Oscar Grant killed by transit officer
-
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.