Mehserle's letter to the public

San Francisco Chronicle / sfgate.com ^ | Friday, July 9, 2010 | Chronicle Staff Report

[thecodont]

(07-09) 13:56 PDT OAKLAND -- The attorney for Johannes Mehserle, the former BART police officer convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Oscar Grant, released a handwritten letter today that Mehserle composed Sunday - four days before a Los Angeles jury came back with its verdict in the case.

The full text of the letter released by defense attorney Michael Rains follows:

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/09/BAQB1EC3T3.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0tDspBOYL

[Filo]

Na, most rational people know that human affairs are so messy and imperfect because they are staffed 100% by... humans.

No argument. But you seem predisposed to judge those messy affairs in favor of those with badges for some odd reason.

[Filo]

Your comments have demonstrated an obvious negative opinion to the events before you viewed any evidence, like a researcher discarding data contrary to his hypothesis.

Then clearly you aren't reading what I'm writing. My comments, judgments and opinions all came into being after I saw all of the evidence. At least all that was available.

You, on the other hand, are just making stuff up (about me, in this case) and then believing it as gospel.

Not a particularly strong basis for debate.

[takenoprisoner]

There are coroners around the country who would disagree with your statement that tasers have never been responsible for death. In some cases coroners, where they ruled homicide, they ruled the taser as the direct cause. In others,where they ruled homicide, they ruled the tasering as a contributory factor.

You need to check your facts before making false assertions.

[Filo]

Which is all irrelevant because when Mehserle shot him he was under complete control by the other two officers and was not resisting.

The videos don't lie.

[Ophiucus]

In this case, I saw suspect still resisting, still not in control, and still a potential threat.

Other cases, I have seen officers overreact - but not often.

But I got my start as a medic and have been on those scenes and too many people have been injured believing someone held on the ground can't be dangerous.

[roses of sharon]

Nothing odd about facts in evidence.

[Filo]

Wrong again. Tasers have never been even related to the cause of death. Ever.

Utter nonsense.

Again you are dangerously wrong. That suspect was NOT in control. He was still fighting and kicking and STILL HAD AN UNCONTROLLED AND UNSEEN EXTREMITY THAT COULD HAVE A WEAPON. Do you get it yet?

I get that you believe that, but it ain't in evidence so I don't understand why you do. The many, many videos make it quite clear that Grant, regardless of his distant or immediate past, was under the complete control of the other two officers when he was shot - in the back - by Mehserle.

You can let your mind add whatever you want to those videos but that doesn't make it real.

[DJ MacWoW]

because when Mehserle shot him he was under complete control

He was not. He was under arrest and REFUSED to be handcuffed. He would NOT let them pull his arm from under him. Witnesses testified to that. You may not like it but they were there and you were not. He was NEVER handcuffed. He resisted. People standing at the scene said so.

The videos don't lie.

Yes. They do. YOU were not there. The witnesses were.

[Filo]

In this case, I saw suspect still resisting, still not in control, and still a potential threat.

Then they must have made special videos for you or you're watching them with special glasses.

All of the videos I've seen on the news and all over YouTube make it clear that Grant had one hand in cuffs and the other firmly in the grasp of one of the officers with that arm being brought around to the cuffs when the shot was fired.

Other cases, I have seen officers overreact - but not often.

Then either you're not taking a fair sample or you're using those special glasses again. I've seen officers overreact tons. I could fill the page with links to videos, news stories and so on.

But I got my start as a medic and have been on those scenes and too many people have been injured believing someone held on the ground can't be dangerous.

That I can agree with. Even in cuffs a person could be dangerous.

The question at hand is whether or not Grant was, at the time he was shot, a sufficient immediate threat to justify the use of a weapon. You can't shoot or tase someone because they might be a threat. If you could then the cops would be justified in shooting anyone. . . (hey, wait. . .)

Even the taser was not justified under the specific circumstances shown on video.

If he had been tased and not killed the same videos would have gotten him a nice award for police brutality.

[Filo]

He was not. He was under arrest and REFUSED to be handcuffed. He would NOT let them pull his arm from under him. Witnesses testified to that. You may not like it but they were there and you were not. He was NEVER handcuffed. He resisted. People standing at the scene said so.

Cops standing at the scene might have, but they are notorious liars, especially when defending one of their own.

Yes. They do. YOU were not there. The witnesses were.

Yeah. My momma always says "believe none of what you hear and half of what you see."

Of course what you're writing falls under what I hear, the videos what I see.

Hmmm.

[Ophiucus]

There are coroners around the country who would disagree with your statement that tasers have never been responsible for death. In some cases coroners, where they ruled homicide, they ruled the taser as the direct cause. In others,where they ruled homicide, they ruled the tasering as a contributory factor.

The media approach is that tasers are deadly. No coroner has ever published a paper providing evidence of tasers contributing to death via any physiological mechanism while the journals of Emergency Medicine, JAMA, Amer Physiology, etc have articles on how they could not have contributed to death but other conditions have. Any conference on emergency medicine, traumatic injuries, or urban medical issues will have seminars on the role of the taser in publicized deaths - again with no mechanism for a taser to cause the death.

You need to check your facts before making false assertions.

Oh I know - they just didn't give me the right facts at that ignorant center of learning they dared to call a medical school, and the guys from the physiology department had no idea of the facts either. Here's an example of the recent lack of facts:

J Emerg Med. 2009 May 12. [Epub ahead of print]
Absence of electrocardiographic change after prolonged application of a conducted electrical weapon in physically exhausted adults.
Ho JD, Dawes DM, Heegaard WG, Calkins HG, Moscati RM, Miner JR.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Abstract Background: Conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) are used by law enforcement for control of subjects by causing neuromuscular incapacitation. There has been scrutiny of CEWs and their potential role in the occasional sudden death of subjects in custody. There is a hypothesized causal relationship due to induced cardiac dysrhythmia. Previous work has not shown dysrhythmia induction in resting humans. However, these devices are not often used on resting individuals in the field. Objective: We sought to determine if exposure to a CEW in a physically exhausted human sample population caused detectable change in the 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). Methods: Human volunteers were enrolled. All subjects had a baseline ECG obtained and then underwent an exercise regimen until exhaustion. The volunteers then received a continuous 15-s application from a TASER(R) X26 CEW (TASER International, Scottsdale, AZ). CEW electrodes were placed on random positions of their anterior thoraces. Electrode positions involved at least a 12-inch spread and always encompassed the normal anatomic position of the heart. An ECG was obtained immediately after CEW exposure. ECGs were interpreted by a blinded cardiologist. Results: At baseline, 24/25 ECGs were normal. One baseline ECG was abnormal due to several monomorphic premature ventricular complexes. After CEW exposure, all 25 ECGs were interpreted as normal. Conclusions: Prolonged CEW application in an exhausted human sample did not cause a detectable change in their 12-lead ECGs. Theories of CEW-induced dysrhythmia in non-rested humans are not supported by our findings

And a good summary of no facts:

Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:3181-3.
Human research review of the TASER electronic control device.
Ho JD, Dawes DM, Heegaard WG, Miner JR.
Dept. of Emergency Medicine, University of Minnesota-Hennepin Co Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract TASER Electronic Control Devices have become mainstream methods of applying electricity to control unruly suspects. There has been speculation that they may be associated with worsening human physiology or death. The lay impressions that these devices are unsafe are not founded on known human research findings. This presentation briefly reviews the most pertinent human research on this subject.

Perfect line:"The lay impressions that these devices are unsafe are not founded on known human research findings.

[DJ MacWoW]

Cops standing at the scene might have, but they are notorious liars, especially when defending one of their own.

Give it up. Read what the article says that I posted in 114. That was NOT a cop. It was a train passenger.

Rogers, who works as a paramedic and was on her way back to her home after attending a concert

snip

Rogers said Mehserle and another officer tried to handcuff Grant at one point "but weren't successful" because Grant resisted them.

SHE was there. You and your Momma weren't.

[Ophiucus]

You can't shoot or tase someone because they might be a threat.

Wrong yet again. That is when you act. You don't shoot someone after they shoot you.

In this case, the weapon should not have been drawn second, he should have used his taser the first time he drew it. His first mistake was hesitating - that gets a person killed. In this case, the subject was killed because the second and horrible mistake was the drawing of his sidearm.

If he had been tased and not killed the same videos would have gotten him a nice award for police brutality.

Wouldn't have made a blip in the news.

[takenoprisoner]

Perfect line:"The lay impressions that these devices are unsafe are not founded on known human research findings.

I don't find ME's to fit your category as "lay men." It is ME's who have ruled homicide by taser, either directly or indirectly. You need to present your argument to them so they will know how to rule in the future according to Ophiucus's theory of causation.

[takenoprisoner]

In this case, the weapon should not have been drawn second, he should have used his taser the first time he drew it.

This is some new evidence to me. So according to you, he drew his taser first, and then holstered it. Then, changed his mind, this time mistakenly drawing his revolver killing him. Wow. What else you got?

[Ophiucus]

Me's don't rule homicide - they can state an opinion in court but show one death cert that has Taser as cause of death, GSW is a cause, blunt trauma, but not taser.

Also, most coroner positions are political. The scientific and medical journals still refute taser as a cause while offering evidence for other mechanisms.

Politics dictate science only in jury awards.

[Ophiucus]

This is some new evidence to me. So according to you, he drew his taser first, and then holstered it. Then, changed his mind, this time mistakenly drawing his revolver killing him. Wow. What else you got?

That was presented earlier by another poster in this thread from the testimony. Must have missed it.

[Ophiucus]

Night all - don’t believe everything you see or read in the news

[Filo]

SHE was there. You and your Momma weren't.

Regardless, from the videos he was not actively resisting and was completely restrained when shot.

Case closed.

[Filo]

Wrong yet again. That is when you act. You don't shoot someone after they shoot you.

No, that is when cops act. Reasonable people act when there is a clear and present danger. Not some nebulous "might be" threat.

If I draw a weapon in public and there isn’t a reasonable threat then I go to jail.

I guess it can't be helped that cops are cowards. In this case, the weapon should not have been drawn second, he should have used his taser the first time he drew it. His first mistake was hesitating - that gets a person killed. In this case, the subject was killed because the second and horrible mistake was the drawing of his sidearm.

While I can agree that Grant should have been tasered when he was resisting he should not have been when he wasn't. Nor should he have been shot.

It is arguable that the pistol was drawn in error.

Wouldn't have made a blip in the news.

A blip for sure, but not a big one.

He would still have gotten an award for a taser shock delivered at that moment since he was not actively resisting and was fully restrained at that moment.