Police brutality has been in the spotlight for many years, and racial profiling has been going hand in hand with it. Three of the most recent and famous cases include that of Ferguson’s Michael Brown, New York’s Eric Garner and the Bay Area’s Oscar Grant III cases.
The homicide of Eric Garner occurred on July 17, but it is now gaining prominence because of its recent jury ruling and media coverage of the recent police brutality cases. Eric Garner in Staten Island has been one of the most controversial cases because there is a viral bystander video and forensic evidence, both concrete and indisputable evidence toward the police brutality. The video evidently shows Garner, 43, and 2 police officers, Pantaleo and Damico, arguing over being approached for “loosies” possession. Eric Garner had previously been indicted for selling “loosies”, single cigarettes from packs without stamps; driving without a license; marijuana possession; and false personation. Furthermore, in the video, Garner, in a chokehold, a move banned by New York State in 1993, can be heard multiple times saying that he couldn’t breathe, and in a video that was later posted online, shows that after the brutal confrontation, the ambulance does not arrive until several minutes later (around 9 minutes). Garner would die one hour later at the hospital as a result of cardiac arrest. In addition, by inspection of city medical examiners, the cause of death was neck compression and chest compression from his prone positioning, both associated with the physical restraint by police. These conditions were aggravated by bronchial asthma, heart disease, obesity, and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. Much of the unrest, however, stems from the city’s verdict not to indict Pantaleo, the police officer that executed the chokehold.
We are very familiar with the Brown case, but right in the Bay Area, back in 2009, Oscar Grant III was unfairly shot to death on New Year's Day. He was engaged in a fight at the Fruitvale BART station when the police came to break up the tussle, and was shot after he refused to comply. His family and thousands of protesters demanded that something be done about Officer Johannes Mehserle, the man who shot Grant to death. Mehserle was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, to which people responded with dissatisfaction - should Mehserle not have been convicted with criminal charge? Mehserle and his family eventually moved several times, due to death threats. A film, "Fruitvale Station," was made based on the case.
We are very familiar with the Brown case, but right in the Bay Area, back in 2009, Oscar Grant III was unfairly shot to death on New Year's Day. He was engaged in a fight at the Fruitvale BART station when the police came to break up the tussle, and was shot after he refused to comply. His family and thousands of protesters demanded that something be done about Officer Johannes Mehserle, the man who shot Grant to death. Mehserle was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, to which people responded with dissatisfaction - should Mehserle not have been convicted with criminal charge? Mehserle and his family eventually moved several times, due to death threats. A film, "Fruitvale Station," was made based on the case.
These three cases, along with the cases in the link Mr. Stewart posted a while ago, all go to show that police brutality affects mainly those in low socioeconomic status, and especially colored men. There is an immense obstacle in the path towards racial equality (which may possibly never be achieved), and that is the stereotype of the black man as a dangerous being. In truth, in many of the cases, it is quite possible that the victim had done something to provoke action in police. However, the police must realize that such intense brutality is uncalled for, and change their mindsets. What the police think and do often affects the people greatly in thoughts and actions.
Although I don't know much about the other two cases, I find it to be a stretch to say that the Mike Brown case was an example of police brutality. Darren Wilson was well within his rights as a Missouri police officer to shoot Brown. People think that shooting him so many times was unnecessary, a naive statement. Mike Brown was on drugs, affecting his ability to feel pain as he would while sober. When he was running to Wilson, a shot in the leg and torso wouldn't do the trick since drugs often keep pain from being felt until later. Calling this one case brutality isn't appropriate in my view.
ReplyDeleteA journalist major recently posted this and I found it interesting:
DeleteShelby Lawson is a student at the University of Kansas, majoring in Journalism and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Lawson posted the following to her Facebook page:
“Alright y’all. I’d like to clear a few things up. This is a general address to the long list of misconceptions and inconsistencies and abuses of power that exist surrounding the killing of Mike Brown. I have researched these points and provided sources in case you wish to do some reading of your own.
-The most common misconception I’m hearing is that Mike Brown was significantly larger than Officer Wilson. This is incorrect. On page 198 of the official grand jury transcript, you can see that Officer Wilson testifies he is 6 ft 4 and weighs 210 lbs,the same size as Mike Brown.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370494-grand-jury-volume-5.html
-Mike Brown was NOT stopped because he was a suspect in crime. He and his friend Dorian Johnson were stopped for jaywalking, as Darren Wilson testifies to on page 208 of his grand jury testimony.
-Mike Brown WAS fleeing from Officer Wilson when he was fatally shot. Wilson confirms this on page 281 of his grand jury testimony.
-Officer Wilson broke police self-defense protocol, which teaches to disarm and incapacitate rather than kill and teaches officers to go for body shots. Officer Wilson shot Mike Brown twice in the head, after he shot him four times in his arm and torso.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=1
-Ferguson Police ignored protocol and refused to interview or take a statement from the eyewitness present from Officer Wilson’s initial contact with Mike Brown until his death.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/12/michael_brown_witness_police_allegedly_turn_down_offer_of_interview.html
-The forensic examiner broke protocol by failing to take crime scene photos. On page 95 of the grand jury transcript, she claims that this was because her camera had died, however, she goes on to describe how she immediately followed Wilson to the hospital in order to photograph his “injuries.”
-Forensic investigators broke protocol by failing to test Officer Wilson’s gun for fingerprints, since Wilson claims that Brown grabbed his gun and caused it to misfire. Page 39, grand jury transcript.
-Darren Wilson was then allowed to break protocol by washing the blood off of himself before it could be photographed, making it impossible to analyze blood spatter patterns and determine what position Mike Brown was in when Wilson first shot him. Wilson recounts this on page 10 of his official police interview.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370766-interview-po-darren-wilson.html
While Officer Wilson’s story of what happened that day has changed at least three times, six separate eyewitnesses, four of whom have never met each other, all have identical accounts of what happened. They were never interviewed by police.
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/11/6134825/eyewitnesses-overwhelmingly-agree-on-key-details-of-michael-browns
part 2
Delete-These eyewitnesses all agree that Darren Wilson was the aggressor and that Mike Brown was shot while surrendering, with his hands in the air and that his last words were “I don’t have a gun. Stop shooting.”
-This is backed up by Mike Brown’s autopsy, which suggests that Mike Brown would have had to be in the hands-up position for the bullets to enter his hand and arm the way they did.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322540/-Autopsy-suggests-Mike-Brown-had-his-arms-in-surrender-position-when-Darren-Wilson-killed-him
-Furthermore, in a press conference, the coroner who performed Mike Brown’s autopsy relays that there was no trace of gun shot residue anywhere on his body, proving that Wilson’s claim that Mike Brown grabbed his gun, causing it to misfire, is impossible and untrue.
http://fox2now.com/2014/08/18/brown-family-to-hold-press-conference-monday-on-autopsy-findings/
-Ferguson Police lied about the distance Mike Brown was from Officer Wilson when he was killed. They reported it was 35 ft. but it was in fact 148 ft.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/20/1346374/-BREAKING-VIDEO-Police-Lied-Mike-Brown-was-killed-148-feet-away-from-Darren-Wilson-s-SUV
-Owner of Ferguson Market states that he did not call police to report a theft of cigars, that the theft had nothing to do with Mike Brown, and that the man on the security footage is not Mike Brown.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft
-The prosecuting attorney for the case against Darren Wilson has helped raise $600,000 in donations for Darren Wilson, creating a clear conflict of interest.
http://aattp.org/fair-trial-st-louis-prosecuting-attorney-raising-funds-for-darren-wilson/
-The police department that Officer Wilson worked for prior to coming to Ferguson was disbanded after multiple instances of racial profiling.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?wpmk=MK0000203
I did some research regarding the prosecution and I found this: McCullough's assistant may have deliberately misled the jury when an outdated document was distributed out. This document made it legal for Wilson to shoot Brown because he ran way. This law was ruled unconstitutional years ago but the jury was under the impression that the law still existed. Days after, the assistant prosecutor apologized and gave out another document saying that a portion in the first document was wrong but interestingly enough, didn't actually state which part was a mistake. This meant that the jury may have went on through the proceedings with the belief that Wilson had the right to shoot Brown the moment he decided to run away.
