Teacher uses racial epithet towards student
This guy is killing me. He's like an alcoholic making a toast by taking vodka shots to abstaining from alcohol.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Monday, April 30, 2007
Call for Reform in Juvenile Adjudication
There are about 200,000 juveniles under the age of 18 that are currently in the adult justice system. This number is up over 200% from the average in the 1990's. Children as young as 14 and 15 are being put in adult penetentaries with adult criminal. What's shocking is that a report released by the Campaign for Youth Justice showed that the majority of teens in the adult system were convicted of non-violent offenses. So finally, many states are thinking about reforming their juvenille correctional system to ensure that non-violent juvenille offenders are not treated the same and placed with adult men and women.
In most cases, I cannot even blame the Judges for sending the children to adult penitentiaries. Many states have laws passed that mandates when certain offenses are committed or when a teenager is a certain age, that they must be tried as an adult. Connecticut is a perfect example. Children, 15 and older are tried as adults in all cases with no exception. How this law passed is beyond me, but I can guarantee that the overwhelming majority of 15 year olds who had to go into the adult system, came out a more hardened criminal then they ever would have in the juvenille system. A young 15 year old who has only committed small petty theft, or any other related non-violent offense will go into the system a boy, but come out a knowledgeable and more than likely, career criminal.
These types of laws reflects the government's disconcern with actually rehabilitating convicts that go into the system so that they may become more productive citizens upon release. As a result, reform tends to lean towards harsher punishment to deter crimes, instead of focusing on keeping the ones in jail from actually committing crime again. What this does is gives a false comfortability of crime rates decrease, but not because more people are necessarily being deterred from crimes, but because they are taking a large percentage of people off the streets in general. In order to deter crime and keep the rates down, sentencing gets longer, punishment for crimes become more stern so the criminals just end up staying in the system longer. The number of people encarcerated steadily continues rise to the point where a significant amount of the state population is encarcerated. This not only puts a pressure on the state systems economic expenses of housing, feeding, and guarding convicts, but also strains the general economy of the state by taking people out of the workforce, disallowing them to vote in the political system, and in so many words- ostricizing the people from participation in mainstream society. Assuming that every convict would otherwise be a productive members of society, that could be hundreds of thousands of people, primarily men, doing something more productive like; supporting a family, paying taxes, and maintaining a job. Without any type of rehabilitory measures, the cost of prison systems become more burdensome on the state budget and the whole economy suffers because young working age potential labor are taken out of society.
Don't get me wrong, I would agree that there are people under the age of 18 that should not only be tried as adults for their offenses, but should also be kept in prison for as long as possible, but that is only for the most eggregious crimes like murder and rape. 15, even 17 year old boys and girls that are being tried as adults for stealing someone's gym shoes is too much when they are being put in prison with 40 year old murderers. Those children may have committed crimes, but that does not mean that they do not deserve any rights. Juvenile violators rights should be protected just as much as any other individual, maybe even more because their rights are at a much greater risk to begin with. Adult prisons place young teenagers at risk for psychological, physical, and emotional abuse that can disallow them to ever be of use to our society, guaranteeing they will be psychologically damaged for life. But it doesn't end there, because disturbed teenagers eventually become disturbed adults who have kids, and more often then not, the cycle of violence, crime, and abuse is continued and perpetuated. Reform will not only help those kids that are going to jail for petty crimes, but will actually benefit the moral fabric of our society as a whole. This also means that if we ignore reform it can have the adverse effect, which bodes ill for a society who's moral fabric is on the brink of unravelling already.
In most cases, I cannot even blame the Judges for sending the children to adult penitentiaries. Many states have laws passed that mandates when certain offenses are committed or when a teenager is a certain age, that they must be tried as an adult. Connecticut is a perfect example. Children, 15 and older are tried as adults in all cases with no exception. How this law passed is beyond me, but I can guarantee that the overwhelming majority of 15 year olds who had to go into the adult system, came out a more hardened criminal then they ever would have in the juvenille system. A young 15 year old who has only committed small petty theft, or any other related non-violent offense will go into the system a boy, but come out a knowledgeable and more than likely, career criminal.
These types of laws reflects the government's disconcern with actually rehabilitating convicts that go into the system so that they may become more productive citizens upon release. As a result, reform tends to lean towards harsher punishment to deter crimes, instead of focusing on keeping the ones in jail from actually committing crime again. What this does is gives a false comfortability of crime rates decrease, but not because more people are necessarily being deterred from crimes, but because they are taking a large percentage of people off the streets in general. In order to deter crime and keep the rates down, sentencing gets longer, punishment for crimes become more stern so the criminals just end up staying in the system longer. The number of people encarcerated steadily continues rise to the point where a significant amount of the state population is encarcerated. This not only puts a pressure on the state systems economic expenses of housing, feeding, and guarding convicts, but also strains the general economy of the state by taking people out of the workforce, disallowing them to vote in the political system, and in so many words- ostricizing the people from participation in mainstream society. Assuming that every convict would otherwise be a productive members of society, that could be hundreds of thousands of people, primarily men, doing something more productive like; supporting a family, paying taxes, and maintaining a job. Without any type of rehabilitory measures, the cost of prison systems become more burdensome on the state budget and the whole economy suffers because young working age potential labor are taken out of society.
Don't get me wrong, I would agree that there are people under the age of 18 that should not only be tried as adults for their offenses, but should also be kept in prison for as long as possible, but that is only for the most eggregious crimes like murder and rape. 15, even 17 year old boys and girls that are being tried as adults for stealing someone's gym shoes is too much when they are being put in prison with 40 year old murderers. Those children may have committed crimes, but that does not mean that they do not deserve any rights. Juvenile violators rights should be protected just as much as any other individual, maybe even more because their rights are at a much greater risk to begin with. Adult prisons place young teenagers at risk for psychological, physical, and emotional abuse that can disallow them to ever be of use to our society, guaranteeing they will be psychologically damaged for life. But it doesn't end there, because disturbed teenagers eventually become disturbed adults who have kids, and more often then not, the cycle of violence, crime, and abuse is continued and perpetuated. Reform will not only help those kids that are going to jail for petty crimes, but will actually benefit the moral fabric of our society as a whole. This also means that if we ignore reform it can have the adverse effect, which bodes ill for a society who's moral fabric is on the brink of unravelling already.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
I've Been Saying this for Years...
...but I am really going to move to Canada. Yesterday, as I was searching through the latest news online in Edmonton, I do this on a regular basis of course, something I had never seen before caught my eyes—the words cop and convicted were sitting seamlessly next to each other in an article title like ebony and ivory on a keyboard, and I swear the clouds opened and the chorus from Handel's Messiah played from the heavens, or maybe it was the audio from a pop up on the side of the page. Nonetheless, there was still a special feeling from reading "Taser Cop Convicted of Assault".
The story is that a Canadian provincial court Judge, ruled that Const. Aubrey Zalaski was unjustified and used excessive force when he tased Paul Cetinski Jr. twice after jaywalking across a street one day in Edmonton, Canada. Apparently, Cetinski was in a bitter custody dispute and was in a rush to return his toddler to the mother, as well as in a rush to go to the bathroom. Cetinski jaywalked across the street, Officer Zalaski saw him and told him, "Ever heard of cross walk". Cetinski ignored him, so Officer Zalaski followed him into a building and walked him back to his cruiser. Cetinski was less than compliant but did not pose any type of physical threat, but turned towards the officer in surprise when he suddenly felt handcuffs on his wrists, thats when the Officer stepped back and shot him with the taser twice.
So common sense tells me that this officer was overreacting when he shot the taser at Cetinski, who was never even charged with anything, and that the officer should be punished for his actions. But I was shocked to discover that the Canadian provincial court agrees with me! I have no faith in the American Justice system to find such a just ruling. In the U.S. we have a culture of not making officers take responsibility for their actions in the court of law which increasingly allows cops to make decisions with lethal weapons without thinking of results or consequences of their actions. In my blog entries I have written about instance after instance of some of the most eggregious cases of police misconduct with no repercussions of any sort. If the government fails to prosecute or do anything about even the most brazen acts of police misconduct, it makes me wonder how many day to day offenses in America go unpunished.
Unlike the U.S. the Edmonton Officer was not only convicted of assault, but now faces a sentence as harsh as 10 years in prison for his actions. If it wasn't there already, I am sure this conviction will send a strong message to officers in the community that the rights of citizens are taken seriously in the city of Edmonton, that the city will not support unwarranted uses of force by officers who are trained to act responsibly, and that the punishment for excessive force will be just as any other citizen's offense would be.
I should only dream for such a stance on citizen's rights against officers in this country. I'm sure in a U.S. court of law, the judge would have ruled that the officer used an appropriate amount of force given the circumstances, which is a scary proposition because the circumstances in which the officer tasered someone until the man defecated in his pants, was for turning around in surprise after handcuffs were being placed on him for jaywalking. Isn't apart of the circumstance the actual offense? Who wouldn't turn around and look at the officer a little cock-eyed for getting arrested for jaywalking? Even with the resistance that the man put up against the officer, it was never a physical resistance, and in fact the Judge classified Cetinski as a passive resister that Officer Zalaski should have been able to handle without the use of a weapon.
