Things were looking hopeful for former NYPD officer Peter Liang. One of the jurors in his trial, Michael Vargas, was found to harbor strong anti-police feelings that were not picked up during jury selection. During the selection, Mr. Vargas denied any close family members had been involved in criminal activity. As it turned out, his father served a seven year sentence for murder. Since he was estranged from his father who has since died, he didn't consider him to be a close family member. It was also discovered that Vargas had a Facebook page with multiple postings ranting against police brutality and abuse of power. Vargas also testified that in a previous jury selection, he mentioned his father's crimes and was not chosen for that trial but he failed to mention it for Mr. Lian's jury selection.
Despite all these obvious disqualifications to participate as an impartial juror, New York State Supreme Court Justice Danny Chun somehow found that Mr. Liang received a fair trial in his conviction for manslaughter of Akai Gurley. Judge Chun stated that Mr. Vargas was "not at the top level of intelligence" and so could not have premeditated a scheme to get on Mr. Liang's trial.
What? So the judge is saying this juror is too dumb to connive his way into a trial? This is despite his acumen at using social media to propogate his anti-police viewpoints? The judge feels this guy is so unintelligent he couldn't possibly harm Mr. Liang's chances for a fair trial but his well planned Facebook postings don't matter at all? If Mr. Vargas really is so stupid, isn't that alone worth kicking him off the juror and declare a mistrial? How much does Mr. Vargas even understand of the trial if he is really as dull as the judge seems to be implying?
I suspect that Judge Chun is being unduly harsh to Mr. Liang because he is caught in a no win situation. If he overturned the conviction and declared a mistrial, he could potential start race riots in the streets. In addition, many would think that the judge was soft on the defendant because they are both of Asian nationalities. Though it obviously would not be true, it is all too easy for people to come to that racist conclusion. Ultimately it was easier for the judge to let the conviction stand and perhaps go more lenient on the sentencing next week. So Officer Liang essentially got screwed because he came before an Asian judge.
As for the black people who cheered the judge's ruling, well they just need a scapegoat for all the unarmed black people that were killed by white police officers who were never even charged with a crime. However I can't help but notice they don't remember the outrage they felt when black defendants were convicted by white jurors who harbored openly racist attitudes. If the same thing happened to another defendant of color, well that's just too bad. They are going down even if it is obvious to everybody that a juror was less than impartial. As long as somebody is convicted it doesn't matter how much injustice was served.
That's why I feel that organizations like #AsiansForBlackLives is so naive. Run by mostly young, liberal college educated Asian Americans, they can't fathom that their love and respect of black people will never be reciprocated. Black people look at them merely as curiosities, not as brothers in arms. These people need to go get meaningful jobs and discover how the real world operates.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Only White Police Officers Get Away With Murder
As if we need any more evidence that white police officers alone get away with shooting and killing unarmed people of color. In South Carolina, former police officer Justin Craven has just been given three years of probation and no jail time for killing 68 year old African-American Ernest Satterwhite.
Officer Craven was following Mr. Satterwhite, who was driving while intoxicated, weaving on the road and hitting parked cars. When the driver finally stopped in his own driveway, according to the police dashcam, Craven rushed to the drivers side door and pointed his gun through the window. Mr. Satterwhite's arm can be seen pushing the officer away. That's when Craven shot multiple times into the car. He was pronounced dead at the scene. No weapons were found in the car. His blood alcohol level was 0.15.
When prosecutors tried to charge him with voluntary manslaughter with a sentence of 2 to 30 years, the grand jury, despite the video evidence, refused to indict him. They did charge him with a lesser felony that carried a sentence of 10 years. Eventually the prosecutor settled for a misdemeanor misconduct in office charge that carries no jail time.
So this officer willfully ran up to the driver's side window of the victim and fired point blank into the car killing the driver. Contrast that with New York Police Officer Peter Liang who was convicted of manslaughter for ACCIDENTALLY firing his gun into a darkened stairwell. The bullet somehow ricocheted over multiple surfaces and angles, striking Akai Gurley in the heart TWO floors below. True Officer Liang did not render aid immediately upon finding his mistake. But neither did Officer Craven.
Is it any wonder Asians all over the country were protesting what they justifiably felt was the punitive justice heaped upon Officer Liang but not on any other police officers accused of killing a minority? Though it's wrong to wish Officer Liang had gotten away with murder, like all the other policemen, neither is it right that he was the only one convicted while officers such as Darren Wilson and Daniel Pantaleo were not even indicted by a grand jury. There can be no post-racial society in America until there is post-racial justice in America.
Officer Craven was following Mr. Satterwhite, who was driving while intoxicated, weaving on the road and hitting parked cars. When the driver finally stopped in his own driveway, according to the police dashcam, Craven rushed to the drivers side door and pointed his gun through the window. Mr. Satterwhite's arm can be seen pushing the officer away. That's when Craven shot multiple times into the car. He was pronounced dead at the scene. No weapons were found in the car. His blood alcohol level was 0.15.
When prosecutors tried to charge him with voluntary manslaughter with a sentence of 2 to 30 years, the grand jury, despite the video evidence, refused to indict him. They did charge him with a lesser felony that carried a sentence of 10 years. Eventually the prosecutor settled for a misdemeanor misconduct in office charge that carries no jail time.
So this officer willfully ran up to the driver's side window of the victim and fired point blank into the car killing the driver. Contrast that with New York Police Officer Peter Liang who was convicted of manslaughter for ACCIDENTALLY firing his gun into a darkened stairwell. The bullet somehow ricocheted over multiple surfaces and angles, striking Akai Gurley in the heart TWO floors below. True Officer Liang did not render aid immediately upon finding his mistake. But neither did Officer Craven.
Is it any wonder Asians all over the country were protesting what they justifiably felt was the punitive justice heaped upon Officer Liang but not on any other police officers accused of killing a minority? Though it's wrong to wish Officer Liang had gotten away with murder, like all the other policemen, neither is it right that he was the only one convicted while officers such as Darren Wilson and Daniel Pantaleo were not even indicted by a grand jury. There can be no post-racial society in America until there is post-racial justice in America.
Friday, April 8, 2016
White Racism Is Apparently Universal
A devastating op-ed in the Sunday New York Times. Bangladeshi-British writer Zia Haider Rahman laments his inability to integrate fully into British society. Even though he holds two British passports (he goes into why he holds two of them), doesn't speak Bengali, and has been honored in European writers' societies, he is still considered a foreigner.
When Mr. Rahman was invited to be on a panel for the Man Booker Prize, the other two judges were noted for their credentials as artists. Mr. Rahman was listed as "a Bangladeshi banker turned novelist," despite the fact that he is of British citizenry. The nationalities of the other judges were not listed.
He meets a sommelier in Amsterdam of Egyptian nationality. The sommelier confides to him that though he was born in the Netherlands and speaks Dutch fluently, he has never been accepted as Dutch by the white people.
Mr. Rahman ends with a plea, "After all, how much more can I integrate? What more is it you want from us? To be white? To be you?" The feeling of alienation and rejection by people of color is apparently equally strong on both sides of the Atlantic.
When Mr. Rahman was invited to be on a panel for the Man Booker Prize, the other two judges were noted for their credentials as artists. Mr. Rahman was listed as "a Bangladeshi banker turned novelist," despite the fact that he is of British citizenry. The nationalities of the other judges were not listed.
He meets a sommelier in Amsterdam of Egyptian nationality. The sommelier confides to him that though he was born in the Netherlands and speaks Dutch fluently, he has never been accepted as Dutch by the white people.
Mr. Rahman ends with a plea, "After all, how much more can I integrate? What more is it you want from us? To be white? To be you?" The feeling of alienation and rejection by people of color is apparently equally strong on both sides of the Atlantic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)