Pigs in Sheep’s Clothing: A Response to Robert Gammon

In last week’s edition of the East Bay Express, Robert Gammon, the current editor of the publication, published a piece entitled, “When Liberals Take Control of the Police.” In the article, Gammon discusses how under the leadership of Richmond Police Chief Chris Magnus, who focuses on community policing models and implanted new training techniques, has reduced crime and officer use of force. Gammon counter-poses Magnus’ police in Richmond, who have a strong partnership with Gayle McLaughlin, the Green Party Mayor, and other leftist and liberal politicians – and those in other localities, such as Oakland. Gammon contends that if more liberals ‘took control’ over police departments and implemented such reforms, civil unrest will decrease, trust in the police will build, lawsuits from protesters will go down, and police killings will decrease. As Gammon says of Richmond, “Liberal politicians. Progressive police chief. Cops stop killing people. Protests go off peacefully. Crime drops dramatically.”

On Sunday, only several days after the article was published, Richmond police shot and killed a Latino man in his 20’s who was “loitering” outside of a liquor store in East Richmond off of Cutting Blvd. After telling a group of men outside of the store to disperse, one of the men became defiant and began to argue with the officer. According to the police, when the officer tried to arrest the man, he attempted to take the officer’s gun and the police officer opened fire many times, killing him. Regardless of if the truth actually matches the police’s version of the story (it rarely does), this is the first fatal police shooting of someone in Richmond in seven years and clearly attacks the narrative created by Gammon. The recent fatal shooting in Richmond aside, Gammon’s article is still filled with holes, distorted histories, and false narratives.

Gammon gives us no context for the ongoing militarization of the police, which has become a national issue in the wake of the rebellion in Ferguson, MI after the police murder of Mike Brown and the suppression of the Occupy Movement. Where did this militarization come from? In the wake of the riots, uprisings, and revolts of the 1960s and 1970s, police departments across the country faced off against everything from occupied university campuses, urban insurrections and riots, and mass demonstrations that ended in clashes with the police. Here in the bay area, we saw the National Guard even called out in Berkeley during the ‘People’s Park riots,’ which resulted in various injuries and deaths. Furthermore, we also saw the government create COINTELPRO, or the Counter Intelligence Program, which was aimed at destroying and disrupting the US anti-war, anti-colonial, and black liberation struggles. One of the groups most affected by this program which used assassination, misinformation, and frame-ups, was Oakland’s own Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. Police began to look at the problem of rebellion as one of insurgency. They moved away from just wanting to put down this or that revolt, but in front preventing uprisings from even taking place in the first place. This is a body of thought we refer to as, counter-insurgency.

But as the police learned on the streets of Berkeley and across the country when they came in swinging, egregious violence often only made riots expand and grow. Also, by selectively targeting groups like the Panthers through arrests of leadership (Assata Shakur, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seal) and assassinations (Fred Hampton, Lil’ Bobby Hutton, and Bunchy Carter), they often only martyred these individuals and expanded their influence. Thus, in the realm of political demonstrations, police began to attempt to work with ‘movement leaders,’ i.e., those who could manage crowds and preserve order themselves. Overall, this process sought to keep people from becoming disruptive to the status quo while offering a venire of autonomy. At the same time, by the 1970s and 80s, police had begun campaigns of ‘community policing’ in attempts to build connections with the same communities that had gone up in flames during the urban riots of the civil-rights era. But as the State was attempting to win the hearts and minds of the same generation who popularized the term “pig,” it also started to use knowledge from cold war engagements such as in Vietnam and apply it domestically. As some sociologists claimed that ‘broken windows’ led to more full scale disorders, by the 1980s and with the full swing of the war on drugs, police in the United States were well on their way to being increasingly militarized.

Thus, SWAT teams grew out of raids on the Black Panther Party, in turn; counter-insurgency techniques were being taken and applied by police agencies studying US military theory. At the same time, US military analysts were also studying ‘community policing’ models in inner-cities to use in their engagements in various occupied countries. But this back and forth relationship wasn’t just based on an exchange of ideas; it meant hardware and weapons for police. Thus, by the time we get to Ferguson, we see police that look, act, and fight like soldiers. Is it any surprise then that the Ferguson police were also trained in part by Israeli security forces (who are in turn aided by the US government)? That they have military grade weapons and technology? And, as the tear-gas explodes in the background, the State brings in a black police chief to march with the crowds and attempts to get them to calm down in a ‘community policing’ strategy.

None of this enters into Gammon’s article. In his mind, the problems of the police are simply one of management. There is the ‘law and order’ Republicans on one side and the good-hearted liberals on the other. He counter-poses the ‘progressive’ leadership of Richmond with Oakland, who has seen 30 officer involved shootings from 2008 to 2013 and various lawsuits by political protesters and shooting victims, which has resulted in millions in payouts. The only problem with this thinking is – the Oakland leadership is liberal. Jean Quan, a former Communist and labor organizer, touts her former radicalism and community organizing cred as a badge of honor, much in the same way that Ron Dellums did of his civil-rights past. On both sides of the bay area, we’ve seen progressive and liberal politicians come and go, all the while the bodies have piled up from Oscar Grant to Alex Nieto, and police become increasing militarized against social movement and the population in general. This fits into a national trend, in which police intelligence feeds into fusion centers and local cops work alongside Homeland Security and FBI agents.

According to Gammon, “Since Magnus implemented his reforms, Richmond, once one of the most violent cities in the United States, has experienced an extraordinary reduction in crime. In 2013, the city had just 16 homicides, the city’s fewest in 33 years. In fact, when it comes to crime, Richmond is an American success story.” Gammon bases this success in two ways. First, by the reduction of violent crime and homicides, and also in the reduction in the number of people that have been killed by Richmond police.

