I'm reviewing the grand jury transcripts released last night, and they are simply amazing. Here's my favorite exchange so far to illustrate the deeply embedded biases that exist in our culture when examining police violence. This is from the testimony of the medical examiner, pp. 43-44:
Q: Were you told when you initially arrived at the scene that there was some type of altercation involving an officer and the deceased?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And that was described as an assault?
A: Correct.
Q: So when you began this investigation, you were characterizing this as an assault of a law enforcement officer, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that in any way meant to be your opinion of what happened or who was a victim in this case?
A: No, ma'am. Any time I'm involved in an officer involved shooting, be it a fatal one or non-fatal, it is always during my initial investigation listed as an assault on law enforcement.
Q: And so on various evidence items that you package on these sheets, you list a victim name?
A: Correct.
Q: And when you began this investigation, who was your victim name on these packages?
A: Officer Wilson.
The investigators automatically presume that if a police officer shoots someone, no matter what the circumstances or evidence, it is an "assault on law enforcement."
But hey... that doesn't mean they start with an opinion about it. This was a totally unbiased investigation. They all are.