Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

In NYT’s Retelling of Eric Garner’s Death, the Officer’s Arm Has a Mind of Its Own

By Peter Hart | FAIR | December 4, 2014

A piece in the New York Times (12/3/14) about Eric Garner’s death included a weird description of the videotaped chokehold  that killed him:

On the videos, Mr. Garner, a 350-pound man who was about to be arrested for illegally selling cigarettes, can be seen first complaining of harassment, then physically resisting arrest by several officers, including Officer Pantaleo, whose arm finds its way around the struggling man’s neck.

It’s debatable whether or not you’d refer to Garner as resisting; he’s certainly loudly protesting that he’d done nothing wrong, and he does not appear eager to put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. But that “resistance” lasted a few seconds before he was choked.

The most bizarre part is the idea that police officer Daniel Pantaleo’s arm has a mind of its own. It “finds its way” around Garner’s neck?

Times reporters J. David Goodman and Michael Wilson presumably used the language they meant to use; just a few paragraphs later:

As the struggle continued, one of Officer Pantaleo’s arms moved around Mr. Garner’s neck.

Seemingly of its own accord!

And then later, readers are told that “the men toppled to the ground, but the arm around Mr. Garner’s neck did not appear to move.”

If only Pantaleo had been able to somehow control his own arm, Eric Garner would not have died.

December 5, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

UK Midlands outrage: Police teargas and ‘assault’ students protesting tuition fees

RT | December 4, 2014

A student protest at Warwick University against soaring tuition fees was broken up by police and security guards using tear gas and significant force. Protesters were threatened with a Taser, pushed to the ground and rammed against a wall, activists say.

The protest, organized by Warwick For Free Education, occurred on Wednesday as part of a nationwide chain of student demonstrations coordinated by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts.

The students had decided to hold a peaceful sit-in at the university’s Senate House in protest at rising fees for higher education that have been introduced under PM David Cameron’s government.

A spokesman for Warwick University said university security guards, who were monitoring the protest, were subjected to a “shocking and unprovoked act of violence,” which prompted them to call for a police presence. But the spokesman’s claims were contradicted by students who insisted the protest was quiet and peaceful.

One of the student protesters told OpenDemocracy.org that approximately 50 students attended a rally on Warwick University’s campus before making their way to occupy the reception area of the university’s Senate House. He claimed his fellow protesters were seated peacefully in a large circle, only to be besieged by security guards and officers.

Following the arrival of West Midlands Police officers, clashes ensued. A formal statement published on the Warwick For Free Education website alleges that “at least 20 students were assaulted by university security and police.”

Protesters were “punched, pushed onto the floor, dragged, rammed by their throat into the wall and kneed in the face,” the protest group claims.

‘Disproportionate force’

Footage published online shows an officer shoving the students with considerable force, while protesters shout, “What are you doing?”

The YouTube video reveals screaming students, visibly shocked and fearful, being forcibly dispersed by police.

One girl, who appeared to be filming the protest, was physically hauled forward by an officer and subsequently pushed away as she screamed in a terrified manner. A nearby student who witnessed the event shouted at the officer, “Get your hands off her! Mate, what are you doing? This is peaceful.”

The officer appeared to respond by lunging toward the young man in a threatening manner with a can of CS gas.

CS or tear gas is a commonly used agent for riot control. Exposure creates a sensation of burning, and causes excessive tearing of the eyes so that the subject’s vision is temporarily impaired.

One student who had attended the demonstration told the Coventry Telegraph that a police officer “took out his CS spray and sprayed it in one person’s eyes and then into a crowd of about 10 people.”

“A Taser was taken out and was being made to crackle by pressing the trigger, but it wasn’t used,” he added.

The student said the force deployed felt “particularly disproportionate.” “When the police came they didn’t say why they were there. A lot of younger students were visibly shaken and left in tears.”

The activist added the violence the students experienced was a “shock” because the protest was “quiet.” “We weren’t even shouting,” he emphasized.

‘Released without charge’

On Wednesday, just before 9 pm, a spokesperson for West Midlands Police declared on Twitter that the protest was still ongoing. The force had made three arrests, following what it claimed were “reports of an assault.”

“During the disorder, a Taser was drawn and an audible and visible warning was issued to prevent further incidents. The Taser was not fired,” another Tweet posted by the police force read.

Warwick University Students’ Union said in a statement that the force deployed by West Midlands Police was “disproportionate.”

“From the footage we have seen of this incident, we absolutely believe that disproportionate force was used against protesters. We stand in solidarity with the Warwick students who were unnecessarily harmed in this action.”

West Midlands Police arrested one person on suspicion of assault, while two others were arrested on suspicion of obstructing officers. All three have been released without charge, Warwick For Free Education announced on the group’s Facebook page Wednesday night.

Shocked and disgusted by yesterday’s events, staff and former students at the university have launched a petition calling for an “immediate review of the university’s police liaison policies,” and for the university to make “an unreserved apology” to the students who endured violence on university property.

