Mehserle (BART shooter) trial to be moved

[KamaAina]

Source: SF Chronicle

The trial of former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle, accused of murdering an unarmed rider early New Year's Day, will be moved out of Alameda County, a Superior Court judge declared today...

Mehserle is accused of shooting unarmed train passenger Oscar Grant while attempting to handcuff him Jan. 1 at Oakland's Fruitvale Station - an incident captured on several cameras and viewed by millions on TV and the Internet....

He said Grant's family wants the trial to be held in a spot where the proportion of African Americans is roughly equal to Alameda County. He mentioned Los Angeles and Sacramento counties as possibilities....

Prosecutors said they were alarmed by the suggestion that black jurors could not give Mehserle a fair trial, calling the argument inappropriate and unprecedented. They said the publicity around the shooting had been less sensational than in many other cases where a change-of-venue motion was denied.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/16/BANT1A4J69.DTL

---

Oh brother. It doesn't matter what Grant's family wants; dollars to bear claws (a popular regional pastry) it ends up in some lily-white county north or east of Sacramento.

This has potential to become the Bay Area's version of Rodney King. :scared:

[imdjh]

1. It needs to go where he get the presumption of innocence. I haven't heard/read a single black....

.... person (and quite a few whites) who didn't assume he was guilty. Have you?

According to the survey, 46 percent of respondents said Mehserle was definitely or probably guilty. Twenty-seven percent said he was definitely or probably not guilty, and the remaining 27 percent didn't know or wouldn't say.

But more than 78 percent of the African Americans questioned - or 29 of 37 - said he was definitely or probably guilty, the defense survey said.

[Taverner]

2. It's hard to think anything else if you watch the video

[AtheistCrusader]

7. It's a concept our society is, or was, built on.

I presumed innocence for OJ and Michael Jackson, among others.

Of course, the gun in his hand fired, but what is he guilty of? First degree murder? Second? Manslaughter? Negligent Homicide?


I have my opinions, but everyone should get a fair trial. That includes a presumption of innocence. Prosecutors will have ample opportunity to make the case for guilt, they don't need a jury that assumes guilt.

[Taverner]

11. Not disagreeing with you, just sayin'

[grahampuba]

3. hmm

hope the irony of one group of people in control of someones fate having a predisposition in spite of the legality or fairness of it is not lost on anyone here.

[KamaAina]

4. Huh?

No comprende, amigo.

[grahampuba]

10. the irony?

aka, when racial profiling comes around and bites you in the ass.

and as far as a fair trial,.
so lady justice only breaks out the scales when a trigger happy cop is on trial? (tasers have triggers too and should be considered potentially lethal, and not deployed on a handcuffed faced down individual)

jury of his peers.
Oakland crime = Oakland judgement.

Mehserle made his own bed by fleeing CA, clamming up and not giving any justification for shooting this citizen until he had mulled it over with his lawyers for two weeks.
its not like conjecture is tilting the balance here, its the hard facts and inconvenient video.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Fog of war.

Look at you. You think he was cuffed.

Go watch the video. His arms flop independently when they roll him onto his side. He was either not cuffed (Perhaps the cuff was only applied to one or the other wrist at the point he was shot) or the bullet miraculously severed the handcuffs before entering his body.

Obviously the officer killed him. It should be up to an impartial jury to determine the nature of the crime. (First/Second/Manslaughter/Negligent)

Every citizen deserves no less. That some have not, is not a valid argument to strip this man of his rights. It is only an argument that we need to do more for the least represented among us.

[grahampuba]

13. been a while since the video

hadnt seen it since just shortly after the shooting. i remembered that he had his hands behind his back when he was shot. did not see the arm flop after he was shot in the back
shot in the back
face down
hands behind his back and not struggling.
with three officers surrounding him.
one officer having his knee on Grants neck.

yeah, that totally mandates taser use.

with great power comes great responsibility.
any trigger was not the answer to any situation that happened that day.

[imdjh]

5. And that's why it needs to be moved. This trial isn't about politics or social issues.

It's about justice for one person, the person on trial.

[Alexander]

6. What about justice for Oscar Grant?

I'm sure people in every county have seen the video of this.

It's pretty hard to watch the video and call it anything besides what it clearly is - cold-blooded murder.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. See post 7.

[Alexander]

16. The video is a piece of evidence that will be shown in court.

It is not unreasonable to have one's opinion influenced by that video, as any jury in this case will doubtless have to watch the same video.

I can accept your premise that he might be charged with a lesser crime.

What I can't accept is that seeing this video somehow unfairly taints one's opinion - when the video has no bias, and the jury will be watching the same footage we all saw before rendering a verdict.

[imdjh]

18. The any-idiot factor is countered in court.

The video on You Tube has been watched by countless people, many of whom believe that "any idiot could watch this" and see it as they have seen it. In court, the video will be shown in slow motion, with experts analyzing angles and the other police officers explaining what they saw and heard which leads them to believe that it was an accident or whatever it is that they believe at this point.

[Alexander]

20. Your position still amounts to making excuses for this guy.

"In court, the video will be shown in slow motion, with experts analyzing angles and the other police officers explaining what they saw and heard which leads them to believe that it was an accident or whatever it is that they believe at this point."

There were more people there than just the police. How about the eyewitnesses there? Funny how you forgot to mention that.

You sound very much like someone who wants this guy to get off scot-free or with a slap on the wrist, no matter the evidence.

[imdjh]

23. You can see it that way if you like. That doesn't make it so.

When something doesn't make sense, it ought to be a cue to you that you are interpreting what you are seeing differently from what is happening. Instead, because you wish to have your view validated, then you are seeing validation.

You have made my case. With all those witnesses on hand, there could be only two explanations for what Mehserle did:

a- That it was an accident, that he indeed intended to shoot the taser, or
b- That he's insane and wished to commit murder in front of several other officers and hundreds of civilian witnesses

Now, answer truthfully: Which explanation makes more sense? Show your work.

[Alexander]

25. You can deny it, but that doesn't mean anyone will take your denials seriously.

"You have made my case. With all those witnesses on hand, there could be only two explanations for what Mehserle did:

a- That it was an accident, that he indeed intended to shoot the taser, or
b- That he's insane and wished to commit murder in front of several other officers and hundreds of civilian witnesses

Now, answer truthfully: Which explanation makes more sense? Show your work."

Again, you are making excuses for the cop.

You've never heard of a white cop gunning down an innocent black person before, and then getting away with it? :eyes:

Newsflash: it happens more frequently than you'd think.

Even if he meant to pull out his taser (unlikely at best), that's police brutality.

I bet you thought the cops who shot Amadou Diallo 19 times were justified in doing so. :eyes:

[imdjh]

28. He isn't accused of police brutality.

He's accused of murder. So the two choices I gave you are the only two from which you may choose.

[Alexander]

29. Yes, and based on the available EVIDENCE (video and eyewitness testimony) he committed murder.

I know, I know. You think cops should be allowed to murder minorities in cold blood whenever they want.

You make me sick.

[imdjh]

31. Dennis is that you?

[Alexander]

32. No Mr. Limbaugh, you have mistaken me for someone else.

:eyes:

[imdjh]

33. Does this story in your head require my participation or does it just go on and on regardless?

[Alexander]

34. You poor thing. You must not be used to people calling you on your bullshit.

That's okay, you'll enter the real world when you have to move out of your mom's basement.

[imdjh]

35. I live in Florida.

[Alexander]

36. Congratulations.

Now run along and let the adults have a discussion.

[imdjh]

37. We don't have basements

[Alexander]

38. My apologies. It's now clear you are living in your mom's outhouse.

Where else could you come up with all the crap you've been spewing?

[imdjh]

9. Which is why you can't be on the jury.

[Alexander]

15. Ah, but making excuses for shooting unarmed people to death, that's okay.

:eyes:

[alp227]

14. So what IS a "fair jury"?

There's a really weak case for moving the case away from Alameda County. Why?
1. The video of Grant getting killed has been uploaded online and seen by many AROUND THE WORLD too! National media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post
2. Other counties might have more conservative populations who'd symphathize with Mehserle, the facts and video be damned.
So where would we hold the trial if not for anywhere who's heard of Oscar Grant? Amish country? A Native American reservation?

Think of other famous people accused of murder. OJ Simpson's murder case stayed in Los Angeles County, and he got acquitted. Same with Robert Blake's. But Phil Spector was still convicted in LA county.

[Alexander]

17. Based on some of these responses, it's a jury that lets cops get away with murder.

[alp227]

22. Hmm, maybe Mehserle's case will go the same way as OJ's and Blake's

Theoretically, jury acquits, but Oscar Grant's family gets a wrongful death settlement from Mehserle.

[imdjh]

19. For starters, one that isn't afraid to serve on the jury and as one poster would say...

.... "Oakland justice".

[alp227]

21. Well guess what? Generally it's hard to find jurors willing to challenge the cops

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/23/jury-acquits-denver-officer-who-broke-teeth-of-man-by-slamming-his-head-into-the-pavement/

[imdjh]

24. According to some in Oakland this has already been settled.

Those would be the folks who cheered the killing of police officers by another criminal awhile after the Oscar Grant episode.

[Alexander]

26. And according to you, cops should be allowed to murder people whenever they want.

The eyewitnesses all claim that the cops were aggressors and that Grant was not violent in the slightest.

But go ahead and keep defending police brutality if that's what gets you off.

[alp227]

27. Trust me...there's a much much much bigger "Justice for Oscar Grant" crowd than...

..."Justice for Lovelle Mixon" crowd. Where were the demands for a criminal trial and investigation into Lovelle Mixon's death?

The facts:
- Lovelle Mixon was an armed parolee who was wanted on a parole violation and then shot the cops and instigated the SWAT shootout.
- Oscar Grant was an unarmed, non-paroled man who was accused but not proven to be involved in a fight. He was being uncooperative when Mehserle was arresting him.

[Alexander]

30. imdjh only wants "justice" to mean murdering cops get off scot-free.

He may even be glad that Oscar Grant got killed.