Where in the police manual does it say that, when you have an unarmed suspect cooperating, laying face down on the floor, you're supposed to put a slug in his back "just in case?"

More here.

what... the... fuck...

the only rational explanation i can come up with is he fired on accident.

This is exactly why the fear channel was created. The government protect us from crime, but who will protect us from the government?

I'm so glad that we have the kind of technology we do these days. WTF was that cop thinking? I mean, it did look like the guy on the ground was struggling, but if someone had their knee in my back and someone else had their knee on my neck I think I'd be struggling to. But WTF... just WTF was that guy doing pulling a gun at all? Sweet jebus I just can't believe it. WTF?

Upvote in hopes that more people see this. This is so completely off the charts wrong that I think even the people that give the officers the benefit of the doubt will be at a loss. Hope we see an update about this soon.

Also, if anyone makes the argument of "Well we didn't see what happened BEFORE this video, so we can't pass judgment." You need to shut up. The dude was handcuffed, on the ground with a cop standing on his neck. He wasn't a threat to anyone aside from himself. There was absolutely no justification for shooting him.

someone add this to *wtf because... What. The. Fuck.

Invocations (wtf) cannot be called by mizila because mizila is not privileged - sorry.

Well it obviously wasn't an accident, judging by how long the weapon was aimed before the shot fired. My initial guess is that the officer might have been rather intoxicated and somehow mistook his sidearm for a taser. But what the hell do/can we know?

I'll say this though - quite often in cases when so-called "police brutality" is sifted, MG indicates that context and more footage might paint a clearer picture. I don't believe this is the case here and I'd say it'll probably eventually come down to eye-witness accounts in court.

These "BART Police" are they actually police officers or security guards with a fancy name?

Times like this I think we should treat shootings by law enforcement as we would if a member of the general public had pulled the trigger. Conduct a jury trial, and let the court decide if the shooting was justified. Maybe if a few careless cops ended up in jail, rather than just losing their jobs(if that), they all might be a little more cautious about shooting people.

BART spokesman Jim Allison has said the officer's gun went off while police were trying to restrain Grant and that Grant was not cuffed. The unidentified officer is on paid leave as BART investigates the shooting.

BART is the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, which I believe is a public service, so BART police are public servants as well. Whether they go through official police training or not, I'm not sure. If they have guns, then I'd imagine they do. [citation would be good, but I'm too lazy to look]

I think shootings by cops should be investigate and prosecuted more harshly than shootings by civilians. They have a more responsibility, more authority and more power than civilians, and as such they should be held to a higher standard. If they can't keep their cool on the job, they need to be fired immediately or put back in intense training or retested / given a mental exam. If they shoot someone, EVER, there should be a full investigation and they should immediately be put through psychological examination and training. That's some serious shit to be able to shoot someone, and the effect psychologically on the shooter must be intense and life changing.

Also, it's worth noting that this event occurred the morning of Jan 1st, so I think it's a fair assumption that at least some of the people in this video had been drinking. If they find that the cop had been drinking he should be immediately put in jail. Taking risks with such power is unacceptable.

If your only excuse is, "I meant to grab my Taser, but I grabbed my gun," you are FUCKED.

I agree with the others. There is no prior context here. GUILTY.

There was a case a while back where a cop shot someone who was in the back of a squad car. The officer claimed it was a tragic mix-up with the tazer gun. There will probably be a similar claim in this case.

But can we please keep in mind that titles like "Police shoot unarmed man" or "killed by the Oakland police" are inflammatory and incorrect. It was one SINGLE person who fired the shot. If you want to argue it was a failure of training or safety policies, or even racial bigotry, please stop making it sound like all police officers committed this atrocity.

^ ^ ^ Wrong.

This man was executed gangster style BY THE BART POLICE. A bunch of cops stood around watching, two cops held the man, and a third one drew his gun and shot him in the back. It wasn't "a single person". Go watch the video.

It wasn't one cop denying anything happened. It was the police spokesman telling lies to the press. It's amazing what they will say before they know the video is going on the 11 o'clock news.

POLICE SHOOT UNARMED MAN looks correct to me.
KILLED WHILE RIDING TRANSIT looks correct to me.
SHOT IN BACK WHILE RESTRAINED BY COPS looks correct to me.
COPS EXECUTE ANOTHER BLACK MAN FOR RIDING SUBWAY is almost correct.

I've got to agree with JoeDirt here. Yes it was a single officer that discharged his weapon, but departments like to function as a single unit. The way this has been handled so far, they are showing their unity by defending the officers actions as a tragic accident and delaying the investigation.

You know I find it hard to accept that it was a mix up between a taser and pistol. Two reasons, tasers are carried on the offhand side of an officers belt, in a holster that it can be pulled from, while pistols are on what ever side the officer is handed, in a holster the gun must be lifted out of, usually after unsnapping a tab of leather. And in this situation, you can watch the video and see that there was no reason to taser the victim, there is, the so-called struggle appears to be Grant trying to put his hand down to control lying on the ground rather than being pushed down with his hands behind his back and essentially falling over. It's a shame the audio isn't better so we could at least hear if he was saying anything to warrant the hostility he was receiving.

>> ^EDD:
Well it obviously wasn't an accident, judging by how long the weapon was aimed before the shot fired. My initial guess is that the officer might have been rather intoxicated and somehow mistook his sidearm for a taser. But what the hell do/can we know?
I'll say this though - quite often in cases when so-called "police brutality" is sifted, MG indicates that context and more footage might paint a clearer picture. I don't believe this is the case here and I'd say it'll probably eventually come down to eye-witness accounts in court.


No; No prior footage needed. This cop is fucked and will probably face several years in federal prision, as he should.

Though he most certainly was not cooperating as Trancecoach said.

>> ^MaxWilder:
But can we please keep in mind that titles like "Police shoot unarmed man" or "killed by the Oakland police" are inflammatory and incorrect. It was one SINGLE person who fired the shot. If you want to argue it was a failure of training or safety policies, or even racial bigotry, please stop making it sound like all police officers committed this atrocity.



The legal term is "accomplice".

If you and a friend rob a liquor store, and your friend kills the clerk, you both face murder charges.

Every one of the cops at the scene should also be charged.

amateur digital video for the masses.

take that, authorities without knowledge of the present-day technocratic-free-for-all society. Huuunnn (humping gesture)

This article was interesting: http://www.thuglifearmy.com/news/?id=4594

By now everyone has seen the horrific video or videos of a Oakland BART Police Officer shooting an unarmed, Black man (Osacr Grant) while he lay facedown on the ground and was fully co-operating. The man who was killed execution style was the father of a 4 year old girl and was considered a peacemaker. In fact moments before he was shot he was pleading with his friends who were all cuffed up to calm down and be cooperative with police. Grant was seen begging the police officers who had pulled tasers out and pointed them at the heads of his friends, not to shoot.

For reasons unknown to us, the police officer pushed Grant to the ground. One officer kneeled on his neck while the other officer pulled out a gun and shot him point blank in the back. The bullet went through his back, hit the ground and bounced back up and pierced his lung, killing him. The police then ran around and terrified witnesses by taking away their cell phones and video cameras for 'evidence'. The video which was shot by a witness named Ms Vargus and has been seen by everyone on news stations like KTVU was also going to be confiscated except her train started moving as police attempted to snatch away her camera. The cops obviously did not see the other video cameras buzzing away.

Terrible indeed, but I really don't see how the same agency sans $25M will do a better job of preventing things like this in the future.

>> ^misterwight:
Terrible indeed, but I really don't see how the same agency sans $25M will do a better job of preventing things like this in the future.


I believe it would be covered by insurance. So higher premiums, yes, but BART won't pay $25m out of pocket.

