Ongoing riots in Greece after teenager shot by police

Malor wrote:

They analyzed that claim pretty extensively on Metafilter, and it doesn't work in a number of ways. The claims that seemed strongest were that a loaded handgun is about six times the weight of a taser, and the trigger pulls differently; there's no possible way you would confuse them. The second was from someone who framestepped his way through, and said that it looked to him that the officer pulled the trigger, realized he didn't have a round in the chamber, loaded a round, and THEN shot him. I haven't analyzed it that closely myself, but he talked at length about what kind of gun the officer had (he believed it to be a Sig Sauer) and how police typically carry the weapon.

There's a very long thread here -- Don't murder me, bro -- which you might find worth perusing.

As I said, whatever explanation there is, it's a flimsy excuse. His reaction after the fact was not what one would expect someone to have after intentionally shooting someone. It wasn't murder, it was stupidity.

They analyzed that claim pretty extensively on Metafilter, and it doesn't work in a number of ways. The claims that seemed strongest were that a loaded handgun is about six times the weight of a taser, and the trigger pulls differently; there's no possible way you would confuse them. The second was from someone who framestepped his way through, and said that it looked to him that the officer pulled the trigger, realized he didn't have a round in the chamber, loaded a round, and THEN shot him. I haven't analyzed it that closely myself, but he talked at length about what kind of gun the officer had (he believed it to be a Sig Sauer) and how police typically carry the weapon.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this. Not only is it possible, depending on how you carry and train with your sidearm, it's entirely likely. In moments of extreme duress, you will do what you've been trained to do rather than attend to conflicting stimulus. In this case, the training was, 'pull a trigger.' Which is why many departments have you carry your taser in such a way your body can't get confused as to the action to execute.

Assuming that the officer intended to taser the young man and accidentally drew his sidearm, even if the sidearm were not chambered, he may have perceived a weapon's malfunction (rather than, 'oh sh*t I have a gun and not a taser) and corrected the problem. The process is mostly an automated one as the result of training.

Now, I've thought about this. It's one of three things and from what's seen on the video, it's likely to be any one of them. He either 1. is a cold-blooded murder, 2. experienced a negligent discharge that resulted in a fatality, or 3. mistook his personal weapon for a less-than-lethal device.

If it isn't 1. then 2 or 3 don't matter. In either of those two cases, he made a bad call pulling a weapon. The suspect appears to be subdued. Why pull the taser? He's got plenty of supporting officers to help him. Why pull the gun? The suspect apparently was in no position to threaten him or others with bodily harm meriting such a response. Escalating to the use of bodily harm/lethal force was a mistake.

As a sergeant, I dealt with many issues involving my soldiers and the escalation of force. I made it perfectly clear that I never wanted them to be needlessly endangered but that if they made the decision to escalate to lethal force, then they'd better be ready to answer to the inquisition.

Long story short, he's either a killer or a dude who made a bad mistake. Either way, a lot of lives are ruined.

Not that this affects whether or not this officer is wrong, but what exactly was this guy doing that he got arrested in the subway?

I read that he got into a argument with another person in the subway so they detained a bunch of people to figure things out.

My sister pulled a Seinfeldien pop-in today and she told me that every place of business on the block around her office in Oakland had boarded up their windows for fear of further violence. Of course, I couldn't help but think of the news report last night talking about one of the protesters who had been arrested and charged with breaking the window of a McDonald's. The accompanying footage from "Chopper 5" allegedly showed him repeatedly tossing a metal garbage can against the window of said fast food establishment. I guess the charge against him should have read "eventual vandalism."

The Oakland cop is boned.

IMAGE(http://carlosmiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/johannes_mehserlers.jpg)

By Carlos Miller
BART police officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed Oscar Grant in cold blood. That much is certain.

Whether he intended to pull his Taser gun instead of his Sig Sauer .40 caliber pistol boils down to whether he was even carrying a Taser gun in the first place. BART police officials have neither confirmed nor denied whether he was carrying one, which is an indicator he probably wasn’t.

And the photo above, supposedly taken from the night of the shooting and placed on a wanted poster by Bay Area activists, doesn’t immediately show a Taser gun on his left side - the opposite side of his firearm - where police say he would have been carrying the Taser.

Immediately visible in the photo is a nightstick, a radio, what appears to be a flashlight, what appears to be enclosed case of some sort and perhaps even a pair of gloves in his back pocket.

Could the Taser gun be inside the enclosed case? Wouldn’t this defeat the purpose of being able to reach for it quickly?

You be the judge. Let me know if you see a Taser gun on the left side of his belt. This is what it would look like.

IMAGE(http://carlosmiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/taserx26.jpg)

The other question is why has he not been brought into custody? He is no longer a cop, so he doesn’t have that immunity anymore.

Doesn’t the fact that a 27-year-old cop who just became a father would prefer to resign rather than speak to internal affairs indicate some sort of culpability? Doesn’t this mean he could be a possible flight risk?

