Well, the level of incompetence required for this to be 'accidental' is SOOO incredibly high that it's not reasonable to assume the police are that incompetent....but if they are, that's intentional on the part of their supervisors, no? So still the responsibility of the police as a whole.

There IS doubt that they could have killed him and made it look unintentional. He shot 3 times, and only hit once. Clearly, he's not a good enough shot to kill on the first shot, because cops ALWAYS shoot to kill, and he failed, no matter which target he was aiming at.

We can assume that because he said "I don't know" when asked why he shot the caregiver....not "I missed", or "I wasn't aiming at you" or any other mitigation. If, as you suggest, he was firing at the sitting, unarmed, severely mentally challenged man (also completely inexcusable, btw) then the negligence in discharging his firearm with an innocent victim between him and the target is not just gross negligence, it's intentional negligence. Shooting someone because you don't care that they are between you and your target makes you an attempted murderer. Period.

Um....if a cop was shot in the foot, medical care would be instant, there would be no handcuffing, much less TRIPPLE handcuffing. What was reported was they didn't call for medical attention for >15 minutes while the victim lay handcuffed bleeding in the street (probably with officers standing on top of him). Medical care was provided while the shootings were still happening in Dallas, so "the scene wasn't secured yet, we couldn't allow medics in safely" falls completely flat as an excuse anymore and won't even be considered by me.

That level of incompetence from a police officer MUST, by definition, be intentional. They are well trained and equipped to avoid exactly this kind of fiasco. Ignoring that training is intentional, and that must be prosecutable if there is to be any effect. I don't have to ascribe intent to murder to claim culpability. That is not the metric by which the law is applied. If your actions are grossly negligent and end in near death of another, which is the absolute least criminal possible interpretation of the actions of this officer, that's criminal attempted murder/manslaughter1. Because (inappropriately) using a firearm is not unintentional, and officers ONLY use them to kill, this was not attempted manslaughter, which only applies when the intent is NOT to kill, it was an attempted murder.
Either way, that's a question for a jury to answer, not his superior, not the DA that he works with daily.

The problem I've had is that both in Ferguson and the New York case, the Grand Jury both seemed to vote on guilt/innocence, not if there is merit for a trail. Ferguson could have ended up with an innocent verdict had it actually gone to trial, if only because of massive conflicting testimony (people would still be upset, but at least if there was a trial it'd probably have been minimized). The New York choke hold is a bit harder to see how it didn't go to trial, there's a flipping camera recording it.

The Cleveland one that seems to be blowing up is a bit different, though the family wasn't treated with proper respect, I'm a bit more on the cop side there since the orange cap was off (and who can fully trust that if all you have to do is paint the tip of a real gun orange) and it looked real in the time they had. One could argue they shot too soon, but hard to tell how long to give. The problem in that case is they didn't call for medical care quick enough (not that it probably would have helped) and they blocked and arrested the family, treating them without any respect to a dead/dying child that by that point they knew had a toy gun. Let the mother get to her kid, let the sister go and don't make the mother choose to stay with her daughter or ride with her son... That's where the Cleveland one went south.

How about calling some medical researchers to testify instead of this line-towing bureaucrat.

>> ^marinara:

