RichardM1 wrote:
And yet they enhanced the involuntary manslaughter charge
yes, I am well aware of that. In fact this has been the issue we have been discussing from the very beginning. You agree with the verdict, I disagree.
RichardM1 wrote:
you must not consider the consequences of that conduct"
I don't disagree with that.
RichardM1 wrote:
But it is odd that the jury would contradict themselves so
I really don't think it is odd - I can come up with several reasons this might be true. Juries often defer to cops, or they have no sympathy for the victim, for example.
RichardM1 wrote:
California defined resisting arrest as grounds for use of a taser
Perhaps you are correct. That passively lying on the ground is legal justification for tasering. I find that a little hard to believe. The abuse of the taser is quite extreme, and I would be disappointed to see it codified. BTW I did find some police department guidelines - not SFPD specifically - that prohibits the use of the taser for the purpose of corercion. I suspect that it is also true here.
RichardM1 wrote:
Yeah, I know you would.
Yes, and I know you wouldn't. -Right back at ya.
RichardM1 wrote:
Nobody was hitting anyone else or yelling
Grant was pushed to the ground, restrained and shot. Close enough to quarrel for me. We are just quibbling now. *edit - I am giving the officer the benefit of the doubt here. If there was no quarrel, no heat of the moment that would lead me to believe that he coldly stood up, drew his weapon and killed Grant. To me that would make it murder, pure and simple. - edit*
RichardM1 wrote:
you said "is", meaning you know for a fact.
I know for a fact that the cop drew his gun and shot Grant in the back, killing him. Not 'appears to have', but 'did'.
RichardM1 wrote:
But since you won't stop
?? Won't stop what? Doing what we are both doing, in fact the only thing we can do - use his actions to interpret his state of mind?
RichardM1 wrote:
you did not disagree with my how I characterized it.