I think there was a lot of evidence to support the jury’s decision that Mesherle had used his pistol with intent. But the judge disagrees. He even says that Mesherle had no reason to shoot Grant. But then later, he defends Mesherle’s supposed intention to use the taser. Most baffling, is that the judge completely misses the big point. Regardless of Mesherle’s point of view, he shot an innocent man. I think we should hold police to a higher standard than civilians. Police are far to confident that they’ll get away with an unlimited level of cruelty.
Also in the article, the judge says he is aware and mindful of how giving Mesherle a sentence commiserate with the severity a civilian would receive, would have a negative impact on the law enforcement community. I guess as a wealthy white man, he is unaware of the worsening of misconduct cases. Everyone who knows the streets, who has attended a protest in the last five years, who listens when his community voices their concerns about police, can see that the incidence is more widespread and the misconduct more audacious then ever in history.
Perry said he gave “little weight” to one of the prosecution’s prime arguments — that if Mehserle had killed Grant accidentally, he would have said as much to one of his colleagues