Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mehserle's letter to the public
San Francisco Chronicle / sfgate.com ^ | Friday, July 9, 2010 | Chronicle Staff Report

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: bartpolice; johannesmehserle; oakland; oscargrant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-180 next last
To: All; PanzerKardinal
Info is from PanzerKardinal.

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.

61 posted on 07/09/2010 4:08:46 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Filo

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.


62 posted on 07/09/2010 4:12:43 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Filo

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.


63 posted on 07/09/2010 4:23:47 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Filo

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.


64 posted on 07/09/2010 4:25:14 PM PDT by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

You’re kiddin?! /s


65 posted on 07/09/2010 4:28:19 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
That's what was posted. I couldn't find the Calif Penal code to save my life. lol

Btw, that whole post was from here

66 posted on 07/09/2010 4:30:53 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: rjones42; Filo

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.


67 posted on 07/09/2010 4:34:50 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Filo
A repentant murderer is still a murderer.

The jury saw all of the evidence and unanimously concluded that Mehserle is not a murderer.

68 posted on 07/09/2010 4:36:40 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

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.


69 posted on 07/09/2010 4:36:40 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Filo

Is it possible to eat Cheetos to it, rather than drink? :-)


70 posted on 07/09/2010 4:40:10 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

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.


71 posted on 07/09/2010 4:44:08 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
This not a 187 it is a 192.

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.

72 posted on 07/09/2010 5:09:32 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

187 is Murder

192 is manslaughter

I read the letter and I feel sorry for everyone involved.


73 posted on 07/09/2010 5:16:13 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Thanks for the info.

It is a heartbreaking situation.

74 posted on 07/09/2010 5:27:26 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
Where ya getting this filo? San Fran free press?

IIRC it was ABC News so, uh, yeah. :P
75 posted on 07/09/2010 5:28:45 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
Only someone that really truly hates cops would think this cop *intentionally* murdered this guy in front of a dozen people and his fellow officers, in broad daylight.

Or someone experienced with cops.

Meanwhile my argument has been mostly for murder 2.

But do keep up the straw men. It's amusing if nothing else.
76 posted on 07/09/2010 5:30:40 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #77 Removed by Moderator

To: vladimir998
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””

Quoting only half of the definition (which is an either/or one) is a really interesting form of dishonesty.

Bravo.

He thought the taser was necessary.

And a reasonable person, including the other cops, would not. Clearly the two cuffing Grant were surprised that anything at all happened.

This wasn’t murder.

Yes it was. Murder 2, by the book.

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" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
78 posted on 07/09/2010 5:41:46 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
Even the victims friend testified that the officer said he was going to tase him.

And that justifies his doing so or his shooting him in the back how?

I know the police think otherwise, but a taser is a potentially leathal weapon and you can't just go around tasing people willy-nilly 'cause you feel like it.

Mehserle had no reason to draw, more or less use his taser, and certainly not his gun.
79 posted on 07/09/2010 5:44:45 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
A jury saw the same tape you did. The jury also heard many hours of testimony. The jury concluded that he did not shoot the suspect in a manner justifying a Murder 1, or Murder 2, verdict. The verdict of involuntary manslaughter corroborates the officer's contention that he did not intend to shoot the suspect, and to the jury, that WAS believable. Your terminologies of murder and execution run counter to what was decided by the jury. Your protestations to the contrary are not going to change the minds of others who agree that the jury got it right.

Agreed on all counts.

The jury got it wrong.
80 posted on 07/09/2010 5:46:10 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-180 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson