Being schooled by (in)justice: Mehserle verdict shows injustice, bias in our society (Op-Ed)
Our Lives Begin to End the Day We Become Silent About the Things That Matter, photo buy Thomas Hawk
The jury deliberated less than seven hours to reach the verdict in the trial of former BART officer Johannes Mehserle for murdering Oscar Grant: involuntary manslaughter. In other words, although the former officer was found guilty of pulling a gun on Grant and shooting him in the back as he lay face down, hand-cuffed, on a platform, the jury did not find that Mehserle had any intent to end Grant's life when he pulled his gun and shot him in the back as he lay handcuffed on the platform, face down, with another officer's knee pushing into in his back.
With this verdict, the jury essentially affirmed their belief that Mehserle, while guilty, had made a "mistake". As someone who has observed juries deliberate, the idea this jury could reach a concensus so quickly in such a complicated case makes me wonder how many of the people sitting in the jury box actually listened to what they heard.
Did they hear the witnesses describe how helpless Grant was as he lay on the platform, and how unlikely, even impossible, it would have been to reach for a gun?
Did they hear about the climate of racism and violence fellow Officer Pirone created as he cursed Grant and held him down with his leg as a young and poorly trained officer joined him to intimidate and oppress?
Did they hear the witnesses who described the differences between reaching for a taser and a gun, and the reflex that can kick in when an officer smoothly draws a weapon he has been trained to reflexively shoot?
I didn't think that jury heard what I did, or listened the way I did, because if they had a different verdict would have come back. A verdict that recognized that Mehserle intended to caused harm, that pulling his gun and firing at close range, which was perhaps an unconscious gesture, was not a "mistake."
And perhaps I am not the only person that feels that way. According to KGO and other local media, The US Department of Justice is planning to conduct an independent review of the case through their Civil Rights Division and the U.S. attorney's office. The FBI are still investigating Grant's death and would determine whether federal prosecution was called for.
However, even if if these investigations result a stronger conviction for Grant's murder, the reaction of this jury shows me how far apart we are in our own values. If Grant had been white, and the officer Black, would his tears on the witness stand have won him a diminished charge? If both victim and murderer had been people of color, would the jury have voted the same way?
I think not.
___________________
Follow continued coverage of this case on Oakland Local: http://oaklandlocal.com/tags/oscar-grant; follow on Twitter at OscarGrantTrial and OaklandLocal
Many people were out shooting in Oakland the night of the verdict; here's a Flickr pool of the evening.
Story Features
Environment
Food
Daily Image
Recent comments
Development
Identity
Arts & Education
Join Our Mailing List
Sign up for Oakland freebies, discounts & exclusive stories 2X a month.
Pro bono web design grant provided by TechScouts
John Lein, it is clear that you, like the jury, did not pay any attention to details. No where in the article did it mention citizens shooting cops. It asked what will happen if the cop, who did the shooting, was black, and the victim was white, whther the verdict would have been the same. Your hasty post goes all the way to confirm how people, including the jury in question, are often blinded by racial prejudice rationalise or pertetrate injustice
We do not live in a color-blind society. People love to dicuss race. Race is important in the United States of America [ PERIOD]
Given the history in America of police officers being acquitted on violence to murder trials. I like John Burris, appreciate the fact that Mesherle did recieve involuntary manslaughter which acknowledges that he took a human life.
To have thought that a bart officer or rather a police officer would be charged with murder in America is a really really big leap. But eh, I am just a 20 year -old woman from the Bay Area.
But, I ask if the murder was caught on tape by several people and it was involuntary manslaughter. What else can bart officers of police do on tape to citizens ?
Race had everything to do with Oscar Grant's murder, and the verdict convicting his murderer of nothing more than involuntary manslaughter.
From the beginning, when the police were using racist insults and force on the group including Grant, race was an issue for the police. It affected everything they did, starting with their assumption that the group had been violent already (nothing like that had happened) and needed forceful repression.
Mehserle says he was afraid that Grant was going for a gun in his pocket--while Grant was lying face down with another cop's knee on his neck. How did that jury find that a valid fear? Maybe because it was a young black man lying there--everyone knows how dangerous they are.
If Mehserle was "afraid" that Grant would somehow pull a gun and threaten the police from that position, then pulling out his pistol would have been the trained reaction. But Mehserle says that in response to a belief that Grant could use a gun, he was going to pull out a Taser.
The jury heard the difference between the holstering of those two weapons. There was no way for Mehserle to think he had a Taser in his hand--from the far side of his body, and requiring several latches to be opened--instead of a gun--from the side of his dominant hand, and only needing a fast flip to remove the cover and pull it.
A cop shot an unarmed man who was lying face down with another cop's knee on his neck, and claims that he feared for his life? How afraid would he have been if the man had been white? I don't think any of this would have happened in that case.
So, race affected the police actions and reactions. What does that mean in terms of the verdict? It means intent--because Mehserle was illogically afraid, or illogically angry, based on race. It means that he pulled his pistol, not his Taser. It means that he used that pistol to shoot an immobilized man in the back. And it means that he was convicted of a much lesser charge than he should have been because he was wearing a uniform.
It's my understanding that the jury saw a video that was enhanced and much clearer than the YouTube videos we've seen. (Maybe OL can get a copy and post it?)
At any rate, even watching the YouTube version it's clear there is no reason why Mehserle needed to pull his gun, much less fire, and to me that's compelling evidence that this was an accident and that an involuntary manslaughter verdict is just.
To believe that Mehserle intended to murder Oscar Grant you'd have to ascribe a motive for those actions. I can't find one.
It's easy to claim he was racist and intended to murder, but was there any evidence to support that? I haven't seen or heard it if there is...
Did anyone here actually read the statutes? They were helpfully posted on the LA Superior Court web site. It took me 15 minutes to read the actual law and realize the only just verdict here was Involuntary Manslaughter.... or as they say in other jurisdictions more clearly, "Criminally Negligent Homicide". He was negligent in using the wrong weapon... not just civilly negligent but criminally so. He is now a convicted felon who will never again legally be able to use a firearm. He will do time in prison. Rightly so.
Also, I am so tired of hearing it said that Oscar Grant was handcuffed. If that's true, why did the cops have to handcuff him after the shooting? The truth is one arm was cuffed and the other was not. Does that mean he deserves to be shot? No. But I expect more from a journalist like Susan than to say "as he lay handcuffed on the platform."
George, thanks for this note. My understanding has been that Grant was handcuffed; if there is a link that says his arms--or one am--was free, I would appreciate a pointer to it.
An important lesson that this whole Grant/Mehserle episode teaches remains sadly overlooked once again. It is that we can clearly see that some of the most vocal participants in this dialog do not distinguish between justice and revenge.
Many of those who are most disappointed in the Mehserle verdict cry out for blood, and do so with obvious rage... but they do not understand that justice is driven by righteousness, not animal rage.
We live in a society with a system of justice unlike most other nations in this world, and we do ourselves an enormous disservice by failing to learn about it and understand it. If we succumb to rage and replace justice with revenge, then lynch mobs will once again become a powerful force.