pejpm1

This is absolutely incredible. An unarmed 22 year old man is shot to death by a police officer while another one pins him down. This is in front of a trainload of witnesses, and is caught on video (a link to the video is included). Anyone in the area know much about this? I've read that its causing riots in the area.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/com...608578976.html

Apparently the officer has since resigned and is under no obligation to speak to investigators. I'm amazed that this kind of thing can happen and not prompt more of an outburst.

Giantaxe

It caused a riot during a protest last week. A riot that saw people protesting purported anti-black racism damaging black-owned businesses...

What kind of outburst are you looking for? It's pretty clear that two things are going to happen. Firstly, the ex-officer is in deep legal do-do and most likely will be charged with at least manslaughter. Secondly, oversight of BART policing (and perhaps the manner in which BART itself is policed) is going to be forced to change. Oh, and the civil case brought against BART looks pretty much a legal slam-dunk.

Btw, this incident happened at 2am on New Year's Day and has been front page news since.

Chrissywissy100

Happened on New Years Day I think. And believe me, there is a big outcry about it over here in SF and Bay area.

When you see the video of the shooting itseelf, its very shocking. I just dont understand why the man was shot in the firstplace.. he was already restrained laying on his front on the floor.. then the BART Police officer drew his gun and shot him in the back!

I know it is being investigated by Oakland Police, BART police and the Attorney General is overseeing it.. The officer resigned, but I dont understand why he has no obligation to speak to investigators?? That cant be right can it? Surely, he could be arrested for it as a criminal offense and interviewed that way. Mind you the press are giving mixed messages whether he has been interviewed or not/

There was a riot on Tuesday evening over it, lots of vandalism to cars parked in the BART station etc etc. Unfortunately, a load of troublemakers joined the protest and caused havoc. Think its calmed down abit since then, but there's stilll rumblings because some of the community (Oakland) dont trust the police to do a full fair and thorough investigation.

Giantaxe

Having resigned, he has no obligation to speak to BART investigators, which seems like a real loophole in the system. And he will probably simply remain silent (as is his constitutional right) if and when interviewed by police.

Chrissywissy100

That definitely sounds like a loophole to me! I guess because he is no longer an employee! That said, there are still mixed messages as to whether he has /hasnt been interviewed by them anyway.

tamms_1965

How much more of an outburst should there be? More riots? Mobs destroying property and hurting innocent people? A media or mob trial? The legal system seems to be doing its job at the moment.

lansbury

of course there should be, the guy has been convicted by a video on the Internet, what more does the justice system need. Much cheaper than an investigation and a trial.

pejpm1

How very witty of you.

I'm making the point that a police officer has killed someone on the street, yet people are talking about the justice system doing its job. This guy should be locked up at least until they decide what to charge him with. If I killed someone on the street I would be arrested and held until my trial, I dont see why it shouldnt be the same here. This man is free to walk the streets and hasnt even been arrested or charged with anything. Apparently they are discussing possible charges and will make a decision within the next 2 weeks. It seems that this man has murdered someone, and then simply quit his job to evade having to cooperate with authorities. Surely that alone shows something about his character that he is willing to simply remain silent rather than at least try to provide an explanation. Yes, we have seen a video on the internet...but does that mean it didnt happen?? This journalist puts it fairly succinctly..

"Any reinventions of the incident that try to paint Grant as anything other than a victim will have the sizable challenge of having to contradict actual video footage."


I'm not saying I agree with riots by any means, they dont acheive anything... but I certainly agree with taking to the streets in protest to express anger at this. The legal system in this country seems to have a history of allowing police to literally get away with murder, so I can understand why people are so angry over this.

tamms_1965

If they are hasty and charge him with the wrong thing or make some type of error, the officer could possibly get out of it based on a technicality. The authorities have to do it right the first time to make sure that this type of thing doesn't happen. He'll have his day.

Also, once locked up, the police only have so long to charge him. Otherwise, he has to be let go, so why not do it right the first time....it's a little bit more complicated when a police officer is being charged.

Giantaxe

He got legal counsel and their advice was that he quit his job. Unlike in the UK, in the US remaining silent may not be taken in any way as an admission of guilt. It is simply a constitutional right. And we are also a long way from classifying this as a murder.

pejpm1

Have you seen the video? I can understand that the police have to work under pressure and I wouldnt want to do that job, but he stood up and shot the guy in the back while he was being held down...i dont know how it can be justified or classed as anything other than murder. You seem to be defending this guys actions, and I really dont understand why. Yes, staying silent is not an admission of guilt, but it is clear that he is trying to wiggle his way out with his silence, and to be honest I find it quite worrying that people on here seem to want to defend that.

neil

Someone posted this on here not too long ago - watch it and you may understand why this guy is not talking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

It will have been the first thing his lawyer told him.

Giantaxe

Murder (as opposed to manslaughter) requires proof of intent. A youtube video is unlikely to yield such proof. Hence the ongoing investigation into what surrounded that shooting.

What a bizarre assertion. I haven't defended him at all but merely explained why he chose to do what he did post- the incident.

What is it about the phrase "it's his constitutional right" that you're not grasping?

Bluegrass Lass

Every man has the right to remain silent, and to not incriminate himself. Do you think the police have the right to force him to talk? That is a direct violation of his rights, and a sure-fire way to make sure he can get off on a technicality. As tamms said, this is a delicate situation, and prosecutors are making sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. A charge of murder is unlikely, as Giant pointed out, since murder requires the pre-meditated intent to kill someone.

I don't believe in any amount of protest. The police and prosecutors will do their jobs. Any rioting, or uprising only makes things worse. I mean, what do you expect people to do? Lynch him in the city square? What kind of justice are you suggesting?

Thydney

He should be tried by the system which grants him (and every other criminal suspect) the right to silence. Listening to his lawyer seems to be the only sensible thing the guy has done. He's obviously flipped to do that.