100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Blacks start riot over transit killing. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Grant served two state prison terms for various felonies including a conviction for drug dealing. In 2007 he was sentenced to 16 months in state prison for fleeing "from a traffic stop while armed with a loaded pistol". During that incident, near his Hayward home, San Leandro police shot him with a Taser to subdue him after he threw the pistol into the air and ran. The arresting officers testified that even after being Tased, Grant "continued to resist efforts of the officers to handcuff him". In the motion for bail, Mehserle's attorney, Michael Rains, stated that toxicology testing of Grant's blood revealed the presence of alcohol (0.02%) and Fentanyl, a strong narcotic pain reliever. The coroner's bureau said the pathologist's autopsy protocol would be finalized in March 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#Background He has a pretty lengthy history. Oscar Grant was a very violent man. Plus I wonder how he got Fentanyl, that is the stuff that they give you with Verced to put you in lala land before surgury and it is hard as hell to get a doctor to prescribe it, hell after one of my back procedures they gave me 7 Fentanyl patches and that was after a surgury and wouldn't provide anymore after that. so, nothing worthy of death penalty,, as was my point. drug dealing and running from police officers,,,we could get rid of alot of certain people if we instituted death penalty for those offenses,,,, .02 is kind of low when one isnt even driving, so Im not sure what that was evidence of,,,, A 160-pound man will have a BAC of approximately 0.04 percent (twice as much as this man had) 1 hour after consuming two 12-ounce beers or two other standard drinks on an empty stomach. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant served two state prison terms for various felonies including a conviction for drug dealing. In 2007 he was sentenced to 16 months in state prison for fleeing "from a traffic stop while armed with a loaded pistol". During that incident, near his Hayward home, San Leandro police shot him with a Taser to subdue him after he threw the pistol into the air and ran. The arresting officers testified that even after being Tased, Grant "continued to resist efforts of the officers to handcuff him". In the motion for bail, Mehserle's attorney, Michael Rains, stated that toxicology testing of Grant's blood revealed the presence of alcohol (0.02%) and Fentanyl, a strong narcotic pain reliever. The coroner's bureau said the pathologist's autopsy protocol would be finalized in March 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#Background He has a pretty lengthy history. Oscar Grant was a very violent man. Plus I wonder how he got Fentanyl, that is the stuff that they give you with Verced to put you in lala land before surgury and it is hard as hell to get a doctor to prescribe it, hell after one of my back procedures they gave me 7 Fentanyl patches and that was after a surgury and wouldn't provide anymore after that. so, nothing worthy of death penalty,, as was my point. drug dealing and running from police officers,,,we could get rid of alot of certain people if we instituted death penalty for those offenses,,,, .02 is kind of low when one isnt even driving, so Im not sure what that was evidence of,,,, A 160-pound man will have a BAC of approximately 0.04 percent (twice as much as this man had) 1 hour after consuming two 12-ounce beers or two other standard drinks on an empty stomach. Did I say it justified killing him? No, it did however justify tazing him. Accidents happen. I carry a taser and all's I have to say if im gonna use it is "I'm in fear for my safety your gonna get tazed" or "Your gonna get tazed" or "I'm gonna taze you" and your home free. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only reason he was unjustly charged was because of the rioting after it happened. By no means am I racist but it seem's when black people don't get their way they like to riot. This, Rodney King, the other LA riots....... We deserve the riots when they happen. People are not rioting over nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only reason he was unjustly charged was because of the rioting after it happened. By no means am I racist but it seem's when black people don't get their way they like to riot. This, Rodney King, the other LA riots....... Dude if that were true, black people would be rioting 24/7. 
Very true. Discrimination happens every single day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Mon 07/12/10 05:33 PM
|
|
Death penalty is not the answer either.
Death penalty is never the answer. It appears this was a horrible accident since he meant to grab his tazer. But he shot someone in back, wow, that is always considered wrong. I would think that if he was allowed to carry a weapon of death then any accidents that happen when he has a gun, he should be willing to take a good sized punishment for. The man cannot get his life back after this accident. All people who are allowed by our government to carry guns should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for any "accidents" their weapon creates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant served two state prison terms for various felonies including a conviction for drug dealing. In 2007 he was sentenced to 16 months in state prison for fleeing "from a traffic stop while armed with a loaded pistol". During that incident, near his Hayward home, San Leandro police shot him with a Taser to subdue him after he threw the pistol into the air and ran. The arresting officers testified that even after being Tased, Grant "continued to resist efforts of the officers to handcuff him". In the motion for bail, Mehserle's attorney, Michael Rains, stated that toxicology testing of Grant's blood revealed the presence of alcohol (0.02%) and Fentanyl, a strong narcotic pain reliever. The coroner's bureau said the pathologist's autopsy protocol would be finalized in March 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#Background He has a pretty lengthy history. Oscar Grant was a very violent man. Plus I wonder how he got Fentanyl, that is the stuff that they give you with Verced to put you in lala land before surgury and it is hard as hell to get a doctor to prescribe it, hell after one of my back procedures they gave me 7 Fentanyl patches and that was after a surgury and wouldn't provide anymore after that. so, nothing worthy of death penalty,, as was my point. drug dealing and running from police officers,,,we could get rid of alot of certain people if we instituted death penalty for those offenses,,,, .02 is kind of low when one isnt even driving, so Im not sure what that was evidence of,,,, A 160-pound man will have a BAC of approximately 0.04 percent (twice as much as this man had) 1 hour after consuming two 12-ounce beers or two other standard drinks on an empty stomach. Did I say it justified killing him? No, it did however justify tazing him. Accidents happen. I carry a taser and all's I have to say if im gonna use it is "I'm in fear for my safety your gonna get tazed" or "Your gonna get tazed" or "I'm gonna taze you" and your home free. this "He was also a gang member and career criminal. One less dirtbag off the street. " certainly seemed like support for his death |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death penalty is not the answer either. Death penalty is never the answer. It appears this was a horrible accident since he meant to grab his tazer. But he shot someone in back, wow, that is always considered wrong. I would think that if he was allowed to carry a weapon of death then any accidents that happen when he has a gun, he should be willing to take a good sized punishment for. The man cannot get his life back after this accident. All people who are allowed by our government to carry guns should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for any "accidents" their weapon creates. In this country, people are not "allowed" to have guns. They have the natural right unless they commit a crime. See Ammendment no 2, as well as Jefferson and Madison, not to mention John Lott's book full of verifiable evidence, "More Guns, Less Crime". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death penalty is not the answer either. Death penalty is never the answer. It appears this was a horrible accident since he meant to grab his tazer. But he shot someone in back, wow, that is always considered wrong. I would think that if he was allowed to carry a weapon of death then any accidents that happen when he has a gun, he should be willing to take a good sized punishment for. The man cannot get his life back after this accident. All people who are allowed by our government to carry guns should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for any "accidents" their weapon creates. In this country, people are not "allowed" to have guns. They have the natural right unless they commit a crime. See Ammendment no 2, as well as Jefferson and Madison, not to mention John Lott's book full of verifiable evidence, "More Guns, Less Crime". If the government allows a person to have a weapon of death ie gun, the person who was given this privileged needs to accept that if they make a mistake with their privileged they have to pay a high price for mistakes that cause harm. No matter what you want to call it, the government allows people to have guns. It could be outlawed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Mon 07/12/10 08:40 PM
|
|
Death penalty is not the answer either. Death penalty is never the answer. It appears this was a horrible accident since he meant to grab his tazer. But he shot someone in back, wow, that is always considered wrong. I would think that if he was allowed to carry a weapon of death then any accidents that happen when he has a gun, he should be willing to take a good sized punishment for. The man cannot get his life back after this accident. All people who are allowed by our government to carry guns should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for any "accidents" their weapon creates. In this country, people are not "allowed" to have guns. They have the natural right unless they commit a crime. See Ammendment no 2, as well as Jefferson and Madison, not to mention John Lott's book full of verifiable evidence, "More Guns, Less Crime". If the government allows a person to have a weapon of death ie gun, the person who was given this privileged needs to accept that if they make a mistake with their privileged they have to pay a high price for mistakes that cause harm. No matter what you want to call it, the government allows people to have guns. It could be outlawed. What evidence do you have to back up your claim that "the government allows people to have guns"? History and all known objective evidence disagrees with you. Again, I tell you to actually read the laws and evidence before committing such fallacies again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death penalty is not the answer either. Death penalty is never the answer. It appears this was a horrible accident since he meant to grab his tazer. But he shot someone in back, wow, that is always considered wrong. I would think that if he was allowed to carry a weapon of death then any accidents that happen when he has a gun, he should be willing to take a good sized punishment for. The man cannot get his life back after this accident. All people who are allowed by our government to carry guns should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for any "accidents" their weapon creates. In this country, people are not "allowed" to have guns. They have the natural right unless they commit a crime. See Ammendment no 2, as well as Jefferson and Madison, not to mention John Lott's book full of verifiable evidence, "More Guns, Less Crime". If the government allows a person to have a weapon of death ie gun, the person who was given this privileged needs to accept that if they make a mistake with their privileged they have to pay a high price for mistakes that cause harm. No matter what you want to call it, the government allows people to have guns. It could be outlawed. What evidence do you have to back up your claim that "the government allows people to have guns"? History and all known objective evidence disagrees with you. Again, I tell you to actually read the laws and evidence before committing such fallacies again. No you need to stop and think for a sec. All rights given us are given from our government. The government allows us to have rights. The government allows us to live as freely as they allow us. All written documents are created by our governors. The creators were our first governors who created our government and the government has been allowing us to have rights ever since. When the government wants us to have less rights it changes the laws. When it wants us to have more rights it changes the laws that govern us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death penalty is not the answer either. Death penalty is never the answer. It appears this was a horrible accident since he meant to grab his tazer. But he shot someone in back, wow, that is always considered wrong. I would think that if he was allowed to carry a weapon of death then any accidents that happen when he has a gun, he should be willing to take a good sized punishment for. The man cannot get his life back after this accident. All people who are allowed by our government to carry guns should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for any "accidents" their weapon creates. In this country, people are not "allowed" to have guns. They have the natural right unless they commit a crime. See Ammendment no 2, as well as Jefferson and Madison, not to mention John Lott's book full of verifiable evidence, "More Guns, Less Crime". If the government allows a person to have a weapon of death ie gun, the person who was given this privileged needs to accept that if they make a mistake with their privileged they have to pay a high price for mistakes that cause harm. No matter what you want to call it, the government allows people to have guns. It could be outlawed. What evidence do you have to back up your claim that "the government allows people to have guns"? History and all known objective evidence disagrees with you. Again, I tell you to actually read the laws and evidence before committing such fallacies again. No you need to stop and think for a sec. All rights given us are given from our government. The government allows us to have rights. The government allows us to live as freely as they allow us. All written documents are created by our governors. The creators were our first governors who created our government and the government has been allowing us to have rights ever since. When the government wants us to have less rights it changes the laws. When it wants us to have more rights it changes the laws that govern us. I've actually thought for many seconds(years, even). Perhaps you don't realize it, but the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that rights are not granted by government-they are natural. This is one of the ways slavery was abolished. I must insist you actually read American history, because your arguments simply aren't true by any objective standard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death penalty is not the answer either. Death penalty is never the answer. It appears this was a horrible accident since he meant to grab his tazer. But he shot someone in back, wow, that is always considered wrong. I would think that if he was allowed to carry a weapon of death then any accidents that happen when he has a gun, he should be willing to take a good sized punishment for. The man cannot get his life back after this accident. All people who are allowed by our government to carry guns should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for any "accidents" their weapon creates. In this country, people are not "allowed" to have guns. They have the natural right unless they commit a crime. See Ammendment no 2, as well as Jefferson and Madison, not to mention John Lott's book full of verifiable evidence, "More Guns, Less Crime". If the government allows a person to have a weapon of death ie gun, the person who was given this privileged needs to accept that if they make a mistake with their privileged they have to pay a high price for mistakes that cause harm. No matter what you want to call it, the government allows people to have guns. It could be outlawed. What evidence do you have to back up your claim that "the government allows people to have guns"? History and all known objective evidence disagrees with you. Again, I tell you to actually read the laws and evidence before committing such fallacies again. No you need to stop and think for a sec. All rights given us are given from our government. The government allows us to have rights. The government allows us to live as freely as they allow us. All written documents are created by our governors. The creators were our first governors who created our government and the government has been allowing us to have rights ever since. When the government wants us to have less rights it changes the laws. When it wants us to have more rights it changes the laws that govern us. I've actually thought for many seconds(years, even). Perhaps you don't realize it, but the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that rights are not granted by government-they are natural. This is one of the ways slavery was abolished. I must insist you actually read American history, because your arguments simply aren't true by any objective standard. Isn't that funny....lol The government is the one who decides WHAT IS A RIGHT AND HOW IT GETS GRANTED TO ALL. The supreme court is the government also dude. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Mon 07/12/10 08:58 PM
|
|
http://library.thinkquest.org/J0110221/
Three branches of the American government. http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/branches.html http://www.evgschool.org/three_branches_of_government.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sorry for the off topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Mon 07/12/10 10:45 PM
|
|
... the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that rights are not granted by government-they are natural. This is one of the ways slavery was abolished. I must insist you actually read American history, because your arguments simply aren't true by any objective standard.
I think it would be a very dangerous state of affairs if we believed that rights were granted to us by the government. This turns the concept of liberty on its head. Its a point of view which assumes that humans have no rights, unless given so at the mercy of a government. It assumes fascism as the default state, rather than personal liberty as the default state. My rights are not granted to me by my government - they are mine because I insist they are, and I and others will fight to protect them. Government exists at our collective forbearance; my rights don't exist at the governments forbearance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death penalty is not the answer either. Death penalty is never the answer. It appears this was a horrible accident since he meant to grab his tazer. But he shot someone in back, wow, that is always considered wrong. I would think that if he was allowed to carry a weapon of death then any accidents that happen when he has a gun, he should be willing to take a good sized punishment for. The man cannot get his life back after this accident. All people who are allowed by our government to carry guns should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for any "accidents" their weapon creates. In this country, people are not "allowed" to have guns. They have the natural right unless they commit a crime. See Ammendment no 2, as well as Jefferson and Madison, not to mention John Lott's book full of verifiable evidence, "More Guns, Less Crime". If the government allows a person to have a weapon of death ie gun, the person who was given this privileged needs to accept that if they make a mistake with their privileged they have to pay a high price for mistakes that cause harm. No matter what you want to call it, the government allows people to have guns. It could be outlawed. What evidence do you have to back up your claim that "the government allows people to have guns"? History and all known objective evidence disagrees with you. Again, I tell you to actually read the laws and evidence before committing such fallacies again. No you need to stop and think for a sec. All rights given us are given from our government. The government allows us to have rights. The government allows us to live as freely as they allow us. All written documents are created by our governors. The creators were our first governors who created our government and the government has been allowing us to have rights ever since. When the government wants us to have less rights it changes the laws. When it wants us to have more rights it changes the laws that govern us. According to the Constitution, all rights belong to the people. They then enumerate certain powers for the government to have. What civics book did you read? Did you even bother to read a thing about this subject? I demand citations from James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson to back your opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Mon 07/12/10 10:53 PM
|
|
Death penalty is not the answer either. Death penalty is never the answer. It appears this was a horrible accident since he meant to grab his tazer. But he shot someone in back, wow, that is always considered wrong. I would think that if he was allowed to carry a weapon of death then any accidents that happen when he has a gun, he should be willing to take a good sized punishment for. The man cannot get his life back after this accident. All people who are allowed by our government to carry guns should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for any "accidents" their weapon creates. In this country, people are not "allowed" to have guns. They have the natural right unless they commit a crime. See Ammendment no 2, as well as Jefferson and Madison, not to mention John Lott's book full of verifiable evidence, "More Guns, Less Crime". If the government allows a person to have a weapon of death ie gun, the person who was given this privileged needs to accept that if they make a mistake with their privileged they have to pay a high price for mistakes that cause harm. No matter what you want to call it, the government allows people to have guns. It could be outlawed. What evidence do you have to back up your claim that "the government allows people to have guns"? History and all known objective evidence disagrees with you. Again, I tell you to actually read the laws and evidence before committing such fallacies again. No you need to stop and think for a sec. All rights given us are given from our government. The government allows us to have rights. The government allows us to live as freely as they allow us. All written documents are created by our governors. The creators were our first governors who created our government and the government has been allowing us to have rights ever since. When the government wants us to have less rights it changes the laws. When it wants us to have more rights it changes the laws that govern us. I've actually thought for many seconds(years, even). Perhaps you don't realize it, but the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that rights are not granted by government-they are natural. This is one of the ways slavery was abolished. I must insist you actually read American history, because your arguments simply aren't true by any objective standard. Isn't that funny....lol The government is the one who decides WHAT IS A RIGHT AND HOW IT GETS GRANTED TO ALL. The supreme court is the government also dude. You are mistaken. Read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. I demand to know where you got this false information. The Supreme Court's role is only to interpret law in case of disputes. Its role is very limited as well-which you would know if you had read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. Now, get reading! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that rights are not granted by government-they are natural. This is one of the ways slavery was abolished. I must insist you actually read American history, because your arguments simply aren't true by any objective standard.
I think it would be a very dangerous state of affairs if we believed that rights were granted to us by the government. This turns the concept of liberty on its head. Its a point of view which assumes that humans have no rights, unless given so at the mercy of a government. It assumes fascism as the default state, rather than personal liberty as the default state. My rights are not granted to me by my government - they are mine because I insist they are, and I and others will fight to protect them. Government exists at our collective forbearance; my rights don't exist at the governments forbearance. Exactly right. This is the fundamental assertion of the declaration of independence, as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are mistaken. Read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. I demand to know where you got this false information. The Supreme Court's role is only to interpret law in case of disputes. Its role is very limited as well-which you would know if you had read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. Now, get reading! You are wasting your time, dude. She is perfectly content to allow her life and the way she thinks things should be to be ruled by emotion rather than logic or facts. Just look at her rants against the Arizona law. She jumps up and down about how " racist " it is, when the FACTS clearly show it isn't. But that doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
|
