It happened on New Year's Eve, just three weeks before the Barack Obama Inaugural; a white police officer drew his gun and shot an already arrested and subdued black man dead in Oakland, California.
In this time of apparent progress toward a less racially tense society, this is reminiscent of the Rodney King beating back in Los Angeles in 1992 and other more lethel encounters between police and black suspects in Cincinnati, Detroit and other American cities. One study indicated a black suspect apprehended or detained by police is eight times more likely to be shot and killed than a white suspect.
The shooting was caught by bystanders on cell phone cameras who were watching the police dealing with a alleged disturbance involving several young African-American men. The victim, 22 year-old Oscar Grant (pictured above), a young father, was surrounded by a passel of BART Transit Cops from the train platform and was on the ground when killed.
It has since sparked outrage both in public meetings, on the Internet and the mainstream media, and has led to peaceful protests at Oakland City Hall as well as rioting and breaking windows and liting fires by splinter protesters in downtown Oakland who went more militant after the demonstration ended.
According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, "The unarmed man killed by former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle on an Oakland train platform early New Year's Day put up a brief struggle with officers but had been restrained and had both arms behind him when he was shot in the back, police investigators said."
Perhaps it is some sign of progress that the man who did the shooting faces murder charges. But what if this had occured in a less public place than a transit station and no civilian-operated cameras had been available? Might this have gone down as a necessary use of force, protected by the old police code of the "Thin Blue Line"? We will never know, but suffice to say a new Presidential Election result and a new year have not abated old racial tensions for America.
Cops are routinely tested for IQ when entering the police force.
ReplyDeleteMost police forces don't want people within the higher IQ quadrant - those people tend to question authority more than lower IQ's and follow direct orders, even illegal ones. Follow entry of low IQ people into paramilitary training forces that promote the attitude that their fellow American is their enemy and this is what happens.
The racial aspect is truly besides the point - ALL young men are targets now. All they need to do to become that target is to get in the sights of one of these low IQ authority worshipers with a badge and gun.
The only thing that could have saved this kid is a family with money - IF they could have gotten to him before the low IQ grunts killed him.
Racial divides, pooey. It's all about who's got the cold hard cash to spend...
Hadn't factored that into the equation, Ong. The police agencies might indeed be weeding out top-notch people as well as the emotionally unfit. I think race could still have been a factor here, however, but admittedly I'd be getting ahead of the trial and the evidence if I took that supposition any further. Thanks for the input.
ReplyDeleteI really do think a Black American, IS at more risk of being shot in situations like this. I'm sure, somewhere in police training there must be instructions given, that once you have the offender disabled on the ground, ease off!
ReplyDeleteThat amazing woman Rosa Parks stood up for her rights and others followed, gradually things did get better for many black people, but it's always a much tougher road to anywhere, than the white man has to travel.
I am fully aware the police have to make on the spot decisions and they are doing a pretty dangerous and tough job, all credit to them.
If there is a chance that a stun-gun or a pistol gets confused, the rules need to be tightened. This is a frightening factor most of the public wouldn't be aware could happen.............heck!
While there are situations like this, there will aways be racial tensions. Yes, there are many questions that need to be answered, but will they?
Cassandra
This was a travesty. I typically am a huge supporter/defender of the police. They have a very difficult job. There is no defense for this action, The officer claims he drew the wrong weapon? He knew the difference, He made a terrible mistake in judgement and now he is going to have to pay for his mistake.
ReplyDeleteThat's the main problem, Cassandra: such an terrible incident as this raises all kinds of questions--some practical like did he really need to pull any gun; others more sociological.
ReplyDeleteRecalling Rosa Parks' act of defiance is instructive: while things seem to have improved in most in racial tensions from the Civil Rights Era in America, it just seems to take one tragedy like this to reignite old tensions that call much of the hard-earned progress on a interracial society in America into question.
I agree Fred. It looks to me like he had time even after pulling the weapon to stop himself--for some reason he didn't. A travesty for sure.
ReplyDeleteI read about this on someone else's post, it pushed my buttons and I wrote screeds. So I will confine myself to the summarised version here, which is that while I agree that there appears to be major issues in the US about racism, I believe this is as much to do with issues around just too many blasted guns around the place. My father was (I hope I haven't said this on your page before Doug, if I have please forgive me) was a policeman here for 35 years and never carried or even owned a gun. Further one of my sons is planning to join the police force - he does not expect nor even wish to carry a gun. Carrying guns on your person or in your vehicle whether you are a policeman or an ordinary person creates the opportunity for thoughtless and reflexive action which would not have happened had the gun not been there. Even if other violence occurred, it is generally not so quick or so fatal - there is opportunity to draw back.
ReplyDeleteHere, if someone is found carrying a gun, they have to justify it and the gun is confiscated.
I fully agree, Iri Ani, and I tell my friends who are hunters and gun collectors that, to summarize myself, I have nothing against them, but there are just too many guns in this country. (And the funny thing is a couple of them agree, but not nough to give up a weapon. Ironically, this distrust of our neighbors and the government makes us one of the likeliest places for gun violence--by criminals or cops--in the world.)
ReplyDeleteI like your gun rules in NZ--and strong justification for having one is a very good rule. But for some cultural and political reasons, gun control in America is a piece meal process and its often one step forward to a Federal ban on most assault weapons--as happened in the 1990's under Clinton--and then two steps back when the law was repealed under Bush.
I wonder how many people would still be alive today if only that reflex to lethal force was checked by more stringent laws. I hope to live long enough to see some more common sense about limiting guns on a per person basis, or at least banning types of semi-automatic weapons designed strictly to kill people, and not say shooting deer or elk.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Doug This is awful to watch. In this country police officers do not carry guns as a matter of routine and certainly not our transport police. Where guns are available incidents like this driven by adrenaline will occur. I feel sorry for everybody involved.
ReplyDeleteI agree Jeff. The gun proliferation just feeds on itself.
ReplyDelete