LE shoots man in the back when cuffed and down

[andrew.tt]

my $.02

I want to say first that i'm not in law enforcement, nor do I wish to be. Nor am I a huge fan of the officers that I have encountered in "my travels". That said -- this is clearly a case of people seeing what they want to see. I've looked at the extended cellphone footage and it's obvious the cop pulls his gun and fires -- then raises his hands to his head as if to say 'oh no' in realization that he screwed up.

I agree with the people on the board who suggest this was an accident and his intent was to grab for his taser. The good folks in LA could have spared us the riots if they would have even considered this to be an accident, but people see what they want to see. Nevermind how this kid got in the situation to begin with, right? I mean -- it can't be his fault -- right?

I don't want to sound crass, but if you want to play with the big boys and 'act' like a criminal, be prepared to face the consequences, even if they are accidental. I feel bad for the kids family, but I think I feel worse for the cop. Never thought I would say that.

A good anology for this, and something that regularly pisses me off and happens to everyone: Someone crossing in the street in front of your moving car, giving off tons of attitude as if to say 'go ahead and try to hit me -- i'm a pedestrian'. You slow down and let the drama finish. What happens the day they make their 'attitude vs. 3-tons of car' bet and lose? are the circumstances such that it is always the drivers fault?

 

[pbearperry]

AD

I may be off base here, but this is the kind of thing that makes we wonder about the trend for issuing guns for cops that have no safety on them.

It seems like there is a tradeoff between having a safety, and you get some officers forgetting to remove it before firing, versus having no safety and having more accidental discharges. Watching the video, my gut feeling is that the cop pulled out the gun, it had no safety, and in the heat of the moment he squeezed the trigger too hard.

Is there any study of how the number of accidental discharges changed when a police department switched to a gun with no safety on it? Or have police departments always used guns with no safety? And no, the stupid thing in the middle if the Glock trigger does not count as a safety.

The safety has nothing to do with this episode.The Cops gun did not go off by accident,he pulled the trigger.The question is why he pulled the trigger?

 

[Will Brink]

The safety has nothing to do with this episode.

One could argue it may have been a split second extra time the message might have gotten to his brain he had a gun in his hand, but it's totally moot: ergo, mental masturbation. End of the the day, it comes down to training, or lack there of. I covered some of the known variables that *may* have been the chain of variables that lead to the event in URL above, but beyond that, it's 100% WAG on our part.

Most PDs add additional/adequate training after such an even vs prior. Recall the pepper ball gun even in Boston not long ago. A general lack of training with those "non lethal" guns was a major factor there, and $$$ was spent on additional training with non lethals following that event.

 

[JonJ]

Funny thing is the police department is not pressing charges because he resigned. Case closed they say.

Maybe as far as an IA but the incident is still under criminal investigation.

 

[M1911]

But IMO in this particular case I don't believe for a second that a properly hired, properly trained man or woman would mistake one from the other.

kj, history proves otherwise. It has happened in the past.

 

[M1911]

Funny thing is the police department is not pressing charges because he resigned. Case closed they say.

Once again, the investigation is not over.

he Alameda County District Attorney's office is handling the official investigation into the shooting.

http://cbs5.com/crime/oakland.BART.shooting.2.899444.html

 

[M1911]

And how many handcuffed people have been killed or shot by cops ?

He was in the process of being handcuffed.

 

[-kj-]

kj, history proves otherwise. It has happened in the past.

I'm sure it has.... there is no shortage of un-suitable, un-trained, improperly trained, young gung-ho, gun happy/tazer happy LE officers out there these days.

Idk... it really is sad for all parties involved.

Maybe they will finally do something to change the tazer now that someone has been killed.

 

[z0mbi]

Looks to me like one AD, two lives ruined. I'm sad for all those closely involved.

 

[Half Cocked]

There are two specific elements to murder:

1. The act of killing a person

2. The state of mind (mens rea) of intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton.

First of all......your definition of murder is wrong.

Stop apologizing for this scumbag cop. It's disgusting.

Second....Where have I apologized for the officer? I am simply stating that what happened was not murder by legal standards

 

[Half Cocked]

Possibly?! What the hell would I be charged with if I "accidentally" shoot someone?

Involuntary manslaughter.

 

[Half Cocked]

It's sad, and it's easy to get angry about "what them cops can get away with", but this is not a case of a cop trying to get away with something IMO. It looks like a case of a bad mistake being made under stress.

Pretty much sums it up!

 

[Half Cocked]

It is sad that he would have to go through with all of that, but I have to think of how I would be treated in a similar situation as a non-LEO. There has to be some accountability here.

As a non-LEO would you find yourself in a position of attempting to handcuff someone in a crowd and accidently shoot them while attempting to taer them?

NO...so how could you compare.

You can only compare against similar fact patterns.

 

[Half Cocked]

I would really like to know how you came up with this ?

I Call the cop shooting the handcuffed guy in the back MURDER, and the person who runs into the man handcuffed to a telephone pole murder as well.

What would you call it Manslaughter ?

The LAW calls it involuntary manslaughter. I just follow that.

 

[Skald]

If a person wishes to hold the power that an LEO has over society then they have to deal with the realization that they WILL be held to a much higher standard of ethics AND responsibility. We, as the general public, could care less what the officer wants as far as this. If, as an LEO, do not wish this higher standard then you are free to resign your position and seek employment elsewhere.

Last I checked, and since it is before inauguration, this country is still free so you can do that if you wish.

 

[Skald]

The LAW calls it involuntary manslaughter. I just follow that.

This case is STILL being investigated, I will wait for it to end before anyone starts to say what this is and isn't. We do NOT have any facts in it so this is just armchair quarterbacking at its finest.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

He asked what he would be charged with.

IMO they would most likely charge a person that killed another person with MURDER and then he may be convicted of Man Slaughter.

But what a person is charged with would most likely be the stiffer one.

Involuntary manslaughter.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

do people here honestly think this guy shot this guy - on the ground, in front of 50 witnesses, in the back - on purpose???

You can clearly see in the video he is as shocked as everyone else when the gun went off.

 

[miss2ndamendment]

I don't think the cop was reaching for his taser at all. If you watch the video closely, you will see the guy reach back and grab the cops holster, like he wanted to pull the gun out of it. Besides he resisted arrest and we don't know the whole story, like why was he being arrested. He may have just killed someone or beat someone up real bad.

 

[Half Cocked]

still I'd love to have read how the Banned Barrister of Bulletland: the Scrivner would have answered it.

Mark L.

If I may. As far as Massachusetts is concerned.

Chapter 265: Section 1. Murder defined

Section 1. Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree.

Let's break the elements down....

Was there premeditated malice aforethought........NO
Was there extreme atrocity or cruelty.................NO
Was it in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable by death or life imprisinment..................................NO

Ergo..Not a murder under Massachusetts standards.


Chapter 265: Section 13. Involuntary Manslaughter defined

the unlawful and unintentionally causing the death of another person by an act which constitutes such disregard of probable harmful consequences to another as to constitute wanton and reckless conduct although not committed with the intention of causing death.

Malice is the distinction between murder and manslaughter. Malice comprehends any intent to inflict injury without legal justification.

Malice can be established by either:

1)proof of actual intent to kill
2)proof of actual intent to do the victim grievous bodily harm or
3)proof of an act that a reasonably prudent person would know is likely to result in the death of another. before you think this applies one must read Comm V Grey 399 Mass 469 (1970) which states that malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon.

The case in point could not withstand a charge of murder. It is even questionable whether a charge of involuntary manslughter could support an indictment based upon the fact that the act the LEO was committing at the time (attempting to handcuff a suspect) was not a wanton and reckless act. The accidental use of the firearm was not the result of a reckless act.

There is an argument that could be made regarding training and tactics and whether that could constitute reckless and wanton but I am not sure it would sustain a criminal charge.

As far as a civil case goes.........$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Cha-Ching$$$

I am not defending the actions of this officer or am I being an apologist. There are plenty of issues here.

Whether these issues rise to a criminal indictment is debatable.

 

[Half Cocked]

He asked what he would be charged with.

IMO they would most likely charge a person that killed another person with MURDER and then he may be convicted of Man Slaughter.

But what a person is charged with would most likely be the stiffer one.

You obviously do not know how the justice system works.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Maybe not.

I suppose it would depend on where the offence happened.

IE A killing in Texas could be prosecuted different than a killing in California.

Enlighten me.

You obviously do not know how the justice system works.

 

[mikem317]

Maybe not.

I suppose it would depend on where the offence happened.

IE A killing in Texas could be prosecuted different than a killing in California.

Enlighten me.

The cop won't get charged since he had a pretty piece of jewelry from the government.

 

[Jaxon]

The cop won't get charged since he had a pretty piece of jewelry from the government.

You mean like the Border Patrol guys now sitting in prison for doing less? Lighten up people.

We don't know what happened, other than lousy cell phone footage. The BART, I'm told, has excellent an surveillance system, which will hopefully have better footage. Does it look bad? Yes, but things are not always as they appear.

This back and forth legal discussion and interpretation of the legalities of who gets charged with what and why and how, blah, blah, blah.

It was tragic, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was a tragic accident and two lives were changed forever.

 

[terraformer]

You mean like the Border Patrol guys now sitting in prison for doing less? Lighten up people.

Unlike what I presume happened here, the Border patrol cops altered evidence after shooting an unarmed guy (at the very least the BG never opened or returned fire) in the back. Maybe 10 yrs and the overzealous prosecution in this case was not called for, but those two are not innocent by any means, and they actively policed their brass which shows some level of "premeditation" (not the right word but you get the point).

 

[mark056]

How can someone,which basically has no use of their arms, pose a threat ?

If what you are saying is true,then after every person a cop handcuffs,the cop should then taser the person into submission.

You make it sound like cops are afraid their own shadow is a threat to their safety.

It seems to me,cops pose a serious threat to my safety,being as they never feel safe and can justify beating my ass into submission because apparently everything is a dangerous threat to them.

I swear,cops live in a fantasy world when it comes to justifying lethal or non lethal force.

You display an incredible naivete about police work and also about the dynamics of interpersonal conflict at a close quarters level. The role of the police in subduing a suspect is to have disparate or greater than equal force and control the situation. Also to echo 1911's comments, handcuffing a suspect isn't always the easiest job in the world.

Essentially you have an anti-cop attitude which is probably why you encounter some difficulties with them. You can be polite, and compliant, but still give a negative "vibe" that is difficult to translate into speech or words, but which will still project through and will be picked up on by a savvy street cop. Attitude will determine to a large degree how you are treated by the police. While I don't condone or endorse the tragedy that occurred, the suspect would still be alive today if he had been compliant and not resisted. This does not justify him being killed by any stretch of the imagination but it is a simiple fact.

There are a lot of things I don't like about the police and there are some things like nepotism that prevail in police culture that I really find odious. The increasing militarization of the cops and the willingness of state and local agencies to cozy up to the Feds and accept all kinds of money from the Feds really bothers me because sooner or later the Feds are going to call in their markers so to speak and we will have a de facto national police force (when one thinks of all the squabbles between agencies it doesn't seem possible, but give it another 30 years or maybe sooner). Yet, there are a lot of really bad people out there and the police do have an incredibly tough job to do. It's not like television, movies or novels. The average citizen is totally clueless about what constitutes real police work.

I'm not a cop, and never will be, but I work in the enviornment with the cops every day and like I said, there are a lot of things that I don't particularly like about police culture (a lot of cops don't like the same things either) I do appreciate the Job, and what they have to go through to accomplish it.

Mark L.

 

[Bassturd]

If I may. As far as Massachusetts is concerned.

Chapter 265: Section 1. Murder defined

Section 1. Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree.

Let's break the elements down....

Was there premeditated malice aforethought........NO
Was there extreme atrocity or cruelty.................NO
Was it in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable by death or life imprisinment..................................NO

Ergo..Not a murder under Massachusetts standards.


Chapter 265: Section 13. Involuntary Manslaughter defined

the unlawful and unintentionally causing the death of another person by an act which constitutes such disregard of probable harmful consequences to another as to constitute wanton and reckless conduct although not committed with the intention of causing death.

Malice is the distinction between murder and manslaughter. Malice comprehends any intent to inflict injury without legal justification.

Malice can be established by either:

1)proof of actual intent to kill
2)proof of actual intent to do the victim grievous bodily harm or
3)proof of an act that a reasonably prudent person would know is likely to result in the death of another. before you think this applies one must read Comm V Grey 399 Mass 469 (1970) which states that malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon.

The case in point could not withstand a charge of murder. It is even questionable whether a charge of involuntary manslughter could support an indictment based upon the fact that the act the LEO was committing at the time (attempting to handcuff a suspect) was not a wanton and reckless act. The accidental use of the firearm was not the result of a reckless act.

There is an argument that could be made regarding training and tactics and whether that could constitute reckless and wanton but I am not sure it would sustain a criminal charge.

As far as a civil case goes.........$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Cha-Ching$$$

I am not defending the actions of this officer or am I being an apologist. There are plenty of issues here.

Whether these issues rise to a criminal indictment is debatable.

Half-cocked,

in general I agree with where you are coming from. One thing that is interesting to me about this is that when looking at:

the unlawful and unintentionally causing the death of another person by an act which constitutes such disregard of probable harmful consequences to another as to constitute wanton and reckless conduct although not committed with the intention of causing death.

it's a fine line to walk to suggest that the use of a firearm against someone was not "with the intention of causing death". I think this officer might run into a little trouble there.

I do not think this guy should be hung by his balls, but it's not as easy as snapping sticks to point right to involuntary manslaughter. Probably will be the conclusion, but the use of a firearm could cause an issue.

 

[law dawg]

I saw this shooting on another forum and said unless there's a weapon out of sight of the camera on the suspect, it's a bad shoot.

My guess is that he mixed up his Taser and his pistol. I haven't kept up with the story so don't know if that's what happened or not.

 

[Half Cocked]

it's a fine line to walk to suggest that the use of a firearm against someone was not "with the intention of causing death". I think this officer might run into a little trouble there.

Assuming that the firearms was mistaken as a tazer, the issue is that the firearm was used unintentionally.

 

[dwarven1]

Assuming that the firearms was mistaken as a tazer, the issue is that the firearm was used unintentionally.

And yet, a man is still dead.