Eyes on the Prize II; Interview with Charles O'Brien

Okay, we're going to start from the beginning. When did you first hear about the Black Panther Party and sort of describe that and what you thought about them when you heard about them? Well, it was in the middle 1960s and 66s around there and we heard about some individuals who were having confrontation and with the police and parts of Oakland and I thought there were another, not group, which California had then a fair quota on. Mark II. Okay, and remember to refer you, when did you first hear about the Black Panther Party and talk about that? Well, I think they came to our attention in the middle 1960s. We heard about a group identified as the Black Panthers who were having confrontational encounters with the police departments in Oakland and the style of operation was very angry, very confrontational

and we thought we had another nut group seeking violent solutions to society's problems, loosen Oakland. What did you hear that they were doing? Having strong and aggressive dialogues with the police, that they, on the occasion of arrests. Okay, and if you could rephrase, what did you hear that the Black Panthers were doing? We heard that the Black Panthers were having strong confrontations with the police departments were interfering in arrests, were interposing themselves as a militant group in the process of police operations in East Oakland and it looked to us like a very bad and very explosive situation. Okay, what was the reputation of the Oakland police in terms of... All right, that's fine. The police department in 1967-6667. Well, I think it's difficult to say with the reputation

of the Oakland police department who was at that time. I think they were individual officers who might have been somewhat aggressive because of their experience in the streets of Oakland, but I don't think the department for the Bay Area, for the San Francisco Bay Area had a particularly racist reputation. And the reputation is being a pretty tough police department and perhaps a physical one, but it was difficult from our point of view in law enforcement and the Department of Justice, say to California, to say that a police department should always be legal, but should always go with kid glove rules in a very rough environment. I don't think they had a bad reputation. Okay, could you describe the Sacramento visit, the Panther visit to the Sacramento State Capitol as you heard about it and just talk us through it? Well, it was a little upsetting at the time and then almost immediately afterwards it was a source of greater amusement and

law enforcement circles because the Panthers and principally Huey Newton had learned that waving guns in public was not in itself a violation of California statute. What he didn't realize, of course, was that carrying guns into the legislative halls of Sacramento was specifically against state law. And so they went up there to make an impact. They had men, the background was that they had been surrounding police officers who were making arrests in the black community in a circle, waving the weapons and yelling about Miranda Reich. And so in assembly, my name Don Malford from Berkeley, I introduced the bill to change the law on carrying weapons public in open display. And the Panthers decided to make their point by visiting the state legislature and brandishing their weapons. The force that was up there was California state police, which are not a state police in the sense of some of the eastern states, but are basically guides on

state buildings and sometimes unfortunately pejoratively referred to as doyshakers. And the doyshakers all of a sudden had a number of armed black, rather militant and stride in types, brandishing weapons and pouring in. And the Sacramento police thought this was a very serious problem. And it was. I mean, we didn't know what they were up to. And with the calls came into the state department of justice, we said, what the same hill is this all about. And these crazy characters investigated their actions again. Of course, they guaranteed passage of the Malford act, which changed the laws so they could no longer brandish their weapons, which may or may not have been one of the things they intended. Okay. Could you talk about the language of the Black Panther Party, you know, pig and, you know, whatever? How that affected you? And especially in your position, when you heard that, what that meant, what response you had? Well, I mean, the language that the Panthers used was aggressive, confrontational and provocative. It was designed to evoke a response

from the police from the State Department of Justice point of view. We wanted tranquility. We did not want confrontations between police departments and any citizen group. And we found them extremely provocative and very irritating. The language was confrontational, deliberately confrontational. And we thought it was very unfortunate. Okay. As Chief Deputy Attorney General, what didn't mean to you that citizens were taking up guns and walking on the streets with them? Well, as Chief Deputy Attorney General, I'd had experience and the Department of Justice to say to California that experience in the 1960s, prior to this time, with a variety of nut groups, both extreme left and extreme right, who were running around with guns thinking that they could solve the problems of California and the world through direct both in action. And we were and had been well informed. And in some cases had surveillance upon extreme groups that carried weapons.

When these characters came along, we thought they were another irritating part of the Boogie Bays that was dying of bubble all over California. We needed them like a severe case of a bad disease. Okay. What was excuse me, excuse me, I had to cut from one second. Can I get a tail sling right around? I'm sorry, I have a little bit of problem. Mark. Mark IV. Okay, we're still rolling. Still rolling. Okay. Okay, be rolling. What was the difference between the Panthers and the rest of California gun culture? I mean, there was a large number of groups, people carried guns in California. What was the difference with the Panthers? Well, one, the difference between the Panthers and the other groups that we regretted the presence of was that the Panthers were in an urban environment, whereas the others tended to hold their

maneuvers in the high desert with larger weapons. God help us. But the Panthers seemed to be in deliberate open provocative confrontation with the police departments in their early periods. They used revolutionary language, provocative language, and seemed to be deliberately seeking to confront established authority, particularly police authority. But then we observed that they seemed to have a social side, a concept of doing something beyond these angry confrontations, to the point where they were going in as some of us derisively said into the grocery business. But this was a good thing. They were starting to, I think, put certain pressures on the grocers to bring in food for the needy and to attempt to perform a variety of services that they thought weren't being done in this community. This distinguished them on our perception over a period of time remarkably from other groups. What were some of the legislative changes that you worked on that

trying to curb the Panthers use of arms and the use of arms in public? Well, over a period of time in the 1960s, we were constantly going to the legislature to try and restrict the use of weapons by citizens in an urban and environment. We did not feel that hunting rifles or any kind of weapon just belonged on city streets. And we pressed the legislature with some success over a period of time. And sometimes the NRA was stronger than we were, quite frankly, to get the guns out of the hands of the people who were waving them around. And the Panthers were particularly provocative. We didn't, from the state point of view, regard them as serious a threat as some of the others, like the revolutionary arm movement and the right-wing groups, the states' rights groups and the paramilitary on the right. But they were particularly provocative in their public confrontations. And we regarded them as a

pain. Okay, I'm interested in your role as a pilot. Okay, we're just going to put the 100-foot-in. Mark five. Okay, again, what was the policy of the state, in particular, Governor Reagan about the Panthers, and how did you, what was your position on it? Well, Governor Reagan was more confrontational. I think he felt he had to be and he was extremely supportive of District Attorney Cochley and the Alameda County authorities. You must understand at this time we had the student body in taking to the streets from the Berkeley campus into Oakland on marches against the war. There were demonstrations of all kinds back and forth on this at this time. But as the State Department of Justice, because we had some law enforcement supervisory authority, we were attempting to calm things down to get the dialogue, the public picture of the dialogue down to a lower decibel rating. And so we found ourselves pragmatically following, of course,

sometimes it was somewhat different than the governors. Okay, in that early period, 67-68, did you see the Panthers as being dangerous? Oh, I think in 67-68 there was no question that we thought the Panthers were had the capacity to be extremely dangerous. They were confrontational, they were on. Their programs seemed to consist of having angry dialogues and sometimes violent dialogues with the police. Okay, and how do you feel about using guns for social change? How did you feel at that time? Well, I felt every man is shaped by his experience and I served as a 19-year-old in the infantry in World War II. I didn't think that guns solve an awful lot. I mean, we beat Hitler, but I didn't think that we needed to take World War II to the streets of California. And I thought that the use of guns, even if they weren't fired, by these people was extremely dangerous, and could lead to real problems. Okay, cut. Yeah, can you do in a minute now? Sure. Okay, probably. So I guess let me just try to formulate a question to the director.

There's a party. I'll just stand here. What was the media image of the Panthers and how did that fit with what we were doing? How did it feed on itself, right? How did it feed on itself and how did that fit Mark VI? Okay, what was the media perception or presentation of the Panthers and how did it feed on itself and then what was the information that you were getting? Well, for the media, particularly for television, the Panthers were good copy. And the more they had angry confrontations and the angry their rhetoric was, the better news they were. And the Panthers quickly realized this, and they fed to each other. And it was from our point of view, attempting to modulate the dialogue and to decrease tension, they were terrible. The media didn't help a damn bit. Okay, cut. Let's do it again, please.

The media presentation of the Panthers and how it fed on itself. Well, the media, particularly television, liked confrontation. They liked the angry rhetoric of the Panthers. They liked people waving their own rifles. This made great news copy. The Panthers quickly discovered this. From our point of view, and seeking to modulate the dialogue, to reduce tensions, they were terrible. They would absolutely terribly fed at each other and the media was paying in the butt. Okay, cut.