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

[takenoprisoner]

“Me’s don’t rule homicide “

1. ME’s, aka Medical Examiners, absolutely rule homicide when the case they have examined calls for it. Trust me, it happens all the time around the nation and the world. Course, you can always google it to learn for yourself.

2. There are known cases where the ME has ruled the taser as the direct or indirect cause of death.

3. You are free to disagree with their findings. But you are not free to lie about their mission, nor their findings, nor their ability to rule homicide. Since that is what ME’s are hired to determine...cause of death. Homicide or not, and what caused it.

[takenoprisoner]

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

Indeed I did miss it. Can you point me to it? Since this puts a whole new perspective on the event which is new to me.

And no, since you made the claim, you need to prove it. So don't even think about asking me to do it myself when you make a claim as if you have personal knowledge.

[takenoprisoner]

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

Good night Ophiucus. Speaking for self, I don’t believe all I see or read in the “news.” But I do believe in multiple video recordings showing the same thing as in this case.

The ME had to rule homicide. The DA had to determine to charge the accused with murder, which was done.

The jury determined it was involuntary manslaughter. OJ’s jury determined him innocent. I still believe OJ to be a multiple first degree murderer. And, from all the video evidence I have reviewed from this New Years eve event involving Oscar Grant, I’m sticking with the ME and the DA. It was homicide, and murder in the second degree was the right call against the officer involved.

Just my take.

[HiTech RedNeck]

You provided a thoroughly ungrammatical statement in “support” of your canned conclusion.

WHATEVA!

[HiTech RedNeck]

Is your claim the videos
(1) were baldly falsified?
(2) omitted pertinent details because nobody bothered to record them on camera?

(1) would imply a lie; (2) would not imply a lie

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“And as I said it’s an or definition. It has to be A or B so, by definition, it’s down by 50%.”

And that’s what I said. Wat part of this are you missing?

“Don’t let your functional illiteracy be my fault.”

I’m clearly NOT the one who is illiterate around here.

“Q:How can you tell a cop is lying?
A:He’s on the witness stand.”

Q: How can you tell when someone is bigoted against the police?
A: When he assumes that all cops lie on the witness stand - especially when other witnesses and video actually back-up their testimony and a jury agrees with them.

“If the cops expected a taser they would have gotten out of the way.”

Not necesarily when holding a man down.

[DJ MacWoW]

So you think you know better than an eyewitness. You know that's not right. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own "facts".

Hope you have a good, Filo. :-)

[DJ MacWoW]

My claim is that videos don't tell the whole truth.

A few years back, there was video of an officer beating a kid that was handcuffed and bent over a cop car. It touched off a firestorm. Some argued there were extenuating circumstances. Others called for the cops head. Then the truth came out. The cop was beating the kid because he had the cops privates in his cuffed hands, squeezing. You couldn't see that on the video. So, it looked like an open and shut case of abuse. It wasn't. Video can lie.

[Filo]

And that’s what I said. Wat part of this are you missing?

I'm not missing anything. You are missing the idiocy of pointing something this obvious out as if it has an impact on my argument.

I’m clearly NOT the one who is illiterate around here.

I beg to differ.

Q: How can you tell when someone is bigoted against the police?
A: When he assumes that all cops lie on the witness stand - especially when other witnesses and video actually back-up their testimony and a jury agrees with them.

The concept of bigotry assumes that there isn't a correlation. If a statement is true it can't be bigoted.

And guess what, the video does not back up what you are saying. At the time Grant was shot he was under the full control of two other officers. That is 100% clear from each of the numerous videos available.

But that's okay to cops and boot-lickers. If, at sometime in the recent or distant past, a person might have resisted arrest, might have committed a crime or might even consider doing so at some point then they deserve to be shot in the back.

And people wonder why I hate cops.

[Filo]

And that’s what I said. Wat part of this are you missing?

I'm not missing anything. You are missing the idiocy of pointing something this obvious out as if it has an impact on my argument.

I’m clearly NOT the one who is illiterate around here.

I beg to differ.

Q: How can you tell when someone is bigoted against the police?
A: When he assumes that all cops lie on the witness stand - especially when other witnesses and video actually back-up their testimony and a jury agrees with them.

The concept of bigotry assumes that there isn't a correlation. If a statement is true it can't be bigoted.

And guess what, the video does not back up what you are saying. At the time Grant was shot he was under the full control of two other officers. That is 100% clear from each of the numerous videos available.

But that's okay to cops and boot-lickers. If, at sometime in the recent or distant past, a person might have resisted arrest, might have committed a crime or might even consider doing so at some point then they deserve to be shot in the back.

And people wonder why I hate cops.

[Filo]

So you think you know better than an eyewitness. You know that's not right. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own "facts".

You're missing the point. I was an eyewitness. I saw the videos. That's more than enough to see the actual facts of the case.

In fact, watching a half-dozen videos from several different angles and knowing what is about to happen gives me a far, far better perspective than someone who was standing around and not necessarily paying attention to the details.

The facts of this case are very, very simple.

A man who was under the full control of two cops was shot in the back and killed by a third.

That's it.

Nothing else needs to be considered.

Drugs in the guy's system are irrelevant.

His rap sheet is irrelevant.

The cops training is irrelevant.

The trigger mechanism, weight, holstering position and other differences between a taser and a pistol are irrelevant.

And so on.

The entire case is about the 3-5 seconds between when Mehserle decided to draw a weapon and fire it.

During that entire time the victim was under the full control of the other two officers and a weapon was, therefore, not needed.

There was no need for Mehserle to have drawn any weapon at that time, more or less fired one.

By drawing and firing a weapon, even if he drew the one he did by mistake, he was demonstrating a clear and reckless disregard for human life and, as such, was guilty of 2nd degree murder because of the results of his actions.

Period.

[DJ MacWoW]

I was an eyewitness. I saw the videos.

You were not standing there. Your bias is blinding you to fact. I'm sorry that you can't see that.

Good day.

[Filo]

You were not standing there.

I didn't have to be.

Your bias is blinding you to fact.

No it is not as proven by the fact that you can't name one fact I have in error.

I'm sorry that you can't see that.

I only see reality, my friend. On video tape and in the world at large.

I will, however, point out your pro-cop bias and the effect it has on your judgment, just to be fair.

[Filo]

My claim is that videos don't tell the whole truth.

A few years back, there was video of an officer beating a kid that was handcuffed and bent over a cop car. It touched off a firestorm. Some argued there were extenuating circumstances. Others called for the cops head. Then the truth came out. The cop was beating the kid because he had the cops privates in his cuffed hands, squeezing. You couldn't see that on the video. So, it looked like an open and shut case of abuse. It wasn't. Video can lie.

All true, but not applicable to the current situation.

This video of some other examples of America's finest is a more appropriate comparison.

While there is no doubt that the victim did lots of things to piss off the cops, he was still attacked inappropriately based on the timing of the actual incident.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“And people wonder why I hate cops.”

Admitting you hate them simply shows you have a terrible bias. Who can take you seriusly when you can’t present evidence for your claims and admit ridiculous bias?

[conimbricenses]

"Resisting Arrest" is a fake crime that heavy-handed cops tack on whenever somebody doesn't completely bow over and lick their badges out of respect for their "authoritah," so I don't particularly care if he had it on his rap sheet.

The drug dealing charge, which even Mesehrle's attorneys admitted they had not confirmed the details, seems to have been minor and unrelated to the prison sentence, which was really about one thing and one thing only: Grant broke California's draconian gun control laws.

[conimbricenses]

How can you tell when someone is bigoted against the police?

Drop the PC mongering. You're sounding like Eric Holder. Cops are not a race, religion, ethnicity, or other "protected class" against which one may be "bigoted."

Cops are regular human beings who choose to work in a particular profession and nothing more. They work in that profession voluntarily, fully knowing both the risks (which are often severely overstated) and the benefits (which are usually comparable to the cushiest positions at the highest levels of the federal bureaucracy). They also do so knowing fully that their line of work is in the public sector and funded at public expense, and as such it is constantly subject to citizen scrutiny for any reason whatsoever by right whether that scrutiny is welcome by the cops or not.

To whine about a supposed "bigotry" against cops is therefore both inappropriate and factually unsustainable. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[DJ MacWoW]

In Grants case resisting arrest is disobeying an order and then trying to flee. And refusing to allow yourself to be handcuffed. Grant served 2 prison sentences. You might want to do some research.

Have a good day.

[Filo]

Admitting you hate them simply shows you have a terrible bias. Who can take you seriusly when you can’t present evidence for your claims and admit ridiculous bias?

No, it shows that I have a realistic bias. When I can cite as many incidents as I can, as many cover ups as I can and so on then I have a very real reason for my conclusions.

As for the evidence, I have presented it. It's just that you and people like you think it's perfectly okay for cops to kill people without cause.

[Filo]

Admitting you hate them simply shows you have a terrible bias. Who can take you seriusly when you can’t present evidence for your claims and admit ridiculous bias?

No, it shows that I have a realistic bias. When I can cite as many incidents as I can, as many cover ups as I can and so on then I have a very real reason for my conclusions.

As for the evidence, I have presented it. It's just that you and people like you think it's perfectly okay for cops to kill people without cause.