View Full Version : Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

01-06-2009, 11:29 AM
In case you haven't seen this.


What do you think the expected outcome will be. I would especially like to hear from the LEO's on this site.

This type of thing it seems is occurring more and more often, at what point do the citizens get upset? Heck in the last month two fatal shooting within 80 miles of each other.

Is this being handled differently because it is a BART officer? Would a regular citizen be sent home or would they be sitting in Jail? Would the fact this is on multiple videos make a difference?

Personally I think the taxpayers of the Bay Area are going to be paying about $15 million and nothing will happen to the officer, but I could be wrong.

How does this affect the RKBA? It is another "gun death" statistic and in this case there is no law that could have prevented it do to all the gun law exemptions for LE.

01-06-2009, 11:38 AM
"Who guards the guardians"? "Who watches the watchers"?

Call your mayors office and complain. Bring it to the top. Thats where you would begin.

Departments might have different procedures for shootings during patrol time.

01-06-2009, 12:13 PM
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Must be Michael Savage listener.
Video was not loading. But I saw one where you see the cop making a shot, and i think he made a mistake and used real gun instead of taser. But he will pay for this mistake and the taxpayers as well.

01-06-2009, 2:20 PM
[QUOTE=WebMoskal;1860812]Must be Michael Savage listener. [QUOTE]

Or a Juvenal reader :)

01-06-2009, 3:17 PM
In case you haven't seen this.


I would especially like to hear from the LEO's on this site.

It's so hard say anything without having been there and knowing what the officer perceived during the struggle. Would love to see the video evidence.

The shot placement (back) doesn't concern me in and of itself. When you're struggling with someone who is non compliant to orders and you can't see what their hands are reaching for it is a very scary moment.

01-06-2009, 3:32 PM
Actually it's Plato.

Try this link, it is the actual video of the incident.


Pretty scary to me. Don't know about the taser, but that seems strange when you have one person being held down by 3 others, then you're going to taser him?

01-06-2009, 3:46 PM
It looks like an honest mistake, especially if you watch the officer's body language after the shot. However, with the overwhelming amount of LE force on the scene, I question the use of a taser. I suspect that BART may be closer to the bottom of the barrel for LE jobs and the quality and training may not be so good.

01-06-2009, 4:35 PM
I seriously doubt this is a case of a cop trying to execute an unarmed man in a crowded subway station. He most likely thought he was deploying his taser, and grabbed his gun. The cell phone video is grainy and hard to see everything the suspect was doing. I don't know what BART's taser policy is, but a resistive suspect refusing to submit to handcuffing would be proper use of the taser in some departments. I think it is too difficult to monday morning quarterback this one. The video does not show everything the officers saw and heard. My semi-educated guess on this one is that it was a taser deployment gone horribly wrong.

01-06-2009, 5:29 PM
Actually it's Plato.

I doubt Plato spoke Latin :)

He came up with the idea when trying to figure out his ideal state, but the quote isn't his.

01-06-2009, 5:57 PM
I doubt Plato spoke Latin :)

He came up with the idea when trying to figure out his ideal state, but the quote isn't his.

You're right, it wasn't. It was a man named Juvenal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenal. And I too doubt that Plato knew Latin. However, I do suspect that the OP is a Watchmen fan. Just a guess though.

01-06-2009, 6:12 PM
Actually it's Plato.

Try this link, it is the actual video of the incident.


Thanks. I would think that when they were pulled off the train (assuming they had reason detain them for some criminal investigation) that the suspects were patted down before they were sat against the wall?

I can't see a reason otherwise, from those camera views, to deploy deadly force.

01-06-2009, 7:13 PM
That is B.S. and me saying so will get this thread pulled I bet...

As I have said before I love cops, in my family we have 4 cops (3 active)

But with the man power there at the Bart station, I can not see the cop tasering him even at that point.

It did not appear he was struggling enough to get shot with a taser... BUT WHAT the F**k to shoot him with a gun BY MISTAKE? Come one now...

Yeah how do you mess up that big... Was this Bart cop retarded?

I say why is the taser on the same side as your service firearm anyway...? Is that normal?

Ahhh man this is terrible and the victims family is totally bummed and rich now... What a way to make your economy better huh?

With the video in my opinion it will be cut and dry... That Bart cop is in trouble.
He shot was too easy in my opinion anyway.

Ok now tear me up!!

01-06-2009, 7:27 PM
From what I've seen and heard (which is never the whole story) this cop screwed the pooch big time. He will almost certainly end up doing time. Unfortunately when you take on the responsibility of protecting the public you simply can't F*CK up this badly.

My best guess is the guy is up Involuntary Manslaughter. I have no doubt he didn't intend to kill the bad guy but it was criminally negligent to fire a bullet into his back when he intended to use his taser. My best guess is that he'd still be losing his job if there was a video of him tasering a guy in cuffs but there wouldn't be a life taken.

It isn't anti-cop to say that people sometimes screw up terminally. Cops do it sometimes too. This guy did.

PC 192. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.