Can the cop who fatally shot a man at Oakland station be tried again by DoJ?

[chemisttree]

Chemisttree, you're still misunderstanding the differences between the degrees. Read the link I provided! (and others describing the other degrees)

Well I did and I still don't see your point. BTW, that definition supports my statements. To wit...

Second degree murder n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility.

Wheras the California definition of 2nd degree murder is ...

...187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.

...188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought.

This establishes that a murder charge is appropriate. What remains is the determination of degrees.

189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.

Therefore murder in the second degree is appropriate.

The difference between second and third degree murder is simply intent. 3rd degree murder is recklessness that results in death.

No, that's second degree murder. And in California it is actually malice aforethought. The intent you speak of is intent to harm only, not to kill. He intended to harm the victim which is implied malice aforethought. He claimed to his partner that the guy was reaching for a gun. He pulled his 9mm and shot the guy in the back.

Open and shut case IMO.

2nd degree murder requires the intent to injure: Yes. Perhaps the real problem here is that you are ignoring the definition and just inserting your judgement? You believe he intended to shoot the guy [with a gun], so you're applying that definition. And if he did intend to shoot the guy, then that definition would fit.

Yes. He claimed that the guy was reaching for a gun. What are officers trained to do in that circumstance? Reach for a taser? His story changed and he was believed to be lying and changing his story to avoid consequences.

He is a murderer.

Poor excuse or not, it is a critical criteria as demonstrated above, and the doubt created by that poor excuse is what requires a ruling of not guilty for 2nd degree murder. This is clear cut and it seems that your argument is based on your personal feeling that the sentence wasn't harsh enough and not a faithful reading of the definitions.

You haven't read the definition of 2nd degree murder for the State of California yet. Try it.

You know darn well that's not what "his record" is and that his record matters. 20 years of spotless history matters just like 20 years of petty crimes (for example) would matter in determining his credibility. No, that's third degree murder. That's nice. Did the judge apply the "reasonable doubt" criteria, did he sit through an entire trial to see all of the evidence and was he on the jury? If not, it's irrelevant.

His actions and his changing testimony determine his credibility. He has 2 years with BART which isn't much of a record. Did the judge sit through an entire trial to see all of the evidence? Was he the jury? Well two judges sat through multiple days of testimony and the judge at the preliminary hearing, Judge C. Don Clay, agrees with me. So does the judge at the arraignment. So does Mehserle's lawyer.

After the seven days of testimony, Judge C. Don Clay concluded that Mehserle had not mistakenly used his service pistol instead of his stun gun. The judge based this on Mehserle's statements to other officers that he thought Grant had a gun. He also noted that Mehserle had held his weapon with both hands when he was trained to use just his left if he was firing a Taser.

Two Alameda County judges publicly said they also believe Mehserle meant to shoot Grant. One judge even said, "There is no doubt in my mind Mr. Mehserle meant to shoot Oscar Grant with a gun, not a Taser."

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15002927?nclick_check=1

Attorney Michael Rains, in voluminous pretrial filings, argues that his client did not commit first-degree murder and is asking a Los Angeles judge to instruct the jury to limit its deliberations to either second-degree murder or acquittal.

Johannes Mehserle -2nd degree murderer whose slick lawyer got him a reduced sentence in front of a jury with no blacks.

 

[Office_Shredder]

This establishes that a murder charge is appropriate. What remains is the determination of degrees.

Tasering someone is evidence of an abandoned or malignant heart?

Also found this

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/08/local/la-me-bart-verdict-20100709

In at least six other instances, officers have said they made the same mistake of firing a handgun when they intended to use a Taser.

So I went a-googling. Funny enough I got some hits
http://www.kirotv.com/news/9413774/detail.html

Officers responding to a welfare check of a man in a tree in Kitsap County accidentally shot the man in an attempt to use a Taser on him.

I assume this officer just hated homeless people

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20070924/ai_n20518015/

Frederick P. Henry was fleeing arrest and Somerset County Deputy Sheriff Robert Purnell needed to stop him. Purnell reached back to unholster his Taser, then drew and fired at Henry.

But instead of drawing his Taser, designed to merely immobilize suspects, Purnell had mistakenly grabbed his Glock .40-caliber handgun.

So this is not the first time that an officer has mistakenly fired a taser, unless this is not the first time that an officer has used this excuse. But I don't see anywhere that these guys got charged for attempted murder because of it.

Also

http://www.bradenton.com/2010/07/01/2403481/bpd-officer-shoots-armed-man-with.html

When Brainard pulled the Taser, Cardarelle turned around and charged him with his hand in his pocket. Brainard fired his Taser, hitting Cardarelle and causing him to fall to the ground

Officer thinks suspect might be reaching for a gun, hits him with a taser. So that's not unprecedented either

 

[chemisttree]

If you already have the taser out you use it. Mehserle reached for his gun, adopted a two hand stance and fired. They are taught to fire tasers with one hand. He had been trained only 3 weeks prior to this incident.

I'd look shocked too if I was just seen executing someone. I might even exclaim, "Oh my God!" when I realized my mistake (he had no gun).

Six other examples of an officer reaching for the wrong gun doesn't change a thing. Did those other six testify that they thought their perps were reaching for their guns? Not enough information to draw any conclusions with that tidbit of info. Were it actually relevant to this case I would think a responsible journalist would elaborate more on the subject.

edit. I actually found some more information for officers that mistakenly drew the wrong gun.

Here are some items.

On March 10, 2001, Sacramento Police officer Officer Thomas Shrum shot Steven Yount in the left buttock while four officers were trying to subdue and transport him to jail following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). As Yount, who was handcuffed and in leg restraints, struggled, squirmed and kicked the inside of the police car, Officer Shrum, intending to draw and fire his TASER© gun, instead pulled out and discharged his nine-millimeter pistol.

Back then the X26 Taser was black just like the Glock. Mehserle's was bright yellow... a design change intended to keep these mistakes from happening.

On September 2, 2002 Officer Greg Siem was having trouble subduing a Sudanese refugee, Christopher Atak, who was under arrest for being drunk and disorderly. When Siem pulled out what he thought was his TASER, he in fact pulled out his firearm and shot once into the man’s back puncturing his intestine, colon and gall bladder.

On October 27, 2002, a City of Madera police officer who was carrying her black M26 TASER on the strong side, shot and accidentally killed Everardo Torres, 24, who was already handcuffed. Officer Marcy Noriega, said, “I put the f*****g TASER on he wrong side,” after she realized she shot the suspect with her firearm.

On October 20, 2003, Frederick P. Henry was fleeing arrest from Somerset County Deputy Sheriff Robert Purnell when he reached back to unholster his black TASER M26, but then drew and fired his gun at Henry. Purnell claims that he had mistakenly grabbed his Glock .40-caliber handgun when he shot Henry in the elbow. On the scene, Deputy Purnell told Henry and other witnesses that he used the wrong weapon which he had on his strong side.

On June 22, 2006, in Navy Yard City, Bremerton, Kitsap County Sheriff Deputy Tiffany Dobbins shot her firearm when she intended to use her TASER that she wore on her strong side. William A. Jones, 32, had been acting delusional in a tree for five hours prior to Deputy Dobbins’ arrival. Jones had been unsuccessfully by another deputy on the scene, but Jones was able to remove the probes and then he climbed higher in the tree. After the failed attempt Deputy Dobbins was verbally requested to deploy her TASER on Jones, and she responded by accidentally shooting Jones once in the leg. Her immediate reaction was “Oh my God, oh my God, what did I do?”

Daniel Hammond, 25, was shot in the abdomen by Constable Mike Miller on September 10, 2005. Hammond had reportedly caused a disturbance outside a restaurant and resisted when police attempted to arrest him. Miller reached for his X26 TASER to subdue Hammond but came up with his Glock and shot Hammond. Miller had been wearing the TASER on his weak side, but after he first pulled out the TASER he returned it to a cargo pocket on his strong side when he was attempting to handcuff Hammond. When Hammond continued to resist, Miller thought he was drawing TASER when he shot Hammond.

All of the previous cases of TASER confusion stemmed from the officer having the TASER on their strong side at the time of the shooting which was a common theme. Mehserle had worn his TASER holstered on his weak side, the opposite of his firearm when he shot Grant. Additionally the TASER in the previous six incidents were all black in color and because of that, TASER began to manufacture the TASER is different colors to prevent confusion. Mehserle’s TASER was yellow and Meyer claimed he was unaware the reasons why TASER began to manufacture yellow TASERS.

In the five incidents that occurred in the United States, each officer immediately expressed guilt as a result of their accident, in some cases crying on the scene for the victim. Mehserle expressed no such remorse about a mistake to his partner Jon Coffined, Anthony Pirone, or to the Commanders and Lieutenants that arrived on the scene. He didn’t hesitate to state that Grant was reaching for a weapon when he shot but never said anything about an accidental shooting. Grant was not found to be armed.

http://www.streetgangs.com/features/070710_meyer_witness
In none of these other instances did the officer change his or her story to avoid consequences and I'll bet that the two judges at their arraignment and preliminary hearings didn't indicate that they thought the officer was lying and intended to pull the gun.

I still think it is 2nd degree murder.

 

[mgb_phys]

In none of these other instances did the officer change his or her story to avoid consequences

So these officer had either better lawyers or had heard of the "I thought it was a Taser" defense before.

 

[Perspicacity]

If you already have the taser out you use it. Mehserle reached for his gun, adopted a two hand stance and fired. They are taught to fire tasers with one hand. He had been trained only 3 weeks prior to this incident.

I'd look shocked too if I was just seen executing someone. I might even exclaim, "Oh my God!" when I realized my mistake (he had no gun).

Six other examples of an officer reaching for the wrong gun doesn't change a thing. Did those other six testify that they thought their perps were reaching for their guns? Not enough information to draw any conclusions with that tidbit of info. Were it actually relevant to this case I would think a responsible journalist would elaborate more on the subject.

edit. I actually found some more information for officers that mistakenly drew the wrong gun.

Here are some items.



Back then the X26 Taser was black just like the Glock. Mehserle's was bright yellow... a design change intended to keep these mistakes from happening.












http://www.streetgangs.com/features/070710_meyer_witness
In none of these other instances did the officer change his or her story to avoid consequences and I'll bet that the two judges at their arraignment and preliminary hearings didn't indicate that they thought the officer was lying and intended to pull the gun.

I still think it is 2nd degree murder.

When I was in the service, I once accidentally fired a grenade out of my M203 instead of firing a round from my M4. The action actually required me to load a round into the M203 in order to fire it. the oddest thing was, I actually aimed my weapon as if I was firing a rifle round, so the grenade fell far short of my intended target. Luckily, no one was hurt in the incident.

To this day I wonder why I did it. It just seemed my brain was malfunctioning. I had a man in my sights and fully intended to put a round in him, but my brain told my hand to reach past the trigger of my carbine and instead pull the trigger under the launcher. I was a Sergeant at the time, was experienced with both weapons, and was considered a pretty good soldier. I've always likened it to the sort of thing like when you pick up someone else's drink or accidentally pour coffee in your cereal—your brain failed at a task that you trust yourself to do automatically.

I don't believe that this officer intended to kill this man.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I'd look shocked too if I was just seen executing someone. I might even exclaim, "Oh my God!" when I realized my mistake (he had no gun).

He looked shocked immediately after he shot the gun, so the shock was from him firing the gun. Unless he simultaneously shot the gun and realized the other guy had no gun.

Even still, if a cop sees a guy going for a gun and he's right next to the guy, they don't pull out a gun and shoot him, they use their hands to stop him from pulling it out. Especially if the guy is laying on the ground in handcuffs right below the cop.

Of course, it doesn't seem like proper procedure to taser a guy who is in handcuffs right under you, either, but I've seen it done several times before.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Chemisttree: I believe that Russ's point is that you think it is 2nd degree murder because you believe he actually intended to shoot the man and that according to the findings of the jury it was manslaughter, because they decided that he had not intended to shoot the man.

As for your other comments, how about we take a look at them.

How many hands does a person use to wield a taser? A quick image search shows persons holding tasers with one or two hands as well as a drawn diagram showing an officer holding a taser with two hands. I watched three videos on youtube, one in a training situation where the officer used two hands, one in the field where the officer used two hands, and one in the field where the officer used one hand. Do you think that perhaps he was more used to, and perhaps more comfortable with, holding a gun like device with two hands?

You seem to insinuate that if an officer sees a person possibly about to pull a gun they are trained to shoot so obviously if he was following police protocol he would not have used a taser. Well let's see... If you and another officer were on top of a suspect attempting to restrain him and having no luck when you observed that the suspect seemed to be trying to get his hand to his waistband where he may have a gun would you then stand up, ask your partner to move, and execute the guy on the ground? Do you seriously think that's proper police training?

You cited several examples of other incidents similar to the scenario you reject and note differences but not similarities. The biggest thing that jumps out at me is that in all of these incidents the officer shot only once. Thinking that they were using a taser they pulled the trigger only once because that is all that is necessary. When an officer is trained to shoot someone with a firearm how many times are they supposed to shoot? Considering that officers are only supposed to shoot if there is an imminent threat to life, and when they do to shoot to kill, the number must be two at a minimum. The officer who you claim intended to shoot the victim only shot once though. Usually when officers start shooting in the heat of the moment they shoot several times, remember the officer in the UK who unloaded a whole clip point blank into a suspects head.

You say that he showed no remorse? How do you know that? Because he did not break down sobbing? Ever heard of shock?

I am not aware of anything that was said about him changing his story. One of the judges expressed the opinion that his story was inconsistent with his having told another officer that he thought the man had a gun. I do not believe anything changed, only that the particular judge did not think that the use of a taser was the appropriate response to thinking the man had a gun.

In the end what exactly do you think happened? Do you seriously think that this cop just got tired of dealing with the suspect (come victim) and decided to get it over with by executing him in front of dozens of onlookers? I don't know where you live but around here cops don't usually decide its easier to just off someone for no particular reason other than that its less bother than trying to get cuffs on them.
Since you were so kind to get all of those references to taser/gun mix ups maybe you can support your own position by finding stories where cops got frustrated with trying to restrain someone and decided they would rather just execute them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

He looked shocked immediately after he shot the gun, so the shock was from him firing the gun. Unless he simultaneously shot the gun and realized the other guy had no gun.

Even still, if a cop sees a guy going for a gun and he's right next to the guy, they don't pull out a gun and shoot him, they use their hands to stop him from pulling it out. Especially if the guy is laying on the ground in handcuffs right below the cop.

Of course, it doesn't seem like proper procedure to taser a guy who is in handcuffs right under you, either, but I've seen it done several times before.

The suspect was not in handcuffs. The problem that eventually lead to the shooting was apparently that he was resisting their attempts to put handcuffs on him.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The suspect was not in handcuffs. The problem that eventually lead to the shooting was apparently that he was resisting their attempts to put handcuffs on him.

Oh, my mistake.
But my comment still applies, just minus the handcuffs part.

 

[chemisttree]

I am not aware of anything that was said about him changing his story. One of the judges expressed the opinion that his story was inconsistent with his having told another officer that he thought the man had a gun. I do not believe anything changed, only that the particular judge did not think that the use of a taser was the appropriate response to thinking the man had a gun.

In the end what exactly do you think happened? Do you seriously think that this cop just got tired of dealing with the suspect (come victim) and decided to get it over with by executing him in front of dozens of onlookers? I don't know where you live but around here cops don't usually decide its easier to just off someone for no particular reason other than that its less bother than trying to get cuffs on them.

I think he stood up intending to use his taser but then he thought he saw him reaching for a gun in his waistband. He changed his mind, quickly grabbed his 9mm and shot. He immediately realized his mistake etc... This scenario is consistent with the facts. He told his partner and all of the supervisory officers that showed up at the scene that he thought the guy had a gun. He never once said that he meant to pull his taser. This isn't even a disputed point. All of the reports say the same thing. The "I meant to use my taser" defense didn't appear until the slick lawyer arrived on the scene.

Since you were so kind to get all of those references to taser/gun mix ups maybe you can support your own position by finding stories where cops got frustrated with trying to restrain someone and decided they would rather just execute them.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d7_1177257949"

Of course there's http://abcnews.go.com/US/phoenix-family-lawsuit-cops-shot-homeowner-intruder/story?id=8756441"

Don't press your case too much with http://www.boredeasy.com/videos/Angry_Cop_Shoots_Soccer_Player" officer.

Here's one where a http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/new...rs-in-Court-will/b3tknfNSx0aqnYxn6iNlQw.cspx" by an officer for pushing! The Chief was arguing a traffic ticket.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think he stood up intending to use his taser but then he thought he saw him reaching for a gun in his waistband. He changed his mind, quickly grabbed his 9mm and shot. He immediately realized his mistake etc... This scenario is consistent with the facts. He told his partner and all of the supervisory officers that showed up at the scene that he thought the guy had a gun. He never once said that he meant to pull his taser. This isn't even a disputed point. All of the reports say the same thing. The "I meant to use my taser" defense didn't appear until the slick lawyer arrived on the scene.

The reports say that Mehserle stood up to taze/shoot the suspect because he already believed that the man may have a weapon that he was possibly going for. The man was on his face with his arms under his body. There is no way that if Mehserle stood up he would have seen the man going for a weapon or would have been able at all to see that the man did not have a weapon immediately after shooting him. Your idea does not make much sense. As noted by Leroy all he had to do if he saw, or believed he saw, a weapon was announce it to the half dozen or so other officers immediately on hand, including the one that was already holding the suspect, and it would have been dealt with without any shots being fired. There is absolutely no reason for him to have shot the suspect even if he thought he saw a weapon.

According to the police investigation he had said he intended to taze the suspect before he stood up and then told his partner to get out of the way so he could taze the suspect. The judge in the preliminary hearing rejected allowing his partners report of having heard him say this into evidence. Perhaps he did not mention the taser mix up immediately because he had said that was what he had intended to do in the first place. Perhaps he was in shock and just saying "I thought he had a gun" and not thinking clearly enough to describe what had happened. Perhaps, since you think he is a liar, he refrained from saying that he had accidentally pulled the wrong weapon because he thought it would sound even worse, making himself not only look incompetent but completely and utterly incompetent. BART locked this down tight and did not want anyone talking to the press, so even if there had been discussion of a taser mix up before the "slick lawyer" we would not have heard about it. And if he knew what he is supposed to do when detained for questioning he would not have discussed anything with his interviewers without a lawyer present.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d7_1177257949"

Of course there's http://abcnews.go.com/US/phoenix-family-lawsuit-cops-shot-homeowner-intruder/story?id=8756441"

Don't press your case too much with http://www.boredeasy.com/videos/Angry_Cop_Shoots_Soccer_Player" officer.

Here's one where a http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/new...rs-in-Court-will/b3tknfNSx0aqnYxn6iNlQw.cspx" by an officer for pushing! The Chief was arguing a traffic ticket.

Right, you'll note that none of these cases bear much resemblance to the one we are discussing other than that they are regarding cops who shot people when they ought not have. Please show me one where a cop flat out executed someone laying on their face on the ground while being restrained by another officer where there was absolutely no reason for them to have shot the person.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Right, you'll note that none of these cases bear much resemblance to the one we are discussing other than that they are regarding cops who shot people when they ought not have. Please show me one where a cop flat out executed someone laying on their face on the ground while being restrained by another officer where there was absolutely no reason for them to have shot the person.

Moving the goalpost much?

 

[russ_watters]

A taser is a "potentially deadly weapon", just less deadly than a gun.

You would have a tought time winning that argument, were you to actually present a case for that claim. The fact that someone can die if you use a taser (or mace, or a car, or a toothpick) on them does not make it legally, a "potentially deadly weapon". In the US, legally, tasers are not firearms and they are legal for civilians to carry without the restrictions of firearms.

I think chemisttree is suggesting that: while assaulting with the taser, the officer unintentionally caused the death of the victim, thereby satisfying the definition of 2nd degree murder.

I'm not sure if that's what chemisttree meant, but quite clearly, the officer did not assault the victim with a taser as you suggest.

 

[russ_watters]

Chemisttree: I believe that Russ's point is that you think it is 2nd degree murder because you believe he actually intended to shoot the man and that according to the findings of the jury it was manslaughter, because they decided that he had not intended to shoot the man.

Sort of. Chemisttree is playing both sides against the middle, simultaneously arguing that the officer lied and meant to use the gun (which would be 2nd degree murder) and that even if he didn't lie and actually did shoot him accidentally, it would still be 2nd degree murder (which is clearly wrong).

 

[russ_watters]

This clarifies a little bit:

I think he stood up intending to use his taser but then he thought he saw him reaching for a gun in his waistband. He changed his mind, quickly grabbed his 9mm and shot. He immediately realized his mistake etc... This scenario is consistent with the facts.

Yes, you are correct that that is consistent with the facts. It is unclear to me if that is 2nd degree murder because as you clearly acknowledge, that would be accidental, but in either case, it is irrelevant: "Consistent with the facts" is not "beyond a reasonable doubt". Even if you believe that's what happened, if you were on a jury and returned a verdict based on "consistent with the facts", the verdict would have to be thrown out because you were using an insufficient standard of proof.

But you have also argued - as I understand your argument - that even if the facts are exactly as the officer says, it is still 2nd degree murder. You've backed that up with a clear statements about your interpretation (wrong, as it is), so I'm pretty sure that's the intent of your claim.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Moving the goalpost much?

I'm not sure what you mean. That is what happened in the case we are discussing. A man lying on the ground and being restrained by another officer was shot for no apparent reason. If you believe it was on purpose then you must believe that the officer just up and decided to execute this guy because he was frustrated.

In Chem's first example the officer was by himself and apparently attempting to deal with two suspects simultaneously with no other weapon on him but a hand gun. He shot a man who was on his feet and following him around without any restraints. Not at all like what we are talking about and so gives no parallel except that the man shot someone who he ought not have.

Second example was an officer entering a situation with two men fighting and shooting the wrong one. Nothing at all like what we are talking again aside from a cop shooting someone he ought not have.

Third example I was unable to watch the video and no article was supplied with it that I could see, I have no idea on that one.

Fourth example was of an officer dealing with a man on his feet who was in a physical altercation of some sort with another officer. Again, not at all like we are talking about.

The "goalpost" is supporting the version of events that Chem puts forward. None of these stories he cites (I am not sure about the one I can not watch) bears any similarity to what we are talking about except in the broadest of sense.

 

[khemist]

I live in Oakland, and while I am not going to read everyone's post, I just want to say that it was a failure on the judicial system. Regardless whether the man was a cop or not, the act of killing a person in the situation that it was not necessary, even if he was resisting. Pulling a taser on someone who is handcuffed on the ground is excessive, and considering he pulled a GUN and SHOT him in the back is beyond absurd. The police force is supposed to be a person trained to handle situations correctly and with a level head, which the police officer obviously did neither of.

I probably hold a quite biased view (keep in mind I am white, I am not turning this into a race issue...) because I live in Oakland, but the whole situation is completely absurd...

 

[russ_watters]

I live in Oakland, and while I am not going to read everyone's post, I just want to say that it was a failure on the judicial system. Regardless whether the man was a cop or not, the act of killing a person in the situation that it was not necessary, even if he was resisting.

Your second sentence is correct, which is why he was convicted of manslaughter for the act...which makes your first question curious - he was convicted, so how is it a failure?

Pulling a taser on someone who is handcuffed on the ground is excessive, and considering he pulled a GUN and SHOT him in the back is beyond absurd. The police force is supposed to be a person trained to handle situations correctly and with a level head, which the police officer obviously did neither of.

Your understanding of the situation is incorrect: he was not handcuffed.

but the whole situation is completely absurd...

Yes, it is absurd (and unacceptable), which is why he was convicted!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I live in Oakland, and while I am not going to read everyone's post, I just want to say that it was a failure on the judicial system. Regardless whether the man was a cop or not, the act of killing a person in the situation that it was not necessary, even if he was resisting. Pulling a taser on someone who is handcuffed on the ground is excessive, and considering he pulled a GUN and SHOT him in the back is beyond absurd. The police force is supposed to be a person trained to handle situations correctly and with a level head, which the police officer obviously did neither of.

I probably hold a quite biased view (keep in mind I am white, I am not turning this into a race issue...) because I live in Oakland, but the whole situation is completely absurd...

You do realize that the man is going to prison for this right? The jury has decided he screwed up and deserves to pay the price. He will be sentenced for up to 14 years and will never be a cop again.

 

[khemist]

Your understanding of the situation is incorrect: he was not handcuffed.

Ok well I might have been misinformed, but regardless of him being handcuffed the shot fired was not needed.

The point where you claim that he was convicted, he was not convicted of what I believe was the situation, where the police officer committed murder, and even if you would not consider murder, he most definitely did not commit involuntary manslaughter, which in my opinion is a disregard for the life that was taken. This subject is something that cannot almost be argued, because it boarders religion, in that its he said, she said, my morals versus your morals.

I still consider that the fact the police officer did not get 25+ years is what I call the failure of the system; the fact that a man pulled his gun, shot someone (most likely knowingly), was convicted of something akin to a man who has a BAC of .45 and ran someone over...@Ape: Please look at my above post. Regardless of the fact that he got time, the officer did not get the appropriate time for his actions (at least, in my opinion.)

 

[russ_watters]

The point where you claim that he was convicted, he was not convicted of what I believe was the situation, where the police officer committed murder, and even if you would not consider murder, he most definitely did not commit involuntary manslaughter, which in my opinion is a disregard for the life that was taken.

The question of what I or you think the definitions should be is irrelevant: the definitions are what they are and you can't say it was murder instead of manslaughter unless you can actually connect it to the real definition of the two crimes.

What I think you really object to is the punishment for manslaughter. I disagree that manslaughter should be punished at the same level as murder.

...and you're also playing both sides - like chemisttree, simultaneously arguing that manslaughter is murder and then also that the cop was lying and really did do it on purpose when you say: "most likely knowingly". If he did do it on purpose and it could be proven, then it would be murder (still wouldn't get 25+ though), but even if he did do it on purpose, it just can't be proven and because of that, he can't be convicted of murder. The US has a legal system which requires you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of the crime they are accused of. I consider that to be a positive thing.

You are utilizing neither facts nor logic in your argument: your position is based purely on an emotional reaction: Someone died, and someone else must pay dearly for it.

This subject is something that cannot almost be argued, because it boarders religion, in that its he said, she said, my morals versus your morals.

Well, there really can only be two ways to look at it: one is to argue it based on morals that have no basis beyond emotion and the other is to argue it bast on facts, logic, and the law -- which, by the way, can also be the basis for a system of morals.

 

[khemist]

Well, maybe the beer comes into play here, which could be the reason for my irrational? typing.

I guess from my point of view is that the officer did something that is not necessary and deserves more than 2-14 years, regardless of the conviction. I apologize for my niavness (mozilla won't correct the spelling lol) in the situation, but I figure that if it had not been a cop the conviction would have been much worse. Again, I am making an assumption, but unless I am to do some research (which I am honestly not trying to do now lul), I feel it is valid... Maybe it is an emotional verdict, but I do not know much about law, and at the moment logic is almost beyond me :P

Maybe tomorrow I will actually look into my assumptions. I do not mean to attack anyone's point of view, but rather hope people see things the way I see them, even though I do not pose a logical or lawful argument.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The point where you claim that he was convicted, he was not convicted of what I believe was the situation, where the police officer committed murder, and even if you would not consider murder, he most definitely did not commit involuntary manslaughter, which in my opinion is a disregard for the life that was taken. This subject is something that cannot almost be argued, because it boarders religion, in that its he said, she said, my morals versus your morals.

It seems to me that the "borderline religious" view is the one that believes that police officers are such horrible people that they have no compunction about executing a prone man for no reason what so ever.

This is the thing that always gets me about this case. Do you seriously think that he just up and decided to smoke this guy for no reason? To me it doesn't make any sense.

 

[chemisttree]

..and you're also playing both sides - like chemisttree, simultaneously arguing that manslaughter is murder and then also that the cop was lying and really did do it on purpose when you say: "most likely knowingly".

A point of clarification here. I never said that manslaughter is murder. You did. I believe you called it 3rd degree murder. You claim that I'm not interpreting the law defining 2nd degree murder correctly. The prosecution lawyers interpreted it in the same manner. So did the defense lawyer. You continually assert that an intent to kill is required for 2nd degree murder to be applicable. For example

3. His statement in the heat of the moment that he said he was going to use his taser: Do you have a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt reason to believe he was thinking that he wanted to kill the person and had the clarity of forethought to throw in a little misdirection?

and

The bottom line is that there is no direct evidence at all that points to to a purposeful killing.

and

Second degree murder is still on purpose, so if you don't believe (beyond a reasonable doubt) the cop decided he wanted to execute the guy, then you don't actually believe it is second degree murder - you're just misusing the term.

But you also have said this...

The difference between second and third degree murder is simply intent. 3rd degree murder is recklessness that results in death. 2nd degree murder requires the intent to injure:

So I thought we were making some headway but then you stated this...

While we're at it, no one arguing for 2nd degree murder has yet directly addressed the "reasonable doubt" issue. Could you guys explain how you can be 95% certain that the cop intended to kill even though there is no direct evidence of that intent?

Acutally your own definitions have been changing throughout this discussion. Intent to kill in some cases and intent to only injure in another. I've always asserted that an intent to kill would be 1st degree murder and that 2nd degree murder is only the intent to injure. Mehserle has always maintained that he thought Grant had a gun. He didn't mention drawing the wrong weapon until his second lawyer came up with that defense. Thus he is changing his story to avoid consequences. His lawyer abused the system to get a murderer a lighter sentence. It happens all the time.
I'm not going to belabor the point further and just stick with this statement you made.

You believe he intended to shoot the guy [with a gun], so you're applying that definition. And if he did intend to shoot the guy, then that definition would fit.

I'm calling that a Q.E.D.

 

[cristo]

If a cop cannot tell the difference between a taser and a handgun then clearly he has not received enough training, and should not be permitted to carry either!

 

[BobG]

If a cop cannot tell the difference between a taser and a handgun then clearly he has not received enough training, and should not be permitted to carry either!

Being convicted of manslaughter is pretty much going to be a career ender. When deciding between manslaughter or second degree murder, you're deciding on the length of the sentence; not whether to retain him as a police officer.

1. Adrenaline: is it reasonable to think that in a high stress situation, he forgot his training and lost awareness? It happens all the time. I think it is quite possible.

You are invoking an "adrenaline" defense? Should it be that easy to get away with second degree murder. "I was excited and therefore not guilty!"

Don't discount the adrenaline defense so fast. Looking at the video, it's hard to see why the situation would raise the officer's adrenaline to such a high level that he'd forget his training, but I wouldn't want to judge from a news report.

Here's a less serious example of an officer accused of using excessive force against 3 suspects:
http://www.fox8.com/news/akroncanton/wjw-deputy-kicks-suspect-arrest-dash-cam-txt,0,4105057.story

The raw video shows the same actions, but adding the rest of the video and the audio adds a bit of context that the news story is missing. In the raw video, the voice with the heavy breathing is the deputy that did the kicking of the suspects.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLPLi2xBwuA


The deputy in question was responding to a brawl at a party with his lights and flashers on while two cars were fleeing the party with their headlights off. They could see the oncoming police cruiser and could try to avoid him, but he couldn't see them coming until the last few seconds. One collided head on with his cruiser, while the other vehicle ran off the road to avoid a collision and flipped. Amazingly, the most serious injuries sustained in either accident was two broken arms and torn ligaments by the deputy, while the occupants that collided with his cruiser sustained several lacerations. The occupants of the flipped car were able to flee the scene.

The deputy was obviously very stressed and he obviously continued to kick the suspects even after they were laying on the ground. The adrenaline an officer is going to experience in a situation like this is something that's covered in training, but it's going to be almost impossible to actually create the same sensation. You can try to create similar feeling situations, but the training still winds up having to resort to telling officers that they need to be prepared for something they'll only experience once or twice during their careers.

The deputy in the video is my ex-wife's brother, which is why it caught my interest. He'll probably never have full use of his right hand again, which seems odd just looking at the video since he's holding his injured left arm with his right hand. Adrenaline makes a person ignore their pain for awhile, and by the end of the video, the pain is finally beginning to break through the adrenaline rush.