Twitter

Monday, August 18, 2014

This is what democracy looks like in the land of the free and the home of the brave~Update


Being the object of unwarranted deadly force by police officers is part of what it means to be black and poor in America. But, as Hamm said, no matter how much blacks raise their voices against indiscriminate police violence “the killings keep coming.”
The Latest from #Ferguson
Earlier today, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon called in the National Guard:

Gov. Jay Nixon said the National Guard would help "in restoring peace and order" to Ferguson, where protests over the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a white police officer entered their second week. Police said they acted in response to gunfire, looting, vandalism and protesters who hurled Molotov cocktails. "These violent acts are a disservice to the family of Michael Brown and his memory and to the people of this community who yearn for justice to be served and to feel safe in their own homes," Nixon said in a statement.
Nixon didn't comment on the unprovoked attacks by police against peaceful protesters. And a preliminary private autopsy report, requested by the Brown family, has been released:
Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was killed by a police officer, sparking protests around the nation, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, a preliminary private autopsy performed on Sunday found. One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury ... It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.
And yet we keep hearing about black on black crime because it fits the false media narrative 
Missouri Congressman Clay on : "facing down innocent protesters w/sniper rifles & machine guns is totally unacceptable in America."

19 comments:

Brian said...

Did they pay McDonald's for the milk? If not, it is by definition looting.

loot
lo͞ot
verb
gerund or present participle: looting

steal goods from (a place), typically during a war or riot.
"police confronted the rioters who were looting shops"

steal (goods) in a war, riot, etc.
"tons of food aid awaiting distribution had been looted"

DARYAL Pinchon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Redeye said...

Repeatedly, reporters refer to white victims clinging to life as "survivors" and "residents," while African-American victims doing the same things are called "looters" and "criminals." Disproportionately, the humanizing, "heart-breaker" stories feature white victims and families. Meanwhile, images of African-American crowds are almost invariably in the background during discussions of "criminal activity."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/black-people-loot-food-wh_b_6614.html

DARYAL Pinchon said...

HP is a LIBERAL view point!

The people need to quit crying about tear gas, police etc if there is a curfew....GO HOME then you will not have to worry about tear gas etc

Brian said...

Also the two examples used were from two different news agencies. The example of the black person "looting" was from the AP (Associated Press) while the example of the white people "finding" was from the AFP (Agence France-Presse). One is an American News Agency while the other is a French News Agency. Both agencies have their own style guides and the writers could be coming from different world views.

If the original AFP article was written in French, it adds another step in which the meaning of the original writer was altered.

So the comparison of the two articles isn't an apple to apple comparison. It is an apples to oranges comparison. It is like taking the most conservative article from Fox News and the most liberal article from MSNBC to show how either side is too biased.

P.S.: That is the only example of white people "finding" stuff that is out there. Whenever somebody needs an example of white people "finding" verses black people "looting", that is the only example they use. They can easily find examples of black people "looting" easily enough. If they looked, they would find stories of white people "looting" but they can't find another example of white people "finding".

Redeye said...

"#Ferguson Our freedom of speech and our fundamental right to assemble and protest are being denied."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/amnesty-international-usa-calls-for-investigation-of-police-tactics-in-ferguson

Brian said...

From the ACLU:

Three Principles to Remember
1. CONDUCT, NOT CONTENT

It's not what you say—it's the way that you say it. Your right to express your opinion is protected no matter what beliefs you hold. What matters is how you use that right. If you organize a protest that causes serious disruption, the government may be able to intervene. But with a few notable exceptions, nobody can restrict your rights simply because they don't like what you say.

2. FREE SPEECH IS FOR EVERYONE

Young or old; anarchist or evangelical; pacifist or hawk; Mormon or Muslim; these rights apply to you. It doesn't matter whether you're a U.S. citizen, whether you're of voting age, or whether you speak English. Free-speech rights are for everybody. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

3. WHEN, WHERE AND HOW

Consider when, where and how you use your free-speech rights. If you organize a rally that causes violence or unnecessary disruption, your event may be disbanded. Every municipality has regulations and it's your responsibility to understand them. You must observe reasonable regulations on time, place, and manner when you exercise your rights to demonstrate and protest.

https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-free-speech-protests-and-demonstrations-california

From Lawyers.com

Assembly Cannot Be Violent

Although the government can't stop you from joining with a group of others to make your views known, you must do it in a peaceful manner. Law enforcement has the right to break up any gathering that presents a "clear and present danger" to innocent bystanders, or even to members of your group. Police can disrupt your assembly if they think it might get out of hand. They might intervene if members of your group are shouting, using obscenities, or arguing with or threatening those who oppose them.

Law Enforcement May Control Gatherings

The law can restrict when you gather. Your group might have freedom of assembly, but law enforcement can prevent you from exercising that right in the wee hours of the morning when you're likely to wake others, or at rush hour when you might interfere with traffic flow. You must usually notify your local police department that you'll be gathering, in advance of the scheduled date.

http://civil-rights.lawyers.com/civil-liberties/the-right-to-gather-has-some-restrictions.html

Redeye said...

This is not is is not from the ACLU. This is from Lawyers.com and it's an opinion, which everyone is entitled to express. It's called the First Amendment. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Thanks for making my point.

Brian said...

