SFist: Death Threats Sent to BART Police Officer

Xenu

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:55:56 -0800

What's that quote? "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Something like that.

Brock Keeling

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:10:23 -0800

"If we don't arrest him we are a bunch of racist hypocrites." Hm. That is a bit of a stretch. Slamming the cop as racist is a stretch at this point too. But I see what you're saying.

dogpatchemily

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:06:15 -0800

"Sigh. A sad case all around?" No. This guys executed that man. It isn't sad for him; it is sad for the family of the guy who was killed. Arrest him. He didn't even show up to be interviewed today? That is unacceptable. At least show up, with a lawyer, and then invoke your fifth amendment rights. Anyone who watched that video knows he just reached around, pulled his gun out, and killed the man. Case closed. If we don't arrest him we are a bunch of racist hypocrites.

tahoetarga

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:57:55 -0800

or a criminal one...

tahoetarga

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:57:03 -0800

Hate to say it, but don't be surprised if he is not around to face a civil trial...

tahoetarga

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:48:48 -0800

And watch how fast the civil claim is settled...

tahoetarga

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:47:45 -0800

And now, with the officer resigning, he will not have to answer the agency's questions into the reason for the shooting...Now we can anticipate that he will be criminally charged by the DA's office. The question will be manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.

Chiot Moite

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:26:46 -0800

*ding! ding! ding! And we have a winner! A cupie doll for bluecanary! And mariconsoy for your own intellectual curiosity, here is why you NEVER answer any questions without a lawyer present: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

bluecanary

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:56:39 -0800

Anyone with an IQ higher than 70 invokes their right to be silent/not speak without a lawyer present. No one, guilty or innocent, should ever, EVER answer any kind of questions during an interrogation without a lawyer present. EVER. Sorry, my wrongful convictions seminar still haunts me.

mariconsoy

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:07:15 -0800

How many innocent people need to take the 5th?

TI

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:02:48 -0800

$25 million is a lot of BART fares. I think this will go down as a total PR nightmare for BART. It also reinforces the widespread belief that the Bay Area police prey on the black community. Maybe the election of Obama will change some beliefs in the police system.

manys

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:45:51 -0800

I'm sure he'd go into protective custody. Heck, they may even have separate prisons for cops for all we know.

tahoetarga

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:29:16 -0800

If the officer did not follow the agencies policies and procedures, he/she is fully susceptible to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Any violations will also be fair game in civil actions against the officer and the employing agency.

tahoetarga

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:27:07 -0800

Nope...the internal investigators have more 'power' than the criminal ones, but they cannot share what they learn. However, the internal investigators have full and complete access to the complete criminal case.

tahoetarga

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:25:05 -0800

Again, because of the coercive nature of the statements, they remain inadmissable in all but a few situations (such as if the officer is fighting discipline as a result of the investigation).

baldguy

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:05:27 -0800

Interesting, thanks for the explanation. So is there any point at which the internal investigation aids the criminal one (sounds like no)? Or are the DAs on their own to discover facts that will only be revealed in the internal investigation? And what are the ramifications if the officer did NOT follow the agency's guidelines? Termination or something lesser?

travin

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:51:57 -0800

A good question is, is there any sunlight on internal investigations? Meaning, is it or can it be made public record? As well can this be subpoenaed in a civil action? I expect this is handled military style, wherein anything internal will not be made public, but there are some exceptions, as you mentioned, so I have to ask.

tahoetarga

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:36:06 -0800

Oops...I meant the 5th Amendment, not the 4th...

tahoetarga

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:31:42 -0800

I was a police officer in the Bay Area for 30 years, with significant experience in the investigation of officer involved shootings. Bear with me, and I will lay out what is happening in this case... There are two investigations involved in this kind of case: an internal investigation by the agency to ensure that their policies and standards were followed, and a second investigation by criminal investigators. Usually, the agency will do both investigations, with the District Attorney assisting in the criminal investigation. Everyone in this country (including police officers) are protected by the 4th Amendment as it relates to incriminating oneself. As such, the first interview the officer will have will be with the criminal investigators. As deadly force was used, the possiblity always exists that the officer will charged criminally, so he/she will be given their 'Miranda Rights'. You can believe that 100% of all police officers involved in an investigation of this magnitude will be represented by an attorney (who will be well versed in these types of investigations). Without fail, almost every officer in this kind of situation will refuse to volunteer to give a statement to the criminal investigators. At this point, the criminal interview will cease, and the internal investigators will take over. Out of the criminal investigators presence (they are barred from accessing the internal investigation with limited exceptions), the officer will be ordered to answer questions related to the incident. This order is given with the express understanding that what the officer says cannot be used against him/her in criminal court, and that failing to answer the questions is deemed to be insubordination, with discipline upto and including termination being the result. At this point, the officer will almost always agree to answer the internal investigator's questions. They will go through the entire incident, with the result being the agency will determine if the use of force was within their guidelines. If the officer doesn't answer the questions, his/her job is gone. Termination will follow swiftly, and you can pretty well guarantee that he/she will never work as a peace officer again. Even with a coerced confession (which in effect the forced statement is) the DA's Office will not be able to use what the officer says against him/her in any subsequent criminal proceedings. Statements can be used for impeachment (say the officer offers testimony at a later trial that is contradictory to the statement given at the time of the internal investigation), but that is about it. Beecause the forced statement will be part of the officer's personnel file from that point on, only limited information can ultimately be released.

AugustCJohnson

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:19:06 -0800

boo hoo, he killed a man in cold blood in front of dozens of people, it was clearly caught on tape and he has yet to be charged or even interrogated.

haggie

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:10:30 -0800

Sending death threats to a person that killed someone seems kind of asinine to me. Dude, you crashed your car into my buddy's car, so I'm going to crash my car into your car!!! Genius!

travin

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:34:03 -0800

What is most striking is that in the video that was shown on Democracy Now, it clearly showed him flipping the holster stay, drawing his gun, coming to his feet and bringing both hands to brace the gun before he shot--which is standard. And after he shot he quickly returns the gun to his holster and puts up his hands in surrender. Thing is, a taser is typically held on the opposite side of the body of the firearm. And only in extreme circumstances would you ever taser someone at point blank range, especially with another officer still in physical contact with the suspect, because for the device to work properly there needs to be a spread on the darts to make a incapacitating circuit. That said, I'm a bit worried that the stress of the incident induced his wife's labor. All around it's unfortunate for everyone.

mariconsoy

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:20:22 -0800

I thought of the same thing- and also that the cop may meet the same end as Dan White...

Akit

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:10:40 -0800

I have this feeling that if the cop gets arrested and prosecuted for murder, I'm betting the defense lawyer will be using some classic "twinkie defense" that is similar to Dan White's assassination of Milk and Moscone.

withak

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:54:49 -0800

Well usually if you shoot someone (accidentally or not) your choices are either voluntarily talking to the police or going to jail where they can keep an eye on you and talk to you whenever they want. This guy seems to be taking advantage of police protection without actually having to deal with the legal consequences of shooting someone almost a week ago.

oskarv

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:53:44 -0800

sad case all around; unequivocally more tragic for the family of the boy who has my name. the saddest part for the cop is that prisoners are especially mean to cops.

periqueblend

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:40:18 -0800

is it really a sad case all around? If the guy committed manslaughter (at the least, murder at the most) are we really expected to have some (any?) sympathy for him that we (rightfully) don't have for vatos in the mission who shoot guns at innocents, because.... why?

Chiot Moite

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:37:40 -0800

@withak: why would he talk to investigators? He has a fifth amendment right to not incriminate his stupid ass. --- What's sad is that this would be "a first" for an officer to be charged when you know this kind of thing happens. How many people can honestly say that they've never known a cop who they considered homicidal?

withak

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:30:24 -0800

Well it's going on the seventh day since the shooting and he has yet to talk to investigators and they haven't even managed to find out whether or not he was actually carrying a taser, but they have managed to find time to shuttle him around to different hiding place for his own safety. Any sympathy people might have had for this guy is rapidly evaporating. Perhaps the next safe place to move him to might be the nearest BART IA investigators office?