Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Mehserle found guilty; Oakland (relatively) safe for now. [BART shooting]

189101113

Posts

  • DragonPupDragonPup Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    "I was there, I was there, the day Horus slew the Emperor." -Cpt Garviel Loken

    Currently painting: Space Wolves [flickr]
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Grrrr. I didn't have my heart set on a particular sentence, but the judge's remarks (at least as reported) are just....okay, as an officer of the court I have to stop right there. Jesus.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades His love is a prize Rantin' and RavenRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    This counts as a double standard, right? I mean, somebody who wasn't a police officer probably wouldn't have gotten off this easily.

    Still...
    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    "I shot a man," he said. "I killed a man. It should not have happened."

    He's right about making the city safer. He's no longer a cop and he'll have this on his record now. So at least the important thing is done; anything more would be setting a harsh example for future repetition and while I would approve, at least this guy didn't get away with it.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Protests are forming in Oakland.

    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD
    NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
    steam_sig-400.png
  • MidshipmanMidshipman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    "I shot a man," he said. "I killed a man. It should not have happened."

    And yet he's appealing his sentence.

    midshipman.jpg
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades His love is a prize Rantin' and RavenRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    "I shot a man," he said. "I killed a man. It should not have happened."

    And yet he's appealing his sentence.

    What is this I don't even

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Everyone appeals their sentence, don't get outraged over that. There's zero chance of any of this changing, it's over.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    This counts as a double standard, right? I mean, somebody who wasn't a police officer probably wouldn't have gotten off this easily.

    Still...
    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    "I shot a man," he said. "I killed a man. It should not have happened."

    He's right about making the city safer. He's no longer a cop and he'll have this on his record now. So at least the important thing is done; anything more would be setting a harsh example for future repetition and while I would approve, at least this guy didn't get away with it.

    He murdered a man in cold blood, and he's basically getting time served plus probation; he absolutely got away with it. hell, there's nothing stopping him from becoming a cop again.

  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Except for the fact that felons can't become police officers.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    This counts as a double standard, right? I mean, somebody who wasn't a police officer probably wouldn't have gotten off this easily.

    Still...
    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    "I shot a man," he said. "I killed a man. It should not have happened."

    He's right about making the city safer. He's no longer a cop and he'll have this on his record now. So at least the important thing is done; anything more would be setting a harsh example for future repetition and while I would approve, at least this guy didn't get away with it.

    He murdered a man in cold blood, and he's basically getting time served plus probation; he absolutely got away with it. hell, there's nothing stopping him from becoming a cop again.

    He killed him, he didn't murder him.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    He murdered a man in cold blood...

    Hey it's that thing you never actually proved beyond saying he totally did.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Protests are forming in Oakland.

    I don't know what they were expecting.

    Honestly? I'm surprised he didn't get probation (which the judge did have as an option).

    Considering what the prosecution was able to prove, this is actually a pretty monumental sentence; for a police officer to go to prison at all for a line-of-duty use-of-force that could conceivably be rationalized as either an accident or justified (which, yes, a jury could fool themselves into thinking in this case) is pretty much unheard of.

    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I use "prison" loosely, since given the short sentence he'll probably wind up just doing it in jail, and will likely be treated quite nicely while there, considering most law enforcement officers probably still think he's being unjustly punished. Still, rewinding back to the time of the incident most people would never have expected him to spend so much as a single night in jail, let alone get charged, let alone get convicted, let alone get sentenced to more time.

    Spoiler:
  • MidshipmanMidshipman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Everyone appeals their sentence, don't get outraged over that. There's zero chance of any of this changing, it's over.

    Let me bold this for you.

    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    He is then given basically the lightest prison sentence, and is now trying weasel out of it.

    I'm not allowed to get outraged over blatant lies?

    midshipman.jpg
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Except for the fact that felons can't become police officers.

    In most jurisdictions, probably.

    eokNV.jpg
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Justice.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I use "prison" loosely, since given the short sentence he'll probably wind up just doing it in jail, and will likely be treated quite nicely while there, considering most law enforcement officers probably still think he's being unjustly punished. Still, rewinding back to the time of the incident most people would never have expected him to spend so much as a single night in jail, let alone get charged, let alone get convicted, let alone get sentenced to more time.

