Posted on Wednesday, 5/20/2009 - 12:41 p.m. PDT — by Ann65
SUCH LIARS. Woffinden, Rains both Liars. It's very's obvious from Mr. Woffinden testomony, that he is lying through his A S S. As for Mehserle attorney, (Theres is no malice because Mr. Mehserle did not intend t shoot Mr. Grant) Mr. Grant was actively, actively resisting arrest. (Stupid A s S ............. Liar) Although many of us was'nt there, we can all see from the video that Mr Grant was NOT! resisting arrest, and how in the H E L L can the officer not know the difference between his GUN and his TASER. THANK GOD FOR THE MANY VIDEO RECORDINGS FROM THE PASSENGERS. WITHOUT THESE RECORDINGS OF EVIDENCE, MR. MEHSELER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH MURDER, JUST LIKE MANY OTHER W H I T E OFFICERS HAS BEEN FOR YEARS WHEN THEY KILL MANY INNOCENT BLACK MEN. THEY LIED, LIED, LIED FOR MANY YEARS.
|
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: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
"THANK GOD FOR THE MANY VIDEO RECORDINGS FROM THE PASSENGERS. WITHOUT THESE RECORDINGS OF EVIDENCE"
Unfortunately for you and the rest of the mob, that video also shows that all of those officers (Except for the moment mehserle pulled the wrong weapon) acted within the California Peace Officer Standards and Training.
When a drunken combative mob outnumbers police officers, cops are authorized measures of force to maintain control. Unlike you, the jury will also be given all of the surrounding situational considerations that lead to escalated force, and when it all comes out, there won't be any convictions for anyone but mehserle.
It ain't murder unless it's premeditated, and there's no way to prove premeditation. At best he'll do time for volountary manslaughter, that is all.
Hope you're not too disappointed.
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 60
Mehserle's former BART partner describes 'busy and chaotic night'
Yeah, and thats perfectly valid....drunken combative mobs (about 3)...armed, trained experienced officers (urinating in their pants)...acting withn the California Peace Officer Standards and Training..ok?
This guy walks, youre going to see Oakland Outraged people of color and citizens REACTING within their Standards and training of outright outrage and recession driven frustration to BURN OAKLAND TO A CINDER.
Maybe then, they'll get it right. And it will hang on Mehserle and his family for the rest of their existence.
This is just the beginning. It is unfortunate, but the chain of injustice is an unending and unrelenting one is it not?
If only the right thing was done in the first place.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
This guy walks, youre going to see Oakland Outraged people of color and citizens REACTING within their Standards and training of outright outrage and recession driven frustration to BURN OAKLAND TO A CINDER.
First of all, he ain't gonna walk. He will do time for manslaughter, probably 4-8.
But kindly explain to me why the rest of us should be concerned with a community that burns itself to the ground? Especially when most of those fools aren't even from Oakland?
You should be out there protecting your city, not tearing it down.
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 60
Agreed. Just frustrated. He'll do time. Just like the soldier (Steven Dale Green) did for raping and killing those Iraqi's.
No one is above the law. Dont concern yourself with Oakland burning. Way too laid back. Sporadic protests. There has never been a riot on the level of SC LA during Rodney King. The last big riot was the Oakland Army Induction riot of the 60s. Even the Bobby Hutton murder in Richmond (and I had relatives around during that time)
This was just a rant. Your right, I should be out there protecting my city. And you need not concern yourself with it , either. In this situation, NO ONE looks good.
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 1
It's so sad that such a tragic accident happened. It was an accident, infortunately some people can't be convinced that that is what occured. Can you imagine anyone killling a person in broad view of Bart riders? I can't, but when you feel justified in what you believe good luck . I have hope in humanity. I would hate to see Oakland burned to cinders because the results aren't what you perceive them to be.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 8
Why are drunk drivers charged with murder then when they have no intent to kill anyone?
Anyway, this may not be first degree murder, but it is surely second degree. He was a trained professional with a deadly weapon, and he has a responsibility to know which weapon he's using.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Why are drunk drivers charged with murder then when they have no intent to kill anyone?
Getting behind the wheel drunk is like playing russian roulette with someone elses skull, that's why. A drunk driver has the intent to place others at risk, using a weapon far deadlier than a pistol.
"It is stated that malice for the purpose of DUI murder are acts by the defendant that represents conscious disregard for human life, that the defendant knew his conduct was dangerous to others and had blatant disregard for any damage he/she caused. The defendant’s treatment history for alcoholism can be brought before the court as evidence that the defendant knew his/her conduct was dangerous and sought treatment before driving drunk again, when the death occurred.
In most DUI murder convictions, malice is inferred from the defendant’s handling a weapon that may cause death. In the case of a drunk driver, it is said that the mere driving of a car on the road demonstrates the defendant handled a dangerous weapon."
Fact is, far more people are killed by drunk drivers than accidentally shot in the back by idiot cops.
I don't see a connection.
Anyway, this may not be first degree murder, but it is surely second degree. He was a trained professional with a deadly weapon, and he has a responsibility to know which weapon he's using.
Good point. But that's a stretch in court. You still have to prove intent.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 8
We know that stun guns can kill people, too. So he had intent to harm. That he pulled the wrong weapon is gross negligence beyond words. There is no room for error here. He is a trained professional allowed to walk the streets with a lethel weapon.
With authority comes responsibility. If he had the authority to carry lethal weapons, he has a responsibility, and not concerned enough to determine if he had the correct weapon is unacceptable.
Guilty: second degree murder.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
We know that stun guns can kill people, too. So he had intent to harm.
Then why do so many cops nationwide carry them? Less than 200 people have died from being tased out of the hundreds of thousands (Including myself) who have been tased. Of those 200 almost all of them were either under the influence or had medical problems the cop had no way of knowing about.
Now explain to me how many of those folks would have died from gunshot wounds had cops not been issued tasers?
Cops use tasers to AVOID SHOOTING YOU, not because they want to hurt you.
This case is only different because the moron grabbed his gun instead. If he grabbed the right weapon we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You're voice can be a deadly weapon when someone has heart trouble. Don't be melodramatic.
That he pulled the wrong weapon is gross negligence beyond words.
I agree entirely. But gross negligence is not murder or even murder 2.
There is no room for error here. He is a trained professional allowed to walk the streets with a lethel weapon.
Agreed.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 8
I'm exhausted. Lighten up.
The guy is guilty..
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Of manslaughter.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 8
I think second degree murder. You think manslaughter. OK.
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 339
The most limp wristed, milk kneed, apologetic rant for a killer that I've ever seen, SJ Marine. Congrats.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Blow me, "Bob"
I think they were both idiots. Can you prove otherwise?
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 339
I don't blow anyone. Sorry. And if I were you I'd keep my advances in a closer circle, soldier. 'Don't ask, don't tell' is still in effect. Anyway, I was only complimenting your thorough defense of a killer. You should practice law in criminal defense. You can specialize in defending disgraced cops. There'll be no shortage of clients, especially in Oakland.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Why aren't you out there trying to get every cop who has accidentally killed someone?
Lets see, there are the cops who shot kids who had water pistols that looked like guns, the cops who filled that one brother with about 50 bullets for raising his wallet in NY....the list goes on.
Are they all bloodthirsty premeditated murderers, or does s**t just happen sometimes?
Don't worry, BART will pay heftily for his f**k up and the rest of us will pay for it.
Claiming Mehserle stepped out of his house that day thinking, "I'm gonna execute a black man in cold blood today, with fifty people watching and recording, makes you at least partially retarded.
But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 339
SJ Marine, well said. As far as I'm concerned, you've passed the bar. I havent' seen such a valiant defense for a killer's actions since Johnny Cochrane.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Except OJ Meant to kill, Mehserle probably didn't.
Big difference.
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 339
"probably didn't"...LOL.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
That's right. no way to be sure 100%, but absolutely no hope of proving otherwise.
If you think you can prove intent, make your case.
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 339
No, it's just that you're so sure of yourself when you say that he "PROBABLY" didn't. LOL.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Be pragmatic for a moment;
Can you prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that Mehserle consciously intended to end that man's life with all those people watching and taping?
I'd love to hear your case.
Doesn't matter what you THINK, you can only convict someone based on what you can PROVE.
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 339
OK, got ya. He "probably" didn't do it intentionally. Again, you sound so sure of yourself, with the whole "probably" description of your point of view. Considering the OPD's reputation, one could say that Mixon was "probably" defending himself, too. But I don't think so. I think he's a scumbag, and I think the cop that shot Grant was drunk with power and pulled the trigger to reenforce that power. He's a murderer, like Mixon. Anyone looking at it from an indendent point of view can see it. But apologists for either side (as you are for the cop) can't. They only see what their ideology allows them to see.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
"OK, got ya. He "probably" didn't do it intentionally. Again, you sound so sure of yourself, with the whole "probably" description of your point of view."
Well considering how many of you are so positive he was stupid enough to intentionally execute someone with so many witnesses, I thought I would be the voice of dissention, especially since I have seen and heard of simular screwups made in the past.
But you clearly most of you have a beef with the OPD in general, so it wouldn't matter to at all if it was an accident, would it?
"Considering the OPD's reputation, one could say that Mixon was "probably" defending himself, too."
No one whose opinion matters. The evidence in that case is over[bleep]ingwhelming. Felons on parole don't have the right to "self defense" from cops.
"But I don't think so."
See? You can be reasonable.
"I think the cop that shot Grant was drunk with power and pulled the trigger to reenforce that power."
So you will consider giving a pile of swine excrament like Mixon the benefit of the doubt, but not a public servant?
What if Mixon was White and Mehserle was black?
You'd have a rapist serial killer and an accidental shooting.
Nothing more.
"He's a murderer, like Mixon."
He didn't rape or run from his crime. He turned himself in instead of kill as many as possible. No they are not the same thing, not by a long shot.
"Anyone looking at it from an indendent point of view can see it."
Now you're starting to sound like a loon again.
"But apologists for either side (as you are for the cop) can't. They only see what their ideology allows them to see."
Yep, you're a loon.
Sorry Bob, but it is you who is looking at the issue from a certain side. I've made my points, refute them if you can.
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 339
It's not about debate. It's about murder. It's about right and wrong. Mixon and Mehserle are killers. Hopefully one day you'll have to moral courage to say it. But I'll wait for you while you struggle between morality and your ideology. Semper Fi.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
"It's not about debate. It's about murder. It's about right and wrong."
Killing someone by accident is not murder, Whackin' four public servants to avoid prison is though.
"Mixon and Mehserle are killers."
That is in fact true. They have both killled. The difference is WHY.
"Hopefully one day you'll have to moral courage to say it."
I just did.
"But I'll wait for you while you struggle between morality and your ideology."
There is no struggle.
"Semper Fi."
Hoorah.
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 424
On Oct. 13, 2008, an 18 year old Hayward resident was shot and killed at the Hayward BART station, in broad daylight, in front of many witnesses, by a 20 year old Hayward resident ... who got arrested and charged for the slaying.
3 months later, at the very same Hayward BART station, a 23 year old man was shot in the face by a 20 year old man.
If it matters, all those shooters and victims were black men.
Just like the majority of over 100+ murders in Oakland, Richmond, and East Bay, every year, are. Year after year.
But they garner NO OUTRAGE from the public . NO PROTESTS, NO RIOTS. NO NOTHING.
Go figure.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 264
When the day is done, it appears police don't want to answer for their actions anymore than the average criminal. In fact, several spend all their time it seems arguing that the police deserve special dispensation for their crimes and that because of the difficult nature of their jobs that they shouldn't have to answer period for their actions. What a pitiful and miserable group of cowardly public employees! Every time I read something Rain says it disgusts me.
Joined: Dec 2007
Current Posts: 129
All throughout Firefox's home are little caskets, each covered by a foreign flag. Inside each, a misbegotten word that had hoped it would be part of a cogent thought.
Sleep well, little ones: you shall be ressurrected to serve in battle another day.
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 290
Somewhere, Firefox just fell off her high horse due to the verbal b itch-slap she just received.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Spectacular....lol
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 264
SJ, I got a pretty good idea of who wears the pants in your family and Eggwhiny-littleboy's too.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
I let wifey be in charge in the bedroom, does that count?
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 35
This guy came to BART after stints with Moraga and Pleasant Hill...all within 10 years? And he wets his pants while responding to a fight at a BART station? Chaotic? Yes. Busy? Yes. A difficult job? Yes. Demanding? Yes. But credibility is affected and the situation is tainted by hyperbole - he was in fear for his life looks like a thinly veiled attempt to support his partner's lack of focus. This guy's account reflects poorly on his department and the rest of the law enforcement community.
I'm also bothered by his recollection of the "sound." Wouldn't a "loud Taser" sound like a gunshot just as a quiet gunshot may sound like a Taser? And what the hell does it matter?
BART better offer solid and honest testimony. Attempts to paint a better picture will make the scene uglier in the end.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 8
What a wus. Did he think a BART police officer was giving out parking tickets? I don't believe him either.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 22
As a redneck, I don't think much of thugs like Oscar Grant but, no one deserves to be murdered facing down in the ground and unarmed, regardless. I despise the actions of BART police and its cops. All I hear is excuses and lies. This redneck have no sympathy for BART this time. Go hang yourself. Justice must be served, and SEEN to be served.
Joined: Sep 2007
Current Posts: 411
Say we did go w/ the accidental taser scene, it takes us BACK to the same question...WHY WOULD HE "SHOOT/TASER" SOMEONE CO-OPERATING AND ALREADY ON HIS BACK...when tasers are assigned to police officers & correctional officers to be used "only" on violent "suspects/inmates" unarmed & resisting arrest? The "least" Mersele could get is 14 yrs for involuntary manslaughter, but the sentence will be his least worry if he goes to state prison. As bad as folks want to get their hands on him, more than likely he'll come out in a pine box, although I prefer he's left in God's hands. He's going to do extremely hard time whether he's in pc or solitary confinement(where he'll have to sleep w/ one eye open), on the tiers (which they'll throw him over), or in a unit (where they'll stick him like a pig on the line). Even if he pays for protection or buys his life back, nothing is guaranteed in pc or confinement. The 1st link shows what tasers look like & both ways they can be used on a suspect. The links under that are painful videos of officers & Marines in training getting tasered.
Armed and Famous Taser Scene; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UncMrAt5gE4&feature=related
Police recruits get tazed (really funny): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyNZi4ZwiUo&NR=1
3 cops get tasered: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxmEhq9X6zE&feature=related
Joined: Sep 2007
Current Posts: 411
o yea, and by law the safety on his gun is suppose to be on lock at all times...to prevent this kind of chaos. Man, Mersele is a f(uk) up and he'll be financially & emotionally paying for this heartless act for most part of his life, whatevers left of it.
-GOOD NIGHT ALL
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
I think you mean safety, not lock.
Bart PD carry Sigs, and just like my Glock they don't have a safety.
The trigger is the safety.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 752
Hey Marine, aren't you getting worn out refuting all this ghetto logic and the silly histrionic concern for a man who would have ended up murdered at the rate he was going?
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
It' my hobby.....lol
I can only spend so much time in the gym, and so much money on ammo ya know...I also ran out of things to fix on my cars....lol
Joined: Sep 2007
Current Posts: 411
Well u know what I mean, (safety-lock)
Mines don't have one either. It's to much trouble...but, actually I got that statement(above) from one of the specialists interviewed in one of the Oscar articles when it first happened
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Most gunfights in law enforcement are over in less than 2 seconds, at a range of ten meters or less.
Example: The model 1911 .45 is widely considered the best handgun design ever, and for guys like me who have trained with it over a great period of time, it is.
But the 1911 has three safeties, a palm safety (Won't fire unles your palm depresses the lever running down the back of the pistol grip) a lever thumb safety which must be off to fire, and a hammer half cocking mechanism (You can set the hammer halfway back so the weapon won't discharge if the hammer is struck inadvertantly or dropped) but you must manually full c.o.c.k the hammer for it to fire.
Problem is, there were some guys who were not as familiar with it or simply screwed up at the moment of truth and got killed because they couldn't draw fast enough and make the weapon ready without forgetting something.
So several firearm manufacturers came out with sidearms that were safe to carry with a round chambered, that had all the weapon's moving parts internal. You can drop a loaded Sig or Glock off a ten story building and they will not discharge. The trigger has to be pulled for the weapon to fire, hence the trigger is the safety.
This makes it much easier to draw and shoot quickly without screwing up and forgetting something, (I can draw and get 4-5 rounds out of my Glock on target in less than two seconds) but greater care and awareness of the weapon is required. (It's also easier for someone to take it from you and kill you with it)
It's also more efficient for some military units, but there are more bonehead handling accidents as well, which is part of the reason our military primarily still uses the Beretta. But some units are issued with Sigs (Seals) because the .45 round is easier to silence with a suppressor and many foreign Governments swear by using Glocks.
"Reaction time is life"
Mehserle had one in the tube with the weapon ready, (which is perfectly acceptable for someone who knows the difference between his taser and his pistol) but his training screwed that up.
His mind went for the taser, but due to his "muscle memory" his hand went for his pistol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_memory
His training was firearm heavy until a few weeks prior they were issued tasers. He hadn't trained nearly enough going for that taser and as a result he completely f**ked up when he was multi-tasked.
