BART Cop Arrested for Murder

[DawnCt1]

No snarkieness taken.

It could have been that he thought he was reaching for a taser. It would not be the first time that has happened. There was a Chicago Sergeant who did the same thing a few years ago. And like this case, it was after recently after her department recieved tasers.

I cant imagine that he pulled out his weapon in that situation unless he saw something that we did not see on the tape. If he indeed intended to pull out his weapon, then he screwed up by not indexing (keeping his finger out of the trigger well) unless and until he meant to fire. In that case, I can understand a charge of negligiant homicide but not murder.

If he meant to pull out a taser, and accidentally pulled out his weapon, I am at a loss as to whether he should be charged.

Keep in mind, this former officer has a baby that is about two weeks old. That might be the only thing keeping him from eating his gun. You can tell from his reaction right after the shot, that he knew he screwed up.

This is a tragedy for everyone involved.

I have seen armed policemen and it seems that the taser is on one side and the firearm is on the other. Furthermore, from previous reports, it seems that this guy had it taser out previously. I have no doubt that this case will be pled down to a lesser charge; that seems to be what happens generally speaking. However, he refused to be interviewed by the department or participate in the investigation. No doubt he probably 'lawyered up', which clearly he should have done immediately. Perhaps on advice of counsel, he was advised to resign and not cooperate, I don't know. But if we are to believe our "lying eyes", it looks like an execution. It looked like an execution to the witnesses, and he better have a great lawyer. The truth could be different, and while everyone has a presumption of innocence, he has a tough row to hoe.

 

[SeeVee]

According to one eye witness, he had already threatened the deceased with the taser near his face. Why would he pull out his weapon later when the guy was restrained? Why would he resigned his position? He chose not to be investigated. The DA feels that there is certainly enough to bring charges.
I am not implying that the deceased is an alter boy but everyone deserves a trial before execution.

"Why would he resigned his position?" Internal Affairs can order him to give a statement. In some cases, statements given to IAD investigators can be used against the officer in court. He is just using his 5th Ammendment rights against self incrimination. Given the magnatude of the charges against him, he is wise to use his 5th ammendment rights.

Any reasonable person would do the same.

 

[DawnCt1]

"Why would he resigned his position?" Internal Affairs can order him to give a statement. In some cases, statements given to IAD investigators can be used against the officer in court. He is just using his 5th Ammendment rights against self incrimination. Given the magnatude of the charges against him, he is wise to use his 5th ammendment rights.

Any reasonable person would do the same.

The question was rhetorical. He resigned because he knows his future freedom is seriously at risk. I would fully expect that he would exercise his 5th Amendment rights, but one can make certain assumptions with regard to what happened based on the video, and based on his post incident behavior. He wasn't charged prior to his resignation.

 

[Geoff_M]

While it's pretty clear that the guy is guilty of a criminal offense in the shooting, I agree with others that the city seeking murder charges may be setting up the city for an even bigger problem if the gambit results in an acquittal on those charges. In order for it to legally meet the definition of murder, the prosecution would have to show that the officer thought "OK, I've had enough of this guy resisting arrest! I'm going to end it now by just blowing him away!"

 

[OceanAnnie]

The video is alarming. I felt sick when I saw it. That poor young man and his family.

 

[Laura]

I don't think it's likely that the officer thought he was reaching for his taser. A taser weighs much less, has a different grip/safety release, looks different, etc. Plus, you give the person plenty warning that the taser is about to fire.

What exactly was going on in the guy's head before he fired? I wouldn't know. It looked to me like the officer was stunned by what he had just done.

 

[Geoff_M]

I don't think it's likely that the officer thought he was reaching for his taser. A taser weighs much less, has a different grip/safety release, looks different, etc. Plus, you give the person plenty warning that the taser is about to fire.

I agree, but there apparently are documented cases of police officers doing just that... mistaking a gun for a Taser in the heat of an arrest and accidentally shooting someone. I'm not saying that's what happened, but there is precedence for this type of defense. And if Oakland "swings for the fence" with a murder charge and the guy's lawyer can raise doubt in at least one juror that the officer hadn't expressly decided to kill the guy, then they'd likely be looking at "Rodney King Riots Part Deux" with an acquittal.

Here's an analysis of the situation written by a member of the LAPD (using a pseudonym):

January 14, 2009 - by Jack Dunphy

A fatal January 1 police shooting in an Oakland commuter train station has ignited violent protests in that city, and on Tuesday the involved (now former) officer was arrested on a warrant charging him with murder.

The shooting occurred at about two in the morning on New Year’s Day, when Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officers were called to the Fruitvale Station to break up a reported fight between two groups of train passengers. Part of the confrontation between the police officers and some of the men they detained was captured on videotape shot by onlookers in the station. When it was over, Oscar Grant, 22, was dead from a gunshot allegedly fired by Johannes Mehserle, 27, a two-year veteran of the BART police force.

Police officers involved in shootings are generally compelled to provide statements to investigators, but Mehserle, perhaps on advice of an attorney, avoided that compulsion by resigning from his job. On Tuesday, Mehserle was arrested in Nevada after an Alameda County, Calif., judge issued a warrant charging him with murder.

The incident raises several issues, chief among them of course the question of whether the shooting was justified. Grant was reportedly unarmed at the time, but the various videos linked above appear to show Mehserle and two other officers struggling with him. In one of the videos, Mehserle can be seen rising from his knees over Grant, drawing his weapon and firing downward. The bullet struck Grant in the back and passed through his body, then ricocheted upward and lodged in his lung. Grant was taken to a local hospital but died from his wounds.

One must always bear in mind that videos of police incidents may not tell the entire story, but if Mehserle is going to claim the shooting was somehow justified, I’ve seen little in any of the videos to suggest it. One theory circulating in the Bay Area media is that Mehserle believed he had drawn a Taser and intended to stun Grant rather than shoot him.

It’s a plausible theory, and indeed there have been incidents where officers mistakenly shot suspects they intended to shock with a Taser. And as theories go, its infinitely more plausible than the one alleging that in shooting Grant Mehserle committed “murder,” which under California law requires “malice aforethought.” In other words, for Mehserle to be convicted of murder, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he decided, in front of several of his colleagues and scores of witnesses, that he had had enough of this guy he was trying to handcuff and chose to end the struggle by killing him.

I doubt it.

Mehserle’s fate will be determined as much by politics as it is by justice, as the Grant’s death has — and not without apparent justification — aroused the mighty Bay Area grievance industry to full voice. Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums encouraged the Alameda County district attorney to move expeditiously in bringing charges, and in securing a murder warrant so quickly the D.A. certainly delivered. But there was no justification for how last Wednesday’s protest at the Fruitville Station devolved into a full-scale riot, complete with smashed windows, looted stores, and torched cars. More than 100 people were arrested before order was restored.

 

[RadioNate]

IMO - even a taser was unnecessary. Grant was unarmed and they had more than enough police manpower to subdue him. I don't actually think, from the videos, that Grant was even really struggling with him. All the other men were cooperating.

Why would he even feel the need to tase Grant?

I don't care if it was a 'mistake,' some one died. You can't say "oops I didn't mean to shoot him, my bad" and go on freely living your life.

I know good cops, lot of them, but I also have known several others who have been power abusive bullies.

 

[Geoff_M]

I don't care if it was a 'mistake,' some one died. You can't say "oops I didn't mean to shoot him, my bad" and go on freely living your life.

No one that I'm aware of is making such a claim... that the officer should not be prosecuted. People go to jail for accidentally killing some one all of the time. The concern is that it may be difficult for the prosecution to convince, beyond any reasonable doubt, a full jury that there was "malice aforethought" on the part of the officer before the passenger was shot. The suggestion is that manslaughter, or other form of homicide, might be a more fitting charge instead of "murder" that will be more likely to yield a conviction and send the ex-officer to prison for what he did. The appropriateness of a Taser in that situation also doesn't change any of this.

 

[TheZue]

IMO - even a taser was unnecessary. Grant was unarmed and they had more than enough police manpower to subdue him. I don't actually think, from the videos, that Grant was even really struggling with him. All the other men were cooperating.

Why would he even feel the need to tase Grant?

I don't care if it was a 'mistake,' some one died. You can't say "oops I didn't mean to shoot him, my bad" and go on freely living your life.

I know good cops, lot of them, but I also have known several others who have been power abusive bullies.

I agree. I was trying to figure out why they'd even taser him. Tasers have turned into the "if you aren't being completely docile or movign at all we are going to zap you" weapon. But you can't go too limp...that's a tasering. It's absurd.

Anyways I think this should BARE minimum be manslaughter. But honestly second degree murder would be apropriate. That other cop just looked shocked. And I can't imagine being those other guys they had in cuffs...it easily could have been any of them.

But good for the officials for pursuing charges. We've had some horrible deaths in police custody here that nothing has come of, including somebody that was shot in the back of the head in a holding cell after being arrested for having an open beer. And I'm with the poster that doesn't trust cops, my view has totally changed over the years of them unfortunately.

 

[OceanAnnie]

No one that I'm aware of is making such a claim... that the officer should not be prosecuted. People go to jail for accidentally killing some one all of the time. The concern is that it may be difficult for the prosecution to convince, beyond any reasonable doubt, a full jury that there was "malice aforethought" on the part of the officer before the passenger was shot. The suggestion is that manslaughter, or other form of homicide, might be a more fitting charge that will be more likely to yield a conviction and send the ex-officer to prison.

I'm thinking manslaughter is going to be an extremely hard sell. The officer was deliberate and cruel in his actions.

 

[Geoff_M]

I'm thinking manslaughter is going to be an extremely hard sell. The officer was deliberate and cruel in his actions.

Hard to sell to who? The mobs in the streets? Yes, no doubt. But a jury will get instructions from the judge about what thresholds must be met in order to find the officer guilty of "murder". It appears that "cruel" and "deliberate" aren't part of California's legal definition of what constitutes that particular crime.

Whatever charge they try him on, they need a conviction. To appease the mobs and civic leaders, they can go ahead and try him for murder, but if the prosecution can't demonstrate that clearly to the jury and the jury doesn't opt to "nullify" the judge's instructions, then the recent rioting, looting, and car burnings will look like a "walk in the park" compared to what will transpire. If they "swing for the fence", they better make it count or at least give the jury the option of a lesser charge.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Hard to sell to who? The mobs in the streets? Yes, no doubt. But a jury will get instructions from the judge about what thresholds must be met in order to find the officer guilty of "murder". It appears that "cruel" and "deliberate" aren't part of California's legal definition of what constitutes that particular crime.

Whatever charge they try him one, they need a conviction. To appease the mobs and civic leaders, they can go ahead and try him for murder, but if the prosecution can't demonstrate that clearly to the jury and the jury doesn't opt to "nullify" the judge's instructions, then the recent rioting, looting, and car burnings will look like a "walk in the park" compared to what will transpire. If they "swing for the fence", they better make it count or at least give the jury the option of a lesser charge.

I don't know. How could there be absence of malice if a cruel and deliberate act takes place? The victim was defenseless.

 

[cheermom1]

I don't think it's likely that the officer thought he was reaching for his taser. A taser weighs much less, has a different grip/safety release, looks different, etc. Plus, you give the person plenty warning that the taser is about to fire.

What exactly was going on in the guy's head before he fired? I wouldn't know. It looked to me like the officer was stunned by what he had just done.

I was about to say the same thing - most people once they have it in their hand is going to know the difference but he choose to use it any way...

 

[SeeVee]

IMO - even a taser was unnecessary. Grant was unarmed and they had more than enough police manpower to subdue him. I don't actually think, from the videos, that Grant was even really struggling with him. All the other men were cooperating.

Why would he even feel the need to tase Grant?

I don't care if it was a 'mistake,' some one died. You can't say "oops I didn't mean to shoot him, my bad" and go on freely living your life.I know good cops, lot of them, but I also have known several others who have been power abusive bullies.

Who said that? I dont think anyone here is arguing that he should just go on like nothing happened. In the same vein, a murder charge is not warranted.

Dude messed up, no doubt about it. And there is probably a crime he can/will be charged/convicted of, but murder aint it.

 

[SeeVee]

I don't know. How could there be absence of malice if a cruel and deliberate act takes place? The victim was defenseless.

Funny, I see it the other way. It was an act of abject stupidity. Cruel and deliberate? That is absurd. You honestly think the former officer set out to shoot and kill the victim right there on a crowded BART platform in front of God and everyone?

 

[OceanAnnie]

Funny, I see it the other way. It was an act of abject stupidity. Cruel and deliberate? That is absurd. You honestly think the former officer set out to shoot and kill the victim right there on a crowded BART platform in front of God and everyone?

Absurd is in the eye of the beholder. It appears that the officer did exactly that, killed the victim right there on a crowded BART platform. His intent is up to interpretation. Nothing is out of the realm of possibility at this point.

 

[SeeVee]

I was about to say the same thing - most people once they have it in their hand is going to know the difference but he choose to use it any way...

You dont know unless you have been there in the heat of a battle. You really dont know. It has happened before in the past. I hate to say it, but it will happen again in the future. Police work lends itself to mistakes because of the fast paced, dynamic, and quicky evolving situations. And sometimes, because the nature of the beast, the mistakes are deadly.

The former officer and his family will be tormented for life because of this and he knows that a human life is gone through no ones fault but his own.

Those that say they hate or completely mistrust police because of these are being a little simplistic. There are bad apples in every walk of life. SOme are deliberately bad, some are just stupid bad. In this case, I think it was just stupid bad.

 

[bsc22]

You dont know unless you have been there in the heat of a battle. You really dont know. It has happened before in the past. I hate to say it, but it will happen again in the future. Police work lends itself to mistakes because of the fast paced, dynamic, and quicky evolving situations. And sometimes, because the nature of the beast, the mistakes are deadly.

The former officer and his family will be tormented for life because of this and he knows that a human life is gone through no ones fault but his own.

Those that say they hate or completely mistrust police because of these are being a little simplistic. There are bad apples in every walk of life. SOme are deliberately bad, some are just stupid bad. In this case, I think it was just stupid bad.

I'm sorry, but I don't/can't agree w/him mistaking a gun w/a taser....My pops was a cop, and told me that the first thing you learn in the academy when it comes to weapons is...your gun is to be out only if someone's life is possibly at stake, he stated that it goes: open(hands), gas or baton, stun weapon, then firearm as the LAST resort...why he felt the need to skip and take his taser is beyond me , especially with the victim being semi-compliant...HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CUFFED...i wouldnt really call him a vet, most likely he had to go through up to a 6 month FTO program, so he still a piglet...

from the video it looks to me like he wasnt sure if he wanted to pull it out (his hesitation) or not, and im thinking that was the only thing goin through his mind (oblivious to the fact of which side his firearm was on)...

as far as the safetys, there are relatively the same and in the same spot...most officers leave the safety on until the need for the firearm, but there are vets that i know who leave the safety off

each utility belt is personalized with your strong hand in mind (firearm on strong side) BUT...i know few officers who go to the range and practice both hands, so the "murderer" could be ambi....still doesnt relieve any blame

 

[daisax]

Police work lends itself to mistakes because of the fast paced, dynamic, and quicky evolving situations. And sometimes, because the nature of the beast, the mistakes are deadly.

This wasn't a dark alley behind a biker bar with an angry mob and no backup.

Is the electricity emitted by a taser enough to shock somebody touching the person being tased? I mean, if it was his intention to tase the guy, wouldn't he be giving the cop who was sitting on him fair warning first?

Can't bring myself to watch the video.