    Over a year and you don't stay in a county jail, usually.

    NOPE.
  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Everyone appeals their sentence, don't get outraged over that. There's zero chance of any of this changing, it's over.

    Let me bold this for you.

    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    He is then given basically the lightest prison sentence, and is now trying weasel out of it.

    I'm not allowed to get outraged over blatant lies?

    You can drum up some misplaced outrage all you want but if a person has the means to appeal their case, they're gonna do so. Be outraged that they were gonna taser a guy in cuffs and killed him instead. Don't be outraged by a person exercising their rights to appeal.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes Justice.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Also it's ridiculous to say he has nothing stopping him from becoming a cop again

    Give me a break

    NOPE.
  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Except for the fact that felons can't become police officers.

    In most jurisdictions, probably.

    It's a federal law that a person who spent more than a year in prison for a felony cannot own or even possess a gun. The only way for a person to bypass this is to get their record expunged.

    So I guess he could join some hypothetical police force that didn't use firearms.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Except for the fact that felons can't become police officers.

    In most jurisdictions, probably.

    It's a federal law that a person who spent more than a year in prison for a felony cannot own or even possess a gun. The only way for a person to bypass this is to get their record expunged.

    So I guess he could join some hypothetical police force that didn't use firearms.

    Yeah, absent a successful appeal or pardon, he's (if I'm reading this correctly) looking at at least ten years before he can legally touch a gun again. And even then it's not certain.

    And in many jurisdictions (not sure about California) felons are barred from service as police officers anyway. And beyond that many individual departments have specific policies against hiring felons.

    I mean, it's entirely possible he could be a cop again. But "nothing stopping him" is...a stretch. As of today, there's a whole lot stopping him.


    EDIT: And note that it doesn't matter if he's actually sentenced to a year in prison, or spends a year in prison...if the crime he's convicted of carries over a year in prison, he's barred. Even had he been given probation today and sent home, he'd not be legally allowed to handle a gun.

    Spoiler:
  • MidshipmanMidshipman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Everyone appeals their sentence, don't get outraged over that. There's zero chance of any of this changing, it's over.

    Let me bold this for you.

    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    He is then given basically the lightest prison sentence, and is now trying weasel out of it.

    I'm not allowed to get outraged over blatant lies?

    You can drum up some misplaced outrage all you want but if a person has the means to appeal their case, they're gonna do so. Be outraged that they were gonna taser a guy in cuffs and killed him instead. Don't be outraged by a person exercising their rights to appeal.

    Ok. I didn't believe it possible for someone could be so obtuse, but you have proved me wrong. I'm not outraged at his appeal. I'm pissed off that he would lie about being willing to serve his time to make up for his mistake. He has shown that he is absolutely unwilling to do so. This means that he has no remorse for wrongfully taking a life.

    midshipman.jpg
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Except for the fact that felons can't become police officers.

    In most jurisdictions, probably.

    It's a federal law that a person who spent more than a year in prison for a felony cannot own or even possess a gun. The only way for a person to bypass this is to get their record expunged.

    So I guess he could join some hypothetical police force that didn't use firearms.

    Yeah, absent a successful appeal or pardon, he's (if I'm reading this correctly) looking at at least ten years before he can legally touch a gun again. And even then it's not certain.

    And in many jurisdictions (not sure about California) felons are barred from service as police officers anyway. And beyond that many individual departments have specific policies against hiring felons.

    I mean, it's entirely possible he could be a cop again. But "nothing stopping him" is...a stretch. As of today, there's a whole lot stopping him.


    EDIT: And note that it doesn't matter if he's actually sentenced to a year in prison, or spends a year in prison...if the crime he's convicted of carries over a year in prison, he's barred. Even had he been given probation today and sent home, he'd not be legally allowed to handle a gun.

    I'm sure his record will be expunged and he'll be reinstated once he's out of jail.

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Everyone appeals their sentence, don't get outraged over that. There's zero chance of any of this changing, it's over.

    Let me bold this for you.

    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    He is then given basically the lightest prison sentence, and is now trying weasel out of it.

    I'm not allowed to get outraged over blatant lies?

    You can drum up some misplaced outrage all you want but if a person has the means to appeal their case, they're gonna do so. Be outraged that they were gonna taser a guy in cuffs and killed him instead. Don't be outraged by a person exercising their rights to appeal.

    Ok. I didn't believe it possible for someone could be so obtuse, but you have proved me wrong. I'm not outraged at his appeal. I'm pissed off that he would lie about being willing to serve his time to make up for his mistake. He has shown that he is absolutely unwilling to do so. This means that he has no remorse for wrongfully taking a life.

    No it doesn't. It just means that, like any rational person, he'd rather not spend time in prison.

    He might be willing to go to prison, he might think he deserves to go to prison, but given the chance he'd probably rather not.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Everyone appeals their sentence, don't get outraged over that. There's zero chance of any of this changing, it's over.

    Let me bold this for you.

    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    He is then given basically the lightest prison sentence, and is now trying weasel out of it.

    I'm not allowed to get outraged over blatant lies?

    You can drum up some misplaced outrage all you want but if a person has the means to appeal their case, they're gonna do so. Be outraged that they were gonna taser a guy in cuffs and killed him instead. Don't be outraged by a person exercising their rights to appeal.

    Ok. I didn't believe it possible for someone could be so obtuse, but you have proved me wrong. I'm not outraged at his appeal. I'm pissed off that he would lie about being willing to serve his time to make up for his mistake. He has shown that he is absolutely unwilling to do so. This means that he has no remorse for wrongfully taking a life.

    Or perhaps he believes that were he to be sentenced now, he could quietly appeal and both avoid the Next Big Riot(TM) and regain his freedom.

    They're not mutually exclusive.

    But I do understand what you're saying, and it's an interesting point.
    I'm sure his record will be expunged and he'll be reinstated once he's out of jail.

    Are you a lawyer?

    Because these guys are. And it doesn't sound like it's that easy. According to them (as well as a little side-reading I did):

    - Federal law does not recognize California expungements, which means the federal ban still applies
    - An expungement doesn't restore firearms rights anyway
    - Involuntary manslaughter is a "straight felony," can't be reduced to a misdemeanor
    - You cannot get a certificate of rehabilitation if your crime involved the use of a "dangerous weapon"
    - A governor's pardon also does not apply if a "dangerous weapon" was used
    - Police officers can get one-time exceptions, if granted by a judge, but only for domestic violence or stalking convictions (interesting, that)

    I believe you may be overstating the ease with which this guy can get back into (armed) police work. Maybe.


    EDIT: Sorry to inject silly "facts" into y'all's irrational bitch-fest, though. I know it sucks. And hey, I agree that it's shitty he's getting off so easy...I personally believe he was guilty of more, and should probably be going away for decades. Unfortunately, the evidence as presented to the jury didn't really support this conclusion, not beyond reasonable doubt, so he was convicted of a lighter charge. As for the sentence, what's the average sentence for involuntary manslaughter in California? Given the facts of the case, as accepted by the jury, was an above-average, or even average, sentence justified? And so on, and so forth. This is actually a perfectly reasonable outcome...probably the low end of reasonable, but reasonable.

    Spoiler:
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Everyone appeals their sentence, don't get outraged over that. There's zero chance of any of this changing, it's over.

    Let me bold this for you.

    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    He is then given basically the lightest prison sentence, and is now trying weasel out of it.

    I'm not allowed to get outraged over blatant lies?

    You can drum up some misplaced outrage all you want but if a person has the means to appeal their case, they're gonna do so. Be outraged that they were gonna taser a guy in cuffs and killed him instead. Don't be outraged by a person exercising their rights to appeal.

    Ok. I didn't believe it possible for someone could be so obtuse, but you have proved me wrong. I'm not outraged at his appeal. I'm pissed off that he would lie about being willing to serve his time to make up for his mistake. He has shown that he is absolutely unwilling to do so. This means that he has no remorse for wrongfully taking a life.

    Or perhaps he believes that were he to be sentenced now, he could quietly appeal and both avoid the Next Big Riot(TM) and regain his freedom.

    They're not mutually exclusive.

    But I do understand what you're saying, and it's an interesting point.
    I'm sure his record will be expunged and he'll be reinstated once he's out of jail.

    Are you a lawyer?

    Because these guys are. And it doesn't sound like it's that easy. According to them (as well as a little side-reading I did):

    - Federal law does not recognize California expungements, which means the federal ban still applies
    - An expungement doesn't restore firearms rights anyway
    - Involuntary manslaughter is a "straight felony," can't be reduced to a misdemeanor
    - You cannot get a certificate of rehabilitation if your crime involved the use of a "dangerous weapon"
    - A governor's pardon also does not apply if a "dangerous weapon" was used
    - Police officers can get one-time exceptions, if granted by a judge, but only for domestic violence or stalking convictions (interesting, that)

    I believe you may be overstating the ease with which this guy can get back into (armed) police work. Maybe.


    EDIT: Sorry to inject silly "facts" into y'all's irrational bitch-fest, though. I know it sucks. And hey, I agree that it's shitty he's getting off so easy...I personally believe he was guilty of more, and should probably be going away for decades. Unfortunately, the evidence as presented to the jury didn't really support this conclusion, not beyond reasonable doubt, so he was convicted of a lighter charge. As for the sentence, what's the average sentence for involuntary manslaughter in California? Given the facts of the case, as accepted by the jury, was an above-average, or even average, sentence justified? And so on, and so forth. This is actually a perfectly reasonable outcome...probably the low end of reasonable, but reasonable.

    I did not know any of that.

    That's kind of awesome that this guy may actually not be able to shrug this off and go about his business once he's released.

    If I'm going to be crazy optimistic, I may as well go all the way. Maybe the appeals court will find that the judge was in error granting the guy double time served and will increase his sentence. Being that they're farther removed from the situation.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Taramoor wrote: »
    did not know any of that.

    That's kind of awesome that this guy may actually not be able to shrug this off and go about his business once he's released.

    Indeed it is.
    If I'm going to be crazy optimistic, I may as well go all the way. Maybe the appeals court will find that the judge was in error granting the guy double time served and will increase his sentence. Being that they're farther removed from the situation.

    I get the feeling that the double-time-served bit is because he'd be eligible for release after serving half his sentence (under...parole?), because the news reports i'm seeing have him eligible in 7 months. 7 months plus actual time served comes to right around a year, which would be half of a 24-month sentence.

    I don't think the doubling of time served was necessarily some sweetheart deal, but I don't know how these things usually work.

    As for the sentence itself, the "average" is supposed to be 36 months. Which means that, absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, a 36 month sentence is what's appropriate. Now, obviously it's up to the judge, but it's arguable that his role as a law enforcement officer is a mitigating circumstance. Primarily because this is what put him in a position to both be carrying multiple weapons, and to have to make use-of-force decisions in a high-stress environment. That's why the whole "double standard" bit is something I shrug off, because the average citizen isn't placed in this position...so you really can't judge this by the "average."

    Of course, this also assumes you buy his (bullshit, IMO) story regarding what happened. But, the jury accepted it (but apparently decided it was still negligent/reckless), so them's the facts.

    Which is the same reason the firearm enhancement was ruled out; the jury ruled based on the assumption that he meant to draw his Taser (again, bullshit, but the legally established "fact") and the firearm enhancement requires intent to use the firearm...so sentencing him on that would be legally inappropriate.

    If you step back for a moment, presume innocence (which you're supposed to), then look at the evidence as presented to the jury (without bias), then accept the jury's then-reasonable verdict...well, this sentence is pretty much right. And it accomplishes as much as you can really hope to accomplish given the evidence available: it sends the message that cops can be tried, convicted, and sentenced for line-of-duty uses of force, and it makes sure this jackass will probably never wear a badge again.

    At least not one that isn't made of plastic and emblazoned with the name of the local mall on it.

    Spoiler:
  • LuxLux Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    Grrrr. I didn't have my heart set on a particular sentence, but the judge's remarks (at least as reported) are just....okay, as an officer of the court I have to stop right there. Jesus.

    Does anyone have any links or transcripts for this?

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Cabezone wrote: »
    It's a federal law that a person who spent more than a year in prison for a felony cannot own or even possess a gun. The only way for a person to bypass this is to get their record expunged.

    Or to win an appeal and get their conviction thrown out OR the sentence reduced to probation. Which is what he's trying to do.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    It's a federal law that a person who spent more than a year in prison for a felony cannot own or even possess a gun. The only way for a person to bypass this is to get their record expunged.

    Or to win an appeal and get their conviction thrown out OR the sentence reduced to probation. Which is what he's trying to do.

    No, I'm pretty sure the sentence has nothing to do with it. The conviction alone for the felony is enough to bar him from handling firearms. Even if he got it reduced to probation, he's barred.

    Like, unless this is something you know to be the case, I'd ask you not to make stuff up.


    Though yes, if he can get the conviction thrown out that would suffice. Though he could then be re-tried for involuntary manslaughter (but not the greater charges, of which he was acquitted).

    Spoiler:
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The problem is that many judges will move hell and high water in order to let a cop be a cop. So, in spite all of the alleged "difficulties" with him getting to be a cop again, all he has to do is find one of the many (many, many) judges willing to do just about anything to put him back in a uniform, and he's set.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The problem is that many judges will move hell and high water in order to let a cop be a cop. So, in spite all of the alleged "difficulties" with him getting to be a cop again, all he has to do is find one of the many (many, many) judges willing to do just about anything to put him back in a uniform, and he's set.

    When that happens, be sure to let us know. Seriously.

    I'm reasonably confident that it won't, but if it does I'd be interested in finding out. Because yes, that would be bullshit.

    Spoiler:
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Justice.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The problem is that many judges will move hell and high water in order to let a cop be a cop. So, in spite all of the alleged "difficulties" with him getting to be a cop again, all he has to do is find one of the many (many, many) judges willing to do just about anything to put him back in a uniform, and he's set.

    What are you basing this on?

    Can you cite an instance where this has happened with a manslaughter charge and one that was committed while the cop was on duty? Or point to any of these "many" judges that have moved hell and high water for someone similarly situated?

    You also underestimate law enforcement agencies' concern with liability. What force in their right mind would hire this dude? He'd either create an avalanche of complaints instantly or be in pretty severe danger every time he went out on the streets. Not worth it.

    I know that there are people who are cops who should not be allowed to be cops because of their past history, that's obvious. But you are completely overstating the "ease" with which this guy could become a cop again (if he even wanted to).

    NOPE.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The problem is that many judges will move hell and high water in order to let a cop be a cop. So, in spite all of the alleged "difficulties" with him getting to be a cop again, all he has to do is find one of the many (many, many) judges willing to do just about anything to put him back in a uniform, and he's set.

    What are you basing this on?

    Can you cite an instance where this has happened with a manslaughter charge and one that was committed while the cop was on duty? Or point to any of these "many" judges that have moved hell and high water for someone similarly situated?

    You also underestimate law enforcement agencies' concern with liability. What force in their right mind would hire this dude? He'd either create an avalanche of complaints instantly or be in pretty severe danger every time he went out on the streets. Not worth it.

    I know that there are people who are cops who should not be allowed to be cops because of their past history, that's obvious. But you are completely overstating the "ease" with which this guy could become a cop again (if he even wanted to).

    Yeah, the conviction here creates a nice paperwork trail that equals "easy payday" if he fucks up again...his old department is probably already going to have to pay out $texas, and another department that was dumb enough to hire him again after this? What's bigger than $texas?

    Departments (and police unions) will fight tooth and nail to defend current cops, but I don't see any department sticking their neck out to hire an ex-cop in his situation. Absent a successful appeal, I can't see how you can rationally suggest that he's likely to be a cop again.

    Spoiler:
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The problem is that many judges will move hell and high water in order to let a cop be a cop. So, in spite all of the alleged "difficulties" with him getting to be a cop again, all he has to do is find one of the many (many, many) judges willing to do just about anything to put him back in a uniform, and he's set.

    What are you basing this on?

    Can you cite an instance where this has happened with a manslaughter charge and one that was committed while the cop was on duty? Or point to any of these "many" judges that have moved hell and high water for someone similarly situated?

    You also underestimate law enforcement agencies' concern with liability. What force in their right mind would hire this dude? He'd either create an avalanche of complaints instantly or be in pretty severe danger every time he went out on the streets. Not worth it.

    I know that there are people who are cops who should not be allowed to be cops because of their past history, that's obvious. But you are completely overstating the "ease" with which this guy could become a cop again (if he even wanted to).

    Yeah, the conviction here creates a nice paperwork trail that equals "easy payday" if he fucks up again...his old department is probably already going to have to pay out $texas, and another department that was dumb enough to hire him again after this? What's bigger than $texas?

    Departments (and police unions) will fight tooth and nail to defend current cops, but I don't see any department sticking their neck out to hire an ex-cop in his situation. Absent a successful appeal, I can't see how you can rationally suggest that he's likely to be a cop again.

    The more I think about this, the more I think you are right.

    Once he lost his job, he lost all the protections that being a cop provides.

    I won't be astonished if he somehow gets his job back, but I'm no longer just going to presume it will happen.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Taramoor wrote: »
    The more I think about this, the more I think you are right.

    Once he lost his job, he lost all the protections that being a cop provides.

    I won't be astonished if he somehow gets his job back, but I'm no longer just going to presume it will happen.

    Yeah, the only perks he's likely to see now are free beers down at O'Callahan's and getting the occasional speeding ticket fixed.

    Absent a successful appeal (and I suspect they might not bother to re-try him if this happened), I would be fairly astonished if he became a cop again. But, to your credit, I would not be entirely astonished if he managed to successfully appeal.

    Spoiler:
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades His love is a prize Rantin' and RavenRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Meh, the only thing an appeal can do is examine the trial to see if there were any miscarriages of justice. I'm as cynical about cops as the next guy but this trial was pretty solid. I'd be surprised if it is appealed successfully.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Meh, the only thing an appeal can do is examine the trial to see if there were any miscarriages of justice. I'm as cynical about cops as the next guy but this trial was pretty solid. I'd be surprised if it is appealed successfully.

    Me too, I just wouldn't be "astonished." Because I do know what Than was talking about, it does exist, and at appeal is precisely the time it could come into play.

    Spoiler:
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The problem is that many judges will move hell and high water in order to let a cop be a cop. So, in spite all of the alleged "difficulties" with him getting to be a cop again, all he has to do is find one of the many (many, many) judges willing to do just about anything to put him back in a uniform, and he's set.

    So in spite of facts, the League of Corrupt Police Officers is going to make sure he can come back to make you rue the day you ever attempted to arrest THE LAW?

    Do you realize that you've now gone from "Man I don't trust cops" to straight up silly?

    shamanhealingwave.jpgabilitypaladinshieldofv.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Everyone appeals their sentence, don't get outraged over that. There's zero chance of any of this changing, it's over.

    Let me bold this for you.

    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    He is then given basically the lightest prison sentence, and is now trying weasel out of it.

    I'm not allowed to get outraged over blatant lies?

    You can drum up some misplaced outrage all you want but if a person has the means to appeal their case, they're gonna do so. Be outraged that they were gonna taser a guy in cuffs and killed him instead. Don't be outraged by a person exercising their rights to appeal.

    Ok. I didn't believe it possible for someone could be so obtuse, but you have proved me wrong. I'm not outraged at his appeal. I'm pissed off that he would lie about being willing to serve his time to make up for his mistake. He has shown that he is absolutely unwilling to do so. This means that he has no remorse for wrongfully taking a life.

    Or perhaps he believes that were he to be sentenced now, he could quietly appeal and both avoid the Next Big Riot(TM) and regain his freedom.

    They're not mutually exclusive.

    But I do understand what you're saying, and it's an interesting point.
    I'm sure his record will be expunged and he'll be reinstated once he's out of jail.

    Are you a lawyer?

    Because these guys are. And it doesn't sound like it's that easy. According to them (as well as a little side-reading I did):

    - Federal law does not recognize California expungements, which means the federal ban still applies
    - An expungement doesn't restore firearms rights anyway
    - Involuntary manslaughter is a "straight felony," can't be reduced to a misdemeanor
    - You cannot get a certificate of rehabilitation if your crime involved the use of a "dangerous weapon"
    - A governor's pardon also does not apply if a "dangerous weapon" was used
    - Police officers can get one-time exceptions, if granted by a judge, but only for domestic violence or stalking convictions (interesting, that)

    I believe you may be overstating the ease with which this guy can get back into (armed) police work. Maybe.


    EDIT: Sorry to inject silly "facts" into y'all's irrational bitch-fest, though. I know it sucks. And hey, I agree that it's shitty he's getting off so easy...I personally believe he was guilty of more, and should probably be going away for decades. Unfortunately, the evidence as presented to the jury didn't really support this conclusion, not beyond reasonable doubt, so he was convicted of a lighter charge. As for the sentence, what's the average sentence for involuntary manslaughter in California? Given the facts of the case, as accepted by the jury, was an above-average, or even average, sentence justified? And so on, and so forth. This is actually a perfectly reasonable outcome...probably the low end of reasonable, but reasonable.

    Obama could grant him a presidential pardon.

    I guess you didn't think of THAT did you, Mr. Fancy-Pantsy Smarty Pants?

    steam_sig.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Midshipman wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Everyone appeals their sentence, don't get outraged over that. There's zero chance of any of this changing, it's over.

    Let me bold this for you.

    Mehserle told a judge before sentencing Friday that he would be willing to go to prison if the sentence made his city and family safer.

    He is then given basically the lightest prison sentence, and is now trying weasel out of it.

    I'm not allowed to get outraged over blatant lies?

    You can drum up some misplaced outrage all you want but if a person has the means to appeal their case, they're gonna do so. Be outraged that they were gonna taser a guy in cuffs and killed him instead. Don't be outraged by a person exercising their rights to appeal.

    Ok. I didn't believe it possible for someone could be so obtuse, but you have proved me wrong. I'm not outraged at his appeal. I'm pissed off that he would lie about being willing to serve his time to make up for his mistake. He has shown that he is absolutely unwilling to do so. This means that he has no remorse for wrongfully taking a life.

    Or perhaps he believes that were he to be sentenced now, he could quietly appeal and both avoid the Next Big Riot(TM) and regain his freedom.

    They're not mutually exclusive.

    But I do understand what you're saying, and it's an interesting point.
    I'm sure his record will be expunged and he'll be reinstated once he's out of jail.

    Are you a lawyer?

    Because these guys are. And it doesn't sound like it's that easy. According to them (as well as a little side-reading I did):

    - Federal law does not recognize California expungements, which means the federal ban still applies
    - An expungement doesn't restore firearms rights anyway
    - Involuntary manslaughter is a "straight felony," can't be reduced to a misdemeanor
    - You cannot get a certificate of rehabilitation if your crime involved the use of a "dangerous weapon"
    - A governor's pardon also does not apply if a "dangerous weapon" was used
    - Police officers can get one-time exceptions, if granted by a judge, but only for domestic violence or stalking convictions (interesting, that)

    I believe you may be overstating the ease with which this guy can get back into (armed) police work. Maybe.


    EDIT: Sorry to inject silly "facts" into y'all's irrational bitch-fest, though. I know it sucks. And hey, I agree that it's shitty he's getting off so easy...I personally believe he was guilty of more, and should probably be going away for decades. Unfortunately, the evidence as presented to the jury didn't really support this conclusion, not beyond reasonable doubt, so he was convicted of a lighter charge. As for the sentence, what's the average sentence for involuntary manslaughter in California? Given the facts of the case, as accepted by the jury, was an above-average, or even average, sentence justified? And so on, and so forth. This is actually a perfectly reasonable outcome...probably the low end of reasonable, but reasonable.

    Obama could grant him a presidential pardon.

    I guess you didn't think of THAT did you, Mr. Fancy-Pantsy Smarty Pants?

    Still wouldn't work. A Presidential pardon is an admission of guilt (Nixon opposed Ford's pardon initially for this reason.)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
Sign In or Register to comment.