Options

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

13468914

Posts

  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Fuck, I forgot that Mehserle has been in jail the past year.

    He'll probably be out in six months, if that, because they'll give him credit for time served.

    Can we at least agree that the fucking pig deserves the maximum sentence for this?

    Actually, apparently he spent most of it on bail.

    I have no problem seeing him serve the max, either.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Can we at least agree that the fucking pig deserves the maximum sentence for this?
    Absolutely. But we can't treat him any differently than any other criminal just because we are mad about the situation, including when he gets released on probation.
    Provided you mean that he also deserves to be put in with the general population, yes, I agree.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Warcry wrote: »
    You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
    Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
    His intent was to inflict pain in a sadistic manner, which inflicted great bodily injury.

    And since it resulted in a death, it's first-degree murder.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    delroland wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Can we at least agree that the fucking pig deserves the maximum sentence for this?
    Absolutely. But we can't treat him any differently than any other criminal just because we are mad about the situation, including when he gets released on probation.
    Provided you mean that he also deserves to be put in with the general population, yes, I agree.

    See, we can't do that, because he would be put in danger at that point, moreso than other inmates because he is a former officer and because of the nature of his crime. We can't execute him by proxy.

    And don't act like solitary confinement is some sort of cake walk. I know people who have been separated from the general population in prison, and it sucks. You get to stare at four walls for most of the day with no one to talk to.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Warcry wrote: »
    You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
    Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
    His intent was to inflict pain in a sadistic manner, which inflicted great bodily injury.

    And since it resulted in a death, it's first-degree murder.

    That's your opinion on tasers, one with which I and many others disagree. ABUSE of tasers shows an intent to inflict pain in a sadistic manner. Does Mehserle have any history of that?

    EDIT: in other words, do you think we should charge the "Don't tase me, bro!" officers with attempted murder? If not, then you're being hypocritical.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Warcry wrote: »
    You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
    Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
    His intent was to inflict pain in a sadistic manner, which inflicted great bodily injury.

    And since it resulted in a death, it's first-degree murder.
    That's your opinion on tasers, one with which I and many others disagree. ABUSE of tasers shows an intent to inflict pain in a sadistic manner. Does Mehserle have any history of that?
    Well, there was that one time he admitted to trying to pull a taser on a kid who was lying down on his stomach being held down by another cop right after being searched that was caught on video from multiple angles in front of dozens of witnesses.

    Other than that, no.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    Man in the MistsMan in the Mists Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Well, apparently that subtlety was lost on the people of Oakland tonight.

    I can't believe this got glossed over without a request for clarification.

    MuddBudd, what can you tell us?

    Man in the Mists on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    EDIT: in other words, do you think we should charge the "Don't tase me, bro!" officers with attempted murder? If not, then you're being hypocritical.
    Yes, I can totally see how tasing a resisting, standing man is exactly the same as tasing a dude who's just been searched and is lying on his stomach.

    It's like how executing an unarmed man lying on the ground is the same as tripping, falling, and accidentally bumping someone into the way of an oncoming train.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Warcry wrote: »
    You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
    Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
    His intent was to inflict pain in a sadistic manner, which inflicted great bodily injury.

    And since it resulted in a death, it's first-degree murder.

    Than, you still have not demonstrated that he intended to "inflict pain in a sadistic manner". Whether he actually did intend that is beside the point (for the record, I don't think that was the case, as it makes no sense whatsoever). The issue is that you can't prove it. Thus, it's not legally murder.

    We've gone over this again and again. Your view of all cops as psychotic lowlifes is not evidence admissible in court.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Also, please see a therapist. Or go make friends with some cops so you can find out that they are real people. Or something. This is not healthy.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Well, apparently that subtlety was lost on the people of Oakland tonight.

    I can't believe this got glossed over without a request for clarification.

    MuddBudd, what can you tell us?

    Just that about 200 stupid people broke off from the main protesters and decided to channel their anger by breaking windows and looting stores. It's pretty much under control now.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    OremLK wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    His intent was to inflict pain in a sadistic manner, which inflicted great bodily injury.

    And since it resulted in a death, it's first-degree murder.
    Than, you still have not demonstrated that he intended to "inflict pain in a sadistic manner". Whether he actually did intend that is beside the point (for the record, I don't think that was the case, as it makes no sense whatsoever). The issue is that you can't prove it. Thus, it's not legally murder.

    We've gone over this again and again. Your view of all cops as psychotic lowlifes is not evidence admissible in court.
    I don't need to prove it; he fucking stipulated to it. "I meant to pull my taser on the dude being held down by my partner who had just been searched, and unless he possessed the means to materialize a gun out of thin air, could not possibly have been armed."

    Seriously, watch the fucking videos. I don't see how you people are missing this.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    delroland wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Warcry wrote: »
    You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
    Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
    His intent was to inflict pain in a sadistic manner, which inflicted great bodily injury.

    And since it resulted in a death, it's first-degree murder.
    That's your opinion on tasers, one with which I and many others disagree. ABUSE of tasers shows an intent to inflict pain in a sadistic manner. Does Mehserle have any history of that?
    Well, there was that one time he admitted to trying to pull a taser on a kid who was lying down on his stomach being held down by another cop right after being searched that was caught on video from multiple angles in front of dozens of witnesses.

    Other than that, no.

    Yeah, because circular arguments work wonders in defending your point. You know better than that.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Well, apparently that subtlety was lost on the people of Oakland tonight.
    I can't believe this got glossed over without a request for clarification.

    MuddBudd, what can you tell us?
    Just that about 200 stupid people broke off from the main protesters and decided to channel their anger by breaking windows and looting stores. It's pretty much under control now.
    The problem is that they were in downtown Oakland, which no one gives a shit about. They should have been rioting in Piedmont.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Warcry wrote: »
    You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
    Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
    His intent was to inflict pain in a sadistic manner, which inflicted great bodily injury.

    And since it resulted in a death, it's first-degree murder.

    I'm pretty sure there's a difference between "in a sadistic manner" and "for a sadistic purpose," the latter being what the law actually says.

    Unless you can show that his actual purpose was personal pleasure, as in prove this to a jury, you may as well just drop it.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    AroducAroduc regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    delroland wrote: »
    EDIT: in other words, do you think we should charge the "Don't tase me, bro!" officers with attempted murder? If not, then you're being hypocritical.
    Yes, I can totally see how tasing a resisting, standing man is exactly the same as tasing a dude who's just been searched and is lying on his stomach.

    It's like how executing an unarmed man lying on the ground is the same as tripping, falling, and accidentally bumping someone into the way of an oncoming train.

    Uh. You may want to refresh yourself on that incident, Than.

    And accept the eyewitness accounts that Grant was resisting.

    Aroduc on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    delroland wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Warcry wrote: »
    You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
    Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
    His intent was to inflict pain in a sadistic manner, which inflicted great bodily injury.

    And since it resulted in a death, it's first-degree murder.
    That's your opinion on tasers, one with which I and many others disagree. ABUSE of tasers shows an intent to inflict pain in a sadistic manner. Does Mehserle have any history of that?
    Well, there was that one time he admitted to trying to pull a taser on a kid who was lying down on his stomach being held down by another cop right after being searched that was caught on video from multiple angles in front of dozens of witnesses.

    Other than that, no.
    Yeah, because circular arguments work wonders in defending your point. You know better than that.
    You're going to have to explain to me exactly how that's circular.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Seriously, watch the fucking videos. I don't see how you people are missing this.

    That's what you want to see. All I see is a man lying on the ground with two officers holding him down (generally indicating he's struggling; if he weren't, there wouldn't be two officers pinning him down, and he'd be handcuffed and sitting against the wall), then Mehserle draws and shoots.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    OremLK wrote: »
    Also, please see a therapist. Or go make friends with some cops so you can find out that they are real people. Or something. This is not healthy.

    I hang out around a lot of cops in the National Guard.

    Most are dicks, many/most are on a serious power trip (judging by the stories they tell), many enjoy causing pain to suspects, and nearly all have routinely discussed breaking the law and being able to get away with it.

    And these have been cops at various levels (city, county, state), in multiple locations (completely rural, semi-rural, semi-urban, in two different states).

    Than takes it a bit too far from time to time (well, most of the time), but honestly I'd say he's closer to the truth than half the people I hear taking up the law enforcement banner.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You're going to have to explain to me exactly how that's circular.

    Paraphrasing obviously, but:

    "Mehserle tases people for fun and profit, so that's why he tased Grant."

    "Does he have a history of tasing people for fun and profit?"

    "Yeah. There was that one time he tased Grant."

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Warcry wrote: »
    You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
    Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
    His intent was to inflict pain in a sadistic manner, which inflicted great bodily injury.

    And since it resulted in a death, it's first-degree murder.

    I'm pretty sure there's a difference between "in a sadistic manner" and "for a sadistic purpose," the latter being what the law actually says.

    Unless you can show that his actual purpose was personal pleasure, as in prove this to a jury, you may as well just drop it.

    Well, if he needed to restrain him, the other officer should have simply cuffed him, since he was, you know, right there. He was lying on his stomach and had just been searched, so he didn't have a weapon. And I would say that a desire to use a taser on a human being when it isn't necessary is inherently sadistic.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I don't need to prove it; he fucking stipulated to it. "I meant to pull my taser on the dude being held down by my partner who had just been searched, and unless he possessed the means to materialize a gun out of thin air, could not possibly have been armed."

    Seriously, watch the fucking videos. I don't see how you people are missing this.

    I've seen the videos. Have you read the thread, or are you just going to keep saying the same stuff over and over again without bothering to address what anybody else has said? I'll summarize for you:

    -Officer inexperienced in handling high-stress situations and thus mentally impaired at the time
    -Suspect not yet handcuffed and therefore not yet thoroughly searched or restrained from pulling a concealed weapon
    -Suspect clearly moving and resisting in a way that an aforementioned mentally impaired mind could easily take as threatening

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You're going to have to explain to me exactly how that's circular.
    Paraphrasing obviously, but:

    "Mehserle tases people for fun and profit, so that's why he tased Grant."

    "Does he have a history of tasing people for fun and profit?"

    "Yeah. There was that one time he tased Grant."
    Actually, what I said was Mehserle tased Grant for fun and profit. Please point out exactly where I said "people in general."

    And as the apologists have been pointing out, apparently he didn't carry the taser very often, so it may have just been a matter of a lack of opportunities, because he was clearly (at a minimum) pretty taser-happy that night. And again, if I walk out and murder someone on videotape, it doesn't really matter that I haven't done that before; I'm still going to be convicted of fucking murder (because I'm not a cop).

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Well, if he needed to restrain him, the other officer should have simply cuffed him, since he was, you know, right there. He was lying on his stomach and had just been searched, so he didn't have a weapon. And I would say that a desire to use a taser on a human being when it isn't necessary is inherently sadistic.

    A) If cuffing him was as easy as you're implying, wouldn't he have already been cuffed? Doesn't this suggest that he was resisting?

    B) Isn't necessary according to you. And according to me, of course, and according to a jury. But if Mehserle honestly thought it was necessary, then he's not inherently sadistic...just incompetent. Round and round we go.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    OremLK wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I don't need to prove it; he fucking stipulated to it. "I meant to pull my taser on the dude being held down by my partner who had just been searched, and unless he possessed the means to materialize a gun out of thin air, could not possibly have been armed."

    Seriously, watch the fucking videos. I don't see how you people are missing this.

    I've seen the videos. Have you read the thread, or are you just going to keep saying the same stuff over and over again without bothering to address what anybody else has said? I'll summarize for you:

    -Officer inexperienced in handling high-stress situations and thus mentally impaired at the time
    -Suspect not yet handcuffed and therefore not yet thoroughly searched or restrained from pulling a concealed weapon
    -Suspect clearly moving and resisting in a way that an aforementioned mentally impaired mind could easily take as threatening
    You can see him being fucking searched in the video.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Well, if he needed to restrain him, the other officer should have simply cuffed him, since he was, you know, right there. He was lying on his stomach and had just been searched, so he didn't have a weapon. And I would say that a desire to use a taser on a human being when it isn't necessary is inherently sadistic.

    Speaking from PERSONAL experience, it takes four people to restrain and cuff someone struggling: one on each arm, one on the legs, and one to do the cuffing. They had three people.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    delroland wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You're going to have to explain to me exactly how that's circular.
    Paraphrasing obviously, but:

    "Mehserle tases people for fun and profit, so that's why he tased Grant."

    "Does he have a history of tasing people for fun and profit?"

    "Yeah. There was that one time he tased Grant."
    Actually, what I said was Mehserle tased Grant for fun and profit. Please point out exactly where I said "people in general."

    To which I responded, "Where's the history of such behavior?" Then you replied with the tasing of Oscar Grant as evidence of history.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I don't need to prove it; he fucking stipulated to it. "I meant to pull my taser on the dude being held down by my partner who had just been searched, and unless he possessed the means to materialize a gun out of thin air, could not possibly have been armed."

    Seriously, watch the fucking videos. I don't see how you people are missing this.

    I've seen the videos. Have you read the thread, or are you just going to keep saying the same stuff over and over again without bothering to address what anybody else has said? I'll summarize for you:

    -Officer inexperienced in handling high-stress situations and thus mentally impaired at the time
    -Suspect not yet handcuffed and therefore not yet thoroughly searched or restrained from pulling a concealed weapon
    -Suspect clearly moving and resisting in a way that an aforementioned mentally impaired mind could easily take as threatening
    You can see him being fucking searched in the video.

    How thoroughly was he searched? Being uncuffed, was he still capable of harming the officers unarmed? Or, more to the (legal) point, is it reasonably that Mehserle believe this to be the case (keeping in mind that this may still make him criminally negligent, and send him to prison for a decade or more)?

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Well, if he needed to restrain him, the other officer should have simply cuffed him, since he was, you know, right there. He was lying on his stomach and had just been searched, so he didn't have a weapon. And I would say that a desire to use a taser on a human being when it isn't necessary is inherently sadistic.
    A) If cuffing him was as easy as you're implying, wouldn't he have already been cuffed? Doesn't this suggest that he was resisting?

    B) Isn't necessary according to you. And according to me, of course, and according to a jury. But if Mehserle honestly thought it was necessary, then he's not inherently sadistic...just incompetent. Round and round we go.
    So, I can see it's not necessary, you can see it's not necessary, a jury can see it's not necessary, anyone who can see the video can see it's not necessary, but somehow the person who had been trained in the use of the weapon is apparently the only person on the planet who thought it was necessary?

    Seriously, the mental gymnastics you're willing to go through to give this guy his justification is ridiculous. And can someone explain to me how someone who was this stunningly incompetent gets to where he is with a clean record? Everyone keeps saying "oh, look, he didn't have a record of any of this, therefore he couldn't be malicious." He didn't have a record of fucking up to the nth degree, either, so why are we expected to presume incompetence to a ridiculous degree when malice to a minimal degree is a much better explanation?

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I don't need to prove it; he fucking stipulated to it. "I meant to pull my taser on the dude being held down by my partner who had just been searched, and unless he possessed the means to materialize a gun out of thin air, could not possibly have been armed."

    Seriously, watch the fucking videos. I don't see how you people are missing this.

    I've seen the videos. Have you read the thread, or are you just going to keep saying the same stuff over and over again without bothering to address what anybody else has said? I'll summarize for you:

    -Officer inexperienced in handling high-stress situations and thus mentally impaired at the time
    -Suspect not yet handcuffed and therefore not yet thoroughly searched or restrained from pulling a concealed weapon
    -Suspect clearly moving and resisting in a way that an aforementioned mentally impaired mind could easily take as threatening
    You can see him being fucking searched in the video.

    There's a difference between a casual search and between being sure he's not carrying a weapon. Also, you're ignoring the other very important points by assuming that the officer in question was rational. This is not a valid assumption. It's very difficult to think clearly and react rationally in dangerous, high-stress situations.

    I'm reminded of a whitewater rafting trip I went on not long ago. My best friend's dad fell out of the raft in a dangerous part of the river. The guide was yelling at us to paddle toward him to pick him up out of the river (he wound up being fine). It took me and my friend--I don't know how many seconds, but long enough that the guide had to yell our names to snap us out of frozen shock and get us paddling.

    People are not cool under high-stress, potentially life-threatening situations, unless they have the training and/or experience to deal with it. It's not rational because people are not rational.

    You need to understand that there is a difference between criminal incompetence and sadistic intent.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Warcry wrote: »
    second degree murder
    n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.

    Yes, and we know that the state in question is California. Perhaps you should be quoting California law rather than an unsourced dictionary definition?

    Here's the Penal Code section on various forms of homicide. You can look these up in a less eye-glazing format in the California criminal jury instructions.

    Manslaughter is section 192.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Well, if he needed to restrain him, the other officer should have simply cuffed him, since he was, you know, right there. He was lying on his stomach and had just been searched, so he didn't have a weapon. And I would say that a desire to use a taser on a human being when it isn't necessary is inherently sadistic.
    A) If cuffing him was as easy as you're implying, wouldn't he have already been cuffed? Doesn't this suggest that he was resisting?

    B) Isn't necessary according to you. And according to me, of course, and according to a jury. But if Mehserle honestly thought it was necessary, then he's not inherently sadistic...just incompetent. Round and round we go.
    So, I can see it's not necessary, you can see it's not necessary, a jury can see it's not necessary, anyone who can see the video can see it's not necessary, but somehow the person who had been trained in the use of the weapon is apparently the only person on the planet who thought it was necessary?

    Right. Because he's criminally negligent. And quite likely going to go to prison for it.

    It just means he goes for less than a life sentence.

    And no, he's not the only person on the planet who thought it was necessary. Go hit up any forum frequented by "law enforcement professionals" past and present...and prepare to be saddened.
    Seriously, the mental gymnastics you're willing to go through to give this guy his justification is ridiculous. And can someone explain to me how someone who was this stunningly incompetent gets to where he is with a clean record? Everyone keeps saying "oh, look, he didn't have a record of any of this, therefore he couldn't be malicious." He didn't have a record of fucking up to the nth degree, either, so why are we expected to presume incompetence to a ridiculous degree when malice to a minimal degree is a much better explanation?

    Presumption of innocence. Malice must be proven, we don't assume it.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I don't need to prove it; he fucking stipulated to it. "I meant to pull my taser on the dude being held down by my partner who had just been searched, and unless he possessed the means to materialize a gun out of thin air, could not possibly have been armed."

    Seriously, watch the fucking videos. I don't see how you people are missing this.

    I've seen the videos. Have you read the thread, or are you just going to keep saying the same stuff over and over again without bothering to address what anybody else has said? I'll summarize for you:

    -Officer inexperienced in handling high-stress situations and thus mentally impaired at the time
    -Suspect not yet handcuffed and therefore not yet thoroughly searched or restrained from pulling a concealed weapon
    -Suspect clearly moving and resisting in a way that an aforementioned mentally impaired mind could easily take as threatening
    You can see him being fucking searched in the video.

    How thoroughly was he searched? Being uncuffed, was he still capable of harming the officers unarmed? Or, more to the (legal) point, is it reasonably that Mehserle believe this to be the case (keeping in mind that this may still make him criminally negligent, and send him to prison for a decade or more)?
    If he was still such a threat, why is the officer getting off of him?

    I mean, really, if we hold Mehserle's conduct to the incredibly low bar of a "reasonable person" (instead of the much higher bar of "trained police officer" he should be held to), should they think that an unarmed man lying on his stomach several feet away facing away from you presents a threat?

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    And as the apologists have been pointing out, apparently he didn't carry the taser very often, so it may have just been a matter of a lack of opportunities, because he was clearly (at a minimum) pretty taser-happy that night. And again, if I walk out and murder someone on videotape, it doesn't really matter that I haven't done that before; I'm still going to be convicted of fucking murder (because I'm not a cop).

    So now we're apologists? I'm sorry, I'll ask for your permission before having an opinion next time.

    Seriously, you're letting your anger cloud your judgement. Yes, we can't prove with certainty that he didn't intend to kill Oscar Grant, but that doesn't prove he did. And because you can't prove with certainty he intended to kill Oscar Grant, or that he intended to cause malicious pain and suffering, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. That's how our legal system works.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If he was still such a threat, why is the officer getting off of him?

    I mean, really, if we hold Mehserle's conduct to the incredibly low bar of a "reasonable person" (instead of the much higher bar of "trained police officer" he should be held to), should they think that an unarmed man lying on his stomach several feet away facing away from you presents a threat?

    Thanatos.

    People are not reasonable in these situations.

    Especially when they are inexperienced and poorly trained for them, which this guy was.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Seriously, the mental gymnastics you're willing to go through to give this guy his justification is ridiculous. And can someone explain to me how someone who was this stunningly incompetent gets to where he is with a clean record? Everyone keeps saying "oh, look, he didn't have a record of any of this, therefore he couldn't be malicious." He didn't have a record of fucking up to the nth degree, either, so why are we expected to presume incompetence to a ridiculous degree when malice to a minimal degree is a much better explanation?
    Presumption of innocence. Malice must be proven, we don't assume it.
    Malice must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond all possible doubt, including possibilities wherein the physical laws of the universe are broken." "A cop with training and a clean record could be the most staggeringly incompetent human being on the planet" isn't really reasonable.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    If I only I could judge black people using the same standards you judge cops with and post about it for ten pages, than.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    And as the apologists have been pointing out, apparently he didn't carry the taser very often, so it may have just been a matter of a lack of opportunities, because he was clearly (at a minimum) pretty taser-happy that night. And again, if I walk out and murder someone on videotape, it doesn't really matter that I haven't done that before; I'm still going to be convicted of fucking murder (because I'm not a cop).
    So now we're apologists? I'm sorry, I'll ask for your permission before having an opinion next time.

    Seriously, you're letting your anger cloud your judgement. Yes, we can't prove with certainty that he didn't intend to kill Oscar Grant, but that doesn't prove he did. And because you can't prove with certainty he intended to kill Oscar Grant, or that he intended to cause malicious pain and suffering, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. That's how our legal system works.
    We do not have to prove it with certainty! Just beyond any reasonable doubt; that's not certainty. People get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the fucking time.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I mean, really, if we hold Mehserle's conduct to the incredibly low bar of a "reasonable person" (instead of the much higher bar of "trained police officer" he should be held to), should they think that an unarmed man lying on his stomach several feet away facing away from you presents a threat?

    He does.

    Not much of one, and probably not one a trained police officer should bust out the Tase-e-boy on, but a threat nonetheless. Again, until he's cuffed, and preferably in the back of a police cruiser, he's a threat.

    Also, assuming private citizens were held to the same use-of-force laws as police are, the "reasonable person" standard would probably have seen him walk; it's precisely the "trained police officer" standard that has him being held as criminally negligent to begin with...it doesn't elevate him to murderer.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    If I only I could judge black people using the same standards you judge cops with and post about it for ten pages, than.
    If people didn't have any choice about being cops, I would have a lot more sympathy for them.

    Thanatos on
Sign In or Register to comment.