Chris Hayes Thursday tonight, on the Oscar Grant verdict:
"A tragic trial ended with a bewildering verdict today in Los Angeles, California.
"The case began on New Year's Day, 2009, when Oakland police received a report that there had been a fight on a Bay Area Rapid Transit train. When officers arrived, they detained a 22-year-old African American man named Oscar Grant and four of his friends. Then, transit police officer Johannes Mehserle arrived on the scene. As one officer kneeled on Oscar Grant's neck, Officer Mehserle shot Mr. Grant in the back. He shot Oscar Grant, an unarmed man who had committed no crime. A man who witnesses say was attempting to diffuse the situation. The trial of former Officer Mehserle was moved from Oakland to Los Angeles due to extensive media coverage in the Bay Area. Los Angeles prosecutors have not won a murder conviction in a police shooting since 1983.
"Officer Mehserle testified that he accidentally drew his gun, located on his right side, thinking it was his taser, which he kept on his left. Today, the Los Angeles County jury of four men and eight women could have found the former officer guilty of second-degree murder, which carries a sentence of 15 years to life. But instead, after deliberating for about six hours over two days, they found Johannes Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the shooting death of Oscar Grant. The conviction carries a sentence of two to four years.
"What happened to Oscar Grant, a man who had committed no crime that day on the BART was, as it happens, caught on tape. I want you to take a look. The officer stands up and fires a shot down, killing Oscar Grant.
"It's hard to know what to say after seeing that video and seeing the verdict it resulted in. You can note that there was not a single African American juror. That it was in Los Angeles instead of Oakland. That even if Officer Mehserle was reaching for his taser it was completely and totally uncalled for. Was he going to put a jolt in Grant as he lay prone, for no reason?
"You can say that there are a lot of people in Oakland and California and across the country tonight dealing once again with a criminal justice system which seems unremittingly punitive when people that look like they do are accused of horrible things, and impossibly forgiving when those same people are the victims. Justice is rooted in fairness. This verdict specifically, and the system of criminal justice and law enforcement we've created in this country, isn't fair.
"And it's not justice."
Leave a Comment:
Amen.
Involuntary manslaughter? Is that so? If the gun had been in the other hand, we'd be looking at Murder One. This is not justice; the judge should set aside the jury verdict because it is nonsensical, unreasonable, and unjust.
Does it really matter what hand held the gun? There would still be no justice. There would still be no murder one. And, Oscar Grant would still be dead. We all know 'involuntary manslaughter' is a joke in this case. There was NO reason for Mr. Grant to have been shot. Yet, he was. A police officer restrained a man for no reason. Another police officer killed a man while being restrained for no reason. He can claim 'a mistake' for the rest of his life, and it will not justify why he did what he did. His ability as a police officer has been shown to be negligible. Mistakes are allowed, but poor judgment is not. This officer dealt with this matter in a prejudicial, preconceived frame of mind. That, in itself, is a crime. Add murder and we have a death penalty offense.
And that brings us to the judge.
I believe the OP meant that if the Black man were the one with the gun, there would be no question of manslaughter. it would be murder one. and he would be convicted.
I agree with shatani. That's how I read it too.
Yes, I think you're right. After I reread it, I see that is what he meant. I was thinking about the excuse that the officer used as his taser was on one side and his gun was on the other and he got mixed up which was in which hand. Thanks for the correction.
The judge can only set aside the verdict to find the defendant not guilty. Is that what you want?
No, that's not what anyone wants and you know it. What people want is for the justice system to actually serve justice. After seeing the video, do you think the verdict was a just one? People vent or they explode. This is their venting area. Statements like yours obviously fuel the fire. Do you think this was a just verdict?
No, but I think the only thing that can be done now is for the family of Oscar Grant to sue the police officer (maybe the judge and others) for Wrongful Death in a civil suit. The officer can't be tried again and setting aside the verdict won't help either.
I think the District Attorney or another well-versed attorney should assist them with their case on a pro bono basis.
If the DA's office was either so corrupt or incompetent that they couldn't even get a single black juror seated to help their case, then the last thing I would want is for them to provide any assistance in a civil suit, even if such a thing were possible, (which I doubt).
Well, Cardozo, let's look at the law:
It is so obvious that Oscar Grant was continuing to flail around and resist until Mehserle said 'F it' and stood up to taze him, but then like an idiot grabbed his gun instead of his tazer. It seems pretty obvious that Mehserle intended to taze someone who was providing some resistance rather than struggle with him, but it is unlikely he intended to kill Oscar Grant. If he did intend to shoot him because he thought Grant was going for a weapon, well, we just don't know. I personally think that Mehserle just screwed up and he had no intention of shooting or killing Grant, that is not murder, that is negligent homicide, hence the involuntary manslaughter charge.
This brings tears to my eyes....as a social worker and one who understands well this american stain of racial inequality--this hits hard and saddens me, tremendously...
Indeed. I don't believe you understand "justice" at all, despite your questionable understanding of "racial inequality."
This is one of the great tragedies of our "free" nation. I wish I could say I'm surprised but am not. I wish I could be more eloquent. With all our wealth and opportunity, justice often seems a haphazard, femme fatale that hypnotizes with the rhetoric of "protection for ALL." No words can bring back Oscar Grant and I can only imagine how his family and friends are suffering.
The shooting was a horrible, tragic accident. Mehserle received little to no training re: taser deployment. The "tape" revealed that he was quite visibly shocked to realize he had drawn his gun. And, you're correct that Grant had committed no crime that day (perhaps), but he had just been released from 14 months in prison for carrying a gun and resisting arrest, a fact you neglect to point out. The young police officer, under-trained, under stress is also a victim here. He made a terrible mistake, and Oscar Grant, unfortunately, should not have resisted arrest (again).
I noticed too that Chris Hayes neglected to point out that both the fact that in the video the police officer Mehserle is obviously notably shocked his "gun" went off and not the taser gun. And also that Grant looked as if he was again resisting arrest.
I think your piece is incredibly one sided. I have compassion for Grant's family but I don't believe this was an intentional case. And quite honestly I think you do a disservice here in an already heated time when riots might ensue you enflame the masses even moreso in your piece. This was not race related. I know the crowds are thinking it is and Fu*ck the cops is the mantra I can hear even on ABC news but that's not what happened here. And CHRIS you are not helping. You are stirring the pot. I was considering investing in the Nation but with your "insight the base to violence" piece (like a Glen Beck) I have now changed my mind.
Mr. Grant's history is not relevant in this case, simply because the officer nor ANYONE AT THE SCENE WAS AWARE of his history; consequently, it had NO EFFECT ON THE ACTIONS TAKEN. That info would only be relevant with respect to helping to explain the officer's mindset and subsequent actions taken based on that information.
Malarkey. Open your eyes.
Being handcuffed on the ground with a knee on your neck is resisting arrest? He had the handcuffs on, he was already under arrest.
In memorium:
http://www.thorncoyle.com/musings/?p=360
Johannes Mehserle will find real judge/jury and justice in prison.
You know I usually agree with Rachel and crew on just about everything, but not on this one. I'm in San Francisco and so I remember when this story first hit the news and the videos were all over youtube. What we see is a cop shooting a black man in the back while he was down.
But that isn't the whole story. My wife is an ex-cop and the second she saw that video, she said, "That idiot thought he had his taser." I asked how she could tell. She said, "Did you see how the other officer stood up and stepped away before he drew to fire? We're taught to do that when you're going to tase someone." When the story unfolded in the press, it was pretty clear that the GROUP of officers there had determined to taser the young man (he's compliant in the video, but people who were also on that platform say he was causing quite the ruckus beforehand). Returning to the videos (or perhaps it's in other ones I've seen), after the shooting, Mehserle looks stunned, and the other cop is looking at him as if to say, "What did you just do??"
Picture this: New Year's Eve on a crowded subway platform, a call has been made to the BART police because of a fight, the police arrive, are outnumbered, and there's a crowd of upset people, drunk and high. Mehserle was little more than a rookie, who the dept admits had not much training on the taser, and he panicked. Adrenaline pumping, all that. He reaches for what he thinks is his taser.
Cops are TRAINED to fire a minimum of TWO shots or more when they determine to use their service revolver. This man fired once. And stopped, stunned.
It was an accident.
Is it right? No. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it second-degree murder? NO. The verdict of involuntary manslaughter is appropriate in this case.
This is my studied opinion and I think it's the fair one. I don't think this accidental shooting was race related. I think it was just "Stupid Related."
I hope I don't get flamed for voicing my thoughts on this matter. And I hope to God that Oakland doesn't go up in flames tonight.
There, of course, are always two sides to a story, but neither side comes out with a rational reason for this man being shot. If this young officer was under-trained with a taser, then he should not have been using it. And, the main question in everyone's mind is, "Did he shoot because he was black?" What happened to hand cuffs? Shooting a man face down on the ground, is not an appropriate use of a taser. There are just too many questions for this decision to be justice.
While I agree with you that this is the correct verdict for the situation, I have to question why they were tasing a man who was face down on the pavement in the first place. Even if he had been unruly before they got him to the ground, he was in their control when the officer fired and had it been is taser, it would have been a less lethal error in judgment, but it still would have been an error nonetheless.
thank you for pointing all this out. i am an attorney and also in the minority - intent is very hard to prove and is an element of the crime of murder.
I agree with Hapless
I appreciate Hapless Tigger's reasoned point of view, but what he didn't address was the the fact that there were a number of police officers standing within close rage of the victim. I find it hard to understand why any of those officers where unable to physically subdue Mr Grant without the use of a Taser. Of course Grant was agitated and panicked, yet the officers in the video seemed to be standing there watching the scene rather than trying to hold down Mr Grant.
I would have expected a better response from well trained police officers in a city as large as Oakland, especially with it's history of racial difficulties.
Officer Mehserle should use the time in prison and no doubt the reeducation that will result to better understand the anger of a minority that has often been victimized by the law enforcement that is supposed to protect those that are not criminals.
To: Hapless Tigger:
Your post was the most intelligent one I have read on this subject. There is no way this whole situation should have gone to trial as a murder. It was obvious to me also that Mehserle was dumbfounded at what had just happened. Like you said,"STUPID - YES". Anyway, thank you for your clear-headed approach to this awful situation. I am sad for the family of Oscar Grant & I am positive that this will impact the life of Mehsrle also. I agree that Chris Hayes (who I adore) is off the mark.
I agree it is difficult to understand why the other officers couldn't subdue Grant. The point is they couldn't.
There is no standardized training that officers receive regarding how to use their firearms...that training is DEVELOPED AND GIVEN by each agency individually, according to their own departmental policy and procedures. Regarding the "lack of training" and the officer's unfamiliarity with the Taser: Your agency can require you to carry the Taser (or any equipment for that matter), but THEY CAN'T MAKE YOU USE IT! IF you're NOT COMFORTABLE with your training in the use of ANY TOOL, YOU SHOULDN'T USE IT!...for the very reason that the officer is in this mess...you're liable and responsible for whatever tool you choose to use. If he wasn't comfortable with his training, but felt the tool needed to be used, he should have had SOMEONE ELSE DEPLOY THE TASER.
Also, the proper use of the Taser in that situation would have been to REMOVE THE CARTRIDGE WITH THE PROJECTILE PRONGS, AND apply a "drive stun;" that is, to apply the electrodes directly to the body and administer the shock (like a traditional "stun gun") At that short distance, the projectile prongs would have penetrated the body more than you'd want, and they wouldnt have enough space/time to spread apart in flight...you want the prongs far apart to administer the shock over a larger portion of the body.
I have to agree with Haplesss...and (surprise!), I am Black.
Why is it that it's always the relatives of cops that's always defending dirty cops?
1) you're not fooling anyone
2) You'll NEVER get the respect that you think you deserve until you have the corage and the morals to put down dirty cops worse than you do criminals. Why? Because dirty cops give good cops a bad name and if you're not a good enough cop to put down a dirty cop, you're just as dirty as they are. In fact, you're dirtier than the criminals.
Thanks for post Hapless Tigger.
This was a tragic waste of a young man's life. It really worries one about the training and authority given this particular officer. I wonder if his Captain had any departmental answering for it.
With multiple suspects, handcuffed or not, officers' attentions are divided with responsibility to each other. Though I do think more force is used sometimes than necessary to minimize efforts, I hear tasering is common and acceptable to submit a difficult suspect once in a prone position.
Tasers aren't non-lethal weapons. They can cause death, they do cause pain, and they're intended to be used in place of bullets. They should not be used just because someone is resisting.
If it's not a situation in which he would've drawn his gun had he not had a Taster, then he shouldn't have drawn anything. And handcuffed people should never be Tasered.
It's not that the police couldn't subdue him without a Taser, it's that they have become too dependent on it. This officer should not have had a gun OR a Taser because he clearly did not know how to use either.
And I guess for full disclosure, my Dad's a cop.
If Tasers are adequate to subdue suspects, then why have guns? Secondly, as others have pointed out - why tase a man who is down and handcuffed? Wouldn't that have been enough to challenge his actions in court? Wasn't that even addressed? THAT was racially motivated.
Great questions, Don. As for the second, Pam's House Blend has a running series on abusive use of tasers. There's plenty of disturbing video. Surprise, most of the victims are people of color.
On today's front page of the SF Chron is a mob breaking through a metal grate protecting a Footlocker store in Oakland. Camera crews are in the background.
