caveman4.20
- Posts
- 5,969
- Reactions
- 9,125
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2012
- Points
- 313
I did not think of it. It is fukked up.I wish I was busier growing, but I'm still on injured reserve
Cops are so out of control these days!
Page 17 of 22
·
Replies 321–340 of 434
- Status
diamond2.0
- Posts
- 1,148
- Reactions
- 1,851
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Points
- 163
Amazing how they waste the courts time ! nazitime .................
Obama and his war on whistlebloswers come to mind ! How many times are they going to try to jail people that film the cops legally ?
Set Up? No Charges for NYPD Officer in Choking Death, But Charges for Man Who Filmed It
If justice wasnt served in the shocking death of Eric Garner, irony certainly was.
In this case, irony twists around the contorted concept that justice is blind, and that, ideally, the dirty work of cops peace officers is better done out of sight and out of the mind of the general public.
There are plenty of police and other authorities who long for the days past before cameras, phones and other digital devices were everywhere, potentially recording anything going on.
Ironically or not, Officer Darren Wilson, now infamous for killing Michael Brown in an alleged justified homicide, was caught on tape threatening to arrest someone for filming his actions as a public officer.
It is no secret that many citizen journalists have been threatened with arrest for daring to film cops, particularly during ongoing arrests. And the Supreme Court has upheld that doing so is a right protected under the First Amendment, and otherwise in the interest of open, transparent good government.
In the case of Eric Garner, no good deed goes unpunished, apparently.
The Huffington Post noted the sad fact that A Grand Jury Did Indict One Person Involved In Eric Garner’s Killing — The Man Who Filmed It:
In August, less than a month after filming the fatal July 17 encounter in which Daniel Pantaleo and other NYPD police officers confronted Garner for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes, a grand jury indicted Orta on weapons charges stemming from an arrest by undercover officers earlier that month.
Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25 caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice’s waistband outside a New York hotel. Orta testified that the charges were falsely mounted by police in retaliation for his role in documenting Garner’s death, but the grand jury rejected his contention, charging him with single felony counts of third-degree criminal weapon possession and criminal firearm possession.A Reuters report back in August claimed that Ramsey Orta was arrested after narcotics police officers observed him outside of a “known drug location on Staten Island.” However, Orta has insisted that he was set up because of his role in filming Eric Garner’s death:
Orta told officers, “You’re just mad because I filmed your boy,” an NYPD spokeswoman said.Was Orta really set up? Without video evidence in the public forum, it is hard to be sure, but clear nonetheless that justice falls unevenly.
Obama and his war on whistlebloswers come to mind ! How many times are they going to try to jail people that film the cops legally ?
Set Up? No Charges for NYPD Officer in Choking Death, But Charges for Man Who Filmed It
If justice wasnt served in the shocking death of Eric Garner, irony certainly was.
In this case, irony twists around the contorted concept that justice is blind, and that, ideally, the dirty work of cops peace officers is better done out of sight and out of the mind of the general public.
There are plenty of police and other authorities who long for the days past before cameras, phones and other digital devices were everywhere, potentially recording anything going on.
Ironically or not, Officer Darren Wilson, now infamous for killing Michael Brown in an alleged justified homicide, was caught on tape threatening to arrest someone for filming his actions as a public officer.
It is no secret that many citizen journalists have been threatened with arrest for daring to film cops, particularly during ongoing arrests. And the Supreme Court has upheld that doing so is a right protected under the First Amendment, and otherwise in the interest of open, transparent good government.
In the case of Eric Garner, no good deed goes unpunished, apparently.
The Huffington Post noted the sad fact that A Grand Jury Did Indict One Person Involved In Eric Garner’s Killing — The Man Who Filmed It:
In August, less than a month after filming the fatal July 17 encounter in which Daniel Pantaleo and other NYPD police officers confronted Garner for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes, a grand jury indicted Orta on weapons charges stemming from an arrest by undercover officers earlier that month.
Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25 caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice’s waistband outside a New York hotel. Orta testified that the charges were falsely mounted by police in retaliation for his role in documenting Garner’s death, but the grand jury rejected his contention, charging him with single felony counts of third-degree criminal weapon possession and criminal firearm possession.A Reuters report back in August claimed that Ramsey Orta was arrested after narcotics police officers observed him outside of a “known drug location on Staten Island.” However, Orta has insisted that he was set up because of his role in filming Eric Garner’s death:
Orta told officers, “You’re just mad because I filmed your boy,” an NYPD spokeswoman said.Was Orta really set up? Without video evidence in the public forum, it is hard to be sure, but clear nonetheless that justice falls unevenly.
Last edited:
diamond2.0
- Posts
- 1,148
- Reactions
- 1,851
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Points
- 163
story and vid here.
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/...s-Pop-Tart-gun-bill-5930593.php#photo-5732997
Texas lawmaker files 'Pop Tart gun' bill
By Lauren McGaughy | December 2, 2014 | Updated: December 3, 2014 12:10am
KOKH - Oklahoma City, OK
AUSTIN - If you think it's a half-baked idea to legally protect kids' rights to play with their food, think again, says one Texas lawmaker.
Rep. Ryan Guillen, D-Rio Grande City, has filed a bill that would prohibit schools from punishing students who use their hands, playthings and, yes, even pastry items to mimic firearms. The proposed legislation also would protect students through the fifth grade who play with toy guns or draw or possess pictures of guns.
Guillen said he filed the bill after a second- grader in suburban Maryland was suspended for two days in March 2013 for chewing his Pop- Tart into the shape of a gun. A similar situation has not arisen in Texas.
"Texas students shouldn't lose instruction time for holding gun-shaped Pop-Tart snacks at school," said Guillen. "This bill will fix this."
The story of Josh Welch, who finished out the year in his Anne Arundel County school, grabbed national headlines and even netted the now 9-year-old a lifetime membership to the National Rifle Association. His teacher said the suspension followed a history of problematic behavior, but Welch's case became a rallying point for gun rights advocates after his parents said the punishment represented a gross overreaction.
The incident was soon followed by similar cases in Virginia and Florida, where students were punished for mimicking gunplay with their fingers or toys. State lawmakers reacted, some passing so-called "Pop-Tart gun" bills to protect students from this type of punishment.
Sen. John Whitmire, who has filed legislation again this year to soften Texas' harsh "zero-tolerance" disciplinary policies, said Guillen's bill has the right intention but could have unintended consequences.
"If I was voting today, I would vote against that bill," Whitmire said. While he has not read the legislation, the Houston Democrat said he would be reluctant to place any restrictions on local school officials to determine proper disciplinary procedures. Guillen's legislation includes flexibility for a school to discipline a student who "disrupts learning" or causes harm or the fear of harm to an educator or another student.
"I believe strongly that common sense should be the guide," Whitmire said. "I just think you have to, in my judgment, leave it to local administrators and school campus administrators to weigh the circumstances."
