Post by Bill Z.Post by John SladePost by Bill Z.Post by John SladePost by Bill Z.Do these politicians include the district attorney, who just charged
Johannes Merserle, the officer who shot Grant, with murder?
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/BAJE15A6O2.DTL>.
No because Desley Brooks had absolutely nothing to do with the
investigation.
You complained about politicians, and the D.A. is one too - an elected
official.
Correction, I complained about the politicians who were yammering about
stuff they obviously didn't know about. The D.A. was doing his job so I
didn't complain.
You said, "the two bit politicians and community activists". Usually people
who say that consider all politicians to be "two bit" ones. Your words
were quite clear so there was nothing to correct except for what you yourself
said.
Usually when people get stuff wrong, they don't read the whole thing
and/or they add something that was never there. Obviously I was talking
about the politicians who were running their mouths without all the facts.
Post by Bill Z.Post by John SladePost by Bill Z.Of course I didn't watch it - I reported what appeared on sfgate.com,
the on-line web site of the San Francisco Chronicle.
OK well the D.A. said a lot more stuff. The news conference was like
30 to 45 minutes. Not really sure because I didn't time it. He said a lot of
stuff including that the murder charge was not set in stone.
You mean he's not ruling out a plea bargain?
Why don't you listen to what he said? I posted the whole news
conference. Then you'll see.
Post by Bill Z.Post by John SladePost by Bill Z.Post by John SladeBrooks said she would do what BART was supposed to do. Well she
couldn't, she was grandstanding. Brooks has no jurisdiction to do anything
except ask the Alameda County Attorney to do something and that was being
done right after the shooting. So in effect Brooks was totally wrong.
Not necessarily. That depends exactly what she wanted BART to do.
She wanted BART to arrest him and question him. They couldn't do the
first until after an investigation and proper charges were filed. So all she
could have done was try to do a citizen's arrest that would have been wrong
because no charges.
If they can arrest members of the public, why can't they arrest one of
their own officers? If there is some special rule about that, I'd hardly
blame Densley Brooks for not knowing given the circumstances.
They did arrest him. It just took a while to get the warrant. They
knew where he was, they had him under surveillence even after he got to
Nevada. So there was no need to rush things. They did their job and now he's
in jail without bail and waiting for trial like it should be.
Post by Bill Z.Post by John SladePost by Bill Z.Talk to members of the the public and express more outrage than BART
people were. People wanted some indication that public officials took
the matter seriously and weren't just trying to whitewash it.
In other words, she was grandstanding. She didn't have the facts. She
didn't have a cool head. Brooks now looks like a fool.
No - she was making sure that public knew that their elected officials
weren't going to let someone sweep it under the rug.
LOL. Nobody thought this would get swept under the rug with the videos
all over the place. Nobody is that supid. Brooks made a fool of herself.
Post by Bill Z.Post by John SladePost by Bill Z.Post by John SladeSee above. I suggest you try to find the audio or video of he whole
press conference by Orloff. Please do this befor you make any other
statements about what Orloff said.
From the URL I cited on the San Francisco Chronicle's web site,
"From the evidence we have, there's nothing that would
mitigate that to something lower than a murder," said Orloff,
who was joined at a news conference by BART Police Chief Gary
Gee and Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker.
So, it was just as I said. Before making a fool of yourself, I
suggest actually reading the URL I cited. If it was in the audio or
video you saw, you obviously missed it, and if it was not, that audio
or video did not contain everything that was said during the day. I
shouldn't have to quote it for you when I gave you a URL to the
original source. Why didn't you read such material before jumping to
conclusions (and if you did read it, then you might ask why you missed
it and what that might suggest about your use of a video).
And when he said that, he was referring to the initial charges. But
maybe you can find the video at ABC 7 web site. They probably have the whole
thing. I won't hammer you on this because SFgate obviously took one little
sound bite and let the clueless people run with it.
Oh nonsense - the article mentioned that the guy had been arrested and
filled in the details as to why, specifically the lack of migating
circumstances that resulted in a murder charge. Any reduced charges
would probably be due to plea bargaining or any evidence the defendent
can supply that the police and D.A. don't already have. But if he
had such evidence, why would he hide it when it is to his advantage
to give it to the DA?
There is not just the evidence from the cop but from the witnesses. Now
they might find something else from a witness. The bottom line is there is
room for the charges to be changed.
Post by Bill Z.Post by John SladePost by Bill Z.Post by John SladePost by Bill Z.It if is indeed murder (that will be determined during a trial unless
there is a guilty plea or plea bargin), then those politicians and
community activists had every reason to raise a ruckus.
I'm not talking against protests. They should have
protested. I'm talking about the people who shot their fool mouths
off before they had all the facts.
Well, the quotes above from the San Francisco Chronicle seem to put you
in just that catagory, so I hope you will follow your own advise. :-)
Did you see the whole press conference where he said the charges may
only wind up as involuntary manslaghter? Nope. You just saw one sentence.
Now here is the full press conference.
Doesn't matter - you objected to me paraphrasing what the DA said, when
the SF gate article showed he actually said that. Now, did you read the
link I provided before mouthing off?
Sure. It was a biased peace by some staff writers. It was clearly
slanded and that was easy to see. The whole press conference is everything
Orloff said so it does matter.
Post by Bill Z.Post by John Sladehttp://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=6604684
Boy that sure paints a different picture now doesn't it. "The
complaint doesn't specify the degree." He also said that the charge of
murder can be mitigated down. Kinda makes that ONE SENTENCE in SFgate look
like sloppy reporting. But then again, what do you expect? It's a
sensational story so they're going to try and pander to that.
The SF gate article didn't specify the degree either. Furthermore,
any "mitigating down" would depend on additional evidence. It was not
sloppy reporting - he was charged with murder because the DA has no
mitigating evidence. The DA is simply leaving room for more evidence
to be provided at a later date, or maybe for a plea bargain. You know,
just like the DA said the investigation would take two week (when asked
why the indictment came in so much faster, the DA claimed to have
given a very conservative number in case there as a problem).
Post by John SladePost by Bill Z.Post by John SladeIf they get it moved to some conservative county, they could let
this dickhead cop get away with whatever he did.
Desley Brooks is a clown and so were many of the other loudmouths
there who attempted to convict without all the facts.
As for me I'll just say I don't know if he did it on purpose or not.
All I know is he should never have pulled his gun in the first place.
You'd look a bit better if you didn't use terms like "dickhead" or
call Densley Brooks a "clown".
You'd look a lot better after you finish watching the video.
No, you'd look like less of a self-righteous moron if you wouldn't
fly off the handle just because you have something up your butt
(figuratively speaking). I don't have to watch your silly video.
Why bother? It's not worth the time when I can read an account
far faster once all the facts are in.
I know you don't want to watch the video because it is almost 27
minutes long and the soundbite is what, 15 seconds? You don't want to see it
because you know it backs up what I said.
Post by Bill Z.If you go around calling elected officials "clowns", don't be
expected to be taken very seriously.
Obviously you didn't see Desley Brooks hollering about how it was an
"execution" in the other meeting. I laughed when the woman told the fool
that the BART board didn't need her to do anything and Brooks cried, "That
is way out of line." LOL. Here Brooks is telling someone what to do about
one crime. I tell you what, ask Desley Brooks what she's doing about the
drugs and violence in Oakland? Over 100 murders a year, some of them were
executions and I don't hear a peep from this idiot about that. Why don't you
ask Brooks why she went on vacation when we had a crime crisis in Oakland
last year. People asked the council to stay on and pass legislation to curb
the crime. They were going to call in the NG to shore up the understaffed
police and how did Brooks vote on that? She's full of low grade bullshit.
100 murders and she goes on vacation but one alleged murder and because it's
a big news story she's howling at people telling them to get off their ass
when she sat on hers.
John