Posted on 07/09/2010 2:33:46 PM PDT by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
California Penal Code Sec 187 defines murder as:
(a). Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
California Penal Code Sec 188 states:
Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite such awareness is included within the definition of malice.
**************************************
So in order to convict on 1st degree murder you must show that the killer had to have formed a malicious intent to kill the victim.
And unlike what most laymen think, malice is not just shown by killing someone. You must show that there had to be a volitional act.
No one, not the witnesses, not the investigators, not even the people with Grant could show that a volitional act occurred on Mehserle’s part.
*****************************************
Cal Penal Code Sec 189 states that:
All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.
**********************************************
None of these above conditions were met.
**********************************************
Cal Penal Code 192(a) defines Voluntary Manslaughter as homicide committed when the defendant is provoked or during the “heat of passion.
Cal Penal Code 192(b) defines Involuntary Manslaughter as murder without malice and committed during a misdemeanor or a lawful but dangerous act.
**********************************************
There was no provocation or “heat of passion” here so no Voluntary Manslaughter.
But there was a murder without malice while the defendant committed a lawful but dangerous act ie. arresting a suspect.
I know that most people’s notions of criminal law comes from television, but this is real life. The prosecution couldn’t charge 1st or 2nd degree murder because it wasn’t there. And if they did it would have been misconduct.
You wrote:
“Murder 2 doesn’t require intent to kill.”
Strange. Earlier, you wrote: “Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion””
So, your definition is down by 50% already.
“As I posted in another thread: If a guy chugs a fifth of vodka and hops in his pick-em-up and drives down the road at 120 does he mean to kill that family out for a picnic? Is he innocent because it was an “accident?””
Nope, but states have specific vehicular/drunk driving crimes.
“The officers cuffing Grant were not, the others on the platform were. Either way, the taser wasn’t necessary in the first place, which is the point. Grant was under control and tasing him under the circumstances would have simply been vindictive. As it turns out, shooting him was more so.”
He thought the taser was necessary.
“You did better than I did. I figured he’d get off Scott free since cops get away with murder all the time.”
This wasn’t murder.
Great! Glad you brought up the O.J. thing and I was hoping you would.
O.J. was aquitted wrongly or rightly but the system worked. Was is just? I don’t think so but 12 other people saw it differently.
Life’s tough there were no “White People” riots. In fact, no one but the most atavistic, Hood wearing, Robert Byrd is my hero, moron would even think about it.
We all just kind of threw our hands up in the air and rolled our eyes.
The difference here is Mehserle is going to jail. A terrible place to be under any circumstance and he is going to pay a penalty.
It will cost him dearly and he may wish he had followed through on his initial instinct.
As far as you not drinking, I guess that’s probably the problem.
And your hope will be realized, then you can celebrate justice.
Amazing how people see what they want to see.
Again, the suspects sitting with their hands cuffed were in control and not resisting. The suspect on the ground, yelling, kicking, and refusing to withdraw his hand from is pants was not in control, was resisting, and was a clear danger to the officers.
Anyone trained to a emergency service job on the streets, fire, police, EMS, is trained first in scene safety. Always assume a hidden arm and hand is holding a weapon and act accordingly, otherwise you go home dead.
He was refusing to bring his arm around into view. He was fighting and struggling, and one man on the wrong drugs can easily fight off three men trying to restrain him. The safest number to restrain someone is FOUR - one for each extremity, minimum.
As cops don’t carry ativan, using a taser was a viable option to provide control and safety to a dangerous scene.
You’re kiddin?! /s
Btw, that whole post was from here
Let’s put it this way. If this sort of error has happened before, the record seems to be strangely lost to us. If a normal mistake is a brain fart, this would have been explosive brain diarrhea. How long have there been practical Tasers? At least a decade?
Anyhow it’s a meme now. I hope there are not to follow a plethora of such mistakes. It should not be possible (and if it is, it needs to be corrected by redesign, pronto) to mistake a gun in hand for a Taser, with one’s eyes tight shut.
The jury saw all of the evidence and unanimously concluded that Mehserle is not a murderer.
Actually, I am familiar with the codes having studied Police Science and 4 years on the Sheriff Explorer.
This not a 187 it is a 192.
Filo is a weirdo and I don’t understand people who can’t say “if that is all that justice can render, then so be it with God”.
The guy did not get O.J.’d.
Is it possible to eat Cheetos to it, rather than drink? :-)
Technically, they unanimously decided that there was a “reasonable doubt” (which doubt doesn’t need to rise to the level of “most likely explanation”) whether Mehserle murdered. If they understood and honored the decision criteria. Remember the Scottish Verdict of “not proven” (cf Sen. Specter, in infamy)? Had that been possible, that might have been rendered here.
I wouldn't know the difference. Can you tell me what that is? And I won't repost the incorrect info. Thanks for telling me.
The guy did not get O.J.’d.
No. He didn't. Did you read his letter? He has a newborn that's being threatened. Only someone very stupid and violent would do such a thing.
187 is Murder
192 is manslaughter
I read the letter and I feel sorry for everyone involved.
It is a heartbreaking situation.
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.