A year and a half ago, we posted this video of the shooting of an unarmed, handcuffed man in the back at an Oakland BART station. The trial ended yesterday. If it was an accident and not intentional, to not know your gun from a Taser, much less be sure of what you’re holding before firing, is a level of incompetence that is beyond unacceptable.
A jury found former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle guilty Thursday of involuntary manslaughter, concluding that he did not intend to kill train rider Oscar Grant when he shot him in the back on New Year’s Day 2009 but acted so recklessly that he showed a disregard for Grant’s life.
The verdict was an all-but-unprecedented instance of a police officer being convicted for an on-duty shooting. But it deeply disappointed Grant’s relatives, who said the video-recorded shooting was a murder and that Mehserle deserved a sentence years longer than the one he is likely to receive.
[…]
In all, he could be sentenced to five to 14 years in prison.The jury took 6 1/2 hours over two days to decide that Mehserle was guilty of a crime, but not guilty of the other options it had been given – second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
Their verdict suggests they believed Mehserle when he testified that he had mistaken his pistol for his Taser as he sought to subdue the 22-year-old Grant at Fruitvale Station in Oakland following a fight on a BART train, a shooting that was captured on video by five other riders as well as a platform camera.
The first video of this shooting that I watched showed a huge crowd yelling and taunting the cops long before and right before that guy got shot. I believe that added to the stress and confusion that caused this horrible accident.
So if it were your son shot to death in the back while handcuffed and kneed on the ground by other officers you would be ok with that. Face it, the kid was black. In our area several blacks, Mexicans and Chinese have been gunned down and killed. If there had not been a video the cop would have walked like most do. I hope when one of your family is killed by a cop you’ll be as acceptable
@ robin1943
I read that article you linked to. And what I’d say to that cop is legalize drugs. Then the gangs would lose their primary source of income and disband. Also the prisons would be freed of nonviolent drug dealers and users and there would be more space for convicted violent offenders like the ex con who shot the police officer.
#31 – But my family isn’t Black, Mexican or Chinese, why worry about it?
#44–Well, Thundernuts==who’s going to wash your car, cut your grass, and clean your clothes? Don’t be so short sighted.
or as Chris might say: “You know, maybe this incident wasn’t racially motivated, but if it was, that would be a bad thing unless their were extenuating circumstances.”
Ya. What did you expect? Justice?! This is Obama’s AmeriKa! The Lunk-head libs are in power now. Or didn’t you hear?
Irregardless, cops ALWAYS skate by when there is no evidence – and even when there IS!
—-So if it were your son shot to death in the back while handcuffed and kneed on the ground by other officers you would be ok with that. —
Way to ignore what’s actually happening.
If your argument is that the current actions of these looting gangs are a rational response to the injustice that happened, I hope you own one of the businesses that are looted, and I hope your car gets burned. You should be ok with it….otherwise by your logic, you support police brutality. And don’t you DARE call for police protection. But you’d be the first to scream for help, I’m sure.
I guess liberals are right after all. cops are corrupt and violent, and the only way to keep them on the straight and level is remind them that the public does NOT trust them, so they better be on their best behavior.
This whole “buddy buddy cop is on your side” crap must end, they’re taking advantage of us.
Bobbo,
Wow, you are a really nasty and disingenuous person. First you accuse me of not having a point at #28 and then paint me as a racist with a quote I NEVER SAID at #35. What is that about?
You attack people personally all the time instead of going after their ideas. This doesn’t make me angry because only a weak and passive-aggressive person acts as you do.
Let me break it down into really simple terms for you:
In this specific case, even if the cop was planning to use his taser rather than his gun that looks excessive to me. The guy did not appear to be resisting and was in handcuffs anyway.
Shooting somebody in those circumstances is clearly illegal.
Moving to the general issue of the use of force by police against citizens:
Cops aren’t all bad, but the shared variable in these cases is that the police response is wildly disproportionate to the danger they/society face. Because they receive training and self select for the job, officers should be held STRICTLY accountable for excessive use of force.
I find tasers deeply troubling. They make the barrier to an officer using a projectile weapon much lower. Most police will go their entire career without shooting somebody with a gun. If you give them something that looks and feels like a gun and give the okay to use it in many more situations… I think it models a behavior and will lead to more shootings.
Is that simple enough for you?
Bobbo,
Oh, and the idea that people respond to safety innovations with more dangerous behavior is not a new or complex idea.
“Why Things Bite Back” by Edward Tenner has a bunch of good examples of this. He shows that safety equipment often changes the type danger faced rather than decreasing the level of danger.
Let’s cobble our money together and get Bobbo a single, universal remote for his birthday.
#39–Chris==an honest response==excellent! I will as well, in more detail than warranted because I take your rebuke seriously. You say:
Wow, you are a really nasty /// disagree, what’s “nasty” about disagreeing when the reasons therefore are stated?
and disingenuous person. /// Not true. I may be wrong, but not disingenuous. The difference requires analysis which is reflected in this point by point response.
First you accuse me of not having a point at #28 /// Thats correct, and since you did not make a point, isn’t my criticism accurate?
and then paint me as a racist with a quote I NEVER SAID at #35. What is that about? /// You are projecting the issue of injecting racism. My obvious goal was to show an equivocating statement. Such goal is missed if your are shown as a racist or as a non-racist. To claim a racial motive is actually either nasty or disingenuous or both. Trying to score debating points by faulty argument is defective on a number of issues. To the degree you did not do this on purpose, then again, you need to sit back and think about how you think. It is clear I did not quote you with the preamble of “Chris MIGHT say.” I meant it humorously and as a demonstration. The humor was missed but the demonstration hit home?—ha, ha!
You attack people personally all the time instead of going after their ideas. // My goal is to do both as they are inextricably intwined. I’m not perfect and take honest rebuke seriously.
This doesn’t make me angry because only a weak and passive-aggressive person acts as you do. /// I’m not passive and never angry myself. The world of idea’s is just too pleasurable. Keep up that non-angry thing. It helps in everything you do and every thought you have.
Let me break it down into really simple terms for you: /// Excellent, a good base on which to build.
In this specific case, even if the cop was planning to use his taser rather than his gun that looks excessive to me. The guy did not appear to be resisting and was in handcuffs anyway. /// I agree completely. Tasers instead of guns, and conversation instead of Tasers “for control.”
Shooting somebody in those circumstances is clearly illegal. /// I agree completely and would include tasering.
Moving to the general issue of the use of force by police against citizens:
Cops aren’t all bad, but the shared variable in these cases is that the police response is wildly disproportionate to the danger they/society face. /// I agree completely. Why six armed cops can’t shoot a suspect with a knife in the leg has always escaped me.
Because they receive training and self select for the job, officers should be held STRICTLY accountable for excessive use of force. /// I don’t know what you mean by strickly, but yes, we should all be held accountable for our actions as circumscribed by the law.
I find tasers deeply troubling. They make the barrier to an officer using a projectile weapon much lower. Most police will go their entire career without shooting somebody with a gun. If you give them something that looks and feels like a gun and give the okay to use it in many more situations… I think it models a behavior and will lead to more shootings. // Yes, we agree again.
Is that simple enough for you? /// Yes, you clearly stated what you think. So much better than before. Like I said: start with the equivocating and waffles for breakfast but move on to conclusions before you finish your meal.
#40–Chris==again, I agree completely. Using football helmets to “ram” the opposition is a good example. So is driving too fast because one has an airbag. More generally is the entire field of “risk assessment” for which we hoomans are incredibly ill capable. Interesting stuff worth a book/article or two. In general: the world is not as dangerous as we “feel” it is, but best to still lock the front door.
#41–Rich==good one. Universals are harder to misuse because you have to find the right equipment button to activate first. That gives time to think about what you are doing.
Bobbo,
I think you are a nasty person because I see the way you deal with people. There was nothing unclear about my first post, but you poked me to get a restatement.
It is completely obvious that this cop was breaking the law. Only an intentional misreading of my post would lead anyone to think I’d concluded otherwise.
The main idea of the first post, which you seemed to miss, is that cases like these are caused by an inability of officers to switch back from freak-out mode.
Refocusing training to deal with this is both reasonable and relevant.
Chris, I’d love to meet you half way and back off a bit. So, I went back and carefully re read your post #14. NO. You are equivocating just as I pointed out, and made fun of.
The fact that you at first feigned ignorance of the issue, and have now defended that equivocation twice as if you had been clear is evidence of “something else” that I need not go into now.
Now, as my current dispute with Ah Yea shows, ambiguity whether intentional or not does invite other people to read in their own value system/outlook.
Perhaps this sentence shows the unresolvable ambiguity of your post: “As a general issue this not a black and white situation, in any sense.”==but now you want to claim this very same situation was black and white: the cop was wrong? So, the “general sense” (whatever that means in your private reverie is irrelevant.)
I take you at your (developed) word. But as I said, anyone reading your post can’t tell what you think because you WAFFLED all over the place.
So, disagreement with you is being “nasty.” At least you are clear on that, and I’m sure many other people agree with you. At least you have company. But on the issue of your clarity==you are WRONG, and I am RIGHT.
and that leads to a lot of “confusion” when you refuse to see the simple truth put before you. Turn away from the Dark Side, let the Force guide you!