By Carlos Miller
I ended up slowing the video down by 50 percent and lightening it a little in order to be able see more details during the moments leading up to the shooting of Oscar Grant.
Although the video is much grainier and blotchier, it is clear that BART police officer Johannes Mehserle was frisking Grant before he decided to shoot him as opposed to reaching for something in his belt, as I had thought in my previous post, where I included the full video at normal speed.
As Mehserle is frisking Grant, the other officer gets involved and appears to be restraining Grant’s hands. Then suddenly, without any visible provocation from Grant, Mehserle stands up, pulls his gun out and shoots Grant with a single bullet.
It is not clear whether they handcuffed him or not, but after the shooting, you can see Grant’s hands behind his back in a frame that I froze and included in the video.
Here is an image from that frame. The quality continues to deteriorate which happens when you process videos into images, but you can see Mehrserle’s gun, Grant’s hands and the other suspect’s reaction.
Popularity: 2% [?]
40 responses so far ↓
1 Jesse // Jan 9, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Thank you for posting videos like these, police in this country are horrible. Police have beaten up my friends, sexually assaulted friends of mine, attacked me, framed me, and may have been involved in the death of my uncle none of which has ever been brought to trial. Police in the US (and much of the world) are horrible and its because of the dangerous work of people like you that this is coming more and more to light. Thank you! The sad thing is my stories are pretty tame compared to what a lot of people go through.
People don’t need cops, we need peace. Less money and support for police and the military, more money and support for schools, health care, and a reorganization of society that benefits everyone!
2 Jacob // Jan 10, 2009 at 1:36 AM
These videos leave little to the imagination. It’s clear that this deplorable act cannot be considered a justifiable shooting. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the shooting was completely unintentional-which will likely be an issue of contention at trial. And while I’m sure the offending officer will experience regret for having committed the shooting, I sincerely doubt the regret will have altruistic roots.
3 Regina // Jan 10, 2009 at 5:28 AM
Had this been a minority individual shooting someone he would have already been beaten by the police and through in jail, whether it was accidental or not!!!!
As far as a taser goes; the police get repeated hours of training with guns and tasers so that they know the difference between both and when to use them and not!!!!
The gun is worn on the right side of your holster and your taser is worn on your left side of your holster unless you shoot with your left hand then its vice-versa, no mistake here!
Cops are trained not to mistake the gun or the taser…
This was no accident. If the officer never meant to fire his gun then he should have never pull out his gun!!!
This officer had no right to shoot Grant in the back accidentally or other wise!!!
In this country you are guarantied a trail, presumed innocent, before you are found guilty or innocent.
Even if this shooting of Grant was an accident why hasn’t this officer been arrested?
Even if this shooting was an accident why hasn’t this officer been detailed?
This is not an accident this is murder in the 1st degree. This officer took someone’s life with out cause or due process!!!
I feel like Psynaut does; I am beyond words because of the, “police brutality and abuse of power under the Bush administration makes another part of me want to see him and all like him lynched.” Accident or no accident.
Just tired of police abuse and misconduct under the color of authority…
4 aSSbAG // Jan 10, 2009 at 9:26 AM
@ Regina: If the victim was white, would people be as pissed off as they are?
I would like to think so.
5 Bob // Jan 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM
THAT COPS HAS A GAT IN HIS HAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6 Michael Lubin // Jan 10, 2009 at 2:06 PM
@ aSSbAG: If the victim was white, “people” in general would be far MORE pissed off. It wouldn’t take a protest movement to get this act to be considered intolerable.
7 son of hob // Jan 10, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Payment should made to the victim’s family, and the officer charged with murder…next case.
If the Police Officer has any remorse and or integrity he should admit it, turn himself in , and serve time
son of hob
8 Dax Garvin // Jan 10, 2009 at 7:37 PM
I am a Texas Criminal Defense Attorney and have seen videos on this site that are great. Photos like this are excellent evidence, for both sides. Thank you for taking such pictures. I am also a former cop, and under NO CIRCUMSTANCE would I say this officer acted properly. He should be charged with California’s homicide… Please, keep taking great pictures, and I hope you don’t mind, I am using them in my blog, and of course giving you credit for them.
