Skip to main content

View Diary: Deadly Force, Deadly Fears: How Many More Oscar Grants? (78 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i know :( (8+ / 0-)

    (((((((aji)))))))))))

    the verdict was nothing and we are supposed to be happy..

    i also think it is interesting how some can be outraged on a case by case basis but not sustain that for a look at the aggregate oicture

    Police are killing poc at astounding rates.. Nott o mention the non-lethal brutality..

    it must stop

    "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

    by soothsayer99 on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:14:11 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed - on all points. (4+ / 0-)

      It's sad that there's a part of me that has to feel grateful that there was a conviction at all.  It was nowhere near enough.Really says something about the value this society places on this man's life, doesn't it?

      (Oh, and big hugs back atcha!)

      Authentic Native American silverwork, jewelry, photography, and other art here.

      by Aji on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:21:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was thinking about this, Aji, and (5+ / 0-)

        how deeply I think unquestioned support for police authoritarianism has saturated our society.  It wasn't an all-white jury, just predominantly white.  And, of course, no blacks.

        I'd love to have eavesdropped on the jury discussions.  I have no idea, but I'd bet the issue of "fairness" came up - we need to be "fair" to everyone.

        The problem is, that means no justice for Oscar Grant.  I keep wondering how on earth we can effectively promote the idea that accountability police brutality/violence must be the FIRST accountability in society.

        To kill a guy already (violently and unjustly) subdued?  

        I want to know what that jury was really thinking.  

        Teach us to listen to sounds larger than our own heartbeat; that endure longer than our own weeping in the dark. - Lillian Smith

        by RadioGirl on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:29:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What you said here: (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mikidee, sierrak9s, RadioGirl, sherijr

          I'd love to have eavesdropped on the jury discussions.  I have no idea, but I'd bet the issue of "fairness" came up - we need to be "fair" to everyone.

          Funny you should say that; we were talking about that very thing yesterday evening (Mr. Aji and I, I mean).  I said then, "I guarantee you that jury decided that it had to bend over backward to be 'fair' to the cop."  And as he rightly pointed out, why does the fact that the defendant is a cop require more "fairness" than in any other case?  Answer:  Because "fairness" isn't the issue; it's merely a euphemism for what too many people decide to make the issue, rather than the facts and the law.

          Authentic Native American silverwork, jewelry, photography, and other art here.

          by Aji on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:38:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes, exactly. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            soothsayer99, Aji

            sending great Friday wishes to you, Aji - I'm off for a few days and can't wait to be bobbling around the lake in my kayak.  

            Teach us to listen to sounds larger than our own heartbeat; that endure longer than our own weeping in the dark. - Lillian Smith

            by RadioGirl on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:55:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Back atcha, dear sis - (0+ / 0-)

              will miss you terribly, but glad you're getting some much-needed R&R!  Safe travels and much love to you both.

              Authentic Native American silverwork, jewelry, photography, and other art here.

              by Aji on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:04:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The Just World fallacy (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mikidee, RadioGirl, soothsayer99

          They were succumbing to the Just World fallacy.  That there is no way the nice (white) cop who just broke down on the stand crying actually meant to kill that (black) boy.

          So there goes any degree of murder right out the window.  Never mind the evidence.

          Now they're deliberating between three things:  voluntary manslaughter, involuntary, and acquittal.  Given the strong structural incentives toward compromise that are inherent in jury deliberations, and the strong pull of the Just World fallacy (the victim must have deserved it, the cop is never completely wrong), there was no realistic way that any jury -- at least not one with no black people on it at all -- were going to convict of anything stronger than involuntary.

          It's heartbreaking and wrong, but such is the degree of deference to cops in our society.

          "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -Thomas Paine

          by sierrak9s on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:49:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you are on fire today, sierrak. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sierrak9s, soothsayer99

            That there is no way the nice (white) cop who just broke down on the stand crying actually meant to kill that (black) boy.

            Only, I bet they said, "...actually meant to kill that (menacing, black) boy.  After all, any of us would've been scared, right?"

            Teach us to listen to sounds larger than our own heartbeat; that endure longer than our own weeping in the dark. - Lillian Smith

            by RadioGirl on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:56:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've been in a rage since this morning (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RadioGirl, soothsayer99

              when I heard about the verdict.  I know, I know what I said, that there was no way 'twould be otherwise -- but that doesn't make it hurt less.

              For a time, a short time, I thought this case would be different.  That anyone looking at the facts, and his crazy lame excuse (Tasers are just like guns, promise!) would see what happened here.

              I was being foolish and naive.

              You know what gets me?  There is no physical way he could possibly be telling the truth.  Not because the Taser is so different from a gun -- although it is -- and not because we know the whole scene was a racist beatdown from the getgo -- although it was.

              But because the other cop was touching Oscar Grant when Mehserle shot him.  Human beings conduct electricity, they don't conduct bullets.  You do not, ever, under any circumstances, Taser a suspect when other cops are holding him.  You shout a warning -- Taser Taser Taser -- so they'll let go and not themselves get shocked.

              But can you shoot a man without harming your partner?  Easy as pie.

              I don't care what kind of stress, or confusion, or panic got to Mehserle.  If he'd been about to deliver a Taser shock, he would have warned his partner.  Full stop.

              "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -Thomas Paine

              by sierrak9s on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:13:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know, I feel the same way. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                soothsayer99

                Exactly the same way.

                Grateful for your presence, sierrak.

                Teach us to listen to sounds larger than our own heartbeat; that endure longer than our own weeping in the dark. - Lillian Smith

                by RadioGirl on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:34:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site