Is this a good resolution to what may have been murder?

First, the intro, also known as "why the fuck didn't I hear about this until nine months later".

Warning: Disturbing.

The resolution: the officer resigns without further criminal liability, and the city pays the family a mil and a half. The aformentioned Justice Department action linked here.

Fair? Or not?

Regrettably, these results are probably the best one can hope for when a police officer kills someone. That the guy actually got fired is quite something; I'm guessing because he was a newbie, it was pretty damn obvious, and it was all caught on tape.

Of course, likely he will get hired by another PD and the world will still have someone with that degree of poor judgment with a badge and gun.

0. Warning? Good
1. Drawing gun? Good.
2. Fire 4 shot in the back? Really bad.
I think between 1 & 2 there was suppose to somehow get a confirmation on that he actually managed to snap up the message, and perhaps a warning shot.
From a layman perspective this is murder.

What. The. Fuck.

Put that SOB away, I don't care if he's a newbie or what, that guy just killed a man for no reason.

edited 26th May '11 7:12:56 AM by CommandoDude

Going by what I remember in criminal justice, the officer was unjust in shooting the suspect. He wasn't explicitly threatening anyone (or armed, for that matter) and wasn't given enough time to respond. Going by my gut, the officer should be imprisoned for manslaughter at the very least.

edited 26th May '11 7:35:37 AM by KitsuneInferno

My initial estimate is that he should be jailed. Possibly charged with murder.

This reminds me of the case of Ian Tomlinson, when a policeman battered an innocent bystander to a protest who was walking home and died of his injuries. The police officer involved was charged with manslaughter, and I think that's what should apply here.

edited 26th May '11 7:44:29 AM by pagad

Inbeforeheathensaystheyallneedtobekilled.

But yeah, that was straight out murder.

Yes, youtube video, I am outraged. That was murder almost no question. I didn't even know it was illegal to carve wood on the street. He should get some kind of murder/manslaughter charge! What was with them like trying to handcuff him, and asking all the cops if they were okay after the guy was dead?! Geez, people are crazy...

This is exceedingly depressing. Especially since I know a few of the homeless guys around here who sell their art instead of panhandling.

"Diversity training" my ass. You don't even pull a gun on someone for having an incredibly common tool, especially not when he's visibly using it on something perfectly acceptable. I mean fuck, you could do almost as much damage with a pencil as a whittling knife.

edited 26th May '11 11:54:41 AM by Pykrete

Well, the other cops were just following SOP. Anytime somebody gets shot that's whats supposed to go down. I think.

From what I can tell the other cops did what they were supposed to, as they didn't know at the time whether the guy was threatening people or not.

I'd say the disturbing warning should go at the top, it's not the video that's bothering me, it's the concept that caused it.

The cop should have been put on trial. Period.

Under Canadian law that is at the very least manslaughter, I would push for second degree. It's sad that we didn't learn about this till now, what the fuck was more important? Trump's fucking not-run for president?

I'm amazed this didn't get before a criminal court, whatever the verdict might have been. I note that the key action wasn't caught on the video, but there were clearly witnesses. Scary.

1.5 million? They ought to triple that.

And make every single police officer in the city write a note of apology to their citizens that such a homicide occurred on their watch. They failed in their duty.

We cant know what it was without getting the officer's side of the story. The video isn't much help, since the shooting takes place offscreen. We can hear the officer giving his command, then shooting, but we dont know what the victim did.

From the article:

The eight person jury was split on the decision.

Also, note this:

So it may yet go to trial. But the answer to the question in the thread title is "Not yet."

I hope it goes to trial and the murderer never, ever sees the light of day again.

Anyone wonders whether there'd be a trial if it was the other way around? This is preposterous. The guy should get nailed for first degree murder.

De Marquis: We do not need "evidence", because it already exists.
The gun was SHOT in the back. The forsensic should also show that.
And unless it is a case of the media "doing shit for giggles and cash", the current evidence tells us that the cop is DID not do anything he should have done.
You do not under any circumstances shoot 4 shoots at a person, and hit him in the back, without it beingbackstabbing. You shot 1 warning shot. The random bullet movement be damned.

I partially disagree. If a cop decides to shoot at someone he's decided to kill him. Firearms should not be discharged without intent to kill; I think the risks of firearms discharge are too great to ever use them in other circumstances; I don't think much of warning shots, due to the risk to bystanders etc.

It's permissible to shoot someone in the back if they are endangering someone's life.

What's important in this one, I think, is not the mechanics of the shooting but the lack of plausible justification for it. The video and eyewitness testimony are pretty convincing that nobody was in danger, that the man in question was not threatening anyone, and that all he did "wrong" was not comply instantly with the cop's demands.

For all we know he might've.

Probably not, but four seconds seems like a pretty short time to figure out how to put a knife down in the most non-threatening way possible, and than do so.

What I want to know, is if this guy was a rookie, why didn't he have a partner?

edited 26th May '11 2:24:42 PM by HungryJoe

And at least one of the articles mentioned he was deaf in one ear.

I bet all of this could be avoided if the police officer had turned his lights on, or honked his horn.

@del: I'm not saying I agree with the cop in this particular instance, but it should be obvious that your standard is impractical when applied to the police. If a murderer is running away, the police have always been empowered to shoot them, even in the back.

@blueharp: which illustrates the danger people with disabilities face when encountering the police, doesn't it? Whether sensory impairment (making it harder to know what the officer wants), physical impairment (making it harder to quickly comply) or mental impairment (making it harder to comprehend the situation) — all those things could get you killed by a jumpy cop, as we see here.