So poking around on the interwebs regarding torture convictions, it seems like a lot of them involve patterns of abuse over period of time (even just a day/night). That, or that one guy who tore out his victims heart and ate his face. No, really.
But seriously, it seems common in child abuse cases, elder abuse cases, or cases where a criminal engaged in another crime detains and assaults somebody (like during a burglary).
how often do you hear your phone ring and then put your ipod to your ear? I would argue that my phone and my ipod are about as similar as a tazer and a gun.
how often do you hear your phone ring and then put your ipod to your ear? I would argue that my phone and my ipod are about as similar as a tazer and a gun.
If I had a Touch? I could definitely see that happening. Easily.
how often do you hear your phone ring and then put your ipod to your ear? I would argue that my phone and my ipod are about as similar as a tazer and a gun.
If I had a Touch? I could definitely see that happening. Easily.
Also, have I recently been involved in any sort of altercation and/or am I surround by a noisy and unruly crowd?
how often do you hear your phone ring and then put your ipod to your ear? I would argue that my phone and my ipod are about as similar as a tazer and a gun.
If I had a Touch? I could definitely see that happening. Easily.
Also, have I recently been involved in any sort of altercation and/or am I surround by a noisy and unruly crowd?
Am I expecting a possible call? Am I stressed? Am I also not all that bright?
And frankly, I don't personally believe that was the actual case here. But since I can't prove otherwise I don't think the prosecution should get to say "Nuh uh" as their proof otherwise.
Ain't going to read the entire thread but people are actually defending this defense?
And just to clarify, nobody to my knowledge is "defending" it to the point of saying Mehserle was not guilty of any offense. I think pretty much all the "defenders" are ok with him being convicted of the felony he was convicted of, and would probably be ok even if he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The "defenders" are only being put in a position to defend because some people want to hammer a round peg into a square hole and have him convicted of murder, when there wasn't a case to support that charge.
how often do you hear your phone ring and then put your ipod to your ear? I would argue that my phone and my ipod are about as similar as a tazer and a gun.
If I had a Touch? I could definitely see that happening. Easily.
Also, have I recently been involved in any sort of altercation and/or am I surround by a noisy and unruly crowd?
Am I expecting a possible call? Am I stressed? Am I also not all that bright?
And frankly, I don't personally believe that was the actual case here. But since I can't prove otherwise I don't think the prosecution should get to say "Nuh uh" as their proof otherwise.
I honestly have to take the whole "I thought it was my Taser" defense as the most likely scenario. The very idea that a cop would just up and shoot the guy in front of a crowd like that for no apparent reason is just so much less likely.
Not impossible, mind you.
But I have an easier time believing that a cop would be criminally and tragically incompetent than actually just straight-up murderously insane.* Especially when the former still lets me convict him of a serious felony carrying real jail time.
I don't really buy it. When you carry things with you every day you develop a sense of them as part of your personage. I can feel and am aware of the contents of my pockets, and I can only assume that it is the same for the things on a cop's holster.
One possibility I will entertain is that the dude was a rage-powered dumbfuck with a cocaine habit or something and he just wanted the dude to stop struggling and in the heat of the moment didn't really consider whether he was doing it with the gun or the taser.
I don't really buy it. When you carry things with you every day you develop a sense of them as part of your personage. I can feel and am aware of the contents of my pockets, and I can only assume that it is the same for the things on a cop's holster.
One possibility I will entertain is that the dude was a rage-powered dumbfuck with a cocaine habit or something and he just wanted the dude to stop struggling and in the heat of the moment didn't really consider whether he was doing it with the gun or the taser.
Something along the lines of that I can believe.
He'd been carrying the Taser less then four months, from what I can tell, and it's not entirely unlikely that he'd never drawn either weapon in a "real world" situation before.
That, and I have no illusions about the depth of human incompetence. Seriously. Even involving deadly weapons...some of the things I've seen fucktards do, I tell you what.
I don't really buy it. When you carry things with you every day you develop a sense of them as part of your personage. I can feel and am aware of the contents of my pockets, and I can only assume that it is the same for the things on a cop's holster.
One possibility I will entertain is that the dude was a rage-powered dumbfuck with a cocaine habit or something and he just wanted the dude to stop struggling and in the heat of the moment didn't really consider whether he was doing it with the gun or the taser.
Something along the lines of that I can believe.
He'd been carrying the Taser less then four months, from what I can tell, and it's not entirely unlikely that he'd never drawn either weapon in a "real world" situation before.
That, and I have no illusions about the depth of human incompetence. Seriously. Even involving deadly weapons...some of the things I've seen fucktards do, I tell you what.
I see your point.
I believe that a heat of the moment fuck you gesture is a more likely explanation, but yeah I can see that it is impossible to prove that.
Still it is blatantly absurd that because a cop is carrying a gun-like weapon and a gun it becomes impossible for him to murder anyone.
I don't really buy it. When you carry things with you every day you develop a sense of them as part of your personage. I can feel and am aware of the contents of my pockets, and I can only assume that it is the same for the things on a cop's holster.
One possibility I will entertain is that the dude was a rage-powered dumbfuck with a cocaine habit or something and he just wanted the dude to stop struggling and in the heat of the moment didn't really consider whether he was doing it with the gun or the taser.
Something along the lines of that I can believe.
He'd been carrying the Taser less then four months, from what I can tell, and it's not entirely unlikely that he'd never drawn either weapon in a "real world" situation before.
That, and I have no illusions about the depth of human incompetence. Seriously. Even involving deadly weapons...some of the things I've seen fucktards do, I tell you what.
I see your point.
I believe that a heat of the moment fuck you gesture is a more likely explanation, but yeah I can see that it is impossible to prove that.
Still it is blatantly absurd that because a cop is carrying a gun-like weapon and a gun it becomes impossible for him to murder anyone.
I don't think anybody said that.
They said, in this case, it was impossible to prove. If they had found neo-Nazi literature in this guys house or something, okay, now we have motive. Now we can build a case for murder. Since, to the best of my knowledge, nothing like that ever surfaced, the prosecution just couldn't build a case for murder. No one said murder was impossible just because he was carrying two vaguely gun like objects.
I don't really buy it. When you carry things with you every day you develop a sense of them as part of your personage. I can feel and am aware of the contents of my pockets, and I can only assume that it is the same for the things on a cop's holster.
One possibility I will entertain is that the dude was a rage-powered dumbfuck with a cocaine habit or something and he just wanted the dude to stop struggling and in the heat of the moment didn't really consider whether he was doing it with the gun or the taser.
Something along the lines of that I can believe.
He'd been carrying the Taser less then four months, from what I can tell, and it's not entirely unlikely that he'd never drawn either weapon in a "real world" situation before.
That, and I have no illusions about the depth of human incompetence. Seriously. Even involving deadly weapons...some of the things I've seen fucktards do, I tell you what.
I see your point.
I believe that a heat of the moment fuck you gesture is a more likely explanation, but yeah I can see that it is impossible to prove that.
Still it is blatantly absurd that because a cop is carrying a gun-like weapon and a gun it becomes impossible for him to murder anyone.
Which isn't what the jury was determining, nor what this case proves.
In this case, the jury found that there was not enough evidence to convict for murder, but there was enough evidence to convict for manslaughter. That's it.
So It Goes on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
Wouldn't that kind of be the definition of persuasion?
I don't really buy it. When you carry things with you every day you develop a sense of them as part of your personage. I can feel and am aware of the contents of my pockets, and I can only assume that it is the same for the things on a cop's holster.
He only had six hours of training on it, he'd only had it for a short period of time, and he didn't even get to always carry it. The department rotated the tasers around to different officers on the shift, so he didn't always have a taser to carry.
They said, in this case, it was impossible to prove. If they had found neo-Nazi literature in this guys house or something, okay, now we have motive. Now we can build a case for murder. Since, to the best of my knowledge, nothing like that ever surfaced, the prosecution just couldn't build a case for murder. No one said murder was impossible just because he was carrying two vaguely gun like objects.
Yeah but this is the real world not an episode of CSI.
He doesn't need to have intent from five days ago, all he has to do is want the guy dead at the time of the shooting. If he has a taser and a gun and somebody fucks with him and he shoots them it becomes impossible to say that he meant to shoot them.
They said, in this case, it was impossible to prove. If they had found neo-Nazi literature in this guys house or something, okay, now we have motive. Now we can build a case for murder. Since, to the best of my knowledge, nothing like that ever surfaced, the prosecution just couldn't build a case for murder. No one said murder was impossible just because he was carrying two vaguely gun like objects.
Yeah but this is the real world not an episode of CSI.
He doesn't need to have intent from five days ago, all he has to do is want the guy dead at the time of the shooting. If he has a taser and a gun and somebody fucks with him and he shoots them it becomes impossible to say that he meant to shoot them.
Yeah in the real world we actually need MORE evidence than the bullshit they do on CSI.
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
I think this is bullshit. Manslaughter is what you get for not paying attention and fatally hitting a pedestrian with your car while you were looking for your wallet in the glovebox.
Pulling a weapon on a restrained man and shooting him is murder. If he couldn't tell the difference between his pistol and his tazer, how was he allowed to become a cop? The difference in weight alone should have indicated that he had pulled the wrong weapon. By the way, I still don't buy that defense.
Let's do some role-reversal. I'm a girl walking around Harlem with a taser and a pistol in my handbag. It's a dangerous neighbourhood and all that jazz. I am perfectly within my rights to carry these weapons in self-defense. I get attacked by a man, I assume he is going to rape me. I go for the tazer in my handbag, but pull out the pistol and shoot my attacker dead.
I would be convicted of second degree murder, no doubt.
Now, the same thing happens but a passerby takes action and fights the attacker and holds him down. I go to draw my tazer and instead draw the pistol and shoot him dead.
Did I have reason to even draw my weapon in the first place? No. The situation was under control.
The cop's defense apparently revolves around the possibility of the man having a gun, being able to draw the gun and fire it. The cop apparently took action, by going for his tazer, instead drawing his pistol and shooting the man dead. To do that, he had to hold the gun in his hand, switch the safety off, aim it and pull the trigger. Are we to believe that the cop simply did not know or care what his pistol felt like? Did he not have firearms training? Was he so unfamiliar with his gun that he could not tell the difference between it and a taser?
SWAT kicks in this dude's door in the middle of the night, he thinks he's being burgled. He shoots a cop with his pistol, in the dark. He was charged with murder in the first degree.
Seriously, this whole thread reads like a bunch of people raging because they don't understand the difference between the informal definition of murder and the legal definitions of Manslaughter and Murder.
That's LEGAL definitions fyi, since most people seem to be saying "It was MURDER!" because the guy killed someone, ignoring the fact that the everyday definition of murder and the legal one are not the same.
They got him for manslaughter and that's a really good thing. They couldn't prove murder. Personally, I'd say that's because it doesn't qualify, legally, as murder anyway. It's a pretty clear cut case of manslaughter though.
Seriously, this whole thread reads like a bunch of people raging because they don't understand the difference between the informal definition of murder and the legal definitions of Manslaughter and Murder.
That's LEGAL definitions fyi, since most people seem to be saying "It was MURDER!" because the guy killed someone, ignoring the fact that the everyday definition of murder and the legal one are not the same.
They got him for manslaughter and that's a really good thing. They couldn't prove murder. Personally, I'd say that's because it doesn't qualify, legally, as murder anyway. It's a pretty clear cut case of manslaughter though.
second degree murder
n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.
Seriously, this whole thread reads like a bunch of people raging because they don't understand the difference between the informal definition of murder and the legal definitions of Manslaughter and Murder.
That's LEGAL definitions fyi, since most people seem to be saying "It was MURDER!" because the guy killed someone, ignoring the fact that the everyday definition of murder and the legal one are not the same.
They got him for manslaughter and that's a really good thing. They couldn't prove murder. Personally, I'd say that's because it doesn't qualify, legally, as murder anyway. It's a pretty clear cut case of manslaughter though.
second degree murder
n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.
Yes, you have just proved my point about not knowing the difference yet again.
Second Degree Murder still requires INTENT. It simply lacks premeditation.
shryke on
0
Options
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
Sure, but he died. He had no reason to pull even his taser. He should have gone for his handcuffs. Two cops were restraining the man and he was not even struggling until they forced him facedown on the ground. He clearly surrendered and was in a sitting position. I know I sure as hell wouldn't like to be forced face down onto a filthy walkway. I'd probably struggle too.
You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
Sure, but he died. He had no reason to pull even his taser. He should have gone for his handcuffs. Two cops were restraining the man and he was not even struggling until they forced him facedown on the ground. He clearly surrendered and was in a sitting position. I know I sure as hell wouldn't like to be forced face down onto a filthy walkway. I'd probably struggle too.
A lot of people who drive drunk have zero business driving whatsoever. Sometimes it's blindingly obvious even to themselves they shouldn't be. They'll admit they knew they were drunk.
So, murderers when they kill someone? After all, it was an incredibly stupid, risky mistake that ended a person's life they had no right committing.
You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
Except (fuck I hate repeating myself) using pain to gain compliance with a resistive suspect is not necessarily unlawful. And it absolutely certainly positively does not equal intent to kill. Even assuming the use of force was unlawful, you're probably talking about simple battery if the intent was to use his Taser (and while deaths have occurred good luck getting that to stick as a deadly weapon)...which is a misdemeanor, so there goes your "felony murder" route.
second degree murder
n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.
Except how is "distinct possibility" defined? Assuming the Taser was the intended weapon, the odds of death were beyond remote. It happens, sure, but not enough to warrant this charge. I'm very comfortable saying that had he drawn the Taser and fired it, Oscar Grant would be alive and well today.
Let's do some role-reversal. I'm a girl walking around Harlem with a taser and a pistol in my handbag. It's a dangerous neighbourhood and all that jazz. I am perfectly within my rights to carry these weapons in self-defense. I get attacked by a man, I assume he is going to rape me. I go for the tazer in my handbag, but pull out the pistol and shoot my attacker dead.
I would be convicted of second degree murder, no doubt.
Depends on the jurisdiction, but yeah in California your chances aren't great.
However I'll point out here that police officers are given more leeway in the use of force, legally, than private citizens. Which is somewhat controversial, but I'd argue necessary in some cases (and personally I'd argue for expanded rights for citizens anyway).
Now, the same thing happens but a passerby takes action and fights the attacker and holds him down. I go to draw my tazer and instead draw the pistol and shoot him dead.
Did I have reason to even draw my weapon in the first place? No. The situation was under control.
You obviously have no idea how quickly a situation can go from "under control" to "holy fuck." Until a guy is safely cuffed, and preferably stuffed into the back of a police cruiser, "under control" can only be used in the loosest sense.
The cop's defense apparently revolves around the possibility of the man having a gun, being able to draw the gun and fire it. The cop apparently took action, by going for his tazer, instead drawing his pistol and shooting the man dead. To do that, he had to hold the gun in his hand, switch the safety off, aim it and pull the trigger. Are we to believe that the cop simply did not know or care what his pistol felt like? Did he not have firearms training? Was he so unfamiliar with his gun that he could not tell the difference between it and a taser?
This whole thing stinks.
First, his gun probably had no safety. Nor does mine. Guns without safeties are not uncommon, especially in law enforcement.
As for training/feel/etc., that's already been covered. It's plausible. Criminally negligent, perhaps, but plausible. I'll point out one more time that this guy didn't "get off," he's facing 5-14 years in prison for what happened.
SWAT kicks in this dude's door in the middle of the night, he thinks he's being burgled. He shoots a cop with his pistol, in the dark. He was charged with murder in the first degree.
I think I alluded to this earlier, and yes it's bullshit. It has a lot to do with the sometimes absurd disparity between use-of-force laws between cops and regular citizens, and particularly when a regular citizen actually shoots a cop. The fact that there's no such thing as self-defense against an on-duty cop is fucking absurd, when we have cops crashing through windows in the dead of night.
You want to talk no-knock raids (and "sorta knock" raids)? I can go all fucking day on them. But that's not really relevant to this thread.
mcdermott on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
Sure, but he died. He had no reason to pull even his taser. He should have gone for his handcuffs. Two cops were restraining the man and he was not even struggling until they forced him facedown on the ground. He clearly surrendered and was in a sitting position. I know I sure as hell wouldn't like to be forced face down onto a filthy walkway. I'd probably struggle too.
A lot of people who drive drunk have zero business driving whatsoever. Sometimes it's blindingly obvious even to themselves they shouldn't be. They'll admit they knew they were drunk.
So, murderers when they kill someone? After all, it was an incredibly stupid, risky mistake that ended a person's life they had no right committing.
Haven't we tried to pass laws like this before, and they haven't made it? I thought some state tried to pass a law where if you had previous DUI's and you killed someone, they could pursue first-degree murder, but I thought it got caught up in some pretty serious legal bullshit.
You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
Sure, but he died. He had no reason to pull even his taser. He should have gone for his handcuffs. Two cops were restraining the man and he was not even struggling until they forced him facedown on the ground. He clearly surrendered and was in a sitting position. I know I sure as hell wouldn't like to be forced face down onto a filthy walkway. I'd probably struggle too.
And all of this explains why he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a felony homicide charge that (with the gun use) carries 5-14 years in prison.
You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
Sure, but he died. He had no reason to pull even his taser. He should have gone for his handcuffs. Two cops were restraining the man and he was not even struggling until they forced him facedown on the ground. He clearly surrendered and was in a sitting position. I know I sure as hell wouldn't like to be forced face down onto a filthy walkway. I'd probably struggle too.
A lot of people who drive drunk have zero business driving whatsoever. Sometimes it's blindingly obvious even to themselves they shouldn't be. They'll admit they knew they were drunk.
So, murderers when they kill someone? After all, it was an incredibly stupid, risky mistake that ended a person's life they had no right committing.
Haven't we tried to pass laws like this before, and they haven't made it? I thought some state tried to pass a law where if you had previous DUI's and you killed someone, they could pursue first-degree murder, but I thought it got caught up in some pretty serious legal bullshit.
Which it should. Stupidity is nowhere near the same as murderous intent.
Quid on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
Sure, but he died. He had no reason to pull even his taser. He should have gone for his handcuffs. Two cops were restraining the man and he was not even struggling until they forced him facedown on the ground. He clearly surrendered and was in a sitting position. I know I sure as hell wouldn't like to be forced face down onto a filthy walkway. I'd probably struggle too.
A lot of people who drive drunk have zero business driving whatsoever. Sometimes it's blindingly obvious even to themselves they shouldn't be. They'll admit they knew they were drunk.
So, murderers when they kill someone? After all, it was an incredibly stupid, risky mistake that ended a person's life they had no right committing.
Haven't we tried to pass laws like this before, and they haven't made it? I thought some state tried to pass a law where if you had previous DUI's and you killed someone, they could pursue first-degree murder, but I thought it got caught up in some pretty serious legal bullshit.
Which it should. Stupidity is nowhere near the same as murderous intent.
I agree. I was more pointing it out because there are, in fact, people who believe that in some, or all, cases drunk driving manslaughter should be first degree murder.
e: Also, I know some states have laws allowing them to charge you with "drunken vehicular manslaughter", which in most of those states carries much stiffer sentences than regular involuntary manslaughter.
I agree. I was more pointing it out because there are, in fact, people who believe that in some, or all, cases drunk driving manslaughter should be first degree murder.
e: Also, I know some states have laws allowing them to charge you with "drunken vehicular manslaughter", which in most of those states carries much stiffer sentences than regular involuntary manslaughter.
And I can, to some extent, support this...because drunk driving is (generally) a pattern of behavior that is willfully negligent. I doubt many people manage to kill somebody driving drunk their very first time, and many have actually been tagged with DUIs at least once in the past. If we had records of this guy constantly pulling his gun and/or Taser on random-ass people, and accidentally firing his gun instead of his Taser, then maybe I could see upping the charges.
You do know that if he had fired his taser, he still would have commited battery? His intent was to hurt a restrained man.
Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
Yeah, because you were in that BART station and saw what happened, right?
You can't tell me it was or was not excessive force, so at this point you're just spouting supposition.
Honestly, though, can anyone here possibly give evidence of motive in Mehserle's shooting of Oscar Grant? Was Grant shouting epithets, causing Mehserle to lose his temper? Was Mehserle shouting them before the shooting? The testimony and evidence (that I've heard and seen) all point to no, or at least to a lack of proof, thus making a murder conviction inappropriate under our "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt" laws in the judicial process.
Can we prove intent to kill? If not, it's not murder.
Can we prove intent to shoot his pistol? If not, it's not voluntary.
That leaves us with involuntary manslaughter.
Also, just because some of us are angry about racial profiling doesn't automatically mean Mehserle is a closet racist. Stop trying to find simple scapegoats to justify anger over complex issues.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Can we at least agree that the fucking pig deserves the maximum sentence for this?
Absolutely. But we can't treat him any differently than any other criminal just because we are mad about the situation, including when he gets released on probation.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Posts
But seriously, it seems common in child abuse cases, elder abuse cases, or cases where a criminal engaged in another crime detains and assaults somebody (like during a burglary).
how often do you hear your phone ring and then put your ipod to your ear? I would argue that my phone and my ipod are about as similar as a tazer and a gun.
https://medium.com/@alascii
If I had a Touch? I could definitely see that happening. Easily.
Also, have I recently been involved in any sort of altercation and/or am I surround by a noisy and unruly crowd?
Am I expecting a possible call? Am I stressed? Am I also not all that bright?
And just to clarify, nobody to my knowledge is "defending" it to the point of saying Mehserle was not guilty of any offense. I think pretty much all the "defenders" are ok with him being convicted of the felony he was convicted of, and would probably be ok even if he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The "defenders" are only being put in a position to defend because some people want to hammer a round peg into a square hole and have him convicted of murder, when there wasn't a case to support that charge.
Murder: There's an app for that.
I honestly have to take the whole "I thought it was my Taser" defense as the most likely scenario. The very idea that a cop would just up and shoot the guy in front of a crowd like that for no apparent reason is just so much less likely.
Not impossible, mind you.
But I have an easier time believing that a cop would be criminally and tragically incompetent than actually just straight-up murderously insane.* Especially when the former still lets me convict him of a serious felony carrying real jail time.
* - Absent compelling evidence, of course.
One possibility I will entertain is that the dude was a rage-powered dumbfuck with a cocaine habit or something and he just wanted the dude to stop struggling and in the heat of the moment didn't really consider whether he was doing it with the gun or the taser.
Something along the lines of that I can believe.
https://medium.com/@alascii
He'd been carrying the Taser less then four months, from what I can tell, and it's not entirely unlikely that he'd never drawn either weapon in a "real world" situation before.
That, and I have no illusions about the depth of human incompetence. Seriously. Even involving deadly weapons...some of the things I've seen fucktards do, I tell you what.
I see your point.
I believe that a heat of the moment fuck you gesture is a more likely explanation, but yeah I can see that it is impossible to prove that.
Still it is blatantly absurd that because a cop is carrying a gun-like weapon and a gun it becomes impossible for him to murder anyone.
https://medium.com/@alascii
I don't think anybody said that.
They said, in this case, it was impossible to prove. If they had found neo-Nazi literature in this guys house or something, okay, now we have motive. Now we can build a case for murder. Since, to the best of my knowledge, nothing like that ever surfaced, the prosecution just couldn't build a case for murder. No one said murder was impossible just because he was carrying two vaguely gun like objects.
Which isn't what the jury was determining, nor what this case proves.
In this case, the jury found that there was not enough evidence to convict for murder, but there was enough evidence to convict for manslaughter. That's it.
Yeah but this is the real world not an episode of CSI.
He doesn't need to have intent from five days ago, all he has to do is want the guy dead at the time of the shooting. If he has a taser and a gun and somebody fucks with him and he shoots them it becomes impossible to say that he meant to shoot them.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Yeah in the real world we actually need MORE evidence than the bullshit they do on CSI.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Uhh, motive is a pretty important part of a murder trial. It's one of the best ways investigators have to prove intent.
Pulling a weapon on a restrained man and shooting him is murder. If he couldn't tell the difference between his pistol and his tazer, how was he allowed to become a cop? The difference in weight alone should have indicated that he had pulled the wrong weapon. By the way, I still don't buy that defense.
Let's do some role-reversal. I'm a girl walking around Harlem with a taser and a pistol in my handbag. It's a dangerous neighbourhood and all that jazz. I am perfectly within my rights to carry these weapons in self-defense. I get attacked by a man, I assume he is going to rape me. I go for the tazer in my handbag, but pull out the pistol and shoot my attacker dead.
I would be convicted of second degree murder, no doubt.
Now, the same thing happens but a passerby takes action and fights the attacker and holds him down. I go to draw my tazer and instead draw the pistol and shoot him dead.
Did I have reason to even draw my weapon in the first place? No. The situation was under control.
The cop's defense apparently revolves around the possibility of the man having a gun, being able to draw the gun and fire it. The cop apparently took action, by going for his tazer, instead drawing his pistol and shooting the man dead. To do that, he had to hold the gun in his hand, switch the safety off, aim it and pull the trigger. Are we to believe that the cop simply did not know or care what his pistol felt like? Did he not have firearms training? Was he so unfamiliar with his gun that he could not tell the difference between it and a taser?
This whole thing stinks.
EDIT:
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/im-not-murderer-they-make-me-out-be-frederick-says
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/verdict-reached-ryan-frederick-trial-details-come-0
SWAT kicks in this dude's door in the middle of the night, he thinks he's being burgled. He shoots a cop with his pistol, in the dark. He was charged with murder in the first degree.
Then what do you believe the motive was and what proof do you have to offer?
That's LEGAL definitions fyi, since most people seem to be saying "It was MURDER!" because the guy killed someone, ignoring the fact that the everyday definition of murder and the legal one are not the same.
They got him for manslaughter and that's a really good thing. They couldn't prove murder. Personally, I'd say that's because it doesn't qualify, legally, as murder anyway. It's a pretty clear cut case of manslaughter though.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Pretty sure SFPD uses Glocks, which means no safety.
second degree murder
n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.
Yes, you have just proved my point about not knowing the difference yet again.
Second Degree Murder still requires INTENT. It simply lacks premeditation.
Indeed, had it been his taser it would have been excessive force. That's not intent to kill.
Sure, but he died. He had no reason to pull even his taser. He should have gone for his handcuffs. Two cops were restraining the man and he was not even struggling until they forced him facedown on the ground. He clearly surrendered and was in a sitting position. I know I sure as hell wouldn't like to be forced face down onto a filthy walkway. I'd probably struggle too.
A lot of people who drive drunk have zero business driving whatsoever. Sometimes it's blindingly obvious even to themselves they shouldn't be. They'll admit they knew they were drunk.
So, murderers when they kill someone? After all, it was an incredibly stupid, risky mistake that ended a person's life they had no right committing.
