Oscar Grant killed by transit officer
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Try North Korea.
North Korea is an extreme example, not a fact that we aren't living in a police-state.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Do I deny that the USA conforms to the definition of a Police State? Of course I do.
You don't know enough. The US does everything a police-state does, just not in the extreme yet.
Bob Emmett wrote:
In a Police State? Where you would be tortured, sent to a forced labour camp, or executed?
Yes, it is that way today. There is a bill on congress to allow the presedent to secretly arrest anyone for any reason, no trial, no charges. It is to fight terrorism. There is another bill that will allow the feds to strip anyone of their citizenship, so you wouldn't have any rights there. The NSA illegally wiretaps all communications. The FEC restricts political speech. In any declared emergency, the government will take away you guns, force you to relocate to one of their facilities, and take your property. Look up police-state on wiki, the US, Britain, and Australia and considered police-states.
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:
Look up police-state on wiki, the US, Britain, and Australia and considered police-states.
Can you read? it says some consider each of those countrie are moving towards become a police state. And it doesnt even mention Australia, it mentions the state of Western Australia. If I said I condier you to be one of the thickest dickheads alive does that actually make you the tickest dickhead alive? here's[^] a wiki page for you
-
Making a run at the Don Quixote award for this week? :laugh:
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
Tim Craig wrote:
Making a run at the Don Quixote award for this week?
:-O Sometimes I get like energizer sand paper - I just keep grinding away. :) Long after all sense is gone, I still demand a rational answer. :laugh: If they won't admit defeat, they just get rubbed too raw to continue. I bet he won't answer the question in any kind of reasonable way. Yeah, where do I sign up for the award competition? Is there a prize? Do I get to keep any windmills I kill? Does it come with OCD meds?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Look up police-state on wiki, the US, Britain, and Australia and considered police-states.
Can you read? it says some consider each of those countrie are moving towards become a police state. And it doesnt even mention Australia, it mentions the state of Western Australia. If I said I condier you to be one of the thickest dickheads alive does that actually make you the tickest dickhead alive? here's[^] a wiki page for you
Josh Gray wrote:
If I said I condier you to be one of the thickest dickheads alive does that actually make you the tickest dickhead alive?
I thought you were going to extrapolate from him to the entire US, like he did Western Australia to the whole of it. I appreciate you not tarring us all with the same brush. :-D
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Try North Korea.
North Korea is an extreme example, not a fact that we aren't living in a police-state.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Do I deny that the USA conforms to the definition of a Police State? Of course I do.
You don't know enough. The US does everything a police-state does, just not in the extreme yet.
Bob Emmett wrote:
In a Police State? Where you would be tortured, sent to a forced labour camp, or executed?
Yes, it is that way today. There is a bill on congress to allow the presedent to secretly arrest anyone for any reason, no trial, no charges. It is to fight terrorism. There is another bill that will allow the feds to strip anyone of their citizenship, so you wouldn't have any rights there. The NSA illegally wiretaps all communications. The FEC restricts political speech. In any declared emergency, the government will take away you guns, force you to relocate to one of their facilities, and take your property. Look up police-state on wiki, the US, Britain, and Australia and considered police-states.
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:
North Korea is an extreme example
But it is a Police State, the modern day equivalent of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. Would you accept Belarus? They censor the Internet, and the traditional media[^]. They are ranked #151 out of 175 countries by Reporters Sans Frontières[^], with 59.50 black marks. (North Vietnam was #174 with 112.50 black marks.) The USA and UK were ranked joint #20 with Luxembourg, each having 4.0 black marks. Wow, have we a way to go!
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You don't know enough.
And you only 'know' what you want to believe.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The US does everything a police-state does, just not in the extreme yet.
And yet there are all these web sites with dissenting views, spreading anti government propaganda! Typical bureaucratic incompetence on the part of the Department of Fatherland Security.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Yes, it is that way today.
You were tortured and sent to a forced labour camp - with Internet access? Don't tell me you were executed, and are posting via a medium. :omg:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There is a bill on congress to allow the presedent to secretly arrest anyone for any reason, no trial, no charges.
Citation?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There is another bill that will allow the feds to strip anyone of their citizenship, so you wouldn't have any rights there.
Citation?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The NSA illegally wiretaps all communications.
Wiretaps all communications? Some technology they must have!
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The FEC restricts political speech.
Citation?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In any declared emergency, the government will take away you guns, force you to relocate to one of their facilities, an
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Try North Korea.
North Korea is an extreme example, not a fact that we aren't living in a police-state.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Do I deny that the USA conforms to the definition of a Police State? Of course I do.
You don't know enough. The US does everything a police-state does, just not in the extreme yet.
Bob Emmett wrote:
In a Police State? Where you would be tortured, sent to a forced labour camp, or executed?
Yes, it is that way today. There is a bill on congress to allow the presedent to secretly arrest anyone for any reason, no trial, no charges. It is to fight terrorism. There is another bill that will allow the feds to strip anyone of their citizenship, so you wouldn't have any rights there. The NSA illegally wiretaps all communications. The FEC restricts political speech. In any declared emergency, the government will take away you guns, force you to relocate to one of their facilities, and take your property. Look up police-state on wiki, the US, Britain, and Australia and considered police-states.
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:
Look up police-state on wiki, the US, Britain, and Australia and considered police-states.
"The United Kingdom is felt by some to be moving in the direction of a police state, with biometric identity cards, mass surveillance and detention without trial all having been introduced by the government. The UK has been described as "the most surveilled country" in the world. Protests within a half-mile radius of the Houses of Parliament are illegal in the UK unless authorised by the Metropolitan Police. Leading politicians have been arrested under conditions of secrecy. Claims of police state behaviour have been dismissed by the UK government." Biometric Identity Cards Cards and National Identity Register will not [be] implemented. Mass Surveillance Not the mythical 4.2m CCTV cameras, yet again? There are some 1.5m CCTV public space cameras. There are some 17,000 Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. Most other 'surveillance' is due to our optional use of credit/debit cards, mobile phones, GPS, Oyster cards, yada yada, and other people's use of cameras and video recorders. There is also 'surveillance' in the workplace to monitor absence, breaks, and productivity. Detention Without Trial Detention up to 28 days before being charged in the case of terrorism suspects. Detention for up to 4 days before being charged, otherwise. Politicians arrested under conditions of secrecy One politician. Secrecy? The Leader of the Opposition and the Mayor of London were both notified before the arrest took place. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary, however, claimed that they were not notified of the impending arrest. Protests within a half-mile radius of the Houses of Parliament are illegal And this indicates a Police State? How?
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
modified on Sunday, July 11, 2010 1:44 PM
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Try North Korea.
North Korea is an extreme example, not a fact that we aren't living in a police-state.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Do I deny that the USA conforms to the definition of a Police State? Of course I do.
You don't know enough. The US does everything a police-state does, just not in the extreme yet.
Bob Emmett wrote:
In a Police State? Where you would be tortured, sent to a forced labour camp, or executed?
Yes, it is that way today. There is a bill on congress to allow the presedent to secretly arrest anyone for any reason, no trial, no charges. It is to fight terrorism. There is another bill that will allow the feds to strip anyone of their citizenship, so you wouldn't have any rights there. The NSA illegally wiretaps all communications. The FEC restricts political speech. In any declared emergency, the government will take away you guns, force you to relocate to one of their facilities, and take your property. Look up police-state on wiki, the US, Britain, and Australia and considered police-states.
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[^]
And, finally: You never did get back to tell me which 'genocidal' option Holdren chose in 'Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment'. Perhaps it is about time that you admitted that you have never read the book, and that you were lying when you claimed that you had.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
Neither of us knows what his intent was.
You are right, and murder requires proof of intent. He is innocent until proven guilty. As I hope you also apply to any civilian accused of shooting a cop, they are innocent until proven guilty.
Carbon12 wrote:
Your argument that the cops were surrounded by a dangerous drunks is unsupported
Kind of like your argument on intent, except I didn't say they were dangerous drunks. I said they had probably been drinking, given it was new years. Dangerous drunks would be evident. Probably drinking means you don't know how they might act, a difference in what you focus is.
Carbon12 wrote:
Both are meant to be used in situations where deadly force is called for.
Tasers are not meant for when deadly force is required, because at that point they are useless, not being deadly force. Tasers are meant to give an option before deadly force, to reduce the use of deadly force. But, if it was intended, why do you think he acted as he did after the shot?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Kind of like your argument on intent
I haven't given an argument on intent. I said I don't know his intent. I just know what I saw. He had no justification to draw any weapon.
RichardM1 wrote:
Dangerous drunks would be evident.
The fact is you don't know if any one was drunk, so your argument that this was something to stress the cops in complete fantasy.
RichardM1 wrote:
to reduce the use of deadly force.
Exactly. and since this wasn't a situation where the cop might need to shoot someone, it also was not a situation where a taser should be drawn.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, if it was intended, why do you think he acted as he did after the shot?
Faced with the consequences of his decision - I wouldn't be in the least suprised that he was shocked.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Making a run at the Don Quixote award for this week?
:-O Sometimes I get like energizer sand paper - I just keep grinding away. :) Long after all sense is gone, I still demand a rational answer. :laugh: If they won't admit defeat, they just get rubbed too raw to continue. I bet he won't answer the question in any kind of reasonable way. Yeah, where do I sign up for the award competition? Is there a prize? Do I get to keep any windmills I kill? Does it come with OCD meds?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
There are a couple of windmills in Golden Gate Park you can have a go at. You can keep all the seagull guano you can knock loose. Just show up, there's no official signup. That's why I just like to play Whack an Idiot until I get that satisfying hollow ring and then move on. ;P
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Kind of like your argument on intent
I haven't given an argument on intent. I said I don't know his intent. I just know what I saw. He had no justification to draw any weapon.
RichardM1 wrote:
Dangerous drunks would be evident.
The fact is you don't know if any one was drunk, so your argument that this was something to stress the cops in complete fantasy.
RichardM1 wrote:
to reduce the use of deadly force.
Exactly. and since this wasn't a situation where the cop might need to shoot someone, it also was not a situation where a taser should be drawn.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, if it was intended, why do you think he acted as he did after the shot?
Faced with the consequences of his decision - I wouldn't be in the least suprised that he was shocked.
Carbon12 wrote:
I haven't given an argument on intent.
Murder requires intent. If you claim murder, you state intent. YOU claim it was murder, so YOU claim you know there was intent. I agree you don't give an argument for it, you just state it's there.
Carbon12 wrote:
so your argument that this was something to stress the cops in complete fantasy.
A complete fantasy that someone has to worry about drunks during New Years partying? You are either too young to go out alone, or are just being foolish.
Carbon12 wrote:
Faced with the consequences of his decision - I wouldn't be in the least suprised that he was shocked.
Right - because he could not figure out ahead of time that shooting the guy would - I don't know - maybe put a hole in him, only after he saw it. I'm faced with looking at you and thinking you really are just beating him up because he is a cop. You don't think he knew it could kill Grant if he shot him, but could immediately visualize jail time when he did.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
I haven't given an argument on intent.
Murder requires intent. If you claim murder, you state intent. YOU claim it was murder, so YOU claim you know there was intent. I agree you don't give an argument for it, you just state it's there.
Carbon12 wrote:
so your argument that this was something to stress the cops in complete fantasy.
A complete fantasy that someone has to worry about drunks during New Years partying? You are either too young to go out alone, or are just being foolish.
Carbon12 wrote:
Faced with the consequences of his decision - I wouldn't be in the least suprised that he was shocked.
Right - because he could not figure out ahead of time that shooting the guy would - I don't know - maybe put a hole in him, only after he saw it. I'm faced with looking at you and thinking you really are just beating him up because he is a cop. You don't think he knew it could kill Grant if he shot him, but could immediately visualize jail time when he did.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Murder requires intent.
OK, lets get into it then. The cop had no justification to draw either the taser or his pistol. The other cop testified that he believed he had Mr. Grant under control. I don't believe it is reasonable to be confused between a light weight yellow taser and a heavy black pistol. It appears to me to be a deliberate act.
RichardM1 wrote:
A complete fantasy that someone has to worry about drunks during New Years partying?
No, a complete fantasy from you. You pulled that out of the air. It wasn't an issue here, but you were apparently compelled to invent it to excuse the cops behaviour.
RichardM1 wrote:
Right - because he could not figure out ahead of time that shooting the guy would - I don't know - maybe put a hole in him, only after he saw it.
That is extremely weak. So it is your belief that no one who has ever kill - justified or not - has ever reacted badly to what they have just done? I have every reason to believe that anyone who is anything short of a stone-cold killer will react with horror over what they have done.
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm faced with looking at you and thinking you really are just beating him up because he is a cop.
That's just a baseless assumption on your part. What is true is that because he is a cop who is given a broad range of authority over civilians, I think he should be held to a very high standard. Shooting someone in the back while they are lying face down on the ground falls way below that standard.
RichardM1 wrote:
You don't think he knew it could kill Grant if he shot him,
Not true. Again it's one thing to imagine it, another to actually do it and see the results. I don't see any contradiction in choosing to shoot someone and still be shocked after having done it.
-
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.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Murder requires intent.
OK, lets get into it then. The cop had no justification to draw either the taser or his pistol. The other cop testified that he believed he had Mr. Grant under control. I don't believe it is reasonable to be confused between a light weight yellow taser and a heavy black pistol. It appears to me to be a deliberate act.
RichardM1 wrote:
A complete fantasy that someone has to worry about drunks during New Years partying?
No, a complete fantasy from you. You pulled that out of the air. It wasn't an issue here, but you were apparently compelled to invent it to excuse the cops behaviour.
RichardM1 wrote:
Right - because he could not figure out ahead of time that shooting the guy would - I don't know - maybe put a hole in him, only after he saw it.
That is extremely weak. So it is your belief that no one who has ever kill - justified or not - has ever reacted badly to what they have just done? I have every reason to believe that anyone who is anything short of a stone-cold killer will react with horror over what they have done.
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm faced with looking at you and thinking you really are just beating him up because he is a cop.
That's just a baseless assumption on your part. What is true is that because he is a cop who is given a broad range of authority over civilians, I think he should be held to a very high standard. Shooting someone in the back while they are lying face down on the ground falls way below that standard.
RichardM1 wrote:
You don't think he knew it could kill Grant if he shot him,
Not true. Again it's one thing to imagine it, another to actually do it and see the results. I don't see any contradiction in choosing to shoot someone and still be shocked after having done it.
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
Murder requires intent.
OK, lets get into it then. The cop had no justification to draw either the taser or his pistol. The other cop testified that he believed he had Mr. Grant under control.
Good. No justification. I will agree with you all the way down the line that he used poor judgment and that that poor judgment killed Grant. But nothing you has said what his intent was, and all explanation was that he was going to taze, the only contradiction, that he used his pistol and shot him. So where are you showing intent to kill? The only way I can get intent is if I assume that he told his partner he was going to taze Grant, then intentionally pulled his gun and intentionally shot Grant.
Carbon12 wrote:
I don't believe it is reasonable to be confused between a light weight yellow taser and a heavy black pistol. It appears to me to be a deliberate act.
It's OK for you to believe that. But do you believe it because you have drawn and fired both, or either, while dealing with adrenaline and distractions? I've used weapons before while I had adrenaline going, they don't weight that much. As for the color - his eyes don't go to it when he draws it, so color is not an issue. And yes, a deliberate act - to pull his tazer and taze Grant. In a situation like that, the cop would have aimed his pistol. He just pointed and shot, which is how you use the tazer.
Carbon12 wrote:
No, a complete fantasy from you. You pulled that out of the air. It wasn't an issue here, but you were apparently compelled to invent it to excuse the cops behaviour.
I did not pull it out of the air, it was new years. A bunch of people who are taking BART home after partying. Unruly enough for some of them to start fights. And this guy resists them putting cuffs on him, so they taze him. And I am not excusing him of anything. They had 2 gun incidents earlier, and he was coming from another. Your adrenalin is pumping, you do stuff from muscle memory, not from talking to forearm, and wrist and fingers. He made mistakes that caused a death - involuntary manslaughter.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
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 do not think cops are always bad, far from it. I've had a couple of brushes with Chicago's Finest, both of them pretty positive experiences all things considered. But I _do_ think that this could pretty much only happen in Paranoid U.S. of A., where people STILL, in 2010, feel so insecure and afraid that they feel the need for a constitutional right to bear arms. "Guns don't kill people"? Maybe, but they sure make it easier. //L
modified on Monday, July 12, 2010 8:23 AM
-
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
Murder requires intent.
OK, lets get into it then. The cop had no justification to draw either the taser or his pistol. The other cop testified that he believed he had Mr. Grant under control.
Good. No justification. I will agree with you all the way down the line that he used poor judgment and that that poor judgment killed Grant. But nothing you has said what his intent was, and all explanation was that he was going to taze, the only contradiction, that he used his pistol and shot him. So where are you showing intent to kill? The only way I can get intent is if I assume that he told his partner he was going to taze Grant, then intentionally pulled his gun and intentionally shot Grant.
Carbon12 wrote:
I don't believe it is reasonable to be confused between a light weight yellow taser and a heavy black pistol. It appears to me to be a deliberate act.
It's OK for you to believe that. But do you believe it because you have drawn and fired both, or either, while dealing with adrenaline and distractions? I've used weapons before while I had adrenaline going, they don't weight that much. As for the color - his eyes don't go to it when he draws it, so color is not an issue. And yes, a deliberate act - to pull his tazer and taze Grant. In a situation like that, the cop would have aimed his pistol. He just pointed and shot, which is how you use the tazer.
Carbon12 wrote:
No, a complete fantasy from you. You pulled that out of the air. It wasn't an issue here, but you were apparently compelled to invent it to excuse the cops behaviour.
I did not pull it out of the air, it was new years. A bunch of people who are taking BART home after partying. Unruly enough for some of them to start fights. And this guy resists them putting cuffs on him, so they taze him. And I am not excusing him of anything. They had 2 gun incidents earlier, and he was coming from another. Your adrenalin is pumping, you do stuff from muscle memory, not from talking to forearm, and wrist and fingers. He made mistakes that caused a death - involuntary manslaughter.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
But nothing you has said what his intent was
Unless one can read minds one cannot know intent beyond what his actions say. he had no justification for drawing either weapon, yet he did draw his pistol and kill the man. I draw the conclusion that his intent and his actions are the same.
RichardM1 wrote:
So where are you showing intent to kill?
I just did. Not different than you claims of what you say he said and did show his intent to use a taser on someone already under control.
RichardM1 wrote:
It's OK for you to believe that....
Even though he had no reason for even drawing the taser - He drew the wrong weapon from the wrong location on his belt. He failed to notice that he had the completely wrong weapon in his hands - different shape size and weight and color. He drew it brought his other hand up to the weapon, pointed it at Grant and fired. All the while completely clueless as to what he was holding in his hands. I find that implausable and inexcusable. Further reading also shows that the cop has twice that evening drawn his taser without error - making the argument that he drew the wrong weapon this time even more implausable.
RichardM1 wrote:
I did not pull it out of the air
As an excuse for his action - yeah, you did.
RichardM1 wrote:
And this guy resists them putting cuffs on him, so they taze him.
Except that they shot him. except That even the use of a taser was completely unjustified. On further reading I will retract my use of the term murder. The California requires malicious intent to convict for murder. I would have to agree that that is very hard to prove. I think that voluntary manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on.
modified on Monday, July 12, 2010 10:43 AM
-
RichardM1 wrote:
But nothing you has said what his intent was
Unless one can read minds one cannot know intent beyond what his actions say. he had no justification for drawing either weapon, yet he did draw his pistol and kill the man. I draw the conclusion that his intent and his actions are the same.
RichardM1 wrote:
So where are you showing intent to kill?
I just did. Not different than you claims of what you say he said and did show his intent to use a taser on someone already under control.
RichardM1 wrote:
It's OK for you to believe that....
Even though he had no reason for even drawing the taser - He drew the wrong weapon from the wrong location on his belt. He failed to notice that he had the completely wrong weapon in his hands - different shape size and weight and color. He drew it brought his other hand up to the weapon, pointed it at Grant and fired. All the while completely clueless as to what he was holding in his hands. I find that implausable and inexcusable. Further reading also shows that the cop has twice that evening drawn his taser without error - making the argument that he drew the wrong weapon this time even more implausable.
RichardM1 wrote:
I did not pull it out of the air
As an excuse for his action - yeah, you did.
RichardM1 wrote:
And this guy resists them putting cuffs on him, so they taze him.
Except that they shot him. except That even the use of a taser was completely unjustified. On further reading I will retract my use of the term murder. The California requires malicious intent to convict for murder. I would have to agree that that is very hard to prove. I think that voluntary manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on.
modified on Monday, July 12, 2010 10:43 AM
First you say you can't know intent, then you say you can, and that his intent was to kill. Then you say his intent was to kill, but not with malicious intent - I guess he was just curious? I'm glad the California law does not make as fine a distinction. Oh, wait, they do, just not the way I'd thought - but more on that later. Anyway, you are making an argument on mental state based on a action. Consider, you are stating that every mistake you ever made in your life should be taken as your intended outcome. Are you capable of living up to that standard? Or even willing?
Carbon12 wrote:
I find that implausable and inexcusable.
I 'merely' find it inexcusable.
Carbon12 wrote:
As an excuse for his action - yeah, you did.
Do you understand the difference between an excuse and a reason? I am not excusing his action - though I draw a different conclusion on it than you do. The reason I drove off the road is that the road was wet, I had bald tires and I was going to fast for the conditions. The excuse is that the speed limit was set too high and they should have had a 'slippery when wet' sign. Reason describes contributing factors. Excuse assigns responsibility elsewhere. Anyway, lets look at California's actual definitions for manslaughter:CA Penal Code 192.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.
(c) Vehicular--
[^] Do you think he acted upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion? He did not look all that passionate to me (at least until after he shot Grant), and I would not call that a sudden quarrel. If he was not supposed to use the taser, but did, then he killed Grant "in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection". One day I have -
First you say you can't know intent, then you say you can, and that his intent was to kill. Then you say his intent was to kill, but not with malicious intent - I guess he was just curious? I'm glad the California law does not make as fine a distinction. Oh, wait, they do, just not the way I'd thought - but more on that later. Anyway, you are making an argument on mental state based on a action. Consider, you are stating that every mistake you ever made in your life should be taken as your intended outcome. Are you capable of living up to that standard? Or even willing?
Carbon12 wrote:
I find that implausable and inexcusable.
I 'merely' find it inexcusable.
Carbon12 wrote:
As an excuse for his action - yeah, you did.
Do you understand the difference between an excuse and a reason? I am not excusing his action - though I draw a different conclusion on it than you do. The reason I drove off the road is that the road was wet, I had bald tires and I was going to fast for the conditions. The excuse is that the speed limit was set too high and they should have had a 'slippery when wet' sign. Reason describes contributing factors. Excuse assigns responsibility elsewhere. Anyway, lets look at California's actual definitions for manslaughter:CA Penal Code 192.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.
(c) Vehicular--
[^] Do you think he acted upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion? He did not look all that passionate to me (at least until after he shot Grant), and I would not call that a sudden quarrel. If he was not supposed to use the taser, but did, then he killed Grant "in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection". One day I haveRichardM1 wrote:
First you say you can't know intent, then you say you can
That's completely untrue and you know it. Here is what I said:
Carbon12 wrote:
Unless one can read minds one cannot know intent beyond what his actions say.
RichardM1 wrote:
Then you say his intent was to kill
Yes, he pulled out his gun and shot Grant.
RichardM1 wrote:
but not with malicious intent
Acually I said that it was difficult to prove.
RichardM1 wrote:
Anyway, you are making an argument on mental state based on a action
No kidding, I've already said exactly that. You've done the same thing.
RichardM1 wrote:
you are stating that every mistake you ever made in your life should be taken as your intended outcome
Not at all. The issue at hand was whether or not it was a mistake. You claim it was based on what you believe he said and did(actions), I disagree. The jury disagreed with you, as well. The jury was told that the gun-crime sentencing enhancement could only be included if the jury believe the cop had intentionally branished or used his gun. The jury did include the enhancement. The jury didn't believe that he drew it by mistake.
RichardM1 wrote:
I am not excusing his action
Yes, that is exactly what you are doing. You're presently a hypothetical - drunks on new years creating a stressful environment for the cop. While those conditions could have existed, they didn't actually exist. Or to use your metaphor - The reason I drove off the road was because I was speeding. My excuse is that the road was wet - it rained today. Actually it wasn't raining at the location of the accident and the road was not wet.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think he acted upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion?
Yes, I would. It sure doesn't appear premeditated.
RichardM1 wrote:
He did not look all that passionate to me
Oh, so you are determining his mental state based on his actions.
RichardM1 wrote:
If he was not supposed to use the taser
But
-
RichardM1 wrote:
First you say you can't know intent, then you say you can
That's completely untrue and you know it. Here is what I said:
Carbon12 wrote:
Unless one can read minds one cannot know intent beyond what his actions say.
RichardM1 wrote:
Then you say his intent was to kill
Yes, he pulled out his gun and shot Grant.
RichardM1 wrote:
but not with malicious intent
Acually I said that it was difficult to prove.
RichardM1 wrote:
Anyway, you are making an argument on mental state based on a action
No kidding, I've already said exactly that. You've done the same thing.
RichardM1 wrote:
you are stating that every mistake you ever made in your life should be taken as your intended outcome
Not at all. The issue at hand was whether or not it was a mistake. You claim it was based on what you believe he said and did(actions), I disagree. The jury disagreed with you, as well. The jury was told that the gun-crime sentencing enhancement could only be included if the jury believe the cop had intentionally branished or used his gun. The jury did include the enhancement. The jury didn't believe that he drew it by mistake.
RichardM1 wrote:
I am not excusing his action
Yes, that is exactly what you are doing. You're presently a hypothetical - drunks on new years creating a stressful environment for the cop. While those conditions could have existed, they didn't actually exist. Or to use your metaphor - The reason I drove off the road was because I was speeding. My excuse is that the road was wet - it rained today. Actually it wasn't raining at the location of the accident and the road was not wet.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think he acted upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion?
Yes, I would. It sure doesn't appear premeditated.
RichardM1 wrote:
He did not look all that passionate to me
Oh, so you are determining his mental state based on his actions.
RichardM1 wrote:
If he was not supposed to use the taser
But
Carbon12 wrote:
The jury was told that the gun-crime sentencing enhancement could only be included if the jury believe the cop had intentionally branished or used his gun. The jury did include the enhancement. The jury didn't believe that he drew it by mistake.
And yet they enhanced the involuntary manslaughter charge, which means they did not believe he did it with intent to kill (per the jury instructions, page 9, para starting with "The difference between..."). Further, in the jury instructions[^], they were told, in the last para of page 10, "In considering whether the defendant's conduct was criminally negligent, you must not consider the consequences of that conduct" (emphasis mine). So outcome does not effect it. But it is odd that the jury would contradict themselves so. Involuntary manslaughter says it was an unintentional act that killed Grant. You can only believe it was unintentional if you believe he drew the gun thinking he drew the taser. I don't see any other way to believe his shooting Grant was a mistake. Yet the instructions for "personally used a firearm" demands intentional use of the firearm. On to the use of force issue pertaining to the taser, which he claims he meant to draw. The California definition of resisting arrest is freaking amazing(ly bad) [shaking head]. It can be a passive, not acting: not doing what you are told to do is resisting arrest. You don't even have to do something you are not supposed to do. If you are on the ground and a cop tells you to get up, but you don't, you are resisting arrest. Grant, when the police were trying to cuff him, actively resisted being cuffed. He didn't hit anyone, but he tried to keep his hands from being cuffed. California defined resisting arrest as grounds for use of a taser (at least before SB1347, from 04/2010). The other cop with him, who later said it was not justified, should have told him not to use the taser. Yet he just cleared away from Grant so he would not be shocked. This doesn't excuse the first cop of anything, but the second one, knowing it was not justified, should have protected Grant's rights and told him not to tase.
Carbon12 wrote:
-
Carbon12 wrote:
The jury was told that the gun-crime sentencing enhancement could only be included if the jury believe the cop had intentionally branished or used his gun. The jury did include the enhancement. The jury didn't believe that he drew it by mistake.
And yet they enhanced the involuntary manslaughter charge, which means they did not believe he did it with intent to kill (per the jury instructions, page 9, para starting with "The difference between..."). Further, in the jury instructions[^], they were told, in the last para of page 10, "In considering whether the defendant's conduct was criminally negligent, you must not consider the consequences of that conduct" (emphasis mine). So outcome does not effect it. But it is odd that the jury would contradict themselves so. Involuntary manslaughter says it was an unintentional act that killed Grant. You can only believe it was unintentional if you believe he drew the gun thinking he drew the taser. I don't see any other way to believe his shooting Grant was a mistake. Yet the instructions for "personally used a firearm" demands intentional use of the firearm. On to the use of force issue pertaining to the taser, which he claims he meant to draw. The California definition of resisting arrest is freaking amazing(ly bad) [shaking head]. It can be a passive, not acting: not doing what you are told to do is resisting arrest. You don't even have to do something you are not supposed to do. If you are on the ground and a cop tells you to get up, but you don't, you are resisting arrest. Grant, when the police were trying to cuff him, actively resisted being cuffed. He didn't hit anyone, but he tried to keep his hands from being cuffed. California defined resisting arrest as grounds for use of a taser (at least before SB1347, from 04/2010). The other cop with him, who later said it was not justified, should have told him not to use the taser. Yet he just cleared away from Grant so he would not be shocked. This doesn't excuse the first cop of anything, but the second one, knowing it was not justified, should have protected Grant's rights and told him not to tase.
Carbon12 wrote:
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.