OAKLAND

i dont know why i thought he might look different than he does

tons and tons of cops everywhere off and on broadway, roads closed... bit scary getting off the train in downtown oakland. but i may have missed some stuff, since our neighbour told my bf early that downtown was 'mad' - it was pretty barren at 6.30pm.

one of my bff's lives at 11th and mlk. he was at our house and we turned on the live news broadcast to see protesters fighting w/cops at 12th and broadway. 2 blocks from his place. luckily (?) he was driving home instead of taking bart

what time was that? 12th and broadway is where i exit bart.

is it worth asking how many of these protestors were from out of town?

anything crazy that went on at berkeley when i was there - and there was not much except for a couple of PETA protests on tolman hall, some pro-public space "take back the streets" squatter nonsense on telegraph, and some very very heated arguments about the intifada - seemed more to do with people from surrounding areas showing up to misbehave in berkeley rather than residents or students.

i think a fair amount of these protestors were from oakland. I don't know, I completely understand the protesters in this case. I don't really agree with how it's gone down but I see why it went that way and wouldn't have expected anything else. A white cop shot a restrained black man in the back on video. I'm surprised there weren't even bigger riots.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/08/18559690.php

^ amazing!

The kids in Oakland know how to party. Let's show them they are not alone.

justine, it was around 9pm

Legal analysis of murder

Common law murder is defined as the:

1. unlawful
2. killing
3. of another human being
4. with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought".

The first three elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":
(i) Intent to kill;
(ii) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm short of death;
(iii) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"); or
(iv) Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. An example of a deadly weapon or instrument is a gun, a knife, or even a car when intentionally used to strike the victim.
Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.
Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all criminal homicides are felonies.

Voluntary manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter describes cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for the person is mitigated by the circumstances and/or state of mind. The most common example is the so-called passion, or heat of the moment killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control, by, for instance, unexpectedly finding his or her spouse in the arms of another lover, or witnessing an attack against his or her child.
There have been several types of voluntary manslaughter recognized in law, although they're so closely related, and, in many cases, indistinguishable, that many jurisdictions don't differentiate between them.[1]
Another form of voluntary manslaughter in some countries is infanticide. This offense was created by statute in some countries during the 20th century. Generally, a conviction of infanticide will be made where the court is satisfied that a mother killed her newborn child while the balance of her mind was disturbed as a result of childbirth; for instance, in cases of post-natal depression. It's a form of manslaughter, and carries the same range of sentences as a manslaughter conviction. Theoretically, it's a separate offense to murder, and not a reductive defense to murder (such as the defenses listed below), but, in practice, it works in much the same way as a reductive defense.

Defenses include:

1. Provocation. This is a killing caused by an event or situation which would probably cause a reasonable person to lose self-control and kill.
2. Heat of Passion. In this situation, the actions of another cause the defendant to act in the heat of the moment, and without reflection. This falls under the provocation heading.
3. Imperfect self-defense. This is a third type, which is allowed only in some US states. By default, self-defense is a complete defense to any charge of murder. However, if a person acted in the honest but unreasonable belief that self-defense justified the killing, many US states will define this as deliberate homicide committed without criminal malice: a manslaughter. The word "malice" is used in the definition of murder where the act is both an intentional killing, and without legal excuse or mitigation. The honest belief in the need for self-defense mitigates the crime so that one acts intentionally, but without the legal "malice." Therefore, Imperfect Self-Defense refers to an intentional killing which is unlawful, but doesn't rise to the level of being a murder.
4. Diminished Responsibility is another defense to murder that will negate the charge down. Most US states require an almost complete mental breakdown to eliminate the culpable mental state of "malice". If a jurisdiction recognizes that a person can kill with justification, but also without any evil intent, that jurisdiction is free to define the crime as something less than murder. Not all US states do this; in many, a mental defect, or even mental illness, won't reduce the seriousness of the offense whatsoever. However, if a US state legislature chooses, a diminished mental state may justify the finding of a lesser crime.
Insanity is a different defense as it completely negates any criminal culpability, although the mental health consequence can result in as much confinement time as a murder conviction.

Involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

Recklessness
Recklessness, or willful blindness, is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An instance of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge, into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death wouldn't be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.
In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.

Misdemeanor manslaughter
In the United States, this is a lesser version of felony murder, and covers a person who causes the death of another while committing a misdemeanor – that is, a violation of law which doesn't rise to the level of a felony. This may automatically lead to a conviction for the homicide, if the misdemeanor involved a law designed to protect human life. Many violations of safety laws are infractions, which means a person can be convicted regardless of mens rea.

I honestly don't think that murder is going to stick. Voluntary manslaughter seems much more plausible.

Uh he fired a gun at him. That's pretty much the definition of "intent to kill" right there.

Not saying he won't get voluntary manslaughter, but this is pretty clearly murder.

I think it's voluntary manslaughter because any reasonable defense attorney is going to be able to make a good case for the mitigating factors that would classify it thus. E.g., "heat of passion", "fear" or somesuch.

i.e. the guy was a cop and the guy he shot was black.

That's a Shasta-level reduction right there.

Uh no.

I think that racism was a factor in the killing, but I don't think that it's reducible to simple racism. I mean, it was wrong, but it wasn't a lynching.

seems to be pretty close

Yes, lots of people with bona fides to establish do say that.

It's hard to say it was racism without knowing the cop's motives.

What, are you saying that speculation on the internets is no longer allowed???

Dearest libcrypt,

If the level of reduction, if you please allow me to remind you with your brilliant post immortalized upthread, of which the standard you judge thusly is this:

Mostly poor minorities destroying the autos of other poor minorities.

― ShamPowWow (libcrypt), Thursday, January 8, 2009 10:56 AM

Then I don't mind being criticized by you because, to be frank, you're a fucking idiot.

Besties,

Shasta

Yeah, it's definitely "covert racism" to mention that there were counterproductive elements to the protest, genius.

When you feel it's safe to come down off your pedestal, you should share your views with Myron Bell.

u just mad cause I am late on the pedestal rent this month.

"I think that racism was a factor in the killing, but I don't think that it's reducible to simple racism. I mean, it was wrong, but it wasn't a lynching."

I'm not saying racism was or wasn't a factor in the killings, I'm saying race (and the fact that the perpetrator was a cop) will be a major factor in whether or not the conviction will be for murder or not.

And if you don't believe that then I agree with Steve, you are a fucking idiot.

I'm not saying racism was or wasn't a factor in the killings, I'm saying race (and the fact that the perpetrator was a cop) will be a major factor in whether or not the conviction will be for murder or not.

Factor positively or negatively?

Okay you are a fucking idiot.

Okay you are a fucking idiot.

So nice had to say it twice.

*shrug* one less hottentot

Sorry, I still have the pedestal for the rest of this month. Ask Steve about Feb rentals.

It's too bad ILX can't have a reasonable discussion on the merits of the various cases without the SF clergy starting a game of fantasy stone tablet tossing.

Mostly poor clergymen destroying the discussions of other poor clergymen.

No offense, but I like to have my reasonable discussions with people who've demonstrated basic reading comprehension.

I'm not the only dude on this thread if you can't get over yrself.

That's pretty much the definition of "intent to kill" right there.

Not quite. Just to quibble, what will make it murder is shooting Mr. Grant not in the leg or hand but right in the back.

^^OTM

totally lolling at dude's not guilty plea btw

"Not quite."

True. I used a bit of shorthand there.

Not quite. Just to quibble, what will make it murder is shooting Mr. Grant not in the leg or hand but right in the back.

To my non-lawyerly reading, it looks like "voluntary manslaughter" is a set of exceptions to the qualifications for murder. That is to say, it's voluntary manslaughter if it falls under the definition of murder but there are a set of qualifying extenuating circumstances.

At least according to Wikipedia.

MW makes good point but this whole case hinges on what the cop says (sorry, I can't spell his last name) under cross-examination. Until the jury hears what his thoughts were prior to pulling the trigger, everything else is speculative. That's why he resigned prior to interview with IA, then pleaded the 5th so that there is no chance of that information leaking prior to trial.

ie, no trial by media.

So the question in my mind is whether such circumstances exist.

If his defense is that he mistook his pistol for his Taser (and generally acts like a moron from here on out), he can claim involuntary manslaughter, though I can't imagine a local jury's going to buy it. His lack of remorse following this is damning.

According to the talking voices on Forum this morning, the defendant isn't going to testify. So the jurors will have to ascertain his state of mind from his actions and the testimonies of the other officers and witnesses (most of which are still not public).

I can't say I know how they knew he wasn't going to testify, tho, 'cause I joined 15 min in.

Wow, if that's the case, those three videos are pretty damning and he's gonna get 25+ years.