Why haven't the Other Cop's been arrested?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/1/15/115535/081
After seeing the execution of this man I am wondering why the other officers present have not been arrested for dereliction of duty.
Immediately upon seeing the murder of the prisoner the executioner should have been brought down, cuffed and arrested.
Failure to do so strikes me as a clear case of dereliction of duty by the other officers.
But hey this cop will probably use the recent SCOTUS "Herring" decision to show no matter how inept and incompetent the uniformed thugs are as long as they are wearing a uniform anything goes.
Advertisement
Beyond belief. It's hard even to know how to react to such shockingly criminal behavior.
January 15, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm speechless.
January 15, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's unbelievable you'd have to ask, but the other 'cop's' weren't arrested because they didn't shoot anyone.
January 15, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But they failed to arrest a murderer when the crimewas committed right before their eyes.
Dereliction of Duty is the first thing I can think of and how about accessory after the fact when they let the criminal walk away from the crime?
January 15, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Just wow. Far be-it for facts to get in the way of a good story. If you are such an expert on this case, did you happen to see the part of the tape where he looks down on his gun in disbelief? Are you aware that civillian witnesses have said he was shocked when the gun (as opposed to the non-lethal taser he thought he had drawn) went off? Are you aware that he had recently begun carrying a taser? Are you aware that some departments do not adequately train their officers on how to use a taser, and allow them to wear the taser on the same side they wear their gun (thereby defeating muscle memory and creating an imminent risk of death by mistake)? Are you aware that tasers have made both officers and the public less, not more, safe? Are you aware that some departments make their officers wear tasers whether they like it or not? Are you aware he had only been carrying a taser for two months?
How you could look at that video and review those witness statements and not conclude this was an accident borne of gross negligence and not intentional murder is beyond me. Perhaps accepting conventional wisdom is just easier than using your brain.
Was this negligent? Absolutely. Not only is it negligent to wear your taser on the same side as your gun, this was not a situation that called for the use of a taser. And therein lies another problem: Officers have become complacent about taser use because they are (usually) non-lethal. Some officers are not trained to understand that a taser is tortuous and should be the second-to-last-resort use of force. Some officers are not even required to submit to a tasering as part of their training. This was an absolutely inappropriate use of a taser. He should, of course, lose his job and possibly face negligent homicide charges (if California has such a charge. In Washington state, we don't have neg. hom., only manslaughter and up). But to say he executed this man? Come on now.
Let's think about this. The vast majority of police abuse cases occur in situations where officers can at least attempt to cover it up (and the abuser will always try). Does it make sense that he would "execute" a subject in front of a crowd of people holding cell phone cameras in plain view? What would have prompted him to go from zero to sixty that fast? Why would he all of a sudden, in such a blatantly public forum (and on camera, as all officers know they now are) decide to commit aggravated first degree murder? Couldn't he have found a better place to take out his homicidal, racially motivated rage?
Or does it make more sense that he is an inexperienced officer (2 years on the job) who received grossly deficient training in the use of a taser (which he had only been carrying for two months) and acted negligently by: a) carrying it on the same side as his gun (defeating muscle memory) and b) using a taser (or what he thought was a taser) in a situation that did not call for it?
Kick him off the force. Charge him with a crime that encompasses a mental state of negligence. But intentional murder in the first degree? Give me a break.
Another case of a prosecutor who won't do the right thing because pleasing an enraged public is easier. Just like the Jena 6 prosecutor. Just like Mike Nifong (Duke). Prosecutors gone wild.
January 15, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a civilian had done this to a drunken cop do you think the other officers would have let them walk away?
So you are taking the "Herring" position ( SCOTUS Decision) that ignorance, ineptitude and incompetence excuses any criminal activity of the uniform thugs patrolling our streets?
1) If he wasn't well trained he shouldn't be carrying a Taser or a Gun.
2) If he felt comfortable walking the streets with a license to use lethal force he has no excuse.
3) 2 years on the job in the company of at least 3 other thugs where the only weapons being waved about were by them and he still decides to use lethal force on an individual on the ground at his feet but we are to forgive him his execution.
4) If he is to incompetent to be an officer lets go back and reopen every case, statement, arrest and official action he has been involved in since his incompetence must extend beyond "accidental" murder.
5) Again if he was so poorly trained then his superiors should be indicted for dereliction of duty and depraved indifference to allow a poorly trained inexperienced officer of questionable judgement carry weapons in public.
6) I believe California has the Gas Chamber here is a prime candidate
7) Oh you mean the Jena Six prosecutor who would only prosecute African Americans to the absolute maximum and beyond and ignore the criminal activities of the junior klan members?
January 15, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
spric! You are so eager to support the men in uniform you didn't even hear the question. Why were the other officers not held to account for failing to arrest the officer who fired the shot immediately. They witnesses a possible murder, generously, they may have witnessed manslaughter, or some other vague diluted expression for murder. They were obligated to arrest the suspect. Are you so far gone you disagree with this?
January 16, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I rec because there is an issue here. I was not there and I do not have the facts sufficient to come to a conclusion. There is probably an investigation on going.
January 15, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
IT'S tough to believe a cop can mistake a TASER for a Pistol. First, the shooter has to flip open his pistol holster strap, FLIP THE GUN'S SAFETY OFF, AND THEN SHOOT. Lots of decisions there.
LIBGIRL, WHEN RAGE TAKES OVER, all reason, logic and humanity disappears. Homicide it is, and the other police are complicit in it.
January 15, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glocks do not have safeties, Forty, and they're made of plastic, just like Tasers. On the other hand they look entirely different, on purpose, and they *feel* different. A Taser feels like a toy gun maybe 10oz weight. A Glock feels like a *weapon*, weighing close to two pounds with a full load of ammo (the bullets are made of *lead*, remember? As in, *heavy*).
BART apparently has ordered its officers to carry their Tasers on the same side as their service weapons. Still, the fact that he's only been carrying the taser for 2 months is irrelevant, they look and feel very different and only an utter cretin with a sub-moron IQ could confuse the two even under pressure. Until evidence is presented that this guy has a sub-moron IQ, I will continue to believe he was a frustrated cop who snapped and executed that dude.
January 16, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is a taser gun exactly the same as a regular gun for this officer to have made such a gross mistake?
http://www./youtube.com/watchv=gEC5dT9tkw&feature-related
January 16, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
First:
You do not need an apostrophe in "Cops", dear, since they do not possess anything.
Second:
None of THEM pulled their weapons and shot the man. Why should THEY be prosecuted? After all - they had no warning of what the guard was going to do.
By YOUR logic, every demonstrator at an anti-war rally should be arrested if ONE demonstrator nearby throws a rock or a Molitov Cocktail.
They arrested the one who committed the crime. That is all they are bound by the justice system to do. No one else was responsible.
January 16, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You misread my statement.
It is their failure to enforce the law and immediately disarm and arrest an individual who had, to be exceedingly generous, a minimum of manslaughter.
Please do not try to obscure the crimes of these people by creating straw horses ( " None of THEM pulled their weapons and shot the man. Why should THEY be prosecuted? After all - they had no warning of what the guard was going to do.") and falsely attributing that to me.
My position is clear - a number of uniformed police watched an individual execute a man who was unarmed on the ground at his feet and allowed that individual to retain his weapon and walk away.
That is dereliction of duty and could be considered to be accomplices AFTER the fact by aiding in the criminals escape.
That is why I wonder why they have not yet been arrested.
January 16, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cops can do terrible things.
We tend to give them the benefit of the doubt though, because they're our only defense against the people who want to do terrible things all the time.
They have to deal with them all the time, so we don't, and I'm cool with that. Was this a mistake? Yep. Is that necessarily criminal? Nope. Was this guy a flight risk in case we decided later that it was? Nope.
Seriously, be rational.
January 16, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) Ah the Rush Limbaugh defense since he could afford to be a drug addict drug laws don't apply to him. Since they are cops laws don't apply to them.
2) He was a flight risk. He quit his job and fled to another state.
3) Since when do Cops witnessing a murder decide on the spot whether the criminal is a flight risk before they arrest them? That is the job of the Courts. The Cops are not suppose to judge jury and, sadly in this case, executioner.
4) Since the police are given the tools and the license to use force under the guise of the state they should be held to a higher standard then a regular citizen. They should not be given extra leeway in which to abuse the authority that society gives them. So no they do not get the benefit of the doubt. With extra authority comes added responsibility. If the police cannot hold themselves to a higher standard they should quit and find something where they can live up to the responsibility of the job.
5) A Counter point was a case several years back where the police kicked in the door and raided the house of a law abiding citizen in the middle of the night based upon an erroneous warrent/address/flat out mistake. That citizen awaking to people crashing through his door shot the first cop through the door. He was immediately arrested even though he posed no flight risk. He was convicted even though it was a mistake and he is serving time even though he was just defending his home. This was an equally horrendous abuse of police power but no slack was given to this citizen. So the police can execute people at will but when something happens to them no matter how wrong they were some one has to pay. No slack, no benefit of the doubt.
So why not this case? Is it just because the person in the uniform immediately gets a free walk no matter what abuses of power they commit? Or maybe because in both cases the "victim" was african american and the uniforms weren't?
January 16, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you cant make a point then insult the other making real point's.
gay: i hope you feel well qualified to edit, your grasp of grammar is amazing, your comment does nothing but to make the point that you have no substance in your argument.
wanna correct my grammer, to?
how about my speling?
just trying to give you something to do which you are good at
January 16, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink