So here’s how it works: Let’s imagine two cops spot a negro driving a flashy car (one of the cops later testified that he was made suspicious by seeing a “luxury” car which “stood out a great deal in the area”). The negro then made a turn but activated his turn signal only 30 feet in advance, rather than 100 feet, so the cops decided to pull him over. (I’m sure white people get pulled over for things like that all the time.)
Once pulled over, the negro (who may have been on drugs, which justifies everything the cops did) is acting weird and is slow to respond to orders. One cop opens the car door and grabs him. Then, the negro jams his hand into his pocket. The other cop orders him to take his hand out of his pocket. But when the negro starts taking his hand out of his pocket, the cop panics and shoots. From Willamette Week:
“I remember seeing the top of his hand come out of his pocket,” recalled Sery, adding that it appeared clenched, “and that’s when I made the decision to shoot.”
So he shot the negro three times in the chest from six feet away, and then his partner tasered the corpse. But then it turns out that the now-dead negro was unarmed.
So then the cop enters our justice system. And now the DA’s office has a problem. The last thing Portland DAs want is to prosecute hardworking, honest cops for shooting unarmed negros to death – cops won’t be able to do their jobs if they’re punished for every little thing, after all.
Of course, the DA could refuse to press charges, but that would mean admitting in public that he favors cops shooting unarmed negros, and that sort of openly taking responsibility might piss off voters. It’s the 21st century; politicians aren’t allowed to obviously favor killing negros, like they could in the good old days.
No problem! A smart DA can just play games with the judicial system to protect a cop’s god-given right to shoot unarmed negros to death. So the DA goes to the grand jury. Normally, a DA presents his best case against the defendant to the grand jury, which then decides if there’s enough evidence to justify a trial. But if you’re a Portland DA, and if the victim is only an unarmed negro, then what you do is present the case for the defense.
Forget the movies you’ve seen, Lewinski said: If you wait until you see the gun, you can’t beat your suspect to the draw–therefore, you have to shoot first. “Action beats reaction,” he said.
Lewinski, a law-enforcement professor at Minnesota State University-Mankato, has made a career out of that slogan. A website advertising Lewinski’s services describes him as part of a “stable” of legal experts that specializes in “the defense of police officers and their agencies [in] all areas of high liability.”
(Mike Schrunk, by the way, also doesn’t appear to take statutory rape very seriously – at least, not when it’s committed by one of his pals. Jack Bog has the details.)
Since the grand jury hears only the evidence the DA chooses to present, a DA who presents the defense case to the grand jury is guaranteeing that the cop will get off. And best of all, the DA gets a free pass from the public for his whitewashing the shooting of an unarmed negro, since no one really gives a fuck. Sure, it’s a perversion of justice and a severe abuse of the grand jury system, but that’s not worth reporting on. It’s only a dead negro, for God’s sake! No need to make a fuss.
* * *
God damn it. You know, I’m not sure if the flip tone of this post is appropriate, but the truth is I’m trembling with fury about this, and if I try to write about it without being flip I’d just end up posting a string of swear words, so deal with it.
I did a nexus search; no major paper in Oregon even reported on the rather astounding fact that the DAs put an expert witness for the defense in front of the grand jury.
There’s no way a white person would have been shot the way James Perez (or Kendra James before him, or Jose Poot before her) was shot. And if by some miracle a white person was shot on a pretext pull-over, there’s no way the Portland DA’s office would cheat the grand jury system to make sure that the cops were spared the discomfort of a trial. And if that did happen, the mainstream papers would at least report it.
Mike Schrunk and his boss John Bradley looked at the color of the victim’s skin and said, “screw it! Blacks aren’t human; the shooting of an unarmed black person doesn’t require a trial, because black lives aren’t worth that much.” A hundred years ago Schrunk and Bradley would have gotten their rocks off participating in lynch mobs, but since they can’t have that pleasure nowadays, they have to settle for gaming the justice system to make it legal for cops to shoot blacks.
It drives me up a wall that Schrunk and Bradley are still being treated with respect. Why aren’t they spit on by every decent person, everywhere they go? Why aren’t they turned away from restaurants and stores? Why aren’t their houses and cars vandalized every day? Why isn’t the mayor – or any of the folks running for mayor – calling for them to resign or be thrown out of office?
