Bart Police shooting of a young man named Oscar Grant in Oakland (YouTube'd)

[Correction]

You're telling me I don't know the legal system but that the officer may lose the civil trial, he's not even being sued.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/18409300/detail.html

Derp.

A judge, you know, someone who we consider an expert in law and allow them to pass judgment, said the murder charge holds up based on the evidence.

a judge and the prosecution team agreed it was murder.

Until just now you've kept trying to conflate the charges brought with the verdict. His defense team argued for a verdict of manslaughter and that was what they got. The judge heard evidence for a murder trial and that's what he allowed. This is not the same as 'a judge agreed it's murder' The entire reason you think the officer deserves the death penalty is based in fiction.

This was an act of racism, as was the case in Georgia, as was Danziger Bridge in New Orleans.

Irrelevant in the murder trial. Relevant only in the civil trial you think still doesn't exist.

This is cold blooded murder.

There you go again, seeing things that aren't clearly visible in the video.

anyone who acts, under color of law, to unlawfully deprive a citizen of their right to life, may be sentenced to death.

The key word you're omitting here is 'willfully' and was the entire basis of the trial. Nobody argues the fact that the cop caused the death. Whether or not he meant to is the difference between murder (death penalty) and involuntary manslaughter (jail)

Like I said, this is not an emotional response asking for the death penalty.

It's not a very well-reasoned one, that's for sure.

You do not know what the fuck, I highly recommend you stop posting.

lol

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

http://www.ktvu.com/news/18409300/detail.html

Derp.

Names the officer as a representative as BART, not as a personal litigant. Derp.

Until just now you've kept trying to conflate the charges brought with the verdict. His defense team argued for a verdict of manslaughter and that was what they got. The judge heard evidence for a murder trial and that's what he allowed. This is not the same as 'a judge agreed it's murder' The entire reason you think the officer deserves the death penalty is based in fiction.

Uh, hey there moran if the judge didn't agree it was murder as the prosecution was, you know, prosecuting on, he wouldn't have moved the trial forward on murder charges. The legal posturing by the defense included manslaughter. This has been proven numerous times.

Irrelevant in the murder trial. Relevant only in the civil trial you think still doesn't exist.

The officers motives are irrelevant in a murder trial? lol you can't be this stupid you must be trying to find a way out of this argument by claiming troll

There you go again, seeing things that aren't clearly visible in the video.

Yeah back to this whole you can't read good thing. Executed. Face down. Restrained. Shot in the back. Officer claimed he reached for his taser. Officer said he saw the victim reaching for a gun. Judge saw officer use two hands as with a firearm as opposed to one with a taser. Cold blooded murder. Let's keep up here, if I'm repeating myself due to your lack of education and not you willingly trying to dodge points because you can't intelligently address them then I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but the internet ain't one.

The key word you're omitting here is 'willfully' and was the entire basis of the trial. Nobody argues the fact that the cop caused the death. Whether or not he meant to is the difference between murder (death penalty) and involuntary manslaughter (jail)

Your stupid ass started whining about the constitution in your first reply and now you're upset I quoted the constitution verbatim? You can stop trying to dance around the points that I make and you can't understand. There was injustice. It has to do with racism. These are the bullet points of the post you initially replied to. I indicated the penal outcome that should be applied as indicated by federal law. You resort to sementricks over cold blooded because you don't know what the fuck.

It's not a very well-reasoned one, that's for sure.

Read above, constitution bit. You've agreed with my reasoning in your first post, now you're arguing against it. Me being the pro that I am, I have this for you: Protip: Don't bring up a topic you know shit about as your ace in the hole first thing in a debate.

[jmc]

*edit*


ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh don't want this thread getting blown up anymore.

[Correction]

I quoted the constitution verbatim?

Minus a critical word that spells the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Keep dancing at the very bottom of those steps Rocky Balboa, you aren't even close.

[Melena]

Ehh Finese, the defense lawyer wanted 2nd or acquital only as there would have been no way he'd be found guilty of murder. Since murder kinda requires intent. Get off your high horse for fucks sake. And if your going to spout bullshit, make sure it's correct bullshit.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Minus a critical word that spells the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Keep dancing at the very bottom of those steps Rocky Balboa, you aren't even close.

Yes, that's all you're doing is dancing around posts because you decided to use the constitution against me and prove yourself wrong with your very first post. Let's get another one line of dismissively limp wrist posting telling us how I'm an internet tough guy for proving you wrong. Such high standards for internet tough guys. That line of dicks must wrap around the block.

Ehh Finese,

Stopped taking you seriously right there. You were quoting my post for christs sake how does this happen. You're an idiot, go domestically abuse yourself on a pile of hammers.

[jmc]

Its almost like you "stopped taking her seriously" because she was actually right.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You ain't getting pussy son it's the internet, so the white knighting can stop here.

[Correction]

Yes, that's all you're doing is dancing around posts because you decided to use the constitution against me and prove yourself wrong with your very first post.

You're arguing the death penalty--something that carries a very strict set of specific legal requirements--for a manslaughter conviction, based purely on your thin gut feeling about this being a cold blooded murder and a law that can't be applied when you've been convicted of accidental homicide.

You were also arguing life sentences for a case of videotaped brutality when no formal charges have been brought. I wonder where in the constitution you're basing this from.

You possess at best a fisher price understanding of the legal process.

LAST WORD PERSONAL ATTACK SELECTIVE READING OF THE LAW PERSONAL ATTACK LAST WORD LAST WORD

You're usually not this wrong about something, but I guess you gotta keep it up for your reputation. Never mind that you dance alone on this stage at this point.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Seriously, the defense lawyer wanted manslaughter because the jury would set his client free if they tried murder 1? This is what you're defending and saying is right?

Holy shit ma look what I caught. Three retards in one day!

[jmc]

Seriously, the defense lawyer wanted manslaughter because the jury would set his client free if they tried murder 1? This is what you're defending and saying is right?

Holy shit ma look what I caught. Three retards in one day!

Yes, a murder one charge would not stick.

Good luck proving intent, and a thought process behind a officer wanting to just blindly shoot and murder someone in front of multiple video cameras, multiple witnesses, and multiple police officers.

Really, good luck.


*edit*

Shit, if you can prove that from the video. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Come upto boston, i'll put you in touch with the DA here and maybe you can assist him in putting away some of these shooters up here.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You're arguing the death penalty--something that carries a very strict set of specific legal requirements--for a manslaughter conviction, based purely on your thin gut feeling about this being a cold blooded murder and a law that can't be applied when you've been convicted of accidental homicide.

You were also arguing life sentences for a case of videotaped brutality when no formal charges have been brought. I wonder where in the constitution you're basing this from.

You possess at best a fisher price understanding of the legal process.



You're usually not this wrong about something, but I guess you gotta keep it up for your reputation. Never mind that you dance alone on this stage at this point.

Thin gut feeling? There you go skipping over all of the evidence I posted about the flawed trial and injustice and racism and being dumb again. Selective reading etc etc. Just because you reply to three words out of a paragraph doesn't mean you're right about the argument. Good luck with that approach though.


Personal attacks eh? Like your whole DJ VENGEANCE temper tantrum because you were getting schooled? You can't be serious.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Yes, a murder one charge would not stick.

Good luck proving intent, and a thought process behind a officer wanting to just blindly shoot and murder someone in front of multiple video cameras, multiple witnesses, and multiple police officers.

Really, good luck.

Ok thanks for clarifying you're defending someone's completely absurd remark that the defense lawyer asked for his client to be tried under manslaughter because he knew his client would be set free on a murder one charge.

Cot damn son stop sticking crayons up your nose.

[Correction]

Thin gut feeling?

Just because you reply to three words out of a paragraph doesn't mean you're right about the argument. Good luck with that approach though.

THIS NIGGA

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

THIS NIGGA

wow you just tried to do this

[Correction]

Let's get another one line of dismissively limp wrist posting.

[jmc]

Ok thanks for clarifying you're defending someone's completely absurd remark that the defense lawyer asked for his client to be tried under manslaughter because he knew his client would be set free on a murder one charge.

Cot damn son stop sticking crayons up your nose.

Umm, and thats called being a good defense lawyer.

What did it get him?

Oh yeah, not murder one.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Thin gut feeling? There you go skipping over all of the evidence I posted about the flawed trial and injustice and racism and being dumb again. Selective reading etc etc. Just because you reply to three words out of a paragraph doesn't mean you're right about the argument. Good luck with that approach though.


Personal attacks eh? Like your whole DJ VENGEANCE temper tantrum because you were getting schooled? You can't be serious.

Seriously, is this all you saw:

Thin gut feeling? OH GOD COMPLICATED WORDS CANNOT UNDERSTAND


OH NO AN INSULT THAT MADE ME LOOK STUPID FOR ACCUSING PERSONAL ATTACKS

Let's get another one line of dismissively limp wrist posting.

Yeah, you have no case let's keep on with the throwing shit out and seeing what sticks. Last word really is important and all.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Umm, and thats called being a good defense lawyer.

What did it get him?

Oh yeah, not murder one.

You're really pushing this?

"Hey Johannes they want you to charge you with murder one. It won't stick, you'll be acquitted and walk free!"

"That's great!"

"So what I did for you Johannes is convince them to try you on manslaughter charges, you'll go to jail for sure! I know, I know. Don't thank me now. This is why I'm paid the big bucks."


You really are the dumbest motherfucker on BG. Hands down. Good job because you almost lost to the rere princess you're currently white knighting. Very impressive.

http://www.hooptywagon.com/img/ani/golfclap.gif

[Correction]

You were also arguing life sentences for a case of videotaped brutality when no formal charges have been brought. I wonder where in the constitution you're basing this from.

Respond to that if you're not a weak-minded coward puttng up a front.