The Oscar Grant Verdict and Aftermath
When people say "there's no such thing as a fair trial," they're right and they're wrong. Those of us who don't work in courtrooms sometimes forget that the law is an extremely complicated series of if/then operators. So while emotionally and intellectually it's perfectly reasonable to be astounded that a (white) police officer can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter (by an all-white jury) for having shot (in the back) an unarmed (black) person (who was face-down on the ground), there is at least some logic to it in a legal sense. This is a good short primer on California law and voluntary and involuntary manslaughter-the "voluntary" charge involves provocation and passion. The conclusion being that, in this case and others like it, the law is not made for these situations: "Any result from a criminal justice proceeding will fall far short of the consequences that would truly constitute justice. Inherently. Intentionally." In Oakland last night, after the verdict, a largely peaceful planned protest was only somewhat marred by a conflict of agendas between different groups. A smaller anti-capitalist splinter group was interested in the tactic of violence against property-while a much larger group was interested in a peaceful opposition to a verdict that literally could not do justice to the crime. One of those groups received more attention from the media, which as an entity could not quite bring itself to make any differentiation between the two.
The media to which you refer obviously had problems making significant differentiations of any kind, at least as far as sentient human beings are concerned.
Make that "has" problems and to "whom" you refer. Or something like that. I'm too distracted to care.
Assuming you're right, and why wouldn't you be, that coverage is REALLY annoying.
There are a lot of things to talk about in the wake of this verdict, but I can't stop thinking about one of the arguments that Mehserle's attorneys made a few weeks ago, that the officer thought he had reached for his Taser instead of his gun, and this was all some horrible mistake. You're free to believe or not believe that, but the conceit behind the argument is that we're supposed to feel better that an officer didn't actually mean to shoot an unarmed, subdued person in the back with a gun; he only meant to to shoot an unarmed, subdued person in the back with a painful (and still potentially lethal) electric shock. In the grand scheme, a discussion about the misuse/overuse/abuse of Tasers by law enforcement is pretty small potatoes compared to the grander issues at play here, but I think it's an important discussion to have eventually.
You would think if it was really an accident the guy would have struck a deal out of remorse.
Going to trial is the act of a real dick trying to skate out of a bad thing.
Can this wait until Monday?
And then the defense wanted the jury to only be able to consider the murder 2 charge (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/30/BAQA1E7DM3.DTL). A gamble for sure, but as Choire's links explain, it'd be much more of a legal stretch to hand down a murder 2 verdict. Awful awful awful.
The problem is that the law as written doesn't really address what happened here. The two narratives suggested were that the cop reached for a taser and fucked up, grabbing a gun instead, which is so negligent as to be utterly horrifying, or that the cop intentionally and maliciously shot an unarmed man in the back in front of a train load of people, who were filming the event. And as awful and insane as the first one is, it's even more insane to suggest that the cop did it on purpose. Which mostly highlights the fact that the law as written doesn't do a good job of addressing cops' intended role in society, and making sure that this sort of shit never ever happens.
Right there with you, deep. Sorting through this has been like judging a beauty pageant in New Jersey. You're either dealing with a world where cops are so dumb as to confuse the deadly weapons we trust them to use responsibly, or a world where a guy we trust with a deadly weapon thinks it's fine to execute a guy in front of dozens of people. The mind reels!
The taser/gun problem has been noted elsewhere as a potential issue. Not noted as much in this instance is that Mehserle already carried his taser and gun on opposite hips (many officers carry them the same hip, which is where most gun/taser 'confusion' problems creep up). And his gun holster had a clasp which had to be undone before he could draw his weapon (of course, he may have undone it before the altercation, which I'm betting would have been a serious breach of protocol, but that wasn't specifically addressed).
But if we hold police officers as stringently to the law as the rest of the populace, who then will be left to enforce said law, Mr. Sicha?
#koans
Yes, Choire should enforce the laws.
I was under the impression he is the Cheriff.
@Captain: TO THE CATMOBILE L;ASKDFJASDL;KJ
If it means we switch back to smoking in bars in exchange for no junk food, I would let Choire Sicha run New York City.
Also: ban babies.
http://www.tumblr.com/tumblelog/youdonotfuckingknowme
It's pretty fucked that the maximum sentence for shooting an unarmed, bound guy in the back is 4 years in a state where people are serving life sentences for shoplifting and possession.
Don't worry. With the three strikes law, I'm pretty sure he can only do this two more times.
As a veteran of a few East Bay riots (Berkeley '88, holla!), I can say: that's not really rioting.
Agreed. Even SF has done better with the riots recently.
My semi-vicarious anticipation of, y'know, sheets of flame or whatever, in retrospect, has me feeling like a bit of a racist. But hey, the white people I know out there certainly didn't disappoint, except for the one who decided Thursday was the day to go comic book shopping (*cough* Piedmont Avenue *cough*).
With a stop at Fenton's?
Did media as an entity try just walking up to two or three people on the street and asking them questions? That usually works for stories about sidewalk egg-frying and the like.
This is interrupting my LeBron James coverage. Please stop.
Is there any party the anti-capitalists won't show up to and trash shit during?
Burning Man?
No blacks on the jury, but not all-white: four Latinos (though I don't know if you do the "Latino isn't a race" thing here) and one Asian.
sorry, three Latinos
And two Jews and a cripple.
As for the media, props to KNTV, the NBC affiliate did a good job of consistently mentioning that the business attacks were by anarchists. I know this because I was watching re-runs of Community because it is a laff riot and not at all because Joel McHale was in his underwear in both episodes. *sigh* He's dreamy.
And apparently KRON spent most of the evening engaging in some fine, old-fashioned, mint-julepy race-baiting.
good lord were my quote-unqoute radical friends intolerable on facebook yesterday.
as usual, i expect to find out that most of the folks arrested last night are NOT oakland residents. why don't you so-called anarchists fuck up your OWN FUCKING TOWN? stay outta mine.
More people were arrested in the 1997 Critical Mass. Or to put it another way: white people were more violent over not having spiffy bike lanes on Octavia than black people were to find out that being shot in the back from point-blank range constituted a blunder.
Okay, here ya go, SFist has the data.
19 of the 78 people arrested were from Oakland. 47 of 78 were from the Bay Area. So yeah, over 40% of the arrested commuted in for the privilege of breaking shit in Oakland.
(the Sheriff's Dept. source for the figures, incidentally, is Mythbusters' own J.D. Nelson)
well, it's my understanding that it was mostly white "anarchists" that caused the destruction anyhow. fuck all opprotunistic "radicals." this is not a party, it's a tragedy.