First of all, I was privileged to be out there with a lot of brave and beautiful people. I'd like to give my own account of what happened on Saturday, because the mainstream coverage I've seen has been universally laughable, not that that's any surprise.
Folks were mostly gathered up in Oscar Grant Plaza by about noon, and the march started around 1 or 1:30. There were probably between one and two thousand marchers. There was a sound truck playing music, and the mood was festive and happy. Parents brought their children along, and the whole thing felt a bit like a roving dance party in the streets. There was also a bus following along which the police detained about halfway through the first part of the march on some minor infraction like people weren't all wearing their seat belts or something.
When the demonstrators reached the first target building, it was already heavily surrounded by riot cops, and people didn't even try to get near it. I don't think anyone was actually expecting the "secret" target to stay secret, given the open nature of the movement and the heavy infiltration. By this point police had begun targeted arrests against certain individuals which were evidently on their list of organizers or repeat "troublemakers". Nonetheless, the marchers were being quite peaceful and were prepared to just continue the march around the city. The police weren't having that though, and they fired a number of smoke grenades into the crowd, which caused a bit of a panic since many people initially thought it was teargas. Minor injuries were incurred amongst the marchers.
A number of older demonstrators as well as people with children decided that this was a good time to call it a day and headed away from the main police line and crowd. Police then rushed in and attempted to arrest some of the parents for endangering their children. I'm not sure exactly how this turned out, but I was told that a number of parents were able to get away with their children.
Police began to close on the demonstrators who decided to continue the march through the city. Soon after police began to deploy actual tear gas along with beanbag rounds and paint balls apparently intended to mark people for later arrest. Police claim that people were throwing things at them after this. I didn't witness demonstrators throwing anything, but it is possible. I don't find it to be a constructive activity, but I also can't blame people for being angry after a peaceful march was attacked. Medics responded to high numbers of chemical contamination and blunt force trauma cases.
As the march continued, police started to use a new tactic which recklessly endangered lives and led to many injuries. They would form up in a line behind the marchers and then on some signal charge towards the back of the march with their batons at the ready. Although attempts were made among the demonstrators to keep everyone calm, inevitably many people started running as a natural reaction to seeing a line of angry club-wielding police charging at them. Lots of people got knocked down in the press of bodies. People helped up whoever they could, but I have no idea how many people were injured during this or how badly. The police continued to use this tactic all the way back to Oscar Grant Plaza, charging forward for a block before stopping for a minute or two and then charging again. This charging tactic served absolutely no crowd control purpose, as they were pushing people in the direction the march was already going, and they could have just marched behind the demonstrators keeping pace, since nobody wanted to get within arm's reach of them anyways.
Anyways, people regrouped at OGP to rest, wash up, seek medical attention, and eat. After some time, a decision was made to march around downtown Oakland again. The march was somewhat smaller this time, but probably still around 1,000 people. Oaklanders don't give into police intimidation easily. The march eventually became a bit of a cat-and-mouse game as lines of police tried to surround the marchers and "kettle" them in for mass arrests. At one point fairly early on the police nearly succeeded, but a temporary chain link fence was pulled down allowing most or all of the marchers an escape route. Later on, a group of ~50-100 demonstrators did get blocked in on a section of Broadway without any side streets. Police then rushed in, jabbing, pushing, and beating people with batons until they were forced back into a corner near a YMCA building. Some people may have escaped through the YMCA building, and police used this to claim that the protesters were trying to take over the building, although I'm fairly certain this was never the plan since the YMCA was open and operational, not abandoned. Once the group of demonstrators was blocked in and completely surrounded, police announced that this was an unlawful assembly and ordered them to disperse. A few people tried to leave with their hands raised and were promptly thrown on the ground, beaten, and arrested. The police undoubtedly thought that they were quite clever with the Catch-22 situation they had constructed, but I doubt any of the subsequent arrest charges are going to stick as a result. Getting the charges to stick was probably not the point though.
The demonstrators were pinned into the corner like this for probably 40-60 minutes before enough police buses and vans showed up for mass arrests to begin. As the time approached, the police suddenly singled out on of the demonstrators and yanked him out of the crowd, threw him down and cuffed him. It is likely this was one of the people on their special list. A small bag of powder (possibly meth) was planted on him as he was dragged away. Given the fact that everyone knew they were going to be arrested for the past half hour or so, it is utterly illogical that this person wouldn't have ditched the drugs if they really were his. He was overheard to say that they weren't his, that he didn't do drugs, and was willing to take a drug test right then and there to prove it.
Police later arrested a large number of demonstrators near OGP using similar tactics. Apparently some demonstrators got into City Hall, although I'm not sure if any arrests were made in the building. Some people were taken to jail in Oakland, others to Santa Rita (a much nastier place) in Dublin. Some were cited and released the next day, others are still in police custody.
Given my impending court appearance, I don't want to discuss the exact involvement I may or may not have had in any of the above. I think, however, this provides a much more accurate picture of what went down than has been presented in the mainstream media, and I thank you for taking the time to hear the other side.


