Looks Like Manslaughter
Radley Balko in reason on Johannes Mehserle:
Early in the morning of January 1, 2009, in a now infamous incident captured on video by dozens of cell phones and replayed across the globe, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed 23-year-old Oscar Grant as Grant lay on his stomach on an Oakland BART platform. Last week, a Los Angeles jury found Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Because the jury had the option to convict Mehserle of second-degree murder, and perhaps because the jury contained no blacks (Mehserle is white, Grant was black), the verdict has enraged civil rights groups and sparked protests and rioting in Oakland. The Department of Justice is now looking into the possibility of trying Mehserle a second time under federal civil rights law.The jury got it right. There's ample evidence that Mesehrle was negligent--likely criminally negligent. There's evidence that Mehserle and his fellow officers may have used excessive force the night Grant was killed. There's also evidence that Mesehrle's fellow officers tried to cover up the shooting by confiscating the cell phones of BART passengers who recorded the incident (generally speaking, police can ask for your name and address to later obtain a court order for video of evidentiary value, but they aren't permitted to take your cell phone or camera at the scene). There's evidence that one of Mehserle's fellow officers used a racial slur just before Grant's death. But there simply isn't any evidence that Mehserle is a murderer.
Mehserle claims he mistakenly grabbed his gun while reaching for his Taser. This is not only plausible, it's the explanation most supported by the evidence. In the video, Mehserle's body language just after the shooting indicates surprise and shock. That's supported by witness statements that Mehserle exclaimed "Oh my God!" several times after he fired, and then put his hands to his head, a gesture that indicates disbelief. These aren't the actions of a man who intended to kill someone. There's simply no basis for the accusation that Mehserle intentionally executed a man in front of dozens of witnesses.
...Mehserle shouldn't ever work as a cop again. And he should be sending a portion of his paycheck to Oscar Grant's family for the rest of his life. Grant's family should also get money from the city of Oakland, which failed to train Mehserle properly. But involuntary manslaughter sounds about right. A mistake shouldn't send a man to prison for the rest of his life.
It's happened before -- a Madera police officer said she mistook her Glock for her Taser and accidentally shot and killed a 24-year-old man. Charges were not filed.
That's why each item on their belt has a very specific place. Why are tasers built so much like guns that they can be mistaken for one?
I don't think you can say he has to send a portion of his paycheck for life, unless you want to say that of everyone who accidently kills another. I'd agree he's lost his cop privledge, though.
momof4 at July 13, 2010 6:09 AM
"For life," I don't know about (depends on how much we're talking about), but a verdict of involuntary manslaughter typically means the jury thought he was negligent in his actions, and thus he may well be liable for damages in a civil case.
silverpie at July 13, 2010 6:35 AM
Good questions mom. The use of a pistol grip, and pistol type holster, has been criticized since their introduction, specifically due to concerns that they too closely resemble a firearm. Tazers are intended for incapacitation where there is no immediate threat, so there's no need for a 'fast draw' tazer.
Truth be told, most LE are incompetent with firearms. This is especially true in urban PD's where many of the officers have no prior experience with guns. They shoot a little during training, then a few shots during their qualifiers - which anyone not in the throws of an epileptic fit could pass - and that's it. Frankly there's a reasonable argument for not issuing firearms to most police officers, because they're such a danger to the public.
Mark at July 13, 2010 6:41 AM
Mehserle was a BART cop, not an Oakland PD cop. Oakland owes the Grants nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police
Conan the Grammarian at July 13, 2010 8:35 AM
"It's happened before -- a Madera police officer said she mistook her Glock for her Taser and accidentally shot and killed a 24-year-old man. Charges were not filed."
Completely different - Mehserle didn't have a pussy pass.
Jim at July 13, 2010 8:41 AM
"It's happened before -- a Madera police officer said she mistook her Glock for her Taser and accidentally shot and killed a 24-year-old man. Charges were not filed."
Completely different - Mehserle didn't have a pussy pass.
Jim at July 13, 2010 8:41 AM
Based on her name I guessing she wasnt white either
lujlp at July 13, 2010 9:18 AM
Tasers are supposed to be a next-to-last weapon. They are supposed to be used as a less-lethal alternative to a gun, not as a convenient way to subdue or punish someone. Billy clubs are still available.
The police had already beaten down Oscar Grant ("as Grant lay on his stomach") when Mehserle decided to punish Grant by tasing him. Second degree murder would have been my verdict. Police must be held to a higher standard than using force merely because it is available.
"There's evidence that Mehserle and his fellow officers may have used excessive force the night Grant was killed." It seems that Grant had backup and that these policemen were in control of the situation. This is police criminality (based on this article). I think Mehserle was using unwarranted force at the time he made his "mistake", and that makes Grant's death occur within a criminal act by Mehserle.
Andrew_M_Garland at July 13, 2010 11:57 AM
What keeps eating at me is that Grant was on the ground two officers holding him, when this dumbass apparently decided to use the Taser for- what? A little extra "Don't mess with us"?
Besides the fact that they're called 'less lethal' weapons for a reason, they're like a nightstick; you're not supposed to use it on somebody who's already restrained. Unless there was something really drastic happening that doesn't show an any of the video, I can see no reason for Mehserle to have reached for the Taser in the first place.
By the way, I think the big reason for shaping them like a handgun is it makes them easier to aim and use, especially in a messy situation, that something shaped so it can't be mistaken for a gun. Does mean that the damn thing should NOT be holstered next to the sidearm.
Firehand at July 13, 2010 12:07 PM
Firehand:
Unless there was something really drastic happening that doesn't show in any of the video
- - - - - - - - - - -
Grant was still actively resisting, and the police testified that Mehserle thought he was reaching for a concealed gun.
For what that's worth - I haven't seen any of the video.
There are plenty of other form factors for "point and shoot" devices. Look at cameras or laser pointers.
The Taser could easily be packaged as a flashlight-shaped device.
Ben David at July 13, 2010 12:17 PM
"The Taser could easily be packaged as a flashlight-shaped device."
Used to be that it was. The first iteration even had a light bulb in it.
Steve Daniels at July 13, 2010 1:05 PM
Tasers are considered deadly weapons. (maybe CA law considers them differently) Thus, his excuse would be similar to saying, I was reaching for my Glock but grabbed my .357. (perhaps I have the lethality reversed).
Watching the video, It looks like they cops have him pretty well under control. Furthermore, the cop stands up slow, draws the weapon, aims for a short time and shoots. Not a quick draw, panicked action. If anything, to me this would seem more dangerous then him staying with the other officers on the guy.
There's simply no basis for the accusation that Mehserle intentionally executed a man in front of dozens of witnesses. -- Balko
Ok, that doesn't mean that he did not commit second degree murder.
Many states use the California definition of implied malice to describe an unintentional killing that is charged as murder because the defendant intended to do serious bodily injury, or acted with extreme recklessness. For example, if an aggressor punches a victim in the nose, intending only to injure the victim's face, the aggressor may be charged with murder if the victim dies from the blow -- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second-degree+murder
If the officer had drawn the taser as intended and the taser had killed the victim (quite possible) the officer it seems still could have been convicted of 2nd degree murder.
I don't know what other evidence there is, but from what I have seen it looks like 2nd degree murder.
The Former Banker at July 13, 2010 2:46 PM
Confusing a handgun for a Taser? Holy frak I have seen some ergonomics problems in my life but that takes the frakking cake.
Elle at July 13, 2010 5:56 PM
How the fuck is a taser a deadly weapon?
The whole point of them is to incapacitate with out killing.
Robert at July 13, 2010 10:48 PM
Tasers can kill people -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues#Deaths_and_injuries_related_to_Taser_use
Sam at July 14, 2010 9:04 AM
Robert, they used to call them 'non-lethal'; then, some months ago, they quietly changed it to 'less-lethal' precisely because with some people, and in some conditions, it can kill.
No surprise, there's not much of anything you can use that won't kill in some circumstances, but they spent so much time playing "It's non-lethal!" that it was a BIG change to go to 'less'.
Ben, in moments of high stress, dealing with a real bad guy in a really dangerous situation, I don't want to try aiming a camera to fire a Taser. The problem isn't the shape; it's either training or malice.
Firehand at July 14, 2010 7:15 PM
Leave a comment