Oakland Policeman Who Murdered Prone Restrained Victim Gets Light Sentence - Riots Erupt!

[Peter Lemkin]

Oakland Protests Over Police Shooting Sentence
6th November 2010

Photo Courtesy – KGO-TV San Francisco (OAKLAND, Calif.) — Protests erupted in Oakland Friday night after the former Bay-area transit officer convicted of fatally shooting an unarmed man was sentenced in a Los Angeles courtroom to two years in prison.

The sentence by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Perry was significantly less than the possible 14-year maximum term for Johannes Mehserle. Perry had wide discretion when sentencing the 28-year-old Mehserle. Mehserle was given 292 days’ credit for time served.

Mehserle was convicted of fatally shooting Oscar Grant, 22, early New Year’s Day in 2009 at a train station in Oakland. The incident was captured on video. Mehserle claimed that he meant to grab his Taser while trying to subdue Grant, but mistakenly grabbed his gun.

The case was moved to L.A. because of unrest over the shooting. Violent protests erupted in Oakland after Mehserle’s verdict of guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Grant’s relatives and others said they were disappointed, saying Grant’s shooting was murder.

In Oakland Friday, the anger forced businesses to scramble to cover up their windows with boards. There was a heavy police presence throughout downtown Oakland Friday evening.

As night fell in Oakland, a sanctioned march grew unruly as some protesters smashed business windows, damaged cars and pulled down a fence surrounding a construction site. More than 100 protesters were arrested, though the atmosphere was calmer than the previous protest in July.

[David Guyatt]

What a vile lie - "I went to grab my taser but grabbed my gun by mistake m'lud". The fact is that each will feel fundamentally different -- so a "mistake" like this is virtually impossible -- rather like intending to grab your dick but picking up a riled rattlesnake instead.

I have noticed similar judgement in the UK when police shoot innocents. Here they tend to get away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist - not even a sentence. And the worst they may suffer is being transferred out of the police firearms unit back to normal coppering. According to two senior SAS soldiers who trained the Met's SO19 firearms unit, police in that unit are psychological unfit to bear arms because they are too gung ho (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...567961.ece).

As just one example of how unsuitable these people can be, take the recent case of the policeman who shot and killed the barrister Mark Saunders. In giving evidence to the subsequent inquest, the officer purposely peppered his evidence with song titles - including "line of fire" by Journey and "fuck my old boots" by the Membranes (see:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/02...ong-titles)

[Peter Lemkin]

What a vile lie - "I went to grab my taser but grabbed my gun by mistake m'lud". The fact is that each will feel fundamentally different -- so a "mistake" like this is virtually impossible -- rather like intending to grab your dick but picking up a riled rattlesnake instead.

I have noticed similar judgement in the UK when police shoot innocents. Here they tend to get away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist - not even a sentence. And the worst they may suffer is being transferred out of the police firearms unit back to normal coppering. According to two senior SAS soldiers who trained the Met's SO19 firearms unit, police in that unit are psychological unfit to bear arms because they are too gung ho (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...567961.ece).

As just one example of how unsuitable these people can be, take the recent case of the policeman who shot and killed the barrister Mark Saunders. In giving evidence to the subsequent inquest, the officer purposely peppered his evidence with song titles - including "line of fire" by Journey and "fuck my old boots" by the Membranes (see:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/02...ong-titles)

They [gun and taser] are usually kept in different positions on their belt; feel, weigh and are shaped differently. Most telling is that the 'firing mechanism' is completely different and calls for the use of other fingers and hand positions. Nothing in this situation called for either and CERTAINLY not a hasty use of any weapon. It was murder and premeditated murder, IMO. :bandit:

Police in the USA have carte blanche to kill anyone...the darker-skinned the are, the lighter the already light sentence will be. Sickening and getting worse, fast. Of course, in a police state the police are not subject to the same rules and laws as the nation of 'policed' are.

[Keith Millea]

This police officer would have been aquitted in most other US cities.It is only because Oakland residents are continually living at the "boil point",and are easily capable of some major destruction that this trial even happened.

Here is a reminder of what a shot in the back looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZTbJH6BN...re=related

[Christer Forslund]

I have noticed similar judgement in the UK when police shoot innocents.

Police in the USA have carte blanche to kill anyone...

Met chief privately urges Theresa May to protect police from civilian lawsuit.

Britain’s most senior police officer has privately lobbied the Home Secretary to make it more difficult for civilians to sue Scotland Yard.

By Heidi Blake 10 Oct 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l...suits.html

Sir Paul Stephenson claimed that money is being wasted fighting speculative law suits by civilians alleging brutality or wrongful arrest.

The Metropolitan Police commissioner also urged the Home Secretary to load higher costs onto officers and other staff suing police forces at employment tribunals over claims of discrimination or unfair treatment.

He added that members of the public should be charged a fee for making Freedom of Information requests, which he said were burdening police forces with unmanageable levels of paperwork.
But civil rights groups have condemned Sir Paul’s suggestions as an attempt to put the police beyond the rule of law.
The Met commissioner wrote to Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on June 22. In the letter, marked confidential, he set out a list of proposals designed to cut costs and free officers from red tape.
Calling for more obstacles to be placed in the way of members of the public bringing civil claims against the police, he wrote: "We believe there needs to be a radical shakeup of the system; currently for every pound paid out in compensation, up to £10 or sometimes more has to be paid out in legal costs to the claimants' lawyers.
"One of the key aspects is that the average settlements are well under £10,000 and most under £5,000, in other words these are not major areas of police misconduct with long-lasting consequences but often technical breaches."
James Welch, of the civil rights group Liberty, said: "The ability to challenge police misconduct in court is a vital constitutional safeguard against abuse of power. Under current rules, if you lose a case in the civil courts you can expect to be ordered to pay your successful opponent's legal costs."
"A service bound to uphold the rule of law should not attempt to carve out an exception for itself," he told The Guardian.
Sir Paul also complained that police are forced to waste time and money defending employment tribunal claims brought by staff who later drop them, without incurring any financial penalty.
"As you will be aware, currently there are no cost disincentives for claimants lodging speculative employment tribunal claims which are withdrawn after considerable public resources have been expended in order to respond to such claims.
"We propose that a fee for issuing claims could be introduced and the grounds upon which costs can be made widened to meet these concerns," he wrote.
"Similarly, there is currently no incentive for claimants to accept early offers of settlement and substantial cost could be saved if claimants were put on risk as to costs from the time that such an offer is made."
Paul McKeever, chief of the Police Federation of England and Wales, denied that officers and staff are making “speculative” claims against the forces that employ them.
"Going to an employment tribunal is the last resort people take after being frustrated by the system. Nobody wants to go to an employment tribunal – it's a horrible process to go through," he said.
Sir Paul also urged the Home Secretary to slap fees on freedom of information requests after his force received 3,373 such requests last year.
He wrote: "We welcome the recent government commitment to review the application of FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] and would encourage you to consider introducing a fee (as there is for Data Protection Act requests) to bring it into line with the Data Protection Act."
A spokesman for the Home Office last night confirmed that Mrs May had received Sir Paul’s letter. He said: “The Home Secretary enjoys a good relationship with Sir Paul Stephenson. It is usual for him to write to her with his opinions and the home secretary always considers them carefully."

[David Guyatt]

This, I might add, after the previous government made a ruling that armed police guilty of wrongful conduct would not be prosecuted in the future. This followed a threatened walk-out by police marksmen following the prosecution of two policemen who twice shot and killed a painter & decorator who had purchased a wooden table leg and was carrying it home. The coppers thought the table leg was a sawn off shotgun (I seem to recall that one of the two was involved in the De Menedez execution) and then fabricated their stories to protect themselves. The threat of their colleagues (and senior police force officers too) was that those assigned to police firearms units would up and leave and return to normal police work leaving the armed units devoid of personnel (see: http://news.scotsman.com/harrystanley/Th...2577059.jp). In the wake of 911 and 7/7 the government felt they could not take the chance of this happening and folded at the threat.

I suppose if Nurses and Firemen were armed they too might be able to flex their muscles in their battle with government over terms and conditions?

[David Guyatt]

I hope this isn't another case of "gung ho" itchy-fingered coppers pulling the trigger accidentally instead of picking his nose?

But when I read words like "believed to be armed" and "viability" in the paragraph that says "Firearms have been found in the house and their viability and type are yet to be ascertained", I start thinking toys, air-pistols or collectible firearms once viable guns but rendered useless in accordance with the law and citizens having both their arms intact? But that's just me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11716166

9 November 2010 Last updated at 10:42

Sussex police shoot 'armed' man in Copthorne

Officers were called to a house in Borers Arms Road, Copthorne, at 2200 GMT on Monday
A man, who was believed to be armed, has been shot by police who were called to a house in West Sussex.

Officers received reports of a man in his 50s threatening a woman at a house in Borers Arms Road, Copthorne, at 2200 GMT on Monday.

Police said following negotiations a shot was fired and a man was taken to hospital with injuries to his hand. The woman was unharmed.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has been informed.

A Sussex Police spokeswoman said the injured man was now "helping police with their inquiries".

She added: "A woman was led safely from the house.

'Loud bangs'
"Firearms have been found in the house and their viability and type are yet to be ascertained."

The spokeswoman added that officers gave the injured man first aid at the scene before he was treated at the East Surrey Hospital in Redhill.

BBC South East Today's Ian Palmer said Borers Arms Road was cordoned off and officers remained at the scene.

Some residents described hearing two loud bangs but thought they were fireworks being let off.

One woman, who declined to be named, described the village as "usually quiet and sleepy".

The IPCC said an investigator was assessing evidence before deciding how to proceed.