While her organization has not taken a stance on Guillen's bill, Mary Mergler of the Austin-based advocacy group TexasAppleseed said most efforts to move away from zero-tolerance school discipline policies are positive.
"That sort of overly harsh punishment for behavior that really poses no threat to other students is exactly the type of school discipline we'd like to see reformed," Mergler said. "Pushing students out of school for what is really minor misbehavior is really what's contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline within the state of Texas."
Guillen's bill is likely to be popular with gun groups, which are making a concerted effort to pass legislation this coming year to legalize the open carrying of handguns in Texas.
Education and Second Amendment issues also promise to overlap frequently this session, with campus carry at the forefront and other bills proposing to allow firearms at school sporting events and school board meetings.
Man , Its hard top believe in the land of so called free we have to make laws for kids playing with thier food. Unreal man ! .
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/...s-Pop-Tart-gun-bill-5930593.php#photo-5732997
Texas lawmaker files 'Pop Tart gun' bill
By Lauren McGaughy | December 2, 2014 | Updated: December 3, 2014 12:10am
KOKH - Oklahoma City, OK
AUSTIN - If you think it's a half-baked idea to legally protect kids' rights to play with their food, think again, says one Texas lawmaker.
Rep. Ryan Guillen, D-Rio Grande City, has filed a bill that would prohibit schools from punishing students who use their hands, playthings and, yes, even pastry items to mimic firearms. The proposed legislation also would protect students through the fifth grade who play with toy guns or draw or possess pictures of guns.
Guillen said he filed the bill after a second- grader in suburban Maryland was suspended for two days in March 2013 for chewing his Pop- Tart into the shape of a gun. A similar situation has not arisen in Texas.
"Texas students shouldn't lose instruction time for holding gun-shaped Pop-Tart snacks at school," said Guillen. "This bill will fix this."
The story of Josh Welch, who finished out the year in his Anne Arundel County school, grabbed national headlines and even netted the now 9-year-old a lifetime membership to the National Rifle Association. His teacher said the suspension followed a history of problematic behavior, but Welch's case became a rallying point for gun rights advocates after his parents said the punishment represented a gross overreaction.
The incident was soon followed by similar cases in Virginia and Florida, where students were punished for mimicking gunplay with their fingers or toys. State lawmakers reacted, some passing so-called "Pop-Tart gun" bills to protect students from this type of punishment.
Sen. John Whitmire, who has filed legislation again this year to soften Texas' harsh "zero-tolerance" disciplinary policies, said Guillen's bill has the right intention but could have unintended consequences.
"If I was voting today, I would vote against that bill," Whitmire said. While he has not read the legislation, the Houston Democrat said he would be reluctant to place any restrictions on local school officials to determine proper disciplinary procedures. Guillen's legislation includes flexibility for a school to discipline a student who "disrupts learning" or causes harm or the fear of harm to an educator or another student.
"I believe strongly that common sense should be the guide," Whitmire said. "I just think you have to, in my judgment, leave it to local administrators and school campus administrators to weigh the circumstances."
While her organization has not taken a stance on Guillen's bill, Mary Mergler of the Austin-based advocacy group TexasAppleseed said most efforts to move away from zero-tolerance school discipline policies are positive.
"That sort of overly harsh punishment for behavior that really poses no threat to other students is exactly the type of school discipline we'd like to see reformed," Mergler said. "Pushing students out of school for what is really minor misbehavior is really what's contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline within the state of Texas."
Guillen's bill is likely to be popular with gun groups, which are making a concerted effort to pass legislation this coming year to legalize the open carrying of handguns in Texas.
Education and Second Amendment issues also promise to overlap frequently this session, with campus carry at the forefront and other bills proposing to allow firearms at school sporting events and school board meetings.
Man , Its hard top believe in the land of so called free we have to make laws for kids playing with thier food. Unreal man ! .
squiggly
- Posts
- 3,277
- Reactions
- 4,541
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Points
- 263
I'd just like to point out that I wasn't suggesting people who are being brutalized are pussies.
I'm saying it's pussies who traded liberty for safety what led us to the point where police brutality is prevalent.
So let's not get that twisted, cool?
Cool.
caveman4.20
- Posts
- 5,969
- Reactions
- 9,125
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2012
- Points
- 313
Cool
diamond2.0
- Posts
- 1,148
- Reactions
- 1,851
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Points
- 163
Well , there seams to be something to this assumption bizz. :oops: Roll on .............:cool:
caveman4.20
- Posts
- 5,969
- Reactions
- 9,125
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2012
- Points
- 313
Reaper
- Posts
- 193
- Reactions
- 402
- Joined
- May 3, 2014
- Points
- 63
I'm sure you've heard the saying "Shit flows Down Hill"... You might as well be talking about the current administration & the Federal Government here...
They come bearing gifts & to protect us from ourselves...
Now they're just "For Their Selves" and micro managing laws, fines & taxes imposed as "Penalties" that fuel the machine...
Cops are following the "Lead" or in other words the "Shit" that is flowing down the hill & with all that high nitrogen fertilizer ($$$$) just look @ how the garden grows @ the bottom of the "D.C. Hill"... Jobs, Income, Housing Market, Roads, Bridges, Infrastructure, Homelessness in D.C.???
Need I say more? ;)
Last edited:
caveman4.20
- Posts
- 5,969
- Reactions
- 9,125
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2012
- Points
- 313
Hasan Salaam ft. Immortal Technique & Hezekiah - …:
diamond2.0
- Posts
- 1,148
- Reactions
- 1,851
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Points
- 163
Nice Caveman , playlisted !
Cop Who Shot 12 Year Old Was Fired From Previous Job as a Cop For Being Emotionally Unstable
By John Vibes
Cleveland, Ohio -- Last month, we reported that a police officer shot a young boy for playing in a park with a toy gun just seconds after exiting his vehicle.
The video footage to surface after the incident showed absolutely no restraint on the part of Cleveland patrol officer Timothy Loehmann, who fired the shot that killed young Tamir Rice.
In the weeks following the murder, a number of disturbing details have surfaced showing that this tragedy could have been prevented.
A quick look into the history of officer Timothy Loehmann, shows that he has a short and troubled past with police work. In fact, Loemann was actually terminated from his last job as a police officer, because they did not think that he was mentally capable, or mature enough for the job. He was let go by the City of Independence Police Department in December of 2012, and then was quickly rehired with the Cleveland Police Department in March of this year.
Cleveland police said on Wednesday that conveniently, they never reviewed the Independence file and changed their policies to include checking publicly available records for potential hires.
The termination from his previous job was tied to an emotional breakdown that he had at the firing range during training. The police memo filed after his termination describes the emotional breakdown that Loemann had on the firing range that day.
According to the police memo, which was obtained by The Guardian:
“During a state range qualification course, Ptl Loehmann was distracted and weepy. [Loehmann] could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal. Sgt Tinnirello tried to work through this with Ptl Loehmann by giving him some time. But, after some talking it was clear to Sgt Tinnirello that the recruit was just not mentally prepared to be doing firearm training …Ptl Loehmann continued with his emotional meltdown to a point where Sgt Tinnirello could not take him into the store, so they went to get something to eat and he continued to try and calm Ptl Loehmann. Sgt Tinnirello describes the recruit as being very downtrodden, melancholy with some light crying. Sgt Tinnirello later found this emotional perplexity was due to a personal issue with Ptl Loehmann's on and off again girlfriend whom he was dealing with till 0400 hrs the night before. (Pti Loehmann was scheduled for 0800 the morning in question)."The memo concluded that:
"Due to this dangerous loss of composure during live range training and his inability to manage this personal stress, I do not believe Ptl Loehmann shows the maturity needed to work in our employment. For these reasons, I am recommending he be released from the employment of the city of Independence. I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies."In addition to this breakdown, Loehmann's supervisor, deputy chief Jim Polak said that Loemann had left his gun unlocked, lied to superiors and failed to follow orders on various occasions.
This lack of emotional maturity and critical thinking capabilities could explain why the officer waited over 4 minutes to provide first-aid to the innocent child.
The police officers involved are claiming that the boy, who they allegedly thought was "about 20,"³ pointed the toy gun at them, which put them in fear for their lives, giving them justification to fire the shot.
However, when a young child is walking around in a park with what appears to be a gun, the probability is overwhelming that the "gun" is likely a toy. Any reasonable person would take steps to examine the situation before firing a real weapon at the child.
Have We Reached "Peak Jackboot"?
by William Norman Grigg
In 1768, amid escalating tensions between the British government and independence-minded "radicals" in New England, two full regiments were deployed in Boston as peacekeepers. Their presence was, in historian David Ramsay’s elegantly ominous phrase, “a fruitful source of uneasiness.”
London tried to preserve the pretense that the troops sent to police the colonies were deployed to maintain public order. However, as Ramsay observes, there was “a general conviction” within the population that the Redcoats had been dispatched as tax collectors, and “there could be no security for their property” until they were forced to leave.
By 1770, royal pronouncements and speeches in both houses of parliament increasingly characterized the Americans “as a factious turbulent people, who aimed at throwing off all subordination to Great Britain,” Ramsay continues. That hostility was reciprocated by “fiery spirits” in Boston “who thought it an indignity to have troops quartered among them, [and] were constantly exciting the townspeople to quarrel with the soldiers.”
Benjamin Franklin, who at the time had not abandoned hope of reconciliation between the Throne and the colonies, warned that stationing troops in Boston was akin to "setting up a smith's forge in a magazine of gunpowder." A random spark was set off on March 2, 1770, when a British soldier got into a shouting match with a local resident. Within hours a melee had broken out between Redcoats and "radicals” that rapidly escalated into a mob scene. Punches were thrown, and property was damaged, but nobody was killed.
Three days later, a contingent of armed Redcoats under the command of one Captain Preston was set upon by what one American historian later called "a crowd of disorderly loafers and boys of the town." The troops had responded to what would now be called an “officer in distress” call from a sentry named Hugh White, who had gotten into an argument with a wig-maker over an unpaid bill.
In his History of the American Revolution, Ramsay records that the British troops "were pressed upon, insulted and pelted by a mob armed with clubs, sticks, and snowballs covering stones. They were also dared to fire. In this situation, one of the soldiers who had received a blow, in resentment fired at the supposed aggressor.” That soldier, Private Hugh Montgomery, had been beaten to his knees by a club-wielding assailant before screaming “Damn you, fire!” to his comrades.
Eight people in the crowd were wounded, three of them fatally. The first to fall was a black man named Crispus Attucks. A widely circulated illustration of the event depicts Attucks desperately trying to fend off the fatal attack by reaching for the soldier’s gun – an act we are insistently, and incorrectly, told is a capital offense.
In the interest of “officer safety,” the troops were withdrawn. The mortal remains of Attucks and his two comrades were buried in a ceremony intended “to express the indignation of the inhabitants at the slaughter of their brethren, by soldiers quartered among them, in violation of their civil liberties.”
Rather than escalating the military occupation of Boston in order to suppress the revolt, British colonial authorities indicted Captain Preston and his subordinates for “willful and felonious murder.” At trial they enjoyed the earnest and capable representation of “radical” attorney John Adams.
The jury, in defiance of the prevailing public sentiment, found mitigation in the fact that the soldiers had been "insulted, threatened, and pelted, before they fired," wrote Ramsay. Preston and five of his men were acquitted. Two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter and subsequently branded. The trial, Ramsay concludes, "reflected great honor on John Adams, and [his assistant] Josiah Quincy and also on the integrity of the jury...."
The verdict of public opinion diverged sharply from the outcome of the trial. Skillful propagandists like Samuel Adams (who had helped incite the riot that precipitated the killings) and Paul Revere elided some facts, misrepresented others, and immortalized the event as the “Boston Massacre.”
“The anniversary of it was observed with great solemnity,” Ramsay recorded. “Eloquent orators were successively employed to deliver an annual oration, to preserve the remembrance of it fresh in their minds. On these occasions the blessings of liberty – the horrors of slavery – the dangers of a standing army – the rights of the colonies, and a variety of such topics were presented to the public view, under the most pleasing and alarming forms. These annual orations administered fuel to the fire of liberty, and kept it burning, with an incessant flame.”
It does no injury to the truth to suggest that the effort to capitalize on the “Boston Massacre” was the pre-Independence equivalent of today’s “Hands Up – Don’t Shoot” agitprop campaign. The victims in the March 5, 1770 event had assaulted law enforcement officers, after all. Some, perhaps most, of them were disreputable people who today would be casually denigrated as “thugs.”
Attucks himself, the first martyr in the cause of American Independence, was a law-breaker, a runaway slave of dubious parentage. In addition to committing an act of “theft” by absconding with the “property” of his supposed master, Attucks used fraudulent means to conceal his identity and obtain employment on a whaling ship.
In contemporary terms, he was a virtual behemoth, standing six foot two inches tall and blessed with the brawny and well-conditioned physique of a man who earned a living by casting harpoons, dragging nets, and pulling on thick, heavy nets. Some accounts of the Boston Massacre cast Attucks in the central role, agitating the crowd and organizing the assault on law enforcement.
Obviously, this was no gentle giant. He was an impudent, violent man with no respect for authority and a dangerous gift for inciting rebellion against public order. He fought the law, and the law won – at least from the perspective of his detractors among British loyalists in the colonies.
New York Post columnist Bob McManus, the bejowled defender of police abuse, recently provided us with the Tory perspective on the murder of Eric Garner by NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo, who – unlike Captain Preston and his soldiers – will never stand trial for that crime.
