That said, there seems to be a mob-fueled rush to pin a murder charge on this guy. Given the videos, it just doesn't seem warranted to me. Speaking as a journalist who has reported on plenty of aggravating stories where bad cops got off scot-free, Mehserle shouldn't have to suffer the accumulated anger of all of those stories. He should be charged for what he did, nothing more.
At the same time, I'd pose this question to the Mehserle defenders I've seen on police forums and bulletin boards: I'm sympathetic to the argument that in the heat of the moment, Mehserle inadvertently reached for the wrong weapon. But Mehserle had training. He had other cops there backing him up. If we're going to be sympathetic to him, where's the sympathy for people like Cory Maye or Ryan Frederick?
Why should we assume good intentions when a cop with training, wide awake and conscious, with other cops all around him makes a mistake that ends with a fatality, but assume the worst when a civilian is awoken by the sound of police breaking into his home, and in the heat of the moment, fires a gun after mistaking them for criminal intruders?
Seems to me you can't simultaneously argue that trained police officers should be forgiven for nervous mistakes made in the heat of the moment, but ordinary people should be expected to show impeccable judgment and restraint, even under unimaginably volatile and confrontational circumstances.
« Times of London plagiarizing? | Main | GM lowers its sales forecasts » Turnabout fair play?16 Jan 2009 08:53 am
Radley Balko has a question about the BART shooting:
Comments (27)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
IANAL, but it really seems that the correct charge in this case should be manslaughter. The murder charges is pure politics / pandering.
Two reasons they went for Murder, but I'm not sure which they're going for:
The Cynic would say because there's no way the prosecution can present this to a jury without a doubt, thus he'll get off or receive a hung verdict.
The realist would say they know he'll plea bargain for a lesser crime of man-slaughter.
In reality it appears you can be charged with Murder, even if emotion is involved. It comes down to the question of if he was negligent, or if this was pre-meditated even for a second.
the official police report says the suspect was struggling, but was already subdued with his hands behind his back. That's pretty damning, as there's no need for lethal or non-lethal force. Right away, at minimum, he's facing manslaughter for possible negligence.
Last, the cops on officer.com should realize that's a public forum. They're not doing much to keep faith with the public with many of their comments. Many are working in the worst of the worst daily, but if you're not up for the job and find it making you a cynic or worse, maybe you're not cut out of it and it's time for a change. it takes a strong person to love the challenges and responsibilitys of law enforcement and come away better from it.
Radley is a great voice on this subject, glad to see you posted this.
These acronyms have gone too far. What the hell does IANAL mean? I'm sick of looking up these dumb expressions, who can't type fast enough that they have to go shorthand so much?
They're not doing much to keep faith with the public with many of their comments.
... to put it mildly. I expected the unabashed support for the officer, but the undercurrent of racism and the complete lack of empathy for the victim took me by surprise.
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer
Yes, Chad, I agree.
What the hell does IANAL mean?
"I am not a lawyer."
I personally use the easier-to-type but less common IAAL. However, I'm am to lazy to look into this.
Can't the DA charge the suspect with more than one thing for the same crime (Murder, Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter) and let the jury figure it out?
There's an interesting link in that thread to a picture of the officer in question, from the opposite side as his firearm, and you can plainly see that there's no taser on his belt anywhere.
If he didn't have a taser to draw, that makes the case against this being accidental pretty strong. Why would he try to draw a taser he knew he didn't have?
I thought it was short for "I'm an impatient anal-obsessive". Anyway, on the principle of innocent until proved guilty, it should not be necessary to declare one's non-lawyerhood.
In reality it appears you can be charged with Murder, even if emotion is involved. It comes down to the question of if he was negligent, or if this was pre-meditated even for a second.
I am not a lawyer (nor do I use acronyms much), but my understanding is that murder means that you wanted the guy dead, even if it was only in the heat of the moment. The amount of pre-meditation is the distinction between 1st degree and 2nd degree murder.
IANAL and other such acronyms date from the era of limited bandwidth and memory. 2400 baud modems, remember those?
OHDH.
/end pendantic twit
There's an interesting link in that thread to a picture of the officer in question, from the opposite side as his firearm, and you can plainly see that there's no taser on his belt anywhere.
No you can't. The weak-side cross-draw position is mostly obscured by his left arm, and there's something there with could be a TASER holster (but might not be). It makes more sense to put it there than where his radio is, for easy access.
How you confuse cross-draw with strong-side hip is of course far less clear.
As the DA said, "There was nothing that would mitigate it to something less than murder" especially as the officer refused to cooperate (or even speak) with investigators which "could have given me more insight into his thought process."
The speculation that the officer may have thought he was holding his taser doesn't hold as the taser is located on the other side of the belt.
Finally, it's worth noting that the officer probably shouldn't have had his gun out in the first place. 1) You shouldn't pull your gun out unless you think you're going to have to use it, and there doesn't appear to be anything in that situation that would lead to that conclusion. 2) Drawing your gun in a close quarters situation is generally a bad idea because a hostile suspect might grab it from you and shoot you with it. Your baton and handcuffs are the tools specially designed for subduing unarmed suspects in close quarters situations -- there's no excuse for either a gun or a taser in that situation.
the officer refused to cooperate (or even speak) with investigators which "could have given me more insight into his thought process."
Well, duh. I'm sure the officer is familiar with the phrase "anything you say can an will be used against you in a court of law." He's probably also seen Law & Order, where the cops and DA's pretending to be your friend say things like "I can't help you unless you help me."
Dude knows the system. Of course he didn't want to cooperate.
The weak-side cross-draw position is mostly obscured by his left arm,
No, it's not. His arm is above his belt, which you can clearly see, and there's no taser there.
and there's something there with could be a TASER holster (but might not be).
I don't see anything there that could possibly hold a police-style pistol-grip taser. There's his nightstick, his radio, a case for a can of mace, and a mag lite. And even if a taser were somehow being obscured by his arm, there'd be a little case for extra cartridges for the taser, and I don't see those either.
And even if he had an invisible taser - how often do you grab the wrong ass cheek looking for your wallet, Rob? I've never in my life done it, because I know left from right. I don't see how he could grab a taser by accident when it's all the way on the other side of his body. Does this cop sometimes expect the steering wheel to be on the other side of the car, too, or is this just a pretty flimsy excuse for a cop who put a bullet in an unarmed man because he was tired of listening to him beg?
Well, duh. I'm sure the officer is familiar with the phrase "anything you say can an will be used against you in a court of law." He's probably also seen Law & Order, where the cops and DA's pretending to be your friend say things like "I can't help you unless you help me."
Dude knows the system. Of course he didn't want to cooperate.
That's what the 5th and his lawyer is for. Up and resigning like he did put the department in a very, very bad position and put him in a very bad light.
Departments are quick to protect their officers, even more so when accidents happen. His actions after the fact, and his resignation could be used against him.
Have you guys seen the video? The guy is face down with a police officer on top of him. And then genius goes for a weapon. That is wrong on so many levels. Then he pulls out his gun and instead of maybe taking the time to make sure of what he is doing he shoots him. The guy is face down with a cop on him, time is in play. THIS WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ME PRISON TIME IF I HAD DONE IT IN THE US ARMY IN AFGHANISTAN IN THE MIDDLE OF A FIREFIGHT. There is no debate, even if its the wrong weapon, you pay for the massive mistake. Rush to judgment? Look what happened to the kid who got shot in Greece. The Hellenes sure didn't seem happy either.
Chet: the cross-draw position is typically forward of the hip, which cannot be clearly seen. It is there to allow the right hand to draw a gun/TASER easily. There appears to be something in that position, which might (or might not) be the bottom of a holster covering the muzzle. It could also be extra mags for his gun, or something else entirely.
there'd be a little case for extra cartridges for the taser
You are intimately familiar with the standard rig for BART cops, down to the number and location of TASER reloads? I'm not, so it's hard for me to draw hard conclusions like that.
In any case, as I have said, confusing one for the other on the draw is difficult to explain.
Ben: Yeah, the whole cop/military comparison is always interesting. Both organizations tend to attract individuals with similar qualifications and are given high levels of responsibility. The difference is that between the constant travel in groups and the harsh disciplinary standards military personnel are kept on a fairly short leash. Cops, on the other hand, have broad autonomous authority that is combined with a significantly weaker disciplinary system (courtesy their nice little police union).
I’ve sent guys who worked for me to NJP for infractions like repeatedly showing up late to work. NJP for military members generally means restriction and garnished pay and often being busted down in rank. However, unless a cop is fired the most the department can do is give him unpaid time off (reductions in rank are extremely rare). The standard cop punishment is a little vacation time. In the military when we take someone’s pay away they still have to show up to work.
Up and resigning like he did put the department in a very, very bad position and put him in a very bad light.
I must say, that seems like a fairly natural reaction for a guy with a sense of honor and a belief that he let his fellow officers down. "I'm not good enough to wear this uniform, I resign." At any rate, I can't pretend to know what he's thinking.
Bilko seems to want to give the benefit of the doubt to the pig and not a thought to the unarmed brother. A true libertarian would say that an armed Grant would be a living Grant, and the cop deserved to die. If Grant hasn't been able to shoot the pig, a train full of men armed with guns (not camera phones) would have offed him.
It's a f***ing shame what passes for libertarian thought these days.
It's a f***ing shame what passes for libertarian thought these days.
I certainly can't disagree with that.
The comments to that Balko post are interesting. A couple of the commenters conclude, based on California law, that second degree murder (which has turned out to be the actual charge) applies.
Count me in. Libertarian thought circa 1976 is nothing like libertarian thought 2009. And the irony of it is, if libertarians were actually looking for strength in numbers, I think they'd be surprised at how many people endorse the older order. Me for one.
Actually, this is one of those Good ThingsTM that technology brings us. For many, many years, it's always been the case that if it is the word of the police against the word of the victim, the police are almost always given the benefit of the doubt. With the widespread use of cheap cell phones with their camera option, this may be more a thing of the past.
Another development I'd like to see is stiffer penalties for law enforcement personnel for crimes like perjury. Spare me the sob stories, the Hill Street Blues "You don't know what it's like on the streets!" Maybe I don't. But I do know that however awful it is, it doesn't justify lying on the stand and using your position of influence to get a defendant convicted.
We don't have enough room in the jails for people we actually can prove are criminals, why bother to frame people?
We are desperately short of cell space. Let's not even talk about white collar criminals, we don't have enough cell space for murderers, rapists, and armed robbers.
The guy that purse snatched my mother and sent her to the emergency room is about to go to trial. For assaulting a cop and stealing his police car when they tried to arrest him, not for stealing my mother's purse and knocking her to the ground.
You got any idea how fragile a little old lady's bones are? And the survival rate for broken hips?
For those all hell bent on locating a taser holster on the officer I will add that I have, at times, carried my taser in my weak side leg pocket.
No holster to be seen.... just kept in the pocket. Some of us have a side 32 belt and that does not leave you much room to add bat tools to the bat belt. So the pocket comes in handy.
And OBVIOUSLY he did not cooperate. He just shot a guy who died. The phrase "Anything you say can AND WILL be used against you in a court of law" comes to mind.
You are required to talk to IA but not the homicide detectives. If you do not talk to IA you can be fired. Unless you resign first.