Riot in Oakland over Bart cop ruling?

[DVD Burner]

Actually I kinda find it ironic anyone would even think I am one to bring up race in this thread, which btw I did not create, which IS about race when it all comes down to it.

So far in this thread, I've spoken about race pretty much the way Sly Stone did it.


[youtube][/youtube]



There is no denying that this BART cop thing is a racial issue.

[DVD Burner]

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.

Really does help if you could post along with your opinion some links that would compliment what you say.


In fact, it would be awesome if you could post a legitimate article that at least PROVES YOUR OPINION to be correct.

[gyre]

The studies are out there.
You have to pay to access the best ones, but many are public.

Hire a consultant, as I did.

It is a very complex issue and "race" is only a minor component of it.


How much self-identification do you think an educated upper class white person living in a separate enclave of town has with an uneducated white crackhead living downtown?
As much or less than an educated black person living in the same enclave would with a black crackhead?

And that's a simplistic question.

[DVD Burner]

The studies are out there.
You have to pay to access the best ones, but many are public.

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Oh man, hilarious!

[DVD Burner]

The studies are out there.
You have to pay to access the best ones, but many are public.

Hire a consultant, as I did.

It is a very complex issue and "race" is only a minor component of it.


How much self-identification do you think an educated upper class white person living in a separate enclave of town has with an uneducated white crackhead living downtown?
As much or less than an educated black person living in the same enclave would with a black crackhead?

And that's a simplistic question.

Now come on now folks, can you actually read this with a straight face and not laugh?


Just keepin it real!

[gyre]

For example, do you think OJ was so idealistic that he refused to avail himself of some of the best of these services, giving him access to information that will never be published?
Or did he use every advantage he could?


A wealthy person caught in the justice system has as much connection to the rest of us, as bugs have to us.

Maybe I'm wrong and it's all published.
After all, it's only money at stake.

[goathead]

DVD why are you still hidden?

[goathead]

would be more impressed if the next time an innocent child was caught in the line of fire by gang bangers if they rioted and burnt down the fucking crack houses.

wonder why that doesn't happen?

[DVD Burner]

See, this is the same behavior.

I ask for a link or proof of something and I get everything and the kitchen sink thrown virtually at me ........oh and no link or shred of evidence from any source that backs their claim.

So they go on the attack.

This all could be cleared up quick and you would be enlightening me if you were to just prove that there is some legitimate source, information, link from the web or even from a university or anything, anything at all to enlighten me your opinion is based on some kind of fact.

I know I do it.

That's how I can post my opinion, my opinion based on some knowledge I picked up and/from some credible person or read or have been witness to.

That and me just type away and copy and paste what legitimate fact I base my opinion on.

[DVD Burner]

Oh and btw, this thread is not about O.J.

It's about an officer shooting a kid lying face down on the concrete not a threat to anyone. For anyone to pull out a taser a gun for that matter was just stupid. In fact, anyone that is thinking what this guy did is right or excusable is not only insulting all higher intelligences ,but can be looked at as racist.

Plain and simple, it looks and is really a fucked up way of thinking.

This is what THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

Not any riot.

There would be no riot if the right thing to do was done in the first place.

That is a fact of both cases everyone is speaking/relating to in this thread.

There is no other reason for this thread.

This thread is for shit talkin which is all I see here in this thread.

Some hilarious material I've been reading here in this thread tho.

Thigh slappingly funny!

[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.

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.

I stand by my statement. There was no reason to use any force. The man was handcuffed and face down on the ground. There was no reason to even use a taser. Some people may die if they are tasered, so a taser should not to be used indiscriminately. It matters not which weapon he intended to use. The fact is the officer voluntarily pulled out a weapon and killed a man who posed no threat. The minimum sentence would be voluntary manslaughter.

[goathead]

This is what THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

Not any riot.

Then why is the word "Riot" in the title of the thread?

[DVD Burner]

This is what THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

Not any riot.

Then why is the word "Riot" in the title of the thread?

Exactly my point of why this thread was created in the first place.

It was not thought through just like the officers logic was not there when he killed an innocent defenseless person.

Not his fault he just happen to be white and the guy with is face in the dirt that got killed is black.


Hey shit just happens I guess is your point?



It's all stupid as far as I am concerned.

But so I am indeed wanting to see your point of view.

You think there should be no riot if this cop gets off Scott free?

Cause that's what's gonna happen.

Now I would like to be proven wrong.

Not that he gets any 5 years and 2 for good behavior.

That is not gonna work.

There will still be problems with that.

It's reality.

[DVD Burner]

And the title of this thread is "Riot in Oakland over Bart cop ruling?"

There is the acronym BART, there is also the word "COP RULING"

I think I am covering all areas in the topic, am I not?

[goathead]

You think there should be no riot if this cop gets off Scott free?

Cause that's what's gonna happen.

Just wondering why the death of one innocent is more worthy of a riot then the death of another?

There are innocent people killed in Oakland all the time, just because this time it involved a BART cop, why is it more inciting of a riot then say the death of a child in a gang bang drive by?

[DVD Burner]

You think there should be no riot if this cop gets off Scott free?

Cause that's what's gonna happen.

Just wondering why the death of one innocent is more worthy of a riot then the death of another?

There are innocent people killed in Oakland all the time, just because this time it involved a BART cop, why is it more inciting of a riot then say the death of a child in a gang bang drive by?

And what in your quote has anything to do with the facts?

Looks like thread drift dribble from someone that has no facts about anything or wants to lump in all blacks to the likes of gang bangers.

How do you know Grant was a gang banger?

What difference does it make whether he was or not?

Nothing!

On the other hand, it's obvious you dont want to recognize the scope of the reality of the facts that this is a cop that murdered an innocent unarmed non threatening civilian.

All you want to say is the kid he killed was probably a drug dealing gang banger and so what that he was killed by a cop.


Still I bet you dont see yourself as posting a racist statement.

Right?



And bet you are gonna try to call me one right quick for saying so.

[ygmir]

DVD:
you certainly, to me, have a way of ruining any attempt at conversation and sharing of ideas..........

GH is making a good point, IMHO:

why is it more "riot worthy" for this, than, as GH puts it "a kid killed in a gang bang drive by"?

I think that is a good question. Maybe off topic, but, a good query, none the less.

[DVD Burner]

DVD:
you certainly, to me, have a way of ruining any attempt at conversation and sharing of ideas..........

GH is making a good point, IMHO:

why is it more "riot worthy" for this, than, as GH puts it "a kid killed in a gang bang drive by"?

I think that is a good question. Maybe off topic, but, a good query, none the less.

I guess you dont see how using the gang bangger analogy is not racist either?

All I did was try to take the gang bangger element out of the topic and replace it with an average person and stick with the facts of what happened.

A cop that murdered an innocent unarmed non threatening civilian.


And that ruins it for you? You prefer looking at a simple gang banger that got killed and so what.
And no one should riot if the cop is found not guilty?

[geekster]

A cop that murdered an innocent unarmed non threatening civilian.

Murder is an issue for a jury to decide, not you.

I believe that it is quite possible, given the design of the taser unit this person was issued, that he thought he had the taser and not the firearm.

If he had shot the person in the back of the head, I would not believe for a moment that he thought he was using the taser. He shot the person on the back, exactly where you would shoot someone with a taser and exactly NOT where you would shoot someone if you meant to kill them.

In any case, I would probably go with involuntary manslaughter. I can not see myself clear to acquit based on this confusion. The individual is trained NOT to be confused in this situation and must be held responsible. I am willing to wait for the jury to render a verdict before I pass my own personal judgment on them.

I would, however, make a statement that BART should be held partially responsible for issuing a non-lethal weapon that could so easily be confused with a lethal weapon.

[goathead]

And what in your quote has anything to do with the facts?

Looks like thread drift dribble

What your threads are more special then others and thread drift is not allowed.

Fuck Your Day

anyway

Looks like thread drift dribble from someone that has no facts about anything or wants to lump in all blacks to the likes of gang bangers.

For some one who likes facts, wonder where he got this idea from?
Reviewing what I have said here, I don't see where I have mentioned anything of the sort.

How do you know Grant was a gang banger?

Again for someone who likes FACTS, please feel free to cut and paste where I said he was a gang banger, I did ask why

"the death of one innocent is more worthy of a riot then the death of another?"

Excuse me here but how should I have put this in order to make it more clear that i consider his death tragic?

On the other hand, it's obvious you dont want to recognize the scope of the reality of the facts that this is a cop that murdered an innocent unarmed non threatening civilian.

So why is this anymore tragic then the murder of another innocent person
in OAKLAND?

All you want to say is the kid he killed was probably a drug dealing gang banger and so what that he was killed by a cop.

Again where have I said this?

Still I bet you dont see yourself as posting a racist statement.

Right?

WOW, even you can't be wrong 100% of the time.

And bet you are gonna try to call me one right quick for saying so.

Nope, your just more uptight and in need of a good dusting then just about any one else I know.

[DVD Burner]

A cop that murdered an innocent unarmed non threatening civilian.

Murder is an issue for a jury to decide, not you.

I believe that it is quite possible, given the design of the taser unit this person was issued, that he thought he had the taser and not the firearm.

Ha ha ha ha!

And you still dont get it.

The kid was face down hands behind his back AND NOT A THREAT.

There was no need to taze or even think about it in the first place.

You can not dispute that fact. Jury or no jury, these are the facts.

The only way anyone can see this differently is if they want to twist the facts which usually lawyers are paid to do.

[DVD Burner]

And what in your quote has anything to do with the facts?

Looks like thread drift dribble

What your threads are more special then others and thread drift is not allowed.

Fuck Your Day

anyway

Looks like thread drift dribble from someone that has no facts about anything or wants to lump in all blacks to the likes of gang bangers.

For some one who likes facts, wonder where he got this idea from?
Reviewing what I have said here, I don't see where I have mentioned anything of the sort.

How do you know Grant was a gang banger?

Again for someone who likes FACTS, please feel free to cut and paste where I said he was a gang banger, I did ask why

"the death of one innocent is more worthy of a riot then the death of another?"

Excuse me here but how should I have put this in order to make it more clear that i consider his death tragic?

On the other hand, it's obvious you dont want to recognize the scope of the reality of the facts that this is a cop that murdered an innocent unarmed non threatening civilian.

So why is this anymore tragic then the murder of another innocent person
in OAKLAND?

All you want to say is the kid he killed was probably a drug dealing gang banger and so what that he was killed by a cop.

Again where have I said this?

Still I bet you dont see yourself as posting a racist statement.

Right?

WOW, even you can't be wrong 100% of the time.

And bet you are gonna try to call me one right quick for saying so.

Nope, your just more uptight and in need of a good dusting then just about any one else I know.

Wow! That sure is a lot of drivel.

Guess you really didn't have anything relevant to say about you earlier post I comment on and ask info from you in.

Drift away, lets see how that is workin for ya.

[ygmir]

DVD:
you certainly, to me, have a way of ruining any attempt at conversation and sharing of ideas..........

GH is making a good point, IMHO:

why is it more "riot worthy" for this, than, as GH puts it "a kid killed in a gang bang drive by"?

I think that is a good question. Maybe off topic, but, a good query, none the less.

I guess you dont see how using the gang bangger analogy is not racist either?

well, no, just trying to use the same demographic as the rioters

All I did was try to take the gang bangger element out of the topic and replace it with an average person and stick with the facts of what happened.

A cop that murdered an innocent unarmed non threatening civilian.


And that ruins it for you?

no, not that directly. It's your abrasive, narcissistic manner that turns me off........



You prefer looking at a simple gang banger that got killed and so what.

no, the example was an innocent kid, as GH stated quite clearly. very different


And no one should riot if the cop is found not guilty?


well, no, I don't think anyone should riot, no matter the outcome.
IMHO, riots are mostly perpetrated by people wanting to create mayhem, break and steal stuff. I think, the honest, peaceful protest is much more effective, especially for public opinion....but, that's just me.

again, I totally think if the cop did bad, he should be punished, like or even more severly, than a normal citizen.

but, this rioting B.S. is just stupid, IMHO.
I sheds bad light on the few who are there protesting, by showing the scum that are just there to loot and break stuff.

[DVD Burner]

DVD:
you certainly, to me, have a way of ruining any attempt at conversation and sharing of ideas..........

GH is making a good point, IMHO:

why is it more "riot worthy" for this, than, as GH puts it "a kid killed in a gang bang drive by"?

I think that is a good question. Maybe off topic, but, a good query, none the less.

I guess you dont see how using the gang bangger analogy is not racist either?

well, no, just trying to use the same demographic as the rioters

All I did was try to take the gang bangger element out of the topic and replace it with an average person and stick with the facts of what happened.

A cop that murdered an innocent unarmed non threatening civilian.


And that ruins it for you?

no, not that directly. It's your abrasive, narcissistic manner that turns me off........



You prefer looking at a simple gang banger that got killed and so what.

no, the example was an innocent kid, as GH stated quite clearly. very different


And no one should riot if the cop is found not guilty?


well, no, I don't think anyone should riot, no matter the outcome.
IMHO, riots are mostly perpetrated by people wanting to create mayhem, break and steal stuff. I think, the honest, peaceful protest is much more effective, especially for public opinion....but, that's just me.

again, I totally think if the cop did bad, he should be punished, like or even more severly, than a normal citizen.

but, this rioting B.S. is just stupid, IMHO.
I sheds bad light on the few who are there protesting, by showing the scum that are just there to loot and break stuff.

We that's what happens when bad cops do bad things in areas where cops have a history of doing these same things on a daily basis.

Things come to a boil when cops really fuck up.

If this was an accident and it was obvious it was an accident, do you think there would be riots?

I can tell you for a fact, there would not be any riots.

[ygmir]

I would bet, that, in that area, with those players, even with good video, the "rioters" still wouldn't accept it as an accident, and, yes, I do think there would still be riots........

I feel, as stated, the "rioters" are there to break stuff and steal things.........the real protesters, have a different agenda, and, methodology.
IMHO.....

[geekster]

There was no need to taze or even think about it in the first place.

So says you. I wasn't there. Apparently you were?

From video I have seen there were two officers trying to restrain the individual. Yes, he was apparently on the ground with his hands behind his back ... while being actively restrained by two cops. He wasn't exactly lying on the ground passively. So if two people are using both of their hands to keep the person down, how do you let go and handcuff the person without them possibly overpowering the remaining person restraining them? In that situation you tase them to stun them so you can get the cuffs on.

Cops aren't paid to get hurt. Here's the thing ... many years ago I raised a child who wanted more than anything else to be a police officer. I might look at what a cop does differently than some others do. Cops aren't paid to be abused by people. So incapacitating the person through non-lethal means to gain a few seconds to get the cuffs on them is a legitimate option. I am NOT excusing the cop for shooting the guy. He should be found guilty. But I don't believe he intentionally tried to kill the guy because a shot to the back is not always lethal. If he had wanted to kill the guy he would have shot him in the base of the skull. He shot the guy exactly where you would shoot someone with a taser which lends some credence to his argument that he was mistaken in his choice of weapon.

Involuntary manslaughter is what I would go for knowing what I know about the case. But I was not on the jury nor was I in the court room during the trial so I am willing to defer to the judgment of the jury.

[DVD Burner]

Well yalls opinion is just that. Yall opinion based on living in a state of denial.

You are entitled to do so.

Good luck with that.

[gyre]

The drug dealer (and family) I was hanging out with yesterday didn't say, but I think he was black.
(social thing)

Not sure how gangbanger is a racial term, much less racist.

[geekster]

Most of the drug dealers around where I live are white and over 40.

[goathead]

Wow! That sure is a lot of drivel.

Guess you really didn't have anything relevant to say about you earlier post I comment on and ask info from you in.

Drift away, lets see how that is workin for ya.

LMAO
I have commented on various thing and have asked a few questions, and you in return have posted exactly what?

[youtube][/youtube]