Crowds Storm Streets After Verdict in Killing of Unarmed Black Man

[Hissyspit]

Source: CNN

Crowds storm streets after verdict in killing of unarmed black man
By the CNN Wire Staff
July 9, 2010 6:25 a.m. EDT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Hundreds protest in Oakland after verdict
A former officer was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the shooting
Police chief says there were 50 arrests but the number could double

Oakland, California (CNN) -- Hundreds stormed the streets of downtown Oakland on Thursday night after a verdict in the trial of a white former police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black man.

Johannes Mehserle was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter Thursday, a conviction that usually carries a maximum four-year sentence.

But some in Oakland expected a tougher penalty for the former police officer, and took to the streets in protest.

Crowds broke the glass of a Foot Locker and other stores. Others threw sneakers out of the store as police wearing gas masks stormed the area.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/08/subway.shooting.trial.riot/?hpt=T2

[midnight]

1. Being black should never be an excuse to be tasered/ executed.

The excuse, that was used to justify the actions to bring further physical control over a young man who had a knee in his back as he was on the ground, the police were going to taser this man, but executed him instead is very concerning and makes no sense.

[Citizen Worker]

2. And the cop said he mistook his sidearm for the taser

Is it common practice to aim a taser at someone's head rather than the soft tissue of the body? That story sounded like hogwash then and it still does. Another Black man is dead at the hands of the police who are there to serve and protect. Of course, that depends on race.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. What?

He wasn't shot in the head. He was shot in the back of the body.

"After 13 days of testimony, the defense rested Tuesday in People v. Johannes Mehserle with the calling of Dr. Thomas Rogers to the stand. Dr. Rogers authored the autopsy protocol which stated Grant’s cause of death was a gunshot wound to the torso."

[leeroysphitz]

49. Cops are here to serve and protect rich white people. n/t

[saigon68]

128. It's those "Pesky Negroes again"

Wanting special treatment

</sarcasm>

[slackmaster]

12. The crime was ruled as involuntary manslaughter by 12 people who had more information than you or I

Plus instruction in the application of the law by an experienced trial judge.

[civilisation]

15. Really? Watch the video,. it is quite clear.

He executed that guy,. the guy was on the ground and not resistant. a taser and a hand gun to not look or feel any thing similar,. plus why was he attempting to taser a non-resisting man he had fully under control? I'm with the rioters on this one.

No justice NO peace.

[slackmaster]

19. The jurors saw all of the cell phone videos too

Plus they heard testimony from eye witnesses who were under oath, and experts presented by both sides.

And don't forget about those instructions from the judge.

I've served on trial juries. It can be a very interesting and enlightening experience.

I'm with the rioters on this one.

I hope you grow up some day, "civilisation".

[mbperrin]

47. With the rioters because the Footlocker store perpetrated this?

All the store owners and employees who can't work for days now while things calm down and then repairs can begin.

Or maybe times are so good in Oakland that repairing riot damage (which is automatically not covered by insurance) and losing sales and jobs is no big deal.

Makes just as much sense as a guy having a hard time at work and coming home and beating on the wife and kids because he's mad.

There will be some of those businesses that won't make it back, and there will be some employees who won't think it's worth it to work in an area like this where you risk life and limb over something you have no control over nor a hand in.

Want to smash something? I'd suggest any number of former and current government officials, bankers, oil company execs and so on. THEY'VE done damage to millions of people for money.

[slackmaster]

48. I have a better suggestion for people who want to smash something

[ProudDad]

59. Said "mbperrin" from his/her lofty perch in Texas

I lived in the war zone in Oakland for many years.

The cops are an occupying force...just like the IDF in the West Bank of Palestine...

I'm also certain that;

a) there was probably very little actual damage but the press, of course, emphasizes what there is in order to sell shit

b) The cops were stationed so that the folks couldn't get NEAR and "former and current government officials, bankers, oil company execs"

c) most damage WILL be covered by insurance...Oakland is NOT Baghdad!

[CreekDog]

72. Meserhle was NOT AN OAKLAND COP, he was a BART cop

:banghead:

posts offering corrections shouldn't need correction. :D

[ProudDad]

108. It's the same thing in the war zone...

In occupied territory the only difference between the Oakland PD and the Bart cops is that the Bart cops in their insecurity and limited jurisdiction ("cop wanna-be's") tend toward "losing it" more often than the Oakland PD. The Oakland PD also has a Citizen's Review Board and a Minority/Progressive-led City Administration looking over their shoulder.

Same difference :eyes:


Oh, and the name is spelled "Mehserle" :banghead:

[mbperrin]

85. So which is it? War zone or uber-civilized? You say both in your post.

Any evidence anyone tried to do anything about the powerful forces of destruction at work in the country, like Bush, et al?

So what IS the justification for damaging 3rd parties, whether great or small? Punishing someone for something someone else did is just like Daddy having a bad day and work and coming home and beating hell out of Mommy and Junior.

Evidently you've never visited west Texas, or you'd realize how far off your lofty perch is.

But hey, Arizona is after all the leader in thought these days, eh?

[ProudDad]

105. "But hey, Arizona is after all the leader"

You've got that right :)

Arizona makes Oakland appear Ubber-Civilized...

It's the war zone because it's occupied territory. But, just like other occupied territories, most of the people who live there are decent, hard working folk just trying to get by.

Considering the provocation they have to endure just to get by, they are MUCH more civilized than their oppressors.

So I'm entirely consistent. Nice try at a red herring, though... :shrug:

----------------------

Check out the video -- nearly everyone in downtown Oakland last night were entirely civilized. It was the Oakland PD and a few unruly folks who were "rioting".

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/9/outrage_in_oakland_transit_officer_convicted

[ProudDad]

110. PS: It's not really a "third party"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4458329#4459016

[mbperrin]

126. Here's your statement::

The store is franchised by other marginalized persons -- immigrants -- who eke out a small living selling overpriced tennis shoes to black people...This I know FOR A FACT.



So these marginalized persons who are barely making it will be helped by having the windows of their place of business knocked out? And this store is reserved for black people? So if I walked in and wanted to buy sports shoes, I would be turned away? Really?


The rest of your post contains doubtless, probably and so on; these are not worth answering because they are simple assertions that only research could prove or disprove, but this one, you say you know FOR A FACT. Okie-dokie, then. I'll be glad that I live in a town where the Ku Klux Klan announced a rally at the courthouse. 8 guys in sheets showed up, and about 400 angry townsfolk of all colors, ages, and even sizes wanted to damage those guys, until they sought help from the black sheriff of the county. Priceless.

Have a nice summer in Arizona.

[ProudDad]

140. I already told you, dufus

They didn't miss one day selling overpriced, crappy tennis shoes to Black folks...

"And this store is reserved for black people? So if I walked in and wanted to buy sports shoes, I would be turned away? Really?"

Since white folks are afraid to go to downtown Oakland, preferring to visit their suburban malls to get exploited by their corporate capitalist masters, then yes, thanks to the modern forms of segregation, nearly all of the clientele of this downtown Oakland shoe store are Black.

And you ARE a factually challenged, ignorant red herring machine aren't you? :eyes:

[larkrake]

115. evidence? just a few "accidents" and plane crashes,

"suicides" and poisonings, not much proof, just sudden death to anyone's family members if they spoke out of turn. Both Bushs and Cheney was the worst, maybe even Kennedy, who can say. Duh

[mbperrin]

127. I was asking for evidence that the crowds in Oakland had ever tried to

harm the real causes of their problems: Bush and others. I am well aware of their attacks on people like Paul Wellstone. I was asking who would attack Bush and more.

Hope this clears that up.

[ProudDad]

138. You aren't listening...that's why you haven't heard the answer

If the People tried to "attack" the real causes of their problems (gee, like Nike and Adidas) they would be mowed down by the protectors of the Empire!!!

And posting bullshit like your statement above that appears to accuse "the Blacks in Oakland" of attacks on people like Paul Wellstone is kinda fucked up...and untrue... or at best...confusing :eyes:

[AtheistCrusader]

40. There have been many mistaken shootings as a result of taser/hangun confusion.

The grip and firing mechanism are the same. The safety is the same. The manner in which you hold it is the same.

Some departments require you wear it on the opposite leg, flipped around, so it takes a very conscious effort to go get it. The BART department apparently had other policies.

In Seattle you will see them worn on the opposite leg, in a very different position than the firearm on the opposite hip.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. yes, i forgot, we live in a post-race world now.

[slackmaster]

20. Would you feel better if an all-black jury had convicted Mehserle of involuntary manslaughter?

Because that's probably what would have happened.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. i would like to stop pretending that his race had nothing to do with his death. nt

[NoGOPZone]

28. So you concur with the OJ Simpson acquittal

based on the criteria of 12 jurors with access to more information than outsiders and an experienced trial judge?

[slackmaster]

30. Red Herring

:hi:

[NoGOPZone]

31. No, a simple question, which you didn't answer.

On edit: You introduced the notion of the jury's access to testimony and receipt of judicial instructions. I simply want to determine if you feel it is relevant to other cases.

[slackmaster]

33. OK, I'll take a shot at answering even though I think it's irrelevant

It's irrelevant because you are comparing a conviction to an acquittal. Apples to oranges. For a jury, returning a guilty verdict requires more thought and more work than an acquittal. Acquittal is the default outcome when they decide they don't have enough information to rule out all of the reasonable doubts.

I think the jury in that case was bamboozled by a hot-shot, very expensive criminal defense team; but their verdict was still by definition the truth and carries the weight of law.

The system is intentionally weighted to favor criminal defendants. Most people accused of crimes are vastly out-gunned by the prosecution, because it has the resources of the entire state behind it. Trials of wealthy people often turn into farces, but it's preferable to let a few guilty people go free than to wrongly convict any innocent ones.

Johannes Mehserle was not acquitted. He's not going to go free. He'll probably spend years in prison. He'll never be allowed to work in law enforcement or touch a gun for the rest of his life.

Justice will be served.

[NoGOPZone]

36. No one is saying the cases or circumstances are completely identical

but I hardly think its irrelevant. The issue as I see it is whether or not we should accept verdicts, regardless of what they are, regardless of the charges, based on your given criteria of the jury's access to testimony and instructions. Whether or not justice will be served is another issue. I've never been one to accept the idea that ANY conviction is enough, but one could argue that this thinking isn't pragmatic. Not sure I won't to get into that whole discussion.

[slackmaster]

39. We don't actually have a choice. A verdict is by definition the truth.

Whether we like it or not. That's a provision of the social contract that we all live under.

[Ignis]

51. "A verdict is by definition the truth."

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[No Elephants]

55. No, a verdict is not by definition the truth at all. It is simply the verdict.

[ProudDad]

61. Bullshit!!!

A "verdict" is an opinion reflecting the bias of the jury members who "considered the information" left over after the application of the strict filter that the criminal-injustice system applies to the FACTS in order to maintain the status-quo!.

You can't defend the indefensible...

[CreekDog]

79. except when it's that OJ is innocent

:eyes:

i never bought into jury=truth, that was your statement, which it turns out has more loopholes than...

[CreekDog]

78. rationalization of your obvious internal contradictions

:hi:

[slackmaster]

80. I have no contradiction about it at all - I believe OJ murdered his ex-wife

I think the jury followed its instructions in good faith and returned a valid verdict.

Sometimes people get away with crimes.

[Paladin]

124. He'll Never Be Able To Touch Another Gun?

I guess his life is over as far as you're concerned.......

[slackmaster]

134. You guess poorly

Don't quit your day job, if you have one.

[CreekDog]

76. it's very simple, you said the jurors made a better decision than we could

and when asked about the OJ Trial, you don't answer.

[slackmaster]

87. I did answer the question about the OJ trial

Please see reply #33.

[CreekDog]

97. "Red Herring" = Euphemism for "I'm wrong."

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

32. Actually, the jury had LESS information that ordinary citizens ....

And, btw, OJ has pretty much confessed to this crime now ...

in allegedly "fictional" writings --

If it was "jury nullification" I think the AA community had an equal right to

save one of their own -- if there is such a right -- and one applied by white juries

many times over centuries!

[NoGOPZone]

34. Less information? On certain things, yes, not on others.

It's my understanding that the jury wasn't present when Fuhrman took the Fifth, which IMHO would be the strongest reason for acquittal. Nonetheless few members of the public took in all the testimony during the trial. Also, I'm not aware of any legal concept of 'pretty much confessed', but I'm not a legal professional either.

Regardless, my point is not about Simpson's guilt or innoncence, its t the rationale given for the conviction on lesser charges in this case. Maybe OJ should have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter ;-)

[slackmaster]

35. A conviction for murder in California, as opposed to manslaughter, rests on one important factor

Presence of absence of malice aforethought.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

Maybe OJ should have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter

I don't believe Judge Ito's instructions allowed for that.

[NoGOPZone]

37. I'm aware

I thought the wink would have been a giveaway that the remark wasn't serious.

[slackmaster]

41. I grokked your sarcasm. No worries.

I was just poking a little fun at the whole OJ trial.

[ProudDad]

63. I've seen these Bart cops in action

up close and personal...

And MANY of them are walking examples of "malice aforethought"...

But I would go as far as to say that that Murder was probably hard to "PROVE".

He should have been convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter. The situation was pretty much under control, especially since they were paying so much attention to the "wrong guy" (as usual), until this cop showed up to make it worse.

But then, just like the death penalty doesn't deter, neither would this guy's conviction deter brainwashed cops doing their duty - protecting the status-quo and their masters...

[slackmaster]

70. We all agree that Mehserle committed a violent crime, and that Oscar Grant didn't deserve to die

Let's leave it at that, and let the justice system do its job.

[ProudDad]

116. But, "doing their job" in the cover up is exactly what they did...

and it's still Unjust...

[Rex]

135. Wow, I wouldn't want you on any jury trial, it is sad that you've sat

on any. Sounds like you have a hardon for cops and will excuse their murderous actions even with obvious proof it was an assassination. Hope you never end up on the other side of the law.

[Ignis]

71. This is just a single annecdote, but ...

My first encounter with a BART cop after I moved to the Bay Area was seeing in a patrol car one hit a cyclist who was biking through a crosswalk.
...And then got out of the car to yell at the cyclist. :wow:

But then several eyewitnesses immediately came over and started yelling at the cop, and gave the cyclist their contact info. :) I love this place sometimes.

[Gormy Cuss]

84. Malice can be implied under CA statutes..

From your link:

such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.

So if it could be proven that Mehersle killed Grant with an abandoned or malignant heart (because it was established that he held young black men in low regard for example) a murder charge would be appropriate,right?

[slackmaster]

88. Yes, and apparently the jury decided that the evidence was not strong enough to support murder

So they convicted him of manslaughter.

There's really no problem here.

[defendandprotect]

52. There was a lot of information kept from the jury which the public knew . . .

for instance, the jury wasn't permitted to hear that the DNA was a "match" --

and many other things -- many.

Don't recall what Fuhrman had to say on the case? What was the line of quesitoning on

which he took 5th?

Granted a lot of people didn't hear everything -- but a lot did --

Including the fact that OJ had confessed to the killing when talking with Rosie Grier in

a prison visit, as overheard by one of the guards.



Also, I'm not aware of any legal concept of 'pretty much confessed', but I'm not a legal professional either.

Didn't offer that as a "legal concept" --

Offering it as reality --

OJ further explained that Nicole had answered the door with a knife in her hands.

Meanwhile, the jury heard no challenge to the fact that OJ was permitted to try on the gloves

with rubber gloves under them!

Regardless, my point is not about Simpson's guilt or innoncence, its t the rationale given for the conviction on lesser charges in this case. Maybe OJ should have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter

Have no position on that point ... at least at this moment.

Meanwhile, OJ was found guilty of this crime in a civil trial --


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE6RpZea9ao

[No Elephants]

56. Jury did not know about blood on the carpet of OJ's vehicle. But less knowledge in 2 or more

areas is still less knowledge, no matter how you slice it.

[NoGOPZone]

98. Almost everyone had an opinion on the OJ verdict

Almost everyone with an opinion did not hear all the testimony, see all the exhibits, or hear all the jury instructions.

[jberryhill]

99. What the OJ jurors did know

Is that every police witness lied about something. When Fuhrman said he never used the "N word", anything else he said flew right out of the window. It was an unnecessary lie. When whats-his-name said he never put samples in the trunk of his car, and then there is a picture of him putting samples in the trunk of his car, what is the jury supposed to think about all of those police witnesses.

The prosecution did an awful job in that trial, by trying to make a "cleaner" picture, and it blew up in their face.

I think OJ killed those people, and I think the jury's verdict on the basis of that trial, was correct.

[HardWorkingDem]

139. I love what Barry Scheck does with the Innocence Project, however....

the OJ team did a terrible injustice to DNA evidence themselves and did as much lying/mischaracterization/manipulating as the prosecution ever did. If anyone gives a crap, ask and I'll point out the whole EDTA myth purported by Cochren et al.

Anyone who believes in a conspiracy against OJ in this incident is clearly uninformed about what happens when it comes to complex, multi-scene crimes.

All this trial showed was an acquittal can be bought.

[jberryhill]

147. The prosecution blew that case

They should have never asked OJ to try on the glove, either. How did they think that was going to turn out?

[AtheistCrusader]

42. I do, yes.

The prosecution had every opportunity to make it's case. It didn't convince the jury to the standard of confidence required by the charges.

I felt the same way about MJ. Not guilty.

[ProudDad]

57. "The only Justice in the Hall of Justice is in the halls"

No blacks on an L.A. Jury...?

Rigged deck...

Give me a fucking break...

:puke:


But, the killer will probably spend at least 5 or 6 years of hell in the "hole" in protective custody, 'cause he SURE AS HELL wouldn't last a day in the yard...

So maybe justice will be served...a tiny bit in this ONE case... Unlike most other cop vs. human trials, thanks to video evidence, which seems to be the only way to get a killer cop, this guy ACTUALLY got CONVICTED!!!

[slackmaster]

60. I'll repeat my earlier question just for you, ProudDad...

If Mehserle had been convicted of involuntary manslaughter by an all-black jury, would you feel the same way about the verdict?

I think it's very likely that an all-black jury would have come to the same conclusion. I think people of all colors are equally capable of being fair and impartial, and of following a judge's instructions.

[Ignis]

65. "an all-black jury would have come to the same conclusion"

I doubt it, because they wouldn't have fallen for the defense's attempt to smear Grant as a Scary Black Man With A Record.

[slackmaster]

68. The jury that convicted Mehserle didn't fall for that ploy

They convicted him of a violent felony.

[Ignis]

73. OK. You're going to believe what you're going to believe.

Good luck. :hi:

[Rex]

136. It is more like he is a rah rah for cop brutality as shown in this thread.

Best to ignore those that cannot defend their position rationally.

[ProudDad]

67. You seem to forget the "jury of peers" concept...

This is still a deeply racist country. There are things that black people understand about the interactions between police and black people that NO white could possibly get. Having that sensibility in the jury deliberation room would make a HELL of a difference in the quality of deliberations.

So, to answer your question directly, I believe that an all-black jury coming up with the same verdict would indicate a MUCH greater likelihood that the verdict reflected some modicum of reality.

Define "fair and impartial"? Is it something like faux-noise's "fair and balanced"?

There is NOTHING in the criminal-injustice system that is "fair and impartial"! It's not designed or meant to be "fair and impartial"! It's designed to protect the "system" against those who benefit least from it.

I've been called to jury duty. I have arrived to find hundreds of mostly white, mostly middle class, mostly older and more conservative people ready to "pass judgment" on "them". So please don't give me that "fair and impartial" shit, ok?

[slackmaster]

69. "Jury of (one's) peers" applies to the defendant, not the victim

:hi:

I've been called to jury duty. I have arrived to find hundreds of mostly white, mostly middle class, mostly older and more conservative people ready to "pass judgment" on "them".

With your attitude, I'll bet you got booted promptly from any panels you sat on.

I've served as a trial juror on both civil and criminal cases. I know what it's about.

Oscar Grant is deceased. He has no peers now. Until we figure out how to re-animate people who were wrongfully killed, there will never be real justice for them.

[ProudDad]

81. No, you know "what it's about"

from the filter as one who's "suitable for jury duty"...that is, someone who is sufficiently brainwashed to have internalized the basic presuppositions of the dominant paradigm to be trusted to preserve the Status-Quo...

No great feat...

:hi:

And yes, I would (and have never) NEVER be allowed on a jury because I am cursed with Critical Thinking Skills coupled with the knowledge that the system is corrupt and not meant to administer "Justice" but to protect the upper classes and warehouse the underclass...

And it does that all VERY WELL!

For instance, I do not believe in the death penalty so I was not allowed to even be considered for a death penalty case a while back. That's a GREAT example of the Injustice built into the system. Only people who believe in the death penalty can be on a jury in a death penalty case. Wow, that's fair...:sarcasm:

[slackmaster]

83. I see a lot of anger in your post, and you're still dodging my question

It's unfortunate that you choose to rationalize our slight difference of opinion* by painting me as "brainwashed" and not in possession of critical thinking skills. One central tenet of my philosophy is that two intelligent, educated, well-meaning people can come to different conclusions from the same body of information.

I'm sorry you have such a jaundiced view of the jury system. It's a compromise of course, but I think juries get the right answer (or close enough to it) often enough that the system is worthwhile. I can't help but notice that your railing against it doesn't include anything resembling a suggestion for a workable alternative.

...I do not believe in the death penalty...

Neither do I. The difference between you and me on this is that I respect the right of the people as a whole to decide that we're going to have a death penalty. I don't have a problem with being disqualified from serving on a capital murder case. We all have our own prejudices and strong feelings about one thing or another.


* We both agree that Mehserle committed a violent crime, and that Grant's death was not justified. We differ only on which section of the California Penal Code Mehserle should have been convicted under.

[ProudDad]

119. Actually we differ on the nature of the Criminal-Injustice system

and its essential purposes and methods...

And well meaning persons SELDOM come to different conclusions from the same body of information without one side or the other being denied essential facts, principles and causes.

I recognize that it's a barbaric tool for a barbaric "society".

I would guess that you do not and are trying madly in your state of denial to justify its existence and actions.

But that's a rather common pathology here in the Empire...

[Iowa]

95. Well said.

[Doctor_J]

146. This reminds me of a story

I was called to jury not too long ago. Some 20-year-old Latina was going to be tried for possession of pot. When I was asked if I held any opinions that might prevent me from performing my duty ably, I said, "I think prosecuting young people for simple possession is the biggest waste of peoples' time & money that I can think of, except maybe the Iraq War".

I was excused, and am hoping my last phrase will keep me from getting summoned again.

:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

91. I had to laugh yesterday when a jury consultant said it wouldn't have made any difference

to have black people on the jury.

He himself was white, of course.

[Iowa]

94. Anyone who believes in our "justice" system isn't paying attention...

Those who are guilty of the very worst crimes run free, and our prisons are crammed full with minorities who haven't hurt a flea. I'm in a class that is least likely to be ensnared by our pathetic justice system (white, old, well-off, connections, education, professional background). But even I would fear to leave my fate in the hands of our police and courts. The only thing I lack is being a cop, which is pretty much a license to do whatever the hell you want with no (or light) consequences.

The justice system is so fucked up that it has become a complete joke. The old "12 people who had more information than you or I" argument just doesn't fly.

[slackmaster]

101. You consider five years or more in prison to be "no (or light) consequences"?

:crazy:

[Iowa]

103. Oh for christ's sake....

1) It isn't five years. It's a MAXIMUM of four. From the article: "...usually carries a maximum four-year sentence". See? A maximum of four. Not five - a maximum of four. See the difference?

2) And of course that is a very light sentence - for murder.

3) And finally, I was primarily referring to your unquestioning faith in the U.S. justice system in general. You know... the part where you put your hand over your heart, hummed the national anthem, and wrote: "...12 people who had more information than you or I plus instruction in the application of the law by an experienced trial judge." As if that means squat.

Pay attention. It will save you a lot of headaches.

[slackmaster]

118. Mehserle used a gun, so there could be a sentence enhancement of up to 10 years

He could get as much as 14 years according to one source I read yesterday.

2) And of course that is a very light sentence - for murder.

He wasn't convicted of murder.

3) And finally, I was primarily referring to your unquestioning faith in the U.S. justice system in general.

That is a Straw Man. What I said was I have faith, but not unquestioning faith, in the jury trial system for criminal cases.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[sofa king]

66. Or being pulled over for DWB, or extra scrutiny at airports, or denial for loans....

And the list goes on and on. I love the fact that our President is a black man, but making that so didn't make all the other inequities and insults go away.

[AsahinaKimi]

3. Here is more

After dark, mobs form, smash windows, loot

(07-08) 23:33 PDT OAKLAND -- There was outrage, there was looting and there were skirmishes between police and protesters, but that wasn't the whole story of how Oakland reacted to the Johannes Mehserle verdict.

The trouble Thursday boiled down to a racially diverse mob of about 200 people, many bent on destruction no matter what, confronting police after the day's predominantly peaceful demonstrations ended.

Sporadic conflicts were quelled quickly early in the evening, but by late night at least 50 people - and maybe as many as 100 - had been arrested as small groups smashed windows, looted businesses and set trash bins on fire.

read more:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/BAFL1EBKII.DTL&tsp=1

[newspeak]

129. hmm, interesting!

So, I wonder who were these "outside agitators."

A long time ago, I worked in a small office, my boss was a former LA cop. He was in the Watts riots of the sixties. He told me that cars, not from the area, would come in with young white people and take shots at the cops.

[my2sense]

4. Interesting headline - feeds hysteria

that the "blacks" will riot. From what I've read there was a peaceful protest and some outsiders stirred up some mayhem at a footlocker. It seems the media is stirring in a pot of S*))*.

[redqueen]

26. There's no 'seem' to it, that's exactly what they're doing. (nt)

[abrupt]

44. I live next to Oakland..

and on the local news all I saw was people of a lighter color, spay painting and kicking in windows. Me and a friend kept saying "white guys" in every video we saw.and yes I`m white

[EFerrari]

53. Yep. There was a small handful of people breaking stuff

and hundreds of peaceful protesters.

[No Elephants]

58. that's about all the media seems to do anymore.

[ProudDad]

64. Exactly! (n/t)

[Starry Messenger]

77. Totally inflammatory.

There was peaceful demonstration until dark, and then people from outside the city started the violence. The TV broadcasts were equally as disgusting. I had to turn off KRON, it was like some FOX parody with yuppie anchors whining breathlessly about what "they" were going to do next. All. Frigging. Evening. Media gets an F for this one. X(

[Nictuku]

5. Spin

I'm seeing a bit of spin on this news reporting, but what else is new.

There were hours and hours of peaceful protest, where people were expressing how they felt they had no justice. And I don't blame them.

This report speaks of a 'mob' 'storming the streets', and that is an exaggeration. Up until I was getting ready for bed, (9:30) when I tuned in for the local news, there was no violence, but that seems to be the only focus in this report.

People were told to go home from work early all over the bay area. It was as if they were expecting a full on riot.

Pisses me off.

[burnsei sensei]

7. So tell me this.

Quote:
There were hours and hours of peaceful protest, where people were expressing how they felt they had no justice. And I don't blame them.
end quote.

They felt they had no justice.
The man was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, though it sounds voluntary to me.
Would justice have been a conviction for 1st degree murder?
Murder of another degree?
Violation of the 4th Amendment? That would have to go to a Federal court.
Would justice be capital punishment?
How about lynching?
These things would be reciprocal, but does reciprocity always amount to justice?
Is it the invariable solution?
If they feel they have no justice, then the demonstrators must outline exactly what they think justice is in this case.

[No Elephants]

62. Yeah, 'cause demonstrators always brief legal issues. that's their role in society, too.

:eyes:

[burnsei sensei]

120. Well actually it IS.

The whole point of demonstrating is the assertion of a position.
Those people were not just out to take the air.

[ProudDad]

74. IMHO: "Justice" would have been a conviction for Voluntary Manslaughter

At best, as a result of minimum provocation, the cop blew his top...

It's not reasonable to believe that a trained cop could mistake a GUN from the holster on his right side from a Taser in the holster on his left side and then using it on an unarmed, handcuffed "suspect"...

But it happens all the time -- unfortunately, rarely filmed...

This was another classic case of excluding black people from a jury resulting in a lenient result. Just like Simi Valley...and hundreds of other cases.

And, NO, the demonstrators don't have to "outline exactly what they think justice is in this case". In fact, there would probably be a wide varience of opinion among the "demonstrators" as to what Justice might be.

That's supposed the be the job of the criminal-injustice system.

But, as usual, the criminal-injustice system is so heavily weighted on the side of the "authorities" and their employers and against the People that Justice is impossible.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[loudsue]

10. That never made sense to me either.

It has become more & more obvious that there are two systems of justice in this country: one for the crooks with money, and one for "the little people".

That cannot stand. Not even in our own corporatist society.

[wellst0nev0ter]

75. Aw Well, It Was Nice Flame War While It Lasted

Well, since the poster still hasn't been banned yet, we may yet get more of her "contrarian" views sometime soon.

[lunatica]

9. Earlier in the day they reported a group of young people who call themselves

anarchists. During the marches in SF protesting Bush's wars before they happened this group was there also. They took to a side street and did the same thing.

The reporter for Channel 2 News said they were waiting till after dark to start the riots they always try to start. The police were there for that purpose. These weren't rioters, they were looters. The great majority of the earlier protests were peaceful without any intention of violence.

[Romulox]

17. "undercover cops". nt

[newtothegame]

11. I've never understood why you destroy your own neighborhood when you're upset about something?

Reminds me of the LA riots. I'm mad so I'm going to burn down my local grocery store and my kid's school? :shrug:

[slackmaster]

13. They're acting out anger and other emotions, not thinking and behaving rationally

That's why they do it.

[CreekDog]

82. the protestors weren't violent, the thugs/anarchists that came along afterwards were

everyone knows the opportunists that use protest as an opportunity for personal gain and destruction.

the idea that the protestors, who for HOURS protested peacefully should be blamed for the violence is ridiculous.

[Auggie]

14. They are not local residents:

San Francisco Chronicle / 7-9-10

Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts said the people causing trouble did not seem to be Oakland residents bent on voicing displeasure at the Mehserle verdict. He described them as outsiders "who are almost professional people who go into crowds like this and cause problems."

LINK: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/BAFL1EBKII.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0tC7AkmGJ

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Then break some legs.

You'll find out pretty quick what they are, if you start breaking them.

Hell, if they started breaking into occupied buildings, or setting fires in my neighborhood, they'd be shot.

[lunatica]

117. Maybe they don't like their run down miserable ghetto neighborhoods

[HEyHEY]

18. I just think about all the people bragging when Obama was elected

"Only in the USA" and a bunch of other fucking bullshit about how far ahead the USA was. I was attacked for suggesting that was an overblown suggestion and that plenty of countries could easily elect a minority head of state.

I don't know when the last time my country had a race riot was....

[slackmaster]

21. August 16, 1933 - The Christie Pits Riot in Toronto

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/08/15/the-christie-pits-riot-and-the-birth-of-multicultural-toronto.aspx

[HEyHEY]

22. Not bad.

We had some hippie riots in the 60s, but in general, most of our riots are hockey related.

[slackmaster]

23. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Canada has had its share of race relations issues

With Native Americans.

[HEyHEY]

24. I know

We've also had our issues with Black and White people on the far east coast.

[rockymountaindem]

50. There was also a bit of a famous brawl at a place I used to visit occasionally

(Though I never went there for political reasons. Evidently those days at that particular watering hole are over... but they still get my respect for the nachos.)

I'm not sure you'd call it a riot but there is a little blurb about it here on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneaky_Dee%27s

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. pakistan elected a female head of state years ago. you know how misogyny is clearly over in pakistan

[crim son]

25. Who didn't see this coming?

Why bother with a trial at all? :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rasputin1952]

46. There is obvious anger, but that is not a reason to riot...

I am not privy to everything in case, I was neither on the jury no in the courtroom. From what I saw, the individual was "down", and there should not have been much more, if any other force necessary to apprehend him. It is difficult for me to understand why this officer thought that more force was necessary in the apprehension; once an individual is on the ground, being held there by a knee, generally speaking, they are immobilized and the appropriate amount of force was used. Handcuff the individual, sit him/her up and start to talk., or escort them to the patrol car to take in for booking. There was more than one officer involved, the force used appeared to appropriate, there was no reason for a tazer or a gun to be drawn.

Now, even though this was, from my point of view a bad judgment call by the jury...it is not a reason to riot. Destroying people's property, absconding with others property does nothing to alleviate the situation. How can breaking into a Footlocker, (or any other business), possibly have anything to do with justice? It is a said state of affairs when people do these types of things. Protests, are one thing, angry mob activity is something entirely different,.

[CreekDog]

86. You wrongly jump to the conclusion that the verdict caused the riot

http://kcbs.cbslocal.com/2010/07/09/oaklands-damage-tally/

OAKLAND, Calif. (KCBS)-

...

According to the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, the final
number of people arrested Thursday night is 78.

60 of them are men, 18 women. Only 19 of those people are from
Oakland and 12 are from out of state.

The sheriff’s department held a briefing Friday morning.
66 of these people will be released today because they were
booked only on unlawful assembly.

The remaining 12 will be staying at the Alameda County Jail
because they are accused of parole violations, arsons, rioting, or
having explosive devices, which are all felonies.

===============

do the math...the protesting that occurred in the evening was large and peaceful.

later some folks, many of them not even from the community, started breaking things.

do the math and think critically.

[Gormy Cuss]

89. Yeah, and it doesn't matter because the national news is going frame it the same way.

"Scary African-Americans riot in scary Oakland."

I'm glad that the local media are reporting on the immature black-hoodie-wearing outsiders causing problems.

[CreekDog]

92. i don't think he cares what i think

even though i'm demonstrably correct.

:shrug:

[rasputin1952]

93. The math isn't difficult...

People move around a lot, and some have "agendas"; just like the undercover cops that rattled Seattle years ago.

I've been in inflammatory situations where people have calmed the waters, and vice versa.

There will always be few, whether local or distant, that can/will take advantage of a situation.

[CreekDog]

96. but you equated people who caused destruction as motivated by anger at the verdict

that's where you were off base.

what you are saying now is something different than what you said.

[rasputin1952]

100. Apparently there was some anger involved....

I would not consider it celebratory.

I believe I can rest assured some of the violence was motivated by the verdict, some aspects were opportunistic.

I've been in situations that have been defused, and others where the rhetoric fired people up...in any case, rioting is never justified. People get injured, property is lost, and occasionally people die.

[Blue_Tires]

130. I'd be *very* interested to know the criminal backgrounds of the out-of-state folks

to see if they have turned up in other "civil unrests" in North America...

[Blue_Tires]

90. i do remember one of the community youth activists

giving a warning in the press about non-local strangers showing up in masse and raising hell...

[No Elephants]

54. "This is my taser; this is my gun. One is for killing; the other's for stun."

Haven't we heard, I thought my gun was my taser" already? Make them very different colors and make them feel very different in the hand.

It's not rocket science.

[ProudDad]

102. Actually, the Foot Locker is an ENTIRELY appropriate target!

Consider this...

I know about this store, I've worked downtown near this store. I've been down there on Broadway hundreds of times...

Consider this...

The building that contains the store is doubtless owned by an absentee landlord; probably a corporation or rich white guy living in luxury... It's HIGHLY unlikely that a black person owns that building.

Consider this...

The store is franchised by other marginalized persons -- immigrants -- who eke out a small living selling overpriced tennis shoes to black people...This I know FOR A FACT.

Consider this...

The "consumer product" this store sells is made by sweat shop labor paid a penny a shoe overseas, shipped thousands of miles using nonrenewable fossil fuels to these franchise operations.

Consider this...

The vast majority of the profit is made by the corporations (Nike, Adidas, etc.) their CEO, executives, advertising agents and a few millionaire "major sports figures" while ripping off kids and their parents for shoes that fall apart within a year (and go "out of style" in 6 months!

Consider this...

Foot Locker is a perfect metaphor for the transnational corporate police state that is the USAmerikan Empire...

Way to go, guys!!!

-----------------------------

PS: Check it out, it was a police riot precipitated by the PIGS!!!!

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/9/outrage_in_oakland_transit_officer_convicted

Especially check out minute 51...!

-----------------------------

And in every crowd there will be a few people who take the opportunity to break something... That's not a riot!

"Those police officers don't live here, they commute in to make sure we don't get out of line!" (paraphrase)...

-----------------------------

It's true! The Oakland PD has two main purposes;

a) Protect (primarily White) interests and make sure "they" don't bother "us"
b) Shovel (primarily young Black males) people into the criminal-injustice system, primarily as part of the phony "War on Drugs(tm)"

I had a couple of minor robberies while living there and upon calling the police was told to fill out a form...

Meanwhile, just about every time I drove up and down M.L.K.Jr. Blvd I would see cops rousting some beat up Toyota looking for a rock of crack so they could shove another brother into prison -- (and rid the voting rolls of another black man).

On Edit:

Oh, yeah, they also scoop up the infrequent dead victim of the phony "war on drugs(tm)" like the poor guy that was murdered in front of our home one night... Of course, they almost never find the "shooter", at least not for the killing. The cops and DAs don't expend a lot of effort on dead Black guys, especially "drug dealers", it's not a part of the exercise...

