Riots in California..

SteamWake · 07-09-10, 09:07 AM

Wow what would they do if there had NOT been a conviction.

Oakland ... go figure.

Quote:

The verdict prompted a peaceful protest by up to 1,000 people in downtown Oakland, which gave way after nightfall to some people looting stores, smashing car windows, throwing powerful fireworks at police and lighting fires in trash cans.

The police, numbering in the hundreds, made more than 50 arrests, but Oakland police expected that figure could double.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66763A20100709

kiwi_2005 · 07-09-10, 09:29 AM

...

SteamWake · 07-09-10, 09:31 AM

Not to worry the Feds are on the case.. that will be sure to help!

Quote:

LOS ANGELES -- The U.S. Department of Justice will conduct an independent review of the Johannes Mehserle case in order to determine whether or not the shooting merits federal prosecution, according the department.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...bay&id=7545102

Molon Labe · 07-09-10, 10:03 AM

Time for the lawyer to bitch.

The conviction is for involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for that crime is recklessness. Recklessness means the defendant didn't intend to cause the result, but was consciously aware of the risk (in this case, the risk of killing a person) and proceeded anyways.

Can anyone seriously believe that the officer did not intend to kill the victim, but was aware of the risk that he might and drew and fired his weapon regardless? The only way that could make sense is if he knew he had no idea where his gun/taser was and just guessed and didn't bother to look to make sure he had the right one.

No. He either intended to fire a bullet into that guys back, or he intended to fire a taser into his back and made a horrible mistake. There was no conscious disregarding of any risk, no recklessness. The jury had to make a choice, it was either murder or it was negligence (either an acquittal or maybe a lesser charge like criminally negligent homicide, if it exists in CA). And the jury was too chicken**** to make a decision, so it split the difference.

Verdicts are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

07-09-10, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Verdicts are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

I agree.

Ducimus · 07-09-10, 10:43 AM

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.

07-09-10, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Time for the lawyer to bitch.

The conviction is for involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for that crime is recklessness. Recklessness means the defendant didn't intend to cause the result, but was consciously aware of the risk (in this case, the risk of killing a person) and proceeded anyways.

Can anyone seriously believe that the officer did not intend to kill the victim, but was aware of the risk that he might and drew and fired his weapon regardless? The only way that could make sense is if he knew he had no idea where his gun/taser was and just guessed and didn't bother to look to make sure he had the right one.

No. He either intended to fire a bullet into that guys back, or he intended to fire a taser into his back and made a horrible mistake. There was no conscious disregarding of any risk, no recklessness. The jury had to make a choice, it was either murder or it was negligence (either an acquittal or maybe a lesser charge like criminally negligent homicide, if it exists in CA). And the jury was too chicken**** to make a decision, so it split the difference.

Verdicts are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

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.

But since none of us were there it's hard to say what exactly happened. It always amuses me though how society is so against law enforcement officers they want to see them burned at all costs! The ACLU, NAACP, and Hollywood sure have put a spin on who the real bad guys are and it's disturbing to see so many folks siding with the general thuggery crowd these days because of it. But when homeboy A shoots and kills homeboy B, who do these same folks call? The police of course! Where's your precious ACLU, NAACP, and Hollywood at THEN?!

longam · 07-09-10, 04:05 PM

Quote:

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.

Onkel Neal · 07-11-10, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Time for the lawyer to bitch.

The conviction is for involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for that crime is recklessness. Recklessness means the defendant didn't intend to cause the result, but was consciously aware of the risk (in this case, the risk of killing a person) and proceeded anyways.

Can anyone seriously believe that the officer did not intend to kill the victim, but was aware of the risk that he might and drew and fired his weapon regardless? The only way that could make sense is if he knew he had no idea where his gun/taser was and just guessed and didn't bother to look to make sure he had the right one.

No. He either intended to fire a bullet into that guys back, or he intended to fire a taser into his back and made a horrible mistake. There was no conscious disregarding of any risk, no recklessness. The jury had to make a choice, it was either murder or it was negligence (either an acquittal or maybe a lesser charge like criminally negligent homicide, if it exists in CA). And the jury was too chicken**** to make a decision, so it split the difference.

Verdicts are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

Agreed. I have not been keeping up with this case but I find it very hard to believe this was an accident.

But what I cannot understand is all the loudmouths standing around shouting stupidly. WTH is wrong with them, they sound like idiots.

Ducimus · 07-12-10, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

But what I cannot understand is all the loudmouths standing around shouting stupidly. WTH is wrong with them, they sound like idiots.

Those loudmouths are typical Californian's. I know, I was born and raised here! Sad thing is, if you know the attitude people develop here, you can pick out the Californian in a public area pretty quickly. (There's a story attached to that.

)

As to the black panther video. My gut feeling is it's not genuine, and something someone fabricated to take a stab at the current administration and garner public opinion against it. The video seemed like it was deliberatly grainy, jittery, and I got the impression the lip movement didn't quite match all the words being uttered.

UnderseaLcpl · 07-11-10, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Verdicts are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

I agree, but verdicts are also about criminal intent. Maybe the jury was stupid, or racially biased, who knows? Maybe the jury had cause to believe that this officer would not intentionally shoot a man he knew to be no threat. I'll have to look into it more.

@thorn69

If you are a law enforcement officer, you should rethink your conduct. You are not Judge Dredd, and the sanctity of the law is violated everytime you choose not to uphold it or uphold it excessively. Your statement here alone is enough to call your character into question in a trial, assuming we can prove that thorn69 is you.

I don't want to bash on you, as I've served alongside enough law-enforcement professionals to know that their job is made unnecessarily difficult and even hopeless, occassionally, but "consummate professionalism" should be your standing order at all times, even in matters of opinion. It isn't fair, but as long as you hold a position in which you are publicly accountable, it is your duty to uphold the integrity and character of your service. This isn't a legal argument, just personal advice.

07-11-10, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I agree, but verdicts are also about criminal intent. Maybe the jury was stupid, or racially biased, who knows? Maybe the jury had cause to believe that this officer would not intentionally shoot a man he knew to be no threat. I'll have to look into it more.

@thorn69

If you are a law enforcement officer, you should rethink your conduct. You are not Judge Dredd, and the sanctity of the law is violated everytime you choose not to uphold it or uphold it excessively. Your statement here alone is enough to call your character into question in a trial, assuming we can prove that thorn69 is you.

I don't want to bash on you, as I've served alongside enough law-enforcement professionals to know that their job is made unnecessarily difficult and even hopeless, occassionally, but "consummate professionalism" should be your standing order at all times, even in matters of opinion. It isn't fair, but as long as you hold a position in which you are publicly accountable, it is your duty to uphold the integrity and character of your service. This isn't a legal argument, just personal advice.

I do my job and I do my job quite well! But as I've already said, I get labeled an a-hole no matter which way I decide to go on a specific matter. Police work is always questioned one way or the other because it always intervenes between two differing viewpoints. So one side isn't going to be happy when an arrest is made and the other side is. That's just how it is!

I've never excessively done, or not done, anything unless you're talking about excessively tacking on more and more charges on a criminal violator? That's every police officer though. We all do that for the reason I mentioned in another post. We want arrests to stick and for criminals to go to jail for the longest duration possible and pay the heaviest fines. It makes the streets safer for people for a longer period of time.

Of course our very liberal justice system seems to have a big heart for these criminal lowlifes and consistently allows them to come back again and again to re-commit their crimes on our society. That's the part I've never really understood, especially when it's always the same old bozos out there doing the same old criminal thing. I've arrested some folks over 25 times for the same exact crime. You'd think they'd learn?

But what it is - is they just don't care. The laws are too lax and it's all a joke to them. They know they will be out on the streets again to recommit their same old crime again. It's a way of life for them. I just wish we could suprise them and say, "That's strike 25 pal, time for you to get used to prison for the rest of your life!"

You know, I've noted there are quite a few bleeding heart liberals on this site with a "hug-a-thug" mentality. That's sad!

07-11-10, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Verdicts are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

You don't know much about court system do you? Everything in court is about compromise. Truth is always nice but getting the truth to come out is next to impossible unless somebody is foolish enough to self incriminate themselves. It's not like bad guys turn into "tell all's" on the stand ya know! Not unless something is given to them beforehand!

Court is nothing more than a battleground for the prosecution and defense to battle out a compromise. That's why there are "plea bargains". Hence the word, "bargain". Bargains are "deals" and "deals" are "compromises". Nobody usually ever gets what they want in court. Judges are usually very liberal and play the "safe card" instead of making real judgments. They have the law to tell them what judgment they can make in specific case and those laws are usually very liberal. For instance, a judge could sentence somebody to 1 year in prison or 20 years for the same offense. That's a lot of years for them to play around with.

It's rare that a judge will award someone the full sentence unless there's undeniable evidence present that makes the judge think the defendant is somehow lying. And usually if there's "smoking gun" evidence like that present the defense will beg the prosecution for a plea deal and aim for a lesser sentence before getting out in front of the judge and jury. This makes it an instant win for the prosecution without having to take any risks of the "smoking gun" evidence not actually garnishing the results the prosecution would be hoping for.

I've seen judges turn "smoking gun" evidence into inadmissible evidence in a blink of an eye and watched the prosecution lose it's entire case by getting over zealous and trying to slam someone away for a life sentence and watched a murderer walk away!

If the prosecution can get the defendant to admit guilt then they have an instant win and don't have to worry about proving anything. Of course they usually have to give the defendant something in return for them to admit guilt - usually a much lesser sentence or some other "hook-up" that will benefit the defendant during his time in prison.

I trust you have a better understanding now about how it works and can see that court is nothing BUT compromises.

Zachstar · 07-11-10, 04:49 PM

Stop acting like your are law enforcement. It is just offensive at this point. Offensive to me because of the men and women who risk their lives on the streets of Shreveport to make us just a bit safer and at the same time have a bright attitude so that I feel like a friend talking with them not some outsider.

Its offensive as my grandfather served and even helped establish a local union for officers and their families.

Stop acting like your LE or get off this forum.

07-09-10, 09:29 AM	#2
kiwi_2005 Eternal Patrol Join Date: May 2004 Location: Aeoteroa Posts: 7,382 Downloads: 223 Uploads: 1	... __________________ RIP kiwi_2005 Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others.

07-09-10, 10:03 AM	#4
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Time for the lawyer to bitch. The conviction is for involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for that crime is recklessness. Recklessness means the defendant didn't intend to cause the result, but was consciously aware of the risk (in this case, the risk of killing a person) and proceeded anyways. Can anyone seriously believe that the officer did not intend to kill the victim, but was aware of the risk that he might and drew and fired his weapon regardless? The only way that could make sense is if he knew he had no idea where his gun/taser was and just guessed and didn't bother to look to make sure he had the right one. No. He either intended to fire a bullet into that guys back, or he intended to fire a taser into his back and made a horrible mistake. There was no conscious disregarding of any risk, no recklessness. The jury had to make a choice, it was either murder or it was negligence (either an acquittal or maybe a lesser charge like criminally negligent homicide, if it exists in CA). And the jury was too chicken**** to make a decision, so it split the difference. Verdicts are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening. __________________

07-11-10, 04:49 PM	#14
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	Stop acting like your are law enforcement. It is just offensive at this point. Offensive to me because of the men and women who risk their lives on the streets of Shreveport to make us just a bit safer and at the same time have a bright attitude so that I feel like a friend talking with them not some outsider. Its offensive as my grandfather served and even helped establish a local union for officers and their families. Stop acting like your LE or get off this forum. __________________

07-09-10, 10:43 AM	#6
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	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.