9 Carlos Miller // Jan 10, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Dax,
Obviously I did not take this video, just did my part in letting the world see the truth.
I agree that photographs and videos provide the best evidence, which is why I’m not opposed to security cameras in public as many civil libertarians are.
And this is also why I am so vocal about the right for civilians to take photos in public, including and especially of police officers.
And of course I don’t mind you using anything from my blog as long as you link to my blog.
The truth must be spread.
Thanks for reading!
10 Amal // Jan 11, 2009 at 2:24 PM
I grew up during the ’60s and I had hoped this was all behind us. How blind of me. We’re gone nowhere. We’re still at step one. Murder one in my opinion.
11 leo // Jan 11, 2009 at 7:07 PM
you know on each of the posts about this shooting, not one does anyone really say anything about how this officer has acted following this incident. Since he has quit the police department that is basically a “guilty” plea. If he was innocent he would not be trying to flee the scene of the crime, but he is doing JUST THAT.
It is the same as trying to stage a murder as a suicide. Not to mention he was probably told to do this BY the higher ups in the Police Department, they know what needs to be done so that the least punishment is enacted, and they are trying to sweep this under the carpet.
The sad part is no matter how much money the city pays to the family of the murdered, it is sweeping it under the rug.
Police need to be held to a higher standard than the people they protect, be it citizens or even illegals, human life should be viewed in one way, and that is that it is HUMAN LIFE. No doubt had the murdered been a illegal resident this officer would not have quit the force and no charges would still be brought against him. The Department weighed all of their options on how to deal with this and since no other loopholes were found they played the best route they could. Dissasociate with the accused and ignore it. Since the official report is what they make of it, and the ones who review these incidents are technically part of the same “system” anyone who goes against this system and their collective decisions will not do so if they like their job or their way of life. It is a sad world, but the same happens everywhere, and the majority of americans rather ignore the truth than be liable themselves for some form of crime, that is technically not illegal through certain loopholes, that is the beauty of the American way… the reason there are lawyers and court, the better your lawyer the more likely you will go free. Like a person who admits to police he chopped off his wifes head, and the admission was obtained illegally, and the man walks free. THAT IS THE AMERICAN WAY.
Free country my ass. Only thing in america that is free is you if you have enough money/influence, and in this case influence is something that will change the whole police “system” if this officer is convicted of any crime, especially if he is sentenced to DEATH or LIFE IN JAIL, which one or other SHOULD BE THE OUTCOME.
12 Richard // Jan 12, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Honestly, I have never read such rhetoric like I have read on this site. You claim that all our rights are being trounced by the police, yet you want to trounce this officers rights and basically declare him guilty before given a fair trial. The guy obviously made a very serious mistake and will pay the consequences. I seriously doubt the guy intentionally killed this guy let alone murdered him. I mean it really defies logic. 1. He was being photographed and I think he knew it. 2. Do you think the guy seriously wanted to destroy his life and career? 3. It is very possible he pulled his gun and was nervous enough to pull the trigger then decided to use the “I thought it was my taser” excuse. I feel horrible for the guy that was killed, yet is it even remotely possible the guy would still be alive if he had not decided to brawl on a public train drawing the police to the scene? If this is the state of intelligent thought in this country by our youth , I honestly fear for our future in a big way.
13 Carlos Miller // Jan 12, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Richard,
The cop pulls out a gun, takes aim and pulls the trigger and you say he did not “intentionally” mean to kill him because it defies logic?
Logic is one thing, see it happen on video is another thing.
Also, there is still no evidence that he actually had a Taser gun with him at the time.
And there is no evidence that Grant was actually involved in the brawling that took place.
And even if he was involved, you can see that police already had control of the situation. All the suspects were either handcuffed or sitting by the wall waiting to be handcuffed.
So how is this grounds for an officer to shoot somebody in the back?
14 David // Jan 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Personal feelings always ruin logical conversation and also make the justice system flawed.
Take Richard’s foolish comments:
“I have never read such rhetoric” – then immediately starts writing rhetoric of his own
“The guy obviously made a very serious mistake and will pay the consequences” – it is apparently not so obvious no one has been arrested for the so-called “mistake”. There is not guarantee that guilty people “pay the consequences”.
“He was being photographed and he knew it” – clearly this is rhetoric, unless Richard can read minds. If he can, he should explain something of substance, or at least do a better job of justifying his own point of view.
“Do you think the guy wanted to destroy his life and career” – no, Richard, by drawing his holstered gun, removing and safety and a firing a bullet into the back of an apprehended, handcuffed man who could not even see it coming, we are sure that the cop was trying to end the life and career of a black man. You care more about the “life and career” of the cop than the cop.
“Is it very possible he pulled his gun and was nervous” – yes, it is possible, but irrelevant. This was not a child in an arcade game.
“I feel horrible for the guy that was killed, yet..” – liar; your desire to persuade others with your callous and infantile post is stronger than your feigned agape love.
“if he had not decided to brawl on a public train…” – by you own statements, you have “basically declare him guilty before given a fair trial”.
You are what is wrong with this country. Keep you ignorance to yourself, especially when others in justified in trying to grieve and mourn. This post is what makes people want the next demented cop to point his inexcusable ire and gun at someone like you prone on a public sidewalk.
Amazingly, you did manage one sentence that rings true, due to people with your level of ignorance, stupidity and desire to be heard:
“I honestly fear for our future in a big way”.
15 E.C. Cavendish // Jan 12, 2009 at 10:15 PM
HOLY SHIT! This is terrible, just terrible. In the past I would have believed that the officer could not have, would not have intentionally shot this young man. Now, I recently, at 37 had an experience with the police and was treated with physical harm that was completely unwarranted. I now am afraid of the police. They have so much power and basically can do as they like and get away with it. It IS true. It DOES exist. It’s not only a race issue it spreads far wider and farther than that. My only hope is that Oscar’s death and the resulting videos will help to change the way the police handle themselves. As it stands.. most of them seem to be legal thugs!!!
16 HLW // Jan 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Carlos –
Why is there no audio on this video until the last second; just enough to hear the gunshot?
I am by NO means condoning the actions of the cop, as far as I am concerned he’s wrong but it seems that only including the gunshot is an attempt to sensationalize the event and not portray it accurately.
either all the sounds from the clip should have been included or none of the sounds; just the gunshot is grandstanding.
17 Carlos Miller // Jan 13, 2009 at 2:11 PM
HLW,
If you want to see the full video at normal speed and full sound, click here.
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/01/09/slow-motion-video-of-bart-shooting-video-shows-more-details/
The reason I removed the sound in the slow motion version is because when you slow sound down by 50 percent, it becomes extremely distracting and annoying and incompressible.
I took the sound out because I wanted people to focus on what was happening in the video.
When the sound is reduced by 50 percent, you cannot make out anything that is being said. It sounds like one of those adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon, if that adult happened to be on Quaaludes.
18 HLW // Jan 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Carlos –
I fully understand why the sound is removed; my question is why leave JUST the sound of the gunshot in?
I’ve been following the story closely here, as well as all the other posts you’ve made.
I even sent in $ towards your defense fund.
19 Carlos Miller // Jan 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM
HLW,
I left the sound of the gunshot in to let people know that was when the gun was discharged.
I felt it was important to let people see the positioning of the individuals when the gun was discharged.
If I would have killed all the sound, it would be difficult to know when the gun was discharged.
People looking at the video wouldn’t be able to tell if he was just pointing the gun or shooting the gun.
And this is why I also froze the frame at that moment.
