Yes, seriously, stuff like this can be covered up and played down. Video evidence makes it much harder to do so.
I disagree. There certainly circumstances that would not necessitate punishment. The victim BTW was a drunk criminal who was under arrest.
Sound would've lended me a better understanding of this Fuzzy Video of a Shooting. From what I could see the cop looked like he got up and his feet and just shot the dude for pissing him off.
YOu can hear it if you click the link on the page linked in OP. The news story video carries sound for it.
I don't think any of us should jump to a conclusion. only because i never see the cop draw his gun and all i see is this look of dread on his face. Looks like a horrible accident to me.
Would you care to tell me what my "untenable position" is? You suggested that without video cameras on phones, the police would be able to shoot innocent people and go unpunished. Now, you didn't say "might go unpunished" or "video evidence makes it harder for the police to claim witnesses were confused." You insisted that without video evidence the police WOULD get away with executions. Would you care to reconsider your untenable position?
I was watching the news about the riots that broke out after the police officer killed Grant. Totally unreal. I hope that police officer would: A) Come out and explain himself B) Get put on trial and be found guilty IF proven that this was no accident, and placed in prison for life C) Be the one to cough up the $25 million to the victim's family on top of being put into prison D) Get shot to death while HE'S unarmed E) All the above F) Only A-C G) Only D
It looked like a mistake, especially by the look up to his partner after the shot and him putting his hand over his face briefly but theres a moment between him pulling the gun and shooting, maybe just a second, but a moment where he should have stopped. I probably wouldnt have pulled the gun, especially with the person in cuffs on his face and there wasnt really a danger to his life but I cant judge him.. I wasnt in his shoes.
Late last year, a man was shot and a bible saved him. The bullet, came from a hunter who missed his target, but the bullet ricocheted and hit the man with the bible. The hunter was punished. At least, this is about the same state of the BART officer story at this point. This caused an uproar because the History of Police and African Americans, which improved after the Civil Rights Movement. But the Rodney King beating, was the last straw for one side, the beating of a detained man who couldn't defend himself because he was handcuffed. So far, no cop killer, rapist, or child molester got such a treatment. (Imagine if the act wasn't on tape, 4 cops word against a drug addicts?) An then the cops were found not guilty. Thus the L.A riots (The Rodney King case was the straw breaking). Even in 2008, there were fatal shootings of African: The man who showed his wallet to the police, the men who was leaving a bachelor party (This case the cops were 2 African Americans, 1 White, and 1 Hispanic ), and a man who heard people running away from the cops in his yard (when he came out with a stick to defend his wife and unborn kid and property from the crooks, the cops shot him without a warning to drop his "weapon"). I don't know but a few more of this can expand to a nation wide riot. An example of a police shooting, caught by a police dash cam, that didn't cause an uproar was after a vehicle pursuit, the driver took off, and the passenger, who came from an Iraq tour, laid down on the ground. You can hear on tape, the cop with his gun pointed says "Get up". The soldier says, "Ok, I'm getting up." The soldier's hands are still on the ground, his legs were up as if he was getting up from a push up workout. "Pow, Pow, Pow" the soldier is back on the ground. The cop was jailed. Tried and not guilty. The cop was Black, the soldier was Hispanic. The investigation concluded the cop was in the wrong (Position, he was too close to a suspect getting up without detention). I though the cop was wrong before the conclusion. Last year, I conclude that I'm more likely to get shot by the police that in a random gang shooting.
I don't. I do, however, remember Kathryn Johnston. Why? What possible reason could four men have for using a potentially lethal weapon like a Taser against a man who was handcuffed, facedown on the floor of a train, with another officer on top of him? In what world would those circumstances necessitate the use of a Taser? Exactly. There's a saying in the Army: there's no such as an accidental discharge, only a negligent one. The training a police officer receives should be more than sufficient to avoid ACCIDENTALLY SHOOTING A RESTRAINED MAN WHO IS FACEDOWN ON THE GROUND. These calls for more detail in the case are ridiculous to me--not because I'm opposed to a thorough examination of the facts, but because this is a prima facie case of manslaughter at the very least. And unless it turns out that the victim had a machine gun concealed in his pants coupled with a Houdini-like ability to escape handcuffs, I can't imagine how it could be perceived by anyone as anything less than manslaughter, if not a more serious charge.
I totally agree. Even if it (and I'm hoping) was somehow some weird accident, it's still involuntary manslaughter due to the carelessness of the officer. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds though and get the officer's side.
