a good one myself...as are many forum members. In fact the good ones I knew outweighed the bad at least a dozen to one. The bad ones just stick out like sore thumbs.

hoytinak
January 7, 2009, 09:32 PM
they become cops just so they can get even with society for always picking on them,,

Or maybe perhaps they just wanna help clean up and better their cummunity.

RocketRider
January 7, 2009, 09:43 PM
I really am sorry for that,,I was just very angry at seeing that video,,,and your right,,if the media and press would show more positive actions of officers instead of all the negative,,we as the general public would have a better perception of them,,,and again, I apologize for my words,,but not my thoughts,,,

johnwilliamson062
January 7, 2009, 10:01 PM
No LE agency trains 'shoot to wound'.
He was either going to tase the guy or he was not intending to pull the trigger. It certainly would not be the first time a trained officer got nervous and accidentally put pressure on the trigger.

ProficientRifleman
January 7, 2009, 10:14 PM
It's pretty obvious that is was "accidental", no sane person would do that intentionally. Stupid, negligent, inexcusable? No doubt. But accidental.

A tragedy all around.

Sure..you betcha. Lets just give the officer a pass this time. He was doing a tough job and he meant well...when he shot an unarmed man who was lying prone on the pavement with another officer holding him down.

All police officers should receive a pass in similar situations, because...they mean well! :)

Now, all you mere "civilians", don't nun of you go gettin' any ideas that you can do the same. We have laws against homicide, you know...

You or I would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law! In an incident like this, an officer is put on paid administrative leave, while his department conducts an internal investigation/shooting review, enroute to a conclusion of "justified".

Police officers can't commit murder, nor manslaughter, nor negligent homicide, because, you know....THEY mean well!

All you sheeple, just put your heads down and pretend not to notice. If you don't think about these things then, they didn't happen!

Just submit and comply and behave like a good little WOMAN and everything should be fine.

danweasel
January 7, 2009, 10:19 PM
That cop should never be allowed to see the sun again. Period.

If you hold a guy in cuffs down and I shoot him in the head then what is going to happen to me? Same thing that should happen to that cop. Being a police officer should be a responsibilty not an excuse.

Al Norris
January 7, 2009, 11:33 PM
I'm glad that was edited out, before I came back and saw it.

Read them rules (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313714), RocketRider. I'm dead serious about enforcement. We will not have another L&P debacle here.

Feel free to PM or email me about anything you (or anyone else) don't understand.

The officer did what he did. The Courts will sort it out.

RocketRider
January 7, 2009, 11:53 PM
I would like to apoligize to the LEO'S and anyone else that took my words to heart,,Those where words of anger,,and this was not the place to spew such statements,,,,,,thank you,,

JuanCarlos
January 8, 2009, 02:27 PM
Meaning that if the facts show the victim resisting arrest (which looks likely) and he was committing a crime which resulted in the confrontation with the police (which also seems likely), compensation should be much, much lower.

There goes presumption of innocence, eh? ;)



I think it's time for an Occam's Razor check. The idea that this was an intentional shooting seems much less likely than it being an unintentional shooting (meaning that, given that Tasers do generally have very similar form factors, the "thought it was his Taser" excuse is perfectly plausible). I've known good cops. I've known, and met, bad cops.

I've never met a cop this bad. In front of a crowd, many of whom obviously have cellphones and cameras out to film what's happening? The idea that this was an intentional homicide is...not quite absurd (crazier things have happened), but highly unlikely.

That's why I was curious regarding what legal ramifications an officer is likely to face in such a situation. I've always been under the impression that legally police officers are given pretty wide latitude regarding criminal liability for uses of force, so I guess I was just wondering if it was generally this wide. Assuming this is found to be accidental, what criminal penalties would an officer in California even face? Compared to what a regular firearm owner would face for an accidental shooting.

I'm sure the city can expect to write a big check either way, of course.


Also I have to agree that, thinking about it, making Tasers so functionally similar to firearms may not have been the brightest idea ever. Would require a bit of extra training if they used some form of different trigger, of course, but maybe that would be worth it.

mskdgunman
January 8, 2009, 03:01 PM
The whole confusing a Taser for a firearm thing just...confuses me. Generally, every agency around here that uses them (ours included) requires they be carried on the weak side. One agency even went so far as to order the bright yellow taser to help prevent the whole confusion issue.

Oh for the days when we had just a stick and a firearm. It made things so much easier in some cases. Now, you have to go through the whole mental checklist of the bat belt to decide which of the new fangled, less lethal do-dads to use. Sometimes, too many choices is a bad thing.

hogdogs
January 8, 2009, 04:43 PM
Yeah my problem with grabbing the wrong tool is that the officer had to have very little training with both to confuse them. Heck I can reach for a tool while laying on my back under the car and feel the difference in 2 different wrenches. Having no experience with tazers I am willing to bet dollars against doughnuts that the overall weight, weight bias, grip feel, trigger feel etc. are different 'tween the two...
Brent

Glenn E. Meyer
January 8, 2009, 04:50 PM
What went awry?

1. Pulling the gun instead of the taser - that's possible under stress. Folks underestimate the brain fades that occur under stress. There's a big literature on such. And folks just make dumb mistakes. How many guns are unloaded and kill - even in training exercises by professionals? People leave their babies in car seats to die in the heat. What is more important than your baby.

2. Pulled the gun on purpose and then had an ND. That happens also. Bad trigger control initially or the finger went to the trigger under stress. Gun designs have what is known as an affordance - meaning the design channels the function to put the finger on the trigger almost automatically. Then with some stress or movement - bang. I know of two videos where an officer runs up to a downed and controlled suspect and fires a round near the head of such and feet of colleagues. One was a female officer with a Beretta, IIRC, and the second was a male with an MP-5. In the latter case, there was some claim that the suspect was being unruly so the officer fired a round near his noggin to make him behave. But from the clip, that was a touch after the fact.

One doesn't have to look for malacious behavior to explain this and one should remember it is not that unusual. However, this doesn't mean that the appropriate processes should not deal with the aftermath in terms of penalty - legal and financial.

pax
January 8, 2009, 05:19 PM
Just submit and comply and behave like a good little WOMAN and everything should be fine.

Yes, because the worst insult you can throw at someone is to call them a female.

And because we know that all women are compliant, sheep-like victims, and are completely unable and unwilling to stand up for themselves.

And because, of course, every thread can be improved with a snide reference to forcible rape, even when it really has nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic. Bonus points if the poster manages say something demeaning about women who get raped, without actually saying anything negative about rapists.

Back on topic: horrible event. Feel sorry for all involved. Plenty of room for outrage here, but I'm not sure the frothing-at-the-mouth responses really help understand what happened or how to prevent it happening again.

Actions have consequences. Always have, always will. Sometimes, the consequences seem a bit out of line with the size of the offense, especially when no harm was ever intended. As an example, I know a teenager who rolled a truck this past summer. No alcohol or drugs involved, nothing at all like that. The physical consequence of his inexperience behind the wheel was that the truck rolled when a tire blew after he took a corner slightly too fast. The financial consequence was the loss of the truck, a huge increase in his insurance costs, and some $30,000 in medical bills for two people who walked out of the hospital the next day with [case 1] no lasting injury whatsoever, and [case 2] a small laceration that required six stitches to close. The legal consequence was that the state was looking at felony charges against the teenager, but eventually settled on "only" pulling his driver's license (and thus throwing him out of a job) instead. All the above seems a bit out of proportion since the kid never intended any harm -- but nonetheless, harm was done. And even unintentional actions have consequences.

Same here. Cop almost certainly did not intend this outcome, but this outcome is the result of his actions all the same. Following the strict letter of manslaughter law against him might seem harsh, but that's the nature of a law that is (by definition) aimed at "accidental" acts.

A murder charge would not be appropriate here, because it would be difficult or impossible to establish the existence of malice, which is the sine qua non for a murder conviction.

No criminal charge at all? Well, that's the way it's most likely to go -- but manslaughter laws are on the books for a reason.

One of the consequences for an "accidental" shooting should always be a careful and dispassionate attempt to understand what went wrong and how it happened. In this case, there's still so little to go on that it's difficult to post anything useful -- but it might be worthwhile to discuss the costs vs the benefits of carrying a less-lethal weapon (Taser) that so closely resembles a firearm. Humans do make mistakes, so the question is what can be done next to minimize or eliminate this particular type of mistake.

pax

Yellowfin
January 8, 2009, 05:27 PM
This incident has made me a bit fearful of riots in response. There have been some reported instances of such. I live much too close to this stuff for comfort, and when juxtaposed with Palestinian protests I'll be glad if I can get out of this state soon.

Rachen
January 8, 2009, 05:43 PM
do you know a good cop?

Of course there are, and good cops outnumber the bad ones by the considerable margin.

It's like what my leadership teacher once said: "99 percent of people are good folks, it's the 1 percent that causes 99 percent of the problems."

Glenn E. Meyer
January 8, 2009, 05:59 PM
A little google search on past mistaken uses of guns vs. tasers for our info and some legal outcomes.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_/ai_n20518015

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/05/26/daily2.html

http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&issue_id=122008&category_ID=3

Al Norris
January 8, 2009, 08:41 PM
Just submit and comply and behave like a good little WOMAN and everything should be fine.

Invective: noun 1)strongly abusive or critical language. 2) abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will. — ORIGIN Latin invectivus ‘attacking’, from invehere (see INVEIGH).

A day old response, and I missed it. My apologies to Pax for her having to point this out to me.

That said, we will not tolerate this type of behavior. No notice. No second chances. No way. No how.

RedneckFur
January 8, 2009, 09:48 PM
If anything, I think that tasers should be required to look and feel nothing like a common handgun. Mabey it could prevent a few of these terrible accidents.

If the shooting was indeed an accident, then I think the LEO should be tried like any common citizen that accidentally shot a man in the back who was restrained. A badge should not be used as an excuse for poor choices.

Keep in mind, that somtimes innocent people do get arrested, and do get cuffed. Next time it could be somone you know. Having tasers that look and feel like guns seems to me almost as potentially dangerous as leaving real guns lying around with airsoft guns. Sure, most any adult should be able to tell the difference, but is it worth the risk?

johnwilliamson062
January 8, 2009, 10:24 PM
If anything, I think that tasers should be required to look and feel nothing like a common handgun. Mabey it could prevent a few of these terrible accidents.
I never really thought about it, but this makes more sense than almost anything i have heard this week. Ahough i did spend the last day studying the federal crop insurance program, so maybe I am not saying much.

It seems to me that the group off to the right in the videos was making a lot of trouble. The LEO was not able to distinguish between individuals causing trouble and those not according to all the accounts I have read. I think it is obvious he made a mistake.
A badge should not be used as an excuse for poor choices
Like the smart man said, send him to court where it can be reviewed and all the circumstance considered, including mitigating circumstances.

BillCA
January 8, 2009, 11:14 PM
As a resident of the bay area and someone who has used BART many times, I have to say that something went woefully wrong here and we should not indict the entire agency for the acts of a single individual.

There will be no winners in this case.

From the videos I have a hard time...
Seeing any threat that would justify lethal force.
Seeing a threat that would justify tasing the shooting victim.
Believing the officer thought he reached for a taser.
thinking the officer couldn't tell his duty weapon from a taser.
Believing the officer actually meant to shoot/kill the subject.

At the end of one video the officer steps back after holstering his gun and raises his hands towards his head as if reacting to "Oh crap! What did I do?" At least it appeared so to me.

In the arrest, I could not see sufficient reason for even tasing the man on the ground. He was not entirely cooperative, but I did not see severe resistance that would warrant either taser use or the use of baton strikes to get compliance. Nor could I see any immediate threat that would warrant either tasing or lethal force.

Now...because I couldn't see it on a jerky, somewhat dark cell phone video does not mean a threat or justification did not exist. But I sure can't see one.

I'll give an example. The deceased was apparently talking on his cellphone at the time. His wife claims to have heard the gunshot over the phone. So, if we suppose a Bluetooth headset, it may be that his cellphone was in a pocket (right front or right rear). We can see the potential for error if the subject's right hand is still free and the officer sees a rectangular man-made object protruding from a pocket and the subject's hand appears to be reaching for it. Some cellphones when viewed from the back side, being black or dark "charcoal", may be mistaken for the grip of a firearm. One can then see the error leading to a tragedy.

But many people today carry cell phones of all sizes, shapes and colors. These are not uncommon devices nor unexpected items to find upon a person. At best, it becomes an error in identification and judgement that could render this an involuntary manslaughter case.

Yes, I'm one of those who thinks tasers are over-used and used in inappropriate situations. However, tasering someone who looks to be reaching for a potential weapon is not excessive. But the officer reaches for the wrong side of his body, has to draw from a level-3 holster and does not fire immediately, but a second or so afterwards.

It's too early for people to really riot as they did tonight. The officer still has his rights, including the right to resign and the right to remain silent. We should let the process continue until we see what the D.A. and investigation recommend.

I forsee a minumum charge of 192(b) Involuntary Manslaughter. Punisment for 192(b) is up to 1 year in the county jail or 16 months or 2 or 4 years in state prison.

More likely, the D.A. will start with an initial charge of 2nd degree murder and let the defense argue for involuntary manslaughter. Lacking any evidence that the officer had any intent to kill or seriously injure the deceased, the manslaughter charge is probably correct. By the time the case is tried, if he gets a 3-year sentence with one year credited for "time served" he'll spend a year in prison.

But the rest of his professional life is ruined. It is also likely that his marriage will end in divorce and a civil suit will still tag him with tens of thousands of dollars of debt.

That's why I said there will be no winners in this case.

Crosshair
January 8, 2009, 11:34 PM
Of course there are, and good cops outnumber the bad ones by the considerable margin.

It's like what my leadership teacher once said: "99 percent of people are good folks, it's the 1 percent that causes 99 percent of the problems."
The problem is, what happens when a "bad cop" screws up? Generaly, the "good cops" close ranks and the "bad cop" gets little if any punishment at all. Not all the time, but generally that is the apparent trend.

I'm not going to start listing examples and going into detail with them as I'm not going to try to respect the "no-cop bashing request"

Al Norris
January 9, 2009, 12:05 AM
Crosshair, the problem I have with generalized cop bashing, is that it is off topic. It assumes all LEOs are the same. We all know this not to be true.

Now, bash this particular cop, and only this cop and you're on topic. True or not.

Playboypenguin
January 9, 2009, 12:48 AM
One doesn't have to look for malacious behavior to explain this and one should remember it is not that unusual.
I completely agree. I do not for one second believe this officer intended to harm the victim.

Of course, most people that kill someone while driving drunk never intended to harm anyone either. That does not mean I do not think they should suffer harsh and lengthy punishment for their actions.

Granted some will say that this officer did not do anything is grossly negligent as drinking then driving, but he still made a grievous personal error that unjustly ended the life of another person. The fact that he made this error, at the very least, proves him unfit for the job he currently holds, IMHO.

vranasaurus
January 9, 2009, 01:28 AM
PBP,

I agree completely. Depending on the charge the officer's intent is completely irrelevant.

However, drawing a weapon, pointing it at someone, and squeezing the trigger would indicate to me intent to cause the death of the other person. Doing those three actions without intent to kill the person would seem pretty negligent to me because the result of those actions is likely to be death.

What boggles my mind about this situation and others like it is the reaction of people. Why do they riot in their own neighborhoods and in the process destroy the place they live. It makes no sense to me.

I could see organizing a protest outside of a meeting, or the police station, or a march through the streets, these can be peaceful and productive ways of exercising constitutional rights. But I just don't understnad how you take your anger at the police out on your own neighborhood.

roach4047
January 9, 2009, 01:34 AM
WOW.. How did I miss this?

This happened new years eve and I'm just now finding out about it.

What a terrible situation. I feel for all involved here. It's my feeling that yes it was a terrible mistake on behalf of the officer and that he inadvertantly fired the live round thinking he was going to taze the man.

I do think the officer should be criminaly prosecuted just as anybody else would be.
The victims family should be compensated with ludicris amounts of financial compensation as well. The entire department needs extensive training so that this doesn't happen again. $25 million just doesn't seem enough to me.

I also suspect this isn't the first time somebody got "Shot by a tazer" but we just haven't heard about it.

No winners are coming out of this one... Very sad. My prayers to both families involved and to the officer himself. I do hope he comes through it ok. He must be a nervous wreck.

Roach

nate45
January 9, 2009, 01:50 AM
BillCA did a good job of predicting the eventual legal outcome of this tragedy. An Involuntary Manslaughter charge seems fair and reasonable to me, at least based on what we see in the video.

I have to say though that this is one of the strangest things I've ever seen. Unholstered his weapon, almost instantly fired, then re-holstered his weapon and threw up his hands as if to say 'did I do that ?'.:confused:

I suppose we will never know what was actually going through his mind when he did it, or as far as that goes he may not even know and/or remember. Glenn E. Meyer's suggestion that it was perhaps stress related may be on the mark.

Wagonman
January 9, 2009, 02:07 AM
The reason Cops close ranks is because we know that excrement happens and that we are going to be judged and judged harshly by people who have no idea what it means to be a Cop. I am pleased that denizens of the forum are able to convict a man on 30 seconds of cell phone video. I hate nothing more than a corrupt cop, a brutal cop, a hiding behind the badge punk. However I know that the true percentage of bad cops is a lot lower than 1%.

You should not be charged with a crime for making a mistake in good faith at work.

I didn't see one post blaming the true criminal-----The resisting offender. He stops being an ******* ----game over

It is a wonder Cops do anything anymore.

I feel more and more like Col. Jessup everyday.

maestro pistolero
January 9, 2009, 04:14 AM
The officer has handed in his resignation rather than be questioned by IA. It does not look good for him. It seems pretty obvious this was a terrible, stupid mistake. I cannot imagine why he drew the weapon, and having drawn it, why he had his finger on the trigger.
I wonder if the tasers have heavy or light triggers. If they are heavy, maybe he thought he was 'pre-loading' some trigger weight on his taser. Horrible event, one for the academy to be sure.

Playboypenguin
January 9, 2009, 04:17 AM
The officer has handed in his resignation rather than be questioned by IA. It does not look good for him.
This quote from the DA does not look good for him either.
District Attorney Tom Orloff told CNN on Wednesday the incident is a “pretty clear” homicide and his office will focus primarily on Mehserle’s mental state prior to the shooting.

maestro pistolero
January 9, 2009, 04:21 AM
You should not be charged with a crime for making a mistake in good faith at work.

The charge of manslaughter is on the books so that when murder is accidental, there is an appropriate charge. If he's guilty, he has to be charged. If he is convicted, his 'good faith' can then be considered at sentencing.

If I accidentally kill someone while driving a sick person to a hospital, and it's my fault, I can be charged with manslaughter, regardless of the 'good faith' inherent in the activity.

It's a sad day. But closing ranks does little to reassure the public. Transparency will go a long way toward healing the trust of the people.

Double Naught Spy
January 9, 2009, 06:12 AM
You should not be charged with a crime for making a mistake in good faith at work.

This wasn't a mistake in "good faith" at work.

I didn't see one post blaming the true criminal-----The resisting offender. He stops being an ******* ----game over

Sure, if the criminal stopped it would not have happened. However, the officers actions given how the suspect was acting were not legal. So had the officer done his job within the bounds of the law, this would not have happened.

divemedic
January 9, 2009, 09:49 AM
I didn't see one post blaming the true criminal-----The resisting offender. He stops being an ******* ----game over


The actions of a criminal do not justify summary executions, unless the lethal force is in response to a deadly threat.

If a dump truck driver runs a traffic light through inattention, and kills a pedestrian crossing the street, he will still be charged with a homicide, even if the pedestrian was not inside the crosswalk.

Accident? sure
Was pedestrian violating the law? yes
Still chargeable? you bet

hogdogs
January 9, 2009, 10:02 AM
I think a re-defining of "RESISTANCE" is in order! Handcuffed on your face with a knee on your neck says you ain't able to resist much!
Also, many arresting officers are borderline assaulting suspects and physical response to physical abuse SHOULD be resistance... it is the nature of all but the weakest of species!
Brent

JuanCarlos
January 9, 2009, 10:56 AM
The reason Cops close ranks is because we know that excrement happens and that we are going to be judged and judged harshly by people who have no idea what it means to be a Cop. I am pleased that denizens of the forum are able to convict a man on 30 seconds of cell phone video. I hate nothing more than a corrupt cop, a brutal cop, a hiding behind the badge punk. However I know that the true percentage of bad cops is a lot lower than 1%.

You should not be charged with a crime for making a mistake in good faith at work.

I didn't see one post blaming the true criminal-----The resisting offender. He stops being an ******* ----game over

It is a wonder Cops do anything anymore.

I feel more and more like Col. Jessup everyday.

Anybody else noticing anything, here? Interesting, considering one of these two men didn't kill anybody.

Also, you should almost certainly be charged with a crime when making a mistake at work causes somebody to be killed. What crime you should be charged with will vary on circumstances. Whether or not you should be convicted depends on whether a jury believes that you were acting in good faith, whether there was any negligence involved, etc. The punishment should you be convicted would depend on other mitigating circumstances as well.

vranasaurus
January 9, 2009, 12:24 PM
I am pleased that denizens of the forum are able to convict a man on 30 seconds of cell phone video

Most here, including myself, have said that he should be charged with a crime. Whether or not he is convicted is up to a jury. I have said that he is presumed innocent but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be charged.

El Paso Joe
January 9, 2009, 03:12 PM
When I went through the academy (pushing 40 years ago) they really emphasized that LEOs were held to a higher standard. I came to know, when on the streets, that there were few friends out there. And also that there was a lot of "contempt of cop." Not against the law. But it was almost a sacred duty to protect a person suspected of a crime when they were cuffed - even in the face of some pretty stiff contempt. One of the officers on the local PD lost his badge and got some jail time for working over an abusive suspect in cuffs.

One of my classmates at the academy was a retired Navy CPO. He shot and killed a drunk kid (he was off duty at the time) with his county issued revolver. He was charged and convicted of murder 2 and is probably still in jail. For me, it was very sobering...

Carrying a badge is tough. No other way to see it. But still - you must be held to that higher standard. That being said, the shooting was a tragedy - both for the suspect and the LEO who shot him. And whether the LEO should face charges, I believe that he should. And stiff ones at that. Not only did the LEO violate the Penal Code but he violated the trust...

When I got a cell phone, I carried it on my weak side. I have carried concealed and open for enough years that I wanted no chance of confusion. The department that I was with held night shoots on a regular basis. One of the drills was to draw your weapon and point it in the direction of the target. The OIC would then pop a flash bulb and you were to fire six shots into the target and reload. It worried me because I could see it as the basis for unintentionally shooting during a traffic stop if you caught the flash of the headlights from a turning vehicle nearby. Under stress, a learned and reinforced response to the stimulus will tend to rule out other action. Not always. But possible. Lots of words - but I agree with the poster who said that a taser should feel very different from a service sidearm.

Wildalaska
January 9, 2009, 03:22 PM
You want to get to the root causes of this?

1. Training
2. Hiring practices.
3. Training.


I predict the jury will convict him of whatever California's criminally negligent homicide equivalent is. If I was the guys attorney, thats what I would be aiming at, as the DA is going to look for more to appease the "public". I would go so far as to have him testify before the grand jury and admit he screwed up.

WildseemypsbelowAlaska ™

PS...99% of cops are good solid citizens. 99% of gun owners are good solid citizens. Neither should be tarred by the actions of the bad one's, dont you agree?

PPS...what kind of handgun are these officers issued?

grymster2007
January 9, 2009, 04:06 PM
You want to get to the root causes of this?

1. Training
2. Hiring practices.
3. Training.

I suspect you're right, but for what it's worth:

Qualifications and training for BART police officers exceed the mandates of the state's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, which certifies all California peace officers.

BART Police (http://www.bart.gov/about/police/history.aspx)

I don't know what type of guns they're issued.

I really don't understand those that call this a summary execution. I didn't see that on the videos. Let the courts figure it out. Good chance the guy will be over-punished anyway, given the political pressure on the DA.

shoot870p
January 9, 2009, 05:45 PM
poor thing. he turned in a resignation to avoid internal affairs. looks like a "I'm sorry" action and I do not like those. you favorite cat dies- im sorry. you get a hang nail- im sorry. a family member dies- im sorry.
WA is right - Train
train the way you fight and fight the way you train.
I hat it for the families but he needs to be relieved of any and all police power. let him push a short mop for a while.

Wagonman
January 10, 2009, 12:45 AM
From what I heard at roll call tonight, he drew the pistol when he meant to draw the tazer.


It was a tragic mistake, however, I think that leaving his job is more than enough punishment.


I think a suspension coupled with some retraining would be more fitting.


I understand being held to a higher standard, The problem I have with the Cop bashers is that this Police Officer was doing his job in good faith when a mistake occured. He doesn't have the key factor in determining guilt, INTENT, his intent was to arrest a resisting offender.

Al Norris
January 10, 2009, 01:01 AM
Negligent Homicide (or whatever your State calls it) needs no mens rea. It is an act of criminal negligence whereby recklessness itself generally meets the legislated criteria of mens rea.

Wildalaska
January 10, 2009, 01:12 AM
Or as the model penal code points out

"Criminal negligence requires that the defendant should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the death of another human being will result from his conduct. The conduct must be a “gross deviation” from the standard of care of a reasonable person"

WildtheloweststandardAlaska TM

Wagonman
January 10, 2009, 01:44 AM
I don't see the "unjustifiable risk" He was assisting in a difficult arrest and drew wrong tool. I am sorry I can't take the leap of criminally charging a guy for making a mistake while doing his job. The only way I could interpret negligence is if he was playing with his gun and it went off or something of that nature.

divemedic
January 10, 2009, 07:09 AM
I think a suspension coupled with some retraining would be more fitting.


1 He was trained in the use of firearm and taser
2 he was aware of the risk
3 he failed to ensure that he was using the correct weapon
4 he killed another person

This man's mistake cost another his life, and some here think a suspension is enough to compensate for that? What if that dead person had been your child? Would you feel the same way?

Allowing the defense of "I didn't mean it." opens the door for any person anywhere to use "oops, my bad" as a legal defense.

The problem I have with the Cop bashers is that this Police Officer was doing his job in good faith when a mistake occured. He doesn't have the key factor in determining guilt, INTENT, his intent was to arrest a resisting offender.


California law:

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:

(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.

Don't need intent for involuntary manslaughter. How is it that when people want to hold a cop accountable for his actions, and are not bashing cops in general, do people always come forward and excuse the cop's actions and accuse those wanting to hold him accountable of cop bashing? This thread is not about bashing cops in general, but is about holding one cop accountable for taking the life of another human being.

alloy
January 10, 2009, 08:02 AM
years ago...i saw a friend of a friend punch his fist thru a wall or door on a few occasions. what flipped his switch is hard to say, but to an onlooker it kinda looked like that video, especially when his pistol stuck in his holster for a sec and he just kept on going regardless.

of course it couldn't be, but it still looks like an execution. disturbing.

alloy
January 10, 2009, 08:18 AM
a note from this observer...i would hope all responses are in line with all the thought provoking posts on typical threads regarding:

"accidental or negligent discharge?"

Chuckusaret
January 10, 2009, 08:37 AM
We all must train and train until an act becomes second nature, without thought. Sufficient training would help to eliminate incidents such as this in the heat of engagement or battle. This ex LE type will get some jail time because he had not received , I am sure, the necessary training and BART will also get some bad press and rightly so.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 10, 2009, 10:58 AM
While training is obviously important and folks say that if you practice intensively you will be ok- we know that is not always the case. There are two well known pathways for an action:

1. An automatic one that is not under conscious control and is very quick
2. An analytic one that is slower and under control.

A handgun like taser may just be a response trap that leads to a quick draw on the gun if stress moves you towards an automatic response. I don't recall folks confusing their night stick for a gun or vice versa. We have heard of folks trying to reload with their cell phone (if that is true).

Perhaps, the nongunlike civilian tasers would be a better carry if we continue to see this.

As far as the legal ramifications - I can easily see the civil suit bringing in human factors experts to discuss such. I have a friend who was involved in a Glock lawsuit with someone shooting themselves by pulling the trigger on a loaded gun to fit it into the box with the post and a discussion of the components of liability. Yes, there are warnings but the design suggests the bad action - etc.

Wagonman
January 12, 2009, 03:03 AM
My son would not be fighting with the police.

I am sorry, I can't work up sympathy for this piece of police fighting human debris that is causing my brothers in Oakland such aggravation. His family just hit the ghetto lotto.

Playboypenguin
January 12, 2009, 03:09 AM
His family just hit the ghetto lotto.
Wow, that is pretty racist right there. :barf:

Wagonman
January 12, 2009, 03:20 AM
How's that, I didn't mention race at all. It is an term used when a lowlife regardless of color, creed, race etc. puts himself into a situation in which he is breaking the law and then sues the Police Department for injuries caused during the arrest process.

grymster2007
January 12, 2009, 08:06 AM
If that's ghetto lotto, the cost of the ticket was pretty steep in this case.

divemedic
January 12, 2009, 08:21 AM
His family just hit the ghetto lotto.

Another cop defends summary execution.

I didn't realize that resisting arrest was a death penalty offense that doesn't even deserve things like due process or all the formalities of a trial.

JuanCarlos
January 12, 2009, 09:35 AM
Did we ever determine whether the officer in question was wearing his Taser on the wrong side, leading to him drawing the gun accidentally? If so, that alone would be an action taken by the officer that would justify a finding of negligence, considering it both led to a death and that this result was foreseeable (hence the policy in the first place).

