吃瓜大本营

On Tuesday, April 30, a Minnesota jury convicted police officer Mohamed Noor of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for shooting and killing Justine Damond, a white Australian woman. Damond had called 9-1-1 to report a possible sexual assault near her apartment and then approached Noor鈥檚 squad car when he and his partner responded to the call. Noor killed Damond, and he deserved to be found guilty. His decision to shoot and kill an unarmed person without warning, apparently because her presence next to his squad car surprised him, is indefensible. But if the races of Noor and Damond had been reversed, Noor might well have gotten away with murder.

The racial aspect of this case speaks volumes about criminal justice and criminal injustice in America today. Noor, who is Black, Muslim, and a Somali immigrant, is believed to be the only police officer in Minnesota ever to have been convicted for killing someone while on duty.

At a crucial moment in the trial, Noor testified that he reacted to Damond as 鈥渢he threat.鈥� Prosecutors responded by, 鈥淭he whole blonde hair, pink t-shirt is a threat to you?鈥� This line of questioning was in part about the legal standard required to convict. Under Graham v. Connor, a police officer can use force 鈥� including lethal force 鈥� if a reasonable officer on the scene would consider the level of force to be 鈥渙bjectively reasonable,鈥� not whether the use of force was actually necessary in light of the various tactics and alternatives available to the officer at the time. Because this standard is so elastic, it is often very difficult to show that an officer violated it.

But the way the question was framed also evokes a long history of racist fears and tropes of Black male aggression against white women. In art, popular culture, and news coverage, from to to countless episodes of , white women have long been portrayed as innocent victims and symbols of so-called 鈥渨hite purity鈥� who need to be saved from racistly presupposed savagery of angry, violent Black men.

These racist ideas are not limited to the movie theater and TV screen. They have also infected our politics.

During the 1988 presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush played on fears of Black male crime with the . The ad, displaying a mugshot of a Black man with a wild beard and glazed eyes, described how William 鈥淲illie鈥� Horton had been convicted of murder, sent to prison, released on a weekend furlough, and then carried out a . As one strategist , the prospect of 鈥渁 man from Massachusetts releasing 鈥渂lack criminals all across the country and letting them rape our white women and children鈥� was crucial in Bush鈥檚 defeat of Michael Dukakis. Such tropes are also not a relic of the twentieth century; in his invocations of 鈥�,鈥� and various , President Trump has deployed the narrative of white female victimhood in ways that have rightly drawn to the Willie Horton ad.

Naming these racist tropes, it鈥檚 difficult to believe that the prosecutors, when preparing their questions, didn鈥檛 realize they were invoking them. Their 鈥渂londe hair, pink t-shirt鈥� question is particularly inflammatory, as it depends on the assumption that Justine Damond鈥檚 blonde hair signified a lack of dangerousness. Indeed, Damond 鈥� blonde, blue eyed, white 鈥� is the ideal victim by which prosecutors could take advantage of racist tropes to secure a conviction of Noor.

This case is the exception, and it spotlights the rule: Most victims of police violence have racism working against them, not in their favor.

The most recent such prosecution in Minnesota 鈥� of Officer Jeronimo Yanez for shooting and killing Philando Castile, a 32-year old Black man 鈥� ended with the officer being acquitted of all criminal charges. Castile, a registered firearm owner, was pulled over by Yanez in July 2016. Yanez approached Castile鈥檚 car and ordered Castile to provide both his license and registration. Castile鈥檚 girlfriend and her child were both in the car with him. After handing Yanez his registration, Castile said in a calm tone, 鈥淪ir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me鈥�--which is exactly what gun owners are taught to do in this situation. Yanez told Castile not to touch it to which Castile replied 鈥淚鈥檓 not pulling it out.鈥� Castile, who still needed to pick up his license and hand it to Yanez repeatedly stated that he was not and would not reach for his firearm. As Castile reached in the direction of his license, despite these assurances (and the confirmation from Castile鈥檚 girlfriend that he wasn鈥檛 reaching for the firearm), Yanez wrongly and unjustifiably believed Castile was instead reaching for the gun.

Yanez then fatally shot Castile seven times.

At his trial, Yanez claimed that he Castile was reaching for the gun. Despite the body camera and cell phone footage that documented the brief 40 seconds of interaction leading up to Yanez鈥檚 decision to kill Castile, Yanez was acquitted of all charges as the jury deemed his fear of Castile grabbing a firearm to be reasonable.

Unfortunately, in the rare cases that officers are actually charged with fatal killings, these acquittals are the norm.

Just weeks before Noor went on trial, Pennsylvania police officer Michael Rosfeld was completely acquitted for shooting an unarmed Black teenager, Antwon Rose, from behind, as Rose ran away from the officer in June of 2018. Rose, 17 years old at the time, was a passenger in a car that had been pulled over because it matched the description of a vehicle that had been involved in a shooting earlier in the day. After approaching the car, Rosfeld ordered the driver to get out. Once the driver was out of the car, Rose and the second passenger got out and began running away from Rosenfeld. Although Rose was unarmed and running in the opposite direction from the officer, Rosenfeld shot Rose three times in the back.

Yet again, despite bystander video evidence of the shooting (in which you can hear the person recording the video screaming 鈥淲hy they shooting at him? All they did was run and they shooting at them.鈥�), Rosfeld was acquitted. Rosfeld his actions by claiming his 鈥淸i]ntent was to end the threat that was made against me.鈥� It is hard to imagine the prosecutors in Rosfeld鈥檚 case questioning this premise by asking the officer incredulously, as they did with Noor, 鈥淭he whole 17 years old, Black kid, white t-shirt is a threat to you?鈥�

Unfortunately, if Noor鈥檚 prosecution tells us anything, it鈥檚 not that police are finally being held accountable for egregious acts of violence, but that white lives continue to be valued more than Black lives by law enforcement and in the legal system. It shouldn鈥檛 be necessary for prosecutors to rely on the white innocence trope to convict a police officer of murder.

Part of the problem here is the subjectivity at the heart of the legal standards used to judge police use of force. The Graham v. Connor reasonableness judgment can be and often is applied in a racially inflected way. An officer鈥檚 fear of a Black man is far more likely to be deemed 鈥渞easonable鈥� than an officer鈥檚 fear of a white woman like Justine Damond.

This is one of many reasons why the ACLU supports raising the legal standard for use of force to match the best practices that many police departments have adopted as a matter of internal policy.

The Noor verdict is appropriate, and just. But what did Philando Castile and Antwon Rose do that was less innocent than what Justine Damond did? And why did a jury believe Yanez鈥檚 fear of Castile and Rosfeld鈥檚 fear of Rose, but not Noor鈥檚 fear of Damond? The short answer: systemic and institutional racism. While we may express relief that a police officer was held accountable for wrongly taking a life, we cannot overlook the structural and implicit racism that was at play in this case, and that we know is at play in so many others across our nation.