The newpaper business is in bad shape. If the CC Times ever has to fold it's tent, we will all be the lesser for it. Why so hard on the Times? You say they are biased?
Please provide name of any entity you can think of in this part of the world .... besides Mother Teresa .... who isn't. And actually she was unfairly supportive of poor people - so forget her too.
Did I mention the closure of the Times and the consequential demise of our dear Tom925, and Chewy et al ..... will also be regrettable. :)
This guy Gibson was a drunk 5150 W&I in clear violation of section 647f and 415PC. 415PC is what is commonly known as "disturbing the peace". The corpus of 415PC (elements of the crime) state that anyone who uses words likely to produce a violent reaction or challenges to fight in a public place is guilty of this misdemeanor CA Penal code section. If the misdemeanor is occurring in the presence of a peace officer or private citizen that officer or citizen can effect an on-view arrest of the responsible. The minute that Bart officer touched Mr. Gibson he was under arrest!!!
Now the video CLEARLY shows (whether you slow it down or not!) when the Bart officer moves Gibson toward the wall to pat search him and handcuff him, GIBSON CLEARLY swings at the window with his right arm breaking the window. Theorectically he is also guilty of the misdemeanor crime of 594PC (vandalism) if it is proven that he did this intentionally.
In closing, THIS WAS A ROUTINE ARREST that police officers all over the country are involved in EVERYDAY! Mr. Gibson is lucky that some other person perhaps MORE crazy than he obviously is, didn't hurt him real bad before the Bart officer intervened!
in my previous post. Finally somebody wants to do something about idiots like this in our midst. The only surprise is the 314P.C. Charge (indecent exposure) I wasn't aware that type of behavior had been incident to this case. It's time for the D.A.'s office to set an example for this type of disregard for people's right to live in peace, free from intimidation or confrontations with losers like this Gibson fellow.
Since you mentioned it, what's your take on a "citizens arrest" encounter with a law breaker? During your experience, how often did it work? And how often does the citizen regret he ever got involved in the first place?
If I "arrest" some kid tagging my fense, and he is bruised while I try to restrain him from escaping ...... I'm going to jail correct?
First a brief curbside criminal justice seminar. Police cannot make arrests for misdemeanors unless they are committed in their presence or as the term goes, on viewed. So often times these crimes HAVE been witnessed by citizens who have the option of making a citizens arrest. This does not necessarily mean the citizen has to PHYSICALLY take custody of the responsible and in most cases this would not be a good idea. Police should be summoned to the location and they will effect the detention at which time the citizen will verbally advise the responsible that they are placing them under citizens arrest for whatever crime has been committed. The citizen then signs a C/A form that the officer includes with his/her arrest report that is forwarded to the D.A. for filing of charges. The citizen must agree to participate in that charging by agreeing at a later date to meet with a deputy D.A. to assist in the prosecution.
A typical scenario where C/A's are commonplace is in shoplifting cases. Store security personnel are typically not sworn peace officers and so they effect C/A's on shoplifters.
Re: "getting involved", that's the theme of this issue! Too many people are reluctant to put out the effort to get involved and this type of behavior continues unchecked. In this society ALL of us should consider ourselves as part of the police mission. The most important resource a street cop can ask for is an observant and committed citizen that wants to help keep the community safe. This does'nt mean citizens should be expected to chase down criminals and become involved in physical altercations or use of lethal force. What it means is being additional "eyes and ears" for your local law enforcement agency. There are way too many apathetic types in our communities that don't want to do their part to help keep our communities safe.
In closing Chew, I would say to you, be careful and never put you or your family's physical well being in jeopardy, but If you are confronted with a situation as you descibed just use common sense and try to be objective and do the "right thing"!
I can see that the criteria involved in making a C/A is sufficently fuzzy enough to elude common sense. Before you take on an encounter, one should check with a lawyer or at least a para-legal.
You mentioned the physical danger which is a great concern, but the great unanswed question is the potential for civil damages against a person trying to do the right thing.
The good police officer who stopped the bi-polar drunk from harming the public and did his job superbly - will now probably get sued. And he is a police officer, so what's John Q Public suppose to do with this thing called C/A? It looks good in legal print - but appears to have very little practical real world value in most instances.
I fear many times, it will be one persons word - against anothers. And the person doing the right thing doesn't have the resources to defend himself as does the Police department.
of a guy like John Burris. Once he reviews the video carefully and reads the witness statements and actually interviews this loser I predict he will walk on it in a heartbeat, it is a non starter lawsuit wise.
Hopefully you understand from my previous post that C/A's should only involve the citizen as a witness/victim who provides the probable cause for the physical arrest which is performed by a police officer. In felony crimes a police officer can make an arrest if he/she has probable cause to believe that the arrestee committed a felony whether in the presence of the officer or not. A misdemeanor requires the crime to be committed in the presence of the officer or a citizen in order for an arrest to be made. You should also know that misdemeanor arrests also don't require the officer to physically book the responsible into jail, the responsible can be issued a citation to appear in court and released at the scene.
Most of us who ride BART regularly agree that unruly people are a real and growing problem. What we don't understand is why we have to have BART police officers with six figure salary and benefits, and 90% early retirement , who are seldom present in BART stations and on BART trains when the same money would pay for three or four times as many security guards like the LA Metro has and who do a much better job than the overpaid underworked BART cops.
Wednesday, 11/25/2009 - 2:29 a.m. PST — Move to LA
Jeff94553
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 128
If LA knows how to do it right with their transit cops; Move! You'll be happy with your "rent a cops" that have to call the real police whenever the crap hits the fan (OR a REAL arrest needs to take place) and we'll be happy that people like yourself that moan about the cost of protecting the public are gone.
I think you and Livermore Mike would make great roommates in LA-LA land!
worn out debate. If you understand the civil liability that attaches to depriving people of their freedom through physical detentions, you will clearly see that type of function needs to be initiated by well trained, sworn peace officers that understand the law and the constitution as it applies to keeping the peace. It is what I call "false economizing" to put poorly trained and screened people in place to make these calls. In the end the agency that these people work for end up accumulating more costs through the civil suits that they will generate because of poor decisions. Hell, look how much trouble can be created when you in fact have what society considers to be competent people handling this responsibility and law suits still occur, you don't even want to know what kind of litigious landslide could and would occur with wanna be cops functioning as security guards. There is a reason they are not cops instead and that is because they don't make the "cut"!!
You are without a clue. BART officers have several stations that they are responsible for. In law enforcement this is called a beat. Just like its impossible to station a city cop on each and every single solitary street corner in America, it is also impossible to station a BART police officer inside each and every BART station every minute of every single day.
I think channel 7 got it right last night when they said if the window had not broken no one would have noticed this arrest at all. The real victims here are all of us that his family (who are taking zero responsibility for getting him any help, but sure are seeing dollar signs now) turned this person loose on knowing that he had violent and irrational outbreaks.
Posted on Tuesday, 11/24/2009 - 9:25 a.m. PST — by JayJ
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 147
Worst newspaper ever.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 147
These left-wing reporters are just drooling for a chance to convict another cop in their paper.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 2215
Are dying and they know it. The WWW has taken away their bias power. It is a new time and theirs is over and they dont even know why..............
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1391
The newpaper business is in bad shape. If the CC Times ever has to fold it's tent, we will all be the lesser for it. Why so hard on the Times? You say they are biased?
Please provide name of any entity you can think of in this part of the world .... besides Mother Teresa .... who isn't. And actually she was unfairly supportive of poor people - so forget her too.
Did I mention the closure of the Times and the consequential demise of our dear Tom925, and Chewy et al ..... will also be regrettable. :)
Regards Chewy
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 541
This guy Gibson was a drunk 5150 W&I in clear violation of section 647f and 415PC. 415PC is what is commonly known as "disturbing the peace". The corpus of 415PC (elements of the crime) state that anyone who uses words likely to produce a violent reaction or challenges to fight in a public place is guilty of this misdemeanor CA Penal code section. If the misdemeanor is occurring in the presence of a peace officer or private citizen that officer or citizen can effect an on-view arrest of the responsible. The minute that Bart officer touched Mr. Gibson he was under arrest!!!
Now the video CLEARLY shows (whether you slow it down or not!) when the Bart officer moves Gibson toward the wall to pat search him and handcuff him, GIBSON CLEARLY swings at the window with his right arm breaking the window. Theorectically he is also guilty of the misdemeanor crime of 594PC (vandalism) if it is proven that he did this intentionally.
In closing, THIS WAS A ROUTINE ARREST that police officers all over the country are involved in EVERYDAY! Mr. Gibson is lucky that some other person perhaps MORE crazy than he obviously is, didn't hurt him real bad before the Bart officer intervened!
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 541
in my previous post. Finally somebody wants to do something about idiots like this in our midst. The only surprise is the 314P.C. Charge (indecent exposure) I wasn't aware that type of behavior had been incident to this case. It's time for the D.A.'s office to set an example for this type of disregard for people's right to live in peace, free from intimidation or confrontations with losers like this Gibson fellow.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1391
Since you mentioned it, what's your take on a "citizens arrest" encounter with a law breaker? During your experience, how often did it work? And how often does the citizen regret he ever got involved in the first place?
If I "arrest" some kid tagging my fense, and he is bruised while I try to restrain him from escaping ...... I'm going to jail correct?
