On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:09:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> The problem with the "I thought it was my Taser" defense is that
> any cop could claim such a defense in any shooting. If a defendant
> makes a statement that is information-free in the sense that any defendant
> could make the same statement, the jurors should ignore it and should
> be instructed to ignore it.
>
> I'm guessing the Taser Corporation salesmen are now telling their
> cop customers that they need to always carry a Taser so they
> can use the Taser Defense.

For me, there's the larger issue of BART police carrying firearms in
the first place. WHY???

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:09:50 +0000 (UTC),

>> I'm guessing the Taser Corporation salesmen are now telling their
>> cop customers that they need to always carry a Taser so they
>> can use the Taser Defense.

>For me, there's the larger issue of BART police carrying firearms in
>the first place. WHY???

I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

My proposed solution to that is to get rid of BART parking lots
as well.

Steve

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:

> >For me, there's the larger issue of BART police carrying firearms in
> >the first place. WHY???
>
> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

I haven't heard that. Where did you hear this? I looked at the BART
web site:

http://www.bart.gov/about/police/history.aspx

In 1969, three years before BART opened for revenue service, the transit
district's board of directors recommended that local police and
sheriff's departments patrol the stations, trains, rights-of-way, and
other BART-owned properties that were within their respective
jurisdictions. The police chiefs and sheriffs, forecasting that BART's
proposal would create jurisdictional disputes and inconsistent levels of
police service, rejected the board's proposal. As a result, legislation
was passed to form an autonomous law enforcement agency, the BART Police
Department.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel > wrote:

> (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
>> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
>> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
>> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

>I haven't heard that. Where did you hear this? I looked at the BART
>web site:

>http://www.bart.gov/about/police/history.aspx

>In 1969, three years before BART opened for revenue service, the transit
>district's board of directors recommended that local police and
>sheriff's departments patrol the stations, trains, rights-of-way, and
>other BART-owned properties that were within their respective
>jurisdictions. The police chiefs and sheriffs, forecasting that BART's
>proposal would create jurisdictional disputes and inconsistent levels of
>police service, rejected the board's proposal. As a result, legislation
>was passed to form an autonomous law enforcement agency, the BART Police
>Department.

Yes, well, transit agitators assert that 90% of the BART police
spend has to do with parking lot security, and I personally
believe it. The next guy they shot after Oscar Grant was
in the parking lot at Fruitvale station.

I live near North Berkeley station and go through there at
night all the time. You always see several cops in the parking
lot, and you never see them in the station itself. (Although
at other stations in the system, you are more likely to see
a cop in the station proper or on a train going through.)

Steve

In article >,
Steve Pope > wrote:
>Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
>>> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
>>> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
>>> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.
>
>>I haven't heard that. Where did you hear this? I looked at the BART
>>web site:
>
>>http://www.bart.gov/about/police/history.aspx

(quote snipped)
>
>Yes, well, transit agitators assert that 90% of the BART police
>spend has to do with parking lot security, and I personally
>believe it. The next guy they shot after Oscar Grant was
>in the parking lot at Fruitvale station.
>
>I live near North Berkeley station and go through there at
>night all the time. You always see several cops in the parking
>lot, and you never see them in the station itself. (Although
>at other stations in the system, you are more likely to see
>a cop in the station proper or on a train going through.)

True dat.

Although whenever I've seen someone being really harassed on a train there
*was* an officer waiting on the platform at the next station. Those
little call boxes got results.

Charlotte
--

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

Why? I don't see armed guards in regular parking lots.
>
> My proposed solution to that is to get rid of BART parking lots
> as well.

Get rid of BART parking lots and you'll put more people back on the
roads. People drive to the parking lots because there is poor public
transit from their home to the station.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC),

>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
>> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
>> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
>> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

>Why? I don't see armed guards in regular parking lots.

I am not an adherent of this argument, I am just saying this
is the argument cop-types are promoting.

>> My proposed solution to that is to get rid of BART parking lots
>> as well.

>Get rid of BART parking lots and you'll put more people back on the
>roads. People drive to the parking lots because there is poor public
>transit from their home to the station.

If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
system would have the same ridership it does now.

Steve

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:53:01 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
> system would have the same ridership it does now.

Huh. I would have bet that you'd be in favor of getting as many
riders as possible off the bridges and onto BART.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:53:01 +0000 (UTC),

>> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
>> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
>> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
>> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
>> system would have the same ridership it does now.

>Huh. I would have bet that you'd be in favor of getting as many
>riders as possible off the bridges and onto BART.

Yes, and the way to do that is to build high-density housing near
BART stations. That makes people less dependent on their cars.
Building parking lots merely enables that depedency.

S.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:01:57 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:53:01 +0000 (UTC),
>
> >> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
> >> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
> >> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
> >> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
> >> system would have the same ridership it does now.
>
> >Huh. I would have bet that you'd be in favor of getting as many
> >riders as possible off the bridges and onto BART.
>
> Yes, and the way to do that is to build high-density housing near
> BART stations. That makes people less dependent on their cars.
> Building parking lots merely enables that depedency.
>

We need those parking lots and could use more.


--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

In article >,
Steve Pope > wrote:
>sf > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:53:01 +0000 (UTC),
>
>>> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
>>> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
>>> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
>>> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
>>> system would have the same ridership it does now.
>
>>Huh. I would have bet that you'd be in favor of getting as many
>>riders as possible off the bridges and onto BART.
>
>Yes, and the way to do that is to build high-density housing near
>BART stations. That makes people less dependent on their cars.
>Building parking lots merely enables that depedency.

No, it acknowledges realities on the ground in areas served by most BART
stations in the East Bay: much of the existing housing stock is either
poorly served by public transit or not served at all since the streetcar
lines got ripped up and thrown away. Another reality on the ground is
that a lot of people transport children to/from school or day care. And
getting people to drive to a station and take the train from there gets
them off the damn freeways just the same and reduces the time their
vehicle is operated.

Anything I've seen being redeveloped in the general area of a BART station
is coming in as high-density and mixed-use. It's not just Berkeley; when
I was interviewing out in Deepest Suburbia near the Pleasant Hill station,
there were HD condos being built on an adjacent lot.

I'm just far enough away from a station that I appreciate the "park"
option when it's raining, I'm in formal clothing, or my knee is gimpy. It
also helps to have the car when I'm pretty tightly scheduled. That is,
when my work trip is BART-able; which hasn't been a given. My last 3
jobs were decidedly not.

Charlotte




--

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:53:01 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
> system would have the same ridership it does now.

That's tongue in cheek, I hope. Everybody who rides BART and wants to be
green must live in BART housing units?

Shirley you can't be serious?

This thread is getting too juicy to hang around much longer.

-sw

On 8/12/2010 8:53 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC),
>
>>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
>>> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
>>> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
>>> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.
>
>> Why? I don't see armed guards in regular parking lots.
>
> I am not an adherent of this argument, I am just saying this
> is the argument cop-types are promoting.
>
>>> My proposed solution to that is to get rid of BART parking lots
>>> as well.
>
>> Get rid of BART parking lots and you'll put more people back on the
>> roads. People drive to the parking lots because there is poor public
>> transit from their home to the station.
>
> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
> system would have the same ridership it does now.

So you're saying that the people who now drive would all abandon their
current domiciles and relocate to those buildings?

You really seem to be missing the point of a transportation system.

J. Clarke > wrote:

>On 8/12/2010 8:53 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

>> If you replaced the parking lots at North Berkeley, Ashby, MacArthur,
>> El Cerrito, etc. with 20-story apartment/condo buildings of
>> the same footprint as the existing parking lot, all the people
>> living in those buildings could then ride BART to work. The
>> system would have the same ridership it does now.

>So you're saying that the people who now drive would all abandon their
>current domiciles and relocate to those buildings?

>You really seem to be missing the point of a transportation system.

You're not taking a long enough point of view. Part of transportation
planning, an important part, is to build housing near transportation,
something California has historically failed to do. (Although
there is finally a state law requiring this.)


Steve

On 8/12/2010 8:33 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC),
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
>> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
>> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
>> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.
>
> Why? I don't see armed guards in regular parking lots.

BART cops are cop cops, not security guards who have to call the cops
when something bad goes down.

>> My proposed solution to that is to get rid of BART parking lots
>> as well.
>
> Get rid of BART parking lots and you'll put more people back on the
> roads. People drive to the parking lots because there is poor public
> transit from their home to the station.

Yep. This is one that Amtrak got wrong. If I want to take the train to
New Haven, my choices are to buy a ticket a week in advance, drive 20
miles the opposite direction and park in a downtown commercial lot,
drive 20 miles the opposite direction, buy a ticket, then drive another
30 miles to a station with a parking lot but no ticket service, or pay a
premium for buying the ticket on the train. By the time I've done all
that driving around I could be halfway to New Haven and by the time I've
paid the ticket, parking and gas to do the driving around I'm not saving
anything anyways.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:09:50 +0000 (UTC),
>
>>> I'm guessing the Taser Corporation salesmen are now telling their
>>> cop customers that they need to always carry a Taser so they
>>> can use the Taser Defense.
>
>>For me, there's the larger issue of BART police carrying firearms in
>>the first place. WHY???
>
> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary,

Why? There's more crime in and around BART property than in the Mission.
They are like regular police officers. They had already been in two prior
incidents earlier in the evening involving guns, and that not unusual.

What are the cops supposed to do any time perps have guns? Put their hands
up and get face down on the ground and say, "Have a Nice Day!"? Tghsoe
will be really effective cops.

-sw

Sqwertz > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary,

>Why? There's more crime in and around BART property than in the Mission.
>They are like regular police officers. They had already been in two prior
>incidents earlier in the evening involving guns, and that not unusual.

I agree a police force is in general necessary. What I object to
is all the individual empire-building police forces in the country,
each with its own jealously guarded turf. Transit cops, school cops,
port cops, railroad cops (did you know Southern Pacific runs
its own sworn police force?).

In a situation like the New Years Eve incident where they shot Grant,
you have a BART police force that feels it needs to prove itself
during its one big crowd event of the year. This leads to a mindset that
led to a major problem. If instead is was simply under the jurisdiction
of Oakland or Alameda County cops, you do not have that sort of
psychology, or you have less of it anyway.


Steve

On 8/13/2010 1:41 AM, Steve Pope wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary,
>
>> Why? There's more crime in and around BART property than in the Mission.
>> They are like regular police officers. They had already been in two prior
>> incidents earlier in the evening involving guns, and that not unusual.
>
> I agree a police force is in general necessary. What I object to
> is all the individual empire-building police forces in the country,
> each with its own jealously guarded turf. Transit cops, school cops,
> port cops, railroad cops (did you know Southern Pacific runs
> its own sworn police force?).

So what's the railroad supposed to do? Stop at the county border, let
off one set of cops and board another? Or just go without the services
of any law enforcement officer until after the passengers get raped,
robbed, and murdered and the perp has long since scarpered?

> In a situation like the New Years Eve incident where they shot Grant,
> you have a BART police force that feels it needs to prove itself
> during its one big crowd event of the year. This leads to a mindset that
> led to a major problem. If instead is was simply under the jurisdiction
> of Oakland or Alameda County cops, you do not have that sort of
> psychology, or you have less of it anyway.

So what happens when the train moves from one county to another?

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:41:45 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> In a situation like the New Years Eve incident where they shot Grant,
> you have a BART police force that feels it needs to prove itself
> during its one big crowd event of the year.

One? Every Giants, A's, Raiders, and Bears game was a pretty major BART
event. And after the games were always pretty nasty. I assume this is
still so - probably even moreso - but it's a been a while since I attended
a game on BART. Berkeley and Oakland cops would be spread pretty thin for
a lot of those games.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:

> What are the cops supposed to do any time perps have guns? Put their hands
> up and get face down on the ground and say, "Have a Nice Day!"? Tghsoe
> will be really effective cops.


"Stop, or I shall yell stop again"

--
Mort