In the Oscar Grant case and in several other cases, when you're talking about the issue of police terrorism (that's the phrase that I prefer, as opposed to brutality), you have the police officers' bill of rights, which is a law passed in California which basically shields police officers from public scrutiny. If I'm a journalist and I have a history of writing horrible articles, you can go and look that up. If there is a teacher who's got a history of abusing students, you'll be able to find that out. The same with doctors. But in terms of police officers, if a police officer has a history of abusing people, of shooting, of seeing guns where there are no guns, we can't find that out because of the shield of the police officers' bill of rights.
And so organizations such as the California Peace Officers Research Council and these police unions--in Los Angeles, we have the Los Angeles Police Protective League--all of these various organized entities on behalf of law enforcement ensure that there is a shield, based upon law, that protects their officers from public scrutiny. Well, in Oakland and around the country--well, in California in particular, the police officers' bill of rights either needs to be abolished or amended. We need to be able to know who are those officers who consistently violate the human rights of people in various communities. It either needs to be abolished or severely curtailed. Police power in general needs to be severely curtailed.