Why No One Should Be Truly Shocked by the Mistrial in the Freddie Gray Case

By Janell Ross, The Washington Post

17 December 15

ust as the nation has developed an increasingly stale ritual on mass shootings -- one of shock, followed by mass grief, followed closely or sometimes concurrently by public statements about gun policy -- there are now a series of cultural cliches and almost meaningless declarations that can be expected after yet another police officer, facing the rare event of criminal charges, manages to go home a free man or woman.

First there is a death -- that person is disproportionately likely to be black and, often, but not always, young. A far, far  smaller share are also unarmed. Then there is an outpouring of concern for the dead and/or the police officer or officers involved. The latter is, all too often, based on a selective set of facts and the aggressive attempts of local police departments to deny wrongdoing, withhold information or distract a sometimes-all-too-receptive press and public with any and all things the dead have ever done wrong.

The facts surrounding that person's actual death become less and less important to those on both sides. Then, there will be calls for investigations, pleas for outsiders or the federal authorities to look into what went wrong. And almost as certainly there will be the crowdfunded defense fund set up for the police officer or officers online, claims that the officer is a victim of racism and the powerful forces that have the unmitigated gall to draw public attention to racial disparities in policing.

If the officers involved are black, as is the case with some of those charged in Baltimore, there will also be any number of obtuse claims that race or racism have no role in the case at all. That, in turn, is almost always followed by some local or state grand jury hearing, and even more rarely a trial.

Then, some beleaguered officer stands before a bank of cameras or grants some exclusive interview to express gratitude for his or her freedom, the depths of their fear and suffering "since this whole situation began."

And in the process, what's most often revealed is the extent to which that officer or officers were invested in and acted upon nothing more than racial bias dressed up to look and sound like it could, possibly -- if you look at it sideways in a mirror -- amount to nothing of the kind.

If you doubt this last part, take a moment to read Officer Darren Wilson's story in the New Yorker magazine. He is the police officer whose actions and decisions led to the death of Michael Brown and the riots in Ferguson, Mo., last summer. Then read The Washington Post investigative team's months-long look into the frequency with which certain Americans are killed by police and how officers involved face few if any lasting consequences at all.

You see, the non-indictment, no-conviction or mistrial outcome in cases in which a police officer is seated at the defendant's table is, at this point, about as formulaic as the "thoughts and prayers" that public figures feel inclined to offer after a mass shooting.

As such, there is both a tendency to anticipate and make not-at-all-veiled references to the possibility of riots after a non-conviction. There is also a short-term stream of largely similar legal observations about why this was, almost certainly, going to be the outcome.

But let us be very clear here: Just as shocking at the mistrial outcome in Baltimore on Wednesday would suggest one is not familiar with this trend, so too do blasé and recycled pronouncements about the impossibility of any different legal outcome.

Why? In a democracy founded on the idea that all humans are equals but where this promise has never been made reliably real for all, viewing the undressed and unpunished death of another citizen as inconsequential or inevitable points to a deeply twisted state of affairs.

It requires that some Americans accept, cheer or at least think little about what limited or non-existent access to justice that others have. It points to why activity as unproductive and dangerous as rioting can, in the rough and inaccurate calculus of the moment, seem just about right. It all but requires that the disproportionate loss of black life at the hands of police simply remain an open secret.

And if that can't be avoided, then it requires a pivot to a totally different egregious issue -- black-on-black crime. That last move is particularly notable, because it effectively declares that police should behave in ways no different or demonstrably better than criminals of any race.

An officer holds a shield outside the police headquarters in Berkeley, Calif., on Dec. 8, 2014, as
protesters march against a New York City grand jury decision not to indict an officer in the death of Eric Garner.
(photo: Reuters/Stephen Lam)

If 2014 taught us anything at all, it quite possibly should have been this: Equality and equal justice may rank among America's ideals. But they remain far from real.

A death forecast and caught on tape and facilitated by a banned chokehold can fail to convince a grand jury to even indict police officers. We'll say that again, in another way, for clarity and emphasis. No matter what you think about Eric Garner, his life, his choices, his trade (selling tax-free "loosie" cigarettes on the street) or his girth, he was a human being, a father, a son and an American.

And when he was in the process of dying on a New York city sidewalk at the hands of a police officer who put him in a chokehold the New York City police department itself banned, Garner's declaration that he could not breathe was caught on tape. The life was choked out of the man on a cell phone video. But a grand jury decided that criminal charges against the officers involved weren't even merited.

And if that combination of events does not strike you as at all odd or worthy of lots of careful inquiry, time alone in a quiet room with the U.S. Constitution really may be in order.

Now, there will be those who will insist that the Baltimore mistrial represents a just outcome -- evidence that the system worked or that the prosecutor's burden of proof was fundamentally insurmountable. Maybe, just maybe, some or all of that is true. Perhaps deficiencies in the prosecution's case, absent evidence or fundamental problems with the composition of the jury or its deliberations will become clear in coming days.

But when listening to those proclamations and those who declare events in Baltimore as anything less than significant, there are a few key questions to ask and answer.

Is the person someone who has ever looked at a newborn infant and wondered what combination of smart choices, small miracles and incalculable luck will be required for a long life that expires peacefully, simply because of the color their skin may become? Does this person even know personally or care deeply about anyone who has? Has there been a single case of an unarmed person's death at the hands of police that this person considered at all questionable? Does this person believe that police officers charged with enforcing the law and keeping the peace must abide by the law themselves? Has this person read or thought at all about the many horrific ways and many times that the United States failed Freddie Gray before he died? And, does this person know, understand and acknowledge that American police departments kill and imprison American citizens at a rate that outpaces almost every other developed country?

If the answer to any of the above is no, then understand that this is a person who rests assured their life is formally and officially valued in America -- more than anyone's job, more than any piece of property, more than any police department's ease of operation and public reputation. This is almost certainly a person who faces no real danger if the state of justice in America remains essentially unchanged.

Then, prepare for the ritual shock and bloodless legal pronouncements to crop up again, when some other unarmed black person is killed by police or dies mysteriously in police custody.