The truth is, had he not resigned, he would have been granted a more favorable interrogation environment than if he chooses to give a statement as a civilian, according to guidelines outlined in the California Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights Act.

Under Section 3303, the guidelines state the following:

  • Officers have the right to decide when they will be interrogated.
  • Officers have the right to know by whom they will be interrogated.
  • Officers have the right to know the nature of the interrogation before the actual interrogation.
  • Officers are protected from threats and profane language during interrogation.
  • Officers shall not be lured by promises and rewards during interrogation.
  • Officers must be interrogated for a “reasonable period” of time and must be allowed to attend to their “personal physical necessities”.
  • Officers under interrogation will be protected from media access or from having their photos distributed to the media without their personal consent.

As pointed out in an email by sharp-eyed Photography is Not a Crime reader BJ:

All of these things are not offered to you and I!

The police can question us at any time, we are not compensated when it happens. They can lie to us, promise us and stop us from going to the bathroom. They will contact the media and provide information. These are all methods used to break someone…

And then there is the use of force continuum; a series of escalating guidelines police officers are trained to use before resorting to deadly force. Although these guidelines are not universal, they are generally as follows:

1. Physical Presence
2. Soft Hands
3. Mace or Pepper Spray
(A K-9 unit would fall here)
4. Hard Hands
5. Police Baton, etc.

6. Threat of Deadly Force
7. Deadly Force

It appears that Mehserle skipped a step or two.

-30-

I am a multimedia journalist who has been fighting a lengthy legal battle after having photographed Miami police against their wishes in Feb. 2007. Please help the fight by donating to my Legal Defense Fund in the top left sidebar.

Read more Photography is Not a Crime coverage of the BART shooting.

BART police shoot unarmed man; caught on citizen video

Could a Taser gun be so easily confused for a firearm?

New video of BART shooting emerges offering clearest view so far (and audio)

Slow motion video of BART shooting video shows more details

Shot him by mistake? Please.

All law enforcement personnel are heavily trained on how to use non-lethal methods to subdue someone. If he were an MP and only had a flashlight, a gun, and almost no non-lethal training. then I might buy it.

Also, look at the situation. The guy is on the ground, being handcuffed, and is surrounded by officers. Why didn't he just put a knee on his chest or neck if he was struggling? A swift knee drop to the back will knock all the air out of someone's lungs and they will not be able to resist. Cops know this sh*t and many other ways to immobilize you. He lost it.

This guy is going to be tried for murder. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he thought it was his tazer, it is still manslaughter.

P.S.

RebelFM podcast is coming from Anthony's in Oakland, these riots and shootings are going give it a strange anarchistic backdrop. "From the fireproof bunker in Oakland, it is the Rebel FM podcast!" I wonder if we will hear gunshoots in the background next time?

he second was from someone who framestepped his way through, and said that it looked to him that the officer pulled the trigger, realized he didn't have a round in the chamber, loaded a round, and THEN shot him.

I am pretty sure that this is what police regulations are -- they are NOT allowed to walk around with chambered rounds in their guns.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I am pretty sure that this is what police regulations are -- they are NOT allowed to walk around with chambered rounds in their guns.

False, most agencies have nothing against a round in the chamber. The presentation time from condition 3 is too slow for situations where one needs immediate action.

Well, that post is in the MeFi thread I linked up there. The poster claimed that the Sigs aren't really designed to be carried that way (I think he said there was no safety on Sigs), but that most officers go ahead and load a round in the chamber, and then pack their mag as full as they can get it.

I'd be surprised if police were prevented from chambering a round on patrol for the same reason I'd be surprised if a ship's life jackets were supposed to be locked up. Yes, they're almost never needed. But if you do need one you might need one fast.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I am pretty sure that this is what police regulations are -- they are NOT allowed to walk around with chambered rounds in their guns.

False, most agencies have nothing against a round in the chamber. The presentation time from condition 3 is too slow for situations where one needs immediate action.

I stand corrected, then.

Malor wrote:

Well, that post is in the MeFi thread I linked up there. The poster claimed that the Sigs aren't really designed to be carried that way (I think he said there was no safety on Sigs), but that most officers go ahead and load a round in the chamber, and then pack their mag as full as they can get it.

Did he say which Sig in particular? I'm unaware of a Sig autoloader that doesn't at least have an internal safety.

Looks like I misremembered the post slightly; it is normal to carry a round in the chamber. But I was right about the safety. From the MeFi thread:

I can't find a direct link to the police regulations but after reading through several California peace officer boards it would seem that it is departmental policy for forces using the Sig Sauer P226 is to carry it as described above, 12 rounds in the clip, one in the chamber, hammer down, placing the gun in double action for the first shot (DA) and then single action (SA) for all other shots fired til the mag is empty. That's also the way that the Sig Sauer trains people sent through their law enforcement course to carry the weapon. (I'll discuss the difference between this and those scary Glocks at some other time, which is to say never. Unless severely prodded. Which I shouldn't be, I'm full of chocolaty goodness.) Back on topic. So if this officer was carrying his pistol in accordance to department regs, he should have had a gun ready to fire, just needing a long and relatively heavy trigger pull. (There is no safety on those Sig Sauers. No, really. All those levers and knobs do different things, like decocking and slide locking and disassembly and magazine release. But no safety.) My point in noting this is that it's really not a twitch item, the DA trigger pull, your finger has to travel a just a hair less than an inch and you have to apply around ten pounds of pressure. If he was carrying according to reg. If he had the gun cocked in SA mode, then the finger travel is around a quarter of an inch and the pressure required is around four pounds. By the way, that (hammer cocked, single action) is a hugely unsafe way to carry that style of gun, you're just asking for something to joggle that trigger and shoot your knee off. Or a defenseless person lying facedown on a subway platform.
Sig P226 Pistol Safety wrote:

Automatic Firing Pin Lock - When at battery with a bullet in the chamber or empty, the firing pin is blocked automatically in either the cocked or de-cocked position. This helps in the event that the pistol is jarred or dropped. No manual safeties are present, and the firing pin can only be engaged by pulling the trigger.

Internal safety. Just like those scary Glocks.

That may be layperson confusion; I suspect his definition of 'a safety', like mine, is 'a device that prevents a gun from firing until turned off'. The safety you're mentioning doesn't prevent the gun from firing if you pull the trigger, so it doesn't really strike me as the same thing. It's safer than nothing, but not really a safety in the same way.

It's certainly possible that you use the word somewhat differently than we civilians.

BTW, I have no idea what's up with the 'scary Glocks' comment; I've fired those, and they didn't seem any more frightening than any other weapon that's designed to kill people.... and a hell of a lot less than the ones you get to play with.

That may be layperson confusion; I suspect his definition of 'a safety', like mine, is 'a device that prevents a gun from firing until turned off'. The safety you're mentioning doesn't prevent the gun from firing if you pull the trigger, so it doesn't really strike me as the same thing. It's safer than nothing, but not really a safety in the same way.

Any mechanical safety is a device that can fail. The safest weapon is one that is completely unloaded followed by a weapon placed out of battery. This weapon is practically as safe as any one with an external safety.

BTW, I have no idea what's up with the 'scary Glocks' comment; I've fired those, and they didn't seem any more frightening than any other weapon that's designed to kill people.... and a hell of a lot less than the ones you get to play with.

It's because the (external) saftey on a glock is on the trigger.

Yeah, I know about that, I've fired them -- their "safety" is a smaller lever on the trigger, so you pull both at once. And, again, I think this may simply be definition confusion between layperson and professional opinions about what a safety does.

I see no effective difference between the two mechanisms (Glock and Sig), so I remain confused about why Glocks would be 'scary', but Sigs aren't.

Malor wrote:

Yeah, I know about that, I've fired them -- their "safety" is a smaller lever on the trigger, so you pull both at once. And, again, I think this may simply be definition confusion between layperson and professional opinions about what a safety does.

I see no effective difference between the two mechanisms (Glock and Sig), so I remain confused about why Glocks would be 'scary', but Sigs aren't.

Short answer: ignorance.

Reaper81 wrote:

Arrested in Nevada.

CoD4's AC-130 pilot wrote:

Umm, we've got a runner here.

Diagnosis: Murder, at least according to the DA. Murder? Manslaughter, maybe, but I don't see anything that says that this had even the slightest amount of premeditation to it.

I think it's intent rather than premeditation that makes it murder. If you attack with the intent to kill, that's murder; if you unintentionally cause a death, that's manslaughter. But then, I'm not a lawyer, much less a California lawyer.

From what I remember of my CA Criminal law class many years ago, this would be second degree murder. 1st requires premeditation.

Damn quotes and edits.

Minase wrote:

From what I remember of my CA Criminal law class many years ago, this would be second degree murder. 1st requires premeditation.

Yup. I believe 2nd degree murder is manslaughter with malice added.

It could be tough to prove and frankly its hard to judge intent based on the video. From what I'm seeing now on the news, there's some speculation that the timing of the arrest and the charge of murder (no degree attached to it yet) was motivated by preventing another riot during the protests tonight. I have this lingering fear that Mehserle's going to be sacrificed for the sake of public opinion.

I have this lingering fear that Mehserle's going to be sacrificed for the sake of public opinion.

For the sake of making subway a safer place for us non-cops, dammit!

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
I have this lingering fear that Mehserle's going to be sacrificed for the sake of public opinion.

For the sake of making subway a safer place for us non-cops, dammit!

I wouldn't be feeling this way if the charge wasn't murder and from the way the DA talked about it, clearly indicating that he believes there was intent to kill involved, something that up until today was the general opinion of those who shared the opinions of the protesters. Most I know felt that at worst, this was manslaughter; at best, a terrible accident. Something about charging him with murder absent of any indication of intent based on the information in the public domain seems kind of rushed at this point, particularly when no one to my knowledge has talked with him about it.