If the Officer had not been punished, and the Judge ruled that the act was justified, there would be no barrier for circumstances of when Officers can use a taser. It would expand what type of force in any circumstance an officer can use without penalty. The circumstances could be as minimal as a traffic violation, or even loitering if you give the cop enough lip. That is exactly what happened in the ucla taser video where a student was tased multiple times for an incident that started with him not showing a school I.D. in the library. The Officer's explanation for tasering the student 5 times is that he refused to stand up.
I realize to some people, the traffic stop incident, the UCLA taser incident and this incident with Officer Zalaski may seem justified, because in all cases the suspect offered resistance, albeit passive resistance, against the officers and the taser is an easy and safer way to force compliance than a firearm. But people tend to forget that tasers are deadly weapons as well. Shooting 50,000 volts of electricity through your body because you didn't use the crosswalk not only sounds like an excessive use of force, it can be deadly. In some cases tasers have killed people. So for those who think that using a taser was appropriate for Mr. Cetinski, do you think he should have died because he didn't use the crosswalk? No one deserves to be killed by the police for not showing a school I.D. or for speeding on the highway, but every time an officer opts to use their taser to quickly end a situation they take that chance.
The story is that a Canadian provincial court Judge, ruled that Const. Aubrey Zalaski was unjustified and used excessive force when he tased Paul Cetinski Jr. twice after jaywalking across a street one day in Edmonton, Canada. Apparently, Cetinski was in a bitter custody dispute and was in a rush to return his toddler to the mother, as well as in a rush to go to the bathroom. Cetinski jaywalked across the street, Officer Zalaski saw him and told him, "Ever heard of cross walk". Cetinski ignored him, so Officer Zalaski followed him into a building and walked him back to his cruiser. Cetinski was less than compliant but did not pose any type of physical threat, but turned towards the officer in surprise when he suddenly felt handcuffs on his wrists, thats when the Officer stepped back and shot him with the taser twice.
So common sense tells me that this officer was overreacting when he shot the taser at Cetinski, who was never even charged with anything, and that the officer should be punished for his actions. But I was shocked to discover that the Canadian provincial court agrees with me! I have no faith in the American Justice system to find such a just ruling. In the U.S. we have a culture of not making officers take responsibility for their actions in the court of law which increasingly allows cops to make decisions with lethal weapons without thinking of results or consequences of their actions. In my blog entries I have written about instance after instance of some of the most eggregious cases of police misconduct with no repercussions of any sort. If the government fails to prosecute or do anything about even the most brazen acts of police misconduct, it makes me wonder how many day to day offenses in America go unpunished.
Unlike the U.S. the Edmonton Officer was not only convicted of assault, but now faces a sentence as harsh as 10 years in prison for his actions. If it wasn't there already, I am sure this conviction will send a strong message to officers in the community that the rights of citizens are taken seriously in the city of Edmonton, that the city will not support unwarranted uses of force by officers who are trained to act responsibly, and that the punishment for excessive force will be just as any other citizen's offense would be.
I should only dream for such a stance on citizen's rights against officers in this country. I'm sure in a U.S. court of law, the judge would have ruled that the officer used an appropriate amount of force given the circumstances, which is a scary proposition because the circumstances in which the officer tasered someone until the man defecated in his pants, was for turning around in surprise after handcuffs were being placed on him for jaywalking. Isn't apart of the circumstance the actual offense? Who wouldn't turn around and look at the officer a little cock-eyed for getting arrested for jaywalking? Even with the resistance that the man put up against the officer, it was never a physical resistance, and in fact the Judge classified Cetinski as a passive resister that Officer Zalaski should have been able to handle without the use of a weapon.
If the Officer had not been punished, and the Judge ruled that the act was justified, there would be no barrier for circumstances of when Officers can use a taser. It would expand what type of force in any circumstance an officer can use without penalty. The circumstances could be as minimal as a traffic violation, or even loitering if you give the cop enough lip. That is exactly what happened in the ucla taser video where a student was tased multiple times for an incident that started with him not showing a school I.D. in the library. The Officer's explanation for tasering the student 5 times is that he refused to stand up.
I realize to some people, the traffic stop incident, the UCLA taser incident and this incident with Officer Zalaski may seem justified, because in all cases the suspect offered resistance, albeit passive resistance, against the officers and the taser is an easy and safer way to force compliance than a firearm. But people tend to forget that tasers are deadly weapons as well. Shooting 50,000 volts of electricity through your body because you didn't use the crosswalk not only sounds like an excessive use of force, it can be deadly. In some cases tasers have killed people. So for those who think that using a taser was appropriate for Mr. Cetinski, do you think he should have died because he didn't use the crosswalk? No one deserves to be killed by the police for not showing a school I.D. or for speeding on the highway, but every time an officer opts to use their taser to quickly end a situation they take that chance.
Friday, April 27, 2007
America the Crayon Box; A Rant on Racism
You can’t call America a melting pot, we don’t all mix, we don’t all work together for the common good of the soup, and we most certainly don’t taste good together. So I call the U.S. the crayon box instead, because it is true we are the most diverse nation in the world, it is just that we still don’t mix. We are like the crayons in the box, individually wrapped and labeled our respective colors, and are “damn proud of it.” So we never get as much of an opportunity to get to know the colors next to us, or try to imagine ourselves in the wrapping of another color. Even the times when colors do mix, it generally just makes a whole new color, which then gets their very own wrapping, and a brand new label. Most of the times we lose site of the fact that we are all still, just crayons.
I recently learned about a debate within the young black community over the website niggaspace.com and whether this use of the n word is appropriate, whether it is racist, or whether it is an expression of free speech. This debate has inspired me to write about some things in relation to race that I've been thinking about for a long while now. The first and maybe most controversial thing I believe is that everyone is racist, but I don't mean just a little racist. I think we all start out learning complete racism. How else can you explain teaching little children their "racial" classification as if it made any more difference on who they are than telling them their eye color. When it comes down to it, race just becomes a means of separation for power. It just so happens that here and around the world white becomes the ruling race and black and everything in between become the subservient races. There can never be any equality as long as this paradigm stands because you will only have the capacity to view everything thru the lenses of race, and us vs them rationale. By calling me Black and someone else White, forever differentiates us psychologically, and will impede on both of our abilities to ever empathize with or relate to one another, but is really only masking the simple fact that we are apart of only one human race.
Unfortunately, bickering and spending energy on things as insignificant as what to be called by others is just another thing that seems to divert us from the very essence of racial and class tension causes. By saying the word nigga, will never be a way to reject or confirm whether someone is racists or not. Just like any other word, nigga is still, just a word, as is the same for nigger. That word is only going to mean to us, what we let it mean. I’m sure most people will agree that the most dangerous racists aren't trying to hurt us anymore by calling us niggas or niggers. They wouldn't give us the luxury of being so sure of their poisonous views. Instead they're doing it by becoming the lawmakers, the activists, the elite and putting racism into law and preserving their position as the hegemon in the racial hierarchy.
All you have to look at is how embedded racism is in our legislate, our justice system, even the representation in our executive branch, it is so intertwined within the fabric of our country sometimes I wonder if we will ever be rid of it completely, but then I think about the progress. The civil war, the civil rights era, and many brave individuals have led to victory over the formal institution of slavery and the formal institution of racial discrimination in written law, but we are no where near the end of the battle of fighting the invisible, and as a result, more dangerous informal institution of racism in America. The informal institution is seen all throughout our justice system. It is the explanation why blacks made up over 42% of death row inmates in 2005, but only make up roughly 10% (and declining) of the population of the entire country. It explains why laws like the 3 strikes rule are present in California, or why the penalty for smoking crack cocaine is harsher than for smoking powder cocaine. These laws do not explicitly state any reference to race or any form of discrimination in their language, but is that really necessary if they have the same effect?
I say this rather reluctantly because I think it leads to complacency, but we have taken great strides against racism in the U.S. and I would even agree that we are still progressing. The only thing that scares me is that, the rate of progress is noticeably declining. It must be because people are not as able to see this invisible veil of racism over all of our heads that affect all of our lives, but most negatively, minorities. If you are reading this post and have no idea what I am writing about, I might say it is a good sign that it is difficult for you to see the veil, or recognize the results it has on the minority populations. Hopefully that means that you aren't one of the people consciously keeping the veil over us. But if you do not acknowledge the existence of the racism that is persistent today, and has been since this country's inception, your naivety makes you racist without you even knowing, because if you don't even know, you can't do anything to end it. That goes for anyone, white, black, or brown. If you aren't actively fighting racism, for any reason—fear, ignorance, anything—you are de facto racist, because if you aren't fighting the cycle, you're perpetuating it. Many blacks are racist against themselves, when they portray the negative stereotypes we see in media, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who is apart of promoting the stereotypes commercially are the ultimate racists. I'm sure many of you are going to think that this is too idealistic, but I've always been taught if you aim for the stars, you're at least guaranteed to hit something higher than the ground.
I recently learned about a debate within the young black community over the website niggaspace.com and whether this use of the n word is appropriate, whether it is racist, or whether it is an expression of free speech. This debate has inspired me to write about some things in relation to race that I've been thinking about for a long while now. The first and maybe most controversial thing I believe is that everyone is racist, but I don't mean just a little racist. I think we all start out learning complete racism. How else can you explain teaching little children their "racial" classification as if it made any more difference on who they are than telling them their eye color. When it comes down to it, race just becomes a means of separation for power. It just so happens that here and around the world white becomes the ruling race and black and everything in between become the subservient races. There can never be any equality as long as this paradigm stands because you will only have the capacity to view everything thru the lenses of race, and us vs them rationale. By calling me Black and someone else White, forever differentiates us psychologically, and will impede on both of our abilities to ever empathize with or relate to one another, but is really only masking the simple fact that we are apart of only one human race.
Unfortunately, bickering and spending energy on things as insignificant as what to be called by others is just another thing that seems to divert us from the very essence of racial and class tension causes. By saying the word nigga, will never be a way to reject or confirm whether someone is racists or not. Just like any other word, nigga is still, just a word, as is the same for nigger. That word is only going to mean to us, what we let it mean. I’m sure most people will agree that the most dangerous racists aren't trying to hurt us anymore by calling us niggas or niggers. They wouldn't give us the luxury of being so sure of their poisonous views. Instead they're doing it by becoming the lawmakers, the activists, the elite and putting racism into law and preserving their position as the hegemon in the racial hierarchy.
All you have to look at is how embedded racism is in our legislate, our justice system, even the representation in our executive branch, it is so intertwined within the fabric of our country sometimes I wonder if we will ever be rid of it completely, but then I think about the progress. The civil war, the civil rights era, and many brave individuals have led to victory over the formal institution of slavery and the formal institution of racial discrimination in written law, but we are no where near the end of the battle of fighting the invisible, and as a result, more dangerous informal institution of racism in America. The informal institution is seen all throughout our justice system. It is the explanation why blacks made up over 42% of death row inmates in 2005, but only make up roughly 10% (and declining) of the population of the entire country. It explains why laws like the 3 strikes rule are present in California, or why the penalty for smoking crack cocaine is harsher than for smoking powder cocaine. These laws do not explicitly state any reference to race or any form of discrimination in their language, but is that really necessary if they have the same effect?
I say this rather reluctantly because I think it leads to complacency, but we have taken great strides against racism in the U.S. and I would even agree that we are still progressing. The only thing that scares me is that, the rate of progress is noticeably declining. It must be because people are not as able to see this invisible veil of racism over all of our heads that affect all of our lives, but most negatively, minorities. If you are reading this post and have no idea what I am writing about, I might say it is a good sign that it is difficult for you to see the veil, or recognize the results it has on the minority populations. Hopefully that means that you aren't one of the people consciously keeping the veil over us. But if you do not acknowledge the existence of the racism that is persistent today, and has been since this country's inception, your naivety makes you racist without you even knowing, because if you don't even know, you can't do anything to end it. That goes for anyone, white, black, or brown. If you aren't actively fighting racism, for any reason—fear, ignorance, anything—you are de facto racist, because if you aren't fighting the cycle, you're perpetuating it. Many blacks are racist against themselves, when they portray the negative stereotypes we see in media, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who is apart of promoting the stereotypes commercially are the ultimate racists. I'm sure many of you are going to think that this is too idealistic, but I've always been taught if you aim for the stars, you're at least guaranteed to hit something higher than the ground.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Karaoke McCain
So I'm just going to blame this one on technology. When you spend over $400 billion dollars in the department of defense, and the research and development field is getting the largest chunk of that money, it is not surprising that going to war might seems more like playing GI-Joe's with the Iranian kid down the street, rather than deciding the fates of thousands of real, breathing, walking, talking human beings. Even when we see it on television, (because you know they will show it, and you know we will watch)we are not going to think about how many women and children are murdered with each bomb that drops because we will probably be thinking more about how real war compares with the awesome special effects from Saving Private Ryan.
For humanity's sake, I'd like to believe that technology has desensitized us to what warfare does to people. Because we are so far removed from the damage we can do, or because we see it all the time in movies and video games, maybe it just isn't such a big deal anymore to kill or die. Military decisions are made and soldier's lives are being risked by people like presidential hopeful John McCain, who can pleasantly sing about bombing Iran like it is a Beach Boys song. I don't really have a presidential candidate to endorse for this upcoming election, and am still not quite sure who I will even vote for myself, but lets just say I'm not voting for anyone who can't even do a descent Beach Boys impression.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Want to hear a dead baby joke?
The most dangerous situations in the world are when ignorant people get into confrontations with one another, because the probability of something absolutely stupid happening skyrockets. The worst thing about it is that most of the time the ignoramuses that started the conflict are generally the one's least affected by their careless actions.
In Houston, a few ignoramuses got together and managed to make the news. A few days after his wife gave birth to their newborn baby, ignoramus number 1- William Lewis -decided that it was time to take the baby home, and he was going to do so whether the hospital allowed him to or not. A detector on the baby's ankle went off when he tried to leave the hospital so he was stopped, confronted, and ultimately tased by off duty Houston Police Department (HPD) officer, D.M. Boling, or ignoramus number 2. This all happened while the baby was still in Lewis' hands! Of course when Lewis was shocked he lost all control over his muscles and dropped the 2 day old baby, who fell about 2 feet to the concrete floor.
As horrifying as that is to imagine, the pair of fools did not cause much physical damage to the baby. The mother, who chose not to release her name (probably because she didn't want to publicly admit to relations with ignoramus number 1), said that her baby hasn't been the same since, "my baby — she had the shakes real bad. She's not as calm as she was before." But the fact of the matter is the results could have been much worse and that child is lucky not to have received permanent damage or even not to have died from that fall.
So let me break the story down just a little bit for you to truly realize the carelessness of these two men's actions. According to Officer Boling, Lewis made threatening remarks to him that there would be a hostage situation if he is not allowed to leave with the baby. Now I am not a father, but its not hard to emphathize with his outrage towards the hospital for not letting him leave with his newborn, without at least the courtesy to explain to him why. So, his feelings I understand. His actions on the other hand, are a different story. Why would you ever tell anyone that your baby is going to be your hostage if you don't get what you want? As justifiably upset as Lewis was, he placed his baby in direct harm, or at least gave others the perception of harm by making those statements.
The worse thing is, he probably didn't mean them, he was probably just a bit too eager to get his family home and put the baby safely to bed for the first time. But thats still no excuse. Sometimes, especially in regards to your family, you have to look at things logically. So I came up with a few questions for self reflection for ignoramus number 1 that might help him make a wiser choice in a similar situation next time. Was it really necessary to act a damn fool like you did because you couldn't go home ignoramus number 1? Would it have made a great deal of difference if you had made a more rational decision and left in the morning after following the hospital's protocal? I hope you realize the answer to the second question is yes, it would have made a world of difference. You wouldn't have gotten tased, your baby wouldn't have fell on concrete, and you wouldn't be in jail thinking about how your baby is doing.
In Houston, a few ignoramuses got together and managed to make the news. A few days after his wife gave birth to their newborn baby, ignoramus number 1- William Lewis -decided that it was time to take the baby home, and he was going to do so whether the hospital allowed him to or not. A detector on the baby's ankle went off when he tried to leave the hospital so he was stopped, confronted, and ultimately tased by off duty Houston Police Department (HPD) officer, D.M. Boling, or ignoramus number 2. This all happened while the baby was still in Lewis' hands! Of course when Lewis was shocked he lost all control over his muscles and dropped the 2 day old baby, who fell about 2 feet to the concrete floor.
As horrifying as that is to imagine, the pair of fools did not cause much physical damage to the baby. The mother, who chose not to release her name (probably because she didn't want to publicly admit to relations with ignoramus number 1), said that her baby hasn't been the same since, "my baby — she had the shakes real bad. She's not as calm as she was before." But the fact of the matter is the results could have been much worse and that child is lucky not to have received permanent damage or even not to have died from that fall.
So let me break the story down just a little bit for you to truly realize the carelessness of these two men's actions. According to Officer Boling, Lewis made threatening remarks to him that there would be a hostage situation if he is not allowed to leave with the baby. Now I am not a father, but its not hard to emphathize with his outrage towards the hospital for not letting him leave with his newborn, without at least the courtesy to explain to him why. So, his feelings I understand. His actions on the other hand, are a different story. Why would you ever tell anyone that your baby is going to be your hostage if you don't get what you want? As justifiably upset as Lewis was, he placed his baby in direct harm, or at least gave others the perception of harm by making those statements.
The worse thing is, he probably didn't mean them, he was probably just a bit too eager to get his family home and put the baby safely to bed for the first time. But thats still no excuse. Sometimes, especially in regards to your family, you have to look at things logically. So I came up with a few questions for self reflection for ignoramus number 1 that might help him make a wiser choice in a similar situation next time. Was it really necessary to act a damn fool like you did because you couldn't go home ignoramus number 1? Would it have made a great deal of difference if you had made a more rational decision and left in the morning after following the hospital's protocal? I hope you realize the answer to the second question is yes, it would have made a world of difference. You wouldn't have gotten tased, your baby wouldn't have fell on concrete, and you wouldn't be in jail thinking about how your baby is doing.
Thats right folks, Lewis is in jail for the stupidity of his actions. Sometimes the justice system gets it right. But in this case, and most others, they didn't get it all the way right. Of course I agree with charging Lewis with endangerment, its fair to say he endangered his baby and should be punished to deter him from doing anything similar in the future. But what I disagree with, is the fact that he was the only one charged. Ignoramus number 2's hands were certainly not clean of the situation. Officer Boling's actions were also the direct cause of that childs fall. Now to be fair, before I make him eat his spinach, I'll give him a cookie-I realize that his actions were based on the stupidity of ignoramus 1 and if ignoramus 1 had not been stupid to begin with, ignoramus 2 would not have been secondarily stupid. If a man's giving you indications that they may hold a baby hostage, justifiably you shoud try means to get the baby out of the man's hands.But they say the road to dumbass land is paved with good intentions. That scares me, because this particular dumb ass is a member of Houston's finest, one of the few men and women given the authority and responsibility to protect and to serve. They are trained in how to properly use their weapons, what the affects of using their weapons are, and when the use of the weapon is appropriate, and he still decided to tase a man holding a baby! He knew that once the man was tased, the father wouldn't be able to control his muscles, but ignoramus number 2 still thought it was a good idea to just let the baby fall to the ground. There was no reason he could not detain the man or at least keep the man from fleeing with the baby until the on duty police could respond and handle the situation a little more logically, and with a few more numbers. And what laws did Lewis break? I'm fairly sure that hospital protocal does not constitute any type of state or federal code, actions as drastic as tasing the man for trying to leave with his own child seem to be a bit outside the realm of hospital security, even if he is an off-duty officer. If he thought his actions in that situation were justified, then I'm inclined to believe that the only that stopped him from shooting the guy point blank, is that the taser was closer to reach for on his utility belt.
Officer ignoramus, you are a member of the Houston Police Department, and as such you are held to a higher standard of decision making even in the most tense and dangerous situations. Regularly citizens can afford to be irrationale, but you can't, your life and others depend on it. So I compiled a few questions for you to self reflect on, and hopefully they will deter you from making the same mistake in the future. Why would you send 50,000 volts of electricity through a man holding a baby and not account for whats going to happen to the baby? Did you really feel you were protecting the baby's life by doing what you did, or where you more concerned with upholding the blind and just laws of the hospital? Finally, would you have really felt you did something to help the child if the newborn ended up with brain damage from you choosing to tase the father?
Everyone is entitled to a little stupidity in their lives. Some decision they can look back on and say "Man was that stupid". NO one is entitled to this when a baby's future is what your putting at risk. Ignoramus number 2, I hope this family realizes real soon that you were negligent for what you did and then sues you. Ignoramus number 1, I hope your child grows up to be big and strong and then slaps the ash off your lips for what you did and says "now we're even".
Monday, April 2, 2007
American History Gone South
History has never been able to make me sick to my stomach before, but the Georgia resolution to pass the "Confederate History and Heritage Month" left my stomach with the same queezy impression as last night's big bean burrito-it didn't sit well.
Its not so much the fact that confederacy represents the institution of slavery. Its not even the fact that the state senate doesn't seem to see anything wrong with learning about the South's spirited efforts to maintain their right to institutional oppression that even upsets me.
It's the fact that they want to celebrate it.
Georgia was of course one of the proud slaveowning states in the union in the 18th and 19th centuries, and like any other southern state of that time, they felt it was their God given right to buy people, sell them, rape them, beat them, and most importantly, work them to death and reap the benefits. They felt so strongly, that they were willing to take up arms against the Godless North to protect that right, in a war where hundreds of thousands of Americans died nobly, in the name of confederacy.
So why wouldn't they want to commemorate that heritage? Why shouldn't little white boys and little black girls celebrate the proud confederate heritage of their past?
Maybe because calling it confederate heritage month tends to characterize an era in our history plagued with violently racist politics and exploitative economics, as more of a month long celebration or some type of jubilant extravaganza. It makes me sick to commemorate a group that represented a philosophy that caused death and destruction to my family. It's left me, and nearly all who look like me, to be born into this world without a distinct and proud family history, without any sense of self-worth.
Walter C. Jones of the Morris News Service when writing his article about the proposed month said that for many native southerners, the Confederate era represented a time of gentility, chivalry, and the deaths of over 30,000 Georgians.
I personally don’t care how many soldiers died, if it was for preserving the Confederate era of gentility, chivalry… oh and slavery. These people gave their lives to keep my people oppressed!! How am I supposed to seriously honor their deaths, when it takes all my mustard not to smile at the thought of it?
Everyone that willingly fought for the South; that fought for the noble cause of state’s rights and better representation, and chivalry, and gentility, and southern hospitality, as far as I’m concerned dropped the ball when they fought for slavery too.
Jones’ description epitomizes what I fear may occur if this resolution had passed—all the positives, admirable acts, and heroic figures will be included in the commemoration, but the ugly, negative aspects, the reasons why I loath the confederate era, will be discarded and eventually forgotten.
I’d be more inclined to agree with him if he added that the Confederate era was also a time of ignorance, and slavery, but he didn’t, and I guarantee the Georgia state legislature wouldn’t have either.
The is the same assembly, that when the idea was brought to them recently to issue a formal apology or statement of regret, the state NAACP chapter couldn’t find support to even get a resolution on the floor, but it wasn’t difficult to get a bill up for vote to praise the Confederacy, the driving force behind slavery.
Georgia State Sen. Jeff Mullis stated in response to an apology resolution that “If I had done something personally, yes, I would apologize”.
If it’s his position that as a state official, he personally needs to have done something to agree to an apology on behalf of the state of Georgia, he should have the same logic for the Confederate Heritage Month.
He didn’t personally have anything to do with planning or participating in the confederate rebellion, yet he was the Senator that introduced the Confederate Heritage Bill.
It’s ironic that Sen. Mullis wants to take claim for the Confederate Heritage Month as apart of his history, but cannot apologize for slavery in the state when it is apart of his history as well. It really makes no difference whether he was personally involved with slavery or not, Georgia was involved, and as a public official of Georgia it is his duty publicly recognize how this state has decimated the future of generations of people to this day because of slavery.
I said earlier that I have never gotten sick from history, unfortunately, there’s a first for everything.
Its not so much the fact that confederacy represents the institution of slavery. Its not even the fact that the state senate doesn't seem to see anything wrong with learning about the South's spirited efforts to maintain their right to institutional oppression that even upsets me.
It's the fact that they want to celebrate it.
Georgia was of course one of the proud slaveowning states in the union in the 18th and 19th centuries, and like any other southern state of that time, they felt it was their God given right to buy people, sell them, rape them, beat them, and most importantly, work them to death and reap the benefits. They felt so strongly, that they were willing to take up arms against the Godless North to protect that right, in a war where hundreds of thousands of Americans died nobly, in the name of confederacy.
So why wouldn't they want to commemorate that heritage? Why shouldn't little white boys and little black girls celebrate the proud confederate heritage of their past?
Maybe because calling it confederate heritage month tends to characterize an era in our history plagued with violently racist politics and exploitative economics, as more of a month long celebration or some type of jubilant extravaganza. It makes me sick to commemorate a group that represented a philosophy that caused death and destruction to my family. It's left me, and nearly all who look like me, to be born into this world without a distinct and proud family history, without any sense of self-worth.
Walter C. Jones of the Morris News Service when writing his article about the proposed month said that for many native southerners, the Confederate era represented a time of gentility, chivalry, and the deaths of over 30,000 Georgians.
I personally don’t care how many soldiers died, if it was for preserving the Confederate era of gentility, chivalry… oh and slavery. These people gave their lives to keep my people oppressed!! How am I supposed to seriously honor their deaths, when it takes all my mustard not to smile at the thought of it?
Everyone that willingly fought for the South; that fought for the noble cause of state’s rights and better representation, and chivalry, and gentility, and southern hospitality, as far as I’m concerned dropped the ball when they fought for slavery too.
Jones’ description epitomizes what I fear may occur if this resolution had passed—all the positives, admirable acts, and heroic figures will be included in the commemoration, but the ugly, negative aspects, the reasons why I loath the confederate era, will be discarded and eventually forgotten.
I’d be more inclined to agree with him if he added that the Confederate era was also a time of ignorance, and slavery, but he didn’t, and I guarantee the Georgia state legislature wouldn’t have either.
The is the same assembly, that when the idea was brought to them recently to issue a formal apology or statement of regret, the state NAACP chapter couldn’t find support to even get a resolution on the floor, but it wasn’t difficult to get a bill up for vote to praise the Confederacy, the driving force behind slavery.
Georgia State Sen. Jeff Mullis stated in response to an apology resolution that “If I had done something personally, yes, I would apologize”.
If it’s his position that as a state official, he personally needs to have done something to agree to an apology on behalf of the state of Georgia, he should have the same logic for the Confederate Heritage Month.
He didn’t personally have anything to do with planning or participating in the confederate rebellion, yet he was the Senator that introduced the Confederate Heritage Bill.
It’s ironic that Sen. Mullis wants to take claim for the Confederate Heritage Month as apart of his history, but cannot apologize for slavery in the state when it is apart of his history as well. It really makes no difference whether he was personally involved with slavery or not, Georgia was involved, and as a public official of Georgia it is his duty publicly recognize how this state has decimated the future of generations of people to this day because of slavery.
I said earlier that I have never gotten sick from history, unfortunately, there’s a first for everything.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Lights, camera, no action?
I was reading a colleagues reaction to the State of the Union address from a few months back, and she talked about something that has bothered me for a long time now. When I saw the State of the Union there was really only one question that kept circling in my mind—Why are we clapping so much at the State of the Union? How is it that the speech coming from the same president who has had a majority job disapproval rate from a number of polls for the past couple of years, the same president that announced a plan to deploy 20,000 more of our military troops to Iraq, is the same president getting more applause than Michael Jackson on a retirement tour?Is this how the President has been treated every time he speaks since he’s been in office? Is it supposed to be the thanks we give him for a nationalistic foreign policy that has ruined our ties and reputation with much of the world, or the thanks for taking away our Constitutional freedoms in the name of security? I’m inclined to think that the havoc that he has wreaked over the past 6 years is the fault of none other than our own. Anybody that is receiving standing ovations after the monumental failures of this administration will think that they can do anything and get away with it.
Last summer I saw the President speak at the National NAACP conference and the same overwhelmingly zealous applause was even present there! President Bush had not spoke at the Annual National NAACP Conference since he was Governor Bush, a presidential hopeful asking for our voting support in a close race. Since that time he conveniently had scheduling conflicts for 5 years straight, and was unable to make the conference. Needless to say, his policies were no where near agreement with the NAACP’s national political stance on most issues, so I anticipated a spirited effort to let the President know that we disapprove. As soon as the man arrived, there was a roar of applause coming from the crowd, I was taken aback for a moment, but then quickly dismissed the cheers of acceptance for simple common courtesy. After all, as much as the man is hated, he still is the most powerful human being on the planet; I’m guessing that earns him at least a solid clap when he enters a room. Then, he commenced with his speech and if I had been standing outside the building, I would have thought it was the greatest speech of all time. Nearly every single time the president paused there was an eruption of applause. The same senior members that told us this was the worst presidential administration in history, was standing when the clapped! Half these people were over 60, so standing to clap for Bush from them was much more symbolically reverent than a young 20 year old.
Needless to say, I refused to clap for him.
As a matter of fact, I fell asleep at some point during his address to the members, of course an act of protest. But in all seriousness, I was in a state of shock after the President’s speech, I felt betrayed by the NAACP as an organization. Of course, I did not expect jeers from the crowd, or any type of extreme protesting at the event, but I most certainly didn’t expect them to actually humor what the president was saying, and lead him to believe that we approve of what he’s doing. At any public opportunity, Bush should be constantly reminded of how he’s screwed up, constantly reminded that he’s to blame for the soldiers that have fallen in Iraq, and constantly reminded that he is to blame for the war crimes persisting in Guantanamo Bay. At this point and time I think the U.S. is far from a fascist state, but we are alot closer to an authoritarian state than most Americans are willing to realize. My fear is that there will be some type of attack on the United States at or near the time Bush is supposed to leave office and he declares a state of emergency and stays in office. When the time truly comes to fight for our freedoms, I hope people won’t just stand by and applaud.
Last summer I saw the President speak at the National NAACP conference and the same overwhelmingly zealous applause was even present there! President Bush had not spoke at the Annual National NAACP Conference since he was Governor Bush, a presidential hopeful asking for our voting support in a close race. Since that time he conveniently had scheduling conflicts for 5 years straight, and was unable to make the conference. Needless to say, his policies were no where near agreement with the NAACP’s national political stance on most issues, so I anticipated a spirited effort to let the President know that we disapprove. As soon as the man arrived, there was a roar of applause coming from the crowd, I was taken aback for a moment, but then quickly dismissed the cheers of acceptance for simple common courtesy. After all, as much as the man is hated, he still is the most powerful human being on the planet; I’m guessing that earns him at least a solid clap when he enters a room. Then, he commenced with his speech and if I had been standing outside the building, I would have thought it was the greatest speech of all time. Nearly every single time the president paused there was an eruption of applause. The same senior members that told us this was the worst presidential administration in history, was standing when the clapped! Half these people were over 60, so standing to clap for Bush from them was much more symbolically reverent than a young 20 year old.
Needless to say, I refused to clap for him.
As a matter of fact, I fell asleep at some point during his address to the members, of course an act of protest. But in all seriousness, I was in a state of shock after the President’s speech, I felt betrayed by the NAACP as an organization. Of course, I did not expect jeers from the crowd, or any type of extreme protesting at the event, but I most certainly didn’t expect them to actually humor what the president was saying, and lead him to believe that we approve of what he’s doing. At any public opportunity, Bush should be constantly reminded of how he’s screwed up, constantly reminded that he’s to blame for the soldiers that have fallen in Iraq, and constantly reminded that he is to blame for the war crimes persisting in Guantanamo Bay. At this point and time I think the U.S. is far from a fascist state, but we are alot closer to an authoritarian state than most Americans are willing to realize. My fear is that there will be some type of attack on the United States at or near the time Bush is supposed to leave office and he declares a state of emergency and stays in office. When the time truly comes to fight for our freedoms, I hope people won’t just stand by and applaud.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
No Accountability; the Root of Police Misconduct in the LAPD
Police enforcement is one of the most dangerous yet admirable professions in the world. Brave men and women make the ultimately sacrifice daily by placing their lives on the line in the most dangerous situations to ensure the safety of the public. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) is the second largest police department in the nation and is known to have a great deal of dedicated and trained officers to protect the public. Unfortunately, the LAPD is also known to have a great deal of officers that do not protect the public. LAPD’s history shows more than almost any other police department that it is in need of major reform to better serve the people of Los Angeles. The city has attempted to address this problem for nearly 20 years yet has been unsuccessful in improving the quality of the department. Time and time again the department has attempted reform and it has achieved little to no progress in doing so. The LAPD is unequipped to handle the culture of police misconduct that is firmly apart of the department and will only be able to reform through the aggressive legal actions of an independent agency that is given the powers necessary to police the department.
For many years, the LAPD has represented the worst aspects of what is wrong with police enforcement in the United States. It has a long history of insufficient training, police misconduct, evidence planting and vigilante apprehension tactics. Up until the 1990’s there was absolutely nothing being done about LAPD’s illegal activities, and only 2% of all claims of police misconduct were validated by the department (Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States). In most cases the officers participating in police misconduct were the same officers receiving promotions to higher ranking positions.
In 1991 it took the graphic video of the Rodney King beating to be seen worldwide, 54 deaths from rioting in South Los Angeles, and $700 million in damages for the city to finally take action against the LAPD. 4 months later, the Christopher Commission Report was created to conduct a full analysis of the complete structure and operation of the LAPD over a 5 year period. Like Los Angeles residents had known for years, the Christopher Commission Report found widespread evidence of systemic police brutality, a nearly non-existent disciplinary structure, and a “code of silence” that discouraged other officers from reporting police misconduct. Among other recommendations for department reform, the Commission report suggested the importance of a new form of Officer accountability. “Ugly incidents will not diminish until ranking officers know they will be held responsible for what happens in their sector, whether or not they personally participate.” (Shielded from justice: Police brutality and Accountability in the United States). The report’s suggestion would have made ranking officers responsible for any instances of misconduct in their sector and gave them greater incentive to discourage police misconduct amongst the officers they command, helping to stem the pattern of misconduct from within the department as opposed to external investigations and prosecutions.
Not surprisingly, this idea was never put to practice, and in 1996 the special counsel to the Los Angeles Police Commission published a report finding that there had only been minimal progress towards reform in the department and that the progress observed was attributed only to the acts of dedicated individuals rather than a coordinated plan of effort (Shielded from justice: Police brutality and Accountability in the United States). This proved that the department was incapable of policing itself and investigating bad conduct of its employees. As a result, there persisted records of instances where the LAPD used disproportionate force and seemingly illegal tactics against the public, and in most of cases the officers involved were only minimally reprimanded if at all.
An example of publicly viewed police misconduct was the shooting of Margaret Mitchell. Margaret Mitchell was an elderly, mentally ill African American, homeless women when she was shot and killed by an LAPD officer in front of 11 eye witnesses. The officers attempted to confiscate her grocery basket--which held all her belongings—for not having permission from the supermarket to take the basket. The police claim that she had a weapon in her hand, a screw driver, and that she threatened to kill them. She lunged and slashed at the male cop causing him to “fear for his life”. He fired one shot and killed Margaret Mitchell (L.A.—The Police Murder of Margaret Mitchell). She was 5 foot 1, weighed 102 pounds and died at the age of 55 (Cooley’s Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting). Police officers are intensively trained to handle the most dangerous situations in their line of duty, and more importantly to act with appropriate force. This Officer reacted to an old woman threatening him with a screw driver by using lethal force. He shot and killed her with his department issued firearm, when that same department issues officers pepper spray, batons, and hand cuffs, yet the officer still maintained shooting was appropriate force in that situation. Even the public outcry that followed did nothing to bring the officer to justice. Officer Edward Larrigan was never charged, and Bernard Parks, police chief at the time of the shooting aggressively defended the decision by Officer Larrigan (“Cooley’s Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting”).
