Police shoot unarmed man, laying face down, in the back
tags:
Stumble ThisI am surprised no one has posted this yet. Before anyone screams "SNUFF!", this is clearly a newsworthy event, just as much as this story was.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
(01-04) 19:38 PST Oakland -- BART's (Bay Area Rapid Transit) 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.
That officer, a two-year veteran, has not been publicly identified and has been placed on routine administrative leave. BART officials have said only that his handgun discharged at about 2:15 a.m. Thursday at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland and that the bullet struck the unarmed Grant, who had been detained with several others.
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.
"We are taking this investigation very seriously," Gee said during a news conference at BART headquarters in Oakland on Sunday. "As frustrating as it is, I want to stress that we cannot and will not jeopardize this case by discussing details before the investigation is complete."
Gee spoke after attorney John Burris held his own news conference at his Oakland office, where he was surrounded by Grant's family members and friends and witnesses to the shooting.
Burris said he plans to file a $25 million claim this week against BART - a legal precursor to a civil lawsuit - because, he says, witness statements and video footage recorded by other passengers make clear that the shooting was unjustified.
"It is, without a doubt, the most unconscionable shooting I have ever seen," said Burris, who has won several damage awards against Bay Area police departments and worked on Rodney King's civil suit against the city of Los Angeles. "A price has to be paid. Accountability has to occur."
"It's pretty clear from the tape and from witnesses," Burris said, "that (Grant) wasn't doing anything of a threatening nature to the officer."
Burris said he has interviewed several young men who were with Grant when he was shot on the platform of the Fruitvale Station and has gone to the station with them to walk through a re-enactment. Burris said he has also viewed video from three different cameras.
Burris said he will file suit on behalf of Grant's mother, Wanda Johnson, and Grant's 4-year-old daughter, Tatiana.
David E. Mastagni, an attorney for the officer, declined to comment Sunday.
Grant was a butcher at Farmer Joe's Marketplace in Oakland's Dimond district, family members said. They said he loved to play basketball and video games and hang out with friends. He had been in some trouble, they said, but was doing better in recent months in an effort to be a good father.
According to sources, Grant had a prison record. Details were unavailable Sunday.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
(01-04) 19:38 PST Oakland -- BART's (Bay Area Rapid Transit) 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.
That officer, a two-year veteran, has not been publicly identified and has been placed on routine administrative leave. BART officials have said only that his handgun discharged at about 2:15 a.m. Thursday at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland and that the bullet struck the unarmed Grant, who had been detained with several others.
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.
"We are taking this investigation very seriously," Gee said during a news conference at BART headquarters in Oakland on Sunday. "As frustrating as it is, I want to stress that we cannot and will not jeopardize this case by discussing details before the investigation is complete."
Gee spoke after attorney John Burris held his own news conference at his Oakland office, where he was surrounded by Grant's family members and friends and witnesses to the shooting.
Burris said he plans to file a $25 million claim this week against BART - a legal precursor to a civil lawsuit - because, he says, witness statements and video footage recorded by other passengers make clear that the shooting was unjustified.
"It is, without a doubt, the most unconscionable shooting I have ever seen," said Burris, who has won several damage awards against Bay Area police departments and worked on Rodney King's civil suit against the city of Los Angeles. "A price has to be paid. Accountability has to occur."
"It's pretty clear from the tape and from witnesses," Burris said, "that (Grant) wasn't doing anything of a threatening nature to the officer."
Burris said he has interviewed several young men who were with Grant when he was shot on the platform of the Fruitvale Station and has gone to the station with them to walk through a re-enactment. Burris said he has also viewed video from three different cameras.
Burris said he will file suit on behalf of Grant's mother, Wanda Johnson, and Grant's 4-year-old daughter, Tatiana.
David E. Mastagni, an attorney for the officer, declined to comment Sunday.
Grant was a butcher at Farmer Joe's Marketplace in Oakland's Dimond district, family members said. They said he loved to play basketball and video games and hang out with friends. He had been in some trouble, they said, but was doing better in recent months in an effort to be a good father.
According to sources, Grant had a prison record. Details were unavailable Sunday.
More here.
the only rational explanation i can come up with is he fired on accident.
Also, if anyone makes the argument of "Well we didn't see what happened BEFORE this video, so we can't pass judgment." You need to shut up. The dude was handcuffed, on the ground with a cop standing on his neck. He wasn't a threat to anyone aside from himself. There was absolutely no justification for shooting him.
I'll say this though - quite often in cases when so-called "police brutality" is sifted, MG indicates that context and more footage might paint a clearer picture. I don't believe this is the case here and I'd say it'll probably eventually come down to eye-witness accounts in court.
Times like this I think we should treat shootings by law enforcement as we would if a member of the general public had pulled the trigger. Conduct a jury trial, and let the court decide if the shooting was justified. Maybe if a few careless cops ended up in jail, rather than just losing their jobs(if that), they all might be a little more cautious about shooting people.
Why are cops allowed to lie to the public. If you lied to a cop you could be charged. These are sworn public servants. I think the spokesman and anyone giving false testimony should be thrown in jail. Is Jim Allison aware it should be a crime to give false reports to the public.
Clearly this will be a coverup when they "investigate".
If a cop could mistake the operation of a pistol with a taser, they shouldn't be a cop let only using deadly force.
I think shootings by cops should be investigate and prosecuted more harshly than shootings by civilians. They have a more responsibility, more authority and more power than civilians, and as such they should be held to a higher standard. If they can't keep their cool on the job, they need to be fired immediately or put back in intense training or retested / given a mental exam. If they shoot someone, EVER, there should be a full investigation and they should immediately be put through psychological examination and training. That's some serious shit to be able to shoot someone, and the effect psychologically on the shooter must be intense and life changing.
Also, it's worth noting that this event occurred the morning of Jan 1st, so I think it's a fair assumption that at least some of the people in this video had been drinking. If they find that the cop had been drinking he should be immediately put in jail. Taking risks with such power is unacceptable.
I agree with the others. There is no prior context here. GUILTY.
But can we please keep in mind that titles like "Police shoot unarmed man" or "killed by the Oakland police" are inflammatory and incorrect. It was one SINGLE person who fired the shot. If you want to argue it was a failure of training or safety policies, or even racial bigotry, please stop making it sound like all police officers committed this atrocity.
This man was executed gangster style BY THE BART POLICE. A bunch of cops stood around watching, two cops held the man, and a third one drew his gun and shot him in the back. It wasn't "a single person". Go watch the video.
It wasn't one cop denying anything happened. It was the police spokesman telling lies to the press. It's amazing what they will say before they know the video is going on the 11 o'clock news.
POLICE SHOOT UNARMED MAN looks correct to me.
KILLED WHILE RIDING TRANSIT looks correct to me.
SHOT IN BACK WHILE RESTRAINED BY COPS looks correct to me.
COPS EXECUTE ANOTHER BLACK MAN FOR RIDING SUBWAY is almost correct.
You know I find it hard to accept that it was a mix up between a taser and pistol. Two reasons, tasers are carried on the offhand side of an officers belt, in a holster that it can be pulled from, while pistols are on what ever side the officer is handed, in a holster the gun must be lifted out of, usually after unsnapping a tab of leather. And in this situation, you can watch the video and see that there was no reason to taser the victim, there is, the so-called struggle appears to be Grant trying to put his hand down to control lying on the ground rather than being pushed down with his hands behind his back and essentially falling over. It's a shame the audio isn't better so we could at least hear if he was saying anything to warrant the hostility he was receiving.
Well it obviously wasn't an accident, judging by how long the weapon was aimed before the shot fired. My initial guess is that the officer might have been rather intoxicated and somehow mistook his sidearm for a taser. But what the hell do/can we know?
I'll say this though - quite often in cases when so-called "police brutality" is sifted, MG indicates that context and more footage might paint a clearer picture. I don't believe this is the case here and I'd say it'll probably eventually come down to eye-witness accounts in court.
No; No prior footage needed. This cop is fucked and will probably face several years in federal prision, as he should.
Though he most certainly was not cooperating as Trancecoach said.
But can we please keep in mind that titles like "Police shoot unarmed man" or "killed by the Oakland police" are inflammatory and incorrect. It was one SINGLE person who fired the shot. If you want to argue it was a failure of training or safety policies, or even racial bigotry, please stop making it sound like all police officers committed this atrocity.
The legal term is "accomplice".
If you and a friend rob a liquor store, and your friend kills the clerk, you both face murder charges.
Every one of the cops at the scene should also be charged.
take that, authorities without knowledge of the present-day technocratic-free-for-all society. Huuunnn (humping gesture)
Terrible indeed, but I really don't see how the same agency sans $25M will do a better job of preventing things like this in the future.
I believe it would be covered by insurance. So higher premiums, yes, but BART won't pay $25m out of pocket.
Way to go America, guns all over the place is great hey?
Pht - don't turn this into an anti-gun thing. That debate is a dead horse. Care to discuss the huge surge in KNIFE killings the UK is experiencing? Ban the guns and the UK turns into a nation of Jack-the-Rippers. Problem is not guns. Problem is stupid people.
Ok, I'll go with that one. So what you're saying is that the reason there are so many gun crimes in America is that it's full of stupid people...
The fact remains, if that officer wasn't carrying a gun, it would have been impossible for him to shoot anyone.
If it were the Taser mixup, then surely that points to maybe that cops should have either/or, not both weapons. Too easy to make a mistake in the heat of conflict.
Having said said that...
a) He didn't even deserve a Taser... if you were to Taser someone in that situation you should be giving them every chance to stop before you fire... draw your Taser, warn them repeatedly...
b) I hate the way these news articles try to make the victim seem like a saint. I mean come on, in this situation you can't see ANYTHING that warrants being shot... but I love how they don't mention his record, or any of his prior charges. They just show pictures of him with his daughter and girlfriend.
c) The officer deserves to be locked up for a very, very long time.
>> ^misterwight:
Terrible indeed, but I really don't see how the same agency sans $25M will do a better job of preventing things like this in the future.
I believe it would be covered by insurance. So higher premiums, yes, but BART won't pay $25m out of pocket.
The taxpayers will end up paying some way or another.
Well... I was a police officer long ago, I don't see any cause why that officer should have drawn his weapon, if anything he screwed up by not helping out with the physical take down. However, I watched this a few times and did notice something. Watch his left hand just as the shot is fired (the other vid has the sound of the shot), this looks like an accidental discharge.
The reason I say this is because of his left hand. His left hand looks like he was chambering the pistol which never should happen (there should always already be a round in the chamber), Semi autos should always be preloaded and you NEVER single action a double action revolver (I doubt he had a revolver). They say he is a 2 year vet of the force, but looks pure rookie to me. Also... sad but, if it was accidental, there will be pressures to not admit it, they rather fight it as a justifiable shooting, I will not explain the reasons for that as its too sad.
Total FUBAR
Looking it again, I am even more convinced the idiot was pulling back his slide, must have been a semi auto. Doing so makes no sense at all. His stupid finger was on the trigger and when the slide came forward it discharged. That's my 2 cents based on a really grainy vid.
One more thing, when you shoot, you shoot to kill. He holstered his weapon immediately, normally you would continue to cover the subject.
Had to be Accidental Discharge OR a targeted assassination (which wouldn't happen in public, wouldn't be just one shot and would not be done by a rookie)
Most police officers are good and competent people, but 20 percent or less aren't. They hold so much power and have such room for abuse with limited accountability that a few bad ones can really create enormous sickness.
