It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defense: BART Shooting Cop Meant To Use Taser

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


"it was not a try it was a rational attempt at explination, unlike your "self pleasure theory"

I take it that you are not a serial killer who derives pleasure from killing?

That is good.

Unfortunately many people do receive pleasure from killing and torture and these people tend to gravitate to positions of power and authority (especially positions with Badges and guns and tasers and pepper spray and batons and bondage devices - all these instruments are useful tools insofar as the derivation of pleasure stimulus from a victim)




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
I think that without a comprhensive psychological exam, your theory can't be linked to the former officer, moreover a typical criminal profiler will tell you that often times victims of sexual assult will more likley grvitate twords positions of that nature, for the control factor. As far as getting pleasure out of killing, this is a rare pyhcosis and very difficult to diagnose unless a claim to is made by someone.

I'ts your opinion and I respect that I don't believe it applies to this incident though. We could say that the suspect/victim was attracted to the thrill of fighting police officers as it pertains to showing his "homies" how tough he was. This makes no difference as well, accident happened.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


"We could say that the suspect/victim was attracted to the thrill of fighting police officers"

No we couldn't.

We all saw the video.

*Unless lying on your stomach and begging for your life whilst mentioning your daughter is a new fighting technique - we could not say "that the suspect/victim was attracted to the thrill of fighting police officers"...

Nice try!

Cheers!



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


"We could say that the suspect/victim was attracted to the thrill of fighting police officers"

No we couldn't.

We all saw the video.

*Unless lying on your stomach and begging for your life whilst mentioning your daughter is a new fighting technique - we could not say "that the suspect/victim was attracted to the thrill of fighting police officers"...

Nice try!

Cheers!


Thanks for proving my point, we can't say either about any party involved so yours holds no weight or bearring and does not even come close to a rational explination, proving that the officer intentionaly shot that guy. DO you see what I mean? How can you deduce that from watching a horrible camera phone video?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


"DO you see what I mean? How can you deduce that from watching a horrible camera phone video? "

You say you saw "an accident" when you watched the videos.

I saw a murderer murdering someone.

A Murder is not "an accident"...

Nice try!

Cheers!



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
I don't think it was a life or death situation to be honest, and yes I have been in one with a gun pointed at me. The guy was held down, his only "threat" was yelling. There is indeed no way he could reach for a weapon (cops usually frisk for those anyway) without breaking his arm or straining it. Are cops allowed to make mistakes? Sure! I don't think "mistakes" involving someone's life is very light though. He had back up, the rest of the suspects were subdued and showed no resistance other than verbal.

I have held a taser gun and own a glock 19, it is like holding a pack of cigerrettes compared to a glock. Also the sights on the glock are WAY diffrent than the taser gun. Do you want cops pulling the trigger in a handled situation without a second thought? I don't.

I think it is a bit extreme to say that the cop WANTED to do it, but to let him go without any charges is just too much. The man took an oath to serve the people, not serve them hot lead under stress.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The former officer is not a "murderer" until convicted in a cout of law, until then you are just name calling, it's simple don't break the law and if you do at least cooperate with the cops or be willing to accept any consequence that results from your actions.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


"it's simple don't break the law and if you do at least cooperate with the cops or be willing to accept any consequence that results from your actions."


Are you saying Oscar Grant should be willing to accept the consequence of his actions?

*I'll rephrase what you just said in a manner that actually fits with the reality of our current situation:

"it's simple don't break the law and if you do at least cooperate with the cops or be willing to accept any consequence that results from THEIR actions."

-Oscar Grant didn't shoot himself in the back whilst he was laying on his stomach beggin' for his life.

*Do you seriously equate begging from one's belly whilst mentioning your daughter's name with "resisting"?

The only way he could have offered less "resistance" was if he was unconscious... or limp. Or Dead limp, in this case.

(Mehserle is probably glad he has supporters such as yourself who will always try to rationalize away police brutality... in this case you rationalized a Murder)

Nice work!

Cheers!



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The former officer is not a "murderer" until convicted in a cout of law, until then you are just name calling...



Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The former officer is not a "murderer" until convicted in a cout of law, until then you are just name calling, it's simple don't break the law and if you do at least cooperate with the cops or be willing to accept any consequence that results from your actions.


To be fair, if he murdered someone, either for a rigtheous cause, or defending his home, its still murder. I dont t think it takes a court of law to make that official. IE we saw him kill, he is a murderer. But I also agree that we shouldnt be drawing on assumptions, regardless of how pissed you are.


