BART officer, Johannes Mehserle, who shot unarmed man charged [Archive]

n/t

01-15-2009, 07:09 AM

No idea. I do know that if a police officer cannot tell the difference between his gun and his taser, I am extremely happy that he isn't LE by me.

Mike Brooks on HLN said that the video shows one of the police officer's stepping back and the reason for that is he believed the taser would've been used and not a gun. Also, it was reported that the victim is heard saying, "don't tase me". Again, this was on HLN per Mike Brooks.

With that said, the fact that he tried to flee and is not saying what really happened (an accident) is a concern.

JD1974

01-15-2009, 11:23 AM

Mike Brooks on HLN said that the video shows one of the police officer's stepping back and the reason for that is he believed the taser would've been used and not a gun. Also, it was reported that the victim is heard saying, "don't tase me". Again, this was on HLN per Mike Brooks.

With that said, the fact that he tried to flee and is not saying what really happened (an accident) is a concern.

I have heard that too. He is not talking and yes that is weird. The thing that bothers me most is how a police officer could mistake his gun for a tazer? IF that is what he is going to go with

dinojen

01-15-2009, 02:58 PM

Thanks for the update.

I didn't know he was fleeing. Wow.

Do you think we'll ever know why he did it? The truth? Interesting that he hasn't said a word. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and was convinced this was a tragic accident. Taser gun vs real gun but not I'm not so sure anymore.

It was reported yesterday he WAS NOT FLEEING.. he took his wife and newborn child, less than two weeks old up to where they would be safe being they were being threatened.

Just yesterday there was a bomb threat at his parents home in Napa. The whole area was evacuated for precaution.. after days of threats

http://cbs5.com/local/BART.officer.murder.2.908069.html

I'll wait to hear all the evidence before passing any judgement..

I totally disagree with all the rioting that is taking place, Oakland is a city in financial despair and to destroy business just barely making it is just wrong.. police vehicles destroyed.. that's not a way to prove a point or protest.

Shotzie

01-16-2009, 12:41 PM

I am from the town this officer lives, He comes from a great family and great schooling went thru the academy..I don't know what happened so I will wait for all the information..

He did have a week old baby at the time of this and people are speculating he might have been tired being up with the baby or the newness every one wants to hope for a reason this happened besides what the papers are saying..

He has had death threats and the bomb squad was out I believe last nite two packages left at their residence.

Yes he should of turned himself in but maybe he had threats at the time an all he could think of was his wife and baby. I am not making any excuses for him. This is a sad situation and two families have been destroyed.
The papers are trying to make this a Black and white situation which shouldn't be.

Shotzie

01-16-2009, 12:44 PM

here is a link

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2009/01/16/news/local/doc496fb8d23a44a806741944.txt

Lady_Jean_La

01-16-2009, 01:02 PM

Mike Brooks on HLN said that the video shows one of the police officer's stepping back and the reason for that is he believed the taser would've been used and not a gun. Also, it was reported that the victim is heard saying, "don't tase me". Again, this was on HLN per Mike Brooks.

With that said, the fact that he tried to flee and is not saying what really happened (an accident) is a concern.

I think the evidence will show that he sought safety and did not flee.

JMO

awareness

01-21-2009, 09:47 PM

dinojen

01-21-2009, 11:32 PM

from what Ive read, most officers are able to cleary distinguish between their tazer and their service revolver/gun.

Im glad he was arrested and charged. While I agree its not a race issue, I dont think the officer is entirely innocent. The fact that he resigned, lawyered up, hasnt given a statement - also concerns me. Why wouldnt you speak out if it was clearly an accident.

Found it funny that BART was trying to confiscate cell phone videos after it happened too. Why, to prevent the truth from getting out?

Think I'll wait till it goes to trial before pointing fingers... not defending what he did.. but I don't think all the evidence is out and your only hearing one side of the story.

Would I give a statement after riots in the city, death threats to his family and new born child, his parent, bomb threats sent to his home..
Oakland isn't want it use to be.. it was a great place.. business thrived.. you couldn't get me to go to Oakland today for anything..

I'll wait to hear the evidence before I send this young man to the slammer.. for murder..

richmondst

01-22-2009, 02:24 PM

Has anyone here seen any video of the shooting?

It looks (to me) like Mehserle did indeed pull the wrong gun from his holster.

Once the shot is fired, he looks surprised & it seems like he looks at the gun in his hand & puts his hands to his head for a moment.

Could you post a link please for me?

Tracian

01-22-2009, 02:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8IGfQevJz4

I think this is what Landshark is talking about.

Tracian

01-22-2009, 02:51 PM

Hasn't everybody seen it by now? The problem is that Mehserle refused to give a statement explaining his actions, resigning from the BART police force instead. The incident demands an explanation, and there is no way to get one other than by charging him with a crime.

With the media crush, I don't blame him for keeping his mouth shut until he got a lawyer. His family began getting threats quickly, they had to move a few times, until going to NV, at which time he was in contact with his attorney...so he never 'fled'.

I want to know all the facts, it is clear the shooting was not justified, but after watching KTVU they showed the handle of a taser that is issued, and it is very much like the handle of a service pistol.

I do want justice, and the proper punishment, not a sacrifical charge and kangaroo court because the city is afraid of further riots and destruction.

Details

01-22-2009, 02:59 PM

They should of course have a standard trial, nor has anyone suggested otherwise - no matter how strong the opinion of his guilt might be. But - there's nothing stopping him from making some statement of some kind - through his lawyer if necessary. Tell the truth, if there's any good truth to be told. But then - there may not be. IMO - the guy snapped, killed this guy because he was stressed out and tired of working with obnoxious people in his job.

If he's got a good explanation, that is true - give it. Just a simple short - "I made a mistake, grabbed the wrong handle/was aiming for a rattlesnake over his head/aliens made me do it, I'm so sorry" to the dead man's family - there you go.

I've got a hard time thinking up good explanations - because in the situation they had, IMO there wasn't even reason for a taser. The guy was on the ground with a cop on his neck. So why did he do it?

Tracian

01-22-2009, 03:15 PM

Yes it is, Tracian. Thank you for finding it. I can't post the link to the site where I found the same video as you posted above. It is an adult site.

I just finished PMing richmondst the link & came back & saw your post.

So... richmondst... if you are reading here... the video link I sent to you is the same video as Tracian posted.

BTW, I agree with you, in regards to his reaction after the shooting.

Details

01-22-2009, 05:08 PM

He's entitled to do so. I'm entitled to my opinion on the matter too though. If I were somehow transported up there, and made a juror -then, maybe, I'd need to avoid considering that choice - but just as me - I can.

It's a judgment call that when he's killed a young man, destroyed a life, hurt the young man's parents, family, child, friends in such a horrible way, that he doesn't owe them anything in the line of some public apology at a minimum, some degree of explanation ideally.

If I'd killed someone accidentally, that'd be my first thought, to say something, however pitiful and inadequate it would no doubt be, to his family. There are no doubt tactical legal reasons to avoid it - but there are human reasons why many would feel it absolutely necessary. And it can be done without legal issues unless he's playing with many possible explanations to use at trial (and that would mean they'd be playing around with falsehoods - there's only one truth).

Details

01-22-2009, 06:06 PM

I don't disagree with your point, and I expect that in a more typical case of a peace officer killing an unarmed person, most would submit to the usual internal investigation and hope to come out of it without being found guilty of a crime. That's usually the case. In this case, when nobody can think of a reasonable explanation for what they see on the videos, I expect the officer in question figured out (with advice from his attorney) that he was in a pretty tough spot, so is doing what he believes is best for himself. I am sympathetic to the notion that honorable men should "man up" in this situation, but few killers do, and we don't know that this man is "honorable" anyway.Nope - but it'd be easier to believe this an honest and tragic mistake were he "honorable".

Tracian

01-22-2009, 07:00 PM

I don't know what the right thing to do would be.

On one hand, if he honestly did pull the gun, thinking it was the taser, realistically he could have been in shock..I know I would be in shock if I just shot someone..thinking I was tasing them.

On the other hand, if he did say, 'OMG...it was an accident,' Who would believe it? The media frenzy had already started, the death threats to him, his wife, and children already coming in--

I mean, we have seen the tapes from all angles and most of us have different views on what we have seen, and how we have interpreted the event.

Details

01-22-2009, 07:04 PM

Say the truth - whether or not it'll be believed - and plenty of people would believe him - plenty of people are already ready to believe it was an accident. Those that won't believe any innocent explanation are lost anyways - but there will be some who might. If - big if - it's the truth, it won't be contradicted by the tapes and what we can see.

If nothing else, you'll have your side out there, and you'll have told the dead man's parents and family what really happened, for whatever comfort or closure there is to that for them. Not knowing is always the worst. They too might decide not to believe him - but at least it won't be a question what you'd say.

anais2005

05-21-2009, 03:52 PM

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=6820875

preliminary hearing is ongoing at present,

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=6823130

Tracian

05-28-2009, 02:23 PM

This gives a pretty good break down of this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

Tracian

05-28-2009, 02:45 PM

seriously? this guy is saying he mistook his gun for a taser? no way

If you look at a picture of the issued tasers, they are very similar to their service revolvers.

momof6

05-28-2009, 08:59 PM

I've held a tazer. They look exactly like a real gun.

Details

05-28-2009, 09:02 PM

Tracian

05-29-2009, 10:57 AM

IIRC though, they don't weigh what a gun weighs, and the safety and trigger are different.

It could be he made the mistake - although what is odd is that the guy was flat on the ground, on his stomach, with another officer kneeling on his neck - I didn't see even a reason for a tazer.

The way the media is covering it is hard to know the facts; from what was reported about the hearing, Grant was not handcuffed at the time and was not following the instructions so they could cuff him.

Again, I am not saying this is a fact, just what was reported.

JD1974

06-02-2009, 12:27 PM

Watch the Video! Grant WAS handcuffed and on his stomach. He was not resisting, even if he was there is no reason for murder.

Some people need to get their facts straight before they post.

I have seen the video, watched it over and over and he was down...

To lay people like us a gun and a taser probably do feel the same, for a person trained to use both you would hope he could tell the difference...that is what bothers me so much. I wouldn't want any kind of officer protecting me or my family from crime to have a problem distinguishing the two.

Tracian

06-02-2009, 12:37 PM

Watch the Video! Grant WAS handcuffed and on his stomach. He was not resisting, even if he was there is no reason for murder.

Some people need to get their facts straight before they post.

Excuse me, but according to testimony in court, he was not fully cuffed.

I have watched the videos, but none of them are close enough to zoom in on his wrists.

Testimony also added that Grand was saying "Don't tase me" When JM said "I am going to tase him"

Tracian

06-02-2009, 12:44 PM

I have seen the video, watched it over and over and he was down...

To lay people like us a gun and a taser probably do feel the same, for a person trained to use both you would hope he could tell the difference...that is what bothers me so much. I wouldn't want any kind of officer protecting me or my family from crime to have a problem distinguishing the two.

Officers like everyone else are humans and make mistakes, sometimes with tragic consequences.

JM did shoot Oscar Grant, what a jury had to decide from the evidence is was it murder, meaning that JM pulled his gun with the intent to shoot Grant in the back; or did he in error pull his gun, thinking he was going to 'tase' him.

That is the difference between a cold blooded murder, and a lesser charge of negligent homicide or manslaughter, both of which would carry a prison term.

So far from what was reported even in the early days, JM said 'I am going to tase him' Not 'I am going to shoot him' JM on another tape angle does look down at his hand after the shooting, and looks shocked, even dazed after the shooting.

Is he completely innocent, of course not, from what we see on tape; my concern is this is going to become a political case rather than a search for truth and justice.

dinojen

06-03-2009, 03:43 PM

OAKLAND (CBS 5 / AP / BCN) ―
BART police Officer Anthony Pirone testified in Alameda County Superior Court Wednesday morning that his former colleague Johannes Mehserle told him he was going to use his Taser gun moments before he fired the shot that killed Oscar Grant III.

On the sixth day of Mehserle's preliminary hearing Wednesday, Pirone recalled the moments before and after the shooting under questioning by defense attorney Michael Rains. The hearing will determine whether there is enough evidence for Mehserle to stand trial for murder.

The defense contends that when Mehserle shot 22-year-old Grant, he meant to fire his Taser and used his service weapon by mistake.

Just before Mehserle fired, Pirone was kneeling over Grant, who was face-down on the platform. He testified that Grant was "struggling the entire time" up until the shot was fired.

Prosecution witnesses have testified Grant was cooperative.

http://cbs5.com/crime/mehserle.bart.oscar.2.1029848.html

Pirone will be cross examined this afternoon by prosecution.

Tracian

06-03-2009, 08:07 PM

I heard on the news this morning that BART officers had only been issued tasers for about a month before this incident.

Dinojen, did you hear anything about this?

dinojen

06-04-2009, 03:32 PM

I heard on the news this morning that BART officers had only been issued tasers for about a month before this incident.

Dinojen, did you hear anything about this?

Not sure.. will see what I can find out. Was just reading on KTVU's website and it sounds like the judge wants to wrap up this preliminary hearing today..

http://www.ktvu.com/index.html

They have a whole section on the Bart Shooting.

dinojen

06-04-2009, 09:00 PM

Not really surprised... didn't think it would not go to trial.

OAKLAND, Calif. -- An Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled Thursday there is enough evidence to have former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle stand trial on a murder charge for fatally shooting Oscar Grant III.

Mehserle, 27, shot 22-year-old Grant once in the back as he lay face down on the platform of the Fruitvale BART station early on New Year's Day. Police had been called to the station to respond to reports of a fight on a train.

The ruling by Judge C. Don Clay came on the seventh day of Mehserle's preliminary hearing, which involved testimony by witnesses including train passengers and Mehserle's colleagues on the BART police force.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/19617082/detail.html

dinojen

06-06-2009, 09:49 AM

Can't say I don't agree...there is no way the Bart P.O. could get a fair trial in Alameda.. IMO. Think of some of the residents opinion of the murderer of 4 police officers.. they honored him in the streets.. 500 people attended his memorial service.. and later we found out.. he raped two women the morning he killled those officers and also raped two 12 year old girls.. I don't mean to sound racist... but I know Alameda.. I know Oakland.. especially after the judges comments in the preliminary hearing.. it would be an injustice for his attorney not to ask for a change of venue. IMO

OAKLAND (CBS 5 / AP) ―

The lawyer for a former Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer ordered to stand trial for murder in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man said late Friday that he intends to file for a change of venue for his client.

Defense Attorney Michael Rains said he does not believe Johannes Mehserle will get a fair trial in Alameda County. He cited two judges' comments that they did not believe his defense that he accidentally grabbed his pistol instead of his stun gun.

"It would be nice to think that Mr. Mehserle can get a fair trial in Alameda County, but it's clear to me that he can't and he won't," Rains said. "And it's not just because the potential jury pool has been infected."

On Thursday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay ruled Mehserle would stand trial on murder following a seven-day preliminary hearing. Clay said before issuing his judgment, "There is no doubt in my mind Mr. Mehserle meant to shoot Oscar Grant with a gun, not a Taser."

In January, Superior Court Judge Morris Jacobson told Mehserle before granting him $3 million bail that the ex-officer was willing to "make up something that's not true" to justify shooting Grant.

Rains said in addition to those comments, he wants a venue change because Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff tried to get Oakland police officers to interview Mehserle without a lawyer after his Jan. 13 arrest in Nevada.

Rains also said Clay's decision not to allow a Taser training expert to testify Thursday, as well as calling a video analyst's testimony "not relevant," factored in his decision. Rains said he planned to file the venue change motion roughly a month before a trial begins.

http://cbs5.com/crime/BART.police.shooting.2.1033780.html

R~O~S

06-07-2009, 01:19 PM

Anyone who has ever shot a gun knows they don't go off without deliberate moves put into play, and for that to take place the FIRST thing that would be necessary is KNOWING you have a GUN in your hand!

No way was this a mistake!

The trigger for a taser does not set up like the trigger for a gun, period. The parts move different, feel different, etc.

The cop is guilty of murder. He needs to be held accountable just like any other person who uses "bad judgement" and decides to kill a person.

IMO

I dunno, I've fired a gun, I've never fired a taser. So I don't pretend to know. But some of these models seem to be too similar to a hand gun. Are they the same weight?

Seems to me they shouldn't be designed to so closely resemble a hand gun. In the heat of the moment, decisions being made in the midst of bedlam it seems ill advised.

http://www.policelink.com/products/subcategories/78

I simply can't imagine why this guy would have shot a contained man in front of so many witnesses. It just doesn't make sense.

I don't want him to be a law enforcement officer, his judgment in chaotic situations obviously leaves a lot to be desired, but I simply can't rationalize why he would have done this intentionally.

Tracian

06-07-2009, 10:13 PM

Anyone who has ever shot a gun knows they don't go off without deliberate moves put into play, and for that to take place the FIRST thing that would be necessary is KNOWING you have a GUN in your hand!

No way was this a mistake!

The trigger for a taser does not set up like the trigger for a gun, period. The parts move different, feel different, etc.

The cop is guilty of murder. He needs to be held accountable just like any other person who uses "bad judgement" and decides to kill a person.

IMO

Right, you think that this person, shot this man in the back just because?

This attitude is the very reason that this trial is not going to be about justice, it is going to be about politics.

And when a case comes to appeasing those that have made up their minds, then that is when we go back to kangaroo courts based on nothing but public opinion as spoon fed by the media.

As far as a taser, you have a link to support that? Do you have anything to support the trigger action? Do you have anything to support that particular situation?

Charms

06-08-2009, 12:49 AM

Right, you think that this person, shot this man in the back just because?

This attitude is the very reason that this trial is not going to be about justice, it is going to be about politics.

And when a case comes to appeasing those that have made up their minds, then that is when we go back to kangaroo courts based on nothing but public opinion as spoon fed by the media.
As far as a taser, you have a link to support that? Do you have anything to support the trigger action? Do you have anything to support that particular situation?

Sadly, this case is about a black man's life that was considered worthless by an overzealous cop with a record of the same behavior.
Had he been previously reprimanded perhaps Oscar Grant would be alive today.
Thank God for modern technology or this case may never have been brought to the forefront. The cops would have placed a gun in Oscar's hand and claimed he was armed.
It's hard not to make up your mind when you love in the community and have watched the case unfold and no remorse has been displayed by the officer(s) involved.

anais2005

06-08-2009, 01:07 PM

I don't even understand the need for him to be tased if that is what the cops say was going to happen,

he was on the floor surrounded by cops, surely a group of trained officers could have cuffed him no problem, not like he was going anywhere

lets see how much testilying we see from his fellow cops when we get to trial

I still remember the testilying that went on in the Frank Jude case,

Tracian

06-08-2009, 01:16 PM

I don't need to know WHY he did it to rule out he thought it was a taser. I saw the video, did you? He pointed his GUN and PULLED the TRIGGER. It's all on tape, thankfully.

You need a link from me to "support" that a trained police officer knows the difference between a gun and a taser, and how to operate each one???

By the way when there is VIDEO of the incident, I think it is probably safe to make up ones mind as to what happened before the excuses start. An unarmed man who was lying on the ground was shot in the back. Just curious, did your eyeballs see something different?

Now it's a matter of accountability. I'm sure the officer has deep regret for that "poor judgement". The victim however is DEAD, and his family and all that knew and loved him will never see him again.

It's not about "politics", it's about the loss of a man's life.

JMO

I saw the video, and I agree with the judge...it does not prove or disprove anything. You cannot see Oscar Grant, you cannot see what he is doing or not doing.

Tracian

06-08-2009, 01:20 PM

Sadly, this case is about a black man's life that was considered worthless by an overzealous cop with a record of the same behavior.
Had he been previously reprimanded perhaps Oscar Grant would be alive today.
Thank God for modern technology or this case may never have been brought to the forefront. The cops would have placed a gun in Oscar's hand and claimed he was armed.
It's hard not to make up your mind when you love in the community and have watched the case unfold and no remorse has been displayed by the officer(s) involved.

Nonsense.

A Santa Clara County SO fell asleep at the wheel and killed two bike riders, both of which were 'white'

His punishment?

A demotion, and he is no longer allowed to drive a SO car or carry a gun.

If the victims were African American do you think he would have gotten off so lightly? No, because it would have become a racial issue, just like this case is becoming an issue of race, not justice.

The Santa Clara County sheriff's deputy who hit and killed two cyclists after falling asleep behind the wheel of his patrol car last year is staying with the department but will be demoted, the Mercury News reports.

Sheriff's Deputy James Council drove off the road on Stevens Canyon in March 2008 and hit three cyclists, killing two of them. He plead guilty to vehicular manslaughter but now he is being punished by the department and losing his status as a law enforcement officer.

Council's new job is a civilian level sheriff's "technician" -- a position with about two-thirds of the pay he was making as a sheriff's deputy. He won't be carrying a gun or driving a patrol car anymore. Instead, he'll be serving summons, providing unarmed security and cataloguing evidence.

The now-former deputy will be sentenced later this month for the deaths of cyclists Matt Peterson and Kristy Gough.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Sheriffs-Deputy-Who-Killed-Cyclists-Demoted.html

Tracian

06-09-2009, 11:23 AM

He was tased because Mesherle thought no one was looking. Murder pure and simple. Enough is Enough. I'm sure he will serve some prison time.

He thought no one was looking? There were about a dozen people around him; he announced he was 'Going to tase him'

If as you say, Mesherle was planning on tasing him, then how is that 'murder' pure and simple?

Charms

06-10-2009, 04:02 AM

He thought no one was looking? There were about a dozen people around him; he announced he was 'Going to tase him'

If as you say, Mesherle was planning on tasing him, then how is that 'murder' pure and simple?

Hi Trician,

I usually agree with your posts but not this one.
I truly believe Mesherle was caught up in the moment, his adrenaline (sp) was pumping, he was excited and his focus was on the black kid who was in his face. Actually he was on his back but you get my drift.
I don't think he was focused on the train passengers at that time of night with their cell phones.

Anyway it doesn't really matter. BART is repsonsible for hiring an officer who was psychologically unfit who murdered an unarmed 21 year old kid. I think he was 21. In any event, he will pay in one way or another.
His career is over, he has a record and if justice is served - a prison sentence.

Tracian

06-10-2009, 12:46 PM

Hi Trician,

I usually agree with your posts but not this one.
I truly believe Mesherle was caught up in the moment, his adrenaline (sp) was pumping, he was excited and his focus was on the black kid who was in his face. Actually he was on his back but you get my drift.
I don't think he was focused on the train passengers at that time of night with their cell phones.

Anyway it doesn't really matter. BART is repsonsible for hiring an officer who was psychologically unfit who murdered an unarmed 21 year old kid. I think he was 21. In any event, he will pay in one way or another.
His career is over, he has a record and if justice is served - a prison sentence.

Obviously he is guilty of something. Murder 1, (possibly) negligent homicide, something.

I want justice, not the knee jerk media frenzy to turn this case into a political agenda.

dinojen

06-10-2009, 01:00 PM

Obviously he is guilty of something. Murder 1, (possibly) negligent homicide, something.

I want justice, not the knee jerk media frenzy to turn this case into a political agenda.

IMO and it's just my opinion.. that goes both ways. Anyone on trial deserves a fair one. And not let the media turn this into a white vs. black issue.

Do I think he can get a fair trial in Alameda, no way... not with all the recent things that have happened in the city.

Not defending the Bart officer or his partner's just think all the evidence needs to be presented to an impartial jury and all evidence seen not what a judge thinks should be allowed or not and all witnesses also. Seems to me several judges that have dealt with this case in the preliminary hearings showed their bias.. but that's JMO and I'm going off what has been reported in the media.. (and we all know how the media is)..

Charms

06-11-2009, 02:00 AM

IMO and it's just my opinion.. that goes both ways. Anyone on trial deserves a fair one. And not let the media turn this into a white vs. black issue.

Do I think he can get a fair trial in Alameda, no way... not with all the recent things that have happened in the city.

Not defending the Bart officer or his partner's just think all the evidence needs to be presented to an impartial jury and all evidence seen not what a judge thinks should be allowed or not and all witnesses also. Seems to me several judges that have dealt with this case in the preliminary hearings showed their bias.. but that's JMO and I'm going off what has been reported in the media.. (and we all know how the media is)..

Good luck with that. Mesherle has been exposed everywhere.
IF he is acquitted - which I doubt - I'm sure the prosecutin will re-try the case.
You can't just shoot an unarmed person in the back and get away with it.

Tracian

06-11-2009, 02:08 AM

Good luck with that. Mesherle has been exposed everywhere.
IF he is acquitted - which I doubt - I'm sure the prosecutin will re-try the case.
You can't just shoot an unarmed person in the back and get away with it.

Charms:

Hiya..( I do honestly admire your thoughts, even though we do at times disagree)

If he is acquitted, like OJ in the murder case, it is done, they cannot refile.

IMO, the judge is going wrong in his opinion, he should have given some options to murder in the first, because it does not make sense that anyone would shoot someone in the back 'just because'...that could lead to a hung jury or an acquittal...

Charms

06-11-2009, 03:36 AM

Charms:

Hiya..( I do honestly admire your thoughts, even though we do at times disagree)

If he is acquitted, like OJ in the murder case, it is done, they cannot refile.

IMO, the judge is going wrong in his opinion, he should have given some options to murder in the first, because it does not make sense that anyone would shoot someone in the back 'just because'...that could lead to a hung jury or an acquittal...

OOOps. You are absolutley correct. I was thinking hung jury and they would re try him. Other than that I can't see him being acquitted, even if the charge is reduced to manslaughter.
I don't see him walking free. If he does I will never ride BART again.
:scared:

dinojen

06-11-2009, 09:21 AM

Good luck with that. Mesherle has been exposed everywhere.
IF he is acquitted - which I doubt - I'm sure the prosecutin will re-try the case.
You can't just shoot an unarmed person in the back and get away with it.

Oh I definately don't think he will be acquitted.. I believe he will be charged with something.. but do I think it was murder... no. More will come out in this trial and I hope all evidence will be heard. Still think it needs to be moved from Alameda, if for any reason the "racial tone"... not sure that's the right terminology.. but I honestly believe there will be bias in finding a jury. JMO,

Personally if I ride Bart which is very seldom, it's from Walnut Creek straight into S.F.

I don't think this officer intentionally shot this guy in the back just for the hell of it because he gave him a hard time. Again JMO..

Tracian

06-11-2009, 11:38 AM

OOOps. You are absolutley correct. I was thinking hung jury and they would re try him. Other than that I can't see him being acquitted, even if the charge is reduced to manslaughter.
I don't see him walking free. If he does I will never ride BART again.
:scared:

I don't know enough about the evidence against him, simply because the media coverage is less than informative.

I think if murder one is the only choice, from what I understand about what the state has to prove for murder one, it may be tough to get a verdict; or it could come back not guilty. (Phil Spector comes to mind)

I can see a conviction for negligent homicide, because IMO, that is what this was, negligence that caused the death of Oscar Grant.

Again, I don't know (really I don't think any of us know) all the facts around this case yet--but currently with the limited information we have, negligent homicide seems the best fit IMO.

dinojen

06-18-2009, 02:36 PM

BART Station Shooting Trial Set For October
OAKLAND (CBS 5 / AP / BCN) ―

A former BART officer accused of murdering an unarmed man at an Oakland station will stand trial in October, and his lawyer is asking to move the emotionally charged case to another city.

The case has fueled tension between Oakland's black community and law enforcement. Mehserle is white. Grant was black. A change of venue hearing is scheduled for September.

Michael Rains, the lawyer for Johannes Mehserle, said Wednesday he also plans to file a motion challenging a ruling by Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay two weeks ago that there's enough evidence to have Mehserle stand trial on murder.

Clay said at an earlier hearing that, "There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Mehserle intended to shoot Oscar Grant with a gun, not a Taser."

http://cbs5.com/crime/bart.police.shooting.2.1050207.html

Tracian

06-18-2009, 02:42 PM