Riot in Oakland over Bart cop ruling?

[DVD Burner]

neither.

But to not face the facts that this country has a history of racism is just making the topic of this tread moot.

This jury pool has been seen many times before and usually in the same places.

Like I said, we shall see.

Maybe even today since it is a Friday and usually they like to get the news out at the end of the day so it can kinda sneak it's way to oblivion.

[ygmir]

no one is denying the history of racism........

some of you, keep it active, though, either by pointing backwards at it, as an excuse, or, engaging in it, but claiming innocence because "by definition, You, can't be racist".......(paraphrase).


Why is it unacceptable that the jury is all white?

Why is it acceptable to riot, loot, and burn, because you disagree with the outcome?

Your bias is very obvious, although, you deny it and cop that "who me?" attitude.

We all have bias, that's human nature.
We all have intellect, though, and can use it to overcome said bias.

Give the legal system the opportunity to work........

sure, it's flawed.

but, I'd still maintain, more guilty go free than innocents are convicted.

and, (as people you have supported, who have been guilty, but went free, and you applauded it)

accept,

even if you feel there is guilt, and he goes free, that, that's just the way the cards were dealt, this time.

[DVD Burner]

Yeah, uh huh.

[DVD Burner]

Here is the thing, there are tons of video of what happened and tons of witnesses, Grant was already in a non threatening way face down on the ground so that there is no reason to even bring out a taser let alone a gun and if a verdict comes back as an accident.......

[geekster]

I guess what bothers me so that I find the notion that the entire jury of people from Oakland would find someone not guilty based simply on the fact that the defendant killed someone of a different race extremely offensive. It seems that someone who that thought even occurs to must suffer from severe bigotry themselves and is really saying that if they were on the jury, that is how they would find ... as if they don't see themselves fit to serve on a jury except in cases where the victim is the same race as themselves.

That would tend to signal to me that the person is a racist and that they are extremely race conscious in their decisions and expects others to be the same. Others *aren't* the same. I sincerely do not believe that most of the good people of this country would find a verdict based upon the race of the people involved in the case. Yes, I understand that there is an entire racism industry that must be maintained. If you don't keep racism alive, some fairly prominent people might lose their celebrity and their lucrative business operations. But I believe racism these days is more alive in political rhetoric than in the minds of the people.

I certainly do not believe that all 12 people in a jury in Oakland, California would be inclined to find a verdict based on race and believe that anyone who would say such a thing possibly has some serious problems themselves.

[DVD Burner]

Well Geekster, I am gathering you have not had any real negative encounters with Cops nor do you get bothered constantly by them for say.....doing something like walking. But there are some of us in the world that do.

That said, given all of the evidence that has already been posted all over the internet already, you think a not guilty verdict will be the right decision?

I'll tell you this much, I would not have a problem if folks went berserk in the east bay and elswheres if there is a not guilty verdict.

[ygmir]

Here is the thing, there are tons of video of what happened and tons of witnesses, Grant was already in a non threatening way face down on the ground so that there is no reason to even bring out a taser let alone a gun and if a verdict comes back as an accident.......

I understand, and agree.
If the evidence is such, and, all is exposed, the jury can and should convict.
I might submit, there may well be evidence submitted during trail, that, we have no knowledge of......and, if it's not perceived as "ratings worthy" the news won't tell us.

I just feel, there is a chance things were going on, and, the subjective nature of an event such as that, that, we can't necessarily know all the facts, from just what we get from MSM and, some witnesses, who, have their own perceptions, if not agendas.........

Maybe, that's the idea of a trial?..........to hopefully, get at all the facts.

[DVD Burner]

Nope, that's not why you have a trial, a trial is only a way to be creative with the facts to lessen a few selective off the hook.

Especially when it comes to cops.

and yes I do know this first hand.

[ygmir]

Nope, that's not why you have a trial, a trial is only a way to be creative with the facts to lessen a few selective off the hook.

Especially when it comes to cops.

and yes I do know this first hand.

is that a quote from O.J.?.............

[DVD Burner]

Even the facts in the O.J. case were fucked up by Cops.

This is the way the world works like it or not.

[Box Burner]

Here is the thing, there are tons of video of what happened and tons of witnesses, Grant was already in a non threatening way face down on the ground so that there is no reason to even bring out a taser let alone a gun and if a verdict comes back as an accident.......

I have to agree here. I have seen the videos as well and it is clear that there was no reason to use force. One of the rules of gun safety is that "you should never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy." Every Policeman should know this and has training as to when and how much force to use. So by default there was clear intent on the part of the officer who killed Grant. No threat, no need for violence. So the question is what was the intent? It is possible that he only intended to threaten Grant and the gun went off by accident. If this is the case then the minimum that he should get is voluntary manslaughter.

[Box Burner]

I do however think that police officers should be held to a higher standard and subject to stiffer penalties. After all... they are sworn to uphold the law!

[Eric]

I certainly do not believe that all 12 people in a jury in Oakland, California would be inclined to find a verdict based on race and believe that anyone who would say such a thing possibly has some serious problems themselves.

The trial isn't in Oakland, it's in LA. The shooting was in Oakland, but the defense didn't think he could get a fair trial there due to the heated emotions & heavy duty press coverage about the shooting.

Not stating anything about the race argument, just clearing up the facts.

[ygmir]

Here is the thing, there are tons of video of what happened and tons of witnesses, Grant was already in a non threatening way face down on the ground so that there is no reason to even bring out a taser let alone a gun and if a verdict comes back as an accident.......

I have to agree here. I have seen the videos as well and it is clear that there was no reason to use force. One of the rules of gun safety is that "you should never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy." Every Policeman should know this and has training as to when and how much force to use. So by default there was clear intent on the part of the officer who killed Grant. No threat, no need for violence. So the question is what was the intent? It is possible that he only intended to threaten Grant and the gun went off by accident. If this is the case then the minimum that he should get is voluntary manslaughter.

and again I agree. If, after hearing all the testimony, and hearing all the facts, he's found guilty, then, so be it.....

all I'm saying is, all the video you've seen, all the witnesses the news has interviewed (who'd imagine a person, claiming to see what happened, would not exagerate or anything, to get on t.v.)
still may not tell the whole story.
Unless, a person is at the trial, I think it's hard to know it all.
Even then, two people can witness the same event and have two stories.
So, when they all line up, and, agree on something, most likely it's accurate.
I certainly don't mean to imply, that, he should be given a pass, because of his job.
And, I agree with BB, in that LEO's should be held to higher standards.
But, I also know, they are human, and, can make mistakes and have accidents.

I don't agree with BB in the statement:

One of the rules of gun safety is that "you should never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy." Every Policeman should know this and has training as to when and how much force to use. So by default there was clear intent on the part of the officer who killed Grant.

in that, if, and I say "if", he thought he was pulling his tazer, it would almost imply the intent was to not kill, but, disable, for whatever reason.

again, very subjective, but, not as clear cut as stated there.

So yes, if he's guilty, put it to him.........but, don't convict without due process.


mostly, though, this tread, I thought, was about the anticipated rioting......
which, I'd almost say, will happen no matter what the verdict.........celebration or anger, it'll still be there, I think, anyway.
Whether the news covers it, will be a different story.

[geekster]

I believe the guy will be convicted for no other reason that when the community entrusts a peace officer with a deadly weapon, we expect a certain level of professionalism in its use. That you *thought* you were applying a taser but instead shot the man with a firearm is unacceptable. Yes, maybe it was completely accidental, but a peace officer is expected to be better trained in such matters than the average joe.

Having said that, I would also fault the manufactures of the taser. Look at this:

http://routingbyrumor.files.wordpress.c ... /taser.jpg

It has a trigger just like a firearm and a feel in the hand like a firearm. Unless you LOOK at it, you might not know if you have a firearm or the taser in your hand. The device should NOT be the same shape and fired with the same mechanism as a firearm. It should not look like a firearm and it should not have a "trigger" in the same location as a firearm.

There should be no way to confuse a lethal with a non-lethal weapon by feel.

Actually, I would modify that a bit. In cases where a person is armed with both lethal and non-lethal weapons, the weapons should be of different enough construction and activation as to result in no mistaking which one you are applying in the situation.

[ygmir]

I don't see faulting the manufacturer.
No one has to buy it if it's to confusing.........
perhaps, even, the LE agencies asked it be similar, for some ergonomic or something reason.

If anything, it seems it'd fall back on the dept. for not enough training, or, not realizing the equipment was to easily confused.

good point, though, that, LEO should be well enough trained not to make that sort of mistake.

[geekster]

No one has to buy it if it's to confusing

The point would be that the individual involved didn't buy it. It was likely issued by the department. But in any case, I believe it would be prudent for departments that issue both lethal and non-lethal weapons to issue sorts that can not be confused with each other.

This is either not the only time this has happened or if it is the first time, it will likely not be the last one. Someone else will make the same mistake. Or someone will have a non-lethal weapon pointed at them and believe it is a firearm and will kill an officer believing their own life is in danger. The things need to look different and feel different from a handgun.

The guy should at least be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because that is what happened if he made a mistake.

[theCryptofishist]

I believe the guy will be convicted for no other reason that when the community entrusts a peace officer with a deadly weapon, we expect a certain level of professionalism in its use. That you *thought* you were applying a taser but instead shot the man with a firearm is unacceptable. Yes, maybe it was completely accidental, but a peace officer is expected to be better trained in such matters than the average joe.

Sadly, cops are not held to higher standards. They tend to get off pretty much scott free.

And sad as it is to say this, Oakland is a mess. And there is some nasty history between cops and the local african american community* there.


*where "community" means the totality of african americans in oakland, but I'll acknowledge that there is wide spread of experience, culture, and perseptions within it.

[DVD Burner]

Why Don't Black People Get Selected for Juries?

Robert de Neufville on June 24, 2010, 5:20 PM

http://bigthink.com/ideas/20645

Juries are disproportionately white. Although it is illegal to dismiss potential jurors on the basis of their race, lawyers can give any reason they want for dismissing a juror, and they are rarely challenged during the jury selection process. And in practice blacks are much more likely to be excluded from jury service than whites are.

A new study of the jury selection process in eight southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee) by the Equal Justice Initiative found widespread racial discrimination, particularly in serious criminal cases. In one Alabama county 4 out of every 5 blacks who had qualified for jury service in capital cases were struck by prosecutors. And, according to the report, some district attorney’s offices explicitly train prosecutors to exclude minorities from jury service under false pretenses, even though it is a violation of the law.

"We've had African-American jurors excluded because they're too old at 43, because they're too young at 28, while other white jurors much older are being accepted, and other white jurors much younger are being accepted," The Equal Justice Initiative’s Bryan Stevenson told NPR. "We've had jurors excluded because they were in an interracial marriage or had a biracial son." Stevenson said that another common reason for dismissing potential black jurors—including ones with college degrees—was that they were supposedly not smart enough.

Blacks, of course, are just as qualified to serve as jurors as whites, and just as entitled to have to a voice in the legal process. And prosecutors should not be able try to use racial bias to obtain convictions of black defendants. The practice is particularly troubling in cases where the death penalty or a life sentence is at stake. But because it is hard to prove that lawyers are discriminating on the basis of race, it may be hard to stop. "The culture has tolerated this all-white jury, white prosecutor, white judge phenomenon," Stevenson says, "because that's what people have seen for decades."

[geekster]

"Juries are disproportionately white. "

Again, this is a big deal because some people are apparently extremely racist and feel that a person can only get a fair trial if the jury is the same race they are.

Now think about this for a minute. Why is the article mostly about blacks when it comes to considering race? Nobody complains when an Asian is found guilty by an all white jury. Try making an all white jury in some cities, it is practically impossible. Are you saying that the killer of an Asian can not be tried by white people? Or black people? Or Hispanic people? Are you trying to say that the jury should be made up according to the victim of the crime? Are you saying race should be a factor in jury selection? I see that as keeping racism alive and telling people in a very subtle way that they are EXPECTED to consider race in their verdict even if the thought had not occurred to them before.

When you consider "white" do you consider Hispanics and Asians as "white""? Or what about maybe a third generation Hispanic that does not speak with an accent and has never been a gang member or heard Spanish spoken in their home and has a job as a design engineer for a construction firm? Are they too "white" to serve on a jury if the victim of the crime was not white?

If you notice, you will see that what you posted is ONLY concerning blacks.

In this case it seems you are going to an extreme position to attempt to find racism. You seem to be saying that because the VICTIM of the crime, not the person on trial, was not white, then the jury can not be white. Or maybe you are saying that if a white person is on trial, they will always be let off by a white jury? I don't know what the hell you are trying to say, actually.

Why don't you wait until we see what the jury finds first? I see a lot of jumping to conclusions.

Again, I see this kind of talk as preserving the "racism industry" that keeps racial frictions alive because a lot of people make a lot of money from keeping them alive.

[gyre]

That's the name of the article, but they are very careful to not address the question at all, in the article or the study.
Doesn't sound very comprehensive, and very poor journalism too.

[DVD Burner]

"Juries are disproportionately white. "

Again, this is a big deal because some people are apparently extremely racist and feel that a person can only get a fair trial if the jury is the same race they are.

It's a shame you missed the entire point or just dont want to accept the truth about how things should be.

Why do you have such issues with mixed race juries as apposed to an all one race jury?

[DVD Burner]

This just came in:

http://oaklandlocal.com/blogs/2010/07/j ... le-verdict



We received this from a contact with a request to pass along--

FORWARD THIS WIDELY!

A verdict is expected SOON in the case of the Police Officer who
murdered Oscar Grant on a Friutvale BART platform 18 months ago! If you are in the Bay Area:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><>
WHEN THE VERDICT COMES, GATHER AT 6PM AT 14th AND BROADWAY
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

**WHY SHOULD YOU COME?**
1. Because WE WILL NOT BE DIVIDED. Massive street protests were the only thing that forced Mehserle's arrest. Lets remind ourselves that the streets are where people are strong together, where real change is won.
2. Because WE WILL NOT BE PACIFIED. Our anger is justified. It does not need to be “ventedâ€

[gyre]

One race?

Wow!
Talk about bigotry.

So you buy the aryan nation nonsense about a "white" race?
Interesting.


Please convince the balkan citizens about being one race.
Rwanda needs some help in this area, as well.

[DVD Burner]

One race?

Wow!
Talk about bigotry.

So you buy the aryan nation nonsense about a "white" race?
Interesting.


Please convince the balkan citizens about being one race.
Rwanda needs some help in this area, as well.

I have no idea what you are talking about but I shall reiterate to make it less complicated for those that have a hard time understanding things.

I am for mixed race juries.

one race juries do not work and have been proven as such.

What you posted makes no sense.

[gyre]

Define race.

[DVD Burner]

Define race.

You've got to be joking?

There is a limit to convincing those who choose to live in a state of denial that I will go.



If you need a definition of race go to Websters.

[ygmir]

it'll be interesting, to see if the rally is safe and peaceful, no looting or destruction of private property.

I hope it is. It would go a long way towards fostering sympathy for those in the rally, and their cause.


DVD:
you seem to go out of your way to stir racial tension, at least here..........why is that?

I'd bet, if the tendency, that is claimed in your cut and pasted article, were studied thoroughly, there would be many, and some surprising, reasons for it, if it is in fact the "norm".


And, if the notice you posted, were sent out by any other than an organization in Oakland,you would be screaming "militia assault" or some such.......

[DVD Burner]

DVD:
you seem to go out of your way to stir racial tension, at least here..........why is that?

Hardly.

I post facts, others accept what they want to accept what I do as racist.
I just point out how the world is.

I'd bet, if the tendency, that is claimed in your cut and pasted article, were studied thoroughly, there would be many, and some surprising, reasons for it, if it is in fact the "norm".

Everyone here is entitled to post their facts that can legitimately debunk my posts any time they want.

I just post what I find.

Enlightenment can be a strange thing most times. And there is no shortcut to enlightenment other than this one.

[gyre]

Jury behavior is better addressed by some of the many studies constantly done.
It's a complex issue.

But the prejudice of identifying oneself as "a race" means black jurors are more predictable, as white jurors don't vote as "white jurors", but by more complex patterns.
If they didn't, it would cease to be an issue, wouldn't it?

Black juries are said to have a stunning record of ignoring evidence, which is a possible reason for avoiding them by prosecution.
Racial prejudice is a common issue, by black jurors.

I was told by a jury consultant that I could not get a fair trial with very young or very old jurors.
On the other hand, if I was facing testimony from a white police officer, young black jurors might be preferred.

It's not all black and white.