I just can't read this letter--and I've done that several times--without getting a feeling that it is self-serving.  There's only one way to figure out why, and that's to go through it as if it were an essay--what does it say, and how is it said?

His first sentence is addressed to the public, not to Grant's family or his friends.  He's concerned that people he doesn't know think badly of him--while he's seen those people he hurt the worst, every day in the courtroom.  His letter was his only communication, and he didn't address it to them.  He mentioned wanting to talk to them--but he didn't. 

What is clear to me is that if the shooting had been a pure accident, as it's portrayed by his attorney and others who have decided to believe it,  his initiating a conversation with Grant's family would have been marginally appropriate.  What he wrote doesn't convince me that he really wanted to talk to them.  Put that together with so many facts of the case, and it's likely he couldn't have faced them knowing he had purposely pulled his gun.  The reason he cites--threats to his family--don't fall into place  The connection is so unclear that it stands there, awkwardly, as a gratuitous bid for sympathy. 

Then, I find it strange that he removes himself from his action when he says "Mr. Grant should not have been shot," instead of "I shouldn't have shot Mr. Grant."  "It saddens me," is similarly more objective than I would expect, as is ". . . a daughter has lost a father . . . a mother has lost a son."  That's such distant, abstract wording.  Why not " . . . his daughter has lost her father . . .?"     

I believe that he truly does remember the details of the moments after he shot and killed Mr. Grant, and that they haunt him.  That could be as true if his version of the shooting was true as it would be if he had completely intended to pull his gun out and point it at Oscar Grant's back.  But not one word of that account exonerates him, although it seems he thinks it shows how awful he feels (and therefore couldn't have intended to shoot).  Soldiers and police who shoot because they have to feel terrible too.

Somehow he's terribly removed from everything--the blank look I see on his face in photos is reflected in his writing.  There could be a lot of reasons for this--maybe he's one of those people who don't feel much.  Maybe he's trying so hard not to be convicted that he's put aside the thoughts of what he did.  It just seems that from the beginning he's not fully present, removing himself from fault. 

Pulling a gun (even a Taser) on a man lying face down, with another cop's knee on his neck, was an irresponsible, at the very least, thing to do.  Then, when the consequences of his decision (yes, there is still no other way to describe it other than a decision to pull that gun) followed, he--a police officer--left the state, took off for Nevada, right after he'd killed a man.  What else but denial and self-excusing can explain that bonehead move?

Nothing in the letter convinces me that he accidentally pulled his gun, or accidentally shot Oscar Grant; after he had that gun out of its holster, nothing that followed was accidental anyway.  His letter doesn't convey that he comprehends there is no going back and no making this better.  His letter conveys to me that he does hope to do that, but for himself.  In the process, he's denying his deadly responsibility.  And asking for exoneration at the same time.

His penmanship tells me that he has the mentality of a elementary school kid.

Let's see - had Mehserle never apologized, folks would have bashed him for that.

Of course the letter is self-serving: he has some things to get off his chest.

Bashing this guy is ridiculous at this point; it's almost a witch-hunt. And as sad and tragic as Oscar's death was, had there not been a fight on BART, none of this would have ever happened. Not that this condones anything, just pointing out that maybe the solution is to find safe places for kids to recreat; find a solution to help kids see you don't need to FIGHT on New Year's Eve - no less.

One would think Grant's parents and relatives would want to lead a "peaceful" solution so this tragedy never happens again; instead, like the Tea Baggers and every other hysterical group in country today - they're clamoring for their 15 minutes of fame and "damn" the issues when you can fuel hysteria, fear and chaos just by the words "My son was murdered."

@Victoria

I don't think you've paid any attention to serious reporting and analysis of this issue.  If you had, you wouldn't have made so many erros of fact.  Further, to lose a child is so terrible that your comments regarding Oscar Grant's family are not only totally untrue but incredibly arrogant and ignorant.

Hysteria, fear, and chaos are what a parent feels, the least of what a parent feels, when a child is murdered.  That holds true for parents across the world, but the parents of young black men live with the possibility every day.  Why?  You figure it out.  Disproportionate thousands of young black men die from street violence and police violence just as Oscar Grant died.

Grant's parents and relatives have consistently asked that people express their feelings and thoughts about Grant's murder peacefully.  They have never, ever, shown any indication that they want 15 minutes of anything except having Oscar back.

There were all kinds of incidents on BART on New Year's.  The scuffle (it has been established that the term "fight" is hyperbole) was not out of the ordinary.  I myself, early the next morning, saw some pushing and shoving on a BART platform, and some young men wandering BART while drinking large cans of alcohol. They were observed by agents who made no move to detain them.  They were white, by the way.

The bigger issue is the question:  Is being killed by being shot in the back an appropriate out-of-court punishment for scuffling on New Year's Eve?  An execution without conviction for an offense that probably wouldn't even require a court appearance? 

By the way, there was tremendous dedication to justice and peaceful protest by most of the protestors--no sign of hysteria, fear, and chaos except by the non-protestors who vandalized downtown businesses.

To address your statement

Let's see - "had Mehserle never apologized, folks would have bashed him for that."  I objected to the letter in part because it was NOT an apology--"Of course the letter is self-serving: he has some things to get off his chest," is accurate.  He wanted to get some stuff off his chest before the verdict when the jury could possibly have been swayed; he wanted to get some stuff off his chest so he would feel better; he wanted to get some stuff off his chest so people wouldn't be so angry at him.  He can apologize when he sits with this for a few years.  "Never" isn't necessary, unless he's "forever" clueless--or covering up.

He wanted to feel better.  He killed a man, and wants to feel better.  It doesn't work that way a few months later, even before his conviction.  It's just talk and self-pity at this point. 

I think that it's callous to presume that what he's written is only a ploy, as some have said. 

I expect that it is partly a ploy, and partly sincere. Nothing is simple. He writes about the sense memory of the incident, in a way that comes across as very sincere. The timing of the release of the note seems somewhat tactical though.

I must say that I find all the hate I see directed at him to be misguided. We must have empathy for the family of Oscar Grant, the Mehserle family, and for Mehserle himself. 

So many people who would ordinarily insist that we not demonize young urban criminals have come out with demonizing statements about Mehserle. 

I don't get it. The point of liberal activism, in my opinion, is to have empathy and understanding for everyone, so that we can learn from mistakes, and heal those who've made them, no matter who they are.