Unarmed Man shot by Amtrak Police

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
CSXfoamer1997 said:
It wouldn't surprise me if the officers lost their jobs!
Click to expand...
That would be understating the situation. The police are there to protect our rights not to violate them. This appears to be a case of unnecessary use of lethal force. The victim may have been doing drugs, he might have been rude, uncooperative, but this doesn't justify the right to kill an unarmed man who is retreating. As in the article, the officer is being charged with first degree murder and if convicted will spend many years in jail. The bad news is that the taxpayer will be paying for this horrible mistake.
 
neroden said:
I think it's time to disarm the police, like they did in England. (They still have "armed response teams" for specific incidents where they know they will encounter people with guns.) There are too many of these killings by police. Take away the temptation to kill by taking away the guns from most of them.
Click to expand...
The reason the police in England could go unarmed is that if any member of criminal undertaking carried a gun, everyone in the gang would hang.
 
We haven't hanged any one for many a year and the majority of our cops still don't carry guns, although tasters and CS gas are now carried as standard in many forces
 
ScouseAndy said:
We haven't hanged any one for many a year and the majority of our cops still don't carry guns, although tasters and CS gas are now carried as standard in many forces
Click to expand...
Yes, but at one time the black cap was a very stylish accessory for British judges. Petty criminals knew that carrying a gun meant a death sentence.
 
BCL said:
California Penal Code 830.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=830.33.&lawCode=PEN

830.33.

The following persons are peace officers whose authority extends to any place in the state for the purpose of performing their primary duty or when making an arrest pursuant to Section 836 as to any public offense with respect to which there is immediate danger to person or property, or of the escape of the perpetrator of that offense, or pursuant to Section 8597 or 8598 of the Government Code. Those peace officers may carry firearms only if authorized and under terms and conditions specified by their employing agency.

(e) (1) Any railroad police officer commissioned by the Governor pursuant to Section 8226 of the Public Utilities Code, if the primary duty of the peace officer is the enforcement of the law in or about properties owned, operated, or administered by the employing agency or when performing necessary duties with respect to patrons, employees, and properties of the employing agency.

..............
Click to expand...
Thanks but quoting the whole thing wasn't really necessary. I think I misread your original statement about enforcing state and local laws. At any rate, these days, about the only state and local offense, which does not have a corresponding Federal felony, is an expired parking meter. So, for almost any state law, there's some Federal counterpart. (e.g. Robbing a convenience store => interference with interstate commerce)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that if someone is unarmed, officers should use taser guns, not bullet guns. Taser guns, when used on you for less than 5 seconds, will just shock you.
 
The problem is, in many situations you don't know someone is unarmed. If someone is instructed to freeze, or show their hands, reaches into their waistband and you see a silver object, you can not wait to decide it's a cellphone. You have reason to believe your life is threatened. However, that is very different than firing at a fleeing person where it does not appear that person was involved in a serious crime. All of us should probably wait until more details come out.
 
Don Newcomb said:
Thanks but quoting the whole thing wasn't really necessary. I think I misread your original statement about enforcing state and local laws. At any rate, these days, about the only state and local offense, which does not have a corresponding Federal felony, is an expired parking meter. So, for almost any state law, there's some Federal counterpart. (e.g. Robbing a convenience store => interference with interstate commerce)
Click to expand...
There aren't a whole lot of federal traffic laws. Their preference is also going to be to find something straightforward rather than stretch some federal law to apply to a case. The ability to enforce state laws on land controlled by the federal government is codified by the Assimilative Crimes Act. They will actually prosecute violations of state law in federal court.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-667-assimilative-crimes-act-18-usc-13
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First degree murder is an absurd charge for this crime. Unjustifiable homicide (this is certainly that) and a murder of a human being with purpose and malice aforethought are different. I have read a variety of news articles on this and have seen no evidence that this crime meets anything close to the burden required for first degree murder.

For one thing, it was just one shot. One shot from a pistol at the distance mentioned being fatal is unlikely, unless the shooter was a marksman. Gunshot wounds are generally nowhere near as deadly as people think they are. I'm not justifying the shot, just pointing out that hitting and killing this suspect is partially bad luck on the officers part- although he is responsible for all of it because he pulled the trigger. This isn't like a number of cases where the officer (who is often not criminally sentenced) discharged a clip into the guy.

I applaud a jail sentance for this crime, which is a crime, to set an example to police officers of all kinds that there are consequences for unnesscary uses of potentially lethal force. But first degree murder is just bughouse- unless there is a lot more to this story than I have seen on any news site.

Which really brings me ultimately to my point. There is a lot of excess police brutality in this country, and it is distinctly aimed at the lower class, minorities, and the young. My sister was the subject of more than a fair share of police interest as a teenager (although thankfully never physically abused or shot) largely because she drove a loud car. And I don't like that.

But I am also tired, beyond tired, of these kinds of forum arguments. I wasn't there for this altercation. We do not know what the victim did during the entirety of the course of events that may have lead more credence to this particular officers actions in this particular case. Not full justification, no question on that count. But enough to maybe take the fangs, horns, and pointed tail off our mental drawing of this officer.

I'm not explaining away our national issue with both crime and over zealous officers. Discussing that topic in and of itself, in the appropriate forum, that doesn't bother me.

But sitting there, in your limited knowledge, from clearly biased and incomplete (not to mention conflicting!) news media reports of the event, and talking about what must have happened, and what was right or wrong, or the motivations and fears in each persons heads is patently absurd.

Here's what we know: a unarmed black male youth who was transferring between megabus, consumed illegal drugs on Amtrak property, and became involved in a chain of events between himself and an Amtrak police officer that concluded in said officer firing one shot at said youth that was fired and hit said youth in the back at a distance considerably greater than point blank range, which eventually perpetuated said youth's death.

I can't imagine a circumstance that fully justify the shot. I do know that a police officer who thinks he is in danger (reasonably or otherwise) sometimes does the wrong things without malintent. (And some officers certainly do the wrong things with malintent!) And I think we have a problem with the frequency of this type of action in this country that must be addressed. But I don't know what happened here fairly enough to be judging it to the extent all of you are, at least not yet.
 
Don Newcomb said:
ScouseAndy said:
We haven't hanged any one for many a year and the majority of our cops still don't carry guns, although tasters and CS gas are now carried as standard in many forces
Click to expand...
Yes, but at one time the black cap was a very stylish accessory for British judges. Petty criminals knew that carrying a gun meant a death sentence.
Click to expand...
The Rack was a more popular weekend entertainment in the town square back in the days I am told. :D
 
George K said:
Cop charged with 1st degree murder:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amtrak-officer-charged-shooting-death-unarmed-minneapolis-man-n722606
Click to expand...
If the statements in the lawsuit are correct -- and who knows whether they were -- that is the correct charge. Not necessarily for "malice aforethought" but for felony murder.

The killer cop is accused of chasing the victim -- basically going outside his jurisdiction -- after the victim had left the station; threatening the victim (assault); demanding to conduct an illegal search (a felony); and then shooting the victim in the back. So the cop was in the midst of committing a felony when he killed the victim. That's first degree murder under most state laws, though I don't know if the prosecutors will make the felony murder case. If you disregard the felony, then it's still at least second-degree murder (which is killing without intent to kill but with with intent to injure).

The fundamental issue here: Peace officers are supposed to de-escalate situations. In this case it seems clear that the officer deliberately escalated the situation, repeatedly. If you actually look at the way common law crimes traditionally are judged, escalating a fight is almost *always* criminal; the law also encourages de-escalation. Once the victim had de-escalated by leaving the station, the officer's sworn duty was basically to let it go. Instead, he decided to harass, follow, and murder the victim.

How *are* they training cops today? Don't answer that, I already know: far too many of them are getting deranged courses in violent esclalation and murder -- there was a NYT article on it a few months ago. There's a sense in which I don't blame the *mistrained* cops. I blame the evil jackasses who are training them wrong.

Some articles on police mistraining:

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/police-training/490556/

http://fusion.net/story/350091/cops-shooting-kill-america-largest-police-training-exercise-urban-shield/

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law-enforcements-warrior-problem/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/police-687589-training-officers.html

I can't currently find the link for the *one specific guy* who has been pushing a racist, shoot-first set of "police training" courses all over the country, who is personally responsible for an awful lot of this. (There actually is one specific guy who is promoting this sort of violence in his money-making for-profit set of courses.)

This is what *ought* to be happening:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/10/new-style-of-police-training-aims-to-produce-guardians-not-warriors/

In some cities we may be able to fix the mistraining simply by mayoral or city council action.

Even with proper training there will still be bad apples, and they have to be removed before they spoil the whole bunch. So it is still absolutely critical for killer cops to be removed from the force, and blacklisted from all future police jobs. Preferably by sending them to prison, but that's not absolutely necessary. The only major department I know of which has prominently fired multiple crooked and abusive cops and left a public record to prevent these bad guys from being hired again is Sheriff Urquhart of King County, Washington.

By contrast, when cops protect violent criminals within their own ranks, they become nothing more than a street gang which should be eliminated with extreme prejudice. Some police departments appear to be completely 100% rotten and should probably be disbanded; one small city in New Jersey which had had continuous problems with police abuses actually *did* this (giving the state troopers law enforcement power in the city). Doing this in Baltimore would be harder but is probably necessary. New York City actually disbanded one set of corrupt police by starting a brand new department to shut them down back in the late 19th century, so there is precedent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since this case involves an Amtrak PD officer, I would be interested specifically in the ongoing issues (if any) relating to that department, not policing in the US in general. The quality of local PDs varies widely both in training, and management Other than the occasional gripe about improper questioning of a photographer, most law enforcement beefs on this board relate to actions by local pd or other federal agencies. Does APD issue the types of reports that some PDs do? (like # of firearms discharges, specific types of arrests, etc)

For reference, the Illinois first degree statute includes the following as one of its possible criteria for the charge:

Knew that the act created a strong probability of causing death or great bodily harm;
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In many bad police shootings, the department neither removes the officer, nor does the jurisdiction tend to charge the officer with a crime. The fact that the Amtrak PD is not blue shielding this incident speaks volumes about the departments general culture.
 
Green Maned Lion said:
In many bad police shootings, the department neither removes the officer, nor does the jurisdiction tend to charge the officer with a crime. The fact that the Amtrak PD is not blue shielding this incident speaks volumes about the departments general culture.
Click to expand...
And to be clear, says VERY GOOD THINGS about the general culture at Amtrak PD.
 
Green Maned Lion said:
In many bad police shootings, the department neither removes the officer, nor does the jurisdiction tend to charge the officer with a crime. The fact that the Amtrak PD is not blue shielding this incident speaks volumes about the departments general culture.
Click to expand...
While he is a federal officer, the prosecution is by the state (in the form of the DA). I don't know if they would give more deference to the officer's actions if he were a local or state officer.

I also find it odd that he was a former Amtrak engineer. I guess they have preference for existing employees and it's probably a better paying job. I've heard of non law-enforcement park rangers who got into law enforcement because it was considered a good career move.
 
BCL said:
Green Maned Lion said:
In many bad police shootings, the department neither removes the officer, nor does the jurisdiction tend to charge the officer with a crime. The fact that the Amtrak PD is not blue shielding this incident speaks volumes about the departments general culture.
Click to expand...
While he is a federal officer, the prosecution is by the state (in the form of the DA). I don't know if they would give more deference to the officer's actions if he were a local or state officer.

I also find it odd that he was a former Amtrak engineer. I guess they have preference for existing employees and it's probably a better paying job. I've heard of non law-enforcement park rangers who got into law enforcement because it was considered a good career move.
Click to expand...
No way is it a better paying job than engineer.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top