Oscar Grant killed by transit officer
-
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.
-
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.
I'll post whatever the fuck I want, whenever I want. You are not stating facts, just your reasoning for denial.
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'll post whatever the fuck I want, whenever I want. You are not stating facts, just your reasoning for denial.
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:
You are not stating facts
Try North Korea.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
just your reasoning for denial
Do I deny that the USA conforms to the definition of a Police State? Of course I do.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'll post whatever the f*** I want, whenever I want.
In a Police State? Where you would be tortured, sent to a forced labour camp, or executed? Brave words from the Littlest Captain, who won't even go on a Tea Party protest. You are not stating facts, just boasting for effect. BTW: You never did get back to tell me which 'genocidal' option Holdren chose in 'Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment'.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are not stating facts
Try North Korea.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
just your reasoning for denial
Do I deny that the USA conforms to the definition of a Police State? Of course I do.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'll post whatever the f*** I want, whenever I want.
In a Police State? Where you would be tortured, sent to a forced labour camp, or executed? Brave words from the Littlest Captain, who won't even go on a Tea Party protest. You are not stating facts, just boasting for effect. BTW: You never did get back to tell me which 'genocidal' option Holdren chose in 'Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment'.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
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[^]
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.