US police force: a centuries-long crime spree

On January 1, 2009, young Oscar Grant was killed by a transit cop in Oakland , California . While lying face down with a cop kneeling on his neck, Grant was shot in the back by another cop as a crowd of train passengers watched in horror. Grant, was an African-American; Mehserle is white. Both were in their early 20s, and both had young daughters at the time, but only one will be able to see his child grow up.

This was just one in a long string of killings by police in the US . Most of those killings are of black people, especially black men, although women and even children have not escaped this. What made this case different though was the fact that several passengers recorded the murder on the video camera of their cell phones, making it far more difficult for the police to lie their way out of what really happened. (It was reported that the police tried to confiscate the phones, but they failed.)

As a result of this and the outcry, the cop who pulled the trigger, Johannes Mehserle, was charged with murder. This was the first time in California that a cop has been so charged for an action in the course of his duty. There were four possible outcomes of this case: Guilty of second degree murder, meaning that Mehserle meant to murder Grant, but he hadn't planned it in advance; guilty of voluntary manslaughter (meaning he meant to harm Grant, but didn't intend to kill him); guilty of involuntary manslaughter (meaning the death was more or less an accident); or not guilty of any crime.

Minimal verdict

On Thursday, July 8, a jury returned a verdict of guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Thus, a police shooting of a man lying helplessly face down on the ground was considered the equivalent of a careless driver who runs through a red light and kills a pedestrian.

Immediately after Mehserle shot Grant, he turned to his partner in crime - his fellow cop - and said, "I thought he had a gun." When he filled out his written report of the event, Mehserle crossed out the place asking whether the shooting was an "accident."

Thus it was contradictory that part of his defense in his trial rested on his claim that he thought he had pulled out his "taser" to give Grant an electric shock. This claim was contradicted by the fact that he had to release four different safety mechanisms to shoot the gun. In addition, the gun was located on a different side of his body from the taser and was of a very different weight. It should also be noted that Mehserle was reported to have used his taser twice previously on that same night, making it unlikely that he was unfamiliar with where it was located on his belt. Mehserle's claim was also contradicted by another part of his defense - the claim that he thought Grant was trying to pull out a gun. If that were true, then there is no way Mehserle would have gone for his taser; he'd have intentionally pulled out his gun.

In other words, Mehserle was saying in effect, "here's my excuse, and if you don't believe it, here's a different and contradictory one. Take your pick."

The only question mark over the case was the fact that it does seem strange that a cop would intentionally shoot a defenseless man in the back in front of so many witnesses. However, even if he intended to use his taser, this was completely unjustified as Grant was completely subdued. At the very, very least, Mehserle was simply trying to brutalize a helpless young black man.

Victim put on trial

In addition to this defense, Mehserle and his lawyers sought to in effect put Oscar Grant on trial by bringing up his past, including the fact that he'd been arrested once as a juvenile. This was completely irrelevant; all that mattered was what actually happened that night on the train platform. On the other hand, what would have been relevant was Mehserle's background - whether he had a tendency towards use of violence, whether he was known to be a racist, etc. According to the laws, this was barred from being brought up. The victim can be dragged through the mud; the perpetrator's background can be kept secret - if he's a cop. This is justice American style.

It is highly questionable whether the prosecutor did everything she could to win a maximum conviction. After all, under normal circumstances they are part of the same criminal "justice" system as the police and have to work with them every day.

Jury

Then there was the jury itself. The defense can more or less ensure that there is no juror who comes from a background similar to that of Oscar Grant, including the fact that there was not a single black juror. There are huge sectors of the US population who have no first hand experience of life in America 's inner cities. All they know is what they see on TV and read in the papers. Thus, they hold all the stereotypes (often times unconsciously) of "violent criminals, gang bangers," etc., especially when it comes to young black men. They also tend to hold to the view that is presented of police as the "thin blue line" that protects them from these "dangerous" elements. The individual jurors may well have been perfectly decent people, and basically not racist, but their lack of life experience and the divisions in US society make them predisposed to let a cop off in this sort of case. In addition, the police themselves tend to be experts at giving testimony in court; they are trained in how to sit there as a witness and lie their heads off with the most convincing and sincere tone of voice.

Corporate America got what it wanted in this case. Their main newspaper in this area, the San Francisco Chronicle, had its lead editorial on the outcome on the day after the verdict. It was titled "The Right Verdict in the Mehserle Trial" and they claimed that the outcome "was an affirmation of our justice system." In other words, Corporate America knows that complete exoneration would not have been politically acceptable for many more than just black people in the US . Some sort of conviction was necessary, but it couldn't be too severe as to really alienate the police and thereby weaken the forces of state oppression.

Protests

On the day that the verdict was announced, a crowd of protesters gathered in downtown Oakland (the city where the original crime occurred). At first there were just a few police present and the protesters reportedly chased them from the scene. The police later gathered reinforcements, including hundreds of cops from surrounding cities, but their presence at the immediate scene of the protest was minimal (except for the undercover police who were assuredly present).

Democrats & union leaders

Two forces were entirely absent from the protest. The first was the Democratic Party. Some of the most liberal of the Democrats come from this area. These include Oakland 's Mayor Ron Dellums (a former national Congressman) and his replacement Barbara Lee. Also Missing in Action was any representation for the trade union movement. This is despite the fact that the United Food and Commercial Workers Union had been trying to organize the store where Grant worked and Grant might well have been a union member. But the union leaders are always subservient to the Democratic Party, especially its liberal wing. And all wings of the Democrats base themselves on the needs of Corporate America, with the more liberal wing playing the role of seeking to prevent any independent movement of the working class from developing.

At the protest, several speakers called for the establishment of a special federal prosecutor who would deal only with cases of police abuse. But this role of the Democrats means that even if such a position were established (which is highly unlikely) it would still ensure that the need for state repression goes fulfilled. Included in this need is that for repression in the communities of specially oppressed people, first and foremost black Americans.

Related issues

Many were conscious that this case comes up at a time of economic crisis. Millions are out of work and/or about to lose their home. Others are faced with a similar prospect in the near future. Meanwhile, the corporate controlled politicians are desperately trying to figure out a way to cut the already meager social welfare programs that exist in the US . (The US Senate just recently refused to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.) The forces of state repression will be using upcoming protests about this case to prepare for even larger protests and disturbances over the economic crisis. Already, various laws are being interpreted in some states to make it a crime to film a cop while on duty. Among other things, the issue of "terrorism" has been raised as an excuse.

It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but there will be no solution to this crime spree by the police outside of the movement itself. The main goal should be to bring wider layers of working class people into the streets. This call should be taken into the working class communities, the schools and work places and into the unions. It should be explained that already the police are preparing for repression on a far greater scale as the economic vise tightens. Acts of police violence, including killing, that are used today mainly against young black men will be used tomorrow against a workers' movement as a whole.

The first goal of such a wider movement should be to insist on the maximum possible prison sentence for Mehserle (who is to be sentenced in early August). A movement to imprison Mehserle for as many years as possible can be linked with the budding student movement to help build a wider movement of working class people in general. Such a movement would take up the issues of state oppression and police violence in general as well as lack of jobs, low pay, decent housing, free public education at all levels, etc.