Skip to comments.
Mehserle's letter to the public
San Francisco Chronicle / sfgate.com ^
| Friday, July 9, 2010
| Chronicle Staff Report
Posted on 07/09/2010 2:33:46 PM PDT by thecodont
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-180 next last
To: HiTech RedNeck
Is it possible to eat Cheetos to it, rather than drink? :-)
I'm sure it is, but eww.
(not a big fan of orange powder, either)
I'm gonna have to go with a nice, big steak. Medium rare.
.-)
81
posted on
07/09/2010 5:49:47 PM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: Filo
"The jury got it wrong." That is your OPINION and it has all the majesty and glory of Monday morning quarterbacking.
The jury verdict is a FACT and is backed by the LAW.
82
posted on
07/09/2010 5:51:54 PM PDT
by
Enterprise
(As a disaster unfolds, a putz putts.)
To: bike800
No. Those who think he should not be called murderer for what may have been a mistake...would be the first to scream “murderer” if he was a common civilian and the victim of that mistake was a cop.
To: Filo
a taser is a potentially leathal weapon You are absolutely wrong. There has NEVER been one single case where a taser has been the medical cause of death. Never.
Mehserle had no reason to draw, more or less use his taser, and certainly not his gun.
Again, the scene was not safe until the suspect was controlled. Period.
84
posted on
07/09/2010 5:54:40 PM PDT
by
Ophiucus
To: Filo
That might even be the most likely explanation, however only a reasonable doubt is necessary to bar a conviction for it. The doubt that says “there is evidence pointing to the possibility that Mehserle was unaware that he had pulled the wrong weapon until it was too late.” Such as Mehserle’s comment to his colleague before the shooting that he was going to use a Taser, and the “d’oh!” gesture immediately after the shooting.
The system that provides (in principle) a margin of error in favor of the peon, did the same for the jackboot. C’est la vie. I’d still sooner be a peon here than in a lot of other places. If something needs to be under particular scrutiny, it is probably not this particular case, but whether there will follow a rash of similar cases. The Taser company IMHO should take Mehserle at face value and hire him as a consultant to make it harder to make that mistake with future models of the Taser.
85
posted on
07/09/2010 5:54:54 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: DJ MacWoW
Have you read his rap sheet? In and out of jail.
Yeah. For violating California's radical leftist gun control laws.
To: Vendome
Great! Glad you brought up the O.J. thing and I was hoping you would.
O.J. was aquitted wrongly or rightly but the system worked. Was is just? I dont think so but 12 other people saw it differently.
And this case is pretty much the same. The system "worked" but it worked poorly and reached the wrong conclusion.
Lifes tough there were no White People riots. In fact, no one but the most atavistic, Hood wearing, Robert Byrd is my hero, moron would even think about it.
We all just kind of threw our hands up in the air and rolled our eyes.
Agreed and I think the rioting is stupid. Predictable, but stupid.
The difference here is Mehserle is going to jail. A terrible place to be under any circumstance and he is going to pay a penalty.
Perhaps. I'm sure the court, which is traditionally very deferential to the police, will give him a light sentence in isolation at a minimum security prison. He'll get time served and early parole and he'll be home by Christmas or not much later.
He'll serve far, far less time than a civilian would under the exact same circumstances.
As far as you not drinking, I guess thats probably the problem.
I can't argue with that!
And your hope will be realized, then you can celebrate justice.
We'll see.
87
posted on
07/09/2010 5:57:26 PM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: Ophiucus
You are absolutely wrong. There has NEVER been one single case where a taser has been the medical cause of death. Never. You mucked up your italics, but please note that what would go down as the medical cause of death where the secondary cause was a Taser would be such things as cardiac arrest or blunt trauma, just as the medical cause of death from a shooting might be loss of blood.
88
posted on
07/09/2010 5:58:35 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: Filo
You wrote:
“Quoting only half of the definition (which is an either/or one) is a really interesting form of dishonesty.”
I said “So, your definition is down by 50% already”, dumbass. Did you not see that? Either you saw it and are now going to lie about it (I noticed you made no mention of that entire point!) or you’re just a moron.
You wrote:
“Clearly the two cuffing Grant were surprised that anything at all happened.”
Not according to their testimony. They were surprised that there was a gunshot. They were not surprised that the officer wanted to use his taser.
89
posted on
07/09/2010 5:59:36 PM PDT
by
vladimir998
(Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
To: conimbricenses
No. Those who think he should not be called murderer for what may have been a mistake...would be the first to scream murderer if he was a common civilian and the victim of that mistake was a cop.
Exactly.
If a group of men burst into my home and I fire on them, as I should, and one dies later to be identified as a cop then I go to jail for murder of a police officer for a long, long, long time.
If, during the exact same home invasion, the cops kill me but they later find they were at the wrong address they walk Scott free.
All's fair.
90
posted on
07/09/2010 6:01:25 PM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: Ophiucus
You are absolutely wrong. There has NEVER been one single case where a taser has been the medical cause of death. Never.
ROFLMAO.
There has never been a case where a bullet has been the cause either. It's always that the heart stopped beating. . .
LOL. Again, the scene was not safe until the suspect was controlled. Period.
He was, well before Mehserle drew.
91
posted on
07/09/2010 6:03:48 PM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: Filo
A friend of the victims court testimony about the officer's spoken words of intent have zero to do with your opinion that cops are evil and your assumption that the officers at the scene were “willy-nilly” running around shooting and killing in plain view of hundreds of commuters.
Intent is a legal term, it is important so that those who accidentally kill someone vs premeditate and intend to kill someone have different punishments.
A simple concept really...for those with the powers of discernment.
92
posted on
07/09/2010 6:03:55 PM PDT
by
roses of sharon
(I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
To: Ophiucus
Amazing how people see what they want to see.
True.
Again, the suspects sitting with their hands cuffed were in control and not resisting. The suspect on the ground, yelling, kicking, and refusing to withdraw his hand from is pants was not in control, was resisting, and was a clear danger to the officers.
Funny. I've seen several videos from several angles and I've seen nothing like you're describing.
What was that about "seeing what you want to see?"
93
posted on
07/09/2010 6:06:10 PM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: Filo
This being under Obama’s watch, if Mehserle gets the slap-on-the-wrist then it’s likely the Feds will weigh in with the relatively newfangled civil rights charges a la Rodney King. Is this good or bad? The trouble with getting the devil to do you a favor is that it’s hard to keep him from turning on you later.
94
posted on
07/09/2010 6:08:26 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: Filo
Defendants have sometimes prevailed in cases where police assaults on a home were reasonably mistaken for home invasions by common criminals. This is why police departments get extremely worried when groups of “private” criminals start showing up in a community using that tactic in their hot burglaries.
95
posted on
07/09/2010 6:11:19 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: vladimir998
I said So, your definition is down by 50% already,
And as I said it's an or definition. It has to be A or B so, by definition, it's down by 50%.
Don't let your functional illiteracy be my fault.
Not according to their testimony. They were surprised that there was a gunshot. They were not surprised that the officer wanted to use his taser.
Q:How can you tell a cop is lying?
A:He's on the witness stand.
If the cops expected a taser they would have gotten out of the way.
96
posted on
07/09/2010 6:13:27 PM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: HiTech RedNeck
97
posted on
07/09/2010 6:14:25 PM PDT
by
Enterprise
(As a disaster unfolds, a putz putts.)
To: HiTech RedNeck
This being under Obamas watch, if Mehserle gets the slap-on-the-wrist then its likely the Feds will weigh in with the relatively newfangled civil rights charges a la Rodney King. Is this good or bad? The trouble with getting the devil to do you a favor is that its hard to keep him from turning on you later.
No argument. As much as I hate the verdict I'd hate to see Obambi step in with some of his typical BS.
98
posted on
07/09/2010 6:15:37 PM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: Filo
careful now. I might start liking you. LOL
Post on.
99
posted on
07/09/2010 6:19:56 PM PDT
by
Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
To: roses of sharon
A friend of the victims court testimony about the officer's spoken words of intent have zero to do with your opinion that cops are evil and your assumption that the officers at the scene were willy-nilly running around shooting and killing in plain view of hundreds of commuters.
No, I am stating categorically that one officer, Mehserle, acted with blatant disregard for human life resulting in second degree murder.
Intent is a legal term, it is important so that those who accidentally kill someone vs premeditate and intend to kill someone have different punishments.
There is another level of murder between premeditated and accidental that you are (deliberately) ignoring.
A simple concept really...for those with the powers of discernment.
As is mine.
100
posted on
07/09/2010 6:21:55 PM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-180 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson