It's not Krav Manga's United States.

The BBQ Pit
81

But, whatever the reason, we do know that he stood and fired a gun into a guy’s back.

Investigation or no, that is (even leaving aside the reasons) a fundamentally different *act *than accidentally hitting a bystander while in pursuit of a (completely different) suspect.

First you claim we need to wait for an investigation to know what the circumstances are, then you are willing to put it down to negligence.

Which is it? Do we need the investigation, or not?

His occupation should be irrelevant. There is, i think, sufficient evidence on the videos, and from eyewitnesses, to charge the guy. I have no problem with him being released on bail until the court date, but he should at least have been arrested by now.

I’ve said this before, in the case of things like drunk driving, and i’ll say it again here: too many people use “haunt him for the rest of his life,” or some similar phrase, as some sort of excuse or mitigation, and people often argue things like “the knowledge that he’s killed someone is punishment enough.”

I don’t believe this for drunk drivers, and i don’t believe it for a cop who negligently and/or criminally kills someone in the line of duty.

The drunk driver knew, before taking the first sip of the first drink, that drinking and driving is illegal. Yet he did it anyway, and the fact that he killed someone should not be mitigated by his feelings of guilt or remorse. I think that the very act of drinking more than the limit and getting behind the wheel should constitute mens rea, from a legal standpoint.

Similarly, the police officer knew when he joined the police that deadly force might be required as part of his job, and that the law prescribes the circumstances under which this can be used. If he doesn’t think he can cope with making decisions in those sorts of situations (i’m not sure i could), then he shouldn’t be a cop. And if he fucks up, then “his horrible mistake will haunt him forever” is no sort of excuse.

82

No. I’m suggesting that this officer was in the discharge of his lawful duty when he was restraining Grant. He accidentally or negligently discharged his weapon killing Grant who was outside ( possibly restrained) as opposed to handcuffed in the back of a locked squad car. In your scenario the “lawful discharge of duties” changes to 'felony murder" and “aggravated official misconduct”.

83

It’s never been my stance to have that be an excuse. For my money, there is no excuse for what happened, only a reason. The investigation needs to determine if the reason was an accidental discharge due to negligence (which is my estimation) or if it was an accidental discharge due to some other circumstance. I’ve said all along I don’t believe this was homocide. I don’t believe that the officer meant to kill Grant. If he is found negligent equalling manslaughter during the investigation, criminal charges should apply and he should be arrested and go to trial.

Digressing to RNATB I disagree with your assessment that any shooting, justifiable or not will land the average joe in jail right away. Will he go to the police station for a custodial interview? Yes. Will he be arrested? depends on the circumstances and the location.

84

On what charge?

85

So the only possibility that you’re willing to countenance is that the discharge of the weapon was accidental? Why is that? Why have you dismissed, even before the investigation, the possibility that the discharge was not an accident?

Also, say, hypothetically, that the stories about gun/taser confusion are true. What if the action of firing the weapon was completely deliberate, but the officer thought that the weapon in his hand was a taser and not a gun? Would you put that down as an accidental discharge, or not?

Well, i admit that i’m not a lawyer, but i was under the impression that manslaughter is included under the umbrella of homicide. Having just perused the California Penal Code, it seems that, even if this shooting were found to be justifiable (unlikely, in my opinion), it will still be Justifiable Homicide. From the Code:

Link (not sure if that’s a permanent link or not)

Why, then, has the officer in question, according to this story posted less than an hour ago, “not yet given a statement to police or District Attorney officials in the killing”?

Don’t get me wrong. I understand him invoking his right to silence. I would do the same thing in his position. But the police have video of him shooting a guy. If he’s not willing to give his side of the story, to explain how and why he came to draw a gun and shoot a guy in the back, then surely the video evidence alone should at least be sufficient for an arrest.

You might be right that the average joe will not always be arrested or land in jail immediately following a shooting. But i’m willing to bet that, in cases where there is no doubt as to who the shooter is, and where the shooting itself is captured on video, the average joe would at least be expected to explain and justify what you see on the video if he didn’t want to be arrested. You’re a cop aren’t you? If you have video of a regular guy shooting someone else in the back, and that guy refused to tell you how and why that happened, would you place him under arrest?

86

Are too! :slight_smile:

Well, I didn’t hear the pleading not to be tased, so I can’t comment on its veracity. As far as non-combative, I do wonder why he required three cops to restrain him as opposed to the guys next to him. As to the well-restrained, whatever that means, I can’t be certain given that he wasn’t handcuffed. Until the suspect is handcuffed, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that police procedure would not define him as fully restrained.

Can they arrest him or otherwise detain him without a charge? Would it calm down the riots if they charged him with Felonious Assault? I think the delay is likely to investigate all available evidence in order to determine the correct charges. Of course, I’m speculating. Is there a lawful right to compel testimony by the officer and if there is, would that testimony be admissible in court? Would it benefit the DA’s office at all in their prosecution of wrongdoing?

If he’s brought in for questioning and is released because they don’t have enough evidence for the charges that fit the facts of the case, is that going to quell the angry masses or should they just hold him indefinitely against his constitutional rights to appease the masses? Or should they just throw caution to the wind and rush headlong and unprepared into charges and a speedy trial?

What say you?

87

homicide

88

Specifically?

89

Murder, Voluntary/Involuntary Manslaughter… take your pick.

Criminal negligence is probably on the table, too.

90

He shot an unarmed restrained man in the back. If I had done that I’d be in jail right now. Why does he still walk the streets?

91

You still haven’t answered the question. There are several different homicide charges? Are you saying charge him with all of them? If not, which one?

92

Second degree murder.

93

Nu-huh ! pulls BEG’s pigtail !

I don’t routinely get restrained by cops. In fact, I haven’t even been searched in a long time - which come to think about it is worrying. Am I no longer young and foolish enough to be a deliquent, what’s the deal here pigs ?! But that’s a question for another time and place.

However, from the few times I did get restrained (by French cops, but I suppose training is fairly standardized these days ?), SOP seemed to be at least two officers to either hold or be ready to intervene immediately, and a third to cuff or search. What I mean is : because there are 3 cops, doesn’t mean there *needs *to be. It’s just safer that way, less risks of the suspect overpowering one and fleeing, stuff like that. It’s also less exerting when two people share the effort, I guess.

And by restrained, I dunno. I’d consider myself more than restrained were I in Grant’s place, but I’m a wimp :). Why would the policeman stand backup without cuffing him first I have no idea. Note however that the cuffed after death bit is only a statement from the deceased’s attorney - I’m not sure we can accept it as fact. From the video I’d say he was cuffed, then the cop stood up, then the midden hit the windmill. I wouldn’t bet my left testicle on it, but that’s what I’m seeing.

Now that the policeman has received death threats, I can give you an elegant solution : convince him to agree to protective custody. On the one hand you can say “no, no one is accusing him of anything yet - we’re protecting him from harm, that’s all”, but on the other hand you can still tell the protesters “he’s in jail right now. Calm down, go home, let us find out what happened” without lying. Otherwise, just hold him as long as his rights allow you to. It’s a symbolic gesture.

As to the testimony, I guess you’re right - but then I also think the policeman (I can never remember his name :smack:) refusing to answer any question even from his own squadmates is also odd, and does nothing to ease the tensions. I hope he realizes that, and isn’t hoping it will all quiet down and be swept under the rug when a new scandal takes first page…

94

As opposed to murder? Yes. I do not believe that a police officer, surrounded by other police officers and dozens of onlookers brazenly shot a man to death on a train platform. I’m skeptical, sue me.

If the gun/taser confusion issue were true, a civil case could still be made for negligence. The criminal issue, as with anyone else, hinges on intent. The intent was to take the subject into custody, in the act of said apprehension, the officer discharged his weapon, killing the subject. Negligence is usually not a justifiable condition and my example of the officers exceeding speed in pursuit applies, which makes the officer guilty of the California equivalent of criminally negligent manslaughter.

That only says he’s not willing to give his side of the story to YOU. I’m sure he’s been talking to the DA’s and his own attorney and the FOP rep. This case doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Never said anything different. The gun would be taken into evidence, the shooter taken in for a custodial interview (which I can only assume was done in this case, despite our not hearing about it) and the details reviewed, reviewed and reviewed again until there is a satisfactory explanation and/or enough evidence to charge the shooter.

There isn’t a need to hold the cop for the requisite 24-72 hours (depending on local court regs) because they know everything about him, where he lives, his blood type, DNA etc, etc. Plus there is likely an order for him not to leave the AHJ until this mess is sorted. Whereas joe average might just be getting outta dodge as soon as his feet hit free pavement, yes, it’s a double standard, no it shouldn’t actually exist, but it does. Frankly, there’s too much we don’t know about the hours after the shooting to say the proper things weren’t done.

95

Well, every single story i can find, and every single Bay Area news broadcast that i’ve watched over the past few days, specifically states that the shooter has not talked to any law enforcement officials since the incident.

Note that the news outlets don’t simply neglect to mention that Mehserle was interviewed; they explicitly state that he has NOT been interviewed.

Now i’m as skeptical of the media as anyone, and i’m willing to believe that every single Bay Area media outlet has gotten it wrong, but if you have any evidence that Mehserle has, in fact, conducted the interviews that you assume, i’d love to hear about it.

Surely, given the public outcry about this issue, if Mehserle had in fact been interviewed by the authorities, you’d think that the DA’s office, or BART, or someone, might actually inform the public of this fact. They don’t have to say what the substance of the interview was; simply confirm that it actually occurred. Yet, as far as i can tell, this hasn’t happened.

96

So, you think Meserhle acted with malice? What makes you think that? And what’s his motive? Seems odd that a two-year BART officer would suddenly decide to start playing Dirty Harry. On a very crowded train platform. On New Year’s.

Let’s hear your theory.

97

Why? Can’t decide? Not enough information? It can’t be all three at the same time.

98

Second Degree Murder

He drew his gun and fired at an unarmed and restrained man. Let’s he didn’t intend to fire his gun when he drew it. He still drew it which meant he was willing to use it. The subject was restrained an unarmed, he had no cause to draw his gun, let alone fire it.

99

Why not just pick the lesser one, then amend the charges later if the investigation warrants? The authorities do this all the time with civilians; hell, plenty of times the charges are so unsustainable that they are dropped or summarily dismissed by the judge.

They have the guy, on video, shooting an unarmed civilian in the back. I’m willing to wait for the investigation to find out exactly what happened, and to decide the final charges that will be taken to trial, but the shooter should be arrested.

100

Ok, you, I like. I take back any rude things I said about/to you. But only outside the Pit, buster.

I could buy that if Grant’s three-cop take down wasn’t juxtaposed by the single cop restraint of the guy right next to him and the other guy just sitting there uncuffed and untouched. Something seems to have gone differently with the interaction between the officers and Grant long before Meserhle drew his weapon.

I’ve personally seen someone (a 150ish lb. teenager) face down on the floor struggling against more than one officer trying to avoid being cuffed. It resulted in him being tasered. Having been tasered, he was much more compliant and was easily cuffed. It was frightening and I thought for sure someone was going to get hurt. Well, I’m certain the tasering was painful, but thankfully no arms or necks were broken, which looked like a very distinct possibility during the struggle. It’s surprising just how much resistance a physically defiant person can put up. Until the cuffs are on, anything can change.

I think if you review the video again, you’ll notice that Grant’s arm moves away from his body right after he’s shot. He could not have been cuffed when he was shot. I don’t know if he’d been cuffed at any point before being shot. I also read that he didn’t die until hours later at the hospital, but that may have been when he was pronounced dead as a result of the injury to his lungs. Depending upon how serious the lung injury was, he probably wasn’t able to yell out loud enough to be heard over the din after he was shot (as was also reported by a bystander).

I’d be surprised if Meserhle’s attorneys would agree to duplicity such as that. At this point, though, I do think protective custody would be a reasonable consideration, but I highly doubt that’d be at County. County jails are not the safest, most peaceful of places, particularly not for a cop that just shot a civilian.

Meserhle. How do you know he didn’t talk to his squadmates? Surely, he’s got friends at work; a partner? He didn’t go straight home from the train station, did he? Did he ride back to the station alone, in silence? He may very well have said something to someone, but nothing unofficial like that is likely to be reported in the press. As far as refusing the interview, I would think it’d be in his best interest to do whatever his attorney tells him to do. If that means shut up and lay low, well, that’s what he’s got to do. It doesn’t matter in the least what we’re (the public) all thinking because we don’t have criminal charges hanging over our heads.

As much as I’m sure anyone in his position would prefer to not have to do jail time, I also think that if he has any human compassion at all in his heart, he is feeling a great deal of remorse over his actions. The incident is more than likely to be replaying in his head like a scratched LP playing the same lyric over and over until you can’t stand the song anymore. Talk about a personal hell. Jail doesn’t even compare. He’s in a truly fucked up situation.