I’m at a loss as to the involuntary manslaughter verdict. Then again, I didn’t see all the evidence the jury had available. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard really is a tough one, and intent can be hard to prove. The motive issue was probably a difficult one, as the incident was really bizarre. Still, the explanation (he thought his gun was a taser) also seems very lame to my lay person mind.
Riots in Oakland with 80 arrests.
I’ll dig up one of the old Youtube vids and post it.
Addendum: My earlier discussion of the incident, and video.
Second addendum: In what could some day develop into a related event, Jon Stewart reviewed the famous Arizona training video and concluding “Mexicans are f#*@ed.”
Third addendum: Well, they aren’t identical, but a taser certainly looks more like a gun than a wallet.
The photo comes from Photography is not a Crime.
Fourth addendum: And I’ll close out for now with Michael Moore at his best on one of his several short-lived television shows. I believe this series is actually available on Netflix.
Sohum Parlance II 
60 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 9, 2010 at 8:21 am
Lodgepole
Cool, an excuse to burn and loot! Oh the oppression!
July 9, 2010 at 9:13 am
Fred Mangels
This is not the first incident I’ve heard about where police have mistakenly used a firearm instead of a taser. I think involuntary manslaughter is appropriate, assuming a criminal case (as opposed to a civil case) should have been charged.
It’s fairly obvious to me from watching the video that he was surprised when he realized he’d fired his pistol instead of a taser. That shooting was the last thing he wanted to happen. His life was likely ruined the minute that gun fired and he knew it. Ruined even without the charges being filed.
July 9, 2010 at 9:23 am
bringenemuplikehoodlums
Teach your children :
1. Not to BRAWL on the Bart in the middle of the night – or ever. (I teach my kids that, “Nothing good happens after midnight” GO HOME!!)
2. When facing possible arrest, it is ‘yes sir no sir” (or ma’am) to the police. COMPLY, get arrested – big whoop! THINK! If it is truly unwarranted u can always SUE them later. But for sure, don’t cop a ‘tude’ and get yourself SHOT!!!! They are trained to confront potential danger – plain and simple.
The family of this loser is an embarrasment – like manslaughter isn’t enough?? Get over it. Your kid blew it, the cop did his job.
Notice !!! In Madera when a Hispanic was killed (accidentally?) by a Hispanic cop there were NO CHARGES filed. http://www.maderatribune.com/news/newsview.asp?c=56821
July 9, 2010 at 9:23 am
Eric Kirk
Okay, I’m sure I can find a photo of both the gun and taser somewhere on the Internet. I’ll post it when I find it.
I don’t know how forcefully the prosecution pushed this, but there is a general rule that if you intend to harm someone nonlethally and it becomes lethal, you can still be convicted of murder or at least voluntary manslaughter. Was there any proper basis to tase the man? He was down and handcuffed.
Also, federal prosecutors still have the option of pursuing their own charges – no double jeopardy. I strongly believe it should be regarded as double jeopardy, but the courts have never agreed with me.
July 9, 2010 at 9:29 am
the reasonable anonymous
I find this outcome disgusting, though not at all surprising. If cops can get away with saying that they thought Amadou Diallo’s wallet was a gun, then its just a small step to “I thought my 9mm was a Taser.” Having handled both myself (though not as a cop) I’m sorry, that’s just not the least bit believable. Does anyone really believe that if this was a black cop who shot a white banker in the back this kind of shit would fly? If so, come on over to Bridges Unlimited, ‘cuz I’ve got a deal for you.
July 9, 2010 at 9:29 am
Eric Kirk
(I teach my kids that, “Nothing good happens after midnight” GO HOME!!)
Some of my best memories as a teenager happened after midnight.
July 9, 2010 at 9:30 am
Ernie's Place
One life ruined, one life taken, several lives changed forever.
It has long been my philosophy to never hassle a man with a gun. No matter who is guilty, and who is innocent, a situation was created that placed everyone in jeopardy.
Could this have been you? As the cop? As the Bart passenger? There is enough blame to go around for all sides. All caused by foolishness and carelessness. All avoidable
July 9, 2010 at 9:40 am
Mitch
That photo (your third addendum) is unbelievable.
It might be worth finding out whether you “pull the trigger” to fire the taser.
After this trial, any taser manufacturer that sells a taser with a pistol-style trigger should be worried about product liability. It seems quite clear that if police assert potential confusion between firing a lethal weapon and a non-lethal weapon, the manufacturer of the non-lethal weapon has an obligation to remove the confusion by moving the trigger so that an action which would fire the taser will not fire a pistol. The trigger could be on top of the device, pushed with the officer’s thumb. Or instead of a pistol grip, the taser could be designed to be held in the palm and squeezed to fire.
July 9, 2010 at 9:41 am
Eric Kirk
Mitch – maybe also there should be a big sticker on it which reads “do not tase a suspect who is hand-cuffed and laying on the ground.”
July 9, 2010 at 9:41 am
Mitch
And, before I am criticized for talking like a lawyer, part of my background is in user interface design, and poor medical device user interfaces have caused accidental deaths and been subject to legal action. In fact, one such case is a classic in the field.
July 9, 2010 at 9:43 am
Mitch
Eric,
Just to be clear, I’m not offering an opinion on Mehserle or the verdict. But regardless of anyone’s opinion about this case and the people involved, designing a non-lethal device to look like and work like a lethal one is asking for trouble.
July 9, 2010 at 9:45 am
Eric Kirk
No argument Mitch. They shouldn’t make it look like a gun.
July 9, 2010 at 9:55 am
Ernie's Place
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/EDU01EBK43.DTL&tsp=1
July 9, 2010 at 9:56 am
the reasonable anonymous
Not all Tasers look like that much like a gun. Or at least not all Taser-like stun devices do. If that’s the actual model that was used in that case, I guess I’ll have to admit that it is certainly more gun-like than I had thought and that there is at least a possibility that the cop really made an honest mistake of one for the other.
Eric also makes a good point about why the officer would even feel the need to “tase” a guy who was handcuffed and lying face-down. And especially why would he feel the need to do so with such urgency that he mistook his gun for a Taser.
I definitely agree with Mitch that the design of that particular Taser model is problematic and that they shouldn’t be allowed to make a (supposedly) non-lethal device look, feel, and fire so much like a gun.
July 9, 2010 at 10:08 am
Eric Kirk
From Ernie’s link:
His reaction immediately after the shooting suggested disbelief at what he had done.
Well, here’s an example of evidence I haven’t seen, and that could in fact raise a reasonable doubt as to the officer’s state of mind.
July 9, 2010 at 10:29 am
Joe Blow
Eric, You and Ernie’s statements above are a classic example of why this system is broken and failed. This idea that police lives are more valuable than everyone else is an obscenity. That guy was flat on his face with his hands handcuffed behind his back, totally secured by how many police officer standing around and on him? And that guy was going to Taser him? Somebody needs to Taser you sick bast***s.
Sorry if I offend you two or any other reader. You insult all the is reasonable and decent, what little of that there is left in people.
July 9, 2010 at 10:34 am
the reasonable anonymous
Joe, you might want to read Eric’s 9:41 comment. And then you might want to offer him an apology.
July 9, 2010 at 10:41 am
Anonymous
Joe, as Eric pointed out the issue isn’t whether the killing was justified. The issue is whether the district attorney could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was deliberate. In this country the prosecution has the burden of proof.
July 9, 2010 at 10:52 am
the reasonable anonymous
Ernie’s link also contained these quotes:
“Mehserle, 28, claimed it was an accident, that he thought he was firing a Taser instead of a handgun at the detainee. The explanation stretched the bounds of plausibility, given the difference in weight, feel – and position on his holster – between the nonlethal weapon intended to immobilize and the Sig Sauer P226 pistol that is used to kill. He clearly was negligent….His reaction immediately after the shooting suggested disbelief at what he had done. Yet his explanation of having mistaken his gun for a Taser did not emerge for several days.”
I don’t buy his explanation at all, and the fact that this explanation only emerged after several day (and no doubt consultation with lawyers) only strengthens that feeling. But having seen that video some time ago, I think the statement that his reaction showed disbelief at what he had done is pretty accurate. So, perhaps the prosecutors charged what they thought they could prove, and the jury woud indeed have had “reasonable doubt” about the officer’s intentions. But I still have a queasy feeling that this would have played out quite differently if it was a black cop shooting a white banker in the back while said banker was handcuffed and face-down.
The link Ernie posted ends with this bit, which I think is quite appropriate:
“The next test of justice will come Aug. 6 at the sentencing. The minimum punishment for Mehserle would be five years in prison, which would seem insufficient for this senseless taking of a life.”
I wonder if the fact that the supposedly intended Tasering itself seems completely unjustified will weigh into that sentencing decision. In other words, even if you conclude that he didn’t “mean” to shoot the guy, and the shooting was an act of involuntary manslaughter with some degree of negligence based on the fact that he should have known the difference between his gun and his Taser based on its weight, position in the holster, etc., doesn’t the fact that he shouldn’t have been Tasering a handcuffed, face-down prisoner in the first place weigh into his overall level of wrongdoing?
July 9, 2010 at 10:54 am
the reasonable anonymous
And if 5 years is the minimum sentence, what is the maximum? That wasn’t apparent in the article.
July 9, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Fred Mangels
doesn’t the fact that he shouldn’t have been Tasering a handcuffed, face-down prisoner in the first place weigh into his overall level of wrongdoing?.
I’ll concede this does certainly seem to show how casual many in law enforcement seem to feel about using tasers.
July 9, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Joe Blow
Nonsense! I stand by what I said. You got the same type of situation right here in Eureka when the police executed David Sequoia. After that fiasco has anyone heard anything from anyone, including the District Attorney? All after-the-fact justification. When people like “YOU” (I’m addressing the general supportive reader) thinks it’s just fine for the police to carry and use tasers, to torture and kill sick, drunk, elderly, handcuffed and physically controlled and restrained (suspects) people, etc., then what’s a murder or two once in a while? By the way, I wrote extensively about the Sequoia incident and the newspaper’s police bias in their so-called reporting. As long as you people give the police carte blanche to do whatever they want with impunity everyone’s safety, freedoms and protection becomes paradoxical – including yours.
July 9, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Ernie's Place
Joe Blow
I am absolutely astounded at the things that you can read into the most generic of statements. I normally don’t suffer fools, and I see Eric has stopped rising to your bait, but you are just way too far out there to ignore any longer. If you are really as paranoid and angry as you seem you should seek help. Nobody said anything about siding with anybody… Got it? It’s simply a situation that could have, and should have been avoided. And many people are going to pay the price for losing control, the cop, the deceased, and the friends and family of both.
July 9, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Michael Moore is God
I haven’t seen that video or that TV series but that’s a great one!
July 9, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Mitch
Joe Blow,
If you’d been on the jury, and gone through the trial, perhaps you’d feel differently. Do you think not one of the twelve jurors had sympathy for the victim, or doubt about the defense?
As Eric said, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a high standard, and for good reason.
July 9, 2010 at 1:54 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Joe, I just don’t think that your 10:29 comment bore any relationship to the opinions expressed by Eric. He didn’t say that the Tasering was fine, in fact his 9:41 comment seemed to me to express just the opposite. And nowhere in his post or comments do I find any sense that police lives are more important than civilian lives.
I think you’re doing your cause a disservice by dumping on people who are broadly in agreement with many of your concerns. Hint: any time you start using the phrase “you people” to lump all perceived opponents together, you’re probably acting in a self-defeating way.
July 9, 2010 at 1:56 pm
the reasonable anonymous
I’m appreciating Fred’s recognition of the problem of apparently much-too-casual use of Tasers.
