Yesterday was the first day in the trial against Officer Jeronimo Yanez, the officer who shot and killed Philando Castile. As you may recall, Castile’s death occurred last summer during a string of police involved shootings that seemed to erupt simultaneous throughout the country. Alton Sterling had been killed only a day or so earlier. Then Castile’s girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, went live on Facebook. Her video, which quickly went viral, showed the immediate horrifying aftermath of Castile being shot as he slumps over, his white shirt covered in bright red blood, dying from the gunshot wounds.
The trauma of that week has not left me. I can still hear Ms. Reynolds’ four-year old daughter sitting in the back of the police car with Reynolds, who was handcuffed, trying to comfort her mother. Now, nearly a year later and Officer Yanez is facing manslaughter charges as well as two misdemeanors. This is the first time in Minnesota’s history that an officer is being charged for a murder caused while acting on duty. While I am very grateful that he is being charged, I must admit that I am doubtful of a just outcome.
I say this not because I am a pessimist, although I am sure there are those who would characterize me as such. Rather, I say this because I am a student of history. What history tells me is that the likelihood of a jury, especially a non-diverse jury, convicting a police officer is very low. People’s perception of police officers are seen through the lens of their personal interaction with police, or what they have seen happen with others in their community.
As my father, a civil rights attorney and former crime scene technician for the Orlando Police Department, has observed, “when police go into the white community they go there to help. When they go into the black community, often they are going there to hunt.” Therefore, the perception of the police in the black community is often vastly different than those in the white community. When this difference in perception is coupled with the exclusion of black people on the jury, what happens is that you have many jurors who have an overwhelmingly positive perception of the police and cannot conceive of them as flawed humans like the rest of us. The end result is that they are more likely to excuse their illegal behavior and acquit officers.
That is why many of the officers in notorious police involved shootings have not been convicted or indicted by grand juries. Just last week, for instance, Officer Betty___, who shot Clarence Thatcher, was acquitted. Thus, when I look at the start of the Castile murder trial, I am not hopeful, especially in light of reports that the jury panel is not very diverse.
What I see happening in this case is the perpetuation of a common racial trope: that black men are to be feared. Officer Yanez’s defense, as is every defense of these officers, is that he was afraid for his life and responded to a threat. However, when you peel back the issue, the real threat was not what these victims did, but who they were. They were black.
I am also not hopeful because I see the the perpetuation of another racial trope: the inherent criminality of black people. The Officer’s attorney wants to exclude all mention that Castile had a license to carry the gun. The defense argues that if that is allowed to come in, then it should be able to mention Castile’s marijuana use because he lied about using marijuana on his gun permit application; and so his permit may not have been lawful. That is very attenuated logic that is meant to obscure the truth and divert the issue. But more importantly it is meant to play into stereotypes of blacks that have no bearing on the case. Alarmingly, the judge seems apt to exclude the gun permit information. This means evidence of Castile having a gun may be offered to the jury without evidence that he had a permit. Even if the jury convicts the officer, it will be at what cost to the reputation and legacy of Mr. Castile? And at what cost to the perpetuation of racial tropes?
Admittedly, I do not know how the jury will rule, nor do I know what evidence will be presented to them. Even though justice was elusive for others, it may be attainable for the Castile family. The jury may see pass its preconceived notions of the police and choose to rule on the strength of the evidence. I want to believe that putting on a police uniform does not act as an impenetrable shield from prosecution when you kill an unoffending black person. I hope my prediction is wrong, but I doubt it. As a result, I do not expect justice, and neither should you.
–Until Next Time–
Palooke’s World