“Eric Garner was a career petty criminal who’d experienced dozens of arrests, but had learned nothing from them,” sniffs McManus. “He was on the street July 17, selling untaxed cigarettes one at a time – which, as inconsequential as it seems, happens to be a crime.”
Garner was a “career criminal” in the mold of John Hancock, who made himself tremendously wealthy by smuggling untaxed goods. On McManus’s premises, Hancock would have to be regarded as a veritable crime lord.
Even if we characterize Garner as a “career criminal” rather than a micro-entrepreneur, the salient fact here is that there is no evidence at all that Garner was selling cigarettes on the day he was murdered by the police. He was killed because he dared to assert self-ownership in the face of unwanted attention from a member of the State’s coercive caste.
Eric Garner’s death, McManus pontificates, was a tragic but necessary demonstration of the futility of resisting the power of the divine State: “He was a victim of himself. It’s just that simple.”
In the moments leading up to his death, Garner had acted as a peacemaker, stopping a fight that the NYPD’s armed tax enforcers had chosen to ignore. Crispus Attucks, on the other hand, spent the last moments of his life inciting a rebellion against the collection agents of a much less oppressive government. McManus, who causally vilifies the former, most likely venerates the latter. People who cherish individual liberty should honor the memory of both.
The “Boston Massacre” represented what we could call “Peak Redcoat” – the moment at which it became clear that the existing regime, administered through a military occupation, simply could not endure.
The unpunished murder of Eric Garner could well signify that our present system has reached the point of “Peak Jackboot.” It is worth remembering, however, that the Regime ruling us is immeasurably more powerful, corrupt, and violent than that of George III, which allowed the colonial policemen who had killed Attucks and two others to stand trial for their actions.
_
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program. Follow him on Twitter.
One more,..
America's Children: The Trials of Growing Up in a Police State
By John W. Whitehead
"It's been three weeks since the flashbang exploded next to my sleeping baby, and he's still covered in burns. There's still a hole in his chest that exposes his ribs. After breaking down the door, throwing my husband to the ground, and screaming at my children, the officers -- armed with M16s -- filed through the house like they were playing war. They searched for drugs and never found any. I heard my baby wailing and asked one of the officers to let me hold him. He screamed at me to sit down and shut up and blocked my view, so I couldn't see my son. I could see a singed crib. And I could see a pool of blood. The officers yelled at me to calm down and told me my son was fine, that he'd just lost a tooth. It was only hours later when they finally let us drive to the hospital that we found out Bou Bou was in the intensive burn unit and that he'd been placed into a medically induced coma."- Alecia Phonesavanh, the mother of Baby Bou Bou
After a year dominated with news of police shootings of unarmed citizens (including children), SWAT team raids gone awry, photo ops of militarized police shouldering assault rifles while perched on top of armored vehicles, and reports on how the police are using asset forfeiture laws to pad their pockets with luxury cars, cash and other expensive toys, I find myself wrestling with the question: how do you prepare a child for life in the American police state, especially when it comes to interactions with police?
Do you parrot the government line, as the schools do, that police officers are community helpers who are to be trusted and obeyed at all times? Do you caution them to steer clear of a police officer, warning them that any interactions could have disastrous consequences? Or is there some happy medium between the two that, while being neither fairy tale nor horror story, can serve as a cautionary tale for young people who will encounter police at virtually every turn?
Children are taught from an early age that there are consequences for their actions. Hurt somebody, lie, steal, cheat, etc., and you will get punished. But how do you explain to a child that a police officer can shoot someone who was doing nothing wrong and get away with it? That a cop can lie, steal, cheat, or kill and still not be punished?
Kids understand accidents: sometimes drinks get spilled, dishes get broken, people slip and fall and hurt themselves, or you bump into someone without meaning to, and they get hurt. As long as it wasn't intentional and done with malice, you forgive them and you move on. Police shootings of unarmed people--of children and old people and disabled people--can't just be shrugged off as accidents, however.
Aiyana Jones was no accident. The 7-year-old was killed after a Detroit SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade into her family's apartment, broke through the door and opened fire, hitting the little girl who was asleep on the living room couch. The cops weren't even in the right apartment.
Ironically, on the same day that President Obama refused to stop equipping police with the very same kinds of military weapons and gear used to raid Aiyana's home, it was reported that the police officer who shot and killed the little girl would not face involuntary manslaughter charges.
Obama insists that 3 million to purchase body cameras for police will prevent any further erosions of trust, but a body camera would not have prevented Aiyana from being shot in the head. Indeed, the entire sorry affair was captured on camera: a TV crew was filming the raid for an episode of The First 48, a true-crime reality show in which homicide detectives have 48 hours to crack a case.
While that 3 million will make Taser International, the manufacturer of the body cameras, a whole lot richer, it's doubtful it would have prevented a SWAT team from shooting 14-month-old Sincere in the shoulder and hand and killing his mother.
No body camera could have stopped a Georgia SWAT team from launching a flash-bang grenade into the house in which Baby Bou Bou, his three sisters and his parents were staying. The grenade landed in the 2-year-old's crib, burning a hole in his chest and leaving him with scarring that a lifetime of surgeries will not be able to easily undo.
No body camera could have prevented 10-year-old Dakota Corbitt from being shot by a Georgia police officer who tried to shoot an inquisitive dog, missed, and hit the young boy, instead. Alberto Sepulveda, 11, died from one "accidental" shotgun round to the back, after a SWAT team raided his parents' home.
Cleveland police shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was seen playing on a playground with a toy gun. Surveillance footage shows police shooting the boy after getting out of a moving patrol car. Thirteen-year-old Andy Lopez Cruz was shot 7 times in 10 seconds by a California police officer who mistook the boy's toy gun for an assault rifle. Christopher Roupe, 17, was shot and killed after opening the door to a police officer. The officer, mistaking the Wii remote control in Roupe's hand for a gun, shot him in the chest.
These children are more than grim statistics on a police blotter. They are the heartbreaking casualties of the government's endless, deadly wars on terror, on drugs, and on the American people themselves. Not even the children who survive their encounters with police escape unscathed. Increasingly, their lives are daily lessons in compliance and terror, meted out with every SWAT team raid, roadside strip search, and school drill.
Who is calculating the damage being done to the young people forced to watch as their homes are trashed and their dogs are shot during SWAT team raids? A Minnesota SWAT team actually burst into one family's house, shot the family's dog, handcuffed the children and forced them to "sit next to the carcass of their dead and bloody pet for more than an hour." They later claimed it was the wrong house.
More than 80% of American communities have their own SWAT teams, with more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening--and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.
Then there are the hands-on lessons being taught in the schools about the role of police in our lives, ranging from active shooter drills to incidents in which children are suspended, handcuffed, arrested and even tasered for what used to be considered childlike behavior.
Case in point: in Pennsylvania, a ten-year-old boy was suspended for shooting an imaginary "arrow" at a fellow classmate, using nothing more than his hands and his imagination. In Colorado, a six-year-old boy was suspended and accused of sexual harassment for kissing the hand of a girl in his class whom he had a crush on. In Alabama, a diabetic teenager was slammed into a filing cabinet and arrested after falling asleep during an in-school suspension. Seven North Carolina students were arrested for throwing water balloons as part of a school prank.
What is particularly chilling is how effective these lessons in compliance are in indoctrinating young people to accept their role in the police state, either as criminals or prison guards. For example, police officers at a Florida middle school carried out an active shooter drill in an effort to educate students about how to respond in the event of an actual shooting crisis. Two armed officers, guns loaded and drawn, burst into classrooms, terrorizing the students and placing the school into lockdown mode.
If these exercises are intended to instill fear and compliance into young people, they're working.
Sociologist Alice Goffman understands how far-reaching the impact of such "exercises" can be on young people. For six years, Goffman lived in a low-income urban neighborhood, documenting the impact such an environment--a microcosm of the police state--on its residents. Her account of neighborhood children playing cops and robbers speaks volumes about how constant exposure to pat downs, strip searches, surveillance and arrests can result in a populace that meekly allows itself to be prodded, poked and stripped. As journalist Malcolm Gladwell writing for the New Yorker notes:
Goffman sometimes saw young children playing the age-old game of cops and robbers in the street, only the child acting the part of the robber wouldn't even bother to run away: I saw children give up running and simply stick their hands behind their back, as if in handcuffs; push their body up against a car without being asked; or lie flat on the ground and put their hands over their head. The children yelled, "I'm going to lock you up! I'm going to lock you up, and you ain't never coming home!" I once saw a six-year-old pull another child's pants down to do a "cavity search."
Clearly, our children are getting the message, but it's not the message that was intended by those who fomented a revolution and wrote our founding documents. Their philosophy was that the police work for us, and "we the people" are the masters, and they are to be our servants. Now that has been turned on its head. Our so-called "servants" with badges are no longer held accountable to the same laws that we are. In their military gear and assault vehicles, they are allowed to operate above the law. In fact, their word is the law.
It's getting harder by the day to tell young people that we live in a nation that values freedom and which is governed by the rule of law without feeling like a teller of tall tales. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police StateA Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, unless something changes and soon for the young people growing up, there will be nothing left of freedom as we have known it but a fairy tale without a happy ending.
_
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police StateA Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).
Cop Who Shot 12 Year Old Was Fired From Previous Job as a Cop For Being Emotionally Unstable
By John Vibes
Cleveland, Ohio -- Last month, we reported that a police officer shot a young boy for playing in a park with a toy gun just seconds after exiting his vehicle.
The video footage to surface after the incident showed absolutely no restraint on the part of Cleveland patrol officer Timothy Loehmann, who fired the shot that killed young Tamir Rice.
In the weeks following the murder, a number of disturbing details have surfaced showing that this tragedy could have been prevented.
A quick look into the history of officer Timothy Loehmann, shows that he has a short and troubled past with police work. In fact, Loemann was actually terminated from his last job as a police officer, because they did not think that he was mentally capable, or mature enough for the job. He was let go by the City of Independence Police Department in December of 2012, and then was quickly rehired with the Cleveland Police Department in March of this year.
Cleveland police said on Wednesday that conveniently, they never reviewed the Independence file and changed their policies to include checking publicly available records for potential hires.
The termination from his previous job was tied to an emotional breakdown that he had at the firing range during training. The police memo filed after his termination describes the emotional breakdown that Loemann had on the firing range that day.
According to the police memo, which was obtained by The Guardian:
“During a state range qualification course, Ptl Loehmann was distracted and weepy. [Loehmann] could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal. Sgt Tinnirello tried to work through this with Ptl Loehmann by giving him some time. But, after some talking it was clear to Sgt Tinnirello that the recruit was just not mentally prepared to be doing firearm training …Ptl Loehmann continued with his emotional meltdown to a point where Sgt Tinnirello could not take him into the store, so they went to get something to eat and he continued to try and calm Ptl Loehmann. Sgt Tinnirello describes the recruit as being very downtrodden, melancholy with some light crying. Sgt Tinnirello later found this emotional perplexity was due to a personal issue with Ptl Loehmann's on and off again girlfriend whom he was dealing with till 0400 hrs the night before. (Pti Loehmann was scheduled for 0800 the morning in question)."The memo concluded that:
"Due to this dangerous loss of composure during live range training and his inability to manage this personal stress, I do not believe Ptl Loehmann shows the maturity needed to work in our employment. For these reasons, I am recommending he be released from the employment of the city of Independence. I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies."In addition to this breakdown, Loehmann's supervisor, deputy chief Jim Polak said that Loemann had left his gun unlocked, lied to superiors and failed to follow orders on various occasions.
This lack of emotional maturity and critical thinking capabilities could explain why the officer waited over 4 minutes to provide first-aid to the innocent child.
The police officers involved are claiming that the boy, who they allegedly thought was "about 20,"³ pointed the toy gun at them, which put them in fear for their lives, giving them justification to fire the shot.
However, when a young child is walking around in a park with what appears to be a gun, the probability is overwhelming that the "gun" is likely a toy. Any reasonable person would take steps to examine the situation before firing a real weapon at the child.
Have We Reached "Peak Jackboot"?
by William Norman Grigg
London tried to preserve the pretense that the troops sent to police the colonies were deployed to maintain public order. However, as Ramsay observes, there was “a general conviction” within the population that the Redcoats had been dispatched as tax collectors, and “there could be no security for their property” until they were forced to leave.
By 1770, royal pronouncements and speeches in both houses of parliament increasingly characterized the Americans “as a factious turbulent people, who aimed at throwing off all subordination to Great Britain,” Ramsay continues. That hostility was reciprocated by “fiery spirits” in Boston “who thought it an indignity to have troops quartered among them, [and] were constantly exciting the townspeople to quarrel with the soldiers.”
Benjamin Franklin, who at the time had not abandoned hope of reconciliation between the Throne and the colonies, warned that stationing troops in Boston was akin to "setting up a smith's forge in a magazine of gunpowder." A random spark was set off on March 2, 1770, when a British soldier got into a shouting match with a local resident. Within hours a melee had broken out between Redcoats and "radicals” that rapidly escalated into a mob scene. Punches were thrown, and property was damaged, but nobody was killed.
Three days later, a contingent of armed Redcoats under the command of one Captain Preston was set upon by what one American historian later called "a crowd of disorderly loafers and boys of the town." The troops had responded to what would now be called an “officer in distress” call from a sentry named Hugh White, who had gotten into an argument with a wig-maker over an unpaid bill.