July 9, 2010 at 2:01 pm
TM
Cops are people. There. I said it.
The cop in this story may have been justified, maybe not.
I wasnt there.
But anyone who thinks there are not scummy crappy evil little people out there, looking to hurt you and your family, are living in a dream world.
We obviously need better cops, better training.
But the reaction of the so-called ‘community’ in Oakland only proves
that most of them did not care about this. They only saw an excuse to steal, rob, and vandalize.
Next time your home is invaded, hope you have decided in advance wether or not we should all support the police.
July 9, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Eric Kirk
TM – I think there are certain things we can determine from the video, even without all the facts. We have an individual who was subdued, on the ground, and hand-cuffed. There was no need to kill him. Yes, a jury needs to consider all the evidence, but I bet that one didn’t get more than 20 seconds of discussion.
July 9, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Fred Mangels
TM wrote, The cop in this story may have been justified, maybe not.
I don’t know that anybody, with the exception of perhaps a few crackpot comments I’ve seen on some blogs, says the shooting was justified. I’m not saying the shooting was justified. I don’t know that I could say the use of the taser was justified, either. But the shooting wasn’t deliberate, imo.
R.A. wrote, I’m appreciating Fred’s recognition of the problem of apparently much-too-casual use of Tasers.
Funny thing is, tasers came to their current level of use in law enforcement because they offered another level of force that could be used to reduce police shootings. Now some are complaining because people have been dying as a result of tasers themselves. A guy died last week(?) in Del Norte County after being tasered.
They do have a proper role in law enforcement, imo, but just like everything else, once they start being used they end up being used more and more.
Just like SWAT teams. When they were first developed, they were only used in extreme circumstances. Now they’re deployed all the time, or so it seems. It’s only a matter of time that shots are fired with all the deployments.
Oh, and I seem to have taken what seems to be a more active defensive role in this argument on the California Watchdog web site. Two of their writers think it should of been murder, or so it appears. I say pretty much what I’ve written here.
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2010/07/08/wrist-slap-in-grant-case/comment-page-1/#comment-2875
July 9, 2010 at 2:52 pm
the reasonable anonymous
I think one of the main problems with the use of Tasers is that it has morphed from its supposed intended use as an alternative to deadly force in providing officer defense or an alternative to pepper spray in subduing struggling suspects to being used as an alternative or companion to the nightstick in the application of illegal pre-judicial punishment, amounting to a form of torture.
If the officer in this case had nothing to fear from the face-down, handcuffed suspect, the only explanation I can see for the choice to use the Taser (if that’s really what it was, I do have some doubts as I expressed above) would be the officer’s anger-fueled desire to apply pain to the already-subdued suspect. In other words, a bit of pre-trial torture carried out by the cop for his own satisfaction.
Even if we were to accept that the cops only intention was to use the Taser, not the gun (or at least that the intentional use of the gun coudn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt), we’re still left with the reality that if he hadn’t chosen to use the Taser inappropriately he wouldn’t have made the “mistake” of using his gun instead.
The bottom line is that the officer caused a needless death, either on purpose, or “by accident” while in the act of torturing an already-subdued suspect on purpose. I just can’t see how there is any way out of that conclusion. I hope the judge gives him way more than the 5 year minimum sentence.
July 9, 2010 at 4:41 pm
okay
This jerk was resisting arrest. He had a record of resisting arrest. Pretty stupid, imo. And the officer in question had had but a few hours of training with the taser and fired it previously only once.
@ eric re: his awesome post midnight memories…true maybe, u were lucky. Remember, having a good time or not, it is the other idiots out after midnight our youth must steer clear of. Call me old fashioned, but home offers little chance of getting shot by a cop or run over by a drunk that’s all.
July 9, 2010 at 6:40 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Just watched the Michael Moore video. Maybe the police need to paint their Taser’s with DayGlo orange paint so we won’t have another “mistake.”
July 9, 2010 at 11:37 pm
scott LaMorte
I have not heard all the evidence yet two things trouble me.
One is the “I thought it was my taser” defense. Though this cop might have been new to Tasers I am sure he was plenty familiar with his own pistol, fired it regularly, and knows what it feels like in his hand. The pistol was locked in the holster with its safety on and it required special handling to free and arm, handling that is *entirely* different from the Taser. He must have known he was retrieving and arming his pistol.
Second, the officer’s description of what the victim as doing do not match the video. He claimed the victim was reaching for his pocket; the video shows both the victim’s hands are fully restrained, plus there’s another cop with his knee on the victims neck. Dude is not going anywhere and he is not a threat; all he can do it cuss like a motherfucker. Presented with the video and the cop’s testimony I can’t see how the jury would not conclude the cop was lying and thereby discount his taser defense.
That said, what was the cop’s intent? To prove murder you have to have both bad action and bad thought. I don’t know if the cop meant to fire his gun; maybe he just meant to scare the fuck out of the kid and it went off by accident. However, releasing the safety on the pistol sure seems like intent to me. At the very least this looks like a crime of passion.
July 10, 2010 at 1:55 am
Anonymous
If this country does not slide into fascism it will be because of brave people like the young woman in the video.
July 10, 2010 at 6:22 am
Mitch
scott,
Please watch the “addendum” video. At 8:40, the eyewitness describes the officer’s appearance immediately after the shooting. That sounds like reasonable doubt to me.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a high standard, and convincing twelve people that it has been met is an enormous challenge. It probably means a non-trivial number of probably-guilty people are never convicted. I’m ok with that, but it has to work when the police are indicted, the same way it works when anyone else is indicted.
We KNOW we are sending people to life imprisonment and to death row who are not guilty of the crimes for which they’ve been convicted. If we didn’t insist on “beyond a reasonable doubt,” we’d be doing even more of this.
July 10, 2010 at 8:54 am
Anonymous
Joe Blow could never be on a criminal jury, he’d get bounced because it would be obvious to the prosecution that he is a loon.
I tend to believe the BART shooting was an accident. From the video I saw it looked like the cop was dumbfounded, like he couldn’t believe what just happened. Which indicates to me that it was not his intent to shoot the rioter with a real gun.
The cops carry the tazers in holsters like handguns and I think at times go back and forth (which one they go to first).
In reality, as in the real world, do you think a cop, even one with limited experience, would intentionally shoot a handcuffed suspect in the back with several other cops and dozens of other persons watching? It just doesn’t make sense.
Does or did Joe Blow complain when a jury aquitted David Sequoia of murder? No. But he complains and makes accusations about the cops when Sequoia gets shot and killed after he shots at some others and then pulls a forty five auto on the cops. Get real, David, who changed his name to Sequoia, was a violent criminal with a gun and caused his own death. The cops preformed like professional well trained officers defending themselves and the community as a whole.
What would happen if regular people would riot every time there was a jury that didn’t convict or aquit the way a certain group or demegraphic thought they should? Would you call it anarchy?
Joe Blow should change his handle to Joe Blows
And Eric you just don’t like cop’s so everything you say about them is slanted. If you deny that your nose will grow several inches.
And here’s the ironic thing. Even if cops don’t like you they will still come to your aid.
Q. Would you (Eric) come to the aid of a cop?
A. Hell no you wouldn’t.
July 10, 2010 at 9:17 am
Eric Kirk
Through the wonder of the Internet – I am accused of being a cop apologist and a cop hater, all in one thread!
July 10, 2010 at 9:42 am
Mitch
I bet you’re really a cop. Trifecta!
July 10, 2010 at 10:13 am
Plain Jane
If tazers were used in lieu of deadly force, as they were supposedly intended, this type of “accidental” killing wouldn’t occur. Tazing a man lying face down who was already handcuffed is police brutality, a crime in itself. A death which results from a crime is first degree murder.
