By Carlos Miller
Less than a year after a Bay Area Rapid Transit cop shot and killed an unarmed man on video, another BART officer was caught on video smashing a suspect’s head into a glass window, causing it to shatter.
The video immediately went viral.
The video shows a man who is apparently drunk and carrying an open container screaming obscenities inside the train. One man approaches him and tells him he should step off the train.
Then a BART cop comes out of nowhere and grabs the man and pulls him off the train, forcing him across the platform and smashing his head into a glass window.
The cop ended up cutting up his own arm in the process.
Now the suspect is being charged with battery on an officer and resisting arrest.
However, the video doesn’t really show Michael Joseph Gibson doing any of the above.
If anything, the 37-year-old man should be charged with public drunkenness and disorderly conduct (one of the few times where I imagine that charge would stand up in court) for his behavior before he was confronted by the cop.
Gibson, who family members say is mentally ill, was arrested earlier that day for allegedly assaulting an 84-year-old passenger on a bus. He was released on a misdemeanor charge.
Police union officials are defending the officer, whose name has not been released, because train passengers applauded him when he removed Gibson.
However, that was before he smashed Gibson’s head into the glass.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Related posts:
- BART police shoot unarmed man; caught on citizen video
- New video emerges showing BART officer punching Oscar Grant
- New video of BART shooting emerges offering clearest view so far (and audio)
- Slow motion video of BART shooting shows more details
- Fla. cop caught on video kicking handcuffed man, then stepping on him
Support Photography is Not a Crime by buying your electronics through this ad.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
Well, Rick Sanchez’s producer managed to pick this one up for him today.
He had his “cop analyst” pal on with him. They appeared to believe that since the cop hurt himself worse being a thug, that somehow justified the cop being a thug.
Or something. There isn’t much logic going on when Rick’s busy sucking up to his guest cop buddy.
what’s with the jump cut? the video goes from them standing to the cop being on top of the man. where’s the missing footage?
Maybe the guy inadvertently turned off the camera and switched it back on.
I’ve done that before.
The guy deserved to get his ass kicked. If you look at the footage, the suspect put his right arm through the window. The officer did not put the suspects head through the window. If your family was riding that train you would want the Police to show up and take care of business. Rick Sanchez is a punk, Drunk driving, felony hit and run driver who has zero business chatting it up with the Police.
COP RULE & SCUM BAGS DROOL!!!!!!!
Just ask “Big Al”
Another copy-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKhnKoQAfXA
That window shatters like candied glass.
I downloaded the youtube .flv, and stepped thru frame by frame. It looks like Gibson put his free hand up, as in “up against the wall.” Some commenters on the Youtube vid speculate that his hand or arm broke the window.
Hard for me to agree, mainly because the video’s grainy and both of them were were blocking the action. What is clear is that the cop kept pushing Gibson right into the breaking and falling glass. That was dangerous to both himself and Gibson.
I’m doubtful that any BART police investigation will place the cop at fault, regardless of the press release and conferences flying out of their communications division right now.
That the window broke from what looks like minor contact is kind of absurd. Don’t they use shatter-resistant plastic windows in subways and such?
I’m siding with the police on this one. We have a crazy guy on the BART. Cop doesn’t exactly have the guy’s medical history (other sites said he was bi-polar). All he knows is that this is a guy who needs to be off the train.
The cop looks for a wall to prop the crazy guy up against so he can cuff him and check for weapons, but all there is is this shitty fucking glass that shatters when you look at it.
I’m with Carlos a lot in these types of situations, but not this one. Cop did what he had to do.
Essentially, I agree with the narrator of the video, before and after the glass broke. The suspect even continued to resist.
But where was the battery on a police officer?
While this isn’t all that egregious, the question I ask myself is why did the cop go “hands on” so quickly? I guess the train has to get going but the conductor can’t spare a minute in order to affect a peaceful conclusion?
The job is not inherently violent unless you make it inherently violent.
Officer does have an action for negligence, perp too if he got cut.
I’m with Carlos.
This guy needed arrested, and I fully support that fact. He’s drunk verbally confronting, and assaulting passengers, so arrest him on public drunkenness, hell even disturbing the peace on this one.
He did not assault the cop in any way shape or form.
I’m not convinced he resisted either. I would like for anyone here to just allow me to throw you to the ground, in fact most could not allow that to happen. Try it with your buddies, and you will see that your brain will automatically try to prevent your going down.
Being a black male I’ve been on the potential victim side of the Police on the BART and other public places all over the usa and even I have to side with the Police on this one.
BART stations have plexi-glass in most of the stations but could not afford to replace all the old glass windows. Had this happened at another section of the train station it would not have made the news. BART has serious budget issues.
Good thing Michael Joseph Gibson didn’t look like Oscar Grant. He would have been shot on site.
Take notice people that America has slowly turned into Hitlers pre-WWII Nazi Germany and since the Government has the Media by the balls and most Anglo-Americans have negro-phobia, I can’t see any way this can be stopped until it has taken it’s course. We do don’t speak up about it are going to find out the mysterious eternal effects of our non-actions soon enough.
Yeah definitely should not be charged with assault on the cop, however the video doesn’t look to me like the cop was intentionally shoving the guy’s head through the glass.
It’s odd, the police spokesperson said that the officer was on ‘industrial leave’ for the injuries to his face , the video shows him not within a foot of the glass when it shatters (away from him), and when he takes the guy to the ground, which he should have done in the first place, you see the other side of the officers face without cuts or bleeding. The spokesperson said that the video was posted by someone with a particular point of view, BULLSHIT, the video shows what happened, not a point of view.
That having been said, I don’t think the officer intentionally put him through the window. Glass or plastic panels like that should be expected to stand up to a lot rougher treatment than that. I’d be willing to bet they get them replaced now before people start “accidentally” falling into them and suing for a boatload of money.
I have to say I am pleasantly surprised at the comments on this posting. It’s obvious that the officer was looking to put the guy against the wall for control. Not his fault the glass shattered. Heck, there was nowhere else to go with the guy.
As for Edinmiami, I’m not at all surprised that you have a problem with the officer in this video. The guy was causing a disturbance and needed to be removed. Do you really think he could have been talked out of the train? He looked ready to fight to me. Real world newsflash here: Police sometimes have to put their hands on people.
I’ve no doubt that everyone “from your perspective” is ready to fight. It’s how you justify your behavior and confirms how you see yourself: tough guy, above the law, etc.
No doubt your department has given you every tool necessary to combat the perpetrators of crime except for the most important one: how to talk to people and remain calm. You don’t seem to see yourself as a Peace Officer. From your rants, it seems you think you are a Law Enforcement Officer. The distinction is important.
Here, you have a loud drunk. There is nothing showing an imminent battery or even an assault. Your thinking is so convoluted that you actually believe because you can articulate the words “In my experience the defendant was about to fight” somehow creates legal meaning. They don’t. But you know that or should know that. It’s evident you don’t care. For you, the slightest provocation is enough to get physical, more likely than not, because you get off on it.
You want to believe I don’t know anything about “your world” again because it makes it easier for you to justify your behavior.
Of course, you’re wrong. I know your world because I lived in it. There was no shortage of people that called me names or threatened to fight me. Sure I could have busted heads, trumped up charges and lied on my reports, but…
that isn’t the job. Instead, I talked people down. I calmed them. I gave them choices and treated them with respect. In the end, they thanked me. They expected “you” and they got “me.” Imagine their gratitude.
In the end, you and I probably got the same result except you foster contempt and hate for police officers which makes the job harder for everyone and I left people with their dignity intact.
I don’t expect you to understand, just something to chew on.
First time posting; though I have been following discussions here for a while. I am motivated to post because this case, unlike so many, actually does appear to be “grey”… a legitimate case to be made for either side with the advantage going to the officer placed in a potentially dangerous situation and needing to make a decision. I agree with those who say that the case for Assault on an Officer looks rather threadbare.
