SFist: KTVU Airs Fruitvale Station Shooting, BART Police Asks for Patience

bdl03

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:21:19 -0800

In what you call and unfortunate accident it's important to remember that it's no accident BART police are given guns (as do all police who 'accidentally' shoot and kill people). The maintain their power and image with the treat of taking away our lives and doing us harm. They are trained to use these guns. So when one of these 'trained professionals' accidentally shoots and kills another person it is no accident. It is what they are trained and threaten to do. Yes, shooting his gun may not have been what the officer intended to do when he pulled his gun. Maybe he just wanted to 'control' the situation by pointing his gun at someone. But in this country and in every place where police, soldiers, para-military, etc. are given guns, they are given guns by a system of power for particular reasons. We can look at isolated examples as accidents, but these 'accidental' murders by police follow patterns within a system of violence that destroys lives. Quick story. A family friend of mine was sent to prison when he was 17 because he accidentally shot someone. He was carrying a friend's bag, didn't know there was a gun in it, but when he dropped the bag it went off. Because he had a been arrested once before, with no one but a hard working family and public defender to help him, he went to jail. He's been in San Quentin for almost twenty years now, most of his life. Why do police, who are SUPPOSED to have guns and KNOW how to use them never go to jail for accidentally killing people? This is a common story, and I think we should take a look at what it means to call the recent incident at the Fruitvale BART an accident. Does an accident make a person less accountable? Does it keep us from facing uncomfortable realities about a police force and system of incarceration that maintains white privilege?

manys

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:06:40 -0800

"BART has not released the officer's name, but The Chronicle has learned that the officer is two-year BART police veteran Johannes Mehserle" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/05/BAK61540MH.DTL&tsp=1

whosthatdog

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:23:46 -0800

this video: http://www.ktvu.com/video/18410140/index.html has a much clearer view of what happened. it's january 6th. this cop has still not given a statement. wtf.

bluecanary

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:19:01 -0800

I agree the guy should have criminal charges filed against him. However, that would not compensate this family for losing this guy. He evidently was trying to be a decent father and that would likely include contributing to her financially, which he cannot now do. That is where civil penalties come in. BART employed this loose cannon, and they are responsible for his acts, and should pay this family for them accordingly.

manys

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:49:11 -0800

If a man had murdered a BART officer you think we wouldn't know his name by now?

aj

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:51:09 -0800

No, the cop should have criminal charges filed against him, and if he is found to have killed the guy maliciously, he should go to jail.

bluecanary

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:36:21 -0800

BART will not pay this judgment. BART's insurance companies will pay this judgment. Undoubtedly their premiums will go up, but not to the point where "scarce transit dollars" are wasted. And $12.5 million should go to the lawyer, who takes the gamble of a payout, and has to spend thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars (likely to be the latter in this instance), on a case like this, with no guarantee of being repaid. That's how poors get representation. Otherwise, this poor bastard's death would go unavenged.

manys

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:58:14 -0800

Hey Gothamist, I know a place where you can buy your very own staging server for not a lot of money. That way you don't have to push untested code onto a live site. BTW, right now the checkbox above says "reply to comment from RobInSF" and it is unchecked. Let's see where this one shows up!

manys

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:54:39 -0800

Why the cop pulled his gun at that point strikes me as highly unusual and against normal operating procedure. I suggest focussing on this instead of the "more to this" behind it. I know there's precious little nuance available in shooting a handcuffed person in the back, but you might just have to look for your soap operas elsewhere.

manys

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:51:28 -0800

Yes, BART is looking into a number of issues, such as how to protect a murderer. Also, they need people to forget about this a little bit so that the civil settlement negotiations fall more in their favor. What police union to BART Cops use?

aj

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:49:27 -0800

Of which $12.5M would go to the lawyer. Not probably the best use of scarce transit dollars.

RobInSF

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:42:42 -0800

Seems like an awful lot of struggling going on for someone who was already cuffed and pinned on his stomach. Methinks there is more to this story perhaps a background between this particular officer and this particular (former) trouble maker. Why the cop pulled his gun at that point strikes me as highly unusual and against normal operating procedure. He had to know he was being recorded from at least 3 different angles, not counting random people with cell phones etc. Very strange.