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

[TheStatutoryApe]

Moving the goalpost much?

I'm not sure what you mean. That is what happened in the case we are discussing. A man lying on the ground and being restrained by another officer was shot for no apparent reason. If you believe it was on purpose then you must believe that the officer just up and decided to execute this guy because he was frustrated.

In Chem's first example the officer was by himself and apparently attempting to deal with two suspects simultaneously with no other weapon on him but a hand gun. He shot a man who was on his feet and following him around without any restraints. Not at all like what we are talking about and so gives no parallel except that the man shot someone who he ought not have.

Second example was an officer entering a situation with two men fighting and shooting the wrong one. Nothing at all like what we are talking again aside from a cop shooting someone he ought not have.

Third example I was unable to watch the video and no article was supplied with it that I could see, I have no idea on that one.

Fourth example was of an officer dealing with a man on his feet who was in a physical altercation of some sort with another officer. Again, not at all like we are talking about.

The "goalpost" is supporting the version of events that Chem puts forward. None of these stories he cites (I am not sure about the one I can not watch) bears any similarity to what we are talking about except in the broadest of sense.

 

[khemist]

I live in Oakland, and while I am not going to read everyone's post, I just want to say that it was a failure on the judicial system. Regardless whether the man was a cop or not, the act of killing a person in the situation that it was not necessary, even if he was resisting. Pulling a taser on someone who is handcuffed on the ground is excessive, and considering he pulled a GUN and SHOT him in the back is beyond absurd. The police force is supposed to be a person trained to handle situations correctly and with a level head, which the police officer obviously did neither of.

I probably hold a quite biased view (keep in mind I am white, I am not turning this into a race issue...) because I live in Oakland, but the whole situation is completely absurd...

 

[russ_watters]

I live in Oakland, and while I am not going to read everyone's post, I just want to say that it was a failure on the judicial system. Regardless whether the man was a cop or not, the act of killing a person in the situation that it was not necessary, even if he was resisting.

Your second sentence is correct, which is why he was convicted of manslaughter for the act...which makes your first question curious - he was convicted, so how is it a failure?

Pulling a taser on someone who is handcuffed on the ground is excessive, and considering he pulled a GUN and SHOT him in the back is beyond absurd. The police force is supposed to be a person trained to handle situations correctly and with a level head, which the police officer obviously did neither of.

Your understanding of the situation is incorrect: he was not handcuffed.

but the whole situation is completely absurd...

Yes, it is absurd (and unacceptable), which is why he was convicted!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I live in Oakland, and while I am not going to read everyone's post, I just want to say that it was a failure on the judicial system. Regardless whether the man was a cop or not, the act of killing a person in the situation that it was not necessary, even if he was resisting. Pulling a taser on someone who is handcuffed on the ground is excessive, and considering he pulled a GUN and SHOT him in the back is beyond absurd. The police force is supposed to be a person trained to handle situations correctly and with a level head, which the police officer obviously did neither of.

I probably hold a quite biased view (keep in mind I am white, I am not turning this into a race issue...) because I live in Oakland, but the whole situation is completely absurd...

You do realize that the man is going to prison for this right? The jury has decided he screwed up and deserves to pay the price. He will be sentenced for up to 14 years and will never be a cop again.

 

[khemist]

Your understanding of the situation is incorrect: he was not handcuffed.

Ok well I might have been misinformed, but regardless of him being handcuffed the shot fired was not needed.

The point where you claim that he was convicted, he was not convicted of what I believe was the situation, where the police officer committed murder, and even if you would not consider murder, he most definitely did not commit involuntary manslaughter, which in my opinion is a disregard for the life that was taken. This subject is something that cannot almost be argued, because it boarders religion, in that its he said, she said, my morals versus your morals.

I still consider that the fact the police officer did not get 25+ years is what I call the failure of the system; the fact that a man pulled his gun, shot someone (most likely knowingly), was convicted of something akin to a man who has a BAC of .45 and ran someone over...@Ape: Please look at my above post. Regardless of the fact that he got time, the officer did not get the appropriate time for his actions (at least, in my opinion.)

 

[russ_watters]

The point where you claim that he was convicted, he was not convicted of what I believe was the situation, where the police officer committed murder, and even if you would not consider murder, he most definitely did not commit involuntary manslaughter, which in my opinion is a disregard for the life that was taken.

The question of what I or you think the definitions should be is irrelevant: the definitions are what they are and you can't say it was murder instead of manslaughter unless you can actually connect it to the real definition of the two crimes.

What I think you really object to is the punishment for manslaughter. I disagree that manslaughter should be punished at the same level as murder.

...and you're also playing both sides - like chemisttree, simultaneously arguing that manslaughter is murder and then also that the cop was lying and really did do it on purpose when you say: "most likely knowingly". If he did do it on purpose and it could be proven, then it would be murder (still wouldn't get 25+ though), but even if he did do it on purpose, it just can't be proven and because of that, he can't be convicted of murder. The US has a legal system which requires you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of the crime they are accused of. I consider that to be a positive thing.

You are utilizing neither facts nor logic in your argument: your position is based purely on an emotional reaction: Someone died, and someone else must pay dearly for it.

This subject is something that cannot almost be argued, because it boarders religion, in that its he said, she said, my morals versus your morals.

Well, there really can only be two ways to look at it: one is to argue it based on morals that have no basis beyond emotion and the other is to argue it bast on facts, logic, and the law -- which, by the way, can also be the basis for a system of morals.

 

[khemist]

Well, maybe the beer comes into play here, which could be the reason for my irrational? typing.

I guess from my point of view is that the officer did something that is not necessary and deserves more than 2-14 years, regardless of the conviction. I apologize for my niavness (mozilla won't correct the spelling lol) in the situation, but I figure that if it had not been a cop the conviction would have been much worse. Again, I am making an assumption, but unless I am to do some research (which I am honestly not trying to do now lul), I feel it is valid... Maybe it is an emotional verdict, but I do not know much about law, and at the moment logic is almost beyond me :P

Maybe tomorrow I will actually look into my assumptions. I do not mean to attack anyone's point of view, but rather hope people see things the way I see them, even though I do not pose a logical or lawful argument.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The point where you claim that he was convicted, he was not convicted of what I believe was the situation, where the police officer committed murder, and even if you would not consider murder, he most definitely did not commit involuntary manslaughter, which in my opinion is a disregard for the life that was taken. This subject is something that cannot almost be argued, because it boarders religion, in that its he said, she said, my morals versus your morals.

It seems to me that the "borderline religious" view is the one that believes that police officers are such horrible people that they have no compunction about executing a prone man for no reason what so ever.

This is the thing that always gets me about this case. Do you seriously think that he just up and decided to smoke this guy for no reason? To me it doesn't make any sense.

 

[chemisttree]

..and you're also playing both sides - like chemisttree, simultaneously arguing that manslaughter is murder and then also that the cop was lying and really did do it on purpose when you say: "most likely knowingly".

A point of clarification here. I never said that manslaughter is murder. You did. I believe you called it 3rd degree murder. You claim that I'm not interpreting the law defining 2nd degree murder correctly. The prosecution lawyers interpreted it in the same manner. So did the defense lawyer. You continually assert that an intent to kill is required for 2nd degree murder to be applicable. For example

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?

and

The bottom line is that there is no direct evidence at all that points to to a purposeful killing.

and

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.

But you also have said this...

The difference between second and third degree murder is simply intent. 3rd degree murder is recklessness that results in death. 2nd degree murder requires the intent to injure:

So I thought we were making some headway but then you stated this...

While we're at it, no one arguing for 2nd degree murder has yet directly addressed the "reasonable doubt" issue. Could you guys explain how you can be 95% certain that the cop intended to kill even though there is no direct evidence of that intent?

Acutally your own definitions have been changing throughout this discussion. Intent to kill in some cases and intent to only injure in another. I've always asserted that an intent to kill would be 1st degree murder and that 2nd degree murder is only the intent to injure. Mehserle has always maintained that he thought Grant had a gun. He didn't mention drawing the wrong weapon until his second lawyer came up with that defense. Thus he is changing his story to avoid consequences. His lawyer abused the system to get a murderer a lighter sentence. It happens all the time.
I'm not going to belabor the point further and just stick with this statement you made.

You believe he intended to shoot the guy [with a gun], so you're applying that definition. And if he did intend to shoot the guy, then that definition would fit.

I'm calling that a Q.E.D.

 

[cristo]

If a cop cannot tell the difference between a taser and a handgun then clearly he has not received enough training, and should not be permitted to carry either!

 

[BobG]

If a cop cannot tell the difference between a taser and a handgun then clearly he has not received enough training, and should not be permitted to carry either!

Being convicted of manslaughter is pretty much going to be a career ender. When deciding between manslaughter or second degree murder, you're deciding on the length of the sentence; not whether to retain him as a police officer.

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!"

Don't discount the adrenaline defense so fast. Looking at the video, it's hard to see why the situation would raise the officer's adrenaline to such a high level that he'd forget his training, but I wouldn't want to judge from a news report.

Here's a less serious example of an officer accused of using excessive force against 3 suspects:
http://www.fox8.com/news/akroncanton/wjw-deputy-kicks-suspect-arrest-dash-cam-txt,0,4105057.story

The raw video shows the same actions, but adding the rest of the video and the audio adds a bit of context that the news story is missing. In the raw video, the voice with the heavy breathing is the deputy that did the kicking of the suspects.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLPLi2xBwuA


The deputy in question was responding to a brawl at a party with his lights and flashers on while two cars were fleeing the party with their headlights off. They could see the oncoming police cruiser and could try to avoid him, but he couldn't see them coming until the last few seconds. One collided head on with his cruiser, while the other vehicle ran off the road to avoid a collision and flipped. Amazingly, the most serious injuries sustained in either accident was two broken arms and torn ligaments by the deputy, while the occupants that collided with his cruiser sustained several lacerations. The occupants of the flipped car were able to flee the scene.

The deputy was obviously very stressed and he obviously continued to kick the suspects even after they were laying on the ground. The adrenaline an officer is going to experience in a situation like this is something that's covered in training, but it's going to be almost impossible to actually create the same sensation. You can try to create similar feeling situations, but the training still winds up having to resort to telling officers that they need to be prepared for something they'll only experience once or twice during their careers.

The deputy in the video is my ex-wife's brother, which is why it caught my interest. He'll probably never have full use of his right hand again, which seems odd just looking at the video since he's holding his injured left arm with his right hand. Adrenaline makes a person ignore their pain for awhile, and by the end of the video, the pain is finally beginning to break through the adrenaline rush.