BART Cop Arrested In Oscar Grant Shooting

YogiToad Says:

Oct 21, 2009 - You're full of shit,making these proclamations of execution without knowing exactly what happened. Everyone is lamenting the shot person,but no body wants to mention that he was just in the middle of a gang related riot in the station,that's why the cops had him in custody.Did it dawn on you jack ass that it could have been a miss fire do to nerves on the cops part? It more than likely was a tazer confusion. Jack ass.

vonnn103 Says:

Oct 21, 2009 - punk ass white people

IRACEMABABU Says:

Oct 22, 2009 - In many countries, cops don't have the right to pull their guns out. They can do that just for defend their own lives. The result is less violence in the streets, because police is not (so) violent.

TruthsImage Says:

Oct 23, 2009 - NO he is a fucking bitch cop end of story there was no accident he is in jail GOOOD he should be executed!!!

YogiToad Says:

Oct 23, 2009 - you're full of shit, at the most he got aggravated manslaughter that cop never meant to shoot that kid if you watch the video dumb ass you can see the total shock on his face after his weapon discharges...

dove997 Says:

Oct 23, 2009 - hehe arrest a police ...sure:)..... so again the own you...you are fucking slave..go fuck your selv..

TruthsImage Says:

Oct 23, 2009 - the fucking PIG WILL ROT IN JAIL the peice of shit that he is and when the inmate's find out he is a fucking cop they will fucking beat the shit out of him and rape him every fucking day until he is released or killed and i fucking hate dirty and power hungrey pig cops there no fucking shock on his face he is spazing trying to say oh he was ressisting he was ressisting .

virdv Says:

Oct 25, 2009 - if there were no cameras or other people there they would have put a gun in his dead palm and drugs in his pockets.dam pigs

cartonhead Says:

Oct 27, 2009 - I think this was a horrible, horrible accident, I can't think that the cop did intentionally. it was crowded, he knew people were watching him, he fucked up big time but I doubt he did it intentionally.

TeeLadyC Says:

Oct 27, 2009 - Accident I think not... ~T

MrrMinit Says:

Oct 28, 2009 - NO ACCIDENT: the Cop did not get his gun out easily. There was no need to use a Teaser! as far as a blind man like me can judge: I would go for MURDER!

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Oct 28, 2009 - You can't convict Mehserle of murder, because you cannot demonstrate malice aforethought or intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree that there was no need to even pull a Taser, let alone a gun, but that doesn't make the killing a murder. Now, you CAN prove at least negligent homicide, being that the killing resulted from Mehserle's negligence. If you can establish an intent to harm Grant, on Mehserle's part, then you can get him on manslaughter. But it's not murder.

MrrMinit Says:

Oct 28, 2009 - there was no reason and there is no motive. But there is the action. I don't want to know, what exactly was going on in the Cops mind: He took out his gun and executed O.G. It is illegal and murder if the cop got money for doing so, as well as he was thinking of being in a movie. I don't care: see the fact: a Boy handcuffed lying on the floor - a cop on top of it pulling out his gun... Even he was thinking of his wife - it is murder! ;-)

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Oct 28, 2009 - No it's not. I keep seeing people on this board use the same argument you just did: Grant was handcuffed (not actually true) and on the floor, face down, so it's murder. But that actually only makes it AT LEAST negligent homicide (or involuntary manslaughter). The reason is because it points to Mehserle not having a justifiable reason for pulling out a weapon in the first place. But common sense should tell you that it doesn't mean Mehserle fired with an intent to kill, or with malice.

MrrMinit Says:

Oct 28, 2009 - If a man takes out his gun, he should know by pulling the trigger he might kill the life in front of his gun. By pointing at somebode the fact of an accident is gone. I agree with "culpable homicide." Would we have a similar discussion, if the shot victim would be a white cop shot trespassing unauthorized area by a black night watchman? The Question if the cop pulled the trigger just to try to tickle O.G. or just to check if his gun is working is unrespectful and inappropriate(-ly).

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Oct 29, 2009 - BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong answer! Pointing a gun at somebody does not eliminate the possibility of an accidental shooting. Common sense should tell you that.

joeeeyyyymastaaaaa Says:

Oct 30, 2009 - Oscar Grant deserved it, plain and simple. You don't resist a cop. If he hadn't resisted, he would not have gotten shot. Also, he had a criminal history. People paint him as this innocent person who was brutally murdered. Why don't you go worry about all the other CITIZENS who are murdered by trash thugs like Oscar Grant? I'm glad there is one less piece of shit walking in the neighborhood.

GetsumJ Says:

Oct 30, 2009 - Sorry Crockett. Police Policy is to only unholster weapon when deadly force may be warrented. The guy was clearly unarmed and handcuffed. So the officer showed intent when he pulled his weapon. In Texas, it's murder, just not Capital Murder. INtent did exist, he violated BART policy, and it was premeditated when he pulled his weapon.

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Oct 30, 2009 - Getsum, You're right about "police policy [being] to only unholster [a firearm] when deadly force may be warranted." And you're right that Grant was "clearly unarmed." (Technically, he wasn't cuffed, but he was restrained, shall we say.) You're wrong on everything else. What you people keep failing to grasp is that in order to prove MURDER, you have to demonstrate either intent to kill (not intent to shoot) or malice aforethought (a general disregard for human life). (more)

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Oct 30, 2009 - (cont'd) In this case, and abiding by California state law, you logically and legally cannot convict Mehserle of murder, because you cannot demonstrate intent to kill nor malice. Grant's being armed or unarmed, face up or face down, restrained or unrestrained--none of that makes Mehserle guilty of murder. You can't conclude that Mehserle committed cold-blooded murder because Grant just happened to be face down, restrained, and unarmed. That's just common sense. (more)

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Oct 30, 2009 - (cont'd) Now, the fact that Grant was unarmed, restrained, and face down CAN be used to convict Mehserle of at least negligent homicide, and probably manslaughter. The reason is because it indicates that Mehserle had no justifiable reason to pull a weapon out in the first place. This would then make the shooting unlawful. Mehserle has also been quoted as announcing that he was going to Tase Grant. This entails an intent to harm, entailing manslaughter. (more)

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Oct 30, 2009 - (cont'd) Further, you don't show intent to kill--let alone premeditation--by merely pulling your weapon, regardless of what is standard operating procedure. Again, common sense should tell you this. Lastly--and this is what nobody here is talking about--the manner in which Grant died--specifically, the bullet's trajectory--singlehandedly disproves the murder charge right off the bat. (more)

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Oct 30, 2009 - (conclusion) Mehserle fired just one shot. There goes the malice argument. That one shot was at close range, into Grant's back. The initial wound is not what killed Grant. It was the ricochet of the bullet off the concrete platform back into his body, puncturing his lung. That's not something you can plan. It's just not possible, even for an expert marksman. There goes the intent to kill argument. It's not murder. It's either manslaughter or negligent homicide. [END]

GetsumJ Says:

Oct 31, 2009 - Your points are taken, but you are basing your position on State law. Law is different in Texas. The sad side of it is the fact that Cops in both states are held to a different set of standards than a citizen would be. Regardless, of how they convict the officer, he should be serving no less than 20 years in General Population without the protection of the Penal system. This probably would have a different outcome in Texas based on the fact that no less the 5 people watching would have a CWP.

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Oct 31, 2009 - Well of course I'm basing my position on state law (California's), because that's the jurisdiction in which the crime took place. It didn't happen in Texas. I don't want to appear as if I'm defending Mehserle's actions, because I'm certainly not. But you're suggesting 20 years for manslaughter, for a first time offender with no prior arrest record, and good standing in the community. That is way too harsh. I could see 10--maybe. (5 or so is more like it).