I'm betting the truth will never come out, everyone will cry out murder and the dept will not admit accidental shooting unless they don't have a foot to stand on. They will come up with something to justify the shooting. That cop will be under a lot of pressure not to admit accidental discharge and certain opposing groups will be more eager to pursue this as a matter of police abuse rather than police total ineptitude.
Why am I not finding any expert opinions/analysis of this? Stuff I read in the articles I've seen so far has been total bunk.
Well, I guess I can be totally wrong of course.
last and final update: I saw some other vids from other angles, one of them had a pretty clear pic. I don't think he was chambering, I now believe that he did not properly handle his firearm. He probably has a nice little welt on the thumb of his left hand. he seemed to be a bit flustered, he tried unholstering from a sitting position which can be tricky - police holsters are designed so that they only come out at a certain angle so that someone from behind you can not take your firearm out in a grapple. I tried thinking of a scenario where I would pull my weapon in this scenario: The only thing I can think of is that during a pat down... if something was felt to be a possible weapon (we would have called out "possible signal zero"), at which point I might have drawn and covered till the search was complete. The other officers though, didn't seem very alarmed and were taken by total surprise by the shot.
I just can't see this being anything other than an accident (and total incompetence). Hopefully they tested his blood for possible intoxication and also checked his left hand.
JOHANNES MEHSERLE who is still alive to see his child.
JOHANNES MEHSERLE who will probably not ever be convicted of his crimes.
Correct your over-generalized phrasing and you'd be nearer the mark and less bombastic. The UK doesn't have so many knifings because its 'full' of stupid people.
The fact remains, if that officer wasn't carrying a gun, it would have been impossible for him to shoot anyone.
Ban a particular weapon and idiots will use some other weapon (as people in the UK so capably demonstrate). The 'problem' ultimately is not the weapon. It is the idiot using it. You have simply allowed yourself to mentally categorize 'guns' as bad and other stuff as 'not bad'. It is an arbitrary line based on your personal preferences, not logic.
Had to be accidental discharge...
I also after multiple viewings tend to think that is probably what happened. Stupid guy gets excited, pulls his weapon, and in his haste (or excitement) he puts his finger on the trigger instead of around the guard. In the scuffle he squeezes. The only other possible explanation I can think is that he thought he had a tazer in his hand because it sure looks like he just draws, points, and shoots. He didn't look like he was agitated.
First he puts both hands on the weapon which you don't do with a taser at 2 feet away. Also he then appears to draw back the slide with his left hand and that is when it discharges. It may have been accidental discharge, but that is from some idiot playing gangster movie gun with his semi-auto weapon. He also immediately re-holsters the gun, which rules out fear for his life.
There's no way he could've mistaken his gun for a tazer. Tazers are about as similar to the shape and feel of a gun as a bowl of oatmeal is.
But, if he thought he was reaching for a tazer, why? He was going to just taze the shit out of a guy who was face down on the ground, trying to calm others around him, and had the weight of two cops on his back and kneck.
This video is yet another in a never-ending series of why tazers should be outlawed.
amateur digital video for the masses.
take that, authorities without knowledge of the present-day technocratic-free-for-all society. Huuunnn (humping gesture)
choggie.
Any fool can say, "Your argument is crap." It takes someone with two gangleon to rub together to prove it. Care to explain exactly WHY the argument is crap. Remember - the argument is that bad/stupid people, not guns, are the ultimate cause of violence. Now, bring forth your strong reasoning. Exactly how would guns be causing violence if the world was full of only good, thoughtful people?
A gun is a tool, like any other. A tool can make a bad/stupid person better at what they are trying to do badly/stupidly, but take the tool away and they will still do bad/stupid things. Your central posit is that if guns didn't exist, people wouldn't die of violent causes. Bollocks. Pick up a history book.
EDIT: You have now just witnessed a murder. Accidental discharge, You cant accidentally discharge a weapon. You put your hand on it, you pulled the trigger, you own that baby.
Fucking executed him.
GODAMN FUCKING EXECUTED HIM.
I cant even formulate a complete thought... in my head. every time I see this ...
For any of you who say this was an accident you have to consciously make the decision to ignore the evidence of what you just witnessed.
Accident or not it was murder. Ignorance is no excuse.
Criminally indefensible.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/01/BAB9152I2Q.DTL
Ill quote this bullshit.
"The question was whether the persons civil rights have been violated"
HES FUCKING DEAD, goddammit his rights have been massively violated.
NOTE: This is not snuff, its news, and therefore does not violate the rules.
http://www.videosift.com/video/BART-Police-shooting-in-Oakland-KTVU-Report
If you ask me, it appears that the camera phones really worked in this case.
why did it take two officers to pin him down?
The other detainees were relatively unattended, was Oscar resisting? If so why? If not why was he getting so much attention?
*FUBAR Channel (if there was one)
Clearly we don't know enough about what happened, other than one person should still be alive to watch his little girl grow up.
=(
It appears that the officer has been forced to resign from the force. The police decided that the shooting was too much to bear -- that the shooting was indefensible -- so they're not going to protect him.
If you ask me, it appears that the camera phones really worked in this case.
to dcmisha's response -> thank you for an experienced analysis
I feel sorry for the officer. It seems that he accidentally took a life, a situation that may haunt him for the rest of his days. Actually I hope it does. Not for the reason that many people would. I don't want him punished in that way, just that it would show sincerity of character.
This doesn't excuse him from accepting accountability and responsibility for his actions. I am a disturbed by the report that they tried to gather all the video capture devices from the crowd. Perhaps I am jaded, but that smacks of the beginnings of a coverup. I would be curious what the polices official story would have been if the video hadn't surfaced for several weeks. Again perhaps I am jaded, but I expect I know what it would be.
A very bad day for many people. I'm glad it was recorded to ensure it was brought to light.
Quite simply, this is why police officers in the UK should never carry guns. They don't as a matter of course, but the family of Jean Charles de Menezes can tell you all about what happens when you give police guns.
Way to go America, guns all over the place is great hey?
Give me a nice sturdy car with a full tank of gas, and a crowded New York sidewalk and I bet I can take out more people with that than with almost any gun. Guaranteed.
Pht - don't turn this into an anti-gun thing. That debate is a dead horse. Care to discuss the huge surge in KNIFE killings the UK is experiencing? Ban the guns and the UK turns into a nation of Jack-the-Rippers. Problem is not guns. Problem is stupid people.
The problem in the UK very much *is* guns AND knives. If guns were freely available I can imagine the problem would be very much worse and we'd have the lunacy of armed police.
That said this shouldn't be construed as a pro/anti gun debate. Clearly for much of the U.S that boat has sailed.
I'm really disturbed that the cops tried to steal property/evidence to conceal the crime. They should all be charged with something.
Care to discuss the huge surge in KNIFE killings the UK is experiencing? Ban the guns and the UK turns into a nation of Jack-the-Rippers. Problem is not guns. Problem is stupid people.
The crux of the anti-gun argument relies on the exact same premise but with a more intelligent solution: People are stupid. Therefore, don't give them guns (or knives for that matter).
The context of the argument has also change from that of policeman carrying guns, to that of the general public, which, given the context, invalidates your argument (as it is not the police who are responsible for any surge in knife killings in the UK). But to continue....
You have arbitrarily chosen the UK to gather your statistics, whereas counter statistics can quite easily be found elsewhere in the world. For an example, take a look at the recent history of mass shootings and gun death (or lack thereof) in Australia.
A gun is a tool, like any other.
On the contrary, a gun is a tool that is significantly different from most other tools in that it is intended for killing and killing alone. Compare a gun to say a car, a hairbrush or a computer and you will see that the gun is in fact not at all like these tools.
A tool can make a bad/stupid person better at what they are trying to do badly/stupidly, but take the tool away and they will still do bad/stupid things.
... yes, but less effectively.
Your central posit is that if guns didn't exist, people wouldn't die of violent causes. Bollocks.
I'm quite sure that you have exaggerated his central posit, which is this: if guns didn't exist, fewer people would die of violent causes.
Furthermore, you say:
Pht - don't turn this into an anti-gun thing. That debate is a dead horse.
... yet then promptly spark up a debate. In fact the anti-gun "thing" is not a dead horse in many of the world's states and reducing access to guns has proven very successful in some countries.
The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions. In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.
Tragic as any death is, the number of accidental shootings by cops (or otherwise) is negligible. In 1997 a study was conducted by the CDC and it was learned that out of a total of 32,000 gun deaths, 54% were suicides, 41% are homicides, and the remaining percentage were accidents. A total of 2,314,000 people died in the US in 1997. Eliminating suicides, that means there were 14,720 non-voluntary deaths attributable to guns in 1997. Pick any year you want though. The numbers hold up.
So 0.63% of all US deaths were gun killings. Put that into perspective. 32,000 died from adverse reactions to prescription drugs. You are 2X more likely to die going to the doctor than from a gun. The number of people that died from taking ASPIRIN in 1997 was 7,600. Guns are 2X as dangerous as a bottle of Bayer.
Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.
I'm sure your sense of moral outrage does not extend to your glass of beer, your own vehicle, or your pack of ciggies. The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers. It is arbitrary, selective, and smacks of personal emotional opinion rather than having any basis in actual hard facts or real-world interactions. But guns are more dramatic, and therefore people with more emotion than sense find tham an easy scapegoat on which to hang thier moral outrage.
You have arbitrarily chosen the UK to gather your statistics
I did that because robbersdog said, "This is why police in the UK should never carry guns". I went to the country under discussion. No other reason.
On the contrary, a gun is a tool that is significantly different from most other tools in that it is intended for killing and killing alone. Compare a gun to say a car, a hairbrush or a computer and you will see that the gun is in fact not at all like these tools.
A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes. As VideoSift has proven, they can be the source of a lot of cool fun, hilarity, entertainment, and harmless destruction of personal property.
MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA CITY MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9
i've had this discussion with people on videosift before and cant be bothered getting into a flame fest about it again, but feel free to private message me and i'll link you up with a bunch more data.
Excerpts from above link:
----------------
"Protests erupted shortly after a young man killed by a subway police officer was laid to rest in Oakland on Wednesday night...The Oakland Police Department made 105 arrests, including a mass arrest of about 80 people at 11 p.m., said Officer Jeff Thomason. The charges include inciting a riot, vandalism, assault on a police officer and unlawful assembly, he said."
"A BART spokesman has said there is more to the story than what can be seen on the grainy images"
"David Chai, chief of staff for Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, said Dellums was "out and about" in the streets Wednesday, urging protesters to exercise their frustration productively. Dellums also announced that the Oakland Police Department was conducting its own investigation into the matter."
"Thomason said Oakland police will either work alongside BART in its investigation or take the probe over, but no decisions have been made."
"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 before the shooting."
"The Grant family attorney, John Burris, is pushing Orloff to press criminal charges against Mehserle. Burris has also filed a $25 million claim with BART, alleging wrongful death."
"A statement Wednesday said BART "will continue to seek and examine all available evidence and will continue its full cooperation with the ongoing independent investigation by the district attorney."
End Of Excerpts
--------------------
The DA publicly stated that it was clearly a homicide - First time I have seen a DA make such a statement during an ongoing investigation. It's misleading, he didn't say "Criminal" Homicide. Obviously someone died. I think captain obvious made the statement for reasons other than stating a fact.
Pretty much at this point I would only trust an FBI investigation, the quicker they get involved the less this thing gets even more F'd up. The longer they wait the harder it will be to get clean testimonies, witnesses and evidence.
So you're saying they actually ARRESTED people? For COMMITING CRIMES? How bizarre.
It's sickening. They arrest 105 people for protesting without any investigation. But this guy, they want to check that shit out and be sure.
winston, find below required evidence of why your argument is crap.
MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA CITY MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9
i've had this discussion with people on videosift before and cant be bothered getting into a flame fest about it again, but feel free to private message me and i'll link you up with a bunch more data.
You quoted some statistics, and this makes his argument invalid? Then you say, "Ive had this argument before". Appealing to past arguments as though they make you right, appealing to false authority.
Link to sources, bibliography. Until then your argument is unsustainable.
Your argument, is a very gentle Non Sequitur. It has no context, other than you had this discussion with another member. Also, linking to research does nothing unless you have good thoughts to go along with your quotes. Hence the confusion I have here.
Before you attack an argument make sure that you have your sources posted. Here is what I have from a Lt. Col. Dave Grossman Army Ret. Quoted from his book, titled On killing. "Lt. Col. Grossman a former army ranger and paratrooper taught psychology at west point is currently professor of Military Science at Arkansas State University."
The statistics are in here, and found by Interpol.
http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.htm
EDIT: I do realize that your comment is flame bait.
By the way, this was really a long drawn out appeal to authority. And also a plug for the book because I think it is good!
This paragraph illustrates how you are confused and thus mis-framing the anti-gun argument to make your argument appear strong. First you imply that the anti-gun arguments intention is to wholly prevent intentional homicide; this is quite clearly wrong - noone would argue such a thing. Then you go on to admit that the real intention of the anti-gun argument is in regards to accidental death, although you again misrepresent the argument by using the word "prevent", instead of "reduce".
So at this point you seem to basically be admitting that you've got your original argument all confused, so you introduce a new argument:
In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.
Now this is argument requires a completely different response, and I admit is more complex, but I suggest that it needs to be presented with proper grammar before it can be destroyed.
Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.
All of those things you mention (cars, drugs, ladders etc) have utilitarian benefits that in most cases could be said to outweigh the deaths they cause. Guns have few uses that don't involve killing people (or animals), therefore it is being stated that the benefits of guns do not outweigh the cons.
The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers.
On the contrary, people who argue against guns often argue against a whole lot of other dangerous things. You are creating fantasy opponents to argue against.
A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes.
Putting your argument in bold doesn't make it strong. The gun is designed with the primary purpose of killing. Other tools do not have this primary purpose (and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same.
I'm not arguing purpose, but effectiveness. All weapons are effective at killing some one the end result is the same. I think the word you are looking for here is convenient, that is why gunpowder and projectile weapons caught on. Yes projectile weapons are more convenient.
My argument against your statement ends here, the rest below is my opinion.
A hammer is arguably just as effective as a gun at killing some one. One because a person is less likely to think you are meaning to kill them. After all it is just a tool, and a weapon. They are one in the same, and the duality is novel.
A ball point pen is just as effective at maiming as a hammer is. Demonstrated in the video below.
At any one moment there are an abundance of weapons, and tools at your disposal and a knowledgeable person does not discern between the two.
On a side note:
The entomology of guns, evolved from spears and sling shots. These killing tools have been around for quite some time. This has nothing to do with whether they are dangerous or not. I think its interesting how long humans have been killing each other.
People will kill each other accidentally or intentionally. That is the way it is, for now. The day that it isn't will be a great day indeed. A day that I look forward to.
None of them are tools like a gun.
Also, using the excuse of "recreation" is lame and pointless. Someone might particularly enjoy throwing animals off of tall buildings, but that doesn't mean it should be a protected sport.
The -only- argument for gun ownership that I can imagine valid is to protect oneself from an untrustworthy government. Honestly, I'm very conflicted on the topic. I don't think people should be allowed to buy weapons so frivolously. I just don't think most people are responsible enough to be entrusted with so much killing power.