Yesterday, a jury found ex-BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) cop Johannes Mehserle guily of involuntary manslaughter in the 2009 shooting death of Oscar Grant in Oakland. The trial had been moved to Los Angeles due to local public outrage in Oakland.
On New Year's 2009, Mehserle and other officers were engaged in a physical scuffle with Oscar Grant. While Grant, who was black, was on the ground and still fighting, Mehserle shot Grant killing him. Merserle, who is white, claimed in his defense that he meant to use his taser gun, but accidently drew his .40 caliber gun in the heat of the struggle. The case led to racial unrest in Oakland especially during Grant's funeral.
As the trial neared its completion, it was clear that community activists were organizing protests in case they didn't get the verdict they wanted. In addition, other outside anarchist groups were planning to be involved. Mehserle could have been convicted of 2nd degree murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. He was convicted of the lessre charge and now faces 2-4 years in prison plus possible additional time for the use of the firearm.
Then, last night, violent protests broke out in downtown Oakland as the Grant family and activists expressed displeasure at the lesser verdict. Fires were set, windows, broken, stores looted and 83 arrests were made. It is important to note that this was not simply a (black) racial disturbance. An entire rainbow coalition of people was involved that included the usual far-left anarchists in the Bay area. Undoubtedly, several folks from San Francisco and Berkeley took advantage of the incident to take to the streets. I don't think this was a case of spontaneous outrage. The demonstrations were known to be planned and looting stores is not exactly a case of rage gone wild.
Was the verdict just? Hard to say. The vital question is whether Mehserle intended in a premeditated manner to kill Grant. (The judge threw out a first-degree murder charge.) That would be a long stretch for an officer responding to the scene of a man resisting arrest. Apparently, the jury decided that there was no intent, but that Mehserle was negligent in drawing his gun instead of the taser.
Is Mehserle's defense plausible? I suppose so though it's pretty hard to read his mind. When I was in federal law enforcement and previously in the military police, we never were equipped with tasers, so I am not an expert on that. In the heat of a physical struggle, I suppose the story is plausible. Of course, whatever Grant's offense, he did not deserve to be killed.
And now, once again, here comes our US Justice Department announcing that they will take a look at the case and the possibility of filing civil rights charges. The timing could not be worse in the wake of the dismissal of charges against the New Black Panther Party thugs and the suit against Arizona. Of course, it is entirely within the letter of the law for another jurisdiction to file separate charges arising out of the same incident, a la Rodney King. The question arises, however, since Mehserle has been convicted and is looking at prison time, is it within the spirit of the law?
12 comments:
Your take on the whole matter is (unsurprisingly) completely distorted.
Grant was handcuffed, lying face down on the ground. Not sure how he could still be putting up much of a fight at that point. All of the video evidence shows this clearly.
As for the reaction to the verdict, the vast, VAST majority of those protesting remained peaceful. Of course, you don't even mention the main protest that took place earlier in the afternoon, from about 5:00 until sunset. That was about 1000+ people and as I said, the vast majority of that group remained peaceful. Once night came, most people went home. A rogue group, clearly in the minority, broke off and decided to act like boneheads. That group was mostly white "anarchist" kids from the suburbs (no, not even really from SF or Berkeley), intent on causing trouble.
This little summary of yours is completely skewed, but like I said, I'm not surprised in the least.
Furthermore, this sentence is completely disingenuous:
"Then, last night, violent protests broke out in downtown Oakland as the Grant family and activists expressed displeasure at the lesser verdict."
The way you word it, it seems implicit that the Grant family was a part of the violence or approved of it. For one, they were in LA at the time, where all demonstrations remained peaceful. Secondly, and most importantly, virtually every member of Grant's family called for PEACEFUL protest. They all spoke out against the use of violence and destruction.
I'm not sure what your intent was with your wording there, I'm just saying that the way it's written it seems to imply that the Grant family were somehow complicit or approving of the small violent protest that occurred.
Anonymous,
Sorry, but I tried to put it in the right perspective. I did not say that anyone from the Grant family was involved in the violence. What I meant to state was that they were making statements about the case and the outcome that were publicized. As for who was involved in the violence, I made it perfectly clear that this was not just a black thing, but that folks (non-black) from other communities showed up just to take part in the mischief. I am aware that in the afternoon, there were peaceful protests, and many tried to keep it peaceful, but the authorities were indeed fearful that when it became dark there would be problems. That, in fact, happened.
Of course, when writing about this issue, it's hard to please everybody. I am sure that some writers are trying to report police brutality as their thesis.
"Then, last night, violent protests broke out in downtown Oakland as the Grant family and activists expressed displeasure at the lesser verdict."
That is a truthful statement, but I can see that maybe you think I was inferring that the family was provoking the violence. That was not my intent, but I catch your point.
Again, as for who was involved, I think the photos and videos, pretty much show that there were many groups involved.
Your piece on the events is one-sided, plain and simple. You purposely chose to leave out any mention of the larger, peaceful protest held earlier in the day which the clear majority of people attended and instead chose to focus on the negative, in a lame attempt to paint the other side in as bad a light as possible and try to discredit any grievances that people might have with the outcome of the case. Typical conservative tactics, really though.
Anonymous,
I think we have now given due credit to the peaceful folks. As for the others, the pictures tell a thousand words.
Gary,
I think you did your best to keep this neutral. Thanks for the article.
Anonymous,
If you are willing to share such strong opinions and criticisms then perhaps you would be kind enough to share you real name. I appreciate your comments and opinions as much as Gary's but lets not hide under the Anonymous title.
p.s My real name is Chris
Gary,
Good post. I wonder too why no one is talking about the first gentlemen who commented after the verdict. Did you catch his rhetoric?
He was telling people to arm themselves, metphorically and literally to put an end to law enforcements tyranny.
As much as Anonymous (what's your real name, or at least a screen name) was reading into your comments and pulling out a bias, I wonder if he/she would see a problem with the speech of this gentlemen as well as the gentlemen from the nation of Islam.
To Chris and Faithful Remnant, thank you. I could use a few friends sometimes. (LOL)
I find the verdict acceptable. When the Amadou Diallou case resulted in a not guilty verdict, I thought...
...If I were walking down the street, with a legal concealed handgun (a far stretch in NYC, but the police WERE in legal possession of their handguns), and I shot to death someone I erroneously but honestly believed to be a threat to my life, I would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. I thought the same should go for the police who shot Diallou. Not murder, but involuntary manslaughter.
It seems, this time, the jury came back with such a verdict.
Now, as to the protests and riots. During the Rodney King protests in San Francisco, there were a number of local gang who planned, and perpetrated, the systematic looting of jewelry stores and other businesses along the route of a planned peaceful march.
When I recently wrote a series of articles on the King protests in Los Angeles, I discovered that several books identified that MOST of the looting was distinct from the protests, merely moving into a vacuum. There was even a case of a white man and a Latino man who looted a black-owned business and told the outgunned owner "F--- Rodney King."
So, we have a relatively new phenomenon here. Should protest organizers train their marshalls to suppress such looting? Should police be trained to protect peaceful protests against police brutality from the distraction of gangs looting businesses along the line of march? Should we be looking for new protest tactics that are not open to being hijacked in this manner?
These may sound like sarcasm, but they are all serious questions.
"...If I were walking down the street, with a legal concealed handgun (a far stretch in NYC, but the police WERE in legal possession of their handguns), and I shot to death someone I erroneously but honestly believed to be a threat to my life, I would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. I thought the same should go for the police who shot Diallou. Not murder, but involuntary manslaughter."
The key phrase is if you thought you were in immediate danger and your response was reasonable. Diallo was a tragic mistake. It's a long story, but I came very close to once making a similar mistake. Had I fired, I would be living with it today. Unfortunately, this happens in police work, the more violent the society, the more often it happens.
The Oakland riots were planned. Surely, many came out to peacefully protest, but many others knew exactly what they were going to do.
Yes, the looting is, at least in the beginning planned. The point is, they are often planned by entirely different people than are planning the protests. Unfortunately, everyone concerned has to take all of this into consideration.
If a man proves to have been pulling out his wallet, but the person shooting -- police officer or not -- honestly believed they were pulling out a gun, it is an honest but UNreasonable belief.
Siarlys,
The incident I referred to involved a man everyone of us thought was conducting counter-surveillance in a hotel lobby as we were taking down a drug deal. When we approached him, he reached in one of those little hand bags some guys used to carry around in the 70s. I was right in front of him when he did that. I pulled my gun and shoved him down onto the bench he had been sitting on.
Thank God, I waited that last split second before firing. There was no gun, and the man was not involved. Yet, the circumstances led me to believ he was reaching for a gun.
Post a Comment