BART cop who shot man is released after 1 year sentence

[Norstal]

Um, hrm, no, not exactly. Murder doesn't REQUIRE intent, which is why Wiztopia is making a fairly decent argument despite him own ignorance.

Murder requires "malice aforethought". A death that is caused as a result of acts which qualify as a showing a"reckless disregard" and "depraved indifference" to human life is also murder. So we don't need to go to intent. We merely must ask, does the officer's conduct constitute "negligence" or "depraved indifference?"

I have no doubt he thought he was reaching for a taser. He was absolutely not justified in using a taser. But there very fact that he thought he DIDN'T have a gun militates against a finding of a depraved indifference towards life. Or, simply, you can't callously disregard the inherent risk to life of your actions, if you're unaware that your actions carry an inherent risk to life.

What this man most certainly, in my mind, committed was battery which unintentionally resulted in death. That's definitionally manslaughter.

Ah, well, thanks for clearing that up.

[Tekania]

Um. He was proven guilty. He spent a year in prison on a felony conviction.

Do you not feel that the time in jail (he was not in a federal prison) was excessively light given the severity of the crime? Especially since much lessor crimes have significantly greater minimum punishments?

He got, in this case, the median sentence associated with involuntary manslaughter. The maximum for involuntary manslaughter is 4 years (I would have preferred he got 3-4 years). Which seems fine to me for cases of involuntary manslaughter.

[Gravlen]

Funny how the entire jury, present at the trial, disagreed. But hell, you're "random internet guy", surely you know better

Either they were paid off or were being retarded.

Or they, you know, actually had a full hearing with access to all the available evidence...

That really doesn't make sense.

You said what you did to troll. Someone else could have said it because he or she were insane, but didn't intend to troll. Yet another person could have said it because he or she desired to undermine the legal system, but not to troll.

So no, not "everybody".

No I meant it. That doesn't make it a troll. Quit being so damn ignorant.

It doesn't make "it" a troll, it would make "you" a troll.

So attend to your own level of ignorance before complaining about someone else's.

[Gravlen]

No matter how many times you'll say it in this thread or any other, nobody will listen to anything but "Hang that racist bastard!"

There seems to be a belief that only two camps exist--those who believe Mehserle is a racist murderer, and those who think he did nothing wrong. It's quite possible to hold a third opinion. It's quite possible to believe that while Mehserle may not have intended to kill Oscar Grant, his actions were unprofessional, dangerous, and had tragic results, and that he should have (and did) pay for those actions.

I don't think Mehserle set about to intentionally kill black kids. I do believe that race and racism were factors in both the event that took place and the subsequent trial and media frenzy.

You know, it's odd, but that mythical third position sounds awfully like what the jury arrived at...

[Natapoc]

Do you not feel that the time in jail (he was not in a federal prison) was excessively light given the severity of the crime? Especially since much lessor crimes have significantly greater minimum punishments?

He got, in this case, the median sentence associated with involuntary manslaughter. The maximum for involuntary manslaughter is 4 years (I would have preferred he got 3-4 years). Which seems fine to me for cases of involuntary manslaughter.

I really don't understand how so many people think it really was involuntary manslaughter. He intentionally used lethal force. Did he "know" that his lethal force would cause death? Probably not. But that's a mere technicality.

[Tekania]

Or they, you know, actually had a full hearing with access to all the available evidence...

Courts and evidence are over-rated. It would be much better if the public just read the news articles and had public lynchings and riots. Especially in cases where the situation can appear to be sexist, racist, involve possible terrorists or possible pedophiles.

[Rokartian States]

He got, in this case, the median sentence associated with involuntary manslaughter. The maximum for involuntary manslaughter is 4 years (I would have preferred he got 3-4 years). Which seems fine to me for cases of involuntary manslaughter.

I really don't understand how so many people think it really was involuntary manslaughter. He intentionally used lethal force. Did he "know" that his lethal force would cause death? Probably not. But that's a mere technicality.

Do you understand what the word 'intentionally' means?

[Natapoc]

I really don't understand how so many people think it really was involuntary manslaughter. He intentionally used lethal force. Did he "know" that his lethal force would cause death? Probably not. But that's a mere technicality.

Do you understand what the word 'intentionally' means?

Yes. He intentionally used lethal force.

[Tekania]

I really don't understand how so many people think it really was involuntary manslaughter. He intentionally used lethal force. Did he "know" that his lethal force would cause death? Probably not. But that's a mere technicality.

He intentionally used force, the evidence did not support a claim of this force being lethal.

Not that it would matter, as per California Law that would still be involuntary manslaughter.

[Libertarian Mesa]

Do you understand what the word 'intentionally' means?

Yes. He intentionally used lethal force.

A taser is deadly when used against a violent man?

[Natapoc]

I really don't understand how so many people think it really was involuntary manslaughter. He intentionally used lethal force. Did he "know" that his lethal force would cause death? Probably not. But that's a mere technicality.

He intentionally used force, the evidence did not support a claim of this force being lethal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safe ... _Taser_use

Taser use always presents a risk of death. There was no justification to use the taser use.

[Libertarian Mesa]

He intentionally used force, the evidence did not support a claim of this force being lethal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safe ... _Taser_use

So you think that any use of taser is a deadly force?

[Neo Art]

He intentionally used lethal force.

...no, no he did not. Just because a taser has killed some people doesn't make it lethal force. Peanuts have caused death. If I toss you a bag of peanuts inadvertantly resulting in your death from sudden anaphalaxis I have not used lethal force on you.

[Rokartian States]

Do you understand what the word 'intentionally' means?

Yes. He intentionally used lethal force.

But there's no reason to believe he used force with the intention of it being lethal. I mean, you'd have to read his mind to know that, right?

[Tekania]

He intentionally used force, the evidence did not support a claim of this force being lethal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safe ... _Taser_use

Taser use always presents a risk of death. There was no justification to use the taser use.

Made a slight edit, to show it doesn't even actually matter. As whether or not the force was lethal or not, his exercise of force in the matter per his office was lawful, the death was unlawful however which defines the crime as involuntary manslaughter, as under the law involunary manslaughter is defined as "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"

[Xsyne]

Well I suppose the cop could have been tried, convicted, and executed on the spot just like he did when he shot the unarmed man...

But the justice system just does not work like that.

How was he sure he was unarmed? Suicide bombers are everywhere nowadays.

"Okay this guy might be wearing a bomb I better apply a powerful electric shock to exactly where the bomb would be."

[Neo Art]

How was he sure he was unarmed? Suicide bombers are everywhere nowadays.

"Okay this guy might be wearing a bomb I better apply a powerful electric shock to exactly where the bomb would be."

Found it!

[Galla-]

Oscar grant was unarmed, handcuffed and lying face down on his back. There was no reason to tazer him, let alone shoot him. He was already subdued, which is why this disgrace to his badge should have been convicted of murder and locked up for at least 20 years.

I am curious though, is he going to go back into law enforcement? If so, I hope some vigilante involuntarily man-slaughters the guy.

His immediate remorse and shock, as verified by "virtually all witnesses", points towards murder? How so?

You mean his bullshit act? He meant to do it.

Funny how the entire jury, present at the trial, disagreed. But hell, you're "random internet guy", surely you know better

Either they were paid off or were being retarded.

Dude, you can stop, the sarcasm is getting a bit old. Joke's wore thin, etc.

[Libertarian Mesa]

How was he sure he was unarmed? Suicide bombers are everywhere nowadays.

"Okay this guy might be wearing a bomb I better apply a powerful electric shock to exactly where the bomb would be."

It seems more like an attempt to subdue violent, angry man.

[Natapoc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safe ... _Taser_use

Taser use always presents a risk of death. There was no justification to use the taser use.

Made a slight edit, to show it doesn't even actually matter. As whether or not the force was lethal or not, his exercise of force in the matter per his office was lawful, the death was unlawful however which defines the crime as involuntary manslaughter, as under the law involunary manslaughter is defined as "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"

I think this law enforcement officer should be held to a high standard for his conduct. I have a difficult time buying the idea that he did not intend to shoot his victim given his high level of training and knowledge of firearms.

The fact remains that while on duty he shot an unarmed man who was already fully restrained for no apparent reason.

In doing so he caused great pain and suffering for the man, his family, friends, and others who knew him.

By his actions he further damaged the image of law enforcement in the community and the nation as a whole. Cops are more likely to be shot now then they were before. People hate cops more now that before would have been neutral or have favorable views of them.

He killed a man, and damaged the whole country and was punished with 11 months in jail.

In contrast a non violent man was sentenced to 10 years in jail for selling medical marijuana in the same state (see my earlier posts in this thread).

Such sentencing makes a mockery of justice and anyone who cares about justice or even the appearance of such should be very disappointed with the entire process.

That's all from me in this thread.

[Galla-]

Made a slight edit, to show it doesn't even actually matter. As whether or not the force was lethal or not, his exercise of force in the matter per his office was lawful, the death was unlawful however which defines the crime as involuntary manslaughter, as under the law involunary manslaughter is defined as "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"

I think this law enforcement officer should be held to a high standard for his conduct. I have a difficult time buying the idea that he did not intend to shoot his victim given his high level of training and knowledge of firearms.

Then you are being willfully ignorant, even after there was video evidence and a court document both substantiating that Mehrelsenesenlseses had gone into shock after the incident. Of course that was just an act. Mehrelenes is clearly a master at emotional deception. Given that Mr. Grant was being arrested for carrying a loaded firearm, unauthorised, in the great state of California and suspected of illegal drug dealing, I feel that his death is no way "harmful" to the greater good of our country, and that it "damages" the nation in no discernible way.

And yeah drug crimes are total shit and need to be abolished, so ditto on that one.

[Wiztopia]

Either they were paid off or were being retarded.

Or they, you know, actually had a full hearing with access to all the available evidence...

No I meant it. That doesn't make it a troll. Quit being so damn ignorant.

It doesn't make "it" a troll, it would make "you" a troll.

So attend to your own level of ignorance before complaining about someone else's.

It wouldn't make me a troll either. Just because you don't agree with what I said makes me a troll.

[Gravlen]

Or they, you know, actually had a full hearing with access to all the available evidence...

Courts and evidence are over-rated. It would be much better if the public just read the news articles and had public lynchings and riots. Especially in cases where the situation can appear to be sexist, racist, involve possible terrorists or possible pedophiles.

Even better to kill the people serving as jurors when they come to a conclusion that we disagree with. That's the only way to see justice being done, it seems...

Just because you don't agree with what I said makes me a troll.

If you say so.

[Vetok]

Oscar grant was unarmed,

At no point was he searched for weapons by the officers. It was while he appeared to be reaching for something at his waist that Mehserle stood up to use the taser.

handcuffed and lying face down on his back.

Grant was only handcuffed after he had been shot.

There was no reason to tazer him, let alone shoot him. He was already subdued, which is why this disgrace to his badge should have been convicted of murder and locked up for at least 20 years.

Yes, Mehserle had every reason to taser him. Grant was not complying with the commands of officers to put his hands behind his back and only Officer Pirone had his hands on him at the time of the shooting.

I am curious though, is he going to go back into law enforcement? If so, I hope some vigilante involuntarily man-slaughters the guy.

If I expressed this feeling about you, how would you react? Such disgusting remarks merely prove that the human race is screwed. The reaction of the general public as a whole has been disgusting as people say they wanted Mehserle punished 'properly', without saying what this actually means. They use it as an excuse to conduct riots and express a desire for public servants to be killed.

[Blazedtown]

Anybody that is stupid enough to charge an armed police officer deserves to get shot.