Breaking news update: Officer Johannes Mehserle has resigned.
By Carlos Miller
Although BART police officer Johannes Mehserle has yet to give an official statement to his superiors, BART investigators are speculating whether he meant to pull out his Taser instead of his firearm when he shot and killed an unarmed man in the back on New Year’s Day.
However, BART police officials are unable to confirm whether he was even carrying a Taser when he killed Oscar Grant in an incident caught on citizen video, according to the Oakland Tribune.
In fact, they’ve only started to train their officers to use Taser guns within the last three months and don’t even have enough to supply every officer. Also, they are required to carry the Tasers on their belt on the opposite side of their firearms.
Furthermore, the department-issued firearm is a Sig-Sauer 40-caliber, which according to the Tribune, weighs nearly three times as much as the department-issued Taser X26. It is also two inches taller.
Although the Tribune doesn’t specify exactly which Sig Sauer model the officer was using that night, the most common police-issued firearm is the P226, according to the company’s website.
Regardless if he thought he was reaching for his taser, Mehserle is still guilty of homicide, according to John Burris, the attorney representing Grant’s family who filed a $25 million claim against BART on Tuesday.
“If he thought he was reaching for a Taser and pulled a gun, that’s negligent. That would be involuntary manslaughter, a negligent homicide,” Burris said. “If he didn’t have any Taser on him … that’s an intentional killing: second-degree murder.”
If it turns out that Mehserle claims he meant to use his Taser instead of his firearm, it wouldn’t be the first time a California police officer shot and killed an unarmed suspect with a firearm, then claimed to have meant to use the Taser.
In 2002, Madera Police officer Marcy Noriega shot and killed a 24-year-old man as he sat handuffced in the backseat of her car. Noriega claimed she meant to subdue Everardo Torres with her Taser as he allegedly kicked at the vehicle’s windows.
The officer was not criminally charged but a civil case is pending, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
In the latest case, Mehserle, 27, a two-year officer of the Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department, is not legally required to give a statement about the New Year’s Day incident because he is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
However, by not giving a statement, he could be terminated from the police department for failure to follow departmental procedure.
Popularity: 2% [?]
55 responses so far ↓
1 roger // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Yes, it has happened, this was a stressful situation with all the yelling etc. The mind can play tricks. As a shooter of many years I know to arrange my equipment and to train to preclude this very thing. If you carry a gun you must be in control at all times. The slightest error can cost a life, and YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE, there is no excuse.
2 Carlos Miller // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Roger,
I think it’s fair to say that police find themselves breaking up fights between young men quite often.
They do down here all the time. And usually, they are able to quell the situation without even using a Taser, although they will surely rough them up as they handcuff them.
That situation in the video didn’t seem so out of hand where they needed to even use the Taser.
At first, the suspect is just sitting down by the wall. Then he stands up on his knees and lifts his hands, which any officer knows, is a sign that this guy is willing to cooperate.
And within seconds, two cops had him facedown on his chest. That’s the part where they usually rough you up by twisting and turning your wrists where it feels it’s going to break, so you have no choice but to cooperate.
It seems as if this cop panicked. As you know, cops are trained to kill when they fire their guns at suspects. But they are also supposed to have their lives on the line during these instances.
I didn’t see any of that in this video.
It looked to me like an execution.
3 spokker // Jan 7, 2009 at 2:48 AM
Agreed, Carlos. The thing is, they didn’t shoot him while they were trying to break up the fight. The fight was already broken up. I don’t even understand how the worst cop does this. There was no reason to ever go for the gun OR the taster.
4 spokker // Jan 7, 2009 at 2:49 AM
Sorry for hogging up the comments I keep thinking of things to say, but you say this looked like an execution. You are absolutely correct. This looked like something out of some fucking third world hellhole.
5 genewitch // Jan 7, 2009 at 3:56 AM
carlos: this is why the english police don’t carry firearms. THey have to call for backup if there’s a suspect with a firearm.
This isn’t any more or less appalling at it’s roots than any of the other police videos i’ve seen over the past few years. it’s a real pity that man got killed.
He wasn’t even resisting arrest… which means even if it HAD been a taser, it would have been unnecessary force.
what a fucker that BARTCop was.
… they’d have had to shoot me, too.
6 Heather // Jan 7, 2009 at 4:28 AM
Carlos,
Thank you so much for your information on this case. I have been following it with a broken heart since I heard about it.
In the video, one can clearly see Mr. Grant on his stomach, the officer reaching for something, getting up, and shooting him without even blinking. The fact that the taser (if he even had one) is located on the opposite side of the firearm is very interesting to me…not to mention the differences in size, shape, and weight. I also notice that the trigger on the gun is in a very different location and is also a different shape than the taser. I will never believe that’s what he thought he was firing.
Keep up the good work, you have found a new fan.
7 roger // Jan 7, 2009 at 9:46 AM
I agree. Go to theagitator.com, they have a link to a TV station that has several videos of the shooting. One Id,s the cop and shows a taser being carried right on top of his gun. Two years on the job does not make you a vet, this man was still a rookie, with a bad case of cranial rectal inversion. The two year mark is a bad one for cops, they think they are gods and know every thing. You can only hope they do not kill some one, or there selves, before they figure how to pull there heads out. This comes at about five years. In this case anger mixed with stupid was a deadly combination.
8 Carlos Miller // Jan 7, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Thanks Heather!
Roger,
Yes, veteran was the wrong term. It was late. I changed it.
9 John // Jan 7, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Genewitch,
Removing firearms from police hands is not the answer. You do not reduce the capabilities of the police to the lowest common denominator of every officer. You would then by effectively killing the large number of people who are saved by police firearms every year.
Tasers are good for some crazy situations where it is needed and for, lets be honest, stupid cops. There is a great book called Verbal Judo that trains cops how to use words instead of violence to handle situations but some cops are just dumb.
Some cops (very, very few) are the embodiment of every bad police stereotype out there, and for those dumb cops who are not capable of verbally handling a situation, the Taser is a great option. There is no permanent damage to the recipient.
I never understood why anyone would want to take away that non lethal option from the police.
10 Brad // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:22 PM
You made an error in description, perhaps unwittingly:
As you mentioned previously in the article, “officer Johannes Mehserle has yet to give an official statement”, so the later claim is demonstrably false. Be careful!
11 Jean-PierreD // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM
[quote]
Some cops (very, very few) are the embodiment of every bad police stereotype out there, and for those dumb cops who are not capable of verbally handling a situation, the Taser is a great option. There is no permanent damage to the recipient.
[/quote]
The story of the few bad apples would be so more convincing if in similar cases, police officers were not offered such a protection and support by their colleagues.
12 Carlos Miller // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Brad,
Good eye. It was indeed unwittingly. It was late when I wrote it. I just clarified it.
Thanks.
13 roger // Jan 7, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Tasers are not non lethal, just less so. There are a number of cases where they have killed, normally when the charge crosses the heart. The company that makes them stonewalls and claims they are harmless, but there have been too many cases reported. Google this, there are a number of reports on line.
The brake down on cops is roughly as fallows; 10% saints, 10% asses, the other 80% goes as the Chief leans.
14 Ben // Jan 7, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Short answer — no. While it’s been reported, a Taser should not be worn near (and couldn’t easily be stacked on top of) a handgun. This has unintentional negligent shooting written all over it.
The “Internet Dissenting Patriot” community is going to hop on this and claim it as a murderous cop hell-bent for sending a black man into the ground, but it just doesn’t float. Those same “patriots” are the ones you hear berating and verbally harassing the cops on the video, escalating the situation and adding stress to cops already dealing with multiple folks in a hostile environment.