And that's beside the fact the the drive-stun mode would have been a more appropriate use of the Taser anyway (and presented a much lower risk to the suspect...Tasers being less than lethal, not non-lethal), and would also have prevented this death.

I honestly don't care if he spends any time in prison...I think all the mitigating factors mentioned should definitely be taken into account at sentencing, and I'd be fine with just the conviction. But I don't want to see this guy in another department two towns (or two states) over a year or two from now. He's proven he can't handle the responsibility. Not everybody can.

EDIT: Noting that the above is assuming that there aren't any crazy mitigating factors not shown in the video...which, while possible, does not fit in with any info released thus far since the release of said video. At this point I'm pretty comfortable taking the video at face value, which is to say that this was an entirely accidental shooting.

zxcvbob
January 12, 2009, 09:45 AM
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner:
Also, you should almost certainly be charged with a crime when making a mistake at work causes somebody to be killed. What crime you should be charged with will vary on circumstances. Whether or not you should be convicted depends on whether a jury believes that you were acting in good faith, whether there was any negligence involved, etc. The punishment should you be convicted would depend on other mitigating circumstances as well. Excellent summary (IMHO.)

Chuckusaret
January 12, 2009, 11:24 AM
Quote: Wow, that is pretty racist right there.

It is " fact" based on the actions of one particular group of people of the same race I would not consider it as racist. 85% of all crimes committed are committed by one race group that makes up only 12% of the US population

pax
January 12, 2009, 11:40 AM
We have heard of folks trying to reload with their cell phone (if that is true).


Glenn, with my own eyes I once watched a man try desperately to reload his semi-auto using a taclight. Took him a long couple of seconds before he came to himself & realized what he was doing. Happened during a FOF class. Convinced me to carry my taclight in my pocket, instead of next to the mag pouch.

pax

Al Norris
January 12, 2009, 11:52 AM
I am sorry, I can't work up sympathy for this piece of police fighting human debris that is causing my brothers in Oakland such aggravation. His family just hit the ghetto lotto.

Ghetto, in every dictionary, including legal dictionaries, refers to a section of a city/town wherein those of minority race reside. The phrase, "ghetto lottery," is racist in meaning and connotation. It is off topic, everywhere on TFL, not just this particular forum.

There are dozens of ways to express the highlighted portion above, without delving into blatant racism. This is obvious, as the sentence preceeding the offending remark, shows such an expression.

I have left all the references to this offense, as they were written, as an example of the kind of post that will get your posting privileges for L&CR revoked and the kind of followup posts that would normally be deleted.

The warning is simple. You see something that is offensive, report it, but don't comment upon it. Why? Because if what you reported is deemed to be something we would not like here, then it and all references to it will be deleted.

arktravler
January 12, 2009, 12:11 PM
Originally Posted by Wagonman
I am sorry, I can't work up sympathy for this piece of police fighting human debris that is causing my brothers in Oakland such aggravation.

Typical cop vs citizen attitude..:cool:

Playboypenguin
January 12, 2009, 01:19 PM
Typical cop vs citizen attitude..
Typical of that attitude, yes...but that attitude is not typical of all cops. Most of the officers I served with were fine people. Not all, but most. Just like in real life, on this forum the bad apples make the most noise. :)

Eskimo
January 12, 2009, 01:38 PM
Quote: Wow, that is pretty racist right there.

It is " fact" based on the actions of one particular group of people of the same race I would not consider it as racist. 85% of all crimes committed are committed by one race group that makes up only 12% of the US population

This is what I try to tell everyone, and i'm called racist for it. A statistical fact is not the same as racism.

Eskimo
January 12, 2009, 01:42 PM
Race, Crime and Justice in America
The Color
of
Crime
New Century Foundation
Oakton, VA 22124

Second, Expanded Edition
Major Findings
• Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.
Crime Rates
• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder,
and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely
than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and
Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of
the population that is black and Hispanic.
Interracial Crime
• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving
blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Fortyfive
percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are
Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are
black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against
a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes
against whites than vice versa.
Gangs
• Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
• Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs.
Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.
Incarceration
• Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139
to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39
million.
• Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are
three times more likely.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 12, 2009, 01:54 PM
I'm closing this. A discussion of what occurred such that the person was shot is legit. A discussion of the demographics of crime to somehow justify the shooting is not.

Glenn

Al Norris
January 12, 2009, 01:54 PM
Kinda tells me the thread has rune its course.

(looks like Glenn beat me to it, by mere seconds! :D )