BACK WHEN, CIVIL RIGHTS HEROES WERE EASY TO SUPPORT

Shooting In Berkeley

I remember when it was easy to understand and support the civil rights
movement. Should a qualified black student be allowed to attend the
state university? Should black citizens be allowed to vote?

In those long-ago days, the heroes were all upstanding people.
Students who wanted to further their education, citizens who wanted to
participate in the democracy. Easy to understand, easy to support.

These days, it's much more difficult. That's because so many of the
new heroes are criminals.

I thought about that this past week as I watched the stories out of
Philadelphia. In that case, police began chasing a fellow who was
driving a car that had been taken in a carjacking. The fellow
eventually ditched that car, took off on foot and then managed to
steal a police cruiser. He exchanged shots with cops, one of whom was
hit. When the cops finally caught him, they beat him.

The case immediately became a civil rights issue. The Rev. Robert
Shine, the vice president of the Black Clergy of Philadelphia &
Vicinity, declared that the case was an example of police brutality
against blacks. The local chapter of the NAACP announced it would
assist the suspect, Thomas Jones, in a suit against the city.

Back in the days when everything was so much simpler, it was just
assumed that if you fought the cops, the cops would win. Your rights?
You had the right to swing first, and then you had no more rights. If
you shot a cop, you'd be lucky to get away with just a beating.

Then Rodney King came along. He was on parole for an armed robbery,
and he was drunk and speeding, and he led the cops on a long chase. He
came out swinging, and the cops beat the heck out of him. That became
a big civil rights case, too, and some of the cops eventually went to
prison, and King sued the city and got a $3.8 million verdict. I
remember seeing a picture of King -- by then a celebrity -- as a
"special guest" at a Los Angeles Dodgers game. One of the new civil
rights heroes.

Locally, the latest issue of this sort has to do with the shooting of
two unarmed black men at a fast-food restaurant in Berkeley after a
drug bust went bad. Let's review the little we know, and what these
facts seem to indicate.

A drug task force sets up a buy with a very low-level crack dealer. He
shows up with a friend, who was not a suspect but was instead a
working man with a very slight criminal record. Nothing serious and
nothing recent. When the low-level dealer realizes the whole thing is
a setup, he apparently panics and tries to roar away.

But his back bumper is apparently hooked to the front bumper of an SUV
driven by some of the cops. The dealer's wheels spin, and apparently
the car turns slightly and in the direction of two cops who are
rushing up with guns drawn. They apparently panic and begin firing
into the car.

This was not a cool, deliberate "Dirty Harry" type shooting, in which
an unruffled detective calmly fires a single shot into the chest of
the car's driver. Make my day. Bang. This had the earmarks of a panic
shooting. Oh God! Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang.
Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang.

If the shooters were justified in fearing for their lives, perhaps
they can't be blamed for their panic. I'll leave that to the legal
system.

But is this a civil rights case? Some activists seem to think so, and
they are insistent that the shooters be prosecuted.

Again, I'm not so sure. As far as the actual shooters are concerned, I
suspect that panic makes you colorblind. On the other hand, would the
bosses have authorized this kind of operation -- a potential shootout
- -- if the fast-food restaurant had been in Clayton?

If I were in the civil rights movement, that's the question I'd want
answered.