BART Shooter Released Today

[dross]

Then I admit (probably my fault) to some confusion about your position. I won't quote you (this time), but I thought your point was that one act should not be considered a violation of different laws of different jurisdictions. That is, only one jurisdiction could prosecute for all the violations of its laws for any given act.

Again, apologies if I misunderstood.
.

I'll try to explain my position more clearly.

I can understand that ELEMENTS of the same act might be crimes in different jurisdictions. The example I gave was hauling explosives across state lines and blowing up a building.

So it's murder to kill someone, but it's a federal crime to kill an FBI agent.

I don't have a problem with someone who is convicted of blowing up a building from being charged with murder, and with killing an FBI agent - two different crimes, two different jurisdictions, same act.

My problem comes from trying the same facts twice, after acquittal on those facts once.

If a jury found that the prosecution didn't prove that I committed the act, I should be done. The purpose of double jeopardy was so that they couldn't keep trying me. I understand they are different jurisdictions, but the facts remain the same.

What prevents a prosecutor from charging him with one murder at a time until he gets a conviction?

 

[NYFelon]

I'll try to explain my position more clearly.

I can understand that ELEMENTS of the same act might be crimes in different jurisdictions. The example I gave was hauling explosives across state lines and blowing up a building.

So it's murder to kill someone, but it's a federal crime to kill an FBI agent.

I don't have a problem with someone who is convicted of blowing up a building from being charged with murder, and with killing an FBI agent - two different crimes, two different jurisdictions, same act.

My problem comes from trying the same facts twice, after acquittal on those facts once.

If a jury found that the prosecution didn't prove that I committed the act, I should be done. The purpose of double jeopardy was so that they couldn't keep trying me. I understand they are different jurisdictions, but the facts remain the same.

What prevents a prosecutor from charging him with one murder at a time until he gets a conviction?

I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but from what I can see of today's legal atmosphere, precisely nothing.

 

[T.Lex]

My problem comes from trying the same facts twice, after acquittal on those facts once.

If a jury found that the prosecution didn't prove that I committed the act, I should be done. The purpose of double jeopardy was so that they couldn't keep trying me. I understand they are different jurisdictions, but the facts remain the same.

What prevents a prosecutor from charging him with one murder at a time until he gets a conviction?

An election.

But seriously, given that there is (check local listings) no statute of limitations for murder, then there is nothing preventing that. I am familiar with some serial murderer cases (I concede, that would pose different acts for each murder, but I raise it as an example) where they don't charge all the murders they can, just so they can hedge their bets.

Trials are ALOT of effort. They should be. But there are so many reasons something could go wrong that have nothing to do with actual innocence... well... it kinda makes sense in some situations to piecemeal it out. I'm not completely condoning the practice, but just saying I understand it.

For the most part, I (still) trust the system. If you are innocent and a state jury acquits, chances should be good that a federal jury (still a jury of your peers) would also acquit. In fact, absent some compelling circumstances (terrorism, civil right violations, etc.) the state acquittal would figure prominently in the decision whether to re-try in the feds.

At a practical level, I think we're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I am not familiar with a "regular" crime where there is an acquittal in one jurisdiction and re-prosecution in another for a guilty verdict EXCEPT in those unusual situations where there's some other federal involvment, like civil rights.

I'm not saying there aren't examples out there, I just can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You mean 11 months of a two year sentence because he was well-behaved in the slammer. I'd love for any politician who EVER says that only police officers are trained and qualified enough to carry a gun watch the video of this shooting, along with the Glock Fo-Tay guy video and the police woman shooting a dude on the ground video.

The officer that offed the guy stated at trial that he meant to use his taser. How do you POSSIBLY mistake the two. A loaded Glock weighs TWICE that of a taser, and the taser has a manual safety. Oh, and police officers supposedly have all the training that enables them to handle these situations.

I could see if this happened in the midst of a struggle, or in a high-stress situation. The dude was on the ground with a knee in his back, and while he wasn't being super cooperative, it wasn't really a high-stress moment.

I also wonder if the same 2 years for involuntary sentence would be imposed on a citizen who "accidentally" shot an unarmed man in the back while he was on the ground?

Tunnel vision. Some people can handle the pressure, some can't. The problem with police officers, is that you can never know how someone will react until they're put in a high pressure situation.

 

[dross]

Tunnel vision. Some people can handle the pressure, some can't. The problem with police officers, is that you can never know how someone will react until they're put in a high pressure situation.

Question for you:

Don't you kinda know? Don't you think some people show who they are in lower pressure situations? I would assume this guy showed some signs of inability to make judgments under pressure before this.

I've never been a cop, but I've been a soldier.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Question for you:

Don't you kinda know? Don't you think some people show who they are in lower pressure situations? I would assume this guy showed some signs of inability to make judgments under pressure before this.

I've never been a cop, but I've been a soldier.

It's hard to say, as I don't know how BART does business or how active they are. However the officer was relative rookie with about 2 yrs of service (I'm assuming that counts his academy).

And every PD has the guy or guys that sit back and let the others do the work until it is absolutely imperative that they get involved. Perhaps he was one of those guys, and was put in a situation he typically avoided.

Soldiering is quite different than Policing. Soldiers, in theater, understand that they have the very real danger of having their lives snuffed out at any moment. They tend to be constantly vigilant. Officers, on the other hand, may go weeks without having such a "reminder." That builds complacency. Soldiers rarely go 0-100, in a heartbeat, whereas in most Officers, when presented with the rare SHTF scenario, get an immediate "dump."

That's my opinion anyways

 

[dross]

It's hard to say, as I don't know how BART does business or how active they are. However the officer was relative rookie with about 2 yrs of service (I'm assuming that counts his academy).

And every PD has the guy or guys that sit back and let the others do the work until it is absolutely imperative that they get involved. Perhaps he was one of those guys, and was put in a situation he typically avoided.

Soldiering is quite different than Policing. Soldiers, in theater, understand that they have the very real danger of having their lives snuffed out at any moment. They tend to be constantly vigilant. Officers, on the other hand, may go weeks without having such a "reminder." That builds complacency. Soldiers rarely go 0-100, in a heartbeat, whereas in most Officers, when presented with the rare SHTF scenario, get an immediate "dump."

That's my opinion anyways

I think in most organizations there's a kind of ethos at work where we look out for the weaker members. I remember going to a course where you were learning how to be an instructor. It involved two weeks of speaking every day in front of people and getting mercilessly critiqued. Public speaking is very stressful for most people, but some simply can't handle it. We had a guy that should have never been an instructor. It was obvious he'd never be able to do it. Somehow though, he passed the course, because he was helped, babied, carried and truthfully, the standards were lowered for him. We were all proud at the time that we had gotten him through, but I've come to see it differently. I now think it would have been better to say, "Hey man, this ain't for you. You're going to be miserable and so are your students."

Of course life and death is another matter. It just makes me wonder if lots of people hadn't seen the signs in this officer that he couldn't think straight under pressure. I think we've all seen those people. It's not about being scared, it's about some people having the ability to still make sound judgments in the face of great fear and others to lose their ability to function.

Of course, I'm only speculating, as I know nothing about this guy. Reading the accounts, however, it seems like he might have been one of those people whose brain freezes under stress. Plenty of useful things for them to do, but policing and soldiering and firefighting and not among them.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think in most organizations there's a kind of ethos at work where we look out for the weaker members. I remember going to a course where you were learning how to be an instructor. It involved two weeks of speaking every day in front of people and getting mercilessly critiqued. Public speaking is very stressful for most people, but some simply can't handle it. We had a guy that should have never been an instructor. It was obvious he'd never be able to do it. Somehow though, he passed the course, because he was helped, babied, carried and truthfully, the standards were lowered for him. We were all proud at the time that we had gotten him through, but I've come to see it differently. I now think it would have been better to say, "Hey man, this ain't for you. You're going to be miserable and so are your students."

Of course life and death is another matter. It just makes me wonder if lots of people hadn't seen the signs in this officer that he couldn't think straight under pressure. I think we've all seen those people. It's not about being scared, it's about some people having the ability to still make sound judgments in the face of great fear and others to lose their ability to function.

Of course, I'm only speculating, as I know nothing about this guy. Reading the accounts, however, it seems like he might have been one of those people whose brain freezes under stress. Plenty of useful things for them to do, but policing and soldiering and firefighting and not among them.

I agree, but unfortunately you can't get rid of them unless they mess up. Trust me, when our K9 goes on a track, she knows who to take, and who NOT to take.

 

[88GT]

Tunnel vision. Some people can handle the pressure, some can't. The problem with police officers, is that you can never know how someone will react until they're put in a high pressure situation.

I'd add that even the same person under different circumstances will handle pressure differently each time. Not all stress is created equal.

Lots on intangibles and unknowns, for this particular scenario and the human psyche in general. As with the age-old question of how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know just how/why that man mistakenly (and I do believe it was a mistake) drew his firearm instead of the taser.

It's a tragic set of circumstances, on both sides, that's for sure.

