OAKLAND

or, alternatively, this guy decided to kill a man for no particular reason, because that's just what police do.

I think our definitions of shitty police logic are so vastly different that they will not meet.

the whole taser thing is so fucked up, too, so that's no excuse in my book.

BART police are highly, highly undertrained. Also, they're supposed to wear their tasers in a wholly different kind of location than the sidearm.

tasers are fucked up too, I agree. I'm not looking for an excuse, obv there isn't an excuse here...I'm looking for an explanation.

But even if the dude meant to taser the guy he killed, that's STILL the wrong situation to use a taser!

ugh, sorry guys. I'm not going to watch the video, but your explanations and reactions, i think, tell me all I need to know. :(

It's been a while, but I've DJed once at the Uptown (in 2002?) while on a road trip. I've been on BART on those very stops too. (obv, a lot of bay area people here have)

A taser is supposed to be a non-lethal firearm replacement, to be used in situations where a firearm would perhaps otherwise be used. It's not supposed to be a means of neutralizing a suspect who is already under control.

the video isn't very graphic

just "shitty", right?

You have to define "under control" then. Guy didn't look under control to me anyway fwiw. Accidentally grabbing a gun while reaching for a taser is certainly nowhere near anything that could be considered an excuse for killing a guy, but I don't see what's fucked up about tasers. Obviously it's a lesser-of-two-evils thing, but wouldn't you agree that accidents involving immobilization and pain are infinitely preferable to ones involving death?

xxpost You are a weird guy.

tasers are fucked up because they're overused in places that aren't Oakland BART stations.

I'm not going to "define" under control, but let's just say that a dude on his stomach with his hands behind his back is pretty close.

Yup.

I dunno why it comes across like I'm defending the police here. Well, I mean, okay, I do know why. I have no sympathy for the BART police, Oakland PD, Berkeley PD, whoever.

I'm just of the mind that this is way too *weird* for it to be purely a normal fuck the police situation.

All instances of police brutality seem "weird" to me.

I mean do you think it's "rational" to shoot someone 40 someodd times??!

this guy must have lost his mind to have done something so stupid and crazy in front of so many people. i agree 100% with the tone of the SFBG editorial. BART PD clearly needs more oversight.

I mean do you think it's "rational" to shoot someone 40 someodd times??!

I just walked to in-n-out and was actually thinking about this particular case on the way there, trying to come up with a police-brutality-rational-thinking system.

Their reasoning in that situation:
1. Guy may or may not have a gun
2. With which he may shoot us
3. We're gonna shoot him and make sure he's dead
4. We really, really want to make sure he's dead

So Kant it ain't, but there does have to be some sort of *reasoning* behind this, some sort of explanation for why someone acted like they did. Psychological, racist, whatever.

In general the brutality rationality is more like:

1. We can be more violent than the law deems appropriate
2. We will get away with it, or will be punished lightly

and

3. This is okay because we're the good guys / they're the bad guys / we're teaching someone a lesson
or
4. This is okay because I dislike that person / enjoy inflicting violence on others

(1) he'd already been pat down.

Amadou Diallo was?

it is a weird video: the whole thing just seems so... casual. the guy is on the ground, things seem pretty calm and under control, the cops are stressed-looking or freaked out or whatever, and then he just pulls out the gun - kind of half-heartedly, he doesn't whip it out in a big hurry - let's his arm sort of hang and then shoots him. and then he seems completely out of it, like he doesn't realise what's happened.

i dunno, it just seems pretty different to other types of police-brutality footage i've seen.

The fact that he quit right before he had to explain why he killed an unarmed man in such a bizarre way makes me think that the reasons he may or may not eventually be required to give won't be all that terribly compelling.

it should be pretty obvious that even if he shot the guy by accident he should still go to jail for it, just as if i "absent-mindedly" drove onto the sidewalk and killed people while i was driving.

besides, aren't police supposed to be like extraordinarily well-trained to handle and use guns, considering that they're licensed to carry guns and use them to kill people?

and it's not like the gun just went off in his holster or something, i mean the dude pulled it out, aimed it, and fired.

BART police are highly, highly undertrained. Also, they're supposed to wear their tasers in a wholly different kind of location than the sidearm.

― ShamPowWow (libcrypt), Thursday, January 8, 2009 4:15 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

24 year old protestors from san francisco are highly, highly undertrained

i didn't realise bart police were 'real' police, either.

gah, in nz our police don't carry guns and have only recently allowed to start using tasers. a guy i went to high school with was shot and killed when he had some kind of freak-out and went on a window-bashing spree with golf club.

and speaking of dodgy cops: my boyfriend was riding to work and got some bored cop trailing him, then flashing his lights. he pulled over to the broken glass-covered shoulder and the cop drove by slowly, staring at him, then took off. and then my bf got a flat tire.

uh, that guy was shot and killed by a policeman. our cops don't carry guns on duty, but will report to a dangerous scene with them. if that makes sense.

Wow, more riots. And the cop still isn't talking. This sucks.

cop has been arrested

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/BAJE15A6O2.DTL&o=0

i dont know why i thought he might look different than he does

tons and tons of cops everywhere off and on broadway, roads closed... bit scary getting off the train in downtown oakland. but i may have missed some stuff, since our neighbour told my bf early that downtown was 'mad' - it was pretty barren at 6.30pm.

one of my bff's lives at 11th and mlk. he was at our house and we turned on the live news broadcast to see protesters fighting w/cops at 12th and broadway. 2 blocks from his place. luckily (?) he was driving home instead of taking bart

what time was that? 12th and broadway is where i exit bart.

is it worth asking how many of these protestors were from out of town?

anything crazy that went on at berkeley when i was there - and there was not much except for a couple of PETA protests on tolman hall, some pro-public space "take back the streets" squatter nonsense on telegraph, and some very very heated arguments about the intifada - seemed more to do with people from surrounding areas showing up to misbehave in berkeley rather than residents or students.

i think a fair amount of these protestors were from oakland. I don't know, I completely understand the protesters in this case. I don't really agree with how it's gone down but I see why it went that way and wouldn't have expected anything else. A white cop shot a restrained black man in the back on video. I'm surprised there weren't even bigger riots.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/08/18559690.php

^ amazing!

The kids in Oakland know how to party. Let's show them they are not alone.

justine, it was around 9pm

Legal analysis of murder

Common law murder is defined as the:

1. unlawful
2. killing
3. of another human being
4. with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought".

The first three elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":
(i) Intent to kill;
(ii) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm short of death;
(iii) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"); or
(iv) Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. An example of a deadly weapon or instrument is a gun, a knife, or even a car when intentionally used to strike the victim.
Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.
Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all criminal homicides are felonies.

Voluntary manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter describes cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for the person is mitigated by the circumstances and/or state of mind. The most common example is the so-called passion, or heat of the moment killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control, by, for instance, unexpectedly finding his or her spouse in the arms of another lover, or witnessing an attack against his or her child.
There have been several types of voluntary manslaughter recognized in law, although they're so closely related, and, in many cases, indistinguishable, that many jurisdictions don't differentiate between them.[1]
Another form of voluntary manslaughter in some countries is infanticide. This offense was created by statute in some countries during the 20th century. Generally, a conviction of infanticide will be made where the court is satisfied that a mother killed her newborn child while the balance of her mind was disturbed as a result of childbirth; for instance, in cases of post-natal depression. It's a form of manslaughter, and carries the same range of sentences as a manslaughter conviction. Theoretically, it's a separate offense to murder, and not a reductive defense to murder (such as the defenses listed below), but, in practice, it works in much the same way as a reductive defense.

Defenses include:

1. Provocation. This is a killing caused by an event or situation which would probably cause a reasonable person to lose self-control and kill.
2. Heat of Passion. In this situation, the actions of another cause the defendant to act in the heat of the moment, and without reflection. This falls under the provocation heading.
3. Imperfect self-defense. This is a third type, which is allowed only in some US states. By default, self-defense is a complete defense to any charge of murder. However, if a person acted in the honest but unreasonable belief that self-defense justified the killing, many US states will define this as deliberate homicide committed without criminal malice: a manslaughter. The word "malice" is used in the definition of murder where the act is both an intentional killing, and without legal excuse or mitigation. The honest belief in the need for self-defense mitigates the crime so that one acts intentionally, but without the legal "malice." Therefore, Imperfect Self-Defense refers to an intentional killing which is unlawful, but doesn't rise to the level of being a murder.
4. Diminished Responsibility is another defense to murder that will negate the charge down. Most US states require an almost complete mental breakdown to eliminate the culpable mental state of "malice". If a jurisdiction recognizes that a person can kill with justification, but also without any evil intent, that jurisdiction is free to define the crime as something less than murder. Not all US states do this; in many, a mental defect, or even mental illness, won't reduce the seriousness of the offense whatsoever. However, if a US state legislature chooses, a diminished mental state may justify the finding of a lesser crime.
Insanity is a different defense as it completely negates any criminal culpability, although the mental health consequence can result in as much confinement time as a murder conviction.

Involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

Recklessness
Recklessness, or willful blindness, is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An instance of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge, into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death wouldn't be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.
In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.

Misdemeanor manslaughter
In the United States, this is a lesser version of felony murder, and covers a person who causes the death of another while committing a misdemeanor – that is, a violation of law which doesn't rise to the level of a felony. This may automatically lead to a conviction for the homicide, if the misdemeanor involved a law designed to protect human life. Many violations of safety laws are infractions, which means a person can be convicted regardless of mens rea.

I honestly don't think that murder is going to stick. Voluntary manslaughter seems much more plausible.

Uh he fired a gun at him. That's pretty much the definition of "intent to kill" right there.

Not saying he won't get voluntary manslaughter, but this is pretty clearly murder.

I think it's voluntary manslaughter because any reasonable defense attorney is going to be able to make a good case for the mitigating factors that would classify it thus. E.g., "heat of passion", "fear" or somesuch.

i.e. the guy was a cop and the guy he shot was black.

That's a Shasta-level reduction right there.

Uh no.

I think that racism was a factor in the killing, but I don't think that it's reducible to simple racism. I mean, it was wrong, but it wasn't a lynching.