here's the verdict...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20010069-504083.html
manslaughter i can see, but involuntary? it was a fucking assassination. i don't know, maybe the cop got out of bed that day and decided he was going to shoot an unarmed kid in the back of the head and just had to find one. then, it's murder.
Involuntary manslaghter in this case means that the jury thought that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the cop knew he was shooting the young man.
I don't believe Mehserle's story. I think Mehserle intentionally executed that young man because Mehserle and the culture of the Bart police force in general are mentally ill and racist. But predominant probability only matters in civil law and criminal cases require that the crime needs to be committed beyond a reasonable doubt.
What the hell is a "reasonable doubt"? I have looked into definitions for "reasonable doubt" and jury instructions on "a reasonable doubt" and nothing in law or tradition removes the subjectivity about what a "reasonable doubt" is.
In reality "reasonable doubt" translates into a ratio of guilty criminals allowed to go free and unpunished for their crimes to innocent people locked up in jails for crimes they did not commit. Society is not comfortable with these truths that some innocent people must be locked up for crimes that they did not commit so that criminals are not allowed to go free and that some criminals must be allowed to go free so that innocent people don't get locked up to often. So we tell juries to use this vague subjective reasonable doubt standard so that we don't have to think abut unpunished criminals and wrongly punished innocents.
Whether the jury chooses to convict at a 51% probability of guilt or a 99.9% probability of guilt is left up to the jury subject to their biases and the persuasive abilities of the prosecutor and defense lawyer.
Most Americans were outrage that the OJ Simpson jury saw a reasonable doubt of OJ's guilt. Many will be outraged that this jury sees a reasonable doubt of Mehserle's guilt.
When there is a 90% probability that somebody murdered somebody else should you convict them of murder or let them go free?
Should the past history of police being allowed to kill black people and the history disregarding of black witnesses testimony in regards to police misconduct have any bearing on whether or not individual police should be convicted in this new era where everybody has a camera and their bad behavior is caught on photographs? Would it be fair to Mehserle if because we are sic of police being allowed to commit crimes we disregarded the possibility that maybe he really did mistake his gun for his taser?
Of course even if Mehserle did tase Oscar Grant while he was handcuffed that would still be a crime because there would not have been a legal justification to tase the handcuffed non-resisting Oscar Grant. The BART police attempt to seize the cameras also should have been prosecuted as an attempt to obstruct justice.
If Mehserle had been a poor black guy doing a citizens arrest of a wealthy white guy is there any chance that he would only get involuntary manslaughter for this crime? Should cops be given the benefit of the doubt that would not be given to not cops? The race and class of the victim and the perpetrator probably still affects jury decisions in 2010 USA.
I can't say that the jury was wrong to let Mehserle off on the Murder charge even though I do believe Mehserle intentionally murdered Oscar Grant.