It wasn’t for dramatic effect, it’s because I’m trying my best to provide the fullest picture to this incident with the resources that I have.
For me, the slow motion video enabled me to determine that the officer was frisking him rather than tugging at something on his belt, which is how it looked to me at normal speed.
It also allowed me to see that the suspect had his hands placed behind his back as well, something I had noticed in the first video but it was just too quick to determine for sure.
But I do understand that some people might might think I am somehow misinterpreting the video by playing it in slow motion, which is why I also linked to the normal version in my post.
Thanks for your support towards my Legal Defense Fund.
20 Vanessa // Jan 13, 2009 at 7:29 PM
I watched this video, and the full length one. I cringed and cried. The use of deadly force in a situation that was obviously under control. I can’t see a clear and/or plausible defense for this officers’ action…
21 TwoSocks // Jan 13, 2009 at 10:43 PM
If it was intentional, then its 2nd degree murder.
If it was a mistake, then it’s voluntary manslaughter. Either way it’s a long prison sentence for this cop. Grant’s family should win the $25 million lawsuit, because it is an easy open-and-shut case.
Reality check:
The jury will be all white and oriental just like King’s case. Cop will say it was an unfortunate accident … case closed. Cop acquitted of all wrong doing because no way to prove malice. Chooses new profession to start over again.
Grant’s family sues the city and loses because the cop was adequately trained and city is at no fault. All the blame is on the officer who has no money.
Our judicial system sucks. Cops are above the law, and worst yet, they know it. To prove it, just ask a cop someday what “Professional Courtesy” means. I guarantee it. You won’t like the answer.
22 Vanessa // Jan 13, 2009 at 10:51 PM
On the contrary….. police are trained to use equal force to gain control of a situation. Even if he WAS reaching for his Tazer, THAT was unequal force for that situation. That was an almost textbook example of officers having control. The other suspects were under control and the victim was subdued. Why even Taze him? Unnecessary force… the officer is liable because he broke policy. Whether or not he answers for his crime…. and it IS a crime…. is questionable. After all, this is STILL Amerikkka.
23 TwoSocks // Jan 13, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Vanessa, I sure hope you’re right for Grant’s family sake. However, I didn’t make up that reality check. That’s exactly what happened to my brother and family. I think Grant’s case is way better than mine, because of all the videos taken and the community all coming together to protest.
24 Vanessa // Jan 14, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Thank you TwoSocks,
but I’ve come to learn that being right is not always enough.
There are many people who were ‘right’ that now reside in prisons and cemetaries.. When it comes to law enforcement personnel, they have a tendency to stick up for their own. Those who don’t follow that program are often ostracized by their fellow officers.
There is NO doubt in my mind that what you say is true… so YOU know that even the most righteously evident case of police wrongdoing can be dismissed on real or fabricated ‘evidence’.
I join you in wising the Grant family the best of luck in this issue. They will surely need it…
25 Carlos Miller // Jan 14, 2009 at 12:24 AM
The one thing that I can’t get out of my mind about this shooting is that I was in exactly that same position when I was arrested for photographing cops against their wishes.
The cops had slammed me to the ground and were on top of me. One of them was slamming my head into the pavement, just like that bald cop was doing to Grant.
They had my hands behind my back and one of them kept twisting my right hand backwards where I would yell out in pain and complain.
And then one of them said that if I don’t shut my mouth, they would taze me.
So I shut my mouth and they carted me off to jail.
But I see that video and I realize I could have easily been shot in the back.
And because it was so dark and there was no witnesses and NO VIDEO, it would have been written off as just another “officer-involved shooting” and it would have barely made headlines.
And when I went to court and three cops gave contradictory statements, I was still convicted of resisting arrest because the prosecutor had brought up the fact that I called LAPD nazis on this blog, two months after my arrest.
And people wonder why I am so obsessed with my case, why I won’t stop fighting it, why I won’t just let it go?
Because when it comes down to it, this blog is the only soapbox I have. I tried the justice system and it failed me, even though I continue down the legal path with my appeal.
But the bottom line is, they’re going to have to put a bullet in my back if they want me to shut up.
26 Critical view // Jan 14, 2009 at 6:19 AM
Watch carefully the officer had the gun drawn before he ever stood up then stepped back and pulled the trigger
Somethings that still have not been mentioned regardless of whether or not it was an Execution or an accident please draw your own logical deductions from these insights;
1. most LEO’s choose that career path because they [drool/have fantasies] about being Jack Bauer and would love the opportunity to be a HERO (read: shoot a criminal if they are given the lawful opportunity to do so)
2. Our Government Exploits this subset of society by allowing them to become LEO’s with minimal requirements (no need for a college degree) yet the career path pays comparable to one who has chosen to complete college thus limiting the incentive to an interested college bound (read: intelligent) person in wanting to join the force.
3. LEO’s are allowed to Kill in the name of Crime Prevention a privilege not bestowed on the general citizenry
4. The general Citizenry is denied the right to be prepared for the use of legally justifiable self-defense (Read: the right NOT PRIVILEGE to carry a concealed firearm)
5. The Government has a vested interest in protecting it’s institutions from criminal and civil sanctions(i.e. if the executed guy’s family wins a 100 million dollar judgment that is an opportunity cost to the city in providing security for the rest by reducing the total outlay of cash available for law enforcement)
What can be deduced from these 5 statements in my mind are two solutions that Should be Aired immediately
Solution #1
As others have noted officer carelessness, whether malicious/callous/retarded has grown exponentially in recent years mandating the need for a prosecutorial body independent of the normal District Attorney’s office in each state with the sole purpose of investigating and prosecuting crimes perpetrated by law enforcement officers and their cohorts as well as superiors
Solution #2
A Supreme court precedent recognizing the right of the general citizenry to be prepared with a concealed weapon should they happen to be victimized in a situtation calling for justifiable self defense.
Solution 2 acknowledges a right considered sacred by the founding father’s that is the right to self defense none of the great legal commentators ever questioned a human beings right to self-defense if their life was in imminent danger what that translates to in modern times where criminals shoot good samaratins regularly is the right to carry the tools necessary for justifiable self-defense above and beyond any fundamental rights granted by the 2nd amendment. Legal scholars/attorneys/and judges need to seriously consider couching an individuals right to carry a concealed weapon under the fundamental right to self-defense and the logical deduction that one must be prepared to defend themselves should the situation arise.
Which also raises fairly clear equal protection issues i.e. why is it we have two classes of citizens in America those privy to be prepared to protect themselves with a concealed weapon (Read: a privilege granted to every off-duty LEO) and the rest of us normal law abiding citizens who are not? of course all restrictions that currently apply to ownership and possession of a firearm should continue but those who own a legally registered firearm should be able to carry it!!
27 TwoSocks // Jan 14, 2009 at 9:27 AM
“1. most LEO’s choose that career path because they [drool/have fantasies] about being Jack Bauer and would love the opportunity to be a HERO (read: shoot a criminal if they are given the lawful opportunity to do so)”
Critical view, I agree with you 1000%. I honestly feel that people don’t want to be cops working an uneventful 9 to 5 job with the highlight for the day of rescuing Granny Smith’s cat out of a tree. I think most of them would prefer to see themselves as LAPD Officer Riggs being kind of reckless, but always shooting the bad guy and being a hero at the end of the day. It would be nice to see how much of an increase in police academy applications after Lethal Weapon came out in 1987. There has to be some statistics on this out there in cyberspace. To prove that this is indeed the general attitude of cops, all one has to do is visit policelink.com and read the comments section on articles where a suspect was shot and killed. They openly gloat about the taking of a human life when they think it was justified. Fortunately, for Oscar, they don’t gloat, because they know it was wrong.
28 Vanessa // Jan 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM
“Solution #2
A Supreme court precedent recognizing the right of the general citizenry to be prepared with a concealed weapon should they happen to be victimized in a situation calling for justifiable self defense…”
Although that seems wonderful and just in principle, I am inclined to believe that the number of killings by LEO’s would increase. The simple defense for such atrocities would be…”The suspect was presumed to be armed…”
The average citizen on a routine police stop would be afraid to reach for a wallet, retrieve information from a sun visor or glove box or even scratch an itch out of fear from that blanket assumption.
29 Kwan // Jan 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM
This situation is absolutley sick. This young man was killed execution style. People wonder why a majority of the urban community has no trust, love, or respect for law enforcement. Law enforcement seems to think they are above the laws that they themselves should be upholding.. They use the law as a means to intimidate instead of protect.. Rest assured this is not the first time something like this has happened. Its the first time we have an incontrovertible account of such a despicable act. Law enforcement works for me and you . There own logo is “protect and serve” .. well im sure we could ask many a citizen has that been the case and i would venture to say it hasnt.. Damn shame.
I dont trust any Law enforcement no matter race or gender..
Its a shame a young man had to lose his life to open a few eyes..
CNN where are you??? Rev. Al where are you ??? Nancy Grace where are you???
Jesse where are you???
Great Job BART police.. Hope you all feel like Heros
30 Critical view // Jan 14, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Vanessa your point is well taken
But this fear already exists in our society as seen in the video above… further I find it hard to believe that the officer in this video would have shot a man in cold blood had he believed that at least 15% of the individuals on that station that night were armed.
31 Mike // Jan 14, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I live in the east bay and this is the first time I have seen the video. The video says enough, the public reaction supports how unwarranted this killing was. We do have a systemic problem with law enforcement in this country. I doubt this one event will change it. It will require all of us to demand more accountability from our law enforcement.
I can only see this going one two directions:
1) Officer convicted of at least manslaughter with 25 years and the family getting $25M.
2) Massive riots in the bay area with large economic damage done to the region.
I think the city will choose the first option.
But regardless this is a senseless act that has left a family without a son, brother and father and nothing can change that.
32 LEO // Jan 14, 2009 at 8:59 PM
As a law enforcement officer I am equally appalled by this. This officer should be tried and in my opinion be held responsible. We are trained as Vanessa says to use just enough force to end the situation. There was a time when you did have to have at the very least an AA degree, or at least 4 years military service, but people found that there is more money in other fields, so cities lowered the standards to get more applicants. As for you Carlos I have no problem with you filming me on patrol, everything I do is caught on my dash cam or tape recorder when I am away from the vehicle. There are many states including the one where I live that as long as you are a law abiding citizen and pass a background check you can receive a concealed weapons permit. The only states that I am aware that will not issue a concealed weapons permit under for any reason is Ca, NY, Il, and Washington DC, these states are incidentally also states that try to restrict any gun ownership. To the Grant family I am very sorry for your loss and maybe this so called officer will spend the rest of his life in prison.
33 Carlos Miller // Jan 14, 2009 at 9:35 PM
LEO,
Thanks for your comment. Cameras protect both the civilian and the officer.
How many dash cam videos have we seen where the suspect either shoots the officer or tries to fight him or another car comes and runs him over or whatever.
When it’s right there on camera, it just makes the investigation so much easier, in my opinion.
Besides, we are pretty much on film anywhere we go in public, whether it is into the bank or the convenience store of the gas station or the courthouse or even the traffic intersection.
I pretty much assume I’m on camera once I step out into public.
I know there is a lot of anti-cop sentiment on this thread, but I would like to hear from more officers, no matter where you stand on this incident.
I think there is a huge amount of distrust on both sides of the badge and I would like to use this forum to make some attempt at seeing each others’ side.
34 Vanessa // Jan 14, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Thank you LEO for the acknowledgement. As an ex-corrections officer, I’ve received much of the same training as you have and know that there are certain guidelines, policies and directives that must be followed.
I have seen many people I worked with dismissed for violating the rights of inmates and I wasn’t unhappy to see them go. Their presence only made it difficult for the rest of us to be trusted to do an honest job.
Unfortunately the actions of a few can tarnish an entire occupation. Hence the distrust of LEO’s, corrections officers, lawyers, politicians…. the list is endless. Even fast food workers are suspect because of the “Caught On Tape” television shows.
Not every public servant is a menace to society, but there are those who are not mentally and emotionally suited for the jobs they perform.
We as a society fear what we are not familiar with. We perceive threats where there are none because of race, religion, ethnicity, socio-economic status and any thing else that is not a part of our individual circles. We are a nation of shoot now…. ask questions later and guilty until proven innocent. These things make us fearful, mistrustful and trigger happy.
I believe there are MANY LEO’s and people paid to “protect and serve” who are camels waiting for that last straw. Regular psychological evaluations should be a job requirement for ANY civil servant who carries a firearm. And I don’t mean that BS “diversity training” that some are required to sit through annually.
There should be accountability for the system that turns these people loose upon the public they are paid to serve. They are trained… and the entity that does the training should be held accountable for the products they produce.
35 Dan Lee // Jan 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I’m a big police advocate. However, I can’t see any way this shooting can be justified..
The only rational I can imagine that went through this guy’s mind is that he was afraid of the crowd getting out of control if he didn’t do “something” drastic. The right thing however would have been to let them go if they didn’t feel they had enough back up. The offenses committed obviously weren’t worth anyone dying over. I think the guy just snapped. Its a sad story, but he must be charged.
36 Dan Lee // Jan 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Oh one more thing.. Vanessa unfortunately played the race card in one of her posts. “After all, this is STILL Amerikkka.”
I just want to remind her that an at least partially African American man was just elected to office, & African Americans hold some of the most political posts in this country. So please stop your whining.
One of the most discriminated against people in the world now is the white Christian male who had noting to do with slavery, because he wasn’t born yet.
But anyway.. All that BS whining aside. It only takes a human being to see that the shooting was not justified. There is nothing to suggest that it was racially motivated, or that the officer will be exonerated based on any racial bias. Your comments are complete conjecture, & totally devisive. Very disappointing post Vanessa, especially since I thought your opinions on better psychological evaluations of LEO, were very constructive & valid.
37 Dan Lee // Jan 15, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Oh one more thing.. Vanessa unfortunately played the race card in one of her posts. “After all, this is STILL Amerikkka.”
I just want to remind her that an at least partially African American man was just elected to office, & African Americans hold some of the most political posts in this country. So please stop your whining.
One of the most discriminated against people in the world now is the white Christian male who had noting to do with slavery, because he wasn’t born yet.
But anyway.. All that BS whining aside. It only takes a human being to see that the shooting was not justified. There is nothing to suggest that it was racially motivated, or that the officer will be exonerated based on any racial bias. Your comments are complete conjecture, & totally divisive. Very disappointing post Vanessa, especially since I thought your opinions on better psychological evaluations of LEO, were very constructive & valid.
38 nate // Feb 2, 2009 at 7:05 AM
If he was white he wouldn’t have got shot in the first place. W.e cops are properly trained and love to abuse power, thats all there is to it. If they really wanted to help people they wouldn’t be a cop.
39 nate // Feb 2, 2009 at 7:05 AM
*are not properly trained*
40 Joe // May 23, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Murder doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t add up. My theory is he ‘just’ lost his head; I know from experience that high-intensity-stress situations (especially if repeatedly) can result in some strange kinds of confusion – might be compounded by some mental health issue – I don’t think it was intentional, I think the moment was all just too much for him – which makes him a really bad cop – it doesn’t look like intentional murder to me because I doubt he was rational – why would he rationally murder someone with so many witnesses, it doesn’t make sense. It’s a kid who got himself in over his head in the scary world of grown-up cops and couldn’t cope and was overwhelmed in the moment. People who can’t take the heat, shouldn’t be out in that kitchen.
Leave a Comment