Fault Lines

I've been posting daily over at the 'Tude, but the treatment I wanted to give this isn't really in line with what Hill and the gang are going for over there. So, for your consumption:

The Danziger Bridge Killings: How New Orleans Police Gunned Down Civilians Fleeing the Flood

Democracy Now!:

On the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we take a look back the Danziger Bridge killings. Seven police officers been indicted for opening fire on two African American families on the Danziger Bridge days after the storm, killing two people and wounding four others. At the time, the official story was that they gunned down snipers. Now the question is why they shot at two families fleeing the flood.

Last December, seven police officers were indicted for killing two people walking across the bridge. They were from two families, the Bartholomews and the Madisons. James Brisette, a young man who was a friend of the Bartholomews, was killed by seven bullets in his back and legs. Susan Bartholomew's arm was partially blown off. Her daughter and husband had three gunshot wounds each. Their trial is ongoing.

Ronald Madison, a forty-year-old mentally disabled man, was one of the two people killed. He was walking across the bridge with his older brother Lance, when, according to police, he was shot in the back and died. Lance was initially arrested and jailed for attempting to murder the police officers. He was later released after a grand jury cleared his name.

Dr. Rommel Madison is the brother of Lance and Ronald Madison. He is a dentist, and he testified this week at the International Tribunal on Hurricane Katrina that was put together by the People’s Hurricane Fund.

DR. ROMELL MADISON: My brothers were seeking help to get to safety on the east side of the Danziger Bridge by officers on the west side, and it hadn’t flooded, so they had refuge there. But they didn't have food or water, so they would go to the east side, where everyone was being picked up to be brought to safety to the dome and to the Convention Center.

On the day of September 4th, there was a family at the foot of the bridge, a husband, wife, daughter, three small kids and a teenager. During that time they were on the bridge, they noticed a rental truck, a moving van-type-sized truck, about a mid-sized van. It pulled up where the family was. They exited the truck. About seven men exited the truck, and they opened fire on the family at the foot of the bridge. One individual was killed. Everyone was wounded, but one of the children. The children's ages were from fourteen to nineteen.

After seeing that, they started retreating back to the westbound side of the Danziger Bridge back toward my office again. And at that point the police officers opened fire on them. They wounded my brother Ronald in the back twice. My brother Lance was able to get him to the other side of the bridge and put him on the grass, and then he ran for help. When he did return, he was relieved to find the National Guard and the state police, and he was telling them what happened.

At that point, the police officers walked up, and then they finally disclosed that they were police, because when they originally got out of the van, they were dressed in shorts, T-shirts, just plain shirts. They never identified themselves as being police. And to see them open fire on a small group of individuals, African American individuals, at the foot of the bridge, they just figured they were out to, you know, go hunting and shooting and killing people.

[snip]

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to be done now? In the case of your family, the police officers are going on trial, Dr. Madison. Your family has also sued?

DR. ROMELL MADISON: My mother and brother have. But presently, we're still faced with the uphill fight with the judicial system. OK, when the indictments were handed out to the police on December 28th of ’05, they were allowed to turn themselves in January 2nd of ’06, so that they could have this time to spend with their families.

The second thing that the judge did that I feel was incorrect was that he provided bail for first-degree murder. Nowhere in the United States is anyone provided bail for first-degree murder. These individuals were provided bail. One of the officers quit and was allowed to move to Houston, Texas, to leave the state. And that's unheard of also. They were supposed to be on house arrest, and they shouldn't have left -- he shouldn’t have gone anywhere.

Third, they were allowed to go back to work as police in the police department, which is really a tragedy to the public. They’ve fired police for second-degree battery, let alone for being charged for first-degree murder, and allowed them to come back to work as police officers.

The last thing is that the violation of the grand jury testimony, too, by giving it to the defense attorneys for the police, to allow them to find out what’s [inaudible] in it and whether it would have a means to try to have the charges dropped against their clients. Now, that is another violation of civil rights injustice, because no one's allowed to view the grand jury testimony. If that was the case, they could have let the defense attorney decide whether or not they should be charged or not.

Everything has really been the complete opposite of what should be. And finally the judge -- there was a motion for the judge to recuse himself. I don't think just because of this, but because of his air of impropriety that was given in his disclosure. So at this point, that's what we're all working on: his recusal from the case and trying to obtain a judge that will deal with everything strictly by the book and fairly.

ROSANA CRUZ: And just to clarify, the judge on this case is a close friend of the police department, has three staff members who have direct family relationships or business relationships with the defense attorneys.

If and when the state of affairs in this country deteriorates to the point of Martial Law being declared, which Arthur thinks may be closer than one is comfortable thinking about, the social structure will likely show immediate signs of fracture along the lines of race and economic status. It is not difficult to imagine a bloodbath the likes of which would make the above chronicled events look like a schoolyard shoving match.

The fault lines that such a fracture would follow exist today and have existed for hundreds of years. No amount of military defeats or proclamations or legislative acts have been able to alter the deep seated traditions and beliefs of white people towards people of color, specifically African Americans. Part of it is the resistance toward governance by a body thousands of miles away that has no perceived frame of reference to the local circumstances, but the greater part is the deep seated human tendency to continue to vilify what has been viewed as that which is not a part of us, past and present and future, simply out of the fear of change. Sadly, the circumstances that will most likely bring upon an escalation of this behavior are also the greatest opportunity for the dismantling of those attitudes and barriers.

The choice to continue down the path of separation and marginalization through intimidation and violence is easier than the uncertain choice to cross the barriers and engage. A very unique set of circumstances need to fall into place in order for this to happen and they need to be met with an open eyed attitude. This is not usually the mindset people are operating in when faced with the daunting scenarios found during a large natural (or man made, in the case of the Levees rupturing) disaster or a police or militarily enforced social regimen (which is what Martial Law essentially is.)

One would hope that we have evolved far enough that there are people whose cooler heads would prevail in some situations like this, as they did in the case of Houston Mayor Bill White overruling Harris County Judge Robert Eckels in the matter of accepting the bulk of evacuees from New Orleans two years ago. Unfortunately, the possibility of examples of the conduct detailed above cannot be ruled out.