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.

Gun lobbyists and their minions in state legislatures want us to believe that making it legal for  people to shoot others because  they feel threatened should be called “standing your ground.” A better name would be “Kill-At- Will,” a more apt description coined by Media Matters Action Network. And those of us who oppose these dangerous laws–as well as the media– should be using that phrase.

The motivation behind  kill-at-will laws doesn’t come from a strict adherence to the vaunted Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms.” Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia—a self-proclaimed “strict  Constitutionalist”—has said that “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

So, where do “kill at will” laws come from? The key players are—no surprise—the National Rifle Association [NRA] and the American Legislative Exchange Council [ALEC].  The NRA wrote Florida’s Kill-At-Will law and bankrolled the politicians who pushed it through the legislature, making Florida the first to be a Kill-At-Will state. The NRA has been described as a “lobbying, merchandising and marketing machine that brings in more than $200 million a year.” Since the NRA’s success in getting “Kill At Will” passed in Florida, half of the rest of US states have adopted similar laws—a trend that has been abetted by ALEC, the shadowy organization that’s been working to rewrite state laws on behalf of its corporate and special-interest sponsors like the NRA.

In states with Kill-At-Will laws, the average number of “justifiable homicides” cases per year increased by more than 50% — and tripled in Florida, where the Kill-At-Will law has been invoked as a legal defense in gang fights, neighbor disputes, and road rage.

It’s going to continue to be hard to stop the weapons juggernaut in America. The gun-rights issue has proven itself to be a political winner for the right and an effective political battleground for fundraising—even though the bottom line is better for politicians and the weapons industry than it is for American families. Media Matters Action Network  [whose talking points are reflected in this post] puts it this way: “Kill-At-Will laws put everyone in the line of fire and invite people to shoot to kill. When laws let paranoid strangers gun you or your loved one down, no one is safe.”

The post “Stand your ground” is really “Kill at will” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What does it take in America when there is a senseless gun shooting for the country to say enough is enough about firearms?

In January, 2010, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot and near fatally wounded while having an open house for constituents at a small shopping center in her home district of Tucson, AZ. Six others at the event were killed by the gunfire; others were severely wounded.

In February, 2012, a seventeen-year-old boy, Trayvon Martin, was walking to his father’s home in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, just outside of Orlando. He was carrying only a bag of Skittles and a bottle of Arizona iced tea.

He was being surveyed and then followed by a “neighborhood watchman,” George Zimmerman. By Florida law, Zimmerman was permitted to carry a gun, in this case a 9 mm gun, a primary weapon of the U.S. military. While the facts are not entirely clear (and may never be so if there is not a trial), Zimmerman wound up shooting Martin in the chest and killing him.

Virtually everyone from the president of the United States to most publications have been absolutely silent about the role of guns in these incidents and the need for meaningful gun control legislation.

In the 1960s, gun violence was rampant. Four major leaders were struck down by bullets, each by a single shooter: President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Malcolm X. After each incident, there were calls for new legislation to make it more difficult for individuals to acquire handguns and rifles. The concern about guns was further raised by how they were being used in a variety of other ways from riots in American cities, a frustrating war in Vietnam, and a rising crime rate throughout the United States.

Fifty years ago, the National Rifle Association was a powerful lobby in Washington, DC and across the country. However, their strategy to prevent gun control legislation was quite different than it is now. The N.R.A. persistently made the argument that guns needed to be legal and accessible because they provided the best means of citizens protecting themselves against would-be criminals. While that argument is still used, it has largely been supplanted by the somewhat theoretical contention that the Second Amendment to the United States entitles citizens to own and carry guns. The language of the Second Amendment is vague and confusing; it has the cache of being attached to the Constitution, the core document of our democracy.

So long as incidents such as the Giffords and Martin shootings continue and the general public is silent about the means by which the injuries were inflicted, the question remains as to what we can do to harness the deadly carnage that guns are inflicting on our society. In the wake of the Trayvon Martin killing, several strong opinion makers have addressed the excess use of guns both directly and indirectly with suggestions that can be effective.

In its Monday, April 9 edition, TIME MAGAZINE concluded its article on the Martin shooting by stating, “The case will unfold slowly in court and will offer only agony to Martin’s parents. But even if Zimmerman is eventually charged, it should be Florida’s gun laws that go on trial.” It’s possible that TIME will lose some readers and perhaps even advertisers for taking such a direct swipe at Florida’s week gun laws. But the magazine’s statement breaks through the near gag-order that the N.R.A. has enforced on office holders and the mainstream press in addressing the role of guns in crime.

On Sunday, March 25, New York Senator Charles Schumer was a guest on Face the Nation. While he did not directly address the issue of gun control, he was very critical of the “stand your ground” laws in Florida and elsewhere which presumably gave Zimmerman justification for shooting Martin. Under the law, if an individual feels that his life is in danger and that he might be seriously wounded or injured, he is justified in using a gun or other deadly weapon to “defend” himself. While most of the media had focused on the particulars of the Martin – Zimmerman case, Schumer directly addressed the law that made it possible for the deadly killing to take place.

The post Gabrielle Giffords, Trayvon Martin: Why aren’t we talking about <i> the guns</i>? appeared first on Occasional Planet.