It's not a rare thing. Happens in the military too. I knew a Marine who died in Fallujah because he re-engaged with his empty rifle instead of his loaded pistol when he was momentarily distracted while reloading and communicating.
Don't mistake my candor with a lack of empathy. These screwups are tragic, and will happen occasionally no matter how much you train, but can occur much less frequently with more time at the range practicing scenarios.
After all, it's the human mind that controls the body, but that level of control is degraded when stress is introduced.
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 60
"His mind went for the taser, but due to his "muscle memory" his hand went for his pistol."
Mehserle's going to be introduced to a different kind of "muscle" in the pen. His level of control will be definitely degraded when the lifers get to him.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
Don't get your hopes up.
They don't put cops in general population.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 5
Maybe the Bart cop was going for his taser. Maybe he did grab the wrong weapon. The problem here is that the double standard being illustrated-blatantly-by the 'justice' system is so ugly that people cannot tolerate it. The cop did something unbeliveable, he shot a man lying face down in the back. Clearly the cop was all revved up and ready-to-rumble. The courts must, must, treat this with an even hand and allow the people the justice they seek. If the cop is guilty, he should be handed the same sentence that anyone would get; murder one; seven years. Protecting this cop is too expensive as it is divisive, shows other cops lying, costs way too much money and clearly shows the duplicity of the injustice system at work. People would be right to protest violently on this one. Oooops is not an excuse.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
OJ was acquitted regardless of the evidence. Scott Peterson was convicted of circumstancial evidence and now sits on death row.
They both murdered people with malice and forethought. The only real difference is skin color and public opinion.
And you wanna stick this guy in the same category?
Exactly what double standard are you referring to?
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 5
Citing OJ & Peterson is exactly right Marine. These were high profile cases where the judge and crony lawyers were forced to practice in daylight. The overwhelming majority of cases actually take place in a private courtroom where the judge can make a deal with the lawyer (s) and place expediency well ahead of justice. The judge wants to go to lunch, get paid, the attorneys want to be glorified and paid. The defendant is oftentimes the victim, alone in a room full of arcane legal practices designed to baffle and allow the others to wrestle control and steer the outcome to their personal end. This is not justice nor it is the practice of law. The BART shooting was a tradgedy, for both the victim and the cop. Whatever the case, the cop did shoot him in the back. As a Marine, you know all too well what that means. What we are witnessing here is a judge and the police union trying to wiggle their way out of the law. The very same law they are sworn to uphold. That alone makes people uncomfortable with the justice system even if they cannot adequately express that angst; they imply know it in their bones. For you, as a Marine, you understand all too well the right of the strongest as being paramount to all other rights. Might makes right to an armed man, like the BART cop. Grant was unarmed. Period. What has happened to you, as I read your comments, is that you have fallen into that most inane and oldest of imperial traps; the strongest is never strong enough to be the master all of the time, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Force is a physical power and it has no positive moral effect. Your duty notwithstanding, it does not help you to defend an injustice regardles of how obedient you have become.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 601
I don't know what you're smoking but you should share it.
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 424
Rght, thank goodness for the videos, but... most folks haven't seen the OTHER videos, that were taken from the right side, instead of the left side -- and from more close up, than the many from the train.
These have been in limited public distribution ... no doubt, more wisely reserved to use as evidence in the courts of law, instead of the "courts" of public opinion.
What they show clearly is Oscar Grant earlier resisting cop Pirone. It showns Grant trying to grab the cop's gun (but able to get it), during a scuffle where cop Pirone is trying to get Grant to sit down against the wall.
A later scene more clearly DOCUMENTS the FACT of Grant resisting cop Mehserle from grabbing his arms for handcuffing, by keeping them firmly tucked together, concealed under his own prone body weight, when he was face-down on the ground. If you haven't seen them by now, you surely will, after Mehserle gets acquitted of murder and gets a reduced sentence for negligent manslaughter - if anything.
Thank Goodness these videos were made - and will eventually put to rest all the false propaganda being circulated based on imposing desired (but unfactual) interpretations onto grainy distant videos that do not show what is widely claimed of them.
Meanwhile, since then, a few dozen more black folks have gotten shot to death by other black folks (from teens to adults) in intentional acts of murder in Oakland, Richmond, and nearby in the SF area. So ironic that those decrying the Grant shooting couldn't care less about these other tragedies. But their silence just shows them for the agenda-fueled hypocrites that they are.