Bart Officer arrested for Murder

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: JS80

So you're saying it's a catch-22. Bc there will be a riot either way.

My guess is that the Alameda County District Attorney will assign an experienced black prosecutor to the case and, if there's a plea, it will be announced in a press conference in which the black ADA is prominently featured.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: JS80

Is it possible they don't let him plea? I feel like the animals of Oakland will demand murder charge.

Certainly possible, but IMO the cost-benefit doesn't make that a smart move.

Assuming (and I am fully aware this is an assumption based on evidence which doesn't yet exist) he claims he intended to use his taser and this was a complete mistake on his part, I don't see how any fair jury could find him guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt based on what they see on the video. I'd argue the same will hold true even if he doesn't testify, based on the video. Ergo, the City would be encumbered with the expense of a trial and the prospect that he will probably only be convicted of manslaughter anyway. If they're foolish enough not to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter, he will walk 9 times out of 10, and imagine the riots that will result then.

I suppose there's some chance that there is other evidence that this was an intentional shooting that might tend to obviate what we see in the video. In that case, I guess it's possible, albeit very unlikely (I'd set the odds at 5% or less) that he will simply plead to murder or voluntary manslaughter. I would find that VERY surprising, but criminal law is like that sometimes.

I still say that at the end of the day, whether he pleads guilty or not, he ends of convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced accordingly.

So you're saying it's a catch-22. Bc there will be a riot either way.

I'm starting to hope you get caught up in the middle of it (should it happen).

Fuck you too.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: JS80

Is it possible they don't let him plea? I feel like the animals of Oakland will demand murder charge.

Certainly possible, but IMO the cost-benefit doesn't make that a smart move.

Assuming (and I am fully aware this is an assumption based on evidence which doesn't yet exist) he claims he intended to use his taser and this was a complete mistake on his part, I don't see how any fair jury could find him guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt based on what they see on the video. I'd argue the same will hold true even if he doesn't testify, based on the video. Ergo, the City would be encumbered with the expense of a trial and the prospect that he will probably only be convicted of manslaughter anyway. If they're foolish enough not to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter, he will walk 9 times out of 10, and imagine the riots that will result then.

I suppose there's some chance that there is other evidence that this was an intentional shooting that might tend to obviate what we see in the video. In that case, I guess it's possible, albeit very unlikely (I'd set the odds at 5% or less) that he will simply plead to murder or voluntary manslaughter. I would find that VERY surprising, but criminal law is like that sometimes.

I still say that at the end of the day, whether he pleads guilty or not, he ends of convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced accordingly.

So you're saying it's a catch-22. Bc there will be a riot either way.

I'm starting to hope you get caught up in the middle of it (should it happen).

Fuck you too.

Calling residents "animals" is a sure-fire way of inviting Karma into your life, buddy.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: JS80

Is it possible they don't let him plea? I feel like the animals of Oakland will demand murder charge.

Certainly possible, but IMO the cost-benefit doesn't make that a smart move.

Assuming (and I am fully aware this is an assumption based on evidence which doesn't yet exist) he claims he intended to use his taser and this was a complete mistake on his part, I don't see how any fair jury could find him guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt based on what they see on the video. I'd argue the same will hold true even if he doesn't testify, based on the video. Ergo, the City would be encumbered with the expense of a trial and the prospect that he will probably only be convicted of manslaughter anyway. If they're foolish enough not to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter, he will walk 9 times out of 10, and imagine the riots that will result then.

I suppose there's some chance that there is other evidence that this was an intentional shooting that might tend to obviate what we see in the video. In that case, I guess it's possible, albeit very unlikely (I'd set the odds at 5% or less) that he will simply plead to murder or voluntary manslaughter. I would find that VERY surprising, but criminal law is like that sometimes.

I still say that at the end of the day, whether he pleads guilty or not, he ends of convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced accordingly.

So you're saying it's a catch-22. Bc there will be a riot either way.

