Was this cop justified? (Oakland, Nice: skateboarding, neighborhood, friendly)

[AlohaHuey]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Did you not watch the video in its entirety? The girl was being petulant for no reason after breaking the law. Her friend attempted to put her arms on the cop from BEHIND where she could have easily taken his weapon and used it on him. Not to mention the thugs who were hovering around the situation with their stolen cell phones and recording the entire incident.

The cop was in a very dangerous situation and at any time he was within his right use his weapon, lethally.

You are wrong. You cannot randomly shoot civilians, even if they touch you.

You seem to be part of the small minority of people who extrapolate "what might have occurred" instead of what DID occur and describe your fantasy of what you would have liked to see happen.

Your ability to know she had no reason for her attitide is truly a cosmic gift. Since the video didn't capture the events leading up to it, you must possess a magical ability to know if she was petulant for no reason, and who has a stolen cell phone, or who purchased it legitimately. And a magical ability to know who a thug is, based on their appearance.

You are truly full of...magic, though the first word that came to mind had one less letter in it.

[AlohaHuey]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Oh I forgot to tell you. Our forum is full of trolls and he is the number one. Just ignore him seriously.

I will, after I have insulted him a little.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by bellalunatic

I stand by my comment. Transit cops are not street cops and to imply that they are is grossly misinformed and irritating.

He used the term 'Bay Area cops', which implies that Transit and Street are the same, of which they are not. BART cops are about as close to street cops as the campus police, or shopping mall security, they're 'rent-a-cops' with firearms.

I believe that bringing up the Oscar Grant murder in relation to this Seattle street cop is inflammatory and misleading.

Gogetta, I see your point, but I fail to give andy any leeway considering that he is whining out of his arse all the time.

Bella you're kind of right. The BART police I believe, are actually police, not security officers. However, their jurisdiction is limited to the area around the BART stations. However, they are still not city cops and have fewer resources than they have.

Non police transit security are what we have in San Diego. They are not police although they can still issue citations that you must pay and/or appear in court for. They do no carry firearms though to the best of my knowledge.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by AlohaHuey

I will, after I have insulted him a little.

haha you're gonna have a lot of support with that

[bellalunatic]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Bella you're kind of right. The BART police I believe, are actually police, not security officers. However, their jurisdiction is limited to the area around the BART stations. However, they are still not city cops and have fewer resources than they have.

Non police transit security are what we have in San Diego. They are not police although they can still issue citations that you must pay and/or appear in court for. They do no carry firearms though to the best of my knowledge.

BART is one of the most prominent municipal lines in the country and they claim to have a more stringent training that the entire state peace officer's association, but there is more to it than that.

My point still stands though, BART cops are not street cops of Seattle. And SFPD are not BART cops and OakPD are not BART cops, and that's where I'm at.

[Oakland Uptown]

BART Police actually have more authority than a normal city cop, they can arrest and write tickets along any BART line in the bay area in any city. They can be away from the BART and still perform normal police duty.

[bellalunatic]

Originally Posted by Oakland Uptown

BART Police actually have more authority than a normal city cop, they can arrest and write tickets along any BART line in the bay area in any city. They can be away from the BART and still perform normal police duty.

Technically some are sworn peace officers. Not all. And their scope of work is related to BART but can be anywhere, but generally they don't just jump in.

They are antiquated as well:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/200...8.php#18616549


from the above link:

The public report on BART's police policies, practices and procedures identified a number of areas where BART can improve its response to future incidents and also strengthen its own investigations and reporting of use-of-force incidents. The report's recommendations include:

* Updating the BART policy manual
* Reinforcing tactical concepts
* Improving communications and leadership during incidents
* Instituting more strenuous use-of-force reporting requirements and investigations
* Enhancing transparency into the process
* Training officers on updated policies
* Additional Taser training for officers

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by AlohaHuey

You are wrong. You cannot randomly shoot civilians, even if they touch you.

You seem to be part of the small minority of people who extrapolate "what might have occurred" instead of what DID occur and describe your fantasy of what you would have liked to see happen.

Your ability to know she had no reason for her attitide is truly a cosmic gift. Since the video didn't capture the events leading up to it, you must possess a magical ability to know if she was petulant for no reason, and who has a stolen cell phone, or who purchased it legitimately. And a magical ability to know who a thug is, based on their appearance.

You are truly full of...magic, though the first word that came to mind had one less letter in it.

You are simply not well read on the law when it governs law enforcement and what force they can use.

Use of deadly force is governed by this simple rule:

"Use of deadly force" is often granted when the person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them.

i.e - When they are trying to attack you, as was the case in the video.

He had every right to use any force necessary to defend himself.

[hothulamaui]

this cop was not in very good shape or trained enough in his ability to subdue someone, if a teenager can give him such fits. he needs to go back an retrain.

[lmk1707]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Honestly, the cop was in his right to shoot her and her friends, and except with a certain minority of people, it would've been okay.

It wouldn't have been okay with me. Who is this "certain minority"?

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

The girl was being petulant for no reason after breaking the law.

You are perhaps not acquainted with the definition of "petulant":

moved to or showing sudden, impatient irritation, esp. over some trifling annoyance: a petulant toss of the head.

Yikes, a sassy toss of the head. Better call the firing squad.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

The cop was in a very dangerous situation and at any time he was within his right use his weapon, lethally.

Actually, per the force continuum, the officer was only justified in taking the following measure: Wrestling with officer / pushing officer > Empty hand control, the use of bare hands to guide, hold, and restrain -- applying pressure points, and take down techniques that have a minimal chance of injury.