home

Former BART Cop Convicted of Manslaughter

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 08:14:37 PM EST
Tags: Bart shooting (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A Los Angeles jury today convicted former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle of involuntary manslaughter for the shooting death of Oscar Grant a 22 year old unarmed African American male at the BART station in Oakland in 2009. They found he acted with criminal negligence when he fired a single shot into Oscar Grant's back at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland.

Jurors were given four options when the original panel began deliberations Friday. They could have convicted Mehserle, 28, of second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter, or they could have acquitted him.

The involuntary manslaughter verdict indicates that jurors concluded that Mehserle did not intend to kill the 22-year-old Grant but had been criminally negligent when he drew his gun.

Mehserle testified he thought he reached for his Taser, not his firearm. He was remanded into custody. Oakland prepared for a mob scene following the verdict.

The San Francisco Chronicle says it's the right verdict: "There was no reason to use fatal force on Grant, who was being physically restrained at the time."

< Thursday Night TV and Open Thread | What Russia Offered the Spies to Go Along >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Former BART Cop Convicted of Manslaughter | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Wrong verdict, IMO. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 08:21:16 PM EST
    Not only was there no reason to shoot Grant with a gun, there was no good reason to shoot Grant with a taser. He was face-down on the ground, and he was not resisting.

    Let's not forget that law enforcement justifies tasers with the claim that it is less lethal force to be used in cases where they would shoot with a gun if they did not have tasers. So, I have to ask, when is the shooting of a person who is face-down on the ground and not resisting ever necessary?

    This was murder.

    agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:45:15 AM EST
    in fact, i think the only reason he was convicted of anything at all, was because the jury feared the potential ramifications, in the city, if they aquitted him.

    were it not for that, they would have, as juries do most everywhere else in the US.

    Parent

    funny how (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by pitachips on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 09:26:55 PM EST
    A cop pulls you over, and you have a gun on you and make an ambiguous movement - you get shot dead because it's obvious that you meant to shoot to kill.

    A man is on the floor subdued, the cop actually pulls his gun and shoots you in the back and it's some sort of tragic accident.

    NOT in this modern world anymore ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    with cell phone cameras so prevalent, the hope is that cops (and others) will wise up and know that they are under scrutiny all the time.

    And even in the worse case when something like this happened, it will be caught on tape and the guilty cannot wiggle his way out.

    Parent

    Show me a case (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Makarov on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 10:02:12 PM EST
    where a civilian killed a cop with a firearm where they got less than murder, and I'll agree this verdict was correct.

    There will always be (none / 0) (#14)
    by JamesTX on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:02:52 AM EST
    a difference, because we give the firearms to police and instruct them in the use of the weapons. There are legitimate uses of the weapons by police. There is even a little more room for "error" (but not much). When citizens use firearms to defend them selves against police who they do not legitimately know are police (such as in the no-knock raids which are frequently errors to begin with), they should get some room for "error", also, but they don't. They usually just get shot.

    Parent
    Redneck statutes (none / 0) (#88)
    by Rojas on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:03:40 AM EST
    Texas Penal Code
    SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

    (c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

    (1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

    (2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.



    Parent
    Sagon Penn. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:54:54 AM EST
    San Diego, California. Shot two SD cops, killed one. Acted in self defense. Argued that in court and won the day.

    Parent
    Branch Davidians (none / 0) (#87)
    by Rojas on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 07:49:20 AM EST
    Survivors tried in federal court for conspiracy to murder federal agents. Jury found aiding and abetting voluntary manslaughter.

    Parent
    His being immediately (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by JamesTX on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 11:30:10 PM EST
    perp marched is the least the judge could do. There is no way out for him. When you play with fire, you sometimes get burned. When you only intend to threaten people with a gun, you have no defense when you mistakenly fire. Since I was a kid, I was always told that you should never aim a gun at anyone who you don't intend to kill.

         He accidentally fired the gun, but he knew he shouldn't have pulled the gun to begin with. I guess the message from the jury is that they believe he intentionally pulled the gun but didn't mean to kill, and that pulling the gun was a criminal act. I think this means they think he was simply brandishing the gun to gain compliance and threaten the crowd, as opposed to pulling the gun because he thought Grant had a gun.

         My interpretation of the videos, which I have viewed numerous times since the event, was just that. He knew he shouldn't pull the gun when he pulled it. That was what the "head shake" in the videos was about. The "head shake" meant "I'm tired of this sh*t and I'm going to put a stop to it." He was playing tough and wanted to show force to the crowd, but he accidentally fired the gun. He didn't intend to fire the gun, and he intended to use the pocket-digging-resisting-arrest story as justification for pulling the gun if it was ever questioned. There was no reason to believe it ever would be questioned, until the gun went off.

         As many people have commented, those who think this guy should walk are the worst enemies of our Constitution. The law-and-order revolution of the past few decades has resulted in the courts essentially condoning violence of this sort by police. It must be stopped. They have come to expect complete exoneration whenever they kill -- justified or not. There must be some point at which they are afraid of the consequences. So far, there have been none -- for years. They want to sweep unjustified killings away under the concept of "error", and they want to be exonerated on that basis. A free society cannot have that. A free society does not condone the killing citizens by careless mistake.
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Untold Story on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    What about a perjury charge?  No way an experienced officer would not know the difference between a Taser and firearm - weight, feel, placement -

    Parent
    I agree in principle, (none / 0) (#13)
    by JamesTX on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    but like any other defendant he has the right to defend himself. He might actually believe his own story. What the lawyer should have done was kept him off the stand like they would any other guilty defendant. He doesn't have to speak. The lawyer assumed they would get the typical deference of the jury, but they didn't, and that is a good sign.

    Parent
    I don't know about that... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:11:59 AM EST
    his testimony might have saved him from 15-life for murder.

    Just because he wasn't acquited of all charges doesn't mean the jury didn't do him the old law enforcement favor...it was most charitable of the jury not to convict for murder, imo.

    Parent

    I have no sympathy (none / 0) (#16)
    by JamesTX on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:18:14 AM EST
    for the guy, but I don't think they could prove he meant to fire. I really suspect he didn't. Yes, it is unfair. Yes, if the people had been reversed it would have been slam dunk capital murder. But it is progress. They have been turning these guys loose with complete exoneration for decades. At least someone has finally said there is a limit. I was beginning to think there was none.

    Parent
    I hear ya... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    any conviction of a "peace officer" (lol) is quite the shocker...though this case was so far over the line, with video evidence, the jury really had no choice but to convict of something...manslaugter the biggest favor that could be pulled off.  

    I'm not sure if it is progress or just a case of a cop going so far over the line that to acquit would have been too obvious an injustice for the people to stomach.

     

    Parent

    I don't think juries (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by JamesTX on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:52:31 PM EST
    do this because they want to give anybody any breaks. They do it because they are afraid like everyone else. The entire legal process requires automatic respect and obedience to authority, and the symbolic trappings of the police are held up as symbols of authority that are to be feared. It is good that they didn't let him wear his uniform in court. In the last thirty years of law-and-order (read "police state") reasoning, people have been conditioned to avoid any kind of criticism of police and to avoid any aggression toward them at any cost -- including verbal criticism. Most have digested this into a psychological defense mechanism of holding out that they "agree" with the police, but they are actually afraid to do anything but "agree". When they are trapped in those unfamiliar and frightening surroundings of the court, and they are being led around by uniformed officers, they are going to avoid any blaming of the police for anything. Their "agree" mechanisms kick in for self-preservation.

    Parent
    Well put... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    I'm over-simplifying by saying a "break"...and its probably a subconcious thing more than a concious effort to let authorities skate when they do wrong...as you said, people are afraid and believing in authority without question eases that fear.  

    For the life of me I can't figure out why people are so afraid.

    Parent

    Because of natural (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by JamesTX on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 03:29:56 PM EST
    limits on their capacity to reason and struggle with complex ethical issues. Although a relatively small percentage of the American population is capable of independent ethical reasoning, most of them never make it that far intellectually. Most of them top out at the second of the three broad stages of moral development which were identified by Lawrence Kohlberg in his studies of the development of moral reasoning in children and across the lifespan. In that stage, they are dependent on an authority figure to solve all moral questions which they cannot grapple with. They may conceptualize that the society is based on agreed upon rules, but since they are nowadays rarely educated past the eighth grade level, they cannot understand those rules completely, and hence rely on an authority to interpret them. For Americans, that authority is the police. In the end, for them, what is right is what the police say is right, and what is wrong is what the police say is wrong. They cannot deal with, and are psychologically required to ignore, the possibility that the police could be wrong. If the police were wrong, their entire reasoning system would collapse around them. They look to the police to guide them when they are not sure what to do, and they feel the comfort and safety a child feels when they imagine they are in good graces with the police and they are "on the same side". They will ignore extremely convincing evidence that the police are not good moral characters in order to maintain that psychological safety.

    Parent
    Your insights... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    are always appreciated my good man...heavy stuff to ponder.  Keep up the excellent commenting!

    Parent
    Milgrim Experiment describes (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:26:16 PM EST
    at least 90% of people....

    Authoritarians, all.

    Parent

    Perjury (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 03:15:07 PM EST
    Is a term that gets casually thrown a lot, but is extremely difficult to prove.  Unless you were inside the cop's head and saw exactly what he saw and thought, it would be very hard to prove he intentionally lied.

    Parent
    The cop is lucky (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:24:20 PM EST
    Any other person would have been convicted of murder.

    The Taser is on the left side of his belt.  He reached on the right side of his belt for his gun......

    The only reason the cop stood trial is because of the video.  No video, the cop is promoted and lionized as a hero.

    Try arguing that you shot someone in the back with a gun and really thought it was a taser--and you have been trained professionally to use both.....

    This shows that cops can always say "I thought I was in danger" and get away with murder.

    I would never, ever let government prosecutors try a case like this.   They have an inherent conflict of interest....I would hire outside counsel to prosecute the case.....

    And then the execrable response from the Police Union at how this verdict sends a wrong message that cops will get punished for mistakes....The police unions are a scourge on society.....

    This cop will get 2-4 years for killing an unarmed person in custody.  And Lindsay Lohan gets 90 days in jail plus 90 days in-patient treatment.....for what?  Flouting the authority of the court....And we have more than a few people saying how she really deserves it and how they have no sympathy for her.

    The Milgrim Experiment explains all.....

     

    Parent

    The real story is in understanding (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by nonebetterthantheother on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:58:16 AM EST
    why Mehserle et.al. decided to cuff Grant, let alone shoot or "tase" him. Why a "peace" officer would ever feel the freedom, or need, to call someone, who is compliant, following instructions, standing against a wall with hands in the air, a "Bit*h A** Ni**er.

    What happened here happened a long time before Grant ever got on or off that train.

    A good piece from the Rachel Maddow Blog outlining facts on the Mehserle Trial, verdict, and the killing of Oscar Grant.

    The verdict "begs the question" of the nature of intent when officers are called to keep the peace.

    No Blacks on Jury??? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:47:41 AM EST
    When the verdict was read, Mehserle's family burst into tears and a Latino juror broke down in tears. None of the jurors were black. Three were Latino, one was Asian-Pacific, seven were white and one declined to state.

    Progress?  

    Despite the outrage, Oakland attorney John Burris -- who represented Grant's family -- acknowledged the historic relevance of Thursday's verdict: It marked the first time in his 30 years of handling police brutality cases that a white officer has been convicted of any crime in the death of a black man, he said.

    san jose mercury news

    I cannot imagine a similar outcome had the cop been black and the victim white, and had the black cop hurled racial epithets at the white guy before shooting him in the back.

    Too many police (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by NealB on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 06:10:27 AM EST
    One estimate says we've got over 800,000 police officers in various jurisdictions in the USA today.

    That's about one police officer for every 400 people.

    The violent crime rate in the US is lower now than it was 35 years ago and experts are fairly sure the fall in the crime rate over the past twenty years is a direct result of the aging of the population. It's doubtful the huge increase of "police on the street" around the country since Nixon/Reagan/Clinton has had any direct effect on violent crime.

    Too many police chasing too little crime; it's no wonder there have been so many stories of cops losing their minds becoming violent criminals themselves.

    A-freakin'-men Neal... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:48:52 AM EST
    that's way way waaaay too many cops.  

    But much like this nonsense about the drilling moratorium "killing jobs", if we try to do something about it the usual authoritarian apologists will cry about the lost jobs.  Slave trader was a job back in the day too, should we bring them back?

     

    Parent

    Links, please (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 08:46:10 AM EST


    Parent
    Here you go (none / 0) (#20)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    Link
    Google is your friend.
    As for the "one for every 400":
    307,006,550 (population of US) divided by 800,000=383.758188
    (Google calculator is also your friend)

    Parent
    I can do math, thanks (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    No need to be snarky.

    Of course that number also counts the officers who guard the Smithsonian and such.

    But my question wasn't about the number, so there's no reason to be snarky.  My question was about the "experts" who all say that crime is down because of the age of the population.

    Parent

    It's a comment, friend... (none / 0) (#48)
    by NealB on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 02:10:47 PM EST
    ...not a research paper.

    I'm not sure it takes an expert to track the rise and fall of crime in the late 20th century with the coming of age of the 70+ million people born from the end of WWII through the early sixties. The theory is simple enough...both to prove and understand. And it has the advantage of relying on a fact, rather than speculation.

    The violent crime rate in America started to drop steadily years before Clinton started pushing an additional 100,000 cops onto the streets in the mid-late 90s. Clinton's surge to turn the US into a police state was predicated on suppressing dissent with an overwhelming show of force arrayed against average citizens, not on preventing violent crime. I don't need an expert to explain that to me.

    Neither should you.

    Parent

    Another murderer (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    in blue with a badge gets a pass. Involuntary manslaughter? Why didn't they just convict him of shoplifting?

    You are totally illogical. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    What does the fact that past convictions of white cop shooting black men have to do with THIS case? Are you accusing the jury, which i remind you, consisted of hispanic & Asians too, of using history as a guide?

    And are all fatal shootings of unarmed persons murder? You should know better than that.

    In fact, the jury certainly did NOT think the shooting is justified. And hopefully the judge will use "special circumstances" and put the cop away for a long time.

    However, unless you have seen evidence the jury didn't, I don't see how you can determine murder is a better fit than manslaughter.

    Everything (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    What does the fact that past convictions of white cop shooting black men have to do with THIS case?

    Everything in the world. What do you think, this trial exists in a vacuum.  

    People on any given jury reflect the biases of our society. It in not surprising that there are no blacks on the jury, because most blacks would be aware of their own impartiality, as they face bias from police every day of their lives.

    Parent

    How insulting ! (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    You're saying that if there were blacks on the jury they wouldn't look at the evidence and give him a fair trial, but would instead just use some perceived bias to treat h more harshly!

    What a low opinion you have of jurors and black ones specifically.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 03:59:44 PM EST
    You have distorted my comment.

    I have expressed wonder as to why there were no black people chosen for the jury. IOW the jury is not reflective of the community where the crime was committed.

    To give the benefit of doubt to fairness of the jury selection process I hypothesized that the black community members who were interviewed by the defense and prosecutor said that they could not be impartial.

    Otherwise, it would be hard to fathom why there were no black members on the jury.

    But I would be happy to hear your opinion as to why there were no black people on the jury.

    Parent

    HA! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jbindc on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 07:17:27 AM EST
    You have distorted my comment.

    Doesn't that just s_uck when people do that?  Doncha just hate that?

    Parent

    My opinion is when he lied (none / 0) (#65)
    by Untold Story on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    he doomed himself.  

    If he had been honest and said it was all in a  blind rage, caused by fear extended from moments before when he had someone resisting arrest.  Black, white, orange or purple people would have understood.

    I wish everyone would stop putting people into categories of color - what difference does color make.  Many white, orange and purple people have had terrible experience with police as well.  

    As long as we continue to divide America up into pieces of color we are only able to view the back of the tapesty - rather than the front of such a beautiful array of color all blended together into something whole and functional.

    Police are in a segment of society that are more prone to being murdered themselves than anyone else.  The operate within that constant fear, but are trained to keep it in check.

    If he had been totally honest, he may well have even been acquitted - although since someone was shot in the back that is unlikely.

    Parent

    Poor cops? (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:52:44 PM EST
    Ridiculous....I do not feel sorry for them at all.   They obviously have a practical license to kill....

    You forget that the "N" word was used here just before Grant was murdered....So, race mattered that night....

    That cops perform a dangerous job is way overblown.....Roofers, loggers and other construction workers are more likely to die on the job than cops.....And half of the cops that die on duty do so in car accidents....

    Parent

    Sur[risingly, or not being a (none / 0) (#85)
    by Untold Story on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:32:04 PM EST
    fisherman is considered the most dangerous job!

    If, for instance, your roofer had a different skin pigmentation than the homeowner - does that make the homeowner more liable?

    No one wants to be identified by the color of their skin, or put into any category of pigmentation as to how they are supposed to think or behave.

    Parent

    Without the enhancement (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 05:10:09 PM EST
    Plaxico Burress will serve more time for shooting himself....than will the cop for killing someone.......

    And the tough on crime people just ate up the Burress sentence.....

    Taser is on left side of belt.  Gun is on right side....Pretty hard to make a mistake.....

    Plaxico Buress (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 05:16:16 PM EST
    is currently serving a two-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to weapons charges, but with time off for good behavior he will most likely serve 20 months and be eligible for release in early 2011.[1]
    No argument that even remotely similar sentences for killing someone v. shooting yourself in the leg is inequitable.

    Parent
    So I guess the Chronicle is just glad (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 09:01:21 PM EST
    he got convicted of something. Was there really any doubt of that much at least?

    I don't see how you hold a gun in your hand and not know it is a gun and not a taser. Seems the cops amped up the whole situation from the get-go. If they had been acting responsibly maybe Mehserle would have had a little more presence of mind. That is more than a simple mistake.

    If someone killed a cop by 'mistake' like that I think we all know what would happen.

    On the other hand I guess I just don't believe, or want to believe, he would knowingly shoot a gun at a guy in that situation.

    Interesting Omission (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    It is interesting that the regular commenters who are tough on crime have not chimed in on this thread, save for jbindc who disputes that crime is down because of demographics as opposed to too many cops.

    Well wel will see, maybe they are too busy writing about Lohan, Van Houten, and Van der Sloot, to have had the time to chime in on a killer cop.

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:24:57 PM EST
    Laughing as I read most of these comments from the same people who twist themselves into 12 kinds of pretzels to say that Joran Van der Sloot is being framed and couldn't POSSIBLY have killed Flores, or that Bernie Madoff's sentence was too harsh, or that Leslie Van Houten is just misunderstood.  But if a cop commits a crime, then the state and jury went too easy on him and no ome would dare make the same excuses for him. Hypocrisy reigns supreme around here today.  LOL!

    For the record, I think he should have gotten voluntary manslaughter.  A crime is a crime and since his reason of mistaking his gun for his taser is unbelievable to me, I disagree with the verdict.

    Parent

    For the record... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    I don't want this murderer cop punished any more harshy than a murderer civilian...I don't even have a problem with the "light" sentence, I don't think this guy is unredeemable and to be thrown away like garbage...I have a huge problem with the inequality under the law that rears its ugly head on the regular.

    If this guy had no badge he woulda been convicted of murder...that's not right.

    Parent

    Couldn't Agree More (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:02:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't agree, plenty of non-cops (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:35:27 PM EST
    kill other people and get convicted of manslaughter instead of murder.

    Parent
    Not if the non-cop... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:52:05 AM EST
    shoots an unarmed person in chains they don't...they get murder.  And kidnapping.

    Parent
    Chains? What chains? (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    There was no one in chains in this incident.

    Parent
    My fault... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:36:00 PM EST
    I mistakenly thought the victim was cuffed...just face down on the ground uncuffed.

    Parent
    Never thought I would ever agree with you (none / 0) (#32)
    by Untold Story on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:44:00 PM EST
    but I do.  

    I think also it should have been voluntary manslaughter for the reason, as you state, he could not have mistaken his fire arm for a Taser; perhaps, yes, the gun went off (reasonable doubt) because he became emotional and out of control in an instant.  However, with law enforcement that should not happen and they should be properly trained for it never to happen.  

    However, since we are all human and error, one could give him a pass to involuntary manslaughter.  But, to get on the stand and lie, I find that insulting, especially by someone who is supposed to uphold the law.  He did put other lives in danger with his negligence.  However, the fact that only the already apprehended suspect was shot in the back could easily put it at murder.

    Balancing between the two, voluntary manslaughter would seem the appropriate sentence in my opinion.

    Parent

    Oh, forgot to add (none / 0) (#40)
    by Untold Story on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    I do hope they keep him safe while he is in prison and also hope he gets paroled when eligible and has served his time with, what should assume, good behavior.

    Parent
    BS (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:09:39 PM EST
    Your use of hyperbole could be used in a more convincing way. In this case it appears to be blatant misrepresentation of the bulk of TL commenter's views.

    Laughing as I read most of these comments from the same people who twist themselves into 12 kinds of pretzels to say that Joran Van der Sloot is being framed and couldn't POSSIBLY have killed Flores, or that Bernie Madoff's sentence was too harsh, or that Leslie Van Houten is just misunderstood

    One out of three, but of course the one you get right is not analogous to this crime, namely Madoff.

    But if a cop commits a crime.. Hypocrisy reigns supreme around here today.  LOL!..

    One thing you seem to repeatedly fail to understand is that the playing field is not level. If anything cops should be held to a much higher standard than the citizens they are granted power to protect. When the power balance is so slanted, between cops and citizens, or government and citizens, there is absolutely nothing hypocritical about expecting a different standard.

    The irony is that the standard is lower, which is to be expected. The more power someone the easier it is for them to get specal treatment. Regarding Police, the opposite should be true. Police should be held to a much higher standard, rather than the reflexive excuses made for them on regular basis. And, considering that cops get away with murder on a regular basis, it is not remotely hypocritical to complain about them getting a pass when others doing exactly the same thing get slammed by "justice".


    Parent

    BS yourself (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:21:37 PM EST
    Cops are held to a higher duty of care, but in court, they have the same standard as any other defendant - namely, they must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I don't even have to go back and look at the originial posts about this topic - I know you personally wanted to convicting this guy without a trial and assumed he was guilty only because he wore a badge.

    The problem is you want to law enforcement and prosecutors to a LOWER standard.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    He clearly murdered a guy for, at best, a misdemeanor, and more than likely the real crime was being black.

    Oakland attorney John Burris -- who represented Grant's family -- acknowledged the historic relevance of Thursday's verdict: It marked the first time in his 30 years of handling police brutality cases that a white officer has been convicted of any crime in the death of a black man, he said.

    Business as usual. Obviously you see no problem with the statistic. Blacks are usually criminals and cops always do the right thing... riiiiiight.

    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    You consider yourself a mind reader, to assume to know the cop's thoughts.  Strange that you aren't a lottery winner....

    Parent
    Another cop called Grant a "nig*er" (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:48:15 PM EST
    before the defendant shot him.

    Here is the link:

    Video tape shot on January 1, 2009 depicting the death of Oscar Grant presented during opening statements on Thursday reveals that BART officer Anthony Pirone was saying "bit*h as* ni*ger" moments before Johannes Meserle pulled out his gun and shot Grant one time in the back as he lay face down on the platform of the Fruitvale

    It is all too clear what happened here.  Involuntary manslaughter?

    Parent

    Donald, didn't the cop (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:38:32 PM EST
    call Grant a nig*er?  That is racist, no?

    This case proves that cops get all kinds of benefits....that no one else gets...

    So, a white cop shoots a black man in the back after calling him a nig*er and he gets 2-4 in prison.....He'll get out with good behavior in about 2 years.....

    That is getting away with murder...

    Anyone else who did that would be given the death penalty....

    No African Americans on the jury???? In Downtown LA?.....How could the prosecutors let that happen?

    Parent

    Another cop, not the guy pulling (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:49:20 PM EST
    the trigger called Grant a ni*ger.

    Parent
    Precisely (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 02:13:45 PM EST
    Couldn't agree more.

    Parent
    Or, ... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 02:19:29 PM EST
    ... maybe they have better things to do than have their comments distorted, minds read, and words put in their mouths.

    Parent
    I am here ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    and I think this is certainly at least manslaughter. To be fair, I do agree with the Chronicle, and other poster that there is reasonable doubt whether he intended to kill.

    Don't mistake that tough on violent criminals automatically equate to giving police a free pass.

    Believe it or not, i am as much for adequate police conduct, and due process as you.

    The only difference is that i won't flinch from locking for criminals if we are certain there is no mistakes. (Thus, i support DNA testing, and the innocent project. In fact, that will help free up space for those who deserve prison.)

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    Mitigating factors when the police are involved, not to mention reasonable doubt....  

    Doesn't sound much like our narius to me... getting soft in your old age? lol

    Parent

    What mitigating factor? (none / 0) (#39)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    I didn't say there is any? Where do u read that? In fact, I stated that there is none in another post and they should go for the maximum sentence.

    REASONABLE DOUBT is different from mitigating factors. I think you understand that?

    IF he is indeed convicted with murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't think i would treat him differently then any other violent murderer.

    Parent

    intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt (none / 0) (#82)
    by diogenes on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 06:45:22 PM EST
    From wikipedia
    "Intent to kill is normally present during a voluntary manslaughter case, but is not required. Since most heat of passion and imperfect self-defense killings involve intent to kill, typically voluntary manslaughter involve intentional killings. However, there are occasions when intent to kill is not present, although malice is, for example, when a person responds to oral provocation by engaging in physical altercation. The provocation is sufficient so that his response is justified. Should the response result in the death of the provoker, the crime is either voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder, depending on the jurisdiction."

    Involuntary manslaughter is the only crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or so thought the jury.  This cop falls afoul of Diogenes Theorem because he stupidly pulled a weapon of some sort when it wasn't necessary, leaving the potential for tragic accidents.  

    Parent

    DOJ appears to be wading in now (none / 0) (#19)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    US Justice Department to review BART shooting

    Being reported by ABC in SF.

    Like I said when this whole thing took place (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:56:56 AM EST
    the vid makes me want to vomit but I still don't think the BART cop meant to pull the trigger, so I guess that would be involuntary manslaughter.

    the circumstances is pretty... (none / 0) (#25)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:59:34 AM EST
    egregious. May be at least the sentence will be on the high side of manslaughter, since there is very little mitigating circumstances.

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    but I still don't think the BART cop meant to pull the trigger

    What do you think he meant to do?  Just apply a little torture, in the form of 50,000 volts, just for the fun of it?

    Parent

    Really. (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:10:20 PM EST


    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:35:41 PM EST
    I guess that torturing a suspect who is not resisting, lying on on the ground face down with an officers knee in his back, is just business as usual these days and to be accepted as normal.

    Not to mention that tasers are kept on the opposite side of the gun side, in this case Mehrsele's taser was on his left side and,  configured to be cross drawn with his right hand.

    There is also a switch that needs to be turned on before firing a taser:

    Knudtson testified at a preliminary hearing in Mehserle's murder case that he passed along the equipment at 9 or 10 p.m. He said his holster was set up for a right-handed "cross-draw." Knudtson, like Mehserle, is right-handed....

    Video footage taken by other BART passengers shows Mehserle struggling to handcuff Grant's wrists together before stepping back, using his right hand to draw his Sig Sauer P226 semiautomatic pistol from its holster on his right hip, and firing into Grant's back.

    The Taser X26 has manual safety switches on both sides, one of which must be released with the sweep of a thumb before firing. The P226 does not.

    Prosecutors and defense attorneys said they could not comment on the holster issue, citing a court-imposed gag order.

    link

    Parent

    Do you not even read what you write? (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:01:33 PM EST
    You wrote:
    a suspect who is not resisting
    and then quoted:
    Video footage taken by other BART passengers shows Mehserle struggling to handcuff Grant's wrists

    Clearly Grant was resisting which is why Merhserle was struggling to handcuff him per your own quote. Viewing the video also clearly shows Grant resisting.

    That entire issue, however has nothing to do with my comment, so I'll stop addressing it now.

    My comment was that he didn't mean to pull the trigger on his gun. This is based on watching the video where, after the shot is fired, Merhserie looks a lot more "wtf? oh sh1t!" than "take that mofo!" This says to me he didn't intend to fire a bullet into Grant's back.

    I also accept the other scenario, that he did mean to pull the trigger, but thought the trigger he had his finger on was his taser's.

    Either way, from the video, I don't think he meant to fire a bullet into Grant's back.

    Looking up the definitions of murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, it would seem involuntary manslaughter fits both of the above scenarios better than murder or voluntary manslaughter.

    Parent

    Poor Baby (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:27:31 PM EST
    Mehserle had been shouting on the platform that he was "going to Tase" Grant and that he was having trouble trying to handcuff Grant, who was "wiggling and squirming," according to Pirone. Mehserle told Grant to put his hands behind his back and stop resisting, Pirone said.

    A six foot four, 250 pound officer whose suspect was face down on the ground needs to use 50,000 volts of electricity to put handcuffs on his suspect.

    Resisting arrest is hardly the case here. Squirming is no f'ing excuse to torture someone. Not to mention the taser was on the opposite side of his gun, had to be turned on in order to fire it. But for some reason that part of the story was inadmissible in court. Wonder why?

    What a load of baloney.  

    How many cops were there?  

    Parent

    Drama Queen (1.00 / 2) (#55)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    Nothing to be dramatic about here, black people get shot all the time, and white cops get a free pass.

    Better question wtf is the matter with you to not be outraged by this incident and the verdict.


    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 05:04:21 PM EST
    and am quite frankly disappointed in how accepting people are of this slap on the wrist conviction.

    More outrage was showed over Lindsay Lohan being a bad girl....

    Parent

    Well said sir, (none / 0) (#34)
    by me only on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    well said.

    I mean it was a bit long, try using only 5 letters next time.

    Parent

    Ha! (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:06:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Shoot him in the leg? (none / 0) (#41)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    Shoot the ground next to him to scare him?

    Pistol whip him?

    I am not making excuse for the cop and I think he should be punished as harshly as possible given what he is convicted of.

    But I am not sure he wanted to kill (just that it would be a lot of trouble for him, he is no saint). There are plenty of nasty things he could do by pulling out a gun.

    And i am not the only one here arguing there is a reasonable doubt of whether he intends to kill.

    Either way, the cop should be locked up for a long time.

    Parent

    A matter of degree (none / 0) (#46)
    by SeeEmDee on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    So, it was acceptable to torture-by-electricity first?

    Anti-taser clothing is beginning to pick up in popularity. One of these days some Barney Fife type will use a taser on someone who's armed and wearing such apparel. It's only a matter of time.

    who said that? (none / 0) (#52)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    But torture-by-taser is NOT murder, or even manslaughter.

    I am sure if a copy was filmed tasering people for no reason, he will get not trouble too. He probably lose his job, may or may not be convicted with assault charges, and the victim will sue the city for millions.

    But still, it is not manslaughter. I thought people on this site are supposed to be well versed in the differences of the severity of different crimes.

    Parent

    "cop" not "copy" .. (none / 0) (#53)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 02:18:44 PM EST
    i am terrible at typing.

    Parent
    Cops tase people w/o provocation (none / 0) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:35:50 PM EST
    all the time, and many people die. I suggest you do a little googling on the subject. Quite an eye-opener. Digby has written extensively on death by taser. Old people tased in their beds; many people in handcuffs tased while on the ground; kids tased in parking lots and on playgrounds. Really, no one is safe.

    The company that manufactures and markets tasers has quite a lot invested in the fairy tale that tasers don't kill. They have even gone so far as to threaten medical examiners who have listed tasing as cause of death. And where did you think the ridiculous new diagnoses of "excited delirium" came from? That's right, the taser company and its law enforcement pals created a new and fake condition to explain away the epidemic of deaths caused by tasers.

    I remind you that proponents of mass taser use by cops market it as a non-lethal alternative to the use of a gun. In other words, the claim is that cops use tasers in situations where they would shoot their guns if they did not have tasers. In what sensible, humane world does a cop kill a handcuffed person? KIll an old woman lying in her bed? Kill a handcuffed drunk lying on the ground? And these cops rarely pay the price for these killings w/tasers.

    Parent

    welll .. then sue the companies (none / 0) (#78)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 05:10:56 PM EST
    If a cop tase someone, with the false belief that taser won't kill, is it the cop's responsibility, or the manufacturers?

    And when you say many, do you haev statistics? 1 in 1000, 1 in 10000?

    I bet if a cop is going to pull out a weapon, you would still prefer it to be a taser, than a gun.

    Parent

    Better the cop does not pull (none / 0) (#80)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 05:29:59 PM EST
    out a weapon in any case where deadly force is not clearly needed. Do a little homework. Google is your friend.

    And, by the by, cops know tasers kill. The difference between shooting with a taser and shooting with a gun is that tasers are not fatal ALL the time. That doesn't make them safe. The difference is that cops don't know in each circumstance whether the taser will kill that time. Maybe it; maybe it won't. That is not a defense.

     I repeat: tasers are marketed as a non-lethal weapon to be used in situations where a gun would be used if the taser did not exist. In what sane and humane world is it considered okay for a cop to kill someone for mouthing off? To kill someone for squirming while being handcuffed? To kill someone who is cuffed and lying on the ground? To kill someone suspected of nothing more than public urination who runs from the cop?

    Parent

    I believe your fundamental premise (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 05:42:41 PM EST
    I repeat: tasers are marketed as a non-lethal weapon to be used in situations where a gun would be used if the taser did not exist.
    is completely false.

    From the Taser website:

    TASER International offers a powerful and a safer use-of-force options to subdue violent offenders and inmates that are safer compared to traditional hands-on force tactics.

    The TASER ECDs allow officers to incapacitate dangerous or violent subjects from a distance - regardless of the physical size of the officer and regardless of the size, strength and mental state of the subject.



    Parent
    Squeaky, I don't get it either (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:54:53 PM EST
    Except to know how authoritarian people really are....

    Yeah (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:11:36 PM EST
    Thanks, I thought I was going crazy..  I am truly amazed that there is, as you said, more outrage here at TL at Lohan's behavior, than this cop and the verdict.

    And if this site represents many left of center who loath injustice and cheer for civil rights, imagine what the rest of the US is like.

    The ultra right wing is starting to look close to center, imo.

    Parent

    I thought .. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by nyrias on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    this site is about "innocent before proving guilty" and "reasonable doubt".

    Is there a double standard here?

    Parent

    The problem here as I see it is that (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    Monday morning quarterbacking is in full play.  Also Kolhlberg's moral reasoning, "All cops bad, because of history, never mind the specifics of this case, and all citizens are victims, regardless of their role in the altercation." The Oakland media tried to make Grant into a choir boy and John M. into a racist bull horned southern sheriff. The facts didn't support either view of the two men.  No one has talked about the yelling, pushing, shoving, cursing, etc that was going on all the time adding to the chaos.  I think the cop made a terrible error in trying to be "authoritative" by pulling his out his gun. It cost Grant his life which shouldn't have happened. But I don't buy that he couldn't wait to plug Grant.  And I agree that the cop had trouble cuffing him because Grant was struggling. Lots of facts that are ignored by some trying to support their point of view.  This whole dialogue reminds me of why I am not a liberal.  

    Parent
    Not a choir boy just a person with rights (none / 0) (#95)
    by nonebetterthantheother on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:31:00 PM EST
    Quoting your post "I think the cop made a terrible error in trying to be "authoritative" by pulling his out his gun. It cost Grant his life which shouldn't have happened..."

    I agree with you that Mehserle is getting too much of the focus; the entire team of officers acted in "authoritative" fashion.  My original commentquestion is, why?  Was this posture of "authority" ever necessary given Grant's compliant interaction before the officers threw him to the ground to cuff him.

    (As for resisting, Grant did not start "wiggling" until he was thrown to the ground landing on his friend's (Bryson) leg. At that point the friend began pushing him, yelling to the officers that "he is on my leg", while Grant was telling the officer "I can't get my hand out."  One officer uses racial slurs in response, the other stands and shoots him. The cherry on top, the original call was in response to an indirect comment from a passenger to train operator. The train operator said it "was no big deal.")

    Still my question is; does this officer's adoption of over the top authority (seems to be a culture that goes beyond this one officer) in response to compliant behavior, rise to the point of malice?


    Parent

    You seem to be questioning (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:49:47 AM EST
    whether the cops had a right to be "tough guy or authoritatve" at that point. I know that in general I don't like this stance and dislike cops in general. But i wasn't there and the video tells some part of the story, but conflicting accounts from people make it more complicated.  I was an ER nurse in a regional hospital and have seen my share of "folks" brought in by cops and it can and has turned on a dime. Was Grant compliant? The oakland Trbune reported that the attorneys discussed what could have incited the cop to go for a weapon.  Was it the other cop yelling epithets or was it the cursing,shoving an menacing of the crowd in the background? We won't ever know and I hate the people who weren't there being so typically know it all.  

    Parent
    Well Yeah (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 11:42:21 PM EST
    In any case it is a red herring, no one here is calling Grant a choir boy, because that is irrelevant. Mehserle shot a man. He pulled out his gun and shot someone he had under control.

    The taser issue is a diversion, imo. Even if he tasered Mehrsele instead of shooting him, it should have been a crime. The fact that he shot him, and he is dead, well that part is no accident.

    Mehrsele was looking for a group that was fighting on the some were black, aka the crime of riding the train while 'black'"

    There has been unrest in Okland since, 78 people have been arrested since Grant was shot. BART resumes service

    Parent

    You obviously didn't read the (none / 0) (#101)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:38:27 AM EST
    Oakland Tribune about choir boy characterizations of Grant. I lived in Oakland most of my life.  The stories were so inflamatory that the trial had to be moved to LA because of tensions, partly due to media coverage.  The cop was never treated like a human being who made an error. The Tribune was in arms because there were no AA's on the jury.  I think what happened to Grant was terrible. But life is full of things that happen and it isn't always the liberal interpretation of reality.  When the lawless cops of the south and LA in particular get caught, it doesn't mean that the BART cop was them.

    Parent
    So What? (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 12:34:00 PM EST
    You obviously didn't read the Oakland Tribune about choir boy characterizations of Grant.
    I am discussing the commenters here:

    no one here is calling Grant a choir boy

    And, once again it is irrelevant. Even if Grant is a nasty, mean person who has spent time in jail, it does not warrant or justify a death sentence.

    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    I am not talking about the position's of TL, I am talking about the commenters who are drawn to TL which is site, among other things, devoted to the Politics of Crime.

    Double Standard? well, as ignorant as you seem to me about the politics of crime, your position regarding this crime, appears to reflect the large majority of TL commenters.

    I find that somewhat distressing.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 07:20:59 AM EST
    Notice you'll also never see comments expressing outrage when some jack-a-ma-hole kills a cop, like this or like this. (Just from the last week)

    Parent
    Murder sucks... (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 07:30:49 AM EST
    but you expect people to shoot cops once in awhile...you don't expect cops to shoot unarmed defenseless people...ever. It's a more outrageous act, hence more outrage.

    When cop-killers are on our our payroll, then you'll have an equivalence to the crimes...common criminals aren't our employees, they aren't granted extraordinary power of authority over us...it's apples and oranges.  

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:00:10 AM EST
    I don't "expect people to shoot cops once in a while."

    Parent
    Ridiculous comparison (none / 0) (#104)
    by ks on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    Yeah....  How many of those cop killers got convicted of involuntary manslaughter or shot the cops while they were face down and handcuffed?  

    Parent
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, (none / 0) (#105)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    but not their own facts. The deceased was not handcuffed.

    Parent
    True Sarc (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    but with all due respect a trivial point, imo.

    The officer had full control of the suspect and was in no danger.

    Parent

    He wasn't cuffed. It's not trivial imo. (none / 0) (#107)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:40:29 PM EST
    If it was trivial, no one would even bring it up.

    Regardless, he was not cuffed. Whether or not that fact changes anyone's opinion...

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:47:14 PM EST
    It was not trivial for the defense, but in any fair practical non-legal evaluation of the situation, it was trivial.

    It is like saying that the birthday cake tasted horrible because there were 20 candles instead of 21. The good luck candle was left out.

