BART Cop Arrested for Murder

[DisTeach1]

It's too bad the press aren't allowed to talk about the "victim"...What was he really doing that brought on police action to begin with? Probably not so innocent...Also, they don't talk about how the "victim" was heavily involved in a gang, was on probation for rape, and had a long, long history of major crimes. Good riddance, I say.

The officer was a new father whose first child was actually born that night, and made a terrible mistake and is now paying a terrible price, but at least he got rid of one more thug who did nothing good in his life and made the Bay Area a more dangerous place.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Barring some unforseen evidence, I think it is a question of involuntary manslaughter or murder. The diffence will be intent. I'm not able to establish intent just by seeing the video.

Maybe he thought it was a taser. That seems unlikely.

Maybe he thought he had his safety on and was drawing his gun in an effort to intimidate the victim. That seems unlikely.

Maybe he thought he could deliberately murder the victim in front of dozens of witnesses and get away with it. That seems unlikely.

Something unlikely happened. I just can't establish what. I hope that the trial makes things more clear and that everyone (except perhaps the defendent) is comfortable with the results of the trial. I'm hoping that, but I'll be avoiding Oakland during jury deliberations.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

at least he got rid of one more thug who did nothing good in his life and made the Bay Area a more dangerous place.

That's sick. You make it sound like it is a good thing when a police officer acts as judge, jury, and executioner. I'm very glad that our laws don't work that way.

 

[bsc22]

It's too bad the press aren't allowed to talk about the "victim"...What was he really doing that brought on police action to begin with? Probably not so innocent...Also, they don't talk about how the "victim" was heavily involved in a gang, was on probation for rape, and had a long, long history of major crimes. Good riddance, I say.

The officer was a new father whose first child was actually born that night, and made a terrible mistake and is now paying a terrible price, but at least he got rid of one more thug who did nothing good in his life and made the Bay Area a more dangerous place.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

It's too bad the press aren't allowed to talk about the "victim"...What was he really doing that brought on police action to begin with? Probably not so innocent...Also, they don't talk about how the "victim" was heavily involved in a gang, was on probation for rape, and had a long, long history of major crimes. Good riddance, I say.

The officer was a new father whose first child was actually born that night, and made a terrible mistake and is now paying a terrible price, but at least he got rid of one more thug who did nothing good in his life and made the Bay Area a more dangerous place.

This police officer had no right to be the judge, jury and execution of the victim. If the victim is not innocent, and there were charges pending, he should of had his day in court.

As a society, we cannot support vigilante justice, it would lead to the decay of our society, and the rights with which this country was founded upon.

 

[DisTeach1]

That's sick. You make it sound like it is a good thing when a police officer acts as judge, jury, and executioner. I'm very glad that our laws don't work that way.

Well, that's what the press is saying he did...without a trial. It's too bad the press is condemning the officer and making the victim sound like a saint...Talk about biased and one-sided.

Do I feel bad for the victim...I do not, not at all. I have ridden Bart, and nothing I have ever done brought on police action, nor had me lying down with a police officer standing over me. Obviously, there was some sort of trouble, but that has been completely glossed over by the press.

I hope the full story comes out, and the police officer can go on to live his life peacefully, but I will tell you it won't be anywhere near the Bay Area.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Well, that's what the press is saying he did...without a trial.

I don't really understand what you mean by this sentance. What is meant by "he" and "did"?

I hope the full story comes out, and the police officer can go on to live his life peacefully, but I will tell you it won't be anywhere near the Bay Area.

I hope he won't be living anywhere near me or anyone else I know. I wouldn't be happy if you guys decided that I was "one more thug who did nothing good in his life" and he summarily executed me. I've always been fond of the notion that if I get accused of a crime I'll have the opportunity to explain my actions to a jury of my peers.

Fortunately for him, people with this antiquated seeming belief rule our country. The officer will get what he denied his victim. No one will (hopefully) shoot him. He'll get a chance to explain his actions. If he can convince even a few people on his jury that there is a reasonable doubt, he'll remain a free man. It's a shame that either his incompetence, contempt, or whatever drove him robbed his victim of that opportunity.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

Well, that's what the press is saying he did...without a trial. It's too bad the press is condemning the officer and making the victim sound like a saint...Talk about biased and one-sided.

Do I feel bad for the victim...I do not, not at all. I have ridden Bart, and nothing I have ever done brought on police action, nor had me lying down with a police officer standing over me. Obviously, there was some sort of trouble, but that has been completely glossed over by the press.

I hope the full story comes out, and the police officer can go on to live his life peacefully, but I will tell you it won't be anywhere near the Bay Area.

I agree that all of the evidence should come out, and yes the officer should have his day in court. Right now, they DA feels they have enough to issue an arrest warrant on murder charges.

He's innocent until proven guilty. All I know is that the video paints a very bad picture for him. Just looking at the video, a man who is face down on the ground is shot in the back. There are plenty of police around the area. There doesn't appear to be a great distubance happening. I'm trying to understand what caused this officer to shoot a man in the back.

If there was trouble on the train, okay arrest them and bring them in. It doesn't mean it's okay to shoot someone execution style while they are lying face first on the ground.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

I don't really understand what you mean by this sentance. What is meant by "he" and "did"?



I hope he won't be living anywhere near me or anyone else I know. I wouldn't be happy if you guys decided that I was "one more thug who did nothing good in his life" and he summarily executed me. I've always been fond of the notion that if I get accused of a crime I'll have the opportunity to explain my actions to a jury of my peers.

Fortunately for him, people with this antiquated seeming belief rule our country. The officer will get what he denied his victim. No one will (hopefully) shoot him. He'll get a chance to explain his actions. If he can convince even a few people on his jury that there is a reasonable doubt, he'll remain a free man. It's a shame that either his incompetence, contempt, or whatever drove him robbed his victim of that opportunity.

ITA!

 

[minniecarousel]

hmmmm...I guess the local press hasn't printed any stories about the deceased being such a "thug". (If he has a record, the press must be reluctant to print it for fear of more violence - the "blame the victim" aspect.) I don't think the fact that if he did or didn't have past arrests should have any bearing on what happened that night. As police were detaining him, they had no way of knowing if he was part of a gang, or wanted on warrents. They had searched him and found no weapon.

I grew up in Oakland. I have been on BART many times. I have tried to respond in this thread many times. When it hits too close to home, it can be overwhelming. We can't watch the news without this being the lead story. My local morning paper has had this on the front page nearly every day. My sister had to leave work early last Wednesday because the "rioting" was close to her workplace.

It appears that this will be a no win situation. I'm afraid the jury will be pressured to convict him simply because the city can't handle any more violence than has already been associated with this young man's death.

And for the record - the cop who was arrested for this killing was not "fleeing", he was moving around, trying to stay alive. His parents in Napa had received death threats and he felt it was safer to leave the home he shared with his girlfriend and their new-born child.

I don't want to appear uncaring to the fact that the young man was killed, nor do I feel that the cop is blameless in his death. What probably saddens me the most is the need some people feel to use this situation to cause more harm to Oakland. Burning cars, smashing store windows and disrupting life in Downtown Oakland is so unnecessary. I guess the Bay Area has always been known for civil disobedience, but I thought this was behind us.

 

[SeeVee]

It's too bad the press aren't allowed to talk about the "victim"...What was he really doing that brought on police action to begin with? Probably not so innocent...Also, they don't talk about how the "victim" was heavily involved in a gang, was on probation for rape, and had a long, long history of major crimes. Good riddance, I say.

The officer was a new father whose first child was actually born that night, and made a terrible mistake and is now paying a terrible price, but at least he got rid of one more thug who did nothing good in his life and made the Bay Area a more dangerous place.

I cant agree with anything you said. it does not matter if the victim was a crook or worse. The officer obviously casued his death. Intentional or accidental. I believe it was accidental.

 

[Geoff_M]

I don't know. How could there be absence of malice if a cruel and deliberate act takes place? The victim was defenseless.

The armchair lawyer in me did some digging and the criminal definition of "malice" is effectively acting out of hatred of the victim or the desire to commit evil. California allows for 1st and 2nd degree murder. The difference being premeditation generally being required for 1st degree. Second degree is also applied when the death is the result of the commission of a felony (a shooting during a robbery, a death in an arson, etc.) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a person without malice. California considers deliberate killings that take place in "the heat of an argument or passion" as voluntary manslaughter. Unintentional killings, such as drunk driving, are considered "involuntary manslaughter".

I think that the prosecution may have a hard time winning the "malice" argument with 100% of a jury. Again, even intentionally killing some one doesn't prove malice. I think it's safe to say that the officer will mount "it was an accident because: a) I thought it was a Taser or b) I meant to draw the firearm, but not pull the trigger" defense. However, even if the prosecution can show the cop meant to draw his sidearm and fire it, the defense can also point to the apparent fact that it was a "heat of the moment" situation and not premeditated.

I cant agree with anything you said. it does not matter if the victim was a crook or worse.

I agree with that sentiment.

 

[Laura]

It's too bad the press aren't allowed to talk about the "victim"...What was he really doing that brought on police action to begin with? Probably not so innocent...Also, they don't talk about how the "victim" was heavily involved in a gang, was on probation for rape, and had a long, long history of major crimes. Good riddance, I say.

The officer was a new father whose first child was actually born that night, and made a terrible mistake and is now paying a terrible price, but at least he got rid of one more thug who did nothing good in his life and made the Bay Area a more dangerous place.

The victim was a father too, and whatever he did to get pulled off the train--I hardly think killing him was the answer. The officer couldn't know what he had done in the past, could he?

 

[OceanAnnie]

The armchair lawyer in me did some digging and the criminal definition of "malice" is effectively acting out of hatred of the victim or the desire to commit evil. California allows for 1st and 2nd degree murder. The difference being premeditation generally being required for 1st degree. Second degree is also applied when the death is the result of the commission of a felony (a shooting during a robbery, a death in an arson, etc.) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a person without malice. California considers deliberate killings that take place in "the heat of an argument or passion" as voluntary manslaughter. Unintentional killings, such as drunk driving, are considered "involuntary manslaughter".

I think that the prosecution may have a hard time winning the "malice" argument with 100% of a jury. Again, even intentionally killing some one doesn't prove malice. I think it's safe to say that the officer will mount "it was an accident because: a) I thought it was a Taser or b) I meant to draw the firearm, but not pull the trigger" defense. However, even if the prosecution can show the cop meant to draw his sidearm and fire it, the defense can also point to the apparent fact that it was a "heat of the moment" situation and not premeditated.

I agree with that sentiment.

There are a lot of variables that come into play. The police officer's accounts, as well as eye witness accounts should prove interesting.

Tragic case.

 

[GoldenGate]

Well, that's what the press is saying he did...without a trial. It's too bad the press is condemning the officer and making the victim sound like a saint...Talk about biased and one-sided.

Do I feel bad for the victim...I do not, not at all. I have ridden Bart, and nothing I have ever done brought on police action, nor had me lying down with a police officer standing over me. Obviously, there was some sort of trouble, but that has been completely glossed over by the press.

I hope the full story comes out, and the police officer can go on to live his life peacefully, but I will tell you it won't be anywhere near the Bay Area.

What ARE you, the Taliban? Relative of Saddam Hussein?

 

[minnieandmickey]

That's sick. You make it sound like it is a good thing when a police officer acts as judge, jury, and executioner. I'm very glad that our laws don't work that way.

Although I also do not agree with how the poster stated his statement, seems like a lot of people on this thread are acting a little hypocritical here by being this former officer's judge and jury. Glad our laws don't work that way either.

 

[PaulaSB12]

This is starting to look like the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting in the UK after this poor man was killed (inquest jury was not allowed to bring in a verdict of murder ) the police said
he was wearing a heavy coat in warm weather with wires coming out of it
he was actually wearing a denim jacket
he jumped over a barrier to get out of paying
he had a ticket on him
he was running from the police and refused to stop
he was sitting on a chair and was dragged of the tube placed face down with several cops holding him down when they shot him 7 times in the head.

Just because you are a cop doesn't mean you are above the law!

 

[DisTeach1]

What ARE you, the Taliban? Relative of Saddam Hussein?

Gee, a little extreme maybe?? All I'm saying is this has been VERY one sided reporting, and just like with all the protests, everyone on the DIS is making their minds up after hearing only ONE side of the story.

I don't believe that this officer is some cold hearted killer who deserves all the condemnation or death threats he has received.

 

[TheZue]

Although I also do not agree with how the poster stated his statement, seems like a lot of people on this thread are acting a little hypocritical here by being this former officer's judge and jury. Glad our laws don't work that way either.

Actually we weren't, we were saying what we'd do IF we had the opportunity and what we THOUGHT the authorities should do. We don't have any real power here, let alone a gun aimed at a man's back.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Although I also do not agree with how the poster stated his statement, seems like a lot of people on this thread are acting a little hypocritical here by being this former officer's judge and jury. Glad our laws don't work that way either.

That's not the way I've been telling it. The officer should and hopefully will get a fair trial. His actions, however, denied that right to his victim.

From the videos I've seen, I think that a murder charge is very appropriate. The officer will have his day in court. I'll reserve final judgment until then. For now, though, I can't see any reason not to prosecute for murder.

I saw the same video. I agree that it looks very, very bad. It's definitely enough evidence for me to recommend a trial. I'm still not ready to convict him of murder until after the trial. Let's see his defense first.

I don't have a problem with the way DisTeach1 "how the poster stated his statement". It is the content of that statement that sickens me. He/She is expressing several extremely un-American notions. The history of the person killed doesn't have any bearing on how he should have treated. No one in America has the right to execute someone like that, regardless of how they have behaved in the past.