The officer’s actions against Margaret Mitchell and the LAPD’s subsequent response exemplified the lack of accountability in the department that had remained in tact even through the Christopher Commission Investigation. The department was still incapable of investigating its own employees and was aiding to the culture of police brutality. In even the most extreme cases where police have unlawfully killed suspects, officers are rarely held accountable for their actions within the department and under almost no circumstance are the officers ever criminally charged for their on-duty actions. This lack of discipline within the department perpetuates the amount of police misconduct against suspects and innocent civilians. If officers are able to avoid criminal charges in cases so egregious and blatantly excessive as the Rodney King beating or the Margaret Mitchell murder, there is nothing to stop officers from fearing punishment of less shocking instances of civil rights violations.
This practice of has continued with minor progress up until the present. In 2006 there were several videos posted on popular sites, such as youtube.com, showing blatant acts of police brutality by the LAPD captured on camera. 2 of the most popular videos showed Hollywood division officers beating suspects while they were detained on the ground. The first video shows officers repeatedly hitting an individual with their batons after the man has already been subdued on the ground. This occurred during a peaceful protest against a Minuteman march in July of 2006 (LAPD brutality targets immigrant rights movement). The next video shows two officers punching a suspect, William Cardenas, in the face while he is completely subdued on the ground by the officers in August of 2006. Unknown to the officers at the time, a civilian captures the police on camera beating William Cardenas while pinning him to the ground with a knee pressed against Cardenas’ neck, and the other officer sitting on his stomach (Man Seen Being Punched By Cops On Tape, Speaks Out).
The third, and possibly most shocking video exhibiting police brutality, happened on the campus of UCLA in a library. The University Campus Police Department, a division of the LAPD, tasered a civilian multiple times for refusing to leave the library. It was obvious that after the first or second time the person was tasered, he was unable to leave on his own power, but instead of carrying out the subdued suspect, they continued to taser him to try and force him to leave on his own power (UCLA Police Taser Student in Powell).
These acts that have shocked thousands on the internet are common tactics used by LAPD. Even capturing these instances on video, rarely lead to any action taken against the officers by neither the D.A. nor the Internal Affairs Department (IAD) of the LAPD. Civilian complaints of police brutality are overwhelmingly ignored because of the IAD procedure to give more weight to the accused officer’s story than to witness accounts. Most civilian complaints are even filed by the department on miscellaneous letterhead, making the allegation essentially non-existent because it is not an official document (California: Update on Police Brutality). Misconduct claims submitted by other officers are given more merit, but are rarely reported because of the officer “code of silence”, an unwritten code in the LAPD that disallows police to report misconduct of other officers (Feldmen). The 1997 report by a police task force on LAPD Rampart division Detective Mark Fuhrman provided insight into the code of silence when he informed the task force that his superiors knew that he and other officers committed misconducts, but chose not to investigate. The report stated that Det. Fuhrman “knew exactly where the disciplinary line was, and he avoided creating any significant pattern of misconduct” What this statement assumes is that there is a line of discipline that is not to be crossed in the department, but based on the record of Det. Fuhrman and other officers in the division, there was a high level of abuse permitted in the department by the officers before that line was ever reached.
The culture of excessive violence that has persisted through investigations, reports, and even public outcry has yet to be stemmed by any type of reform the department has implemented. There has no been significant change in the police department’s tactics and police misconduct claims from civilians have continued to rise, although payouts for civil suits have decreased compared to the 1990s. The only way to stop the systemic police brutality in the department is to create an external department responsible for policing the LAPD. Instead of submitting police misconduct claims through the very department the claim is against, the claims will be submitted directly to the judicial agency, and reviewed by an independent board with knowledge of police activities and procedures. The officers will be investigated wholly by the independent agency and subject to the disciplinary measures decided by the agency. By creating an agency not governed by the LAPD, it creates enough space to increase objectivity when dealing with officers, and will be able to give a fair determination of the facts without fear of officer bias. This system would also do better to protect officers that wish to break the ‘code of silence” because the officer will be able to submit a misconduct report anonymously to the agency without fear of being discovered and ostracized from the police community.
In order to promote internal reform as well, this agency would take the suggestion made by the Christopher Commission report 15 years ago and hold ranking officers responsible for systemic misconduct within their sectors, with the hope that the ranking members will pay closer attention to the conduct of the officers they govern discouraging widespread misconduct. The web of misconduct often spreads up to some of the highest ranking officers, if the judicial agency is able to expose some high ranking officials it may be able to disrupt the pattern that is firmly established in the department.
The Judicial committee will also work closely with the D.A. office to criminally prosecute officers for cases of criminal activity, as in the case with the officer who shot Margaret Mitchell. This will send a firm message to everyone within the police department that they will be held just as accountable as civilians for actions outside police protocol and end the stigma that police are above the law. What this policy will also achieve, is protection of the public from the police department. It is the duty of every officer in the LAPD to protect the public, but not at the expense of the public’s freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Far too long in Los Angeles, have many citizens had their civil rights violated in the name of public safety. This reform will restore a long absent trust in the LAPD in the Los Angeles community, even in minority communities who have historically conflicted with LAPD and have been victims to some of the most publicly egregious acts committed by LAPD. Holding officers to a high standard of accountability is the only way to ensure their duties will be performed in a manner that will protect as opposed to terrorizing the public.
It is clear that the history of the LAPD is among the worst in the country, and the present shows that we are still battling the same problems with little to no progress. What has led to the cities inability to rid the LAPD of corruption and police misconduct has been the city’s irrational faith in the LAPD to reform itself. There have been too many examples that show the police department has to be publicly forced to investigate its own officers in even the most obvious cases. It has been proven that even individual commitments from officers to reform the department is not enough to end the policy in the LAPD. There has to be an independent agency that will enforce accountability in the department, and restore nobility to being an officer. The decisions the officers make everyday on the streets, often times are the decisions between our lives and our deaths, and for that reason we must hold them to the highest accountability to perform their trained duties.
Works Cited
"California: Update on Police Brutality." Amnesty International; Working to Protect
Human Rights Worldwide. 01 September 1999. Amnesty International. 14 Feb 2007.
"Cooley's Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting." Metropolitan News-
Enterprise. 08 August 2001. Metropolitan News-Enterprise. 10 Feb 2007.
Feldmen, Charles. "Officer Breaks LAPD." CNN.com. 21 September 2000. CNN. 14 Feb
2007.
"L.A.--The Police Murder of Margaret Mitchell." Revolutionary Worker. 13 June 1999.
Revolutionary Worker. 11 Feb 2007.
"LAPD Brutality Targets Immigrant Rights Movement." Act Now to Stop War and End
Racism. A.N.S.W.E.R.. 11 Feb 2007.
"Man Seen Being Punched By Cops On Tape, Speaks Out." CBS2.com. 13 November
2006. A.N.S.W.E.R.. 11 Feb 2007.
"Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States." Human
Rights Watch. June 1998. Human Rights Watch. 14 Feb 2007.
"UCLA Police Taser Student in Powell." Youtube.com. 15 November 2006. Youtube. 14 Feb 2007.
For many years, the LAPD has represented the worst aspects of what is wrong with police enforcement in the United States. It has a long history of insufficient training, police misconduct, evidence planting and vigilante apprehension tactics. Up until the 1990’s there was absolutely nothing being done about LAPD’s illegal activities, and only 2% of all claims of police misconduct were validated by the department (Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States). In most cases the officers participating in police misconduct were the same officers receiving promotions to higher ranking positions.
In 1991 it took the graphic video of the Rodney King beating to be seen worldwide, 54 deaths from rioting in South Los Angeles, and $700 million in damages for the city to finally take action against the LAPD. 4 months later, the Christopher Commission Report was created to conduct a full analysis of the complete structure and operation of the LAPD over a 5 year period. Like Los Angeles residents had known for years, the Christopher Commission Report found widespread evidence of systemic police brutality, a nearly non-existent disciplinary structure, and a “code of silence” that discouraged other officers from reporting police misconduct. Among other recommendations for department reform, the Commission report suggested the importance of a new form of Officer accountability. “Ugly incidents will not diminish until ranking officers know they will be held responsible for what happens in their sector, whether or not they personally participate.” (Shielded from justice: Police brutality and Accountability in the United States). The report’s suggestion would have made ranking officers responsible for any instances of misconduct in their sector and gave them greater incentive to discourage police misconduct amongst the officers they command, helping to stem the pattern of misconduct from within the department as opposed to external investigations and prosecutions.
Not surprisingly, this idea was never put to practice, and in 1996 the special counsel to the Los Angeles Police Commission published a report finding that there had only been minimal progress towards reform in the department and that the progress observed was attributed only to the acts of dedicated individuals rather than a coordinated plan of effort (Shielded from justice: Police brutality and Accountability in the United States). This proved that the department was incapable of policing itself and investigating bad conduct of its employees. As a result, there persisted records of instances where the LAPD used disproportionate force and seemingly illegal tactics against the public, and in most of cases the officers involved were only minimally reprimanded if at all.
An example of publicly viewed police misconduct was the shooting of Margaret Mitchell. Margaret Mitchell was an elderly, mentally ill African American, homeless women when she was shot and killed by an LAPD officer in front of 11 eye witnesses. The officers attempted to confiscate her grocery basket--which held all her belongings—for not having permission from the supermarket to take the basket. The police claim that she had a weapon in her hand, a screw driver, and that she threatened to kill them. She lunged and slashed at the male cop causing him to “fear for his life”. He fired one shot and killed Margaret Mitchell (L.A.—The Police Murder of Margaret Mitchell). She was 5 foot 1, weighed 102 pounds and died at the age of 55 (Cooley’s Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting). Police officers are intensively trained to handle the most dangerous situations in their line of duty, and more importantly to act with appropriate force. This Officer reacted to an old woman threatening him with a screw driver by using lethal force. He shot and killed her with his department issued firearm, when that same department issues officers pepper spray, batons, and hand cuffs, yet the officer still maintained shooting was appropriate force in that situation. Even the public outcry that followed did nothing to bring the officer to justice. Officer Edward Larrigan was never charged, and Bernard Parks, police chief at the time of the shooting aggressively defended the decision by Officer Larrigan (“Cooley’s Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting”).
The officer’s actions against Margaret Mitchell and the LAPD’s subsequent response exemplified the lack of accountability in the department that had remained in tact even through the Christopher Commission Investigation. The department was still incapable of investigating its own employees and was aiding to the culture of police brutality. In even the most extreme cases where police have unlawfully killed suspects, officers are rarely held accountable for their actions within the department and under almost no circumstance are the officers ever criminally charged for their on-duty actions. This lack of discipline within the department perpetuates the amount of police misconduct against suspects and innocent civilians. If officers are able to avoid criminal charges in cases so egregious and blatantly excessive as the Rodney King beating or the Margaret Mitchell murder, there is nothing to stop officers from fearing punishment of less shocking instances of civil rights violations.
This practice of has continued with minor progress up until the present. In 2006 there were several videos posted on popular sites, such as youtube.com, showing blatant acts of police brutality by the LAPD captured on camera. 2 of the most popular videos showed Hollywood division officers beating suspects while they were detained on the ground. The first video shows officers repeatedly hitting an individual with their batons after the man has already been subdued on the ground. This occurred during a peaceful protest against a Minuteman march in July of 2006 (LAPD brutality targets immigrant rights movement). The next video shows two officers punching a suspect, William Cardenas, in the face while he is completely subdued on the ground by the officers in August of 2006. Unknown to the officers at the time, a civilian captures the police on camera beating William Cardenas while pinning him to the ground with a knee pressed against Cardenas’ neck, and the other officer sitting on his stomach (Man Seen Being Punched By Cops On Tape, Speaks Out).
The third, and possibly most shocking video exhibiting police brutality, happened on the campus of UCLA in a library. The University Campus Police Department, a division of the LAPD, tasered a civilian multiple times for refusing to leave the library. It was obvious that after the first or second time the person was tasered, he was unable to leave on his own power, but instead of carrying out the subdued suspect, they continued to taser him to try and force him to leave on his own power (UCLA Police Taser Student in Powell).
These acts that have shocked thousands on the internet are common tactics used by LAPD. Even capturing these instances on video, rarely lead to any action taken against the officers by neither the D.A. nor the Internal Affairs Department (IAD) of the LAPD. Civilian complaints of police brutality are overwhelmingly ignored because of the IAD procedure to give more weight to the accused officer’s story than to witness accounts. Most civilian complaints are even filed by the department on miscellaneous letterhead, making the allegation essentially non-existent because it is not an official document (California: Update on Police Brutality). Misconduct claims submitted by other officers are given more merit, but are rarely reported because of the officer “code of silence”, an unwritten code in the LAPD that disallows police to report misconduct of other officers (Feldmen). The 1997 report by a police task force on LAPD Rampart division Detective Mark Fuhrman provided insight into the code of silence when he informed the task force that his superiors knew that he and other officers committed misconducts, but chose not to investigate. The report stated that Det. Fuhrman “knew exactly where the disciplinary line was, and he avoided creating any significant pattern of misconduct” What this statement assumes is that there is a line of discipline that is not to be crossed in the department, but based on the record of Det. Fuhrman and other officers in the division, there was a high level of abuse permitted in the department by the officers before that line was ever reached.
The culture of excessive violence that has persisted through investigations, reports, and even public outcry has yet to be stemmed by any type of reform the department has implemented. There has no been significant change in the police department’s tactics and police misconduct claims from civilians have continued to rise, although payouts for civil suits have decreased compared to the 1990s. The only way to stop the systemic police brutality in the department is to create an external department responsible for policing the LAPD. Instead of submitting police misconduct claims through the very department the claim is against, the claims will be submitted directly to the judicial agency, and reviewed by an independent board with knowledge of police activities and procedures. The officers will be investigated wholly by the independent agency and subject to the disciplinary measures decided by the agency. By creating an agency not governed by the LAPD, it creates enough space to increase objectivity when dealing with officers, and will be able to give a fair determination of the facts without fear of officer bias. This system would also do better to protect officers that wish to break the ‘code of silence” because the officer will be able to submit a misconduct report anonymously to the agency without fear of being discovered and ostracized from the police community.
In order to promote internal reform as well, this agency would take the suggestion made by the Christopher Commission report 15 years ago and hold ranking officers responsible for systemic misconduct within their sectors, with the hope that the ranking members will pay closer attention to the conduct of the officers they govern discouraging widespread misconduct. The web of misconduct often spreads up to some of the highest ranking officers, if the judicial agency is able to expose some high ranking officials it may be able to disrupt the pattern that is firmly established in the department.
The Judicial committee will also work closely with the D.A. office to criminally prosecute officers for cases of criminal activity, as in the case with the officer who shot Margaret Mitchell. This will send a firm message to everyone within the police department that they will be held just as accountable as civilians for actions outside police protocol and end the stigma that police are above the law. What this policy will also achieve, is protection of the public from the police department. It is the duty of every officer in the LAPD to protect the public, but not at the expense of the public’s freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Far too long in Los Angeles, have many citizens had their civil rights violated in the name of public safety. This reform will restore a long absent trust in the LAPD in the Los Angeles community, even in minority communities who have historically conflicted with LAPD and have been victims to some of the most publicly egregious acts committed by LAPD. Holding officers to a high standard of accountability is the only way to ensure their duties will be performed in a manner that will protect as opposed to terrorizing the public.
It is clear that the history of the LAPD is among the worst in the country, and the present shows that we are still battling the same problems with little to no progress. What has led to the cities inability to rid the LAPD of corruption and police misconduct has been the city’s irrational faith in the LAPD to reform itself. There have been too many examples that show the police department has to be publicly forced to investigate its own officers in even the most obvious cases. It has been proven that even individual commitments from officers to reform the department is not enough to end the policy in the LAPD. There has to be an independent agency that will enforce accountability in the department, and restore nobility to being an officer. The decisions the officers make everyday on the streets, often times are the decisions between our lives and our deaths, and for that reason we must hold them to the highest accountability to perform their trained duties.
Works Cited
"California: Update on Police Brutality." Amnesty International; Working to Protect
Human Rights Worldwide. 01 September 1999. Amnesty International. 14 Feb 2007
"Cooley's Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting." Metropolitan News-
Enterprise. 08 August 2001. Metropolitan News-Enterprise. 10 Feb 2007
Feldmen, Charles. "Officer Breaks LAPD." CNN.com. 21 September 2000. CNN. 14 Feb
2007
"L.A.--The Police Murder of Margaret Mitchell." Revolutionary Worker. 13 June 1999.
Revolutionary Worker. 11 Feb 2007
"LAPD Brutality Targets Immigrant Rights Movement." Act Now to Stop War and End
Racism. A.N.S.W.E.R.. 11 Feb 2007
"Man Seen Being Punched By Cops On Tape, Speaks Out." CBS2.com. 13 November
2006. A.N.S.W.E.R.. 11 Feb 2007
"Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States." Human
Rights Watch. June 1998. Human Rights Watch. 14 Feb 2007
"UCLA Police Taser Student in Powell." Youtube.com. 15 November 2006. Youtube. 14 Feb 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Common sense...it just isn't so common anymore
“The Privilege of the Writ of habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.”
I know I'm not the smartest guy in the world, and although I do wish to go to law school and someday become an attorney, at this time I by no means consider myself an expert in law or in legal interpretation. But when the Constitution of the United States clearly states that the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus can NOT be suspended, that seems pretty clear to me that the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus can NOT be suspended!!! No, you didn’t read the same sentence twice by mistake (something I personally do all the time), I wrote the same words again, because frankly, it can’t get any simpler than that. For this reason I was curious as to how Attorney General Gonzales would respond to a seemingly iron clad statement codified in our nation’s written constitution. I really wanted to know how he was going to look Senator Specter and the rest of the Senate Judiciary Committee in their eyes and make a cohesive and logical argument that the rights of the Guantanamo detainees should be, and more importantly, could be taken away from these individuals without violating the Constitution.
Don’t get me wrong, I knew anything that would come out of his mouth couldn’t possibly justify the deprivation of the detainees rights, but I realize that there are many interpretations to the law, and that one of the beauties (but sometimes the beast) of our law, is that it changes. Words, no matter how long ago they were written, can have two very different meanings in two different periods of time, which means most things argued in law are mainly subjective and based wholly on context. I expected an argument nothing short of excellence (but still wrong) from the Attorney General of these United States, a Harvard Law man, and the highest ranking Hispanic official in our government…I was disappointed.
Apparently Attorney General Gonzales’ game plan was to disregard common sense completely…it went off without a hitch. Although the Constitution expressly states the right cannot be taken away except in specific situations, and the United States Supreme Court stated that this right also applies to non-citizens, Attorney General Gonzales decided to justify the government’s actions by attacking the idea of the right applying to detainees andcc telling the Judicial Affairs committee that it never says the words “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.”, within the Constitution. His claim is that since the Constitution does not specify who exactly has the right to writ of habeas corpus, it means that these individuals in Guantanamo never had the right to begin with. Well, using Attorney General Gonzales’ same logic, wouldn’t that mean no one in the United States has the right to writ of habeas corpus? No one particular people, citizen or non citizen, was ever expressly included in the right to writ of habeas, so wouldn’t that mean according to the Attorney General, that none of us have the right to begin with? In that case, why would the Constitution expressly prohibit the suspension of a right that no one is even guaranteed in the first place? As was stated so eloquently by Samuel L. Jackson in the film Pulp Fiction, “the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence.” Just because no one is specified as to having the right to writ of habeas corpus, does not mean that no one has the right to begin with. In fact, just the opposite is being asserted in the statement in the Constitution. By only stating when the privilege can be taken away, the Constitution creates a basic and logical assumption that the privilege is present in all other occasions without further exception.
Attorney General Gonzales’ testimony in front of the Senate Judicial Committee further solidifies my belief that this administration will assertively attack any type of constitutional privilege that will disallow the regime from doing what it wants. If you did not read the definition of writ of habeas corpus, it is the legal action detainees can take to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. Now why would the government want to take that away? Wait, unless….no, they can’t possibly want to…. want to unlawfully detain someone. Bingo! Unless the people as a whole realize what is going on, I wouldn’t be surprised if this regime goes so far as to start a war with Iran, North Korea, etc. just to declare a state of emergency and maintain power. Mark my words Big Brother’s coming, then we’ll see how much people start caring about protecting their civil rights.
I know I'm not the smartest guy in the world, and although I do wish to go to law school and someday become an attorney, at this time I by no means consider myself an expert in law or in legal interpretation. But when the Constitution of the United States clearly states that the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus can NOT be suspended, that seems pretty clear to me that the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus can NOT be suspended!!! No, you didn’t read the same sentence twice by mistake (something I personally do all the time), I wrote the same words again, because frankly, it can’t get any simpler than that. For this reason I was curious as to how Attorney General Gonzales would respond to a seemingly iron clad statement codified in our nation’s written constitution. I really wanted to know how he was going to look Senator Specter and the rest of the Senate Judiciary Committee in their eyes and make a cohesive and logical argument that the rights of the Guantanamo detainees should be, and more importantly, could be taken away from these individuals without violating the Constitution.
Don’t get me wrong, I knew anything that would come out of his mouth couldn’t possibly justify the deprivation of the detainees rights, but I realize that there are many interpretations to the law, and that one of the beauties (but sometimes the beast) of our law, is that it changes. Words, no matter how long ago they were written, can have two very different meanings in two different periods of time, which means most things argued in law are mainly subjective and based wholly on context. I expected an argument nothing short of excellence (but still wrong) from the Attorney General of these United States, a Harvard Law man, and the highest ranking Hispanic official in our government…I was disappointed.
Apparently Attorney General Gonzales’ game plan was to disregard common sense completely…it went off without a hitch. Although the Constitution expressly states the right cannot be taken away except in specific situations, and the United States Supreme Court stated that this right also applies to non-citizens, Attorney General Gonzales decided to justify the government’s actions by attacking the idea of the right applying to detainees andcc telling the Judicial Affairs committee that it never says the words “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.”, within the Constitution. His claim is that since the Constitution does not specify who exactly has the right to writ of habeas corpus, it means that these individuals in Guantanamo never had the right to begin with. Well, using Attorney General Gonzales’ same logic, wouldn’t that mean no one in the United States has the right to writ of habeas corpus? No one particular people, citizen or non citizen, was ever expressly included in the right to writ of habeas, so wouldn’t that mean according to the Attorney General, that none of us have the right to begin with? In that case, why would the Constitution expressly prohibit the suspension of a right that no one is even guaranteed in the first place? As was stated so eloquently by Samuel L. Jackson in the film Pulp Fiction, “the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence.” Just because no one is specified as to having the right to writ of habeas corpus, does not mean that no one has the right to begin with. In fact, just the opposite is being asserted in the statement in the Constitution. By only stating when the privilege can be taken away, the Constitution creates a basic and logical assumption that the privilege is present in all other occasions without further exception.
Attorney General Gonzales’ testimony in front of the Senate Judicial Committee further solidifies my belief that this administration will assertively attack any type of constitutional privilege that will disallow the regime from doing what it wants. If you did not read the definition of writ of habeas corpus, it is the legal action detainees can take to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. Now why would the government want to take that away? Wait, unless….no, they can’t possibly want to…. want to unlawfully detain someone. Bingo! Unless the people as a whole realize what is going on, I wouldn’t be surprised if this regime goes so far as to start a war with Iran, North Korea, etc. just to declare a state of emergency and maintain power. Mark my words Big Brother’s coming, then we’ll see how much people start caring about protecting their civil rights.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
"Accusations fly, like bullets do"
The police profession is one of the most valiant professions in this country. There aren’t many careers that force people to sacrifice their individual safety on a daily basis to protect the lives of others and preserve the moral fabric of the surrounding community. This is exactly the reason why not everyone can be an officer. In order to properly fulfill his/her duty to the public, an officer must necessarily hold values and skills that the rest of us can conveniently and routinely ignore. Officers must genuinely care for the safety as well as the rights of those whom they protect. They must also have responsibility—responsibility to know when to use force and have the logic to quickly gage the level of force appropriate for each unique situation they may find themselves in. Some may think this is an impossibly high standard for someone who is essentially no different than you and I, but I ask, would you hold someone to a lower standard if the merit of their decision is the difference between your life, or your death? These are the chosen few men and women whose split second decisions carry the heavy burden of our safety, our rights, and our livelihood. Because their burden is so heavy, because their mistakes are so costly, I hold their integrity to a higher standard.
In this police shooting video http://www.filecabi.net/video/goddammit30.html, the officers that killed the unarmed man were completely unjustified in their actions and are wholly responsible for the man’s death. I have no idea what this man did before he was killed that night, nor do I care. What I do draw concern with however, are the officers that used their government issued uniforms, government issued badges, and government issued firearms, summarily meaning they used the authority of the government, to unjustly deny a man of his most basic right as a human being, his right to live. It is incomprehensible for me to believe that officers; with bullet proof vests, automatic weapons, attack dogs, and riot gear, not to mention at least 21 weeks of police academy training and the common sense they were born with; would find it reasonable to use lethal force and shoot an unarmed man in that situation over 80 times, then leave him to die on his porch.
Unfortunately, what I can comprehend is what is far too common the case, that these officers acted without reason at all but more on an instinctual level not more developed or trained than a young boy with a water gun, eager to soak up anything that moves. They completely disregarded their responsibility to protect the rights of everyone around them and abused their privileges that come with being an officer, and made a decision without thinking, a bad a decision. We all make bad decisions, I am guilty of a few (only a few) in my lifetime, but the difference between my bad decisions and the bad decision of those officers, is that in their case someone’s life was at stake, and so many others lives have been affected as a result of their bad decision. It affects the man’s child to be born, his girlfriend who has to raise a baby alone, and his parents who now have to find the money to have a funeral for their son. But guess who it doesn’t affect? It doesn’t affect those officers who shot the bullets. Through their qualified immunity and the low standard of reasonableness for an officer to use force, chances are these officers will not be reprimanded in any form by their department, and they certainly will not face any type of criminal charges for the murder they committed.
So why isn’t this a big issue? Why don’t we hear debates over police misconduct reform alongside more popular issues on a national scale? The sad answer to that question is that cases of excessive violence and police brutality are overwhelmingly minority problems. White cops shoot and kill Black/Latino suspect. White cops beat Black/Latino suspect. These physical displays of violence that graze the 10:00 o’clock news every so often but occur every day are visual reminders that racism is still prevalent in American society. Unjustified shootings like the one in this video will continue as long as officers go unpunished for their actions. Officers will continue to treat suspects, especially Black suspects, as lives less than human and will act accordingly unless police policy addresses the problem. Not everyone possesses the skills and principles to become an officer and most officers are some of the most admirable people you will ever meet, but academies seem to let anyone through their programs and give them free reign to protect some, and terrorize the rest. It only takes one bad cop, to kill one person, what we don’t know is who that one person can be, and as long as it can be me, my family, or the children I plan to have, I will fight these injustices and binge the law enforcement profession of its imperfections until it shines crystal like my vision of what police policy should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