July 10, 2010 at 11:04 am
mresquan
Eric,in your mind was the letter that was sent to the family a true reflection of the shooter’s belief?Or was it something done to potentially sway the jury in its verdict?
July 10, 2010 at 12:37 pm
scott LaMorte
Whether or not the victim was resisting arrest is immaterial. Resisting arrest does not carry the death penalty, nor does it justify summary execution.
July 10, 2010 at 4:17 pm
easiersaidthandone
“Whether or not the victim was resisting arrest is immaterial.”
Oh no it isn’t. For if he HADN’T resisted arrest, he would most likely be ALIVE today.
One MUST learn to comply with police. I don’t see what people don’t get about that. The guy was NOT complying. Let ’em cuff ya and take u to the clinker, U can always sue ’em later. Arrested is better than getting shot, or tazed!!!
July 11, 2010 at 12:20 am
Anonymous
Oh no it isn’t. For if he HADN’T resisted arrest, he would most likely be ALIVE today.
And if that cop had not pulled out his gun and shot an unarmed subdued man, the man WOULD be alive today.
July 11, 2010 at 6:31 am
Plain Jane
How much resistance can a man offer who is face down with hands cuffed behind his back, with another cop’s knee on his neck? The increasingly common use of tazers on subdued suspects is torture which, unfortunately, too many people find acceptable. If the tazer kills, they blame the suspect and if the cop uses a gun instead of the tazer, they blame the suspect. The public’s growing acceptance of police brutality and executions should be alarming for anyone opposed to a police state, but apparently there are many people who approve.
July 11, 2010 at 7:59 am
Eric Kirk
PJ – I believe the argument is that he shouldn’t have resisted to begin with, and once he had resisted, he shouldn’t reasonably expect to keep living just because he’s been hand-cuffed and thrown to the ground.
July 11, 2010 at 8:31 am
Plain Jane
Yes Eric. That is the argument that is so alarming. If a person can be summarily executed for resisting arrest for brawling, what about nonviolent civil disobedience in support of civil rights or in opposition to war? How can anyone who believes in civil rights and due process make that argument?
July 11, 2010 at 8:40 am
Joel Mielke
Thanks for the hilarious Michael Moore clip, Eric. The Awful Truth is available at Spotlight in Henderson Center. Another brilliant, seldom seen show of his was TV Nation.
July 11, 2010 at 10:25 am
Anonymous
yeah, i guess every person,even an 80 year old grandmother should be shot for resisting..look at some of these cop shows,i have seen people do worse,and yet go home…i am always wary of those so.called law and order folks,,,they are the biggest law breakers
July 12, 2010 at 10:37 am
Anonymous
okay
This jerk was resisting arrest….SO, YOU DONT HAVE A SHRED OF COMPASSION HUH ?OKAY?WELL, TAKE YOUR BOLD AZZ TO HIS FAMILY AND TELL THEM THAT..IN FACT,WHY DONT YOU GO PUBLIC AND TELL ALL WHO;S FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY POLICE FOR NOTHING..HOW ABOUT II WISE AZZ?
July 15, 2010 at 10:11 am
wiseazz
“..HAVE BEEN KILLED BY POLICE FOR NOTHING..HOW ABOUT II WISE AZZ?”
You act as if this fool was shot in cold blood. He wasn’t. He was resisting arrest with an potentially inexperienced, short fused BartCop. And I certainly don’t think the police are capable of handling every situation; oftentimes they fail. But let’s be real. Based on the fact that they are these are ARMED AUTHORITY figures, the best chance of surviving an encounter is to comply!! pretty basic. Sue ’em later if they are off base…
Oh, and i would be happy to relay that (common sense) information to his whiny family. Give me a break. Some “criminals’ get so much leeway, meanwhile innocent people are victimized.
July 15, 2010 at 11:21 am
Eric Kirk
You act as if this fool was shot in cold blood. He wasn’t. He was resisting arrest …
At the time of the shooting, no, he wasn’t.
July 15, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Anonymous
wisazz,i truly hope you go to hell, you are a piss poor example of a human
July 15, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Mr. Nice
Pssht, that’s all witness vs. Mehserle’s word. There were only a mere 25 million fucking witnesses, gotta go with the psychopathic cop on this one.
July 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm
wiseazz
eric, u were there??
imo, the videos don’t show anything but a UNHANDCUFFED individual having to be subdued by 3 (three!!) cops! Cops that we all know are likely to OVERREACT! …and possibly draw the WRONG WEAPONS>
Why didn’t he allow himself to be handcuffed with his buddies in the first place? Or How about not f-ing act out (brawl) on public transportation?
Generou$$ civil reward$ were made to his family and child. The officer was convicted. I just don’t get how that is not enough for some people. And bringing race into it is a joke.
whatever. He is the father of a young child and he probably should have been home resting up for a new year with his daughter not fighting on the Bart train. just my hellbound 2c.
July 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Mr. Nice
And nobody can tell me dude pulled out a Sig Sauer and thought it was a taser. They look way different, have different weights, different grips, and are shot differently.
Just because Mehserles says he didn’t know what he was doing in his letter and testimony doesn’t mean shit. What kinna idiot would say “hell yea I knew I was murdering him with my gun” at trial? Best to be getting immunity before you do that.
The surprise on Mehserle’s face was because oh shit he just murdered someone in cold blood in front of a crowd of witnesses recording his dumb ass.
July 15, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Eric Kirk
I don’t see that wiseazz, and neither did the witnesses at trial.
From Wikipedia:
* June 14: Carlos Reyes recalled Mehserle saying “Oh shit, I shot him” after shooting Grant. Grant’s former girlfriend Sophina Mesa testified she called Grant while Grant and his friends were being detained and Grant said: “They’re beating us up for no reason, I’ll call you back.” Deputy District Attorney David Stein believes that Grant’s phone call proves that Grant did not want to resist arrest that night. Cell phone records showed two calls between Grant and Mesa: at 2:05 a.m. and 2:09 a.m., the latter just two minutes before Grant was shot.[6]
* June 15: Three eye witnesses of the account testified that neither Grant nor the other suspects actively resisted the officers at any time. Each expressed disgust at the behavior from officers preceding the shooting that night.[6]
* June 22: Jackie Bryson, one of Grant’s friends “who was kneeling and handcuffed just inches from Grant when Johannes Mehserle shot him”, testified for the prosecution. Bryson said that Grant’s hands were under Grant’s body and Grant said: “I quit. I surrender.” Mehserle then supposedly said “Fuck this” before shooting Grant. Defense attorney Rains repeatedly accused Bryson of lying to convict Mehserle and pointed out a video showing Bryson running towards the train while handcuffed. Responding to Mehserle’s question “You were going to leave your friend on that platform, weren’t you?” Bryson said “I would never leave my friend.” Rains accused Bryson of being inconsistent from statements in Bryson’s lawsuit against BART, and Bryson admitted that he lied to investigators, distrusted the police, and was frequently stressed after Grant died.[80]
* June 25: Mehserle took the witness stand. Sobbing, he said that he thought that he was not holding his gun until he heard a pop and looked at his right hand. Responding to a question from Rains, he recalled Grant saying “you shot me” right after the shot went off. Judge Perry called a recess after Oscar Grant supporter, Timothy Killings shouted out to Mehserle to “save those fucking tears”[81]; Killings was later arrested for contempt of court.[82]
July 16, 2010 at 6:16 am
Anonymous
wiseazz and all of those like IT can still go to the lowest part of HELL
November 6, 2010 at 12:05 am
Two Years for BART Station Killing « Sohum Parlance II
[…] here’s my post on the verdict, which was partially […]
November 6, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Fiddling While Rome Burns « The Joe Blow Report 2
[…] to the heart to previous discussions with Eric Kirk, the one above and his July 9, 2010, posting: Simi Valley comes to Oakland involving his most recent post about the same subject: Two Year Verdict for BART Station Killing. […]