Slightly off-topic question: have criminals become that much more violent and oppositional during arrest that they cannot be contained with mere human power? No snarkiness meant. Serious question. I'm wondering about the actual "need" of tasers. Or if the use of tasers is a solution that's always looking for a problem. Just typing out loud.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Slightly off-topic question: have criminals become that much more violent and oppositional during arrest that they cannot be contained with mere human power? No snarkiness meant. Serious question. I'm wondering about the actual "need" of tasers. Or if the use of tasers is a solution that's always looking for a problem. Just typing out loud.

I've never been a big fan of the Taser. I have used it exactly once, and that was to deal with a non-cooperative guy who refused to abide by a blood warrant (that's another story).

IMO, in situations where there are multiple officers vs one non-compliant individual, a Taser is needed. The problem is if that person gets hurt by going "hands on," someone is going to get sued for police brutality. The Taser, if properly used, eliminates that issue.
I was sued by a guy, who was off his meds and had hit his wife during my rookie year. He had been repeatedly told to get on the floor face down. He told me that he was going to kick my a$$, and started to pull his shirt over his head. We, at the point that the shirt was over his head, I tackled him, a plate broke (we were in the kitchen) and he got gut and needed stitches. I got sued. Now if I had used the Taser, hopefully he would have locked up and never been cut... I certainly wouldnt have been sued, or risked the possibility of injuring myself.

I think Tasers are best used when a single officer encounters a possible violent individual that they believe may be an issue handling "physically." At 6'1, 215, there aren't many that I would think I need to deploy a Taser, but to smaller officers, I can see the benefit.

Honestly, in most instances use of Tasers isnt about ending non-compliance, it's about liability. But that's my opinion.

 

[dross]

Slightly off-topic question: have criminals become that much more violent and oppositional during arrest that they cannot be contained with mere human power? No snarkiness meant. Serious question. I'm wondering about the actual "need" of tasers. Or if the use of tasers is a solution that's always looking for a problem. Just typing out loud.

When your tool is hammer, everything looks like a nail.

When your tool is a taser, everything looks like a guy screaming and flopping around like a fish.

 

[level.eleven]

We haven't had a taser thread in a while.

 

[88GT]

Honestly, in most instances use of Tasers isnt about ending non-compliance, it's about liability. But that's my opinion.

Good point. I hadn't thought about it in that light. It makes sense....sort of. I mean I see the desire to avoid the all-or-nothing lethal option of a firearm for a simple jerkwad drunk. But then we wouldn't have to find a middle ground if the courts didn't allow such stupid lawsuits to move forward.

"Well, of course you got some bruises and cuts, Mr. Smith. What do you expect when you wrestle with the police as you're being arrested for a crime."

But since there's very little of that kind of common sense anymore....

When your tool is hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Good thing they have a taser then, huh? I'd had for the the tool to be the firearm.

 

[ryknoll3]

Good point. I hadn't thought about it in that light. It makes sense....sort of. I mean I see the desire to avoid the all-or-nothing lethal option of a firearm for a simple jerkwad drunk. But then we wouldn't have to find a middle ground if the courts didn't allow such stupid lawsuits to move forward.

"Well, of course you got some bruises and cuts, Mr. Smith. What do you expect when you wrestle with the police as you're being arrested for a crime."

But since there's very little of that kind of common sense anymore....



Good thing they have a taser then, huh? I'd had for the the tool to be the firearm.

Except he had a taser and still drew his gun and blew the guy away.

 

[ryknoll3]

Tunnel vision. Some people can handle the pressure, some can't. The problem with police officers, is that you can never know how someone will react until they're put in a high pressure situation.

That didn't really look like a high-pressure situation to me. They clearly had the guy down and one officer had his knee in the guy's back. That didn't look like a split-second decision situation to me.

 

[in625shooter]

Except he had a taser and still drew his gun and blew the guy away.

What a lot of departments have done from the afteraction of this BART shooting is mandated the Tazer be carried in a cross draw position to minimize confusion in a situation. As a trainer the other issue I saw as far as the officer is muscle memory. How many times do police officers practice drawing there sidearm to drawing their tazer? About 1,000 to zero.

It was a bad situation all the way around.

 

[dross]

That didn't really look like a high-pressure situation to me. They clearly had the guy down and one officer had his knee in the guy's back. That didn't look like a split-second decision situation to me.

I don't think it was split second, just that the guy was freaking out, for whatever reason.

 

[88GT]

Except he had a taser and still drew his gun and blew the guy away.

myopia strikes again.