BART cops shoot unarmed man - had "criminal history"

Originally Posted by the same article

One source familiar with the investigation said BART is looking into a number of issues, including whether the officer had meant to fire his Taser stun gun rather than his gun.

I'd be really concerned that the police were letting people who can't tell the difference between a pistol and a taser go about their business armed. Is there not some kind of basic observation test required when you join the police over there? I particularly like how later in the article it suggests that police are encouraged to wear their taser on the off side, facing backwards to avoid just this kind of mix up implying not only that it happens often enough to warrant a guideline but also that they think a gun should be easier to reach for than a non-lethal taser, which kind of makes you wonder why they'd bother giving them tasers in the first place.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Aardark

Presumably a gun should be easier to reach because situations that call for using a gun at all are more extreme and require immediate reaction, whereas if you just want to taser some drunk asshole, it doesn't much matter if you take a few more seconds to do it. At least that's my assumption, maybe I'm way off. Not that this situation isn't tragically stupid.

That makes sense I guess, didn't really think of it like that. I'm used to over here where the police are encouraged to do everything they can before resorting to shooting at people (Not that most of them are even armed but even here they keep the taser guns harder to reach than their pepper spray as that's considered to be a lot safer so please use the spray before you start trying to electrocute people).

Of course people get shot in the back by police in tube stations too so no systems perfect eh? Assault rifles strikes me as a little OTT though...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

True, but he was shot four times in the head from point blank range vv

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Capo

He was caught in the heat of the moment.

And decided to execute a restrained prisoner? One too many Abu Ghraib stories before bedtime?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I'm sure when they were shouting "Let him have it" they meant a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers, rather than a bullet in the back.

Derek Bentley 2/11/52 - Nevar forget

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

What's wrong with a cop killing someone? I mean, isn't that what they do?

I thought their broad remit was "Protect and serve" rather than "Judge and execute". Their duty of protection extends to everyone, including people they suspect of commiting a crime. That person is innocent until proven guilty and as such, by shooting him the cop has failed in his most basic of duties, to protect a member of the public and if that's not a case of gross negligence and instant dismissal I don't know what is.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by LeHah

The trick of it is - hind sight is 20/20. Sure, NOW we know the cop was wrong; but how many here have ever had to protect the peace? (Is anyone here in the criminal justice world?)

I'd like to think that the training for someone authorised to carry and use a gun in public would we rigourous enough to ensure he knows that lethal force is unneccesary when dealing with restrained suspects. I would have thought learning when not to use a gun was as important if not more so than learning how to use one.

FELIPE NO

I know you were joking, your post was just the most relevant to quote off though.

Sorry for dragging you up to our level.

How ya doing, buddy?