Slashdot Mirror
BART Keeps Cell Service Despite Protests
Okian Warrior writes "After taking heat from the ACLU and being hacked by Anonymous for shutting down cellphone service to four stations last week, BART kept cell service on during Monday's protests. Officials at Bay Area Rapid Transit decided Monday that cutting cellphone service to thwart another planned protest would cause more trouble than the protests themselves. Instead, four stations were temporarily closed, creating a chaotic rush-hour commute."
What a bunch of babies... dealing with protests by first cutting off people's ability to communicate, then when people get annoyed by THAT, they just shut stations completely? Then again this is an organization that looks out for its own and is not comfortable being questioned.. so not too surprising.
If I has been in charge of BART this weekend (and I was up in the Bay Area during this) I would have shut the whole courtesy BART cell phone repeater system down and told the EFF and the ACLU to take a flying f'ing leap into the bay. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about freedom of speech that says that you have to assist demonstrators in shutting down your system. BART exists to move people efficiently in a city with too many cars, too much pollution, and never enough parking. The demonstrators are a bunch of loonies who want to be part of an Anonymous based action and have no right to even be on BART's private property for that purpose. If BART directors actually had a spine that wasn't broken down by too much bending down to Political Correctness they wouldn't have these issues. This is something to be sorted out in the courts, not on the streets - unless you really want to become Egypt. Personally, I don't.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Cutting off cell service? Why? Because people never protested or rioted before the existence of cell phones?
Can someone explain the logic?
Proverbs 21:19
This has nothing to do with free speech or rights or anything.
These are well to do bored young hipsters who want to cause trouble. They are the same people that join other protests in Oakland and then rob stores of "grillz" and shoes and liquor. They aren't even from the Bay Area, and have been described as 'anarchists' coming as far away as out of state just to break and steal and vandalize.
They'd rather shut down service than allow people to freely speak their mind...
Yeah, that's what this was all about. Next time try putting brain in gear before putting hands on keyboard.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I have to agree with you. The East Coast hasn't heard about any of these incidents and as far as I can tell the issue is moot.
I lived in the San Francisco area and commuted by BART in the late '90s/early '00s, when cell phones were first becoming omnipresent among the tech crowd. On my train ride back from SF to Berkeley there were two brief periods where trains came above ground, which were marked by everyone whipping out their phones and breathlessly relaying status updates to those they were meetings. I remember thinking, "Jeez, I hope they don't put cell reception in the tunnels, this will just be insufferable." Looks like I was right!
Interesting but annoying.
From the news stories I read the person shot was said to be armed with a knife and one of the officers involved was treated for cuts. Is that not true? What is your source? In fact there is a video of him throwing a knife at the officer. A drunk throwing bottles and knives at officers in a train station where their are other passengers seems like a real threat to me. The bottle stuck to officer and the Officer fired on the man after he threw the bottle and was coming at him with a knife.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2011/07/bart-shooting-video-shows-thrown-knife-not-threat-man-posed
Frankly that data points to the officers reaction being reasonable IMHO. It isn't proof but there does seem to be some data that points in that direction and very little that points to this being an unjustified shooting.
Second where does someones rights end? Why do the protesters rights to free speech matter more than peoples rights to use public transit? The protesters set out to shut down the stations. They have every right to protest outside the stations but once they interfere with people using the station they are violating others rights.
I do not see what there is to protest about. It almost seems like vigilantly justice towards the police.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It seems so. first, their acts have become something to be afraid of from the respect of private interests, with all these leakages.
Second, their endless leaking sensitive data will make data so trivial that, there wont be any reason to hide most of what we deem sensitive today. This would remove some issues we are meeting in regard to security - like SSN numbers or similar crap being taken as proof of identity (what a stupid thought) and this leading to fraud and so on. If, it was accepted that there was no way to identify an individual for sure on the internet, then most of the crap governments and corporations pushing on us would be totally null and void, setting us free.
Read radical news here
yes because those protests were so much more effective /sarcasm
Yes, this IS what it's really about.
If you really think this was about safety, terrorism, or the limited set constitutional rights that BART officially recognizes, then you're dumber than your idiotic posts already reveal.
I think that the person you just outed is yourself. It is completely about both safety, and the rights of people who just want to get from Point A to Point B to not be made part of your demonstration against their will. Those people have rights too.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I do not see what there is to protest about. It almost seems like vigilantly justice towards the police.
