Some would ask where Oakland might get the funds to conduct a comprehensive program. They should know that City Attorney John Russo has spent probably about 1/2 million on his bound-to-fail injunction program; that should be added to the Measure Y $3 million/yearly and coordinated with the Alameda County funding of services to the same population and to the Non-profit Foundation funding meant to accomplish the same thing in a coordinated way. The problem is - almost never - a lack of money: most of the time the problem is priorities. Is the priority do the thing that has the best chance of solving the problem or do something over and over again that does not work but makes politicians look good in the eyes of an ignorant public.

There's a bunch of inaccurate stuff in Mr. Riles' piece.

First, the standard of evidence in the Gang Injunction cases in Oakland is not "a preponderance of the evidence". The standard is "Clear and Convincing Evidence".

Second, the references to Jim Crow, Apartheid, and other racial profiling implications are wildly overblown and irrelevant to Oakland's Gang Injunction.  

John Russo specifically asked the American Civil Liberties Union to come into his office and offer input into what they thought was wrong with Gang Injunctions.  The biggest objections the ACLU had were: improper process serving, naming of groups and not individuals, and targeting youth.  

Russo's injunction addressed every one of those concerns raised by the ACLU. Oakland's Gang Injunctions do not name gangs, they name specific individuals within gangs, so you can't get stopped under this injunction for being in the wrong place and wearing the wrong color.  Your name has to be on a list.  (in southern Cal gang injunctions, this was not the case). You also have to be served by a process server (again, in SoCal, this was not required).  And no-one under 18 has been part of Russo's injunctions, and he says he will never allow that to happen.

In short, John Russo is attempting (and seemingly succeeding) in creating a gang injunction that is more sensitive to civil rights than any other injunction has ever been.  He targets individuals with multiple pieces of evidence against them.  The injunction in Oakland is most easily likened to a group of civil restraining orders, which are normal and completely constitutional.  

Lastly, I want to reiterate that I think the allusions to Jim Crow, George Bush and Apartheid are ridiculous and unfortunate.  

In this current election cycle, Russo is the ONLY active law enforcement official in California to endorse Prop 19, which would legalize Marijuana.  He also endorsed Vicki Kolokowski for Judge - Ms. Kolokowski would be the first Transgendered judge in the entire US.  John Russo is not the fascist you're looking for if that's what you seek, Mr. Riles.

max, what, exactly, is your problem?

you seem to be confusing your opinion with fact.

if i recall correctly, you came out in support of Todd Mehserle, who argued that no police officer issued a gun should be held accountable for their actions, even if they result in deadly force.

now THAT's ridiculous and unfortunate.

i think Wilson makes some salient, well-thought out points which hint at a need for deeper reflection, not to mention policy change which goes beyond band-aid solutions. also, he didn't call Russo "fascist," you did.

what he actually said was, Russo is a "person implementing policies that speak... to their political aspirations." hard to argue with that assessment.  and i also dont see what Russo's support of a transgendered judicial candidate and prop. 19 have to do with gang injunctions whatsoever.

,

As Michelle Alexander says so well in her book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Era of Colorblindness, you can know racism and discrimination by its effects. The Supreme Court is struggling with this: what do you do when the result is tragically discriminatory but you can’t prove intent. The Jim Crow laws (most of them) said little about targeting blacks. They talked about vagrancy, disrespect, spitting on the sidewalk, etc. However, they were overwhelmingly enforced only against blacks. The combination of general cultural prejudice and ignorance and the facilitation of this by - on their face - legislation and laws that are prejudicially neutral but wrong headed as a means to solve the consequences of poverty and mis-education. Jim Crow and Gang Injunctions are father and son. They will never be enforced against the mostly white Hell Angels chapter in East Oakland.

I give due credit to the ACLU and John Russo's respect for their opinion in mitigating some of the mechanisms in prior gang injunctions that civil rights groups have been the most critical of. Yes, the civil trial was held up so that notices could be sent to the individuals to be listed. However, due to the nature of their lives, inability to secure affordable counsel, etc. they were never served or did not respond. The Court was satisfied with this effort. John was satisfied with his effort. The ACLU was not. Only one of the listed persons in the North Oakland Gang injunction had the where with all to have a lawyer represent him and still his case has not been resolved. In the mean time his life has been in turmoil. These are folks who have served their time in jail according to present law. The Gang Injunction places them in a kind of 'house arrest' for something they might do in the future.

John frequently sites the 'restraining orders' for situations of domestic violence. This is an improper comparison because there is evidence of domestic violence actually having been committed for which there has been no redress. The 'wife's' face is actually bruised and no one but the husband could have likely done it. The restraining order is the beginning of a moment of separation so that the two parities can resolve their differences or formally split up. Restraining orders are useless if there is no process of resolution that follows its implementation. There is a valid comparison here but it is not the one that John would like. Any thing like a gang injunction has no chance of working unless it is combined with some real opportunities for looking at the root causes of violence in the community and in individuals lives and the availability of jobs, education, and real rehabilitation.

Sending gang members back to the jails where they become more hardened gang members makes no sense.

John, why are we arguing about 'the arrangement of the deck chairs' on a flawed program? You said to me in your office that you did not know if the North Oakland Injunction program would actually work to reduce crime and violence any better than the many previous injunctions had not done in other cities. You could not point to one reason why it would work better to reduce crime and violence. You said you hoped it will. That's not good enough for the expenditure of more the 1/2 million dollars and the prospect for more expenditure and the potential waste of thousands of hours of City staff time. It is just not good enough.

 I bet that you did not even read the Yale Law School article I sent you and you certainly did not read Michelle Alexander's book. I may not have used the correct legal terms or kept up with the latest wrinkles you have added to cover your A.. but there is no denying that accept for a flawed - social scientist say it is flawed - study every other evaluation says that there is no reason to believe that gang injunctions reduce crime. Why are you doing this? Let’s do something that we know will work.

Wilson

Eric,

First of all, Mehserle's name isn't Todd.  

Second of all, you're grossly misconstruing my words about officer involved shootings. I never said anything like what you imply I said.  

In fact, for the record, I first thought that the involuntary manslaughter verdict was appropriate for Mehserle, and later I decided, after listening to John Burris, that voluntary manslaughter might be appropriate.  

As for the "fascist" comment, I was responding to Mr. Riles attempt to associate Mr. Russo's injunction with Jim Crow, Apartheid, George Bush, and the like.  Those comparisons are wildly overblown and I maintain that injecting that rhetoric into the discussion is little more than a distraction.  

Oakland is is not Johanessburg of the '80s or Birmingham of the '50s.  We have a long long way to go on our path to an equitable society.  I absolutely acknowledge that.  Part of the way we can get there is to avoid wildly hyperbolic analogies like some of Mr. Riles' rhetoric.  

In that spirit, I point to Mr. Riles' response to my comments about the ACLU's engagement with John Russo.  I disagree with some of his points, but I have a lot of respect for the direct engagement that he gave me in his response.  In that paragraph, he is actually talking about the policy he questions.

Also, there's a pretty good article about this issue in the Oakbook right now, where John Russo actually gets to explain his reasoning and does a pretty good job of it:

http://www.theoakbook.com/MoreDetail.aspx?Aid=4195&CatId=10

Max, you might be interested to know that there are MORE African American males in jail, prison, on parole, and/or probation THAN THERE WERE African American males IN SLAVERY in 1850!

This is not at all "wildly hyperbolic analogies" and "rhetoric." This is a lot of peoples' lives and huge effects on families into the next generation. Many of those individuals and families are in Oakland.

It is - exactly - the misapplication of police, court, and prison resources that are at the heart of this. I hope you and John are not one of those people who believe that criminality is in black folks' DNA or culture! Michelle Alexander points out in her book the role of the War on Drugs in getting us to this point. Even though whites used/use drugs at an equal or greater extent than do blacks, it was poor blacks that ended up incarcerated because of the Southern Strategy of the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan. This political strategy is rooted in slavery, the Civil War, and its aftermath: Jim Crow. The Yale Law Journal article speaks to the direct legislative and legal practice links.

I am speaking from real history, facts, and things that I know; I am not speaking out of a point of view of rhetoric. Out of what perspective are you speaking?

Max, the article about Russo's view actually talks a lot about his hope for the injnctions, but very little about what they have quantatively accomplished.

http://www.theoakbook.com/MoreDetail.aspx?Aid=4195&CatId=10

Isn't this just another exchange of *views*?  I am concerned when people hold up others opinions as facts because they are close to their own views (opinions).

Mr. Riles, I have to address your comment which begins with "I hope you and John are not another one of THOSE people".  My response is that I hope you are not another one of those people who thinks that saying such blatantly race-baiting things does anything whatsoever to further reasonable discourse.  

Frankly, I'm dissappointed that a former Councilman and mayoral candidate would stoop to that kind of off-hand baseless attack.  It is beneath your station, sir.  Shame on you.

Your repeated history lesson is, in a way, relevant to this injunction.  It helps explain the fervent reaction to the injunction among some members of our community.

The history happened.  I agree with you.  The history of the oppression of blacks by whites and by the establishment is an atrocity that we should not forget.  This is not anything that any reasonable person would contest.  Nor would any reasonable person suggest that America has completely recovered from this inequity.  America has not recovered.

Where we seem to differ is on this crucial point:  I do not believe that Mr. Russo's injunction is a contributor or a part of the terrible history that you keep reminding me of, Mr. Riles.  

John Russo was approached with a proposal from Chief Batts for a gang injunction which would have allowed the police to select suspected gang members in ways which would ultimately have amounted racial profiling.  The proposal also may have allowed citizens to be subject to the injunction without proper notice from a process server. 

Mr. Russo, to his credit, looked at the civil liberties issues surrounding gang injunctions, and created a new form of injunction that fixes these issues.  Those affected by the injunction are not selected because of race or because of culturally linked fashion, or because of youth.  They are selected because of criminal activity. 

The only reason this is any different from a civil restraining order is that the city files it, not the neighbors.  And the main reason for that is that the neighbors are too scared to file a restraining order, so the city does it for them.  The standards of proof are high, and Mr. Russo has said that he's been highly selective with who's included and who's not, because he's decided that it's in the City's best interest only to apply this injunction in cases where he is confident he can not lose in court.

This is a step away from the history that you seem to think I don't know about or care about, Mr. Riles.  These sanctions are placed on people for their deeds, and nothing else.  This is a part of moving forward.

Max, to refresh your memory, i'm referring to your comment on another hyperlocal site's comment board.

the context was that during the course of one week, KTVU ran two sympathetic profiles on Johannes Mehserle, one with an anonymous family friend, and another with Todd Mehserle, Johannes' father. The Grant family was not asked for their reaction. and this was the first time, according to KTVU, that they had ever run a sympathetic profile of a convicted killer.

In any event, here's what you said:

"There’s nothing inappropriate about Mehserle mounting the best legal defense for himself that he can. That’s his right as a citizen.'

ok, fair enough, though ordinary citizens dont have access to hundreds of thousands of dollars via police legal defense funds, which pays for "expert witnesses" and other luxury items.

You go on:

"There’s nothing inappropriate about someone involved in a legal case going to the media to tell their story. The Grant family did so. John Burris did so. Mehserle’s family is entitled to do so."

actually, Johannes Mehserle didn't go to the media. He did release an "apology" note through his lawyer, which was widely criticized as being self-serving. Oscar Grant, it might be pointed out, was not able to tell his side to the media personally, since Mehserle shot and killed him.

Also, right here, you are clearly voicing support for Todd Mehserle, who did question whether law enforcement officers should be held accountable for their actions whatsoever. Here's Todd Mehserle's statement, which is problemztic at best: " it's a very, very slippery slope when we start to send people to work with guns and not only civilly convict them, but criminally."

By siding with the Mehserle family, you are supporting an opinion that anyone who is issued a firearm in a professional context should not be held accountable in criminal or civil courts for their actions, even if they result in death from the use of force. Maybe you didnt think this all the way through, but that's the implication.

You also wrote:

"And there’s nothing inappropriate about humanizing Mehserle. Mehserle has been demonized by many far left voices. Those same far left voices were among those who seek to humanize folks like Stanley Tookie Williams. Williams was a human being who made mistakes. Mehserle is also a human being who made a mistake. Why shouldn’t we treat him as such?"

It's a low blow and way out of context to even reference Williams, who was a gangbanger who rehabilitated himself while in jail, wrote children's books, spoke out against gangs and violence, yet was denied clemency and eventually executed over the objections of the ACLU and community activists. As far as i know, Johannes Mehserle has never written a book, nor spoken out against police violence, so it's uncelar why you would even make this comparison.

Furthermore, characterizing Mehserle's action as a mistake--essentially his defense's argument--dehumaizes his victim, Oscar Grant.

Moving on, you also said, "And how is it inappropriate for a news outlet to try to tell a story from an angle that hasn’t been used before?"

Hmm...ok, so the Nightstalker and the Trailside Killer should be entitled to sympathetic profiles, simply because its a novel angle for media? boy, that is twisted thinking.

finally, you took a shot at community activists who were jsutifiably upset at KTVU's one-sided attempt to influence public opinion:

"What I see as inappropriate is that community leaders are up in arms about a story that is at it’s core an attempt at empathy. Empathy is the single most important trait for a community leader to have."

So, reading between the lines, you are basically saying the justice movement for Oscar Grant is "inappropriate."

Taken together with your narrow-minded attack on Wilson Riles, your cheerleading for the gang injunction--which will likely result in more deaths of innocent kids mistaken for gang members and resulting million-dollar wrongful death suits--and your pooh-poohing of serious topics like Jim Crow and apartheid, it seems like, if we're going to bandy about the F-word, maybe we should start with you.

I don't know you, Max. But i'm aware that you have long had a contentious relationship with the African American community in Oakland. After reading your comemnts, and analyzing the implications thereof,  it's not hard to see why.

i'd just like to add that while Oakland is not Johannesburg, gang injunctions can be seen as a type of apartheid--essentially guaranteeing a police state for some residents in some areas, while other residents in other areas arent subject to the same type of harrassment and profiling. As i see it, that's the core of Riles' argument.

Max, it may behoove you to study up a bit on the history of apartheid as well as the term "police state" before accusing anyone (other than yourself) of hyperbole. You may also want to examine the fact that tough-on-crime measures, such as Prop. 21 and the three-strikes law, have not resulted in a decrease in crime or gang violence, but they have meant an exponential increase in incarceration rates for young black and brown males.

What i find troubling is that police misconduct seems to be a daily occurrence in Oakland, and it is clearly an ongoing problem, as the Riders case a decade ago should have made plain. In that context, gang injunctions could ultimately do more harm than good. and at best, they are a band-aid which don't address the root causes of crime in our communities.

Mr. Allstadt,

First, let me say, up front, that there is another issue related to the gang injunction that must be raised: the injunction will also have a negative impact on house values and house selling in the injunction area: real estate disclosure laws require sellers to inform buyers about Neighborhood noise problems or other nuisances. This would clearly qualify because the neighborhood nuisance argument is Russo’ principle argument to the Civil Court.

Sir, I appreciate your civility in your posts. You and I are having a most difficult discussion. The discussion about race in the United States is too rarely heard at all, yet alone with civility. However, it must be engaged if we are ever going to make inter-relations progress. In South Africa they held the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to get on the same page around the history and present-on-going consequences of Apartheid. Some criticize the Commission process because the economic inequities that were recommended have never been addressed. That is the main reason why blacks in South Africa continue to struggle as if they were still under Apartheid.

Here in the US with slavery and the terrorism of Jim Crow too many assume that there is no need to talk about and especially no need to work out recommended changes in our economic systems or other institutions to correct for the still-on-going negative impacts. Congress Member Conyers' bill to scientifically study those impacts and on-going corrections that must be made is prevented from coming up for even Congressional debate. Not even an official governmental apology - which was given to Hawaiians, the Japanese, etc. - is allowed because it will put the government into a position of admitting its wrongful actions against African Americans and thus liable for a law suit for a claim of compensation for lives lost and lives destroyed for generations.

In a number of things you are saying you seem to be among those who believe that racial discrimination is largely behind us. You seem satisfied that the laws against overt, conscious discrimination suffice for making things largely all right. Most of those who believe this also believe that the poor conditions still present in the black community are mainly due to black DNA and/or culture. They believe that if blacks just would work hard and conform to "American" conventions, they would be doing as well as any body else.

I asked my question because a person that believes that is not reachable without the sharing of a lot of history and social psychology. To reach those folks I usually point out two things: (1) the "purist" white folks in the US in terms of DNA and culture are the hillbillies of Appalachia; they are alcoholics, perpetrators of domestic violence, drug users, and criminals; this condition is due to long-term, persistent poverty and hopelessness and institutions that are biased against them even though they are white. (2) one of the most consistent high scoring schools in California is in Baldwin Park in L.A.; the school is in a long standing middleclass black community. These conditions that exist today, therefore, must be due to institutional bias and un-redressed history.

I asked my question to clear this issue out of the way. Often folks who truly believe in this DNA/culture explanation are reluctant and afriad to put it forward. I for one am not afraid to discuss it with a civil person. And I feel no shame in bring it up to you and John. This was not race-baiting. Some whites are so very afraid to be called racist that you can not talk to them about race. I was raised as a male chauvinist; most males are so raised in Western culture. When I step across that line, I appreciate it when some one points it out so that I can clarify my understanding. Holding in guilt is one of the worst things you can do for your psychological health. 

Mr. Allstadt, you said, "Your repeated history lesson is, in a way, relevant to this injunction.  It helps explain the fervent reaction to the injunction among some members of our community." This is not an explanation of a fervent reaction. That statement is a dismissal of the real connections that I have presented and referred to. Please tell me where, on what points, you "do not believe that Mr. Russo's injunction is a contributor or a part of the terrible history that you keep reminding me of." At this point, no one has refuted the connections outlined in the Yale Law Journal or in Michelle Alexander's book. You certainly cannot refute the number of African American males in jails or their inability to find employment because they are tagged for life with being a ex-con. Neither can you refute that gang injunctions is continued punishment for things that people have already served time for - that is the source of the "so called" evidence that gets folks on the list. This is in no way moving forward because this punishment is not linked to education or jobs or counseling. And, again, the purpose of reducing crime and violence in the community is illusionary. OPD says they are going to do nothing different; and what they are currently doing is not reducing crime or violence in the community. What OPD needs is a working relationships with just those parts of the community that will be the most angered by this injunction policy.

Finally, I can only repeat what Chief Batts said to me. This is Russo's thing. When Batts faced it in Long Beach, the news papers quoted him as acquiescing to it and stating that he understood that there is no evidence that it will work. There still is no such evidence and Russo knows this.

@ Eric:

There's a lot of cherry picking there, and conclusions drawn from cherry picking my words.  I put a LOT of words out on the web.  A brief clarification on my opinion on police accountability:  

Cops should be given more leeway for negligence in the course of a violent confrontation than ordinary citizens, because they're sent out every day into situations where negligence can occur.  Cops should be given more punishment for malice in the course of their duties than ordinary citizens, because when cops stoop to malicious behavior, they violate an oath, and they violate the public trust. 

By that reasoning, for instance, I fully agree with many members of the community who think Tony Pirone should be prosecuted.  He used racial epiphets and threw punches.  

The reason I think Meserle isn't a murderer is because of the reasonable doubt standard, and because of the definition of murder.  It's entirely possible for two reasonable people to think very different things about Meserle's intent.  That's reasonable doubt. Malicious intent is necessary to prove murder. The prosecution didn't prove it, so Manslaughter is appropriate.  And again, I would have gone with voluntary.

All of this, is, of course a tangent from the topic at hand.  I'm somewhat bored with the personal attacks and allegations.  But at the same time, the assumptions you've made based on nuanced comments are troubling because they're assumptions, and interesting because they could serve as jumping off points for conversations about race and justice.  And I'm convinced we could have much more productive conversations in person than we're having online...

Let's do lunch.  It might even be fun to do a small round table discussion and tape it, if Susan or Aimee Alison or some other media-inclined party would be interested in helping out with the technical stuff.  Seen John Favreaux's "Dinner for 5"?  Let's do that, but talk about racial politics.  Smart people, good food, meaningful conversation.  Susan, wanna help?  Mr. Riles, would you be interested? Eric, you down?

I agree that email back and forths have limited value, Max, but I also think it is possible to engage in rhetoric and jousting as a substitute for both taking a stand and facing really difficult and sometimes raw emotions, such as the fact white privilege colors most white people's perceptions of racism, and even their understanding of what racism is in the country and how it plays out. The fact that is so hurts me, and doesn't feel fun at all, so I don't warm to a taping or discussion, I'm more interested in how we can raise issues so people who want to address them can support positive change.

Having said that, I also appreciate all the nuances and smart points made in these volleys, but they can't paper over some painful issues we all face.

Wilson, I was raised by a Unitarian Feminist mother and an an Athiest father who worked for an oil company but voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.  And I was raised in Tokyo and Singapore.  So frankly, I would be very very surprised if anyone who hasn't sat down and had a conversation with me could make any kind of accurate predictions as to where my racial politics line up.  

That's part of why I took such great umbrage at your "DNA" remark.  The other part was that the use of "I hope you're not one of those people", which is a rhetorical technique for suggesting that you think I am "one of those people."  I think that's a transparent method of attack, and a distraction, which is why I called you out on it.

It didn't scare me, it just pissed me off. But yeah, I kept my response civil.  OK, to be completely honest, I revised my response several times because I felt it was important to keep it civil.

I haven't read either of the pieces of material you suggest, because I have no access to them. If you'd like to forward me the article, I'll gladly take a look. Susan Mernit can give you my email.

And I still think that John has stripped all the possibilities for racial profiling out of his injunction.  

I also think that you're right about the state of minorities in the prison industrial complex, and I think you're right that the damage of years of racism in America is still very much with us.  The single most obvious aspect of white privilege to me is that slavery and Jim Crow and redlining add up to a situation which robbed black Americans of the opportunity to create multi-generational ancestral wealth.  There are dozens of other examples, but that one sticks out as particularly broad in it's consequences.

But all of this does not add up to the gang injunction not being fair or being racially biased.  Nor does the injustice in the parole system mean that the injunction is exploiting the parole system to oppress minorities.  

I would be very very surprised if there was a single person on the injunction list who was there solely for being on parole.  Every thing I've heard about this injunction says that everybody included has been included for multiple reasons, and serious reasons.

Anyway, this is getting very very long-winded.  I just invited Eric to lunch or dinner above, and that invitation is of course extended to you.  The web lends itself to strident language.  There is a distance in the digital realm that makes it too easy to be combative.  Let's sit down and eat and talk.  I imagine we'll both learn a lot and be surprised by how much we agree on.

Susan, the reason I suggested a lunch date was that I think this sort of difficult discussion is far better handled in person where emotional nuances are easier to read.  

I also think that the best and most honest way to deal with the diversity of opinion is to put it all in one place, take the risk, deal with the hurt and see what happens.  The very fact that it is a scary proposition is reason enough to try it.

I feel the need to be the plain and simple voice here. Let's jump from "rhetoric" to real talk, for just a moment.

"There is a distance in the digital realm that makes it too easy to be combative."

Max, while this is true in many ways, we can use that distance to further the dialogue. One of the advantages of a conversation that is written is that people cannot interrupt each other. These conversations, in one sense, are nothing new. They live eternally as a subtext in the flawed system that never repaired (reparate-d) the damage done when multitudes of people were kidnapped, murdered, sold and then institutionally insulted, degraded and de-humanized. Let's just call that what it is.

Having said that, does one abuse make excuses for another? Absolutely not. Gangs do traumatize neighborhoods, not usually white ones. The solutions to violence will not be adequately addressed until poverty is addressed. Poverty won't get addressed until humans decide to start examining why we feel the need to assert that only some of us are deserving of luxury, security and safety.

Wilson rightfully questions where the money (priority) gets channeled. Suppression or prevention? My read is that he understands that some level of both are neccessary. Under-funding prevention murders the possibility of future healing. 

The DNA thread may have been an assumption, but Wilson was brave enough to dump the whole can of worms on the table.

We might get further with "race" conversations if we approached them with the knowledge that any dysfunctional relationship, personal or "street" or  institutional ... damages the abused AND the abuser. It is in all our best interest to eradicate oppression in all its forms, but we can't do that by half-stepping or pretending (Oakland's "Ceasefire" program).

OK Max, sure, i'm cherry picking, simply because rehashing every single one of your comments might strain OL's server. and yes, i'm drawing my own conclusions about what i think the implications of your statements are. i fully recognize that. Doesnt change the fact that you seem to have traveled down a  slippery slope.

but let me just address your recent addendums. first of all, cops DO have more "leeway" when it comes to use of force. anyone else shoots an unarmed man in cold blood in front of 100s of witnesses on a BART platform, he's getting the death penalty.

Given that Mehserle is only the second police officer to be convicted of murder (technically, involuntary manslaughter falls under the murder statutes) in the history of California, i think the whole leeway issue is a given, if not so obvious it hardly bears repeating.

I agree with your second point, but historically, this has not been the case. In this context, pre-Civil Rights Act Deep South lynchings, Hunters Point riots in 1966--which directly led to the creation of the Black Panthers' 10-point program--the death of Lil Bobby Hutton, the beating of Rodney King, the Oakland Riders, and Oscar Grant are all interconnected and all speak to the same thing: inequal justice. Or, if you prefer, an "inappropriate" level of justice.

I'll agree with your third point too, and add a fourth and fifth: Marysol Domenici should have been prosecuted as well, and the other officers present should have been indicted for obsctruction of justice. The rule of thumb should be: if we wouldnt tolerate this threat to public safety by a street gang, why should we tolerate it when law enforcement does it? (speaking as a citizen, not a reporter here.)

On whether Mehserle is a murderer, i can agree to respectfully disagree with you. Drawing his gun and pulling the trigger was a willful, deliberate act, in my view. I did not see any hesitation on his part, especially since a prone man attempting to comply and place his hands behind his back, even with Pirone's boot on his neck, represented no threat to the officer's safety, nor that of the other officers. Even if we accept that Mehserle "lost it" momentarily, that doesn't excuse his action, especially because he had previously pulled his Taser twice without discharging his firearm.

I did notice that you seem to have backed off--or are avoiding--your endorsement of the Mehserle family. Upholding Todd Mehserle's statements advocating zero culpability for gun-wielding officers should not be confused with having compassion for Johannes Mehserle. Sure he's human, and he may not have been motivated by racial hatred (though racial fear is certainly debateable), but i don't beleive he's been treated unfairly, considering the gravity of his actions or the lack of remorse or compassion for Grant's family he showed in the 16 months in-between the incident and the trial.

You also may want to clarify your historical understanding of apartheid, which was first instituted in 1948 in South Africa, and is generally defined as legal segregation by race. also, by the 1980s, there had been over three decades of resistance by the ANC and ANC supporters, so i'm not sure why you threw out this arbitrary date. But if you want to draw a parallel between Oscar Grant and Steve Biko as martyrs who died for a greater cause, i won't stop you.

I dont believe this iss an O/T tangent, however, since you not only went out of your way to address it, but as was subsequently pointed out, gang injunctions engender a defacto redlining which lowers proprty values in injunctified areas. so, yes, that's a type of economic apartheid as well as legal apartheid.

I should add that one of the things which has given me hope during the almost two years since Oscar's death has been the fact that multicultural coalitions have formed to support the Grant family and press for real justice and, specifically, police accountability--which is basically the same thing the Panthers outlined in 1966. Accountability does need to be the issue at the end of the day--for gang members, sure, but also for politicians, policemen, and Internet soapboxers.

So i don't want race to be a sidetrack which keeps people from focusing on the real goal, which is more justice, more peace, less violence, and greater accountability. That said, it is important to understand that race cannot be eliminated from this conversation, nor from these issues, at least not until justice and equality for all are ensured.

Anyway, i'm certainly open to further discussion on this issue if you feel you need to clarify your stance, so i'll accept your lunch offer. And if Susan, Wilson, Aimee, Chief Batts, John Russo or Todd Mehserle want to join in, that's fine too--as long as we can have soul food. j/k. well, sort of.

