FYI Update: Bart Shooting - Murder Trial of Johannes Mehserle

[Piewhacket]

CIVIL RIGHTS

On New Year's Day 2009 Oscar Grant was shot and killed by Bart Officer
Johannes Mehserle, 27, on a Bay Area Rapid Transit Station platform in Oakland CA.
The incident was witnessed by many people and Videos of the incident were
broadcast on television and spread over the Internet.

Previously reported: (06-04) 15:12 PDT OAKLAND --

Former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle was ordered Thursday to stand trial for
murder by a judge who told him he didn't believe the explanation defense attorneys gave
for his killing of an unarmed passenger.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/05/MNRA18125K.DTL#ixzz0M8aBH39q

Mehserle pleaded not guilty in the case.
Tommorow, a defense motion will be made requesting dismissal. Such motions are rarely granted
but are primarily used to preserve certain legal issues for appeal in the event of conviction.
They can also be of significant reading interest for those following the case.

Breaking: (07-23) 18:16 PDT Oakland, Calif. (AP) --
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.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/23/state/n181650D29.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0M8d94PTT

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

[imdjh]

1. And so will begin another round of internet idiocy...

... by people who think a police officer would intentionally shoot someone in the back on the ground in front of 500 witnesses.

[WRPendleton]

2. So you buy the defense then eh?

Pretty hard to tell a firearm from a taser I guess.

[imdjh]

3. Actually I called it before there was a defense.

I watched the videos and it was clear to me that whatever happened it was not intentional.

If you watch the video taken from the train door, Mehserle is squatting. As he is standing up, he draws his weapon, and then he appears to lose his balance. The gun is fired, and then you see the look of shock on his face.

I think it was a brain switch thing. I think he lost his balance, and tensed up squeezing the weapon and firing it.

We'll see what the court says.

[Piewhacket]

4. Yeah, I watched that too, and reached the opposite conclusion.

The judge in the case had seven days of hearings then stated he did not believe the defense
contention that Mehserle meant to use his tazer, and ordered Mehserle to stand trial.

Are you LE? Perhaps you would care to explain why you think Mehserle drew his weapon?

[imdjh]

5. Well, that's why we have trials and juries. nt

[Piewhacket]

8. Certainly so, mainly so as to avoid vigilante justice..

and judges also that jurors may be informed on the law
of the case, and not be mislead by ignorance into
improper conviction (or improper acquittal) ...

Of course, if justice is not done or seen to be done
then the trial may fail of its main purpose. This is why
people need to know about, discuss, and understand these
cases, especially cases of alleged abuse of police power.

In this case it seems to me Mehsirle should have had

"PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE that Oscar Grant posed a threat of
serious physical harm, either to the Mehsirle or to others."
(see CalCrim 507)

and if the jury determines that is not so then the killing
will not be excused and Mehsirle will be guilty of homicide
of some kind.

Isn't that so?

[imdjh]

9. I wasn't aware that vigilante justice was at issue here.

There are many discussions to be had about this case, but only one of those will (hopefully) go to court. Public perceptions are not supposed to be a part of this process, nor are the political aspirations of prosecutors who aspire to higher office and elected judges.

If Mehserle goes to court charged with first or second degree murder then he will probably be acquitted. By "probably" I mean that if the jury has one person who can read the law and judge objectively, then he will be acquitted.

Those who wanted/want him prosecuted for first degree murder are not only irrational, they are acting stupidly.

[Piewhacket]

10. Vigilante justice is always at issue when laws are not properly enforced.

California, for one example, has a long and unfortunate tradition of vigilantism.
And even occasional riot.
I'm sure I don't need to provide citations of that fact to someone of your ability.
What we seek is to avoid such things by applying the rule of just laws. This (convieniently)
produces justice AND peace.

Thus Mehserle will most almost certainly face such a trial before a jury for first and second degree
murder and will face other charges as well, and that seems impeccably correct, but as to outcome
of trial we can only say that denigrating a jury by implying that if they find Meserle guilty
they cannot read the law is not proper and demonstrates contempt for and a misapprehension
of both law and the role of a jury. Let us be sure to explain that to whomever says such a thing.
And remind them that a jury will be charged to decide the matter, and that we will accept their
decision. I'm confident you agree with me on this point, for denying we are bound by the verdict
is to deny we accept rule of law, and the consequence of that is what we are seeking to avoid,
isn't that right?

Instead we can say to a near certainty that the jury will be asked to consider why Mehserle drew
his pistol. Do you have any idea why he drew his pistol?

[imdjh]

11. Make the case for first or second degree murder.

[Piewhacket]

12. To who? The DA has already presented a prima facie case on that..

and that's why Mehserle was ordered to stand trial
by the judge.

Is it that you don't understand the basis for the charges?

Because that's what I was wondering, how it was you might imagine
a police office should be allowed to draw his pistol and shoot an
unarmed citizen at will, and not face criminal prosecution...
because, unlike in other countries, our police are not above the law.
Or perhaps that is the question people are asking.

So that's why I asked you, and you have twice declined to
reply to a key question the jury will need to consider:

why did Mehserle draw his pistol?

[Piewhacket]

13. (crickets chirping..) Guess that was too a hard question. Then thank you for your comments.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. I tend to agree with you since it was not a deadly force situation AND his taser was next to

his primary weapon. At this point its a viable defense against murder, but not manslaughter.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. In many depts its policy or at least preferred practice to wear and use a taser from the weak side

It helps prevent confusion just like this.