I don't think the brutality question is as open-and-shut as your "duh" comment suggests.

The passenger was belligerent and threatening. It's telling that the people in the car applauded when he was taken off. One man comments after the window shattered and the cop is trying to control the passenger on the platform, "Oh, no no no -- this cop's just doing his job, man -- that guy was out of line."

It's also clear to me from the cop's footwork and the way he pivots his upper body that the cop did in fact propel the passenger toward the window. Was his intent to throw him against it? I don't have a clue. BART's suggesting that the passenger put his arm out and *that* broke the window. In any case, the cop wound up taking the worst of the result -- which is also not evident from the video.

I agree it's curious that the video was taken down. I note it was posted with the note it was not to be televised. Huh--what a fanciful notion. I also wonder what was cut out of the video.

I don't think the police brutality question is as clear cut as your "duh" comment suggests. This passenger was aggressive and threatening. It's telling that other passengers can be heard applauding when the officer removes him, and even after the window shatters, a passenger can be heard defending the cop. 

Still -- was the amount of force shown here necessary? There doesn't seem to be any question the cop was in control of the passenger from the moment he grabbed him. Assuming the cop didn't want to smash the window, did he really need to throw this guy against a wall to establish control. I don't know.

Also worth noting that the video doesn't really explain the reported injuries to the officer -- lacerations to the head *and* a concussion. The cuts you can believe -- people refer to them on the audio here. But you don't really see how that happened or what hit the cop on the head hard enough to cause a concussion.

That's all by way of saying that there's more to the incident than what the video, which has been edited btw, shows.

Somewhat disappointing approach by Oakland Local... you call it "police brutality video" in the headline.  Not exactly big "J" journalism at work here. 

Dan, thanks for logging in and reposting your views.

My original piece was addressing my concern that even though this looked like police brutality--the cop seems to use excessive force in shoving the man against the wall and then into the window--it's hard to actually know what happened from one video source, and that seems to be all we have (unlike the Oscar Grant case).

What fascinated me was that the BART police felt the need to have a press conference about this one incident--and the media wrote over 400 stories--based on that one video (and then the press conference).

I agree this video doesn't tell the whole story about the glass and how the man went through the window, but I do feel there was excessive force demonstrated even before the glass shattered.

We need to see more of this story emerge--there aren't enough facts to understand what actually happened, though there are lots of implications, not all of which may be true. (And yet, I think BART cops need some training in managing agression...the cop was roughing this fellow up more than he needed to, period, in my view of what I saw on the tape.)

Re the commentator who disagreed snarkily with my choice to put "police brutality" in the headline -- you have  a point. It's possible the drunk guy could have stuck his arm out and struck the window. Likely? Probably not. But possible -- certainly possible enough to warrant consideration.

But...I think the way he handled him before he hit the window demonstrated excessive force, so unless there's more to the story than we saw in the tape, the BART officer was out of line even more the glass broke, in my view. (And yes, we do not actually know yet how that glass came to break.)

I think that BART is trying to change the way they respond to news stories after their miserable response to the Oscar Grant shooting.  Particularily news stories that involve the BART police.  As for this story, I don't see a disproportionate response by the officer, the video clearly shows that this guy was drunk & belligerant.  Wanting to play "king of the mountain" also indicates he's potentially aggressive and physical as well.  The officer taking control of the situation like he did was probably the best course of action although it is regrettable that the glass broke and caused additional injuries. 

I watched the tape and I can see the officer give a final push when the guy's face was close to the glass, I wanted the officer to remove the man and stop his rants of race hate but to grab the man before talking to him first?. This was not ok to me, the officer could have said step off the train sir! and then moved in with handcuffs. If the man had reisisted in any way the force and the glass would not be an issue to me, but it is clear that the man was under the control of the officer.

We can all rag on the cops for brutality but deal w/ the drunken disrespect of those that are a threat (as in the verbal threatening tone of this particular drunk) to people just trying to get somewhere, well deal with drunks and drug addicts each day and you have to say physically "I am not playing" forcefully for most of them to get the message; you're out of control (drunk nuisance) and I (cop) am taking control on top of what are they (the perps 'packing') The Drunk cat needs to be dealt with swiftly, firmly & brought down to be patted for weapons., never mind should not be a threatening idiot on a public way in the first place. You can call it excessive force I call it doing the job of handling a threatening individual. From the video the drunk's right hand goes out & up and appears to be the breaking force that crashes through the window likely to prevent a blow to the head on window.  There have been some rather unfortunate BART incidents recently The shooting one was excessive force for sure (way way out of line). This one, however brings to light another possible infraction on the part of the builder/specifier of the facility/station; Where is the tempered glass?  & why did that glass break so readily?  Were tax payers billed for tempered and got nontempered glass?  Maybe it was assumed by the officer that the glass was tempered as it should be (it would not have broken) and  this would only be an arrest of a nuisance drunk.