• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Protests over BART shooting turn violent

Joining this one a bit late it seems now that the conversation has veered off topic...

I just wanted to make a couple of points and respond to a few others...

First concerning the shooting, the guy gave the sign of 'I give up / I'm sorry / Don't hurt me." This is not a message you send out if you are resisting arrest... then they throw this guy on the ground, subdued by 2 cops and showing no signs of resistance.

So, the cop pulls out his gun... I would be willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he meant to taser the guy... but why cattle prod someone that's following instruction?? Does this mean that we are SUPPOSED to put up a fight when being arrested?? So at least when you get tasered/shot it's 'justified'??

What irks me is that they tried passing the story off initially saying that the camera's at that one station just happened to NOT BE FILMING??? Seriously, f@@k right off if you expect me to believe that... the camera's are there to be a witness to crime, and it just so happens when it's a cop committing the crime the camera had been 'turned off'?? How gullible are you people?

So, the cop ended a man's life: He should face a charge of murder with an opening deal of accepting manslaughter. Anything less than that sends the message that both that cops are NOT responsible to the people they are meant to protect and serve or responsible for their actions. It would also serve as a precedent that cops are above the law.

Now about the riots : "anarchists" wearing all black waving the black flag have on several occasions been exposed as police officers instigating conflicts then leaving to see the legitimate and peaceful protesters to take the beatings. This happened twice in Canada, at the DNC and RNC conventions, in Melbourne, Australia, in Geneva, etc. And I mean CAUGHT AND EXPOSED, NOT SUSPECTED. BUT FULLY EXPOSED. UNDENIABLY. I don't condone the acts of breaking shop windows, etc... but if it seems that the official channels of justice are NOT going to act on the issue, then you can expect people to take action, if not taking justice into their own hands... and that would serve as a lesson to police everywhere that THEY SERVE US. WE DO NOT SERVE POLICE!!!

Khayembii Communique said:
Was it actually normal people or was it anarchists?
Click to expand...

Supposedly it was the anarchists that started the 'rioting'.

RightOfCenter said:
That is straight up murder.

Anyone find it a bit odd that the family's lawyer is wearing a hoodie when being filmed by the news?
Click to expand...

It IS murder if he intentionally pulled out his gun. If he meant to grab his taser and fired before checking, that would be manslaughter. I'm willing to give this cop the benefit, although the frenzy the cops were in seemed uncalled for considering the calm of the detained suspects. If it turns out that the station camera's were working, then all the officers involved should also be charged for interfering with an investigation, and any other applicable charges with that.

RightinNYC said:
I can pretty much guarantee you that the cops wouldn't be rioting through their neighborhoods, burning their own stores.
Click to expand...

No, Cops have their own way of getting vengeance on cop killers... I'm reminded of a group of men that were pulled over in their car and beaten by 13 cops + 2 dogs. Also, don't think for a second that cops don't use tactics to beat a suspect without leaving bruises.

jamesrage said:
I think the scum rioting merely used the shooting as an excuse to riot. The second they start rioting the media should refer to them as scum,criminals, or rioters. Calling them protesters just gives a bad name to protesters in general.
Click to expand...

True, once violence starts cops don't tend to distinguish between the violent people and the peaceful ones either.

Goobieman said:
Wait...
I thought the police were all well-trained and competent.
I mean, that's why -they- should be allowed to carry guns, while the rest of us should not...
Click to expand...

Yes, but cops are no longer trained in a 'protect and serve' mentality... they are trained in an 'us vs them' mentality, comparable to military training.

I heartily disagree with the opinion that the general public should not be carrying guns. Although I WOULD agree that to open or concealed carry a weapon on the street should require a basic proficiency test.

I mean think about it, if you plan to break into a house would you think twice if you knew that if you are seen you will likely end up shot?? Same thing at the 'riots' if the protestors were carrying guns they could have decisively dealt with those tainting the message they hoped to send?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Is this an excuse for rioting?
Click to expand...

No, Although, if justice is not served I wouldn't object to the protestors paying the officer a visit. i'd rather see justice prevail, even if it's mob justice where the justice system had failed.

jallman said:
Well then let's just call them insurgents for perpetrating mass violence against the citizens and the government authority and put a bullet in their heads.
Click to expand...

Don't be so eager to have cops put a bullet in someone's head, because then you're also putting yourself at a higher risk of having to deal with one of those trigger-happy cops you'd help to create.

jallman said:
Which is why they should be suppressed swiftly and with all necessary force.
Click to expand...

We're talking about people demanding justice, and you would have them executed?? Don't get me wrong, the perpetrators of the riots should see charges as well... but I'd much rather see justice be handled in the courts with detained suspects, not in an 'fatality incident report' because of some gun-happy cops on a power trip.

jallman said:
I imagine that your desire to burn your neighbor's car is severely diminished by seeing your fellow rioters' brains splattered across the pavement. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Yes, but how long before the cops turn psychopathic from being so easy to end people's life that any encounter with police becomes a gamble with your own life?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Where is the "malice aforethought"?
Click to expand...

It depends if the guy intentionally grabbed his gun or if he legitimately had 'taser confusion'. He should see a courtroom for murder with an offer to accept manslaughter, I could also see a plea of 'temporary insanity' based on his immediate reaction of the gunshot.

In a just world, once the gun fired and the suspect detained, the other cops should have arrested the culprit on the scene, although realistically this wouldn't happen.

Cops are trained to use tasers for much less than this these days.
Click to expand...

True, and I am saddened by that... keep the cattle prods for the cattle.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
No, I find it funny that you would use that against a Trotskyist, as if that has any meaning or significance to me or what I believe.
Click to expand...
Sure it does Trotsky and Lenin were responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands and the setting up of an authoritarian regime. There a lot worse than any anarchist has been.
 
Last edited:
BmanMcfly said:
Don't be so eager to have cops put a bullet in someone's head, because then you're also putting yourself at a higher risk of having to deal with one of those trigger-happy cops you'd help to create.



We're talking about people demanding justice, and you would have them executed?? Don't get me wrong, the perpetrators of the riots should see charges as well... but I'd much rather see justice be handled in the courts with detained suspects, not in an 'fatality incident report' because of some gun-happy cops on a power trip.



Yes, but how long before the cops turn psychopathic from being so easy to end people's life that any encounter with police becomes a gamble with your own life?
Click to expand...

I think we're misunderstanding each other here. At the point a riot broke out, the response should have been made with the national guard or a contingent from the nearest military installation.
 
Hatuey said:
YouTube - Bart Police shooting in Oakland KTVU report

I really want somebody to tell me this cop was acting in self defense when there were 3 policemen on top of the unarmed 'suspect' already.
Click to expand...

Looked like an execution actually, The cop even fumbled for his gun while the other cop was working on restraining the kid on the floor. I do not think the other cop even had a clue as to what his partner was about to do.

Pretty sad all the way around. Oakland is not a big happy sandbox where all the kids are scrubbed clean and play nice though either. Any word on warrants on this kid?

He may have been a known violent offender or dealer and that cop may have mistook a move the kid made. Trying to reach into a coat pocket or maybe under his shirt/back of his pants. Does not look like they had searched these kids yet.

Moe
 
jallman said:
I think we're misunderstanding each other here. At the point a riot broke out, the response should have been made with the national guard or a contingent from the nearest military installation.
Click to expand...

Agreed that at the point of it being a riot the national guard should be called, but there are many things that can be done to contain a riot without firing a live round.

I haven't seen much video of the riot itself, but watching the video, consider the typical 'anarchist'. Disillusioned youth, karma loving hippy types that think living in a world with no laws everyone could cooperate, those that hate the government and figure 'no government' would be best... and in the minority the brutish anarchists that start riots. Many times these huge 'anarchists' are really cops instigating a police 'retaliation'. I'm not saying that this was the case this time, but it has been the case in the past...

More to you point, while situations may arise in a riot situation where live fire becomes unnavoidable, it should be a final and drastic last resort. Your previous statements implied that should make an armed response more easily acceptable.

Especially when you've got military doing 'homeland tours' of US soil. The guys that are used to people shooting back no less. I'm afraid that if situations keep arising like this that things may get very bloody before things get better,
 
moe said:
Looked like an execution actually, The cop even fumbled for his gun while the other cop was working on restraining the kid on the floor. I do not think the other cop even had a clue as to what his partner was about to do.
Click to expand...

It really did look like an execution... but seriously, how much can you be struggling with a knee in your back and a knee on your neck... how much would you struggle BECAUSE of that? Looking at the guy's movements it seemed he knew he was about to get shot/zapped... but I dunno.

Pretty sad all the way around. Oakland is not a big happy sandbox where all the kids are scrubbed clean and play nice though either. Any word on warrants on this kid?
Click to expand...

Ya, so the cops are already on edge and eager to pull out at least the tazer? I don't even see how the taser was necessary, he should have pulled out his cuffs instead.

He may have been a known violent offender or dealer and that cop may have mistook a move the kid made. Trying to reach into a coat pocket or maybe under his shirt/back of his pants. Does not look like they had searched these kids yet.

Moe
Click to expand...

So, it was a 'hit' then? He was all but subdued and ready to be cuffed... this cop needs to see the inside of a jail cell. I'd be willing to accept 'taser confusion' as a defense, but he did kill a man.
 
watch


I’ve watched this different video several times, it looks to me that the guy is on his stomach, with a knee in his neck, the cop stood up, stepped back and just shot him. :2mad:
 
donc said:
watch


I’ve watched this different video several times, it looks to me that the guy is on his stomach, with a knee in his neck, the cop stood up, stepped back and just shot him. :2mad:
Click to expand...

I agree. And if the cop is that incompetent that he mistakenly shot the guy thinking it was a taser gun, someone who hired him needs to be held criminally negligent for putting a gun in his hand to start with.
 
Re: Man's Fatal Shooting by San Francisco Subway Police Prompts Probe, Plans for Laws

RightinNYC said:
I think I'll just get a red bull.
Click to expand...

I hear ya! :)

I wish there was a way to link this thread with the other BART shooting thread. This one has good comments and the other has the best video of the shooting.
 
donc said:
watch


I’ve watched this different video several times, it looks to me that the guy is on his stomach, with a knee in his neck, the cop stood up, stepped back and just shot him. :2mad:
Click to expand...




nah man, to me it looks like he stood up with his gun down almost at his side and he pulled the trigger. he looks shocked afterwords....


Glock, plus poor trigger control = tragic accident..... he ain't yelling he ain't mad, and he looks shocked after it happened.....
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
nah man, to me it looks like he stood up with his gun down almost at his side and he pulled the trigger. he looks shocked afterwords....


Glock, plus poor trigger control = tragic accident..... he ain't yelling he ain't mad, and he looks shocked after it happened.....
Click to expand...

If that is the case he should still be in jail for manslaughter.
 
BmanMcfly said:
If that is the case he should still be in jail for manslaughter.
Click to expand...


That kid was restrained. He was not going any where. There was not even a need for a taser. And how the heck would a trained cop screw up thinking his glock was a freaking taser????:shock:

This was just a general disturbance beef. The kids got into a fight on a train. No weapons involved etc, this cop is screwed,
 
BmanMcfly said:
If that is the case he should still be in jail for manslaughter.
Click to expand...

How so? and voluntary?





look this has happened before luckily here no one was shot:


YouTube - Dumb cop almost shoots partner


are you going to argue that this female officer was intending to shoot the suspect while the other officer had his knee on the suspects back?


it is almost identical... poor finger control + glock = a bad recipe.....



Am I saying this dood should be a cop ever again? nope. but to look at this as a murder or even nonnegligent manslaughter is a stretch as to me it there was no intent to kill.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
How so? and voluntary?





look this has happened before luckily here no one was shot:


YouTube - Dumb cop almost shoots partner


are you going to argue that this female officer was intending to shoot the suspect while the other officer had his knee on the suspects back?


it is almost identical... poor finger control + glock = a bad recipe.....



Am I saying this dood should be a cop ever again? nope. but to look at this as a murder or even nonnegligent manslaughter is a stretch as to me it there was no intent to kill.
Click to expand...

Hey... maybe that'll change cops training a bit : when you have a suspe that is subdued the ONLY tool you need to draw is your handcuffs.

It's like if you're driving your car, don't pay attention for a few seconds hit another car causing a fatality. You may not have wanted to kill the person, you omay or may not have been negligent, but you still did take another man's life and that should be answered for, cop or not.

If anything, since we are entrusting these officers to maintain the peace and maintaining our publix safety, they should be held up to a HIGHER standard. Also, that the cop STOOD UP rrather than keeping him subdued and getting his hands in cuffs... so if the suspect was fighting back, giving him more room to move could be seen as negligent.

That there was an attempt to cover this up (by claiming there was no video and station security camera's werent working at the time), IF ACCURATE should also be viewed as tampering with evidence. In that, if true, these are clearly cops that have the willingness to modify evidence to their favor.

So, he should have to defend himself accused of murder, but able to argue the unintentional murder and face manslaughter/. Jusr like any civilian would have to go throw under similar circumstance.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Hey... maybe that'll change cops training a bit : when you have a suspe that is subdued the ONLY tool you need to draw is your handcuffs.

It's like if you're driving your car, don't pay attention for a few seconds hit another car causing a fatality. You may not have wanted to kill the person, you omay or may not have been negligent, but you still did take another man's life and that should be answered for, cop or not.

If anything, since we are entrusting these officers to maintain the peace and maintaining our publix safety, they should be held up to a HIGHER standard. Also, that the cop STOOD UP rrather than keeping him subdued and getting his hands in cuffs... so if the suspect was fighting back, giving him more room to move could be seen as negligent.

That there was an attempt to cover this up (by claiming there was no video and station security camera's werent working at the time), IF ACCURATE should also be viewed as tampering with evidence. In that, if true, these are clearly cops that have the willingness to modify evidence to their favor.

So, he should have to defend himself accused of murder, but able to argue the unintentional murder and face manslaughter/. Jusr like any civilian would have to go throw under similar circumstance.
Click to expand...



two things.