... it's simple don't break the law and if you do at least cooperate with the cops or be willing to accept any consequence that results from your actions


Sad, but true.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
what do we know from watching the videos ?

correct me if im wrong

most of thouse suspected of faul behaviur are allready cuffed sitting on the ground ,
two youths are having problems with getting arrested , one to the wall and one near the train

and thats about where both videos start, for 2+ minutes officers are trying to cuff these two with little succses


what do we know besides the context of the 2 videos ?

correct me if im wrong

a fight had broken out on the trainstation/train hence why there was a dispatch of officers to the trainstation/train



now i know many here wont like what i have to say about this incident but it just seams that people are only focusing on the last part of an incident that might have lasted for who knows how long.


to me it seams the incident has been going on for more then 15 min , it might have even been going on longer,
and it seams that the reason why people started filming the incident is because the last two getting arrested are making a fuzz out of it and the situvation is getting comical because of the fact that one of thouse involved in a fight is now crying " i have a daugther, i have a daughter "

,


like i said in one post in another thread ,


First your king of the concrete jungle , but when time come to walk the walk and talk the talk you showed your true nature and became the child you always where.

now im not infavour of what happend on that night but if he had nothing to fear ( not done anything wrong that night ) why on earth is he making a scene out of it.

he would have been relesed in no time ,



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I think this incident being filmed by a member of the public will be the final nail in the coffin for the freedom to film police officers.
This is bound to bring in new laws ( wrongly ) probably in the guise of anti-terrorism laws which will see anybody caught filming or photographing the police being charged, having their cameras taken and possibly jailed for it.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Please refer to the photo evidence I linked to on page one. I ofered side by side photos of both the Taser and his service weapon. There is no mistaking the two.

During the event, the officer pulled his weapon, stood up, paused, spoke, then shot. It was in no way, a rapid fire situation with no time to make proper judgment. Heat of the moment is not a valid excuse for this very reason. If would be one thing if he was faced with deadly force an only had a micro second to react. This was not the case. The victim was face down and had two other officers subduing him. The victim was apparently resisting but had not demonstrated violence towards the officers. There was no threat level sufficient for the use of deadly force, or near deadly force.

Tasers are one step below a "last resort" weapon because they are only just below deadly force. It is well known in the law enforcement community that the use of a Taser can cause severe physical harm and even death. For this reason there are other steps that are required to be taken prior to a Taser being employed. One of these steps would have been the use of pepper spray, or a baton, which the officer who shot the victim was indeed carrying. All of the officers carry both batons and pepper spray.

Proper procedure calls for him to use the pepper spray or baton first. A Taser is specifically reserved for more violent resistors. If the officer had not fired his Gun, killing the victim, and had indeed used a Taser instead, he could still be in trouble for improper use of force.

The officer was neither alone nor out numbered. The victim had not demonstrated violence against the officer, he was simply resisting. The use of a Taser would have been improper procedure. Proper procedure by law officers in any confrontation would follow these steps, known as the "Use of Force Continuum"

1. Physical Presence.
2. Soft Hands
3. Mace or Pepper Spray
(A K-9 unit would fall here)
4. Hard Hands
5. Police Baton, etc.
6. Threat of Deadly Force ( this is where a Taser comes in, or between 5&6)
7. Deadly Force

It is very clear that the officer who killed the victim, skipped several steps.
No pepper spray+no baton= improper procedure.

Instead of having burning eyes, and a knock on the head or a broken rib, the victim was shot in the back and Killed. No matter how you slice it, the officer deserves jail time, accident or not.



[edit on 31/1/09 by Terapin]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by Alyosha1981

We could say that the suspect/victim was attracted to the thrill of fighting police officers as it pertains to showing his "homies" how tough he was.


Please...I get what your trying to do here, you take public outrage at a seemingly clear case of video taped police negligence and insert your ridiculous, unrealistic, proposed scenario as a last resort to explain the officers action. I don't wanna bring anymore race issues to the thread but I gotta say your choice of the word "homies" speaks volumes, seriously...if that man was white his "homies" would have been "friends/buddies", in fact if he were white I'd wager you never would have suggested it at all.

Bottom line, I'm not gonna jump to the conclusion that the cop meant to kill him, that honestly seems far fetched in THIS situation. However, the fact that we have a picture of the shooters' belt/holster devoid of any taser should be enough to throw that arguement right out the window.

