Mehserle's letter to the public

San Francisco Chronicle / sfgate.com ^ | Friday, July 9, 2010 | Chronicle Staff Report

[conimbricenses]

The problem is you are using exceptions to the accuracy of a single instance of video to poison the well against all video evidence, and suggest that there *must* inherently be something the video doesn't show that exculpates the cop even though the preponderance of what is shown makes him look very much in the wrong.

Yes, videos may not always tell 100% of the story. But by and large they come pretty damn close. And barring a good and factually evidenced reason to doubt it, we should trust a video that shows 95% of the story over the unsupported and biased word of the very same cop it implicates and who therefore has a personal stake in questioning its accuracy.

[conimbricenses]

STILL HAD AN UNCONTROLLED AND UNSEEN EXTREMITY THAT COULD HAVE A WEAPON.

I suppose he also theoretically "could have" had nuclear launch codes, a vial of anthrax, and a post-it note with Osama bin Laden's phone number in his pocket. But "could have" does not mean that he did, and is not a legitimate basis for assuming that he did until there is direct visual confirmation that he was armed.

Why? Because even if he was armed, he was still outnumbered 10 to 1 by a bunch of men who were more heavily armed than he ever could have been. Using the "he could have been armed" line as an excuse for shooting him is kinda like nuking Haiti because of a rumor that it "could have been" purchasing uranium from Ahmedenijad.

[DJ MacWoW]

There were eyewitnesses that testified. If you believe, as the other poster does, that viewing a video makes you an accurate eyewitness then no truth or facts will get through.

I won't respond again.

[conimbricenses]

Yes, we know. Disobeying an order to surrender his right to bear arms, and fleeing from those who were trying to forcibly deprive him of that right.

Not saying it was a prudent thing to do. But I have little sympathy for those who expect to generate moral outrage against somebody for violating a bad and unjust gun control law.

[conimbricenses]

The eyewitnesses qualify and expand upon the video. An eyewitness also stated that the cop was in a profanity-laced state of what could easily be described as rage, though the audio quality wasn't good enough to pick it up.

But the point is that Grant was severely outnumbered and outgunned. It wasn't even a question that he could somehow break free or harm somebody else without being stomped on and gunned down by the large group of heavily armed men who surrounded him. As it happens, he was stomped on and gunned down by a member of that group without even breaking free or doing anything that even remotely approached harming another. And whether he was "resisting" or not, the video conclusively demonstrates that he was sufficiently outnumbered so as to be rendered immobile.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Drop the PC mongering. You’re sounding like Eric Holder. Cops are not a race, religion, ethnicity, or other “protected class” against which one may be “bigoted.””

Sorry, but if someone hates all cops - and even says so - then they are bigoted against cops. Don’t like reality? Too bad.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“No, it shows that I have a realistic bias.”

Nope. That would take demonstrative evidence for your claims. You have presented none.

“When I can cite as many incidents as I can, as many cover ups as I can and so on then I have a very real reason for my conclusions.”

Nope. The cases you could site - but haven’t - don’t amount to a hill of beans in terms of the total number of officers or in regard to this particular officer.

“As for the evidence, I have presented it. It’s just that you and people like you think it’s perfectly okay for cops to kill people without cause.”

No, actually we don’t think that at all. But your insistence that that is what we believe - despite all evidence and common sense to the contrary - is indicative of your lack of an argument and your bigotry. You have NOTHING so you just make stuff up instead.

[conimbricenses]

If you think dislike for a chosen profession is "bigotry" on par with racial and religious hatred, you aren't living in reality to begin with.

You're in the same camp as Obama and Holder wherein a "bigot" lurks behind every rock and every group is a "protected" class. Don't like being compared to Holder-Obama? Too bad.

[conimbricenses]

Hey...come to think of it I hate government bureaucrats, democratic congressmen, tow truck drivers, meter maids, porn store owners, used car salesmen, and plaintiff's attorneys. According to your bizarre definition that would make me a "bigot" against those chosen professions.

Back in the real world though they are professions and nothing more. And people are free to like/dislike them based on the jobs they do and how well they perform them. If cops do something that make people dislike them, then they have only themselves to blame just like any other profession with a reputation for sleaze.

[Filo]

In Grants case resisting arrest is disobeying an order and then trying to flee. And refusing to allow yourself to be handcuffed. Grant served 2 prison sentences. You might want to do some research.

All of which might have been interesting evidence at Grant's trial but means nothing in this situation. None of that would justify Grant being executed by the police. None of his actions when he was shot would even justify him being tased, if Mehserle's self-serving story is to be believed.

[Filo]

I won't respond again.

Excellent! The end of distortion and misinformation is at hand! :-D

[Filo]

Sorry, but if someone hates all cops - and even says so - then they are bigoted against cops. Don’t like reality? Too bad.

His point, and it's a valid one, is that bigotry is not the right word. I just hate cops because they are cops. Not because they are men, women, black, white, purple or whatever. I hate them because they are little better than the gang-bangers I pay them to confront.

[Filo]

Nope. That would take demonstrative evidence for your claims. You have presented none.

The only claim under debate here is whether or not Mehserle was justified in pulling a weapon on an immobilized, defenseless man.

No reasonable person can say he was.

The closest the boot-licker clowns get is to misrepresent what Grant was really doing as demonstrated clearly by the numerous videos.

My evidence is the videos and the fact that Grant, when shot, was under the full control of the police. No taser was needed. No gun was needed.

The only reason Mehserle pulled one was because he was pissed off and wanted to hurt Grant. In doing so he demonstrated a clear disregard for human life and, in the end, took one.

Murder 2.

Case closed.

The end.

Nope. The cases you could site - but haven’t - don’t amount to a hill of beans in terms of the total number of officers or in regard to this particular officer.

Actually they do when you count the orders of magnitude more cases that never make the papers and the associated cover-ups and lesser crimes committed by virtually every cop on the force.

I'm not saying that all cops are always bad, I am saying that almost all cops are bad frequently enough to make me question (and hate) the whole profession.

Sometimes the bad is shooting an unarmed man. Sometimes it's just fixing a ticket for a buddy, popping a "perp" a few extra times or driving drunk because you know your buddies have your back.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Case closed. The end.”

Nope. The jury didn’t think so either.

[linn37]

Wrong justice has been served. The man screwed up and now he has to pay for it.

[Filo]

Nope. The jury didn’t think so either.

And OJ was innocent.

[Filo]

Wrong justice has been served. The man screwed up and now he has to pay for it.

And as is typical with cops, he's paying far less than is fair.

A man is dead, a child has no father, a mother has no child and the murderer is going to spend a few months in a minimum security country club, carefully segregated and protected from the other "inmates."

If a civilian did the exact same thing he'd spend 30 years behind bars, minimum.

[conimbricenses]

FWIW I would even be inclined to afford Mehserle a little clemency for a seemingly sincere apology...if it were not for the blatant double standard that already affords him leniency by virtue of being a cop.

Let's accept for a moment that he did fire the gun by accident as he claims. So what next? If the situation was reversed and a civilian shot a cop completely by accident that civilian would be in jail. In fact one of them is right now - Ryan Frederick, who legitimately and justifiably mistook a cop for a burglar when that cop was bashing through his front door on a no-knock raid.

[linn37]

Yeah he ruined his life,lost his job,now has a criminal record,has to serve time and you think he is skating. Okie dokie smokie.

[Filo]

Yeah he ruined his life,lost his job,now has a criminal record,has to serve time and you think he is skating. Okie dokie smokie.

Relative to a civilian who commits murder, yes, he is skating.