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.
No comments:
Post a Comment