The BART officer is not a “fucker” — but he did screw up in the worst way possible and, given what we know about folks in the Bay Area, he’s going to be drawn and quartered in the media anyway… and sadly so. The family is going to weep, the community will rage, and the cop is going to bear the scars of what he did for the rest of his life. I don’t think I want to pile on to that kind of pain…
Suing the city for $25M just means the city’s insurance premiums take a hit funded by tax dollars, city services will have to absorb the impact,and the family of the guy who got shot gets a free ride for the rest of their lives on the backs of the city’s taxpayers. Not to mention the lawyer on the way to a new boat or summer home. That’s the real shame.
15 bj // Jan 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM
“but he did screw up in the worst way possible”
Ben, you have got to be kidding right?
This is not a screw up. A screw up is putting the wrong part in a machine or buying the wrong product your wife sends you to the store for.
This officer TOOK someones life. This is a homicide. Just looking at the video there was no reason to pull his gun or a taser.
“and the cop is going to bear the scars of what he did for the rest of his life. I don’t think I want to pile on to that kind of pain…”
So because he is a cop he gets a pass?
“gets a free ride for the rest of their lives on the backs of the city’s taxpayers”
And your point is? It was an officer of the City that TOOK this man away from his family. The City as well as the Officer deserves to be punished. Maybe, just maybe they will train there officers better now.
“That’s the real shame.”
Shame is when people allow the police to act outside of the law and commend them for it.
16 Ben // Jan 7, 2009 at 5:45 PM
BJ
Example: If your kid or wife were to run someone down with a car while on the phone, you’d call that an accident/mistake while pleading for their freedom. How would you feel if you had to suffer the slings of the Internet Outraged® when they argue your family should be locked up forever because they were licensed drivers and knew cell phones were a distraction but still took someone else’s life? That they knew the risks, choose poorly, and killed someone?
This case will be judged in the appropriate forum and, thankfully, ALL of the evidence will be presented. I’m amazed that, in your infinite judgement and wisdom, you have the ability ascertain every pertinent fact from a single shaky cell phone video. Point of fact, none here have all the facts. We have no idea of what may have been exchanged between the cops and the seated people, and no ability to look into the officer’s mind when he screwed up and shot the guy.
Carlos… this is an interesting story of citizen journalism and police negligence coming together. I’m sad for the tragedy and that a cop is likely going to burn at the stake for this, but you can bet that neither side will have anything to hide if so much footage is truly available.
17 Carlos Miller // Jan 7, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Ben,
Anybody who gets caught on video taking somebody’s life when there life wasn’t in danger is going to burn at the stake.
It shouldn’t be any different for cops.
Here is a story about a group of teens in Broward County who were caught on video beating a homeless man to death.
They claimed it was a stupid mistake. A screw up.
But the jury didn’t buy it and convicted them of murder.
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/09/23/sometimes-big-brother-looks-out-for-us/
When incidents get caught on video, we are allowed to see the incident for ourselves as opposed to just hearing both sides of the story, as we normally do.
When it gets caught on video, we are allowed to make stronger judgment of opinions.
Nevertheless, this case will still go before a court of law, so all our opinions really have no bearing on the case.
18 Ben // Jan 7, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Carlos, I respect your opinion and agree with about 95% of what you said. The only area in which I differ is in the need jump in and throw stones because everyone is, too. It’s important to remember that all footage, video, coverage, etc. only tells part of a story or share it from (literally) one point of view. Once we have the complete story it’ll be easier to understand why and how this happened — which is what I think is most important.
I’m with you in that when you have footage, it forces the truth to come out; this cop had better demonstrate an absolute need to have drawn since we can’t see any reason for it. If he can’t, he’ll have that to answer to that, too.
I don’t support the BART officer’s actions nor have I any desire to defend him… I simply want to know how this happened. There’s significant difference between beating a guy to death and accidentally shooting someone… there’s no trigger on a fist or a boot or a baton on which to slip
Cheers! -Ben
19 Carlos Miller // Jan 7, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Ben,
Well I respect your opinion as well, but do you really think we need to sit around and wait for the “official version” of the story when we all have eyes and ears and brain and can think for ourselves?
There have been too many times that the “official story” is really nothing more than the “created story”.
It happened in my case.
I wish somebody would have been around to video tape my arrest because my charges would have been dropped long ago.
This is why cops are continually trying to crack down on photographers. Because this prevents them from creating the story.
Here’s an example.
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/12/18/nypd-cop-facing-prison-time-for-citizen-abuse-exposed-on-youtube/
And here’s another example.
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/08/12/nyc-council-members-urge-probe-against-nypd-as-second-video-emerges/
20 BART police shoot unarmed man; caught on citizen video « Aaamerica’s Blog // Jan 8, 2009 at 12:10 AM
[...] II: Could a Taser gun be so easily confused for a [...]
21 Real Estate Feast--South Florida real estate blog // Jan 8, 2009 at 5:10 AM
I see that the police officer has resigned:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/07/BART.shooting/index.html
22 Jean-PierreD // Jan 8, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Example: If your kid or wife were to run someone down with a car while on the phone, you’d call that an accident/mistake while pleading for their freedom.
Well, I wont call it an accident. Driving a car requires all of your attention. Phoning while driving diverts the attention from the main task which is being in control of your car anytime.
I would call it an accident if the person threw himself under the car or it was impossible to dodge the person.
Phoning while driving is irresponsible and decreases the likelihood of this kind of events to be considered as an accident.
23 L. Jones // Jan 8, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Ben, you have GOT to be kidding. The cop didn’t accidentally shoot someone. He very deliberately pulled out his gun and shot an unarmed man who was already face down on the ground, thereby being of no threat to the officer.
24 Jocelyn // Jan 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Please note that (as reported on other blogs) early on the officers claimed that Mehrles shot Oscar because two of the suspects in the alleged fight allegedly had guns and so Merhels feared for his safety …because Ocsar could have been one of the ones with a gun…”something was in his hand”. But after the proliferation of videos from witnesses cell phones popped up all over the internet, showing Oscar with his hands up, they backed away from that original story and then began claiming “accident” as in Merhles meant to use a taser instead of his gun. Yet, this seems convoluted as well because a suspect with his hands up is not typically seen as threatening. If this is not the case, then why the hell do the cops say, “Come out with your hands up?”
25 Carlos Miller // Jan 9, 2009 at 12:46 AM
There is a new video out that offers a much clearer view.
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/01/09/new-video-of-bart-shooting-emerges-offering-clearest-view-so-far-and-audio/
26 Kevin // Jan 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM
This is cold blooded murder.
This officer should be arrested, jailed, tried, and executed.
27 Ricky Rodriguez // Jan 10, 2009 at 1:48 AM
I JUST WONDER… HOW MANY EXECUTIONS HAVE TAKEN and CONTINUE TO TAKE PLACE THAT ARE NOT CAUGHT ON FILM…
incredible…we as a nation need to wake up…
In Greece a cop killed a citizen and
Athens went up in flames…
we need a little bit of fire in our life…
28 Tony // Jan 24, 2009 at 3:37 AM
f the police
29 Pastuliman // Jan 29, 2009 at 12:59 AM
the cop was defending himself from a fart attack that seemed to be fatal so he pulled his gun and stopped the release of the toxic gass commonly known as *fart*.. self defense… see .. poor cop is not gulty at all..
