The Jan. 1, 2009 headlines said: “22-year-old, unarmed black man fatally shot by BART police.” For too many Americans, it was just another example of—choose your cliché from the list—[police brutality] [urban crime] [gun violence] [New Year’s Eve drunkenness] [racial profiling] [rowdy teenagers getting in trouble..again].

The headline gave the surface view. The stereotypes in the list kicked in immediately. In reality, we found out in the days that followed, the incident was some of the above, all of the above, and none of the above.

That’s what the newly released movie, “Fruitvale Station” makes you think about. In telling the story of the last day in the life of Oscar Grant, “Fruitvale Station” avoids clichés and hype, hewing closely to the events leading up to Grant’s death, handcuffed, lying on his stomach on the BART station floor, and shot in the back at point-blank range by an overzealous, or confused, or panicked, or racist [choose your descriptor] transit cop.

It’s not a “true-crime story,” in the usual sense—the ones that are ostensibly “ripped from the headlines” and then embellished with outrageous special effects and plot twists.  Nor is it a superhero story. There are no car crashes, heroic rescues, exploding bombs, severed body parts, or slo-mo shots of bullets. Rather, it’s the straightforward story of one troubled young man, trying to put his life back together for the sake of his girlfriend, his mother, and the four-year-old daughter he adores.

What we see in this movie—as opposed to the typical American blockbuster—is Oscar’s humanity, the complexities of his circumstances, and the pressures closing in around him. He’s multi-dimensional—not just a “punk,” as he might be stereotyped by his prison record—and not a punk transformed into a saint. He makes some bad choices. He has trouble controlling his anger. But he’s warm, tender and involved in the details of his daughter’s life [in one scene, he fixes her hair]. He wants to do better, but turning things around is complicated.

In other words, Oscar Grant is portrayed as a person, not a type.

Watching this powerful, emotionally wrenching story unfold, with its simply told, up-close feel and dialogue that sounded spontaneous and authentic, I couldn’t help thinking about my own prejudices and stereotyped views of “criminals,” “victims,” and people who are culturally different from my own white-bread expectations.

And, of course, it made me think about Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman and my own—possibly prejudiced and stereotypical—reactions to each of them and to the equally tragic story that played out in Sanford, Florida.

I highly recommend that you see “Fruitvale Station.” It will open your mind, and your tear ducts.

The post “Fruitvale Station:” Check your stereotypes at the ticket counter appeared first on Occasional Planet.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan recently wrote a piece about how a cross engraved on the pitcher’s mound at Busch Stadium “gave him an uneasy feeling.” He didn’t say it was wrong; it just didn’t feel right to him.

I imagine that there are a lot of people who have similar feelings about the George Zimmerman verdict. The not guilty verdict may have been legally correct, but something felt wrong about letting Zimmerman walk free (although in all likelihood he will face civil charges). Zimmerman was the instigator of the conflict by choosing to chase Trayvon Martin who was walking home from the store where he bought some Skittles and an iced tea. While it is likely that once the verbal and physical conflict began Trayvon Martin gained the upper hand, this never would have happened had Zimmerman not decided to engage Martin for reasons that are still difficult to fathom. If this had been a playground scuffle and no lethal weapon had been involved, it’s quite possible that a teacher would have sent both George and Trayvon to the principal’s office. Both parties were guilty to one extent or the other and in all likelihood both of them would have been suspended.

In the trial, where was the “suspension” or some other consequence for Zimmerman? Clearly Martin paid the ultimate price, losing his life. How could Zimmerman walk? Basically because in many ways the American judicial system does not work.

Here are three short reason why our legal system is not deserving of being held in the highest regard.

