Now this story looked rather routine at first. I skimmed over it then something nagged at me, so I came back and read it over again. Then once more,
before it hit me, what was nagging at me. This isn't JUST suing the cop that shot the guy. This is suing the other
cop that initiated the whole
situation by detaining a group 'with no cause' according to the finding of the 9th Circuit. It also covers the sequence of events here in a way I
hadn't quite heard it put before.
To make a bit more sense of this, I'm going to post segments a bit out of order to the article, as not everyone recalls who Oscar Grant was or what
this story is about. It should come back pretty quick though. It was the center of near full blown riots.
"We are presented with the plaintiffs' account of facts in which one officer, Pirone, responded to a call regarding a misdemeanor scrape on a
train - which concluded before he arrived - by pulling a weapon on a group of men who were standing around talking," Murguia added. "Pirone sought to
intimidate the group, which he assumed may have been responsible for the fight. Pirone then sought out two of the men who walked away from him by
pacing the platform and screaming profanities in his search for them. The men were all handcuffed and held overnight - but never charged with a crime
- after another officer, Mehserle, shot and killed one among them."
These quotes are from the court record, by the way. I'm drawing from that for accuracy in terms of what is sworn to and a part of the public record,
vs. what media reports and changes from one outlet to another.
Struggling as Pirone handcuffed him, Grant said he couldn't breathe. Meanwhile, Mehserle drew his gun and told Pirone to get out of the way.
"Puzzled by Mehserle's request, Pirone stood, allowing onlookers who were recording the scene to see Grant's hands resting visibly behind his
back," the ruling states.
Mehserle pulled the trigger and shot Grant in the back. Grant said over and over again "You shot me," while Mehserle said "Oh, [expletive], I
shot him," according to the ruling.
For some reason, I had thought the sequence of events was fast and with a great degree of almost (ALMOST) understandable confusion in the heat of the
moment? Yet...he had time to draw, tell the other cop to move, watch the other cop rise and get clear...and then fire? Oh. Yeah, I don't know how I'd
missed that when this first came out ...but that explains 2 years in State Prison ..and any mortal would have gotten 10x's that.
What has got my attention here, isn't that the trigger happy shooter is being sued. It's what relates to the events as told in the first quote
On Tuesday, the appellate panel agreed that the officers do not deserve immunity.
"We agree largely with the District Court that the officers should stand trial for the constitutional violations of which they are accused,"
Judge Mary Murguia wrote for the panel.
. . . .
The panel concluded, as did the District Court, that Pirone "had no lawful basis to detain the group initially."
Source: Courthouse News
As a side note and point of interest, one might check the Mainstream Media account of this same decision on the same case for the real difference in
overall tone and context ...between one source pretty much dry-reporting the facts of another day in a courthouse, and a reporter trying to work the
emotions of the audience. That alone is interesting, IMO.
Court Rules Oscar Grant's Father, Friends Can Sue Mehserle, BART
They do report the same event. The end result of information delivered is precisely the same. The difference in purpose/method was so striking, I
thought it warranted mention as well.
edit on 30-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)