Oakland Update & July 8 Open Thread

Gun Enhancement (0.00 / 0)

Does it apply?  The Court's Spokesperson told KTVU that the gun enhancement does not apply.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:34:30 AM UTC

I think it does apply (0.00 / 0)

At least the Alameda DA thinks so:

However, "the jury clearly did not find that his was an accident," O'Malley said during a post-verdict news conference in the lobby of the Alameda County Courthouse. "What this jury found was that when Mehserle committed the crime, he was acting with criminal negligence and acted recklessly, and he intentionally pulled out his weapon and not his Taser."

"They rejected that he was going for a Taser and found he used that gun in a negligent and criminally reckless manner," she said, ".... in the course of committing a crime."

"The jury also found true that Johannes Mehserle used his gun, and that finding itself indicates to us that the jury completely rejected the Mehserle claim that he had actually been grabbing his Taser," she said. "We believe that Johannes Mehserle was guilty of the crime of murder.... The jury found otherwise. But it was important to note that this jury did not relieve Johannes Mehserle of of his criminal liability."

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 02:17:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right verdict, but anger is justified (3.00 / 1)

If I were on the jury, could I have said that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Mehserle's actions were murder? No.  If the standard was "preponderence of the evidence" or some lesser standard, that would be different.  But defendents (who almost by definition are people we don't like) deserve rights.  I think that there is reasonable doubt about his intentions.  Therefore I think it was the right verdict.

However, young blacks in East Oakland rarely find that the nicities of legal standards work to their favor.  Mostly they find a tough on crime society wants to think up new felonies to send them to prison.  When someone is black, juries don't see much reasonable doubt and the entire system seems to work against them.

I can understand why there is so much anger about this verdict.  Its the right verdict, but few young blacks enjoy this standard of legal protection.

---

by: smoker1 @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 04:13:01 AM UTC

pulling a gun out and shooting a restrained man in the back? (0.00 / 0)

yes, i think that's a pretty cut and dried a case of second-degree murder. the gun didn't accidentally go off, it was drawn, aimed, and shot at an unarmed, restrained target who happened to be a member of the most commonly "accidentally" murdered-by-cop race. recoiling after you do a monstrous act does not mean that monstrous act was an unintended accident. it just means that you're a human being with some vestigial core of basic knowledge between right and wrong.

any black man who had shot a white unarmed cop in the back and then come to his senses afterwards would not be convinced of involuntary manslaughter, he'd be in jail for life, minimum. the law has a built-in racial and police discount, is all i can fathom. some animals are more (and less) equal than others.

the composition of the jury is also notable for both its lack of black jurors and the number of jurors with friends and family in police forces.  

---

by: wu ming @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 05:32:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Legal Thing To Do vs The Moral Thing To Do (0.00 / 0)

 So your saying that its likely second degree murder but a child is without her father and that's equal?

The legal thing to do might have been the verdict that was rendered.

However the moral thing to do is to serve justice. A man is dead because of this person's malice. Completely intended, maybe not, but he drew his weapon and how can you believe a taser which is much lighter than an actual gun was the wrong thing he pulled?

That sounds like a poor excuse.

This just proves once again an All White Jury is loathed to levy a heavy price onto White Police Officers no matter how outrageous the crime, especially when it involves Black Men.

How can you justify "Right" when "Wrong" has been committed and just fumble it away to how the justice system works?

Incredible, I wish there was just much explaining the next time a young white woman or little girl is kidnapped/raped and murdered by some transient.

 

---

by: djfourmoney @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 06:42:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Manslaughter (0.00 / 0)

Check out this opinion piece over at Oakland Local
http://oaklandlocal.com/blogs/...

(Here is Wikipedia's example of a crime that would be considered involuntary manslaughter:

"For example, if a person throws a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below they could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage. There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

How interesting. Mehserle used a gun in this particular instance, a machine INTENDED for injuring, if not murdering, a living being. Even if shooting the gun was an "accident" he still pulled out this deadly weapon with "malice aforethought" and pointed it at another human intentionally. The law is clearly referring to an accidental death caused by non-lethal means.

No doubt, if the tables were turned, and Oscar Grant had "accidentally" fired a bullet at Officer Mehserle, he would be looking at an execution at the hands of the state, in the form of the death penalty (automatically sought in the killing of a police officer....

More from Wikipedia:

There have been many types of voluntary manslaughter. These have not been differentiated here as they are so closely related or indistinguishable that many US jurisdictions do not differentiate between them.[1] The following are some examples of defenses which may be raised to mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter:

Provocation: A killing which occurs after provocation by an event which would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control.

Imperfect self-defense: Allowed only in a limited number of jurisdictions in the United States, self-defense is a complete defense to murder. However, a person who acted in self defense with an honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to do so could still be convicted of voluntary manslaughter or deliberate homicide committed without criminal malice. Malice is found if a person killed intentionally and without legal excuse or mitigation.

Diminished capacity is a defense which serves to negate the mental state of "malice". If a jurisdiction recognizes that a person can kill with justification, but also without any evil intent, that jurisdiction is free to define the crime as something less than murder. It is not present in all US jurisdictions. In many, a mental defect, or even mental illness, will not reduce the seriousness of the offense whatsoever. However, if a US state legislature so promulgates, a diminished mental state may be used as a justification for the finding of a lesser crime. This is distinguished from the complete defense of Insanity.

I wonder if the jury received proper instruction.

Guess I still have San Francisco hippie values, although I'm an engineer

---

by: caligal @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 19:45:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]