Cop Who Executed Oscar Grant Set Free at 12:01 This Morning After Serving 11 Months

page: 7
65
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shazmar
Can someone clarify this for me:-

"Mehserle claims he mistook his gun for his Taser when he fired a shot at Grant, who lay facedown at the train station."

First of all I'm a Brit and the majority of our police do not carry guns, though they do use Tasers. The above quote is confusing me so the questions I would like to ask are.
1) Do the police in the USA go about their business with the safety catch off on there guns?
2) If not then how did this officer NOT know it was a gun when he took the safety catch off?
3) Do Tasers have a safety catch that is the same/similar to the safety catch on a gun?
4) Are Tasers not lighter and bulkier than a gun?
5) If they are then how did this officer NOT know it was gun he was firing?

If the answer to 1) is NO and the answer to 3) is NO and the answer to 4) is Yes

Then it begs the question. What kind of prosecutor was in charge of the prosecution? Because it seems to me that this was an out and out murder having seen the video and if the answers to the 1) 3) and 4) are correct.


You also have to factor into this:

1.Did he pull his gun out,at anytime Before the incident?(Saw other officers with guns or Tazers in hand)(Safety could have been detached at THAT time,and NOT put back on)
2.Was there a crowd?(Noise of the crowd) (Screaming,yelling.......)
3.Were their trains in tunnel?(More noises as a distraction.)
4. Was suspect reaching?( Simply the only reason why he would have been shot,with anything)
The weights of a gun or Tazer,depends on which kinds were used. Many models,and variations.
Older Tazers weigh more. Most cops use 9mm Plastic type guns.

More food for thought.




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


Okay, thanks for pointing that out. From some of what I had read, I was under the impression that he would continue to be a policeman. A few people had mentioned something to that effect. The articles linked to by the OP speak of that in the last thing in the article.

If he will never be a policeman again and will never carry a gun again, is there a problem with it? In my opinion, no. I don't think people should be sent to jail for a longer period of time just to make a point about following the law. People should be sent to jail to prevent them for being a repeat offender, not to make a point.

The judge ruled it was involuntary manslaughter. Given that he would not a policeman nor hold a gun again, if it really was an accident, a longer sentence would be only just to prove a point.

Was it voluntary? If so, it should be murder, rather than voluntary manslaughter. I can't tell from looking at the video. You can't see his facial expressions. Even if could, facial expressions are often misread. Police become good at hiding their emotions, or simply become desensitized to their victim's suffering, even if they realize they were in the wrong. Also, a lot of people have different facial expressions for different situations. Also, he could've had no facial expressions or no big response because of shock. He certainly seemed shocked standing there after he had shot the guy. Another person could say it was a different emotion. Even if it was shock, it could be that he was horrified because of the accident, or because he shocked he let himself get out of control and shoot someone.

The law is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty (it is often not that way in court). However, a lot of people here assume it was murder rather than involuntary manslaughter because he was a policeman (of course, in the same way, the court was most likely slanted to believe him). Even from an eyewitness, it would be very difficult to tell whether it was voluntary or not. The only person who knows is the policeman.

Obviously, he has a reason to lie. Lie detector tests are not always accurate. I think the thing that needs to be done is to give police training to make sure they're pulling their gun when they want and their taser when they want to. Also, make the taser a different shape, and have a different way to fire it. Taser guns wouldn't be used in extreme situations, so they could changed to fired differently. That would prevent this from happening next time.

If he was telling the truth, then that will prevent the accident from happening again. If he wasn't, then that excuse won't be valid anymore.

I'll probably start a petition for this in the next few days.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


Yup, school is out, no other reason I can think of for the juvenille posts such as this on here. I'm guessing it must have struck a cord though based upon some of these responses, I didn't know you thugs could type.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Actually i had made sure my comment was t&c violation free, as i graduated high school a good while back so i know how to form my words. If you were actually knowledgeable you would know that, but you are just trying to make yourself sound like the better man. Hence why you used thug in the place of the N word, which is what modern racists do. After all, there are only 2 ways to use the word thug, someone that is a crony of someone else or using it to describe a ghetto minority gangster, which we see your use of the word ghetto is pretty one directional.

I live in the south and see all forms of racism everyday so don't try to hide it. OH YEAH, thats right, you are only trying to sound better than everyone so you will feel better. you will even reply to this comment with something similar like "Hurrr hurrr, can't wait for all these dumb people to go back to school so this place can return to normal, hurr hurr." One more thing, im pretty sure that school kids who have internet use it other times than just during summer. But that is irrelevant when you are on a quest to make yourself sound cool lol



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Glad hes out...he shouldnt hav done any time



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Lynexon
 


So calling a convicted gangbanger who is fighting in public a thug is racist, or is it an apt description? The mom comment certainly does violate t&c and shows exactly how educated you are. See it how you want, simple fact is one less thug to terrorize anyone. Stick around long enough and you'll see in fact the summer is worse on here for the reason I stated, however feel free to wallow in your ignorance and continue to celebrate thugs like this and their lifestyle, again showing your intelligence.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 





I bet your Mom will miss him on Saturday nights.


Are you referring to this?

I don't see anything wrong with that. Maybe his Mom was the victim's friend and they hang out regularly on Saturdays. Is there some other hidden message behind it? Please do enlighten us all who do not see it.

Yes I am serious.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by balon0
 


He was talking about my mom.....not anyone elses.
Qualifies as a personal attack, no matter how clever you try and make it.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Lynexon
 


"After all, there are only 2 ways to use the word thug, someone that is a crony of someone else or using it to describe a ghetto minority gangster, which we see your use of the word ghetto is pretty one directional"...and you ignore the "Cult of Thugee"out of India,,which is where the term originated.....yu show your limits when you make such statements
edit on 6/14/2011 by Homedawg because: clarity



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by balon0
 


He was talking about my mom.....not anyone elses.
Qualifies as a personal attack, no matter how clever you try and make it.

I hate to see this thread branch off into a seperate discussion on "your momma" jokes so I will offer you a little friendly advice.
When the topic is the murder of a young man, be he priest or thug or emperor, it is NEVER appropriate to celebrate that event publicly or imply he deserved it. EVER.
If your only contribution to this thread is personal attacks on the victim perhaps you should post elsewhere.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The Tazzer is use'd so they dont have to shoot them.
it is not to use to make some one shut up and feel fear.
if a cop use'es a tazzer he should have an inquiry.
just like when he use's a gun.
this will stop them Tazzering every on.
and the mase spray.
is the Only way a cop can get respect.
to hit, mase, tazzer and shoot them?
You only get Respect for being a good man.
and All cops are bad, all.
if not they would speak out.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


I'll post where I want thanks.
I think I just may start to take advantage of this "new" ATS, seems personal attacks, swearing and all manner of nonsense is allowed as the mods either don't care or on holiday. How is celebrating this thugs death different than what some here are calling for for the cop?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


I'll post where I want thanks.
I think I just may start to take advantage of this "new" ATS, seems personal attacks, swearing and all manner of nonsense is allowed as the mods either don't care or on holiday. How is celebrating this thugs death different than what some here are calling for for the cop?

Wow. You really need me to answer that for you?
1. The "thug" is dead, the "cop" is not.
2. The "cop" is a murderer, the "thug" is a victim.
3. The "cop" can defend himself, the "thug" can not.
4. If the video showed the "thug" shooting the "cop" in the back while he was face down on the concrete he would be killed by an executioner, not a peace officer.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


I'll post where I want thanks.
I think I just may start to take advantage of this "new" ATS, seems personal attacks, swearing and all manner of nonsense is allowed as the mods either don't care or on holiday. How is celebrating this thugs death different than what some here are calling for for the cop?

Wow. You really need me to answer that for you?
1. The "thug" is dead, the "cop" is not.
2. The "cop" is a murderer, the "thug" is a victim.
3. The "cop" can defend himself, the "thug" can not.
4. If the video showed the "thug" shooting the "cop" in the back while he was face down on the concrete he would be killed by an executioner, not a peace officer.







And yet another spectacular display of ignorance when it comes to the law and how it works and operates.

Is blind paranoia and fear mongering all you guys know how to argue with? Not one person has presented any type of legitimate argument to date dealing with what occured. So far is all based on people opinions of what THEY think is right and wrong, nevermind what the law says.

We will continue to have these debates until you guys actually get off your butts and do some research and actually understand how your government works.

To date, and seeing the responses so far, I weep for the future when some of you take the reigns.


Please enlighten us on how you come to the conclusion the Cop is a murderer.
edit on 14-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


I'll post where I want thanks.
I think I just may start to take advantage of this "new" ATS, seems personal attacks, swearing and all manner of nonsense is allowed as the mods either don't care or on holiday. How is celebrating this thugs death different than what some here are calling for for the cop?

Wow. You really need me to answer that for you?
1. The "thug" is dead, the "cop" is not.
2. The "cop" is a murderer, the "thug" is a victim.
3. The "cop" can defend himself, the "thug" can not.
4. If the video showed the "thug" shooting the "cop" in the back while he was face down on the concrete he would be killed by an executioner, not a peace officer.







And yet another spectacular display of ignorance when it comes to the law and how it works and operates.

Is blind paranoia and fear mongering all you guys know how to argue with? Not one person has presented any type of legitimate argument to date dealing with what occured. So far is all based on people opinions of what THEY think is right and wrong, nevermind what the law says.

We will continue to have these debates until you guys actually get off your butts and do some research and actually understand how your government works.

To date, and seeing the responses so far, I weep for the future when some of you take the reigns.


Please enlighten us on how you come to the conclusion the Cop is a murderer.
edit on 14-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

From Websters online dictionary.......
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
The officer murdered Oscar because it was an unlawful killing, the fact that he spent eleven months in prison is proof of that. Although malice aforethought is not necessary he is guilty here as well since he knowingly pointed a weapon at an unarmed suspect indicating he intended to harm him.
The use of deadly force by an officer is prohibited when the suspect is handcuffed and laying face down with no weapon, as the officer is clearly in no immediate danger.
He discharged his weapon with the intent to harm a suspect who was in the prone position resulting in the death of an unarmed suspect, his actions were unnecessary and illegal, he is guilty of murder.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

From Websters online dictionary.......
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
The officer murdered Oscar because it was an unlawful killing, the fact that he spent eleven months in prison is proof of that. Although malice aforethought is not necessary he is guilty here as well since he knowingly pointed a weapon at an unarmed suspect indicating he intended to harm him.
The use of deadly force by an officer is prohibited when the suspect is handcuffed and laying face down with no weapon, as the officer is clearly in no immediate danger.
He discharged his weapon with the intent to harm a suspect who was in the prone position resulting in the death of an unarmed suspect, his actions were unnecessary and illegal, he is guilty of murder.


He was charged with and covicted of involuntary manslaughter. While the dictionary can be fun, it doesnt correlate into legal doctrine or explain the difference in charges between murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

And again, contrary to your personal opinion, his actions were not determined to be intentional to cause serious boduly harm or injury, which is why the lesser charge was applied.

This is what I am talking about. You guys completely just ignore anything and everything you dont understand or dont agree with and spin it any way you see fit. This guy was found guilty by a jury, who very much dont agree with your spin of the events.

Please learn how the law and courts work, then come back and debate. Everything you just typed is based on ignorance the law of and lack of understanding of how those very laws are applied.

Simply repeating that he intended this or that doesnt make it true, no matter how many times you and others make the statement.

Deny ignorance, stop embracing it and learn about how your government works.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree.

As you know Xcathdra,I have had my differences with LEO's who post ,and have criticized some of the tactics that Law Enforcement agency's have pulled on the common citizen.That being said,this incident was a ACCIDENT. Not only that,this man has served his time,in Jail for his actions. If people DONT like the Laws,that govern them,CHANGE THEM.

Edit to add:
I posted this on the top of the page. Really,people have to weigh in all the angles.......


1.Did he pull his gun out,at anytime Before the incident?(Saw other officers with guns or Tazers in hand)(Safety could have been detached at THAT time,and NOT put back on)
2.Was there a crowd?(Noise of the crowd) (Screaming,yelling.......)
3.Were their trains in tunnel?(More noises as a distraction.)
4. Was suspect reaching?( Simply the only reason why he would have been shot,with anything)
The weights of a gun or Tazer,depends on which kinds were used. Many models,and variations.
Older Tazers weigh more. Most cops use 9mm Plastic type guns.
edit on 14-6-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I'm gonna bite the bullet and admit that i did not know that Oscar was ever a convicted gangbanger, honestly i didn't ever see it in the articles after it happened that he was, so I assumed that he wasn't.

However some people here are still taking the official word that "he meant to pull his taser", which is obvious bullocks. Even if he meant to use the taser, there was no reason for it whatsoever. The man was handcuffed on the ground with another heavier man's knee on his head, he was even handcuffed sitting against a wall before he was drug to the ground, and not doing anything. Who pulls the trigger without looking at the gun, which he did, and who mistakes the gun for the lighter, more obviously different taser?

This cop knew what he did and did it with purpose, there was no accident. While this jury (i just went through jury duty and they narrow down the people to the most absolute sheeple), somehow went with the involuntary manslaughter charge, it is ridiculous to assume that this was an accident and horrible to celebrate is incident.

Some people are quick to scream "ignorance!" when others were calling this a murder, think for a second.

You are looking down when coming to an intersection and hit someone, killing them. That is involuntary manslaughter. This cop "accidently" shot this man with his gun instead of his taser at point blank range while the victim was pinned down on the ground on his stomach handcuffed and killed him., That isn't the same, that is intent. So i would say that Murder or even voluntary manslaughter would fit WAY better.

Like someone else said earlier, You reverse Oscar and Johanne's positions and have oscar say "oh im sorry, i had a taser as well, i meant to shoot him with that" and see how far that flies, you would be lucky to get anything but murder. But because this guy had a badge and the guy was a gangbanger, that makes it alright and "oh he didn't mean to do it" somehow flies.,

OH and for that other guy, when did i ever say anything about anybodys mom? Oh yeah, i didn't.
edit on 14-6-2011 by Lynexon because: add a few words



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Lynexon
 


While I agree and understand parts of your response, I take exception to what is intentional and what is not. Out of curiosity, and this is meant with all due respect, but who are you to explain to us what the officer meant to do? The only person who can answer that is the officer himself.

As much as people hate the police, they are also presumed innocent until proven guilty, no matter how uch some people think it shouldnt be like that.

A murder charge in California revolves around the person who commited the offense knowing full well his actions would result in death. The officer claims he was going for his taser, which is where the "he intended to kill the kid" argument goes out the _

As with other incidents people post, we are seeing the aftermath. We see what occured as a third party, seeing the suspects actions, and the cops actions. Its a hindsight 20/20 issue, which again is not allowed in court.

An officers use of force, per Supreme Court ruling, is limited to what the officer perceived as a threat at the moment force was used. The what if, or he meant to, or should of game is irrelevant when it comes to court proceedings.

The argument that because the kid was in handcuffs there is no reason to use a Taser is, again, based on a personal opinion coming from an individual who is not law enforcement or familiar with the policies and procedures of the BART Police Department.

I have no problem with people being upset and wanting law enforcement to be held accountible for their actions. As a matter of fact I encourage people to take part in govrnment and communicate with law enforcement, just as my old department wanted us to be visible in neighborhoods and speak to people to get their feeling on things.

However, to not understand the law, hows it applied, how law enforcement works, and to make comments that are based on nothing but a lack of knowledge, or as I say ignorance (which is not an evil word contrary to popular belief), serves no purpose other than to incite people who are to lazy to do their own research.

People want to hold law enforcement accountible - Good for them for taking part
People who bring their personal bias into the argument because some cop issued them a citation for possession of marijuana who cant seem to get over it, has no room to talk.

Debate the facts, offer pesonal opinions all good stuff.





new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join