![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyWe 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?"
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?"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-14 02:06 am (UTC)More or less. The officers were afraid because they couldn't see Oscar Grant's hands and he wasn't doing what he was told. Whether he knew what he was told, and was choosing to not comply, is a fact forever lost as we can't ask him.
The difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter is buried in jury instructions, and I'm quite tired, so this is a very rough version: voluntary manslaughter is a death resulting from a misdemeanor, or a minor crime; where involuntary manslaughter is a death resulting from criminal negligence, or a lawful act done in a reckless manner.
Now here's the fun part: misuse of force under color of authority by a peace officer is a felony. Improper use of force that does not rise to the felony level tends not to be treated as a criminal matter at all, resulting in internal sanctions, disciplinary action and sometimes termination.
For example: if the officer used the Taser to torture Oscar Grant, and that was his purpose in firing it, that would be a felony in and of itself. Given that Oscar Grant died as a result, under the felony-murder rule this would be neither form of manslaughter, but instead murder in the 2nd degree.
If I had been the one to shoot instead of Taser the deceased, as a private person, I have no doubt that I'd be looking at murder 2. But the same qualified immunity and leeway for making mistakes that the criminal justice system gives to peace officers, leaves wiggle room for reasonable doubt -- stupid and lawful is still lawful, if stupid.