BART Police shooting incident

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc

This happened new years night. I don't want to speculate what was going on, but this video sure makes it look like the cops got too rambunctious and out of line. I'm surprised that they didn't hassle the people taking video. An internal investigation will probably find that the cops followed procedures, no disciplinary action will be taken, and they will return to work after a litte vacation time.

Since this has been added, a few things have happened.

1. The standard riots have happened.
2. The police officer resigned, but BART still claims that it's not as bad as it looks.

Dave Becker

Milwaukee_F40C wrote:This happened new years night.

Is this really a BART-related issue, or just an unfortunate incident that happened on the BART? I'm going to lock this one, send me an email if you want it reopened for some legitimate reason.

Otto Vondrak wrote:

Milwaukee_F40C wrote:This happened new years night.

Is this really a BART-related issue, or just an unfortunate incident that happened on the BART? I'm going to lock this one, send me an email if you want it reopened for some legitimate reason.

i'd posit it has very much to do with BART because it was BART police that did this. Keep in mind these are the same folks that might decide to harass you when you're taking pictures.

lensovet wrote: Keep in mind these are the same folks that might decide to harass you when you're taking pictures.

So shoot me.

Oh, wait...

Reopened by request.

For the record, I don't see this so much as a railroad matter as is a railroad police matter. The SFPD could have had a shooting incident at a BART station... doesn't make it a railroad matter in my eyes.

Carry on, keep it civil.

-otto-

I just want to say that I didn't intend to start a circus or anything like that. I kind of figured it might get locked.

I do agree that it is a BART matter because it was their own police and on their property. It is a part of the discussion of what the authority of railroad and transit police should be. A reaction like this also is a good indication of how other things are handled, like photographers or kids eating fries for example.

There is some speculation that this rookie officer intended to use his tazer, which has a similar feel to the sidearm (a flaw, perhaps?), and mistakenly pulled out the sidearm instead in the heat of the moment.

The video is pretty damning...and I understand there are some other videos that show things in better detail.

I don't know how much further the conversation has to go here, but I wouldn't want to be a BART officer for a while.

Dave Becker

pablo wrote:The video is pretty damning...and I understand there are some other videos that show things in better detail.

I don't know how much further the conversation has to go here, but I wouldn't want to be a BART officer for a while.

Dave Becker

The video is pretty damning... It also gives the officer the benefit of hard analysis as to what was going on in his mind at the time. Something is wrong here. For this to happen under these circumstances just does not happen. I find that it is interesting to note that none of the other officers back away just prior to the shot. That would be a normal human instinctual reaction to anticipation of a gunshot at close range in a highly metal and concrete (ricocheting) environment. P.O.'s are normally trained to announce the firing of a "less than lethal" weapon before letting it go. This prevents "sympathetic" gunfire. I wonder if he announced "Taser"? I also noticed that the firing officer puts both of his hands up on his forehead immediately after re-holstering his pistol. (Interestingly, the decedent's family representative, John Burris, makes the same motion immediately after watching this segment of the tape on this news clip.) I don't know enough about this case or the persons involved to draw a positive conclusion, but this may turn out to be a tragic accident for everyone involved.

News reports are stating that the officer has been arrested for murder. I don't know what his compliance was as regards to being interviewed, but there will be no interviews of him now. It's up to the jury. This really is a strange one. I don't know why he resigned, as that may limit his legal assistance through his union, and the action caught on film is like (worse) a bank robber giving the teller his name and address on a piece of paper before he leaves with the loot.

One would assume that since he was a union member at the time of the shooting, the union will still represent him on some level.

Dave Becker

Possibly. I don't know what their union rules dictate. As a non-union member, if BART views this as agregious behavior, they and the union may have the right not to offer legal representation, although liability wise, his interest is theirs right now. I also would be concerned if I were him about further down the road as regards to an appeal should he be found guilty of murder. As voluntarily resigned, the union might have a decision to make (and probably voted on internally) as this will cost a tremendous amount of money. If he were to have stayed on in an unpaid suspension, he might have been on firmer legal ground. He's going to be attending civil proceedings for the next ten years now also. Aside from the tragedy of this whole thing as a young guy has died, it really is an incongruous mystery as to why he would do this. I can't help but compare this incident with the recent MBTA Riverside Line crash or the Chatsworth crash in my mind, as each seem to defy logic. I would very much like to know the truth (in all three).

I agree that it could be argued that he did something contrary to policy, and as such, could be "cut loose" from the legal representation of the union. I wonder, then, if your earlier post where you said his body language suggests he didn't know what he was doing would be enough to help him keep said representation.

In any case, I remain curious as to why he would resign so quickly before charges were even filed. That can't help him civilly.

Dave Becker

Well, if this was a case of mistaken weaponry, he would have told investigators immediately after the incident. They would not have to rely on "body language" to discover that point, but would be interested in the tape(s) to corroborate. Either way, BART may look at this from a public relations and economic standpoint only, particularly now with their employee gone (and indicted). The union (if any) may take a similiar position. Hopefully, the DA's office is looking at this on the merits of the case against him for murder, only. Of course, he might have been advised that termination proceedings were about to be filed which might have influenced his resignation. However, with most police positions, a lengthy trial board would have to take place in order to terminate (after a probationary period), which might afford him months if not years to remain a member of the union. Again, I am not familiar with BART PD's union set-up nor their rules and regulations. I also was not suggesting that "he didn't know what he was doing" by his actions, but only point to his and others body language for the viewer to watch that tape again and catch what might not have been seen when they first watched it, so as to gather an impression that they otherwise might have missed. Visual cues bring about different conclusions in different people.This shooting, performed in front of so many police and civilian witnesses, as well as security cameras most likely, was a ticket to prison for life if he shot this kid with premeditation. He would have to have known that. So, the big question becomes, "Why ?"
I'll butt out here now, and let some other opinions flow through.