Oscar Grant killed by transit officer
-
Has anyone heard anything about this? I saw a video on msnbc's dateline with Brian Williams. Apparently a fight on the train started it. The guy was face down not moving, no weapons have been reported and so the transit cop pulls what he says he thought was a tazer to do what to a guy who can't move and is handcuffed. For all the things to legitimately get upset about I think this is.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Has anyone heard anything about this? I saw a video on msnbc's dateline with Brian Williams. Apparently a fight on the train started it. The guy was face down not moving, no weapons have been reported and so the transit cop pulls what he says he thought was a tazer to do what to a guy who can't move and is handcuffed. For all the things to legitimately get upset about I think this is.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Has anyone heard anything about this? I saw a video on msnbc's dateline with Brian Williams. Apparently a fight on the train started it. The guy was face down not moving, no weapons have been reported and so the transit cop pulls what he says he thought was a tazer to do what to a guy who can't move and is handcuffed. For all the things to legitimately get upset about I think this is.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
The cop was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, this week, IIRC. I also understand that how much the guy is fighting depends on which video you see. Facts being - he resisted, and was put on the ground. Cop pulled his gun, shoots him, and looked stunned. The cop never claimed the shooting was justified, always that it was accidental, that he meant to tazer him I think justice was done, as much as can be in a case like this.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Yes.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Has anyone heard anything about this? I saw a video on msnbc's dateline with Brian Williams. Apparently a fight on the train started it. The guy was face down not moving, no weapons have been reported and so the transit cop pulls what he says he thought was a tazer to do what to a guy who can't move and is handcuffed. For all the things to legitimately get upset about I think this is.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
The cop shot a man who was on the ground and handcuffed. He shouldn't have tasered him , much less shot him. Tasers were advertised as an alternative to deadly force - deadly force wasn't required so the taser shouldn't be used. The cop got off easy - I can see why people are upset over the verdict.
-
The cop was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, this week, IIRC. I also understand that how much the guy is fighting depends on which video you see. Facts being - he resisted, and was put on the ground. Cop pulled his gun, shoots him, and looked stunned. The cop never claimed the shooting was justified, always that it was accidental, that he meant to tazer him I think justice was done, as much as can be in a case like this.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Apparently there were 5 video recordings. If he's on the ground already why would he need to tazer him? He was already subdued. Why wasn't the gun's safety on? Do cops walk around with their gun safeties off?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Apparently there were 5 video recordings. If he's on the ground already why would he need to tazer him? He was already subdued. Why wasn't the gun's safety on? Do cops walk around with their gun safeties off?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
I understand that the cop felt he was continuing to resist. If the cop had a revolver (I don't know what he had), they generally don't have safeties. Says he had a SIG Sauer P226 semi-automatic pistol, which does have a safety. Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc[^] After Grant is shot, his arms are not restrained behind his back, so he was not cuffed. The cop stated he was going to taze Grant, both cops pull away and he shoots him. And you can see that is not what the cop expected to happen. Cop is going to jail for involuntary manslaughter. He killed him, but did not mean to. If he was not a cop - he would have had about the same verdict. It is horrible that this happened, but it was not murder.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Has anyone heard anything about this? I saw a video on msnbc's dateline with Brian Williams. Apparently a fight on the train started it. The guy was face down not moving, no weapons have been reported and so the transit cop pulls what he says he thought was a tazer to do what to a guy who can't move and is handcuffed. For all the things to legitimately get upset about I think this is.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Get used to it. We live in a police-state. The cattle must be regulated.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
I understand that the cop felt he was continuing to resist. If the cop had a revolver (I don't know what he had), they generally don't have safeties. Says he had a SIG Sauer P226 semi-automatic pistol, which does have a safety. Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc[^] After Grant is shot, his arms are not restrained behind his back, so he was not cuffed. The cop stated he was going to taze Grant, both cops pull away and he shoots him. And you can see that is not what the cop expected to happen. Cop is going to jail for involuntary manslaughter. He killed him, but did not mean to. If he was not a cop - he would have had about the same verdict. It is horrible that this happened, but it was not murder.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Looks like murder to me. 3 Cops were on him. They had no excuse to taze him, much less shoot him.
Carbon12 wrote:
Looks like murder to me. 3 Cops were on him. They had no excuse to taze him, much less shoot him.
I guess it doesn't look like murder to you, because if you watched the videos you'd have seen there were two cops. But that is why we have a jury, and why both the prosecutors and defense get to reject jurors. Because everyone who sees things sees them a little different. Murder has specific intent requirements that just were not evident here. Cop made a horrible mistake, and killed Grant. But mistakes are not murder.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
Looks like murder to me. 3 Cops were on him. They had no excuse to taze him, much less shoot him.
I guess it doesn't look like murder to you, because if you watched the videos you'd have seen there were two cops. But that is why we have a jury, and why both the prosecutors and defense get to reject jurors. Because everyone who sees things sees them a little different. Murder has specific intent requirements that just were not evident here. Cop made a horrible mistake, and killed Grant. But mistakes are not murder.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
It does look like murder. 2 cops on him one just a few feet away - that makes 3. The man is on his stomach. There is no justification for use of a taser, asuming that's really what the cop wanted to do. "I only wanted to torture him, not kill him. My bad." I have a hard time believing he mistook a heavy black pistol for a light yellow taser.
-
It does look like murder. 2 cops on him one just a few feet away - that makes 3. The man is on his stomach. There is no justification for use of a taser, asuming that's really what the cop wanted to do. "I only wanted to torture him, not kill him. My bad." I have a hard time believing he mistook a heavy black pistol for a light yellow taser.
Carbon12 wrote:
It does look like murder.
Yup, that's why he said "Oh God, no". So it looks murder to you. But not to the jury. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. I appreciate that they make mistakes. I appreciate that they put their lives on the line. You want to think the cops are always bad, go ahead. I think you will find a kindred spirit in CSS.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Get used to it. We live in a police-state. The cattle must be regulated.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Get used to it. We live in a police-state. The cattle must be regulated.
If it were a police state: there would be no videos of the incident, there would be no prosecution, you would be too terrified to post those comments.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
It does look like murder.
Yup, that's why he said "Oh God, no". So it looks murder to you. But not to the jury. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. I appreciate that they make mistakes. I appreciate that they put their lives on the line. You want to think the cops are always bad, go ahead. I think you will find a kindred spirit in CSS.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I agree. I don't think he should have gotten a walk because he screwed up big time but it wasn't murder. And what happened last night after the sun went down was no surprise either. Dellums sure was a joke through the whole process.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
-
I agree. I don't think he should have gotten a walk because he screwed up big time but it wasn't murder. And what happened last night after the sun went down was no surprise either. Dellums sure was a joke through the whole process.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
It does look like murder.
Yup, that's why he said "Oh God, no". So it looks murder to you. But not to the jury. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. I appreciate that they make mistakes. I appreciate that they put their lives on the line. You want to think the cops are always bad, go ahead. I think you will find a kindred spirit in CSS.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You won't convince me,
It never occurred to me to try.
RichardM1 wrote:
I won't convince you.
You were trying?? Sorry, man, I had no idea.
RichardM1 wrote:
I appreciate that they make mistakes. I appreciate that they put their lives on the line.
So do I, but neither mitigates the cop's unjustified use of force.
RichardM1 wrote:
You want to think the cops are always bad, go ahead.
That's pathetic.
RichardM1 wrote:
I think you will find a kindred spirit in CSS.
These last 2 statement lead me to suspect your ability to think has been seriously compromised.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You won't convince me,
It never occurred to me to try.
RichardM1 wrote:
I won't convince you.
You were trying?? Sorry, man, I had no idea.
RichardM1 wrote:
I appreciate that they make mistakes. I appreciate that they put their lives on the line.
So do I, but neither mitigates the cop's unjustified use of force.
RichardM1 wrote:
You want to think the cops are always bad, go ahead.
That's pathetic.
RichardM1 wrote:
I think you will find a kindred spirit in CSS.
These last 2 statement lead me to suspect your ability to think has been seriously compromised.
Carbon12 wrote:
You were trying??
My point was that I wasn't, and didn't want to get into an argument.
Carbon12 wrote:
Sorry, man, I had no idea.
Yes, that is evident, and that is the last tit for tat.
Carbon12 wrote:
neither mitigates the cop's unjustified use of force.
Nor does the outcome change the intent. If he had intended to shoot Grant, he would not have freaked. I don't know the rest of what was going on - just that the cop went from one situation were he was dealing with an armed perp to another were he was dealing with guys who had been fighting and surrounded by a mob who had probably been drinking and could over power the cops if they tried. Then Grant was resisting and seemed to reach for something in his belt. Are you unable to see how he could have decided tazing was appropriate? Do you think you can see the stress he was working under? Can you get past turning outcome into intent? Fuck. Now I am trying to get you to see reason. If you can give me something other than a knee jerk response, I'll respond the same way. If you don't, end of comments.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Get used to it. We live in a police-state. The cattle must be regulated.
If it were a police state: there would be no videos of the incident, there would be no prosecution, you would be too terrified to post those comments.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
You were trying??
My point was that I wasn't, and didn't want to get into an argument.
Carbon12 wrote:
Sorry, man, I had no idea.
Yes, that is evident, and that is the last tit for tat.
Carbon12 wrote:
neither mitigates the cop's unjustified use of force.
Nor does the outcome change the intent. If he had intended to shoot Grant, he would not have freaked. I don't know the rest of what was going on - just that the cop went from one situation were he was dealing with an armed perp to another were he was dealing with guys who had been fighting and surrounded by a mob who had probably been drinking and could over power the cops if they tried. Then Grant was resisting and seemed to reach for something in his belt. Are you unable to see how he could have decided tazing was appropriate? Do you think you can see the stress he was working under? Can you get past turning outcome into intent? Fuck. Now I am trying to get you to see reason. If you can give me something other than a knee jerk response, I'll respond the same way. If you don't, end of comments.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Nor does the outcome change the intent.
Neither of us knows what his intent was. What we do know is that Grant was face down on the ground - hardly a threat - and he was shot and killed.
RichardM1 wrote:
Are you unable to see how he could have decided tazing was appropriate?
It wasn't. Grant was on the ground on his stomach. The other officer stated in his testimony that he felt he had Grant under control. Your argument that the cops were surrounded by a dangerous drunks is unsupported. And it is clear from the video that there are numerous other cops controlling the crowd.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think you can see the stress he was working under?
I have no doubt he was stressed. Still doesn't explain his use of his gun - even if he did think it was the taser.
RichardM1 wrote:
Can you get past turning outcome into intent?
I see the outcome, I see no credible threat to the cop, I see no excuse for use of a taser or a gun. Both are meant to be used in situations where deadly force is called for. And that was not the case here.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Citation?
Well, for one who is always quoting Orwell's 1984, I should not have thought it necessary to have to explain to you the nature of a Police State. However, let's use Merriam-Webster definition: Main Entry: police state Function: noun Date: 1851 a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures. 1) There would be no videos of the incident Under a repressive government, the MSM is state controlled. Broadcasts from outside the country are jammed. Internet-connected computers are state controlled. Assuming one had unauthorised possession of the means to video the police attack, where could it be broadcast? 2) There would be no prosecution There is no judiciary, the police are in charge, who is going to prosecute their "arbitrary exercise of power"? 3) You would be too terrified to post those comments Arbitrary punishment (forced labour camp, execution), that'll do it for you, every time.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.