BART cop who shot man is released after 1 year sentence

[Wiztopia]

Well obviously since he was already restrained Mehserle just wanted to shoot a black guy.

...Or he just accidentally shot the victim.

It was no accident because he did not need to use a gun or a taser. He just wanted to murder him.

[Libertarian Mesa]

Well, usually when there is one person on the ground being restrained by multiple individuals and someone else comes up behind them, pulls a gun out and shoots said person in the back, killing them; at least one person is going to be doing some prison time.

Being a supposedly trained officer, I would expect him to have the wherewithal to differentiate between his tazer and pistol. And if he can't, I can see it as nothing other than some level of criminal negligence.

Well obviously since he was already restrained Mehserle just wanted to shoot a black guy.

If you were in a fight with a man, you automatically assume that he was unarmed? And why racism is always the answer? Black people are equal in America today.

[Norstal]

...Or he just accidentally shot the victim.

It was no accident because he did not need to use a gun or a taser. He just wanted to murder him.

You don't know that. I'm not excusing him, but you just don't know this.

[Tekania]

Well obviously since he was already restrained Mehserle just wanted to shoot a black guy.

I've no doubt that the officer meant to use his tazer. Doesn't change the fact that regardless what he meant to do, his firing of his pistol instead was criminal negligence on his part. I don't even think his little stint was long enough. Friend of mine spent more time locked up for stealing a tractor that this asshat.

[Rokartian States]

...Or he just accidentally shot the victim.

It was no accident because he did not need to use a gun or a taser. He just wanted to murder him.

So because he didn't need to use a taser, it's impossible for him to have decided to do so? Humans aren't perfect, you know. They make mistakes. No reason to assume that the cop had malicious intent; or do you disagree with the idea of innocent until proven guilty?

[Neo Art]

It was no accident because he did not need to use a gun or a taser. He just wanted to murder him.

So because he didn't need to use a taser, it's impossible for him to have decided to do so? Humans aren't perfect, you know. They make mistakes. No reason to assume that the cop had malicious intent; or do you disagree with the idea of innocent until proven guilty?

Um. He was proven guilty. He spent a year in prison on a felony conviction.

[Wiztopia]

Well obviously since he was already restrained Mehserle just wanted to shoot a black guy.

If you were in a fight with a man, you automatically assume that he was unarmed? And why racism is always the answer? Black people are equal in America today.

He wasn't in a fight since he was restrained.

It was no accident because he did not need to use a gun or a taser. He just wanted to murder him.

You don't know that. I'm not excusing him, but you just don't know this.

The videos show him already restrained. He had no need to use either one.

[Libertarian Mesa]

The Hands are not always needed to use weapons. Feet, bomb, may be used.

What the hell is he going to do? Kick the officers to death? Activate his bomb vest?

Bombs can be programmed to go off. He was in a subway. You never know who may be a possible terorrist. Also in the film From Russia with Love, a character uses a shoe with a knife. The officer did not know whether the man was armed with such a shoe. It is only hypothetical, but we must see from officer's perspective.

[Neo Art]

What the hell is he going to do? Kick the officers to death? Activate his bomb vest?

Bombs can be programmed to go off. He was in a subway. You never know who may be a possible terorrist. Also in the film From Russia with Love, a character uses a shoe with a knife. The officer did not know whether the man was armed with such a shoe. It is only hypothetical, but we must see from officer's perspective.

Poe.

[Rokartian States]

So because he didn't need to use a taser, it's impossible for him to have decided to do so? Humans aren't perfect, you know. They make mistakes. No reason to assume that the cop had malicious intent; or do you disagree with the idea of innocent until proven guilty?

Um. He was proven guilty. He spent a year in prison on a felony conviction.

Of involuntary manslaughter, not murder as Wiztopia is suggesting. Wiztopia seems to be suggesting that we assume the cop had malicious intent, which is contrary to innocence until proven guilty, whereas I believe the correct verdict was reached because all the evidence points toward involuntary manslaughter.

[Wiztopia]

Um. He was proven guilty. He spent a year in prison on a felony conviction.

Of involuntary manslaughter, not murder as Wiztopia is suggesting. Wiztopia seems to be suggesting that he assume the cop had malicious intent, which is contrary to innocence until proven guilty, whereas I believe the correct verdict was reached because all the evidence points toward involuntary manslaughter.

No evidence points towards involuntary manslaughter. It points towards murder.

[Norstal]

What the hell is he going to do? Kick the officers to death? Activate his bomb vest?

Bombs can be programmed to go off. He was in a subway. You never know who may be a possible terorrist. Also in the film From Russia with Love, a character uses a shoe with a knife. The officer did not know whether the man was armed with such a shoe. It is only hypothetical, but we must see from officer's perspective.

Wow. Really. You truly believe that he can activate a bomb in the subway handcuffed. Really.

[Rokartian States]

Of involuntary manslaughter, not murder as Wiztopia is suggesting. Wiztopia seems to be suggesting that he assume the cop had malicious intent, which is contrary to innocence until proven guilty, whereas I believe the correct verdict was reached because all the evidence points toward involuntary manslaughter.

No evidence points towards involuntary manslaughter. It points towards murder.

His immediate remorse and shock, as verified by "virtually all witnesses", points towards murder? How so?

[Norstal]

The videos show him already restrained. He had no need to use either one.

That don't make it an instant murder. Murder requires intent. And the officer was scared.

[Neo Art]

Of involuntary manslaughter, not murder as Wiztopia is suggesting. Wiztopia seems to be suggesting that he assume the cop had malicious intent, which is contrary to innocence until proven guilty, whereas I believe the correct verdict was reached because all the evidence points toward involuntary manslaughter.

No evidence points towards involuntary manslaughter. It points towards murder.

Funny how the entire jury, present at the trial, disagreed. But hell, you're "random internet guy", surely you know better

[Libertarian Mesa]

Bombs can be programmed to go off. He was in a subway. You never know who may be a possible terorrist. Also in the film From Russia with Love, a character uses a shoe with a knife. The officer did not know whether the man was armed with such a shoe. It is only hypothetical, but we must see from officer's perspective.

Wow. Really. You truly believe that he can activate a bomb in the subway handcuffed. Really.

I mean if it was a suicide bomber (it wasn't), the bomb may have a timer. The cop made ​​a mistake, I admit, but we must consider what would have happened in such a case.

[Gravlen]

No, they are not.

Is this the appropriate time for an "oh, snap!" ? I never get that one right. Embarassed the hell out of myself at my mother's wedding...

Yes, it is.

And if you're Peter Stormare, it's always an appropriate time.

[Wiztopia]

No evidence points towards involuntary manslaughter. It points towards murder.

His immediate remorse and shock, as verified by "virtually all witnesses", points towards murder? How so?

You mean his bullshit act? He meant to do it.

No evidence points towards involuntary manslaughter. It points towards murder.

Funny how the entire jury, present at the trial, disagreed. But hell, you're "random internet guy", surely you know better

Either they were paid off or were being retarded.

[Natapoc]

So because he didn't need to use a taser, it's impossible for him to have decided to do so? Humans aren't perfect, you know. They make mistakes. No reason to assume that the cop had malicious intent; or do you disagree with the idea of innocent until proven guilty?

Um. He was proven guilty. He spent a year in prison on a felony conviction.

Do you not feel that the time in jail (he was not in a federal prison) was excessively light given the severity of the crime? Especially since much lessor crimes have significantly greater minimum punishments?

[Rokartian States]

His immediate remorse and shock, as verified by "virtually all witnesses", points towards murder? How so?

You mean his bullshit act? He meant to do it.

And what evidence do you have that supports this claim?

Funny how the entire jury, present at the trial, disagreed. But hell, you're "random internet guy", surely you know better

Either they were paid off or were being retarded.

Evidence?

[Neo Art]

The videos show him already restrained. He had no need to use either one.

That don't make it an instant murder. Murder requires intent. And the officer was scared.

Um, hrm, no, not exactly. Murder doesn't REQUIRE intent, which is why Wiztopia is making a fairly decent argument despite him own ignorance.

Murder requires "malice aforethought". A death that is caused as a result of acts which qualify as a showing a"reckless disregard" and "depraved indifference" to human life is also murder. So we don't need to go to intent. We merely must ask, does the officer's conduct constitute "negligence" or "depraved indifference?"

I have no doubt he thought he was reaching for a taser. He was absolutely not justified in using a taser. But there very fact that he thought he DIDN'T have a gun militates against a finding of a depraved indifference towards life. Or, simply, you can't callously disregard the inherent risk to life of your actions, if you're unaware that your actions carry an inherent risk to life.

What this man most certainly, in my mind, committed was battery which unintentionally resulted in death. That's definitionally manslaughter.

[Norstal]

Wow. Really. You truly believe that he can activate a bomb in the subway handcuffed. Really.

I mean if it was a suicide bomber (it wasn't), the bomb may have a timer. The cop made ​​a mistake, I admit, but we must consider what would have happened in such a case.

I'm sure the conversation in Afghanistan went something like this:

"Hey, what if we put a guy in a subway with a bomb vest and blow up everything!"

"Yeah, that's a great idea! How are we gonna trigger it?"

"Well, he's gonna use a knife in his shoes."

"Won't that make it suspicious? Hasn't that been done before in a movie?"

"Uhhh...shit. Well, it'll work, trust me."

"What happens if someone finds out and he gets shot? Shouldn't the trigger activate when he dies?"

"Nah, that'll never happen. He's a suicide bomber!"

[Gravlen]

"Everybody"? No.

Apparently it is everybody since you don't know what trolling is.

That really doesn't make sense.

You said what you did to troll. Someone else could have said it because he or she were insane, but didn't intend to troll. Yet another person could have said it because he or she desired to undermine the legal system, but not to troll.

So no, not "everybody".

[Neo Art]

Do you not feel that the time in jail (he was not in a federal prison) was excessively light given the severity of the crime? Especially since much lessor crimes have significantly greater minimum punishments?

I think a year for manslaughter is a joke, but it's not my job to write the statute.

[Wiztopia]

Apparently it is everybody since you don't know what trolling is.

That really doesn't make sense.

You said what you did to troll. Someone else could have said it because he or she were insane, but didn't intend to troll. Yet another person could have said it because he or she desired to undermine the legal system, but not to troll.

So no, not "everybody".

No I meant it. That doesn't make it a troll. Quit being so damn ignorant.