1. can you link me to this cover up?

2. you really did not address my point as i demonstrated this accident is not the 1st time it has happened. Can you do this?


here is another i am sure you have seen....


YouTube - DEA Shoots Himself






as you can see, i have shown at least 3 incidents where there is similar mistakes made.

Now given this, how do you maintain a charge of "murder" or "manslaughter"?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
two things.

1. can you link me to this cover up?
Click to expand...
I carefully worded the potential of this, because the first source that I saw argue that point was from a blogsite, but now the security footage has been released, but was nothing comparable to the clarity of the other angles. So, simply dismiss this argued point, as I've found it to be innapplicable to this case.

2. you really did not address my point as i demonstrated this accident is not the 1st time it has happened. Can you do this?
Click to expand...

Right, now the DEA officer that shoots himself, had said just before shooting himself that the gun wasn't loaded?? I wouldn't actually argue it, but I suppose technically speaking if he shot himself above the waist he could be tried for attempted suicide... If however, the gun discharged and had shot someone in the class fatally, I understand that it's a mistake, but manslaughter is essentially 'unintentional murder', but to be safe I looked for a legal definition : Legal Definition of Manslaughter
MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

The cases of manslaughter may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of:
1. Provocation.
2. Mutual combat.
3. Resistance to public officers, etc.
4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act.
5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.
Click to expand...

In the case of the officer shooting himself... while he may be embarrassed by it, he might have to answer questions to be eligible for disibility benefits while recovering, but other than that there's nothing really to say.

In the case of the cop accidentally shooting the partner... I have to wonder why the woman was still training her gun on the suspect whien she was subdued, but I would say that she was lucky, and gets to call it a near miss. Person being arrested probly shat themselves... but if she shot her partner it would be up to the partner to place charges probably assault, which was clearly accidental. If she had shot the victim, I would argue the same point if injusred could press charges on the officer, and if killed the officer be charged for manslaughter. The intent is more clear in this video.

The difference between this last case and the bart shooting however is the sequence of events, the accidental discharge was a cop that was trained on the suspect while he was being subdued, and in the bart shooting was the cop pulling his gun and shooting a subdued victim. In the bart shooting case the officer will have to show how he confused the gun and the taser, which you'd think should be on opposite sides or far enough apart to prevent this.

Ultimately the piont is that there is no reason to pull out a gun on a subdued suspect.

as you can see, i have shown at least 3 incidents where there is similar mistakes made.
Now given this, how do you maintain a charge of "murder" or "manslaughter"?
Click to expand...

The charge would be murder because having a suspect on the ground, pulling out his gun and shooting him in the back as a sequence of events is murder, since it shows the intent to kill. In this circumstance, if he were to argue 'taser confusion' I would be willing to accept that, but he still endd a man's life, even unintentionally while engaging in his lawful duty of placing a citizen under arrest is still manslaughter.

So, yes, this cop needs to see the inside of a prison.

The cop almost shooting her partner is lucky to not have killed the suspect.

and the DEA agent in a classroom would likely be protected through waivers since he is teaching a class involving firearms, but only harmed himself.

I hope that would suffice in addressing the point?
 
Last edited:
Sure it does Trotsky and Lenin were responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands and the setting up of an authoritarian regime. There a lot worse than any anarchist has been.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the revolution in Russia degenerated into a bureaucratic mess Trotsky and Lenin are responsible for the deaths of every person that that degenerated state murdered/killed and everyone that died under it, even from natural causes (even though both were against the degeneration, Trotsky more so only because Lenin died as it started).:roll:
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Yes, because the revolution in Russia degenerated into a bureaucratic mess Trotsky and Lenin are responsible for the deaths of every person that that degenerated state murdered/killed and everyone that died under it, even from natural causes (even though both were against the degeneration, Trotsky more so only because Lenin died as it started).:roll:
Click to expand...

Nope I don't hold them very accountable for what the likes of Stalin did, although they certainly set up an authoritarian state from almost the beginning. I do however hold them accountable for those who were murdered when they were around.
 
Nope I don't hold them very accountable for what the likes of Stalin did, although they certainly set up an authoritarian state from almost the beginning. I do however hold them accountable for those who were murdered when they were around.
Click to expand...

Which is not "hundreds of thousands" unless you are going to include rebels and the Whites, which would be ludicrous.
 
Thank you for your response, before i submit a more complete response, let me ask you one more question and followup so I may fully understand your position.


The cop almost shooting her partner is lucky to not have killed the suspect.
Click to expand...


What if she shot the suspect?


do you see a difference then between the bart and this officer?


I have no argument on the dea agent, the point was to show how a glock operates and the danger of trigger mounted safteys....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom