Chinese-American protestors speak out against Peter Liang conviction.
On Nov. 20, 2014, NYPD officer Peter Liang accidentally shot and killed African-American man Akai Gurley in Brooklyn’s Louis H. Pink Houses.
The Polarized Truth
On Nov. 20, 2014, Peter Liang, a rookie NYPD officer, entered a dark stairwell inside the Louis H. Pink Houses, one of the most dangerous housing projects in Brooklyn. Officer Liang was on the so-called vertical patrol duty, a job that has put lives of law-enforcement officers in peril before. Startled by a noise, the panicked Liang accidentally shot a bullet from his Glock 9mm handgun. The bullet ricocheted off a wall and fatally struck Akai Gurley, an African-American 28-year-old man, who was walking down the stairs with his girlfriend. The shot was accidental, and the fatal hit was even more improbable. Out of no malicious intent – indeed any intent at all, Liang had been implicated in a deplorable tragedy. Yet the American criminal justice system, eager to atone for the unjust tragedies of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, and many, many other unarmed men of color, just found the perfect scapegoat in the 28-year-old Peter Liang, the son of a cook and a garment worker, two Chinese immigrants from Hong Kong. Liang, convicted of second-degree manslaughter, now faces up to 15 years in prison. What happened to Akai Gurley and his family is a tragedy, but not a crime. On the other hand, the conviction of Peter Liang was both a tragedy and an injustice.
Peter Liang deserves justice.
On Nov. 20, 2014, Akai Gurley, 28, an African-American resident of Brooklyn’s Louis H. Pink Houses, father of two, was walking down a staircase with his girlfriend, both unarmed, when a bullet was fired and fatally shot him. His killer, Officer Peter Liang, went down the stairs to look for the bullet, possibly to cover up the misfire. Liang realized that Gurley was gravely wounded, yet did not administer CPR to his victim, lingering briefly while Gurley’s girlfriend, kneeling in a puddle of blood, tried desperately to resuscitate Gurley. Evidence suggests that Liang and his colleague even delayed calling for medical assistance – perhaps fearing that it would cost them their jobs. Liang had no reason to unholster his gun when he entered the stairwell in the first place. He had even less reason to fire it. And even after he realized the grave consequences of his unprofessionalism, in an act so callous and in a disregard for human life so abhorrent, Peter Liang left Akai Gurley to die on the floor of a dark stairwell. He left Gurley’s mother bereft of a son, his girlfriend bereft of a partner, and his children bereft of a father. His conviction is justice, one long owed to Black America and to the families of unarmed black men victimized by police violence and a broken criminal justice system.
Peter Liang deserves justice.
There are two different accounts of Liang’s shooting, and though both demand justice for Peter Liang, one appeals to the olive branch and the other to the sword. The two polarized narratives, distilled into pithy rallying cries, created equally opposed actions from both sides, complicating America’s already labyrinthine racial politics.
Among other effects, the Peter Liang case rocked the Chinese-American community. Thousands of demonstrators, most of them Chinese-Americans, rallied in Los Angeles, New York, and Boston to protest Liang’s conviction. Protesters rallied behind the slogans of “Tragedy, Not Crime,” “No Scapegoating,” and even “All Lives Matter,” demanding District Attorney Kenneth Thompson to withdraw Liang’s sentence.
However, Black Lives Matter activists expressed opposition to the pro-Liang rallies and maintained that the conviction was just. Counter-protesters in Brooklyn held signs that read “Jail Killer Cops” and “Justice for Akai Gurley.”
Though both parties demand justice, neither delivers in the Peter Liang case. Pro-Liang rallies often conveniently overlook the crucial and chilling fact that Peter Liang may have delayed or neglected to administer aid or call an ambulance for fear of losing his job, which Liang blamed on bad radio signals in the building. Instead, protesters use the rather tenuous argument that Liang should not be punished since white officers often weren’t. Protesters reason that if the white officers responsible for Eric Garner’s – and countless others’ – deaths were not convicted, the conviction of an Asian American officer must therefore be racial scapegoating for White America’s sins, and Liang must, like his predecessors, be acquitted.
Nevertheless, it is difficult not to feel some sympathy for the young officer. Liang’s shot was accidental and the ricochet action of the bullet was even more extraordinarily unfortunate; thus, Gurley’s death seems almost entirely based on chance and hardly racially motivated. Liang’s misbehavior in the case is certainly not comparable to the jarring chokehold killing of Eric Garner caught on camera. Labeling Liang a “murderer” or a “killer cop,” as some activists have done, does him serious injustice.
The Twitterization of Politics
The case of Peter Liang illustrates what goes wrong in our age of media-enabled, populist activism and identity politics. When the complex details of an event or a policy, as is true in the Peter Liang case, are reduced to a racially toned narrative, and when that narrative is further reduced to a couple catchphrases that can fit in a third of a tweet, many of the finer details, facts, drawbacks, and charitable considerations of the other side are lost and degraded into the opposing chants of “Tragedy, Not Crime” versus “Black Lives Matter” – into a conflict of Asian America versus Black America. Concerned citizens are no longer independent thinkers but are expected to toe the party line: by not supporting Peter Liang, one is turning one’s back on the Chinese-American community and denying that the Chinese community has been “viciously attacked.” On the other hand, by supporting Peter Liang, one is supporting police brutality against unarmed black men and denying that Black Lives Matter.
Indeed, once identity has been inescapably tangled into politics, it is hard to go back, when identity-centered narratives project Gurley’s tragic death as an assault on all of Black America and magnify Liang’s conviction as an affront to all of Chinese America. It is interesting to think how much it would take for pro-Liang rallies to acknowledge that Liang’s misconduct probably warrants some punitive action. It is equally difficult to imagine Black Lives Matter acknowledging that the death of Akai Gurley is probably an isolated incident, motivated by misfortune and not by racial animosity.
Such acknowledgement can only strengthen each side’s message. Acknowledging Liang’s misconduct would show that the pro-Liang groups are well-informed activists speaking out against scapegoating, instead of mere adherents to ethnic solidarity. Similarly, admitting that the Liang case is probably an isolated incident – a position that is faithful to the facts – would only prove that Black Lives Matter’s message is not anti-law enforcement, as its detractors proclaim. Yet neither side is willing to compromise – or at the very least acknowledge merits of the other, as any concession could be construed as racial betrayal.
To strengthen their message, activists on both sides use pithy, hashtag-able slogans to represent their causes, but politics is so much more than a tenth of a tweet can possibly encompass. Just like “Tragedy, Not Crime” cannot capture the complexities of the Peter Liang case, neither can “Black Lives Matter” capture the intricacies of reforming the criminal justice system. Instead of nuanced facts, information, and details, citizens today receive a Twitterized version of politics, full of rousing cries but barren in substance.
Towards a New Activism
Political activism from the Chinese community in the case of Peter Liang has led pundits to proclaim an “Asian American tiger roar,” as Asian Americans have traditionally remained politically dormant. The awakening of Asian-American political involvement demonstrates that our age of mass democracy enabled by social media has proven a boon to activists of all kind. Yet with social media bringing more people into politics, activism cannot solely focus on hyping up enthusiasm with a simple narrative and sexy catchphrases. Activists must also inform its followers the details, intricate facts, and potential drawbacks – and perhaps occasionally acknowledge that their opponents may have a point. Activists are the vanguards of democracy in our age. They have the responsibility to deliver justice, especially to their own narratives.
Hashtags, slogans, and rallying cries will not bring Peter Liang the justice that he deserves. But a new activism – one that is honest, open, and nuanced – will.
Image source: Liance/Wikimedia Commons