    Parent

    Hardly, but as long as the facts are clear (none / 0) (#109)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    I'm done.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#111)
    by ks on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:15:31 PM EST
    It's much easier to haggle over a fact as opposed to putting that fact in a meaningful context or adressing the ridiculous comparison my post was aimed at.

    Parent
    Oooh a mini gotcha moment... (none / 0) (#110)
    by ks on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:51:30 PM EST
    Ok fine, he was being held face down on the ground with the knee of an officer in his back as opposed to being held face down on the ground with the kneee of an officer in his back and handcuffed.  

    I suppose that accounts for the "squirming" defense.  Feel better now?

    Parent

    Mini gotcha? (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    "Cop shoots cuffed suspect" v. "cop shoots suspect." Fairly big difference, imo.

    Regardless, I do feel better now that you do actually know what happened.

    Perhaps you're not the only one...

    Parent

    Facts (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:29:42 PM EST
    Can't have it both ways sarc:

    "Cop shoots cuffed suspect" v. "cop shoots suspect." Fairly big difference, imo.

    6'4" 250 pound cop, armed with gun and taser, shoots unarmed squirming suspect, face down on ground, hands behind back, with another officer's knee pushing into in suspects back.

    v

    6'4" 250 pound cop, armed with gun and taser, shoots unarmed squirming suspect, face down on ground, cuffed hands behind back, with another officer's knee pushing into in suspects back.

    Parent

    Oy, there was no cop pushing his knee (none / 0) (#114)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:19:01 PM EST
    into the guy's back when the cop shot the guy, in fact no one in law enforcement was even touching the deceased at all when he was shot.

    Although that is a trivial detail imo, I'm confused as to why you are seemingly so unsure of your own position on this incident that you keep either making things up - like your knee in the back thing - or downplaying the importance of others making things up - like what ks did.

    Aren't the actual facts enough for you?

    Whether or not the guy was cuffed makes a big difference - just ask someone who's cuffed and teh person who did the cuffing.

    Especially since the cop drew his weapon precisely because the victim was resisting enough such that the cop couldn't cuff him.

    He wasn't cuffed. It matters immensely. If he was cuffed, he would almost assuredly be alive today.

    I'm sure you don't agree, but that is your right...

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:09:02 PM EST
    Two police officers, one a 6'4" 250 pound cop, armed with gun and taser, shoots unarmed squirming suspect, face down on ground, hands behind back, Grant struggled during his arrest, and two officers pinned him down while trying to cuff him.  One officer, Johannes Mehserle, cuffed him [Grant] drew his service pistol and shot [him] Grant once in the back, killing him.

    v

    Two police officers, one a 6'4" 250 pound cop, armed with gun and taser, shoots unarmed squirming suspect, face down on ground, hands behind back, Grant struggled during his arrest, and two officers pinned him down while trying to cuff him.  One officer, Johannes Mehserle, drew his service pistol and shot Grant once in the back, killing him.

    I dunno I think that the cuffing part is a technicality, If he was cuffed it would have looked much worse, but with the same results.

    Parent

    Oy youreslf (none / 0) (#115)
    by ks on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:57:16 PM EST
    Well perhaps you prefer term used by the Chronicle in Jeralyn's post:

    "The San Francisco Chronicle says it's the right verdict: "There was no reason to use fatal force on Grant, who was being "physically restrained" at the time."

    How about some more specific details?

    "Video footage played repeatedly in court showed that as Mehserle raised his gun, Pirone had his left knee on Grant's neck. Pirone's left hand was pressing Grant's head into the platform, and Pirone's right hand was holding Grant's right arm - the same one Mehserle said he had struggled with - behind his back."

    Oh I'm sorry, the knee was on the neck not the back. That makes all the difference in the world. Stop the silliness.  They had full control of the guy and had no need to either taser or shoot him. Two cops can't subdue and cuff a "squirming" face down "suspect" without tasing or shooting him?  Feh.  

    But I do love this..."He wasn't cuffed. It matters immensely. If he was cuffed, he would almost assuredly be alive today."

    Well something happened to him on the way to being cuffed.  Hmmmm, what was it?  Oh that's right....he was shot and killed! But yes I suppose if would be alive today if they had managed to cuff him without killing him.


    Yes (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:12:08 PM EST
    I agree.

    Parent
    Like I said when this whole thing took place (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:58:25 PM EST
    Like I said when this whole thing took place (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 08:56:56 AM PST

    the vid makes me want to vomit but I still don't think the BART cop meant to pull the trigger, so I guess that would be involuntary manslaughter.

    I agree with the SFChronical.
    "The San Francisco Chronicle says it's the right verdict: "There was no reason to use fatal force on Grant, who was being "physically restrained" at the time."

    Again, why make stuff up? Aren't the actual facts enough?


    Parent

    Yes because (none / 0) (#119)
    by ks on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 12:33:18 AM EST
    Knee on the neck is such a big difference than knee on the back.  I was wrong about the cuffed part but as I implied that's pretty hard to parse when he was shot and killed while they were trying to stop his supposed "squirming" and, I assume, cuff him.

    Also, is this an actual fact? : )

    "....in fact no one in law enforcement was even touching the deceased at all when he was shot."

    If not, take your own advice.  

    If so, you really are not going to try that are you?  That's almost too absurd for words.  I mean, he was being held down by one cop while the other was raising his gun.  The only "not touching the deceased when he was shot" I could imagine would be for the other officer getting out of the line of fire.  The idea that the "not touching the deceased at the exact moment of shooting" is a meaningful fact is very dubious.


    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    Too bad that you blow your whole well thought and excellent argument by deciding that van der Sloot is guilty with zero evidence.  Deciding a "race" has a particular genetic disposition toward violence is about as racist and bigoted as you can get.

    Whole groups of people have been exterminated because of that kind of thinking.

    Shame on you. Adding that bit, made for a huge waste of bandwidth.

    Former BART Cop Convicted of Manslaughter | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment