Posted on Friday, 10/16/2009 - 10:53 p.m. PDT — by CCTModerator
|
Home |
Classifieds |
Real Estate |
Jobs |
Cars |
Place An Ad |
Advertise |
Subscriber Services |
RSS
© Bay Area News Group | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Help |
| MediaNews Group - Northern California Network |
Comments
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 34
I voted "yes," but with reservations. I am a (white) Oakland resident who believes that Mehserle is guilty as all get-out, and everybody else I know thinks so, too. Therefore, I don't think any of us would be very good at being impartial jurors, which is something any defendant is entitled to. I hope Mehserle is found guilty, but for it to be a just verdict, he needs to have a fair and impartial trial. Moving the trial to, say, Los Angeles County would enable the judge to impanel a jury that has no pre-formed opinions about this case, which would ultimately give more legitimacy to their verdict.
However, my answer would be "no" if the trial gets moved to a county with a ethnic composition that is substantially different from Alameda Co. Venue shopping to get a jury with a different racial makeup is repugnant and should not be rewarded.
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 290
C'mon, Simi Valley!
PS. Get over your White guilt, Das.
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 424
people favoring a guilty verdict in this murder trial are in for a huge surprise.
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 692
I'm a white Oakland who does not believe Mesehrle is innocent or guilty and would prefer to make that judgment based on the evidence. If I had to make a statement, it would be that I don't think he is guilty of murder, because my understanding of murder means that it was deliberately planned, but could be guilty of manslaughter. However it would be nice to actually hear the law from the judge and lawyers in the trial, rather than read endless ranting from people who "know" Mesehrle is a dirty no good murdering racist.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Yes, because there is too much fallout in Alameda county.
If he is convicted in a different county then no one can say he was railroaded by an angry local jury and get a mistrial or get off on an appeal. The conviction will stick.
This is how the justice system is supposed to work, in the interests of justice, not the angry mob.
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 4
If you asked 100 white or asians is the guy guilty what would the answer be? 98 percent would say have to see and hear the evidence.
If you asked 100 blacks is the guy guilty 80 to 90 percent would answer "hell yes".
This is why it was moved. don't beleive me go and try it.
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 424
murder vs. manslaughter.
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 5
Wattsill, you make such a lame attempt to hide the fact that you don't like black people.
Joined: Sep 2007
Current Posts: 411
hate to bust your bubble...but yep, Asians in Oakland, SF (and Ocean Beach), San Jo, Tracy, Concord, Foster City & San Mateo say he's guilty of homicide w/ malice, murder (according to the Asian side of my family & all young & older Asians my son & I knew personally)...I'm part Asian & have family that a pure Asian. Everybody was talking about this when it came out, even at my uncle & aunts dinner party. The video was shocking to most who never seen anything like it. Plus Polynesians & Latin, and every white I know & my family knows(in all other cities & towards LA) feel the same except 3 of my uncle's clients say voluntary manslaughter (Japanese & 2 whites). Two doesn't have children. Other than that, I truly don't know anyone or know of anyone who knows anyone who says it was an accident 'except in this forum'. Pirone is the one I really feel is evil. White friends that report for a major paper & use to work for the trib emailed me & said that both should hang. A family friend who reports for ch 4 & his wife says w/ the evidence he's aware of, its leaning towards murder. ...if he feels he's get a fairer trial in another county, I'm all for it. But we'll see. Only God is a reader of hearts & only God can move hearts to bring forth his righteousness. He knows what was in that man's heart. We just know what we believed we seen. Oscar probably forgave that man already. Justice doesn't always come by way of the court. If his mom wants real justice, God's is the best..bible stories verify that for those who hasnt witnessed it...
jus read like 30 postings, lol.. im outta here 4 real this time, bbl
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 88
I voted yes because although I think he is guilty of at least voluntary manslaughter (and perhaps 2nd degree murder if the prosecution can prove his state of mind), it is important that he receive a fair and impartial trial. I don't think he can receive this in this climate.
I applaud the AC DA for taking a stand. Unlike DA Carr in Santa Clara who gives a free ride to rogue officers, this DA makes bad officers pay the same price as the rest of us. Merely have a badge does not give you the right to break the law.
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 5
The judge's decision to change the venue has given Johannes Mesherle the opportunity to get off and for injustice to continue . If the trial is moved to a predominantly conservative and white county, the chances of racism and pro-police bias corrupting a jury pool and a verdict have been increased. That is what happened with police who beat Rodney King being tried in Simi Valley and it can happen here.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
He would have been convicted of manslaughter no matter where he was tried, but the mob decided if he wasn't tried for murder 1 then they'll have to trash the city.
That's what you get for going for the max. You create an opportunity for him to walk.
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 424
Bravo for your clear, terse, summary!
Joined: Sep 2007
Current Posts: 411
voluntary, involuntary, SJ Marine??? And if he walks, he's still going to have to own up for that, you know that right? You don't just end someone's life or disrupts other ppls lives who did nothing to deserve it (No man sins when at war for himself) & face no consequences, Merseler wasn't defending his own life, u realize all this, right? Life is nothing but a cycle. All the wrong things we do & say to other ppl comes right back on us...and w/ a man, sometimes it falls on his own son
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 424
Try re-reading Marine's post more slowly?
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Double jeopardy bluepeas.
Look it up.
You can't try someone for the same crime twice. If he's found not guilty of muder 1, which is the crime he is charged with, he's free as a bird.
Like I said, the mob is dumb as dog s**t.
Perhaps they shouldn't have put so much pressure on the DA to go for the max when volountary manslaughter was already in the bag.
Joined: Sep 2007
Current Posts: 411
I know what double jeopardy is. I was asking if you thought he'd be charged w/ involuntary or voluntary homicide if he wasn't charged w/ muder?
You're only "assumming" that he was charged w/ murder b/c the DA felt pressured. You weren't even in the court rm nor have you heard all the evidence. What we seen on video was merely a few seconds of taping to hours of evidence collected. And what we "couldn't" hear may have been just as critical as what we didn't see. I thought u, of all ppl, had enough common sense to realize that? Too many ppl in this forum that have nothing to do w/ cases in the media & courts assume what they read & what they're told by television news is ALL THERE IS. That is NEVER, EVER the case. Few others & myself have said in this forum 'over & over', don't make that mistake...but it's only common sense. Hell, they teach us this in college & probably the high schools now. Outside of this forum & in our communities, ppl take what they hear in the news w/ a grain of salt. Ppl who aren't very bright read about the worst case scenarios online from the trib & chron, jump to conclusions than become appalled @ the outcome & start jumping to more conclusions if they don't read want they want to hear. That's not very intelligent or logical. Everyone that has dealt w/ the local media & have had cases in the news & courts...or know ppl that have, know there is always waaay more critical information & evidence @ court hearings/trials than what any media is allowed to or have rm to print. Even when the media is in the court rm, there's still much they don't mention, much that is critical to deciding the case. This is why some ppl go to trials & just sit in felony court listening to whats going on AND follow cases of interest in the news.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
"Volountary Manslaughter" would be fitting in my opinion. Although he would have been justified to tase Grant, with Grant face down on the ground there were other alternatives.
And the prosecution has the burden of proof. I don't see how it is possible to prove Mehserle had planned to kill Grant in advance. Without that there was no basis to charge him with murder one in the first place, other than to stop the mob from throwing bottles and setting fires. There's just no getting around that bluepeas.
It worked didn't it?
Joined: Sep 2007
Current Posts: 411
YOU >> I don't see how it is possible to prove Mehserle had planned to kill Grant in advance.