Good god, that's really disgusting. I hope that man spends a significant proportion of the rest of his life in jail.

Surely it's only justifiable for a cop to pull a gun when their safety, or that of others, may be in question. Certainly never as an act to make someone more compliant to demands. This situation looked to be contained and I can't possibly see any wiggle room that can attempt to rationalize the officers actions. For the sake of the family of Oscar Grant, and the good cops on BART's force who's jobs just became a little harder, I hope they don't try to find any.

Oh fuck...

There are some very simple rules to gun safety that ANYONE who gets a gun license is required to memorize. 1. NEVER point your weapon at anything you do not intend to destroy (loaded or not). 2. NEVER put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire (keep it on the guard). 3. NEVER fire your weapon until you have checked downrange to make sure someone is in your line of fire. This BART guy violated every rule of gun safety in the book. Drawing the weapon is OK, but he should never have aimed it at the victim and shouldn't have had his finger on the trigger. 25 million for the victim? They're lucky the guy's family isn't suing for a 250 million, because they'd get it. And the trigger man? Involuntary manslaughter at best. 2nd degree murder possibly.

Quite simply, this is why police officers in the UK should never carry guns. They don't as a matter of course, but the family of Jean Charles de Menezes can tell you all about what happens when you give police guns.

Way to go America, guns all over the place is great hey?

Pht - don't turn this into an anti-gun thing. That debate is a dead horse. Care to discuss the huge surge in KNIFE killings the UK is experiencing? Ban the guns and the UK turns into a nation of Jack-the-Rippers. Problem is not guns. Problem is stupid people.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Pht - don't turn this into an anti-gun thing. That debate is a dead horse. Care to discuss the huge surge in KNIFE killings the UK is experiencing? Ban the guns and the UK turns into a nation of Jack-the-Rippers. Problem is not guns. Problem is stupid people.


Ok, I'll go with that one. So what you're saying is that the reason there are so many gun crimes in America is that it's full of stupid people...

The fact remains, if that officer wasn't carrying a gun, it would have been impossible for him to shoot anyone.

It has to be a Taser mix up doesn't it? Surely? What could possibly be the rationale otherwise... other than perhaps him saying something that really riled up the cop and said cop has a serious issue with anger management.

If it were the Taser mixup, then surely that points to maybe that cops should have either/or, not both weapons. Too easy to make a mistake in the heat of conflict.

Having said said that...
a) He didn't even deserve a Taser... if you were to Taser someone in that situation you should be giving them every chance to stop before you fire... draw your Taser, warn them repeatedly...
b) I hate the way these news articles try to make the victim seem like a saint. I mean come on, in this situation you can't see ANYTHING that warrants being shot... but I love how they don't mention his record, or any of his prior charges. They just show pictures of him with his daughter and girlfriend.
c) The officer deserves to be locked up for a very, very long time.

>> ^Biminim:
>> ^misterwight:
Terrible indeed, but I really don't see how the same agency sans $25M will do a better job of preventing things like this in the future.

I believe it would be covered by insurance. So higher premiums, yes, but BART won't pay $25m out of pocket.


The taxpayers will end up paying some way or another.

Posted this on the other vid circulating around and posting here as well.

Well... I was a police officer long ago, I don't see any cause why that officer should have drawn his weapon, if anything he screwed up by not helping out with the physical take down. However, I watched this a few times and did notice something. Watch his left hand just as the shot is fired (the other vid has the sound of the shot), this looks like an accidental discharge.

The reason I say this is because of his left hand. His left hand looks like he was chambering the pistol which never should happen (there should always already be a round in the chamber), Semi autos should always be preloaded and you NEVER single action a double action revolver (I doubt he had a revolver). They say he is a 2 year vet of the force, but looks pure rookie to me. Also... sad but, if it was accidental, there will be pressures to not admit it, they rather fight it as a justifiable shooting, I will not explain the reasons for that as its too sad.

Total FUBAR

Looking it again, I am even more convinced the idiot was pulling back his slide, must have been a semi auto. Doing so makes no sense at all. His stupid finger was on the trigger and when the slide came forward it discharged. That's my 2 cents based on a really grainy vid.

One more thing, when you shoot, you shoot to kill. He holstered his weapon immediately, normally you would continue to cover the subject.

Had to be Accidental Discharge OR a targeted assassination (which wouldn't happen in public, wouldn't be just one shot and would not be done by a rookie)

Most police officers are good and competent people, but 20 percent or less aren't. They hold so much power and have such room for abuse with limited accountability that a few bad ones can really create enormous sickness.

I'm betting the truth will never come out, everyone will cry out murder and the dept will not admit accidental shooting unless they don't have a foot to stand on. They will come up with something to justify the shooting. That cop will be under a lot of pressure not to admit accidental discharge and certain opposing groups will be more eager to pursue this as a matter of police abuse rather than police total ineptitude.

Why am I not finding any expert opinions/analysis of this? Stuff I read in the articles I've seen so far has been total bunk.

Well, I guess I can be totally wrong of course.

last and final update: I saw some other vids from other angles, one of them had a pretty clear pic. I don't think he was chambering, I now believe that he did not properly handle his firearm. He probably has a nice little welt on the thumb of his left hand. he seemed to be a bit flustered, he tried unholstering from a sitting position which can be tricky - police holsters are designed so that they only come out at a certain angle so that someone from behind you can not take your firearm out in a grapple. I tried thinking of a scenario where I would pull my weapon in this scenario: The only thing I can think of is that during a pat down... if something was felt to be a possible weapon (we would have called out "possible signal zero"), at which point I might have drawn and covered till the search was complete. The other officers though, didn't seem very alarmed and were taken by total surprise by the shot.

I just can't see this being anything other than an accident (and total incompetence). Hopefully they tested his blood for possible intoxication and also checked his left hand.

Officer Johannes Mehserle -- The 27 year-old, two year veteran of the BART police force... shot a killed a restrained suspect in the back, lying on the ground


JOHANNES MEHSERLE who is still alive to see his child.
JOHANNES MEHSERLE who will probably not ever be convicted of his crimes.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bart, oakland, cop, police, brutality, shoot, unarmed, back, kill, oscar grant' to 'bart, oakland, cop, police, brutality, shoot, kill, oscar grant, Johannes Mehserle' - edited by joedirt

Ok, I'll go with that one. So what you're saying is that the reason there are so many gun crimes in America is that it's full of stupid people...

Correct your over-generalized phrasing and you'd be nearer the mark and less bombastic. The UK doesn't have so many knifings because its 'full' of stupid people.

The fact remains, if that officer wasn't carrying a gun, it would have been impossible for him to shoot anyone.

Ban a particular weapon and idiots will use some other weapon (as people in the UK so capably demonstrate). The 'problem' ultimately is not the weapon. It is the idiot using it. You have simply allowed yourself to mentally categorize 'guns' as bad and other stuff as 'not bad'. It is an arbitrary line based on your personal preferences, not logic.

Had to be accidental discharge...

I also after multiple viewings tend to think that is probably what happened. Stupid guy gets excited, pulls his weapon, and in his haste (or excitement) he puts his finger on the trigger instead of around the guard. In the scuffle he squeezes. The only other possible explanation I can think is that he thought he had a tazer in his hand because it sure looks like he just draws, points, and shoots. He didn't look like he was agitated.

Wrong. It could not have ever been confused with a taser.
First he puts both hands on the weapon which you don't do with a taser at 2 feet away. Also he then appears to draw back the slide with his left hand and that is when it discharges. It may have been accidental discharge, but that is from some idiot playing gangster movie gun with his semi-auto weapon. He also immediately re-holsters the gun, which rules out fear for his life.

Yeah - watching again when he pulls the weapon he has to know which one he's doing because it takes him a second or two to get it out during the semi-scuffle. No matter what taser/gun would never be near each other. His hand comes over. For what possible reason? Could only be so he could chamber, which means he was intending to prep it for deadly force. Nothing going on there justified that intention. Instead of going for his weapon he should have been dog-piling on the suspect to help immobilize him.

Winstonfield - Your pro gun arguments are lame, at best. I'm not anti-gun, but your arguments are crap. Espeically in regards to the UK, which apparently you've never been to. (oh! but those pesky knives there!!! look out!)


There's no way he could've mistaken his gun for a tazer. Tazers are about as similar to the shape and feel of a gun as a bowl of oatmeal is.

But, if he thought he was reaching for a tazer, why? He was going to just taze the shit out of a guy who was face down on the ground, trying to calm others around him, and had the weight of two cops on his back and kneck.

This video is yet another in a never-ending series of why tazers should be outlawed.

>> ^filantropo:
amateur digital video for the masses.
take that, authorities without knowledge of the present-day technocratic-free-for-all society. Huuunnn (humping gesture)


choggie.

Winstonfield - Your pro gun arguments are lame, at best. I'm not anti-gun, but your arguments are crap

Any fool can say, "Your argument is crap." It takes someone with two gangleon to rub together to prove it. Care to explain exactly WHY the argument is crap. Remember - the argument is that bad/stupid people, not guns, are the ultimate cause of violence. Now, bring forth your strong reasoning. Exactly how would guns be causing violence if the world was full of only good, thoughtful people?

A gun is a tool, like any other. A tool can make a bad/stupid person better at what they are trying to do badly/stupidly, but take the tool away and they will still do bad/stupid things. Your central posit is that if guns didn't exist, people wouldn't die of violent causes. Bollocks. Pick up a history book.

I already made my case on the other video:

EDIT: You have now just witnessed a murder. Accidental discharge, You cant accidentally discharge a weapon. You put your hand on it, you pulled the trigger, you own that baby.

Fucking executed him.

GODAMN FUCKING EXECUTED HIM.

I cant even formulate a complete thought... in my head. every time I see this ...

For any of you who say this was an accident you have to consciously make the decision to ignore the evidence of what you just witnessed.

Accident or not it was murder. Ignorance is no excuse.
Criminally indefensible.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/01/BAB9152I2Q.DTL


Ill quote this bullshit.

"The question was whether the persons civil rights have been violated"

HES FUCKING DEAD, goddammit his rights have been massively violated.


NOTE: This is not snuff, its news, and therefore does not violate the rules.
http://www.videosift.com/video/BART-Police-shooting-in-Oakland-KTVU-Report

It probably was an accident. However, the cop unjustifiably drew his weapon. He created the dangerous situation without a cause to do so. In my opinion it's manslaughter. However, he'll probably get away with a slap in the wrist.

It appears that the officer has been forced to resign from the force. The police decided that the shooting was too much to bear -- that the shooting was indefensible -- so they're not going to protect him.

If you ask me, it appears that the camera phones really worked in this case.

why was he being detained?
why did it take two officers to pin him down?
The other detainees were relatively unattended, was Oscar resisting? If so why? If not why was he getting so much attention?

*FUBAR Channel (if there was one)

Clearly we don't know enough about what happened, other than one person should still be alive to watch his little girl grow up.

=(

>> ^Trancecoach:
It appears that the officer has been forced to resign from the force. The police decided that the shooting was too much to bear -- that the shooting was indefensible -- so they're not going to protect him.
If you ask me, it appears that the camera phones really worked in this case.


to dcmisha's response -> thank you for an experienced analysis


I feel sorry for the officer. It seems that he accidentally took a life, a situation that may haunt him for the rest of his days. Actually I hope it does. Not for the reason that many people would. I don't want him punished in that way, just that it would show sincerity of character.

This doesn't excuse him from accepting accountability and responsibility for his actions. I am a disturbed by the report that they tried to gather all the video capture devices from the crowd. Perhaps I am jaded, but that smacks of the beginnings of a coverup. I would be curious what the polices official story would have been if the video hadn't surfaced for several weeks. Again perhaps I am jaded, but I expect I know what it would be.

A very bad day for many people. I'm glad it was recorded to ensure it was brought to light.

>> ^robbersdog49:
Quite simply, this is why police officers in the UK should never carry guns. They don't as a matter of course, but the family of Jean Charles de Menezes can tell you all about what happens when you give police guns.
Way to go America, guns all over the place is great hey?


Give me a nice sturdy car with a full tank of gas, and a crowded New York sidewalk and I bet I can take out more people with that than with almost any gun. Guaranteed.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Pht - don't turn this into an anti-gun thing. That debate is a dead horse. Care to discuss the huge surge in KNIFE killings the UK is experiencing? Ban the guns and the UK turns into a nation of Jack-the-Rippers. Problem is not guns. Problem is stupid people.


The problem in the UK very much *is* guns AND knives. If guns were freely available I can imagine the problem would be very much worse and we'd have the lunacy of armed police.

That said this shouldn't be construed as a pro/anti gun debate. Clearly for much of the U.S that boat has sailed.

I'm really disturbed that the cops tried to steal property/evidence to conceal the crime. They should all be charged with something.

Winston, your arguments are shaky for a number of reasons:

Care to discuss the huge surge in KNIFE killings the UK is experiencing? Ban the guns and the UK turns into a nation of Jack-the-Rippers. Problem is not guns. Problem is stupid people.

The crux of the anti-gun argument relies on the exact same premise but with a more intelligent solution: People are stupid. Therefore, don't give them guns (or knives for that matter).


The context of the argument has also change from that of policeman carrying guns, to that of the general public, which, given the context, invalidates your argument (as it is not the police who are responsible for any surge in knife killings in the UK). But to continue....

You have arbitrarily chosen the UK to gather your statistics, whereas counter statistics can quite easily be found elsewhere in the world. For an example, take a look at the recent history of mass shootings and gun death (or lack thereof) in Australia.


A gun is a tool, like any other.

On the contrary, a gun is a tool that is significantly different from most other tools in that it is intended for killing and killing alone. Compare a gun to say a car, a hairbrush or a computer and you will see that the gun is in fact not at all like these tools.

A tool can make a bad/stupid person better at what they are trying to do badly/stupidly, but take the tool away and they will still do bad/stupid things.

... yes, but less effectively.

Your central posit is that if guns didn't exist, people wouldn't die of violent causes. Bollocks.

I'm quite sure that you have exaggerated his central posit, which is this: if guns didn't exist, fewer people would die of violent causes.

Furthermore, you say:
Pht - don't turn this into an anti-gun thing. That debate is a dead horse.
... yet then promptly spark up a debate. In fact the anti-gun "thing" is not a dead horse in many of the world's states and reducing access to guns has proven very successful in some countries.

The crux of the anti-gun argument relies on the exact same premise but with a more intelligent solution: People are stupid. Therefore, don't give them guns (or knives for that matter).

The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions. In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.

Tragic as any death is, the number of accidental shootings by cops (or otherwise) is negligible. In 1997 a study was conducted by the CDC and it was learned that out of a total of 32,000 gun deaths, 54% were suicides, 41% are homicides, and the remaining percentage were accidents. A total of 2,314,000 people died in the US in 1997. Eliminating suicides, that means there were 14,720 non-voluntary deaths attributable to guns in 1997. Pick any year you want though. The numbers hold up.

So 0.63% of all US deaths were gun killings. Put that into perspective. 32,000 died from adverse reactions to prescription drugs. You are 2X more likely to die going to the doctor than from a gun. The number of people that died from taking ASPIRIN in 1997 was 7,600. Guns are 2X as dangerous as a bottle of Bayer.

Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.

I'm sure your sense of moral outrage does not extend to your glass of beer, your own vehicle, or your pack of ciggies. The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers. It is arbitrary, selective, and smacks of personal emotional opinion rather than having any basis in actual hard facts or real-world interactions. But guns are more dramatic, and therefore people with more emotion than sense find tham an easy scapegoat on which to hang thier moral outrage.

You have arbitrarily chosen the UK to gather your statistics

I did that because robbersdog said, "This is why police in the UK should never carry guns". I went to the country under discussion. No other reason.

On the contrary, a gun is a tool that is significantly different from most other tools in that it is intended for killing and killing alone. Compare a gun to say a car, a hairbrush or a computer and you will see that the gun is in fact not at all like these tools.

A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes. As VideoSift has proven, they can be the source of a lot of cool fun, hilarity, entertainment, and harmless destruction of personal property. Like a knife, the primary function is to kill or injure but like any other tool they can fill a variety of needs.

winston, find below required evidence of why your argument is crap.

MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA CITY MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9

i've had this discussion with people on videosift before and cant be bothered getting into a flame fest about it again, but feel free to private message me and i'll link you up with a bunch more data.

the US has experienced a type of urban and suburbanization that the rest of the world is not familiar with, creating populations of destitute and poorly socialized people. These factors lead to the increased joblessness, violence, drug abuse, breakdown of the nuclear family, etc. This may explain why US cities dominate ^ this list.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/08/BART.shooting/index.html

Excerpts from above link:
----------------
"Protests erupted shortly after a young man killed by a subway police officer was laid to rest in Oakland on Wednesday night...The Oakland Police Department made 105 arrests, including a mass arrest of about 80 people at 11 p.m., said Officer Jeff Thomason. The charges include inciting a riot, vandalism, assault on a police officer and unlawful assembly, he said."

"A BART spokesman has said there is more to the story than what can be seen on the grainy images"

"David Chai, chief of staff for Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, said Dellums was "out and about" in the streets Wednesday, urging protesters to exercise their frustration productively. Dellums also announced that the Oakland Police Department was conducting its own investigation into the matter."

"Thomason said Oakland police will either work alongside BART in its investigation or take the probe over, but no decisions have been made."

"District Attorney Tom Orloff told CNN on Wednesday the incident is a "pretty clear" homicide and his office will focus primarily on Mehserle's mental state before the shooting."

"The Grant family attorney, John Burris, is pushing Orloff to press criminal charges against Mehserle. Burris has also filed a $25 million claim with BART, alleging wrongful death."

"A statement Wednesday said BART "will continue to seek and examine all available evidence and will continue its full cooperation with the ongoing independent investigation by the district attorney."

End Of Excerpts
--------------------


The DA publicly stated that it was clearly a homicide - First time I have seen a DA make such a statement during an ongoing investigation. It's misleading, he didn't say "Criminal" Homicide. Obviously someone died. I think captain obvious made the statement for reasons other than stating a fact.

Pretty much at this point I would only trust an FBI investigation, the quicker they get involved the less this thing gets even more F'd up. The longer they wait the harder it will be to get clean testimonies, witnesses and evidence.

^ Riots huh?

So you're saying they actually ARRESTED people? For COMMITING CRIMES? How bizarre.

It's sickening. They arrest 105 people for protesting without any investigation. But this guy, they want to check that shit out and be sure.

>> ^sirex:
winston, find below required evidence of why your argument is crap.
MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA CITY MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9
i've had this discussion with people on videosift before and cant be bothered getting into a flame fest about it again, but feel free to private message me and i'll link you up with a bunch more data.


You quoted some statistics, and this makes his argument invalid? Then you say, "Ive had this argument before". Appealing to past arguments as though they make you right, appealing to false authority.

Link to sources, bibliography. Until then your argument is unsustainable.