According to FBI statistics, violent crime has been dropping in the US and is at an all-time low, (a fact that both ‘law and order’ Republicans and Gammon forgets). While this continues to be the trend, it doesn’t explain why incarceration rates have also at the same time been soaring. According to Michelle Alexander, author of the new book, The New Jim Crow, there are now more African-Americans in prison, jail, probation, or parole, than were enslaved during racial slavery. In fact, we’ve seen various demonstrations outside of the Richmond detention facility against reports of abuse and conditions of inmates and immigrant detainees. Whether exemplified by rising rates of imprisonment or in the tactical gear of officers on the streets of Ferguson, repression in America is growing. Furthermore, the conditions which would give rise to potential rebellion in Richmond, namely poverty and lack of access to basic resources such as affordable housing, continues to be the order of the day.

But regardless of the national trends, in Richmond there are other forces at work. Richmond, (which remains a city made up largely of poor and working-class people of color), like Oakland and many other bay area cities, is seeing many people emigrate to suburbs such as Antioch, Stockton, and Pittsburg. The reasoning is simple: for many people it is simply too expensive to live in Richmond. Also, in public housing projects in Richmond, people are faced with the “one strike you’re out” policy, in which one strike equals eviction. In the bay area, crime is outsourced as those most susceptible to displacement are forced out.

At the same time, as thousands of poor people are being pushed out of the bay area into the suburbs and central valley, we also see a rise in police brutality and murder in these areas. Just several weeks ago a video emerged in Antioch of police brutally beating a homeless man in front of a large crowd. In Stockton, we have seen large scale clashes between family and supporters of James Rivera, Jr and the local police department. In 2010, Stockton police ended a high speed chase with James after forcing him to crash into a home in a dense neighborhood, only to kill him with automatic rifles. Just several months ago, Stockton police shot and killed bank robbers and one of their hostages after they pursued the suspects through several towns, shooting at them in board day-light in residential areas.

Poverty and lack of access to resources creates crime. In Richmond, since the closure of major steel plants and other centers of unionized labor, most people in Richmond lack access to jobs that pay a living wage and offer benefits. With the ongoing gentrification of the bay area, is it any surprise that we thus see a drop in crime in one place and a rise in it in another? Is it any surprise that we see a drop in deaths at the hands of police in one area and the rise of it in another? Of course not. But Gammon doesn’t touch on any of this.

But Gammon praises the progressive Richmond police not only in their (up until now), recent no-killing streak, but also in their handling of political protests. Gammon cites a recent protest in which community activists and non-profits blocked a train carrying crude-by rail oil for several hours. According to Gammon, “…[O]ne longtime activist said that when Richmond police arrived on the scene they were “as usual, a delight to work with” and, of course, no violence ensued.” But this relationship between police and protest leaders is nothing new, and as I discussed earlier came out of a failure of the “elevated force” model that collapsed in the 1960s as police violence only enflamed revolt. But such a relationship between protesters and the police only works when those who are protesting are willing to play by the rules of the police themselves. Often, this means only causing a minor disruption or keeping actions as media and internet spectacles.

But some people reject this narrative. In the fall of 1999, tens of thousands of people showed up to protest the World Trade Organization (WTO) convention in Seattle. While police worked closely with union bosses, NGOs, and some self-appointed activist leaders, other people refused to work with police and instead blocked delegates from getting into the meeting, clashed with police, and destroyed the property of corporate businesses. This revolt spread into generalized rioting and looting and a state of emergency was declared as regular citizens of Seattle neighborhoods took part in fighting the police. The police strategy of negotiated management had failed and the police and media found a new scapegoat: the ‘black-bloc anarchist.’

In the current period, police now work with select protest leaders, generally the heads of official organizations (be they union, political parties, NGOs, or activist groups) and seek to marginalize and isolate more combative and disruptive elements: i.e., remove those interested in stopping business as usual. In the bay area for instance, we saw a coalition of State, police, and business interests seeking to stop potential riots against the killing of Oscar Grant, by attempting to ostracize disruptive elements as “outside agitators” and “white anarchists.” This is a narrative that continues in Oakland as well as in Ferguson.

In short, violent police responses to protests and demonstrations are determined by the level of force needed to put down unrest. Police agencies like nothing more than to keep force from escalating – because as history has shown, this can often spread revolt. Instead, police prefer to work with protest leaders to keep disruptions small, short, and isolated. In some instances, police agree that force is needed to quell unrest, such as in the case of the violent eviction of the Occupy Oakland camp, which was justified by the State and through the media as stopping a ‘health and safety’ problem. Whether in riot gear or with a smiling face, all police strategies ultimately have the same goal: to keep revolt contained and managed.

If residents in Richmond and elsewhere decide to take on a struggle that is aimed at not just the symbolic stopping of crude-oil lines, but instead decide that the current Chevron plant represents a continued danger to their communities and planet and must be shut down now, then police force will respond in turn. If protesters decide that instead of working with police, they will not stop resisting until the plant is shut-down, then police force will escalate. Violence inflicted upon social movements is not a problem of poor management or bad leadership within policing agencies, but instead a question of how the State can best stop threats to the status-quo. This is a reality that liberals like Gammon do not, and cannot address because they do not question the nature of capitalist society and the State which manages and keeps its inequalities firmly in place.

Whether on the bus, BART train, or at work, people talk about the latest police shooting they hear about on the news. They ask one simple question: why are the police acting like an occupying military? The question is obvious, because they are. Coming to this understanding means leaving behind the false notions of liberals like Gammon and understanding the role of the police in our world.