" BART cop meant to Tase, lawyer says "

for christs sake the things bright yelloww!!!

hey guys!!! this is what i use for duck hunt right????!?!?!

in case your mouse stopped working ::

Defense: Mehserle Said He Was Going To Use Taser

Friday, January 30, 2009 – updated: 3:04 pm PST January 30, 2009
OAKLAND, Calif. -- The former BART police officer accused of fatally shooting an unarmed man on a transit station platform told a fellow officer moments before firing his gun that he was going to discharge his Taser, according to a document released Friday.

Johannes Mehserle, 27, was ordered Friday to be held on $3 million bail on charges that he shot Oscar Grant III, a 22-year-old Hayward man, in the back while Grant was lying face down on the ground at the Fruitvale station platform after police responded to reports that there had been a fight on a train.

In a draft of the bail appeal released Friday, Attorney Michael Rains said that Mehserle told officer Tony Pirone he was "going to taze Grant and [yelled] at Pirone to 'get back,'" the document said quoting reports reviewed for the motion.

Pirone told investigators, the document revealed, that Mehserle told Grant to -- "Put your hands behind your back, stop resisting, stop resisting, put your hands behind your back."

He then said: "I'm going to taze him, I'm going to taze him. I can't get his arms."

Pirone told investigators Mehserle then popped up and said: "Tony, Tony, get away, back up, back up."

Mehserle was armed with both a Taser and a handgun. He then allegedly drew the handgun and shot Grant once.

Mehserle -- who resigned the week after the shooting incident that provoked widespread outrage and protests -- has pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.

With emotions in the community still simmering, authorities increased security at the courthouse as Mehserle's made his appearance before Alameda County Superior Court Judge Morris Jacobson. A group in the hallway outside could clearly be heard chanting "We are Oscar Grant. We are Oscar Grant."

The $300,000 bail was far less than former San Francisco District Attorney Jim Hammer predicted before the hearing. "In a run of the mill murder case, there is generally bail -- $2 to $3 million," Hammer said. Hammer added that the bail hearing was just the beginning of a lengthy legal journey. With several cellphone videos having been broadcast of the shooting, the potential jury pool may have already been tainted. "It's a real nightmare not just for the judge but for the DA also," Hammer said. "If you look back at the most recent case -- the Rodney King beating trial -- you have video of alleged police misconduct played over and over. What that means is that the jurors in Oakland probably have already made up their minds about it."

"The defense will make a motion to move it [the trial] out of the hothouse atmosphere here in Oakland and Alameda County," he added.

Hammer said the trial could be reassigned almost anywhere in the state, including communities where the racially charged nature of the case may be an issue. Grant was black and Mehserle is white.

"That would be bad news for the prosecutor," he said.

Copyright 2009 by KTVU.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

There has been a lot of rioting because of it.

It's shady that they didn't ask the MANY BART witnesses to get off the train and take their information down. I mean, the whole fucking thing is shady. Thank god for the cell vid footage.

Don't worry the great leaders of our world are going to take care of this sort of thing for us

New laws set to be passed in England and Canada would make it illegal to use bad language or take photographs of police officers, moving us further away from the idea of police as public servants and more towards the notion of cops assuming God-like status.

According to the British Journal of Photography, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which is set to become law on February 16, “allows for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who takes pictures of officers ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.” The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine.

However, even before the passage of the legislation, police in Britain have already been harassing and arresting fully accredited press photographers merely for taking pictures of them at rallies and protests.

Besides the 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain, one for every fourteen people, Police are now equipped with mobile surveillance vans and head mounted cameras and they routinely videotape everyone at a protest, yet anyone attempting to record them has been met with increasing hostility.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/uk-terro...e-illegal.html

Major difference between a gun shot and a taser shot.

Not buying that defense.

You do not charge a taser like a .45.

I saw the footage and he charged the .45.

yeah right.

His cop friend held that poor kid down and that fucker shot him in the back, point blank.

Taser gun my fucking ass, both of those pigs should get life, no question.

Check this one out

"Ex-radio DJ Quincy De'Shawn Smith survived an encounter with a police Taser in 2005, and in late November had learned that his suit alleging police brutality could go to trial.

On Dec. 9, however, Smith, 24, died after a second confrontation, this time with officers who had been called to the 1000 block of Knox Avenue N. on a report of a domestic assault involving a man with a gun. Smith struggled with officers as they tried to arrest him and once again was hit with an electric charge from a Taser gun."

http://www.startribune.com/local/nor...D3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

How could you possibly tell from that footage? It's from so far back.

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that police keep a round chambered.

Not that I necessarily buy this guy's story but it seems kind of odd that just out of the blue a cop shoots someone in the back in front of a crowd. I mean, it just doesn't make sense to do that. You're obviously not going to get away with it.

Let's just say for a second though that the officer did make a mistake and thought he had his taser. Personally, I'd think that would make him guilty of negligent homicide and not murder. If there's a possibly of confusing your gun and taser then you must take the responsibility of being absolutely sure which one you have.

Yes... They do keep a round chambered. Always.


Sorry AlienQ but that was kind of a silly post.

Stop making sense.

Comparatively speaking? I think not.

Thats weak. He should've owned up to it. Now hes going to do life

Guarantee you that defense works.

If you saw the footage you see the officer charging the the weapon.
Charging a weapon is pulling the chamber back which loads the bullet int he chamber and arms the hammer.

Doesnt matter if he kept a round in the chamber. The guy charged the weapon, its very evident in the footage.

really too bad... tasers definately shouldnt have "triggers"

No, that doesn't make sense.

You don't have to "arm" the hammer with an automatic, you just pull the trigger.

If he charged it, and there already was a round in the chamber like there would have been, the chambered round would have been ejected. It doesn't make sense.

Well it looks to me like the Cop charged the weapon.

Maybe I am wrong?

Well like I said, it's pretty hard to know for sure from that video. It doesn't look to me like he charges the gun.

I'm just trying to follow the logic. I would expect the officer would keep a round in the chamber, they do in Canada for sure. If that's the case, there's no need to charge the weapon, it's ready to go.

Is it possible this officer didn't have a round chambered and I just can't see him doing it on the video? Sure, anything's possible. I just don't think that's the case.

Here is another angle. Well it is hard to tell, now that I am reviewing it. It looks to me like he pulled the chamber and shot em with 1 hand.

I dunno.
Either way I do not think the circumstances even required a tazer. The guy was face down and harmless. Sure maybe a little difficult to get the cuffs on but hardly warranting even the use of a tazer. Especially with the number of officers in such a close proximity.

Yeah have to agree with you there.

It seems to me like the time you use a taser is when a single officer is trying to control someone they can't, or for taking down somebody with a knife or something like that.

Three officers on top of a guy on the ground shouldn't require a taser, ever.

Increase the standards of the physical ability test to become a cop and there wouldn't be a need for stun guns.

Nowadays you see women and 140 pound men getting those jobs who need stun guns because they aren't strong enough to wrestle anyone down.

Another video came out the other day showing another cop punching the guy in the face too. Did he think his fist was a taser too? I'm not saying that the guy who was killed was a good guy or anything, and maybe he did really piss these cops off. But with the videos coming in, this looks more and more like an execution to me.

Possibly the dumbest thing I have read in 2009, and you had some pretty stiff competition.

What kind of police officer benefits most from carrying a taser?

Obviously the type who needs to rely on a taser as a replacement for physical strength.

I shouldn't have said there wouldn't be a need for tasers. They have their place, but should only be fired when they would otherwise have fired a gun had a taser not been available. That is what the taser was invented for, a non-lethal alternative to the gun.

But police departments across the nation saw tasers as an excuse to become lax on physical aptitude testing.

Before tasers the police just clubbed you down with a nightstick. That also has its problems.

I'd rather take a clubbing over a taser any day. I'd rather have some bruised or broken ribs rather than to have my heart stop.

I kind of agree with what the other person said about increasing the physical requirements. Around here it is common to see women officers that are 5'2".

There should be a strict physical limit for a job like this, same goes for fire fighters. How is a 105 lb woman going to drag someone out of a burning building, just as an example.

i agree.
he shot him once. what's the motive?

of course the other cop will defend him, so the other cop is not a reliable witness.

It's hard to tell, but if you're going to wrongfully shoot somebody point blank, you wouldn't ordinarily do it in a crowded subway with a 100 eyes on you. But maybe he flippd out and did just that.

If he did mistaken the taser for the gun, he's incompetent or reckless.

Taser vs club could probably be debated forever. I thought the taser was originally introduced because the club was seen as too brutal and didn't necessarily subdue the individual quickly enough unless pummeled to death or near death.

I could be wrong, but I think the physical requirements to be a police officer used to greater, but were reduced to allow more people entry into service. I think fire fighters still have strict physical requirements. At least where I'm from, I know a guy that applied to become a firefighter and he had to carry the weight of an average person up several flights of stairs etc.

I actually know a female fire fighter and she had to pass the exact same standards as a man to get the job. She could probably beat most men up too.

Ahhhhh, the "he flipped out" idea. No one wants to say it, but I think this might be the real reason he shot that kid. Lets face it, what kinds of people become cops? All of the people I went to school with who became members of law enforcement were the kids that got fucked with and picked on and beat up every day. You know, the kids who ran home from school? Yup.

From time to time, everyones gotta snap.

Worst excuse ever

Agreed. He killed a black dude, end of story. In this country, it will be hard to get meaningful conviction. Stay out of Cali when the verdict comes...especially the Bay Area.

If that was a blond, blue eyed kid from the suburbs, he would fry...

The race and class of the victim has a much larger stake in whether the suspect will do time. Kill a black male..you got good chances. Kill someone that looks like he stars in a boy band (or god forbid, I young white female), you will go down...

Yea they just lowered the standards for everyone down to the female level !

I dont believe that, there's a clear difference between a taser and a gun. I've shot both myself.

If you were going to punch someone in the face for no reason you wouldn't ordinarily do it in a crowded subway with a 100 eyes on you either. But those cops didn't seem to give a fuck.

Absolutely. I mean things like height requirements. Around here you used to have to be 6 feet tall or more to become a cop. Now you don't. I believe it was traditionally done for the intimidation factor and I think there is at least some underlying validity to it. People are less likely to fuck around with a cop that's 6'6 tall than a 5'5 cop.

Saddens me again....

That the great thing about video of a few seconds in length . . . you get the whole story.

I could tell by the way the cop reacted that he didn't mean to shoot the dude...But too bad, he's gotta go down.