NationStates

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:09 pm**

Rokartian States wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
Involuntary huh? Yeah that gun just fired itself! I promise! It's like the gun (er I mean taser!) was possessed or something!

...Okay, you're joking, right? You do know that involuntary manslaughter has to do with malice, right?

I think he intended to shoot his gun because I don't believe it possible for a person to mistake a taser for a gun when they are totally different.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:09 pm**

Gravlen wrote:
Natapoc wrote: After all, it's easy to convince jury members of things by selective use of evidence.

Source to back up the implied assertion that it was an unfair trial, and that the prosecution knowingly didn't do their job?

Natapoc wrote:The person who was murdered

No conviction for murder exists.

Natapoc wrote:of course had no means of defending himself from the allegations Mehserle's legal team was making.

Source to back up the assertion that the prosecution knowingly didn't do their job?

I never made such an assertion. But I'm not denying the possibility.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:10 pm**

Natapoc wrote:Involuntary huh? Yeah that gun just fired itself! I promise! It's like the gun (er I mean taser!) was possessed or something!

Funny.

Your post doesn't surprise me though, as you've been showing a serious lack of understanding of the US legal system throughout the thread.

Natapoc wrote:And time served was about 11 months... for ending the life of another human being.

The fact remains, he was sentenced to two years.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:11 pm**

Natapoc wrote:
Rokartian States wrote:
...Okay, you're joking, right? You do know that involuntary manslaughter has to do with malice, right?

I think he intended to shoot his gun because I don't believe it possible for a person to mistake a taser for a gun when they are totally different.

You implied that the charge of involuntary manslaughter involved whether or not the criminal willingly fired the gun, which is completely and utterly wrong. I've already addressed the point you're bringing up and you've already ignored it, so I'm done with that; I just wanted to confirm that you did actually know what he was convicted of.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:12 pm**

Natapoc wrote:
Gravlen wrote:Source to back up the implied assertion that it was an unfair trial, and that the prosecution knowingly didn't do their job?

No conviction for murder exists.

Source to back up the assertion that the prosecution knowingly didn't do their job?

I never made such an assertion. But I'm not denying the possibility.

Yeah, you're just making shit up as you go. Sounds about right.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:14 pm**

Gravlen wrote:
Natapoc wrote:Involuntary huh? Yeah that gun just fired itself! I promise! It's like the gun (er I mean taser!) was possessed or something!

Funny.

Your post doesn't surprise me though, as you've been showing a serious lack of understanding of the US legal system throughout the thread.

Not a lack of understanding. A lack of acceptance.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:15 pm**

Gravlen wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
I never made such an assertion. But I'm not denying the possibility.

Yeah, you're just making shit up as you go. Sounds about right.

Not at all. You do realize I was arguing AGAINST the person who I quoted who (seemed to )want all the jury members killed right?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:16 pm**

Gravlen wrote:No conviction for murder exists.

It should.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:17 pm**

Wiztopia wrote:
Galla- wrote:Grant was resisting arrest. That is enough to warrant a taser. The shock on Mehsenrles' face and his intentions to tase Mr. Grant are enough to warrant a manslaughter charge.

Do you want him shot or hung on live television, or something?

No he was on the ground and Mehserle pulled out his "taser" for no reason. The shock was bullshit to throw them off because of what he knew he was doing. It was plain murder and every single one of those jury members who convicted him for manslaughter deserve to die along with Mehserle.

oic ur being sarcastic

nvm

Vernii wrote:Quick reminder: Tasers and firearms are carried on opposite sides of the belt, have different weights, and the taser is clearly marked as such. It would be pretty damn hard to mistake the two. Furthermore, if the officer was indeed simply mistaking him, that shows he is incompetent and shouldn't be allowed back on the force. In addition, it undermines community relations to allow him back anyway.

Not to mention, that a simple year in prison for manslaughter for ending the existence of another human being through either incompetence or on purpose is a complete joke when one considers the privileges and authority that come with his position. With privilege comes responsibility, and if someone doesn't want to bear the consequences of incompetence or poor decision making, they shouldn't become a police officer. Far too often nowadays, cops get off with lighter consequences for decisions that would ruin the lives of any civilian who made the same mistake. They have their uniform, their departments, and the justice system to shield them from their mistakes, and that simply cannot be allowed to continue. It is for this reason I have developed a contempt for law enforcement.

You've clearly never been in a stressful situation where you can easily confuse things for something else in a split second, or have muscle memory take over and do something before you can react.

Stop acting like it.

He also isn't a cop anymore. I assumed everyone knew GND was joking.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:24 pm**

Natapoc wrote:
Gravlen wrote:Funny.

Your post doesn't surprise me though, as you've been showing a serious lack of understanding of the US legal system throughout the thread.

Not a lack of understanding. A lack of acceptance.

No, I think a lack of understanding is a correct description.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:24 pm**

Natapoc wrote:
Gravlen wrote:Yeah, you're just making shit up as you go. Sounds about right.

Not at all. You do realize I was arguing AGAINST the person who I quoted who (seemed to )want all the jury members killed right?

Personally, I try not to feed the trolls.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:25 pm**

Gravlen wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
Not a lack of understanding. A lack of acceptance.

No, I think a lack of understanding is a correct description.

lol. And who taught you to mind read?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:26 pm**

Gravlen wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
Not at all. You do realize I was arguing AGAINST the person who I quoted who (seemed to )want all the jury members killed right?

Personally, I try not to feed the trolls.

I doubt he's trolling. There are plenty of people who would love a public execution of him and all the cops who were there supporting him.

I'm a moderate if anything. I don't want anyone to die from this.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:26 pm**

I personally think the officer should have done more time given the gross negligence involved in his acts.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:30 pm**

Gravlen wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
Not at all. You do realize I was arguing AGAINST the person who I quoted who (seemed to )want all the jury members killed right?

Personally, I try not to feed the trolls.

Because obviously everybody who says something like I did is a troll. :roll:

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:41 pm**

Wiztopia wrote:
Gravlen wrote:Personally, I try not to feed the trolls.

Because obviously everybody who says something like I did is a troll.

You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist :hug:

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:44 pm**

Why was he put in jail at all? It's sad that a man was killed, but could be dangerous!

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:44 pm**

Wiztopia wrote:
Gravlen wrote:Personally, I try not to feed the trolls.

Because obviously everybody who says something like I did is a troll.

"Kill everyone involved and leave no white witnesses." is pretty ITG and troll.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:46 pm**

Galla- wrote:
Wiztopia wrote:
Because obviously everybody who says something like I did is a troll.

"Kill everyone involved and leave no white witnesses." is pretty ITG and troll.

But he did not say that at all. Simply that the jury (who are the ones partly responsible for the verdict) face the same thing they seemed to support...

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:47 pm**

Libertarian Mesa wrote:Why was he put in jail at all? It's sad that a man was killed, but could be dangerous!

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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:50 pm**

Natapoc wrote:
Wiztopia wrote:
Because obviously everybody who says something like I did is a troll.

You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist

LOL. That might make my sig.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:51 pm**

Natapoc wrote:
Galla- wrote:
"Kill everyone involved and leave no white witnesses." is pretty ITG and troll.

But he did not say that at all. Simply that the jury (who are the ones partly responsible for the verdict) face the same thing they seemed to support...

Eye for an eye?

So you support state sanctioned murders in the form of executions?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:53 pm**

Galla- wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
But he did not say that at all. Simply that the jury (who are the ones partly responsible for the verdict) face the same thing they seemed to support...

Eye for an eye?

So you support state sanctioned murders in the form of executions?

No I don't support that at all. Did you not read where I specifically said I do not support that?

Explaining the rational behind something is not the same thing as supporting that rational.

Yes some people do support "Eye for an eye."

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:53 pm**

Libertarian Mesa wrote:Why was he put in jail at all? It's sad that a man was killed, but could be dangerous!

Because it's disproportionate. And anyone having a gun is dangerous, but we don't arrest them. Of course Reagan's fans have forgotten about the Bill of Rights.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:54 pm**

Natapoc wrote:
Libertarian Mesa wrote:Why was he put in jail at all? It's sad that a man was killed, but could be dangerous!

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.

NationStates

BART cop who shot man is released after 1 year sentence