Posts
Much has been unfolding around the death of 19 year old Kenneth Harding in Bay View Hunters Point on July 16th, and whether or not he was killed by the SFPD. Here is my understanding of the facts.
First, here is the video of Kenneth Harding dying in broad daylight, on the ground, blood pouring out of his body, as he makes feeble attempts to move. Several police train their guns on him and create a barrier to holding back an increasingly upset crowd. (WARNING: this video is very graphic and triggering.)
I first saw this video on July 17th and was very upset and disturbed by it. To watch how the police acted while this teenager was dying from a gunshot wound is painful and infuriating. If you have enough humanity left in you that to watch this is unbearable, we need more of you.
But let's look at what led up to this moment--the part that isn't on tape.
Harding was riding a Muni train when uniformed SFPD officers began doing fare checks. The officers detained Harding (for not having proof of paying the $2 fare), and then Harding ran from them.
The SFPD claimed that their officers fired at Harding in self-defense after Harding had turned around--while fleeing--and shot at them. Therefore they admitted to having fatally shot Harding, but claimed that is was only because he had shot first.
The police claim that they have witnesses, but as pointed out by journalist Davey D, no eye witnesses have spoken to the media saying that Harding was armed and had fired a shot. Yet at least a half dozen eye witnesses have spoken to media saying they did not see Harding fire a shot.
The SFPD initially said that Harding's gun was found later that day, thanks to a cell-phone video from a person at the scene. The SFPD said that the gun must've fallen out of Harding's hand, but that the officers didn't see it at the time. Here is the video of the SFPD press conference on July 18th.
SFPD Press Conference Regarding Officer Involved Shooting on 3rd Street from San Francisco Police on Vimeo.
From about 3:03 to 3:36 in the video above, police chief Greg Suhr shows the cell-phone video (as part of a newscast) and points to a man in a striped hoody picking up the gun, which is several yards from where Harding had fallen on the ground.
But here is the cell-phone video of the man in the hoody picking up the gun. The way the newscast edited the video is misleading. There does appear to be a gun on the ground, at the right hand corner of the screen at 0:15. What do you think? (For a still click here or see below). But at 1:20 the man in the striped hoody is picking up a cell phone, not a gun. Why would the SFPD lie about that?
The SFPD said they "continued to work as many citizens that would come forward" to track down the gun (which they didn't notice on the ground at the time). They said they they later obtained it at somebody's home.
Then on July 19 and 21, the SFPD came out with more press releases. These press releases did two things: 1) they created a body of scientific evidence to back their story, and 2) they changed their story.
Their evidence includes the audio and map of the 10 shots fired (which they can do with a triangulation technology called Shot Spotter). This evidence offers more details, but it can't prove who was doing the shooting shooting.
Their evidence also includes gun residue on Harding's right hand and a .380 caliber round found in his pocket. If this is true, it's very convincing evidence that Harding was armed. But let's not jump to conclusions.
The way the press release is worded indicates that the "analysis" that found gun residue was conducted by SFPD, and there appears to be no indication that is was confirmed by an independent source. The .380 caliber found in his pocket was found by the SF Medical Examiner's staff. But keep in mind the SFPD had made no mention of this piece of evidence for over four days since the shooting the took place.
All of this must be understood in context where, only several months ago, the SFPD was forced to throw out 57 felony cases for falsifying evidence, as Davey D has consistently reminded folks.
Furthermore, the SPFD has completely changed their initial story and is now saying that Harding shot and killed himself.
The police carry .40 caliber guns (according to the SFPD). The bullet found lodged in Harding's head, which entered through is neck, was .38 caliber. But keep in mind that while the SF Medical Examiner's office indicated that path of the bullet through Harding's body, it was the SF Police Crime Lab that identified the bullet as .38 caliber. To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't been confirmed by an independent source.
The SPFD also said the gun they had obtained was a .45 caliber.
If this evidence is true, neither the "reclaimed gun," nor the police officer's guns, were the guns that killed Harding. How convenient. Harding's gun (if he had one) is still missing, and the police officers are no long culpable.
But again, this is all only if the bullet in his head is actually .38 caliber, which hasn't been confirmed by a third party, and if the police also don't have other guns that aren't .40 caliber that they may have used.
