Originally Posted By trekkeruss This quote stood out for me: ""We don't know if we're going to have a riot or a celebration, but either way we're going to have one," protester Cindy Delgado said..." I find that distasteful.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ My mistake. The description came from an article on SFgate, not from the Reuters article linked to. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/09/MNFL1EBKII.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...BKII.DTL</a> - Anatole
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I can never figure out how breaking into a Foot Locker and stealing shoes is protesting what you consider lack of justice. >>> Although there are no doubt opportunists that simply take advantage of the situation, I think the idea for some is that verdicts like this are just another example of The Man not treating them fairly, and since The Man probably owns the shoe store, maybe it's not all that unfair to help themselves to the merchandise.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I understand if people riot, since the cop was white and the dead man not white./// What do you mean? By "understand" do you mean that you would agree with those who riot or do you mean that rioting is a safe prediction to make based on what we know about black communities? Or both? Or neither? It looks like you sympathize with would be rioters simply because the state is white and the ward was black.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///and not being on the jury/// I don't see what that has to do with anything. ///or knowing the facts I don't know what to think/// Here is the only **relevant** fact(s) as far as I'm concerned: state representative kills unarmed, face down ward/commoner with gun
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I don't understand why you would riot in your own community though. I would go riot in the place where the people who wronged me live, if I were so inclined to do so. Just makes more sense to me.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Although there are no doubt opportunists that simply take advantage of the situation, I think the idea for some is that verdicts like this are just another example of The Man not treating them fairly, and since The Man probably owns the shoe store, maybe it's not all that unfair to help themselves to the merchandise.<<< I don't think so. Some of the businesses looted were owned by people who lived in their community. They were small businesses, not just Foot Locker. BTW, half of those arrested last night for crimes more than misdemeanor were on parole. This was just an excuse to commit a crime.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>///or knowing the facts I don't know what to think/// Here is the only **relevant** fact(s) as far as I'm concerned: state representative kills unarmed, face down ward/commoner with gun<<< I tend to agree, barboy, but I like to think there are facts we don't know having not been on the jury. Otherwise, why would the jury pass down such a light verdict?
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I don't understand why you would riot in your own community though. I would go riot in the place where the people who wronged me live/// Most rioters have very little means so taking their act on the road is hard to do. Also, making a stand downtown is just so very convenient(a great way to enlist 'passerbyers' or bandwagoneers to the cause) instead of making your way up in the more affluent hills. (rich people or those who are financially able don't usually riot because they have too much to lose)
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///why would the jury pass down such a light verdict?/// I want a piece of that later---- I'm out of time now
Originally Posted By DyGDisney The news reported 70% of those arrested in Oakland were not Oakland residents.
Originally Posted By Labuda "By "understand" do you mean that you would agree with those who riot or do you mean that rioting is a safe prediction to make based on what we know about black communities? Or both? Or neither?" What I mean is that I get it that when you have person A of Race X kill person B of race Y, people of race Y will get VERY upset if the person who did the killing gets off easy. I don't care what race X is and what race Y is.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Here is the only **relevant** fact(s) as far as I'm concerned: state representative kills unarmed, face down ward/commoner with gun >>> ... and he was convicted of such. The question of whether he was really guilty of a more serious crime lies entirely in his state of mind.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Otherwise, why would the jury pass down such a light verdict?>> I can't help but think that had the cop shot a stray dog he would have received a stiffer sentence. A mere 4 years for shooting a subdued prisoner in the back?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The answer to the question as to why the jury can reach the type of verdict it did can be found in the linked article: "Juries can find a defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter if they believe he lacked the intent to kill but that his actions were so grossly negligent that he should be held criminally responsible for them. Legal experts have said involuntary manslaughter is generally punishable by two to four years in prison. It is rare for a law enforcement officer to be charged with murder in connection with an on-duty shooting." Here, the judge gave the jury instructions that they could reach a verdict of murder or the one they did.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///The question of whether he was really guilty of a more serious crime lies entirely in his state of mind./// Did he have criminal **INTENT**? Yes, that is the prevailing issue for the jurists, juries and other idiots involved. But as far as I'm concerned we already knew his intent by his own admission: Officer Mehserle KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY INTENED TO HURT A COMMONER WHO WAS FACE DOWN, resulting in death. And for that he should have received life without the possibility of parole.
Originally Posted By barboy2 Well DyGDisney, SinglePark produced something which pretty much addresses why a jury could hand out such a verdict.
