Comments on: Shooter of Oscar Grant Charged with Murder

By: John Hitchcock

John Hitchcock — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:01:14 +0000

I am not going to give my “verdict” of this situation. The merely “obvious” from cameras is not guaranteed to be fact, but this “obvious” will be a bit tricky to beat.

From my understanding, the taser he was trained on and issued had the same firing mechanism as a pistol. To prevent any confusion between taser and pistol BY FEEL, the firing mechanism of the taser should be different than that of a pistol.

But, I’m all for getting rid of tasers altogether in the field. Billy clubs and side-arms should be plenty as on-the-body weapons.

As has been stated, there have been times when a side-arm was mistaken for a taser. I am not suggesting this was the case here, but if there is no taser, there is no chance to mistake the side-arm for a taser.

By: AD

AD — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:55:20 +0000

Pulled his gun on an unarmed man lying face down on the ground, being (successfully) restrained by several large police officers.

If he was being “successfully” restrained, why were they unable to get the cuffs on? And, IMMSMR, there were only two officers attempting to restrain this individual.
They only got the cuffs on after he was shot, something that the family is a little bit upset about, but it would seem to be procedure since he hadn’t been searched, and was still alive.

By: SPQR

SPQR — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:47:53 +0000

CTD, so since you don’t understand the issue of confusion between sidearms and Tasers ( hint: there have been actual instances of this in the past ) its moronic?

By: CTD

CTD — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:42:17 +0000

Let’s recap. This tool:

1) Pulled his gun on an unarmed man lying face down on the ground, being (successfully) restrained by several large police officers.

2) Took aim at the man’s back

3) Pulled the trigger

Be honest. If this thug hadn’t been wearing a badge in that video, absolutely nobody would be debating whether or not he was guilty of murder.

(The whole “He thought it was a Taser!” excuse is sub-moronic. Don’t insult people’s intelligence further.)

By: aphrael

aphrael — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:55:59 +0000

It almost certainly wouldn’t apply if it were still legal, which it isn’t.

By: Alta Bob

Alta Bob — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:33:35 +0000

I am surprise no one has offered up the classic Bay Area defense: The Twinkie Defense!

By: grs

grs — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:19:44 +0000

I am a retired deputy DA who spent many years representing and defending law enforcement officers accused of excessive force. I seriously doubt the plausibility of the “I thought it was my Taser” defense after watching these videos. I think it is more likely the officer will claim he was in fear of his safety due to the crowd and the struggling subject, but I don’t think that’s a strong argument either.

By: aphrael

aphrael — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:42:34 +0000

TC: ahh, but the rules are different when the brandisher is a cop!

By: Scott Jacobs

Scott Jacobs — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:52:41 +0000

Naw, Barney was issued only a single bullet for his service revolver carried in his pants pocket

Shirt pocket.

By: TC

TC — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:51:12 +0000

We cannot infer from drawing the gun that he intended to shoot it.

Now, can we infer intent to shoot from the fact that he shot? That’s going to be the real crux of the issue.

Comment by aphrael — 1/15/2009 @ 10:48 am

Brandish a gun around a cop and find out what happens to ya. They will shoot you almost 100% of the time!