Posted on Friday, 9/04/2009 - 3:11 p.m. PDT — by cl8978
Not sure I understand... There are VIDEOS and that is not enough evidence
|
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 |
Joined: Dec 1969
Current Posts: 41
Wow! Grant's previous gun possession is not an issue. If that was the case, anyone with a conviction is stripped of his rights beforehand regardless of the authorities' behavior. Grant's gun possession may be admissible in a sentencing hearing with the purpose of establishing him as a risk and gaining a reduced sentence. The defense has never presented evidence that the police knew of Grant previous conviction. Never mind that Grant had been frisked before the shooting and was under control.
For the purpose of the police murder trial, only the behavior at the time of the incident is relevant.
The Tazer "expert" is a laughing matter. The issue at stake is if the policeman made a mistake or not. Police procedure is the only guideline relevant. It establishes where to wear the Tazer and the policeman was wearing it according to procedure.
Since this is an evidentiary hearing, establishing purpose or mistake belongs in the trial, where the defense can try to waste the court's time using an "expert" to "guess" what we saw on tape.
This is no small potatoes. A Judge already ruled on these issues and only powerful evidence should be able to overturned Judge Clay's decision.
Smells like a Judge playing politics.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 752
I believe we may learn that the policeman was NOT wearing the TASER according to procedure. Perhaps that will change alot of things about what people perceive or think they "know" from simply watching the video.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 1
Rains (the defense attorney) is blowing it. Let them charge him with murder. In spite of the dozens of videos, he won't get convicted of murder. A manslaughter charge would stick, especially Manslaughter 3. The prosecutor should be very wary of charging Mehserle with murder because to prove intent will be difficult when the guy leaps back after the shot and screams, "Oh F**K, Oh no!!" not to mention the complete and utter stupidity of shooting a guy who's cuffed and on the ground in front of 100 witnesses. These factors will support the accidental shooting idea. Bringing up Grant's previous gun charges: completely irrelevant and yet...so dumb. If the defense strategy is that this was an accident and the prosecutor presses for murder, I predict Mehserle will walk, as unbelievable as that is. So keep screwing up defense! It's crazy like a fox....
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 88
no such thing as manslaughter three.
1st -
2nd
Manslaughter. Either voluntary or involuntary.
Grant's previous actions are not admissible because Grant is not on trial. Merserle would have to prove prior knowledge of this specific event and I doubt he could. Rains is just grapping for straws like any good defense attorney. He might get this one as he got the scumbag Rider's off even though they were guilty as sin. (of course the taxpayers paid out the nose for civil lawsuits). Was this an accident? I doubt it - was it malice aforethought (1st degree murder) - no. Second can stick depending on what can be proved.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 752
No, c18978, videos are not enough evidence to prove murder. Your comment appears to be enough evidence to suggest that you would make a great Alameda County juror. BTW, is your screen name also your CDC Parole number?
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 424
As one example, many viewers erroneously concluded from that one most-often seen video, that the cop Pironi punched Grant in the face.
But a less often seen video, taken from a totally different angle, of the exact same gesture/time, proves it was NOT a punch, but instead, was a tactical attempt by the cop to push Grant to sit down (which, obviously, wouldn't be needed if only Grant had complied with verbal orders).
youtube.com/watch?v=3E1BV3LjMDo
Also, this same other video shows Grant make an arm movement that looks like reaching for the cop's gun, but missing. You never heard THAT discussed by the public - because it's NOT even shown on the more popular video. WHAT ELSE did it not record?
I bet there's more videos that got recorded but just not gone public. Hopefully they'll be shown as evidence in the trial -- regardless what they show. It's a big mistake to think that just one long-range, grainy point of view gives the full perspective of events.
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 88
All parts of the video as well as other video's will be shown on the trial. There is also paid hacks on both sides who will analyze for the video (every tom, dick, and harry is a fricken expert these days) from every angle. Who knows - Rains may pull off Johnnie Cochrane and play the "cop card" (same as the race card except for cops). Of course, much like OJ, he might have gotten off but everyone knew he was guilty as sin.
I am betting that most of what was filmed has already been shown. I would not have surrendered my phone to the cops as they would have destroyed evidence to protect themselves (I would have removed the memory card and hid it - and them sold the video to the losers at Fox for the highest bid)
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
I don't see any correlation between what OJ hacking a man and woman to death and Mehserle shooting Grant.
I mean, it's not like OJ tripped and accidentally stabbed them over and over to death.
And in his trial, OJ's race was his advantage, in this trial, Mehserle's is his handicap.
The only simularity is people wound up dead for stupid reasons.
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 88
I was referring to the question of guilt and innocence by the jury. The jury can decide not guilty but Mehrsele can in fact be guilty as sin. Just look at the OJ case. Cops have the definite advantage as the law permits them a wide latitude -- why do you think the Riders and the two Palo Alto PD officers got off? It wasn't because they were in fact not-guility, it was because the public and the law provide a wider interpretation of force than what is expected of the general public.
By not coming clean from the start - he has shown guilt. I have known plenty of officers who have had good and bad shootings - they do the right thing and sit down with IA and their attorneys. Those who didn't were almost unilaterally guility of the crime.
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 21
was framed. He did not kill Nicole Brown and her boyfriend, Ron Goldman. Simpson was also set up for robbery. The racist could not frame him for the murders so they settled for the lesser charges of armed robbery. Ron Goldman's father is a Greedy Geeky Freak who is causing all of that commotion to get his fifteen seconds of shame. Crying like a little fruity b*&ch, talking about how grieved he is, when in actuality, he should be talking about how greedy he is. Nicole Brown's ugly sister talking about her book on domestic violence like she wrote the book because she is really concern about her sister and others getting the hell beat out of them. She did not write that book because she cared about what happened to her sister or anyone else for that matter, she wrote the book because she is jumping on the money band wagon. Nicole Simpson's mother was calling OJ Simpson a --gger in front of his children is just absurd. Nicole Brown came from a family of racist. The only reason Simpson was accepted into their family because they thought he was rich. And when it comes down to it, the only thing that matters is green. If they did not think Simpson was rich, he would be just another --gger.
Color had nothing to do with the fact that Simpson was found innocent of murdering Brown and Goldman. Simpson was found innocent because the evidence proved that he was innocent. When people are murdered, the first suspects are primarily those who are closest to the victims. And since Simpson is black, the system just ran with the fact that he was guilty.
In the case of the sicko Mehserle, it is assumed that because Mehserle is white he had a valid reason for murdering an unarmed black man, lying face down, with his hands handcuffed behind him.
Both incidence happens more frequently than people care to admit.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Riiiiiiiiiight....
And monkeys fly outta my butt.
Lemme know when the Aliens land to take you to heaven.
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 21
thought you were kidding when you commented that Simpson was actually guilty of the heinous crime of murder. That's why I sent you my post regarding his innocence. But I can clearly see that you are not serious about much of anything are you? In your mind, there could very well be monkeys flying out of your buttocks and aliens having the ability to take people to heaven, but I don't see what that has to do with Simpsons innocence. Because Simpson was framed. He did not killed those white people. The people that killed Brown and Goldman are also white. I know that this is hard for you to fathom because you are a protecter of sorts to white people, but Simpson is not the one you should be gunning down. The bullet you're using has the wrong name on it.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
You realize there are fewer folks that share you're beliefs than there are 9/11 truthers nowadays, right?
Go ahead and believe what you will. Nobody cares about Simpson now that he finally found his way to prison where he belongs. I'm sure he fit right in with all the other sociopaths.
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 21
could care less whether I share the same beliefs as others do or not. And I will believe and know what I choose to without your consent. If no one is interested, why did you comment about him in the first place? You said Simpson belongs in prison, but I say he was framed. The evidence proved that he was innocent of the charges against him. So who are you to judge him as a sociopath?!
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
No idiot, three very expensive and gifted Lawyers created a reasonable doubt, that's all.
There was no evidence that proved him innocent.
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 21
back at you, idiot. And correction, there is no evidence to prove that Simpson was guilty.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
There was more physical and circumstantial evidence to connect Simpson to murder than there was for Scott Peterson.
I wonder why OJ ain't having lunch daily with Scott in death row?
Could it be, MONEY?
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 752
Snap! I guess, Siman, the Marine just made it very clear that green is the only color that made a difference. BTW Siman you do know that we really did land on the moon and it wasn't a film created by the gubmint to fool the citizenry? And Tupac is dead and that isn't a hoax either? Just checking.
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 117
by time any cops would've told you to surrender your hypothetical cellphone recording, fat chance of you sneaking out its memory cards while they got you detained. it would never happen!
but, there was a few hundreds of passengers witnessing the shooting. more than just 1 or 2 of them recorded it on their cellphones. so, how many cops were there? 6? 8? 10 at most? how many weren't totally absorbed into detaining those few men, especially after the shooting? fyi, there's no way cops could even try to confiscate all the cellphones of all the witnesses recording. only maybe try on the few chumps too dumb to not do it right up in their face would even get noticed by them.
btw, your oj-mehserle analogy holds no water. oj already had a long record of past domestic violence attacks against nicole simpson. but, mehserle past history of attacks on grant?
= not so much!
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 88
Mehserle already supposedly had at least one sustained complaint against him (this will come out when the DA orders a Pitchess motion). He has several other people who have made complaints that will probably testify in at least the sentencing phase.
What Rains wants is to introduce evidence that has nothing to do with the state of mind for any of the officers involved. They would have to have personal knowledge of Oscar's previous gun charge (not conviction) and it is 100% doubtful that they do.
You could easily remove a memory card and put it in a place where it could not be found. How would the cops know one way or the other? (most cops frankly can barely turn on a computer on let alone know how a memory stick works) Another smart thing to do is a direct real time You Tube transfer - that way the video is already on You Tube before the cops could even take the phone away and erase the message (and don't tell me they don't do that - I know they can and do "lose" evidence).