Your argument, is a very gentle Non Sequitur. It has no context, other than you had this discussion with another member. Also, linking to research does nothing unless you have good thoughts to go along with your quotes. Hence the confusion I have here.

Before you attack an argument make sure that you have your sources posted. Here is what I have from a Lt. Col. Dave Grossman Army Ret. Quoted from his book, titled On killing. "Lt. Col. Grossman a former army ranger and paratrooper taught psychology at west point is currently professor of Military Science at Arkansas State University."

The statistics are in here, and found by Interpol.
http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.htm


EDIT: I do realize that your comment is flame bait.

By the way, this was really a long drawn out appeal to authority. And also a plug for the book because I think it is good!

The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions.

This paragraph illustrates how you are confused and thus mis-framing the anti-gun argument to make your argument appear strong. First you imply that the anti-gun arguments intention is to wholly prevent intentional homicide; this is quite clearly wrong - noone would argue such a thing. Then you go on to admit that the real intention of the anti-gun argument is in regards to accidental death, although you again misrepresent the argument by using the word "prevent", instead of "reduce".

So at this point you seem to basically be admitting that you've got your original argument all confused, so you introduce a new argument:

In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.

Now this is argument requires a completely different response, and I admit is more complex, but I suggest that it needs to be presented with proper grammar before it can be destroyed.



Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.

All of those things you mention (cars, drugs, ladders etc) have utilitarian benefits that in most cases could be said to outweigh the deaths they cause. Guns have few uses that don't involve killing people (or animals), therefore it is being stated that the benefits of guns do not outweigh the cons.

The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers.

On the contrary, people who argue against guns often argue against a whole lot of other dangerous things. You are creating fantasy opponents to argue against.


A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes.

Putting your argument in bold doesn't make it strong. The gun is designed with the primary purpose of killing. Other tools do not have this primary purpose (and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same.

acl123 I beg to differ on your last comment - "(and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same."

I'm not arguing purpose, but effectiveness. All weapons are effective at killing some one the end result is the same. I think the word you are looking for here is convenient, that is why gunpowder and projectile weapons caught on. Yes projectile weapons are more convenient.

My argument against your statement ends here, the rest below is my opinion.

A hammer is arguably just as effective as a gun at killing some one. One because a person is less likely to think you are meaning to kill them. After all it is just a tool, and a weapon. They are one in the same, and the duality is novel.

A ball point pen is just as effective at maiming as a hammer is. Demonstrated in the video below.

At any one moment there are an abundance of weapons, and tools at your disposal and a knowledgeable person does not discern between the two.

On a side note:
The entomology of guns, evolved from spears and sling shots. These killing tools have been around for quite some time. This has nothing to do with whether they are dangerous or not. I think its interesting how long humans have been killing each other.

People will kill each other accidentally or intentionally. That is the way it is, for now. The day that it isn't will be a great day indeed. A day that I look forward to.

@NordlichReiter So why not keep the anti-gun lobby happy and just go ahead and ban guns, since there are so many other equally effective weapons available? Hunters could go after mooses with ball point pens. The police could be armed with hammers. THe Iraq war could be fought with Minis.

Spears, cars, ball-point pens, hammers. None of those things can, from a distance, and with only the squeeze of the index finger, end someone's life.

None of them are tools like a gun.

Also, using the excuse of "recreation" is lame and pointless. Someone might particularly enjoy throwing animals off of tall buildings, but that doesn't mean it should be a protected sport.

The -only- argument for gun ownership that I can imagine valid is to protect oneself from an untrustworthy government. Honestly, I'm very conflicted on the topic. I don't think people should be allowed to buy weapons so frivolously. I just don't think most people are responsible enough to be entrusted with so much killing power.

This murdering cop was just found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It a slap on the wrist for a very obvious crime. *promote .I'll bet he does very little of the 2-4 year sentence

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by csnel3 because csnel3 is not privileged - sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#BART.27s_response

Fruitvale Station Featurette has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.