Posted on 02/18/2009 7:53:04 AM PST by Starman417
To justify their arrest warrant for BART Officer Johannes Mehserle, Oakland police claimed that Oscar Grant's hands were "restrained" behind his back when Mehserle shot him. Alameda District Attorney was only slightly more circumspect, asserting in his indictment that:
After careful analysis of the video, it is clear that both of Grant's hands were behind his back, a position hands are commonly placed in by police officers in order to handcuff individuals, when the shot was fired into his body.
On the contrary, however, frame by frame analysis of the shooting video proves that Grant's hands were NOT in a restraint position. How did they end up there immediately after the shooting? Grant himself was in the act of swinging his own left arm up behind his own back when Mehserle fired.
Start with the following frame grab (37;05 on KTVU's highlighted video), one half second before Mehserle shot Grant:
Officer Pirone, in the foreground, has just gotten his right knee onto Mr. Grant's neck or shoulder. Pirone's left hand (circled in green) is holding Grant's head down, while his right hand has just gotten hold of Grant's right hand atop Grant's back. Officer Mehserle is standing semi-erect at Mr. Grant's feet. Mehserle's right hand, extended down towards Grant's back, holds his pistol.
From this starting point, the following animation gives a frame by frame look at the next 12/15ths of a second (1/15th of a second per frame, slowed to 1/2 second per frame). The first thing you see is Officer Pirone letting go of Mr. Grant's right hand. Watch the path of Pirone's hand as he pulls it away. Just after Pirone's hand disappears behind his body, Grant's arm appears from roughly the same spot. Grant moves his own arm out and up, then around onto his own back. The red circle highlights the muzzle blast in the frame where the muzzle blast first appears:
Notice the timing. Grant's arm is in mid-swing, still in the air above his back, at the moment when Mehserle's fires. Grant, mortally wounded, then finishes pulling his arm up behind his own back. Here is a frame grab of the fatal instant (at 37;17), when Mehserle's muzzle blast first appears:
Grant is about half way through swinging his left arm (circled in blue) around behind his back.
Why the sudden compliance from Grant, after 30 seconds of constant struggle to keep his arms away from the officers? In his statement to investigators, Officer Pirone says Mehserle told him he was going to tase Grant, and issued a warning to get clear. Grant would have heard this too. When he felt Pirone back off, it seems he swung his left arm onto his back in a last ditch effort to avoid getting tased. That left arm had never been under either officer's control.
Mehserle did briefly get control of Grant's right arm, just a few seconds before the shooting. He immediately used this control of Grant's right hand as an opportunity to start reaching for his gun/Taser, which he had first tried to access about 20 seconds earlier (at 14;13). While fumbling for his gun (an indication of taser confusion), Mehserle lets go of Grant's left hand, which Pirone then snatches up (the position at the beginning of the above animation).
A low-tech lynching
The Oakland Police investigators probably saw that Grant’s arms were tucked behind his back instants after the shooting and just assumed, without looking carefully, that they must have been there before the shooting too. This poor video analysis is excusable. I had to look frame by frame, specifically focused on the placement of everyone’s hands, before I saw the barely visible outline of Grant’s arm first shoot out towards his back at 37;15 (just one frame, or 1/15th of a second, before Mehserle’s gun went off). What is not excusable is the charges brought by Alameda District Attorney Tom Orloff.
Mehserle's motion for bail includes statements of the other officers at the scene, handed over to Mehserle during discovery. Officer Pirone's statement reports clear warning from Mehserle before the shooting that he was going to tase Mr. Grant:
Screenshot of Pirone's statement, cited on p. 9 of Mehserle's bail motion.
Together with Mehserle's evident surprise when his gun went off, this makes Taser-confusion by far the most likely explanation for the shooting. That the shooting was an accident is not just a reasonable possibility. It is almost a certainty, making it grossly irresponsible for Alameda District Attorney Tom Orloff to file ANY charges against Mehserle, never mind murder charges.
There is no way that an honest jury could fail to find boatloads of reasonable doubt that the shooting was on purpose (Orloff's position). On the other hand, there is a very high risk of empaneling Alameda County jurors who believe, as most of Oakland does, that racial justice means any white accused of committing a crime against any black must be found guilty.
Orloff is fully aware of this local mind-set. Oakland streets are full of rioters demanding this outcome, and the so-called reasonable voices are not calling for the rioters to wait for the facts, but are calling for them to trust the system to punish Mehserle. Orloff knows that the facts cannot support conviction, and is just throwing Mehserle to the dogs. This is a purely political prosecution, a race-based lynching, perpetrated by the STATE. It is EVIL.
Given video falsification of his primary grounds for charging Mehserle with murder (that Grant's hands were in a restraint position when Mehserle shot him), District Attorney Orloff ought to withdraw charges. Here is a second chance here for Orloff to do the right thing. Will he? It seems unlikely, when he was not interested in doing the right thing before.
(Excerpt) Read more at Flopping Aces ...
Clearly you are unable to think. The video proves the resistance and that is not murder, sir or ma’am.
I don’t lack debate skills when it comes to visiting with folks that are able to comprehend reality. Only those living in paranoid delusion think this is anything like the USSR.
Durned civilians believing they have a right to travel freely in public
I'm speaking in terms of California law and giving the cop the benefit of the doubt he thought he had a taser in his hand and not his gun. As I posted earlier, I find that a bit hard to believe too.
In law, what you think and what you can prove are two very different things. California has certain elements for a murder conviction, in this case you would have to prove the cop knew he had a gun in his hand not the taser, again, benefit of doubt.
Good reply!
Ignorant reply!
:)
No kidding.
Only those who would welcome the tactics of the USSR are not paranoid in therir delusional love of a "utopia"
Only those living in paranoid delusion think this is anything like the USSR.
Only those who would welcome the tactics of the USSR are not paranoid in their delusional love of a "utopia"
Digitized frame by frame analysis
Even digitized video uses frames
and cause disturbances on trains, and breach the peace of terrified law abiding citizens, and obstruct a peace officer...
I couldn’t care less about such details. The fact is the suspect was not a lethal threat to the officers when he was shot. Nothing more needs to be asked.
The difference is that police apprehend people and are officers of the law, and receive specialized training (though it didn’t help in this instance!). They generally have certain powers and duties my buddies and me do not. Their benefit of the doubt level is different than mine. It certainly is different in court testimony. Unless I have proof what I say happened, they will believe the officer. (It’s also why I have a recorder on me all the time.)
It is more plausible (not excuseable or approvable) to believe that a police officer accidentally shot someone while apprehending him, than it would be if ‘me and my buddies’ were doing the same thing, as I have far less reason to be doing that kind of thing as a non-law enforcement person.
I didn’t see you in the video. Were you there to speak to the man first and determine what you claim to be the situation? If not, then your authority-hating stance is the typical anarchist junk that got the guy killed.
I say we give the cop a bonus.
I do not hate "authority", but I do hate blatant abuse of authority, which this video clearly shows. Murdering a compliant subject is not proper use of 'authority'.
And yeah, i have worked in LEO roles in the past.
I say we give the cop a bonus.
That's not only STUPID, that's absolutely disgisting. I can't believe anyone whoo is ignorant enough to write something so stupid is also able to remember breathe.
You should lose your FR posting privileges for your posts on this thread. Sick, sick, sick!
He was ZERO threat, restrained, and compliant.
I’m not a cop, but I do have an IQ high enough to spell “who” instead of “whoo”.
You are on the wrong site to think that the folks here are going to side with a guy that fights the cops and dies trying. We support law-abiding citizens and there would have been no incident, if the guy would have cooperated.
Oh, you’re a cop fluffer.
Maybe if you had some LEO experience, you’d understand how idiotic your comments are.
Ah, typo police, the perfect way to spot someone who lacks debate ability.
Sounds like you'd rather live on your knees than die on your feet fighting like a man for your own freedom from this type of police abuse.
“You are on the wrong site to think that the folks here are going to side with a guy that fights the cops and dies trying. We support law-abiding citizens and there would have been no incident, if the guy would have cooperated.”
I don’t think so, sweetheart. We don’t support tyranny and the shooting of persons not posing a lethal threat. You might, we don’t.
“I’m not a cop, but I do have an IQ high enough to spell “who” instead of “whoo”.”
Do you have the brains to know a typo when you see one?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.