![[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}
Eeenteresting
Date: 2010-07-17 11:32 am (UTC)I did spend 3 hours arguing with my mother over whether or not he could have made that mistake, and whether or not involuntary manslaughter was a sufficient charge.
I agree with you that it was likely a mistake of muscle memory. Nothing I saw in the videos ever indicated to me that he intended to kill the guy, and the reaction he had after his gun went off indicated quite the opposite. I suppose that it is possible that he had a momentary lapse of control and was then horrified by his actions. However, certainly not provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is your opinion on the addition of the gun enhancement? Do you have one? I suspect it may have been the jury trying to compromise between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, but I have no idea whether or not it will stand on appeal.
Oh, and do you have any thoughts on how we might improve relations between minority communities and law enforcement? Because it seems, right now, as if they are not properly represented, served, or protected, but - at the same time - their own attitudes about past injustices create future ones.