Threatening a police officer gets longer sentence than homicide

Published On July 14, 2011 | By Georgia Sand | Articles

There is no end to the shitstorm of injustice flowing from the case of Bart Officer Johannes Mehserle and Oscar Grant. On January 1, 2009, during an altercation at the Fruitvale Bart station, Mehserle shot Oscar Grant while he was lying face down on the ground. This occurred while his partner Tony Pirone screamed racial slurs like “Bitch ass nigger!” at the victim.  Jury deliberations at Mehserle’s trial in the Summer of 2010 were a joke. The jury convicted Mehserle of involuntary manslaughter even though Mehserle essentially murdered Mr. Grant.

Mehserle then received the lightest sentence possible for the killing, as he was a cop, and of a higher order of human being than the rest of us. His charge carried a possible sentence of 2 to 4 years, and he received a sentence of 2 years with credit for time served.  Incidentally, this is about as severe as some people face for growing weed (Got that? Murder by a cop is punished in the same manner as getting high for ordinary slaves like you or me).

One of Mehserle’s accomplices to the crime, Marysol Domenici, stated that if Grant had followed orders, he wouldn’t have been shot (yes, apparently the punishment for disobedience in this country is death). She committed perjury to protect herself and her friends in Blue and was fired. However, she was subsequently reinstated and given back-pay of $118,750 during the vacation of 15 months during which she did no work.

Did you think the absurdity stopped there? Don’t be so naive. This is the United States of fucking America. After hearing the news of Oscar Grant’s death, Jeffrey L .Weaver, who was incensed, vented his frustrations in the comments section of an Infowars.com article. He posted under the identity “F-ThePIGS” and said, “IF I FIND OUT WHO THE PIG IS THEN I WILL KILL THE PIG WHO KILLED HIM.” Later, he posted, “If any of you Oakland or BART pigs … are reading this your time is coming,” the FBI said. The writer added he was “curious to know what it looks like up close to see pigs … get their brains splattered against a wall” (more here).

After Mehserle was identified several days later, Mr. Weaver ranted some more, and posted Mehserle’s name and home address. Allegedly, Mehserle moved around from place to place and went into hiding because of situations like this. This actually is not an infrequent occurrence; people accused of heinous crimes such as child molestation or murder are sometimes hounded, condemned or followed by the public, and may even find protesters outside their house.

But god forbid this happens to a police officer. Even if he is a goddamned murderer. We can’t have our laurel-crowned gods treated like this.

Jeffrey Weaver was located through IP addresses linked to his statements and was arrested and charged for transmitting threatening communications in interstate commerce. Mr. Weaver was sentenced to 3 years in federal prison and 3 years of probation. Nevermind that these were just words, and that Weaver was on the other side of the country in Virginia when he made these alleged “threats.” Nevermind that the Supreme Court declared in Brandenburg v. Ohio that government cannot constitutionally punish general advocacy of force or lawlessness. Such advocacy for violence and lawlessness may only be punished if it meets 3 elements - intent, imminence, and likelihood.

Only by the most intellectually dishonest stretch of the law should Weaver’s act of ranting on the internet some 3,000 miles away be considered conclusive evidence of intent to commit violent unlawful action that is both imminent and likely to happen. Weaver’s comments are at the most disturbing and unnerving, but they are not worse than murder.

No, this is not a joke. A police officer really did murder someone and serve only 2 years in prison, while a weed grower faced the same amount of time, and an angry man infuriated by cold-blooded murder is serving 3 years for merely making nasty comments. A police officer can murder you and get 2 years, but if you so much as threaten a police officer, you will do more time.

According to the law, your life isn’t worth shit compared to that of a police officer’s. How does it feel to occupy one of the lower rungs in a caste society?

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

Georgia (George) Sand received her B.A. from UCLA and her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law. She enjoys beer, jogging, the beach and music in her spare time.
  • Free Soul

    Was it Jimmy Cliff or Peter Tosh who said “I dont want peace, I want equal rights and JUSTICE!”?

  • anada

    if the assholes keep putting us in jail, then how will they continue to get paid b/c the government won’t have any taxes slaves left to steal from. there are only 50 million people working w/o the government nipple. of the 50 million working 55% is stolen for taxes to pay for their own enslavement. corporate welfare takes 95% of 55% and 5% of the 55% is left for low-level welfare recipients like cops. and cops have to share 5% of stolen tax money with all the other welfare recipients. cops are welfare recipient b/c they have stopped serving the public and starting serving themselves. they are takers like the rest of the government leeches.

  • akazip

    While I don’t condone violence against anyone, I do understand the visceral feelings that people go through when a great injustice is done. The police in this country work in conjunction with the prosecutors and their masters, the corporations. We are just slaves with a number (given at birth and sold on the open market).

    If police officers are afraid for their lives, then maybe they should police their own yard instead of hiding behind unions and corrupt politicians. When we see corrupt cops getting what they deserve, then we might have a little more respect for them as human beings, and “follow orders”.

    By the way, nobody tells me what to do; they can ask nicely, or kiss by rosy red ass.

  • 901fan

    your own article is contridictory. You say homicide in the title to be inflamitory but you point out that he was convicted of “involuntary manslaughter” So which is it? Was he convited of Homicide or manslaughter? its hard to take you seriously when you obviously misrepresnt the facts.

  • Chris S.

    Involentary manslaughter was what he was charged with but taking a life is homicide. The former is just legal bullcrap for people that didn’t do it intentionally. but if you point the weapon and squeeze the trigger how unintentional and involentary was it? I understood her meaning, you must be a lawyer not to have ;)

  • 901fan

    Chris, I think the jury beleived that he thought the officer intended to use his taser but like a retard pulled the wrong tool and killed the guy. The jury felt that is actions were so neglegent that they were criminal that is why they chose to convict him of an “involentary” crime. If they felt based on the facts they were presented with he did it intentionally he would have been convicted of “Homicide”. you can I can argue all day long about weather it was homicide or manslaughter, but the simple fact remains, in a court of law it was determined to be involentary manslaughter not homicide. So calling it otherwise besides being pointless is just incorrect.

  • George Sand

    @901 – go look up the definition of homicide. It means killing a person. This can include murder, involuntary manslaughter or voluntary manslaughter. So yes, he was convicted of a homicide. Involuntary manslaughter is a form of homicide.

  • not bob

    901fan: your just playing devils advocate and quibbling over minutia – give us your solid opinion here – was what the cop did – shoot someone in the back while screaming racial epithets at them an accident or murder – just your personal opinion is all I am asking for ?

    My opinion is if the cop was so stupid as to pull the wrong weapon and pull the trigger he qualifies as “to stupid to live” and should be put to death for murder.

  • Jason

    Essentially a thought crime gets you sentenced now when it has to do with actual justice against a murderer cop. Nice. Glad I am moving out of this damn country. I’ve had enough.

  • George Sand

    @jason – where are you moving to?

  • George Sand

    Mehserle claimed in his defense he didn’t know the difference between his taser and his gun, but this picture was taken allegedly by Oscar Grant, while he was on the ground, before he was shot – http://www.streetgangs.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/oscar_grant_cell.jpg

    Mehserle had his taser out at one point. My ass he didn’t know which was which.

  • Malfeitor

    People should know better than to post comments like that on message board’s, unless you take precautions nothing you say online is anonymous.
    That being said i think 3 years is rather excessive, pretty clearly shows that the courts agree with police, they ARE better than us.

  • theblueline

    How about the fact that two police officers lost their lives this week alone. You have the nerve to protest this piece of shits death. I say fuck you sir and fuck all the other hippie scumbag tweekers that share your opinion. Police officers will always be here no matter how many stupid websites you create. Get used to it scumbags we aren’t going anywhere.

  • EveryMinorityEver

    @thblueline:You are an idiot. There is no justification for the shooting of an unarmed man lying face down on the ground. Whether it was Martin Luther King or Adolf Hitler, that would be an execution. The police are NOT executioners. That is what the whole legal system is for. So yes, we DO have the nerve to protest the death of this individual. THAT, was not justice.

  • 901fan

    George Sand, you are correct homicide includes all forms of death of a human being. However, most people equate homicide with murder and that was certianly what the authtor was implying. I should have been more clear. My apologies. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Not Bob, I think that any officer that keeps his taser on the same side as his gun is asking for problems. Most agencies wont let you. As for what I think. I think the cop was neglegent and pulled the wrong tool. He was shooting it like it was a taser not a gun. when you are acting in a high stress situation you act and react with what you are trained to do. I have pointed my taser and gun at hundreds of people and I never once thought about it. it just happend based on my observations and the actions of the person. Its kind of an auto poilot thing for the most part. When things slow down or there is a lull in the activity is when you have time to think about what is going on. think of it like driving and a box falls out of the vehicle in front of you in the road. you probibly arent going to think. Hmmm, I should swerve. What is likley to happen is your mind takes over and you swerve without thinking about it too much. Your mind has sped up and you have probibly even checked the mirrors before you swerved without even thinking to, in the end, you avoided a mis hap. I think its stupid to cary the taser on the same side. I have mine set up so that I have to draw it with a different hand on the oposite side of my body as my gun. This I do becuase an officer in my agency shot a guy in the butt several years back thinking he was tasing him. Back then we were allowed to carry the taser where we wanted to. Now our agency dictates were we carry them. So do I think he did it on purpose? No I dont, beucase in that situation there was no need for his gun to be out. After watching the video and having been in similar situations it looks like he was attempting to tase him since there was no need to shoot him. No cop with any firearms traing holds or shoots thier gun like that. But they do use the taser like that beucse it has a laser dot so you dont need to sight it.

    As for getting more time for threatening an officer than homicide. I have been threatend as a police officer multiple times and nobody ever got near 48 months. The most anyone who ever threatend me got was 60 days. He was gang memeber who was mad at me for knocking him over just as he held a 5 lb weight over his wifes head and was about to hit her with it AGAIN. He threatend to kill me and my family and he got 60 days for that and probation for his vicious assult on his wife.

  • Matthew D. Peters

    In my opinion, police officers should receive an appropriate sentence for the circumstances and specifics of their behavior when they engage in criminal activity. They do not have a protected legal status when they act in a manner contrary to their statutory authority.

    In this case, murder would be very difficult to prove because to make a murder charge stick, you must prove both intent and malice aforethought. In addition, it must be proven that there was no reasonable legal excuse or legal authority for the homicide. I agree with 901fan’s general assessment of the incident, therefore I do not believe it was a murder. However, I believe the crime committed by the officer was voluntary manslaughter as opposed to mere involuntary manslaughter due to the fact that the homicide occurred during the commission of a felony (armed assault) and not a non-felony.

    The perpetrator of this officer-involved unlawful homicide received an obscenely lenient sentence in my opinion.

  • George Sand

    @Matthew Peters – I don’t know where you live, but in California, where this occurred, murder charges exist in the first or second degree. First degree murder requires intent to kill. Second degree does not. One can be guilty of second degree murder if they behaved so recklessly as to exhibit indifference to human life, while engaging in an inherently dangerous activity, and as a result killed a person (something to that effect.). Thus, if not first degree, Mehserle reasonably committed an act that would fit under the definition second degree murder.

    Also, I think you are getting things confused. If homicide was committed during a felony, some states ratchet it up to felony murder. Commission of a felony would not have an effect on manslaughter, at least not in California (to my knowledge). What separates voluntary and involuntary manslaughter is whether the homicide was a “heat of the passion” crime – i.e. it was committed after the killer was actually, and reasonably provoked to kill. For instance, if you come home to see your wife fucking your best friend and see a gun on the night stand and impulsively shoot and kill them, you could make a case for voluntary manslaughter because the killer intended to kill or injure, but this is mitigated by the “heat of the passion” circumstances. On the other hand, involuntary manslaughter is when negligent action results in someone’s death, even though the killer did not mean to kill, or even hurt anyone. Examples of involuntary manslaughter would be drinking and driving and killing someone, or locking up all your fire escape exits negligently, and as a result people in your building burn to death.

  • George Sand

    @901 – if you click on the link of the earlier story about Mehserle, you will see why I argue that he committed murder, even though he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. His actions more than reasonably fit the definition of second degree murder under California’s penal code.

  • Matthew D. Peters

    @George Sand:

    “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
    fetus, with malice aforethought.”

    -California Penal Code, Section 187(a)

    The difference between first and second degree murder in the State of California is determined by how the murder was committed.
    See California Penal Code Section 189.

    I live in Oregon, but that does not mean I do not have access to California statutes.

  • 901fan

    George, I did and yes he had his taser out in that picture. But clearly he had it put away when he drew his gun. situatuions are fluid and ever changing. At some point the taser was put away, i assume becuase he felt it wasnt needed. In the video he draws his gun suddenly and deploys it like a taser. Which was clearly the wrong thing to do. It was neglegent it shouldnt have happend. But it did

  • George Sand

    @Matthew – What’s your point there? Penal code 189 would be in line with what I am saying. It says that intentional killing, and killing with weapons of mass destruction and other tools, etc. are first degree, while other murders are second degree. Mehserle’s actions would be the “other murders” 189 mentions.

    Mehserle committed second degree murder because malice aforethought could reasonably demonstrated as to his actions. Malice aforethought is not the same thing as intent. Malice aforethought can be explicit (intent), or implicit. Murder in the first degree requires express malice aforethought (intent). However, IMPLIED malice aforethought can be shown in the following ways (per CA murder jury instructions) –
    1. (he/she) intentionally committed an act;
    2. The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life;
    3. At the time (he/she) acted, (he/she) knew (his/her) act was dangerous to human life;
    AND
    4. (he/she) deliberately acted with conscious disregard for (human/ [or] fetal) life.
    Mehserle intentionally committed the act of drawing a weapon (whether it be taser or gun.) The natural consequences of drawing a weapon without checking what weapon it is is an act that is dangerous to human life. At the time Mehserle acted, he knew (unless he is brain dead) that drawing a random weapon from your holster without checking which one it is, is an act that is dangerous to human life. He then aimed it at Grant’s back, which was a conscious disregard for human life.

    Thus, implied malice aforethought, second degree murder.

  • 901fan

    George, I understand your point, but there is no way the mens rea was or could be met under the circimstances. In order for your acessment to fit they would have to have certian articulable facts that demonstrate his intent was to kill him. The jury found that he was neglegent (we all agree on that) but that it was not his intent to kill him.

  • Mr. Schroeder

    @901fan
    “I have pointed my taser and gun at hundreds of people and I never once thought about it.”

    You’re the problem, moron. You’re not “just doing your job”, you’re clearly one of the bad guys.

  • George Sand

    @901 – if you are still arguing mens rea and intent to kill, then you clearly don’t understand my point. Second degree murder does NOT REQUIRE intent to kill for mens rea – it just requires an intentional reckless act. Read the elements over. For instance, let’s say you charge at a person with an axe because you want to kill them, and you do. That is intent to kill, and therefore first degree murder. Now let’s say you are swinging an axe wildly while a crowd stands nearby, and did not intend to kill anyone, but the axe swung out of your hands accidentally and hit someone and killed them. This would be an intentional act (you INTENDED to swing the axe – no one swings an axe wildly by “accident”), the act was reckless and inherently dangerous to human life, and it ended up killing someone. This would be an example of implied malice, and second degree murder.

    Implied malice is just that – it’s IMPLIED, not EXPRESS. Express malice is intent to kill, which is required for FIRST degree. IMPLIED malice is IMPLIED by the reckless act, even if the killer didn’t intend to kill (e.g. perhaps he only had intent to wound, perhaps he had no intent to hurt anyone at all, but the act was so reckless, and so inherently dangerous, and likely to kill, that malice is implied).

    The real issue to be disputed is whether you think drawing a weapon without checking which one it is, and firing into someone’s back is reckless. If you don’t think it’s reckless, then I suppose it would not be second degree murder.

  • 901fan

    George,

    I understand your point and your explanation of the law is correct and perfectly clear. What I am saying is that it comes down to the intent of the officer and if he did in fact think he was pulling his taser by accident. To pull a gun instead is reckless true but I think it lacks malice. Tasers are not considered lethal so presumably he thought he was using less lethal means to subdue the subject. I think of it like this, and I may be wrong, if sitting in a car in a parking lot you intend to back out and shift gears but mistakenly put it in drive instead of reverse and run into a pedestrian and kill them. If you had backed up like intended, the death would not have occurred. You intended to drive the car and did not intend to kill anyone but did so mistakenly. I assume this is how the jury looked at it too. I was not there and did not have the facts but it seems like they believed that he intended to use less lethal means. Even though nearly 85% of persons survive a single shot from a handgun round 99.9 survive being tased.

    Mr. Schroder,

    Yes I am a moron, I don’t deny that. I would have to be to do this job. Think about it. If you called 911 and needed help I would without equivocation do everything possible to help you or keep you safe up to and including risking my own life for you. I would do this even if I knew you were the douche bag cop hater that you are. If I died proctecting you from harm I would still do it. I am certain that the feeling is not reciprocal. So indeed, I am clearly a moron. And you my friend are an ignorant bigot. Ignorant to the facts of reality, as ignorant as anyone who judges people by a race, color or classification. The solace for me is that I get to go through life being me and knowing I am not you, a miserable tormented bigot. You assume all cops are evil, who the hell do you think arrests bad cops? Who is willing to risk their life for your safety? Have you ever looked down the sights of a gun at a suspect while in the foreground is two murdered souls just killed by the very person you are pointing your gun at? I do not violate peoples civil rights. I do my best to help everyone I come in contact with. More often than not when I take a person to jail they thank me. For A) treating them like a human being and B) helping them on the path to getting their life in order. People ask me how I can be so nice to a child molester and not beat the shit out of them. I tell them my satisfaction comes from conducting a detailed and professional investigation that is not compromised by any chances of the suspects civil rights being violated. Because I am the servant of the victim and if I do something that keeps the victim from getting justice, I am worthless to the processes. Instead, I listen to the disgusting details and document them accurately and completely and make certain that the rights of the victim and suspect are protected so that the case makes it through any suppression hearing or any legal defense. You judge me by my profession. You don’t know me and your ignorant statement shows that. Enjoy your life of bigotry.

  • theblueline is a pussy

    Hey theblueline, you are going to get yours with that attitude. Hopefully it will be as painful and slow as can be. You cowards can’t take on an armed populace, so if we want you gone, you are gone, period. You’re just a bitch with a badge and a gun, nothing more. I hope you don’t ever make it home. We need to cleanse the gene pool of sorry fucks like you.

  • 901fan

    thebluelineisapussy,

    Seriously? You are not going to be taken seriously with statements like that. Rational adults do not delight in the death of anyone and especially not murder. Statments like that make you sound like a junior high student and it bodes the question if mommy knows your on the internet that late.

  • Russ

    I very rarely disagree, but I’m forced to do so here.

    Had the guy said “I hope someone kills the f’ing pig” or “Someone needs to kill this f’ing pig”, he would have been just fine. Even if he said “I wish I could kill this f’ing pig” he would have been safe. It would have been a straight First Amendment free-speech issue. But he said “I am going to kill this f’ing pig” and that’s criminal threatening. It shows a clear intent.

    Further, he says he’ll kill the cop “as soon as he knows where he lives” or “as soon as he finds him” or however he phrased it. This made the threat imminent.

    Likelihood is entirely subjective. Who’s to say that 3,000 miles is too far to go for someone who’s that angry? Plus, once it’s been established that the threat was intentional and imminent, likelihood starts to have a much more liberal application.

    The author of the post seems to feel that the issue is less that the guy was charged for his rant and more because of the length of the sentence imposed being longer than the cop got for the wrongful killing of the first guy. But the cop’s sentence is irrelevant. The cases aren’t connected. I’m sure the judge/jury was just as upset about the officer’s actions and light sentence as the rest of us, but it’s just not germane to the threatening charge which had to be decided on its own merits.

    Sorry.

  • George Sand

    Ok, point taken. We disagree whether this was imminent. Even so, I do not think 3 years in prison is an appropriate or proportionate punishment for this. Look at sentencing for manslaughter crimes – http://www.jkrlaw.com/california-felony-sentencing-schedule. I really do not think it’s appropriate for someone to do 3 years for a threat, when minimum sentences when you actually do kill someone runs in the 1.5-4 year range.

  • Russ

    George Sand – your own argument belies your point. If the cop truly did think he was drawing his taser, not his gun, them there is no implied intent, or passive intent, because a taser is not reasonably likely to kill. Not even if it hits a person with a pacemaker by accident. That being said, you’re not wrong. I’m just pointing out that your argument is flawed.

    901fan – there is absolutely no excuse for tasing a suspect who is lying face down with his hands out in front of him while your partner is yelling “bitch ass n!gger”. Whatever may or may not have happened previous, the suspect was compliant at that moment and so tasing him was an illegal act. Whether he intended to pull his taser or his gun is irrelevant because he had no right to use either. He intended to cause injury either way and his victim died as a result. Therefore this is depraved indifference, and that makes it first-degree murder. It also makes it a hate crime.

  • Russ

    Oh, sorry guys. I thought you were arguing the intent of the officer, but apparently you were arguing the intent if the guy who did the threatening. My bad.

  • Russ

    Theblueline – while you’re right in your assertion that we will probably always have police officers, you’re dead wrong in assuming that we have to tolerate bad cos. You seem to forget that you work for us. Civilian oversight of the police is a growing trend, not a shrinking trend. Every major city in this country is implementing continuing education requirements, greater accountability standards, more training, more frequent drug testing, more frequent psychological testing, mandatory therapy sessions for all officers periodically regardless of whether or not there’s been an incident, etc.

    However, the guy who’s arguing with you (the one guy who seems to be gullible enough to even bother arguing with you) is absolutely right when he says that we are an armed populace doesn’t have to tolerate the existence of police. If we decided we wanted you gone, you’d be gone. Not even the military could stand against us all if we were to revolt. If you don’t know that, you’re a fool.

    Also, if you’re an abusive cop who violates people’s rights, tramples on civil liberties, conducts illegal searches/seizures and illegal arrests only to trump up a charge later, you don’t really need to worry about a revolution or civilian oversight. You just need to worry about conducting an unwarranted arrest of an armed citizen who really knows his rights. The Supreme Court haas ruled time and again, in at least 15 cases that flood to mind, that a citizen has the right to resist an illegal arrest with as much force as is necessary, including lethal force.

    Further, the Supreme Court has held that you don’t even have to be the person being abused to use lethal force in stopping the abuse. Any citizen can use force to protect the rights of another.

    So, while I’m quite sure that my training as a US Army Ranger (7th Cavalry), qualifies and enables me to protect myself, armed or not, from at least a few bad cops, the real danger would come from you abusing another citizen in my presence. Personally, this shitball cop in CA and his racist prick of a partner murdered that man in full view of the public. Had I been there, I’d have just assumed the guy was alive after the first shot and would have killed the dirty cops to prevent them shooting him again. And I’d have done it as part of my oath as an American soldier (or former soldier). You may not care about your oath, but I care about the one I took.

    As much as I like and respect police officers, there’s nothing worse than a bad cop in our society. And I mean nothing worse! Drug dealers, mafia hit men, men who beat women, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, serial killers – all are better than a dirty cop. Scumbags are just scumbags, but a dirty cop is a person who doesn’t just commit crimes, but they violate the public trust. Not only that, they prey on the deepest and most fundamental needs and fears of society. There can be nothing worse and there’s no class of criminal that we should despise more.

    Nothing could be more righteous, or more dangerous to a bad cop than a “whiny hippie tweaker” (your words) who knows his rights and is willing and able to stand up for them, and for his fellow citizen’s rights, even to the point of lethal force. So, the next time you decide you want to illegally execute (or tase) a person who is lying face down with his hands out in front of him in full surrender/compliance, you should ask yourself – who’s standing behind you? Is it me? Is it someone like me?

  • George Sand

    @ Russ – the argument is a subtle one, but I think it works. He may not have intended to draw a gun. He may have intended to use the taser, which is not technically a “deadly” weapon, and perhaps not “reasonably likely to kill.” However, the act of drawing a weapon without checking to see which weapon it is, when there is a 50% chance that it is a gun, and shooting at someone in the back, is an act that is reckless and inherently dangerous to human life. For instance, let’s say someone had a box full of grenades. Half of them are rubber, half of them are real. And the person knows half of them are real, half of them are rubber – and perhaps, because he is stupid, or thinks he’s being funny, he starts chucking them at people. He believes he is throwing rubber ones, but mistakenly ends up throwing a real grenade at someone and kills them. This could arguably be second degree murder. Maybe this guy honestly thought he was picking up a rubber grenade when he did it – but the act of chucking random items at people when you know there’s a 50% chance it could be a real grenade and could kill someone is a reckless act that is inherently dangerous to human life, and malice can arguably be implied. Same with Mehserle. It doesn’t matter if he 100% honestly believed he was using his taser. He knew he was carrying a gun and a taser. He recklessly drew a weapon without checking which one it was, aimed it at someone’s back and shot. This is reckless and inherently dangerous.

  • peezy

    oscar grant was lying facedown on the ground, HANDCUFFED. The cop knew it was a glock in his hand, because you have to charge a taser, and call out, “Comply or be tased” 3 times. it was murder, in the first degree.

  • http://lethal-commissions.com/ lethal commission anik singal

    Its such as you learn my mind! You appear to understand so much approximately this, like you wrote the e book in it or something. I believe that you simply can do with some p.c. to power the message house a little bit, but other than that, that is great blog. A fantastic read. I’ll certainly be back.

  • Russ

    @GeorgeSand – Evidently you didn’t read what k wrote to 901fan, directly under what I wrote to you. To paraphrase, I said using either weapon on a compliant individual was illegal, thus making this a crime of depraved indifference to human life – which makes it first degree murder. Worse, with the added racism, it’s a hate crime, which may or may not amount to a”special circumstance” in CA to bump this up to a capital offense (thereby making it a death penalty case.

    I’m pretty sure I covered “reasonably likely to cause harm” with “depraved indifference to human life”, don’t you?

  • ThePirate

    Weaver was right FUCK THE PIGS