›

Bay Area: Mehserle trial coming to a close

showandtellshowandtell 97 Posts
edited June 2010 in Strut Central
High anxiety around here, keep Oakland in your thoughts.
Stein also called to the witness stand Terry Foreman, one of Mehserle's closest friends on the BART force. Foreman said he had sat with Mehserle at police headquarters in the hours after the shooting, had driven him home that morning, and had spoken to him several times in subsequent days.

Mehserle never said he had mistaken his firearm for his Taser, Foreman testified, but only repeated that he thought Grant had been reaching for a gun. Foreman recalled that as he drove Mehserle back from his then-attorney's office in Sacramento one day, his friend grew emotional.

"All of a sudden, he just broke down and said, 'I thought he had a gun, I thought he had a gun,' " Foreman said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/30/MN5J1E6N7G.DTL&type=newsbayarea

  Comments

  • spelunkspelunk 3,400 Posts
    This cop better get locked up. It's despicable that in the 90s Rodney King being beaten stirred a nationwide outcry but now a man is shot with three cops standing over him and the story is for the most part staying within the Bay.
  • edpowersedpowers 4,437 Posts
    The cop getting off in New York and the cop being "allowed" to punch the girl in the face was a nice vaseline....at worst he'll get slapped on the wrist
  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    I, too, fear that the cop will get off with at most a slap on the wrist.

    Bay Area. You guys be safe out there. If the trial ends as I fear it might, shit is going to get really ugly.
  • marumaru 1,450 Posts
    I'm definitely afraid of what might go down if dude gets off. Seems way worse than Rodney King, someone actually died here. Although it sounds like the police have been preparing for months which wasn't the case in the King trial.
  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    I don't think the guy is going to jail. The history of jury trials of police shootings is to let them off if they feel any fear from the suspect, which is what this guy is claiming.
  • rootlesscosmorootlesscosmo 12,848 Posts
    From everything I heard, the guy was the type of cop all of us cop-haters want cops to be, as well as a great guy out of work - peaceful, by the book, ethical . . . etc. I don't think he murdered Grant; I think he made the biggest blunder of his life. That's jsut my understanding of this guy personally and this case specifically. Maybe on a macro/institutional level we need a conviction like this to right past wrongs, set an example to law enforcement, etc. That's another issue.
  • showandtellshowandtell 97 Posts
    Aargh.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/BAM21EBDOD.DTL
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    The news has also been calling him police.

    My understanding, back in January, was that he was more like a glorified rent-a-cop.

    I don't think he has the protection of a police union. Which is why he lost his job. (He did lose his job right?)

    If he was police, and protected by a union, he would have been assigned desk duty until after an internal investigation.

    Then at trial his defense would have argued he feared for his life and had to react in a split second.
    The jury would have been put in a simulation of struggling with an armed suspect and if they didn't pull the trigger they would get shot.
    He would have then been acquitted (most likely by a grand jury, not a trial jury) because real police have the right to kill any one they feel is a threat to themselves or others.

    This was not his defense. His defense was he thought he was reaching for a taser*. And that he was really sorry.




    BTW: The people who make tasers say they should only be used as an alternative to deadly force. In other words any one who is tased could have been shot by the company's standard.
  • phongonephongone 1,652 Posts
    LaserWolf said:

    He would have then been acquitted (most likely by a grand jury, not a trial jury) because real police have the right to kill any one they feel is a threat to themselves or others.

    Oh yeah, have you ever heard of Amadou Diallo?
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    phongone said:
    LaserWolf said:

    He would have then been acquitted (most likely by a grand jury, not a trial jury) because real police have the right to kill any one they feel is a threat to themselves or others.

    Oh yeah, have you ever heard of Amadou Diallo?

    I have, and here in Portland we have similar cases every year or 2.
    We have had many police shootings in the state this year, but only a few have been of unarmed citizens.
  • phongonephongone 1,652 Posts
    As one twitter dude observed Michael Vick served more time for killing dogs than this dude will serve for killing an unarmed black man.
  • Options
    Unknown
    phongone said:
    As one twitter dude observed Michael Vick served more time for killing dogs than this dude will serve for killing an unarmed black man.

    Someone else pointed out that Plaxico Burress will serve more time for shooting himself in the leg than this killer will serve.
  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    http://dailysession.com/2010/07/10/session-519-good-records-07-09-10/
Sign In or Register to comment.