Jury delivers involuntary manslaughter verdict in Oakland shooting

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Logarock

 

Nope. Cop was a retard and criminally negligent.

Unless you have the logic to make a case that the cop did this in from of some 30 odd people and expected to get away with it?

If I were on the jury that wouldnt weigh much on my decision. I mean it looks like he did do it in front of 30 odd with cameras....and got away with it.

This was an execution and the media is playing the race card to divide people after the justice system gave everyone two fingers as to say we are the masters.

i'm well aware that blacks in general are more incline to kick up but thats not to say they should be treated like dogs and they should riot in the districts were the judges live.

Here in the UK they killed Ian Tomlinso at a protest and they said they would have a full investigation but then the press forgot to remind people about the killing and no asks anymore.

Google 'Holly Greige' if you want to see just how good the britsih legal system is.

Time to fight back and remind these people that we the people will not take any more of this phony justice and that they will be held to account.

Ongoing ATS discussion also taking place here.

6 pages of posts so far.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by centurion1211]

reply to post by Logarock


No he didn't. He's going to jail. Maybe not for the full 4 years, but he is going to jail.

You can't just do that in front of all those people and as far as I can tell from the actual video, he did not take it out and shoot it. He took it out and held it. After shooting, there was a moment of no movement, followed by looking around, and at his other officers. He looked scared at what he did. He did not do it with intent. If he did, he would have not have looked around. He would have understood his actions and been bound by them. Instead he showed worry. Humans look around after they do something bad. and the event is over. The look around to see what others think, because they know they did wrong and they need help to know what to do next.

This cop pulled out his weapon, waited, then shot, and you can see him immediately look at the other cop, then hold his head, as if despaired by his own actions.

It was not done on purpose. Not in front of all those people, cops and criminals alike.

Thank you Gorman 91, how the heck to YOU do it?

[edit on 9-7-2010 by ganbuzz]

reply to post by ganbuzz


Bad link.

Let me fix that for you.

Originally posted by eennoo
I have seen the videos, it WAS a complete accident. I think the verdict is the right one.

The officer was surprised after it happened. His body movements also indicate that he was not prepared for a gun shot, he flinched, and one of his hands moved away from the gun in fear. He didn't expect it.

If you don't think it was an accident, and you wonder how someone could make such a mistake, then you probably have never been in a life threatening or vulnerable situation which causes your adrenaline levels to rise, and cause a type of time dilation in the mind. You must not know how easy it is to make a mistake in those situations.

It's a horrible mistake... it should have never happened. But it's not totally fair to punish someone as if they did something on purpose when it was a complete accident. Mistakes happen you know.


[edit on 8-7-2010 by eennoo]

You should be a cop, I'm sure they'd love to have you!

There was NOTHING accidental about this shooting. You're making excuses for this sorry excuse of an officer of the law. Ooohh... he was nervous... Seriously, that's the best defense you can come up with?

A taser doesn't look like a handgun.
A taser doesn't feel like a handgun.
A taser has a completely different safety mechanism than a handgun.
A taser doesn't weigh like a handgun.

In no way, by any stretch of the imagination does a taser even remotely resemble a handgun, especially when you're looking down the barrel (which a taser doesn't have) at your target, who's laying face down in submission, motionless on the floor.

Watch the videos again, but this time imagine the officer wearing saggy pants and a hoodie. If that were the case, and the same verdict had been reached, you'd be screaming capitol murder.

Now, in some strange alternate universe where this clown really did mean to electrocute the victim rather than punch a hole through his back, only one thing would be different. That thing being that everyone involved with this officers induction into the department, and issuing of his badge and gun, should be held accountable as well for giving someone with a single digit IQ and psychotic tendencies a badge and a gun and turning him loose on the street.

Fact: "suspect" was subordinate, face down, on the ground.
Fact: At the time of the shooting, the "suspect" posed zero threat to anyone.
Fact: Officer, standing over the complacent "suspect", drew his firearm.
Fact: Officer disabled the safety mechanism on his firearm.
Fact: Officer discharged his firearm at point blank range, while under no threat, from any person.
Fact: Police officers are above the law.
Fact: Police need not fear cameras, apparently an officers word carries more weight than video footage.

Had the person who shot the victim, been anyone other than a law enforcement officer, the verdict would have been murder in the first degree. The evidence supports the intentional execution of the victim. Plain and simple.

reply to post by Gorman91



Watch the officer look down at his weapon as he pulled it. He was clearly looking at his gun. Unless blind he should have known it was a gun. It is also 5 seconds from the time he first puts his hand on the gun untill its is fired, he has time to stand up and it even look like he pulls the gun up from behind and fires. It was in his hand to long as well to just say conclusively that he was having a knee jerk.


[edit on 9-7-2010 by Logarock]

Originally posted by Unit541

Had the person who shot the victim, been anyone other than a law enforcement officer, the verdict would have been murder in the first degree. The evidence supports the intentional execution of the victim. Plain and simple.

Yes we all must agree that if this vid had been just two folks one not a cop the charge would have been far more harsh simply because it would look like cold blooded murder.

Originally posted by eennoo
Mistakes happen you know.
[edit on 8-7-2010 by eennoo]

yea, oops.

A mistake would be loosing the key to the handcuffs, or accidentally forgetting to file a report. When someone gets killed, it's a bit more than a mistake. Where I come from we call that flucked up.

There are plenty of good cops out there. This guy ain't one of them.

I hope they ban the use of tasers. They are used too much and now there is this problem. Some idiot cop who doesn't have any familiarity with his weapon is waving it around in public. There is a price to pay for stupidity.

Rioting is just as dumb and won't solve anything, but this guy needs to be retried for manslaughter. Involuntary would be if he dropped the gun and it went off. Look it up.

reply to post by Logarock


I am not against what you say. But for every action, there is a before and after.

If he wanted to do it, if he really wanted to, why does he do what he did after? Why does he look around? Why is there a sense of shock? Why doesn't he threaten the other men? The other men get MORE violent! Why not shoot them? There is greater cause now as they are reacting violently.

Why does he face palm? Why does he not laugh? Why does he look shocked?

This man simply responded poorly. There was no intention to kill him. And indeed, taking a gun out does not mean he wanted to shoot it. I mean, it's what they did before tasers, you know?

There is simply not the right reaction to the event for a man who wanted to kill another man.

Take a look at the video of a cop shooting a dog for fun or other real criminal events where the cop wanted to do it. The reactions are simply not the same as what happened here.

The cop did a retarded thing and got charged for being retarded. That's justice.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Ongoing ATS discussion also taking place here.

6 pages of posts so far.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by centurion1211]

Thank you for that.

I posted mine posted on 7/8/2010 @ 08:59 PM and this other one was posted posted on 7/9/2010 @ 12:03 AM.

I guess the night owls thought it more interesting than those online when I posted mine.

Originally posted by Gorman91

Hell. Why do I even specify black? It seems that the left side of politics always act like fools in the streets.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Gorman91]

You have allowed yourself to become divided from your fellow man by the false paradigm of left versus right. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

Please wake up and realize that the problem isn't the left wing or the right wing. The problem is that the pilot has decided all the passengers need to die.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by mattifikation]

I am going to repost this because I feel it is important. Especially for the people who want the officer convicted of a higher charge.

Jurors in the trial of former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle will be given the option of convicting him of second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter or nothing at all, a judge ruled Wednesday on the eve of closing arguments.

source

**Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

**Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

**Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

Now for the questions -

What would you like to have seen him convicted of, considering the evidence on video and the circumstances of the crime?

Why?

Do you believe that the officer involved intended to kill Oscar Grant, in front of 200+ people on video, or could it have been a horrible mistake?

Do you feel that if Oscar Grant had just let the officers handcuff him instead of fighting the officers by trying to hide his hands under his body, would this have happened?

Now, to really toss a wrench in it.

What if your father or brother was that officer? Would that change your viewpoint?

If Oscar Grant was your part of your family, would you want people from out of town tearing up your neighborhood AFTER you had specifically aked that the only protests you wanted were to be PEACEFUL protests out of respect for the memory of your family member?

Just trying to get people to think before they speak out about something that is happening in my neighborhood. I hope I have made a few people think about what they are going to post by adding the questions.

~Druidae

I hear that this guy who was shot after he was convicted of being a gang banger, drug dealer and carrying an illegal concealed weapon got a degree in nuclear science / was a preacher / was going to the new Gandhi.

What a tragedy.

Personally, in the words of the great Chris Rock, I couldnt care less if the cops did a drive by on the gang bangers from LA to Chicago.

The more dead gang bangers the better.

I call a tragedy a young black kid who is hooked on crack as a dealer sold it him for a quick few bucks, a black kid shot on his street playing ball by a gang banger in a turf war with other bangers, a black kid whose parent or sibling is murdered by a criminal.

I dont call the shooting of a gang banger a crime.

I call it 'dealing with the refuse'.

You weep, I laugh.

Wait until you have been raped / shot / stabbed or seen a family member / friend go through the same.

Now I am going to have a nice cake and crack a few cans of beer.

1 down, a few hundred thousand to go.

Well done to that cop, so give him a medal.

reply to post by mattifikation


Not really. I'm stoic in my views. I don't have a side. I am me. I am simply calling them by their name.

They have done a fine and dandy job ad dividing themselves by viewing everyone outside their views as ultra religious enemies to freedom. They created that divide, not me.

If any of them call for my help I would give it. By they wouldn't, for they have divided themselves.

Originally posted by Gorman91
They created that divide, not me.

We have all created that mindset. It's not important anymore who started it. The important thing is that we knock it off.

One black gang banger get killed by the cops - so the city riots.

30,000 blacks killed in the gang wars between Bloods and Crips, and MTV and Hollywood glamorises the gang bangers as 'Bling heroes' and role models.

The black community have a problem with their moral radar, and its whiteys fault as he treats them as children and makes perpetual excuses for them.

Watch the link here and see how the Al Sharpton race relations terrorists and extortionists like to blame whitey to get nice big chash payouts, but they never want to debate black on black killings.

tv.blinkx.com...

reply to post by mattifikation


Like I said. I would help them whenever. And I've made my points clear to those around me, and in the end, made them confused. I am a bit contradiction to them. Conservative, but some liberal views. Religious, yet scientific. Lots of more contradictions to their views.

But if people want to insult and divide, I will point it out and call them by their name.