Can the cop who fatally shot a man at Oakland station be tried again by DoJ?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Office_Shredder
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the legal implications of a police officer's fatal shooting of a man at an Oakland subway station, specifically whether the officer can be tried again by the Department of Justice (DoJ) after being convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Participants explore concepts of double jeopardy, the nature of the shooting, and the potential for federal jurisdiction in the case.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants recall the incident where the officer mistakenly shot a man instead of using a Taser, questioning the validity of the officer's defense.
  • There is a belief among some that the shooting was involuntary manslaughter, while others argue it could be classified as second-degree murder due to the nature of the act.
  • Concerns are raised about the officer's awareness of the weapon he was using, with some suggesting that the difference between a Taser and a firearm should be obvious.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the officer's claim of confusion between the Taser and the gun, arguing that it does not meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for intentionality.
  • Others highlight the role of adrenaline and stress in high-pressure situations, suggesting that these factors could lead to mistakes without malicious intent.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of double jeopardy, with some asserting that it applies only if the charges are similar, while others argue that separate federal charges could be pursued.
  • Participants debate the credibility of the officer's character and record, questioning whether it supports or undermines claims of intentionality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions on the nature of the shooting, with no consensus on whether it constitutes manslaughter or second-degree murder. Disagreement exists regarding the applicability of double jeopardy and the potential for federal prosecution.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexities surrounding legal definitions and the standards of proof required in criminal cases, as well as the potential for differing interpretations of the events leading to the shooting.

Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,706
Reaction score
1,592
I'm sure some of you remember the cop who says he intended to taser someone at a subway station in Oakland, only to pull out his gun and kill the guy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/09/national/main6661809.shtml?tag=stack

He was convicted for involuntary manslaughter, and now apparently the DoJ is investigating the case. Isn't there some sort of double jeopardy thing here that would prevent him from being prosecuted?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks like involuntary manslaughter. What else could it be? I doubt he meant to shoot him in the back with a real gun, even though it's hard to believe he thought he was holding a taser.
 
Yes, double jeopardy would apply - as would jurisdiction (the feds have none).

And I agree with leroy - I don't see that there is any reason to believe this was an intentional act. Being hard to believe that it was unintentional is not evidence that it was intentional and thus it is impossible to convict him of intentional killing.
 
BLACKHAWK! makes Taser holsters that are meant to be pulled down and out, unlike a pistol where it is straight out. I am not sure if he was using a proper Taser holster or not, but it seems as though he should have had much more awareness of what his current weapon was (the grips are much different). Easy for me to say in hindsight though.
 
I think it's second degree murder. Tasers don't feel like 9mm handguns. The perp was lying on the ground, face down so the "rush to judgement" was entirely unnecessary and cavalier IMO.

Definition of 2nd degree murder from FindLaw... "a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life."

Shooting a prone suspect in the back with a 9mm qualifies. The "I didn't know it was a gun, thought it was my Taser," defense is just sickening.

What a weird place LA is. Boycott AZ for 1070 but let this guy off with manslaughter.

Its a mad world.
 
chemisttree said:
The "I didn't know it was a gun, thought it was my Taser," defense is just sickening.
Your belief that he knew it was a gun cannot possibly be strong enough - based on evidence - to be "beyond a reasonable doubt".
 
russ_watters said:
Your belief that he knew it was a gun cannot possibly be strong enough - based on evidence - to be "beyond a reasonable doubt".

That is part of the sickening aspect of the defense. Anyone can use that defense and get away with it -based on evidence- of course. Too bad that the words 'reasonable doubt' are used in that definition. I think the officer is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable for me to doubt that he doesn't knows the difference between his lethal and non-lethal weapons? Is it reasonable to expect that this officer should know the difference between a Taser and a 9mm by feel? By sight? By the side he holsters his two weapons? Did he have any training at all? It is reasonable that he should know these things and that he was trained to kill or to incapacitate. Therefore it is not reasonable that he should use that asinine defense and expect it to produce a "reasonable doubt" in the jurors.

Guilty of murder in the second degree IMO.
 
Looks like manslaughter to me.
 
chemisttree said:
That is part of the sickening aspect of the defense. Anyone can use that defense and get away with it -based on evidence- of course. Too bad that the words 'reasonable doubt' are used in that definition. I think the officer is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable for me to doubt that he doesn't knows the difference between his lethal and non-lethal weapons? Is it reasonable to expect that this officer should know the difference between a Taser and a 9mm by feel? By sight? By the side he holsters his two weapons? Did he have any training at all? It is reasonable that he should know these things and that he was trained to kill or to incapacitate. Therefore it is not reasonable that he should use that asinine defense and expect it to produce a "reasonable doubt" in the jurors.

Guilty of murder in the second degree IMO.

I agree with you, but I can't convince myself to believe that the cop thought to himself "What the hell, I'll just execute this guy right here."
 
  • #10
chemisttree said:
That is part of the sickening aspect of the defense. Anyone can use that defense and get away with it -based on evidence- of course. Too bad that the words 'reasonable doubt' are used in that definition.
The "reasonable doubt" standard is used to ensure that innocent people don't go to jail. It may turn out that it allows the guilty to go free (which by the way, it didn't in this case), but that's the penalty you pay for needing to be sure.
I think the officer is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable for me to doubt that he doesn't knows the difference between his lethal and non-lethal weapons? Is it reasonable to expect that this officer should know the difference between a Taser and a 9mm by feel? By sight? By the side he holsters his two weapons? Did he have any training at all? It is reasonable that he should know these things and that he was trained to kill or to incapacitate. Therefore it is not reasonable that he should use that asinine defense and expect it to produce a "reasonable doubt" in the jurors.
You're not following the standard properly because you are not considering all of the issues you are required to consider. You forgot several issues:

1. Adrenaline: is it reasonable to think that in a high stress situation, he forgot his training and lost awareness? It happens all the time. I think it is quite possible.
2. Motive: In order for this to have been 2nd degree murder - for him to have done it on purpose - there had to be a motive. Do you know of a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt reason why he did it on purpose?
3. His statement in the heat of the moment that he said he was going to use his taser: Do you have a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt reason to believe he was thinking that he wanted to kill the person and had the clarity of forethought to throw in a little misdirection?
4. His record: He has a spotless record. This goes to credibility regarding all 3 of the above: is it reasonable to believe someone with some unstated desire to murder would not have revealed associated character flaws during his career? And is there a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt reason why you would throw out his record and credibility to believe he was lying?

The bottom line is that there is no direct evidence at all that points to to a purposeful killing. All you have is a doubt that it could be accidental. A doubt that it could be accidental is not a reasonable certainty that it could have been on purpose. Your incredulity of how big of a mistake it would have to be does not equate to beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it on purpose.

Heck, I can provide a simple analagous error that happens relatively frequently: unintentionally hitting the accelerator of a car instead of the brake. The pedals feel completely different from each other, so how could it be possible to mistake them for each other? Yet people do - and occasionally people die. No one would ever get convicted of 2nd degree murder for that without some evidence that they drove through a crowd on purpose.
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
Yes, double jeopardy would apply - as would jurisdiction (the feds have none).

And I agree with leroy - I don't see that there is any reason to believe this was an intentional act. Being hard to believe that it was unintentional is not evidence that it was intentional and thus it is impossible to convict him of intentional killing.

Double jeopardy only applies if the separate charges are the same or substantially similar (i.e. murder and murder or murder and manslaughter). If they prosecute for a crime that is wholly separate from manslaughter then it is not double jeopardy. Since it is apparently the civil rights division that is investigating I assume that they will be looking into the possibility of prosecuting on the basis of an alleged infringement of the victim's civil rights which would not qualify as double jeopardy.

As far as jurisdiction goes the particular department is responsible for prosecuting violations of the Civil Rights Acts. Also the DoJ runs a program called C.O.P.S. which contributes funds to most of the law enforcement agencies in the country (local police included). Depending on the contract this may require local law enforcement (at least those that accept the funds) to submit to investigation and prosecution from the DoJ.

All that aside, I agree that manslaughter seems most appropriate. I do not believe that the officer intended to shoot the man. I am not sure I could find any source on it but I remember reading that witnesses said he seemed rather shocked by what had happened.
 
  • #12
leroyjenkens said:
I agree with you, but I can't convince myself to believe that the cop thought to himself "What the hell, I'll just execute this guy right here."

Thats why it should be second degree rather than first degree IMO.
 
  • #13
chemisttree said:
Thats why it should be second degree rather than first degree IMO.
No, what separates second and first is premeditation. Unless the cop knew he was going to be in that situation that day, he couldn't have possibly planned it. So first degree murder was never really on the table here.

Second degree murder is still on purpose, so if you don't believe (beyond a reasonable doubt) the cop decided he wanted to execute the guy, then you don't actually believe it is second degree murder - you're just misusing the term. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/second+degree+murder
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
The "reasonable doubt" standard is used to ensure that innocent people don't go to jail. It may turn out that it allows the guilty to go free (which by the way, it didn't in this case), but that's the penalty you pay for needing to be sure. You're not following the standard properly because you are not considering all of the issues you are required to consider. You forgot several issues:

1. Adrenaline: is it reasonable to think that in a high stress situation, he forgot his training and lost awareness? It happens all the time. I think it is quite possible.

You are invoking an "adrenaline" defense? Should it be that easy to get away with second degree murder. "I was excited and therefore not guilty!"

2. Motive: In order for this to have been 2nd degree murder - for him to have done it on purpose - there had to be a motive.

Nope. Just dangerous conduct and being careless about human life is all that is required. Motive is not even in the discussion. Where is motive in this definition?

"a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life."

3. His statement in the heat of the moment that he said he was going to use his taser: Do you have a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt reason to believe he was thinking that he wanted to kill the person and had the clarity of forethought to throw in a little misdirection?

Thinking that he wanted to kill the person is premeditation which is not part of the discussion in second degree murder. What the officer was thinking is unimportant. No one can know that but the officer anyway. That's just not a defense. It is a poor excuse.

4. His record: He has a spotless record. This goes to credibility regarding all 3 of the above: is it reasonable to believe someone with some unstated desire to murder would not have revealed associated character flaws during his career? And is there a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt reason why you would throw out his record and credibility to believe he was lying?

His record? He is on record shooting a suspect in the back. Would you trust someone that would either tase you shoot you while you were lying face down on the floor? People lie all the time but it isn't important anyway. He caused a death due to his lack of concern for human life. Second degree murder.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/30/BABI15KCD5.DTL&type=adfree"

...The assertion that Mehserle meant to fire his Taser "appears to me to be a change in his story," Jacobson said. "He has a willingness to add to the story, to change the story, to make up something that's not true to avoid consequences."

Judge Jacobson thought he was lying since his story appeared to change with time.
What's worse than a cop that lies about his actions (thus maintaining a spotless record)? A cop that would shoot you in the back and lie about his actions is much worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
By Russ's argument, any cop could get excited and then shoot someone, and use the same defense. If the police are so poorly trained and excitable that they can't tell a taser from a 38, then they are too dangerous to be carrying lethal weapons.

More likely he was consumed with personal hatred, and reacted accordingly. I can't watch the video without deeming it an execution.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
I think it is more likely that he thought the guy was going for a gun. That's what he told one of his officer buddies after the incident. If I thought he was going for a gun I wouldn't choose my taser. Do you even have to stand and draw to use the taser? Isn't it better deployed by pressing the prongs against the target?

He is on record saying that, "I'm going to tase him", he stands but then chooses his 9mm and fires. Afterward he explains to his officer buddy that he thought the suspect was reaching for a gun.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
chemisttree said:
I think it is more likely that he thought the guy was going for a gun. That's what he told one of his officer buddies after the incident.

If he thought the guy was pulling a gun, he wouldn't be going for his taser.
 
  • #18
Office_Shredder said:
I'm sure some of you remember the cop who says he intended to taser someone at a subway station in Oakland, only to pull out his gun and kill the guy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/09/national/main6661809.shtml?tag=stack

He was convicted for involuntary manslaughter, and now apparently the DoJ is investigating the case. Isn't there some sort of double jeopardy thing here that would prevent him from being prosecuted?

As was the case with OJ, you can be prosecuted a second time for the same act as long as you are being prosecuted for a different crime. The feds are investigating the case, and so far that is it. If they find a reason to pursue prosecution on "civil rights" grounds, then it would be a "different crime."

In order to quell some of the unrest in LA, the feds have to at least investigate. If they find no shred of evidence that the cop has a history of hatred of blacks, then it probably won't go further. At the very least, it would put some time into the picture and let tempers drop a little.

I can simultaneously understand that a person could grab the wrong device while rushing on adrenaline , AND be totally dumbfounded that he didn't notice the weight difference and grip difference between the two.

I also think that even the worst racist cop is not ever looking forward to executing anyone. With my limited knowledge of the case, it seems as if he got the right conviction.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
If he thought the guy was pulling a gun, he wouldn't be going for his taser.

Beat me to it.
 
  • #20
Ivan Seeking said:
By Russ's argument, any cop could get excited and then shoot someone, and use the same defense. If the police are so poorly trained and excitable that they can't tell a taser from a 38, then they are too dangerous to be carrying lethal weapons.

More likely he was consumed with personal hatred, and reacted accordingly. I can't watch the video without deeming it an execution.
The truth is you are right any officer can kill any person randomly for any reason and at most get involuntary manslaughter unless he leaves some type of premeditation paper trail. This is the truth is period unless maybe they could prove a history of being dirty in some way. So if your interested in what it feels like to kill someone join the force and just do it once randomly and at worst you would get involuntary manslaughter ,and if you are lucky there might not be a camera around and it might be your word against someone else and you would likely not be prosecuted.

There is no way the jury would of convicted him of second degree murder without the officer loudly and clearly screaming something along the lines "another dead (insert racial epithet)".

In summary the conviction is as good as it gets for the situation, like it or not.
 
  • #21
Ivan Seeking said:
More likely he was consumed with personal hatred

Do you think he should be charged with a hate crime as well?
 
  • #22
Chi Meson said:
As was the case with OJ, you can be prosecuted a second time for the same act as long as you are being prosecuted for a different crime.

OJ was only prosecuted once for murder. He was also hit with a civil lawsuit, which is not a criminal prosecution
 
  • #23
Ivan Seeking said:
If he thought the guy was pulling a gun, he wouldn't be going for his taser.
If the guy was laying on the ground right below him and he thought the guy was reaching for a gun, he wouldn't draw anything. He would reach down and stop him from doing it.
 
  • #24
chemisttree said:
Definition of 2nd degree murder from FindLaw... "a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life."
.

If it was unintentional, then the above sounds about right - he clearly had a lack of concern for human life if he allowed himself to make such a mistake. If it was intentional, then it would be full on murder.
 
  • #25
madness said:
If it was unintentional, then the above sounds about right - he clearly had a lack of concern for human life if he allowed himself to make such a mistake. If it was intentional, then it would be full on murder.

How does that differ from any case of manslaughter?
 
  • #26
chemisttree said:
Definition of 2nd degree murder from FindLaw... "a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life."

Ok, let's look again

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

Rather than cherry picking parts of definitions to re-define second degree murder as manslaughter, let's have an informed discussion here. The primary definition of second degree killing requires an intent to kill somebody. The second definition is not supposed to allow second degree murder to usurp manslaughter, it's supposed to be when someone does an act knowing someone will die and somebody dies. For example, if you shoot a gun into a crowd, and hit someone, you weren't planning on killing them but it's still murder
 
  • #27
Ivan Seeking said:
By Russ's argument, any cop could get excited and then shoot someone, and use the same defense. If the police are so poorly trained and excitable that they can't tell a taser from a 38, then they are too dangerous to be carrying lethal weapons.

More likely he was consumed with personal hatred, and reacted accordingly. I can't watch the video without deeming it an execution.

Obviously this honkie hates the black man, and only wants to see them suffer under the weight of the world.

Would you be saying the same thing if a black man shot a white man? Most likely not.
 
  • #28
Office_Shredder said:
Ok, let's look again

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html



Rather than cherry picking parts of definitions to re-define second degree murder as manslaughter, let's have an informed discussion here. The primary definition of second degree killing requires an intent to kill somebody. The second definition is not supposed to allow second degree murder to usurp manslaughter, it's supposed to be when someone does an act knowing someone will die and somebody dies. For example, if you shoot a gun into a crowd, and hit someone, you weren't planning on killing them but it's still murder

Do you know what the word "or" means? You claim that there is a primary and secondary definition. There isn't. There are two requirements in that definition and either (see definition of "or") is valid.

Here is the Californian definition of 2nd Degree Murder (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second-degree+murder) and especially (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199 )

...Many states use the California definition of implied malice to describe an unintentional killing that is charged as murder because the defendant intended to do serious bodily injury, or acted with extreme recklessness. For example, if an aggressor punches a victim in the nose, intending only to injure the victim's face, the aggressor may be charged with murder if the victim dies from the blow. The infliction of serious bodily injury becomes the equivalent of an intent to kill when the victim dies. Although the aggressor in such a case did not have the express desire to kill the victim, he or she would not be charged with assault, but with murder. To understand why, it is helpful to consider the alternative: When a person dies at the hands of an aggressor, it does not sit well with the public conscience to preclude a murder charge simply because the aggressor intended only to do serious bodily injury.

Who's picking now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
madness said:
If it was unintentional, then the above sounds about right - he clearly had a lack of concern for human life if he allowed himself to make such a mistake. If it was intentional, then it would be full on murder.

Read up on the requirements for 2nd degree murder and get back to us...
 
  • #30
chemisttree said:
Do you know what the word "or" means? You claim that there is a primary and secondary definition. There isn't. There are two requirements in that definition and either (see definition of "or") is valid.

Here is the Californian definition of 2nd Degree Murder (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second-degree+murder)



Who's picking now?

If you intend to commit an action that has a serious chance of killing someone, that's second degree murder. Tasering someone is not such an action, so pulling out a gun instead of a taser by accident would not be second degree murder.
 

Similar threads

News Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?
  • · Replies 116 ·
4
Replies
116
Views
22K