When I followed the Sean Bell trial I thought that the evidence against Oliver was so compelling given that he saw no weapon, Hadn't been fired upon, walked across the front of a vehicle he claimed shots were coming from (who does that?) and of course, famously reloaded more times than Neo in the Matrix. In the end though I came to understand why the Sean Bell case ended with acquittals of all involved:
If you read all the counts you'll note that there is NO second degree manslaughter charge against Isnora or Oliver for shooting at Guzman. This is significant because first degree manslaughter charges requires the proof of intent. I said back in march of 2007 that intent would not be provable. Second degree manslaughter requires no intent.
I also wrote:
So the question that needs to be asked is why was there no second degree manslaughter (or attempted manslaughter if such a charge exists) leveled at Isnora and Oliver?
Indeed this case answered that question. I will repeat the observation from that blog post: It is near impossible to prove intent when convicting a police officer. All police shootings are intentional and police are assumed by the general public to have no malice in that intent. Those who do not hold this view are vigorously opposed by the defense. It appears that the prosecutors of the Oscar Grant case either learned from the "mistake" of the NY prosecutors or they aren't as corrupt as NY prosecutors in throwing the case from the very beginning. So generally the successful prosecution of Mehserle is a step in the right direction. Yes, I too would have preferred a murder conviction, but this is a start. However, this is not what really bothers me.
The real problem I have is with the widespread misuse of tasers by police and other security personnel. The taser was invented as a non-lethal means of subduing a dangerous suspect. The point of the taser was that it be used in cases where a ballistic gun would be used. The understanding that such weapons would only be used if a police officer was in mortal danger or the suspect presented a clear danger to other people. unfortunately tasers are increasingly being used as punishment devices by police who in some cases feel that they can "get even" with a "difficult" suspect without leaving black and blue marks or other clear signs of police misconduct.
Recently tasers made a brief entry into the popular consciousness when a student protestor/questioner at a college event with John Kerry, was infamously tasered by security, while he repeatedly cried out "don't taze me bro!"
There was absolutely no justification to subject that student to a potentially lethal jolt of electricity. Yes I said "lethal". For those who have not been on the pain end of an electric shock, I will inform you that there are two potential death scenarios from a taser:
1) You already have a heart condition such as an arrhythmia. An electric shock could stop your heart causing death.
2) Since the taser causes the person to lose control of all muscle function they tend to fall. Such a fall could result in a blow to the head as it hits either an object or the ground. Such a blow could either be fatal or cause permanent brain damage.
Given these risks it is shocking....yes shocking, that police tase people multiple times.
So a student who was asking a question (and being quite long winded with it) earned that kind of treatment? He posed an immediate threat to the public and the officers? No. yet it took Senator Kerry a long time to even realize that something very wrong was going on. While the video got many hits on YouTube, there was no public outcry to regulate the use of taser, though you and I, as civilians are barred in many states from carrying such electrical self-defense devices.
The next publicly aware miss-use of a taser occurred in NY, where a man who was off his medication and butt naked had been chased by police onto a ledge. His deadly weapon? A florescent lamp. The police who clearly felt they had better things to do with their time than spend it talking this man down, shot him with the taser. And as expected, he lost control of his limbs, fell off the ledge and died of head injuries. Of course it is well known that the NYPD is not shy about using other "tools" to beat on and kill civilians whom are "annoying them" with their "furtive movements" and the like.
As problematic as that was, there was still one that showed that the public itself is really at fault for the misuse of tasers in America. Recently at a baseball game a kid decided he would draw attention to himself (and his favorite team I suppose) and jumped onto the outfield and ran around dodging an overweight security guard who, probably annoyed at the fact that he could not catch the fellow, got within taser range and shot him. When the news broke, a majority of people felt that the officer had done nothing wrong. The victim of this action deserved the tasering because he was being a dick.
But again, a taser is supposed to be an alternative to deadly force. How does running around a field making an ass of oneself rise to "deadly force"? The disincentive to go out on a baseball field is the arrest and conviction for trespassing, the fine, and possible banning from future games. Millions of people attend baseball games without such incidents. How do we justify the use of potential deadly force (no one knows if this kid had a heart condition) for "being a dick"?
And so we get to Oscar Grant. Mehserle claimed that he thought he had grabbed his taser. Lets ignore that a taser and ballistic gun are shaped differently, weight differently and are on different sides of an officer; why was Mehserle trying to tase a person who was on his stomach and handcuffed? The answer lies in the Taser culture that has taken over America. It is only because it is acceptable to tase a suspect that Oscar Grant is dead. Had the officer not had the option to "apply punishment" to Oscar Grant and his only course of action was to shoot Grant in the back, which would have been provable murder (I know I'm being optimistic here). So assuming that Mehserle did not intend to shoot Grant, but rather "punish" him we see that the taser is THE game changer here.
This is why I think that taser use needs to be regulated and misuse of tasers to "punish" suspects ought to be grounds for disciplinary action including prosecution. Given that the taser is supposed to be a substitute for a ballistic weapon, then it's use should be taken as seriously as any shooting. The officer should have to show that the suspect was an immediate danger to the public or the officer involved. In the Grant case, the officer should have been charged with a felony assault and murder. It is my position that the use of the taser against Oscar grant was intentional. The officer intended to do physical harm to Grant and therefore should have been tried for felony assault. And since anything else that happens in the commission of a felony is also on the hook, then the charge for murder would have more weight, since the assault portion should have been provable without doubt. Personally I don't like the felony murder rule, but while it's being used, why not put it to good use for officers who kill civilians while assaulting them?