In his History of the American Revolution, Ramsay records that the British troops "were pressed upon, insulted and pelted by a mob armed with clubs, sticks, and snowballs covering stones. They were also dared to fire. In this situation, one of the soldiers who had received a blow, in resentment fired at the supposed aggressor.” That soldier, Private Hugh Montgomery, had been beaten to his knees by a club-wielding assailant before screaming “Damn you, fire!” to his comrades.
Eight people in the crowd were wounded, three of them fatally. The first to fall was a black man named Crispus Attucks. A widely circulated illustration of the event depicts Attucks desperately trying to fend off the fatal attack by reaching for the soldier’s gun – an act we are insistently, and incorrectly, told is a capital offense.
In the interest of “officer safety,” the troops were withdrawn. The mortal remains of Attucks and his two comrades were buried in a ceremony intended “to express the indignation of the inhabitants at the slaughter of their brethren, by soldiers quartered among them, in violation of their civil liberties.”
Rather than escalating the military occupation of Boston in order to suppress the revolt, British colonial authorities indicted Captain Preston and his subordinates for “willful and felonious murder.” At trial they enjoyed the earnest and capable representation of “radical” attorney John Adams.
The jury, in defiance of the prevailing public sentiment, found mitigation in the fact that the soldiers had been "insulted, threatened, and pelted, before they fired," wrote Ramsay. Preston and five of his men were acquitted. Two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter and subsequently branded. The trial, Ramsay concludes, "reflected great honor on John Adams, and [his assistant] Josiah Quincy and also on the integrity of the jury...."
The verdict of public opinion diverged sharply from the outcome of the trial. Skillful propagandists like Samuel Adams (who had helped incite the riot that precipitated the killings) and Paul Revere elided some facts, misrepresented others, and immortalized the event as the “Boston Massacre.”
“The anniversary of it was observed with great solemnity,” Ramsay recorded. “Eloquent orators were successively employed to deliver an annual oration, to preserve the remembrance of it fresh in their minds. On these occasions the blessings of liberty – the horrors of slavery – the dangers of a standing army – the rights of the colonies, and a variety of such topics were presented to the public view, under the most pleasing and alarming forms. These annual orations administered fuel to the fire of liberty, and kept it burning, with an incessant flame.”
It does no injury to the truth to suggest that the effort to capitalize on the “Boston Massacre” was the pre-Independence equivalent of today’s “Hands Up – Don’t Shoot” agitprop campaign. The victims in the March 5, 1770 event had assaulted law enforcement officers, after all. Some, perhaps most, of them were disreputable people who today would be casually denigrated as “thugs.”
Attucks himself, the first martyr in the cause of American Independence, was a law-breaker, a runaway slave of dubious parentage. In addition to committing an act of “theft” by absconding with the “property” of his supposed master, Attucks used fraudulent means to conceal his identity and obtain employment on a whaling ship.
In contemporary terms, he was a virtual behemoth, standing six foot two inches tall and blessed with the brawny and well-conditioned physique of a man who earned a living by casting harpoons, dragging nets, and pulling on thick, heavy nets. Some accounts of the Boston Massacre cast Attucks in the central role, agitating the crowd and organizing the assault on law enforcement.
Obviously, this was no gentle giant. He was an impudent, violent man with no respect for authority and a dangerous gift for inciting rebellion against public order. He fought the law, and the law won – at least from the perspective of his detractors among British loyalists in the colonies.
New York Post columnist Bob McManus, the bejowled defender of police abuse, recently provided us with the Tory perspective on the murder of Eric Garner by NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo, who – unlike Captain Preston and his soldiers – will never stand trial for that crime.
“Eric Garner was a career petty criminal who’d experienced dozens of arrests, but had learned nothing from them,” sniffs McManus. “He was on the street July 17, selling untaxed cigarettes one at a time – which, as inconsequential as it seems, happens to be a crime.”
Garner was a “career criminal” in the mold of John Hancock, who made himself tremendously wealthy by smuggling untaxed goods. On McManus’s premises, Hancock would have to be regarded as a veritable crime lord.
Even if we characterize Garner as a “career criminal” rather than a micro-entrepreneur, the salient fact here is that there is no evidence at all that Garner was selling cigarettes on the day he was murdered by the police. He was killed because he dared to assert self-ownership in the face of unwanted attention from a member of the State’s coercive caste.
Eric Garner’s death, McManus pontificates, was a tragic but necessary demonstration of the futility of resisting the power of the divine State: “He was a victim of himself. It’s just that simple.”
In the moments leading up to his death, Garner had acted as a peacemaker, stopping a fight that the NYPD’s armed tax enforcers had chosen to ignore. Crispus Attucks, on the other hand, spent the last moments of his life inciting a rebellion against the collection agents of a much less oppressive government. McManus, who causally vilifies the former, most likely venerates the latter. People who cherish individual liberty should honor the memory of both.
The “Boston Massacre” represented what we could call “Peak Redcoat” – the moment at which it became clear that the existing regime, administered through a military occupation, simply could not endure.
The unpunished murder of Eric Garner could well signify that our present system has reached the point of “Peak Jackboot.” It is worth remembering, however, that the Regime ruling us is immeasurably more powerful, corrupt, and violent than that of George III, which allowed the colonial policemen who had killed Attucks and two others to stand trial for their actions.
_
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program. Follow him on Twitter.
One more,..
America's Children: The Trials of Growing Up in a Police State
By John W. Whitehead
After a year dominated with news of police shootings of unarmed citizens (including children), SWAT team raids gone awry, photo ops of militarized police shouldering assault rifles while perched on top of armored vehicles, and reports on how the police are using asset forfeiture laws to pad their pockets with luxury cars, cash and other expensive toys, I find myself wrestling with the question: how do you prepare a child for life in the American police state, especially when it comes to interactions with police?
Do you parrot the government line, as the schools do, that police officers are community helpers who are to be trusted and obeyed at all times? Do you caution them to steer clear of a police officer, warning them that any interactions could have disastrous consequences? Or is there some happy medium between the two that, while being neither fairy tale nor horror story, can serve as a cautionary tale for young people who will encounter police at virtually every turn?
Children are taught from an early age that there are consequences for their actions. Hurt somebody, lie, steal, cheat, etc., and you will get punished. But how do you explain to a child that a police officer can shoot someone who was doing nothing wrong and get away with it? That a cop can lie, steal, cheat, or kill and still not be punished?
Kids understand accidents: sometimes drinks get spilled, dishes get broken, people slip and fall and hurt themselves, or you bump into someone without meaning to, and they get hurt. As long as it wasn't intentional and done with malice, you forgive them and you move on. Police shootings of unarmed people--of children and old people and disabled people--can't just be shrugged off as accidents, however.
Aiyana Jones was no accident. The 7-year-old was killed after a Detroit SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade into her family's apartment, broke through the door and opened fire, hitting the little girl who was asleep on the living room couch. The cops weren't even in the right apartment.
Obama insists that 3 million to purchase body cameras for police will prevent any further erosions of trust, but a body camera would not have prevented Aiyana from being shot in the head. Indeed, the entire sorry affair was captured on camera: a TV crew was filming the raid for an episode of The First 48, a true-crime reality show in which homicide detectives have 48 hours to crack a case.
While that 3 million will make Taser International, the manufacturer of the body cameras, a whole lot richer, it's doubtful it would have prevented a SWAT team from shooting 14-month-old Sincere in the shoulder and hand and killing his mother.
No body camera could have stopped a Georgia SWAT team from launching a flash-bang grenade into the house in which Baby Bou Bou, his three sisters and his parents were staying. The grenade landed in the 2-year-old's crib, burning a hole in his chest and leaving him with scarring that a lifetime of surgeries will not be able to easily undo.
No body camera could have prevented 10-year-old Dakota Corbitt from being shot by a Georgia police officer who tried to shoot an inquisitive dog, missed, and hit the young boy, instead. Alberto Sepulveda, 11, died from one "accidental" shotgun round to the back, after a SWAT team raided his parents' home.
Cleveland police shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was seen playing on a playground with a toy gun. Surveillance footage shows police shooting the boy after getting out of a moving patrol car. Thirteen-year-old Andy Lopez Cruz was shot 7 times in 10 seconds by a California police officer who mistook the boy's toy gun for an assault rifle. Christopher Roupe, 17, was shot and killed after opening the door to a police officer. The officer, mistaking the Wii remote control in Roupe's hand for a gun, shot him in the chest.
These children are more than grim statistics on a police blotter. They are the heartbreaking casualties of the government's endless, deadly wars on terror, on drugs, and on the American people themselves. Not even the children who survive their encounters with police escape unscathed. Increasingly, their lives are daily lessons in compliance and terror, meted out with every SWAT team raid, roadside strip search, and school drill.
Who is calculating the damage being done to the young people forced to watch as their homes are trashed and their dogs are shot during SWAT team raids? A Minnesota SWAT team actually burst into one family's house, shot the family's dog, handcuffed the children and forced them to "sit next to the carcass of their dead and bloody pet for more than an hour." They later claimed it was the wrong house.
More than 80% of American communities have their own SWAT teams, with more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening--and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.
Then there are the hands-on lessons being taught in the schools about the role of police in our lives, ranging from active shooter drills to incidents in which children are suspended, handcuffed, arrested and even tasered for what used to be considered childlike behavior.
Case in point: in Pennsylvania, a ten-year-old boy was suspended for shooting an imaginary "arrow" at a fellow classmate, using nothing more than his hands and his imagination. In Colorado, a six-year-old boy was suspended and accused of sexual harassment for kissing the hand of a girl in his class whom he had a crush on. In Alabama, a diabetic teenager was slammed into a filing cabinet and arrested after falling asleep during an in-school suspension. Seven North Carolina students were arrested for throwing water balloons as part of a school prank.
What is particularly chilling is how effective these lessons in compliance are in indoctrinating young people to accept their role in the police state, either as criminals or prison guards. For example, police officers at a Florida middle school carried out an active shooter drill in an effort to educate students about how to respond in the event of an actual shooting crisis. Two armed officers, guns loaded and drawn, burst into classrooms, terrorizing the students and placing the school into lockdown mode.
If these exercises are intended to instill fear and compliance into young people, they're working.
Sociologist Alice Goffman understands how far-reaching the impact of such "exercises" can be on young people. For six years, Goffman lived in a low-income urban neighborhood, documenting the impact such an environment--a microcosm of the police state--on its residents. Her account of neighborhood children playing cops and robbers speaks volumes about how constant exposure to pat downs, strip searches, surveillance and arrests can result in a populace that meekly allows itself to be prodded, poked and stripped. As journalist Malcolm Gladwell writing for the New Yorker notes:
Goffman sometimes saw young children playing the age-old game of cops and robbers in the street, only the child acting the part of the robber wouldn't even bother to run away: I saw children give up running and simply stick their hands behind their back, as if in handcuffs; push their body up against a car without being asked; or lie flat on the ground and put their hands over their head. The children yelled, "I'm going to lock you up! I'm going to lock you up, and you ain't never coming home!" I once saw a six-year-old pull another child's pants down to do a "cavity search."
Clearly, our children are getting the message, but it's not the message that was intended by those who fomented a revolution and wrote our founding documents. Their philosophy was that the police work for us, and "we the people" are the masters, and they are to be our servants. Now that has been turned on its head. Our so-called "servants" with badges are no longer held accountable to the same laws that we are. In their military gear and assault vehicles, they are allowed to operate above the law. In fact, their word is the law.
It's getting harder by the day to tell young people that we live in a nation that values freedom and which is governed by the rule of law without feeling like a teller of tall tales. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police StateA Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, unless something changes and soon for the young people growing up, there will be nothing left of freedom as we have known it but a fairy tale without a happy ending.
_
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police StateA Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).
Last edited:
diamond2.0
- Posts
- 1,148
- Reactions
- 1,851
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Points
- 163
Heres what kids do when they are oppressed by government.
Not much different from the cops shooting and tazing up party goes here in the u.s. .Thats just what they do. Thier fort'e you might say !
Not much different from the cops shooting and tazing up party goes here in the u.s. .Thats just what they do. Thier fort'e you might say !
cc503
- Posts
- 62
- Reactions
- 25
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Points
- 8
not that anybody probably needs to be convinced of how fucked up the law enforcement is but there's a really good book about the origins of the drug laws stemming from the southern strategy ( the effort of the republicans to capture the white rascist vote that was alienated from the democratic party when JFK backed civil rights) and its function as a tool of oppression since felons are the only type of people that can be legally discriminated against. The book is called " The New Jim Crow" its by Michelle Alexander its really well written and and easy ( though infuriating) read
from wikipedia
Alexander published her first book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2010). In it, she argues that systemic racial discrimination in the United States has resumed following the Civil Rights Movement's gains; the resumption is embedded in the US War on Drugs and other governmental policies and is having devastating social consequences. She considers the scope and impact of this current law enforcement, legal and penal activity to be comparable with that of the Jim Crow laws of the 19th and 20th centuries. Her book concentrates on the mass incarceration of African-American men.[4]
In The New Jim Crow, Alexander argues that mass incarceration in America functions as a system of racial control in a similar way to how Jim Crow once operated. Alexander’s work draws attention to the racial disparity that exists in the criminal justice system. Alexander writes, “Race plays a major role-indeed, a defining role – in the current system, but not because of what is commonly understood as old-fashioned, hostile bigotry. This system of control depends far more on racial indifference (defined as a lack of compassion and caring about race and racial groups) than racial hostility – a feature it actually shares with its predecessors.”[5]
Alexander's book includes information and facts that does not receive much attention in American society. The New Jim Crow describes how she believes oppressed minorities are, "subject to legalized discrimination in employment, housing, public benefits, and jury service, just as their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents once were". Alexander argues the harsh penalty of how "people whose only crime is drug addiction or possession of a small amount of drugs for recreational use find themselves locked out of the mainstream society-permanently" and also highlights the inequality presented from the fact that, "blacks are admitted to prison on drug charges at a rate from twenty to fifty-seven times greater than that of white men". Alexander's The New Jim Crow analyzes some of the factors she argues contribute to the new and modified Jim Crow laws that reside in American society today.
