Johannes Mehserle was sentenced last Friday, and I've been struggling to form a coherent response ever since. Mehserle is the former Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer convicted of involuntary manslaughter in July for the fatal shooting of unarmed BART rider Oscar Grant III during the wee hours of New Year's Day, 2009.
(The video of the incident still lives on the Web, but if you need to see it, I trust that you can find it on your own.)
Mehserle's excuse for shooting Grant was, for many, quite literally unbelievable: he allegedly mistook his pistol for his Taser. Despite facing 14 years in prison, he received the minimum of two -- with parole eligibility in seven months -- mainly because the judge really believed that excuse. But in the three smartest takes on the sentencing that I've read since, it seems that isn't even the point.
First, Atlantic writer Ta-Nehisi Coates offers his reasoning as to why he wasn't outraged over Mehserle's short sentence:
My sense is that Mehserle, in killing Oscar Grant, made an awful and sickening mistake. But I'm not sure what good comes out of sending him to jail for five or ten years...
I think another argument for sentencing Mehserle to serious time is that a message needs to be sent to other cops that the society takes their crimes seriously. But that gets its backwards. It is a society that passes laws which send SWAT teams into gambling houses that is need of a message. These are the cops that we deserve. In that sense, I am not so disturbed that Oscar Grant's killer will do little, if any, jail time. I am disturbed that this will happen again. I am disturbed that we are so fragile a people, that we know this, and that all we can do is look away.
Coates builds on Julianne Hing's reporting for ColorLines magazine, which posits that courtroom results are evidence that real justice for those like Oscar Grant can best be found in prevention of more Oscar Grants:
Prosecutions so often end in acquittal, for one -- as the painful verdicts for the cops charged with attacking Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, Abner Louima and Rodney King all illustrate. But more than that, organizers say the hard work of bringing about long-term change comes only from engaging in systemic overhauls and with sustained pressure on police departments to do preventative work. For that, people must be a steady presence at their local police departments' public accountability meetings or in their local sheriff's office.
And journalist and hip-hop historian Davey D punctures holes in the narrative that African-Americans only raise holy hell when police kill African-Americans, and speaks as to why those police incidents garner more limelight:
When Judge Robert Perry went out of his way to side with the police and blame Oscar Grant for his own death, it was a cruel reminder to the family and the community at large that we don't have power especially within the system we invested in.
Bottom line is that some of the police brutality cases are much more then isolated incidents. They are major markers that indicate there's an opportunity to flip the script, dismantle or at the very least, peel away some layers from an oppressive institution. With this in mind, when you hear someone complain that our community is protesting the police but seemingly not protesting the the day to day violence, it's hard not to see this as a ploy to keep us from challenging an institution that needs to be held accountable.
(Image: Urban Habitat.)
Leave a Comment:
it looked like an accident to me.
Even if you believe the narrative that he was reaching for his taser. Why was he? Grant was handcuffed, on his belly, and not struggling. To reach for his taser at that point was--pun intend--overkill.
he probably wouldn't relax or cooperate. That's why he was in cuffs in the first place.
If he was reaching for his Tazer, it illustrates how the Tazer is being treated as a toy rather than a weapon. While "don't taze me, bro" and its ilk are funny, police should not resort to using a Tazer just because suspects are proving difficult to handle, especially when there are multiple officers assisting.
If he was reaching for his gun... Well, that's a whole different story about excessive violence by the police.
You said you saw the videos and can determined that it was an accident from what you say, yet somehow you cannot see whether Grant was struggling or not. He wasn't struggling. Look at the videos again if you are not sure. They are readily available. His hands were handcuffed behind his back, he was cooperating, as were the others who were handcuffed, and he was shot.
Mesherle put his taser away before pulling out his gun. Hardly an accident.
I don't know why the police have expectations that people would relax when being detained by a bunch of police for little reason. He was being detained by two officers, and the best they could do was taser him? Have modern day police colleges forgone teaching deescalation and instead only teach the proper ways of cleaning and caring for lethal weapons like guns and tasers?
You should talk to Bill Frist. I hear he likes to draw inane conclusions from videotape as well.
Okay, let's assume it was an accident (which as the daughter of a cop I don't believe for a second, fyi). What was the officer going to do, taz him in the skull? That may not have killed Grant, but brain damage would've been a sure bet.
Our justice system has become useless. After reading earlier about the hit-and-run hedge fund manager who won't be charged with a felony because it may affect his job, this ridiculous sentence is simply the cherry on top of a very crooked sundae.
I think it was murder:
1.In some of the video, you can see Mehserle touch the handle of the taser with his
left hand shortly before he shoots the 40 calbr gun with his right hand.
2.Even if the taser and gun looked very similar, I imagine that a 40 calbr gun is
going to be much heavier.
3.The Oscar Grant was clearly subdued and didn't need to be tasered.
4.If Mehserle had used the taser and Oscar Grant suffered a heart attack, would
the discussion be different?
I feel we as a community and Oscar Grant's family have been cheated of true justice.
Excellent points. I think Mehserle's 'I thought it was my taser' excuse preys on the general ignorance of people with little-to-no familiarity with tasers and firearms. Grabbing your firearm instead of your taser is like grabbing a sword instead of a dagger- there is a huge difference in feel and weight distribution. No way does this guy not know that he's about to open up Grant's skull.
Oscar Grant's family has been cheated of justice while Oakland weeps. We have got to stop treating our young men as enemies. There is so much love and beauty in our city, but we are under this terrible, shameful burden. And we cannot heal until we hold these criminals with a badge fully accountable for their appalling lack of humanity. Apparently, Mr. Mehserle was concerned about the length of time he would have to spend away from his young son before his sentencing. Hopefully he now has some time to think of Mr. Grant's three-year old daughter, who will never see her daddy again. This story needs more national attention - we have a real problem here.
I have only a few observations:
Mr. Grant was clearly restrained and subdued, whether or not he was cooperating.
Policemen and security police forces of agencies like BART ought to know the difference between "hot pursuit" and a captured suspect. They also ought to be able to distinguish between their weapons by feel...that is a stupid excuse.
Accident or not, negligent homicide is still a crime. Besides that, when I saw the video, I saw no reason for Oscar Grant to be tased. Tasers are supposed to be an alternative to using a gun or baton.
The reliance on tasers seems to be due more to the fact that they don't leave quite the same sort of evidence a plain old beating would leave, nor do they require the amount of strength a beating would, although it hurts just as bad. The idea that tasers are more humane is a joke. It's like saying waterboarding is more humane because it only "simulates" drowning.
My concern is that we have cops carrying guns that are so poorly trained they don't know when they should use a taser, nor do they know the difference between their gun and their taser.
I'm generally not in favor of incarcerating people unless they need to be separated from society though.
Mickey, why do you want to go to Afghanistan? If it were me that would be the last deployment I would be seeking. Wrong time in wrong place... no real plan to succeed and no love from the populace....
Got that you want to serve once DADT is history, just sayin'....
This is the wrong thread Mightbe ;-) In answer though- DADT will likely not be revoked this year, if I had to guess. More than likely the "lame duck Congress" will turn out to actually be a lame duck Congress, although they don't technically have to be. If nothing gets moved on with DADT then I don't know that it will happen next year, although I want to be fair here to the Republicans and avoid getting into a slippery slope argument. I don't want to emphasize an apocalyptic nightmare of the next 2 years- It just seems to me that they are going to focus so much more on making President Obama a 1 term president rather than doing policy. Now I could be wrong and I will be pleasantly surprised if I am. I am just basing this off of statements made by people like Boehner and Cantor. Which means unless a last minute decision is made on behalf of the Democrats who're in charge until January, or unless there's a sudden coming to the middle by Republicans (at least regarding this issue) DADT is going to stay into effect at least until 2012. Let's assume the legislature moves towards the middle and passes the revocation of DADT in 2011. It's June 2011 when it gets passed. That means by the time I finished boot camp and training it'd be July or August of 2012. Which means the earliest possible chance to deploy would be in 2013. If, as I pessimistically predict, it doesn't get revoked until 2012, that would mean the earliest would be 2014. You see where I'm getting at? No chance to serve in this war at all. Which effectively means gays have been denied the right to open service throughout our modern war. I don't believe after we pull out of Afghanistan we will be engaging in another war for at least another 10 years because it doesn't seem fiscally viable to me. We may engage in overseas missions, but since I'm a woman I won't be a part of those (since women can't be special forces). Which means even if another war breaks out that's going to be when I'm like freaking 35 >.<. It's just kind've an obnoxious realization that I missed my chance to shed my blood, sweat, and tears where everyone else has.
Sorry #wrongthread... The PC devil has got me.
Whether wars are fiscaly viable has not seemed to be a roadblock, at least when republican is the CiC.
Thanks for responding even in the 'wrong thread', Mickey Mouser.
Mouser, Last month I read (NOW I believe) the latest statistic is 1 out of 5 military women report being raped at one or more point in their service career...actual number of rapes are likely...well.
As part of my 'briefing' when initially joining the DoD, and prior to starting an extensive round of visiting all the combat traing facilities, I was given the most interesting fact by my briefers - that the safest place for a woman, as far as rape and assault goes, was outside the base gates, not inside the base gates...rape/assault of women was higher on the inside...
I won't go into here what 20 years as a woman serving in DoD has taught me...
But, I still serve proudly...but, ashamed none the less of how women are still treated in the DoD.
You do realize that what you just said to me is if I join I am alleviating someone else from having to endure or risk the threat of rape, right?
I'm confused...help me... :/
You were listing that statistic as evidence for why I shouldn't join and I was pointing out to you that what I hear, when given that same statistic, is that I should join because it means I can trade places with a person who would other wise risk or endure said problem.
Ok....I hear you, and see your point....but....may I point out a really big flaw in that logic...as an openly gay woman you would have a target painted on you. Not only a target setting you aside from all other women because of the basic homophobia and bias, but also a 'most wanted' target for the perpetrators who know they will be even less likely to be disbelieved when they lie, and you disbelieved when you tell the truth, and even should all parties capitulate to the rape, less likely to be prosecuted for it. This is part of that 20 years I was talking about above. And if you are well versed in hand-to-hand, not to worry, they like making it a group effort - fight that off. Don't believe me? (we can talk off-line) An openly gay women in this man's military is nothing but the bottom of the food chain in vulnerability and acts of violence...I'm saying this because - Ok, maybe because I'm hoping you choose college instead of military service, but, if you do go in I want you to go in with your eyes open to the brutality that exists due solely to things you have no control over (a woman, a gay woman). You are going to make me age baby girl.
P.S. The only reason I survived as well as I did/have, other than my general disposition, is I went in as a fairly high ranking engineer - an entry level person is 500 times more vulnerable...
Lol oooh my poor WB I wasn't trying to give you a heart attack, gosh.
Aww, geeze. I know. You'll be more than fine whatever you choose. Just didn't want you starting your mission as it were without a good grasp of the local threat. Still, if I hear you're off to boot camp: :< ....Or I hear you're off to college: :)) ....just saying...
lmafo! :))
LOL it got deleted
Not before I read it it didn't. LOL (I think our blog author maybe hasn't seen Eve Enslers off Broadway play and been immersed into the general acceptance of using the 'V' word)
I was going to link something to the V Monologues but I don't want to make Will and everyone mad lol
It was not an accident. -@mark-you should look at the video.He was on the ground,not moving and in handcuffs.Plus,there were several cops looking on.
High five to the artist!
There was no need to even pull out the taser(if that was truly the intent), since he was prone and cuffed. Tasers kill also. http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20918
Brother, all I can say is Black people have always been on our own and will continue to be on our own. When Black people collectively realize mentally we are on our own we as a people will be better off.
The struggle continues.
project21rep banned, rereg of past MB troll hatenomor. Should've checked aliases earlier.
Wow, tyler, great sleuthing.
Does he hear what he is saying?
Chris Mathews of MSNBC has the gall to ask if Democrats have “ears and brains”.
I feel obligated to ask the same of him. For two years the Republicans in congress have said NO to everything the Democrats have offered to stop the downfall of the United States, or as Arianna Huffington coined it, “Third World America”. Even when the Democrats compromised, eliminating the Public Option, and allowing the Insurance Companies to maintain control of the pricing of health care, the Republicans still voted against the bill.
To a man, the Republicans voted against the “Stimulus”, then took the money and paid down the debt in their states rather than putting people to work, then posed for photos handing giant sized checks to businesses as though the money came from their pockets. They then ran their political campaigns stating the plan didn’t work.
Republicans accuse the President of the United States of being a Marxist for bailing out the Auto Industry, which kept millions of Americans from joining the ranks of the unemployed and deepening the recession, while those loans are actually earning a profit for the U.S. Government.
Mister Mathews showed his mental might when he asked President Obama during the Presidential Debates “What’s it like growing up with a White Mother?”
He consistently shows his rudeness to guests on his show by talking over their responses, cutting their answers short, and insinuating their opinions are meaningless because he knows better.
Mister Mathews has taken the stand that the Midwest is a “Rust Belt”, insulting the Americans that live there, and suggesting the “C” students from those states should do manual labor at factory jobs, forgetting that George W. Bush was the President of the United States of America.
Mister Mathews, like so many other people with big mouths, are over-paid for the nothing they contribute to our country. He doesn’t see that he, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are the same person with different points of view, doing the same thing; selling advertising time to Corporate America.
I suggest Mister Mathews start using his ears and brain more, and his mouth less.
I prefer and appreciate Ms. Maddows fact filled, enlightened, and always polite methods. She, Ed, Kieth, and Lawrence are professional reporters, and it shows.
It takes 60 votes to pass something in the Senate. Over 400 pieces of legislation were passed in the House and it went to the Senate to die- like legislation is supposed to. The 60 seat majority rule is in order to pass something beyond a filibuster. The filibuster is a tool used by the minority (regardless of party) to keep or stall legislation from passing, or to amend it. The Republicans in the Senate in the most part refused to even so much as allow bills to come up for discussion (although this was not always true, I should also point out there were some instances of Republicans voting on Democratic legislation- in all such instances the legislation passed). In order to understand why so little has been accomplished people need to understand how the Senate works. Beyond that people need to understand how the filibuster works. The only real anger here should be that the Congress, when it had the chance, did not change the rules to the filibuster. Beyond that making the statement "Democrats had the majority they could've passed whatever they wanted" is ignorant of the process. I should also add that most of the policies proposed were either Republican policies introduced back in the early 90's or were compromised. Please remember that when legislation is introduced it generally begins in committees before being sent to the Senate floor to debate. Almost all pieces of legislation that went to committee passed and were then scheduled to go to the floor to debate. It was only there that the legislation died. Suggesting that no compromises were ever made again shows ignorance of the process.
With the republicans' use of the filibuster in the Senate, Democrats could not "pass anything they wanted" even though they did have a majority.
By the way, there is no one definition for a "supermajority" and Democrats did not have one in the Senate. If they did have a supermajority (3/5 or 60%) they could have overcome the republicans' filibusters.
They usually got 57 or 58 on board and could not get 2 more who were usually Republicans. Those evil conservatives you're so ready to defend were the people that wouldn't vote. They only held 59 seats for a short period and during that time legislation was passed. You're completely ignoring all the bills that were passed. God Hatey why do you even bother blogging here? I am so sick of your strawman arguments and your red herrings. Go read a book on argument and debate and then try to have an intelligent conversation.
I don't want to call this racism, but you'd be hard-pressed to see this happening to any race other than BLACK. Johannes Mehserle should be in PRISON for 25 to life. But cops are treated as heroes for doing absolutely nothing. Like Tupac said, "Cops give a damn about a Negro / Pull a trigga, kill a ----- , he's a hero"
{{-_-}}
Project21rep this will probably be deleted.
If you watch the media the most oppressed people in this country are white men.
Black people don't exist. If we do it is because we are going to get a "freebie" from PBO.
Black people's oppression will have to take a back seat to white people oppression. We must wait til they get employed again and get their "perceived" white supremacy again.
Of course that means we will never get anything unless we collectively get our act together.
Not to sound annoyed at the whole thing, but this whole trial was blown out of proportion and is making me sick. I live near the Bay Area and all I've seen to come out of wanting to show solidarity with Oscar Grant is to start riots three times when there should've been a peaceful protest. What Mersherle did was a tragic accident and more training should've been given to him before he was put out on a rather rowdy night, but according to what testimony there is, Grant was struggling and not cooperating. Yes, the taser excuse holds water about as well as sieve, but it's not murder that most people talk about unless it's planned. This was accidental. Perhaps Mersherle should've gotten more time, but he didn't. He's instead going to have to live with his family being threatened and his career in law enforcement being over, as well as his life in general.
I feel sorry for both equally, Oscar Grant a little more because you don't expect such a thing in a crowded BART station, but this is just turning into a reason to riot and not trust the few good police attempting to do their job without bias.
Anyone who thinks this was an accident is tragically misinformed.
{{-_-}}
I am sorry but--- I no longer give the benefit of the doubt to the man with the badge and gun. Toooooo many times those two things are used toooooo often in the accidental death of a civilian.
The BART cop was trained and therefore should be held to a higher standard. Using the ooops it was my gun not my taser excuse is reason enough to be in prison for a minimum negligent homicide sentence of 4 to 8 eligible in 3.
I'm sympathetic with the idea that the killing was no accident, but I still have an unanswered question: if it was not an accident, what was it? Deliberate? If so, what was Mehserle's motive? And would he really be so brazen as to commit murder in a public place, likely videotaped, surrounded by other police officers? Is it plausible that the killer felt so utterly immune to justice or public opinion due to his position as a police officer that he felt he could get away with cold-blooded murder?
I ask these questions despite finding it incredibly hard to believe Mehserle's pathetic excuse.