**I need to give attribution, this blog was posted on reddit by a so called street medic attached to occupy oakland

Last month, my dog woke up abruptly, and confused my lower lip for a chew toy. I needed 12 stitches.

The ER doctors asked if I had any allergies, then Rx'd me an antibiotic I was allergic to. Thankfully, I asked my pharmacist some questions that might have saved my life. The dose they gave me at the ER caused me to itch violently (especially around my lymph nodes).

And I get to pay over a grand for the so-called "best medical care in the world." What a fucking joke.

This doctor is an asshole. Isn't this what the Republicans were threatening would happen? Except they thought that Obama supporters would be withholding care from registered Republicans...

Fucking stupid. You'd have to be to vote Republican or believe the lies that Fox spews.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.
For example, Mr. Franken is probably not including Canada in his list of 'zero bankruptcies'...
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/pro
duct_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf
He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".
If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?


[Krupo shakes head]

This is pretty dismal.

It's not cherry-picking to pick a well-defined topic and discuss it.

It's an absolute disgrace to take a topic of discussion and turn it into something completely different. Redefining the scope without informing others of your intent is akin to bringin a laser gatling gun to a fencing match.

Have you even for a moment considered that perhaps Canada has bankruptcy laws which may be easier for people to gain access to than the US, making it easier for them to wipe their slate clean after misfortune?

The topic at hand is regarding people who have to pay their hospital and doctor for treatment, can't, and go bankrupt.

If you go bankrupt in your personal life that is not a medical bankruptcy, that's just an ordinary bankruptcy.

So please stop twisting terms around, and encouraging other people's "junk science" - go Wiki "Fraser Institute" to note how it is, if anything, a clearinghouse for "junk science."

They're deliberately working on misleading people with your so-called study, and your twisting of the facts.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.

All untrue, except possibly for the last sentence. Note that the Fraser Institute's study (and BTW, Fraser is a Canadian version of CATO), doesn't look at medical bankruptcy at all. It basically just looks at the per capita bankruptcy rate of Canada and the US, finds them similar, and declares Canada's program as being no help in general bankruptcy.

It doesn't define "medical bankruptcy" at all, nor does it attempt to breakdown the causes of bankruptcy in any way.

The latest study from the American Journal of Medicine on this topic, at least attempts to do all of those things.

He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".

Liar liar, pants on fire. That's not what was said, dingus.

If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?

Ahh, I see. So you make up your own standard of "medical bankruptcy" that doesn't match that of any reasonable person, and declare Franken a moron or liar.

"Medical bankruptcy" is shorthand for "bankruptcy caused by medical costs." There's a huge amount of wiggle room about how much medical cost means that it "caused" the bankruptcy, but it's pretty straightforward to say that if no one pays out of pocket for medical treatment, it won't make them go bankrupt.

If someone is sick, gets free care, and then goes bankrupt, they didn't go bankrupt from medical costs.

Unfortunately, we're not even talking about setting up some sort of universal, no out of pocket system for the US. What we're talking about mostly is mandated insurance, which should make it easier for families to budget their health care costs. Most of why they cause bankruptcy here is that no one plans to have major medical problems, nor do they plan on having their coverage rescinded by their insurance company, nor do they plan on getting laid off and losing their benefits.

The whole point of the health care reform is to attempt to address those issues.

The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.

For example, Mr. Franken is probably not including Canada in his list of 'zero bankruptcies'...

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf

He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".

If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?

>> ^Pprt:
Medic? What good'll a medic do?


For that 1:100 chance that she isn't dead, you want a medic there FAST. It is possible (at least with current weapons) to shoot yourself in the head and not die. Very, very unlikely in this case but it could be possible. Besides, the person calling might not know the extent of the incident.

It's better to call a medic needlessly than not call a medic who could have helped, unless the medics are busy.