I would like to make an observation, though, and Johhny (and others), I hope that you are willing to hear what I say. It appears to me that in the last 2 or 3 years there has been a distinct paradigm shift in communications. The ability to record an event in real time is no longer relegated to news crews scrambling a van to the scene. If there are more than 3 people present, the chances that one has a cell phone which is capable of recording video is fairly high (my estimation – could be wrong). Add to this the ability to upload this content instantly to the internet (new technology, but it exists now and will be common practice in a year). Compound it with the fact that there are tens of thousands of people who cruise YouTube et.al. daily for particular types of content.
10 or 12 people on a train. Maybe one or two who care one way or the other about what happened; most just happy to be on their way and really could not care less about the cop or the criminal. In the old days, those one or two would be very unlikely to say anything publicly, even to a reporter; nobody likes to be the only one holding a particular opinion.
But now, there is the possibility of a couple million (literally) people viewing the event. Suddenly the person who thinks the cop was using excessive force is joined by several thousand who believe that any cop who uses force is by definition excessive. Blogs catch it, and there is a groundswell of public opinion… uninformed for the most part, but still very real. This is the reality we now live in. This is the paradigm shift. Information is now quickly and readily available to everyone with an internet connection, and if you live your life in the public eye, it WILL be seen.
I think that the job of police officer has just been made quite a bit more difficult. Is this fair? The question is futile… it is what it is.
Johnny, you mentioned “Do you really think he could have been talked out of the train? He looked ready to fight to me.” 5 years ago, the question would not have needed to have been asked. Cop does what needs to be done, moves on. This is not 5 years ago, however. With the very real possibility that, any time a cop rolls up to a situation where any size crowd has gathered, someone is recording, the prudent officer, with no immediate credible threat to himself or others, is going to take the time to try and talk the man out. If it does not work, and he has to intervene physically, that huge court of public opinion will have very little to find fault with.
For better or worse, cops are now in a position where everything they say, do or neglect to say or do is subject to public scrutiny. Police Departments and Unions are going to find themselves in positions where they need to consider carefully whether to defend the actions of some cops. You and I both know that there are a small percentage out there who are, actually, indefensible and have been hiding behind anonymity; this will be harder as we move forward.
Thanks for taking the time to read all of this.
And before I get jumped on…
I did NOT mean to imply that readers and posters of this blog fall into the “uninformed” category. This is actually one of the more thoughtful and insightful corners of the internet.
Thank you Carlos for the work that you do.
Booker,
I disagree with you slightly in one aspect, you say “I think that the job of police officer has just been made quite a bit more difficult”.
The officers job is to enforce the laws in a legal manner. If 500 people are watching with professional video equipment streaming what they see the officer doing live to the web, they still have not made his job any more difficult. Just arrest the bad guy legally, and move on.
If additional public scrutiny makes things difficult for the police force because of the improper actions of a few undisciplined officers, that is how it should be, it encourages the police force to correct those officers.
Point taken Ray, and I would not disagree with you. Allow me to amplify a bit
There are few occupations out there where the margin for error is so slim. In the past, a lapse in judgment which resulted in a few stitches for someone being arrested was considered inconsequential in the grand scheme of “keeping the streets clean”. If an officer was a habitual “lapser” it would usually be ignored (implicitly condoned) until such time as one of those lapses killed someone. At that time it would be noted that this officer has a clean record, and made a regrettable mistake; nothing more to see here, move along.
Now the opportunities for these lapses to go unnoticed is much slimmer. I consider this to be positive, and timely considering the level to which some departments (can anyone say Maricopa County?) have decided to elevate themselves above public opinion, and above the very laws they purport to enforce.
I believe that some good cops will get caught in the backlash. I believe that some very good people will make a mistake in judgment, and will lose their job. I think of this as a more than reasonable price to pay in order to bring the spotlight on to the abusers of the system.
