NVR Logo
Witness: BART cop 'dumbfounded' after shooting
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Save and Share Share
OAKLAND — A woman who was videotaping as a BART officer killed an unarmed man testified Monday that the officer had not been acting overly aggressive toward the victim leading up to the shooting and that he appeared "dumbfounded" afterward.

Karina Vargas, who was one of several people at the scene who digitally recorded the New Year's Day incident, told the judge at the preliminary hearing for Johannes Mehserle that she believed other officers were behaving more aggressively at the time. And, she said, Oscar Grant didn't appear to be resisting arrest.
Videos taken of the incident show Mehserle -- who grew up in Napa -- firing a shot into Grant's back as the man lay face down on a train platform. The officers had detained Grant and four others at Oakland's Fruitvale station for allegedly fighting on a train.

"He wasn't that aggressive at all," Vargas said of Mehserle's behavior leading up to the shooting, on cross-examination by the defense. "He was handling him a little rough ... but he looked like he was doing what he had to do."
Mehserle, who has since resigned from the Bay Area Rapid Transit police department, has pleaded not guilty to a murder charge.

Attorney Michael Rains — who has said his client meant to use his stun gun but accidentally pulled his pistol instead — then asked Vargas how Mehserle looked after the shooting. She said he looked "dumbfounded."
"And shocked?" Rains said.

"Yes," Vargas replied.

Vargas and another witness, Margarita Carazo, testified Monday in Alameda County Superior Court that they started recording because they felt something bad was happening as the five men were detained at the station.

Their testimony and dramatic videos of the chaotic scene highlighted the first day of a preliminary hearing expected to last about two weeks.

The shooting — which grabbed national attention after videos of the incident began circulating on the Internet and television — continues to fuel community outrage and has led to numerous protests and arrests. On Monday, more than 150 people staged a relatively peaceful demonstration in support of Grant outside the courthouse.

Inside, prosecutors played Vargas and Carazo's videos. While Vargas' video panned away from Grant at the moment of the shooting, audio of the gunshot still provoked gasps in the courtroom. Grant's mother, Wanda Johnson, could be seen tearfully embracing her daughter.

Vargas and Carazo both said Grant appeared to be complying with police orders right up until the moment he was shot. They testified that several officers, led BART officer Anthony Pirone, were acting unnecessarily aggressive — and, Vargas said, more aggressive than Mehserle. Pirone has since been placed on paid leave.

"Oscar wasn't doing anything wrong, he wasn't fighting back or anything," Carazo said. "He didn't do anything wrong. He was just standing there."

Both witnesses said they didn't know Grant was killed until days later and decided to turn over their videos to the Grant family's lawyer.

Grant's uncle, Cephus "Bobby" Johnson, said after the hearing that seeing the videos in court was especially painful for the family.

"When you see a loved one that has been murdered, it's really striking to the soul," he said. "But we know it's something that we have to go through at this time to get justice for Oscar."
19 comment(s)

Rocketman wrote on May 19, 2009 8:26 AM:

" When all the information is revealed, it will come out as an accidental shooting. "

Byoung wrote on May 19, 2009 10:55 AM:

" I still dont buy the i was goin for my taser exscuse... If you look at where officer have their equipment placed on them the taser is nowhere near their sidearm. Their side arm is on their right hip, as the taser is on their left front hip. If the taser was equiped on his right side id might beleive his exscuse.... "

DowntownSupporter wrote on May 19, 2009 11:32 AM:

" This officer passed courses which train police how to use weapons properly in stressful situations. Since he passed, he should have known the difference between shocker and shooter. You are supposed to aim your weapon before you shoot and know your backstop is safe. Looking though sights of a gun is a lot different than that of a taser, and, a crowded Bart platform is not a safe backstop for shooting. Ricochet ring a bell? "

native74 wrote on May 19, 2009 11:33 AM:

" Byoung - is that the case for all cops in all situations?

I say this because the SF cops I saw in North Beach on Sunday had their guns on the left hip, the beat stick on the right hip and no taser in sight. Could it be that cops switch their weaponry pending on the situation?

I'm asking the question because I don't know and would like to try and understand. "

cheezcakemaker wrote on May 19, 2009 11:53 AM:

" The problem is the politically correct 'less than lethal' implements to stop perpetrators.

If a police officer needs to respond, the party causing the nuisance should comply with specific instructions and know they have no options but to comply when a cop has to show up. Why are there so many options for the crook to get the softy treatment with cufs, taser, baton, free cab ride, 3 hots and a cot.

Have some respect for cops. They have deal with the worst people created situations while the rest of us get to enjoy libations and a nice bed at 2 am on new years. "

newlocal wrote on May 19, 2009 12:15 PM:

" I was told that BART police carry their weapons differently than city police. They carry their firearm and the taser on the same side just one on the waist and one on the leg.

Anyone know for sure? If so, that could easily be confused in the heat of the moment. "

tripnote wrote on May 19, 2009 1:06 PM:

" sounds like he pulled his gun and it accidently went off, but his lawyers probably said it wasn't as good as a defense. "

Wannabee wrote on May 19, 2009 2:55 PM:

" Rocketman wrote on May 19, 2009 8:26 AM:
" When all the information is revealed, it will come out as an accidental shooting. "

Well, of course, and what should the punishment be for a trained, sworn officer? A slap on the wrist, or something that sends a message?

"Aww shucks, I'm sorry," might work for a citizen shooting his neighbor by accident, but not for a trained police officer. "

John Richards wrote on May 19, 2009 3:16 PM:

" Downtownsupporter wrote: " Looking though sights of a gun is a lot different than that of a taser"

Yeah, but you are not going to be sighting when tasering someone 12 inches away.

"a crowded Bart platform is not a safe backstop for shooting. Ricochet ring a bell?"

All the more reason to believe the officer thought he was using a taser rather than a gun. "

John Richards wrote on May 19, 2009 3:21 PM:

" tripnote wrote "sounds like he pulled his gun and it accidently went off, but his lawyers probably said it wasn't as good as a defense."

Unless he had reason to fear for his life, a cop is not going to pull a gun on someone who is facedown on the ground. Assuming there was a continuing degree of resistance to arrest, using a taser (or thinking you are using a taser) makes sense. "

Rocketman wrote on May 19, 2009 3:50 PM:

" wannabee...........so what do you think is appropriate?? "

Wannabee wrote on May 19, 2009 4:55 PM:

" Rocketman wrote on May 19, 2009 3:50 PM:
" wannabee...........so what do you think is appropriate?? "

What ever the maximum sentence is for negligent homicide, plus special circumstances for abuse of authority. He shouldn't see the light of day for many years.

Anything short of that send a message that cops can treat people like they are animals, and that accidental (wink-wink) street justice is justifiable.

We can't leave a loophole here that allows cops to call an unjustified loss of life a "mistake". It actually happens a lot, under a wide variety of circumstances, but this case is so blatantly offensive that it needs to stand above the rest of "justified deaths while in custody." "

cookies wrote on May 19, 2009 6:37 PM:

" Wannabee - your posts are very disappointing. You are very quick to draw yourself. Maybe you should let the course of the justice system decide.
Everyone has an opinion but you have convicted someone without all the facts. "

Wannabee wrote on May 19, 2009 7:51 PM:

" Cookie, is there any question that he shot and killed Grant? Any doubts that his defense will be "it was a mistake", as his lawyer has already explained.

No conclusion there, just the facts. This is not a "who done it" case.

Facing facts is difficult when you are biased. "

JPCRASH wrote on May 19, 2009 9:07 PM:

" More importantly though is that MURDER required intent. Prosecution has to prove that. He will walk a free man "

John Richards wrote on May 19, 2009 10:05 PM:

" There is no way they can prove intent. The most they can get him on is manslaughter. "

VERUM wrote on May 19, 2009 10:22 PM:

" The jury might disagree, JP. "

luv2fish wrote on May 19, 2009 10:58 PM:

" This in no way excuses the death of Oscar, but he was only 30 days or so before, (reported in the news after this incident) carrying a firearm and ditched it while being chased by police. There may be a past history with this young man, or the young men who along with Oscar fighting on the train, (also reported earlier), causing a sensitive and tense situation when the police showed up. Also it was reported Oscar was laying on his stomach with his hands in front of him and refuse to put them behind him, leaving concern he may have had a weapon in the front of his pants. Could the witness actually hear what the officers were saying to him from their distance, and Oscar may have appeared to be doing nothing but that may have been the problem that he wasn't moving his hands. This may have been the reason the officer was to tase him so they could check for a weapon, yet he fired his gun instead. There is no question the officer shot and killed Oscar, but was it intentional? Such a sad situation for all involved. "

cookies wrote on May 20, 2009 11:09 AM:

" Wannabee - you bounce around like a ping pong. So, you agree the courts system will rendor a decision based on facts. You have already convicted him in your post which is very biased. There so much more then you even know as with any criminal case. Before you convict someone in your own mind gather the facts surrounding the incident. Read luv2fish maybe that will give you a little clue about your biased posts. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy