Cop who shot Oscar Grant arrested for murder
posted at 1:35 pm on January 14, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Anyone else see the trainwreck coming here?
Mehserle was arrested in the New Year’s Day shooting of Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old supermarket worker from Hayward who was lying facedown after being pulled off a BART train by police investigating a fight. An Alameda County judge signed an arrest warrant alleging murder, and Mehserle surrendered without incident, authorities said…
Sources said Mehserle was in Nevada because he feared for his safety after death threats were made against him. Douglas County is 15 miles south of Carson City in northwestern Nevada and includes part of Lake Tahoe.
Mehserle’s attorney, Christopher W. Miller of Sacramento, confirmed early today that his client was arrested on suspicion of murder.
Over to you, Jack Dunphy:
One theory circulating in the Bay Area media is that Mehserle believed he had drawn a Taser and intended to stun Grant rather than shoot him.
It’s a plausible theory, and indeed there have been incidents where officers mistakenly shot suspects they intended to shock with a Taser. And as theories go, its infinitely more plausible than the one alleging that in shooting Grant Mehserle committed “murder,” which under California law requires “malice aforethought.” In other words, for Mehserle to be convicted of murder, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he decided, in front of several of his colleagues and scores of witnesses, that he had had enough of this guy he was trying to handcuff and chose to end the struggle by killing him.
I doubt it.
Me too, although Section 188 of the Penal Code leaves the D.A. with a back door to malice: “[Malice] is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.” It’s clear as day that there was “no considerable provocation,” but if the jury accepts the taser theory, they might ignore that and simply decide that there can’t be murder if there was no intent to kill. Result: Acquittal, and a backlash in the streets even fiercer than the one that’s already occurred. My guess is that they’re planning to indict him for a lesser offense like voluntary manslaughter and only opted for murder on the warrant to delay the announcement about reducing the charges until everyone’s cooled down a bit, but lawyers are encouraged to tell me if I’m wrong. Exit question: Will they roll dice on a murder trial or step back?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
By which it’s clear that he’s guilty! After all, an innocent person would be protesting, loudly, and would be explaining every conceivable detail of the event!
An innocent person would clearly never keep his mouth shut and just assume that people would presume him innocent.
Now’s not the time for a bunch of 5th amendment malarky, now’s the time for justice!
Lets burn a car!
apollyonbob on January 14, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Ex-cop here, dude. I was trained when to run code. Jonesing for a chocolate frosted and a latte is not sufficient reason. Nice of you to ignore what I said and throw the little girl smack down, though. Incisive, that.
Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Depends, is it a Pallywood video?
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Wife of a present cop and tired of people dogging the cops and then crying when they need them.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 2:35 PM
If I had accidentally killed someone, I don’t know if I could ever pick up a gun again.
For the officer to resign his position, run away rather face the media, especially the Bay area media, is entirely understandable to me.
MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM
You know, someone on the pardon thread suggested that Bush should pardon Charlie Manson and unleash him into Hollywood….sounds like a plan.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM
When they’re right, they’re right. When they’re wrong, they’re wrong. Just like everybody else.
Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM
That cop was guilty of 1st degree murder. I don’t see any other way around it. That was an execution.
Chudi on January 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM
With, as you say, multiple videos of you committing a homicide, I don’t need a motive to prove guilt.
Motive, during a trial, is important when the case is circumstantial (i.e; no eye witness).
BobMbx on January 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I do often wish we could just destroy it all. I’m so sick of Hollywood in general, or at least the fact that people care so much about what goes on in their daily lives as though actors are somehow better than the rest of us.
I kept hoping after 9/11 that we’d finally start focusing on things that actually matter, but I realize how unrealistic that thought was. We’ve only become more superficial as a society, not less.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM
An innocent person would at least give a statement. This is a public official shown shooting someone in the back on video. Why should he stay quiet and flee the state and still be presumed innocent?
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I’m not defending this guy, but it seems that liberals and other idiots seem to pile on that ALL COPS are like this when something like this happens. They need to get off their knees, pull back their hands, and step into a cop’s shoes for one day. They would change their minds about Monday morning quarterbacking.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
They will reduce charges. Sentence him to a hand slap, in an attempt to appease the public, and ship him to a secret place out of the state.
allrsn on January 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Cops are usually advised against getting in a physical struggel with a suspect. Because that gives the suspect a chance to go for the officers gun.
MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2009 at 2:41 PM
And Oakland will burn. Hope it spreads to San Fran…
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 2:41 PM
But you do need to prove motive to decide what he is guilty of
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM
So your argument is that we can’t know his innocent because he hasn’t said anything but we can know he’s guilty because he hasn’t said anything? Really?
You do if you’re trying to prove murder, as it deals specifically with intent.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I know it wouldn’t take some idiot long to try and make a racial thing out of this.
What is it about liberals that they automatically assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil.
MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Buy Danish on January 14, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I concur. Anything less than Life Without Parole or even the Death Penalty is going to be satisfactory to a large number of the Oakland population. Even then I’m not sure it would calm them down.
GT on January 14, 2009 at 2:43 PM
The intent to kill does seem to be lacking, but based on the reactions and positions of the other BART officers it sure does seem as though he over-reacted, even if he thought he was “only” firing a taser.
What is the accidental death rate associated with tasers, does anyone know? Maybe they need to raise the bar on when it is appropriate to use one of those things.
Y-not on January 14, 2009 at 2:44 PM
That cop was guilty of 1st degree murder. I don’t see any other way around it. That was an execution.
Chudi on January 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Are you an infant?
max1 on January 14, 2009 at 2:44 PM
You will, of course, note that he has not been charged with evading justice.
5th Amendment, kiddo….it applies to him too.
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 2:44 PM
He was not handcuffed. The police were trying to handcuff him, but he was resisting.
MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Well, we did, for a few months. But I’m afraid a single terrorist attack isn’t going to end the eighty year fixation America has with movie stars. As soon as movie stars stop being rich and beautiful, or you can make people stop being fascinated with wealth and beauty (which has been a fixation for virtually all of human civilization), US weekly will stop being premier publication.
justfinethanks on January 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM
We CAN assume so and charge him with murder, yes. Apparently the D.A. thought so as well. He’ll get his day in court.
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 2:46 PM
But you do need to prove motive to decide what he is guilty of
Not necessarily. As Allah notes, if there is no discernable motive, then malice is implied and he can be found guilty of murder.
Tom_Shipley on January 14, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Not necessarily. When you’ve got a guy pulling out a gun and pointing it at the back of a restrained man and pulling the trigger, the intent is pretty clear. The only thing that might mitigate it is the taser mistake defense. If not for that, this would be a slam dunk murder case.
Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 2:46 PM
ROFLMAO…good one, I think I’ll make one of those for me and my best bud the next time we volunteer for Special Olympics!/sarc on the Special Olympics thing!
Liberty or Death on January 14, 2009 at 2:46 PM
You do if you’re trying to prove murder, as it deals specifically with intent.
Nope, see my above post.
Tom_Shipley on January 14, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Assume makes an ass out of you and well, you.
The D.A. can indict a ham sandwich. This is California, you know.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 2:48 PM
ahem……..
you were saying?
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Uh, Los Angeles 1992. This is something that is PROVEN!
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Given our legal system, we can find somebody guilty of anything…..but mens rea is a pervasive aspect within legal battles, don’t discount it here.
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM
I said in post #4 the Officer is guilty. The more I read here the more I believe he’s going to get “railroaded” by the all cops are bad crowd in Okland and other liberal places… The “vitim” pimps will be all over this, can’t wait for Jackson and Sharpton to rile up the victim blacks and other “disadvantaged” groups and pit them all against ANY law and order… All cops are bad is the mentality of most posting in this thread. Sad, can’t wait till you need one… Be sure instead to call a rioter or Sharpton, not the cops… Daily they face unknown dangers, abuse, mostly the ugly in America. Yes, he’s guilty… maybe of manslaughter, heck even murder… But he is not all police, he’s not even like 98% of cops… We have bad people in every walk of life, we have a bad President Elect and a corrupt Congress… Where are the riots by Conservatives that hate the Messiah? The folks rioting and Jackson, Sharpton and many here at HA are simply looking at one instance out of the hundreds of thousands police take in one single year and make it a condemnation on all police. Do any of you morons who are condemming this one lone Officer know how many cops where killed in the line of protecting your sorry butts? Do you care? Next time you need one, call Sharpton and leave the good cops to protect folks like me that understand a few bad apples happen… The far left, wussie, nanny state Liber-Tards got he whole Tazer thing started, how quick we forget… These same idiots where the ones complaining about the number of so called “victims” being shot to death by cops every year, so they DEMANDED answers, non-leathel means… Tazers… Now, no Tazers… Let’s just “talk” to the killers and rapists and ask them to come along to jail in the future… The wussification of America is almost complete…
Mark Garnett on January 14, 2009 at 2:51 PM
poster said”Watch the video. He draws his gun and shoots an unarmed handcuffed man in front of dozens of people.
….who says he was handcuffed? It looked to me like he was struggling against the cuffing, but I can’t be sure. Unlike all of you posters here who are so sure that it was murder, based on what you think you saw in the video.
max1 on January 14, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Well, the recession could take away some of the wealth. If people quit going to theaters and quit buying DVDs, movie stars might start to feel it in a few years.
A D.A. can bring any reasonable charge to court. That doesn’t mean it’ll stick.
There’s also a possibility of insanity. I can’t figure how, but what he did certainly seems insane. With the crowd that was there, he should have expected a riot in response to killing Oscar.
Actually that’s still intent. The intent is just implied in cases where there is no considerable provocation.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 2:57 PM
You like seeing cities burn? You hate Oakland and San Francisco so much you want them destroyed? Are you American?
lexhamfox on January 14, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Well, all I can say to some of you is: Thank the good Lord above I never took care of you in the hospital when I was working as a clinician. If a mistake is made, BAM! Frogmarch to the jail because I had to be perfect and clearly, I was trying to kill you!!!!!
Okay, and clearly some of you have never rode BART between Oakland and Fremont. I had to threaten to rip a few people’s ‘nards off more times than I care to admit. It’s a scary ride, my friends.
That said, BART cops are a little over-reacty sometimes. I recall watching them drag people off the trains for all sorts of reasons.
Manslaughter. That is what this guy is gonna get, because I really doubt we can prove anything more. But like I said, it’s Cali. They’ll probably lynch him on Market Street.
mjk on January 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM
They will reduce charges. Sentence him to a hand slap, in an attempt to appease the public, and ship him to a secret place out of the state.
allrsn on January 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM
And Oakland will burn. Hope it spreads to San Fran…
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 2:41 PM
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM
That’s why I keep thinking, combined with the fact that it happened in the wee hours of New Years Day, they’re going to find out he was on speed or something — and not as a regular habit.
I don’t think he did it on purpose. But if it was just a simple accident, with no ugly circumstances, I think he’d be ok with talking to his chief, at least.
Tanya on January 14, 2009 at 3:02 PM
That would actually be strangely comforting.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Motive is the difference between negligent homicide, manslaughter, and murder.
There is no question that he pulled the trigger. Why has yet to be determined.
Except by those who can apparently read minds.
MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2009 at 3:07 PM
I was saying that you are an idiot, and nothing you have posted since has shaken that opinion.
MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2009 at 3:10 PM
It’s a prima facie case of murder. It will be up to him to convince the jury that he thought he was holding his Taser or that he thought that the victim was the demon-god Chthulu who was ready to take on his true form and drag him and his fellow officers into the outer darkness.