Because, truth be known, the mayor and the Oregonian and everyone else hates black people just as much as Schrunk and Bradley themselves do. Because, in the final analysis, the dead guy was only a negro, and that means that his life has no value in our society. Why make a fuss?.
Thank God I live in Canada. We have our share of problems, but racisim (to the extent described)just doesn’t seem to be one of them.
I remember driving through West Virginia, stopping somewhere to eat and feed my daughter (some random little burger joint) and when I said “Thank you” to the girl (black) behind the counter, she looked shocked that I had (a) made eye contact and (b) said thank you.
Here in Houston, TX this is fairly routine.
In the last 3 months we have had 2 Hispanic
kids shot to death for Driving while Hispanic.
How about just driving your shiny little car
though the movie theater parking lot, hands on
the steering wheel. The cop tells you to pull
over and draws his sidearm( for no reason )
Then according to the cop the kid decides to
drive away and his gun goes off “accidentally”
and kills the kid.
Grand jury – no charges.
Do the racists in Oregon say ‘negro’ a lot? I was totally distracted by how many times you sarcastcially said negro, but by the end I was actually starting to worry that you’d started using the word yourself in normal conversation. *eek*
Anyway, that shooting and the resulting behavior is just so … god, I’m so sick of this shit, I don’t even know what to say anymore.
That’s why we always say nowadays you don’t wear a hood, you wear a badge.
The plural of “Negro” is spelled with an “e”, c.f. “Negroes”, and as proper nouns these terms are capitalized.
The next lesson will deal with the logic of causation vs. correlation, but one step at a time.
Lewinski, a law-enforcement professor at Minnesota State University-Mankato
Oh, good lord. That’s my alma mater.
Wow. I didn’t hear about this (though I’m on the east coast and sometimes west coast news doesn’t get to us). Oh but wait, it wasn’t really *IN* the news.
After attending a Peoples’ Institute for Survival and Beyond training (www.peoplesinstitute.org) on “Undoing Racism” institutionally, I’ve become so much more aware of each instance in which institutions in our country screw over blacks (not that I didn’t see it before).
And for some reason I thought the police in Portland were less trigger-friendly with “Driving while Black” cases.
Yep, you hit two of the main points spot-on –
1.) Schrunk did a very lazy job of examining the police witnesses in this case, not cross-examining them or pointing out inconsistencies with previous testimony.
His examination of Jason Sery (killer of James Perez) on April 30 would be embarassing in a law school litigation skills class, let alone an inquest or grand jury presentation.
2.) Nowhere did he question the stop – the inquest jury, however, put out a statement questioning that the stop wasn’t influenced by race or ethnicity. (The inquest jury, FWIW, had two Hispanic-surnamed jurors.)
The expert testimony was disgraceful – Schrunk put on a biased law enforcement expert, without a counter-expert. Action v. reaction, my ass.
My father wore a badge for a really long time, Amanda. Badges and hoods aren’t always the same thing. He’s a pretty good guy.
***
On Amp’s post: does anyone else feel that sometimes there’s no alternative in the world for assuring justice other than taking up voodoo?
I think what really sickens me is the fact that this doesn’t sicken me. That I just read this and think “Oh another case where cops get off for murdering a black guy. Ho hum.” It becomes so normal.
Grr. I really have nothing to say besides that.
Hey Wookie,
I live in Canada too, and while this may not happen to black people so often, it CERTAINLY happens to First Nations people. We can’t get too smug abotu racial shit up here.
Julia, I live within bicycle distance of a reserve, and while you hear rumors of rampant alcohol abuse and domestic violence, I’ve never HEARD of a native canadian being shot after being pulled over. If they were, it would be huge news.
I’m not saying our cops are perfect, there are racists and mysoginists (I dont’ think I spelled that right) who have failed to protect.
I believe you must be thinking of some of the protests and standoffs that have resulted in native deaths, or the case out west where apparently the cops hauled some drunk kid out past city limits (just FYI, this was winter where the temp would have been below 0 farenheight) and left him there to walk back. He froze to death, and it’s big freaking news.
In the States, it feels like its consistent and normal. THAT’S what scares me. That anyone over the age of 2 could get away with using the word nigger and not have their mouth washed out with soap, that bothers me too. I can hardly type it without feeling guilty.
Not to be overly pissy or defensive, but because racists might be attracted to the power of becoming police doesn’t mean all police are racists. However, the blue wall of silence does create a safety zone for racists. If the police departments of the country don’t want a reputation for harboring racists, well, they need to quit harboring racists.
Wookie:
Let’s drop the “we’re not racist” in Canada party line. In Toronto and Montreal, black men are routinely pulled over and harassed by cops. The Toronto Star did an exhaustive investigation into racial profiling. The police chief and union flipped out. Several unarmed men have been shot by cops. The Black Action Defence Committee was formed in 1988 by Dudley Laws to protest the shooting of Lester Donaldson. EIGHT more young men were shot within the following years.
As for native people, let’s not forget Ipperwash and the OPP’s murder of Dudley George.
welshwitch, I didn’t say “we” were perfect, I said that in Canada, it makes the news with fair consistency. I am not forgetting Ipperwash and Dudley George (alhtough I did forget his name, thank you).
It might happen here, but it IS considered news.
But wookie is right to say that race relations are worse in America than in Canada. I’m not sure if there was ever as rampant slavery in Canada, but I’m certain it was abolished before 1860. Also, let’s not forget about the Native Americans offered asylum by the Canadian government when they were being slaughtered by the US Army in the late 19th century. And that’s ignoring the past 100 years.
i think the existence of citizen police review commissions – for every city at least, for every precinct at best – may be the single most important political issue in this country, next to health care, the environment and regime change.
real, concrete public accountability for police misconduct is not only a civil rights issue, it’s a free speech issue. the cop that shoots to kill based on skin color is also free and easy with the night stick at, say, anti-war demonstrations.
it’s an example of “think globally act locally”. we can vote or agitate for whatever national or international issues we think important, but if we’re not free and safe on our own streets, if the people the state sees fit to allow to carry arms and enter our homes at their own behest are not in some way answerable to us, then little else matters.
The cliche is that a grand jury will indight (sp) a ham sandwich if asked. But anyone can mail a letter to the grand jury, on any topic. Once called, the grand jury has the power to investigate public officials, or anyone it wants.
There’s no reason activists or bloggers need to stand by helplessly while the grand jury does its thing. Reclaim it. http://www.fija.org.
I was unclear on the race angle here. Is the racial identity of the killed person the sole proof of racism; isn’t that circular?
These cops could still face federal charges and civil suits, and blogging can be an agent of getting stories into the media.
minor example: my town is full of monuments to soldiers killed here and there, but there’s no monument to innocent civilians shot by cops. we could start a fund to build a statue or garden or something to commemorate the incident. an empty fund generates almost as much press as a full one.
if you happen to have the home address of the killers, i could add them to my xmas card list.
sometimes direct action beats hoping the system works.
I am way too afraid of a negro…They are so uncivilised…Can’t we send them back to Africa?
why spend money just to send them back somewhere.
let’s just kill the bastards point blank.
Pingback: Prometheus 6
Pingback: blargblog
Pingback: blargblog
Pingback: blargblog
Pingback: blargblog
“I think the existence of citizen police review commissions – for every city at least, for every precinct at best – may be the single most important political issue in this country, next to health care, the environment and regime change.”
They can be a very important tool as long as they remain independent, have the powers to investigate and issue subpoenas and are properly funded. If possible, get them put into a city’s charter(usually by ballot initiative) to give them protection when the political climate changes, especially if governmental officials get elected that oppose civilian review. The police unions are the biggest opponants. They’ll fight you legally first, then politically through electing council members to oppose the commission.
In my city, we’ve had a commission for four years and b/c of a city council regime change, we’ve spent the last 12 months non-stop fighting to keep it. So far we’re ahead. But it’s damn hard.
Racism in Canada’s police agencies is a big problem, from B. C. all away across. And every country in this planet that was “founded” by colonizers has and will continue to have serious problems with racism. The U.S. is not necessarily a benchmark to compare yourself with, because you can be “better” and still have very serious problems.