First part is from the ACLU of Northern California, the link is in the middle...

or here it is again

https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-free-speech-protests-and-demonstrations-california

Brian said...

And the facts are is that the Supreme Court has put limits on free speech. I can't run into a movie theater and yell fire unless there is one.

Our freedom of speech can be suppressed. Our freedom to assemble can be suppressed. I can't use speech that is meant to incite violence. I can't have a party that keeps my neighbors up all night. I can't walk into the street and stop traffic.

Redeye said...

You, nor anyone else can run into a movie theater and yell fire unless there is one.

Our freedom of speech can't be suppressed, neither can our right to bear arms, privacy, and all other rights granted to us by this little thingy we have called The Bill of Rights. This is the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, Remember?

Brian said...

The Freedom of Speech isn't absolute. There are limitations under which it is suppressed. Obscenities are not protected. False statements of fact are not protected. Speech that would incited the listeners into violence is not protected. Speech that is designed to provoke a fight is not protected. Speech that might create severe emotional distress is not protected. Threats are not protected. Speech is restricted if it infringes on somebody's intellectual property rights.

Redeye said...

Freedom of Speech is not absolute, but the right to bear arms is absolute? Free Speech is restricted, but the right to bear arms is not restricted? False statements of facts have never been protected, and they never will be protected. In any event citizens have the right to protest their government, or at least we used to until the right wing got hold of our constitution and turned into the slave code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

Brian said...

I never said the 2nd amendment was absolute. I don't think felons should be allowed access to guns. I am not against reasonable background checks.

And nobody is speaking out against being able to protest the government. But when those protests cross the line from protest to riot (it doesn't matter if it's not the protesters rioting), the police have a duty to restore the peace. In the last week, we have seen the police go from overdoing it to underdoing it and the governor having to call in the military to restore order.

Blocking a street that had not been closed doesn't help. Not allowing a street to reopen doesn't help. When the protesters don't disperse when the rioters show up, it makes the police's job that much more harder. It means innocents will get caught in the crossfire.

When the "militias" were blocking the roads in Arizona, I was asking where are the police. I believed those involved should have been arrested.

Would you be alright with the local church marching down the streets and yelling "Jesus loves you" all day and night not letting anybody sleep in peace?

The more we hear about the what happened that Saturday, the more things are changing. The original "eyewitness's" story was that Mike Brown was shot in the back. The autopsy released by the family said that Mike Brown was not shot in the back but all shot hit Mike Brown's front.

And the right wing isn't turning the constitution into the slave code. We are all too willing giving our freedom up to government over promises of security and well being. The Patriot Act, The Affordable Care Act are both parts of a fence that trapping us and making us dependent on the government.

A chemistry professor at a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

Redeye said...

'This is the Story of Power in this Country': Ferguson, Institutionalized Racism and the Militarization of Police

"Institutional racism in policing is not a new development, but militarization is. During the 1980s and 90s, the government took advantage of the public fear of drugs to gain support for ramped up military-grade policing programs. Apart from 1033, federal support also came in a variety of DOJ and DHS grants that bolstered state and local law enforcement agencies, which used them to purchase lethal weapons, body armor, and vehicles built to withstand roadside bombs in war zones. Joint operations between police departments and the federal agencies like the FBI became common."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/08/19/story-power-country-ferguson-institutionalized-racism-and-militarization-police

Brian said...

Ah, institutional racism in policing. :) Another myth that has no factual basis. If the police system was racist, we would be able to prove it factually. But when you look at the facts, institutional racism does not hold water.

In crime where there are witnesses and victims, blacks are arrested at the same ration that the offender is identified as black. In crimes that don't have a witness, blacks are arrested at a lower rate than for crimes with witnesses. If there was institutional racism, we should see the opposite going on, but we don't.

If there was racism going on, we would expect to see black officers arresting black offenders less but in reality, black officers and white officers have similar arrest patterns.

If there was institutional racism, why are white officers more likely to use excessive force on white suspects than blacks suspects. why are black officers more likely to use excessive force on black suspects than suspects of other races.

If there was institutional racism, why is it more likely that a black suspect is more likely to be shot by a black officer than they would be shot by white officer.

If there was institutional racism, why are only 66% of black charged with a crime prosecuted versus 69% of whites. Why are only 75% of blacks found guilty versus 78% of whites. Why is there no evidence that black judges treat black offenders any differently (conviction rates/length of sentence) than white judges.

My sources are studies done by the FBI, Department of Justice, the National Crime Victimization Survey, the National Academy of Sciences.

Redeye said...

This is what happens when people in positions of power and influence share Brian and DARYAL Pinchon's point of view and have the power to carry them out. It takes power to exercise racism.

Brian said...

Everybody has power. Some have more than others. Some use what power they have better than others. But everybody has power.

BTW, don't know if you saw this: Conservatives support #BlackOpenCarry despite some political differences

http://twitchy.com/2014/08/21/conservatives-support-blackopencarry-despite-some-political-differences/

I took a quick look at the tweets in regards to the #blackopencarry hashtag and the only negative tweets I had found were basically saying that it should just be #opencarry. But #blackopencarry is trending now and can't find (though I am just doing a quick search) anybody that is saying that blacks shouldn't open carry.

Redeye said...

It takes power to exercise racism. "Everybody" doesn't have the power to exercise racism.