Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Why Twilight? Previous entry: Everything That Is Wrong With Our Media

Fear and involuntary manslaughter: what is justice for Oscar Grant?

CrimeRace

Back January of last year, America got a look, courtesy of a cell phone camera of a rider on a BART train in Oakland, CA, at the cold-blooded murder of a handcuffed, down-on-the-ground 22-year-old named Oscar Grant on a train platform.

Yesterday, his assailant, transit officer Johannes Mehserle, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for killing the supermarket butcher with a 4-year-old daughter. (SFGate):

Involuntary manslaughter might seem an unsatisfying outcome for the killing of the unarmed Oscar Grant on Jan. 1, 2009, but it was consistent with the evidence that could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt against former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle. Anything less would have been an injustice. Anything more would have required conclusions about Mehserle’s state of mind that were not sufficiently supported in trial.

The bottom line is that the jury agreed with what any fair-minded person who saw the videotape of the shooting on the BART platform at the Fruitvale Station had to conclude: There was no reason to use fatal force on Grant, who was being physically restrained at the time.

Mehserle, 28, claimed it was an accident, that he thought he was firing a Taser instead of a handgun at the detainee. The explanation stretched the bounds of plausibility, given the difference in weight, feel - and position on his holster - between the nonlethal weapon intended to immobilize and the Sig Sauer P226 pistol that is used to kill. He clearly was negligent.

The thoughtful Adam Serwer, who now has his own feature blog at The American Prospect, reads between the lines of this verdict that captures my sentiment perfectly when I read about the verdict. It’s something you will not see in the above-cited San Francisco Chronicle report that has the ironic headline of “The right verdict in Mehserle case.” What is behind a “technically correct” verdict are also matters that have little to do with precision objectivity, and everything to do with human nature in the U.S. in 2010.

I want to focus for a moment on the distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. To convict on the higher charge of voluntary manslaughter, the prosecution would have had to prove that Mehserle’s fear of Grant and his friends was “unreasonable.” It decided the crime was involuntary. In other words, Mehserle’s fear? That was reasonable.

Fear is at the core of questions of justice involving the deaths of black people at the hands of the authorities in the United States of America, dating back to when Toussaint L’Overture put the fear of G-d in slaveowners by revealing that their “property” might someday rise up against them. L’Overture still has that effect on some people. Following emancipation we were the days when “justice” was meted out in the South by terrorists posing as vigilantes. Even then, when such atrocities were an accepted part of black life, people inside and outside the South found ways to sympathize with the anger and fear white Southerners felt towards their black neighbors—The New York Times editorialized in the 1890s that no “reputable or respectable negro” had ever been lynched.

Even decades after the Civil Rights era, a cop shooting an unarmed black man is barely a crime—a 2007 ColorLines investigation of police shootings in New York City found that in 12 instances when the victim was unarmed, only one officer was found criminally liable. There hasn’t been a murder conviction on a police shooting in Oakland since 1983. As Kai Wright wrote in the aftermath of the Sean Bell verdict, “American law has been sanctioning the killing of black people to mollify white fear for centuries…We scare the shit out of America. And that fear excuses just about any reaction it spawns.” Mehserle is profoundly unlucky to be punished at all.

Times change, but the radioactive fear of black people, black men in particular, has proven to have a longer half-life than any science could have discerned. This is not a fear white people possess of black people—it is a fear all Americans possess. It makes white cops kill black cops, it makes black cops kill black men, and it whispers in the ears of white and nonwhite jurors alike that fear of an unarmed black man lying face down in the ground is not “unreasonable.” All of which is to say, while it infects all of us, a few of us bear the brunt of the suffering it causes.

Thank you, Adam, for putting this out there. He also raises the very point I share with my readers time and again. That fear, embodied in the third rail of discussing race matters openly, seems to paralyze otherwise intelligent, highly-opinionated people into silence.

What’s worse is that we we don’t just fear, we fear talking about it. Our president tried once. He mentioned the fear his own grandmother felt for men who looked like he does, and we responded with the level of maturity we’ve come to expect from our political discourse. If you’ve ever had a relative of another race confess to you that they’d find you frightening if they ran into you in a dark alley, you know what he meant. But we fear what this fear says about us more than we fear letting it go.

When can we have these conversations? What will it take for those with privilege to speak openly about this fear, and for those who are minorities to hold back the desire to be defensive to engage.

For instance, why do some white people say they fear or are cautious of all black men after they were mugged by one? If they were mugged by a white guy, they wouldn’t fear all white men. And many blacks fall prey to the same fear, as Adam noted.

We have to explore that fear for what it is, rather than assign guilt for feeling it in the first place. You cannot let go of internalized racism (that is reinforced by our culture) without first owning it and peeling the layers back. And that can only occur in an environment where all concerned let their defenses down.

And that’s where we often fail. So many people just don’t want to take the time or the energy to engage in educating themselves and others in conversations that can involve painful admissions and hard questions that don’t have easy answers.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 11:20 AM • (128) Comments

It is all too easy to wonder, like in many incidents before and probably since, if the pictures cinched the deal in even getting Officer Johannes Mehserle prosecuted to begin with. 

Would anyone have ever heard of Rodney King if it wasn’t for the infamous video?

There is absolutely a problem with society in general when it come to irrational fear of Black men.  But what really bothers me is in this case it was a “trained professional” law-enforcement officer who carried out a little “street justice”.  These are men and women who should be professionals at all times, regardless of who the “perp” or “suspect” is.

And it’s a sad comment that a Black man’s life is deemed to be worth so little.  There are people who have done more time for harming animals.  If a blond-haired white woman had been killed, somebody would be doing serious time.  But a Black man?  “Sorry, son, but we’re going to have to slap you on the wrists with this ruler.  Try not to shoot anyone in the back again, okay?”

And the “I confused my gun for my taser” thing makes it worse.  Let’s assume, somehow, in the heat of the moment, he grabbed his gun instead of his taser.  What would he have done with the taser anyway?  Repeatedly shocked the living crap out of a guy he already had down on the ground?  Why?  Because the kid didn’t show enough “respect” for the badge or something?  And ironically, if the kid had been tased literally to death, this incident would have only been noticed by Pam or Digby, who seem to be the only people who even care that the taser is being used as frequently by cops these days as a pen or a telephone.

And when they do so, they are cheered on by way too many Americans who should understand that what happens to people on the edge of society sooner or later happens to most people.  Do we really want life in the US to be one giant real-life Milgram Experiment?

We are a sick society and getting sicker…

Comment #1: MikeEss  on  07/09  at  12:01 PM

I think Adam’s right that a lot of this fear is rooted in historical fears about revolt.  It’s a peculiar fact of bigotry that the dominant class thinks the oppressed class is obsessed with them and getting back at them, and so the dominant class is actually gripped with fear.  You see a parallel in the belief homophobes have that every gay dude wants to fuck them up the ass, and you see it with sexist stereotypes about women being fickle and deceitful by nature, as well as paranoia about false rape allegations, which are relatively rare.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/09  at  12:02 PM

Do we really want life in the US to be one giant real-life Milgram Experiment?

I think Zimbardo may be more apt.

Comment #3: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  07/09  at  12:03 PM

I’ve talked about internalized racism on my own blog, and I will say to anyone that I do have different reactions to people based on their race.  Yes.  I am a racist.

I don’t like it, but I have to notice it, admit it, and work on it, every time, because IT’S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY ON ITS OWN.  Just knowing it’s wrong doesn’t change the conditioning I was given in this society and in my family.

There’s also the indiscriminate use of Tasers as if they were harmless.  If Mehserle’s testimony was truthful, he thought he was using a Taser. 

Why is that okay?  Grant was already subdued with a knee in his neck.  Even if a subject isn’t already totally subdued, police officers who have good police skills don’t have to resort to zapping the subject to get “instant compliance.”  It is used way too often as a shortcut.  Officers should be trained to consider a Taser a deadly weapon, just like a gun.

Comment #4: oldfeminist  on  07/09  at  12:03 PM

If the jury had decided Mehserle’s negligence had risen to the level of recklessness; if he didn’t care if he was firing his (officially non-lethal) Taser or his lethal pistol, then he would have been found guilty of second degree (depraved heart) murder.

Was a knee in Grant’s back enough? I don’t know; I didn’t watch the videos. I do know that cops expect compliance—civilians must submit to their lawful authority. That’s the first thing I did as a young man interacting with the police. Remember the youtube video circulated a couple of years ago, of a young, white, Utah man being tased by a highway patrol officer, basically for having an attitude?

Comment #5: Hector B.  on  07/09  at  12:13 PM

“I think Zimbardo may be more apt.”

Works for me.  I just liked the symmetry of Milgram’s (fake) electric shocks and the taser’s real electric shocks, both being used for compliance with all-too-often-arbitrary rules…

Comment #6: MikeEss  on  07/09  at  12:18 PM

Sickening. My cynical self though just realized that that’s the first time I ever hear of a policeman doing *any* time for murdering citizens in cold blood.

Comment #7: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  12:18 PM

Remember the youtube video circulated a couple of years ago, of a young, white, Utah man being tased by a highway patrol officer, basically for having an attitude?

Because everyone knows the best way to deal with people who don’t like the police is to give them a reason not to like the police.

Comment #8: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  12:20 PM

Here’s the Utah video:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3l5p3_utah-police-taser-driver-who-wont-s_news

Comment #9: Hector B.  on  07/09  at  12:20 PM

My personal opinion is that Oscar Grant was MURDERED and that this verdict is incorrect.

That being said, I think that the only reason he was convicted of anything is that there was a fear of violence if he was acquited. I live in Southern California, but have friends and business clients/associates in the Oakland area. They were considering shuttering their offices in case Mehserle didn’t get convicted and there was rioting. I know there was some violence after the verdict was read, because 2-4 years for killing someone seems inappropriate (again, only my opinion).

Comment #10: Mark  on  07/09  at  12:24 PM

“Because everyone knows the best way to deal with people who don’t like the police is to give them a reason not to like the police.”

It seems that to many people in law enforcement, if you can’t be respected, being feared is just as good — maybe better…

Comment #11: MikeEss  on  07/09  at  12:24 PM

Because everyone knows the best way to deal with people who don’t like the police is to give them a reason not to like the police.

While we need cops to be thoughtful and sensitive, the people who are attracted to the job like to tell others what to do.

Comment #12: Hector B.  on  07/09  at  12:30 PM

I think that the only reason he was convicted of anything is that there was a fear of violence if he was acquited.

Is that how juries work? They don’t consider whether the prosecution proved its case, they focus on the possibility of violence in a faraway city?

Comment #13: Hector B.  on  07/09  at  12:34 PM

This verdict is making the job of every police officer who is genuinely dedicated to maintaining public safety that much harder. It’s a shame that the justice system can’t see that verdicts like these result in a race to the bottom as honest cops give up hope and either become jaded and authoritarian themselves or just retire early and the cops we’re left with are a bunch of murderous authoritarian thugs.

Comment #14: Mighty Ponygirl  on  07/09  at  12:39 PM

Is that how juries work? They don’t consider whether the prosecution proved its case, they focus on the possibility of violence in a faraway city?

I know that a lot of people believe that the reason O.J. was acquitted was because there were enough man-on-the-street interviews promising that LA would burn if he was convicted.

Comment #15: Mighty Ponygirl  on  07/09  at  12:41 PM

I am constantly reading how cops are “afraid”.  It appears that heavily armed as they are, they are nevertheless more afraid of their fellow citizens than are we ordinary folks who don’t go armed.

I wonder if it’s their training.  All that emphasis on danger and how to respond to it is apt to lead them eventually to seeing danger even where none exists.

I live in a small city (“city” = over 50K inhabitants) and have raised a bunch of kids here.  I can honestly say that my black boys did not receive more adverse attention from the police than my white ones.  But my boys, as a group, were much much more likely to have conversation and other interactions with police than my girls.

It’s like you see in nature documentaries where the older males want to dominate and drive away the younger ones.  Anyway, that’s how it looks.  I know we need some sort of police service, but I really don’t like the idea that we are arming ever-larger groups of (mostly) men to act out their atavistic fears.

As to liking and trusting the police, it’s been my experience that people like and trust them in inverse proportion to how much interaction they have had with them, and there is an institutionalized racist assumption that some folks are more likely to be criminals, which means that people who are not obviously white tend to have had more police interaction.

Comment #16: Older  on  07/09  at  12:57 PM

I have a cousin who has lived with my mom for years and is practically my little sister.  Her heritage is mixed-race and she reads as black in mostly-white Utah.  I have two cousins from another family who were adopted from Haiti when they were young children.  I’ve seen racist attitudes exposed in my extended family, made all the more disgusting because it seems as though they use the diversity in our family to excuse it: “I couldn’t possibly be racist, because some of my family are black.”  My cousin T. has called some of them out for it, too.  One example: one of the uncles was “joking” about how Obama’s election was the result of affirmative action, and she corrected him sharply.  I like to think that he was a little ashamed of himself.  The thought of the police or other authority figures treating some of my family in such a terrible way because of the color of their skin makes me sick.

Comment #17: mythbri  on  07/09  at  01:05 PM

I was talking to a coworker a few months ago about the Nate Sanders shooting here in Austin.  My coworker said that he didn’t think the shooting was at all racially motivated, he thought Officer Quintana just panicked.  And putting aside whether panic is an acceptable reaction for a veteran officer… I posited that maybe he was more likely to panic when confronted with an armed black man than he would be if the guy in question were white, and that this didn’t mean he was motivated by conscious racism but it was still a racial issue.  And my coworker looked at me blankly and said that he didn’t think it was racism, the guy just panicked.

Comment #18: burgundy  on  07/09  at  01:08 PM

Pam, all I have to say is thank you for illuminating the issue of “reasonable fear.” I hadn’t thought of it that way. Well done.

Comment #19: catfood  on  07/09  at  01:19 PM

This verdict makes me sick.

If it were a Taser, it still would have been wrong.  He was abusing his power, and he just took it to the utmost level and killed a man.

It’s just wrong.  This conviction is not enough, and it’s not going to change anything.

Comment #20: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/09  at  01:21 PM

2-4 years for killing someone seems inappropriate

2-4 years for killing someone could be entirely appropriate (and this guy could actually get as little as probation).  It would depend on the circumstances.  2-4 years for shooting an unarmed, prone, restrained man in the back, and then excusing yourself by claiming you just wanted to torture him with electrical shock is so far from those circumstances as to defy belief.  But he had a badge and pale skin, and the guy he shot had neither of those things, so in our sick society he’s somehow less culpable than had the situation been reversed.

Comment #21: libdevil  on  07/09  at  01:31 PM

You see a parallel in the belief homophobes have that every gay dude wants to fuck them up the ass, and you see it with sexist stereotypes about women being fickle and deceitful by nature, as well as paranoia about false rape allegations, which are relatively rare.

Yup. To add to that list: fear of transexuals is often rooted in fears about having one “trick” you into sleeping with them, or right wing Christians terrified that a mosque being built in NYC means Muslimsare going to impose their religion on us.

Comment #22: Ben D.  on  07/09  at  01:41 PM

fear of transexuals is often rooted in fears about having one “trick” you into sleeping with them

It’s widespread enough a fear that it’s used as a legal defense.

Comment #23: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  01:47 PM

It’s widespread enough a fear that it’s used as a legal defense.

Yeah, and even the tired old “gay panic” defense was used as recently as the 1990s. But try to imagine how far it would go in court if a woman said she killed a guy because he hit on her.

Comment #24: Ben D.  on  07/09  at  01:50 PM

It’s interesting to me that police officers get to claim that they were afraid of a suspect, and that somehow legally that excuses everything they do, and they can then get off.  Their inner state of mind in a given situation is viewed as completely trustworthy—it’s their own sense of their reasonable fear that the legal system accepts.  But when a woman says she didn’t give consent to sex, that is almost never viewed as completely trustworthy, by the legal system.  That says a lot about privilege.

Comment #25: BetsyD  on  07/09  at  01:56 PM

Ben D: the gay panic defense is still very much alive and well. Here’s just one of the recent cases I’ve read about:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/man-acquitted-of-murder-a_b_231748.html

Sadly.

Comment #26: Ranylt  on  07/09  at  02:03 PM

Where is 2-4 years coming from? Everything I’ve seen says 5-14 is the range for the sentence, and the prosecuting DA has said that he will have to serve at least 85% of whatever he’s given. So you could get it down to 4 if he gets the minimum and then serves as little as possible. I’d be surprised if the final sentence is that low, though.

Comment #27: Gaslight  on  07/09  at  02:06 PM

Amanda and Adam Serwer are spot on with the interpretation of the dominanting class being fearful of the oppressed class wanting revenge. You see this in many males who routinely denounce and/or mock feminism and females, a belief that females are out to inflict massive punishment on males rather than just achieve equal rights. As a Jew, I also notice this a lot in Jew-hatred* with the slight twist that most Jew-haters, regardless of what type of Jew-hater they are, believe that the Jews are already powerful and getting revenge rather than just wanting revenge. Hence, the entire world Jewish conspiracy meme. More than a few anti-feminists also seem to have this belief about females, that they are already getting their revenge. The same goes for fear of Asians in the form of the Yellow Peril, the idea that Asians are going to overswamp the West and destroy Western culture.

  *I prefer to use the blunter and older term Jew-hatred rather than the more clinical and relatively recent, coined in the 1870s, anti-Semitism, a word cointed by Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr to make his bigotry more polite and “scientific”, because it gets right to the point.

Comment #28: Lee  on  07/09  at  02:08 PM

  Mark at 10, I think you can not only make out a case for muder but pre-meditated murder.

Comment #29: Lee  on  07/09  at  02:09 PM

And Pam, thanks for bringing up Obama’s comments about his grandmother.  I remember that Joan Walsh went ballistic about him throwing her under the bus.  I guess we aren’t supposed to talk about white fear at all.

Comment #30: BetsyD  on  07/09  at  02:16 PM

the gay panic defense is still very much alive and well. Here’s just one of the recent cases I’ve read about

That’s fucking sad. You would think that after all the publicity the Matthew Shepard case got that it would have gone away.

Comment #31: Ben D.  on  07/09  at  02:17 PM

Lee—

One of the weird things that’s always struck me about Jew-hatred is how lunatics and extremists of all political stripes engage in it, whether they’re Muslim fanatics, or right-wing European nationalists, old school Stalinists, or 9/11 Troofers. They agree on nothing politically, except that Jews cause the world’s problems. It’s almost like the perfect indicator of a mental disorder.

Comment #32: Ben D.  on  07/09  at  02:22 PM

I’m seething.  When will the killing of unarmed, restrained African-American citizens by police ever be punished?  We’d all be safer without taser guns, but the dominant-class fear that has festered in the U.S. since before the nation was founded probably makes them impossible to take back.

Comment #33: Unree  on  07/09  at  02:24 PM

For instance, why do some white people say they fear or are cautious of all black men after they were mugged by one? If they were mugged by a white guy, they wouldn’t fear all white men. And many blacks fall prey to the same fear, as Adam noted.

I don’t know if that’s entirely true.  If you are mugged by a white guy in a biker jacket with a goatee, I don’t see you rushing off to any biker bars in the near future.  Likewise, the ever-present fear of blacks isn’t typically “all” black men.  It’s young - typically poor - black men.

I won’t lie.  If I see a black guy in a hoodie and baggy jeans about to pass me up on the street, I keep an eye on him.  If I saw the same black guy aged 40 years in a business suite, I wouldn’t think twice.  I wasn’t afraid of my 5’4” black biology teacher in high school, but I was mildly terrified of by 6’8” basketball playing classmate.

The guy was a 22-year-old wearing a hoodie.  He fits the mental description of “scary black dude”.  But if you made him hispanic, or if you gave him a bunch of tattoes and turned him white, or - hell - piercings and Asian, he could likely classify as scary too.

This isn’t nearly as much about race as it is about class - and a bit about age.  Had this cop shoved a gun into the back of a 50-year-old butcher in a smock escorting his two teenage daughters to a baseball game, it would be a completely different story.  I imagine the court would have looked at it differently as well.

Comment #34: Zifnab25  on  07/09  at  02:29 PM

There was some violence last night but it looks like most of it, as the community feared, came from out-of-town anarch-kiddies who decided that they could strike against The Man by destroying other people’s neighborhoods:

The demonstration throughout the early evening was largely peaceful but tense. People held up photos of Grant as police equipped with helmets and riot gear looked on. A sign draped over a light post read: “Oakland says guilty.”

As darkness fell about 8 p.m. and most of the demonstrators went home, a group of people dressed in black and wearing black masks moved toward police.

...

Residents could be heard yelling at the younger protesters in the street to “go home. This is our city. Don’t destroy it.”

But, of course, now the story is going to live forever as How Those Black People Destroyed Their Own Neighborhood and not How A Bunch of Outside Assholes Made the Neighborhood Look Bad.

Here in Los Angeles, the protest was so peaceful (and boring) that the cops left early.

Comment #35: Mnemosyne  on  07/09  at  02:39 PM

“Where is 2-4 years coming from?”

That’s the term they stated on the news here this morning.

Comment #36: Mark  on  07/09  at  02:44 PM

as police equipped with helmets and riot gear looked on.

This is so fucked up.  A community outpouring of grief over police brutality and how do the police respond? With the very thinly veiled threat of more brutality.  Showing up in their intentionally anonymous, militaristic, us-vs.-them armor.

Comment #37: libdevil  on  07/09  at  02:49 PM

I am constantly reading how cops are “afraid”.  It appears that heavily armed as they are, they are nevertheless more afraid of their fellow citizens than are we ordinary folks who don’t go armed.

I wonder if it’s their training.  All that emphasis on danger and how to respond to it is apt to lead them eventually to seeing danger even where none exists.

A prime example, the post-Katrina Danziger Bridge shootings: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/02/police_investigator_encouraged.html
And that wasn’t the only incident, by far; police killings were rampant after Katrina, as the New Orleans Times-Picayune exposed in their very well done 4-part series “Law and Disorder” http://www.nola.com/crime/law_and_disorder/index.ssf

The defense is basically: “It was Katrina, you have no idea what that was like, we were rightfully afraid.”  These are the very people who are supposedly TRAINED to react appropriately in EMERGENCY situations. If they are utterly unable to retain good judgement when faced with emergencies, why on earth are we as a society allowing them to run around armed?  A private citizen who started shooting (or tasing) whenever they felt disrespected or afraid would be locked up. Apparently, after supposed screening and extensive training, it’s somehow MORE understandable to be ruled by your fear? W.T.F.???

Comment #38: CalliopeJane  on  07/09  at  02:57 PM

This isn’t nearly as much about race as it is about class - and a bit about age.  Had this cop shoved a gun into the back of a 50-year-old butcher in a smock escorting his two teenage daughters to a baseball game, it would be a completely different story.  I imagine the court would have looked at it differently as well.

That doesn’t make it any less pernicious—it still groups people into “good” victims and “bad” victims.

Comment #39: FashionablyEvil  on  07/09  at  03:09 PM

most of it, as the community feared, came from out-of-town anarch-kiddies

Yes, they’re always from “out of town”. “Outside agitators”, right? In the 19th century every anarchist was a “foreign immigrant” come to destroy the American way of life. Italian, Russian, Jew, German… whatever.

Sorry, no. No matter what you think of their tactics, you have no evidence they are from outside the community. Believe it or not, anarchists live amongst you and they don’t disappear back to AnarchyTown when they remove their masks.

Comment #40: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  03:14 PM

This is truly sickening.  This could have been us or one of our children.

Comment #41: GreenClover  on  07/09  at  03:17 PM

It would only possibly make sense to complain about “out of town anarchists” when you’re talking G20 or something of that size. Sorry but something which is mostly relegated to local news only gets protested by locals, even if they are dressed up in black and throw shit.

Comment #42: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  03:18 PM

Once upon a time we did not fear the police.  Now, they can stop all of us without ‘probable cause’.  They can just stop/detain/arrest and later release us.  What power their carry and they know it.

It is truly becoming a police state.It’s Oscar now, but one day it may be us.

Everyone might want to read that book just out about a small town in America that does stand up to tyranny and ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution.  It’s good and it could happen one dayin our city. I recommend it.

www.boksbyoliver.com

Comment #43: GreenClover  on  07/09  at  03:24 PM

BlackBloc, I think “Anarch Kiddies” referred to people who think anarchy= just break and burn shit, not actual Anarchists.

Comment #44: Ben D.  on  07/09  at  03:32 PM

Sorry, no. No matter what you think of their tactics, you have no evidence they are from outside the community.

You mean other than people in the community telling them to go home because they don’t belong there?  But of course you know better than the people in the community who were actually there whether or not these are outside troublemakers because shut up, that’s why.

If you’re trying to argue that people in the community were trying to cover up for their own members who were misbehaving, that’s a pretty shitty thing to say.  I guess those black people just couldn’t stop themselves from rioting and then they tried to blame innocent anarchists for their own inability to control themselves, huh?

Comment #45: Mnemosyne  on  07/09  at  03:38 PM

The jury’s reasoning was fairly insane, and here’s why: if Grant’s murder had been a horrifying accident, the police wouldn’t have prevented medical assistance from reaching Grant.

No, he killed the guy, then made sure the job got done to eliminate a witness.

Comment #46: Punditus Maximus  on  07/09  at  03:39 PM

“Once upon a time we did not fear the police.”

That only goes for a pretty narrow and specific definition of “we.”

Comment #47: preying mantis  on  07/09  at  03:40 PM

You mean other than people in the community telling them to go home because they don’t belong there?

People at protests are always telling us we don’t belong there, even though we’re as much part of the community as the other protesters. Nothing new under the sun.

But of course you know better than the people in the community who were actually there whether or not these are outside troublemakers because shut up, that’s why.

How would they know if they were masked? Or really, in any large city, how do you know they’re from out of town? You know everyone in you community enough to recognize out of towners visually?

If you’re trying to argue that people in the community were trying to cover up for their own members who were misbehaving, that’s a pretty shitty thing to say.  I guess those black people just couldn’t stop themselves from rioting and then they tried to blame innocent anarchists for their own inability to control themselves, huh?

I am arguing that “people in the community” and “anarchists” are not mutually exclusive groups. And that you are being a fool by accepting this idiotic trope that somehow radicals are not as much Real Americans or ‘part of the community’ as non-radicals.

Also, since we’ve had similar protests in Montreal-Nord, I can guarantee you that anarchists from out of town don’t travel for local events. It’s local anarchists. We didn’t get anarchists from Quebec city protesting the Villanueva case, and they didn’t get Montreal anarchists protesting the militarist displays during the 400th anniversary of Quebec city.

Comment #48: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  03:52 PM

Once upon a time we did not fear the police

I hope that your “once upon a time” is supposed to indicate your statement is a fairy tale.

Comment #49: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  07/09  at  03:53 PM

BlackBloc, I think “Anarch Kiddies” referred to people who think anarchy= just break and burn shit, not actual Anarchists.

Yes, I know all about these mythical people he’s referring to.

Comment #50: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  03:58 PM

People at protests are always telling us we don’t belong there, even though we’re as much part of the community as the other protesters. Nothing new under the sun.

People who decide to destroy and deface property when everyone else is trying to peacefully protest do not belong at protests.  Sorry.  If you want to run around destroying things, do it on your own fucking time so other people don’t end up getting the blame for your moronic actions.

Because that’s what we’re talking about here:  people who decided to use this protest opportunity to loot buildings and deface property.  If the peaceful protesters want to argue that destructive groups are not part of their protest, they have every right to do so, and you have no right to insist that your destructive actions are the responsibility of people who did not take part in them.

I am arguing that “people in the community” and “anarchists” are not mutually exclusive groups. And that you are being a fool by accepting this idiotic trope that somehow radicals are not as much Real Americans or ‘part of the community’ as non-radicals.

And you’re apparently arguing that you should be allowed to destroy property and hide behind peaceful protesters while you do it because, hey, you’re part of the community.  You think that innocent people should take the blame for your destructive actions—which is exactly what happened in Oakland—because you’re somehow a part of their community.

Sorry, but pushing the responsibility for your own actions off onto other people who didn’t participate is the action of an asshole.

Comment #51: Mnemosyne  on  07/09  at  04:01 PM

A community outpouring of grief over police brutality and how do the police respond? With the very thinly veiled threat of more brutality.  Showing up in their intentionally anonymous, militaristic, us-vs.-them armor.

There’s already been violence resulting from these protests, to the point that Grant’s family felt it necessary to make a statement begging people to calm down.  Were the police supposed to pretend that rioting was not a possibility?

Comment #52: keshmeshi  on  07/09  at  04:02 PM

Hmm… so just so Mnemosyne doesn’t try to twist my words again:

I agree they’re anarchists (or maybe some other form of radicals… nobody exactly asked them whether they like Proudhon). What I question is the ridiculously unproven idea that they’re outsiders. That’s just part of the mainstream media narrative of some sort of secret small army of people who have nothing better to do than travel the entire United States to break stuff at every possible event. It’s ridiculous. The vast majority of radicals doing property damage at events are locals. Local radicals, but locals nonetheless. They don’t travel across the land to break shit. They have jobs, families and hobbies like you or me. There might be one or a handful of events that have enough significance in a year to warrant *some* people to travel to do direct action, and the percentage of travellers is not that impressive (and usually is mostly composed of people from the same state/province/general geographic area).

Comment #53: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  04:05 PM

[Fear of transexuals is] widespread enough a fear that it’s used as a legal defense.

Does it work? Transpanic did not help the killers of Gwen Araujo who were convicted of second-degree murder (two others had plead down to voluntary manslaughter).

Comment #54: Hector B.  on  07/09  at  04:14 PM

@53: You’ve been arguing that anarchists are not outside agitators, while Mnemo thinks you’re arguing that being local makes the anarchists friendly puppies and kittens.

Comment #55: Hector B.  on  07/09  at  04:17 PM

I’d tweak the fear thing a bit; it’s a fear, all right, but it’s a fear of justice. That’s because every racist or sexist knows in their heart of hearts that what they’re doing or saying is wrong. They can get away with it, but they know what they’re doing. And they fear retribution and justice.

Comment #56: ginmar  on  07/09  at  04:19 PM

I have to say I was a little unimpressed with the “violence isn’t justice” campaign. I understand that Grant’s family does not want things to escalate, but saying that violence isn’t justice is like saying Worker’s Comp isn’t a Paycheck, or Aloe isn’t Sunscreen. No, public outrage following yet another perfect example of how African Americans in this country are marginalized is not justice. At that point, the justice horse has left the barn. When justice is not served, then what, truly, is left?

I’m not an agitator. I don’t want people to riot, I don’t want people to get hurt or killed because of this, but the signal that the California courts sent to the African Americans of Oakland couldn’t have been clearer: we will kill you, we will acquit the people who killed you, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. And to me, if people are going to start rioting, this is exactly the reason to do so. But I don’t want them rioting in Oakland. There’s no reason to break your own shit.

Comment #57: Mighty Ponygirl  on  07/09  at  04:21 PM

What I question is the ridiculously unproven idea that they’re outsiders. That’s just part of the mainstream media narrative of some sort of secret small army of people who have nothing better to do than travel the entire United States to break stuff at every possible event.

I think we’re working from vastly different ideas of “outsiders” here.  I’m talking about “outside the neighborhood,” not people traveling vast distances.  Anarcho-kiddies coming from Berkeley to Oakland are absolutely outsiders to Oakland even though they’re traveling less than 10 miles.

It sounds like you think that bored middle-class anarch-kiddies from Berkeley who go to Oakland to break shit can’t possibly be outsiders to that neighborhood because they didn’t have to travel very far to get there.

The neighborhood spent a lot of time trying to keep the protests peaceful despite outsiders organizing to try and disrupt that.

Note that, throughout this argument, I’ve been calling these destructive assholes “anarch-kiddies” and not anarchists.  I’m doing you the courtesy of assuming that actual anarchists would not go into someone else’s neighborhood and invade their protest in order to cause trouble for the peaceful protesters who are upset about one of their community members being murdered.

Comment #58: Mnemosyne  on  07/09  at  04:25 PM

I’m not an agitator. I don’t want people to riot, I don’t want people to get hurt or killed because of this, but the signal that the California courts sent to the African Americans of Oakland couldn’t have been clearer: we will kill you, we will acquit the people who killed you, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.

Uh, Mehserle wasn’t acquitted.  He was convicted of a felony.  It was a much lesser felony than he ought to have been convicted of, IMO, but he will still do prison time, probably a minimum of 4 years.

People are understandably pissed that he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and not murder, but it is absolutely incorrect to say Mehserle was acquitted since he was, in fact, convicted of a felony.

Comment #59: Mnemosyne  on  07/09  at  04:31 PM

I’ve decided a few months back that I’d take the usage of “anarchkiddies” in the same spirit as white douchebags who reference Chris Rock’s skit about the difference between black people and niggers in order to claim “well I’m not referencing ALL black people”. Screw you. You’re perpetuating an unfounded stereotype about what anarchists are and the answer to that is not “well, I only mean the people who do actually fit the stereotype” as though it let you off the hook.

Give me evidence they actually were from Berkeley. Give me evidence that even if they were from Berkeley, they only went to Oakland that time to cause trouble and don’t actually participate in the community (with, say, Food not Bombs or other community-building activity).

Comment #60: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  04:33 PM

These are the very people who are supposedly TRAINED to react appropriately in EMERGENCY situations. If they are utterly unable to retain good judgement when faced with emergencies, why on earth are we as a society allowing them to run around armed?

This * infinity

Evidence has been presented that, at best, BART cops cannot handle stressful situations or tell the difference between the weapons we allow them to carry. As white as I am, I am not comfortable around BART cops.

Comment #61: Ursula  on  07/09  at  04:36 PM

Mnemosyne—I don’t know exactly about Oakland, but I’m going to side with BlackBloc here. You will often find Anarchists, YES, ANARCHISTS, EVEN IF THEY’RE YOUNG, living in lower-income areas. When I was living in West Philadelphia, there was a local anarchists collective sitting right down in the middle of a predominantly lower-income African American neighborhood. If the Move bombing were to happen today, there would be a bunch of them protesting, possibly violently, just the same ... and someone would declare “well they don’t LOOK like the black folk, so they must be outsiders” when they were as much a part of the community as the guy selling the phone cards out of the little corner store.

I watched the CNN video and it looked pretty obvious that the reporter was trying to gin up a story by declaring the the protest was turning violent when there was very little evidence other than “someone threw rocks at a rite aid” and “someone broke into a foot locker and now people are tossing shoes around in the air.” This is hardly dragging someone from the cab of their truck and beating them senseless, in fact, you saw much worse in Downtown East Lansing a few years back when MSU got dropped from the final four.

Comment #62: Mighty Ponygirl  on  07/09  at  04:36 PM

Give me evidence they actually were from Berkeley. Give me evidence that even if they were from Berkeley, they only went to Oakland that time to cause trouble and don’t actually participate in the community (with, say, Food not Bombs or other community-building activity).

Well, you could bother to read the links that I gave you, but that would interfere with your claim that all self-described anarchists are pure at heart and would never crash someone else’s protest to cause trouble.

I do love how you absolutely know from your perch several thousand miles away in a foreign country that there’s no possible way that assholes from the region came into Oakland to cause trouble despite the fact that the people who were actually there, on the scene, and live in the affected neighborhood say that’s what happened.

Comment #63: Mnemosyne  on  07/09  at  04:39 PM

You guys be the judge (or at least, the jury). Murder or not?

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199


187.  (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
  (Feticide stuff removed)

188.  Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
  When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.


189.  All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.
  As used in this section, “destructive device” means any
destructive device as defined in Section 12301, and “explosive” means
any explosive as defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety
Code.
  As used in this section, “weapon of mass destruction” means any
item defined in Section 11417.
  To prove the killing was “deliberate and premeditated,” it shall
not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully
reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.

...
192.  Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
  (a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
  (b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.

Comment #64: Hector B.  on  07/09  at  04:40 PM

You know, I have to bring this up, because people keep talking about how the cops are so afraid: they’re afraid? What utter bullshit. (I had somebody tell me I should be a cop after I came back from Iraq but I told them—-rightfully so—-that it would be too boring.)

  These guys have body armor, guns, tasers, backup, the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted. What in hell can they be afraid of? There’s no bombs in the roads, no insurgents, no organized opponents. Cops do get shot in the line of duty, but those are close range things. A lot of these guys are Reservists. They’ve been to war. Police work should be a cakewalk to these guys—-no suicide bombers, no vehicle bombs, and let’s face it——barring close-range shootings, these guys are facing crooks who don’t shoot accurately unless they’re at can’t-miss range. It’s like they spend their whole careers in abject terror of something that just doesn’t occur. Sure, there was the North Hollywood bank shootout—-but that was, what, ten years ago? (And the cops made sure that one of the suspects bled to death on the street, too.)

  The fear of being shot is just so out of proportion to what they might face that it’s striking. Most people who are actual low-level crooks these days are simply not good shots, and they’re using handguns, which just are not as accurate as long guns. I witnessed a shooting once from ten feet away—-on the ground, after the shooting started. Two guys emptied their respective clips at one another from about thirty feet apart. One guy hit a sign and another guy—-completely unrelated to the matter—-got a ricochet to the thumb. Ten minutes later the cops got there to give a cursory look around. And then? They went home for the day to their nice surburban neighborhoods.

Comment #65: ginmar  on  07/09  at  04:42 PM

For BlackBloc - the ONLY evidence I can provide is the dark-skinned male with a bandanna covering his face crossing MLK in South Berkeley to get to the Ashby BART station (well, in that direction at least) that I stopped for on my way home at sundown last night.

Of course, I am one person in Berkeley who saw another person walking to a BART station at sundown. My only reason to suspect that the person was planning to do shit is the bandanna on the face.

I also want to add that I technically live in Berkeley, but I can walk a few blocks south and be in Oakland. I also think this area of Berkeley is a lot more like Oakland, culturally, than the UC Berkeley, People’s Park Berkeley that most people think of. I would consider the person I saw crossing the street last night to still be part of the community, even if his residence is Berkeley, CA.

Comment #66: Ursula  on  07/09  at  04:44 PM

Well, you could bother to read the links that I gave you

You mean the one which basically quotes this?
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/30/18652296.php

Where the authors explicitly claim they’re from the area?

Are you even trying to argue what you claim to be arguing?

that would interfere with your claim that all self-described anarchists are pure at heart and would never crash someone else’s protest to cause trouble

You’re like some sort of automated strawman making machine. From the future.

BTW, who gave anyone ownership of this protest?

Comment #67: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  04:51 PM

My only reason to suspect that the person was planning to do shit is the bandanna on the face.

Not claiming you’re doing this, but wanting to be anonymous at a demo is not evidence of wrongdoing. Or even planning to commit any wrongdoing. I wear masks at protests out of principle.

Comment #68: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  04:53 PM

This is hardly dragging someone from the cab of their truck and beating them senseless, in fact, you saw much worse in Downtown East Lansing a few years back when MSU got dropped from the final four.

And yet that’s not how yesterday will live in racist legend.  It will live as, “And then those stupid black people destroyed their own neighborhood.”  Which will then perpetuate the exact same legend that Pam is talking about, that black people (especially young black men) are naturally violent and police are totally justified in being afraid of them, because look how they reacted in Oakland after the verdict!  Of course that cop felt like he had to shoot that guy, because he knew how Those People are!

Community leaders worked really, really hard prior to the verdict to keep the neighborhood calm because they knew than any hint of violence would perpetuate the stereotype and make it even more likely that there will be more Oscar Grants in the future.  That’s why I’m particularly pissed at the fucktards who decided to go against the wishes of the larger community and destroy things.  By indulging their personal feelings with violence, they helped perpetuate the exact same stereotype that caused Oscar Grant’s death in the first place.  Good job, anarcho-kiddies!

Comment #69: Mnemosyne  on  07/09  at  04:58 PM

Are you even trying to argue what you claim to be arguing?

I’m claiming that anarcho-kiddies came from outside the neighborhood to cause trouble, and I presented known postings on local-to-the-Bay-Area leftist and anarchist websites to support my contention.  I’m not sure what you thought I was arguing, but that’s what it was.

BTW, who gave anyone ownership of this protest?

Sigh.  Fine.  Go ahead, run riot in majority-black neighborhoods during their peaceful protests and let them take all of the blame for your actions.  There’s no possible way that could go wrong when we’re already dealing with a stereotype of black people as being violent and destructive at the slightest pretext.  That certainly will make cops re-think their assumption that all black men are volatile and could shoot them at any moment.

Comment #70: Mnemosyne  on  07/09  at  05:05 PM

@Mnemosyne: You sound very… concerned.

Comment #71: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  05:11 PM

Mnemosyne—racists are going to look for any excuse to spin it. If the protests had been peaceful, I’m sure the narrative would have been “see, they didn’t care that much, they knew that the police officer was right, deep down.”

Trying to somehow head off a racist’s warped brain firings is an exercise in futility.

Comment #72: Mighty Ponygirl  on  07/09  at  05:14 PM

So….out of curiosity, Mnem, what would you be saying to the community if they, themselves, had opted to riot violently?

(Presuming of course that you are correct and the few violent folks were in fact idiot punks from elsewhere just looking to break other peoples’ shit out of malice and stupidity…instead of just misguided people or community folks who disagreed with the leaders…)

Comment #73: Well, what?  on  07/09  at  05:15 PM

I’m claiming that anarcho-kiddies came from outside the neighborhood

And the evidence you give for that is posts by people who claim to be from the neighborhood?

There’s no possible way that could go wrong when we’re already dealing with a stereotype of black people as being violent and destructive at the slightest pretext.  That certainly will make cops re-think their assumption that all black men are volatile and could shoot them at any moment.

And if it had been only local black men and women doing damage, would the police have been right in shooting Oscar Grant? Because you’re so busy defending the untenable assertion that this was only the work of outside agitators that I’m left to wonder if you think that.

Comment #74: BlackBloc  on  07/09  at  05:17 PM

So….out of curiosity, Mnem, what would you be saying to the community if they, themselves, had opted to riot violently?

I would be saying that, though I understand their feelings, violence in this case was counterproductive for all of the reasons that Pam gave.

(Presuming of course that you are correct and the few violent folks were in fact idiot punks from elsewhere just looking to break other peoples’ shit out of malice and stupidity…instead of just misguided people or community folks who disagreed with the leaders…)

Again, I am assuming by the reported actions of the majority of the residents of the neighborhood who were actually there that these violent protesters were not doing something that the residents wanted them to do.  I’m taking the word of the people who were actually present.  We can speculate all day long about who the violent people “actually” were, but since neither you nor I was there, I have to assume that the people who were actually present had a better idea of what was actually going on.

Comment #75: Mnemosyne  on  07/09  at  05:29 PM

Trying to somehow head off a racist’s warped brain firings is an exercise in futility.

I’m not so worried about the stone-cold racists as I am about the people who are steeped in our racist culture and don’t stop to think about the stereotypes that they hold, which is more the kind of person that Pam is writing about.  The person who doesn’t stop and think, “Hey, wait, why am I assuming this black guy in a hoodie must be dangerous when he’s just shopping at the same grocery store as me?”

The people I’m thinking of are the ones who hear distorted stories like “black people destroyed their own neighborhood by rioting” and note on some unconscious or subconscious level, “Yep, that’s what Those People are like” and end up being nervous around any black person they encounter even if they can’t logically explain why.  I think it is worthwhile to try and head off those warped brain firings because they can still be headed off.  If those kinds of unconscious and/or subconscious assumptions can’t be headed off, then all of this conversation is useless and we’re all such hopeless racists that we need to be separated from one another for everyone’s protection.

Comment #76: Mnemosyne  on  07/09  at  05:38 PM

I don’t think that this case is really about race, even if race makes it so starkly apparent how unfair it was.

But the again, it always brings back the memory of my father, who was killed when a police officer fired three times into the back of our stationwagon.  He wasn’t black.  But the results are the same; an unarmed man killed, unawares of the danger a police officer put him in.

(Whenever I hear about ‘black people burned their own neighborhood’ I always wonder how few of those buildings were actually owned by those rioting.)

Comment #77: Crissa  on  07/09  at  05:49 PM

There’s another message to rioting: “This is why we can’t let Them have nice things.” They’ll just destroy them.

Comment #78: ginmar  on  07/09  at  05:53 PM

@Crissa…that “they burned their own neighborhood” thing always rang false to me for those exact same reasons.

Comment #79: Well, what?  on  07/09  at  05:59 PM

(I mean, jeebus. I’m not a minority, but I’m low enough on the totem pole that I don’t really have any serious stake in where I live. If I were rioting, I wouldn’t be destroying anything that’s “mine” in a real sense.)

Comment #80: Well, what?  on  07/09  at  06:07 PM

Actually, we have neighborhood protests all the time.  It’s very infrequently that there’s any sort of damage… And there’s usually only some damage after it’s some white guy or kid who got caught stirring up trouble.

I doubt it was the pro-immigration ralliers who broke thirty some store windows and threw housepaint on local crafts displays same year those flaggots got suspended from school for kicking up trouble on Cinco de Mayo.  Mostly because those pro-immigration ralliers have marched that downtown every year (and twice some years, like this one) without a single arrest or report of damage.

I’m sorry you feel some sort of cause-connection to ‘anarch-kiddies’ but if we can’t call them that, what can we call the kids in masks and stirring up trouble where they really don’t live?  Obviously we know what some are - like those flaggots - but ones in masks attacking peaceful protestors, police, and businesses indiscriminately?

Comment #81: Crissa  on  07/09  at  06:07 PM

These guys have body armor, guns, tasers, backup, the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted. What in hell can they be afraid of?
Comment #65: ginmar on 07/09 at 03:42 PM

Being disrespected.  Which can be anything, apparently.

Comment #82: oldfeminist  on  07/09  at  06:12 PM

Thank you, Ginmar (@ 65).  That was my point: that there is no rational reason for cops to be so “afraid”.  And yet, that is the excuse for every misuse of a weapon or technique by every cop every time there’s an incident. 

As to: “Once upon a time we did not fear the police” (Greenclover @43), as I remember (and I’m pretty damn old) that was only because we didn’t know them as well as we do now.  When I was a kid, cops could get away with outrageous misuse of their position, because of the exaggerated respect in which they were held by the average middle-class citizen, and the (often justified) assumption that no cop would ever misuse his power against one of *our* kind of people. 

I’m not talking about illegal behavior; it was pretty much legal for cops to do as they liked, at least where it involved people with no influence or position.  So in some respects, things are actually better now.

Comment #83: Older  on  07/09  at  06:20 PM

Maybe the window-smashers came from within the neighborhood or maybe they came from outside it. I don’t know, and it wouldn’t change the core question I think a lot of us are asking at this point: do you consider rioting to be a valid and effective form of protest. Should we be peaceful and sincere and not dilute our important message with violence/destruction, or should we shake things up and show the world we’re pissed off and if smashing windows is what it takes, the unflattering news stories and broken windows are collateral damage in the bigger struggle?

Comment #84: cycles  on  07/09  at  06:26 PM

FWIW, KPIX Channel 5 quotes the Oakland police as saying the majority of the 78 they arrested were not from Oakland.

Comment #85: Hector B.  on  07/09  at  06:33 PM

@ 81 crissa, I’m not sure who you’re talking to at this point. But…“flaggots”? What the hell?

Comment #86: Well, what?  on  07/09  at  06:39 PM

Were the police supposed to pretend that rioting was not a possibility?

There’s a difference between preparing for a possibility and being intentionally antagonistic and provocative.  The police, as is typical of authority figures who would like to flex their muscles, chose the latter course.  The excessive militarization of police forces, the bunker mentality thus fostered on both sides of the public/“public servant” divide, and the certain knowledge that a badge is all the justification they need to terrorize, torture or kill those they’re “protecting and serving” - none of these are conducive to a civil society.

If you can’t understand the visceral difference between encountering a police officer in regular uniform and encountering a faceless line of storm-troopers in body armor armed with military weapons, I really fail to see how we can communicate at all.  If you really, truly feel like the police need the military gear or the outfits and tactics designed to frighten and intimidate, could you at least acknowledge that these dehumanizing, confrontational approaches to police work make resentment, anger, and escalation more, not less likely?  Why can’t they put uniformed officers as the public face of crowd control, with their militarized counterparts on stand-by nearby?  Because they want a confrontation.  They want violence.  That’s what gets them more neato military toys.  That’s what gets them bigger budgets.  That’s what justifies their shooting of an unarmed man.

Comment #87: libdevil  on  07/09  at  06:42 PM

Should we be peaceful and sincere and not dilute our important message with violence/destruction, or should we shake things up and show the world we’re pissed off and if smashing windows is what it takes, the unflattering news stories and broken windows are collateral damage in the bigger struggle?

Well, frankly, I’m having a hard time thinking of any meaningful social change which hasn’t required a bit of both. Gandhi practiced nonviolence, but it’s not like every window in India remained intact. King’s nonviolence made powerful advances, but the Watts riots arguably forced some significant change as well.

Each side always considers the other to be counterproductive, when quite possibly neither of them truly is.

Comment #88: Well, what?  on  07/09  at  06:45 PM

Because they want a confrontation.  They want violence.

It’s nice to know that you can read their minds.

If they didn’t adequately prepare for a riot that would likely disproportionately hurt the black community (as most of these riots do; despite white people’s fears, most of the damage caused by the Rodney King riots happened in black communities), they would be accused of not caring if black-owned property is destroyed.

For what it’s worth, I agree that our police is over militarized, but claiming that the police shouldn’t adequately prepare for a riot in the context of decades-long standard operating procedure is beyond absurd.

Comment #89: keshmeshi  on  07/09  at  07:08 PM

@86 Well, what? (and @81 Crissa)

I think that “flaggots” = flag +bigots, but my initial reading was (I think) much like yours.  I appreciate the intention (if my second reading was correct), but I think it is a poor result.

Comment #90: Atheist, A Feminist  on  07/09  at  07:12 PM

You see a parallel in the belief homophobes have that every gay dude wants to fuck them up the ass,

Some homophobes.  You read them for a while, you get to notice the difference between the “ick - queers” and “ick - queers WHO WON’T STOP THINKING ABOUT ASS-SEX AND WON’T STOP STARING AT MY BUTT BECAUSE THEY WANT MY ASS FOR SEX SEX SEX OH MY GOD” reactions.

Ah, fun times on a.p.h.

Comment #91: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  07/09  at  07:15 PM

Flaggots:  People who wrap themselves in the flag as a form of patriotism as attack on other people.

Just because it’s an image of the US flag doesn’t make it not hate speech or graffiti.

Comment #92: Crissa  on  07/09  at  07:40 PM

@ 92 Crissa

Yeah, that is what I thought you were going for, but when reading (or I assume even saying) “flaggots,” there is no distinguishable difference between flag + bigot and flag + faggot.  Maybe there is a less homophobic way to refer to those types of assholes?

Comment #93: Atheist, A Feminist  on  07/09  at  09:13 PM

Flagnoramus?

Comment #94: cycles  on  07/09  at  10:17 PM

Here’s the thing for me: if this verdict is correct, that means the senior officers in the BART police force had the depraved indifference to put an emotionally unstable young man who was not well enough trained to tell a taser from a handgun on patrol armed with both weapons. If I handed my five-year-old a glock and told him to be careful with it, you can bet I’d be doing time, and I see no reason that the remainder of a life sentence shouldn’t be divided up among the chain of command.

Unfortunately, not going to happen, and guess what: any monetary penalty gets paid by the same damn people at risk of getting shot.

Comment #95: paul  on  07/09  at  10:27 PM

My mind keeps going back to BlackBloc’s comment #7: At least this guy didn’t skate like all the NYPD members—a particularly egregious case being the plain clothes detectives who killed the bridegroom coming out of his bachelor party—who had no idea they were cops, and who must have thought they were menacing thugs.

Comment #96: Hector B.  on  07/09  at  10:35 PM

Officers should be trained to consider a Taser a deadly weapon, just like a gun.

Thing is, that’s what they’re advertised as what they’re supposed to be.  The less-lethal alternative to having to shoot someone.  In that use they’re extremely useful and justified.  One example of a proper use I know of was when a man was holding a knife to a hostage and it didn’t look like he could be be talked down: one officer managed to get a shot with a taser through an open window into the guy’s back and they took him down.  Given that the alternative was shooting him, I don’t think anyone could argue it wasn’t justified.

The problem has been that Taser International is so insistent that it’s not “less-lethal”, it’s “pretty much harmless”.  It’s the equivalent of a manufacturer of billy-clubs or collapsible batons claiming that they won’t cause bruises or other injuries.  And hey, if you knew you really couldn’t hurt anyone with it, why not, right?  Tap to the head to get their attention, no harm no foul.

As a result of the case in Vancouver, the RCMP, however it works out on the ground, are at least making the attempt to review their rules regarding taser use and tell its members that the only time you use a taser is, if you didn’t have a taser, you’d be prepared and justified in shooting or otherwise seriously injuring someone.

Comment #97: KeithM  on  07/10  at  12:05 AM

This can’t be stressed enough. There is no fucking way to mistake a Taser for a Glock.  No. It’s like mistaking a toaster for a frying pan.  At the very least, to fire that shot, this dude had to unsnap his holster, flip the safety off—and on a Glock, that’s not easy, at least for me—-and then aim and fire. There was another guy on the ground beside Grant. The cop could have easily hit him. But with a story so insultingly, obviously untrue, they’re just fucking with us. A Taser feels nothing like a Glock or any other handgun. They’re a completely different shape, weight, and require entirely different methods to operate.  Based on that egregious a lie, what the fuck else are we supposed to think?

Comment #98: ginmar  on  07/10  at  12:53 AM

ginmar—testimony with some indication Mehserle handled his pistol (a Sig Sauer P226 btw) as if it was a Taser:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?blogid=144&entry_id=65888

Comment #99: Hector B.  on  07/10  at  01:37 AM

It’s used specifically because they’re almost always also homophobic.

Comment #100: Crissa  on  07/10  at  02:34 AM

Hector,  it’s still bullshit. Even the link you showed me indicated that his bosses testified that there was no similarity.  There’s just no way to mistake the two. No fucking way. The Taser isn’t shaped like a pistol at all. You do know that, right? <a > Nobody who’s carried a gun responsibly would ever mistake to confusing such a beast for a gun. </a>

Comment #101: ginmar  on  07/10  at  03:35 AM

@100 Crissa

No, the word “flaggot” makes YOU seem homophobic.  Calling a homophobe who hides behind the flag a bigot is justified, calling them a “faggot” is completely and totally NOT OKAY.

“Flaggot” on first glance looks like “flag” + “faggot,” and so it is not an appropriate insult EVER.

That is what I (and, I assume, Well, what?) first saw when reading your post.  I figured that this is Pandagon and you are not a troll, so that couldn’t possibly be right.  I stared at it a bit and figured you must have meant “flag” + “bigot” and that it hadn’t occurred to you that anyone would take it any other way.

Your responses seem to indicate that you meant it exactly the way that I first took it, in which case, I must paraphrase Well, what?:
WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?

Comment #102: Atheist, A Feminist  on  07/10  at  03:47 AM

How the hell does one not know that one has grabbed a pistol or a taser? Aren’t officers supposed to wear them on different sides of their hips so they are less likely to make that kind of mistake?

Comment #103: R.T.  on  07/10  at  04:44 AM

I do understand that “muscle memory” takes over in events when one is not being conscious of what one is doing, like for example an officer that was killed in the line of duty because he was shooting like he was trained, and then carefully collecting the spent cartridges out of his service revolver and putting them into his pocket, like he was trained, which left him open to the attack that killed him.

In response to that officers were trained not to put spent casings in their pockets at the range, just dump them and reload.

What fucking failure of a training course did Mehserle go through? (Note I am not excusing what Mehserle, did. I’m just trying to understand the natures of all the little disasters that had to happen for Mehserle to make the mistake he did, if it was a mistake.)

Was a taser even part of his kit he was wearing that day? I find the “he thought he had a taser” argument a little convenient without the knowledge of if he even had one at the time.

Comment #104: R.T.  on  07/10  at  04:54 AM

R.T. I have to repeat it: No fucking way. There’s just not the same weight there. The Taser doesn’t move the same way the Glock does. There’s a superficial similarity that might trick the eye—-but nothing else.

When I started having panic attacks, people told me they could tell I was getting triggered—-how bitterly amusing, that word—-because I started tapping at my right thigh.  My M-16 hung there, and I always used to grasp it in front of the mag receiver. I wasn’t even aware of it.  This guy did at least two years on the street.  I did thirteen months. There’s no excuse for that kind of shit, that kind of utter carelessness.

All of that is mere detail. When you look at the video, it’s obvious. His finer is on the trigger, he aims, and shoots. That’s what I just can’t get over. The victim was prone and restrained. He wasn’t doing shit. Why? Why, why, why?

Comment #105: ginmar  on  07/10  at  05:40 AM

The Taser isn’t shaped like a pistol at all. You do know that, right? <a >

Your own link doesn’t help you there.  Ignore the front end and what do you see?  A composite grip and trigger that’s very similar to an average modern semiauto.  They make them that way specifically to allow users familiar with using a handgun to be able to use a taser with minimal adjustment in the way they aim.

Sure, if you’re looking at the business end they don’t look alike but I’d give you odds if you grabbed one without looking by the grip from a holster it would take you a second to figure out what you had.

(This is NOT excusing the Oakland idiot.)

Comment #106: KeithM  on  07/10  at  05:49 AM

In fact, look at the picture even closer: handgun style fixed sights, and even the plastic case is styled to look like a semiauto with the non-functional greebles.

Comment #107: KeithM  on  07/10  at  05:52 AM

All of that is mere detail. When you look at the video, it’s obvious. His finer is on the trigger, he aims, and shoots. That’s what I just can’t get over. The victim was prone and restrained. He wasn’t doing shit. Why? Why, why, why? </blockquote>

To punish. To hurt. To send a message to others that they’re just dead meat in his playground.

I recall quite clearly last December an exchange from a costumer at a video rental store to the cashier, in which this customer proceeds to regale the cashier and all who’d listen (captive audience) that he was a cop and some “spics” at the movie theatre weren’t respecting his authority when he told them to be quiet as these people were disturbing him with their talking. The cop goes on to say after the show he confronted the “gangbangers” outside the theatre and flashed his piece as he wasn’t in uniform but still armed.

After the cop got his videos and left,  the cashier, my friend, and myself could only look at each other with shock and could not get over what an asshole that man is, and frankly found it a horrifying thing that there are so many cops just like him. Authoritarian sadists. Thugs. Bullies.

The shooting of Oscar Grant was when I officially gave up the idea that the police where the “good guys” though my support for cops had started to decline long before then.

Comment #108: R.T.  on  07/10  at  06:13 AM

OT a bit…

Do you shoot Ginmar? If you do what do you use?

Comment #109: R.T.  on  07/10  at  06:17 AM

Ginmar…a glock has no external safety. And the reason you shouldnt be a cop is probably because of your panic attacks not because you would be bored.


After this I would love to hear eveyones thoughts on a case of Voter intimidation by the New black panther party. DOJ dosent seem to care about this, but they, of course, will take a closer look at this case (grant) . Sounds like open season on white voters to me.

Comment #110: Casp  on  07/10  at  10:08 AM

No you wouldn’t “love to hear everyone’s thoughts” on the matter Casp, but thanks for playing. This post is about a man dead due to either profound police recklessness and/or incompetence. Shouldn’t article requests be sent to the bloggers via e-mail, or do you really expect the tide and the topic of any post you decide isn’t a matter of importance to turn on your whim?

Comment #111: Selena777  on  07/10  at  11:05 AM

“Sounds like open season on white voters to me.”

Casp, only an asshole could come onto a thread about a Black citizen being assassinated by a white cop and end up claiming somehow this meant that white people were endangered.  Slurp up that koolaid, douchebag…

Comment #112: MikeEss  on  07/10  at  11:07 AM

You wouldn’t play along anyway because the DOJ case reeks and you know that if the races were reversed this would be a 24/7 story. As for this one, I’ve seen the video…the cop screwed up and a man lost his life tragically . To think that this was an intentional execution is absurd. I happen to agree with the verdict, it was fair. There was no reason for him to even draw the TASER at that point…its also possible that he intended to draw his weapon to “cover” the suspect until he was handcuffed…..had his finger on the trigger and accidentally fired. His reaction immediately after doing it speaks volumes. Either way..this situation did not warrant the brandishing of a gun or taser..at that point,  from what I can see . This was a tragic situation all around but to go back to the old “open season on black men” thing is absurd.

