BART Cop Arrested In Oscar Grant Shooting

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).

chad1790 Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - that was a race crime imo. he shot that kid cause he was white!

jontti66 Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - That was a miss fire.. that´s all it was.. Yes was wrong to unholster the fire arm..

rrrmws26 Says:

Nov 12, 2009 - a miss fire! one day God will show you what a miss fire is believe so u could explain to us

rootslandgreat Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - This is a racist crime!! Fuck american cops, bastards!!!! This is the face of justice in USA, is the same justice from Bush and anothers!!! sad but true!!!!! from a Brazilian boy, rio de janeiro city

DavieDave59 Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - @DetectiveCrockett77 uum.. he was lying on the ground.. and was executed straight in the back as he was handcuffed.

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - DavieDave, a) You can't call it an execution. An execution is an intentional killing. We don't know that this was intentional on Mehserle's part. b) So many of you people keep bringing up that Grant was shot in the back. Being shot in the back doesn't mean shit. Neither does being handcuffed (which Grant WASN'T, by the way). At the end of the day, in order to prove murder, you have to prove Mehserle killed Grant either intentionally or with malice. He clearly didn't.

treyflipordie Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - so if you were laying on the ground, unarmed, and somebody shot you in the back you wouldnt call them a murderer?

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - Depends. If you can prove the killing was intentional, or done with a malicious state of mind, then yes. Otherwise, no. What you have to understand is that the victim's position doesn't make it murder. Neither does whether or not he was armed. It's all about mens rea (state of mind) on the killer's part. That's why they have charges like manslaughter and negligent homicide on the books.

lmelvinshs4sho Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - when a person is handcuffed. there is no reason to pull out a gun... (deadly force was used when it was not needed).. BOTTOM LINE

DetectiveCrockett77 Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - Thank you for your invaluable input! No offense, man, but you're adding a point to the conversation that has already been made a million times. (FYI, Grant wasn't actually completely cuffed. He was adequately restrained, though.)