he wasnt trained to feel the difference btween a fire gun and a taser gun .. bcuz they are so similar right? and bcuz they carry it in the same exact place.. wow.. a cop that doesnt even know where he carries his weapons.. hhmmmMMmm.. he needs to be careful next time.. maybe he will be facing some criminals armed to the teeth and when pulls his gun and shoots he realizes there is only water comming out.. OOOooOoOOpppPpPPPsss he didnt notice the difference and took his soon water gun!!! now he is facin armed criminals with… a water gun as his weapon of choise lmao… … btw the 25 million sue that would come from tax payer if won.. would be a wake up call to the community.. to become more aware of the consecuences of the missbehavior and lack of police training and lack of judgement under stressful situations.. which lead society to complain and complain and complain .. so that more estrict training is done in this agencies.. if these type of actions dont make us the ppl complain to make the system a better one.. then mistakes like this will happen more oftenly.. we the ppl need to protest in a peaceful manner.. we need to complain.. we need to demand results and evolution in the system.. and we need to show no mercy before this actions.. otherwise we will keep paying with money *like always* and the worse of all… with HUMAN LIVES!!! .. after all money comes and goes.. a human life.. only comes once………… and once gone.. there is no turning back..
30 Pastuliman // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:01 AM
OOoOoOOppPPppSSsss i meant to say * son’s water gun * ;P typo..
31 Carol Black // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:35 AM
What has happened to this police officer one year later? UPDATE?
32 ig // Jul 9, 2010 at 9:02 AM
The taser C2 and Taser X26 are awesome self defense tools. I wish people would not
play Monday morning quarterback after an incident such as this, and pass judgment on the involved officers. Ty to make a split second life changing decision, if you can!
33 Dodge Ball // Jul 9, 2010 at 10:07 AM
That’s a very poor defense of an outright and negligent brain fart, ig.
34 oscar finch // Jul 9, 2010 at 10:44 AM
So what do you think of the verdict dodge?
35 Dodge Ball // Jul 9, 2010 at 11:29 AM
It’s guilty…. of being a complete dumb-ass and guilty of being in the same category for those who believe that it was an acceptable mistake due to the so-called stress of making a split second decision while being a cop.
So you clowns are associating this tragedy with a cop having to chose between glazed or jelly filled.
36 oscar finch // Jul 9, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Thanks for answering the question jackass. I guess trying to have a masture discussion with you is to much to ask.
37 Simi Valley comes to Oakland? « Sohum Parlance II // Jul 9, 2010 at 12:26 PM
[...] The photo comes from Photography is not a Crime. [...]
38 Roger // Jul 9, 2010 at 12:49 PM
To me the verdict is the right one, he did not intend to kill but was extremely negligent. Negligent to the point of a crime. A sad day for all.
Now other ass are rioting. A very sad day.
39 Dodge Ball // Jul 9, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Strike two for Mehserle. The state found him guilty and the DOJ will have its turn with him, as it should be. Stick a fork in him, he’s done.
But of course, your moronic logic would consider it as a miscarriage of justice. Wah.
40 Johnny Law // Jul 9, 2010 at 2:53 PM
I agree with Roger. There is no way a verdict of murder would have been appropriate. Anyone who thinks that this cop would have pulled his gun and deliberately shot an unarmed man in front of multiple witnesses and other officers is a a fool. However he was negligent and let his adrenaline override his training. The involuntary manslaughter verdict was the correct one. I just hope he gets the minimum sentence.
I wonder if other folks are using Dodge’s name to post? He seems especially bitter and dumb today.
41 K // Jul 9, 2010 at 3:29 PM
Why does intent matter?
Oscar Grant got up that morning very much alive. Oscar Grant was dead before the day was over. Oscar Grant was dead because of the direct actions of an individual.
Is there anything more at debate?
My parents always said, “Never hurt anyone. If they’re going to kill you, let them kill you, and we will take them to court, and solve our problems with words.”
42 oscar finch // Jul 9, 2010 at 4:23 PM
If intent doesn’t matter then a 16 year old who picks up a gun he thinks is unloaded and accidentally shoots somebody should be more severly punished then somebody who intentionally fires a gun at a crowd of people but happens to miss.
Saying intent doesn’t matter is just ignorant.
Let’s not forget if Oscar Grant and his friends were obeying the law instead of fighting on the train this wouldn’t have happened.
Please save your fighting isn’t punishable by death arguments, my point is those who decided to break the law that night also contibuted to this.
Dodge does seem extra bitter today, I can’t believe he hasn’t called anybody a whipper snapper.
43 Michael Owen Sartin // Jul 9, 2010 at 4:39 PM
A couple of days ago, when s guilty of manslaughter verdict came down against the BART Cop Johannes Mersehle who shot an killed an unarmed 20-something Oscar Grant back on 1/1/2009, I like was shocked to learn to learn that he had not been conviced of murder. There a several cell phone videos of the incident and I went through all of them.
Obviously, I was not on the jury or at the trial, but finally concluded the jury got the verdict right after watching several of the videos. My point, had the videos not been taken, there might never have been a trial and the videos probably kept the cop from being charged guilty of 1st degree murder.
44 Roger // Jul 9, 2010 at 5:53 PM
In such cases intent is all but imposable to prove and I do not think he had intent. I further think the minimum (5 yr) would be right, if you incest some probation after. I believe Grant genuinely regrets his actions and will not be a further threat. This was a great tragedy for all. As for the rioters, most are there for the fight not justus.
45 ongtroi // Jul 9, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Let’s think about this a little bit. On the contrary, if Grant shot the cop in the same manner, should Grant get verdict as the same as the cop’s?
46 Johnny Law // Jul 9, 2010 at 6:51 PM
Moron. The key is intent. Look it up.
47 Johnny Law // Jul 9, 2010 at 6:55 PM
I can’t think if a scenario where Gant, acting under color of law, would be reaching for a less lethal device but mistake it for a gun and kill a cop. However if the stars aligned and that happened, then yes he should get the same penalty.
48 ongtroi // Jul 9, 2010 at 7:12 PM
Cool down guy!
So that if Grant acted not under color of law, his penalty should be more since you will think he intended to kill the cop?
49 Roger // Jul 9, 2010 at 7:56 PM
In a word, yes.
50 Johnny Law // Jul 9, 2010 at 8:47 PM
Where did I say he intended to kill a cop in this hypothetical scenario of years? Look the officer didn’t intent to kill him. Therefor the legal requirement of murder was not met. However Grants death was a result of gross negligence on the part of the officer.
The verdict fits the crime. Deal with it.
51 Johnny Law // Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 PM
“years” = “yours”
Damn iPhone autocorrect.
52 ongtroi // Jul 9, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Of course, it is hypothetical!
Well, if cop kill someone, it must be negligent. On the contrary, if someone kill cop, it must be intended. Typical mental state!
53 Johnny Law // Jul 9, 2010 at 9:15 PM
So you think the officer intended to kill Gant? He deliberately pulled his gun and shot him immune back with the intent to kill him? In front of multiple civilians (civilians who are not police officers) and other cops (civilians who are police officers), not to mention all the BART cameras around the station?
You actually believe he meant to do this? That he had INTENT for this to happen? Do you think he had some master plan to avoid going to prison or maybe just hated black people so much that he didn’t care?
The reasonable conclusion is that it was a horrible accident caused by high stress and poor training/judgement. Be intellectually honest with yourself. You know this is the case and deep down you know the verdict was correct.
54 oscar finch // Jul 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM
The jury did not take long at all to reach a verdict. That makes me think they almost immediatly threw out the murder charge and used their time to debate between voluntary and involuntary and possibly not guilty.
I still can’t believe the prosecutor tried for murder. No doubt a politicasl decision. I’m glad the jury had the balls and the honor to give a verdict on the evidence and not worry about all the political bs.
55 Roger // Jul 9, 2010 at 10:06 PM
This is what Juries should do, do not fallow, blindly, the judge or prosecutor. The jury must fallow there true judgment on the guilt/innocence of the accused and on the application of the law. No matter what.
Leave a Comment