[edit on 1/31/2009 by JKersteJr]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


You just got me thinking.
Did this officer even have the certification to carry and use a Taser?
If he in fact did not then this would prove that the statement was false. and that criminal charges should be met.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Hmmmm....

Just a few things on this.

I thought earlier the vids showed his hands behind his back.

Officer Anthony Pirone seems to be the one backing up his story. Yet, Pirone is also under investigation for punching Grant without cause.

SFGate


Video footage taken with a cell phone aboard the train, and aired last week on KTVU-TV, showed that Pirone suddenly rushed toward Grant as he and two other men stood by a wall near Pirone's partner and struck him.


Hmmm..would two cops under investigation be tempted to back each others stories no matter what happened??

If he really meant to just zap him - why not just say, "Ooops - I meant to taze him. It was a horrible mistake and I am very sorry." instead of stonewalling?

Lastly, the judge did find inconsistencies in the officers story.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
His punishment should be a tasering with one of the 9mm varieties!

Sucks don't it?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Sounds like a pretty lame defense that won't play with the jury. I don't believe the cop meant to shoot and kill this young man. I think he meant to pull his gun and it went off accidentally. I believe his adrenaline and emotions got the better of him that night and he will be headed for prison (wonder how that is going to work out for him?) He is guilty at the very least of manslaughter.

Now I will tell you that it is a war zone out there in some communities. I lived next to an African American Oakland cop for several years. The guy told me stories about the shootings and senseless murders he faced on a regular day to day basis. Children being shot and killed in gangland crossfire. The gangstas on the street HATE the cops and will kill them without a thought. This causes stress and FEAR. These cops have wives and kids and want to come home at night like everyone else.

It's one thing if you are a cop in Mayberry quite another in E. Oakland. I don't know who would even want the job? But for some there aren't too many options available.

One of the things that irks me is that the cop haters on this board never seem to acknowledge the innocent victims of violence and the fact we send these officers into these hell holes to enforce the law. I guess you can't see it unless you've been there.

Oh and to be clear I don't think Mr Grant is a thug or deserved to die or be treated like an animal. I support the prosecution and conviction of the cop.

Just a sad situation all around.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


I completely agree with everything you said, very well summarized, however I wouldn't go so far as to say "these gangstas" as a whole would kill cops without hesitance. Sure there are some that given the right circumstances would literally jump at the opportunity, but if they were all that viscous/stupid you'd have officers dropping at alarming rates. I live in a city w/ a fairly high crime rate, little over a year ago we had a 15 year old kid, drug dealer, shoot and kill a veteran police officer point blank, but to be honest other than that I cant recall much violence against cops in recent memory.

On the other hand though how many times have we witnessed police using no hesitance in overstepping his/her boundaries, its become quite common trait the last 20 years, perhaps some of us would also have a hand on our pistol we thought we might be beaten, tased, or shot to death for no reason.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Ok this is straight up Bull ****. Why would he need to taser that guy on the ground anyway, he wasn't fighting and he was face down! Even if he did mean to use his taser it doesn't matter. he still should go to jail for a long time. There is no sorry for this one. If we did something like that and said "sorry I meant to do this instead" We would still be LOCKED UP ANYWAY!!!!



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The former officer is not a "murderer" until convicted in a cout of law, until then you are just name calling, it's simple don't break the law and if you do at least cooperate with the cops or be willing to accept any consequence that results from your actions.


Funny, in a previous post you are quick to call this officer a victim before the trial. Seems to me if your jumping the gun sympathizing with this guy before the trial, so how can you complain about people doing the same thing by claiming his guilt?

I also find your characterization of the fact that the victim was struggling to be a sort of well you get what you deserve idea to be disturbing. You are quick to point out that people act strange in a life or death situation, then why are you so quick as to blame the victim for how he acted. Perhaps after hearing about countless cases of police brutality, this man feared for his life, causing him to act strange.

Even if that is not the case, I'll ask you this. Have you ever had three cops pin you down to the ground? I have, and I can tell you that it is sometimes difficult to comply with them in this position. y hands were beneath my stomach and i couldn't get them out, yet I was almost tazed for not putting them behind my back.

I don't know what the case was in this situation, but for you to claim that people can't blame the officer because they weren't there, and to then blame the victim is assinine.
At best this officer made a horrible mistake which caused the unjustified death of a man, so I think that if anyone deserves the benifit of the doubt it is the victim.


[edit on 31-1-2009 by Grambler]




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join