He was a policeman. He is supposed to protect us, not kill us.
I don’t recall saying that the tasing was appropriate either. The simple point I’ve been trying to make is that the intent of the police officer should matter in determining what is just. And, if I have to spell it out even more clearly, I think the defendant made an incredbily stupid, reckless mistake that cost an innocent person his life. I think the defendant was properly convicted, and that the family of the victim should receive a very healthy settlement from the city; none of which will bring the victim back, which is the tragedy. But I do not think the defendant should have been convicted of murder, nor sentenced to death (which I assume carnivorousplant will join me in).
I must agree.
Emotion aside, life in prison would be the appropriate punishment.
He was a policeman with the power of life and death over us and got four years at most for killing a person innocent until proven guilty.
If I had a pistol and a taser, walked up to you on the street and said, “I’m going to taser you!” and shot you dead, what would happen to me in court?
Intent does matter, not only in law, but in my own idea of what constitutes reasonable justice.
At the same time, i have a nagging sense that justice was not served here, even if the verdict is supported by the law and the facts of the case. I think that, when we arm police officers and send them out into the world, we need to have pretty high expectation that they will be able, in the heat of the moment, to distinguish between deadly force and non-deadly force.
Even if, as you suggest, he really thought he was about to use his taser, and even if he didn’t intend to kill him, i think the level of negligence shown in this case warrants a much stiffer sentence than the one mandated by the law. It may be that the jury made the right call, given the facts and the law as currently written. But, if that’s the case, then i think that the law, as written, is not severe enough for cases like this.
I’m not sure why you would inflame an already-heated debate with simple factual errors that you could correct with a basic knowledge of the case.
Mehserle was granted bail in January of 2009. His family was able to post bond with the help of donations from members of the BART police union. The judge revoked the bail today after the verdict was read, and Mehserle was remanded into custody.
The linked article said he was also convicted on the gun enhancement charge, so he’s looking at a total of 5-14 years.
Too lazy to read; what is a gun enhancement charge?
If the jury was not convinced, BRD, that you had intended to kill me, you should be convicted of the same crime as the police officer.
I know next to nothing about the defendant or the law in that jurisdiction, so speculating on what the proper punishment for him is, for me, fruitless. I would guess that there would be an enhancement possible for actions taken by a public official or using a firearm, but I don’t know. Nor do I know if this was reckless action by a RoboCop wannabe or a negligent action by a scared man who is now wracked by guilt. I’m way to underinformed, and not privy to the information the court will get when passing sentence, to offer much more.
You really think I would be treated as well as the cop?
Horse pucky. 
Boils down to extra time for using a gun in commission of a felony, here involuntary manslaughter. I don’t know the details of the California version, but they are not the only state to have a similar law.
Thanks!
Cof Anybody? Sheesh, I might have to actually look this up myself at this rate… 
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that, despite everyone’s predictions, there will not be significant riots in Oakland. Mainly because it’s too obvious.
Dude, WTF? You want to point out where I said something inflammatory? My post was in response to why he might “walk”. I wasn’t aware that he was granted bail, the last hearing I’d heard about it was denied. Excuse me for posting what I thought was factual information.
I remember there was some important game where the Raiders lost, and people rioted (well not so much riot as smashed things drunkenly). Another time, the Raiders won, and … people rioted.
This is the thing: People expect that there will be riots, and so there won’t be – I predict.
And in fact, it’s now been several hours since the verdict, and there have been no riots.
My feelings exactly. Even if he’d used his taser in that situation, he’d still be way out of line in my opinion.
Well, that’s precisely the point, isn’t it?
You made a response based on “factual” information that was not only incorrect, but had been incorrect for the past year and a half. If the “last hearing [you] heard about it was denied,” that means that the last hearing you heard about was over 17 months ago. If you want to make factual assertions about a trial that was decided today, it’s probably best, as a general principle, not to offer declarative statements based on what you heard back in early 2009. Lots of stuff happened between then and now.
Depends what you mean by fruitless, i guess.
Sure, whatever you or i or any other third party decides, it isn’t going to change the law, or the evidence in the case, or the rules regarding jury instructions and deliberation.
But one does not have to be familiar with the defendant, or the law, to offer a personal opinion on what constitutes appropriate punishment for an incident like this. As i suggested earlier, my sense that justice was not served in this case is based not on what the law says, or what the law allows; it is based on my own belief about what constitutes appropriate punishment for the actions committed by Mehserle.
You are familiar, i assume, with the concept that one can actually disagree with the punishments and the procedures provided for by society’s laws?
5-14 years, or probation is what I red in another paper, maybe the LA Times. Maybe he and Leslie Van Houten can trade sentences.