Oopsies…

In the first public indications of the line of defense that former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle is planning to make against 2nd-degree murder charges in his shooting and killing of an unarmed suspect without evident provcation, the above argument slipped out at Mehserle’s bail hearing on Friday before the judge sealed the proceedings.

Mehserle’s lawyer explained that the officer “intended to fire a Taser at Grant [the suspect] when he instead pulled his service pistol” and thought he was firing a Taser instead of his gun.

This is the shooting case here on New Year’s Day that caught national attention when a protest demonstration turned into a looting spree in downtown Oakland for several hours, following distribution of a cell phone video that tracked the shooting and appeared to demonstrate that the suspect was under control by another officer, face down on the pavement, when Mehserle fired the fatal shot. He subsequently quit his position rather than agree to routine questioning, and otherwise refused to cooperate in the investigation before he was arrested in Nevada on a murder warrant.

I have been reserving judgment on the case to await the wheels of justice to establish what took place, especially given the hysteria that has sprung up. Nonetheless, this statement left me agog. My initial take:

That’s an impressive defense you’ve got going, Mr. Raines. I think that even Dallas Academy is able to play better defense that that.

Class, imagine how this defense would play out in court:

Your honor, after Officer James pulled me over, I really intended to pull out my wallet to show him my identification. It was totally unintentional that instead my Glock ended up in my hand and that somehow it went off and fatally struck Officer James in the chest and head.

Why do I see the same hands up again?

The judge at the bail hearing evidently was not too impressed either. He set bail at $3 million, as the news story relates:

Rains said Mehserle made a mistake Jan. 1, believing he was firing a Taser, not his handgun, at Grant. Rains said some witnesses described hearing Mehserle tell other officers, “Get back, I am going to take him.”

But other statements from witnesses and officers suggest Mehserle told fellow officers after the shooting that he thought Grant had a gun, court documents state.

Jacobson said the two versions of the story make Mehserle’s defense “inconsistent.” If the officer believed Grant had a gun, he wouldn’t have used a Taser to defend himself, he would have used a gun, Jacobson said. Therefore, the fact that Mehserle first announced he was going to “take” Grant — but later told others he thought Grant had a gun — makes his story unbelievable, the judge said.

“There appears to be a change in the story,” the judge said. “His willingness to change his story appears to me that he would be willing to do so to avoid the consequences.” That change, coupled with the fact that Grant’s death occurred “under the color of authority,” made Mehserle a danger to society, the judge said.

Jacobson also said Mehserle’s decision to travel to Nevada after the shooting and the fact that he is unmarried contributed to the decision to declare him a flight risk. “When he felt under pressure he didn’t run to his parent’s house in Napa, he ran to Nevada,” the judge said.

From my vantage point in the stands, unless something picks up on the defense, Mr. Mehserle should be planning for a long, long vacation in the Big House.

This isn’t an overworked public defender, in charge; Mr. Raines is prominent local defense lawyer.

By hiring Michael Rains and his Pleasant Hill law firm, Mehserle turned to one of the best-known defenders of Bay Area police officers suspected of misconduct. Rains is frequently quoted as a legal expert by media outlets, including The Chronicle, and provided commentary on Mehserle’s case until he was hired.

Yet, it’s hard to see how this initial defense strategy even gets past the giggle test. Am I missing something here?