Police Officers (and Judges, and Government Officials at all levels) need to know that they have been placed on notice. The system is not what it used to be. The governed are quickly becoming a very informed mob, and are beginning to become just a bit unruly.
Edinmiami,
For someone who claims to be a former cop, your comments make me wonder. I am curious how long you did the job and what kind of area you worked in. Did you ever have to put your hands on someone or did your magic verbal skills always work?
I’ve worked in a variety of areas in my career. In some I have hardly ever had to use force and most folks would listen to reason. In other assignments force is a weekly event. My current assignment is like that. The area is filled with drunks, homeless addicts, and emotionally disturbed people. Not the typical rational citizen that you can give choices and talk down. Anyone with any experience knows you can’t reason with a drunk, much less an angry drunk like on this video. The longer you negotiate, the more chance of getting attacked.
I don’t know for sure but I am willing to bet that you either quit early into your career or got a desk job as soon as possible. It’s great that you want to try to avoid using force but when you simply refuse to acknowledge when it is needed, you place yourself, other officers, and the public at risk. Perhaps it is for the best that you no longer do this line of work because it obviously doesn’t suit you. There is no shame in that. Not everyone has what it takes to deal with an aggressive suspect. There’s always the fire department if police work is too violent.
Have you ever read about the 3 year long FBI study titled “Killed In the Line Of Duty”? It is an in-depth look into officers that were murdered. Here are some of the characteristics the FBI found was common to officers that got killed:
1) Friendly and well-liked by community and department
2) Uses less force than other officers in similar situations
3) Perceives self as more public relations than law enforcer
4) Uses force only as last resort
5) 85% failed to fire their weapon
6) Tends to look for the “good” in others
7) “Laid back” and “easy going”
Does that sound familiar to you? It sounds like the type of police officer you imagined yourself to be. You can play semantics with whether I am a “peace officer” or a “law enforcement officer” all you want. Just realize that I have the mindset to get home alive at the end of my shift. Sorry if that offends you but my family seems to appreciate it.
I am just glad you got off the street before you got yourself or your partners hurt.
@Johnny Law: Okay, forgive me, but I instantly have to question that survey. How did they acquire these results? Did they interview fellow officers after his death? If so, what officer is not going to describe their fellow brother or sister in blue who died in the line of duty with such qualities as you listed? In death, everyone’s negative qualities are glossed over. That checklist sounds like your standard eulogy to me.
Johnny Law
“Have you ever read about the 3 year long FBI study titled “Killed In the Line Of Duty”? It is an in-depth look into officers that were murdered”
1) I think you meant to say “killed”, murdered would indicate premeditation in which case the officers behavior patterns would have much less to do with their death. The difference between murdered and killed is not something that should be easily mistaken by a law enforcement official.
2) For the statistics listed to have meaning could you please post the statistics for officers that are not killed on the job. You are attempting to use singular data points to prove your point.
For instance “5) 85% failed to fire their weapon”
For officers not killed would this be a higher or lower percentage
I’m calling bullshit, Johnny. You talk a lot of game, but what did we see just yesterday?
You take something that doesn’t belong to you (apparently you don’t have to ask permission from mere civilians, laws be damned, they don’t apply the same to you) to illustrate one of your hateful little rants against a group of people you don’t like.
And when you get called on it, do you apologize for doing that, or for placing the people in the photo in a false light? No, you remove the photo and insult the person you acquired it from without permission. You even seem to imply that you’ve done so only at their request – not because failing to do so would result in a DMCA takedown of at least that post by Blogger, if not your site.
And that’s all pretty much beside the point of your demeaning people you don’t like/agree with, and bragging about treating them as badly as you can without explicitly admitting to any specific wrongdoing.
You claim to be so hard, but all I’ve actually seen out of you is the emotional maturity of a maladjusted second grader.
Michael, not sure what your response has to do with my posting about the FBI study. Please take a deep breath and try to stay on point.
Ray, murder is the right word. Look it up. We aren’t talking about cops who died in car accidents.
The bottom line on this study is that officers who stumble around with rose colored glasses on about all the goodness of mankind are the ones who end up six feet under. You have a problem with the results of that study, call the FBI.
Perhaps you should google it and read up on it before you dismiss it? Nah that would be too hard and might mess up your world view.
Well, Johnny, that would be because it doesn’t have anything to do with an FBI study – just all of your comment previous to that.
Looks to me like you’re once again dodging the point.
JL,
I don’t know anything about this study but as a journalist who has written about many people who have died before their time, including cops, I can assure you that they are all described by their friends as “laid-back and easy-going” and “friendly and well-liked” who looked for the good in others.
There is something about death that makes us focus on the positive things about that person.
They will probably describe you the same way, even though you claim not to be that way.
Johnny Law,
Again, unless the perpetrator had intent to kill the officer before hand, then the correct term would be killed, and not murdered. That’s probably why the 1992 FBI study is titled “Killed in the line of duty” and not, as you contend, “murdered”.
Respectfully, thank you for “bottom lining” it, but I would still prefer the statistics on officers not killed in the line of duty do draw a quantitative comparison. Also, I did google the report, it’s interesting reading, but it’s still only one set of data points without a corollary for comparison. It’s quite possible that the officers NOT killed in the line of duty would be described as “laid back” and “easy going” they might also “use force only as a last resort”
But since you asked for it….
…
Behavioral Descriptors of Officers Killed and Assaulted
In an attempt to better understand both the circumstances in which officers are killed and assaulted, as well as the officers themselves, FBI researchers examined some behavioral descriptors used by peers, supervisors, offenders, and, in some cases, the researchers to characterize these officers. They discovered that most victim officers appeared–
* friendly, “laid-back,” and “easy going;”
* well-liked by community and department;
* hardworking;
* to look for “good” in others;
* to use less force than other officers felt they would use in similar circumstances;
* to perceive themselves as more public relations- and service-oriented than law enforcement-directed;
* to not follow all the rules, especially in making arrests, confronting prisoners, enforcing traffic laws, and waiting for backup (when available); and
* to feel that they could “read” others and situations and would drop their guard as a result.
…
“some behavioral descriptors used by peers, supervisors, offenders, and, in some cases, the researchers to characterize these officers”
So in effect it’s a selection of after-the-fact descriptions of those killed, biased by co-worker relationships and “educated guesses” by the researchers themselves.
…
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=139198
Annotation: The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports Section selected and analyzed 51 incidents of police officer killings in order to evaluate the psychology of the offender, the behavior of the police officer, and circumstances in which the police officer lost his or her life.
Abstract: The study was conducted over a 3-year period; the 51 incidents resulted in the death of 54 police officers and involved 50 offenders. Results demonstrated that, while no single offender profile could be established, most killers of police officers had been diagnosed as having some type of personality disorder. Behavioral descriptors of victims were frequently similar in that they were good-natured and more conservative than their fellow officers in the use of physical force. The incidents themselves revealed that killings were often facilitated by some type of procedural miscue (e.g., improper approach to a vehicle). Type of assignment, circumstances at the scene of an encounter, weapons involved, and the environment in which events occurred all played a role in the preponderance of police officer deaths in the South. The report presents extensive information on the victims, offenders, and incidents studied. It identifies personality types of offenders, provides guidance on how individuals of a given personality type interact with authority figures, and offers approaches to interrogation. The report also points out specific areas where law enforcement training and procedures may be improved. Appendixes contain the study methodology and a description of personality types. 65 references, 5 tables, and 12 figures
…
Funny, the study abstract itself says “killings” and “deaths,” not murders. Ray’s point would appear to stand.
Ok, I admit it. I stopped reading after Johnny Laws next to last comment. That is the mentality that is creating the problem. This isn’t a war zone and it is not you against the public.
And I love how you made your comment an insult to Edininmiami. Not veiled at all. Healthy dialogue? No thanks.
