BART Cop Who Shot and Killed Oscar Grant Will Soon Be Released From Prison
Johannes Mehserle, the Bay Area Rapid Transit Police officer who shot and killed 23-year-old Oscar Grant while the latter was restrained and face-down on the ground, will soon be released from jail:
With credits for time served and the leniency of a Los Angeles County judge, Mehserle will be set free after serving 11 months of a two-year sentence issued after the 29-year-old was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the killing of Hayward resident Oscar Grant III.
Mehserle's release from Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail, most likely in the middle of June, should not come as a surprise because the date was determined when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Perry declined last year to issue a harsher penalty.
While Mehserle's release closes a chapter in the highly publicized saga, the story of Grant's death and its implications will continue for years as both a federal civil suit and an appeal of Mehserle's conviction remain active in the courts.
"Things are still unsettled," said Michael Rains, Mehserle's defense attorney. "(Mehserle) would just as soon fade into oblivion, find a job, support himself and his family and do so without fanfare."
Radley Balko defended Mehserle's sentence in July 2010, writing
There's ample evidence that Mesehrle was negligent—likely criminally negligent. There's evidence that Mehserle and his fellow officers may have used excessive force the night Grant was killed. There's also evidence that Mesehrle's fellow officers tried to cover up the shooting by confiscating the cell phones of BART passengers who recorded the incident (generally speaking, police can ask for your name and address to later obtain a court order for video of evidentiary value, but they aren't permitted to take your cell phone or camera at the scene). There's evidence that one of Mehserle's fellow officers used a racial slur just before Grant's death. But there simply isn't any evidence that Mehserle is a murderer.
More Reason on Oscar Grant here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I spent part of my honeymoon in Hayward, CA.
True story.
i left my wallet in el segundo
I took a shit on a BART train once.
God damned imposter. Don't do it again.
Hadn't seen you in awhile and wanted to get the ball rolling again. Severely missed you on the "postman takes a dump on some dude's lawn" thread.
When was that? BTW, I've been traveling and have some great new stories to share.
Sandi's travel slideshows:
"Oooo, taking a shit there was wonderful."
*click*
"Low quality TP, and the hotel staff were always slow to replenish the supply."
*click*
I continue to harbor serious doubts that a citizen not in the employ of a law enforcement agency would get out of jail 11 months after shooting someone in the back as they lay on the ground restrained. Nor should they.
To me, that means he got off easy. Because he was a cop. That ain't right.
I'm trying really hard to give Radley's take on this the benefit of the doubt, but yeah, this is really too hard to ignore.
Radley agreed with the sentence. Don't you trust Radley?
Balko works for HuffPo so he's probably just another statist.
Typically, yes. In this case, however, I think Radley is way off. Taking the life of a prostrate and subdued person under any circumstances should come with a price greater than 11 months. The fact that he couldn't tell the difference between his stungun and pistol only mean that words "wreckless" should have been added to the charge and "wanton disregard for safety" should have been considered during sentencing.
Yes but this was more likely an accident, there was another similar case that happened around the same time. The difference is, in the other case the cops did not try to cover it up afterwards.
teh real issue is , will police stop using tasers with handles and holsters shaped just like guns, so this doesn't happen again.
radley is correct, as he often is, but these appeals to authority are kind of chilling, especially here...
"oh well, it's radley. we can trust him"
listen to his REASONING for agreeing with the sentence. it is sound
Well, the ex-cop will probably never shoot anyone again (or be in a situation where he could even have the possibility of shooting someone), so it's not all that bad.
Alas, he's still breathing.
Fuck that pig!
That'll show him!
[pumps fist, stamps foot]
FUCK YOU TOO PIG!
If I knew where he lived, I'd be tempted to shit on his lawn.
I wouldn't, considering that he could walk up, shoot you in the back, and only spend 11 months in prison.
Or is he considered a "civilian" now and not a superhero in blue serge that is above the law?
What happens if an ex-cop shoots one of the little people? Four-year sentence?
There's no such thing as an "ex-cop." They do think of themselves as like Marines after all.
this, from the guy who lied and said:"No wonder your group is distrusted, despised and feared by a huge majority of people"
contrary to reality. (as poll after poll shows...)
hang on sloopy, hang on...
The little people lie so their houses won't get broken into and their dogs (or they themselves) won't get shot.
Well, which is it? Let all the prisoners in California go or keep him locked up forever? I love watching the debate inside your head.
Possession of a control substance and killing an unarmed and restrained human are soooooo similar. You really got us there.
There's no debate, you moron. As if you could see anything beyond your strawman's head anyway.
We always aim to please here at Wylie's Eight Foot Tall Strawmen And Scarecrows, Inc.
(and I'll tell you whut, they've been sellin like hotcakes)
I'm not a troll, never been one. But I have to admit that there's a certain sadistic pleasure in saying something and having all the regulars line up to call you a moron. I may have to change my name to Tony and start trolling. Lot more fun.
To you and all those engaging in sockpuppetry on a regular basis: Enough already. It's not like we don't have to deal with the real thing enough in real life.
you know, I was fucking kidding.
No, no, I knew. Just wanted to lodge an official protest.
there's a certain sadistic pleasure in saying something and having all the regulars line up to call you a moron
Pull the strings. Watch them dance. Laugh and laugh.
"But there simply isn't any evidence that Mehserle is a murderer."
Other than the fact that he shot a restrained, helpless person at point blank range from behind, in front of dozens of witnesses.
I guess.
the crime of murder has an intent element.
thank you. that is your legal lesson for the day. if you didn't get it the first time from radley himself
Yeah, Dogzilla! He only intended to send a few thousand volts of electricity through the body of a restrained, helpless person at point blank range from behind, not kill him! This guy isn't bad at all!
Did his cell mate testify to his "good behavior?"
You may mock, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he shot an unarmed person in the back the entire time he was in jail. The entire time.
He may have got shot in his back a bit in prison though. Well, backside.
County jail. They probably just let him hang out in the employee break room most of the day.
To be fair, it was the LA County jail. Were I a cop looking at going there, I would give serious consideration to trying to make it down to any country lacking an extradition treaty with the US.
Saw this on Fox yesterday. OK pharmacist confronted by armed and unarmed robber, pulls gun in defense, shoots unarmed robber, armed robber flees, man chases, returns and empties gun into unarmed robber killing him. Charged, convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....69850.html
Your linked story says both robbers were armed.
That's not right, he was unarmed (though if he were armed I think I'd be even more upset about it)
Another story on it closer to the area:
The security camera recordings show Parker and a friend, Jevontai Ingram, then 14, rush into the drugstore. Ingram points a handgun at the two female workers who flee to a backroom. Parker, who does not have a gun, tries to adjust a gray mask. Parker drops to the floor when the pharmacist shoots him in the head.
The recordings show Ingram flees from the store. Ersland follows the fleeing robber outside, then returns to the store, walks by where Parker has fallen, gets a second gun, walks back to Parker and shoots five more times.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-cit.....z1O3ham59o
I have mixed feelings, but I do think he crossed the line if he shot the incapacitated would-be robber.
What the hell is wrong with that jury? Shooting the guy in the head is OK, but plugging him a few more times just to be sure = life in prison? I mean, I *do* understand the theoretical position but come on, how about giving the benefit of the fucking doubt to the innocent guy who had a goddam gun in his face instead of to the fucker who initiated the crime?
I hope the jury all get the chance to demonstrate the superior level of restraint they would exercise under exactly the same circumstances, real soon.
Yeah, why didn't his lawyer argue for temporary insanity? I'd buy Some Dude Just Tried To Murder Me Rage.
It sounds like that's where they were sort of trying to go with the defense witnesses that they weren't able to call, although I have no idea whether they were specifically calling it temporary insanity.
One of the articles said that the second volley of shots was fired off camera - I wonder if the defense could have argued that as far as anyone knows, the first shot killed him?
Not that I think that argument should matter one whit, just curiosity.
legally, if it could be proven he was already dead, then it would make a huge difference. one cannot be convicted of murder for firing into an already dead body (assuming everything prior was justified, which it apparently was).
if the guy THOUGHT the guy was alive, but he was in fact dead, the WORST crime he could be charged with would be attempted murder. he would have the rens mea for that.
it's like an old law school/police academy quiz.
hitman comes into bedroom to shoot man dead. unbeknownst to him, the man has passed away in his sleep. hitman pumps rounds into the (unbeknownst to him) corpse. what is the crime? attempted murder
cue: desecration of a corpse jokes
I'm going to pass on the joke, but thanks for the explanation.
np. oh, and typo... i meant "mens rea"
because the robber wasn't dead. "he was still moving" on the ground, shot in the head, he was not a threat, and had no gun.
you can't murder people just because they tried to rob you, especially after you incapacitated them.
The jury agreed with you, I don't. You bring lethal force into the fight, I shouldn't have an obligation to stop as soon as you're apparently incapacitated.
Agreed. Also, dead men can't sue (or retaliate).
one was armed, and he was on the ground when the man left the room, got an other gun, and emptied it into the robber on the ground.
it is all on video.
yeah that is not self defense.
i think that much is clear. whether the sentence was justified (and.or the crime charged) is another issue entirely.
personally, i am surprised there was no sort of diminished capacity type defense (after all, people who have just been robbed at gunpoint and involved in a shootout tend not to be perfectly calm, rational and dispassionate in force assessment), etc.
i'd be curious to know if the DA offered some sweetheart plea deal, and this was the result of its rejection
regardless, it seems grossly unjust.
If only Ryan Frederick had gotten such a 'tough' sentence.
Yeah, because when armed thugs break into your home and you defend yourself, you deserve to be thrown in jail for 5 years or longer.
Key part of Radley's post:
Under California law, a defendant must have acted with malice in order for a killing to be elevated to murder. To find malice, a jury must determine that the defendant committed the act that caused the death,
Check.
that the "natural and probable consequences of the act were dangerous to human life,"
Check.
that "at the time (he/she) acted, (he/she) knew (his/her) act was dangerous to human life," and that "(he/she) deliberately acted with conscious disregard for (human/ [or] fetal) life."
This is the hard part. The defense argued that the killer cop thought he was just tasing the guy. So the conviction is probably defensible.
But not the sentence. I still can't shake the sense that this guy got off easy on the sentence. Because he was a cop. How many people convicted of manslaughter with a gun are back on the streets inside of a year in California?
How many people convicted of any degree of manslaughter of a cop would be back on the streets inside of a decade in California?
Zero.
Mainly because they would have about zero probability of surviving their first jaywalking ticket.
that "at the time (he/she) acted, (he/she) knew (his/her) act was dangerous to human life," and that "(he/she) deliberately acted with conscious disregard for (human/ [or] fetal) life."
This is the hard part. The defense argued that the killer cop thought he was just tasing the guy. So the conviction is probably defensible.
But, the cop did know his intended act (of using the stun gun) was dangerous to human life and he did deliberately act with disregard for human life (by shooting him in the brain stem with a stun gun).
The way I look at it, if he would have used the stun gun at that point on a human body, he still would have knowingly been doing something dangerous to the person's life. The fact that he pulled a pistol instead doesn't change that fact.
cops, journalists, and many others have volunteered to tasing because they know it is in fact, NOT dangerous to human life.
getting tased 4 or 5 times while high on both uppers and downers, having a heart condition, being severely dehydrated, having a substantial electrolyte imbalance, etc... well, that could be dangerous
And no one ever gets electrocuted by a taser, right? You ever bother to look up the definition outside of a taser manual? And before you go into 200 lines of meandering crap about it, I'll summerize the content of your last postings on the subject:
It's not electrocution. Some people's heart's just stop after being shocked. They probably had a tylenol or something.
Killing someone with a gun (aside from bludgeoning) means you shot them. Killing someone with electricity means you electrocuted them. Since there is a real chance of death from a taser (regardless of how small) then it is in fact dangerous to human life.
considering no priors? i don't know that's a good question, or was it rhetorical?
Let's hope he's now a prohibited person.
"Things are still unsettled," said Michael Rains, Mehserle's defense attorney. "(Mehserle) would just as soon fade into oblivion, find a job, support himself and his family and do so without fanfare."
The man should fade into oblivion. In the general population of San Quentin.
Last week, a Middlesex County (Massachusetts) Superior court judge sentenced the brother of nancy Kerrigan to 2.5 years on his assault and battery conviction. The jury acquitted Mr. Kerrigan of the manslaughter charges the state had brought against him.
Those of you familiar with the case might argue that Mr. Kerrigan should get the max as he put his hands on the throat of his father. The son never launched, lived in the basement of the senior Kerrigans and was a drunk.
The father died of a heart attack and the prosecution did not establish that the father's death was by the son's throttling of the father.
Mother Kerrigan and Nancy pleaded with the judge to "send him home with us today" at the sentencing in their victim impact statements.
IMO, the son never should have been charged. That he gets 2.5 years and this trodglodyte Mehserle gets 11 months is just one more piece of evidence in support of the proposition that amerika is long past redemption.
you gotta use at least two "k's" in amerikka, man!
oh, and throw in a shoutout to free MUMIA!
I thought Balko was wrong at the time, and still do (which is rare). I choose to believe my lying eyes. And what I saw was a man approach someone lying on the ground, pull out a gun, take aim and shoot him in the back.
PIGS LOVE THE COCK.
[additional graffiti]
I disagree with Balko's generosity towards Mehserle, but a part of me is sympathetic to himto him: as a cop, 11 months in the LA County Men's Central Jail must have been Abu Ghraib-like. I'm almost willing to say he's paid his debt to society after that.
it's not generosity. it's dispassionate legal analysis. that's one of the things that makes balko good at his job.
Dunphy, you mean to say that if I had a man subdued on the ground, had a bunch of other men helping me, was under no apreciable danger, and meant to shock the guy and shot him to death instead, I, as a non LEO would get away with 11 months? Really? You trully and honestly believe that? I'm not calling you a liar, but that seems trully incredible to me. Im trying to be fair minded here, but it trully does.
if there was truly a reasonable belief that you THOUGHT you were tasing him,and used a firearm by mistake ... yes.
understanding the lack of training that BART PD did in regards to Taser/Gun differentiation drills, etc. it's not at all surprising. it wasn't a matter of whether (on a nationwide basis). it was a matter of WHEN
again, the key elements in this case, and as Balko also pointed out (and he is HARDLY a fan of police) are intent, intent, and intent
murder could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt... not as california defines murder under their penal code.
do you, even for a millisecond think this guy INTENDED to be using his gun in this situation? think about it
do you, even for a millisecond think this guy INTENDED to be using his gun in this situation? think about it
That's a stupid argument. People kill others like that every day, for any reason. Or no reason at all. And it must have been rational to think he would get away with it. Every cop there did, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to cover it up.
No, I do not think he intended to murder the man who was helpless on the ground. But I think we're arguing past each other here: Are the only possible sentences murder or what he received? Really? I'll argue that if I performed the same action, I'd face much stiffer penalties for my excesive and malicious use of force *alone*. That is without counting criminal recklesness or manslaughter charges. Why do I need to tase a man who is no threat to me or anyone? When I have a ton of backup and a helpless man beneath me? When he admited that, he admited to attempting to assault that man! What would be different about him deciding to stomp on his feet instead? Obviously not trying to kill him, but still monstruous. Can you imagine this defence "I wasnt trying to kill him, your honour. As he lay there helpless, I decided to hurt him a little, but I killed him accidentally". Thats what it amounts to. They would have charged me with 2 dozen things and half a dozen would have stuck, as they should. No, murder wouldnt be one of them, but in the gamut between involuntary manslaughter and murder, there are quite a few charges in between. A non LEO like me, or most of us here, would not have been charged with murder, probably. But we "would* be locked away for a long, long time.
A non LEO like me, or most of us here, would not have been charged with murder, probably.
Are you crazy? Of course you would be charged with murder. And absent a badge or Johnnie Cochran, you would be convicted as well.
Excuse me, probably wouldnt be convicted* of murder. Yes, I'd have definatelly been charged, my mistake.
http://www.iphone-5-release.net | We Are The Top Source of Up To Date News, Information, and Rumors About the iPhone 5, iPhone 6. Our Team Updates You Hourly So You Are Always Informed.(http://iphone-5-release.net/) iphone 5