With a verdict of involuntary manslaughter for the Oscar Grant, and crowds (angry, but thus far peaceful) forming on the streets, the guy behind:

Is Oakland Burning?

...now smells smoke.

Update: 17:35:  Saw footage of cop car, backing out of crowd, bumps into civilian walking in its blind spot.  Cop car gets away, but civilian down 2-3 minutes later.  If it goes up in flames, that's probably the spark that lit it off.

Update on that civilian: 20:00:  Chief of Police mentioned incident, denied knowing the details, but claimed that the citizen in question was uninjured.  Skeptical about the second bit, but the last bit is believable; it was a very glancing blow at very low speed, there were at least half a dozen people taking pictures, and the intersection is either where the crowd is still gathered, or less than two blocks from the main crowd's current location.  Had there been serious injuries, it would be major news by now.

With a verdict of involuntary manslaughter for the Oscar Grant, and crowds (angry, but thus far peaceful) forming on the streets, the guy behind:



Don't ride the BART if you're "hammered and stoned" or a cop will f**k your s**t up!
:o

Don't ride the BART if you're "hammered and stoned" or a cop will f**k your s**t up!
:o


What's the "or" part come in?  Both parts of that sentence are true :)

Funniest moment so far:  About half an hour after the verdict, some local news station is broadcasting live from Oakland.  After a couple of pretty good on-the-spot interviews with sane demonstrators, and just at the moment when I started to think they were actually interested in reporting real news without any editing, they managed to find an angry demonstrator.

Demonstrator: (after a few moments along the lines of "Look, he has a gun, a gun's not a Tazer, he shot a man in front of everyone, it was murder")
Reporter: sSomething along the lines of "So why do you think the jury came back with the verdict that they did?")
Demonstrator: Because they're f*ckin' retarded! (Unbleeped, and in prime time.)

~screen goes black one second later~

I wipe up the laughter-propelled beer in short order, but there's no live footage on that channel for about the next 15 minutes until they set up the delay loop.  But at least I know that sometimes live TV is still live.  Awesome.  If I'd been recording it, it'd already be on YouTube.  Since I wasn't, it'll be on YouTube within a day or so anyways.

What's the "or" part come in?  Both parts of that sentence are true :)

Funniest moment so far:  About half an hour after the verdict, some local news station is broadcasting live from Oakland.  After a couple of pretty good on-the-spot interviews with sane demonstrators, and just at the moment when I started to think they were actually interested in reporting real news without any editing, they managed to find an angry demonstrator.

Demonstrator: (after a few moments along the lines of "Look, he has a gun, a gun's not a Tazer, he shot a man in front of everyone, it was murder")
Reporter: sSomething along the lines of "So why do you think the jury came back with the verdict that they did?")
Demonstrator: Because they're f*ckin' retarded! (Unbleeped, and in prime time.)

~screen goes black one second later~

I wipe up the laughter-propelled beer in short order, but there's no live footage on that channel for about the next 15 minutes until they set up the delay loop.  But at least I know that sometimes live TV is still live.  Awesome.  If I'd been recording it, it'd already be on YouTube.  Since I wasn't, it'll be on YouTube within a day or so anyways.


I'll have to look for it on Youtube.  That's classic!

Remember, the cops called Grant a "bitch-ass n*gg*r" before they gunned him down.  I'm given to understand the folks in San Fran don't take kindly to them words or what they're saying!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smokin.gif

I'll have to look for it on Youtube.  That's classic!

Remember, the cops called Grant a "bitch-ass n*gg*r" before they gunned him down.  I'm given to understand the folks in San Fran don't take kindly to them words or what they're saying! http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smokin.gif


Pretty much.  Of course, they're not cops, so they don't get a vote. 

Frankly, I think the jury actually came to the right decision.  There's just no way to prove (even if you assume the cops are lying about their version of events, that's not still proof beyond a reasonable doubt) whether the cop intended to pull out his gun or his Taser.  With involuntary manlsaughter, intent doesn't matter.  The cop pulled out a weapon, put it into the back of a suspect that was already on the ground, and fired.  Had it been a Taser, it would probably been swept under the rug like any excessive force case.  But it was the firearm, and there are some mistakes that even cops aren't allowed to make in front of cameras. 

Update:  I swear to Dobbs that I'm not the guy who owns the site, but he must be my doppelganger.  Site updated to read: "THIS JUST IN: SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE ARE OSCAR GRANT"

(...in reference to the signs held by the crowd after several weeks of graffiti.)

Cop shot the dude in the back while the dude was lying prone!  If he pulled out his gun instead of his tazer, he's a moron who never should have passed the police academy (unless it was in a movie theater).  In other words, I don't buy it. 

Oakland is now burning with Tiki torches as Oaklanders enjoy their vegan barbecue!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/sunny.gif

Cop shot the dude in the back while the dude was lying prone!  If he pulled out his gun instead of his tazer, he's a moron who never should have passed the police academy (unless it was in a movie theater).  In other words, I don't buy it. 


The most likely hypothesis is at the end of this article.

Apparently, it's happened at least 6 times before, and in every case, one shot was fired, not multiple shots.  Just like this case.

If it really was involuntary manslaughter (meant to draw taser, drew gun instead), this screwup could have been prevented had BART equipped its officers with Tasers on the side with the non-dominant hand, and firearms on the side of the dominant hand.  If it really was murder (meant to draw gun, made an excuse after the fact), it wouldn't have made a difference which side had the gun and which side had the taser.

But had the BART (transit) police simply had their cops holster the Taser on the non-dominant side and the firearm on the dominant side - like most police departments do - at least we'd have known damn well what it was. 

Which is why, going back to the facts of the case, I gotta go with the jury on the result.  Even if you don't believe the cop, there's still room for reasonable doubt.

Is Oakland Burning? "NO JUSTICE, YES PEACE (so far)"

Much like the trial, there's still reasonable doubt as to whether or not there's gonna be a riot.  Cops have been lenient about letting the crowd take the street and vent peacably for the night, picky about who gets arrested, and when someone does cross the line, the crowd's been letting them do their jobs.  Kudos to Oaklanders on both sides of the line for doing it right, so far. 

I spoke too soon.  The sun has set, and it has begun.  

("¡TODOS SOMOS FOOT LOCKER!")

We are not all Oscar Grant.  We are all Foot Locker!

Police/emergency radio feeds available here.

I say again, the cop shot the dude while he was lying prone.  He gets first-degree manslaughter, at best.
::)

The Brattleboro, VT, cops gunned down a man named Robert Woodward, 37, who was threatening himself with a jack knife.  The cops shot him to the floor and continued shooting him while he was down.  Mr. Woodward did not survive the gunshots.  Those of us who knew him were horrified and we all remarked how it didn't sound like Woody.  He was in a Unitarian Church demanding sanctuary while holding a knife to his throat.  The cops got off the hook and Howard Dean wanted nothing to do with the case.

“If the police are called,� eyewitnesses recount Woodward saying, “I will be killed.�

His neighbors did testify they saw FBI agents visit Mr. Woodward shortly before the incident.  It might have something to do with what he saw on 9/11. 

and continued shooting him while he was down.

Tasers are one-shot weapons.  If Mehserle had pulled the trigger twice, that would have been very strong evidence that he knew he wasn't pulling the trigger on a Taser.  But he only fired the gun once.

The difference between this case and the case you cited is that the only person who really knows the truth is Mehserlse himself, and becauase of that, there's just enough room in there for reasonable doubt, which is why the much-anticipated riots were contained to a few skirmishes within a 2-block stretch of road, and the only casualties are a Foot Locker and an empty, locked-down bank.  This was widely anticipated to be Rodney King 2.0 regardless of the verdict, and I'm still willing to give both sides a "B+" on this for restraint.  

Midnight update: Is Oakland Burning?  Well, that depends.  Do dumpsters count?  (Signs point to yes :)

Tasers are one-shot weapons.  If Mehserle had pulled the trigger twice, that would have been very strong evidence that he knew he wasn't pulling the trigger on a Taser.  But he only fired the gun once.



It indicates to me that Mehserle pulled a calculated execution-style shooting on Grant and only had to fire once because, as a cop, he knew just where in the back to shoot Grant so he'd croak.

Maybe I'm just cynical, eh?
::)

I've held a taser, I've held a gun.  How is it possible that a "trained professional" didn't know the difference between his service gun and a taser?

It indicates to me that Mehserle pulled a calculated execution-style shooting on Grant and only had to fire once because, as a cop, he knew just where in the back to shoot Grant so he'd croak.

Maybe I'm just cynical, eh?
::)


Cynical? I don't think so


I've held a taser, I've held a gun.  How is it possible that a "trained professional" didn't know the difference between his service gun and a taser?


In a word, it's not.

The latest bis that the feds are getting involved

Cynical? I don't think so

In a word, it's not.

The latest bis that the feds are getting involved


Oh yeah, this thing is far worse than Rodney King.  I mean, it's not going to have the same pop cultural significance as Rodney King, but if the facts are as presented, we're looking at a possible second degree murder rap rather than police brutality. 

Don't worry.  The cop won't go in for no second-degree murder rap.  He might do 90 days or something, but not Parchman Farm time!
;)

I've held a taser, I've held a gun.  How is it possible that a "trained professional" didn't know the difference between his service gun and a taser?


I find it very difficult to believe myself.  But there's a difference between "very difficult to believe" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".  He reached for something holstered, put it to the guy's back, and pulled the trigger.  What he wanted to reach for is known only to him. 

If we're having a cynicism contest, the thing that amazes me isn't that he got convicted of involuntary manslaughter - that much is plainly evident.  What amazes me is that he was ever charged.  Usually all that happens in these cases is that the cop gets a few weeks of paid vacation, and if the video's incriminating, it was either out of the view of the camera, or the video disappears, or the people who took the video are charged with eavesdropping.

The only reason the cop was charged is because it was New Year's Eve, so there were therefore hundreds of people on the train, and the train pulled away from the station (carrying with it the witnesses' cellphone videos) before the area could be sealed off and the video could be seized by the police.

I've been lucky so far in that in my few interactions with the police, they've been helpful and professional.  I've been the victim of a hit-and-run automobile accident, the guy living at the wrong address on a search warrant (they were as surprised to see me as I was to see them, LOL!), and a caught red-handed-and-lead-footed speeder), so I can at least say I've seen a decent range of situations, albeit with a sample size that can be counted with one hand.  But as a kid who was brought up in a world where "if you ever need help, look for the nearest policeman" was good advice from a parent to a child, I'm depressed and angry that I live in a world where even my "white privilege" doesn't exempt me from having to write "I've been lucky so far..."

Anyways, Oakland doesn't burn again until the sentencing hearing, which should be around August.  Given the anger around the initial verdict, I applaud Oaklanders on having learned from the Rodney King riots: if you're angry at the cops for shooting people in your community, burning down your own community is a bad way of expressing that anger.

The man the cop shop was lying in a prone position -- face down -- it wasn't like these were a band of armed thugs who bumrushed the train and the cops engaged them in gunfire. 
::)

The man the cop shop was lying in a prone position -- face down -- it wasn't like these were a band of armed thugs who bumrushed the train and the cops engaged them in gunfire.  
::)


Yeah, but does that mean he didn't mean to pull his Taser?  Same basic movement - reach with your right hand to something with a pistol grip, slam it into the guy's back, and pull the trigger, preferably while yelling "STOP RESISTING" :)

Part of me is playing Devil's Advocate, and part of me is serious.  Which is why I say the whole thing could have been averted if the Taser had been holstered on his non-dominant side, like most police departments do.  (Assuming you're right-handed), the training's simple:  Right-hand?  Lethal firearm.  Left-hand, non-lethal taser.

If BART had followed best practice for the industry, it would have left no room for "I decided to use a weapon, reached for one of the two holsters mounted right next to each other, and in the heat of the moment, committed to firing whatever weapon I drew" excuses.  The cop would either have been guilty of second-degree murder, or the suspect would still be alive, because the video camera would only have had to show which hand reached for the weapon to determine the cop's intent.  

The ironic part is that if it had gone to civil court, you really could make a case for intent.  But the proof required in criminal court isn't "preponderance of evidence", it's "beyond a reasonable doubt".  If it's good enough to get OJ a "not guilty" (but civilly liable for $millions for "wrongful death") , it's good enough to get Mehserlse an "involuntary manslaughter" verdict versus a "2nd degree murder" verdict.

Yeah, but does that mean he didn't mean to pull his Taser?  Same basic movement - reach with your right hand to something with a pistol grip, slam it into the guy's back, and pull the trigger, preferably while yelling "STOP RESISTING" :)

Part of me is playing Devil's Advocate, and part of me is serious.  Which is why I say the whole thing could have been averted if the Taser had been holstered on his non-dominant side, like most police departments do.  (Assuming you're right-handed), the training's simple:  Right-hand?  Lethal firearm.  Left-hand, non-lethal taser.

If BART had followed best practice for the industry, it would have left no room for "I decided to use a weapon, reached for one of the two holsters mounted right next to each other, and in the heat of the moment, committed to firing whatever weapon I drew" excuses.  The cop would either have been guilty of second-degree murder, or the suspect would still be alive, because the video camera would only have had to show which hand reached for the weapon to determine the cop's intent.  

The ironic part is that if it had gone to civil court, you really could make a case for intent.  But the proof required in criminal court isn't "preponderance of evidence", it's "beyond a reasonable doubt".  If it's good enough to get OJ a "not guilty" (but civilly liable for $millions for "wrongful death") , it's good enough to get Mehserlse an "involuntary manslaughter" verdict versus a "2nd degree murder" verdict.


The point is MOOT.  That white boy cop isn't gonna do more than 90 days and maybe a whole lot loss!
:o

The point is MOOT.  That white boy cop isn't gonna do more than 90 days and maybe a whole lot loss!
:o


FWIW, I'll be watching isoaklandburning.com on the day of the sentencing, for just such an emergency.  My hunch is no - but that's because judges have learned from Rodney King, too.  My bet's on a 2-4 year sentence, one shop looted, and when he's let out for good behavior in around 1-2 years, minor grumblings.  If it's probation (which is actually a possibility with voluntary manslaughter, and one of the reasons Oaklanders were upset), then yeah, the city burns.

FWIW, I'll be watching isoaklandburning.com on the day of the sentencing, for just such an emergency.  My hunch is no - but that's because judges have learned from Rodney King, too.  My bet's on a 2-4 year sentence, one shop looted, and when he's let out for good behavior in around 1-2 years, minor grumblings.  If it's probation (which is actually a possibility with voluntary manslaughter, and one of the reasons Oaklanders were upset), then yeah, the city burns.


Rodney King was one of the first spectator videoed high-profile police cases.  The public was following it from the start.  This case might not get the same momentum going.