Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter
 

OAKLAND, Calif. -- Oakland police have begun taking people into custody as they move in on a crowd protesting the verdict in the case of a former transit officer.


Johannes Mehserle was convicted of involuntary manslaughter on Thursday in the shooting death of an unarmed black man.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/09...amid-protests/


I had a feeling he would get involuntary. What do you all think? Folks are rioting in the streets of Oakland right now over this verdict. They felt it was not strong enough.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Conflicting reports. Sources are saying the main instigators appeared to be professional "anarchist" agitators wearing black. The looters, white kids wearing black.

Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts said the people causing trouble did not seem to be Oakland residents bent on voicing displeasure at the Mehserle verdict. He described them as outsiders "who are almost professional people who go into crowds like this and cause problems."

The verdict was tough either way. It was impossible for him to get a Not Guilty verdict of some type. I would love to hear the jury explanation for the verdict. Sad that this guy's life is forever over... and sad for the young, black man whose life ended last year. Sad for the city that thugs and renegades are taking it over, many of which are people who care little about justice. Just looking for a party.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0tAEu8rPp

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0tAEYyGTb

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

I actually watched the coverage. Definitely not Rodney King LA Riots-status here. Bunch of anarchists. 200 officers from other cities, btw, have responded to help in Oakland.

Oscar Grant's family is ticked off. Saying the system is not doing them right. Many of the speakers are stoking racism as the reason why. They blame the system.

The evidence and the court hearing stand on its own. Watching that footage over and over, it's a tough thing. Did he snap and kill him? Did he reach for his taser? Was he shocked afterward? What really happened that night? Tough situation.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

If my memory is correct, he stood over the unarmed black man, while he was pinned down and shot him.

There were other officers there as well. The murdering officer's life was NOT in danger.

He should have gotten more than involuntary manslaughter.

He is getting off very, very light-- compared to what he did.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

According to the news report I heard tonight, the police officer that shot and killed the young man claimed that he meant to reach for his taser and somehow ended up reaching for his gun. Supposedly he meant to tase him...not kill him.

So tragic. :(

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

In the video of the shooting he doesn't appear to be "standing" but he is on the ground involved in a struggle with the man who was shot. A group of young men had been fighting on a train and when the train came to the station they were in the process of being arrested when the young man was resisting.

There appear to be other offices involved in the "wrestling match" and lethal force does not appear to be warranted or even imminent. The officer says he mistakenly grabbed his revolver when going for his taser. As Max says, it's just unclear as to whether or not that's reasonable.

I guess that after hearing the case the jury had some sort of "reasonable doubt" about a voluntary manslaughter or even a murder charge. I'd think murder would be out because there was no way the cop could have premeditated this. The young man died in the heat of a scuffle with cops.

The taser/service weapon confusion claim sort of makes me feel rather uncomfortable - but I guess it could happen.

Here's the youtube video. The cop who fired the shot is the one on his knees wrestling with the young man - to the left of the prone suspect in the video. The bald headed cop on the right seems to be rather shaken by the gun shot. The words coming out of his mouth at this point probably would not be printable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXWSg...eature=related

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

You know what gets me in these types of situations, the media always makes the victim seem as though he/she was a law abiding citizen when in fact they were not.

It is a tragic end without a doubt, had the man been "law abiding" perhaps the incident would never have happened to start with. Seems to me two lives have been destroyed in this situation.

If people could just get along.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

The guy did not have a rap sheet-- he and his friends were rowdy on a commuter train.

Neither he or his friends "calmed down" when told to by a female BART Officer.

Grant, the 22 year old who was killed was HANDCUFFED before he was shot.


The jury rejected the notion that the "cop" meant to go for the taser.

So you have a man who was pinned down, surrounded by other officers, face down, handcuffed with his hands behind his back and for whatever reason, the ex-cop felt it was necessary to shoot the man.


Truth is, there is ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION for the shooting-- none.


I hope the BART agency is sued to oblivion in civil court because justice has NOT been served and appears that it will not be served, in this life.

Then, the living ex-BART officer can repent and attain eternal life.

The 22 yr old was probably not saved and..... well, what can you say except nothing at all. He's in God's Hands.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

This wasn't even this agency's first unarmed kill.

Apparently, one of their officers shot another unarmed black man in the BACK OF HIS HEAD with a 12 guage SHOTGUN!


This "murderous cop" was not convicted of anything!!!

This "murderous cop" committed suicide by hanging himself sometime afterwards.


http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=919


Honestly, the whole thing is very infuriating and sad in the most recent case.

The man was handcuffed, lying face down and murdered by a "cop".


Whatever....

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

That's beside the point. It wasn't a terrible struggle, the guy was already bound in fact.

To blame it on the teenager is a sad comment to make indeed.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

JD so you don't feel there's any possibility this officer just freaked out in the heat of the moment, grabbed the wrong weapon and didn't realize it? You really think he intended on shooting this young man in the back?

Justice was done. I hate when people say that. The case went through the process of justice, the case was heard (including all evidence that we haven't seen broken down for hours), and the verdict was delivered: involuntary manslaughter.

My question for the jury is this: if they didn't buy the "grabbed the wrong weapon" argument, did they go with the option that he flipped in the passion of the moment? I mean, what else is your intent to shoot a handcuffed man in the back?

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Did you guys see his reaction on the tape? It looks like he was shocked after shooting the guy

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

It's possible it was a mistake especially with so many witnesses but even so it's mistake that is unexcusable. I'm a nurse and I'm paid for a certain skill level to not make mistakes that are nursing 101. Even if he meant to grap his taser it's an unexcusable mistake.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

That's why he got involuntary manslaughter.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

BART had nothing to do with the shooting - the cop was an Oakland PD Police Officer. The suit was already settled and the man's survivors are millionaires.

The was no "justification" for the shooting. The cop himself didn't even try to justify shooting the man. He said it was "accidental." Despite your assertion about what the jury accepted - the jury, comprised of a majority of African-Americans, actually DID accept the "accidental" element when they voted unanimously for "INVOLUNTARY" manslaughter charges.

The cop got the same conviction that a drunk driver who kills another motorist often gets. There was personal responsibility and culpability of criminal nature found - however, that responsibility was found to be more of a "negligent" nature and not malicious.

In other words, you're showing more malice toward the Oakland PD than this cop was found to have showed toward his shooting victim. Keep that in mind.

The men on the train were more than "rowdy." They were grown adult gang members who had committed felony assault against passengers on the train. Keep that in mind when you ride the BART train next time.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

It appears to have been a horrible but obviously avoidable mistake. The cop will pay for this for the rest of his life. Oakland taxpayers have already paid a very large sum - but not tremendously large. It seems that the lawyers for the victim's kin didn't want another jury to see this tape so they settled early and out of court.

One really should consider the action of the family's lawyers here.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Of further interest is the response to the recent shooting of four Oakland Police Officers by a black man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6QKcARdl2w

Four cops were ambushed and gunned down with malice, and the African American community says, "That's cool..."

The cops were looking for Lovelle Mixon - the shooter - with an arrest warrant for parole violation. What was the "parole violation? The rape of a 12 year old girl.

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3583

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...bay&id=6728974

JD - can you possibly see how that your rant comes off as dangerous and racist? Three white and one Asian-American police officers are out seeking the rapist of a 12 year old girl when they are gunned down in cold blood ambush style. The streets fill up with "demonstrators" SUPPORTING the murder of these cops.

A year later a cop accidentally shoots a black suspect and no one but the jury is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And then you rant about the "injustice?" Dude, is it really cool to rape 12 year old girls and then ambush and murder the cops sent to arrest you? Can you see why so many Americans - of all races - are sick to their stomachs with the way injustice is perpetuated by the "leaders" of the black community?

To be fair I guess, not even Al Sharpton seemed to have gotten involved in the more recent accidental shooting, but he did lead the rally a year ago supporting the murder of the police officers.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Yes, to put any blame on anyone other than the police is always in bad taste.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

I don't recall this issue, but that is just sick!

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

He didn't say anything like that. But did you see the video? Everyone will, I suppose, see differently, but to me it looked like the officer was waiting for the man to be held down so that he could shoot him. Only when the man was pinned down and immobilized did he even draw the gun.

What do you see?

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

I didn't watch it.

Another poster said he looked shocked, so I guess it is a matter of opinion.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Okay, I just went and watched it. I agree with the poster that said he seemed shocked. He put both his hands to his mouth like he was saying on no.

I don't think it was deliberate. But as I said before, no matter his life and the victim are both ruined. And I still say, IF the victim had been behaving himself, NONE of this would have happened in the first place.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Is his taser that close to his gun? Seems to me they wouldn't be that close together. And are they both holstered? It was hard to tell as the video was kind of jumpy at times. And having never held a taser, but having held a handgun, you better know what you are holding.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

The "teenager" was a 24 year old adult whom the train operator described as "hammered and stoned."

It wasn't a "terrible struggle." That's one part that's so baffling about why a gun was fired. The very evident shock of the other police offices also seems to agree with this.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

There are a variety of different types of tasers. Some are in a "gun" format.

See the first attached photo. This taser is being deployed and handled just like a hand gun. The bright green that you see is intended to identify it as NOT being a hand gun to anyone "downrange."

I HAVE NO IDEA what specific kind of taser the cop says he intended to use, but the second pic is a taser that looks like a hand gun. The trigger obviously would have a very different feel. The weight might even be a bit deceptively heavy due to the batteries, the signal amplifier and the compressed gas cartridge. So, I dunno. In the heat of a scuffle and a nervous cop responding to shouted orders from his superior. Dunno.

My largest concern is that the people of Oakland demonstrated in support of a deliberate cop killer. The cops were attempting to arrest a child rapist. And one year later they see a case like this and refuse to even offer the benefit of the doubt.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

They both look similar to a handgun to me. Though I agree about the weight, some guns are heavier than others. I imagine it was rather noisy and with things being shouted maybe the suspect couldn't hear what the officers were saying. I dunno, it seems a little too much if he was already handcuffed and with enough officers to hold him down.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

surely nobody thinks that he planned/pre-meditated with malice aforethought to kill some one that day.

how else could a jury find?

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

I don't think it was premeditated or planned.

Wouldn't this fit better under 2nd Degree Murder than involuntary manslaughter?


When you draw a fire arm and you are in law enforcement, you DO NOT shoot warning shots.

You shoot to maim and/or kill.


Drunk driving is involuntary manslaughter because you are doing something with self interest at heart-- not to go and kill someone because you are driving sdrunk.


In this case, it is very difficult to suggest that he shot this unarmed, handcuffed man who was facing down on the ground already out of self interest.

To tase the man at this point would not have made any sense either-- which has already been brought up.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Hey Pel,

What's goin' on? As usual, we don't see eye to eye, but I am always confident in our mutual respect as brothers in Christ.

(1) These links confirm that the shooter was a BART Officer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Po...of_Oscar_Grant

http://www.examiner.com/x-27745-SF-H...ntencing-delay


(2) Alameda DA discussing the verdict and states CLEARLY that the jury rejected the notion that the "cop" was reaching for his taser and grabbed the gun instead.

http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblo...y-respect.html


(3) This is not my intent. However, to suggest the complete absence of malice is not a suggestion I am willing to embrace at this moment.


He refused to speak with BART investigators before he resigned.
Oscar Grant was pinned down face first by four police officers when Mehserle stood up, backed up, pulled out his and shot the man in the back. This does not appear to be a case where there was a struggle and in the middle of the struggle, someone is accidentally killed

(4) Prove this with a link. I read that Oscar Grant was seen pleading with his friends who were already handcuffed to calm down and to cooperate with the police. I have read that the man was employed as a butcher in a local farmer's market. I have read that he was a father of a 4 yr old daughter.

I have not read that he was a gang member-- please back this up. Not that it makes his death more acceptable, but you said he was a gang member and I say he wasn't.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

(1) Which African American community? Or are you suggesting that the community where this happened says it is ok? Either way, please back this up with proof.

(2) There was nothing dangerous or racist about my "rant". If you think there is, please show it to me.

My rant had nothing to do with the case you referenced-- which I did not know about. However, I have criticized the senseless violence that plagues many African American communities around the country. Even on AFF I have criticized this and I definitely am more in line with the thoughts of Bill Cosby when it comes to African Americans taking more responsibility for the issues in many of our communities.

(3) Just because it was not premeditated does not mean it was accidental.

(4) To be fair to who? I am not understanding the connections you are attempted to draw. Furthermore, did Sharpton really "support" the murders of the police officers? Not that it matters to my original "rant", but please back this up with a link showing Sharpton rejoicing over the death of the police officers.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

There were actually (and surprisingly) no African-Americans on the jury. For whatever that's worth.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Insane. Fortunately, the scale of community response is not even close with Oscar Grant vs. Lovelle Mixon.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Oh please. *rolls eyes*

I get it. I've made a habit of assuming the defensive posture of "Back the Badge." But you know what, that's not my cause. There's injustice both ways, and it's the right thing to do to decry whenever and with whomever it happens.

Are you seriously trying to insist on blaming an unarmed, detained, mildy aggressive teenager for being shot in the back? Really? Listen to yourself.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Unreal. Not an objective bone in your body.

This could have gone either way. A man that flips and does something horrible would be shocked and regretful afterward as well. I'm saying, there's a possibility. The jury listened to the evidence and made a decision -- to the chagrine of protesters, but still in the scope of justice. He was tried fairly, evidence reviewed, verdict passed.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

The people around the situation were more unruly than Grant.

Actually, Grant was 22-years old, not 24. Either way, a young kid.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Here is a discussion of the laws regarding murder and involuntary manslughter in California.

From what I read, there appears to be a strong case for 2nd Degree Murder-- not just involuntary manslaughter.

Of course, you can come to your own conclusions.

Maybe Baron the Resident Lawyer will care to comment on this case or on my assertion that the cop's conviction of Involuntary Manslaughter is an injustice.




In California, under Penal Code Sections 187 through 189, second degree murder is just murder without a statutory aggravating factor that could bump it to first degree.


The relevant portions of the California jury instruction defining murder are as follows:
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with murder [in violation of Penal Code section 187].


To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1 The defendant committed an act that caused the death of (another person/ [or] a fetus);
[AND]

2 When the defendant acted, (he/she) had a state of mind called malice aforethought(;/.)
[AND]

3 (He/She) killed without lawful (excuse/[or] justification).]


There are two kinds of malice aforethought, express malice and implied malice. Proof of either is sufficient to establish the state of mind required for murder.


The defendant acted with express malice if (he/she) unlawfully intended to kill.


The defendant acted with implied malice if:

1 (He/She) intentionally committed an act;

2 The natural and probable consequences of the act were dangerous to human life;

3 At the time (he/she) acted, (he/she) knew (his/her) act was dangerous to human life;
AND

4 (He/She) deliberately acted with conscious disregard for (human/ [or] fetal) life.


Malice aforethought does not require hatred or ill will toward the victim. It is a mental state that must be formed before the act that causes death is committed. It does not require deliberation or the passage of any particular period of time.

Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter are lesser included offenses of murder.

Here’s the relevant part of the California jury instruction on Voluntary Manslaughter on a “heat of passion” theory:


A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

The defendant killed someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion if:

1 The defendant was provoked;

2 As a result of the provocation, the defendant acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured (his/her) reasoning or judgment;

AND

3 The provocation would have caused a person of average disposition to act rashly and without due deliberation, that is, from passion rather than from judgment.

Heat of passion does not require anger, rage, or any specific emotion. It can be any violent or intense emotion that causes a person to act without due deliberation and reflection.

In order for heat of passion to reduce a murder to voluntary manslaughter, the defendant must have acted under the direct and immediate influence of provocation as I have defined it. While no specific type of provocation is required, slight or remote provocation is not sufficient. Sufficient provocation may occur over a short or long period of time.

It is not enough that the defendant simply was provoked. The defendant is not allowed to set up (his/her) own standard of conduct. You must decide whether the defendant was provoked and whether the provocation was sufficient. In deciding whether the provocation was sufficient, consider whether a person of average disposition, in the same situation and knowing the same facts, would have reacted from passion rather than from judgment.
[If enough time passed between the provocation and the killing for a person of average disposition to “cool off” and regain his or her clear reasoning and judgment, then the killing is not reduced to voluntary manslaughter on this basis.]


The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not kill as the result of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder.

Here’s the relevant part of the California jury instruction on Voluntary Manslaughter on a imperfect self-defense theory:

A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed a person because (he/she) acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another).

If you conclude the defendant acted in complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another), (his/her) action was lawful and you must find (him/her) not guilty of any crime. The difference between complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) and (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) depends on whether the defendant’s belief in the need to use deadly force was reasonable.


The defendant acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) if:

1 The defendant actually believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ ) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury;
AND

2 The defendant actually believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger;
BUT

3 At least one of those beliefs was unreasonable.


Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be.

In evaluating the defendant’s beliefs, consider all the circumstances as they were known and appeared to the defendant.

[If you find that threatened or harmed the defendant [or others] in the past, you may consider that information in evaluating the defendant’s beliefs.]
[If you find that the defendant knew that had threatened or harmed others in the past, you may consider that information in evaluating the defendant's beliefs.]


[If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else that (he/she) reasonably associated with , you may consider that threat in evaluating the defendant's beliefs.]

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder.

Here’s the relevant part of the California jury instruction on Involuntary Manslaughter:

When a person commits an unlawful killing but does not intend to kill and does not act with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter.


The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk. An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is voluntary manslaughter or murder. An unlawful killing resulting from a willful act committed without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the risk to human life is involuntary manslaughter.


The defendant committed involuntary manslaughter if:
1 The defendant (committed a crime that posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury because of the way in which it was committed/ [or] committed a lawful act, but acted with criminal negligence);
AND

2 The defendant’s acts unlawfully caused the death of another person.
[Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:
1 He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;
AND

2 A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.


In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.]

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

Pel, IMO this is irrelevant to the Oscar Grant case.

The hatred instilled in the Black Community comes at the cusp of injustice and harassment they feel daily. At the same time, my heart goes out to the Law Enforcement that are trying to keep safety in these streets, while also trying not to engage in race wars, profiling and pointless badge abuse. It's a complicated situation. But the seemingly illogical protest of a cop killer has a fuller history that is seeped in what the Black Community feels is injustice.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

I don't think a single soul thinks it was pre-meditated.

I think there are some that believe the cop snapped amid the anxiety of the moment -- trying to subdue the detained Grant, and keeping an eye on a noisy New Year's crowd around him that was yelling and screaming.

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught
 

JD are you not happy with the verdict? Do you feel the verdict was inadequate?

Re: Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaught