BART cops shoot unarmed man - had "criminal history"

BART appeals for calm as footage shows shooting

Quote:

(01-04) 19:38 PST Oakland -- 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.

Chief Gary Gee said he, too, had seen video images of the shooting of Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old supermarket worker from Hayward. But Gee said he found the footage to be inconclusive, and he said his investigators still needed to interview a key witness - the officer himself.

YouTube Video

Hmm a cop drawing his weapon and shooting an unarmed subdued man in the back, that doesn't prove wrongdoing.

better video

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by the same article

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.

I'd be really concerned that the police were letting people who can't tell the difference between a pistol and a taser go about their business armed. Is there not some kind of basic observation test required when you join the police over there? I particularly like how later in the article it suggests that police are encouraged to wear their taser on the off side, facing backwards to avoid just this kind of mix up implying not only that it happens often enough to warrant a guideline but also that they think a gun should be easier to reach for than a non-lethal taser, which kind of makes you wonder why they'd bother giving them tasers in the first place.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Elfstar

I'd be really concerned that the police were letting people who can't tell the difference between a pistol and a taser go about their business armed.

They don't just let them go about armed, they let them go about armed with M4 Carbines. Supposedly it's because the rifle bullets will maintain velocity in the long distances of the sub stations, but a, rifle rounds penetrate, and b, they let them carry the rifles onto the trains where they can easily get snagged on shit.





Try and rob a purse now niggerscriminals.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Elfstar

they think a gun should be easier to reach for than a non-lethal taser, which kind of makes you wonder why they'd bother giving them tasers in the first place.

Presumably a gun should be easier to reach because situations that call for using a gun at all are more extreme and require immediate reaction, whereas if you just want to taser some drunk asshole, it doesn't much matter if you take a few more seconds to do it. At least that's my assumption, maybe I'm way off. Not that this situation isn't tragically stupid.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Aardark

Presumably a gun should be easier to reach because situations that call for using a gun at all are more extreme and require immediate reaction, whereas if you just want to taser some drunk asshole, it doesn't much matter if you take a few more seconds to do it. At least that's my assumption, maybe I'm way off. Not that this situation isn't tragically stupid.

That makes sense I guess, didn't really think of it like that. I'm used to over here where the police are encouraged to do everything they can before resorting to shooting at people (Not that most of them are even armed but even here they keep the taser guns harder to reach than their pepper spray as that's considered to be a lot safer so please use the spray before you start trying to electrocute people).

Of course people get shot in the back by police in tube stations too so no systems perfect eh? Assault rifles strikes me as a little OTT though...

I was speaking idiomatically.

At least your innocent police shooting victim was running away at least? vv

How ya doing, buddy?

True, but he was shot four times in the head from point blank range vv

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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.

I don't buy the "Taser confusion" for the reason that you can see in the video that the officer draws his sidearm with his right hand, and then uses his left hand to rack the slide and put a round in the chamber. The weapon is then immediately discharged into Grant's back. I'm not aware of any taser that operates like that.

If the dude honestly thought he had a taser in his hand, why is he charging it like a standard firearm?

Most amazing jew boots

He was caught in the heat of the moment.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Capo

He was caught in the heat of the moment.

And decided to execute a restrained prisoner? One too many Abu Ghraib stories before bedtime?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

But all the other officers were egging him on - he had to do it!

I hear they even triple-dog dared him.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I'm sure when they were shouting "Let him have it" they meant a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers, rather than a bullet in the back.

Derek Bentley 2/11/52 - Nevar forget

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Hmm a cop drawing his weapon and shooting an unarmed subdued man in the back, that doesn't prove wrongdoing.

If theres no investigation, people like you cry conspiracy.

If there is an investigation, people like you cry for blood.

Make up what passses for your fucking mind already. You swap positions more often than a fat man swaps ugly women at a key party.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Uh, there is no conspiracy, the Police Union rushes to the defense of every cop accused of killing innocent people.

The Blue Shield is the reason people Don't Snitch.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Uh, there is no conspiracy, the Police Union rushes to the defense of every cop accused of killing innocent people.

The Blue Shield is the reason people Don't Snitch.

So your complaint is... that the cop shot someone? I mean, outside of the DUH factor here, whats the problem? Do you know this guy? Is there some kind of investment on your end?

FELIPE NO

The DUH Factor™ is kinda the point.

Duh.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

What's wrong with a cop killing someone? I mean, isn't that what they do?

If we outlaw homicide, only outlaws will homicide.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

So then why is everyone so angry that someone got shot. By a police officer. With a gun.

I mean, Brady obviously started the thread for the "hurr hurr police negligence" factor in mind. And my reply to that is "Okay, and?"

Quote:

What's wrong with a cop killing someone?

Exactly that. Except less glib.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

You make a well-thought and clearly sensible point.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I am Ghost Rider. I am known for these things.

If only my Penance Stare worked through the internet.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Hmm, an endless stream of innocent people, mostly black, shot and killed by police officers that get off the hook because of police stonewalling and now that one police shooting is caught on tape the Police Chief wants to "review the evidence" hmm why would I make this thread it's a fucking mystery.

Death to Israel

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Hmm, an endless stream of innocent people, mostly black, shot and killed by police officers that get off the hook because of police stonewalling and now that one police shooting is caught on tape the Police Chief wants to "review the evidence" hmm why would I make this thread it's a fucking mystery.

And you care enough to make an internet post. Watch me get all weepy.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

FUCK THAT POST WAS TOO EDGY

I'm bleeding!

It's all rushing out Jesus Christ!

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

It's so cold cold...

it's all getting black

FELIPE NO

Yes, thats about your speed.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

What you plebes fail to realize here is that LeHah isn't just being contentious for the sake of it.

Oh no, it's that, too, but more so it's a philosophical ponderence on the entire practice of posting. What is it? Why do we feel compelled to do it? Is it out of some primitive need to feel validation by post prop? Or is it more complicated than that?

This breaks the entire field of philosophy wide open and allows it to enter the twenty-first century, a world much different from that of Descartes or Voltaire. Taking this single example and delving deeper, it's easy to see how this could pertain to the act of speaking, or even to the very act of being alive.

So take offense, laugh, diss if you will, but be aware that we're all in the presence of philosophy beyond what has ever been seen. We are truly in the shadow of a man men of the future will call our time's greatest genius. Like so many of his genius before him, though, he has been maligned and cast aside. I promise you this: He will one day get his due.

Jam it back in, in the dark.