Cell Phones and YouTube Usher in a New Era of Accountability
Through the eye of a cell phone camera, an outraged and shocked public witnessed the shooting death of 22-year-old Oscar Grant at a BART station in Oakland in the early morning hours of the first day of 2009. And now, as a result, a tragically common American story—young black male killed by a police officer—may be headed toward an uncommon ending: justice being served..
On YouTube, and then TV news stations that aired the cell-phone videos, viewers watched the young man apparently pleading for his life, while belly-down on the ground with one officer’s knee on his upper back or head, and another officer around his legs. That officer, without any obvious provocation, stands up, pulls out his pistol, and shoots Grant in the back.
While Bay Area activists and journalists rightfully point out that Grant’s death shows the need for oversight of the BART police—an agency that has no accountability mechanism, such as an independent auditing system—what has been evidenced by Grant’s case is the changed landscape of law enforcement accountability in a Web 2.0 era.
The narratives of officer-involved shootings usually conflict with the accounts of what supporters of the deceased report. Simple, straight-forward, and seemingly indefensible accounts, when scripted through law enforcement lawyers, become muddied with additional, subjective descriptions. “The victim was unarmed and had has back turned,” (which was the case with Grant) becomes, “He looked like he was reaching for something.” Objects such as cell phones seem like weapons in the heat of the moment. By the time grand jury testimonies are delivered, clear examples of a quick-triggered officer killing an innocent civilian get re-interpreted to validate the actions of the officer.
Every city knows the story of an Oscar Grant, and the almost automatic anti-climactic ending when the case hits the courts. The officers are found innocent, they go back to work, and the family of the victim is left without a son, father or brother. A community suffers the indignity of knowing a grave injustice has been done without any reprisal.
Such was the case of Jerrold Hall, a 19-year-old who was killed by BART police in 2001. Hall was shot in the back of the head. The basic pattern of these two case is similar: unarmed young black men with their backs turned, posing no threat to the officer. But Oscar Grant has something Hall did not: tens of thousands of witnesses worldwide.
The officer who shot Oscar Grant has still, a week after the incident, refused to give his account of the shooting. And in keeping with the pattern of officer-involved shootings, that well-vetted account, when released, will be laden with all of the legal devices to vindicate his actions. He may say he saw Grant reaching for the officer’s gun, or that he saw a metal flash around the young man’s waistband.
The videos captured by witnesses at the BART station when Grant was killed may be the saving grace for the Grant family, which has initiated a civil suit and is pressing for criminal charges against the officer. Any re-inventions of the incident that try to paint Grant as anything other than a victim will have the sizable challenge of having to contradict actual video footage.
There has been a fundamental shift since 1992, when video evidence was not enough to convict the four police officers who beat Rodney King. It was just by chance that someone was able to catch the King beating on tape in 1991. Now, it’s a likelihood that any incident will be captured on camera. And while this won’t change the legal system, it could change the decision-making process of a law enforcement officer in that critical moment.
The video-makers and YouTube producers, Karina Vargas and other unidentified civilians, have become “copwatchers”—a term referring to the activists who monitor police practices as a way to reduce law enforcement violence. That practice was a reaction by communities who felt a need to hold law enforcement accountable, pioneered by the Black Panthers in Oakland in the 1970s and later adopted by the Community Alert Patrol in San Jose in the early ’80s. The practice has taken off internationally in recent years after its resurrection in Berkeley.
But while “copwatch” was previously defined by a smaller group of dedicated activists, today it is intregrated into public life as a result of technologies such as cell phones and YouTube—and the consequential social impulse to record, load and share.
In a world likely unimaginable by those who started the practice, everyone on the street is now a potential copwatcher. The impact of such a possibility means that regardless of the how this particular case plays out, BART police officers will know that they can become a YouTube star in a heartbeat for being overly aggressive, violent or lethal. Lives may literally be saved from the communication potential of our 2.0 reality.
In addition, with voters here approving another sales tax for BART, they will also be buying in to the culture and issues of BART police and security. To that end, other questions need to be asked of BART by the public – and Raj in particular – in regards to the shooting:
* Who oversees BART police when controversial shootings like this occur? Is there a Review Board for such incidents, and who sits on this board? Citizens? Law enforcement? Are their decisions final, or can they be overruled by the BART Board of Directors?
* What jurisdiction does BART police currently have (if any) besides the stations?
The following story from the San Francisco Bay Guardian gives one an idea of BART’s police culture and its accountability the South Bay will soon be a part of, with BART coming here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/40171
It might enhance Raj’s career – and Metro’s reputation – to do a joint report with the Bay Guardian on how accountable BART police is now, versus what it was in 1992. It would certainly educate and empower the public – especially in the South Bay – on who will be helping to secure BART and its future stations here.
At least taser deaths involve cops who unwittingly inflict more damage than they know. It is an attempt to quell the situation without much harm. This case, however, is just shocking. I have no idea what that cop was thinking when he pulled out his gun.
I know people will rip on Raj for his continued coptalk, but this case is easily deserving of the scrutiny.
While this event is unquestionably tragic and (apparently) unlawful, it is sheer lunacy to indict all Bart Officers because of it. With numerous arrests made each week—if I follow the “logic” here—there then should be several attempts to discharge weapons and injure arrestees by officers. This is not the case at Bart. No officer goes to work hoping to kill a fellow citizen. The psychological weight of injuring another innocent human can be overwhelming.
This surface level analysis hit piece reeks of of anti law enforcement bais.
Oh, how nice, swank on Kathleen for defending the police. How brave of you.
Can we get you a job on the force for one day??
Ps, next time some bald headed punk with tatoos is holding a knife on you in your home while your family is watching in horror, we will send the nice cops to help.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#3,#4-Eugene Bradley, EXCELLENT points! Thank you!
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Grant family and friends. This is such a tragedy, one that should never have happened. My hope is that the Mayor continues his push to have a real investigation into what happened here, and that the protestors stop harming innocent people by bashing in the windows of businesses, the windows of cars, starting fires in dumpsters, and innocent people’s cars, punching news people in the chest, and interfering with traffic, and the train station. There is absolutely no excuse for acting like thugs, hurting innocent people, and taunting the Police into violent exchanges. The horrific death of Oscar Grant is bad enough; no one else should have to die in a senseless manner to make a point that things need to change.
I have seen many cell phone versions of happened, and few facts about why Oscar Grant was confronted by the Police in the first place. The ONLY fact I’ve been able to find is that the Police were called out because there was some kind of brawl on the train. Before I make a decision about this case, I’m going to wait until I hear the findings of the investigation. If the findings don’t match up with the facts, I’ll join in the outrage by sending a letter to the appropriate authorities, and work with any Civil Rights Group that seekers change through legal recourse. Resorting to violence doesn’t change anything it only makes things worse, and innocent people will get hurt, and that is unacceptable.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11401111?source=most_viewed
Rowen said,
“Ps, next time some bald headed punk with tatoos is holding a knife on you in your home while your family is watching in horror, we will send the nice cops to help”
No actually you won’t. I just say “son go to bed your drunk”.
Piece out!
Although most people are calling what happened on that BART platform a tragedy, many of them, Raj included, are treating it not as an incident to be mourned, exposed, and brought to justice, but as a bonanza—something to be exploited for financial gain and serve preexisting political agendas.
Though a young black man was shot and killed by a police officer, this case is not about age, gender, race, or the lawful use of deadly force; it is, instead, about the inevitability of human error—in this case a gross error made by a human being under considerable stress. As is made clear by the videos, the officer’s posture before firing the shot was one that was consistent with the controlled use of non-lethal force (there was no evidence of his alerting his comrades of a life-and-death threat), and his immediate reaction after firing the shot was one of shock and dismay (as evidenced by his hands-to-the-face, “what have I done?” recoil). It was a reaction that was too natural and reflexive to have been faked, one hard-wired into us by nature, and one consistent with one of only two possibilities: either his firearm discharged unintentionally or he mistook his pistol for his Taser.
In either case it was an inexcusable error, one for which responsibility begins and ends with the officer himself. That his error took the life of another is tragic, but fatal errors are made every day by drivers operating motor vehicles, workers handling machinery, or people caring for children, and the fact that this case involves a police officer does not add any additional elements to the equation of accountability. It is exactly what it is, a tragic error in which the negligence of one took the life of another.
In other words, it was an accident.
I can almost hear the cop-haters screaming. “AN ACCIDENT! BULLSHIT! This was murder!… the cops are racists!… they’re killing our young black men!” Oh, the passion, the certainty, the hate. The chance to roast a cop makes the mouth water. The opportunity to condemn and disparage an entire police force is too good to pass up. To them this killing is not a tragedy, it is an opening, a chance for the malcontent and maladjusted to win the oversight they need to take control of local police departments; a chance for the tattooed, pierced, and unproductive minority to gain, through mob rule, the political relevance heretofore reserved for the educated and accomplished. Their true feelings were there on display in Oakland last night: the joy of anarchy, the elation of destruction, the unifying power of hatred. The savagery was as ugly as it was revealing.
This is not the first time a Bay Area police officer accidently shot a person of color; I recall a case two decades ago involving a CHP chase in which a local cop, riding along with his CHP buddy, accidently shot a Mexican-American in the head with a shotgun. The case was full of similarities: chaotic incident, minority proned-out at gunpoint and shot unintentionally. But the similarities of the incident stop there, because the race element was neutralized by the officer’s own claim to minority status. The outrage after the incident was considerable, but it was outrage aimed at the officer’s negligence, not the color of his skin.
Raj wants us to focus on skin color because his relevance depends on racism. John Burris wants us to focus on skin color because it will sweeten his payday. The media wants us to focus on skin color because it increases ratings. But it is that focus that unnecessarily increases tension in the street, emboldens the lawless, and promises to subvert the course of true justice in this case.
I can’t wait to hear Kathleen, Dave, steve and the rest of the cop apoligists defend this cowardly act. I sure the brave cop is the victim here.
The Metro reporter was lucky this didn’t happen to him a few weeks ago!
Amongst several questions that BART officials (particularly the police) need to make public as soon as possible:
* What was the reason BART police were called to the Fruitvale station in the first place? A robbery? Fare evasion? Or other crime in progress?
* What lead those officers to target Oscar Grant as a criminal suspect? Was it the way he walked away or the way he addressed the officers? Was it even how he dressed?
* What is BART police procedure in handling criminal suspects?
Having these answers can help the general public better understand what went on at Fruitvale on New Year’s Day.
For what it’s worth, it’s being reported the officer who fired the shots resigned.
Where are the indignant protesters for the 90% of black homicides that are committed by other blacks? What makes that number so acceptable to the black community? Why doesn’t Raj call for people with cell phones to turn them on the black suspects killing other blacks and putting them on U Tube? Is that too politically unacceptable? Would that do too little to further his own agenda and stir the pot? This was a tragic accident for everyone involved based on human error. The officer had no motivation for this killing; he in many ways destroyed his own life also that day too. The vast majority of police officer are good, decent, men and women, and one tragic accident does not change this. It does however, give those that hate the police a chance to cry, “I told you so”, and to justify their own lot in life.
Finfan:
Why are you frustrated?
The first couple of days of the media coverage of the riots in the streets of Oakland described the “protesting” this death. They refused to call the reaction what it was—a riot. Later, a few begrudgingly called the reaction of the mob—burning dumpsters, overturning police cars, breaking the windows of the stores in the area, and stealing from them—a “violent protest”.
It was a riot, not a protest. One look at many of the participants made it quite clear they were simple thugs. Several wore masks, a-la middle eastern rioters. Many probably didn’t even know Mr. Gates. It was just an excuse to stir up a little shit. Mr. Gates was just an excuse.
At least his mother knows the difference between protesting and rioting. To her great credit, in the midst of this tragedy to her and her family, she took the time to implore the rioters to stop.
Rajie:
I hate to admit this, especially as your mama, but your logic and writing SUCK. You are such a KISS A$$ for the lefty cop/military/ hate-mob that I am embarrassed.
Since you know so much better, and by your logic, ALL POLICE are bad and mean, never call 911 ever again. And don’t call me. Your mama can’t bail your little butt out anymore…
Black man shot by police an all too common story? You IMPLY that ALL of these shooting were somehow tainted or wrongful. Have you ever considered that it is 99% probable that each of these stories was highly scrutinized to assure that they were lawful and in accordance with rules/regs?? Is it possible that officers in these “all too common story” shootings may have saved a life ? You would do yourself and this site a service and add a measure of credibility it you were more objective. As it is you have become a TOOL of the far-left, anti-police crowd. This GREATLY reduces your work and renders your message to damaged goods at best.