BartBlog

June 6, 2010

Trouble over BART cop case?

Filed under: Guest Comment — Tags: , , , — Bob Patterson @ 4:32 pm

Early on the morning of January 1, 2009, Oscar Grant was returning home in the east bay area of Northern California. He had been out celebrating the start of a new year. While traveling on the light rail system (BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit), an incident occurred at the Fruitvale station and a BART police officer started arrest proceedings. When it was over, Grant was dead of a bullet wound in the back.

Officer Johnannes Mehserle asserts that he intended to use his taser gun to subdue Grant, and mistakenly drew his pistol instead of the taser gun. When he fired the gun, it was a mistake.

The specifics of what precisely happened, who did what, and how much resistance was the suspect offering will be topics for debate during a trial that is just starting the jury selection process in Los Angeles.

On Wednesday, June 2, 2010, while doing some radio station surfing we came across one replaying a tape, recorded the previous day in Oakland, of an activist throwing down the gauntlet saying that any violence resulting from an acquittal would have to rest on the consciences of the members for the jury.

Will Uncle Rushbo use this conflict to advance his policies or will he (and Bill O.) continue to focus their attention on the laws in Arizona? Will the trial, which was moved in a change of venue effort to lower public concern about the specifics of this unfolding story, deliver a verdict that sparks a new example of civil unrest?

Is there a possibility that an activist, such as the aforementioned one heard on the radio, might be accused of using a thinly disguised bit of extortion to achieve a stealth bit of jury tampering? Would that exacerbate a situation that is already dangerous?

There is a bit of graffiti in front of the South Branch of the Berkeley Public Library that proclaims: “Law Enforcement is a hate crime.” That would seem to be an extreme liberal sentiment, but it is an indication of local sentiment.

The conservative point of view will be to have police in riot gear standing by to maintain law and order in the hours after the verdict is read. This potential for high tension may come after the city of Oakland cuts costs by laying off police officers. The layoffs issue will be addressed later this month.

There are no predictions online concerning when the trial in Los Angeles may reach the verdict stage.

The folks who specialize in extreme conjecture (AKA conspiracy theories) will attribute all kinds of motivations for any delays in the trial’s time line. Would a bit of civil unrest, which gets saturation coverage on the cable TV news networks, be perceived as a way to influence the November election results if it occurs in mid or late October? Would some authorities be more pleased if an emotional response to the verdict occurs in late summer?

When one realizes that the resources for liberal theme talk shows are being stretched to their limits while the ranks of the conservative talk show hosts are massive, then one gets a limited idea of why a national debate about the particulars of this case might only serve to advance the conservative agenda.

Since the conservatives prefer to shape the public discourse on all levels for all topics, it might be best for liberals pundits to acquaint themselves with the particulars of Oscar Grant’s death now rather than having to do a crash course on it if and when things get out of hand. (Does Bob Herbert of the New York Times read my columns? It’s only fair because I read his.)

Obviously liberals have their hands full trying to cope with Sarah Palin, BP and the oil spill, Arizona’s illegal aliens, terrorists slipping into the USA for more than a vacation, and gun control issues, but when the liberal resources are spread so thin, that is exactly the kind of situation that he conservatives will perceive as a chance to exploit the liberals’ vulnerability due to a lack of resources to meet an additional challenge.

When one looks at the topic of right vs. left on the radio dial, images of Col. Houston drawing a line in the sand may come to mind.

A reference to the Alamo of course brings to mind the issue of immigration, which, in turn, brings us back to the dire predictions (from compassionate Christian conservatives?) of an impending wave of civil unrest before the elections.

A quick Google search indicated that the topic of the Oscar Grant trial had not been mentioned on this web site and so we thought the readers would rather get a hasty, quick take, column on it so that they can monitor the trial as it proceeds. Giving readers a heads-up now would be better than waiting until folks like Uncle Rushbo can, if the verdict displeases activists, skip over the particulars and cut to civil unrest itself as the topic of the day.

Traditionally the Republicans prefer to act and let the Democrats react. With that strategy in mind, it may be best for Democrats to read up on the case and the issues involved now rather than later.

Links for additional information on the Oscar Grant trial

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15205891?nclick_check=1

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15193890

and this one

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15239646

The trial has opened and one reporter says that: “A number of pretrial rulings by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Perry have been made in favor of the defense”

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_15230888

Meanwhile Oakland is considering laying off 200 police officers.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inoakland/detail?&entry_id=64574

Rodney King said: “Can’t we all get along?”

Now the disk jockey will play: “Wild in the Streets,” “Kung fu Fighting,” and Frankie Lane’s theme song from “High Noon,” titled “Do Not Forsake Me.” We have to go check the teletype because we just heard a four bell alert. Have a “Who saw that coming?” type week.

Powered by WordPress