I’ve now added the new one, it’s first.
To download this, right click here and “save target as…”.
To download this, right click here and “save target as…”.
To download this, right click here and “save target as…”.
Edit: I notice they tried to take this girl’s camera from her after the shooting. Although the following is relevant, I’m not certain I’d advise anyone in a situation like that to tell the cops no unless they were pretty sure they wouldn’t be shot just like Oscar Grant was. See, you have all kinds of rights but it’s all on paper. Which doesn’t stop bullets when a cop decides to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Also I noticed how they’re guarding the body, actively trying to obscure a clear view. It’s almost like they’re hyenas or wolves or something protecting their kill.
From http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm:
Every photographer should download this printable flyer. You should know your rights.
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:
· accident and fire scenes
· children
· celebrities
· bridges and other infrastructure
· residential and commercial buildings
· industrial facilities and public utilities
· transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
· Superfund sites
· criminal activities
· law enforcement officers
Polly on 
Lucas on 
Steven on 
After watching the first one again today, I saw/heard something I hadn’t before. I closed my eyes and just tried to listen. I heard a guy on the train say, “Look! My man’s takin’ pictures n shit!” and another man says, “Yeah, you HAVE to…” (otherwise they’ll abuse your rights, I guess is what he meant.
So I looked up, and they were talking about Oscar Grant… HE is “my man” who was “takin’ pictures n shit”.
Watch a cop come from the left after you hear that, he has noticed the camera and the cops near Oscar noticed it too. How could they not? He was holding it up to his eye, even while he was on his knees/against the wall. The ppl on the train saw it, hence the remark.
I saw it.
The cops SURELY saw it. So I don’t want to hear some bullshit excuse like how they thought he had pulled a weapon. He ALREADY had his camera out—before being on the ground, and before being shot.
You can clearly see in the first vid how he’s holding a camera up to his face. To record the cops.
Did he deserve to die for that?
What are they prepared to do? Do you kill just one of them, or do you kill everyone on scene who has a camera? If not, where is the stopping point, and why?
I’m so proud of you.
I’m the next Bugliosi. Haha…
Also you can see the reflection of the person taking the video if you look into the reflection on the glass when the door closes. Not a very good image, and maybe not identifiable, but you can still see ppl in the reflection.
Here’s what I think happened:
Grant was sitting against the wall with his camera, looks like perhaps he’s holding it on his shoulder. The officers in his proximity noticed it but didn’t react to it, at least not physically at that point. Not until another officer saw it and approached Grant from the lefthand side; and I think he was pointing (as if to say put that camera away perhaps, not sure).
They demand the camera at this point. Since no one wants to give up their electronics, he probably tried to say no.
That’s when the officer—who came into the frame from the left, NOT the shooter—begins to rough him up a little bit. This is when ppl on the train say, “Is that really necessary?”
The roughing up continues, and the next thing you see is him on his knees holding both hands up, his hands are empty. The officer from the left is standing over him acting all menacing. But—they’ve successfully taken the camera, or something—because it’s no longer in his hands at this point.
Then for whatever reason they take him down.
Once they got him belly-down on the ground… well you know the rest.
If all this is true, and I’m not 100% certain that it is, I wonder what that means for a possible defense?