the fact this question or idea is even being considered, I hope that this possibility and reality (if true) is thoroughly and seriously considered and jurors are given privacy or protection. In addition to aggressive - if not hermetically sealed proceedings with no or scant media coverage.
If a juror does not feel completely comfortable they should excuse themselves.
The behavior around this has been adolescent to say the least. Harrassment and threats are acts that only lower entities exhibit (at best) - so grow up and allow this to be a fair trial without childish BS or go crawl back under the rock you slithered under - lol
Mehserle shot a helpless man in the back, with multiple witnesses and video evidence. A "not guilty" verdict could mean only one thing- that a white cop can kill a black man whenever he wants to and walk.
Do you really think a black man from Oakland could use the "I thought I was pulling my taser (or my slingshot, or my TV remote, or my crack pipe, or whatever)" defense?
I don't care how much of a Limbaugh-loving GOP anti-Obama Tea Partier you are, it's pretty sad if you're rooting for a "not guilty" verdict based on racial reasons.
needs to be focused on what aspect of the penal code properly defines this act. This was clearly a homicide at the hands of another. So the issue at hand is "what" codified CA criminal statute has been violated. The public fueled by the media has chosen to call it a murder. Now did this act have the corpus (elements of the statute) present? If you read section 187PC you will see that part of the corpus is that the responsible has to have had "malice aforethought" in commission of the killing. This, I predict is not going to be able to be proved to the jury by the prosecution and so the defendent will either be found guilty of manslaughter or acquitted.
i'm not saying what he did was justified, all i'm saying is that with today's society, the "law abiding" citizens of oakland will go absolutely insane if they don't hang him on the spot! they want a lynching at the trial and anything less they will riot. everyone knows it and the taxpaying jurors know it, and for fear of another L.A. riot on their hands, they will find him guilty and crucify him, even though it was an accident.
It's not a lynching if an obviously guilty murderer gets convicted and punished by law. Instead of your bizarre claim that Grant's murder was an "accident," why don't you just admit that you think that white cops should be granted a license to kill black men?
be tried fairly in the Bay Area. The comment "It's not a lynching if an "obviously"? guilty murderer gets convicted and punished by law, clearly shows that the majority of Bay Area residents have already judged this officer via the media coverage which is NOT how the criminal justice system is administered. This officer is not guilty of ANYTHING until all the evidence and testimony is heard by a JURY and THEY decide whether the facts presented prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a murder and not the unlawful or accidental killing of another.
all I expect to see is that the officer gets a fair trial based on the evidence and the LAW. Your description of malice DOES NOT meet the litmus test.
Unfortunately, this is just another O.J., Rodney King style FIASCO fueled by racism. I often wonder what would have been the verdict in the O.J. case had Nicole been BLACK and O.J. WHITE!!!
Posted on Saturday, 10/17/2009 - 9:19 a.m. PDT — by baysaw
Comments
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
I choose not to vote on this and only comment
the fact this question or idea is even being considered, I hope that this possibility and reality (if true) is thoroughly and seriously considered and jurors are given privacy or protection. In addition to aggressive - if not hermetically sealed proceedings with no or scant media coverage.
If a juror does not feel completely comfortable they should excuse themselves.
The behavior around this has been adolescent to say the least. Harrassment and threats are acts that only lower entities exhibit (at best) - so grow up and allow this to be a fair trial without childish BS or go crawl back under the rock you slithered under - lol
There - I said it - blah
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
Mehserle shot a helpless man in the back, with multiple witnesses and video evidence. A "not guilty" verdict could mean only one thing- that a white cop can kill a black man whenever he wants to and walk.
Do you really think a black man from Oakland could use the "I thought I was pulling my taser (or my slingshot, or my TV remote, or my crack pipe, or whatever)" defense?
I don't care how much of a Limbaugh-loving GOP anti-Obama Tea Partier you are, it's pretty sad if you're rooting for a "not guilty" verdict based on racial reasons.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
needs to be focused on what aspect of the penal code properly defines this act. This was clearly a homicide at the hands of another. So the issue at hand is "what" codified CA criminal statute has been violated. The public fueled by the media has chosen to call it a murder. Now did this act have the corpus (elements of the statute) present? If you read section 187PC you will see that part of the corpus is that the responsible has to have had "malice aforethought" in commission of the killing. This, I predict is not going to be able to be proved to the jury by the prosecution and so the defendent will either be found guilty of manslaughter or acquitted.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
When you've pushing a guy around and are bullying him facedown on the concrete before you shoot him, that shows malice "aforethought."
If it were black men with the guns and a white cop on the ground, same exact actions, would your desire for acquittal be a little different?
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 50
i'm not saying what he did was justified, all i'm saying is that with today's society, the "law abiding" citizens of oakland will go absolutely insane if they don't hang him on the spot! they want a lynching at the trial and anything less they will riot. everyone knows it and the taxpaying jurors know it, and for fear of another L.A. riot on their hands, they will find him guilty and crucify him, even though it was an accident.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
It's not a lynching if an obviously guilty murderer gets convicted and punished by law. Instead of your bizarre claim that Grant's murder was an "accident," why don't you just admit that you think that white cops should be granted a license to kill black men?
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
be tried fairly in the Bay Area. The comment "It's not a lynching if an "obviously"? guilty murderer gets convicted and punished by law, clearly shows that the majority of Bay Area residents have already judged this officer via the media coverage which is NOT how the criminal justice system is administered. This officer is not guilty of ANYTHING until all the evidence and testimony is heard by a JURY and THEY decide whether the facts presented prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a murder and not the unlawful or accidental killing of another.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
all I expect to see is that the officer gets a fair trial based on the evidence and the LAW. Your description of malice DOES NOT meet the litmus test.
Unfortunately, this is just another O.J., Rodney King style FIASCO fueled by racism. I often wonder what would have been the verdict in the O.J. case had Nicole been BLACK and O.J. WHITE!!!