n/m; the issue was already addressed
Fine.
Is there a picture available of the particular model of taser he used? I’d like to see if it could be mistaken for a pistol.
I don’t know anything about Oakland … Does BART mean this is a transit cop?
It’s interesting that the defense’s argument is that the officers are poorly trained and can’t tell a Taser from a handgun. So Oakland has reached the point where the people who are supposed to protect us are actually killing us instead and their defense is that they don’t know how to do their jobs properly. Whatever the outcome for this particular BART police officer, I would think Oakland needs to reassess whether it is worthwhile to continue to have a BART police system at all.
I was under the impression that their theory was that the officer shot a prone man who was not resisting arrest, and thus use of deadly force was totally unwarranted.
shiftless - yes, it’s the transit cops there. I think it stands for Bay Area Rail (Rapid?) Transit.
BART traverses well over a dozen police jurisdictions city and county. I don’t think the ciity of Oakland has any say over them at all.
I went back and read the article. This is what I am talking about
It sounds to me like the prosecution felt that Mehserle intended to shoot, not use a Taser. Was there any evidence presented of why they thought that this was his intent?
AFAICT the jury didn’t buy that. They thought the cop pulled out (and fired) his pistol instead of his Taser, and that it was unintentional.
On reflection, I guess I can’t disagree too much with the verdict. Pulling a gun instead of a Taser is pretty reckless. I have no idea what elements need to be established for involuntary manslaughter - reckless indifference?
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s BARt Police history page, where I learned nothing new. I wonder if they report to ABAG in some fashion?
Nevermind-found it.
Sonofabitch! Who the hell thought making a taser look and feel like pistol was a good idea?
Is this you?
Wow. I assume that is a gun on the left, and the taser on the right. Pretty similar, especially (it appears) if viewed from astern.
They should make the whole body of the taser yellow, or sumthin.
To my reading of these distinctions, even if we believe the notion that Mehserle intended to and thought he was using the Taser instead of a firearm, the voluntary manslaughter charge would have been more appropriate.
Indeed, it has nothing to do with the city of Oakland at all except that the incident took place at a train station within Oakland city limits. BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) police are in charge of security on the train system, which operates in many cities and several counties.
Oh, and to be fair, I have to admit that I was wrong in my prediction that there would be no riots in Oakland. There were some, but fairly lmited in scope, and they seem to have been perpetrated not by Oakland residents but by out-of-town troublemakers looking for an excuse.
There’s a big difference between heat-of-the-moment and time-to-consider. When driving a car I force myself to hesitate and consider before turning, but would still swerve reflexively in an emergency.
But the videos I saw show the victim as motionless and seeming to pose no possible threat. Supposedly he was speaking loudly in a vain effort to defuse tension.
That the cop would unholster and fire a weapon “in cold blood” without devoting the same mental care I use when making a left turn (or even taking a shower!) is inexcusable. (But having said that, I don’t know that a long prison term is appropriate when the real fault lies with whoever hired and trained this cop.)
IANAL, but these descriptions don’t address the distinction that seems to be relevant - Mehserle didn’t intend to use deadly force at all.
The description of the voluntary manslaughter charge sounds more like it applies to cases where deadly force was intended, but was an over-reaction. Therefore ISTM that voluntary manslaughter would have been appropriate if Mehserle intended to shoot because he thought the victim was about to get free and run. But he didn’t intend to shoot at all (if his statement “I’m going to Tase him” is probative.)
“Lie still or I’ll shoot” sounds like voluntary manslaughter. “Lie still or I’ll Tase you - oops” sounds more like involuntary manslaughter.
Like I say, IANAL, nor a juror either.
Regards,
Shodan
No, it’s the obvious, sensible way to design it.
Look at the specs:[ul]
[li]It has to be held in the hand.[/li][li]It has to be held steadily, but with one finger free to fire it.[/li][li]It has to be easy to hold and aim accurately.[/li][li]It has to be carried in a holster, but with part of it sticking out so it can be quickly drawn out.[/li][/ul]These requirements seem to naturally lead to something with a gun-like shape. (As I said earlier, a whole lot of hand-held tools end up being that basic shape, from electric drills to paint sprayers to cordless screwdrivers.)
What kind of a different shape would you design for it?
Baton-shaped, with button and thumb-flick button cover. Fits in holster, pulls out fast, easy to operate, and won’t be mistaken for a gun of the same size, shape and weight.
The picture he linked shows the taser as being almost the same size as the gun, and therein lies the problem. The weapons feel too much alike. You could still use a gun shape if you made it somehow immediately distinguishable…a fatter grip, longer barrel, paint the whole thing dayglo orange, very different grip shape–one curved, the other straight, different textures on the grips…whatever you want to do, just be sure someone could not mistake one for the other.
One key difference is that the taser is a significantly lighter than a gun.