Or handled firearms... Or practiced law... I too looked at the available videos frame-by-frame. It looks like a case of negligent handling of a handgun in a highly-charged and stressful situation. He doesn't aim the gun at the man on the ground. It's pointing right at him as it is drawn from the officer's holster and already had a cartridge in the chamber because guns had already been drawn and holstered earlier. All it takes is an errant finger. I've seen situations where handguns were discharged into the leg of the person drawing the gun, with similarly fatal results. Under California law this is at most misdemeanor Involuntary Manslaughter. It is only because of the politically-charged situation that this isn't being treated simply as a tragic accident. I can't tell if the officer decided to draw his firearm because the decedent appeared to constitute a threat or whether he saw a threat from the crowd. I now doubt that he'll ever tell us why he drew his firearm because he is faced with a witch-hunt environment. Instead he gave up his career and his pension to avoid making statements which could be turned against him in a politically-motivated prosecution.

The people to blame are EVERY belligerent drunk on that BART platform. If they were behaving themselves, none of these tragic events would have unfolded.

So being a belligerent drunk is now a capital offense? :eek:

A "witch hunt" is the unfair persecution of the innocent based on contrived scenarios or evidence, mostly testimony.

This does not even remotely apply here.

Again, another "devil's advocate" trying to explain away murder. If that was your kid in the box today, you would be singing a different tune.

In California, it can be. It is called Provocative Act Murder. In Canada it is a national pastime, so I understand your confusion...

Okay....that was pretty funny. Innapropriate, but funny.

Does the term "ad hominem argument" mean anything to you? :rolleyes:

I tried to google the Provocative Act of California, but couldn't find anything outside of blogs and commentary. So please, school me, a lowly, drunken, belligerent, hockey-playing, polar-bear-screwing Canuck, on the Provocative Act, and how it permits the police to shoot otherwise harmless drunken belligerents.

I have read the posts and want to make sure that I understand.

If a cop makes a mistake and directly causes someone to die, then they should be charged with murder.

If a doctor makes a mistake and causes someone to die it's okay because he was trying to help.

There are fine, competent policemen who are often faced with far more "highly-charged and stressful" situations and never draw their firearms. This cop was the ONLY one who felt the need to draw his, for whatever reason.

Reports of citizen-complaints against this officer have surfaced, an exorbitant number for a two-year cop (isn't even one too many for that length of time on the force?). Sounds like this guy was a bad cop who never should have been given a badge.

I don't think that's an accurate comparison. If a cop makes an honest mistake, then he gets off, as he should. If a doctor makes a mistake that he shouldn't have (eg. negligence) then it's malpractice. I'm not a lawyer or judge, but I believe the litmus test is would a properly-trained, rational person have made the same decision in similar circumstances. So, would any officer/doctor have made the same decision in the same circumstances? Or was there a question of negligence, unprofessionalism, racism, intoxication, etc.

You don't

Could you explain it to me?

Well.....the main difference is he wasn't trying to help the victim.

ThanksSmileWavy

I'd love to see how some of the people who are being so critical of the police officer in this incident, behaved if they were undergoing firearms training on a FATS-type system.

Even though they'd know they were on a simulator, I'd be willing to bet that ALL of them would end up shooting an innocent person in more than one scenario (most of the scenarios are reenactments of real situations).

It is so easy to "Monday morning quarterback" such a situation; it's a hell of a lot different when you're the one in the thick of the situation when it's unfolding.

Not all, but many, and those that did so should not be given the job. Just like those who do so in real situations should be removed from the job.

You're right, it's easy to armchair quarterback. But just because someone can't do a better job themself doesn't mean they don't have a right, even an obligation, to point out incompetence.

Show us these complaints -- such information would be a matter of public record.

A lot of people are just interested in throwing "gasoline on the fire" after an incident like this; what you are repeating would be just the sort of things some would make up in an attempt to bring about the destruction (rioting) they crave so much.

Let's see these complaints before we claim there is evidence this is a "bad cop."

The complaints may be public record, but they're probably not available without a written request, fee, etc.

I did find this within less than 2 minutes of google searching:

John Burris, an Oakland-based civil rights lawyer representing Grant’s family, says he believes Mehserle quit in order to avoid being interviewed by investigators in his department. He added that BART legally could have demanded that Mehserle and the other BART police officers at the scene give statements on the night of the incident. So far, they have not demanded that he give a statement.

Burris also said there had been at least two prior complaints about Mehserle before the shooting.

http://510report.org/2009/01/08/hundreds-protest-bart-shooting/

But how can you concluded that this one incident proves the officer was "incompetent"?

Are you saying that competent people never make any mistakes?

If this was an unintentional discharge of the weapon, do we really know all the circumstances leading up to the incident? For example, how long had the officer been working? Was he required to work a double shift on New Year's Eve? Was he at the end of 16 hours on the job?

My comments are not meant to "defend" the officer -- my first reaction when I looked at the video was: "Damn, that looks like a bad shooting."

My posts are to the reaction of some here who seem to be willing to completely ignore some of the serious questions that need to be asked about this incident, and seem more than ready to form a lynch mob and string the officer up on the nearest tree.

Some seem to be asking, "Why hasn't this officer been executed yet?" Or seem ready to viciously attack anyone who suggests that this could be anything less than "premeditated murder."

It is amazing the way some can't even keep the facts straight from the video. One suspect is handcuffed; the shooting occurs as the police move to the second suspect and are attempting to handcuff him. This second suspect is the one who is shot. I do not see any clear indication that the decedent is handcuffed when he is shot, but I do see that one of his hands are free after being shot. This indicates to me that he was not handcuffed when he was shot, yet some commenting here apparently cannot differentiate between the first person who is clearly handcuffed -- and is not shot -- and the second person who is struggling (and from what I can see, has one hand cuffed) and is shot.

The responses from some here is the reason why we don't want "mob justice."

There will be a complete investigation of this shooting; I'll have more confidence in the conclusions of the investigators than either the conclusions some have drawn here, or my own initial reactions to the videos.

You're absolutely right. We armchair quarterback the cops just the way we do a quarterback. If the quarterback keeps throwing interceptions, we want him out. In the case of cops, we need them to be better than us at what they do, just the same way we expect a doctor to be better at what he does, or an electrician at what he does. Fwiw, an electrician who is found negligent in a death can go to jail. So, comparing how a cop reacts to us in a given situation makes as much sense as comparing your average guy to an astronaut.

This cop made a huge mistake. People go to jail for making mistakes all the time. Is he a bad person? Don't know. But I do know he killed a handcuffed kid.

And who made the complaints and what was the final conclusion after any investigation of those complaints?

Two complaints for two years (if that is the amount of time the officer was employed) is a pretty clean record.

The low-lifes that officers have to deal with on a daily basis can be pretty quick to file complaints, but such complaints are usually frivolous and nothing more than a lame attempt by the low-lifes to get back at the officers when the officers had done nothing wrong.