In a 2012 interview, Alexander told the story of the origin of the book. Working on "Driving While Black" DWB racial profiling in Oakland with the ACLU, a young African-American man came in with a well-documented case of most of a year of repeated stops by police with dates and names. Listening to his story, Alexander increasingly felt she had the test case for which she was looking. Then the man said in passing he had a drug-felony conviction on his record and Alexander had to backtrack completely and finally: The conviction was an insurmountable obstacle to a test case in front of a jury for her at that time. In turn, the man then built a strong anger toward her, saying in effect "I'm innocent ...; it was just a plea bargain"; and that she "was no better than the police" and "You're crazy if you think you're going to find anyone here to challenge the police who is not already 'in the system'?"; he ended by stalking out, tearing up his notes as he went. The experience stuck with Alexander and eventually grew, prompted in part by more observations of events in Oakland, into the book. She has tried to find the young man again, in part to dedicate the book to him, but has so far been unable to.[6]
The New Jim Crow was re-released in paperback in early 2012 and has received significant praise. As of September 30, 2012 it has been on the The New York Times Best Seller list for 35 weeks[7] and it also reached #1 on the Washington Post best seller list in 2012. The book has also been the subject of scholarly debate and criticism.[8][9][10][11]
from wikipedia
Alexander published her first book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2010). In it, she argues that systemic racial discrimination in the United States has resumed following the Civil Rights Movement's gains; the resumption is embedded in the US War on Drugs and other governmental policies and is having devastating social consequences. She considers the scope and impact of this current law enforcement, legal and penal activity to be comparable with that of the Jim Crow laws of the 19th and 20th centuries. Her book concentrates on the mass incarceration of African-American men.[4]
In The New Jim Crow, Alexander argues that mass incarceration in America functions as a system of racial control in a similar way to how Jim Crow once operated. Alexander’s work draws attention to the racial disparity that exists in the criminal justice system. Alexander writes, “Race plays a major role-indeed, a defining role – in the current system, but not because of what is commonly understood as old-fashioned, hostile bigotry. This system of control depends far more on racial indifference (defined as a lack of compassion and caring about race and racial groups) than racial hostility – a feature it actually shares with its predecessors.”[5]
Alexander's book includes information and facts that does not receive much attention in American society. The New Jim Crow describes how she believes oppressed minorities are, "subject to legalized discrimination in employment, housing, public benefits, and jury service, just as their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents once were". Alexander argues the harsh penalty of how "people whose only crime is drug addiction or possession of a small amount of drugs for recreational use find themselves locked out of the mainstream society-permanently" and also highlights the inequality presented from the fact that, "blacks are admitted to prison on drug charges at a rate from twenty to fifty-seven times greater than that of white men". Alexander's The New Jim Crow analyzes some of the factors she argues contribute to the new and modified Jim Crow laws that reside in American society today.
In a 2012 interview, Alexander told the story of the origin of the book. Working on "Driving While Black" DWB racial profiling in Oakland with the ACLU, a young African-American man came in with a well-documented case of most of a year of repeated stops by police with dates and names. Listening to his story, Alexander increasingly felt she had the test case for which she was looking. Then the man said in passing he had a drug-felony conviction on his record and Alexander had to backtrack completely and finally: The conviction was an insurmountable obstacle to a test case in front of a jury for her at that time. In turn, the man then built a strong anger toward her, saying in effect "I'm innocent ...; it was just a plea bargain"; and that she "was no better than the police" and "You're crazy if you think you're going to find anyone here to challenge the police who is not already 'in the system'?"; he ended by stalking out, tearing up his notes as he went. The experience stuck with Alexander and eventually grew, prompted in part by more observations of events in Oakland, into the book. She has tried to find the young man again, in part to dedicate the book to him, but has so far been unable to.[6]
The New Jim Crow was re-released in paperback in early 2012 and has received significant praise. As of September 30, 2012 it has been on the The New York Times Best Seller list for 35 weeks[7] and it also reached #1 on the Washington Post best seller list in 2012. The book has also been the subject of scholarly debate and criticism.[8][9][10][11]
diamond2.0
- Posts
- 1,148
- Reactions
- 1,851
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Points
- 163
Relavent.............
diamond2.0
- Posts
- 1,148
- Reactions
- 1,851
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Points
- 163
My schadenfreude moment .:D
This will explain Schadenfreude
This will explain Schadenfreude
jumpincactus
Premium Member
- Posts
- 11,605
- Reactions
- 35,935
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Points
- 438
I think this qualifies for this thread. AIP American International Police.....
Makes me sick........
Collateral Murder
Makes me sick........
Collateral Murder
jumpincactus
Premium Member
- Posts
- 11,605
- Reactions
- 35,935
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Points
- 438
caveman4.20
- Posts
- 5,969
- Reactions
- 9,125
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2012
- Points
- 313
I can't like that. Has to be seen though shit is fucked up......
Well the military is in the police well I disagree with all of the above.... war is bad and its happening on American soil.....one soldier police officer openly admitted on duty asking why he has to wait for Afgani Stan if he can start killing bad guys here in US.....they shipped him off for another tour after killing unarmed man while on patrol.....just sad
Well the military is in the police well I disagree with all of the above.... war is bad and its happening on American soil.....one soldier police officer openly admitted on duty asking why he has to wait for Afgani Stan if he can start killing bad guys here in US.....they shipped him off for another tour after killing unarmed man while on patrol.....just sad
caveman4.20
- Posts
- 5,969
- Reactions
- 9,125
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2012
- Points
- 313
#@& have mercy on us
caveman4.20
- Posts
- 5,969
- Reactions
- 9,125
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2012
- Points
- 313
This last week I talked to a veteran testing my patriotic position. He shared with me his horrors, he didn't express guilt but I felt it in his eyes ....he felt horrible admitting to me a stranger that he had killed more children then he had killed women or children
Reaper
- Posts
- 193
- Reactions
- 402
- Joined
- May 3, 2014
- Points
- 63
People have A "Choice" in who they talk to and if that guy could call himself A soldier you were talking to A Piss Poor Example of One...
- Status
Page 17 of 22
·
Replies 321–340 of 434