Comment #113: Casp  on  07/10  at  11:17 AM

Mehserle was trained just a month before the shooting how to use his Taser X26—a six-hour class where everyone got to shoot theirs a total of one (1) time:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-06-24/bay-area/21923448_1_taser-training-prosecutor-david-stein-mehserle-and-other-bart

The X26 seems less pistollike, but it does have a trigger, and a pistol grip:

http://www.taser.com/products/law/pages/taserx26.aspx

I’m thinking that making a Taser feel more like a gun should be a safety factor for someone used to handling guns: they should pick up a Taser and think “Gun!” not pick up a gun and think “Taser.” The trained reaction would be to hesitate before pulling a trigger. I’m going to say Mehserle was inadequately trained in the use of firearms as well.

But consider if they had made the Taser with say, a round barrel and a push-button actuator: then officers might fire the Taser mistaking it for their MagLite.

Assuming BART took the “tragic mistake” explanation seriously, they have had two years in which to flag the inadequacies of their police training program. So has Taser, Inc. I wonder what, if anything, has been done.

Comment #114: Hector B.  on  07/10  at  11:29 AM

eveyones thoughts on a case of Two guys standing outside a polling place in Philly in November, 2008

IFYPFY

Was this one of Sean Hannity’s talking points yesterday?  Right-wingers were chattering about it all over the web.

Comment #115: Hector B.  on  07/10  at  11:35 AM

Yes it was, Hector. The entirety of the Fox news lineup - the only people in this country that are truly interested and invested in protecting the interests, rights and safety of white voters, apparently - was dedicated to it.

Comment #116: Selena777  on  07/10  at  11:53 AM

R.T., KeithM—-nice try.  Oh, wait, you ignored the part about weight, heft, and then you proe my damned point by pointing out that the damned thing doesn’t even have a safety. But it looks like he’s flicking it off as he draws the damned weapon in the video. Somebody who’s a moron might mistake the Taser for the Glock—-and if they had sub par eyesight.

I love the excuses, though.  The very best case scenario is what Pam is saying: pure racism. The worst? Deliberate murder.

Hector B,  I look at that X26, and it’s more than apparent, again,  that there’s no way to mistake that for a pistol.  Not for anyone who’s honest, that is.

Comment #117: ginmar  on  07/10  at  12:55 PM

ginmar—I’m saying that the argument that Mehserle confused the two makes him more reckless, more culpable, not less:

If Mehserle confused the two because the X26 was so much like a pistol,

then he really intended to shoot Grant, after all.

The Taser was designed to resemble a pistol, not the other way around.

Comment #118: Hector B.  on  07/10  at  03:34 PM

Ginmar, you seem to be thinking that I’m arguing with you when I’m not.

I strongly think that Mehserle deliberately shot Grant, and knew it was a pistol and not a taser in his hand.

But if, if it was a mistake. I want to know why. Major man-made disasters are often caused by little tiny mistakes that harmless on their own, all add up together to cause a deadly mess. I want to know how Mehserle was trained. I want to know what his exact loadout that day was. I want to know what his regular loadout is if it wasn’t and I want to know in what way did he arrange his loadout.

Because “oops I thought my pistol was a taser” just doesn’t happen all by itself. I want to see not just Mehserle punished, but his whole organization investigated so this shit doesn’t happen again.

Comment #119: R.T.  on  07/10  at  04:03 PM

Oh, wait, you ignored the part about weight, heft, and then you proe my damned point by pointing out that the damned thing doesn’t even have a safety. But it looks like he’s flicking it off as he draws the damned weapon in the video. Somebody who’s a moron might mistake the Taser for the Glock—-and if they had sub par eyesight.

Number one, I said nothing about a safety at all.  Number two, I’d be careful throwing out the “moron” label given that The X26 has a safety.  Same posiiton and operation as you’d expect on a handgun too.  http://www.womenonguard.com/images/taser-x26c-deployment.jpg  See it?

Did he look at the weapon as he was drawing it, or did he draw it without looking?  If the latter, it doesn’t matter if they don’t look anything alike.

Look, I’m not saying he’s lying, only that your insistance that it’s impossible isn’t an objective position.  If he’s practiced combat drawing with a handgun, then the actions are going to be automatic if he’s drawing something like a handgun, and this is the important part, even if some of them aren’t necessary, and he won’t think about them.  As I said, that’s why they specifically design the grips and rear to be, from the point of view of someone handling the taser, not someone looking at it from the side or the front, but someone at the operating end to be similar to a handgun.

I’ll give you a trivial example:  I was playing an amateur video game the other day on my computer, and my left hand automatically assumed the following position: ring finger on A, middle finger on W, index on D, and thumb on space.  I didn’t have to think about it.  I didn’t even look at the keyboard, and it was only when i did that I realized I’d done it.  The game didn’t even use the standard WASD movement keys at all.  I’ve played first person shooters enough that my hand assumed that position automatically, even though the game wasn’t a first person shooter at all.

If someone is drawing something pistol-like from a holster on their belt, and they’ve practiced with a pistol and insufficiently practiced on the pistol-like device, which is specifically designed to feel and operate like a pistol from the point of view of the shooter, I would be surprised if a large number of them wouldn’t do things like flick at non-existant safeties.

If they haven’t practised enough with both, the difference in weight or specific feel wouldn’t be apparent because they it wouldn’t be enough to override the muscle memory from the one they’d practiced with more.  I’ve seen this sort of thing happen.  I saw a guy recently who just bought his first semiautomatic shotgun, one with a folding stock.  His reason for having it was for something small and convenient he could pack on his ATV when he was on the land since we do have grizzlies and polar bears that do attack people from time to time.  The first time he fired it to get used to it, he raised it to his shoulder automatically to aim…with the stock folded.

He wasn’t a moron, it was just the way you normally fired a regular rifle or shotgun.  He’d never had a folding stock weapon before, and so the part about unfolding the stock wasn’t habit like just bringing the weapon to his shoulder and aiming.

Once he got that straightened out, after the first shot his automatic reaction was to try and pump the action to eject the shell: but it was a semiauto, there was no pump, the front grips didn’t feel like a pump-action, and the shell had already ejected.  Like I said, reflexes took over.

The only benefit of the doubt I’m giving to the idiot in Oakland is that it’s not impossible he wasn’t adequately trained or practiced in the use of the taser to let his actions on one override his use of the other.  It’s entirely plausible that he had in mind “I’ll draw the taser and zap the fucker” but his body simply carried out the “draw and shoot” reflex with the weapon it was familiar with.

Comment #120: KeithM  on  07/10  at  04:58 PM

Keith, you’re just not getting it.  Each item has a different, feel, heft and movement to it.  And that’s the best excuse anybody can make for this guy: he was going to attack a man who was already restrained—-for not committing a crime, mind you, but after trying to stop one from happening——and he’s so stupid, reckless, or careless that he drew a weapon that he had no need for and fired it. Without checking. No combat situation, he’s got the guy prone and cuffed face down on the floor. And that’s the best excuse.  He shouldn’t have drawn anything, period, but he did. After that failure of character, all bets are off and the excuses are kind of disturbing.

Comment #121: ginmar  on  07/10  at  09:08 PM

I am getting it and that’s what I’ve been saying: at the least he was criminally incompetent and shouldn’t have been drawing shit to shoot at anything.  I haven’t said otherwise.

And you’re the one moving goalposts.  You’re the one who initially claimed that it was impossible to make a mistake in thinking you were doing something other than what you were.

Comment #122: KeithM  on  07/10  at  09:16 PM

Why is it not okay for a person (even a gay one) to call a hatriot a ‘flaggot’?

Comment #123: Crissa  on  07/10  at  10:07 PM

This is why.

Comment #124: banisteriopsis  on  07/11  at  12:46 AM

Gee, Where did I say it was NO LONGER possible to mistake the two? It’s not possible, period. That’s never changed. Fucking A. Thanks, asshole,  for putting words in my mouth or taking them out of it.  I don’t buy his excuse—-or yours, for that matter——and then his next excuses get all the more bullshit.  There’s no fuckin’ excuse on any level.

Comment #125: ginmar  on  07/11  at  10:25 PM

Lot of love in this thread

Comment #126: Dan  on  07/12  at  04:50 AM

I’m all for anarcho-kiddies throwing rocks in other people’s neighborhoods, I just think it’d make more sense if the neighborhood were Walnut Creek.

Comment #127: Dan  on  07/12  at  04:58 AM

The anarcho-teenagers, anarcho-grownups, and anarcho-Senior Citizens can come too, I don’t want anybody feeling left out.

Comment #128: Dan  on  07/12  at  05:07 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.