What better way to protest the decision than to loot innocent shopkeepers and get a pair of Nikes too!
News crews were all over the city after the verdict waiting to get some action shots. Chris Hayes, I ordinarily respect you but you were way out of line this time.
The riots were planned by anarchist groups.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/07/oscar_grant_riots_86_arrested.php
Nothing Chris said affected anything.
Firstly, I agree with Hapless. I live north of San Fran and the whole thing seems horrible and annoying at the same time. I feel sorry for both families, both for the loss of a life as well as the loss of freedom (there were reports of Mersherle's family getting hate-mail and suspicious packages leading up to his arrest). I also agree with MechTrek, though also point out that this is perhaps the fourth riot on behalf of Grant and what happened. I don't see why destroying your own community will help with the fact that someone ruled in a way you didn't want them to. The whole thing is just a mess, and everyone who yells about how it was 'murder' and that 'justice' was denied should realize that our imperfect system is, for now, all we have. Mob justice isn't the best way to rule, or to judge. I thought Salem and their witch trials taught us that.
The idea that the officer was going to use a taser seems somewhat ludicrous when you consider the fact that he and the other officer were in close contact and could have been jolted themselves by the taser charge
in my mind, even more ludicrous is that someone would pull a gun and intend to shoot someone with 50 or more people standing around the platform. that does not make any sense. I know that tasing someone who is handcuffed and on the ground doesn't either - but neither does the other.
I've heard that argument used often, about committing a crime with all those witnesses, but there is a couple of flaws with that assertion:
First, when you're talking about criminal conduct, you can't apply normal "logic" to situation, as most crimes, when viewed through that prism, will make no sense. Take for example a bank robbery...a person walks into a place that HE KNOWS is COVERED in CAMERAS, full of EYE WITNESSES, is FULLY ALARMED, with staff TRAINED TO ACTIVATE THE SYSTEM when needed. Yet there are a DOZEN bank robberies EVERYDAY IN CA (It also has the highest capture rate of all felonies, about 80%...go figure!). IN fact, if you look at the details of most serious crimes, (or if you talk to those who commit them, and I've done both) you come away saying, "What the hell was he thinking?"...and in reality, THEY WEREN'T THINKING!
Secondly, if you determine that it is so unbelievable that the officer would pull his weapon in those circumstances, then YOU MUST ALSO determine that it would be just as, if not more, unbelievable that Grant, LYING FACE DOWN, SURROUNDED by a dozen or more police officers, one of which has a knee in his neck/shoulder area, each with at least 37 rounds of ammunition each (12 in the magazine, + 1 in the chamber, with 2 extra magazines), would attempt to draw a weapon in that situation. That was the sworn testimony of the officer as to the reason he was drawing his Taser; he thought Grant was going for a gun.
If you can believe one, you have to be willing to believe the other...that's the definition of "logical." If you can't believe one, then you can't believe the other. And if you can't believe the officer's sworn testimony, as to the reason he transitioned to his weapon, then...
Not taking sides...HeyImjustsyin'
I wish Chris would find out what happened before he shoots off his mouth. The Taser was a right handed Taser, and was on the right side of his body with his gun, not the left. Most police will tell you it is best to split them, but BART has not made up its mind yet, and had right and left handed Tasers. On that night, the defendant had a right handed Taser. I presume they have made up their mind now. The defendant had almost no time to practice with the Taser in the weeks before the killing, because they only had them while on duty, and handed them off to another officer between shifts. Professionals will tell you this is an accident waiting to happen. The defendant's senior officer ordered him to hold Grant down, and Grant struggled. The senior officer should have been charged with a crime. He had stirred up the crowd before the defendant arrived on the scene.
Using a Taser should be done from a standing position, which is why the defendant was standing when he shot Grant. Chris's emphasis on the fact he was standing was misplaced. It goes to show he thought he was using his Taser, not that he was going to shot the victim. There was evidence from the expert testifying against him, that it is confusing for police who have Tasers one time on their left side, and at other times on their right, where to reach for their Taser; that it causes confusion. The jury was told by the State's witness against the defendant that there was cause for confusion.
If Chris had been following this case from the beginning, knew the evidence, and understood the evidentiary rulings, he would have understood that the outcome was the correct, and expected one. But on the strength of his own bigotry, he jumped to a conclusion. If this was a racist outcome, he would have been found not guilty. They could have done that, and defended it.
When ignorant people, shoot off their mouths, before knowing the facts, basing their opinions on a quick look at only one of many films, and jump to unwarranted conclusions, make me distrust every other thing they say. I am so disappointed in Chris, I hardly know what to say. This is a terrible tragedy for the family of the victim. Their child is dead, and he shouldn't be. But this was an accident for which the defendant must pay, because he is responsible; he was trusted with a gun, and he accepted that trust. I trusted Chris to be a news man with an opinion I can trust.
Chris conservatives and Republicans hate liberals and progressives BECAUSE of what you wrote tonight...completely inaccurate and one sided.
@ Joanne 1776-2010 You obviously didn't track this story or you'd know it's SWORN TESTIMONY from the DEFENDANT HIMSELF that he had his firearm on his right and his taser on the left. That admission alone made it 2nd degree murder in my book. I was never a Police Officer,because frankly I feel they have no honor, but I was a soldier for 15 years and I KNOW he was TRAINED TO KNOW WHERE HIS WEAPON IS AT ALL TIMES!!!! He did look stunned but I've seen that look in combat when a soldier does something in the heat of the moment that he would otherwise not have done. I believe he's sorry for what he did but it's still a crime and seeing as I don't believe it was premeditated or a race crime it should have been 2nd degree murder not involuntary manslaughter.
And an officer in NY shot a man 40 times and was acquitted. Sorry folks, this is nothing new...tragic...but not shocking.
My question is: Why all the outrage and no follow-up? Will the media continue to shine a light on this? Or, will it just be another story this week? I really appreciate the update, but truthfully, you could have a daily show that runs Mon-Fri for an hour every day about incidents just like this one.
Remember the incident with Michael Vick (Black football player) and the dogs. While I am an animal lover and think no one should get away with harming or taking a life of an species, human or otherwise, he got 2 years.
Plaxico Burress (black football player), the idiot shot HIMSELF and had to do 2 years.
Patrick Kane (white hockey player) beats up a 62 year old cab driver bad enough to where he had to be taken to a hospital. I mean, the man was 62. Patrick Kane sentence was to write a letter of apology.
Now, is that fair? At first, I thought that people with no money would never see justice, which to me was why the police do whatever they want to do to the people in the black community. But here are situations where all 3 athletes had money and only the white athlete served no jail time.
While my heart goes out to the family of that man that was shot in the back by that officer "confusing his gun for his taser", it just seems that this mistake happens all too often and its just no longer a surprise to see another black family go without justice.
this isn't a white black issue.
Kristie do you seriously believe what happened was not influenced by the black white "issue"? With all the racial things that people in the crowd reported hearing from the tranist officers? You must live in a different world than me.
I heard f*ck the police today on ABC news. So maybe its a black vs police or hispanic vs police world.
Do I think this officer purposefully shot this man--black or white--because of race? No I don't.
Kristie, google "systemic racism" and "racism law enforcement" and get a clue. "I hate black people and would take the opportunity to shoot one" is not the sole criterion to use when analyzing an incident wrt race. If you persist in this line of "analysis" you are being wilfully obtuse.
MechTrek People who don't have solid reasoning in their argument go personal and resort to name calling.
I have a clue. Thanks.
@Kristie I want to believe in the best in people too. I want to believe that all of these incidents are just unfortunate mistakes and that something weird must have happened that resulted in these tragic events. I want to think that way too. Who wants to believe that in the year 2KAnything, that people are not still hung up on complexion; that we have evolved and advanced as a people and as a society enough to where officers are not shooting people because they feel they are superior and that another race, religion, or sexual orientation is inferior. But unfortunately, the evidence is just overwhelming that we are still suffering with the issue of race we had since the birth of this nation. While I think it is sweet that you believe that the officer in this case and plenty others was trying to serve and protect (as their job description states they should do), to see overwhelming evidence damn near daily of gross injustice and still not acknowledge it is just being naive or you're in denial. Or maybe you are in a neighborhood where you ARE served and protected and cannot relate to this sort of issue.
BTW - If you were to witness the police beat a man until he urinated on himself the way I have and saw other incidents of harassment often, you probably would not walk away with an "I love police" attitude either. Stating lightly: Witnessing or experiencing police brutality can be quite frustrating...
P.S. - Nightline on ABC called this the worst racial controversy since Rodney King but only gave this issue about 30 seconds before signing off....(sigh)...see what I mean...
I agree completely that there are race problems with police and the black and hispanic populations.
I was simply saying in this case with this officer I don't think he shot Grant purposefully because he is black.
I think writing an article like this and making it completely about white man shot in cold blood black man because white man hates black man---just serves to incite the base and inflames an already angry group of people.
Kristie, I provided the search terms to back up my statement that systemic racism needs to be considered here. Where is your support for your argument that Mehserle's intent is the only factor that determines whether this incident is fouled with racism?
It's simple: you're either uneducated on racism and need to "get a clue", or you're a bigot. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. It is not "go[ing] personal" to call someone who won't educate themselves "wilfully obtuse". It's merely description.
I await your analysis.
This is not what the article said. Again, there is more to racism than "white person chooses to shoot black person b/c white person is personally racist."
hatenomore: I know a war zone. I live in Chicago, on the south side, and believe me, I am under no misconceptions about how difficult being a police officer can be. However, I will ask how many Black officers are shooting the people of the community because they thought their sandwich was a gun, or their cell phone was a gun or because they meant to taser them. THe excuses we hear are just lame and we know it. These same officers never seem to make the mistake in white communities. Last I checked, white people use cell phones and eat sandwiches too. Never heard of them accidentally being killed about it.
It comes down to this, there are preconceived notions about Black people and the Black community. They come in to the community with biases and (if you ask me) fear which causes them to overreact. Are ALL officers this way? Of course not. I think only an ignorant individual would put all white officers in a box of racism or bigotry. The issue is that unethical policing is a common occurrence in our community and to add insult to injury, these "bad apples" keep getting away with it. It adds insult to injury when they throw up a lame excuse like, "My bad. I only mean to shock a restrained man, not shoot him". Its garbage and we all know it. That is why we are hearing obtuse arguments like he just had a baby and may have been sleep deprived (lol)...
Plaxico Burress discharged an unlicensed firearm in a crowded night club. Don't let the facts get in the way of your tirade.
Thank you for your national coverage of the Mehserle verdict. As an Oakland resident, I am grieved with what seems a light verdict and hope that calm heads will prevail and that justice will continue to work it's way to the surface. I'd encourage you to do more coverage on race issues and law inforcment in America.
Dianna
So...you have to disengage the safety and pull the trigger on a taser?
One more strike: justice is not for victims. It's for society.
Businesses are closing early around Rockridge Station today. The cop Mehserle is likely to do a hard 2-4.
"I trusted Chris to be a news man with an opinion I can trust."
That speaks volumes doesn't it. The man disagrees with your opinion and now he's not to be trusted.
Chris didn't report news. He gave a one sided opinion of an issue. He did what the Glen Becksters of the world do best....incite the already angry base. Shame on Chris!
Yes, heaven forbid the black community get angry about systemic oppression.
It's an opinion piece. Your opinion is different and you're on the offensive about it. What's that about really? You have taken a couple of drive-bys here and made no argument. I respect those who disagree with my take on it who have given their reasoning. OTOH, your blanket 'this is not a black and white issue' with no reasoning isn't something I respect, and you come off as a clueless person, even perhaps a bigot when that is all you bring to a discussion. Are you familiar with my neighborhood - Rockridge Station - have a lay of the land enough to make that claim?
I've looked at the video a LOT of times. I don't see a guy using a taser, oh wait that's my gun. I find it ludicrous actually.
Shame on you, from where I stand..
Chris was filing in for Rachel as a political commentator. This is not just an opinion piece.
It's amazing to me that instead of speaking to the facts of the case persons like yourself resort in personal attacks against fellow posters (clueless person with no reasoning, bigot).
jan-1849869 add something to the discussion. This is not about me.
Why does MSNBC continue to avoid real news and not discuss the news about NASA and our outreach to Muslims and the civil case against the radical left Black Panther group. Instead of drinking the Kool Aid open your Audio.
Or unemployment. The only one who really talks about that is Ed.
To be fair I don't hear about it too much when flipping to the other networks either.
Cole because the 2 topics you mentioned are Rep talking points and real news organizations don't respond to RNC talking points. Tune into Rush, Lewis and the Fox types if you need to know that garbage.
Ya know, on this 'one-sided' j'accuse thing here today; I've noticed one thing: the people arguing that this is the correct verdict are cops.
Blue wall of silence, anyone? Anyone?
I am not a cop. I am not white. I am not a bigot. Keep making assumptions.
I agree with the verdict.
I am not a cop. I am white. I am not a bigot. Please don't make assumptions...
I agree with the verdict.
I am not a cop. I am white. I am not a bigot. Please don't make assumptions...
I disagree with the verdict.
Just thought I should follow what appears to be the standard form for registering opinions on this case.
Just trying chime in yet lay low at the same time Uffy. Sorta blog shy...
I lived at Western and Jefferson in 1991. I lived through what happened. My baby sitter for my then 10 month old son was African American. She brought him home to me one day during the problems in that area on the floor of her car rather than in the back seat in his car seat. She told me she feared for his life...driving through the neighborhood with a white baby in her car.
The ash that covered my back yard was there for months. It was sad, frightening, and I'll never forget it.
I missed what you think the verdict should have been sorry?
I understand Maggie. It sounds like you have had more experience with this sort of thing than many posters here, me included.
Personally, I think it should have been second degree murder. I also believe, as I told another poster, that the police department as a whole needs to be investigated. If this sort of thing can happen "accidentally", as the defense asserted, then there is obviously something very deficient in their training and elsewhere. As I said in that post, if the system itself, in this case the police department, is not investigated, then we are basically saying we condone what happened, and it will happen again, and again and again.......
Sad but true Uffy. I agree...
I'm...nominally white, I'm not a cop. If I'm bigotted, its in the way most people aren't.
I think that a cop attempting to taser a man on the ground in handcuffs stinks.
How much did he get sentenced for THAT?
I don't know if it was part of the defense, but one of the first things I remember reading was that the officer had just had a baby. Anyone who has dealt with sleep deprivation can see how he might have drawn the wrong 'weapon'. Should he have been using the Taser? Probably not. I personally think that they are overused. Did he intend to shoot and potentially kill Oscar Grant? I seriously doubt it. Apparently, so did the jury. I think the verdict is correct - and, while I am white, I am also a bleeding-heart liberal. (Just in case it becomes a requirement to identify ourselves racially in discussions regarding racism.)
That's interesting. I didn't know that. Do you have a reference for that?
Lets be for real for just one second here. Why bother with a reference on his having a baby. The fact that he recently had a baby and could have been sleep deprived is no defense for shooting a man in the back that was not a threat to anyone because he was on the ground with a knee in his neck! I mean, I like a good explanation or defense as much as the next person but that is a bit of a reach, don't you think?
The new baby defense has been used many times in court to justify an action...for the mom that is. It works sometimes because we all can relate.
We will never really know what was going through that young officers mind when he killed that young man.
Just walk a day in the shoes of someone else then you can make rational comments. I for one would feel devastated if I were that officer and I can only imagine what he is going to go through for the rest of his life.
I hope that the prison system protects this young man who made a terrible mistake...after all he was out there trying to protect others.
The "Taser or gun: which did he think it was?" argument is not the point. Chris was spot-on.
If Grant were white, would Mehserle have been reaching for anything?
Any number of studies on racial bias in law enforcement and the criminal justice system can back up this statement.
The racism is there. It's systemic. And whites refuse to see it even when it's blatantly obvious. Pointing out racism is this big taboo and people get all defensive when you do it. But it needs to be done. Well done, Chris.
You know, actually, I want to amend that. Between this and the huge threads over the AZ law, I really, really think some Racism 101 needs to be in any commentary on a race issue. It needs to be spelled out and made explicit. "See? Here? This is what racism looks like and this is why this particular thing is racist." Say "racism" a lot, and back it up with basic explanations. B/c it seems to me that anytime (not just on TRMS) that I read a commentary that mentions race, but only obliquely, the "commenter calling out racism is the real racist for making this about race" meme gets pulled out. Tonight it happens to have taken the form, "You're stirring up anger in an already angry community! Shame!" People--Chris didn't say anything the black community doesn't already know about the justice system. He wasn't inciting anything, except maybe white anger at him for pointing out the obvious.
I agree. Many people who have attempted to deal with their own biases on a personal level seem to get defensive when the conversation moves on to the ways that racism (or more accurately--white supremacy) is institutionalized.
Shut up Sunshine. You aren't enlightning anyone or opening their eyes. Go find Thor Asgardson and make out with him, just leave the rest of us alone.
Don does Hatey ever have anything of value to contribute(?) or is he just a troll...stirring up the pot seems to get him off.
"The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection."
I don't see how he could have been convicted of murder. He, while in comssion of a lawful act (arresting a person who is violating the law) did something such that the person died. He did not plan it, there was no malice aforethought. That's not Murder. It's Manslaughter. Since the tape showed his obvious confusion after the event. He was convicted of pretty much the exact correct thing.
Listen, I'm a good liberal and know not to trust the blue fascists but really: the guy doomed his life because he was careless and flippant, wearing his tazer and gun on the same side, not because he hated anyone, not because he went out that night looking for trouble.
He deserves a serious punishment. He is a law enforcement officer, and his duty is to protect and serve, and he did neither. He was careless and it cost a man his life. He should be made to serve justice. But this was not murder.
It is irresponsible to call someone for murder simply because we don't trust them. This wasn't an editorial. It was a call to riot. Screaming Fire in a crowded theater.
Shame.
@Kristie I guess its easy to turn a blind eye or deny racism when you or your people simply dont have to experience it on the level that we (Black people) do...and something tells me that white people wouldn't like to try it on for size either.
I appreciate the fact that most white people are so uncomfortable or flat out ashamed of slavery, Jim Crow, racial profiling, etc. that they don't even want to acknowledge it but we will never progress as a society until this sort of thing is truly dealt with. I mean, there being no black people selected to serve on the jury don't ring a bell for anyone? People getting they ass kicked by police all the time in the paper or on the news dont say anything to anyone?
If we had a video of reverse order, (All of the policeman were black and the subject on the ground was white) what would change about the observation of the situation? If this young police officer confused his gun for a taser, it doesn't change the fact that a young man is dead. And, it doesn't change the fact of race discrimination in this country. Shooting anyone on the ground with a taser cannot or, at least, should not be rational procedure. That would have to fall under the jurisdiction of unnecessary force.
The mistake in this situation was in choosing to use either gun, taser or revolver. The circumstances around that decision is what so many of us are seeing as race related. Obviously, according to Hapless Tigger, one officer stepped back while Mehserle fired. That says he had orders to fire. There was obviously no call for such drastic measures. It was unnecessary force, and more than one officer was at fault.
I think Chris did a good job in relating the story. If the danger of escalation of violence in reporting a news story is the criticism behind the posts against Chris's reporting, then that answers the question of whether this will be seen as justice or discrimination. I agree with Chris. It may have been a mistake in selection, but that doesn't retard the responsibility for a useless killing, and it screams, discrimination.
Please get the facts straight. He was NOT handcuffed. He WAS under arrest. It is a horrible tragedy but in order to convict for murder you have to PROVE intent. You had a tense, violent situation. The BART police handled it poorly. Mesherle f'd up. He was a young cop in a bad situation. You really honestly think he consciously intended to kill a Oscar Grant that night? Why? I'm listening?
I got an explanation. He overreacted to a black man. Done and done.
Probably true. Does that prove intent?
Do I think that he woke up that morning with an intention to kill a black man that day? No. But that is what he did due to an overraction to the black man. I know it is a safe assumption that this overreaction would not have occurred with a white dude and moreover, if it had, I bet he would have gotten the second-degree murder charge with a heaviest sentence. I will go even further to say that the lame excuse of "I thought it was my taser" would have made him the butt of jokes on late night TV so much to where other people that tries to give this dumb excuse would immediately be ridiculed and law officer training exercises would be revised and PR people will be trying to clean up the issues, etc....
watching this video .........then read the report then all the comments then watch the video again. 3 cops, well-armed, one suspect unarmed on the ground, then shot in the back. Grant prob thot those cops would just handcuffed and tasered him, but not to shoot. Which is more horrifying? the incident or the ruling? justice has not been served to anyone directly or indirectly involved. How many of these incidents need to happen until justice is served?
I doubt that anyone thinks that young officer intended to kill Oscar Grant. What I think he did was do what another officer told him to do. Let me take the liberty of 'guessing' at how this went down.
Grant was resisting arrest because of past experience with the police department. He was subdued and put on the ground, face down, and was being held there with an officer's foot on his neck, pushing his face into the concrete. That officer was very angry and gave the order to Officer Mehlerle to, (remember, I'm just 'guessing' here) taser this dude's black hide into the pavement. Not fully seeing the reason for this action, Mehlerle got confused and pulled the wrong gun. The other officer stepped back to allow full exposure to Grant for Mehlerle and so he would not take any of the blast. Mehlerle, then felt compelled to do as told because Grant was now left without constraint. Being a young, new officer, he took his orders and fired. Albeit, the wrong gun. The rest is known.
What we have are two victims of race discrimination. One from inexperience and assuming seniority was allowed to give him orders he did not agree with, and the other was a young black man lying on the ground from being subdued from the same officer who gave the order to shoot. The only thing objectionable to the public is the allowance of the other officer being considered totally innocent because he ordered some young officer to do his dirty work against the black community. It's the police department that is on trial in the black community. And, that's not the first time.
Two lives have been taken because of discrimination in a police dept. and an over zealous officer who was mad at Grant and wanted to hurt him and show him who was the boss. Nothing new, just another day in Oakland. Except this one cost one young man his life, literally, and another young man his life, emotionally.
What needs to change?