Aw….cops and DAs…the bed gets crowded. The feds aren’t much better though. I sat in a meeting with the U.S. Attorney assigned to our area, listening to her and her staff gives us all the excuses why the cops who emptied their guns(more than once) into an unconscious black woman inside a car would never see the inside of a criminal courtroom.
I was sitting in on a friend’s meeting with some local people talking about how to act around cops, how to navigate through the system, how to put the screws in your public defender, that type of thing, and this white male teenager says during role playing how to do a traffic stop, says he talked shit to the cops all the time and all they did was ask him for his license. Well, duh. He’s white. If he were Black and did that, he’d get his butt kicked and taken to jail. It’s not the same.
In California, overall, the police make unfounded arrests of blacks four times as often as of whites. In Los Angeles, it’s seven times as often, and in the city of Oakland, it’s twelve times as often.
I’ve heard police say that they arrest blacks more often because blacks are more likely to commit crimes, as demonstrated by the higher arrest rates of blacks. I suspect the police who say this aren’t very smart.
They’re taught to do that from the beginning in the academies. Instead of racial profiling, it’s called criminal profiling as far as they see it. In my city’s agency, it’s clearly ongoing, despite the consent decree placed on the department nearly four years ago.
I work in the area of police reform so I’ve seen this attitude a lot. And if you think you’ve seen defensive, then you’ve never met a cop.
One of the side effects of the racial profiling Portland police do is that the cops completely dropped the ball to stop meth in the area.
When you’re searching black motorists routinely for drugs and not white ones, meth users get the idea that they can get away with it – and they have, to the tune a plethora of burglaries, identity thefts, and robberies. Only recently have Portland officials realized the problems with meth in the city and have started to address meth and its associated crime as the biggest public safety issue in Portland.
My region has been the meth capitol for a while, but the cops have it in their heads that a white person can only be involved with meth if they have long hair and wear it in a pony tail. I got this from the first annual stastical report on traffic stops(the study is required under the consent decree) where they listed the things they look for in drugdealers/customers. All of the things listed could have multiple explanations.
The majority of people busted for drugs are still African-American, and they are less likely to be diverted into rehabilitation(under our state’s prop. 36 law) b/c the cops tag “violent” crimes like resisting arrest and battery of police officers on them which make them ineligable. Most of the people diverted are by far, whites, both numerically and proportionately.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else in this great country. However, after reading your atricle, I feel that I must respond. Mike Schrunk is my father, but it seems that you know his thoughts better than I do (or he does, for that matter). First of all, Mike was raised by a great man and former Portland mayor, Terry Schrunk, who instilled in him a sense of morality and work ethic that few can match. Both men devoted their lives to justice and trying to keep this city a safe place to live. Furthermore, Mike was taught by his father that all people are equal, and some of my first memories of my father are hearing those words from his mouth. I understand that the high profile position he fills is under public scrutiny, and that somebody must answer to the people, but I feel that your article is unfair — particularly the paragraph stating:
“Mike Schrunk and his boss John Bradley looked at the color of the victim’s skin and said, “screw it! Blacks aren’t human; the shooting of an unarmed black person doesn’t require a trial, because black lives aren’t worth that much.” A hundred years ago Schrunk and Bradley would have gotten their rocks off participating in lynch mobs, but since they can’t have that pleasure nowadays, they have to settle for gaming the justice system to make it legal for cops to shoot blacks.”
How dare you!?
This is a man who has spent the last twenty-five years doing tremendous amounts of good for YOU and me. Your outrage over the police shootings is understandable, but to accuse a man you don’t know of racism in such ugly terms is absolutely disgusting.
Sincerely,
Matt Schrunk
Okay, so ive got a question… why does racism even exist? i am an african american, 15 year old girl who feels that the country supposedly founded on “all men are created equal” needs some help. it makes me sick to think how people could be so cold hearted. can someone please tell me why…? America should not be filled with hate and discrimination, but love and equality. c’mon people, wake up! cant we all just be friends? cant twe all see eachother as brothers and sisters and get along? At this moment, the Angels in heaven look down upon earth and Cry. its saddening, but i guess as the seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, and millenia go by, it gets better…