I'm starting to hope you get caught up in the middle of it (should it happen).

Fuck you too.

Calling residents "animals" is a sure-fire way of inviting Karma into your life, buddy.

Anyone willing to kill/loot/commit arson over a court decision is an animal, and should be shot/arrested.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Impossible, Don Vito said it wouldn't be murder.

I never said he wouldn't be charged with murder - in fact I said he probably would be. I betcha he pleads to involuntary manslaughter and gets maybe 3 years in prison, which I think is the right outcome.

Is it possible they don't let him plea? I feel like the animals of Oakland will demand murder charge.

animals? you are a hateful racist POS.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alien42

animals? you are a hateful racist POS.

I wouldn't have used that word, but I regard the people who tore apart Oakland neighborhoods and destroyed completely innocent local businesses last week as criminal scum. I don't see that conduct as even colorably defensible.

From SFGate:

The mob smashed the windows at Creative African Braids on 14th Street, and a woman walked out of the shop holding a baby in her arms.

"This is our business," shouted Leemu Topka, the black owner of the salon she started four years ago. "This is our shop. This is what you call a protest?"

Wednesday night's vandalism victims had nothing to do with the shooting death by a BART police officer of Oscar Grant on New Year's Day - but that did little to sway the mob.

"I feel like the night is going great," said Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco, one of the demonstrators. "I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It's for the murder of a black male."

Sykes, who is black, had little sympathy for the owner of Creative African Braids.

"She should be glad she just lost her business and not her life," Sykes said. She added that she did have one worry for the night: "I just hope nobody gets shot or killed."

Greeeeeeat.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: JS80

Is it possible they don't let him plea? I feel like the animals of Oakland will demand murder charge.

Certainly possible, but IMO the cost-benefit doesn't make that a smart move.

Assuming (and I am fully aware this is an assumption based on evidence which doesn't yet exist) he claims he intended to use his taser and this was a complete mistake on his part, I don't see how any fair jury could find him guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt based on what they see on the video. I'd argue the same will hold true even if he doesn't testify, based on the video. Ergo, the City would be encumbered with the expense of a trial and the prospect that he will probably only be convicted of manslaughter anyway. If they're foolish enough not to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter, he will walk 9 times out of 10, and imagine the riots that will result then.

I suppose there's some chance that there is other evidence that this was an intentional shooting that might tend to obviate what we see in the video. In that case, I guess it's possible, albeit very unlikely (I'd set the odds at 5% or less) that he will simply plead to murder or voluntary manslaughter. I would find that VERY surprising, but criminal law is like that sometimes.

I still say that at the end of the day, whether he pleads guilty or not, he ends of convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced accordingly.

So you're saying it's a catch-22. Bc there will be a riot either way.

I'm starting to hope you get caught up in the middle of it (should it happen).

Fuck you too.

Calling residents "animals" is a sure-fire way of inviting Karma into your life, buddy.

Anyone willing to kill/loot/commit arson over a court decision is an animal, and should be shot/arrested.

Considering African-Americans have gotten the short-end of justice in this country, I can say you don't know what you're talking about. But, seeing that you're a big, tough guy and all, I'd like to see you try to carry out your desires (should the riots happen). Something tells me you'd be too much of a pussy and just end up throwing your beer at the TV.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Perhaps the Alameda County District Attorney will assign an experienced dead black prosecutor to the case ....

I see riots either way too, especially if he's bargained down to a manslaughter conviction, although, IMHO, that's exactly what he's guilty of unless the dude has a massive personality defect we're unaware of.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

Considering African-Americans have gotten the short-end of justice in this country, I can say you don't know what you're talking about. But, seeing that you're a big, tough guy and all, I'd like to see you try to carry out your desires (should the riots happen). Something tells me you'd be too much of a pussy and just end up throwing your beer at the TV.

Respectfully, you're implicitly defending the rights of black people to destroy black neighborhoods and black-owned businesses. You are suggesting it's OK for them to hurt other black people.

I agree African-Americans have gotten the wrong end of the stick for a long time, but I TOTALLY disagree with that as a rationalization for criminal behavior. I think this kind of white guilt is just one of the reasons for the extraordinary level of criminality in urban black America.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Dari

Considering African-Americans have gotten the short-end of justice in this country, I can say you don't know what you're talking about. But, seeing that you're a big, tough guy and all, I'd like to see you try to carry out your desires (should the riots happen). Something tells me you'd be too much of a pussy and just end up throwing your beer at the TV.

Why would I have to do anything? The national guard and PD will take care of it. Thats why I pay taxes.


When OJ got to slash his wife up and get away with it, I didnt commit crimes.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Considering African-Americans have gotten the short-end of justice in this country, I can say you don't know what you're talking about. But, seeing that you're a big, tough guy and all, I'd like to see you try to carry out your desires (should the riots happen). Something tells me you'd be too much of a pussy and just end up throwing your beer at the TV.

Respectfully, you're implicitly defending the rights of black people to destroy black neighborhoods and black-owned businesses. You are suggesting it's OK for them to hurt other black people.

I agree African-Americans have gotten the wrong end of the stick for a long time, but I TOTALLY disagree with that as a rationalization for criminal behavior. I think this kind of white guilt is just one of the reasons for the extraordinary level of criminality in urban black America.

I gave no opinion of which property they should destroy. But I agree, it'll be better if they ransacked the homes of police officers, businesses and politicians. The King video showed that the police were behaving in criminal action but they got off in Malibu. The rioters should've destroyed properties in affluent neighborhoods.

BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari

Considering African-Americans have gotten the short-end of justice in this country, I can say you don't know what you're talking about. But, seeing that you're a big, tough guy and all, I'd like to see you try to carry out your desires (should the riots happen). Something tells me you'd be too much of a pussy and just end up throwing your beer at the TV.

Why would I have to do anything? The national guard and PD will take care of it. Thats why I pay taxes.


When OJ got to slash his wife up and get away with it, I didnt commit crimes.

That's because he was rich. AAs are generally poor and it is always the poor that get the short end of the stick.

IMHO, you're still a puss.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

I gave no opinion of which property they should destroy. But I agree, it'll be better if they ransacked the homes of police officers, businesses and politicians. The King video showed that the police were behaving in criminal action but they got off in Malibu. The rioters should've destroyed properties in affluent neighborhoods.

BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. If the police adopted a "MIGHT=RIGHT" attitude, this kind of shooting would happen every weekend in Oakland - the police would become de facto death squads, like the off-duty cops who murder homeless children in Rio.

If you don't want to live in a society that operates under the rule of law, I suggest you uproot and move to Somalia - it's every man for himself there. You'd love it, especially if you're as brave as you purport to be.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Dari
BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

?

so successfully robbing a bank isn't criminal behavior because the objective was acheived?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

I gave no opinion of which property they should destroy. But I agree, it'll be better if they ransacked the homes of police officers, businesses and politicians. The King video showed that the police were behaving in criminal action but they got off in Malibu. The rioters should've destroyed properties in affluent neighborhoods.

BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. If the police adopted a "MIGHT=RIGHT" attitude, this kind of shooting would happen every weekend in Oakland - the police would become de facto death squads, like the off-duty cops who murder homeless children in Rio.

If you don't want to live in a society that operates under the rule of law, I suggest you uproot and move to Somalia - it's every man for himself there.

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic/republican society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people decide who has the power, not the police. So, if they rioted their elected representatives would see that and take action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force) and make sure the people got what they wanted.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Dari
BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

?

so successfully robbing a bank isn't criminal behavior because the objective was acheived?

In a democratic and republican society, the people get the final say. If you have masses of people rioting, you know damn well the politicians will take notice and heed the rioters' call for action.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people decide who has the power, not the police. So, if they rioted their elected representatives would see that and take action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force) and make sure the people got what they wanted.

Democracy is not the same thing as mob rule. The Framers created a structured democracy for the citizens to express their opinions and make changes to their government, as needed. It doesn't include burning down businesses and homes owned by entirely innocent people.

What you're proposing is not democracy, it's anarchy. Again, Somalia jumps to mind as a place which offers the freedom you claim to crave. I for one prefer the rule of law, as imperfect as it may be.

The irony is that you're implying that riots jump-started the criminal prosecution here, and that that would be a good thing if true. I've never heard such nonsense. Just as it was appropriate to prosecute Officer Mehserle, it is also appropriate to prosecute these bonehead rioters, and I hope they get the book thrown at them.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Impossible, Don Vito said it wouldn't be murder.

I never said he wouldn't be charged with murder - in fact I said he probably would be. I betcha he pleads to involuntary manslaughter and gets maybe 3 years in prison, which I think is the right outcome.

Is it possible they don't let him plea? I feel like the animals of Oakland will demand murder charge.

I would bet that a change of venue is granted!!
To have this tried in Oakland would be very prejudicial!!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

I would bet that a change of venue is granted!!
To have this tried in Oakland would be very prejudicial!!

For once I agree with you 100%.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people decide who has the power, not the police. So, if they rioted their elected representatives would see that and take action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force) and make sure the people got what they wanted.

Democracy is not the same thing as mob rule. The Framers created a structured democracy for the citizens to express their opinions and make changes to their government, as needed. It doesn't include burning down businesses and homes owned by entirely innocent people.

What you're proposing is not democracy, it's anarchy. Again, Somalia jumps to mind as a place which offers the freedom you claim to crave. I for one prefer the rule of law, as imperfect as it may be.

The irony is that you're implying that riots jump-started the criminal prosecution here, and that that would be a good thing if true. I've never heard such nonsense. Just as it was appropriate to prosecute Officer Mehserle, it is also appropriate to prosecute these bonehead rioters, and I hope they get the book thrown at them.

You're a lawyer so you have this neat version of how society operates in your head. But you and I know damn well that if the majority of Americans wanted something, they'd order their elected reps to get it done and it would become legal. The method is unimportant because the end result is always the same. This isn't anarchy, it's democracy/republicanism at its most basic level. It's even more primitive than that.

Like I said before, the King rioters got what they wanted because the cops were re-tried and convicted (isn't that double jeopardy?).

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Considering African-Americans have gotten the short-end of justice in this country, I can say you don't know what you're talking about. But, seeing that you're a big, tough guy and all, I'd like to see you try to carry out your desires (should the riots happen). Something tells me you'd be too much of a pussy and just end up throwing your beer at the TV.

Respectfully, you're implicitly defending the rights of black people to destroy black neighborhoods and black-owned businesses. You are suggesting it's OK for them to hurt other black people.

I agree African-Americans have gotten the wrong end of the stick for a long time, but I TOTALLY disagree with that as a rationalization for criminal behavior. I think this kind of white guilt is just one of the reasons for the extraordinary level of criminality in urban black America.

I totally agreee!! This type of thinking justifies whatever people do to each other regardless of who is right or wrong or even if it`s a just cause!!

Thus type of thinking makes it very difficult to assign guilt to the guilty party/parties...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

You're a lawyer so you have this neat version of how society operates in your head. But you and I know damn well that if the majority of Americans wanted something, they'd order their elected reps to get it done and it would become legal. The method is unimportant because the end result is always the same. This isn't anarchy, it's democracy/republicanism at its most basic level. It's even more primitive than that.

Like I said before, the King rioters got what they wanted because the cops were re-tried and convicted (isn't that double jeopardy?).

Any sane person who respects the Constitution and democracy can see that what you're saying is lunacy.

The King cops were tried separately under federal charges for violating King's civil rights. This is not double jeopardy.

Let's assume that the only reason they were retried was because of the riots (I consider this a nonsensical position - it's not as though the riots continued until it was announced they'd be tried federally - the riots had been over for months when this decision was made). Do you seriously believe the rioters made a planned decision to riot in order to achieve that end? Do you think they had researched the law and figured that a federal prosecution was possible? Any well person would agree the answer is no. They rioted because a) they were angry; b) they wanted free stuff, and looting offered an opportunity to steal what they chose not to earn the money to save; and c) the active rioters were simply anti-social people with no sense of consequence ("Hey, let's burn down MY neighborhood! Awesome!"). Your after-the fact effort to impute noble motives to their actions is just silliness.

The irony is that I have actually done things to prosecute police civil rights abuses and protect peoples' rights. All you've done is spout off some "power to the people" bullshit.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Dari

Considering African-Americans have gotten the short-end of justice in this country, I can say you don't know what you're talking about. But, seeing that you're a big, tough guy and all, I'd like to see you try to carry out your desires (should the riots happen). Something tells me you'd be too much of a pussy and just end up throwing your beer at the TV.

keep spreading that fucking lie

unless you're some kind of racist and think blacks are inferior. i should have known you're a fucking racist.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

I gave no opinion of which property they should destroy. But I agree, it'll be better if they ransacked the homes of police officers, businesses and politicians. The King video showed that the police were behaving in criminal action but they got off in Malibu. The rioters should've destroyed properties in affluent neighborhoods.

BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. If the police adopted a "MIGHT=RIGHT" attitude, this kind of shooting would happen every weekend in Oakland - the police would become de facto death squads, like the off-duty cops who murder homeless children in Rio.

If you don't want to live in a society that operates under the rule of law, I suggest you uproot and move to Somalia - it's every man for himself there.

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic/republican society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people decide who has the power, not the police. So, if they rioted their elected representatives would see that and take action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force) and make sure the people got what they wanted.

No what you are saying is totally ignorant and false......let me re-write thye above --

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic/republican society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people who were properly elected or appointed have the power, the police enforce the laws!. So, if they rioted, then because they are breaking the law the Police get called in to stop the riot! The elected representatives would see that and would be grateful the Police were called in to stop the riot. They would take NO action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force -- totally false). The lawa abiding people would in a civil manner approach those elected officials and state ina civil manner there is a problem could we talk about this.....

Judging by your post I would say that you are very young and have no clue how things actually work in a civilzed society!!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

I gave no opinion of which property they should destroy. But I agree, it'll be better if they ransacked the homes of police officers, businesses and politicians. The King video showed that the police were behaving in criminal action but they got off in Malibu. The rioters should've destroyed properties in affluent neighborhoods.

BTW, calling the riots criminal behavior is debatable considering it achieved its objectives. MIGHT = RIGHT.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. If the police adopted a "MIGHT=RIGHT" attitude, this kind of shooting would happen every weekend in Oakland - the police would become de facto death squads, like the off-duty cops who murder homeless children in Rio.

If you don't want to live in a society that operates under the rule of law, I suggest you uproot and move to Somalia - it's every man for himself there.

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic/republican society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people decide who has the power, not the police. So, if they rioted their elected representatives would see that and take action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force) and make sure the people got what they wanted.

No what you are saying is totally ignorant and false......let me re-write thye above --

That's a dumb analysis of what I wrote. We live in a democratic/republican society, not a police state. At the end of the day, the people who were properly elected or appointed have the power, the police enforce the laws!. So, if they rioted, then because they are breaking the law the Police get called in to stop the riot! The elected representatives would see that and would be grateful the Police were called in to stop the riot. They would take NO action to neuter the police (civilians control the police force -- totally false). The lawa abiding people would in a civil manner approach those elected officials and state ina civil manner there is a problem could we talk about this.....

Judging by your post I would say that you are very young and have no clue how things actually work in a civilzed society!!

But he has a phd! he must be smurt!