PDA

View Full Version : BART Cleared in Police Shooting of Passenger.



Ponce
16th May 2011, 03:18 PM
I don't get it, he was "cleared" and yet he is going to trial? and the fifty mill? what is all that about?
================================================== =============


BART Cleared in Police Shooting of Passenger.

(CN) - The Bay Area Rapid Transit District is off the hook in a $50 million civil suit filed against BART police officers who fatally shot an unarmed passenger, a federal judge in San Francisco has ruled.

Though U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel tossed the municipal liability claims, the officers involved in the New Year's Day 2009 shooting will have to face a jury over allegations that their detention and treatment of Oscar Grant III and his friends on a BART platform was unconstitutional.

The incident was captured by multiple cell phone and digital video recordings, which were posted to the Internet, showing Officer Anthony Pirone holding Grant down when Officer Johannes Mehserle jumped off Grant, drew his weapon and shot him once in the back. After shooting Grant, Mehserle holstered his weapon and handcuffed the fatally wounded 22-year-old.

Mehserle was charged with murder but was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after he claimed he meant to stun Grant with his Taser but accidentally fired his gun instead. Mehserle, who was sentenced to two years in prison and with time served, could be eligible for parole at the end of this year.

The consolidated suit, brought by Grant's family and the other young men who the police detained after Grant was killed, had sought to hold BART liable for the actions of its officers because it allegedly failed to properly train them. Judge Patel rejected that argument and said that the suit offered "no evidence suggesting that the extant BART training policy was in fact deficient and motivated the alleged use of excessive force."

The officers on the scene, including Pirone who used the laser beam on his Taser to intimidate Grant off of a BART train, asked Judge Patel to dismiss the suit because they used appropriate force and were immune from civil suits in their capacity as police officers.

Patel denied the motion to dismiss saying that video showing Grant face down with his hands behind his back, apparently not trying to resist handcuffing, in the seconds before he was shot. This evidence creates a "genuine issue of material fact" as to whether the officers used excessive force, according to the ruling.

Based on the video evidence, Patel also decided that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clear that their actions, if found excessive by a jury, were clearly beyond those allowed by BART policy.

"The law was clearly established that the measure of force ... used against Grant would be unreasonable accepting plaintiffs' version of the facts that Grant was not resisting being handcuffed, but rather was first imploring Pirone to show mercy and subsequently pleading for the ability to breathe," Patel wrote Tuesday.

The plaintiffs can also pursue state-law claims that race had partly motivate Pirone's conduct toward Grant, who was black.

"Pirone does not deny that he screamed 'bitch-ass nigger' twice in Grant's face, even as Grant was on his knees before Pirone," Patel wrote. "Pirone argues, however, that he only repeated, with sarcasm, what Grant had said to him seconds early in order to highlight that Grant did not have any respect for the police."
Since video documentation documents only that Pirone used the obscene language, and the other plaintiffs testified that Grant never said those words, Patel refused to dismiss the claim.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/13/36574.htm

Twisted Titan
16th May 2011, 05:11 PM
O.T.B.W.T.B........O.T.B

iOWNme
16th May 2011, 06:28 PM
Fiat makes all the problems go away.....Like sweeping dust under the rug.


This family should refuse the money. PRINCIPLE is what great men/woman are made of. Although Im sure $50 Mill has a nice ring to it.... :)

This officer should see the inside of a prison cell for the rest of his life. Better yet, he should have to speak to and help out families of people that have been killed by officers for the rest of his life.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUhwZBEkOy8&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXWSgG-KNng



EDIT: After watching the video of the shooting again, i instantly fill with ANGER and want to use violence against the aggressor to help out the victim. Our primitive instincts can get the bet of us, but a better man will channel his anger into constructive, healing passions to help eradicate this type of behavior from our planet.

General of Darkness
16th May 2011, 06:50 PM
Sui Juris, in my heart of hearts I don't think the cop had intended to shoot the suspect in the chest with his pistol. I've read both sides of this story since it came out, the only conclusion that I can make is that if his intent was to kill the guy is that he's a psychopath, and I'm not sure if he's been tested for that.

solid
16th May 2011, 07:07 PM
Sui Juris, in my heart of hearts I don't think the cop had intended to shoot the suspect in the chest with his pistol. I've read both sides of this story since it came out, the only conclusion that I can make is that if his intent was to kill the guy is that he's a psychopath, and I'm not sure if he's been tested for that.


They test you for that, and everything you can image. Multiple psych tests, 1000's of questions...I don't believe he was a psychopath.

I do believe he mentally snapped though at that time, due to the stress. I don't believe the "taser" defense, that's a big lie. Something triggered that guy's brain to pull his gun and shoot. He lost it, for whatever reason.

He should be held accountable for that. He wasn't, was given a slap on the wrist.

This article is about a lawsuit against the BART police organization, not the individual officer. That distinction should be made clear. If you hold the whole organization accountable for the actions of one officer, it's just supporting the whole problem to begin with, imo.

iOWNme
16th May 2011, 07:32 PM
Sui Juris, in my heart of hearts I don't think the cop had intended to shoot the suspect in the chest with his pistol. I've read both sides of this story since it came out, the only conclusion that I can make is that if his intent was to kill the guy is that he's a psychopath, and I'm not sure if he's been tested for that.


He was shot in the back, while subdued, cuffed and hands behind his back. It may have been an accident. But if i pull my gun out, and its loaded, IN ANY SITUATION, is it an 'accident' when it goes off?

There are better ways for Kops to handle situations. And when given the chance, 99% of them choose violence instead of reason. They are just as brainwashed to hate citizens, as citizens are brainwashed to hate the Kops.

General of Darkness
16th May 2011, 07:48 PM
Oh yeah, shot in the fricken back. In my mind that's someone executing another human being, but I really don't think that was his "INTENT", but then again what do any of us know about this guy. We know he was barely trained, hell, I probably have more pistol time, so Monday quarterbacking this, is still redundant.

The victim was an a-hole who was talking smack, and seem to be egged on by the crowd, while at the same time, they were making the cops nervous. But again, WTF do I know, nothing. RIP shithead.

Twisted Titan
17th May 2011, 05:05 AM
screw intent the message in clear

you can get away with ANYTHING as long as you got your mob enforcer credentials