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 339
Chris M wrote:
As one example, many viewers erroneously concluded from that one most-often seen video, that the cop Pironi punched Grant in the face.
But a less often seen video, taken from a totally different angle, of the exact same gesture/time, proves it was NOT a punch, but instead, was a tactical attempt by the cop to push Grant to sit down (which, obviously, wouldn't be needed if only Grant had complied with verbal orders).
youtube.com/watch?v=3E1BV3LjMDo
Also, this same other video shows Grant make an arm movement that looks like reaching for the cop's gun, but missing. You never heard THAT discussed by the public - because it's NOT even shown on the more popular video. WHAT ELSE did it not record?
I bet there's more videos that got recorded but just not gone public. Hopefully they'll be shown as evidence in the trial -- regardless what they show. It's a big mistake to think that just one long-range, grainy point of view gives the full perspective of events.
You should be a defense lawyer, Chris. You're good.
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 424
Very nice of you to say - especially since you & me often disagree. But I really appreciate it. Thanks!
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 339
Well, Chris, it's my pleasure. Although you should know I did mean it as a tongue in cheek insult. I figured, considering your usual political leanings, that you weren't the biggest fan of defense lawyers, which is what I compared you to. But if you appreciate the label, I'll take any good karma I can get. Glad you took it as a compliment.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 202
They let this guy off for that open handed cold blooded murder of that young man the family must win the settlement cases no matter how long it takes never give up and don't give up on the memory of Oscar and is young child that now has to grow up in a world with out her dad to give her that basic support. other wise it's going to be a lot of bloodshed at Bart station all around the city.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 2
Micheal O'Connor is my brother: you spelled his name wrong
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 2
Micheal O'Connor is my brother: you spelled his name wrong
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 424
"Micheal O'Connor is my brother: you spelled his name wrong"
Are you sure? Because you spelled "Michael" wrong. (twice)
...I'm jus' sayin'.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
[cokespew]
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 21
Is that insulting jackass serious about whether he is deciding to throw out the case against that creep for murder?! I'll just bet the idiot thinks that black community have forgotten that incident of the murderous former officer Meserle commiting his heinous crime against an unarmed man while his hands was in hand cuffs.
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 117
1. this choice was about what crime to charge: murder or manslaughter. no it's not the choice between going to trial or going free like you seem to think.
2. no grant was not handcuffed at the time. if only grant would have let the stupid cop cuff him, instead of frustrating him by refusing to let himself get handcuffed, this whole mess never would have happened. also it would've never happened if grant didn't fight on the train while under the effects of illegal drugs and also transporting cocaine = all as a possible 3rd strikes offense he chose to do that could land him back in prison if he allowed himself to get arrested.
what's insulting is how easy some race-card playing fools like you forget grant's role in his own demise.
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 21
when you refer to me as a fool, you must have confused me with yourself and your family members. And the article stated whether or not murder charges should be thrown out. If those clowns think that they can get away with throwing out the murder charges, they think that will be able to get away with throwing out the manslaughter charges as well. And the crime that Mehserle commited is not worthy of the charges of manslaughter. Mehserle commited cold blooded murder and that is what he should be charged with. This is not going to go away quietly into the night as some of you would like to happen.
You are totally in denial! Because Grant was handcuffed. That is problem with people like you with your racist narrow minds. You can't see or accept the truth for what it is if you got the hell beat out of you with it.
You are sick if your disturbed [bleep] thinks that anyone who saw what happened is going to believe that Grant is responsible for what happened to him. I was on that train when Grant was murdered. I saw the whole thing, you sick twisted freak!!
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
I was on that train when Grant was murdered. I saw the whole thing, you sick twisted freak!!
Sounds to me like Mehserle accidentally shot the wrong [bleep].
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 21
accident about it! What Mehserle did was deliberate! He murdered Grant in cold blood. And if you are refering to me as an [bleep], look in the mirror.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
I already know I'm an [bleep], thank you, but I think you're the one in denial.
And I know first hand the difference between an intentional killing and a f**k-up. I've seen both.
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 21
I'm not in denial. I know I'm not an [bleep]s. But thank you anyways. Yeah, I know that difference also. What Mehserle did was real. Man! That was whacked!!!
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Definantly guilty of manslaughter.
Trying him for murder may make folks like you happy, but it's going to be awful difficult to prove premeditation. And if he's aqcuitted of murder, you can't try him a second time for manslaughter(Double Jeopardy) so congratulations, he walks free.
Perhaps getting charged with murder is in his best interests...
I think you need to think this through.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 752
Siman will you be testifying in the case against Mehserle? If so, you might want to do a few things before your testimony: 1) Mention to the DA that you have been posting your thoughts and opinions about the subject before your actual testimony (I'm certain Rains' office is following most of these threads for impeachment purposes!); 2) If the DA is still stupid enough to put you on the stand, take half a v a l i u m so you're not so keyed up. You sound like you were using some of the coke that Grant had on him; and 3) Remember to only testify about what you actually saw with your own eyes and not all the media hyped video footage that "proves" Grant was handcuffed before he was shot. OK?