As a resident of the bay area and someone who has used BART many times, I have to say that something went woefully wrong here and we should not indict the entire agency for the acts of a single individual.
There will be no winners in this case.
From the videos I have a hard time...
- Seeing any threat that would justify lethal force.
- Seeing a threat that would justify tasing the shooting victim.
- Believing the officer thought he reached for a taser.
- thinking the officer couldn't tell his duty weapon from a taser.
- Believing the officer actually meant to shoot/kill the subject.
At the end of one video the officer steps back after holstering his gun and raises his hands towards his head as if reacting to "Oh crap! What did I do?" At least it appeared so to me.
In the arrest, I could not see sufficient reason for even tasing the man on the ground. He was not entirely cooperative, but I did not see severe resistance that would warrant either taser use or the use of baton strikes to get compliance. Nor could I see any immediate threat that would warrant either tasing or lethal force.
Now...because I couldn't see it on a jerky, somewhat dark cell phone video does not mean a threat or justification did not exist. But I sure can't see one.
I'll give an example. The deceased was apparently talking on his cellphone at the time. His wife claims to have heard the gunshot over the phone. So, if we suppose a
Bluetooth headset, it may be that his cellphone was in a pocket (right front or right rear). We can see the potential for error if the subject's right hand is still free and the officer sees
a rectangular man-made object protruding from a pocket and the subject's hand appears to be reaching for it. Some cellphones when viewed from the back side, being black or dark "charcoal", may be mistaken for the grip of a firearm. One can then see the error leading to a tragedy.
But many people today carry cell phones of all sizes, shapes and colors. These are not uncommon devices nor unexpected items to find upon a person. At best, it becomes an error in identification and judgement that could render this an involuntary manslaughter case.
Yes, I'm one of those who thinks tasers are over-used and used in inappropriate situations. However, tasering someone who looks to be reaching for a
potential weapon is not excessive. But the officer reaches for the wrong side of his body, has to draw from a level-3 holster and does not fire immediately, but a second or so afterwards.
It's too early for people to really riot as they did tonight. The officer still has
his rights, including the right to resign and the right to remain silent. We should let the process continue until we see what the D.A. and investigation recommend.
I forsee a minumum charge of 192(b) Involuntary Manslaughter. Punisment for 192(b) is up to 1 year in the county jail or 16 months or 2 or 4 years in state prison.
More likely, the D.A. will start with an initial charge of 2nd degree murder and let the defense argue for involuntary manslaughter. Lacking any evidence that the officer had any intent to kill or seriously injure the deceased, the manslaughter charge is probably correct. By the time the case is tried, if he gets a 3-year sentence with one year credited for "time served" he'll spend a year in prison.
But the rest of his professional life is ruined. It is also likely that his marriage will end in divorce and a civil suit will still tag him with tens of thousands of dollars of debt.
That's why I said
there will be no winners in this case. 