The question you should be asking is, why was he in Nevada? Why was he not in custody? Do you think a non-cop who did this would have been walking the streets free?
nk on January 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Uh, cops can LEGALLY carry a gun without a urine sample, strip search…etc. in public….unlike most of us ‘clinging’ Americans.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:17 PM
What’s a “clinging American”?
AprilOrit on January 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM
With, as you say, multiple videos of you committing a homicide, I don’t need a motive to prove guilt.
BobMbx on January 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM
You do if you’re trying to prove murder, as it deals specifically with intent.
Nope, see my above post.
Tom_Shipley on January 14, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Actually that’s still intent. The intent is just implied in cases where there is no considerable provocation.
Not to get nit-picky, but you say you need to prove motive to get a conviction in a murder trial. That is not true, because if you can’t prove a motive — if there’s no discernable motive — by default the motive becomes malice.
So, no, you do not need to prove motive to get a murder conviction. If there is no proof of motive, it defaults to malice.
Tom_Shipley on January 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Like a child clinging to an adult’s leg, many Americans ‘cling’ to big nanny gubmint to ‘keep them safe’.
At least, that was my take.
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Many video’s posted on-line,..all the police officers could claim safety issues, the crowd was like rabid animals closing in, they wouldn’t stay back (even after told numerous times) not one video shows handcuffs on the (at the time) defiant man, …almost every video shows the shock on the face of every officer, the biggest shock of all coming from the officer who’s gun was fired.
The result from the gun fired (unfortunately) the death of this man, I don’t believe the officers intent was to kill him. I’m surprised none of the officers went postal with all the chaos going on around them.
With all that said, I can’t help but wonder if the officer was black and the arrested (or attempted to) was white would this make it to the front page?
christene on January 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Okay, and clearly some of you have never rode BART between Oakland and Fremont. I had to threaten to rip a few people’s ‘nards off more times than I care to admit. It’s a scary ride, my friends.
Tru-dat my friend, from an ex-East Bay-er, been there, done that, and hope to never have to ride BART to Oakland, Freemont or Hayward again!
Liberty or Death on January 14, 2009 at 3:23 PM
….”Clinging to our guns, religion…..ring a bell?
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Yes, I was wrong to say, proof of motive.
You know, the bitter gun-clingers…
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 3:23 PM
This is just nonsense Tom. Do ‘presumption of innocence’ and ‘reasonable doubt’ mean nothing to you?
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 3:24 PM
You can take your head out of your a** and put it back on your shoulders.
AprilOrit on January 14, 2009 at 3:24 PM
The news stories about the event say he was handcuffed and unarmed.
Whether he was handcuffed or not makes little difference- there were four cops there, and they had the guy on the ground with his hands behind him. The cop shouldn’t have even been using a taser- it’s not a toy to be used at the slightest provocation.
The cop shot in the back an unarmed, subdued man who was being held down by three other cops. Given the reaction in the video I doubt he intended to murder the guy, but it was still grossly negligent and inexcusable. Manslaughter at the very least.
If I point a gun at someone who poses no threat and pull the trigger, it doesn’t matter if I thought the gun was unloaded or mistook it for a taser- I go to jail. Immediately. That someone is a police officer shouldn’t give them a free pass to recklessly kill someone.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM
The presidential campaign is such a distant memory……:)
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM
He killed a man without a reason AND was caught on tape. Of course it would.
Now, Sharpton probably wouldn’t care about it, and the demonstrations might not be as large, but it would still be headline news.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM
It’s safe to say (at least in my view) that I could not determine a motive. (If the guy was insane, then why was he on the force? He will probably get convicted of manslaughter). It’s also safe to say that riots will occur no matter what he’s charged/convicted of. If anyone’s living in the SF/Oakland area, find a Korean store and duck behind the counter (if anyone remembers the LA riots). Be sure to say thanks (or better: bring some ammo next time you see them).
Chaz706 on January 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Oooh. It took you THAT long to respond? I’m not the one with my head up my ass, April….just read your posts.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Just to clear something up, the cop didn’t shoot him in the back. The bullet richocheted off the pavement and hit him in the lung, thereby killing him.
nickj116 on January 14, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Actually, cops have considerably greater latitude concerning when they draw a firearm. They can wield a gun when you and I legally cannot.
Which sucks.
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 3:27 PM
He’s just explaining how the charge can stick.
I wish.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I thought it went through his lower back, bounced back up and into his lung.
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Yeah, after going through his back.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Oh, the charge….fine….yes, sure, they can indict him alleging malice.
Sorry Tom, crossed wires
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Could be. Do you have a link? I read from the Smoking Gun that it richocheted, didn’t say anything about his back though.
nickj116 on January 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM
This is just nonsense Tom. Do ‘presumption of innocence’ and ‘reasonable doubt’ mean nothing to you?
No, it’s not nonsense, it’s the law. This entire discussion is making the assumption that it’s been proven that the person in question killed another person (ie… they were videotaped shooting someone in the back).
Tom_Shipley on January 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM
The news stories about the event say he was handcuffed and unarmed.
Whether he was handcuffed or not makes little difference- there were four cops there, and they had the guy on the ground with his hands behind him. The cop shouldn’t have even been using a taser- it’s not a toy to be used at the slightest provocation.
The cop shot in the back an unarmed, subdued man who was being held down by three other cops. Given the reaction in the video I doubt he intended to murder the guy, but it was still grossly negligent and inexcusable. Manslaughter at the very least.
If I point a gun at someone who poses no threat and pull the trigger, it doesn’t matter if I thought the gun was unloaded or mistook it for a taser- I go to jail. Immediately. That someone is a police officer shouldn’t give them a free pass to recklessly kill someone.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM
No I have not read a single news account that says he was handcuffed. and yes it does indeed make a difference. Just because there are four police officers surrounding a suspect does not mean they have lightning fast reflexes and will be able to stop the suspect from pulling a weapon and killing either them or an innocent bystander.
max1 on January 14, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I actually just googled it. I guess it did hit him in the back, and then richoteted. That really sucks for the bullet to bounce off the pavement and go directly to his lung. Wow.
nickj116 on January 14, 2009 at 3:32 PM
No, but it sounds like ur dumbass is.
Chudi on January 14, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Train wreck? Oh yea, 1992 LA riots all over. Same mistake: overcharge the cops = no conviction = “NO justice, No peace”. I can hear it already and smell the fire.
bagoh20 on January 14, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Sorry Tom, crossed wires
Gotcha. no worries.
Tom_Shipley on January 14, 2009 at 3:45 PM
KPIX-TV reported Grant had a criminal record and served time at state prison in 2007 and 2008 and was involved in twelve cases between April 2004 and May 2008.[26] Grant, who had also been convicted of drug dealing, had been sentenced to 16 months in state prison in 2007 after he fled from a traffic stop while armed with a loaded pistol.[21] Grant was most recently released from prison September 23, corrections officials said. Any other convictions (before 2004) are not public record since Grant was a minor at that time.
max1 on January 14, 2009 at 3:46 PM
max1 on January 14, 2009 at 3:46 PM
HornetSting was right. He was “precious”, wasn’t he?
kingsjester on January 14, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Try and picture the look of utter shock and dismay on my face right now.
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 3:48 PM
A precious angel…
Got popcorn for the inauguration, jester?
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM
And somewhere, the taxpayers of CA are sighing in relief. One less criminal to feed…..
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:50 PM
No, but it sounds like ur dumbass is.
Chudi on January 14, 2009 at 3:37 PM
really? I’m not the one behaving like judge and jury after watching a video.
You: [holding log of feces]: “Mmmm. It looks like a tootsie roll, feels like a tootsie roll. Must be a tootsie roll. [Bites] “Yuck, that’s NOT a tootsie roll!”
In other words, why don’t you reserve your judgement just a little bit until more information is available. There are other possibilities, like the officer mistakenly believed that Grant was going for a gun.
max1 on January 14, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Still, that doesn’t mean he deserved this.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Now….did the cops know his identity and history? If so, and the guy was resisting being cuffed, it might make a cop quicker to reach for a gun.
Pure speculative internet blather, I know, but it makes for good sport ;)
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 3:52 PM
This incident is so bizarre that one should be very careful about trying to derive any general meaning from it. It appears to be an isolated event.
Unfortunately, every hustler on both sides of the racial divide and everybody with an opinion, one way or the other, is going to latch onto this case to flog their paricular point of view. This case is going to be about politics, first and foremost.
gridlock2 on January 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Still, that doesn’t mean he deserved this.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 3:52 PM
true dat…
max1 on January 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM
and I was saying you and your party have nothing but racists and/or religious bigots and nothing i’ve read since has shaken that opinion.
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Yes, but past “bad behavior” shines a light on how this guy might have behaved around law enforcement. I guess Oscar figured the law didn’t apply to him.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:54 PM
as i was saying……
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Nothing will. You won’t allow yourself to believe otherwise. At least be honest about that.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Your kos village called…they want their idiot back. If you don’t like conservatives, if we are too smart for you, move on! You obviously don’t know what a conservative really is….you get your talking points from Keith Olbermann? You should get out from under his desk every once in a while. The libs are the racists…just look at this year’s election cycle.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Maybe so, but that would actually point to a motive.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Either you don’t read much, or as Esthier writes, you’re beliefs won’t be shaken no matter what you read. Intellectual honesty is a beautiful thing.
BadgerHawk on January 14, 2009 at 3:57 PM
nothing written on this site suggests otherwise, so why do so?
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Oh, that’s right, libs don’t have a sense of humor. You believe EVERYONE is a victim! Go pack sand.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:57 PM
and I was saying you and your party have nothing but racists and/or religious bigots and nothing i’ve read since has shaken that opinion.
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 3:54 PM
But then again, you’ve never really read much have you? typical liberal.
max1 on January 14, 2009 at 3:58 PM
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Yep. My girlfriend brought some to me. Since he’s bringing the “Bishop”, I wonder if he’s got the painted ones that disrupt church services coming to the inuguration, too?
Regarding Mr. Grant, That BART officer will have to have a change of venue in order to recieve a fair trial.
kingsjester on January 14, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Since Oscar was actually a criminal, Hornet saying so isn’t proof of racism. It’s callous for her to basically say “good riddance” but not racism.
Esthier on January 14, 2009 at 3:59 PM
But, like the point said, they didn’t know this guy from Adam, but I can gather that he was not acting like an upstanding citizen. He had no regard for the law, his past proves it. If you’re wiggling around and resisting, you’re gonna get the lightening. Unfortunately, the cop couldn’t tell the lightening from the thunder….so to speak.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Nothing? You’ve read everything on this site and it is all riddled with racism?
You’re a special person.
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM
I’m kind of like that about criminals. We have no need for them. Fly right or get off.
HornetSting on January 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Are you saying ‘why do so’ to allowing yourself to believe otherwise or to being honest?
Esthier and I are both conservative and you could spend your life searching HA’s vault for anything even remotely racist from us without success. Avoid using purposefully insulting blanket statements and sparring with you will be a lot more enjoyable for everyone.
BadgerHawk on January 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM
So the writtings of one person, proves that every Republican is a racist.
And to think, there are people who actually believe that liberals are cognizant beings.
MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM
I might add, that the writings of that one person were taken out of context and given a meaning that the author clearly did not intend.
But then, when you are a liberal, you already know what the answer is, so any distortion is justifiable in helping to prove it.
MarkTheGreat on January 14, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »