Breaking:Lawyer in BART shooting wants murder charge tossed.

[Piewhacket]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The lawyer for a former transit officer charged in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man is seeking to have the murder charge against his client thrown out.

Defense attorney Michael Rains says he will present a motion Friday to throw out Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay's decision to have Johannes Mehserle stand trial for murder.

The 27-year-old Mehserle was working as a Bay Area Rapid Transit officer when he shot Oscar Grant after Grant was pulled off a train for allegedly fighting.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/23/state/n181650D29.DTL

---

The shooting was on New Years Day 2009. Mehserle's attorney (Rains) has argued that Mehserle meant to use his stun gun, not fire his handgun, in an attempt to restrain Grant. In June, after seven day of testimony, the judge said he did not believe the defense explanation and ordered Mehserle to stand trial for murder. Mehserle pleaded not guilty in the case.
Defense motion on FRIDAY July 24, 2009 (Tomorrow)

Comprehensive coverage of the case at http://www.sfgate.com/bartshoot /

[RandySF]

1. He wouldn't be much of a lawyer if he didn't try.

[kirby]

7. Pretty bad timing though n/t

[RandySF]

2. He wouldn't be much of a lawyer if he didn't try.

[rollingrock]

49. He wouldn't be much of a typical slimebag lawyer if he didn't try.

Fixed.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Is that the one where white cop shoots black guy in the back while lying on the ground?

(My apologies if that doesn't narrow it down enough.)

[liberalhistorian]

4. Yes, indeed, it was. And there was no need for him to be

"restrained" because he already WAS restrained and cooperative, lying face down with his hands behind his back. How the fuck more "restrained" was he supposed to be? Tasers have a different feel than guns and cops are not only trained as to the difference, but also in knowing, as in second nature, which is located where. His defense is complete and utter and total fucking bullshit and I'm glad the judge was able to see through it.

[dipsydoodle]

20. I guess he was acting suspiciously and considered to be a threat

by being in possession of dark curly hair. :sarcasm:

[KansDem]

24. "...he already WAS restrained and cooperative"

Like this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOj8IXj6_3w

[lexanman]

5. yes

but he was acting disorderly and ranting, therefore it was ok. Plus, he tried to ask the cop for his badge number and name. He deserved it.:sarcasm: :evilgrin:

[msanthrope]

15. I love you.

Been following your posts on the Gates issue.

Welcome to DU. Please stay.

[No Elephants]

16. Geez, get a room! (j/k)

[lexanman]

33. Thanks

intend to.

[Incitatus]

9. Except this incident was caught on video.

I wonder how many similar cases where a suspect was killed with just cops around would have turned out different if someone was filming it.

[KansDem]

25. Yes, summary executions are always messy when caught on film...

[Devil_Fish]

38. yup, thats the one. Wasn't strugeling or any thing. no need for even a tazer.

cold blooded murder. the only reason the cop is on trial is cause it was captured on video, and posted on youtube before the cops could confiscate camera phones at the next station. this kind of shit happens more then we know.

[rocktivity]

6. Candidate for this year's "You Call This NEWS?" award

He meant to pull this stun gun? If he can't be a cop anymore, Mehserle could get a job with Reno 911!

:eyes:
rocktivity

[sasquatch]

8. If the Judge throws it out have the FBI look at the books of the police union and the judge

[mackerel]

10. If you look at the video you can see that the officer did

intend to use his stun gun and the look of shock and horror in his face when he realises
he just fired his gun is palpable.

It's a sad case all the way around for everyone involved. It's a trouble shared.

[Demobrat]

11. This is actually the only thing that makes sense.

That the cop would pull his gun and deliberately shoot the kid in the back in front of all those witnesses never made sense to me - BECAUSE of all the witnesses. I could see it if they were alone, in a heartbeat, but it was New Years Eve and there was a trainload of people watching. Why would he think he could get away with murder under those circumstances? It just doesn't make sense ... the only thing that makes sense is that it really was an accident. A terrible, tragic accident.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Exactly.

You can see the shock on his face, and the other officer that stands clear of Bell, expecting a taser.

He made a shitty mistake, and killed someone. On video. That's gotta suck to live with.

[No Elephants]

19. Tough luck. What was the need to be in such a hurry to taser this guy that

he didn't know the difference between his revolver and a taser gun? The guy didn't seem to need even tasering. Now, he's dead.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. The revolver and taser are functionally similar, and that's part of the problem.

Here the officers wear a taser in a separate holser on the opposite leg, in a different position, so it's 'harder' to confuse with a firearm. They should probably change up the shape and feel of the taser so it in no way resembles, even to the muscle memory of your hand, a firearm.

Not making excuses for the officer, he clearly killed that man. I just question what some paint as his motives, which is important for considering the appropriate punishment.

[Xithras]

50. Accident? That would still be 3rd degree murder or frlony manslaughter

If the prosecutor could prove that the initial arrest involved brutality and excessive force (felonies), as alleged by Grants family, it would even qualify as second degree murder under California law.

The fact that the officer didn't intend to shoot the guy doesn't remove his criminal liability. Even if death wasn't the intent, the reality is that the officer drew a weapon and fatally discharged it.

Stupidity isn't an excuse for homicide.

[No Elephants]

18. Yes, but only one person is too dead to share.

[Wizard777]

23. He has several problems. He fails the reasonable person test.

He did not exercise the average care of a average person in his profession. Also the school of thought on intent is that a person intends to do exactly what they have done. If only in failing to exercise the average care of a reasonable person. California is the birth place of Implied Malice. So under these standards it's Murder and he is properly charged. The defense being offered is pretty much a confession to the Implied Malice of the Mens Rea. That will provide him with an appeal on the grounds of incompetent defense.

[sasquatch]

30. So he intended to torture a man with his stun gun instead of murdering him

I'm sorry, but anyway you slice it, it is still a fucking crime against humanity

[tblue37]

37. I actually believe this--

But there was also no reason for him to be reaching for his Taser in the first place. The young man was already under control.

[Devil_Fish]

39. There was no need for even the tazer. the victim was restrained and compliant.

If he had a heart condition, a tazer could have been just as deadly. No way was this an accident.

[ProudDad]

45. Bullshit... (n/t)

[Politicalboi]

12. The guy was on the ground

Handcuffed behind his back, and what reason would the cop have to use even his taser? I've often wondered if the cop had seen action in Iraq and was doing what they do in Iraq and forgetting where he was.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Watch the video again.

He's not cuffed, The arms move independently when they roll him on his side after he is shot. They are not cuffed.

[No Elephants]

17. Even if he wasn't cuffed, he was lying face down on the ground, not resisting. Why taser?

[Piewhacket]

21. Exactly, he either meant to draw his taser or he meant to draw his pistol...

either way the use of force must be justified, and either way
the officer must take care his actions are correct.

For if even taser force were justified, which appears NOT the case,
if the officer intends to pull this taser, he must take care to pull his
taser and not his pistol, for if he makes a mistake on that he has made
a grave and reckless mistake, and thus if he pulls his pistol it is
presumably because he intends to use the pistol and not the taser
and the cause for use of deadly force had better be present.

Sometimes emergency condition require haste, which is why proper training of
officers is especially critical to assure proper action. Such questions may
arise in the civil case. However, In this case no emergency conditions
appear present to excuse careless mistakes.

[Abq_Sarah]

41. His pistol

Weighs considerably more than a taser and the safety mechanism is different as well. If he didn't know which weapon he had in his hand, he has no business carrying either.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. On this point, the video is less clear.

The officer kneeling on Bell (the one who stands up and gets clear, as if expecting the suspect to be tased) appears to be trying to cuff him. Whether Bell was actually resisting, or perhaps his arms didn't move the way the officer expected due to an injury, or even one of those 'stop resisting <Thump> stop resisting <kick>' excuses some officers will use to just flat out beat someone, it's hard to say. Witness testimony from the other individuals that were under arrest on the ground around him will be useful in determining that. More useful than the video.

[sasquatch]

31. So he wanted to torture a human being instead of tasering him, sounds like a nice guy

[AtheistCrusader]

34. What are you talking about?

It's possible he was resisting, possible he was not. How do you infer that from what I just stated?

[sasquatch]

35. No there is no possibility

The man was lying in the ground still in the ordered position. The officer went to torture him with his taser, but pulled his gun instead. Either you can face the facts or blame your lying eyes.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. The kneeling officer was trying to cuff him.

Resistance could include pulling with your arms so they can't apply handcuffs.

Now, keep in mind, I'm observing this through the lense of established police department policy. In that situation, a taser would be likely applied. Not just there, but by most departments nationwide.

I don't like that policy. I don't like the use of Tasers as a compliance tool, but that is the current policy, increasingly replacing all physical forms of compliance, such as the two officers manually wrestling his arms into position for handcuffs. I think the policy is bullshit, and tasers are overused. But from what happened there in that subway, knowing the department policy, it is reasonable to conclude Bell might have been resisting enough to warrant a tasering. The court/jury will determine it, not second-hand grainy youtube video armchair quarterbacking.

The policy is not right, not just, but it is what it is. And it introduced a situation where Bell was shot instead, due to what appears to be a grave mistake/negligence. Yet another count against the over-use of Tasers, which resemble in all ways, an actual firearm. Trigger, safety, pistol grip. You aim it the same, etc. Taser use policy needs to be re-worked, and the device should in no way resemble, even by feel in the dark, a real firearm.

[sasquatch]

40. He wasn't kneeling though, he was standing over him

He was only about the tasering, not the arresting, also the reason for the arrest was false to begin with so everythin about the situation is wrong and the police are totally at fault here and there boy should get the gas chamber.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. WATCH THE GODDAMN VIDEO

What the hell

There was another officer kneeling ON BELL, fussing with his arms, presumably to get them into position for handcuffs, which were never successfully applied. The officer that shot Bell, was standing on the other side of his prone body. The officer that fired was supporting the officer kneeling on Bell. That officer kneeling on him releases him, and gets clear, as is standard for any individual about to be tased. Then the officer who was SUPPORTING fires his gun.

Two people were dealing with Bell, but the policy of using a taser, instead of physical force, likely led to a mistake wherein Bell was shot with a firearm. I never said the officer that was kneeling on bell shot him.

I don't know what country you live in, but here we don't execute people for negligence, even if it leads to a death.

[sasquatch]

43. The fuck he wasn't he ordered him on the ground stood over him, and shot him

Game set and fucking match. And if he was resisting mildly than use some elbow grease and get it down like a fucking adult, what are you a child.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. You really should review the video.

I agree, the two officers should have physically put the cuffs on, with 'elbow grease' as you say, but that is no longer police department policy, in most cases. It should be, but it is not.

Had the supporting officer actually used his taser, instead of his gun, this scenario would never have made the news, never have turned heads at all. This happens all the time across America now. Tasing is 'easier' or whatever.

[ProudDad]

47. believe me, it WOULD have made the news

if that rogue cop had used a Taser instead of murdering the guy!

Cops can't get away with crap like that when there are cameras around...

[ProudDad]

46. I don't know what country you live in

but in US-FUCKING-AMERICA they execute people for being the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time...

I know those bart cops -- they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons of ANY kind.

They're wanna-be's who never will be...and they get pissed until they get an opportunity to shoot someone in the back. This ain't the first time and won't be the last.

I saw the video, and I've seen these clowns in action ... and your attempt at apologizing for a killer cop would be laughable if it weren't so freakin' sad.

Amazing to read drivel like this on a supposed "liberal" site. No wonder the Dems can't do shit either when they "get in power".

[AtheistCrusader]

48. A liberal site?

Look back through this thread. As a progressive I oppose the death penalty. Have a look-see to find out who suggested the cop get the goddamn gas chamber.

Also, in the USA we have these funny concepts like innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers, and due process. Even if the cop intentionally shot him, he will have his day in court. Also, I didn't know raising my voice to point out things that are visible in the video that suggest negligence/manslaughter and wrong-headed police department policy amounted to apologizing for the officer.


Liberal indeed. Why don't you just label the cop a 'terrirst' and be done with it?

[Butch350]

22. I can understand the cops mistake...

why just yesterday, I pulled my pecker out at the supermarket.

I thought it was my wallet.

[Wizard777]

26. I was there when the bear ate his head. Thought it was a candy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-cQ10A8WY4">So, what would you say?Did the officer drop the big one? Will the dog have his day or will that day be forgotten? Will the morning arise when the officer finds a life time has passed him by? Mr. Grant didn't live to see that morning arise. They can't rip away the Tears. He can no longer drink a hope to happy years. Will everyone loose in the end?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

27. Is that a big wad of cash in your pocket? Or ...

... you know the rest.

:hi:

[sasquatch]

32. A very dark, but true doozy right here