Thanatos, when you were going off on your cop hating rant in the whining forum, I pointed out that the community, cops, and civic government were all to blame for the current state of policing in the US.
All you did was handwave and go off some more about "police unions". I don't think you're interested in debating as much as you are having a soapbox to let everyone know that yes, you dislike police.
Yeah...that's a load of fucking bullshit. Or are you trying to tell me that the NYPD didn't riot back in the early 90s when the city government tried to increase police accountability?
And of course, this is coming from a guy who has consistantly argued that he needs to be allowed to racially profile to do his job.
so.. involuntary manslaughter for a summery execution of a subdued suspect.
Yeah theres nothing I can add to this to make it any more insane. I'll just be over here mourning the state of humanity
Yes, because summary execution is exactly what happened. He thought, "I'm going to save the people of California some money and take care of this little n----r right here!"
It wasn't a tragic mistake on his part or anything. He obviously had the intent to kill in cold blood. Couldn't be clearer.
so.. involuntary manslaughter for a summery execution of a subdued suspect.
Yeah theres nothing I can add to this to make it any more insane. I'll just be over here mourning the state of humanity
Yes, because summary execution is exactly what happened. He thought, "I'm going to save the people of California some money and take care of this little n----r right here!"
It wasn't a tragic mistake on his part or anything. He obviously had the intent to kill in cold blood. Couldn't be clearer.
so.. involuntary manslaughter for a summery execution of a subdued suspect.
Yeah theres nothing I can add to this to make it any more insane. I'll just be over here mourning the state of humanity
Yes, because summary execution is exactly what happened. He thought, "I'm going to save the people of California some money and take care of this little n----r right here!"
It wasn't a tragic mistake on his part or anything. He obviously had the intent to kill in cold blood. Couldn't be clearer.
wha?
He's asking you to prove that it was a "summary execution," which is to say an intentional killing, rather than a tragic accident.
If you could prove that Mehserle intended to kill Grant, then you'd have a point. Otherwise you're just a whiny bitch who doesn't get the idea that sometimes when somebody kills somebody else it's an accident, and the charge (and prison time, which is still substantial) will reflect that.
Unless you can prove that the killing was intentional, that all that was going through Mehserle's head was "I'm going to kill this little n----r right here," then not only is the involuntary manslaughter conviction not "insane," but in fact it give me hope for the "state of humanity." Because this is the first time since 1983 that a cop has been convicted of anything whatsoever in LA for a shooting, and involuntary manslaughter for the most part fits the definition of what happened.
mcdermott on
0
Options
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
I wonder how many cops now will mistake their pistol for a tazer.
I wonder how many cops now will mistake their pistol for a tazer.
When it can mean going to prison for over a decade, and a felony conviction?
Probably not too many.
Are people just forgetting that he was convicted of a serious crime, which carries significant jail time? What were you doing two years ago? Now, imagine you had spent that time instead in prison...sound fun?
Does "involuntary manslaughter" just rhyme with "acquitted" or something?
Two years being towards the "worst-case" scenario, assuming he gets a minimum sentence, time served credited to it, and fairly early parole...all of which is not unlikely. Just to remind everybody, since you seem to forget every page or so, he faces a minimum of a five year sentence, with a maximum of fourteen.
mcdermott on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
He only got convicted because he got caught on tape.
He only got convicted because he got caught on tape.
Well, since people are only convicted in criminal court on the basis of evidence, this is a factual statement, I guess. Although to be more accurate you should probably say "He only got convicted be he got caught on tape, the shooting occured in a crowded and public place, there were dozens of credible witnesses, and there was no other logical explination for how a bullet could have come to be lodged in the victim's back."
RUNN1NGMAN on
0
Options
firewaterwordSatchitanandaPais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
I was on my way to have cocktails in Oakland last night when the verdict came out. Plans were quickly changed.
I hope things stay relatively cool when the sentencing goes down.
He only got convicted because he got caught on tape.
Well, since people are only convicted in criminal court on the basis of evidence, this is a factual statement, I guess. Although to be more accurate you should probably say "He only got convicted be he got caught on tape, the shooting occured in a crowded and public place, there were dozens of credible witnesses, and there was no other logical explination for how a bullet could have come to be lodged in the victim's back."
The "HE WAS COMMING RIGHT AT ME" Defense was not available.
I say that without video, you could have had a stadium watching an he still would have walked.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
He only got convicted because he got caught on tape.
True, the tape was necessary to establish the facts of the incident. And to stoke the outrage necessary to force a zealous prosecution.
Also, there's some question as to whether a jury would have convicted if the use of the Taser had been justifiable...was the negligence of drawing the firearm "accidentally" enough, or was the negligent intended use of the Taser also required for the conviction? Almost certainly the latter, to be honest.
Still, the charge that stuck is appropriate to the (proven) facts of the case, and a conviction period is (hopefully) a move in the right direction to inform cops that they can not always get away with improper uses of force.
Well, since people are only convicted in criminal court on the basis of evidence, this is a factual statement, I guess. Although to be more accurate you should probably say "He only got convicted be he got caught on tape, the shooting occured in a crowded and public place, there were dozens of credible witnesses, and there was no other logical explination for how a bullet could have come to be lodged in the victim's back."
I'm comfortable saying that absent the tape this could have been swept under the rug. Not entirely, but for the most part. It wasn't so much a matter of evidence but a matter of public relations...with that tape playing nationwide on the news, they had to prosecute.
He only got convicted because he got caught on tape.
Well, since people are only convicted in criminal court on the basis of evidence, this is a factual statement, I guess. Although to be more accurate you should probably say "He only got convicted be he got caught on tape, the shooting occured in a crowded and public place, there were dozens of credible witnesses, and there was no other logical explination for how a bullet could have come to be lodged in the victim's back."
The "HE WAS COMMING RIGHT AT ME" Defense was not available.
I say that without video, you could have had a stadium watching an he still would have walked.
Absolutely. He probably wouldn't even have been charged, and a jury would have been profoundly less likely to convict; any excuses he gave would have been more plausible, and eyewitness accounts are perceived (and rightly so) as more biased and less reliable than a video of the event itself.
Again, from the first page, I'm calling this "glass half full." Yeah, it took a perfect storm of absolute negligence (or malice, though not proven) and video, and witnesses to get a conviction. On the other hand, many predicted that even given all this a conviction (even for involuntary manslaughter) was unlikely. Yet we got one.
I'll say it again: first conviction of a cop in a shooting in LA since 1983. How many of you were even born in 1983?
I wonder how many cops now will mistake their pistol for a tazer.
When it can mean going to prison for over a decade, and a felony conviction?
Probably not too many.
Are people just forgetting that he was convicted of a serious crime, which carries significant jail time? What were you doing two years ago? Now, imagine you had spent that time instead in prison...sound fun?
Does "involuntary manslaughter" just rhyme with "acquitted" or something?
Two years being towards the "worst-case" scenario, assuming he gets a minimum sentence, time served credited to it, and fairly early parole...all of which is not unlikely. Just to remind everybody, since you seem to forget every page or so, he faces a minimum of a five year sentence, with a maximum of fourteen.
And due to the weapon charge of some sort they tacked on, he could be found ineligible for parole and he's got to serve at least 85% of his sentence.
shryke on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I think Mehserle went for the taser and pulled the gun by accident. HOWEVER, I think his going for the taser in this situation was wrong. Why? Because A) he was violating basic procedure. His fellow officer was still in contact with the victim, meaning any tasing would carry over to him aswell. His fellow officer had his knee on the victims head right? Crippling a fellow officer in the middle of a diffcult arrests against department policy?
and His "he was going for a weapon" excuse. Do I even have to dignify that with an answer? We have had enough of these threads to know that Police procedure when confronted with a weapon is to pull a gun. Not a Taser, a gun. Police defenders have said so time and time again.
What I saw in the vids was a cop that was to lazy to do the job properly, decided too tase the guy into submission and pulled the gun by mistake.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Because "voluntary" and "involuntary" don't mean what most people think they mean in this context.
EDIT: "Voluntary" manslaughter is used for crimes which otherwise would have been murder (generally second-degree), but where instead the accused was provoked into the attack. As such, intent [to kill] is generally (though not always) a factor.
EDIT: "Involuntary" manslaughter, on the other hand, is the killing of another without intent to kill either through negligence, recklessness, or through another unlawful act (that is not a felony).
Hell, I'll just quote it.
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.
I think it may have been from a factual "what actually happened" standpoint, but it probably wasn't or couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Voluntary manslaughter in CA "arises from a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion." Even though the law says "or" it's really one requirement that he was provoked and acted rashly and under the influence of extreme emotion.
Because he was a police officer involved in a relatively routine altercation, it probably would have been impossible to prove that he killed the victim as a result of provocation and the influence of extreme emotion. The classic voluntary manslaughter case is when a husband finds a man in bed with his wife and kills the guy in a blind rage. He "meant" to kill him, but didn't have the malice aforethought that murder requires. If that was the case here, I really doubt the prosecutor could have proved it. The "I thought I was reaching for my Tazer" explanation is at least plausible enough to cast reasonable doubt, and even the videos suggest that's what really happened--you can see how stunned he is immediately after he fires the shot.
Because "voluntary" and "involuntary" don't mean what most people think they mean in this context.
EDIT: "Voluntary" manslaughter is used for crimes which otherwise would have been murder (generally second-degree), but where instead the accused was provoked into the attack. As such, intent [to kill] is generally (though not always) a factor.
EDIT: "Involuntary" manslaughter, on the other hand, is the killing of another without intent to kill either through negligence, recklessness, or through another unlawful act (that is not a felony).
Hell, I'll just quote it.
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.
The third is vehicular, and not relevant.
Huh, the wikipedia entry seems to believe that it's a murder that would have been excusable if the facts had actually fit the excuse, in that he was in a heat of passion for no damn reason or claims to have been acting in self defense when he had no reason to act in self defense.
I;m guessing that the state in question has no third degree statutes, as he was definitely trying to hurt the victim and the victim definitely ended up dead.
Because "voluntary" and "involuntary" don't mean what most people think they mean in this context.
EDIT: "Voluntary" manslaughter is used for crimes which otherwise would have been murder (generally second-degree), but where instead the accused was provoked into the attack. As such, intent [to kill] is generally (though not always) a factor.
EDIT: "Involuntary" manslaughter, on the other hand, is the killing of another without intent to kill either through negligence, recklessness, or through another unlawful act (that is not a felony).
Hell, I'll just quote it.
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.
The third is vehicular, and not relevant.
Huh, the wikipedia entry seems to believe that it's a murder that would have been excusable if the facts had actually fit the excuse, in that he was in a heat of passion for no damn reason or claims to have been acting in self defense when he had no reason to act in self defense.
I'm guessing that the state in question has no third degree statutes, as he was definitely trying to hurt the victim and the victim definitely ended up dead.
The state does not have "third degree" statutes, which I've actually never heard of. The options here were either first degree murder, felony murder (first degree, but without premeditation, in commissions of a felony), second degree murder, or the two manslaughters (statutes quoted).
First degree was dismissed by the judge (and rightly so). With what's left, it seems like based on what the prosecutor could prove involuntary manslaughter (the text, not the "name" of the law) fits best. I've watched every video angle available multiple times, I'm not seeing anything there but an involuntary manslaughter.
Though, as I stated before, I have no problem believing sadistic intent in the use of the Taser, paving hte way for the torture/felony murder combination. But the burden was on the prosecution to prove this regardless of my belief, and that wasn't ever likely to happen.
Because "voluntary" and "involuntary" don't mean what most people think they mean in this context.
EDIT: "Voluntary" manslaughter is used for crimes which otherwise would have been murder (generally second-degree), but where instead the accused was provoked into the attack. As such, intent [to kill] is generally (though not always) a factor.
EDIT: "Involuntary" manslaughter, on the other hand, is the killing of another without intent to kill either through negligence, recklessness, or through another unlawful act (that is not a felony).
Hell, I'll just quote it.
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.
Huh, the wikipedia entry seems to believe that it's a murder that would have been excusable if the facts had actually fit the excuse, in that he was in a heat of passion for no damn reason or claims to have been acting in self defense when he had no reason to act in self defense.
I;m guessing that the state in question has no third degree statutes, as he was definitely trying to hurt the victim and the victim definitely ended up dead.
"Voluntary manslaughter" is the third degree statute, and even if you thought he meant to go for his taser, it's the very least of what he should have been convicted of.
Or is someone now going to argue that he wasn't committing (at the very least) a "lawful act which might produce death... without due caution and circumspection?"
That's involuntary manslaughter, turbo. Glad to see we agree.
EDIT: And I'll agree that this is, literally, at the very least what he was guilty of. I'm willing to allow for the distinct possibility that he was guilty of felony murder as well. Unfortunately, involuntary manslaughter seems to be all there was proof of, and honestly I'm okay seeing a cop go away for 5-14 years for accidentally killing somebody. Even for intentionally killing somebody, if only the accident can be proven. It just needs to happen more often, IMO.
I;m guessing that the state in question has no third degree statutes, as he was definitely trying to hurt the victim and the victim definitely ended up dead.
What you're describing is voluntary manslaughter. California doesn't really have third-degree murder. The "abandoned and malignant heart" element is rolled into the general murder definition.
Because "voluntary" and "involuntary" don't mean what most people think they mean in this context.
EDIT: "Voluntary" manslaughter is used for crimes which otherwise would have been murder (generally second-degree), but where instead the accused was provoked into the attack. As such, intent [to kill] is generally (though not always) a factor.
EDIT: "Involuntary" manslaughter, on the other hand, is the killing of another without intent to kill either through negligence, recklessness, or through another unlawful act (that is not a felony).
Hell, I'll just quote it.
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.
The third is vehicular, and not relevant.
Huh, the wikipedia entry seems to believe that it's a murder that would have been excusable if the facts had actually fit the excuse, in that he was in a heat of passion for no damn reason or claims to have been acting in self defense when he had no reason to act in self defense.
I'm guessing that the state in question has no third degree statutes, as he was definitely trying to hurt the victim and the victim definitely ended up dead.
The state does not have "third degree" statutes, which I've actually never heard of. The options here were either first degree murder, felony murder (first degree, but without premeditation, in commissions of a felony), second degree murder, or the two manslaughters (statutes quoted).
First degree was dismissed by the judge (and rightly so). With what's left, it seems like based on what the prosecutor could prove involuntary manslaughter (the text, not the "name" of the law) fits best. I've watched every video angle available multiple times, I'm not seeing anything there but an involuntary manslaughter.
Though, as I stated before, I have no problem believing sadistic intent in the use of the Taser, paving hte way for the torture/felony murder combination. But the burden was on the prosecution to prove this regardless of my belief, and that wasn't ever likely to happen.
I think the prosecutor would have had a pretty good shot at imperfect self defense.
I think Mehserle went for the taser and pulled the gun by accident. HOWEVER, I think his going for the taser in this situation was wrong. Why? Because A) he was violating basic procedure. His fellow officer was still in contact with the victim, meaning any tasing would carry over to him aswell. His fellow officer had his knee on the victims head right? Crippling a fellow officer in the middle of a diffcult arrests against department policy?
and His "he was going for a weapon" excuse. Do I even have to dignify that with an answer? We have had enough of these threads to know that Police procedure when confronted with a weapon is to pull a gun. Not a Taser, a gun. Police defenders have said so time and time again.
What I saw in the vids was a cop that was to lazy to do the job properly, decided too tase the guy into submission and pulled the gun by mistake.
Isn't that why he said "I'm going to taze him" or something so the other cop would step off and not get the shock?
Because "voluntary" and "involuntary" don't mean what most people think they mean in this context.
EDIT: "Voluntary" manslaughter is used for crimes which otherwise would have been murder (generally second-degree), but where instead the accused was provoked into the attack. As such, intent [to kill] is generally (though not always) a factor.
EDIT: "Involuntary" manslaughter, on the other hand, is the killing of another without intent to kill either through negligence, recklessness, or through another unlawful act (that is not a felony).
Hell, I'll just quote it.
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.
The third is vehicular, and not relevant.
Huh, the wikipedia entry seems to believe that it's a murder that would have been excusable if the facts had actually fit the excuse, in that he was in a heat of passion for no damn reason or claims to have been acting in self defense when he had no reason to act in self defense.
I'm guessing that the state in question has no third degree statutes, as he was definitely trying to hurt the victim and the victim definitely ended up dead.
The state does not have "third degree" statutes, which I've actually never heard of. The options here were either first degree murder, felony murder (first degree, but without premeditation, in commissions of a felony), second degree murder, or the two manslaughters (statutes quoted).
First degree was dismissed by the judge (and rightly so). With what's left, it seems like based on what the prosecutor could prove involuntary manslaughter (the text, not the "name" of the law) fits best. I've watched every video angle available multiple times, I'm not seeing anything there but an involuntary manslaughter.
Though, as I stated before, I have no problem believing sadistic intent in the use of the Taser, paving hte way for the torture/felony murder combination. But the burden was on the prosecution to prove this regardless of my belief, and that wasn't ever likely to happen.
I think the prosecutor would have had a pretty good shot at imperfect self defense.
What do you mean? What charge are you referring to? I'm not aware of "imperfect self defense" as a discrete charge, I'm aware of self defense as a defense to the various flavors of homicide.
The prosecutor may have had a good shot at a tougher charge. In fact, the prosecutor did seek to convict on everything from first-degree murder on down. The jury looked at the slate of charges available, and convicted on involuntary manslaughter. They could have convicted for second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter if they had wanted to...they opted not to.
It's not like the prosecutor only brought charges for involuntary manslaughter here. So regardless of what he had a "pretty good shot" at, all he got was involuntary manslaughter.
I have to wonder how much money BART is going to end up paying out to the family? And really, I hope the family files a lawsuit against the taser manufacturer, too. I want to see what gets brought to the surface in the subpoenas that come out of that civil suit.
It's really ridiculous that they're going to be allowed to seal the settlement agreement. I think in any lawsuit involving a police officer acting in his capacity as an officer, they shouldn't be allowed to seal settlements, and any settlement against him should be put in his file.
Its already bad enough with defense lawyers wanting complete access to police officer's facebook profiles as part of discovery. I don't think we need to compound that issue.
Sorry, why is this bad? Do you also firmly oppose prosecutors and police officers having complete access to defendants' and parolees' Facebook profiles?
Unless there is a reasonable expectation of relevance, it's fucking retarded to consider a facebook profile of a witness as part of the investigation process.
Of course there's a "reasonable expectation of relevance". Nobody goes looking for evidence they think will be totally irrelevant and useless. Besides being a waste of time, they wouldn't find anything they might actually be able to use in court.
And really, is it that hard to imagine why an investigator might consider it "relevant" to look at what a testifying police officer puts on her Facebook?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Its already bad enough with defense lawyers wanting complete access to police officer's facebook profiles as part of discovery. I don't think we need to compound that issue.
Sorry, why is this bad? Do you also firmly oppose prosecutors and police officers having complete access to defendants' and parolees' Facebook profiles?
Unless there is a reasonable expectation of relevance, it's fucking retarded to consider a facebook profile of a witness as part of the investigation process.
Of course there's a "reasonable expectation of relevance". Nobody goes looking for evidence they think will be totally irrelevant and useless. Besides being a waste of time, they wouldn't find anything they might actually be able to use in court.
And really, is it that hard to imagine why an investigator might consider it "relevant" to look at what a testifying police officer puts on her Facebook?
Pretty sure there's at least one case where a cop was talking shit about someone they shot/beat up/whatever on Facebook. Facebook profiles are definitely relevant. At the very least because it gives potential ammo for impeachment.
I kind of wish the prosecutor wouldn't have charged involuntary manslaughter.
I'm a realist, so I'm damn glad he did. Give the jury only voluntary manslaughter (or murder) to go with, and you've exponentially increased the odds that he walks entirely. As much as I want to see the guy go away, I would have had a hard time convicting for voluntary manslaughter (or worse). Twelve jurors?
We'll never know, obviously, but I'd put the odds of twelve jurors buying that at nearly zero. Then gain, I'd have given a conviction at all about a one in ten, at best.
I have to wonder how much money BART is going to end up paying out to the family? And really, I hope the family files a lawsuit against the taser manufacturer, too. I want to see what gets brought to the surface in the subpoenas that come out of that civil suit.
It's really ridiculous that they're going to be allowed to seal the settlement agreement. I think in any lawsuit involving a police officer acting in his capacity as an officer, they shouldn't be allowed to seal settlements, and any settlement against him should be put in his file.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.
Thanatos, when you were going off on your cop hating rant in the whining forum, I pointed out that the community, cops, and civic government were all to blame for the current state of policing in the US.
All you did was handwave and go off some more about "police unions". I don't think you're interested in debating as much as you are having a soapbox to let everyone know that yes, you dislike police.
Yeah...that's a load of fucking bullshit. Or are you trying to tell me that the NYPD didn't riot back in the early 90s when the city government tried to increase police accountability?
And of course, this is coming from a guy who has consistantly argued that he needs to be allowed to racially profile to do his job.
Actually they didn't. I can't find a THING about any riots over civilian review boards. However!
Which apparently shows that there is a civilian review board, anyway, and there is no proof of any "riots" by the police over that. I know its easier for you to dismiss the idea that the community and civil government are part of the problem too, because jeeze that would mean that you can't scream about the pigs all the time.
Also, I know you want to go into a neckbeard rage because you hear racial profiling, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Thanatos, when you were going off on your cop hating rant in the whining forum, I pointed out that the community, cops, and civic government were all to blame for the current state of policing in the US.
All you did was handwave and go off some more about "police unions". I don't think you're interested in debating as much as you are having a soapbox to let everyone know that yes, you dislike police.
No, what I said was that yes, the community and civic government are to blame for that, but it's as if the police unions are holding a fucking gun to their heads.
also what happened to tasers being a replacement for gun, instead of its current role of tasing women out of cars because you didn't feel like getting physical?
To the best of my knowledge, Tasers were never intended to replace guns. They are meant to be an extra tool in the less lethal (note: not "non-lethal") range of the Use of Force Continuum. While some officers may utilize them at times in place of lethal force, that's their call to make. If a situation has elevated to the point where lethal force may be required, then a lethal option is called for, and is typically utilized. For most police officers, this is their sidearm, and they shoot to kill.
Ideally, a taser would be employed before the situation got to the point where lethal force was called for.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Thanatos, when you were going off on your cop hating rant in the whining forum, I pointed out that the community, cops, and civic government were all to blame for the current state of policing in the US.
All you did was handwave and go off some more about "police unions". I don't think you're interested in debating as much as you are having a soapbox to let everyone know that yes, you dislike police.
No, what I said was that yes, the community and civic government are to blame for that, but it's as if the police unions are holding a fucking gun to their heads.
Which isn't true and is a convenient excuse for you. It does nothing to explain why civic government uses the police as its personal money makers (in enforcing fines and fees) in lieu of raising taxes, why urban neighborhoods beatify slain drug dealers who were killed in the middle of shooting at the police, and why suburban neighborhoods want "tough on crime!!!" action after a scary black on white crime pops their security bubble.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.
Those are good, except for the last one, because most states have created separate vehicular homicide statutes that cover drunk driving. And in that particular example, one could argue that his behavior rises to depraved indifference or extreme recklessness, which in a lot of states could make it murder.
Thanatos, when you were going off on your cop hating rant in the whining forum, I pointed out that the community, cops, and civic government were all to blame for the current state of policing in the US.
All you did was handwave and go off some more about "police unions". I don't think you're interested in debating as much as you are having a soapbox to let everyone know that yes, you dislike police.
No, what I said was that yes, the community and civic government are to blame for that, but it's as if the police unions are holding a fucking gun to their heads.
Which isn't true and is a convenient excuse for you. It does nothing to explain why civic government uses the police as its personal money makers (in enforcing fines and fees) in lieu of raising taxes...
Because it's politically easier, and because the police fight any effort at reforming the criminal code (thereby giving them less of a right to harass people) tooth and nail.
...why urban neighborhoods beatify slain drug dealers who were killed in the middle of shooting at the police...
Because most of them have had more bad experiences with cops than they have had bad experiences with violent criminals.
...and why suburban neighborhoods want "tough on crime!!!" action after a scary black on white crime pops their security bubble.
Because the police unions use fear as a tactic in order to insure that they get everything they want, and fuck over society in the process.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.
Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.
Those are good, except for the last one, because most states have created separate vehicular homicide statutes that cover drunk driving. And in that particular example, one could argue that his behavior rises to depraved indifference or extreme recklessness, which in a lot of states could make it murder.
Except that first degree murder also includes killing someone while committing another serious crime, whether or not it was deliberate.
Posts
Yeah...that's a load of fucking bullshit. Or are you trying to tell me that the NYPD didn't riot back in the early 90s when the city government tried to increase police accountability?
And of course, this is coming from a guy who has consistantly argued that he needs to be allowed to racially profile to do his job.
Yeah theres nothing I can add to this to make it any more insane. I'll just be over here mourning the state of humanity
Yes, because summary execution is exactly what happened. He thought, "I'm going to save the people of California some money and take care of this little n----r right here!"
It wasn't a tragic mistake on his part or anything. He obviously had the intent to kill in cold blood. Couldn't be clearer.
wha?
He's asking you to prove that it was a "summary execution," which is to say an intentional killing, rather than a tragic accident.
If you could prove that Mehserle intended to kill Grant, then you'd have a point. Otherwise you're just a whiny bitch who doesn't get the idea that sometimes when somebody kills somebody else it's an accident, and the charge (and prison time, which is still substantial) will reflect that.
Unless you can prove that the killing was intentional, that all that was going through Mehserle's head was "I'm going to kill this little n----r right here," then not only is the involuntary manslaughter conviction not "insane," but in fact it give me hope for the "state of humanity." Because this is the first time since 1983 that a cop has been convicted of anything whatsoever in LA for a shooting, and involuntary manslaughter for the most part fits the definition of what happened.
When it can mean going to prison for over a decade, and a felony conviction?
Probably not too many.
Are people just forgetting that he was convicted of a serious crime, which carries significant jail time? What were you doing two years ago? Now, imagine you had spent that time instead in prison...sound fun?
Does "involuntary manslaughter" just rhyme with "acquitted" or something?
Well, since people are only convicted in criminal court on the basis of evidence, this is a factual statement, I guess. Although to be more accurate you should probably say "He only got convicted be he got caught on tape, the shooting occured in a crowded and public place, there were dozens of credible witnesses, and there was no other logical explination for how a bullet could have come to be lodged in the victim's back."
I hope things stay relatively cool when the sentencing goes down.
The "HE WAS COMMING RIGHT AT ME" Defense was not available.
I say that without video, you could have had a stadium watching an he still would have walked.
True, the tape was necessary to establish the facts of the incident. And to stoke the outrage necessary to force a zealous prosecution.
Also, there's some question as to whether a jury would have convicted if the use of the Taser had been justifiable...was the negligence of drawing the firearm "accidentally" enough, or was the negligent intended use of the Taser also required for the conviction? Almost certainly the latter, to be honest.
Still, the charge that stuck is appropriate to the (proven) facts of the case, and a conviction period is (hopefully) a move in the right direction to inform cops that they can not always get away with improper uses of force.
I'm comfortable saying that absent the tape this could have been swept under the rug. Not entirely, but for the most part. It wasn't so much a matter of evidence but a matter of public relations...with that tape playing nationwide on the news, they had to prosecute.
Absolutely. He probably wouldn't even have been charged, and a jury would have been profoundly less likely to convict; any excuses he gave would have been more plausible, and eyewitness accounts are perceived (and rightly so) as more biased and less reliable than a video of the event itself.
Again, from the first page, I'm calling this "glass half full." Yeah, it took a perfect storm of absolute negligence (or malice, though not proven) and video, and witnesses to get a conviction. On the other hand, many predicted that even given all this a conviction (even for involuntary manslaughter) was unlikely. Yet we got one.
I'll say it again: first conviction of a cop in a shooting in LA since 1983. How many of you were even born in 1983?
And due to the weapon charge of some sort they tacked on, he could be found ineligible for parole and he's got to serve at least 85% of his sentence.
and
What I saw in the vids was a cop that was to lazy to do the job properly, decided too tase the guy into submission and pulled the gun by mistake.
Hey, if you are I am too. :P
Because "voluntary" and "involuntary" don't mean what most people think they mean in this context.
EDIT: "Voluntary" manslaughter is used for crimes which otherwise would have been murder (generally second-degree), but where instead the accused was provoked into the attack. As such, intent [to kill] is generally (though not always) a factor.
EDIT: "Involuntary" manslaughter, on the other hand, is the killing of another without intent to kill either through negligence, recklessness, or through another unlawful act (that is not a felony).
Hell, I'll just quote it.
The third is vehicular, and not relevant.
I think it may have been from a factual "what actually happened" standpoint, but it probably wasn't or couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Voluntary manslaughter in CA "arises from a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion." Even though the law says "or" it's really one requirement that he was provoked and acted rashly and under the influence of extreme emotion.
Because he was a police officer involved in a relatively routine altercation, it probably would have been impossible to prove that he killed the victim as a result of provocation and the influence of extreme emotion. The classic voluntary manslaughter case is when a husband finds a man in bed with his wife and kills the guy in a blind rage. He "meant" to kill him, but didn't have the malice aforethought that murder requires. If that was the case here, I really doubt the prosecutor could have proved it. The "I thought I was reaching for my Tazer" explanation is at least plausible enough to cast reasonable doubt, and even the videos suggest that's what really happened--you can see how stunned he is immediately after he fires the shot.
Huh, the wikipedia entry seems to believe that it's a murder that would have been excusable if the facts had actually fit the excuse, in that he was in a heat of passion for no damn reason or claims to have been acting in self defense when he had no reason to act in self defense.
I;m guessing that the state in question has no third degree statutes, as he was definitely trying to hurt the victim and the victim definitely ended up dead.
The state does not have "third degree" statutes, which I've actually never heard of. The options here were either first degree murder, felony murder (first degree, but without premeditation, in commissions of a felony), second degree murder, or the two manslaughters (statutes quoted).
First degree was dismissed by the judge (and rightly so). With what's left, it seems like based on what the prosecutor could prove involuntary manslaughter (the text, not the "name" of the law) fits best. I've watched every video angle available multiple times, I'm not seeing anything there but an involuntary manslaughter.
That's involuntary manslaughter, turbo. Glad to see we agree.
EDIT: And I'll agree that this is, literally, at the very least what he was guilty of. I'm willing to allow for the distinct possibility that he was guilty of felony murder as well. Unfortunately, involuntary manslaughter seems to be all there was proof of, and honestly I'm okay seeing a cop go away for 5-14 years for accidentally killing somebody. Even for intentionally killing somebody, if only the accident can be proven. It just needs to happen more often, IMO.
What you're describing is voluntary manslaughter. California doesn't really have third-degree murder. The "abandoned and malignant heart" element is rolled into the general murder definition.
I think the prosecutor would have had a pretty good shot at imperfect self defense.
Isn't that why he said "I'm going to taze him" or something so the other cop would step off and not get the shock?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
What do you mean? What charge are you referring to? I'm not aware of "imperfect self defense" as a discrete charge, I'm aware of self defense as a defense to the various flavors of homicide.
The prosecutor may have had a good shot at a tougher charge. In fact, the prosecutor did seek to convict on everything from first-degree murder on down. The jury looked at the slate of charges available, and convicted on involuntary manslaughter. They could have convicted for second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter if they had wanted to...they opted not to.
It's not like the prosecutor only brought charges for involuntary manslaughter here. So regardless of what he had a "pretty good shot" at, all he got was involuntary manslaughter.
It's really ridiculous that they're going to be allowed to seal the settlement agreement. I think in any lawsuit involving a police officer acting in his capacity as an officer, they shouldn't be allowed to seal settlements, and any settlement against him should be put in his file.
Of course there's a "reasonable expectation of relevance". Nobody goes looking for evidence they think will be totally irrelevant and useless. Besides being a waste of time, they wouldn't find anything they might actually be able to use in court.
And really, is it that hard to imagine why an investigator might consider it "relevant" to look at what a testifying police officer puts on her Facebook?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Pretty sure there's at least one case where a cop was talking shit about someone they shot/beat up/whatever on Facebook. Facebook profiles are definitely relevant. At the very least because it gives potential ammo for impeachment.
I'm a realist, so I'm damn glad he did. Give the jury only voluntary manslaughter (or murder) to go with, and you've exponentially increased the odds that he walks entirely. As much as I want to see the guy go away, I would have had a hard time convicting for voluntary manslaughter (or worse). Twelve jurors?
We'll never know, obviously, but I'd put the odds of twelve jurors buying that at nearly zero. Then gain, I'd have given a conviction at all about a one in ten, at best.
Agreed.
Murder: First Degree
Murder: Second degree
Manslaughter: Voluntary
Manslaughter: Involuntary
Actually they didn't. I can't find a THING about any riots over civilian review boards. However!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Complaint_Review_Board
Which apparently shows that there is a civilian review board, anyway, and there is no proof of any "riots" by the police over that. I know its easier for you to dismiss the idea that the community and civil government are part of the problem too, because jeeze that would mean that you can't scream about the pigs all the time.
Also, I know you want to go into a neckbeard rage because you hear racial profiling, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
To the best of my knowledge, Tasers were never intended to replace guns. They are meant to be an extra tool in the less lethal (note: not "non-lethal") range of the Use of Force Continuum. While some officers may utilize them at times in place of lethal force, that's their call to make. If a situation has elevated to the point where lethal force may be required, then a lethal option is called for, and is typically utilized. For most police officers, this is their sidearm, and they shoot to kill.
Ideally, a taser would be employed before the situation got to the point where lethal force was called for.
Which isn't true and is a convenient excuse for you. It does nothing to explain why civic government uses the police as its personal money makers (in enforcing fines and fees) in lieu of raising taxes, why urban neighborhoods beatify slain drug dealers who were killed in the middle of shooting at the police, and why suburban neighborhoods want "tough on crime!!!" action after a scary black on white crime pops their security bubble.
But yeah, police unions, got it.
This is getting O/T though.
Those are good, except for the last one, because most states have created separate vehicular homicide statutes that cover drunk driving. And in that particular example, one could argue that his behavior rises to depraved indifference or extreme recklessness, which in a lot of states could make it murder.
Because most of them have had more bad experiences with cops than they have had bad experiences with violent criminals.
Because the police unions use fear as a tactic in order to insure that they get everything they want, and fuck over society in the process.
Good, I'm glad I'm finally getting through.
Except that first degree murder also includes killing someone while committing another serious crime, whether or not it was deliberate.