This is San Francisco. That's exactly what it is.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The BART is a slow rail system for the San Fransisco Bay area, with it's very own police force that has a history of abuse, corruption, and at least arguably, murder. This has begun pissing people off so they protested by disrupting service on the BART lines, people in charge of BART decided to hamper the protestors communication by cutting power to BART owned cell repeaters in the tunnels; areas serviced directly by the cell providers' towers were unaffected. This action, not surprisingly, pissed off a great many people causing additional protests. This time, rather than cutting communication they came in and closed the affected stations, and kicked the protestors out which some people are taking as them cutting service to silence the protestors, but, considering the protestors were wandering onto the tracks and preventing trains from leaving that argument is pretty moot IMO.
Justified killing is still "violent police action". And justification is up for each and everyone to decide for himself.
Personally w.r.t. BART police killings, I think protests were in order for the Oscar Grant manslaughter (officer tried, convicted, served time), but probably not for the knife guy, even though the video clearly shows the cops shooting *after* the knife was already gone (no longer an actual threat)...
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
The safety red herring is unproven. Might as well blame them for child pron too...
As far as rights go, why not simply arrest anyone WHO ACTUALLY BREAKS THE LAW, instead of deciding all protesters must be stopped from legal protest?
And the kicker: if A->B rights are so important why close the four busiest stations in the entire system? BART is the only entity that prevent people from traveling on BART yesterday.
Second where does someones rights end? Why do the protesters rights to free speech matter more than peoples rights to use public transit?
Because the right to free speech is enumerated in the Bill Of Rights whereas public transit is not. Public transit is a locally provided service that is a convenience, one that many have come to rely on in large metropolitan areas like the Bay Area, but a convenience nonetheless. It is _NOT_ a right.
They misspoke; it's actually Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So they're bound by federal law, not constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Did you not read the headline of the story you linked? "Bart shooting video shows thrown knife, but not threat man posed."
BART police arrive on the platform in response to a call of a man being too drunk to stand. Within 30 seconds of arriving on the platform, they had shot the man to death -- apparently, for being drunk and mouthing off to police.
Apparently the man was belligerent, apparently he had a weapon, and he threw the weapon at them. What did the officers think he was -- a circus knife-thrower? Was he planning to pin the officers to the wall with knives, maybe? He was apparently too drunk to walk straight, so maybe he was planning to do that with his hand over one eye?
But hold on -- according to the story you linked, the man wasn't considered a threat because he threw a knife at police. He threw a bottle. I'd hardly call that a threat to the officers' lives. They say the bottle cut them. Well, show me the hospital report or boo fucking hoo.
But let's say he did throw a knife. Is that when you decide you have no recourse but to shoot a guy -- after he's thrown away his weapon? If he'd just tossed it down on the ground, presumably they would have still screamed "he's got a knife!!" and shot him?
But no -- the truth is, according to the very story you linked, the suspect didn't even throw the knife until after the officer shot him. If a belligerent police officer came out of nowhere and started shooting at you -- remember, police had arrived on the platform less than 30 seconds ago -- might not you also try to to defend yourself?
How did any of this happen? Did the officer not have time to say "halt"? Or "drop your weapon"? The drunk man, who was reported as being too drunk to stand and too drunk to walk straight, was such a threat to the officers' lives that even though they were armed and wearing body armor, as soon as they him, they realized they had just 24 seconds to shoot him dead?
And perhaps the most pertinent question: Why did they choose their firearms instead of their tasers? When Johannes Mehserle murdered Oscar Grant by shooting him in the back while Grant was face down on the ground and handcuffed, Mehserle's excuse was that he mistook his firearm for his taser. Many, many law enforcement experts came forward to say that this was highly unlikely, as officers are required to keep their taser and their handgun on opposite sides of their bodies. Mistaking the two would be tantamount to mistaking your own left hand for your right. Now this other officer chooses to draw his handgun and use lethal force on an inebriated suspect, while his taser sits in his holster, unused. That's an interesting coincidence, don't you think?
I've always thought it was interesting, too, that BART police officers seem to carry 2-3 extra magazines on their belts when patrolling trains. Just how many shots do they expect to have to get off on an occupied train or inside a subway platform, anyway? 45?
Might it not be that BART police training encourages officers to use their firearms as the first line of defense? And that BART needs to answer to this pattern of behavior by its police force? But that it chooses not to answer, because its police force is not answerable to any city's mayor or city council, and in fact is answerable to no organization but BART itself? And therefore the public's only real recourse is civic unrest?
I'm just floating the possibility out there.
Breakfast served all day!
Second where does someones rights end? Why do the protesters rights to free speech matter more than peoples rights to use public transit? The protesters set out to shut down the stations. They have every right to protest outside the stations but once they interfere with people using the station they are violating others rights.
The police would be well within their rights to arrest people found to be breaking a law. However, they're not allowed to prevent people from assembling or exercising their free-speech rights, even if they suspect that these will lead to crimes being committed in the future.
The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. You don't have a right to public transit, that is a privilege. Please check the constitution.
Actually, the right to free speech in this case would be #14 (Federal) or #2 (Constitution of California). Parts of the bill of rights have been incorporated via Amendment #14.
In any case, you're right, there's no constitutional right to use the subway, though SCOTUS has recognized a right to interstate travel, and one could argue that blocking access that blocking access to interstate travel might be held to violate that right.
Article I of the Constitution of California enumerates protected rights, oddly it doesn't cover travel, though it might be elsewhere in the constitution.
-- I'm not a lawyer, and I live in NY
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
I have no question that the drunk threw a bottle, and perhaps a knife. It may have even cut an officer. They had every right to get physical with him and to arrest him. Summary execution was not, however, a reasonable response.
Lethal force is really only justifiable where there is a genuine threat to life that cannot be mitigated through retreat. For example, they could have backed off and come back in body armor. Or they could have backed off and turned a firehose on him. Or tasered him. Or thrown their clubs at him. Or even goaded him into throwing his remaining knife leaving him unarmed. Or they could have just waited for him to trip over his own feet and fall on his own knife. They could have even used the same snare pole animal control uses on large dogs.
I don't get this modern trend of cowardly cops resorting to lethal force (and wetting themselves) every time someone says boo. It's not only a disgrace to the profession, it's a danger to the public they're supposed to protect. There are times when lethal force is called for and many more where it is not. If they can't tell the difference, they are in the wrong profession.
Grr. I accidentally posted this as an AC. Here's your context:
Two years ago BART PD shot and killed an unarmed, handcuffed man on the platform[1] of the West Oakland BART Station. White cop, black detainee. It California, if not the rest of the US, it's extremely rare for on-duty police officers to be charged with felonies surrounding shooting deaths. The police officer was tried, and convicted of involuntary manslaughter with a "gun enhancement". The judge threw out the "gun enhancement" and sentenced the police officer to the minimum amount of jail time required by law.
Two months ago BART PD shot and killed a man on the platform of Civic Center BART Station[2]. This time the deceased was a white man. BART PD alleged that he was drunk, aggressive, had a knife, and had already thrown a bottle at one of the police officers. BART has released security video of the situation which, unfortunately, doesn't seem to clarify much[3]. Witnesses at the scene claim that the man was not acting aggressively[3,4], and that the man's actions did not warrant the use of lethal force. There is, apparently, some dispute as to whether the man had a knife in the first place.
Last week, there were rumours swirling around about protests scheduled for Thursday regarding this latest shooting. In response, BART preemptively shut down their cell phone repeaters in the San Francisco portion of the subway[5]. This raised the ire of Anonymous[6], who obtained and subsequently released user information (names, addresses, passwords, telephone numbers) from BART's myBART.org site[7,8].
That's about as succinct as I can make the current tensions surrounding BART PD.
Meanwhile on the streets of San Francisco:
In January, SFPD shot an aggressive, knife wielding, wheelchair equipped man in the leg[9]. He was shot with a beanbag gun and subsequently dropped his knife. Allegedly the act of dropping his knife was considered further aggression, so SFPD shot him with a gun. He survived and is now suing the city[10].
In July, SFPD shot a man running away from SF MUNI fare inspectors. Allegedly he shot at SFPD, and police officers returned fire[11]. He died. People protested[12]. The latest twist is that the deceased in this case accidentally inflicted the lethal wound upon himself[13].
So, yes, there's a lot of tension in the BART system and in San Francisco right about now.
Add to the mix that there's a general sense of BART dragging their feet in releasing footage and being less than transparent and, yeah, people get more pissed. Throw in a side of pimping a child and allegedly murdering a pregnant woman, and yeah, some people feel very strongly that the latest SFPD shooting was justified. And, yeah, there's there's a lot of tension both between the public and the police as well as within the general community at large.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police#Passengers_killed_by_the_department
3: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/charles_hill_bart_shooting_vid.php
4: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/charles_hill_identified_as_man.php
5: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/13/national/a110904D55.DTL
6: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/14/BAH71KN6CK.DTL
7: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011
The revolution will be mocked
Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to a phone?
The police report says the man had 2 knives and a broken bottle. 1 knife and 1 bottle had been thrown and the man was advancing towards them with the second knife in hand when they put three shots into his chest.
What isn't clear from the report or the video available:
How far away the guy was when they resorted to lethal force, could be considered important considering at least one of the officers was armed with a taser.
Where bystanders are in relation to the threat, was a man with a knife a bigger threat than firing a weapon on a crowded train platform?
Just how drink the guy was. Granted, throwing a knife isn't as easy as the movies look, but either the guy was pretty far away or very drunk based on the lack of accuracy on his throw (missed by a good 4 ft). I'd find it harder to believe a man who is falling down drunk is a legitimate threat
Thanks for your summary which makes things a lot clearer.
Apparently the man was belligerent, apparently he had a weapon, and he threw the weapon at them. What did the officers think he was -- a circus knife-thrower? Was he planning to pin the officers to the wall with knives, maybe? He was apparently too drunk to walk straight, so maybe he was planning to do that with his hand over one eye?
That would be a lot of thinkin for a person to be doing in a split second while a knife is flying at them. And it's worth noting that there were people behind the officer in that video that might have been hit with a knife. Risk own life and others on assumption that crazed drunken bum doesn't have another knife and won't get lucky, or shoot? My first instinct would probably be to shoot too.
You make an excellent point about training though. First move should be to their tasers. Cops have a duty to not shoot first and ask questions later.
It's more like this:
The objective of the BART group is to run the trains, safely and on schedule.
A train station is a dangerous place during a protest. Protests, being large relatively immobile crowds have the possibility of pushing people into places where they shouldn't be. Between an enclosed space causing crush problems, the electrical lines for the trains, and the trains themselves, I wouldn't want to be in a train station during a protest.
Probably they decided to shut down the stations for two reasons: So that nobody would get hurt (which would then be blamed on BART's response) and so that hopefully the protesters would get bored and leave sooner so they could resume service.
That would be a lot of thinkin for a person to be doing in a split second while a knife is flying at them
I hear you, but you missed one point: The knife was not flying at them. The officer shot the guy first, then he threw the knife.
If you read other accounts, there was some other Keystone Cops type stuff, where the guy threw the bottle, liquid spilled out of the bottle, and one of the officers slipped on the liquid and fell on his ass. That was when the second officer drew his weapon and reportedly fired two seconds later. If you read between the lines, it sounds like a pair of poorly trained, less-than-competent officers felt like they were losing control of a situation (with a crazy drunk, no less) and freaked out.
I mean, come on... this is who they were up against. And that photo isn't a mugshot, it's his driver's license photo. That's what he used to look like when he went to the DMV. In all honesty, I don't even know you, but I'm pretty sure you could take him.
Breakfast served all day!
This is a Bay Area centric issue. Deal with it.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Well, a quick summary...
BART (short for Bay Area Rapid Transit) is the mass transit system for San Francisco and surrounding cities -- think of it as like the Subway in New York, or the Underground in London, or the Mass Transit improvement you build in Civ to restore the one one city health penalty you lost when you made that coal plant.
A group of people decided to protest the BART security shooting a drunk guy who was trying to attack them with a knife. BART, which runs repeater cell stations so that people who ride it can use their cell phones, initially responded by disabling that cell network to prevent protestors from coordinating their efforts to block the trains from running by climbing on the tracks, but later gave in and kept it enabled.
They did not run trains on the stations where protestors blocked the tracks, as that would have killed the protestors, but the protestors and some commentators here are angry they still ran the other trains, I think. I'm not clear on this part, to be honest.
> large relatively immobile crowds have the possibility of pushing people into places where they shouldn't be. Between an enclosed space causing crush problems, the electrical lines for the trains, and the trains themselves
Sounds like any rush hour at Montgomery station to me...
Yes I did see the head line. It said that it didn't show the threat that the man was.
No hospital report but this news story. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/04/bart-shooting-san-francisco-transit-officers_n_889934.html
First line of defense?
The officer was already hit by a bottle? You don't think that being hit by a bottle isn't life threatening? Ask someone to shit you with a bottle sometime. These are not movie props.
There where innocent people in that station including a child. Yes I know was thrown it was visible in the video or did you watch it? They also found a second knife at the scene. As I said vigilantly justice. No investigation needed and looks like you didn't bother to watch the video.
And I will make this statement. There was NO NEED TO PROTEST AT ALL! There hasn't even been an investigation yet! The Officer may have made an error but if so it was a very understandable human error and not a cold blooded killing! I suggest you watch the video and see how fast this all happened. I doubt that it will change your mind since you seem to have feel no need to question the mob.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You mean the crazy guy with a knife?
Yes he looks scary as hell to be honest. Also do you have any sources for your keystone cops story?
I suggest you look at the video again.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I am expressing my desire to go someplace. They are restricting my freedom of expresion.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Wow what about the other people at the station? Really? That isn't summary execution. This guy threw a bottle at an officer and then pulled a knife! Taser maybe but did the office that shot have a taser or was the one hit by the bottle have the tazer. Did you even watch the video I linked too?
A guy throwing a bottle at you and then pulling a knife in a station with innocent people is far from saying Boo.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
About 2% of my cell phone usage is talking, the rest is web browsing and texting, neither of which make any noise. I don't think I'm that unusual of a cell phone user in that respect. Also, people who talk to other people on the train can be loud even when not on the phone. As a person who spends about 1 hour a day on subways and feel it would be nice if more of the major urban train systems in this supposedly first-world country had cell or even wi-fi access. I think we can survive the occasional loud caller.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Actually, I have. And while it's nice to be able to watch Youtube, listen to Google Music and read Slashdot on the train, I'd frankly rather have the peace and quiet. One shouldn't be SO ADDICTED to technology that one cannot go an hour twice a day without it.
Why are people presenting the false dilemma of having either no cellular service or station/service interruptions?
"Protesters" have zero right to vandalize websites or physical property, steal personally identifying information, or cause service disruptions. They should expect to be caught when CCTV and cell records are subpoenaed & should look forward to felony conspiracy charges.
These demonstrators were doubly stupid because they alienated people who agreed with them. The transit union and mayor came out against the cell shutdown, as did many riders. Why infuriate those who agree with you? But just because the messengers are in the wrong does not mean their message is.
BART is not a private company that can do whatever they please. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates BART, and BART is partially funded by taxes. The public (and the transit union) have been supportive of cell phone coverage due to the safety benefits they bring (this was particularly true after people learned of the cell use during 9/11). I'm unconvinced that cell shutdowns disrupt protesters so much that it is worth losing this piece of mind. Any communications disruption has real financial costs & nobody has shown the math that shows those costs were lower than alternative actions that could have been taken.
BART receives $6.7M a year in telecommunications revenue ($2M from cell service). You take that away because you cut service & you have to make it up some how. That'd be a 2% fare hike (not including FCC-imposed penalties or fees for breaching the telecom contracts).
They had tazers. Nobody was in any way concerned about anything until the cops inflamed the situation. None of the passengers seemed at all frightened until the cop drew his weapon. You're not at all concerned about bullets hitting bystanders?
I did watch the video and see no reason anyone but a craven coward would actually fear for their life there. (at least until the cop started shooting, endangering pretty much everyone present).
And no, that's not really much more than saying Boo when the guy is wobbly drunk.
The girl with the scooter was clearly a lot more afraid of the gunfire than the drunk, and she was right. Perhaps they would have been better off asking her to take care of it.
I'm not saying I agree with either side, but I have to say BART's strategy is clever. They're making regular citizens angry at the protesters that make them wait for hours to be able to go home by forcing the closure of the main 4 stations in San Francisco, hence hurting their cause.
To do list for Windows
The right to free speech has minor limits. The right to free speech does not allow you to trespass inorder to exercise that speech.
Free speech is limited for matters of immediate public safety. You cannot falsely yell fire in a crowed theater.
Similarly, BART explicitly restricts civil protest in the BART system. Train platforms can be dangerous places when crowded and tempers flare. BART also restricts eating and drinking, both activities that we also have natural rights to.
Since BART is very crowded during rush hour. Any tussle between police, protesters or others (including irate commuters) could result in people being pushed onto the tracks, electrocuted by the third rail or run over by an approaching train. BART has a public obligation to maintain order and safety within the system.
The protesters have been allowed to protest and speek their message outside the stations, their right to speech has not been violated.
The story about the officer slipping and falling to the ground was from the article I linked above, the one with the pic of the homeless guy.
Breakfast served all day!
Somehow I think you missed the point entirely with that red herring. Just a gut feeling.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Yes he looks scary as hell to be honest.
Aw, maybe you have to live in the Bay Area. I see guys who look like that every day. He looks pretty desperate, if you ask me. Our streets are crawling with crazy drunks, addicts, homeless, and the mentally ill. I'm sure the guy was acting pretty erratically, but if you read reports, nobody on the platform ever felt particularly endangered. It's an everyday thing out here.
More to the point, though: Would I personally want to try to detain this man and physically restrain him? Hell no. I'd leave that to trained law enfo... oh, wait.
On the other hand, if regular citizens were allowed to carry firearms, and I was on that BART platform and I had a handgun on me, would I have approached that man and shot him stone dead? Somehow I don't think so.
In less than half a minute, these two officers managed to escalate a drunk-and-disorderly call to a violent episode that ended in a fatality. I wouldn't categorize this as a murder -- not like Oscar Grant or Kelly Thomas. But a wrongful death? Very possibly. And at the very least, BART must answer for the actions of its officers, and "thank you for your interest, but we have decided we did nothing wrong" isn't going to cut it.
People want to act as if these protests are over the actions of two police officers. They're not. It's too late to take back what those two officers did. What the protests are about are the policies and practices of BART Police, and BART's ongoing unwillingness to address the matter or even discuss it. BART Police are not city, county, or municipality cops. They are part of the BART organization. So to send a message, protestors disrupted the operations of BART -- a perfectly logical move, if you ask me, when the goal is to get the attention of whoever manages and oversees BART Police.
BART's answer so far has been to escalate the whole situation into a media circus in an attempt to distract attention from its own culpability in these matters. In so doing, it has drawn a lot of negative attention to itself -- so I'd say the protests have been fairly effective.
Breakfast served all day!
You'd be surprised. Most of the people trying to get home had no idea what was going on. Embarcadero Station is the northernmost San Francisco station in the BART line. It's also the most heavily used, and in the heart of downtown SF. Nobody freaking knew. Civic Center station is near Union Square, the heart of tourist country. Most of the tourists didn't know what was going on either.
Despite comments from the peanut gallery on sfgate.com indicating otherwise, my experience was that the people who knew what was going on were the ones that had taken to the streets. People were, and still are, angry over the seemingly trigger happy attitude of BART PD. I reiterated the timeline as objectively as possible (see grandparent) for a few people including a couple of Canadian tourists. The tourists' very first reaction was "couldn't they just have arrested the [drunk] guy instead of shooting him?"
What was interesting to me was that there didn't appear to be a lot of outside agitators. In Oakland, during the unrest surrounding the Oscar Grant trial, much, if not all, of the looting and vandalism was perpetrated by people coming in from outside of Oakland to raise hell. Hell, in Brixton, and likely a number of other towns where the recent rioting took place, many of the instigators drove in for the purpose of raising hell. Not only did San Francisco not burn, but many of the people I talked to were either tourists or people who had lived and/or worked in the city for decades.
C'est la vie.
The revolution will be mocked
"They made us choose between people's ability to use their mobile phones (and) their constitutional right to get from point A to point B." -- quote from BART ...
It's lawyerin' time.
Well, maybe not. I'd guess that the reason they decided to leave the cell towers alive during later protests is that some lawyers already talked to them. The standard scenario to bring up in a case of cell-tower shutdowns is: What if there's a medical emergence such as a heart attack or stroke, people pull out their phones to call 911, can't get service, and the victim dies? As soon as people learn that you shut down the local cell phone system intentionally, they'll fire suit against you before the story even hits Google News.
It's trivially easy to find discussions of just this scenario. Just google the obvious phrases, and you'll find thousands of stories about it. Performance venues like concert halls tried blocking cell phones for a while, but hardly any of them still do this out of fear of just this sort of medical event.
BART's management probably just got it though their thick skulls that they will be held responsible for deaths that result from their blocking cell phones. Free speech has nothing to do with it; it's more a fear of being charged with criminal negligence that leads to deaths.
(Though I'm a bit doubtful about the use of the term "negligence" to refer to intentionally closing down a public communication channel. Usually "negligence" means failing to do something that you should have, not intentionally doing something that you shouldn't. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
San Francisco has a lot of crazies, and sorting out the harmless ones from the dangerous ones is hard. Here's one case. A guy in a wheelchair was slashing the tires of city vehicles with a rock. He was apparently shot by cops with a beanbag gun, and he and one cop were taken to a hospital with non-lethal injuries. There's video from someone across the street. Excessive force? Perhaps, but subduing someone with a sharp object without getting cut is very tough.
Here's another case, of a known mentally ill woman shot in her home after threatening a social worker. This probably was excessive force; the cops could have waited for backup from the guys in heavier protective gear.
Here's the aftermath of the shooting the protests are about. This doesn't seem to have been a crazy, but a parolee from Portland who ran from cops after trying to ride a bus for free and being caught at it. Whether he had a gun remains an open question.
The SFPD is at best a mediocre department. NY and LA have really tried to clean up their act, but SF hasn't.
Re:isn't it illegal to shut it off ?
Maybe because it has become part of a critical service ? ie call 911 ?
It's easy enough to find thousands of discussions of just this scenario, by googling the obvious key phrases. But I haven't actually found any clear evidence that courts have dealt with this in a coherent fashion. The obvious reasoning would be that, before we had cell phones, a medical emergency that led to a death would just be an "Act of God", but once we had technology to prevent the death, intentionally blocking a 911 call would become negligent homicide or something similar. But the question arises: What have the courts actually said? (And is calling 911 a case of Interfering With God's Will? ;-)
I've been told by a number of people who operate concert halls and other such public gathering places that they stopped blocking cell phones out of fear of just such an emergency scenario. But they haven't told me about actual prosecutions of people who did such things. It'd be useful to know whether this is an unfounded fear or not. Can businesses intentionally block communication channels in their vicinity, or will they be held legally responsible for the results of interfering with a 911 call?
Are there any lawyers that could give us pointers to the appropriate laws and/or court decisions in a case like this? It could be really handy to be able to trot out a list of links in such discussions, to tell people what the current state of the law is.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
And where was the Keystone cops comment?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"Aw, maybe you have to live in the Bay Area. I see guys who look like that every day. He looks pretty desperate, if you ask me. Our streets are crawling with crazy drunks, addicts, homeless, and the mentally ill."
And you do not find an armed crazy drunk, addict, or mentally ill person worthy of concern? I would say that you have an under developed sense of self preservation.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
And you do not find an armed crazy drunk, addict, or mentally ill person worthy of concern? I would say that you have an under developed sense of self preservation.
I probably wouldn't know he was armed. For all I know, they're all armed. Until the cops showed up, this guy's only crime was being drunk. I don't find that worthy of concern, no. It was the cops' job to do something about it, though, and they did it in a way that escalated almost immediately to fatal violence.
Breakfast served all day!
The right to free speech doesn't oblige any other party to provide a transmission/distribution service, nor force anyone to listen.
Blocking legitimate travellers isn't speech, it's an action.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They could have just waited for him to find Jesus or sober up. And if he'd killed or injured an innocent person in the meantime that'd just be tough luck, would it?
P.S. Really smart idea - spraying water around near high voltage lines.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Okay, but there are two issues here: protesting and blocking cell service. It sounds like the argument is, "Protesting on the platform is dangerous, so we are going to block cell service." I'm trying to understand how blocking cell service keeps people from protesting, or makes the protest safer. It might keep people from texting, "Hey, come join our protest," but if the protest is organized outside the BART station, I don't see how blocking cell service prevents the protest from taking place, or makes the protest venue more safe.
Proverbs 21:19
Somehow how I don't remember BART being mentioned in the First Amendment. Did it really say we have the right of peaceable assembly except where BART prohibits us?
So now we can protest, but only through speech and not through action? Is BART a private entity, or an extension of the government?
Saftey is unproven? Are you nuts? An underground train station, with limited space, limited egress, trains moving through, and high voltage. Sound pretty safe to me, too.
Look, I'm all for everyone getting their say, but saftey comes first.
I go cross-eyed every time someone says how egregious it is that BART cut off the cell phone service. I'd like to have cell service in my underground train system. I rather suspect, BART took note of the recent London riots that were flamed by idiots with their cell phones and didn't want a repeat in their expensive facility. Cell services isn't a god given right. As a commuter, I'd be annoyed there was no service, but furious a bunch of people want to deny me my ride home.
So, the original intent was to protest someone being killed by the BART police. Why not protest outside the BART offices then? The communters didn't have anything to do with it.
Finally, if you're going to stand on the escollator, do it on the right. The left side is for walking.
The firehose is no more dangerous than spraying hot lead around innocent passengers, now is it?
You haven't provided even a vague reason why they shouldn't have used the tasers both were armed with rather than immediately jumping to lethal force.
As for the rest, REALLY? It was better to kill someone than tell a couple passengers to stand back (as if they weren't already). PLEASE stay away from any position where life and death decisions might have to be made! You're apparently very bad at it!
Keep in mind, overly fearful and trigger happy cops eventually will kill a child with a toy gun (or nearly any other mis-identified object).
.
Safety risk of protest unproven. Show me the bombs, molotov cocktails, etc. They didn't exist and BART police knew this.
As far as "underground train station, with limited space, limited egress, trains moving through, and high voltage" this applies whether or not one is a protester, so maybe they should shut down BART entirely, due to "safety".
The whole idea of public protest is to be seen, and they selected the site of the incident. Maybe you should suggest that they protest in the closets of their own homes?
Finally, once you get off the escalator, please move the hell away from it, as others are about to be slammed into you. (I see this as a greater risk at Montgomery station).
Lethal force is really only justifiable where there is a genuine threat to life that cannot be mitigated through retreat.
Most sane, rational places retreat is not required any longer. Of course, SF may be neither sane, nor rational. All that is required is that the person properly believe that there is a threat of injury or death to them or others. You can (stupidly) come at me with a penknife that you claim is not going to actually kill me and I can shoot you anyway. It doesn't have to be life or death for me in that situation when I have the pistol.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Nobody was in any way concerned about anything until the cops inflamed the situation.
Congratulations for the absolutely stupidest statement in this entire discussion.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
than spraying hot lead around innocent passengers.
You clearly know nothing about guns or firearms training now, do you? For starters, the lead or other alloy used has not picked up significant heat, and they weren't shooting at the passengers. No one else was injured, but I'm sure that you consider that just a lucky coincidence now, don't you?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yes, actually. Unless you're using an immense amount of lead, it isn't going to make contact with innocent (i.e. not throwing knives) people and conduct high voltage electricity through them.
Water from a high pressure hose can travel a long way, and not necessarily in the original direction it was pointed.
You, of course, do it hundreds of times a day without ever making a false positive or a false negative.
Don't see how that follows from a situation where someone is actively deploying a lethal weapon and meets someone with a lethaller[1] one.
But anyway, sounds like an argumentum infantibus if ever there was one.
[1] is too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
GP is referring to the Bill Of Rights. What does it say?
How is that relevant?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
it's just after the bit about "...peaceably assemble, and whine on their shitty blogs".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm glad you have the right to basically say "Fuck the Bill of Rights!" in your last comment. I'm glad I have the right to say "Fuck you!" Even if they're whiners, we need to protect their rights so we can have beautiful, illuminating conversations like this. Or maybe you prefer countries where they don't even pay lip service to the idea of equality under the law.
GP is referring to the Bill Of Rights. What does it say?
I would suggest that peacable assembly included in the list of things the government can't outlaw means that some actions are protected with speech.
How is that relevant?
Some are suggesting that BART can restrict anything, because it is a private entity, and that BART stations are private property - and I am making the point that BART is acting as an extension of the government, so for BART to be restricting free speech and peacable assembly IS the government doing the same.