#NNPA BlackPress
Report Reveals Shooting Death of Joshua Pawlik by OPD Could Have Been Prevented

Before George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and countless others were killed by police this year, Joshua Pawlik was killed by the Oakland Police Department (OPD) on March 11, 2018.
Pawlik lost his life that night under circumstances that would eventually lead to the Oakland City Council agreeing to pay Pawlik’s family $1.4 million in April of this year.
More than two years after Pawlik’s death, a 54-page report on the shooting was released on August 17, 2020. A summary of the report and a timeline of follow-up events is below.
A passerby who was walking his dog on 40th Street in Oakland called 911 at 6:15 p.m. and reported that Pawlik was unresponsive, lying between two homes and possibly may have had a weapon.
Pawlik a 31-year-old white homeless man from San Francisco, was initially described as a “light-skinned male” by police dispatchers.
Officer Josef Phillips, first at the scene, arrived at 6:19 p.m. and reported to the OPD Communications Division that Pawlik had a semiautomatic handgun in his right hand and was “. . . either sleeping or unconscious, or possibly intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics.”
Other officers and supervisors arrived at the scene and blocked traffic and a BearCat (specialized armored police vehicle) also arrived.
A camera was placed on the BearCat and captured Sgt. Francisco Negrete, officers William Berger, Brandon Hraiz and Craig Tanaka firing their AR-15 patrol rifles — 22 shots in 2.23 seconds — as Pawlik began to awaken and move.
Phillips fired a “less than lethal shot.”
Pawlik was pronounced dead at the scene at 7:13 and had been handcuffed.
The five police officers were not disciplined immediately at the time because Oakland Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick, the first woman to head the OPD, said they did not act improperly. They were eventually fired in 2019 but reinstated because the Oakland Police Commission violated the open meeting laws.
As reported by Zack Haber in a story published in The Post on March 15, 2019, the Coalition for Police Accountability (CPA) called for the firing of Kirkpatrick.
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who hired Kirkpatrick in January 2017, joined the seven-person OPD commission in voting unanimously to fire Kirkpatrick without cause on Feb. 20, 2020,
In May, Kirkpatrick filed a federal whistleblower suit against the City of Oakland, claiming her firing was retaliation for exposing the Oakland Police Commission’s corruption and abuse of power.
“The March 11, 2018, Shooting of Joshua Pawlik by Oakland Police Officers: A Report of the Monitor/Compliance Director,” was released. Retired Chief Robert S. Warshaw is listed as the author and monitor/compliance director.
The report recounted the killing of Pawlik by “. . . 22 bullets fired by four officers as he gained consciousness, with a handgun by his side, in a residential neighborhood of Oakland. One officer fired seven times; another six times; another five times; and another four times . . .”
“Deaths of the disenfranchised—be they people of color, those affected by mental illness, or those experiencing homelessness—at the hands of the police are a stain on our national character.”
(The Washington Post has created a national log of fatal shootings by on-duty police officers since 2015. To date, more than 5,000 shootings have been logged.)
The report concluded that Pawlik’s right hand was on the ground when the shooting began and concurs with OPD, which acknowledged “ . . . that the on-scene Commander was not sequestered at the scene, nor was he interviewed on the night of the incident.”
The report also found that former Chief Kirkpatrick “… failed to question and correct the numerous deficiencies and omissions in the investigation prior to finalizing and forwarding the report to the District Attorney’s Office.”
Based on that report, on March 6, 2020, the D.A. declined to prosecute the case against OPD.
Schaaf told Warshaw that Pawlik’s shooting was “awful but lawful”.
In conclusion, the report stated that “Joshua Pawlik’s death, as well as many others, mostly Black and Brown, who have died at the hands of the police, are to be counted among those that do. (Referring to Schaaf’s ‘lawful but lawful’ statement.) The brutality of Joshua Pawlik’s death; the incompetence and dishonesty in its aftermath; and the failure, thus far, for it to result in real change, debase us all.”
“ . . .[T]he burden for finding the path forward still rests principally with the City of Oakland and its Police Department. The death of Mr. Pawlik could have been avoided if the officers involved had responded differently. The officers had other options; the supervisors and commanders had authority to provide on-scene direction and oversight. They all failed.”
Finally, the report points out lessons to learn: “[t]he Oakland Police Department must prevent officer-involved shootings like the one that killed Joshua Pawlik. The Department must have the courage, commitment, and cadre of leaders with an unwavering willingness to hold to account those sworn to uphold the law. Most importantly, the City of Oakland and its Police Department must demonstrate that they can establish and maintain community trust in the absence of Court Supervision and monitoring.”
The report suggests using the resources of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) to set the “ . . . conditions for Constitutional and effective policing, and provide direction toward best practices in the field.”
The NSA was established in 2003 in response to a lawsuit against OPD over misconduct.
The NSA requires police reforms in several areas, including internal affairs, supervision of officers, police use of force, training, personnel practices, and community policing.
The report also cites The Oakland Police Commission as, “ . . . an important voice for police reform at a time when it is clearer than ever that a police department cannot function without the support of, and oversight by the community it is presumed to serve.”
#NNPA BlackPress
Recently Approved Budget Plan Favors Wealthy, Slashes Aid to Low-Income Americans
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent
The new budget framework approved by Congress may result in sweeping changes to the federal safety net and tax code. The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts. A new analysis from Yale University’s Budget Lab shows the proposals in the House’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Resolution would lead to a drop in after-tax-and-transfer income for the poorest households while significantly boosting revenue for the wealthiest Americans. Last month, Congress passed its Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2025 (H. Con. Res. 14), setting revenue and spending targets for the next decade. The resolution outlines $1.5 trillion in gross spending cuts and $4.5 trillion in tax reductions between FY2025 and FY2034, along with $500 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.
Congressional Committees have now been instructed to identify policy changes that align with these goals. Three of the most impactful committees—Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means—have been tasked with proposing major changes. The Agriculture Committee is charged with finding $230 billion in savings, likely through changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. Energy and Commerce must deliver $880 billion in savings, likely through Medicaid reductions. Meanwhile, the Ways and Means Committee must craft tax changes totaling no more than $4.5 trillion in new deficits, most likely through extending provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Although the resolution does not specify precise changes, reports suggest lawmakers are eyeing steep cuts to SNAP and Medicaid benefits while seeking to make permanent tax provisions that primarily benefit high-income individuals and corporations.
To examine the potential real-world impact, Yale’s Budget Lab modeled four policy changes that align with the resolution’s goals:
- A 30 percent across-the-board cut in SNAP funding.
- A 15 percent cut in Medicaid funding.
- Permanent extension of the individual and estate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
- Permanent extension of business tax provisions including 100% bonus depreciation, expense of R&D, and relaxed limits on interest deductions.
Yale researchers determined that the combined effect of these policies would reduce the after-tax-and-transfer income of the bottom 20 percent of earners by 5 percent in the calendar year 2026. Households in the middle would see a modest 0.6 percent gain. However, the top five percent of earners would experience a 3 percent increase in their after-tax-and-transfer income.
Moreover, the analysis concluded that more than 100 percent of the net fiscal benefit from these changes would go to households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. This happens because lower-income groups would lose more in government benefits than they would gain from any tax cuts. At the same time, high-income households would enjoy significant tax reductions with little or no loss in benefits.
“These results indicate a shift in resources away from low-income tax units toward those with higher incomes,” the Budget Lab report states. “In particular, making the TCJA provisions permanent for high earners while reducing spending on SNAP and Medicaid leads to a regressive overall effect.” The report notes that policymakers have floated a range of options to reduce SNAP and Medicaid outlays, such as lowering per-beneficiary benefits or tightening eligibility rules. While the Budget Lab did not assess each proposal individually, the modeling assumes legislation consistent with the resolution’s instructions. “The burden of deficit reduction would fall largely on those least able to bear it,” the report concluded.
#NNPA BlackPress
A Threat to Pre-emptive Pardons
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process.

By April Ryan
President Trump is working to undo the traditional presidential pardon powers by questioning the Biden administration’s pre-emptive pardons issued just days before January 20, 2025. President Trump is seeking retribution against the January 6th House Select Committee. The Trump Justice Department has been tasked to find loopholes to overturn the pardons that could lead to legal battles for the Republican and Democratic nine-member committee. Legal scholars and those closely familiar with the pardon process worked with the Biden administration to ensure the preemptive pardons would stand against any retaliatory knocks from the incoming Trump administration. A source close to the Biden administration’s pardons said, in January 2025, “I think pardons are all valid. The power is unreviewable by the courts.”
However, today that same source had a different statement on the nuances of the new Trump pardon attack. That attack places questions about Biden’s use of an autopen for the pardons. The Trump argument is that Biden did not know who was pardoned as he did not sign the documents. Instead, the pardons were allegedly signed by an autopen. The same source close to the pardon issue said this week, “unless he [Trump] can prove Biden didn’t know what was being done in his name. All of this is in uncharted territory. “ Meanwhile, an autopen is used to make automatic or remote signatures. It has been used for decades by public figures and celebrities.
Months before the Biden pardon announcement, those in the Biden White House Counsel’s Office, staff, and the Justice Department were conferring tirelessly around the clock on who to pardon and how. The concern for the preemptive pardons was how to make them irrevocable in an unprecedented process. At one point in the lead-up to the preemptive pardon releases, it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process. President Trump began the threat of an investigation for the January 6th Select Committee during the Hill proceedings. Trump has threatened members with investigation or jail.
#NNPA BlackPress
Reaction to The Education EO
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking a higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college.

By April Ryan
There are plenty of negative reactions to President Donald Trump’s latest Executive Order abolishing the Department of Education. As Democrats call yesterday’s action performative, it would take an act of Congress for the Education Department to close permanently. “This blatantly unconstitutional executive order is just another piece of evidence that Trump has absolutely no respect for the Constitution,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. “By dismantling ED, President Trump is implementing his own philosophy on education, which can be summed up in his own words, ‘I love the poorly educated.’ I am adamantly opposed to this reckless action, said Rep. Bobby Scott who is the most senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee.
Morgan State University President Dr. David Wilson chimed in saying “I’m deeply concerned about efforts to shift federal oversight in education back to the states, particularly regarding equity, justice, and fairness. History has shown us what happens when states are left unchecked—Black and poor children are too often denied access to the high-quality education they deserve. In 1979 then President Jimmy Carter signed a law creating the Department of Education. Arne Duncan, former Obama Education Secretary, reminds us that both Democratic and Republican presidents have kept education a non-political issue until now. However, Duncan stressed Republican presidents have contributed greatly to moving education forward in this country.
During a CNN interview this week Duncan said during the Civil War President Abraham “Lincoln created the land grant system” for colleges like Tennessee State University. “President Ford brought in IDEA.” And “Nixon signed Pell Grants into law.” In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush which increased federal oversight of schools through standardized testing. Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college. Wilson details, “that 40 percent of all college students rely on Pell Grants and student loans.”
Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) says this Trump action “impacts students pursuing higher education and threatens 26 million students across the country, taking billions away from their educational futures. Meanwhile, During the president’s speech in the East Room of the White House Thursday, Trump criticized Baltimore City, and its math test scores with critical words. Governor West Moore, who is opposed to the EO action, said about dismantling the Department of Education, “Leadership means lifting people up, not punching them down.”
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
Target Takes a Hit: $12.4 Billion Wiped Out as Boycotts Grow
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Undocumented Workers Are Struggling to Feed Themselves. Slashed Budgets and New Immigration Policies Bring Fresh Challenges
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
BREAKING Groundbreaking Singer Angie Stone Dies in Car Accident at 63
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of February 26 – March 4, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
NAACP Legend and Freedom Fighter Hazel Dukes Passes
-
Arts and Culture3 weeks ago
Beverly Lorraine Greene: A Pioneering Architect and Symbol of Possibility and Progress
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Trump Kicks the Ukrainian President Out of the White House
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Apple Shareholders Reject Effort to Dismantle DEI Initiatives, Approve $500 Billion U.S. Investment Plan