On a plus note, this is one of the best commented articles yet with lots of healthy debate.
Ok, read all the comments now.
Still an asshat.
“COP RULE & SCUM BAGS DROOL!!!!!!!”
This is the kind of childish attitude exhibited by those drawn to police forces. Never expect anything more from them then you would from a violent & mentally challenged eigth grader. They just aren’t capable; if they where they would understand that they sound like a real dumbass with these sort of comments.
Mr. Miller
I just found your site the other day while digging around for information on that pussy Greenbaum. Unfortunately, I do not have things like money (or material possessions for that matter) to aid in your legal fight. But for what it is worth, you have found a new avid fan. What you are doing, in addition to being deeply fascinating, is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the operation of a free society. Society needs watchdogs who are willing to fight the good fight, even if it comes at a great personal expense. My initial impression based on the several posts I have read is that you are somewhat like the former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Some people crave power. Some people crave truth. Those few of you who crave truth often must make great personal sacrifice as it appears you have done. As a fellow American, I thank you for that.
With that being said, this video, while it appears bad, is not as bad as it appears. It really doesnt look as if the cop hit him all that hard, or that he intended to put him through a window. The fact that the window shattered as it did makes me think it was not safety glass, or plexiglass, or anything of the sort. The man probably needed to be removed from the train, and it appears he was drunk and had mental issues. You dont want to put him on the ground near the train for obvious reasons. The shove into the wall/window did not appear too extreme. With weak glass, perhaps the guy just led with his watch or his bottle or something. Sometimes it doesnt take much to break a window.
On another note, it is good to see that this BART cop didnt shoot him in the head once he had him handcuffed. Having read the posts on the BART cop shooter, has there been anything beyond that one picture that you posted in the update to prove that the cop did not have a Taser?
Love your site.
An update: Alameda County prosecutors declined Tuesday to file felony assault charges…
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/24/BA9U1AQ2VA.DTL#ixzz0Xr4hpqtP
@Smoke – ” I can’t see any way this can be stopped until it has taken it’s course. We do don’t speak up about it are going to find out the mysterious eternal effects of our non-actions soon enough.”
People are fighting back, it’s just that the antique system of government we inherited provides limited tools. Civil lawsuits, filing complaints, and pressing charges are the most we got. Because the second and third can be overruled by corrupt DA, judge, or police, filing suits is the one way to fight back that gets response.
Unfortunately, most people settle their cases for cash money. When that happens, the case is closed, no witnesses get called, no sunlight shines on the moldy undergrowth of law enforcement. And no precedent gets set.
For a broad look at people across the country who are fighting back against the old-skool cop society of Amerikkka, check out the Injustice Everywhere project.
Also, you wanna learn about the USA taking a giant step backward, read up on Police Officers Bill of Rights. Some states already got em, and most cops in most places have got much better rights than you or me. That’s just wrong.
@JohnnyLaw:
“Killed in the line of duty” =/= “murdered. If you can’t tell the difference, you are in the wrong line of work, because you don’t understand the law.
@Edinmiami:
Better to go in fast and dirty, and settle the issue, than to pussyfoot around, and risk extra casualties. It’s not an absolute, but it’s valid. Or, as Patrick Swazey put it: “Be nice, until it’s time to not be nice”, and then “We take out the trash”. This guy could (perhaps) have been “talked down”, but is that really reasonable? How long does the Police spend on it? Really? Practicality counts.
In this case, I don’t find fault with the LEO – this didn’t appear to be more than an “up against the wall”, with unforseen add-ons. Dial up some /real/ corruption, please. Not someone who “coulda done better, in a perfect world”.
As for the additional charges, keep in mind the nature of the beast. Since the legal system involves negotiation, they ask for more than they want, expecting the other side to do the same. “Truth” and “justice” are secondary players in an adversarial system. Could be better – in a perfect world. Dial me up real, practical improvements first, though, before you demand perfection.