I am in for the lunch; although it will need to be a place with vegetarian (ova-lacto-with fish). However, I also agree with Tehea. I like the opportunity to communicate at times when I am not presentable and/or when no one else is around. I also like not being interrupted and not jumping to the end of some one else’s sentence and wanting to interrupt them. I am more a both/and person and not a either/or person. Tehea read that in something I said.

By the way, I found Byron Williams column on the gang injunction in the Tribune today a bit confusing. He, also, supports it even though he knows it is not what is needed. Being some one whose house has been robbed, whose window has been pierced with a stray bullet, and whose daughter has been kidnapped in Oakland, I can join with Byron's concerns about law-abiding citizens living in fear. Yet he fails to recognize the superiority of the comprehensive, multifunctional approach of the Ceasefire program. Yea, let's just waste time and money on a program that we know will not do the job we need - so that scared folk will know we are doing something; tell Byron that makes no sense.

I dont think anyone here is advocating law-abiding citizens living in fear of street gangs. But the solution to gangs is more community counselors to handle re-entry, more re-entry programs, and a more diplomatic approach by officers to ensure that dolphins arent caught in the dragnet along with tuna, so to speak.

It's ironic that Tookie Williams was referenced earlier, because Tookie spent the last part of his life trying to find alternatives to gang life and educating children. Did that absolve his earlier sins? Perhaps not. But it did make a difference.

Just to add to Wilson's point, i think there is a real danger in the fear factor approach overcoming practical, logistically-thought out solutions. Comprehensive is indeed the word.

Unfortunately, California has a history of tough-on-crime legislation which fails to curb crime and may exacerbate the problem in the long run. For example, despite Prop 21 and the three-strikes law, California has a 70% recidivism rate. Combine that with Oakland's 20% unemployment rate, and you have a situation which goes beyond panacea-esque solutions.

Looking forward to lunch.

OK. Thanks for agreeing to lunch.  I'll get in touch with you both through Susan.

It might be a while before I can be available.  I'm working out of town, back on weekends, and after the election I'm gone for a week.  But I really am interested in doing this, so I'll talk to you all soon.

Re: Eric

>>Unfortunately, California has a history of tough-on-crime legislation which fails to curb crime and may exacerbate the problem in the long run. For example, despite Prop 21 and the three-strikes law, California has a 70% recidivism rate. Combine that with Oakland's 20% unemployment rate, and you have a situation which goes beyond panacea-esque solutions.<<

We aren't TOUGH ENOUGH, that's the real crime. Prison's should be run military style. You dress a certain way, you act a certain way. Just the other day I read they were issuing condom's at the San Francisco jail. I guess you go to jail and truly get screwed,.

The figures you stated shows us EXACTLY where we need to be placing our efforts as a community. Targeting those that are on parole. They either need to be adhering to their restrictions or they need to be sent back to jail ASAP!

They also need to have the opportunity to SUCCEED! They need to be approached far before leaving prison and taught SKILLS that can help them to help themselves and I don't mean at the communities expense.

We as a nation have long talked and talked about how to socially help these people. If crime is so ingrained in to their lifestyles so be it. I say take the BIGGEST STICK we can find and let them have it.Those that want and express they want help let's do so with all dispatch.

As far as these gangs go, we need to smash them at all cost. If you just happen to be born on a gang ridden street you have absolutely no choice of not being in that gang. They are virtually enslaving young people through fear intimidation, extortion, to join them, that's a FACT of life. You are in or you are TRULY out. Your ONLY recourse is to relocate as my ex did with her son living in the Seattle area. (he relocated to grandma's house in the Bay Area while the family stayed in Seattle). We are at war with the gangs.

Paul, I deleted your comment because you failed to provide a real email address. We're happy to support your privacy, but not with some real info.

Paul, rehashing tired, narrow-minded hawkish rhetoric won't change the facts, such as that issuing condoms in jail reduces AIDS risks.

also, sending parolees back to jail is the definition of recidivism, in case you were unclear on that. without focusing on rehabilitation/re-entry efforts, there is no solution, no matter how big your stick.

I kinda wonder whether "paul" is trolling or if he's actually writing an attempt at parody.