ME >> No, he couldn't have planned to murder Oscar in advance. Besides in Calif I believe Mr Rodgers told me they would have to prove the person planned 24 hrs in advance (if I remember correctly) at least to use premeditated. 1st Degree Murder isn't just reserved for murders committed with premeditation, but also ""extreme cruelty"". Showing great malevolence; disposed to do evil. Having or showing desire to harm others. This is what I found: Murder is usually defined as the "unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought (or "an abandoned and malignant heart"). Malice aforethought refers to the perpetrator's intention of doing harm. So many times u explained his intent to laser Oscar so eloquently, you almost had me convinced
...but now I c that entire reasoning just went out the window w/ u. You're catching on *smile* I thought u were going to say Involuntary, which is a death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner. The perpetrator of manslaughter is assumed to have evidenced less mental culpability. Mersele was in full control, unlike Pirone who was jumping around like an over emotional, psychotic b(ytch) who missed her Prozac. To convict a person of manslaughter, it must be proved that the person who committed the homicide had adequate provocation (this cannot involve words alone), acted in the heat of passion, and lacked the opportunity to cool that passion. There must also be a connection between the incident of provocation, the heat of passion, and the act that caused the homicide. A perfect example of in the heat of passion is the typical yrs of spousal abuse before the victim turns on its perpetrator, or if Oscars witness would have defended himself against Pirone's solid blows, accidentally killing him. A person's profession or position in the victim's life holds no water. It is what it is, human vs human. Before shooting Oscar, Mersele's life was not threatened or at stake. He calmly pulled his gun out, STOOD BACK to get better aim, and fired it.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Well, we'll see during the trial, won't we?
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 2
You're little picture at the bottom of your post says it all. You have totally lost all credibility.
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 88
Aww Papa-san. You are technically incorrect. He can be tried for Murder 1 (he is actually being tried for Murder 2) and can be found guilty of a lesser incuded felony even if the prosecution is not asking for it. Even if he is found not guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, he still can be tried in Federal Court under assault under color of authority USC 242 and receive a lengthly sentence. Just ask Sgt. Koons formally of the LAPD.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
(he is actually being tried for Murder 2)
Link?
Everything I have seen says he was charged with murder one. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just havn't seen anything different.
and can be found guilty of a lesser incuded felony even if the prosecution is not asking for it.
Keep your hopes up. I doubt it though.
he still can be tried in Federal Court under assault under color of authority USC 242 and receive a lengthly sentence.
"If" the feds go after him. Depends on what comes out in court. If the court determines he accidentally used his pistol instead of his taser, then all that goes away.
Like I said, keep your hopes up.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
I found this at findlaw;
"The complaint against Mehserle does not indicate whether he will be tried for first or second degree murder. Under California law, first degree murder must be premeditated and carries a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. Second degree murder is still intentional, but is unplanned and carries a 15 year to life sentence."
commonlaw.findlaw.com/2009/01/bart-shooting-murder-charge-former-officer-mehserle-arrested-and-charged.html
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 3
Any one who watched the video of this event would surely see that it was an accidental death. The brave police officer who was no doubt trying to protect himself and the other officers accidentally shot the scum bag instead of tasing him. I say the cop should be exonerated for what happened.
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 88
either you are just being silly or simply being sarcastic. Brave officer? haha
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 5
Or Bill W is just a racist idiot who wants to call Oscar Grant the N-word but can't because he does not want to have his comment yanked by the editorial staff. Instead he calls him a scumbag. Why? Why is he a scumbag? What has he done to deserve that title, much less be shot in the back? The real scumbags here are: Johannes Mesherle, Tony Pirone and people like you Bill.
"The brave police officer who was no doubt trying to protect himself and the other officers accidentally shot the scum bag instead of tasing him."
Dear God.... Johannes Mehserle shot Oscar Grant in the back while he was face down with Tony Pirone's knee on his neck. Oscar Grant put his hands behind his back in order to be cuffed and was cooperating with the police just before he was shot. This has been well documentated on video. This was no "accidental death"! He was no threat at all! He was unarmed and didn't even have to be tasered; so so much for that defense by his attorney. Mehserle is no " brave police officer", he is a coward who shot an unarmed man in the back while he was face down. The allegations being put forward by Bill W and others are simply just lies perpetuated by racism! The further it becomes obvious that Johannes Mehserle committed murder, the more desperate and outrageous his supporters will become to defend him. Of course, most of this is fueled by their obvious racism, hatred and bias towards African Americans like Oscar Grant; even if it means in defending the murder and murderer of him.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Tell us more....
lol
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 752
"Why is he a scumbag? What has he done to deserve that title, much less be shot in the back?" What did he do to deserve that title? How about commit no less than 11 felonies in his short 22 years! That, in my book, is a scumbag!
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
jif,
According to Oakland etiqutte it's only acceptable for you to call people with Oscar Grant's record a scumbag until he's shot by a cop.
After that, you must refer to him as a martyr, and place his portrait on the wall next to your portraits of Martin Luther King, Malcom X and 2Pac. You must insist against all evidence and logic that he was a good man, a decent father, and never, ever broke the law.
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 1
It dont even matter where you move the trial. This incident has been seen all over the world. I live in Atlanta, when the tragedy occured someone in Miami told me about it. So I understand how the legal system work in order to avoid an appeal. Oakland officials better be learning from LA. I pray that they're prepared for the out come. It ashame they havn't learned anything from the Rodney King case. I'm not a rage against the machine, even though I dont agree with the way the police handle the youth in the name of resisting arrest. Oh boy they have there hands full with this one. A not gulity verdict will destroy oakland. I pray that the resident and small business up there insurance. Because the LA riots will not come close to what oakland has in store. All we can do is Pray for Peace.....
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 692
The LA riots took place in a crowded ghetto ten times the size of Oakland. There were VERY FEW "rioters" at the Oakland "riots" and most of them were out of towners or punks trashing cars and shops for fun. There were not very many good concerned citizens taking the law into their hands. And if the verdict is not guilty ( which we will see) I seriously doubt there will be massive riots in Oakland. Most of the citizens are not interested in tearing up the city. They just want to live their lives out.
And if there are riots, you better believe there will be a strong police presence AND permission to use whatever force is needed to preserve property and lives.
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 5
'And if there are riots, you better believe there will be a strong police presence AND permission to use whatever force is needed to preserve property and lives'
Are you trying imply that the police are going to shoot people and kill them if there is unrest in the wake of a not guilty verdict?
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 692
You're looking for something you won't find here. Define "unrest" and I can better answer your question. Define a riot and I can answer better.
If there is enough violence and threat to life, of course they will (use deadly force). But there won't be. The police will certainly use beanbags, gas, truncheons, and possible water cannon prior to that. You might want to think about what a RIOT is. That is when people take the law into their hands and do damage to persons and property. I doubt that anyone is getting seriously injured over property. If there is a threat to innocent citizen's or officers' lives, the police will use whatever level of force is needed, including deadly force, to put a stop to that threat. And if you were in an apartment building that rioters were throwing firebombs into, I am sure you would feel the same way. Is that clear enough? Deadly force is legal and justified in some instances. Would OPD use deadly force if rioters were marching down the street throwing stones and yelling? Of course not. If one of them starts shooting, the whole game changes.
Joined: Sep 2007
Current Posts: 411
lectlaw [dot] com (hahaha I like that title better)
MURDER, FIRST DEGREE -
READ!!!!! Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many have changed or elaborated on the term in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind. California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). It also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." Malice may be implied by a judge or jury "when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 424
Did you forget that even a buddy of Grant's testified Mehserle seemed shocked & surprised by his having shot Grant? Remember that quote: "oh my god, oh my god, oh my god" he documented Mehserle as having said/looked. And that witness, unlike all us armchair critics, was right up there IN it.
Your use of the words "malice may be implied by a judge or jury" sound an awful lot like "motives of suspect may be projected onto suspect by those who already made up their minds for their own reasons."
Here's a good read from findlaw [dot] com:
"...charges for offenses in which someone dies typically have four options: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, first degree murder or second degree murder.
Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence. Voluntary manslaughter involves an intentional killing without prior plan to kill, in which the circumstances would have caused a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed (such as some "heat of passion" killings)."
So the question becomes, if you insist it's 1st degree murder, how did Mehserle know which train Grant would be on, (let alone how did he even know him from before, to wind up so mad at him?), so that he could supposedly go kill him in front of countless witnesses, as you say he planned?
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 2
I voted "yes" but it is not looking good for the people of Oakland. I don't believe he will be convicted of murder and this will lead to another round of riots for Oakland. I have seen the videos, and can honestly say, I don't know what the hell this man was thinking cause he didn't need to even pull out his taser at the time grant was shot. That being said, I also don't think he went to work that night with the intent to shoot anyone, (black or not) so murder is going to be a tough sell. I am worried that the people of the mindset that this is a clear case of murder will do as they have done before and destroy the city if the verdict is less than what they belive it should be. The watts and rodney king riots will be played out again and numerous innocent people will lose their lives and have their property destroyed. I hope by now people have learned this is not the way to respond. Brace yourself oakland. He will be convicted, just not of murder.