People v. Watson; People v. Garder and People v. Cervantes. These will give you not only the definitional requirements of the amount of malice required to prove this charge (which is, intent shown w/extremely reckless behavior, not, as you want to insist, a specific intent to kill). Also see the case of Kenneth Autry, who was convicted of this charge for driving drunk and killing two construction workers. California has also attempted to prosecute doctors when their medical negligence has resulted in the death of patients under this theory but has not had success beyond the trial court level.

And remember, manslaughter is a different charge altogether than murder. Both fall under the homicide umbrella. And there is still no guarantee, despite your claims of 5-14 years of anything. Mehserle is appealing his conviction and sentencing has not yet occurred. Like other attorneys who pay close attention to civil rights and matters of criminal justice I am focusing my attention now on the Department of Justice investigation.

I’m done with this absurdity. I’ve beyond proven my point and defended my position. I could care less if you agree.

“A cop can shoot an unarmed black man in the back and is virtually guaranteed an acquittal,” you affirm–despite Mehserle’s conviction. You square the circle by equating 5-14 years hard time (85% of which will likely be served) with acquittal. Pshaw!

No, I don’t retract my previous sentence. Given the evidence, I believe it is a bad verdict. A conviction of involuntary manslaughter is not at all far from an acquittal. Or so I’m told by my colleagues in the county attorney’s office.

Mark Kleiman writes: “Involuntary manslaughter, also called criminally negligent homicide is the unintentional killing of a person under circumstances where the act that led to death reflected extremely culpable carelessness.”

Cops occasionally tase people to scare them into submission, even when handcuffed. By defending the verdict, I am not defending the conduct of the Mehserle–though I do not find it obvious that he sought to kill Grant. (The video in no way clarifies this central question, btw.)

To convict on the 2nd degree murder charge, the jury would have had to agree that–beyond a reasonable doubt–the cop knowingly selected his handgun and intentionally killed Grant.

Let me note again, Jessica: You still haven’t answered the central question: Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Mehserle intentionally killed Grant? Furthermore, would you expect any reasonable jury to be able to unanimously reach such a conclusion?

In the event, Mehserle will be heading to prison for 5-14 years for the ‘unintentional killing of a person under circumstances where the act that led to death reflected extremely culpable carelessness.’

Would that really shock Harper Lee’s conscience?

1) The video from the scene shows Grant already subdued with an officer on his neck. Why the need to tase (against all escalation of force protocal) a suspect who was prone and subdued?

2) Given Mehserle’s training and experience, how is it possible to confuse a taser from a handgun, particularly in the face of a subdued suspect? They are not built anything alike. Their weights are different. They have different safety mechanisms.

The prosecutor did pursue 2nd degree murder charges (after agreeing to not pursue 1st degree murder charges). The jury just chose not to convict based on those charges.

Involuntary manslaughter is the equivalence of a negligence, or reckless disgregard, intent. The video alone shows no heat of pursuit, no shots exchanged, no suspect coming at the officer. Instead it shows Mehserle getting up off Grant’s back, stepping away, and firing point blank in his back. There was nothing negligent about those actions. It would appear that the Department of Justice at least shares my initial reaction as well.

You’re aware that the cop in question was convicted–by an all-white jury, no less–of involuntary manslaughter, right?

It is your view that no reasonable doubt exists [concerning the ex-cop's claimed taser/gun confusion] and that the prosecutor should have pursued a second-degree murder charge?

The verdict was an all-but-unprecedented instance of a police officer being convicted for an on-duty shooting.

After the conviction, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:

“The verdict was an all-but-unprecedented instance of a police officer being convicted for an on-duty shooting.”

Recommended: http://tinyurl.com/28esq59