Except (fuck I hate repeating myself) using pain to gain compliance with a resistive suspect is not necessarily unlawful. And it absolutely certainly positively does not equal intent to kill. Even assuming the use of force was unlawful, you're probably talking about simple battery if the intent was to use his Taser (and while deaths have occurred good luck getting that to stick as a deadly weapon)...which is a misdemeanor, so there goes your "felony murder" route.
Except how is "distinct possibility" defined? Assuming the Taser was the intended weapon, the odds of death were beyond remote. It happens, sure, but not enough to warrant this charge. I'm very comfortable saying that had he drawn the Taser and fired it, Oscar Grant would be alive and well today.
Depends on the jurisdiction, but yeah in California your chances aren't great.
However I'll point out here that police officers are given more leeway in the use of force, legally, than private citizens. Which is somewhat controversial, but I'd argue necessary in some cases (and personally I'd argue for expanded rights for citizens anyway).
You obviously have no idea how quickly a situation can go from "under control" to "holy fuck." Until a guy is safely cuffed, and preferably stuffed into the back of a police cruiser, "under control" can only be used in the loosest sense.
First, his gun probably had no safety. Nor does mine. Guns without safeties are not uncommon, especially in law enforcement.
As for training/feel/etc., that's already been covered. It's plausible. Criminally negligent, perhaps, but plausible. I'll point out one more time that this guy didn't "get off," he's facing 5-14 years in prison for what happened.
I think I alluded to this earlier, and yes it's bullshit. It has a lot to do with the sometimes absurd disparity between use-of-force laws between cops and regular citizens, and particularly when a regular citizen actually shoots a cop. The fact that there's no such thing as self-defense against an on-duty cop is fucking absurd, when we have cops crashing through windows in the dead of night.
You want to talk no-knock raids (and "sorta knock" raids)? I can go all fucking day on them. But that's not really relevant to this thread.
Haven't we tried to pass laws like this before, and they haven't made it? I thought some state tried to pass a law where if you had previous DUI's and you killed someone, they could pursue first-degree murder, but I thought it got caught up in some pretty serious legal bullshit.
And all of this explains why he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a felony homicide charge that (with the gun use) carries 5-14 years in prison.
Which it should. Stupidity is nowhere near the same as murderous intent.
I agree. I was more pointing it out because there are, in fact, people who believe that in some, or all, cases drunk driving manslaughter should be first degree murder.
e: Also, I know some states have laws allowing them to charge you with "drunken vehicular manslaughter", which in most of those states carries much stiffer sentences than regular involuntary manslaughter.
And I can, to some extent, support this...because drunk driving is (generally) a pattern of behavior that is willfully negligent. I doubt many people manage to kill somebody driving drunk their very first time, and many have actually been tagged with DUIs at least once in the past. If we had records of this guy constantly pulling his gun and/or Taser on random-ass people, and accidentally firing his gun instead of his Taser, then maybe I could see upping the charges.
Yeah, because you were in that BART station and saw what happened, right?
You can't tell me it was or was not excessive force, so at this point you're just spouting supposition.
Honestly, though, can anyone here possibly give evidence of motive in Mehserle's shooting of Oscar Grant? Was Grant shouting epithets, causing Mehserle to lose his temper? Was Mehserle shouting them before the shooting? The testimony and evidence (that I've heard and seen) all point to no, or at least to a lack of proof, thus making a murder conviction inappropriate under our "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt" laws in the judicial process.
Can we prove intent to kill? If not, it's not murder.
Can we prove intent to shoot his pistol? If not, it's not voluntary.
That leaves us with involuntary manslaughter.
Also, just because some of us are angry about racial profiling doesn't automatically mean Mehserle is a closet racist. Stop trying to find simple scapegoats to justify anger over complex issues.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
He'll probably be out in six months, if that, because they'll give him credit for time served.
Can we at least agree that the fucking pig deserves the maximum sentence for this?
Absolutely. But we can't treat him any differently than any other criminal just because we are mad about the situation, including when he gets released on probation.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23