Riot in Oakland over Bart cop ruling?

[1durphul]

So I heard businesses were buying up lumber to board up their shops should the guy be found innocent. What do you think?

Found this in the rants and raves section of craigslist:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/rnr? ... srchType=A

[Eric]

there will be riots- small ones if Mehserle's convicted, large ones if he's not.

the Bay Area "anarchist" (ie: idiot) contingent will see to that.

[ygmir]

yeah, it usually seems to me, the vast majority of "rioters" have no interest in "the cause", but, just want to create havoc and steal stuff..........

[FaeTora]

Slightly off topic, but why do people riot when good things happen? Like when the city's sports team wins? that one gets me. I get group psychology and division of responsibility but why start it?

[theCryptofishist]

I would say that if one is a small business/store owner in Oakland and you don't already have plywood and hardware, maybe you're too stupid to continue with your chosen profession. (Depending on neighborhood, alas.)
And you know what, that greives me, dispite the snark.
What I do worry about is the idea that those articles and these discussions normalize that sort of violence, making it more likely to happen.
I remember the Rodney King riots. I guess I'm not condemned to repeat them...

[Ugly Dougly]

Oakland police are doing some training, to make sure they don't over-react.

[ygmir]

Slightly off topic, but why do people riot when good things happen? Like when the city's sports team wins? that one gets me. I get group psychology and division of responsibility but why start it?

I'd say my answer applies there, too...........

yeah, it usually seems to me, the vast majority of "rioters" have no interest in "the cause", but, just want to create havoc and steal stuff..........

[ygmir]

Oakland police are doing some training, to make sure they don't over-react.

yeah, sure can't have an accident, after all, we know that never happens.
anytime, someone hurts a chosen minority, and they are not in saidor any,minority, it has to be on purpose.....no way accidents happen.

[geekster]

He will probably be convicted, just not of first degree. But I really can't understand why people would destroy the property of people who had nothing to do with the case just because they disagree with the outcome. It sounds like a toddler's tantrum on a larger scale but the same mentality.

Also, there are others who do not live in Oakland and don't really give a rat's ass about the outcome but would use it for no other reason than to simply spark violence.

If it is locals doing the "rioting", I say fine. Fence the area off, let them go at it, and then refuse to spend a dime to clean up the mess. Let them live in it or clean it up themselves.

[DVD Burner]

Meh!

[geekster]

Meh!

Point is that if they rioted against a BART train yard or something, they might be expressing some anger or something. But if they simply bash in store fronts, loot, and burn up their neighbor's cars, they aren't doing anything except just tearing crap up. So if Joe Blow does something, goes to court, gets a sentence I don't agree with, how is burning up a car or looting a store belonging to a third party redress that wrong?

At that point the only reason for doing it is to use some sort of blackmail against the jury. It says something like "forget the evidence you heard in court, find the way we want you to or we are going to loot your community's stores". That is called thuggery. It is not something that is to be given in to. At that point does whoever promises the bigger riot win?

[DVD Burner]

Just exactly who is they?

[gyre]

"They" would be rioters.

[ygmir]

I would reiterate:

yeah, it usually seems to me, the vast majority of "rioters" have no interest in "the cause", but, just want to create havoc and steal stuff..........

yeah, it'd be good to leave the mess "they" create.......problem is, it effects everyone else, those who had no part in it.

and of course, if you contained the riot and fenced the participants in, so they could scream and yell and destroy what's there, they'd scream infringement of free speech or some such........yeah, freedom to destroy innocent persons property, and injure others..........to no end.

[much2naughty2]

Wasn't it during the Rodney King riots that the business ownes stood thier ground and gunned down the rioters?

"Can't we all just get along" (Rodney King)

[ygmir]

yeah, it was, IIRC...........good argument in favor of ammendment 2, IMHO............

also for that guy, they pulled out of the dumptruck and beat mercilessly, on t.v.

[geekster]

Wasn't it during the Rodney King riots that the business ownes stood thier ground and gunned down the rioters?

"Can't we all just get along" (Rodney King)

Heh, yeah. I was living in Southern California at that time. The riots were on live TV all day the next day. The lines at the gun stores were huge. In some neighborhood it turned into an assault on the asian community. There was a gas station owned by a Korean fellow who had several armed friends in positions behind sandbags around his business. Two things impressed me on that coverage. A guy broke the lock off a door of a business and pushed the door in. You see him enter on live TV. Then a few seconds later you see him backing out and then you see a hand with a 9mm poking out the door. Another one was a bank security officer who was minding the door of a bank. They were looting a store across the street. After a while, she goes over, grabs a large house plant from the store, puts it in her car, and then goes back to her station at the bank!

There wasn't a single incident as far as I know, in Orange County. The violence stopped right at the LA county line. People in Orange County were lined up at gun stores arming themselves.

By the way, I believe the most "famous" thing looted in those riots was Madonna's metal bustier from Frederick's.

[Lassen Forge]

That's because OC is notoriously conservative, and republican.... in general, Rioters will frack with stuff if they think it's safe, but if it's a threat, then they stay away.

Problem with "letting them clean up their own mess" is they won't. Falls on the poor schmuks that work for the Public Works departments... I've seen the attempt to leave a riot torn area the way it was, and usually no one thre gives a sh!t.

It's a crime of opportunity by those who have no civilization. Serious. Why was there the huge uprising against K-Town after the King verdicts, where the plaintiff was black and the cops white? Well... no one wants to riot Orange County where they have guns and are not afraid to defend their turf, so they'll go where people don't have guns (hell, having guns in an urban environment is antisocial), trash someone elses sh!t, or usually their OWN neighborhoods (remember Watts?), because it's a safe place to frack up other peoples sh!t because they know no one is gonna go gunning for them...

It's stupid. but that's rioters mentality. Its like they lose their humanity and turn, I dunno, into pack animals. Ug.

[ygmir]

good points BBS............I still say, a fair amount of them, know exactly what they're doing........stealing and/or creating mayhem..........and, that's why they show up.

[DVD Burner]

Well BBS is kinda on to something but fact of the matter is, either way the end result most likely will not be good with an all white jury along with other factors, for example Mehserle retaining criminal defense attorney Michael Rains, who previously successfully represented one of the Oakland Riders and the fact the trial is being held in L.A., is a recipe for disaster if the verdict is "Not Guilty".

Not only that, if it does come down to not guilty I bet ya there are gonna be new problems unforeseen because those "upstanding citizens" with their guns will be set off balance.

Lets see what happens.

[Ugly Dougly]

... if they rioted against a BART train yard or something, they might be expressing some anger or something.

You're giving them too much credit for imagination.

There's a communist bookshop in Berkeley out which they plan all the riots and demos in the area. Ask them what will happen.

[geekster]

the end result most likely will not be good with an all white jury

That is the sort of bigoted, racist thinking the political left generally spews. It supposes that someone is incapable of fairly weighing the evidence when people of a different race are involved. It almost seems that many on the political left are extremely bigoted and tend to project their own bigotry on everyone else. Sure, one can probably make the race of the people involved an issue but it really isn't. And many seem to forget that we now have two generations of Americans who have never experienced the sort of racial discrimination I experienced when I was growing up.

It seems that things are constantly portrayed from the viewpoint of someone who is now 70 years old or something. At this point it is like saying that a jury with last names starting with letters A-M can't give a fair trial to someone whose last name starts with N-Z.

Do you honestly believe that the race of either the victim or the accused is weighing on the minds of the jurors? If you do, you might be projecting your own bigotry.

[Ugly Dougly]

Racism is real, Geekster.

But the reality of this trial is that:
a) There's not enough evidence to show that it wans't an accident.
2) People are very passionate about this.

[gyre]

Jury results are avidly studied by demographics.

Read some of he results if you want to be scared shitless.

[geekster]

Racism is real, Geekster.

But the reality of this trial is that:
a) There's not enough evidence to show that it wans't an accident.
2) People are very passionate about this.

A defendant does not need to prove their innocence, the prosecution must prove guilt. In this case the judge ruled that first degree murder charges can not be proved with the evidence provided and so instructed the jury to consider lesser charges.

Yes, people are passionate.

I never said racism doesn't exist. It is very obvious that it does. I just have nothing to show that it exists in the jury in question with regard to reaching a verdict. Racism certainly does exist in the minds of those would would assume that the jury would allow the race of the defendant or victim to influence their decision.

Is there a person alive that would feel that a white person shooting a non-white is a mitigating circumstance for murder? Yeah, probably a few, but they probably aren't on that jury.

[gyre]

Innocent until proven guilty is a pleasant theory.

Too bad judges that operate a courtroom that way are a novelty.

[ygmir]

the end result most likely will not be good with an all white jury

That is the sort of bigoted, racist thinking the political left generally spews. It supposes that someone is incapable of fairly weighing the evidence when people of a different race are involved. It almost seems that many on the political left are extremely bigoted and tend to project their own bigotry on everyone else. Sure, one can probably make the race of the people involved an issue but it really isn't. And many seem to forget that we now have two generations of Americans who have never experienced the sort of racial discrimination I experienced when I was growing up.

It seems that things are constantly portrayed from the viewpoint of someone who is now 70 years old or something. At this point it is like saying that a jury with last names starting with letters A-M can't give a fair trial to someone whose last name starts with N-Z.

Do you honestly believe that the race of either the victim or the accused is weighing on the minds of the jurors? If you do, you might be projecting your own bigotry.

I'm with ya there.
some people seem to think, if it's a all white jury, it's unfair.........
turn the tables, though, and, they'd think it was just fine.

And, they think, because the accused is white, he must be guilty.
The poster you quote above sure stood up for O.J., though........

I dont' think anyone said racism doesn't exist. I do feel, many, think it only goes one direction, though.

Guilty or innocent, it should be accepted just the same as any other trial.

IMHO.

[ygmir]

Innocent until proven guilty is a pleasant theory.

Too bad judges that operate a courtroom that way are a novelty.

I think, by far, more guilty go free than innocent are convicted.........

[DVD Burner]

the end result most likely will not be good with an all white jury

That is the sort of bigoted, racist thinking the political left generally spews. It supposes that someone is incapable of fairly weighing the evidence when people of a different race are involved. It almost seems that many on the political left are extremely bigoted and tend to project their own bigotry on everyone else. Sure, one can probably make the race of the people involved an issue but it really isn't. And many seem to forget that we now have two generations of Americans who have never experienced the sort of racial discrimination I experienced when I was growing up.

It seems that things are constantly portrayed from the viewpoint of someone who is now 70 years old or something. At this point it is like saying that a jury with last names starting with letters A-M can't give a fair trial to someone whose last name starts with N-Z.

Do you honestly believe that the race of either the victim or the accused is weighing on the minds of the jurors? If you do, you might be projecting your own bigotry.

Like it or not, this is a racist country. To a large extent a racist world.

Still dont see why there couldn't be at least one person of color on the jury.

[ygmir]

the end result most likely will not be good with an all white jury

That is the sort of bigoted, racist thinking the political left generally spews. It supposes that someone is incapable of fairly weighing the evidence when people of a different race are involved. It almost seems that many on the political left are extremely bigoted and tend to project their own bigotry on everyone else. Sure, one can probably make the race of the people involved an issue but it really isn't. And many seem to forget that we now have two generations of Americans who have never experienced the sort of racial discrimination I experienced when I was growing up.

It seems that things are constantly portrayed from the viewpoint of someone who is now 70 years old or something. At this point it is like saying that a jury with last names starting with letters A-M can't give a fair trial to someone whose last name starts with N-Z.

Do you honestly believe that the race of either the victim or the accused is weighing on the minds of the jurors? If you do, you might be projecting your own bigotry.

Like it or not, this is a racist country. To a large extent a racist world.

Still dont see why there couldn't be at least one person of color on the jury.

Why does color matter?

if both sides agree to the jury, it's done.....
Or, do you imply, that, some races are better at judging than others?