Talk:Killing of Oscar Grant

RfC: Is this article NPOV?

This page is not, in my opinion, written from a NPOV. A few examples:

• In the "Background" and "Fatally Shot" sections, quoting Mehserle's own bail motion is totally inappropriate. In an article about a criminal case (especially one that's ongoing), it isn't appropriate to depict a quote of the defendant's version of events as "background".
• The description of Grant is almost entirely negative, while the description of Mehserle is almost entirely positive. Also, this is the wrong place to include details on the toxicology report on Grant - that belongs in the "background" section, or another section.

In general, besides being a relatively poorly written hodgepodge, the article seems to have been combed over by one or more people who have made a series of edits aimed to emphasize Mehserle's supposed innocence and Grant's supposed responsibility for his own shooting. In many sections, it reads as if it was written by a law enforcement officer, rather than reading like an encyclopedia article. -CircleAdrian (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: Concerning citing the bail motion, I don't see a problem since the citation is clearly presented as coming from the bail motion. A problem would be if the source was used to present material as factual. The bail motion is a primary source, which should be used carefully but verbatim citations, clearly presented as such, don't seem to be a problem to me. One question I have with this article is that it's quite long, possibly too long taking into account the subject-matter. The second bullet point is more difficult to address, since I haven't read the sources. Correcting the balance should be simple if the balance is clearly wrong in light of high-quality sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Of what relevance is Oscar Grant's prior criminal history? This information was not available to BART officers at the time he was restrained and wouldn't have factored into their decision making process. It tells us nothing about the shooting itself. It reads as if someone is attempting to make Grant look unsympathetic, rather than inform the reader. --67.166.2.56 (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• The histories of both Mehserle and Grant are covered in the article, which seems appropriate to me. Apostle12 (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• The issue I commented on several years ago hasn't been fixed. Apostle12 says that the histories of both Mehserle and Grant are mentioned in the article; while true, this is beside the point, since my issue was that one of the descriptions was largely negative while the other was largely positive. I admit to having strong personal feelings on this issue, but I still think the juxtaposition of these two descriptions comes across as highly biased. CircleAdrian (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How many unsustained complaints were there?

I noticed "Prior to the shooting, he had never been the subject of a sustained complaint from the agency's internal affairs department ".. so how many unsustained complaints were there? Because generally if its not on film or doesn't have a dozen witnesses.. a complaint is going nowhere. Id be interested to know how many times people have filed abuse complaints.. sustained or not -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mugshot

Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Mehserle-mugshot.jpg--Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Biographical Information on Johannes Mehserle

This article does not state the birthplace of Johannes Mehserle. On the Internet, the best information that I could find stated "No place given". I have a theory about Mehserle's birthplace, and I think his birthplace is critical to the entire case. If you find the information, please be sure to cite the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProResearcher (talk • contribs) 02:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter without a source. We do not do original research.Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Seven months later and still no information about Johannes Mehserle's place of birth. Doesn't that bother anybody besides me? ProResearcher (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

[1]Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

GOOD JOB, Cptnono!!! I updated the article with this information (and gave you credit in the "Edit summary"). As I suspected, Johannes Mehserle is a foreigner. My theory, which will never be proved--Oscar Grant's killing was a (ham-handed) International Mafia hit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProResearcher (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does Johannes Mehserle not have his own page? It would make information that was directly pertinent to him easier to navigate. See, DoJ Civil Rights Investigation, Prior Incidents etc. The only prior incident we know of is the case he was acquitted of. However, the page currently lists it as not having filed a formal complaint. When written that was most likely true, however, there was a lawsuit filed and even though he won, I think it is still relevant to him even if not this shooting itself directly. (But since Oscar’s prior conduct is relevant then this must be too?)155.219.241.11 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Bravo

Also, forgot to mention that Mehserle is now appealing his conviction (nearly 2 years after his conviction). This is just additional stuff that should be included in this article aswell as Mehserle's own wiki.155.219.241.11 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Bravo

Popular Response

There is nothing supporting that A) the anarchists were mostly white, in fact video would insinuate the opposite B) 75% of the arrests were from out of town or C) that only one footlocker was looted and one bank window was smashed, and reports talk of widespread graffiti, several lootings including a jewelry store, and ten of thousands in window damage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.217.125 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The source linked to that sentence says..

Officials said the main instigators appeared to be organized "anarchist" agitators wearing black clothing and hoods. Many of the most aggressive demonstrators smashing the windows of banks and shops were white. [2]

Seems reasonable to say white there. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It still needs to be explained that police stopped the violence from multiple races but the kids were the ones who stuck around late. It isn't as if the blacks were angels and the whites were the bad ones. The "anarchists" just stayed around for a fight after the others went home.Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem with it being completely reworded or dealt with in more detail, have changed it so that its more in line with the source now. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Many" is not the same as "most, and many of the most aggressive demonstrators were white does not mean most of the anarchists were white —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.217.125 (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok i have changed it so its more clear and in line with the source. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be certain we follow the sources and don't color things due to "good intentions". Sources say some of the violence was instigated by organized anarchists, mostly white, from outside Oakland - but they don't say that most of it was. Sources say that there were some peaceful demonstrations, and that later there was violence, but they don't say that every one of the earlier demonstrators was peaceful. Follow the sources, please. — Gavia immer (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, all this could be settled by simply citing some anarchist sources regarding the incident. They would provide a different view on the motivations of the property damage as merely juvenile delinquency by "troublemakers" of some sort, and whether damage to inanimate property should even be called "violence". They woulds also argue that their actions were effective in goading Dellums and the Oakland police department to arrest the BART Policeman. But unfortunately, such sources are not allowed by WP because they are not "mainstream". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.109.47 (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

visual aide request

It will be very interesting to to see an image of a Taser compared with the duty weapon, if possible. Are the grips similar or different? If different, how different?

If the officer did grab his gun thinking it was a Taser, his learned body response from all his shooting range practice would have alerted him to any differences. Enough an alert, I would hope, to give an officer pause and provide for the opportunity to correct this error.

So, could you provide a comparison?

Thanks. 68.197.49.1 (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Without reliable sources discussing this we cannot comment on it.Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the court, & his defense team, he was carrying a Taser X26. The link below is regarding the expert defense witness. The 2nd article also states all officers allowed to carry this had to attend a 6-hour training course as reccomended by the manufacturer. (Although, the Defense maintained that they only fired the taser one time during their training)
http://newamericamedia.org/2010/06/lawyers-clash-over-taser-confusion-in-mehserle-trial.php
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7515897

This link is from the manufacturer showing 3 different (colors) of this model. (Court Transcripts state he was carrying the yellow model)
http://www.taser.com/products/law-enforcement/taser-x26-ecd

More on Taser Confusion The Taser X26 has manual safety switches on both sides, one of which must be released with the sweep of a thumb before firing. The P226 (firearm carried by Mehserle) does not.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/14/MN8D1BNR8U.DTL&ao=all155.219.241.11 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Bravo

Was it an all white jury?

The Reason article says that it had no African-Americans on it. But that's not the same thing as a typical 'all white jury'. Does anyone know?

Could this be a valid issue to bring up in a DOJ lawsuit? 129.120.176.206 (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect not. The racial composition of the jury was inadvertent. Apostle12 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Next Court Date

• The next court date, when sentencing will occur, has been set for August 6, 2010.

Has this been postponed, and if so, to when? Nahum (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Question answered in article and sourced. Nahum (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Civil rights?

It says the DOJ opened a civil rights investigation. Why? Was racism involved somehow? I honestly have no idea, I'm not in the bay area... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.121.20 (talk)

The real question is why, after nearly 2 years since announcing their intentions, we haven't heard anything further on this? Did they close the investigation with no further charges pending? Is it still open, or are they just waiting until it dies down enough to drop it?155.219.241.11 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Bravo

Article in need of updating

Johannes Mehrseles was released from prison after serving only one year of his two year sentence. Protests have been renewed. Much of the language in this article seems to indicate that the majority of content edits ended months ago, signalling that it is need of updating. I have added to the article an "update" tag for this reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.66.167 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you understand the way things work around here. So start updating then. Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories

I actually think that categories related to the subject are appropriate even if they are not a definition. However, Wikipedia's standards and previous discussions have said otherwise. Therefore, I have removed the murder and brutality cats. I have also removed others for less controversial issues. If there are any questions for those, please let me know.

In regards to the brutality v alledged brutallity bit. I looked and didn't see a discussion. If a bot is going to make changes without pointing to a discussion and then another editor reverts and then another reverts based on a template: I am going to side with the editor who I assume was looking at BLP (BLP applies in this case surprisingly enough). So point to a discussion or stop reverting over it. I simply removed it altogether until that happens.

But like I said, I actually am fine with the brutality cat but the community has shown they are not fine with definitions in cats if they are controversial.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Police brutality is the intentional infliction of harm on a suspect. The jury ruled that Johannes Mehserle accidentally killed Oscar Grant, which is a grevious wrong, however it does NOT constitute police brutality. Mehserle made a fatal error, and he should never work in law enforcement again. He did not treat Oscar Grant brutally; he killed him accidentally, hence the verdict: "Involuntary manslaughter." Apostle12 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

hi. would you please rephrase that? im lookin at the removal of seven categories, which seems excessive to me. -badmachine 07:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't follow the sloppy edit summaries? First things first, I am reverting your revert of the brutality and murder cats. That is explained above and you are in violation of BLP. Do not restore them again without discussion. I will now list the cats. Excessive v knee jerk.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Category:Unarmed people shot by police, Category:1986 births, and Category:2009 deaths look to be hold overs from editors trying to make this about Grant and not the shooting (this article is not about Grant probably due to BLP1E). 1986 births makes zero sense. If the scope of the other two is to address incidents as well as individuals (like Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States appears to be, then they make some sense. Unfortunately there is not anything definging the scope (which is acceptable) so it is hard to tell.
• Category:American murder victims(see above and):WP:BLPCAT: "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." This leads to:
• Police brutality in the United States. The shooter was not found guilty of murder or police brutality. Using the category makes that assertion according to some editors. I personally disagree, but like I said: I am willing to side with an editor who sees a problem instead of a bot not providing enough information (along with an editor parroting it without providing enough information).

I actually made a mistake on the other two, I misread those cats and they should stay in. Cptnono (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Move from Downtown Oakland

Downtown Oakland article was more than half info about the riots. I have moved the material to be integrated into this article being careful to avoid redundancy. Will do so at a later time. Feel free to carry on . — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Police Brutality

Police brutality is the intentional infliction of harm on a suspect. The jury ruled that Johannes Mehserle accidentally killed Oscar Grant, which is a grevious wrong, however it does NOT constitute police brutality. Mehserle made a fatal error, and he should never work in law enforcement again. He did not treat Oscar Grant brutally; he killed him accidentally, hence the verdict: "Involuntary manslaughter." Apostle12 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree. I'm not really 100% sure what was going through Mehserle's mind, but it strikes me as though it could have been either intentional or incompetence. As such, labeling it "Police Brutality" would just be speculative. NickCT (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The whole cat should be wiped. And editors should spend there time stopping police brutality by actually doing something instead of manipulating Wikipedia. Options include putting down your cell phone and confronting the guy. Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you proposing that citizens should confront police officers who engage in police brutality? If so, I agree.Apostle12 (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am. That many guys and all they did was take pictures with their cell phones. I cannot express my disgust without violating BLP. And most of them might have been drunk at that hour on that morning which just shows how pacified we are as a nation. A few drunk guys throwing some punches (that is what we sometimes do on New Year's) would not have prevented the death but it would have taught a lesson the court didn't do. Even the police were terrified afterwards and knew that there was a risk, but nothing happened. Back on track though, it was not police brutality according to the court. Applying such a cat to me seems almost acceptable since it should be for building the web and making things easy to find. But Wikipedia has a history of not allowing cats that are contentious. It is a contentious cat even if some of us agree with its use. The cat should go but off Wikipedia people should start fighting back . Cptnono (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous

It's absolutely RIDICULOUS how long and detailed this article is. This is why Wikipedia is laughed at and why teachers won't allow Wikipedia to be used in schoolwork -- 1)the |diots writing this article are trying to demonize certain groups and 2) they're trying to revise the facts of the incident to make it seem something that it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.187.97 (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your criticism is not very specific. Which groups do you think the "idiots" are trying to "demonize?" What facts have been revised? How does the article as written make the incident seem something that it wasn't?

As far as the details and the length of the article, given the scrutiny this case received and its impact on local residents, especially residents of Oakland who were subject to rioting, the editors reached consensus that the facts should be fully vetted. This allows readers to draw their own conclusion from well-sourced information. Apostle12 (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It was murder. If anything, this article is bending over backwards to give the murderer the benefit of the doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.102.240 (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A determination of "murder" was never reached by the jury because the facts (carefully detailed in this article) point in another direction. Your assertion is meaningless. Apostle12 (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Two sections on the rioting?

This article has one section called 'Riot 2009' on the rioting that initially followed the shooting, and then another section 'Protests and violence' on both the initial riot and subsequent ones in 2009 and 2010. These sections should probably be combined into one; as it is, the article repeats itself to some extent. Robofish (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fruitvale Station

I came here after the movie falsely depicted Oscar Grant in San Quentin Federal Penitentiary, a non-existent institution. The movie makes no mention of Oscar Grant's prior conviction of carrying a firearm so it made it look like his being confined at San Quentin California State Prison was also unlikely. I followed Note 44, which has interesting report of the trial of former BART Officer Messerhle, but nothing about Oscar Grant's prior two terms in state prisons. I would thus like to suggest that this excellent page be updated to show what is true and not true in "Fruitvale Station". 208.106.32.139 (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)