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 541
First a brief curbside criminal justice seminar. Police cannot make arrests for misdemeanors unless they are committed in their presence or as the term goes, on viewed. So often times these crimes HAVE been witnessed by citizens who have the option of making a citizens arrest. This does not necessarily mean the citizen has to PHYSICALLY take custody of the responsible and in most cases this would not be a good idea. Police should be summoned to the location and they will effect the detention at which time the citizen will verbally advise the responsible that they are placing them under citizens arrest for whatever crime has been committed. The citizen then signs a C/A form that the officer includes with his/her arrest report that is forwarded to the D.A. for filing of charges. The citizen must agree to participate in that charging by agreeing at a later date to meet with a deputy D.A. to assist in the prosecution.
A typical scenario where C/A's are commonplace is in shoplifting cases. Store security personnel are typically not sworn peace officers and so they effect C/A's on shoplifters.
Re: "getting involved", that's the theme of this issue! Too many people are reluctant to put out the effort to get involved and this type of behavior continues unchecked. In this society ALL of us should consider ourselves as part of the police mission. The most important resource a street cop can ask for is an observant and committed citizen that wants to help keep the community safe. This does'nt mean citizens should be expected to chase down criminals and become involved in physical altercations or use of lethal force. What it means is being additional "eyes and ears" for your local law enforcement agency. There are way too many apathetic types in our communities that don't want to do their part to help keep our communities safe.
In closing Chew, I would say to you, be careful and never put you or your family's physical well being in jeopardy, but If you are confronted with a situation as you descibed just use common sense and try to be objective and do the "right thing"!
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1391
Thanks for the info Tmacoo.
I can see that the criteria involved in making a C/A is sufficently fuzzy enough to elude common sense. Before you take on an encounter, one should check with a lawyer or at least a para-legal.
You mentioned the physical danger which is a great concern, but the great unanswed question is the potential for civil damages against a person trying to do the right thing.
The good police officer who stopped the bi-polar drunk from harming the public and did his job superbly - will now probably get sued. And he is a police officer, so what's John Q Public suppose to do with this thing called C/A? It looks good in legal print - but appears to have very little practical real world value in most instances.
I fear many times, it will be one persons word - against anothers. And the person doing the right thing doesn't have the resources to defend himself as does the Police department.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 541
of a guy like John Burris. Once he reviews the video carefully and reads the witness statements and actually interviews this loser I predict he will walk on it in a heartbeat, it is a non starter lawsuit wise.
Hopefully you understand from my previous post that C/A's should only involve the citizen as a witness/victim who provides the probable cause for the physical arrest which is performed by a police officer. In felony crimes a police officer can make an arrest if he/she has probable cause to believe that the arrestee committed a felony whether in the presence of the officer or not. A misdemeanor requires the crime to be committed in the presence of the officer or a citizen in order for an arrest to be made. You should also know that misdemeanor arrests also don't require the officer to physically book the responsible into jail, the responsible can be issued a citation to appear in court and released at the scene.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 150
Most of us who ride BART regularly agree that unruly people are a real and growing problem. What we don't understand is why we have to have BART police officers with six figure salary and benefits, and 90% early retirement , who are seldom present in BART stations and on BART trains when the same money would pay for three or four times as many security guards like the LA Metro has and who do a much better job than the overpaid underworked BART cops.
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 128
If LA knows how to do it right with their transit cops; Move! You'll be happy with your "rent a cops" that have to call the real police whenever the crap hits the fan (OR a REAL arrest needs to take place) and we'll be happy that people like yourself that moan about the cost of protecting the public are gone.
I think you and Livermore Mike would make great roommates in LA-LA land!
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 541
worn out debate. If you understand the civil liability that attaches to depriving people of their freedom through physical detentions, you will clearly see that type of function needs to be initiated by well trained, sworn peace officers that understand the law and the constitution as it applies to keeping the peace. It is what I call "false economizing" to put poorly trained and screened people in place to make these calls. In the end the agency that these people work for end up accumulating more costs through the civil suits that they will generate because of poor decisions. Hell, look how much trouble can be created when you in fact have what society considers to be competent people handling this responsibility and law suits still occur, you don't even want to know what kind of litigious landslide could and would occur with wanna be cops functioning as security guards. There is a reason they are not cops instead and that is because they don't make the "cut"!!
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 3
You are without a clue. BART officers have several stations that they are responsible for. In law enforcement this is called a beat. Just like its impossible to station a city cop on each and every single solitary street corner in America, it is also impossible to station a BART police officer inside each and every BART station every minute of every single day.
Joined: Oct 2007
Current Posts: 766
I think channel 7 got it right last night when they said if the window had not broken no one would have noticed this arrest at all. The real victims here are all of us that his family (who are taking zero responsibility for getting him any help, but sure are seeing dollar signs now) turned this person loose on knowing that he had violent and irrational outbreaks.