I still remember where I was when I watched the verdict back in 1992 in which an all-white jury acquitted Los Angeles Police Officers of beating Rodney King. I remember where I was, I remember what I said, there’s going to be riots. Turned out, there already was. I was just a freshman at Cal Poly that year, but I watched transfixed for days to the burning and looting that occurred in Los Angeles.
One of my favorite musicians/ artists is Ben Harper, a few years after the riots, he wrote a song in which he sings, “Well Martin’s dream has become Rodney’s worst nightmare. Can’t walk the streets, to them we are fair game, our lives don’t mean a thing.” Towards the end of the song he sings, “So if you catch yourself thinking it has changed for the best you better second guess cause Martin’s dream has become Rodney’s worst nightmare.”
Watch the chilling Youtube video as Officer Johannes Mehserle then 26 years old, on New Year’s Day 2009 shot an unarmed train rider.
Watch as he has the situation under control, whatever Mr. Grant may have done, he was on the ground, prone, not a threat. And then he is shot and killed.
The trial was moved to Los Angeles (again), where a jury made up of 7 whites, 4 Hispanics, an Asian, and zero blacks found Officer Mehserle not guilty of second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and ultimately they convicted him of the lesser included involuntary manslaughter.
In order for the jury to reach this verdict, they had to believe somehow that Officer Mehserle mistook his taser for his gun. The problem is, why would he even be reaching for a Taser? During the trial, Mehserle testified that he had decided to use his Taser on Grant because he saw Grant put his right hand in his pants pocket and believed the Hayward man might be reaching for a gun.
Mehserle said he had accidentally pulled out his pistol and fired a single shot before realizing he had grabbed the wrong weapon.
Incredulous observers however wonder how anyone could mistake a pistol for a Taser.
During the trial, the prosecutor from Alameda County argued that Officer Mehserle had simply lost control of his emotions and shot the 22-year-old intentionally in the back after trying to handcuff following a fight on the train.
If you watch the video, the officer’s story makes little sense. A second Officer Anthony Pirone has his left knee on Oscar Grant’s neck, Pirone’s left hand was pressing Grant’s head into the platform, and Pirone’s right hand was holding Grant’s right arm – the same one Mehserle said he had struggled with – behind his back.
What has changed since Rodney King is that in this case, the police officer was at least convicted of a crime, which is actually a rather rare event in and of itself and perhaps a cause for celebration. Perhaps.
It is the first instance of a police officer being convicted for the crime of murder of a civilian in a criminal case.
It’s little solace for his family. HIs mother called the verdict that could allow the Officer to simply receive probation, “a great disappointment.” Wanda Johnson during a press conference called the decision “a slap in the face by a system that has denied us true justice.”
“My son was murdered. He was murdered. He was murdered. He was murdered,” she added.
“We recognize as African Americans, the system is rarely fair when police officers are involved in the shooting of African American males.” noted Civil Rights Attorney John Burris who specializes in police misconduct cases said.
The family has a $25 million wrongful death claim against BART where Mr. Burris is the representative attorney for the family.
For many, they will see that things are little better than they were two decades ago when officers were acquitted of beating Rodney King. On the other hand, some may argue that things have changed since at least in this case, the Officer was found criminally liable.
I just do not know. We have a case in Yolo County of a man shot and killed by two Sheriff’s Deputies and we cannot even get an impartial investigation.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
From the evidence available to the public, the Oscar Grant verdict is yet anohter example of a double standard of justice: one for those in power and one for the rest of us. What happened to the concept of “justice and liberty for all?” Can any society, let alone a democratic society, long survive without justice for all?
Personally, I could not tell anything from the cell phone video. According to the news media, this particular defendant had a spotless record, so actually the theory that he reached for a gun instead of a taser is more logical, than the theory he just shot a subdued victim in the back for no reason at all. And I would guess that is essentially how the jury saw it.
It is a bit troubling that perhaps no African-Americans were on the jury – one male juror declined to state. In a racially charged case like this, the verdict might have been better accepted if there had been some African-American jurors.
However, the defendant’s troubles are not over with. His case is being investigated by the federal gov’t, and I have no doubt the feds will find something to charge him with in light of the lenient verdict and the severity of the results of the crime.
Also, involuntary manslaughter carries with it the possiblity of a sentence of 2 to 4 years, with a 10 year enhancement for the use of a gun. It will be interesting to see what sentence the judge hands down – I predict it will be far harsher than mere probation, especially in light of the mood of the community.
I remember the Rodney King case well, and I strongly disagreed with the initial verdict which allowed the officers in question to get off scott free for a criminal assault and battery that was completely unnecessary by anyone’s standards. Much has changed since then, in regard to police procedure. Is it perfect? No, far from it, as the Guitierrez case shows, among others. But I do think there have been some improvements – for instance chokeholds are no longer allowed.
One thing I think the public needs to realize from a common sense point of view. If a citizen indulges in civil disobedience of any kind, and police with guns are on the scene, it is a situation ripe for bad things to happen. Good old fashioned horse sense would dictate not to engage in behavior that will get you possibly shot – it is not worth the price you might have to pay. In this case, I can’t quite figure out what the train riders, including Oscar Grant, were being detained for – does anyone know? And I cannot tell if Oscar Grant was struggling against the officer and reaching for anything as he lay prone – the video is just not that clear.
By all appearances, this was a bad excuse to get some free shoes ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fna_RrNeBy0&feature=player_embedded[/url]). I don’t think anyone who protested really cares at all about justice for this victim. It’s all a bogus excuse for more criminal misbehavior. The “protest” is entirely phony.
You think otherwise? Then where were the protests against the 109 black males murdered in Oakland in 2009 by other black males? More than 1,000 young African-American males killed by other young black men in a decade and not one protest, not one riot on behalf of any of those victims? This is yet another ruse to excuse “protesters” who are uncivilized to behave like idiots.
If the victim had been white and the shooting officer black, there are a lot of Oaklan residents who would predict that the finding would have been much harder on the black officer. You know, I agree with the Oakland folks and I don’t need a new pair of shoes. I have not talked to any friends today who are also skeptial that the Black shooter would get off with involuntary manslaughter. Civil disobiedance is not about new shoes. I demonstrated during Viet Nam. and if I lived in Oakland I might see if I remember how to say with my presence that an injustice has happened happened
David, “Incredulous observers however wonder how anyone could mistake a pistol for a Taser.”
It may seem hard to believe, but in the heat of the moment, I suppose it’s not entirely impossible. I am more interested in where his taser was holstered in relation to his gun. Often times the tasers are strapped to officer’s leg. So was it on his leg, on the same side that his gun was holstered?
It’s pretty difficult to conclude much based on that video. Did he look downward when he reached for his taser (gun)? I can’t really tell.
How unstable or psychologically unfit would this officer have to be to get so frustrated, at what seems and sounds like a pretty standard detention (people struggling with officers a little isn’t exactly uncommon), that he would intentionally shoot Grant in the back? Do the other Bart officers corroborate Mehserle’s story?
ERM, “According to the news media, this particular defendant had a spotless record”
Had he been a law enforcement officer for very long?
I’ve looked at both the King and Grant videos –
The King incident had a better ending but the police actions seemed more disturbing. They were not aware of witnesses and they obviously intended to beat the crap out of the guy. Furthermore, a mob mentality seemed to set in as the officers looked like they were trying to outdo each other as they continued the beating.
The Grant incident was more tragic, but it was an obvious mistake. The Officer was irresponsible and he should/will pay for that. Nobody in his right mind is going to murder somebody in front of a train load of witnesses. Also you do not shoot somebody on a cement platform with a buddy kneeling right next to the victim – bullets do ricochet off of hard surfaces. Besides, you could see in his actions and eyes that he never intended to shoot his service revolver.
The positive outcome is that a police officer was convicted of being negligent – a very important first. I do not understand the gun enhancement because that does not fit the definition of involuntary manslaughter carried out in the line of duty by a police officer. Can any of you explain that?
As I think of this outcome I think of the Abrahams case. In both cases the police overreacted and a person died. Both cases involved inadequate training. In Grant’s case there was an involuntary manslaughter conviction and the family is suing for $25 million. Abrahams had a much better character than Grant yet nobody (the mob that jumped on him) was sanctioned for that. No intention to kill but they did kill.
The authorities in Alameda County end up looking very biased – they completely mishandled this case. All of them were going for First Degree Murder and as a result they incited unnecessary violence. A DA and Judges should be independent enough to put aside racial politics (and perhaps even reverse descrimination) when managing this type of case. It took a responsible judge from LA to toss the initial charge and it only took a few hours for the jury to reach a reasonable conclusion.
About Oscar Grant. Two lives have been lost/ruined – both Grant and the police officer. Grant’s family keeps talking about how the victim was on the road to to “success” – moving past all of his earlier troubles with the law. He had a child and should have been acting responsible, yet when he died he was fighting on a Bart train and his body was pumped full of alcohol and drugs. The nice smiling picture of Oscar Grant is really a picture of an idiot.
Finally,
As some Oakland residents protested the verdict, the violence in Oakland continued. In separate incidents two more Oakland residents were shot and killed yesterday by other Oakland residents. I do not hear John Burris complaining about the endless 2-3 killings per week – I guess there is no money to be made on those killings.
Alphonso,
“Both cases involved inadequate training.”
According to Bart Police, each officer received the six hours of Taser training, as recommended by the company who manufactured the weapon.
This article in the Chronicle states that Mehserle was wearing his Taser on his left hip and his sidearm on his right that night (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/BAM21EBDOD.DTL)
What’s more, “But there are strong indications Mehserle was accustomed to a left-handed draw for a Taser. A source familiar with his training said that’s the way he preferred to wear it. And that was how he wore the device 17 days earlier, when he pulled his Taser on two armed-robbery suspects in San Leandro, records show.” (http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-14/news/17892647_1_electric-darts-taser-holster).
So why did he use his right hand and draw from his right hip?
“He had a child and should have been acting responsible, yet when he died he was fighting on a Bart train and his body was pumped full of alcohol and drugs.”
Was Grant involved in the fight? Did that ever really get confirmed or nailed down?
According to court document, “Toxicology testing of Oscar Grant’s blood revealed the presence of alcohol 0.02 grams% and the presence of the drug Fentanyl. (Discovery p. 690) Fentanyl is described as a highly addictive, strong narcotic pain reliever.” Not exactly wasted and spun out.
(http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3924343/Court-document-Motion-to-set-bail)
“The nice smiling picture of Oscar Grant is really a picture of an idiot.”
In this case, you chose to label the descendant an idiot, really?
Superfulous Man said
“According to Bart Police, each officer received the six hours of Taser training, as recommended by the company who manufactured the weapon.”
Six hours may be adequate time to learn how to operate the weapon, but not adequate to cover the proper protocol on when to use it. in the video there was no apparent reason to use the taser at all and if Mehserle had not gone for the taser Grant would be alive. A problem with these weapons is that too many police officers are using them as if they were simply new toys.
Apparently BART agreed that the training was indequate since they told all of the officers to turn in the tasers and did not give them back until the officers were retrained.
[i]”In this case, you chose to label the [u]descendant[/u] an idiot, really?”[/i]
Which descendant? Do you mean decedent? (If you are not a lawyer, my suggestion is you stay away from legal terms like “decedent.” Just stick with “dead guy.”)
Oscar Grant did not deserve to be killed. He was no danger to the cops at the time he was shot. His death is a tragedy for him, his family and for the killer, Johannes Mehserle, and Mehserle’s family.
I have no idea if Oscar Grant was an idiot (in the literal sense of the term). He may have been. He certainly did act smart. His life history up to that evening suggest he was no model citizen, that he was in fact a bad person. But that does not justify the outcome he received.
Grant clearly was no angel. He had a long history of criminal violence as a juvenile and later as an adult; the friends he was with that night had violent pasts; and according to a number of 9-1-1 calls made that night, Grant and his friends had instigated fights with other BART passengers that night.
Decent human beings don’t parade around BART trains and get in fights. Decent people don’t hit and punch and bite and kick random strangers. Decent people are law abiding. Grant was not a decent guy.
This is what ABC News reported about Grant ([url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/oakland-shooting-verdict-sparks-riots-scores-arrested/story?id=11125019[/url]), [quote]… whose criminal record included violent felony convictions and who had been recently released from jail.[/quote]
The cop clearly made a horrible mistake. He has apologized and I believe he feels badly about what happened. Having seen the video many times and seeing the cop’s reaction, I believe it was not his intention to kill Grant. However, he did; and he deserves to be punished severely for that act of incompetence. Manslaughter is no minor offense. Were it up to me, Johannes Mehserle would serve 3 years in prison at San Quentin, lose his U.S. citizenship and be exiled to the mountains of Afghanistan. But that’s just me.
Alphonso,
At the time Mehserle got involved Grant had not been searched for weapons and as Mehserle attempted to cuff Grant, he was putting his hand in his waistline. Did the investigation conclude that the use of a Taser in this situation violated protocol?
I agree that Tasers are used too often.
Rich,
“Do you mean decedent? (If you are not a lawyer, my suggestion is you stay away from legal terms like “decedent.” Just stick with “dead guy.”)
So very sorry, tired/spell check correction that I missed. It’s an online message board, correcting and lecturing a fellow poster on his or her grammar and/or spelling is…well you know the word for it. Why does my line of work matter?
“He certainly did act smart”
How do you figure?
“He certainly did act smart”
I assume that “not” is missing.
Superfluous, I didn’t mean to upset you. I personally like being corrected. It’s the only way to learn.
[i]”He certainly did [b]not[/b] act smart.”[/i]
Corrected. Thank you for noting my error.
[i]”Why does my line of work matter?”[/i]
Only because “decedent” is legal jargon for “dead guy.” Nobody uses that word but lawyers (or cops talking to lawyers). If you were an attorney, then it would be okay. Otherwise, it’s like me refering to someone whose heart was broken by saying, “Her leaving caused Frank great myocardial pain.”
“At the time Mehserle got involved Grant had not been searched for weapons and as Mehserle attempted to cuff Grant, he was putting his hand in his waistline. Did the investigation conclude that the use of a Taser in this situation violated protocol? “
I would bet that protocol had not been clearly defined/established when the incident happened. My assumption is that the officers were more or less on there own. This is why BART will lose the $25 million lawsuit.
The way I look at it, Grant was lying on the ground and one officer had a knee on him holding him down while another big officer was standing there considering what to do. Mehserle could have placed one knee on Grant and the two officers using four hands could have controlled Grant’s two hands quite easily. There was no need for a taser shot. Even if all went as “planned” there was a downside to using a taser in that situation – it would have riled up the crowd and increased the tension level. I wonder if the use of a taser was a combination of “goodie I get to use my new toy and I am going to show these people who is in charge”.
Rich,
“I didn’t mean to upset you. I personally like being corrected. It’s the only way to learn”
I’m not upset and I didn’t think that was your intention. If anything, my reaction was that of rolling eyes. I have absolutely no problem being corrected. I did find your suggestions to be a little pedantic, not to mention unsolicited.
“Only because ‘decedent’ is legal jargon for ‘dead guy.’ Nobody uses that word but lawyers (or cops talking to lawyers).”
Decedent was just the first word that came to mind as I was writing my response and I was not trying to be esoteric. Instances in which my comments are particularly long, I prefer to use Word then cut and paste my comments into the section designated for writing comments (don’t like having to scroll.)
Apparently, when I typed out “decedent” I misspelled the word or inadvertently hit the wrong key(s). When I right clicked on it and the list of alternative word options appeared, I mistakenly selected “descendant.” FYI, I believe that using jargon in general conversation is not usually the best idea.
I guess there’s nothing more to say about this.
Alphonso,
“The way I look at it, Grant was lying on the ground and one officer had a knee on him holding him down while another big officer was standing there considering what to do”
The officer to which you refer (knee on Grant’s head) is Officer Pirone. According to Mehserle’s statement, if memory serves, Pirone ordered Officer Mehserle to handcuff Grant. That, I believe, is the time in which Mehserle comes over and engages with Grant.
“Mehserle could have placed one knee on Grant and the two officers using four hands could have controlled Grant’s two hands quite easily.”
It’s tough to say because we weren’t there in their shoes. They may have felt that the situation was escalating and already out of control. Watch and listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=jFNDK8PQGNw&feature=related
Maybe Pirone wanted to keep a hand free, due to the fact that the detained individual, on the wall and to the left, had not been put in restraints.
One more thing, initially it appears as though Mehserle is sitting on top of Grant as he attempts to get his hands out from underneath him. He doesn’t take too much time trying to get Grant’s hands. I find it hard to believe that they HAD to shoot Grant with the Taser. If Mehserle was afraid Grant was going to pull something out of his waist, he could’ve grabbed his arm and sat on his back, which would make it extremely difficult for Grant to pull anything out of his pants.
Alphonso–
I agree this was a terrible tragedy for all involved.
One point I wanted to make:
Having experience street wrestling as a youth, it takes 4 people to control one person of comparable size/strength. You would be amazed at the capacity of the human body (especially a fit young man) to squirm out of such a situation! I was particularly good at it–as an undergraduate, people in our dorm used to get tossed into the shower (fully clothed) for smart-ass behavour in the cafeteria. It was customary for the wise-guy to wrestle around on the ground (no blows) with the 4 guys who were on duty to throw the wise-guy of the day into the cold shower. 4 guys about my size (including 2 a little bigger than me) could not bring me under control; all 4 were on top of me trying to get me into various wrestling holds. Finally, one of them got me into a headlock (that did the trick) and off into the shower I went.
The point I’m trying to make is that if someone is trying to squirm out of a situation like this; it can be very difficult to bring them under control. I’m guessing your statement of 2 people being sufficient is based on a complete lack of personal experience.
I wish parents would teach their kids never to argue with or resist the police; its always going to be a lose-lose game for everyone involved; especially in an intense chaotic situation like this.
Rich Rifkin said: “By all appearances, this was a bad excuse to get some free shoes. I don’t think anyone who protested really cares at all about justice for this victim. It’s all a bogus excuse for more criminal misbehavior. The “protest” is entirely phony.
You think otherwise? Then where were the protests against the 109 black males murdered in Oakland in 2009 by other black males? More than 1,000 young African-American males killed by other young black men in a decade and not one protest, not one riot on behalf of any of those victims? This is yet another ruse to excuse “protesters” who are uncivilized to behave like idiots.”
I’m sure there have been many protests by civilized society against violence and murder within the Oakland community in the past 10 years. I’m sure many many community meetings have been held or sermons given or lectures made around the need to decrease violence. The difference here is that few if any of the people you refer to were murdered while handcuffed faced down by the police who are the representative authorities for those who would portend to be more civilized.
Intra-racial violence is no excuse for what happened to Oscar Grant nor is it a reason for looting after the conviction of his assailant even if you think the jury, bound by the reasonable doubt standard, got it wrong. Your post is consistent, however, with your usual stance of siding with whites over minorities, whether coded with underprivilege instead of black or hidden behind the shield of reverse discrimination as in the New Haven firefighters case before the supreme court last year, a case that gutted a generation of civil rights law.
I once met a man who grew up in Memphis when ML King was murdered, and, being white, wanted to blame King for what happened to his community after King’s assassination. He was completely unaware of how his biases were perceived. It seems you suffer the same malady. It seems I am not alone in my perception of you as my sensibilities were recently confirmed by Desmond Jolly in a letter to the Enterprise on Thursday. I have always believed that when you are hearing the same thing from different people about yourself in different situations a person needs to stop and reflect. To do otherwise is called denial.
Alphonso-[quote]As I think of this outcome I think of the Abrahams case. In both cases the police overreacted and a person died. Both cases involved inadequate training. In Grant’s case there was an involuntary manslaughter conviction and the family is suing for $25 million. Abrahams had a much better character than Grant yet nobody (the mob that jumped on him) was sanctioned for that. No intention to kill but they did kill. [/quote]
The Coroners listed cause of death was positional asphyxiation caused by being overweight. It’s kinda hard to say the officers caused Mr Abrahams to be overweight.
But it’s easier to say that they tazed him, and to ponder to what extent that was necessary and therefore a contributing factor in his death by positional asphyxiation.
Was he really handcuffed when he was shot? Hands behind back or in front?
Wow, that really does make it more difficult to justify trying to taser Grant (as the defendant says).
I thought the defendant stated that he was concerned about Grant reaching into his pocket?
How could he do this to any effect if he was handcuffed properly with hands behind back?
Mr Obvious
Positional asphyxiation is caused when the body gets in a position making it difficult to breath. No doubt weight contributed to the death but so did the five officers who jumped on him and placed him in that position. Abrahams weight alone did not kill him.
jimt
Everything I read indicated Grant was not handcuffed prior to being shot – in fact the inept effort to use the taser was supposed to enable the officers to handcuff Grant. The shooting of Grant was not a civilized act no matter how you cut it, but it is important to be honest about what really happened.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=oscar_grant_a_victim_of_americ
This post at American Prospect confirms he was handcuffed. I can’t bring myself to watch the video however so maybe some clarification is in order.
jimt,
“Having experience street wrestling as a youth, it takes 4 people to control one person of comparable size/strength.”
Street wresting? From the footage I’ve seen and other photos of Officer Mehserle, as well as Officer Pirone, they look to me like they are on the larger side. It’s also important to note that these officers are trained to take down and subdue an individual, something that most of your friends probably were not.
“You would be amazed at the capacity of the human body (especially a fit young man) to squirm out of such a situation!”
I don’t believe Grant was trying to “squirm” out of the hold as much as he was struggling to keep his one free hand underneath his body and well…free. That’s what I’ve inferred anyway. The point here is that he was pretty much subdued with the exception of his right hand and it didn’t look to me like Mehserle made much of an effort to control Grant’s right hand. Both officers were on top of Grant and his left hand controlled.
BTW, jimt and Toad, he was not handcuffed when he was shot, they were attempting to hand cuff Grant just prior to the shot being fired. I have read that they handcuffed him after he was shot, which is apparently the protocol in situations such as this one. This seems to be the consistent account of what took place that fateful day.
DG opined, [quote] Watch the chilling Youtube video as Officer Johannes Mehserle then 26 years old, on New Year’s Day 2009 shot an unarmed train rider.[/quote]
Let us not forget to paint an accurate picture of the real setting – in near riotous conditions with a numerous New Years’s partiers.
Additionally, [quote]Watch as he has the situation under control, whatever Mr. Grant may have done, he was on the ground, prone, not a threat. And then he is shot and killed.[/quote]
Any subject in that particular set of circumstances remains a threat until (using the available ladder of force) officers gain and maintain control. I’m sure you have heard the saying that reasonable minds differ. From my perspective Grant et al were continuing threats.
A huge issue in this case revolved around intent, you know, an element of the offense. I’m certain that you understand that all elements of a crime must be present or there is no crime. BTW, think about why, despite the DA charging murder, it was thrown out.
Here, based in the facts, 100% of the jury members — the trier of facts — decided to “…believe somehow that Officer Mehserle mistook his taser for his gun….”
It is noted that the newly trained and equipped (for days & sounds like he drew it once or twice prior) with the tazer officer (for only 2-3 yrs.; if I recall correctly) reasonably erred/mistook, under the totality of the circumstances [as might a reasonble officer under the same or similar circumstances] a sidearm for taser.
[quote]During the trial, the prosecutor from Alameda County argued that Officer Mehserle had simply lost control of his emotions and shot the 22-year-old intentionally in the back after trying to handcuff following a fight on the train. [/quote]
Clearly the panel members did not give any or much weight to said argument. Again, consider the defense’s argument relative to intent.
Now with regard to the use of a firearm “enhancement” – 12022.5(a) CA Penal Code.
It seems to me that a the ex officer’s lawyer should simply address the likely fact that no case law exists indicating specifically that the firearm enhancement applies to a police officer who commits a offense during the course and scope of employment.
James Lassart a partner from Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, [former state and federal prosecutor] divulged that he would address legislative intent of the statute.
He revealed, [quote]It was to keep people from arming themselves with weaponry to commit crimes” and “there should be an exemption for police officers, who are always armed by necessity. [/quote]