Deletehttp://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349421/-Missouri-AG-Confirms-Michael-Brown-Grand-Jury-Misled-by-St-Louis-DA#
Julia: I read a similar report, specifically on the autospy, and strangely enough, it said that perhaps Darren Wilson really was attacked by Michael Brown when the gun went off. I think your information makes more sense though - thanks for the thorough research!
DeleteStephen & Andreas: I agree that police brutality probably does not properly define the Brown case. Should this be considered more of a result of police militarization? I co-wrote an in-depth article for Talon on the Ferguson case, and what my partner and I found was that American police have been receiving surplus material from the military in the recent years through Program 1033. The items usually include military-grade guns, tanks and much more. Control over such items could lead to cases like Brown's? What do you think?
DeleteWhen Brown attacked Wilson and put his hand on the gun, it did not cause a misfire. He put his hand on the top of the slide, which slid it back far enough to take the gun out of battery. On a Sig P229 (Wilson's gun), the trigger does not disengage from the hammer when out of battery, but the hammer does not engage the firing pin. This caused the "Click" sound that was heard. Brown began to reach for the trigger guard to try to take control of the firearm after Wilson's 2nd trigger pull, so the slide returned forward and the weapon fired when Wilson pulled the trigger a third time.
DeleteThanks for the elaborate explanation Claire! I feel like I'm quite up to date on these cases (I'm part of Amnesty International; this years theme is "Police Brutality') and I agree with Stephen when calling it a stretch to claim blatant murder. However Mike Brown was not on drugs (at least that wasn't part of the evidence nor was that ever proved) and not was more than 1 shot necessary in my opinion. I wouldn't call it racism as many people (including myself) said before, but I would call it excessive use of police force. Stephen we should talk about this tomorrow ;)
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Eric Garner and Oscar Grant, I do believe that excessive action was undoubtedly taken. Oscar Grant was literally laying on the ground with handcuffs on when he was shot in the back multiple times. High or not, that was unprovoked murder. Eric Garner showed a little bit of resistance but the chokehold, no matter what situation, is illegal and can not be used by NYPD officers under state law.
I agree with Andreas that it's a stretch to call the Mike Brown case an example of police brutality, but it was definitely case that involved excessive police force. I did some more research and found that, after Officer Wilson pulled Mr. Brown aside for stealing a packet of cigarillos, Mr. Brown punched Officer Wilson in the face and fought for his gun. Officer Wilson claimed that Mr. Brown had also charged him, making threatening growling sounds, but from witness testimonies this may or may not be true. The Grand Jury did invest in this case more than other police brutality cases. The county prosecutor released forensic reports, photographs of evidence and transcripts of the proceedings, materials that are usually kept secret, in order to help people better understand what went on and come to a decision. In addition, two major investigations went underway. The F.B.I. opened a civil rights inquiry into the shooting on Aug. 11. The Justice Department later began its own civil rights investigation to examine whether the police in Ferguson have a history of discrimination or misuse of force.
ReplyDeleteSource:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0
Just by looking at the comments here, it's obvious that the Mike Brown case is a very polarizing one. It has sparked tons of protests against racism and police abuse, but there are also many people that have not joined the protests for various reasons, one of which might be the confusing and conflicting details of what happened. Racism and police abuse definitely still exist today, and I think it's good to bring this up in order for change to occur. However, given the divisive nature of this case, I'm not sure that the Mike Brown case is the one that should be a point to rally around.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you guys think about Mike Brown being the center of these protests? I'm open to different opinions :)