[superconnected]

104. I don't think who the building is probably owned by and likely isn't black, is a legitmate reason.

"Edited on Fri Jul-09-10 02:00 PM by ProudDad
Consider this...

I know about this store, I've worked downtown near this store. I've been down there on Broadway hundreds of times...

Consider this...

The building that contains the store is doubtless owned by an absentee landlord; probably a corporation or rich white guy living in luxury... It's HIGHLY unlikely that a black person owns that building.

Consider this...

The store is franchised by other marginalized persons -- immigrants -- who eke out a small living selling overpriced tennis shoes to black people...This I know FOR A FACT.

Consider this...

The "consumer product" this store sells is made by sweat shop labor paid a penny a shoe overseas, shipped thousands of miles using nonrenewable fossil fuels to these franchise operations.

"Consider this...

The vast majority of the profit is made by the corporations (Nike, Adidas, etc.) their CEO, executives, advertising agents and a few millionaire "major sports figures" while ripping off kids and their parents for shoes that fall apart within a year (and go "out of style" in 6 months!

Consider this...

Foot Locker is a perfect metaphor for the transnational corporate police state that is the USAmerikan Empire...

Way to go, guys!!!

-----------------------------

PS: Check it out, it was a police riot precipitated by the PIGS!!!!

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/9/outrage_in_oakland...

Especially check out minute 51...!"

--------------------------------------------------
In fact calling the cops pigs and making these broad brush statements against the police is making me wonder if this was written by someone in jail.

[superconnected]

107. But I see you've now deleted all those broad brush statements.

Okay. I wonder if they have any blacks serving on that PD? Just a general wonder after what I read that you deleted.

[ProudDad]

112. I didn't delete ANYTHING...

And yes, the black cops on the Oakland PD are also absentee for the most part and have so successfully assimilated into the host that they are the worst of the worst...

My Black friends were a lot more worried about the Black cops than many of the white ones.

[ProudDad]

111. In your ignorance, I would expect you to say that... (n/t)

[Gormy Cuss]

106. Consider this:

Consider this...

The store is franchised by other marginalized persons -- immigrants -- who eke out a small living selling overpriced tennis shoes to black people...This I know FOR A FACT.

So those immigrant-franchise-holders-eking-out-a-small-living deserve the losses because Foot Locker is a perfect metaphor?

That kind of logic only makes sense to opportunist faux anarchists in hoodies.

[ProudDad]

114. The folks who franchise this store won't suffer any loss

The building owner's insurance will repair the window...

And they were doubtless back in business selling overpriced crap as agents of corporate trans-nationals bright and early this morning!

-----------

So save your pity for the family, partner and child of Oscar Grant!

I hope they win their wrongful death suit against BART!

[Gormy Cuss]

123. Hey, you're the one who presented the franchise owner as an immigrant eking out a living.

Now all of a sudden you've moved them over to the corporate class deserving no consideration.

Based on all of the press reports to date, the family of Oscar Grant did not participate in this stupid statement of breaking windows and associated mayhem. His family is seeking justice through the courts and peaceful demonstrations. Why anyone would associate them with the out of town bums who came to Oaktown to break things and create chaos is beyond comprehension.

[ProudDad]

143. And you should brush up on your reading skills

I was responding to the dumb fucks who questioned that any political message could be conveyed by knocking out the windows of a Foot Locker store.

I was NOT condoning the act...

Reading and comprehension are useful skills in a "communications" medium such as this... :eyes:

[superconnected]

109. It would be nice to know if the riot was incited by the police - they have

done that before. I hope that gets followed up on.

[slackmaster]

122. "Free Shit Thursday" is a tradition in Oakland

They were thieves, not freedom fighters.

[ProudDad]

141. And you have just posted a classic racist stereotype

:puke:


On edit: GAWD! You should really read your shit before hitting "Post" :eyes:

[slackmaster]

144. What's "racist" about stating that people who steal aren't freedom fighters?

:dunce:

I'm serious about Free Shit Thursday. Google it.

You referred to Oakland as a "war zone" yourself, in reply #59. Wouldn't that qualify as racist too?

[larkrake]

113. It was murder, not racial per say, but he did not need to be tasered and when shot, the cop didnt

look surprised or horrified he had shot the man. Too often cops taser people already controlled and they now have a licence to kill. Rioters riot out of frustration when evil is allowed by our courts. No unarmed person should be tasered much less shot. If the man back-talked, is that a reason to taser?

[junior college]

121. I was apprehended by a couple of BART cops one time

for jumping the turnstiles. It was the first of the month and I had forgot to buy a Fast Pass. I was late for work. They were very pleasant and business-like with me. I was given a polite lecture and a ticket to pay. But then again, I'm a white man. Go rioters!!!

[Pavulon]

125. Yeah fight the man and all...

by breaking some shit. At some point people will realize just how much of a joke this activity makes them.

[saigon68]

131. `

[changed4thebetter]

132. No Libraries?

Why not break into and loot libraries? How does disagreeing with a verdict result in looting a Footlocker? Wouldn't looting a library make more of a statement?

[boppers]

133. Libraries serve a useful social function.

"Athletic" overpriced plastic crap, not so much.

[Rex]

137. Maybe because they wanted to throw shoes at the cops...to make a statement.

:eyes:

[ProudDad]

142. And where, except in your own mind, was there any mention of "looting"?

Yet another fucking racist stereotype :puke:

GAWD!!!!

[Doctor_J]

145. Sounds like the actual crowd didn't "storm" at all

they marched peacefully in protest, which used to be protected by the Constitution. A few agents provocateur decided to get on the news.