Options

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

1246714

Posts

  • Options
    PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    You have to create the reasonable doubt.

    The fact that he wanted to taser someone who had just been searched, who was laying on his stomach, is sadistic.

    To make it not sadistic you have to invent some line of reasoning by which it would be reasonable that the cop would have needed to use his taser in his own defense, instead of for sadistic reasons.


    Please invent this scenario.

    A) The defendant doesn't need to create reasonable doubt. That's not how the system works. The prosecution has got to disprove all reasonable doubt.

    B) There's no need to invent the scenario. You can use this one. Grant had not been "searched." There's no way to adequately search an uncuffed subject on the ground, precisely because they can be resting on top of their weapon. You secure the subject in cuffs, then you search them. If somebody who is struggling with the reaches into their wasteband, it's a fair assumption they're going for a weapon, which makes drawing the taser reasonable.

    I think you're grossly underestimating how easy it is to conceal a weapon and how fast it is to draw a weapon. If somebody on the ground like that actually does produce a gun from their wasteband, you have almost no reaction time.

    Because Grant had eyes in the back of his head and his elbows could bend backwards?

    If the cop who'd searched him made the decision not to put him in cuffs, why was Grant a reasonable threat?

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »

    Can you prove that sadistic intent beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve of your peers?

    If the accused was not a police officer, probably, which is kind of the entire point here, I think.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    Peeps ChickenPeeps Chicken Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Oh, so I have to prove what someone believed

    The fact that he was laying face down on the ground and was just searched and found to be unarmed by a competent police officer shows that there's no reasonable doubt that this was an unarmed person, in a position that made them incapable of posing any immediate physical threat to the officer.
    You have to prove intent. Their subjective belief factors into that, yes.

    You keep saying this shit. Where are you getting that from? The officer and Mehserle both said that they were struggling with him, trying to get him cuffed. As far as I've been taught, you don't try to search somebody until you've got them secured. If he's not cuffed, he hasn't been thoroughly searched.

    Peeps Chicken on
  • Options
    The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »

    Can you prove that sadistic intent beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve of your peers?

    If the accused was not a police officer, probably, which is kind of the entire point here, I think.

    Man, having to prove to 12 police officers that a police officer broke the law is worthy of a Michael Bay film.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Yes, proving what someone intended thought or believed is often a part of prosecution of crimes.

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    Lord Of The PantsLord Of The Pants Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Oh, so I have to prove what someone believed

    That's horse shit and you know it. It's impossible to prove what someone believed at the time. You can show what they did and if there was any reason for a person with their training and experience to do it.

    You can show what they did, and that there was NO reason for a person with the same training and experience to do it.

    The fact that he was laying face down on the ground and was just searched and found to be unarmed by a competent police officer shows that there's no reasonable doubt that this was an unarmed person, in a position that made them incapable of posing any immediate physical threat to the officer.

    Okay, this is the issue: He killed a man, making him guilty of manslaughter. Check? Right, murder requires motivation, the intent to kill or cause serious cruel pain. Check?

    The way our system works is that you are innocent until proven guilty. Check?

    The prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer murdered a man.
    Note, that just because he didn't murder the man didn't mean that he didn't cause his death.
    That's all it is.

    Lord Of The Pants on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    Peeps ChickenPeeps Chicken Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Pheezer wrote: »
    You have to create the reasonable doubt.

    The fact that he wanted to taser someone who had just been searched, who was laying on his stomach, is sadistic.

    To make it not sadistic you have to invent some line of reasoning by which it would be reasonable that the cop would have needed to use his taser in his own defense, instead of for sadistic reasons.


    Please invent this scenario.

    A) The defendant doesn't need to create reasonable doubt. That's not how the system works. The prosecution has got to disprove all reasonable doubt.

    B) There's no need to invent the scenario. You can use this one. Grant had not been "searched." There's no way to adequately search an uncuffed subject on the ground, precisely because they can be resting on top of their weapon. You secure the subject in cuffs, then you search them. If somebody who is struggling with the reaches into their wasteband, it's a fair assumption they're going for a weapon, which makes drawing the taser reasonable.

    I think you're grossly underestimating how easy it is to conceal a weapon and how fast it is to draw a weapon. If somebody on the ground like that actually does produce a gun from their wasteband, you have almost no reaction time.

    Because Grant had eyes in the back of his head and his elbows could bend backwards?

    If the cop who'd searched him made the decision not to put him in cuffs, why was Grant a reasonable threat?
    If you keep making up facts, I'm sure you can make a really self-satisfying argument. The "officer who searched him made the decision not to put him in cuffs" now? The officer who was trying to cuff him said Grant was struggling, resisting being put in cuffs.

    In any case, yes. An unrestrained person can shoot you very easily, even from the ground. I got some nice simunition welts to teach me that lesson. I'm sure you could find somebody with a BB gun or an airsoft gun to demonstrate on you, if you want.

    Peeps Chicken on
  • Options
    PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Oh, so I have to prove what someone believed

    The fact that he was laying face down on the ground and was just searched and found to be unarmed by a competent police officer shows that there's no reasonable doubt that this was an unarmed person, in a position that made them incapable of posing any immediate physical threat to the officer.
    You have to prove intent. Their subjective belief factors into that, yes.

    You keep saying this shit. Where are you getting that from? The officer and Mehserle both said that they were struggling with him, trying to get him cuffed. As far as I've been taught, you don't try to search somebody until you've got them secured. If he's not cuffed, he hasn't been thoroughly searched.

    Yes, that's what they say. The guy accused of murder and his fellow cop tell the same story, phenomenal.

    But the videos and the witnesses say he'd been patted down and was laying down, face down on the ground.

    At the point in the videos where Mehserle pulls his "taser", how possible is it that he could have a legitimate need to use it?


    Also, I'm gonna go become a cop and I'm just going to believe that any black dude is carrying a gun. Ergo, I'm justified in tasering them all in the back. I was afraid. They could have had guns. I believed that my life was in danger, so it's okay. You can't prove I didn't believe that.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I dunno, I wish that the guy was going away for longer, because it's pretty obvious that he murdered the guy. On the other hand, I'm really not ok with loosening the standards for murder. Yeah, sometimes the standards let a shitbag like this guy get off, but high standards are really important when you're prosecuting people that juries and judges don't have huge biases in favor of. So it's a balance. I'm ok with this guy not getting convicted of murder because the alternative is worse.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Oh, so I have to prove what someone believed

    That's horse shit and you know it. It's impossible to prove what someone believed at the time. You can show what they did and if there was any reason for a person with their training and experience to do it.

    You can show what they did, and that there was NO reason for a person with the same training and experience to do it.

    The fact that he was laying face down on the ground and was just searched and found to be unarmed by a competent police officer shows that there's no reasonable doubt that this was an unarmed person, in a position that made them incapable of posing any immediate physical threat to the officer.

    How many instances of officers injured by similarly "subdued" suspects would I need to find to maintain reasonable doubt?

    Because, you know, that shit does happen. Probably more often than Taser subjects die, either in raw numbers or as a percentage.

    I can also show a ton of other officers using similar force (the Taser, not the gun) in similar situations. Doesn't make it lawful, but it does make his intent quite believable.


    Also, yes it is ridiculously hard to prove what somebody believed at the time. Usually you need statements prior to or after the act to do that. Which is why there are....wait, how many successful torture prosecutions are there yearly in California?

    Again, to clarify -- do I believe that Grant actually posed a reasonable or real threat to the cop? Absolutely not.

    But do I believe that the cop could have thought he did, due to fight-or-flight? Certainly.

    And in a question of intent, it's about what is a reasonable state of mind for the officer to have, not a disinterested observer.

    This, by the way.

    Not only do I not believe Grant posed any legitimate threat, I believe Grant acted with malice in drawing what he thought was his Taser, and thus is "guilty" of murder. I just don't think the prosecutor, from what little I read, proved this. I think it's entirely possible that an incompetent (criminally incompetent, by the way) officer could reasonably have believed Grant to be a threat.

    And I believe in the existence of criminally incompetent officers.

    Even if I did believe the prosecutor proved it, if I were in a room full of six or even eleven other people who didn't (which is likely), I'd settle for manslaughter.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Yes, proving what someone intended thought or believed is often a part of prosecution of crimes.

    And, to highlight it from the other post, it's often done through statements (reliably documented or observed statements) of that belief/intent either before or after the fact.

    If he had been dumb enough to say "man, I just wanted to Tase that dude for a laugh" after this all happened, and had that been recorded (or had reliable testimony confirmed it) then you might be able to make a go of it.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »

    Can you prove that sadistic intent beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve of your peers?

    If the accused was not a police officer, probably, which is kind of the entire point here, I think.

    How many non-police-officers were convicted of torture in California last year?

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Oh, so I have to prove what someone believed

    The fact that he was laying face down on the ground and was just searched and found to be unarmed by a competent police officer shows that there's no reasonable doubt that this was an unarmed person, in a position that made them incapable of posing any immediate physical threat to the officer.
    You have to prove intent. Their subjective belief factors into that, yes.

    You keep saying this shit. Where are you getting that from? The officer and Mehserle both said that they were struggling with him, trying to get him cuffed. As far as I've been taught, you don't try to search somebody until you've got them secured. If he's not cuffed, he hasn't been thoroughly searched.

    Yes, that's what they say. The guy accused of murder and his fellow cop tell the same story, phenomenal.

    But the videos and the witnesses say he'd been patted down and was laying down, face down on the ground.

    At the point in the videos where Mehserle pulls his "taser", how possible is it that he could have a legitimate need to use it?

    Grant breaks free from the other officers grip while being cuffed, and attacks him.

    Unlikely, maybe. But well beyond possible.

    Also, I'm gonna go become a cop and I'm just going to believe that any black dude is carrying a gun. Ergo, I'm justified in tasering them all in the back. I was afraid. They could have had guns. I believed that my life was in danger, so it's okay. You can't prove I didn't believe that.

    And if one dies, you can face a 5-14 year prison sentence. Just like this guy.
    Obviously he'll do less. But he's spent at least one year in jail already. Sound fun?

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    He was out on bail according to that article. He got taken back into custody when the verdict came down.

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    So It Goes wrote: »
    He was out on bail according to that article.

    My bad.

    The "facing 5-14 years" still stands, though.

    Sound fun?
    I dunno, I wish that the guy was going away for longer, because it's pretty obvious that he murdered the guy. On the other hand, I'm really not ok with loosening the standards for murder. Yeah, sometimes the standards let a shitbag like this guy get off, but high standards are really important when you're prosecuting people that juries and judges don't have huge biases in favor of. So it's a balance. I'm ok with this guy not getting convicted of murder because the alternative is worse.

    Again, this. I'll say it once a page if I need to, so it's clear. I personally believe he's guilty of murder. I don't think it was proven to a standard I'm comfortable convicting on.

    I think manslaughter was proven quite effectively, however. Like, home-run style.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Peeps ChickenPeeps Chicken Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Yes, that's what they say. The guy accused of murder and his fellow cop tell the same story, phenomenal.

    Actually, no. That's what non-police witnesses say as well. Witnesses quoted in the defense brief said:
    His hands were underneath him (under his body). Kiersted said she could see the cops were trying to pull his arms out. Kiersted said she could not hear what the officers or the male were saying as there was too much yelling and screaming going on. The big cop (the original one) was towards the head of the subject on the ground, and another cop (taller and thinner) was at the subject’s feet. Kiersted said they kept trying to pull his arms out and the subject was struggling. Kiersted said one of her companions even made the comment, “That guy must be strong, because they can’t get his arms out. “ Kiersted again sat back down and heard a lot of screaming and yelling, and then suddenly a “pop.” (Discovery p. 159)
    Kiersted said the officers were using a lot of force, but could not pull Grant’s arms out. Kiersted was uncertain as to how long Grant and the officers struggled to get his arms out. Kiersted said Grant never gave up his hands. Kiersted heard a pop, and then saw the Officer was near Grant’s feet put his hands up to his head with a shocked look.

    Another non-police witness said:
    Officer Pirone was kneeling on Grant’s shoulder blade or neck. Officer Pirone appeared to be trying to handcuff Grant. Grant was struggling at this time. It appeared Officer Mehserle was trying to handcuff Grant. Officer Mehserle was standing on one side of Grant. It appeared Officer Mehserle had one of his feet on the back of Grant’s leg, as he was trying to hold Grant down. Either the Officers with Grant or someone on the train said “we’re going to taze you.” Rogers looked away for a spoilt instant and then saw Officer Mehserle with a gun in his hand. Rogers did not see Officer Mehserle draw its gun from its holster. Rogers thought Officer Mehserle’s “gun” was a taser because of the comments “we are going to taze you” and “they’re going to get tazed.”

    If you look at View 2 on Youtube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tmh9B8LVxM ), the shot happens at around 1:20. At around 1:27-1:31, you can see them roll him over, and his hands are both underneath his body. You don't cuff somebody in the front (unless you're in a situation like a courthouse, where they're in shackles), and you certainly don't cuff them in front and leave them on their belly before you've searched them.

    Peeps Chicken on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »

    Can you prove that sadistic intent beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve of your peers?

    If the accused was not a police officer, probably, which is kind of the entire point here, I think.

    I'd imagine because most people don't have jobs that involve pointing a weapon of any kind at someone's back.

    Quid on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Yes, that's what they say. The guy accused of murder and his fellow cop tell the same story, phenomenal.

    Actually, no. That's what non-police witnesses say as well. Witnesses quoted in the defense brief said:
    His hands were underneath him (under his body). Kiersted said she could see the cops were trying to pull his arms out. Kiersted said she could not hear what the officers or the male were saying as there was too much yelling and screaming going on. The big cop (the original one) was towards the head of the subject on the ground, and another cop (taller and thinner) was at the subject’s feet. Kiersted said they kept trying to pull his arms out and the subject was struggling. Kiersted said one of her companions even made the comment, “That guy must be strong, because they can’t get his arms out. “ Kiersted again sat back down and heard a lot of screaming and yelling, and then suddenly a “pop.” (Discovery p. 159)
    Kiersted said the officers were using a lot of force, but could not pull Grant’s arms out. Kiersted was uncertain as to how long Grant and the officers struggled to get his arms out. Kiersted said Grant never gave up his hands. Kiersted heard a pop, and then saw the Officer was near Grant’s feet put his hands up to his head with a shocked look.

    Another non-police witness said:
    Officer Pirone was kneeling on Grant’s shoulder blade or neck. Officer Pirone appeared to be trying to handcuff Grant. Grant was struggling at this time. It appeared Officer Mehserle was trying to handcuff Grant. Officer Mehserle was standing on one side of Grant. It appeared Officer Mehserle had one of his feet on the back of Grant’s leg, as he was trying to hold Grant down. Either the Officers with Grant or someone on the train said “we’re going to taze you.” Rogers looked away for a spoilt instant and then saw Officer Mehserle with a gun in his hand. Rogers did not see Officer Mehserle draw its gun from its holster. Rogers thought Officer Mehserle’s “gun” was a taser because of the comments “we are going to taze you” and “they’re going to get tazed.”

    If you look at View 2 on Youtube, the shot happens at around 1:20. At around 1:27-1:31, you can see them roll him over, and his hands are both underneath his body. You don't cuff somebody in the front (unless you're in a situation like a courthouse, where they're in shackles), and you certainly don't cuff them in front and leave them on their belly before you've searched them.

    Two things:

    - I'm inclined to believe that half the testimony from other officers is utter bullshit, coordinated to try and keep their fellow officer out of jail (even if they believe his innocence, this will be a concern).

    - This does seem to suggest that he wasn't cuffed, and means he probably wasn't thoroughly searched, which pretty much blows any "there is no intent other than SADISM possible, man" argument out of the water. And uncuffed and only partially searched suspect (even just an uncuffed suspect) can always be perceived as dangerous, especially by a (relatively) inexperienced cop.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pheezer wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pheezer wrote: »
    You have to create the reasonable doubt.

    The fact that he wanted to taser someone who had just been searched, who was laying on his stomach, is sadistic.

    To make it not sadistic you have to invent some line of reasoning by which it would be reasonable that the cop would have needed to use his taser in his own defense, instead of for sadistic reasons.


    Please invent this scenario.

    No, you have to maintain the reasonable doubt. Ever heard of presumption of innocence? Burden's on the prosecution to eliminate reasonable doubt.

    Also, he could argue that he was trying to assist his fellow officer in gaining compliance, or that he honestly believed his fellow officer was in some minimal amount of danger. While an unreasonable use of force, and thus illegal, it's not sadistic.

    He doesn't need to maintain reasonable doubt that the use of force was appropriate, just that his intent was not sadistic. Which is absurdly easy.

    So what was the intent behind tasering someone who couldn't possibly have posed a threat?

    Please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he could not possibly have posed a threat.

    Actually, scratch that. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer didn't believe that he posed a threat.

    Because that's the burden you're taking on by trying to prove it was torture. You're not going to meet that burden. Period.

    Actually, the prosecution would probably only had to prove that he had no reason to believe there was a threat.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pheezer wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pheezer wrote: »
    You have to create the reasonable doubt.

    The fact that he wanted to taser someone who had just been searched, who was laying on his stomach, is sadistic.

    To make it not sadistic you have to invent some line of reasoning by which it would be reasonable that the cop would have needed to use his taser in his own defense, instead of for sadistic reasons.


    Please invent this scenario.

    No, you have to maintain the reasonable doubt. Ever heard of presumption of innocence? Burden's on the prosecution to eliminate reasonable doubt.

    Also, he could argue that he was trying to assist his fellow officer in gaining compliance, or that he honestly believed his fellow officer was in some minimal amount of danger. While an unreasonable use of force, and thus illegal, it's not sadistic.

    He doesn't need to maintain reasonable doubt that the use of force was appropriate, just that his intent was not sadistic. Which is absurdly easy.

    So what was the intent behind tasering someone who couldn't possibly have posed a threat?

    Please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he could not possibly have posed a threat.

    Actually, scratch that. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer didn't believe that he posed a threat.

    Because that's the burden you're taking on by trying to prove it was torture. You're not going to meet that burden. Period.

    Actually, the prosecution would probably only had to prove that he had no reason to believe there was a threat.

    Possibly. Though you could argue that he was so blatantly incompetent that he perceived a threat where another, more competent, officer would not...again, you're still talking about criminal incompetence (and jail time), just not capital murder. Considering how often police overreact to threats, I don't think this is at all hard to argue, either.

    EDIT: Actually, back that up. Pretty sure you'd still have to prove his individual intent/belief. Now, by showing that no other officer would ever perceive that as a threat you might be able to meet that burden beyond a reasonable doubt. But all it takes is a few videos of uncuffed but otherwise subdued suspects injuring officers, or other officers reacting similarly with Tasers (absent deaths, obviously) in similar situations and your argument falls flat.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Yes, proving what someone intended thought or believed is often a part of prosecution of crimes.

    I don't understand how this concept is so difficult for some people to grasp.

    This, plus the concept of innocence until proven guilty, have been an important part of our legal system, and thus cropped up frequently and significantly in our media (news, movies, books, TV, games, fictional and nonfictional) for a very long time.

    This bears repeating, so get it through your heads, people:

    Yes, you have to PROVE beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT that he had sadistic INTENT.

    You don't have to agree with the way the legal system works, but that's a topic for another thread.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    Peeps ChickenPeeps Chicken Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    For anybody interested, here's the defense brief I mentioned earlier. It quotes several sources, both BART officers and civilians on the scene. Like McDermott, I tend to view the other officer's testimony with some skepticism, except inasmuch as it's corroborated by the non-police witness accounts.

    http://cdn.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2009/01/30/motion_for_bail.pdf

    Peeps Chicken on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Pheezer wrote: »
    You have to create the reasonable doubt.

    The fact that he wanted to taser someone who had just been searched, who was laying on his stomach, is sadistic.

    To make it not sadistic you have to invent some line of reasoning by which it would be reasonable that the cop would have needed to use his taser in his own defense, instead of for sadistic reasons.


    Please invent this scenario.

    A) The defendant doesn't need to create reasonable doubt. That's not how the system works. The prosecution has got to disprove all reasonable doubt.

    B) There's no need to invent the scenario. You can use this one. Grant had not been "searched." There's no way to adequately search an uncuffed subject on the ground, precisely because they can be resting on top of their weapon. You secure the subject in cuffs, then you search them. If somebody who is struggling with the reaches into their wasteband, it's a fair assumption they're going for a weapon, which makes drawing the taser reasonable.

    I think you're grossly underestimating how easy it is to conceal a weapon and how fast it is to draw a weapon. If somebody on the ground like that actually does produce a gun from their wasteband, you have almost no reaction time.

    Because Grant had eyes in the back of his head and his elbows could bend backwards?

    If the cop who'd searched him made the decision not to put him in cuffs, why was Grant a reasonable threat?
    If you keep making up facts, I'm sure you can make a really self-satisfying argument. The "officer who searched him made the decision not to put him in cuffs" now? The officer who was trying to cuff him said Grant was struggling, resisting being put in cuffs.

    In any case, yes. An unrestrained person can shoot you very easily, even from the ground. I got some nice simunition welts to teach me that lesson. I'm sure you could find somebody with a BB gun or an airsoft gun to demonstrate on you, if you want.

    While he's on his stomach and hands, you're on his back, someone else is on his legs, and everybody has hold of his arms? I mean, it's easy to shoot if you can roll onto your back, but that's about as relevant to this case as saying that someone can cut you in two if he has a chainsaw.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    OremLK wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Yes, proving what someone intended thought or believed is often a part of prosecution of crimes.

    I don't understand how this concept is so difficult for some people to grasp.

    This, plus the concept of innocence until proven guilty, have been an important part of our legal system, and thus cropped up frequently and significantly in our media (news, movies, books, TV, games, fictional and nonfictional) for a very long time.

    This bears repeating, so get it through your heads, people:

    Yes, you have to PROVE beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT that he had sadistic INTENT.

    You don't have to agree with the way the legal system works, but that's a topic for another thread.

    I think the issue is that for so long many/most laws have completely not applied to police officers, so a lot of people don't want this particular aspect of our justice system to apply to them either.

    Which, to some extent, is fair. You want double standards? Eat your double standards, motherfuckers.

    For anybody interested, here's the defense brief I mentioned earlier. It quotes several sources, both BART officers and civilians on the scene. Like McDermott, I tend to view the other officer's testimony with some skepticism, except inasmuch as it's corroborated by the non-police witness accounts.

    Yeah, I only believe it to the extent that I don't believe the prosecution proved intent. And I don't accept "I totally think this guy is guilty" as a reasonable criteria to convict on.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    While he's on his stomach and hands, you're on his back, someone else is on his legs, and everybody has hold of his arms? I mean, it's easy to shoot if you can roll onto your back, but that's about as relevant to this case as saying that someone can cut you in two if he has a chainsaw.

    We did this dance before, but you don't need to prove he had the ability to shoot and/or kill another officer, merely that it was not unreasonable for him to believe he had the ability to inflict injury on another officer.

    And hey, this guy was (according to his account) only trying to use a Taser...rather than, say, intentionally shooting a firearm at a kid for throwing rocks. Wasn't an argument over there "why didn't he have a Taser?"

    Plus, here's the good part: the jury didn't even accept that Grant was a threat, or that the officer's belief that he was a threat was reasonable. That would have delivered an acquittal.


    I'll say that again: if the jury actually bought that Mehserle had a reasonable belief that Grant was a threat (not deadly threat, just a threat) to himself or other officers, he would be at home drinking a beer right now. So we're back in that chasm between "Grant was a reasonable threat" and "no human being would believe Grant was a threat, thus the only possible motive was sadism."

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Yes, proving what someone intended thought or believed is often a part of prosecution of crimes.

    I don't understand how this concept is so difficult for some people to grasp.

    This, plus the concept of innocence until proven guilty, have been an important part of our legal system, and thus cropped up frequently and significantly in our media (news, movies, books, TV, games, fictional and nonfictional) for a very long time.

    This bears repeating, so get it through your heads, people:

    Yes, you have to PROVE beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT that he had sadistic INTENT.

    You don't have to agree with the way the legal system works, but that's a topic for another thread.

    I think the issue is that for so long many/most laws have completely not applied to police officers, so a lot of people don't want this particular aspect of our justice system to apply to them either.

    Which, to some extent, is fair. You want double standards? Eat your double standards, motherfuckers.

    For anybody interested, here's the defense brief I mentioned earlier. It quotes several sources, both BART officers and civilians on the scene. Like McDermott, I tend to view the other officer's testimony with some skepticism, except inasmuch as it's corroborated by the non-police witness accounts.

    Yeah, I only believe it to the extent that I don't believe the prosecution proved intent. And I don't accept "I totally think this guy is guilty" as a reasonable criteria to convict on.

    I think it's more that only a cop could use the intent defense after tackling somebody and shooting him in the back of the head without being laughed out of court (except in Texas).

    The no reason thing works because an inability to supply a reason makes it quite unreasonable to entertain the possibility of holding a belief strongly enough to act on it.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Yes, proving what someone intended thought or believed is often a part of prosecution of crimes.

    I don't understand how this concept is so difficult for some people to grasp.

    This, plus the concept of innocence until proven guilty, have been an important part of our legal system, and thus cropped up frequently and significantly in our media (news, movies, books, TV, games, fictional and nonfictional) for a very long time.

    This bears repeating, so get it through your heads, people:

    Yes, you have to PROVE beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT that he had sadistic INTENT.

    You don't have to agree with the way the legal system works, but that's a topic for another thread.

    I think the issue is that for so long many/most laws have completely not applied to police officers, so a lot of people don't want this particular aspect of our justice system to apply to them either.

    Which, to some extent, is fair. You want double standards? Eat your double standards, motherfuckers.

    For anybody interested, here's the defense brief I mentioned earlier. It quotes several sources, both BART officers and civilians on the scene. Like McDermott, I tend to view the other officer's testimony with some skepticism, except inasmuch as it's corroborated by the non-police witness accounts.

    Yeah, I only believe it to the extent that I don't believe the prosecution proved intent. And I don't accept "I totally think this guy is guilty" as a reasonable criteria to convict on.

    I think it's more that only a cop could use the intent defense after tackling somebody and shooting him in the back of the head without being laughed out of court (except in Texas).

    The no reason thing works because an inability to supply a reason makes it quite unreasonable to entertain the possibility of holding a belief strongly enough to act on it.

    Are you talking about this case?

    He wasn't shot in the head...

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think the issue is that for so long many/most laws have completely not applied to police officers, so a lot of people don't want this particular aspect of our justice system to apply to them either.

    Which, to some extent, is fair. You want double standards? Eat your double standards, motherfuckers.

    I totally understand that and agree with it on an emotional level, but that doesn't mean we should compromise our legal system for it. (Which I know you're not arguing.)

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I think it's more that only a cop could use the intent defense after tackling somebody and shooting him in the back of the head without being laughed out of court (except in Texas).

    The no reason thing works because an inability to supply a reason makes it quite unreasonable to entertain the possibility of holding a belief strongly enough to act on it.

    Well, that or only a cop would be carrying two weapons, one deadly and on non-deadly (or less-deadly, if you prefer)...particularly two weapons with the same method of operation and vaguely similar form factor.

    I know of few CCW holders who carry a gun and a Taser. Even in Texas.
    Are you talking about this case?

    He wasn't shot in the head...

    Oh yeah. That too.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Peeps ChickenPeeps Chicken Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    While he's on his stomach and hands, you're on his back, someone else is on his legs, and everybody has hold of his arms? I mean, it's easy to shoot if you can roll onto your back, but that's about as relevant to this case as saying that someone can cut you in two if he has a chainsaw.

    Y'know, I made a point last thread that I simply wasn't discussing these matters with you, because you don't respond in good faith and reply with non-sequiturs half the time. With that said, the facts aren't as you posited them. Look at the video if you wish. Mehserle was struggling with him, trying to get control of his arms. His arms weren't secured. The other officer (Pirone) had his knee across Grant's back or neck, but at the time things went south, he was upright and dealing with the subject to the right (he was upright with his hands on that subject from 1:10-1:15, up until the point Mehserle jumps off the guy and draws his gun). And there was nobody on Grant's legs.

    I don't know. I'm pretty sure if I had both my hands under me, even with somebody on my neck and somebody trying to grab my arms, I could probably still pull a gun. They did some research on this after the shooting happened, and somebody can draw and fire in about .3 seconds from that position.

    Peeps Chicken on
  • Options
    reddeathreddeath Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Don't trust the police no justice no peace, they got me, face down in the middle of the street.

    Good to see two sets of laws still out and in full force in the homeland. I wonder if they'll ever convict one of these cold blooded murderers of, you know, murder.

    I've watched this MURDER from about every possible camera angle now, and it still pretty much looks like a MURDERING cop MURDERING a black man on new years day. Nice to see so many apologists sticking up for his minimum security wrist slap too.

    reddeath on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    While he's on his stomach and hands, you're on his back, someone else is on his legs, and everybody has hold of his arms? I mean, it's easy to shoot if you can roll onto your back, but that's about as relevant to this case as saying that someone can cut you in two if he has a chainsaw.

    Y'know, I made a point last thread that I simply wasn't discussing these matters with you, because you don't respond in good faith and reply with non-sequiturs half the time. With that said, the facts aren't as you posited them. Look at the video if you wish. Mehserle was struggling with him, trying to get control of his arms. His arms weren't secured. The other officer (Pirone) had his knee across Grant's back or neck, but at the time things went south, he was upright and dealing with the subject to the right (he was upright with his hands on that subject from 1:10-1:15, up until the point Mehserle jumps off the guy and draws his gun). And there was nobody on Grant's legs.

    I don't know. I'm pretty sure if I had both my hands under me, even with somebody on my neck and somebody trying to grab my arms, I could probably still pull a gun. They did some research on this after the shooting happened, and somebody can draw and fire in about .3 seconds from that position.

    Also, I'm fairly sure that California law doesn't require a police officer to perceive a deadly threat to use deadly force. So the gun thing is irrelevant. Then there's the question of whether a Taser is deadly force anyway, or non-deadly force (according to the law).

    I think that ruling up in San Jose affected this somewhat, but I'm pretty sure it would still apply.

    Not that it's relevant anyway, because we're not talking about whether the use of the Taser is justified...it wasn't, the jury (implicitly) determined that it wasn't. The question is merely whether there's any reasonable doubt as to whether Mehserle perceived a threat, or whether he merely wanted to sadistically inflict pain.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    reddeath wrote: »
    Don't trust the police no justice no peace, they got me, face down in the middle of the street.

    Good to see two sets of laws still out and in full force in the homeland. I wonder if they'll ever convict one of these cold blooded murderers of, you know, murder.

    I've watched this MURDER from about every possible camera angle now, and it still pretty much looks like a MURDERING cop MURDERING a black man on new years day. Nice to see so many apologists sticking up for his minimum security wrist slap too.

    Yup, because it's in CAPS it has to be true, yo.

    Don't worry, though...if a black guy kills a cop in self-defense (say, due to a botched SWAT raid on the wrong address...as has happened) I'll stand up for him, too.

    Though he'll get convicted and go to prison, because our justice system is kinda fucked when it comes to uses of force by police versus private citizens. Still doesn't change the fact that there's only proof here of manslaughter, and not MURDER.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    reddeathreddeath Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    reddeath wrote: »
    Don't trust the police no justice no peace, they got me, face down in the middle of the street.

    Good to see two sets of laws still out and in full force in the homeland. I wonder if they'll ever convict one of these cold blooded murderers of, you know, murder.

    I've watched this MURDER from about every possible camera angle now, and it still pretty much looks like a MURDERING cop MURDERING a black man on new years day. Nice to see so many apologists sticking up for his minimum security wrist slap too.

    Yup, because it's in CAPS it has to be true, yo.

    Don't worry, though...if a black guy kills a cop in self-defense (say, due to a botched SWAT raid on the wrong address...as has happened) I'll stand up for him, too.

    Though he'll get convicted and go to prison, because our justice system is kinda fucked when it comes to uses of force by police versus private citizens. Still doesn't change the fact that there's only proof here of manslaughter, and not MURDER.

    I'm pretty sure the cold blooded murder caught on camera makes it a true murder. The one we've all seen several times, from several angles at this point.

    I know what a murder looks like.

    Thats a murder. Could even be called a straight up execution given the callous and deliberate nature of the killing shot delivered.

    Two laws.

    reddeath on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    reddeath wrote: »
    Don't trust the police no justice no peace, they got me, face down in the middle of the street.

    Good to see two sets of laws still out and in full force in the homeland. I wonder if they'll ever convict one of these cold blooded murderers of, you know, murder.

    I've watched this MURDER from about every possible camera angle now, and it still pretty much looks like a MURDERING cop MURDERING a black man on new years day. Nice to see so many apologists sticking up for his minimum security wrist slap too.

    Could you prove the murderous intent then? I'd imagine the prosecution would love the new evidence.

    Until then I'd rather we stick to trying to follow system as closely as we can, even if it's not perfect.

    Quid on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    reddeath wrote: »
    Don't trust the police no justice no peace, they got me, face down in the middle of the street.

    Good to see two sets of laws still out and in full force in the homeland. I wonder if they'll ever convict one of these cold blooded murderers of, you know, murder.

    I've watched this MURDER from about every possible camera angle now, and it still pretty much looks like a MURDERING cop MURDERING a black man on new years day. Nice to see so many apologists sticking up for his minimum security wrist slap too.

    Could you prove the murderous intent then? I'd imagine the prosecution would love the new evidence.

    Until then I'd rather we stick to trying to follow system as closely as we can, even if it's not perfect.

    If only reddeath had shared his insight with the prosecution, and not kept silent, we could have put Mehserle away for life!

    So, reddeath, can you point me to the point in the video (give me a link and a time index) where I can clearly see Mehserle's intent? The "callous and deliberate" nature of the killing blow (and the proof that he was not merely incompetent in mistaking his gun for his Taser)?

    Because "I know what murder a looks like" is not a legal standard in this country. At least not for murder. I think that's porn you're thinking of.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Whether someone really did something and whether it can actually be proved will always be two very different things.

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    DodgeBlanDodgeBlan PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    So he had the guy on the ground

    A cop had his knee on the guy's head

    There was no reason anyone could claim he was a threat to anyone

    A cop draws his gun and fires.

    And that's involuntary?

    He chose to use a weapon with lethal capability on someone who posed no threat

    But he didn't mean to kill the guy?


    Tell me what I would get to plead if I walked up to a random person who was, I don't know, suntanning on the beach, face down. I pull a gun and shoot them. That's not murder? That's involuntary because I only meant to use the hollow point round to maim, not kill?


    What the fuck?

    Ain't going to read the entire thread but people are actually defending this defense?

    How often do you hear your phone ring and pull out your wallet and put it to your ear?

    DodgeBlan on
    Read my blog about AMERICA and THE BAY AREA

    https://medium.com/@alascii
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    DodgeBlan wrote: »
    Pheezer wrote: »
    So he had the guy on the ground

    A cop had his knee on the guy's head

    There was no reason anyone could claim he was a threat to anyone

    A cop draws his gun and fires.

    And that's involuntary?

    He chose to use a weapon with lethal capability on someone who posed no threat

    But he didn't mean to kill the guy?


    Tell me what I would get to plead if I walked up to a random person who was, I don't know, suntanning on the beach, face down. I pull a gun and shoot them. That's not murder? That's involuntary because I only meant to use the hollow point round to maim, not kill?


    What the fuck?

    Ain't going to read the entire thread but people are actually defending this defense?

    How often do you hear your phone ring and pull out your wallet and put it to your ear?

    My phone is literally nothing like my wallet. In particular, the form factor and method of use is wildly different...if I flip my wallet open and press where the "Answer" button would be on my phone, know what happens? Nothing.

    If I pull out a gun (which, despite differences in weight, has a similar form factor in the hand) and pull the place where the trigger on my Taser would be, know what happens? A bullet comes out. At high speed.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Also, a person walking down the beach and shooting a sun bather probably doesn't have any probably cause whatsoever for pointing a weapon of any kind at them.

    Quid on
Sign In or Register to comment.