justice done (singular) but not justice done (plural)

[drewkitty]

We have a verdict in the BART shooting. Involuntary manslaughter.

Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 581 -- Involuntary manslaughter.

"A person acts with criminal negligence when: [1] He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; AND [2] A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.]"

So the jury did its job. Justice was done in one case: a peace officer was convicted of a crime for mistakenly drawing his firearm instead of his Taser.

What about all the other peace officers who were present? Not so much. One witness alleged that he begged officers to call an ambulance and was told, "When you sit down, we'll call an ambulance." Other witnesses allege that officers turned the victim over and let him bleed out. No direct pressure on his wounds. Video shows him 'being turned like a sack of meat.'

What about the BART PD sergeants, lieutenants, FTOs, police chief, BART management and the BART board of directors? Where is their liability? Where is their trial?

On 4 January 2009 the chief of BART PD is quoted as follows:

"Chief Gee: That after a person is shot it is part of standard procedure to handcuff the person until you're certain that the threat, that there's not threat and the person isn't armed.

"Reporter: Are officers trained or instructed to perform any medical care to people who are shot?"

"Chief Gee: Well, they, we're taught basic first aid and CPR but certainly are not equipped to handle gunshots. So, to that extent, no."

Actually, Chief, POST Learning Domain 34, titled "First Aid / CPR" does teach officers how to treat penetrating injuries to the chest and abdomen. In Chapter 4, "Traumatic Injuries," the example of an officer being shot is used to ask trainees how they would respond. "Activate EMS system. Control bleeding. Treat for shock."

Police officers carry firearms and respond to crime scenes and medical emergencies. To claim that your officers are "not equipped to handle gunshots" means that they are either untrained or incompetent or both. And so are you.

How about the law enforcement community in Alameda County and across the San Francisco Bay Area? Where is the justice for the entire sordid history of poor relations between law enforcement and the minority communities they "serve and protect?"

Comments

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

Which should I assume? (1) The safety on his firearm was off. (2) The safety on his firearm is identical to the safety on his Taser, so he instinctively flicked it off without thinking about it. Or (3) he flicked the safety off of his pistol before firing it, and he failed to notice that his Taser doesn't have a safety. Or (4) he flicked the safety off on his pistol, which means he knew damn well what he had in his hand, and we just acquitted a guilty man? Because having seen the video, I can't see his hand well enough to make out if he thumbed a safety or not. But I saw his face and body language clearly enough to to be pretty damned confident I saw murderous intent.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

The safety on a Taser is ambidextrous (a lever that runs through the unit and can be manipulated from either side) and in the same position as a firearm safety. This was a conscious design decision by Taser Intl. to leverage existing firearms skills.

Murderous intent or frustration? A poorly trained officer confronting a passively noncompliant subject, with not enough training in how to use the tools on his belt and almost no training on how to avoid using any of them.

Your last point is an interesting argument in favor of transferred intent, however, if one stipulates that one can read homicidal intent from facial expressions. I'm not so sure -- I've seen people really, really furious that I felt completely safe with their level of self control; I've also seen mild irritation immediately lead to stupid, self destructive and/or violent behavior.

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

Same position and same action? It is reasonable to think that someone can be deactivating the safety on a Taser and not notice that it's different from the safety on his handgun?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Only if drawing and firing are taking place in one action, as appeared to be the case here. Motion, especially upward, can disguise differences in weight. The Taser is 7 oz; the Sig is 30 oz.

News reports have it that he was carrying a Sig-Sauer handgun. Checking the Sig manual (http://www.sigsauer.com/upFiles/CmsContent/documents/OwnerManual/P226X5OM.pdf), I see that the manual safety is in approximately the same position (although smaller) and is engaged in the up position. Thus it could be flipped off using the same motion as on the larger Taser safety -- if he were carrying his handgun with safety on at all.

Against that, I see that he was carrying his handgun in a Level II high retention holster which he had practiced with much more than his Taser. His total Taser training was the six hour basic course and he had only carried it for less than a month, in different positions that he had not practiced drawing from.

I genuinely think it's a muscle memory error. If he had intended to kill, his training would have been to fire center-mass and repeatedly.

This doesn't take BART PD off the hook. In fact, it damns them for setting up this 'kid' to take the heat for killing someone due to bad training, bad tactics, bad leadership and bad policy.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/TASER/articles/1917458-NOBLE-to-BART-PD-Your-house-is-a-mess/