Fruitvale Station

by Idéfix Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:41 am

Just watched this new movie. It is a compelling film based on the true story of the police shooting of Oscar Grant, an unarmed young black man at a BART station in Oakland, CA in the early hours of New Year's Day 2009. The movie opens with a cell phone video shot by a bystander of the moments before the policeman shot the unarmed Grant, who was lying face down on the station platform. The movie then chronicles the life of the young man on the day before he was killed, which also happened to be his mother's birthday. Michael Jordan played Oscar powerfully, and Melanie Diaz did a fantastic job as his girlfriend. The film won several awards, including at the Cannes and Sundance film festivals.

The small theater I watched the film at was full to the last seat, and the audience was highly engaged in the film. At the end of the film, when the fate of the police officer was mentioned, the crowd booed, and some people shouted, "injustice!" The policeman was sentenced to two years in prison, and was released after serving eleven months. As we left the place, a group handed out flyers about a rally against police brutality.

Definitely worth watching!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fruitvale_station/

by Idéfix Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:54 am

Here is a cell phone video of the shooting. In the moments before the shooting, several people watching from the train shout to the police, "that's fucked up!" and "let him go!" The police push Grant down to the floor, get him to lie face down, and then shoot him.

by Guest Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:03 am

why did they shoot the poor guy?

by Idéfix Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:05 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:why did they shoot the poor guy?

The police guy claimed that he mistook his taser for his gun. He claims to have sought to tase him.

by Guest Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:13 am

Idéfix wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:why did they shoot the poor guy?
The police guy claimed that he mistook his taser for his gun. He claims to have sought to tase him.

i see.

by seven Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:15 pm

i remember this case. grant wasn't even resisting arrest. the policeman prolly was having a bad day. a taser and gun do not operate the same way. so that excuse is lame.

he may have been in two minds - gun taser gun taser and his anger got the better of him. just like when we shoot a red in two minds. here a young man lost his life.

i forget how this case concluded.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:37 pm

seven wrote:i remember this case. grant wasn't even resisting arrest. the policeman prolly was having a bad day. a taser and gun do not operate the same way. so that excuse is lame.

i forget how this case concluded.

Yeah...rite... you mean like Zimmerman?

everyone's hidden racism has a flash point.

by nevada Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:56 pm

Idéfix wrote:Here is a cell phone video of the shooting. In the moments before the shooting, several people watching from the train shout to the police, "that's fucked up!" and "let him go!" The police push Grant down to the floor, get him to lie face down, and then shoot him.

Doesn't BART have cameras in all stations? Did they ever review the official BART recording tapes in the trial or was it only these short videos shot on cell phones? I think Grant was taunting the cops and the shooting was a pissed off reaction to that. And "mistook gun for taser" is a weak excuse I think. I would have found it more believable if they claimed that the intention was to shoot him in the leg to immobilize him but shot him elsewhere as he twitched and moved.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:27 pm

nevada wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Here is a cell phone video of the shooting. In the moments before the shooting, several people watching from the train shout to the police, "that's fucked up!" and "let him go!" The police push Grant down to the floor, get him to lie face down, and then shoot him.

Doesn't BART have cameras in all stations? Did they ever review the official BART recording tapes in the trial or was it only these short videos shot on cell phones? I think Grant was taunting the cops and the shooting was a pissed off reaction to that. And "mistook gun for taser" is a weak excuse I think. I would have found it more believable if they claimed that the intention was to shoot him in the leg to immobilize him but shot him elsewhere as he twitched and moved.

It does, and I believe they did review the station camera footage. I remember reading that no station camera was directly pointed at the spot where the shooting took place.

I don't think taunting the cops is a valid excuse for shooting him in cold blood -- that's why the defense probably didn't push that line of reasoning. I suppose they also considered the feasibility of the "I wanted to shoot his leg but he moved" argument and ruled it out, because he had a taser just for immobilizing people. I also remember reading that his taser was half as heavy as his handgun, was on the other side of his body from his handgun, and was a completely different color. I think he should have been tried in Alameda county where the crime took place, and the jury ought to have been representative of the county's demographics. Then this injustice would not have happened.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:33 pm

seven wrote:i forget how this case concluded.

The cop was charged with second-degree murder, and the trial was moved to Los Angeles. The jury -- which had no black person on it -- convicted him of involuntary manslaughter and a gun charge which together made him eligible for 5 to 12 years in prison. The judge sentenced him to two years, but he was released after 11 months, because he got double credit for time served during trial. He was released in 2011, and has since tried to get back to police work.

BART settled the civil cases filed by Grant's mother and daughter, agreeing to pay them about $3 million.

by Guest Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:59 pm

Idéfix wrote:
BART settled the civil cases filed by Grant's mother and daughter, agreeing to pay them about $3 million.

why BART?

by Idéfix Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:02 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
BART settled the civil cases filed by Grant's mother and daughter, agreeing to pay them about $3 million.

why BART?

The policeman was a BART employee, not a city employee. He probably didn't have enough money to make it worthwhile for the Grant family's lawyers to go after him.

by Guest Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:06 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
BART settled the civil cases filed by Grant's mother and daughter, agreeing to pay them about $3 million.

why BART?
The policeman was a BART employee, not a city employee. He probably didn't have enough money to make it worthwhile for the Grant family's lawyers to go after him.

oh ok, makes sense... will make all of them screen out nutcases when hiring.

by nevada Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:31 pm

Idéfix wrote:
nevada wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Here is a cell phone video of the shooting. In the moments before the shooting, several people watching from the train shout to the police, "that's fucked up!" and "let him go!" The police push Grant down to the floor, get him to lie face down, and then shoot him.

Doesn't BART have cameras in all stations? Did they ever review the official BART recording tapes in the trial or was it only these short videos shot on cell phones? I think Grant was taunting the cops and the shooting was a pissed off reaction to that. And "mistook gun for taser" is a weak excuse I think. I would have found it more believable if they claimed that the intention was to shoot him in the leg to immobilize him but shot him elsewhere as he twitched and moved.
It does, and I believe they did review the station camera footage. I remember reading that no station camera was directly pointed at the spot where the shooting took place.

I don't think taunting the cops is a valid excuse for shooting him in cold blood -- that's why the defense probably didn't push that line of reasoning. I suppose they also considered the feasibility of the "I wanted to shoot his leg but he moved" argument and ruled it out, because he had a taser just for immobilizing people. I also remember reading that his taser was half as heavy as his handgun, was on the other side of his body from his handgun, and was a completely different color. I think he should have been tried in Alameda county where the crime took place, and the jury ought to have been representative of the county's demographics. Then this injustice would not have happened.

No surprises there, how convenient for BART! I bet if someone shot a cop they would have had camera shots in all kinds of angles.
If not for those viral videos on youtube, there wouldn't even be a controversy of this magnitude about the case.

by Idéfix Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:41 pm

Here is a profile of Ryan Coogler, the 27-year-old director of the movie.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakarin/ryan-coogler-fruitvale-station-acclaimed-filmmaker-high-scho

by Sponsored content

Fruitvale Station

Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station

Re: Fruitvale Station