lansbury

You've seen a video which is part of an incident, the shooting of the victim, and on that you decide what offence(s) have been committed and what should happen.

No doubt the investigators have considerably more evidence on which to judge the appropriate course of action. You state the man murdered someone but I have heard one explanation which would remove the element of intent and make it a lesser charge. Personally I would prefer to let the investigators gather all the available evidence and if this was a deliberate and cold blooded shooting to have the opportunity to be able to refute any defense to the contrary.

If you killed someone on the street you would be arrested and questioned. You would unless stupid decline to answer until you had spoken to a very competent lawyer. That lawyer would tell you to not answer. At detective training school one instructor said there is only one sensible answer to the first question. "If you have sufficient evidence to charge me do so otherwise I believe I am free to go". Most people who don't do that invariable hang themselves. Why do you consider this guy is not allowed the same rights as any other suspect of a crime.

They clearly do not think they have sufficient evidence to charge this guy yet. I don't think under US law you can keep someone in jail who hasn't been charged with a crime.

Rete

Any suspected criminal in the US has the right NOT to talk to the investigators. It is covered under the Fifth Amendment.

Ray

I think he meant to pull his taser ..and fire that ..
but its not that clear from the video

chartreuse

Lansbury has spoken for himself, and certainly doesn't need me to stand up for him.

That said, although we've never met, he and I used to know some people in common in the UK. And I'm fairly sure that he's investigated more major crimes than you have.

Hiro11

That's what I was thinking.
Having said that, it's no excuse.

Ray

Oh no ..he is cooked ...

Chrissywissy100

But still, why would he need to taser someone who is already on the ground and restrained? Odd reaction I know, but still, the investigation ect should still be due process.

And after all we wouldnt even be having this conversation if it werent for the fact that it got video'd.. I'm sure this kind of thing happens alot more often, but we just dont hear about it!

Ray

From the video it looks like there is fighting still going on ..
but it will all come out eventually

Leslie

I couldn't tell which cop fired the shot. Which one was it?

Moonshadow_Girl

In California, if you are arrested or taken into custody, the law says you must be arraigned (ie. formally charged) within 48 business hours of being taken into custody (while still in custody that is, this does not apply if the suspect has posted bail). If the DA doesn't file formal charges by that time, the suspect is free to go with no obligation at that time to any legal due process (of course, the suspect may be formally charged, via warrant, at a later date for the crime, at which point, again, the same rule applies about being arraigned.) A suspect can not just be arbitrarily kept in custody while the police and DA decide what to file, that is a violation of due process and is a major point in our Constitution. The suspect is not obligated to speak with anyone as is his or her right under the Fifth Amendment.

surly

What evidence was there to shoot Oscar Grant in the back?

Oscar Grant, young father and peacemaker, executed by BART police

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/oscar-...y-bart-police/

Lord Lionheart

Let's face it they're always at it and/or on the take. We only get to see the tip of the iceberg of the ones that actually get caught. Charges are only filed when they get caught red handed on video, even then they try and worm themselves out of it with some lawyer arguing what you see is not the whole story, blah blah blah

Leslie

So, which cop fired the shot? The one in front or the one in the back?

elfman

the one that stands up facing the camera/cellphone

scrubbedexpat091

As others have said the 5th amendment to the US Constitution protects one from self incrimination. Its your legal right not to talk to investigators.

He also cannot just be held in custody while the investigation takes place unless the DA has sufficient evidence to file charges, if you file too early you risk loosing the case on technical issues. Better to let the guy stay free until the time comes to file charges or clear him.

Based on watching the cop's reaction and the look on his face, it appears to me he really did not intend to discharge the car, even he seems surprised by it.

Everyone is quick to convict based on this video, but who is to say the gun did no malfunction or something else. Not defending the guy its not my job nor is it my job to decide his guilt.