It is sad that this kind of stuff doesn't get much nationwide news coverage until large scale violence occurs.
Another story you probably won't hear about is the murder of a Dallas police gang unit officer yesterday who was shot in the head while serving a warrant on a guy with a rap sheet a mile long. Dude leaves behind two teen-age children and a wife.
It is sad that this kind of stuff doesn't get much nationwide news coverage until large scale violence occurs.
Another story you probably won't hear about is the murder of a Dallas police gang unit officer yesterday who was shot in the head while serving a warrant on a guy with a rap sheet a mile long. Dude leaves behind two teen-age children and a wife.
RIP Norm Smith
Not to say that police shootings are not a tragedy, because in most cases they are, but the danger of that kind of violence is sadly a part of his job description. While the same could be said for many citizens, they don't actively put themselves into harm's way. Just my 0.02
I feel you but now at the same time Rich is correct, that money just comes out of the department budget which comes from taxes which is one less car on a drug corner or (good) officer doing his job.
So, this brings up another issue though. I could have this totally wrong but, the lawsuit that Burris is bringing against Bart is for $25 million. So, if Burris and the Grant family win, Bart will have to pay them $25 million dollars. Where will that $25 million come from? Ultimately the taxpayers, right? Bart's budget is funded by taxpayer money, as is the Police department. So if either of those groups were to be responsible for paying back that money it would then be put back on the people of Oakland because their, and the rest of the bay area that is responsible for Bart's, taxes would go up. So, it seems that unless the Grant family intends on putting a large portion of that money back into the community it will ultimately be a loss for the people of Oakland in the end - even if it is a victory for the Grant family. Seems kind of ironic. It's fucked up but it seems like money is the only real payback for the loss of a human life. I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
Now, I could have this all wrong, and probably do, so anyone else want to chime in on this?
I feel you but now at the same time Rich is correct, that money just comes out of the department budget which comes from taxes which is one less car on a drug corner or (good) officer doing his job.
So, this brings up another issue though. I could have this totally wrong but, the lawsuit that Burris is bringing against Bart is for $25 million. So, if Burris and the Grant family win, Bart will have to pay them $25 million dollars. Where will that $25 million come from? Ultimately the taxpayers, right? Bart's budget is funded by taxpayer money, as is the Police department. So if either of those groups were to be responsible for paying back that money it would then be put back on the people of Oakland because their, and the rest of the bay area that is responsible for Bart's, taxes would go up. So, it seems that unless the Grant family intends on putting a large portion of that money back into the community it will ultimately be a loss for the people of Oakland in the end - even if it is a victory for the Grant family. Seems kind of ironic. It's fucked up but it seems like money is the only real payback for the loss of a human life. I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
Now, I could have this all wrong, and probably do, so anyone else want to chime in on this?
It is sad that this kind of stuff doesn't get much nationwide news coverage until large scale violence occurs.
Another story you probably won't hear about is the murder of a Dallas police gang unit officer yesterday who was shot in the head while serving a warrant on a guy with a rap sheet a mile long. Dude leaves behind two teen-age children and a wife.
RIP Norm Smith
Not to say that police shootings are not a tragedy, because in most cases they are, but the danger of that kind of violence is sadly a part of his job description. While the same could be said for many citizens, they don't actively put themselves into harm's way. Just my 0.02
When a SWAT officer was killed in LA last year - the first to happen in the history of LA's SWAT dept - I think that made national news, no? Mostly b/c it was unusual and thus, newsworthy. Most people who get killed by police - legitimate or not - don't make national news.
Shooting someone in the back when they're laying on their stomach = highly unusual (well, in America at least).
And national news were picking up this story BEFORE last night but last night probably helped get it even more coverage.
I feel you but now at the same time Rich is correct, that money just comes out of the department budget which comes from taxes which is one less car on a drug corner or (good) officer doing his job.
So, this brings up another issue though. I could have this totally wrong but, the lawsuit that Burris is bringing against Bart is for $25 million. So, if Burris and the Grant family win, Bart will have to pay them $25 million dollars. Where will that $25 million come from? Ultimately the taxpayers, right? Bart's budget is funded by taxpayer money, as is the Police department. So if either of those groups were to be responsible for paying back that money it would then be put back on the people of Oakland because their, and the rest of the bay area that is responsible for Bart's, taxes would go up. So, it seems that unless the Grant family intends on putting a large portion of that money back into the community it will ultimately be a loss for the people of Oakland in the end - even if it is a victory for the Grant family. Seems kind of ironic. It's fucked up but it seems like money is the only real payback for the loss of a human life. I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
Now, I could have this all wrong, and probably do, so anyone else want to chime in on this?
I think your assessment is pretty accurate.
But that's the case with any big judgment against a corporate entity or even an individual with insurance. The cost is passed on to customers in higher prices or insureance rates. By allowing the injured party to collect from the state, or the corporation rather than from the individual, ensures that the injured party will be compensated even if the individual responsible for the injury has no assets. It does this by placing the burden on the person/entity most able to pay. In this case BART and, ultimately, the Bay Area taxpayers.
I feel you but now at the same time Rich is correct, that money just comes out of the department budget which comes from taxes which is one less car on a drug corner or (good) officer doing his job.
So, this brings up another issue though. I could have this totally wrong but, the lawsuit that Burris is bringing against Bart is for $25 million. So, if Burris and the Grant family win, Bart will have to pay them $25 million dollars. Where will that $25 million come from? Ultimately the taxpayers, right? Bart's budget is funded by taxpayer money, as is the Police department. So if either of those groups were to be responsible for paying back that money it would then be put back on the people of Oakland because their, and the rest of the bay area that is responsible for Bart's, taxes would go up. So, it seems that unless the Grant family intends on putting a large portion of that money back into the community it will ultimately be a loss for the people of Oakland in the end - even if it is a victory for the Grant family. Seems kind of ironic. It's fucked up but it seems like money is the only real payback for the loss of a human life. I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
Now, I could have this all wrong, and probably do, so anyone else want to chime in on this?
I think your assessment is pretty accurate.
But that's the case with any big judgment against a corporate entity or even an individual with insurance. The cost is passed on to customers in higher prices or insureance rates. By allowing the injured party to collect from the state, or the corporation rather than from the individual, ensures that the injured party will be compensated even if the individual responsible for the injury has no assets. It does this by placing the burden on the person/entity most able to pay. In this case BART and, ultimately, the Bay Area taxpayers.
I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
The only positive step forward would be for the Bart to better train their officers so this doesn't ever happen again.
I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
The only positive step forward would be for the Bart to better train their officers so this doesn't ever happen again.
I guilty verdict would also restore some faith in the justice system.
I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
The only positive step forward would be for the Bart to better train their officers so this doesn't ever happen again.
Step 1: Know the difference between a tazer and a pistol
Step 2: Look at what you're firing before you unload on someone who's restrained, face down on the ground and handcuffed.
I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
The only positive step forward would be for the Bart to better train their officers so this doesn't ever happen again.
I guilty verdict would also restore some faith in the justice system.
A guilty verdict on a murder sentence, none of this bullshit-ass "man slaughter" crap.
LOL @ "Lost his mind". You suggest that one for his defense.
FYI: Him quitting BART allows not having to speak to BART or the authorities so far at this point. Dellums did say last night he wants to OPD take over the case but who knows if that is 100% official.
No, it's AWESOME when people run aimlessly through downtown Oakland, smashing local Black-owned businesses and running away when the police start sweeping through.
How Oakland do!
For real though, from what I heard from folks, it was your garden variety Bay Area anarchists stirring shit up - they can smell the potential for mayhem like sharks smell blood in the water and then they come swarming in.
Given that the rioting started somewhat after the actual protest, it sounds like opportunism to start shit rather than a direct expression of rage around Grant's murder.
I wasn't there so I don't know but I didn't see any "garden variety anarchist" types in any of the pictures on the Chronicle gallery.
Yeah there wasn't much on the group of people who may have started the mobile riot in the Chron, but by the time I got to Fruitvale (5:20-ish) most folks I checked in with rolled off that some group of white anarchists had split off and went marching, while those that were there could care less about who they were- there was enough positive stuff happening w/the folks that were there.
No, it's AWESOME when people run aimlessly through downtown Oakland, smashing local Black-owned businesses and running away when the police start sweeping through.
How Oakland do!
For real though, from what I heard from folks, it was your garden variety Bay Area anarchists stirring shit up - they can smell the potential for mayhem like sharks smell blood in the water and then they come swarming in.
Given that the rioting started somewhat after the actual protest, it sounds like opportunism to start shit rather than a direct expression of rage around Grant's murder.
I wasn't there so I don't know but I didn't see any "garden variety anarchist" types in any of the pictures on the Chronicle gallery.
Yeah there wasn't much on the group of people who may have started the mobile riot in the Chron, but by the time I got to Fruitvale (5:20-ish) most folks I checked in with rolled off that some group of white anarchists had split off and went marching, while those that were there could care less about who they were- there was enough positive stuff happening w/the folks that were there.
Well, I'm kind of confused about all this. I would have thought the media would play up the angle of white anarchists smashing up black-owned businesses, etc. if that was what actually happened. If someone can show me some reportage or photos or video that something like that happened I would appreciate it. The photos of people being arrested (presumably people involved in the mobile riot) showed them to be a fairly diverse group, and I didn't see any folks wearing the kind of garb that usually would signify anarchism (crusty black hoodies, etc.).
I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
The only positive step forward would be for the Bart to better train their officers so this doesn't ever happen again.
Step 1: Know the difference between a tazer and a pistol
Step 2: Look at what you're firing before you unload on someone who's restrained, face down on the ground and handcuffed.
My 2 cents on this... most taser guns (at least the ones i've seen) have the black/yellow chevrons at the end of the weapon - this helps distinguish them from a live ammo gun, both to the user and the target.
Also, the first rule in any weapons training is DO NOT point your gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. So either he had every intention of shooting or he genuinely pulled the wrong weapon.
Either way the situation was handled with terrible judgment.
I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
The only positive step forward would be for the Bart to better train their officers so this doesn't ever happen again.
Step 1: Know the difference between a tazer and a pistol
Step 2: Look at what you're firing before you unload on someone who's restrained, face down on the ground and handcuffed.
My 2 cents on this... most taser guns (at least the ones i've seen) have the black/yellow chevrons at the end of the weapon - this helps distinguish them from a live ammo gun, both to the user and the target.
Also, the first rule in any weapons training is DO NOT point your gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. So either he had every intention of shooting or he genuinely pulled the wrong weapon.
Either way the situation was handled with terrible judgment.
I think this is a horrible situation and that Bart cop lost his mind, hopefully something good can come out of this, but I'm not really seeing it at this point.
The only positive step forward would be for the Bart to better train their officers so this doesn't ever happen again.
Step 1: Know the difference between a tazer and a pistol
Step 2: Look at what you're firing before you unload on someone who's restrained, face down on the ground and handcuffed.
this gets me so f*cking angry. that shook F*ck should face a murder charge and the grants should sue him for every penny related to his being
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
I was commenting on a call to ban a [edit]mostly[/edit]non-lethal weapon in a thread that is about the death of a young person by a consistently lethal weapon.
Well, it's fairly obvious that a great number of police officers think because it is "non-lethal" that it is perfectly fine to use in situations where it is actually completely uncalled for.
Like this one, if we are to even give credence to the claim of "mistaken weapon."
Comments
Another story you probably won't hear about is the murder of a Dallas police gang unit officer yesterday who was shot in the head while serving a warrant on a guy with a rap sheet a mile long. Dude leaves behind two teen-age children and a wife.
RIP Norm Smith
Now, I could have this all wrong, and probably do, so anyone else want to chime in on this?
I think your assessment is pretty accurate.
When a SWAT officer was killed in LA last year - the first to happen in the history of LA's SWAT dept - I think that made national news, no? Mostly b/c it was unusual and thus, newsworthy. Most people who get killed by police - legitimate or not - don't make national news.
Shooting someone in the back when they're laying on their stomach = highly unusual (well, in America at least).
And national news were picking up this story BEFORE last night but last night probably helped get it even more coverage.
But that's the case with any big judgment against a corporate entity or even an individual with insurance. The cost is passed on to customers in higher prices or insureance rates. By allowing the injured party to collect from the state, or the corporation rather than from the individual, ensures that the injured party will be compensated even if the individual responsible for the injury has no assets. It does this by placing the burden on the person/entity most able to pay. In this case BART and, ultimately, the Bay Area taxpayers.
In lawyer lingo....go after the deepest pockets.
The only positive step forward would be for the Bart to better train their officers so this doesn't ever happen again.
I guilty verdict would also restore some faith in the justice system.
Step 2: Look at what you're firing before you unload on someone who's restrained, face down on the ground and handcuffed.
A guilty verdict on a murder sentence, none of this bullshit-ass "man slaughter" crap.
LOL @ "Lost his mind". You suggest that one for his defense.
FYI: Him quitting BART allows not having to speak to BART or the authorities so far at this point. Dellums did say last night he wants to OPD take over the case but who knows if that is 100% official.
carry-on guyz!
Yeah there wasn't much on the group of people who may have started the mobile riot in the Chron, but by the time I got to Fruitvale (5:20-ish) most folks I checked in with rolled off that some group of white anarchists had split off and went marching, while those that were there could care less about who they were- there was enough positive stuff happening w/the folks that were there.
I LOL'd when some dude started talking about Gaza. I was like "oohh heeey man, get in line with everybody else and there beef".
chung:
i was bouncing right around 5:30.
Well, I'm kind of confused about all this. I would have thought the media would play up the angle of white anarchists smashing up black-owned businesses, etc. if that was what actually happened. If someone can show me some reportage or photos or video that something like that happened I would appreciate it. The photos of people being arrested (presumably people involved in the mobile riot) showed them to be a fairly diverse group, and I didn't see any folks wearing the kind of garb that usually would signify anarchism (crusty black hoodies, etc.).
My 2 cents on this... most taser guns (at least the ones i've seen) have the black/yellow chevrons at the end of the weapon - this helps distinguish them from a live ammo gun, both to the user and the target.
Also, the first rule in any weapons training is DO NOT point your gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. So either he had every intention of shooting or he genuinely pulled the wrong weapon.
Either way the situation was handled with terrible judgment.
B-B-B-B--BUT HE LOST HIS MIND!!!
this gets me so f*cking angry.
that shook F*ck should face a murder charge and the grants should sue him for every penny related to his being
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/06/18559091.php
Tazers? He was shot to death with a pistol.
Read up on your read ups.
So, he wasn't shot to death with a pistol.
I was commenting on a call to ban a [edit]mostly[/edit]non-lethal weapon in a thread that is about the death of a young person by a consistently lethal weapon.
think because it is "non-lethal" that it is perfectly fine to use
in situations where it is actually completely uncalled for.
Like this one, if we are to even give credence to the claim of "mistaken weapon."