| Comments | Created |
|---|---|
A thought on a bit of testimonyWith regard to Mehserle's statement right after the shooting, as reported by Pirone, that Mehserle had thought Grant was reaching for a gun, my take on it is that Mehserle had learned, in his informal training by Pirone and other experienced cops, that that's the safest thing for a cop to say after shooting an unarmed man; hence it signifies nothing about Mehserle's state of mind at the time of the shooting. The utterance is inconsistent with Mehserle's reported announcement of his intention to Tase Grant, and it's incosnistent with his looking away from Grant and at his holster to draw the gun. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, the lawyers make of it.on: Independent Coverage of the Johannes Mehserle Trial |
June 20, 2010 |
Something to watch forYo, Thandi! Great job so far! I've watched a few of these police atrocity cases in person, and I've noticed a pattern in the jury selection process: Prospective jurors with a bias against the police generally admit to it, and wind up being excused for cause. Prospective jurors with a bias in favor of the police generally deny it (some, because they're unaware; others, because they're lying). Prosecutors of police atrocity cases generally don't really want to win, so they connive in the process. The result, with a high degree of consistency, is a jury heavily biased in favor of the defendant. I'm not too worried about that happening in this case, partly because this particular prosecutor seems to be doing an honest job and partially because the judge is too sharp and too proud of his craftsmanship to allow it. The questionnaires will also help. Still, it's something to watch for. The community ought to be alerted if it happens.on: Independent Coverage of the Johannes Mehserle Trial |
May 11, 2010 |