1. We have an adversarial system of law. Neither the prosecution nor the defense has “finding the truth” as a primary goal. Each wants to prove its points regardless of whether or not they have anything to do with what actually happened. Mediation is used in many sectors of our society; it would be worthwhile to try to integrate it into our system of criminal law.
2. Our laws are not engraved in stone nor are they worthy of being so. Take a look at who is making our laws. At the state level many of them have limited education (which is not a crime in itself), but they’re clearly not that bright. And yet the laws that they craft are viewed part of “a nation of laws.” When John Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court don their “vanity robes,” they show us all the trappings of a system that may have been delivered to us by a supreme being. The Supreme Court makes no effort to introduce common sense and the truth about what happened into their consideration. Whether it was Zimmerman or O.J. walking, the system failed and all we get is anger and laughter. We need to look at our laws as a hodgepodge of just and unjust mandates. Common sense cannot forever be a bystander to what happened; it must be a primary consideration.
3. Society itself is never on trial. If a boy is found shop-lifting in a grocery store, he may well be charged with a crime. Obviously he did something wrong. But if he comes from a very poor family, particularly one that lives off food stamps (which may soon be eliminated for even the poorest of families), the boy pays a price and the society that looked the other way when he and millions of others like him need something as basic as food, gets off scot-free. Maybe the legislators who deprived individuals of a basic human right such as freedom from hunger should be the ones standing trial for criminal behavior.

Before the Zimmerman trial began, it should have been obvious that Zimmerman was guilty of wrong-doing and Martin possibly was as well. Maybe Zimmerman did not commit pre-meditated murder, but his poor judgment had serious consequences for another member of our society. We need a system that does not simply let him walk.

The post The gap between what’s legal and what’s just appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, sending justice back to the drawing board, that’s exactly where political cartoonists went. Here are visual commentaries that reflect my reactions exactly.

[cincopa A0MAVNbf8Bpa]

The post Zimmerman not-guilty verdict: Commentary by political cartoonists appeared first on Occasional Planet.

June 17 will mark the 39th anniversary of the infamous Watergate break-in by robbers and schemers sympathetic to President Richard Nixon. A security guard named Frank Wills was essential to foiling the plot. His judgment and techniques were far superior to those of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood guard who killed Trayvon Martin in February 2012.

Wills saw and heard suspicious activity in the Watergate Tower, which  housed the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters 1972. Doors were unexpectedly, repeatedly opening and closing. Lights that should have been off were suddenly being turned on, and then off; only to be followed by the glow of flashlights.

What grabbed Wills’ attention was the tape that was used to attempt to keep the locks on the door pried open. Back in May, there had been two other break-ins. They had been successful, if not particularly productive, because the black electrical tape was placed vertically over the locks. For that reason, there was no hint of the tape stretching around the lock and being visible to an observer. This time, the four Cuban robbers, along with former CIA employee James McCord, put the tape horizontally around the locks.

Wills noticed this. He did not try to be a hero by taking on a band of robbers. He didn’t even try to corner any of them. Instead, he called the Washington, DC police, as were his instructions, and informed them of the peculiar behavior. The DC police immediately sent an unmarked

car with undercover police officers to the Watergate. Wills, who had gone to the lobby, let them in and the officers went to the 5th floor, the site of the unusual behavior. They called for reinforcements and arrested the five burglars. Shortly thereafter, it became known that Nixon “black bag” tricksters Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy were across the street in the Howard Johnson’s Hotel, guiding the break-in through their walkie-talkies. They knew trouble when they saw it.

Like the DC police, the Sanford, FL police instructed the security guard, in this case George Zimmerman, to back off of his suspect, in this case Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman failed to follow the orders. While it’s not entirely clear what took place initially between Zimmerman and Martin, we do know that Zimmerman took out a gun and shot Martin in the chest, almost point blank. It instantly killed him.

Zimmerman was looking for trouble; Wills was looking to avoid it. Wills was a trained guardsman; Zimmerman was a loose cannon. The upshots of both incidents were rather predictable. Wills became a hero, although not very well known. But his conscientiousness led to the resignation of a corrupt president. Zimmerman became a reckless individual on the fringe of law enforcement. His actions led to a cold-blooded murder and himself being charged with second-degree murder. Too bad that neither Zimmerman nor the Sanford police didn’t know the story of Frank Wills. Trayvon Martin would probably be alive, and Zimmerman would be a solid citizen living a semi-peaceful life.

The post Frank Wills [Watergate,1972 ] vs. George Zimmerman [Florida, 2012] appeared first on Occasional Planet.