Riots in California..

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Some of the elements of society in California don't need much of an excuse to riot. Personally i think that just under the seams of this states fabric, this place is probably as, if not more racially charged then the south ever was. I'll bet my bottom dollar, the riot was racially motivated. The news was very quick to point out the jury was white, and the punk who got waxed and his family was black. Bingo, instant race card! Time to start looting the stores.

Not the first riot (See Rodney King riots), and won't be the last.

The jury was white? All of it!? Jeezus, is that even legal in Cantaffordya?

Originally Posted by thorn69

This cop was either a rookie and very unfamiliar with his own gear or he had a serious brain fart.

You seem to have missed out the third possibility: that he's a murdering sh!thead.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

The jury was white? All of it!? Jeezus, is that even legal in Cantaffordya?

Kind of puts the jury selection in question. To what end who knows. Sure it is legal but its really stupid and short sighted.

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

The jury was white? All of it!? Jeezus, is that even legal in Cantaffordya?

You seem to have missed out the third possibility: that he's a murdering sh!thead.

For it to be murder he has to have an intent to want to kill somebody. He was found not guilty of that by a jury of his peers. Therefore, he's no more of a murderer than OJ was AFTER the ruling in his trial.

People tend to forget that victims don't get justice. Justice is only afforded to the living. The cop was entitled to a fair and speedy trial because he's still alive. The trial was for HIM, not the victim! Court is also not a perfect place. There's always a 50/50 chance of winning or losing in any case.

But I find these racist comments to be offending. Seems people have a problem when a man is awarded a jury of his own peers. What are we supposed to do? Set him up in front of a jury of non-peers? How would that be fair for him? Everybody who went to court would lose if that was the case. You can't call the 12 jurors racists and not expect to be called a racist yourself. For one thing, you don't know any of the jurors and what they were thinking when they decided on this man's fate. To call them a racist is to call them a racist for simply being white since you know nothing else about them. That's just ignorant!

If the jury was all black and they gave the white cop a harsher sentence then that would be just as racist. It would have been an unfair trial setup just to screw him over and NO, that's NOT justice!

Plus, the white cop was found guilty of something in this trial. It's not like they just let him walk! He's going to do some jail time and he'll never be a cop again. His life is pretty much ruined because of his conviction. He'll have to live with that the rest of his life. Sucks to be him!

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by August

These Riots always seem to happen when it's hot outside. I think such racially charged trials ought to be postponed until the winter.

Related only indirectly to this are my thoughts (partially and with some humour) on why the middle east continues to have such trouble - it's just too damn hot over there for folk to assimilate stressfully charged situations. I know my fuse is shorter when I'm all hot and bothered..

Originally Posted by August

No instead they picked a black man at random, chained him to the bumper of a truck, urinated on him, then dragged him for a few miles until his body came apart in pieces. Feel better?

I remember that, nasty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd,_Jr.
Google search shows at least one other incident, that is similar in nature, reported this year.

Originally Posted by thorn69

As a cop myself, I have a hard time with this case. Most of us are very familiar with where our weapons and tools are located on our duty belts. This is not just so we know where to go when the time arises in an emergency, it's also a safety issue in case we're being pummeled on the ground and somebody tries to grab our weapon from the holster to use against us.

I can detect the feel of a foreign hand on my weapon and I have to know which self defense maneuver to perform on that individual to get out of that situation. If he's on my left, I've got a specific move for that, if he's on my right, I've got a specific move for that. Same thing for front and back. This cop was either a rookie and very unfamiliar with his own gear or he had a serious brain fart - which can and does happen under high stress situations.

If he was unfamiliar with his own gear then his employer needs to be held responsible. They should not have an officer out there with weapons and tools he's not familiar with. That makes him a liability to the city and you potentially end up with a problem just like this one.

I think you raise some valid points here. Of particular note are the comments on training and who is responsible for that (probably repercussions of this will be felt within the force the officer came from?), and the issue of to what level is the perception of 'race' and 'fairness' applicable to the jurors (in your last post above) and how that public perception implicates opinion of the justice procedure.
A tricky one, with many variables to take into account, certainly. But this ought not to interfere with the facts, which is what the courts are supposed to be about determining.

Without knowing the facts of the case myself, and perhaps wrongly, my initial reaction to reading the article was drawn to highlight the following:

Originally Posted by article

Video footage of Grant lying face down as Mehserle shot him in the back was taken by onlookers and shown over the Web and television. Mehserle was seen holstering his gun immediately afterward and putting his hands on his head as in disbelief.

We can all second guess the policeman's intent, but a rational mind would have to draw a deeply disturbing conclusion that the shooting be considered deliberate; for this to be so, we must assume that his reaction 'putting his hands on his head as in disbelief' was also a deliberate act, of concealment or consciously misleading his intent to those he knew were present and watching.

I find that hard to accept. At least on merit of the reporting in the article and my initial thought to the cop's reaction to what he had just done. I'm sure the court would have explored the evidence and facts of the case much more thoroughly than I.

It doesn't change the fact that one life is ended and one other is irrevocably changed. Under the circumstances, how far do you punish someone for what seems to be a tragic, if negligent, accident? I'm glad I don't have to make a decision on that.

[longam]

Originally Posted by thorn69

But since none of us were there it's hard to say what exactly happened.

Look pretty obvious to me, he Screwed up big time, you can see the expression on his face looking at the other officer.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by thorn69

For it to be murder he has to have an intent to want to kill somebody. He was found not guilty of that by a jury of his peers. Therefore, he's no more of a murderer than OJ was AFTER the ruling in his trial.

People tend to forget that victims don't get justice. Justice is only afforded to the living. The cop was entitled to a fair and speedy trial because he's still alive. The trial was for HIM, not the victim! Court is also not a perfect place. There's always a 50/50 chance of winning or losing in any case.

But I find these racist comments to be offending. Seems people have a problem when a man is awarded a jury of his own peers. What are we supposed to do? Set him up in front of a jury of non-peers? How would that be fair for him? Everybody who went to court would lose if that was the case. You can't call the 12 jurors racists and not expect to be called a racist yourself. For one thing, you don't know any of the jurors and what they were thinking when they decided on this man's fate. To call them a racist is to call them a racist for simply being white since you know nothing else about them. That's just ignorant!

If the jury was all black and they gave the white cop a harsher sentence then that would be just as racist. It would have been an unfair trial setup just to screw him over and NO, that's NOT justice!

Plus, the white cop was found guilty of something in this trial. It's not like they just let him walk! He's going to do some jail time and he'll never be a cop again. His life is pretty much ruined because of his conviction. He'll have to live with that the rest of his life. Sucks to be him!

Was that whole post directed at me? Because I don't remember calling anyone racist (though, for the record, American jurors are supposed to be racist) or saying anything about justice. I expressed surprise that the jury was all-white, and questioned the legality of it, because I was under the impression that US juries are supposed to be cross-representative of society? I also pointed out that you were rather selective in your list of possible explanations for the killing; you don't seem to even consider the possibility of it being intentional, which strikes me as awfully narrow-minded of you.

And that's all I said.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

The jury was white? All of it!?

That's what i read the other day. I remember that distinctly because my eyes rolled in the back of my head, and i was thinking, "Oh here we go again......"

Now if that is true or not, i don't know. It's just what i read. I honestly don't care enough to be research the details of this incident, nor the trial.

Originally Posted by longam

Look pretty obvious to me, he Screwed up big time, you can see the expression on his face looking at the other officer.

Looked like the man should not have resisted arrest to me! Perhaps he'd be alive today if he hadn't been so foolish?! Sure, the police officer screwed up but I'd say the suspect on the ground screwed up the most! Never play with your own life! I have very little respect for people that resist arrest. It's THE stupidest thing a person can do!

Oh and you just got to love the crowd that was there instigating the guy on the ground to resist the police. Some friends!

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Was that whole post directed at me? Because I don't remember calling anyone racist (though, for the record, American jurors are supposed to be racist) or saying anything about justice. I expressed surprise that the jury was all-white, and questioned the legality of it, because I was under the impression that US juries are supposed to be cross-representative of society? I also pointed out that you were rather selective in your list of possible explanations for the killing; you don't seem to even consider the possibility of it being intentional, which strikes me as awfully narrow-minded of you.

And that's all I said.

Not aimed at you directly but just in general to everyone that keeps dancing around the idea that this incident was racially motivated. That's just nuts!

12 people with more facts about this case declared that the Officer didn't intentionally kill the suspect that was resisting arrest on the ground. Therefore, he's not a murderer. It was an unfortunate situation that I'd say the man on the ground provoked. Lesson to be learned - Never resist arrest!

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Looked like the man should not have resisted arrest to me!

Okay, now you're treading awfully close to "he got what he deserved" territory.

Originally Posted by thorn69

Perhaps he'd be alive today if he hadn't been so foolish?!

Even closer...

Originally Posted by thorn69

Sure, the police officer screwed up but I'd say the suspect on the ground screwed up the most!

Yeah, he screwed up the most. He resisted arrest, the bastard! Whereas all the poor copper did was pull out a gun and shoot an unarmed man in the back. Obviously the former is a much bigger screwup than the latter.

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Okay, now you're treading awfully close to "he got what he deserved" territory.



Even closer...



Yeah, he screwed up the most. He resisted arrest, the bastard! Whereas all the poor copper did was pull out a gun and shoot an unarmed man in the back. Obviously the former is a much bigger screwup than the latter.

The man that resisted arrest was the bigger idiot. Sorry, that's just my bias opinion I suppose. Had he not resisted and gone peacefully, then he'd most likely be alive today. Sure the Officer screwed up but the man should not have resisted like that.

Officers have to make a very quick decisions in those situations and it's usually a thought of "him or me". I'm a police officer myself and my line of thought is "I want to go home at the end of my shift". I'm not taking chances with any knuckleheads that want to resist arrest. It's a good thing I know where my zapper is!

Besides, most smart people would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Not aimed at you directly but just in general to everyone that keeps dancing around the idea that this incident was racially motivated. That's just nuts!

No the incident wasn't. But people turned it into one.

What bugs me is how when people are robbed, or somehow wronged, they like to yell, "Where were the cops?!" and chastize them for not doing their job. But if they get stopped for speeding, or see someone else getting "jacked", then quickly do a 180.

I've honestly thought about getting into LE many times, but i cannot escape the fact that i have a VERY low opinion of the general public. How can you serve and protect something you think poorly of? Are these hypocritical self absorbed, self important, people worth the sacrifice and dedication?

Originally Posted by Ducimus

No the incident wasn't. But people turned it into one.

What bugs me is how when people are robbed, or somehow wronged, they like to yell, "Where were the cops?!" and chastize them for not doing their job. But if they get stopped for speeding, or see someone else getting "jacked", then quickly do a 180.

I've honestly thought about getting into LE many times, but i cannot escape the fact that i have a VERY low opinion of the general public. How can you serve and protect something you think poorly of? Are these hypocritical self absorbed, self important, people worth the sacrifice and dedication?

I'll admit that it's a very thankless profession and not for everyone. I'm sure you care more about the public then you tend to realize.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by thorn69

12 people with more facts about this case declared that the Officer didn't intentionally kill the suspect that was resisting arrest on the ground. Therefore, he's not a murderer. It was an unfortunate situation that I'd say the man on the ground provoked. Lesson to be learned - Never resist arrest!

Exactly what I said after the OJ acquittal, when I heard a lot of "Of course he's guilty!" and a little less but still some "Of course he's innocent!" My answer then was there is no "of course" about it. The jury heard the evidence and the jury made their decision. The accused may or may not be guilty of anything from stupidity to willful murder, but only the accused knows that for sure. The jury may be honest, or they may be biased, or they may even be bought, but until there is evidence to prove one or the other, we the outsiders have no way of knowing the truth.

And while speculation is always fun, we have no business second-guessing the jury either.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And while speculation is always fun, we have no business second-guessing the jury either.

Wait.. isnt that what this whole thread is about