The Media
Lastly, it is infuriating to see how a lot of the media covered this, often leading their stories with the fact that Harding was a "person-of-interest" in the murder of a pregnant teen in Seattle, Washington, as well as the fact that he was on parole for attempting to promote teenage prostitution. As horrible as these crimes are (whoever did them), they have nothing to do with this case. The police were chasing a black teenager who hadn't paid his Muni fare. Period. They did not know anything more about his background. Furthermore, a "person-of-interest" is not even a suspect. And the mother of the victim of that murder has said her daughter was not actually pregnant. This kind of sensationalized information works to block people's instinct to empathize with Harding as a victim of a shooting. It gets readers stuck on the fact that he's an "incorrigible violent criminal" who's "a menace to society," a racialized stereotype so deeply ingrained into our collective psyche. But please, let's not let that blind us to what actually happened.
"The community" of Bayview Hunters point is often mentioned as outraged and traumatized by the event--rightfully so. But failing to to actually quote a variety of these individuals--especially those who were eye witnesses--serves to marginalize them as just "a community" who are emotional about the shooting, but don't have anything factual or objective to offer to the case. This is incredibly insulting. If anyone should be charged with injecting irrational emotion to this conversation, it should be the media that lead their stories with Harding's possible criminal past before actually talking about the facts of what happened.
The Investigation
Who initially made the public announcement linking Harding to a criminal past? The SFPD Homicide Detail, which is one of the 4 agency's doing an investigation of this case (see video of press conference above). Yes, one of the agencies supposedly providing an objective investigation into what happened is the one suggesting that Harding could be a murderer, when in reality he was not even a suspect: he was a "person of interest."
Who are the other three agencies investigating this case? 1) SFPD's Internal Affairs, which is also not really independent because it's part of the SFPD. 2) The District Attorney, George Gascon, who was the head of the SFPD until six and a half months ago! and 3) the Office of Citizen Complaints.
These are the facts. Major thanks to independent reporter Davey D for being the main source for many in shining a light on this case. Keep shining a light on SFPD and the media. Hold them accountable.
First, here is the video of Kenneth Harding dying in broad daylight, on the ground, blood pouring out of his body, as he makes feeble attempts to move. Several police train their guns on him and create a barrier to holding back an increasingly upset crowd. (WARNING: this video is very graphic and triggering.)
I first saw this video on July 17th and was very upset and disturbed by it. To watch how the police acted while this teenager was dying from a gunshot wound is painful and infuriating. If you have enough humanity left in you that to watch this is unbearable, we need more of you.
But let's look at what led up to this moment--the part that isn't on tape.
Harding was riding a Muni train when uniformed SFPD officers began doing fare checks. The officers detained Harding (for not having proof of paying the $2 fare), and then Harding ran from them.
The SFPD claimed that their officers fired at Harding in self-defense after Harding had turned around--while fleeing--and shot at them. Therefore they admitted to having fatally shot Harding, but claimed that is was only because he had shot first.
The police claim that they have witnesses, but as pointed out by journalist Davey D, no eye witnesses have spoken to the media saying that Harding was armed and had fired a shot. Yet at least a half dozen eye witnesses have spoken to media saying they did not see Harding fire a shot.
The SFPD initially said that Harding's gun was found later that day, thanks to a cell-phone video from a person at the scene. The SFPD said that the gun must've fallen out of Harding's hand, but that the officers didn't see it at the time. Here is the video of the SFPD press conference on July 18th.
SFPD Press Conference Regarding Officer Involved Shooting on 3rd Street from San Francisco Police on Vimeo.
From about 3:03 to 3:36 in the video above, police chief Greg Suhr shows the cell-phone video (as part of a newscast) and points to a man in a striped hoody picking up the gun, which is several yards from where Harding had fallen on the ground.
But here is the cell-phone video of the man in the hoody picking up the gun. The way the newscast edited the video is misleading. There does appear to be a gun on the ground, at the right hand corner of the screen at 0:15. What do you think? (For a still click here or see below). But at 1:20 the man in the striped hoody is picking up a cell phone, not a gun. Why would the SFPD lie about that?
 |
| A gun in the bottom right corner? |
The SFPD said they "continued to work as many citizens that would come forward" to track down the gun (which they didn't notice on the ground at the time). They said they they later obtained it at somebody's home.
Then on July 19 and 21, the SFPD came out with more press releases. These press releases did two things: 1) they created a body of scientific evidence to back their story, and 2) they changed their story.
Their evidence includes the audio and map of the 10 shots fired (which they can do with a triangulation technology called Shot Spotter). This evidence offers more details, but it can't prove who was doing the shooting shooting.
Their evidence also includes gun residue on Harding's right hand and a .380 caliber round found in his pocket. If this is true, it's very convincing evidence that Harding was armed. But let's not jump to conclusions.
The way the press release is worded indicates that the "analysis" that found gun residue was conducted by SFPD, and there appears to be no indication that is was confirmed by an independent source. The .380 caliber found in his pocket was found by the SF Medical Examiner's staff. But keep in mind the SFPD had made no mention of this piece of evidence for over four days since the shooting the took place.
All of this must be understood in context where, only several months ago, the SFPD was forced to throw out 57 felony cases for falsifying evidence, as Davey D has consistently reminded folks.
Furthermore, the SPFD has completely changed their initial story and is now saying that Harding shot and killed himself.
The police carry .40 caliber guns (according to the SFPD). The bullet found lodged in Harding's head, which entered through is neck, was .38 caliber. But keep in mind that while the SF Medical Examiner's office indicated that path of the bullet through Harding's body, it was the SF Police Crime Lab that identified the bullet as .38 caliber. To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't been confirmed by an independent source.
The SPFD also said the gun they had obtained was a .45 caliber.
If this evidence is true, neither the "reclaimed gun," nor the police officer's guns, were the guns that killed Harding. How convenient. Harding's gun (if he had one) is still missing, and the police officers are no long culpable.
But again, this is all only if the bullet in his head is actually .38 caliber, which hasn't been confirmed by a third party, and if the police also don't have other guns that aren't .40 caliber that they may have used.
The Media
Lastly, it is infuriating to see how a lot of the media covered this, often leading their stories with the fact that Harding was a "person-of-interest" in the murder of a pregnant teen in Seattle, Washington, as well as the fact that he was on parole for attempting to promote teenage prostitution. As horrible as these crimes are (whoever did them), they have nothing to do with this case. The police were chasing a black teenager who hadn't paid his Muni fare. Period. They did not know anything more about his background. Furthermore, a "person-of-interest" is not even a suspect. And the mother of the victim of that murder has said her daughter was not actually pregnant. This kind of sensationalized information works to block people's instinct to empathize with Harding as a victim of a shooting. It gets readers stuck on the fact that he's an "incorrigible violent criminal" who's "a menace to society," a racialized stereotype so deeply ingrained into our collective psyche. But please, let's not let that blind us to what actually happened.
"The community" of Bayview Hunters point is often mentioned as outraged and traumatized by the event--rightfully so. But failing to to actually quote a variety of these individuals--especially those who were eye witnesses--serves to marginalize them as just "a community" who are emotional about the shooting, but don't have anything factual or objective to offer to the case. This is incredibly insulting. If anyone should be charged with injecting irrational emotion to this conversation, it should be the media that lead their stories with Harding's possible criminal past before actually talking about the facts of what happened.
The Investigation
Who initially made the public announcement linking Harding to a criminal past? The SFPD Homicide Detail, which is one of the 4 agency's doing an investigation of this case (see video of press conference above). Yes, one of the agencies supposedly providing an objective investigation into what happened is the one suggesting that Harding could be a murderer, when in reality he was not even a suspect: he was a "person of interest."
Who are the other three agencies investigating this case? 1) SFPD's Internal Affairs, which is also not really independent because it's part of the SFPD. 2) The District Attorney, George Gascon, who was the head of the SFPD until six and a half months ago! and 3) the Office of Citizen Complaints.
These are the facts. Major thanks to independent reporter Davey D for being the main source for many in shining a light on this case. Keep shining a light on SFPD and the media. Hold them accountable.
1 comment:
thanks, I needed this. (It's a very confusing story.)
sincerely, JW
Post a Comment