It also demands that the university issue a firm guarantee it will assist “students in making complaints through the Independent Police Complaints Commission and, if necessary, pursuing legal action against the police.”

December 4, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture | , , , | Leave a comment

Two Egyptian artists accused of treason for criticising Sisi

khaled-abol-naga

Khaled Abol Naga
MEMO | December 4, 2014

Egyptian Attorney General Judge Hisham Barakat yesterday ordered actor Khaled Abol Naga and singer Mohammed Attia to be investigated for charges of espionage and treason following public criticism of President Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi, the Anadolu Agency quoted a judicial source as saying.

According to the lawsuit filed by lawyer Hisham Ibrahim Mustafa, “Khaled Abol Naga incited against the military establishment under the pretext of opposing the military operations in Sinai and called on the people to demonstrate against the Republic’s president, disturbing the peace.”

Mustafa said the incidents occurred before the November 28 protests, which means that Abol Naga has contacts with foreign intelligence services.

Further, Mustafa said that singer Mohamed Attia joined protests against the acquittal of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his aides in Abdel Moneim Riad Square, Cairo, in violation of the Penal Code and is also in contact with foreign intelligence agencies.

On Facebook, Attia denounced the espionage charges against him.

Egypt has witnessed tens of angry protests against the Cairo Criminal Court’s decision to dismiss all criminal charges of killing peaceful demonstrators during the January 25 Revolution made against Mubarak, his two sons, Interior Minister Habib Al-Adly and six of Al-Adly’s senior aides as well as businessman Hussein Salem. Attorney General Hisham Barakat Ali appealed the ruling.

In November, lawyer Samir Sabri filed another lawsuit against Khaled Abol Naga accusing him of high treason and disturbing the peace after the actor condemned the displacement of the Sinai residents to create a military buffer zone with Gaza and criticised Al-Sisi.

Egyptian authorities claimed the operations aimed to “stop terrorist infiltration” into the country after the attack on a military post on October 24 which led to the killing of at least 31 people and which injured 30 more, according to official figures.

A group of Egyptian filmmakers and writers signed a statement of solidarity with Abol Naga condemning the lawsuit. The signatories of the statement said they stand in solidarity with his right to express his opinion without being terrorised by people who “appoint themselves guardians of Egyptian patriotism”.

In response to the reports, Abol Naga wrote on Twitter: “I do not accept defamatory statements by some television hosts against me or my family.”

December 4, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Stop Police Officers from Killing Our Children

Bring the Murderers to Justice

By JERALYNN BLUFORD | CounterPunch | December 3, 2014

After the Grand Jury decision in Ferguson, I couldn’t watch the news. I couldn’t bear to see Lesley McSpadden’s—Michael Brown’s mother’s—face. Her eyes were my eyes. I remember when I looked like that; when I felt like that.

My son, Alan Blueford, was shot by an Oakland police officer on May 6, 2012. He had just turned 18. Officer Miguel Masso and his partner had stopped Alan and two friends as they were walking down 90th St. The boys were racially profiled; the officers never arrested them, but they tossed one of Alan’s friends against a fence, twisting his arm behind his back; they threw the other friend onto the curb. Alan saw this abuse and knew he was not under arrest, so he ran. Officer Masso had on a lapel camera, but he turned it off and chased my Alan for about five city blocks, then took out his gun. Accounts diverge here: either Alan was shot once, stumbled into a driveway, and was shot twice more while lying on his back, or he stumbled into a gate, fell into the driveway and was then shot three times. Either way, the officer stood over him and shot him, center mass. According to multiple witnesses, Alan screamed “I didn’t do anything!” One of the bullets went through his armpit, proving his hands were up at the time. His last words were “Why did you shoot me?”

After Alan died, people said I was strong; they didn’t see how broken I really was. They didn’t see how I couldn’t eat, how I could barely stand. People had to hold me up because my knees would buckle. The only time I could even speak was when I spoke about my son. And I realized how important it was to speak, and to keep speaking.

Members of the community formed the Justice 4 Alan Blueford Coalition to help us obtain the truth. We shut down the Oakland City Council to demand answers; we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Oakland to seek justice for my boy. We later founded the Alan Blueford Center for Justice in Oakland, a place where people can come together to raise awareness about police brutality and heal as a community. It’s a lively, healthy environment where we share music, art, food and stories, and talk about how to take action. OnDecember 20th, Alan’s birthday, we have a canned food and toy drive to serve our community. We have also started the Alan Blueford Foundation where we will eventually offer scholarships, healthcare outreach, and support groups. Oakland is suffering, and we want to make a difference. We want to give our children hope. Everyone deserves hope.

That’s why we must use this moment, when the nation’s attention is focused on police violence, to make real changes. That’s why I’ll be traveling to Washington, DC December 9 and 10 with a group of mothers to share our stories—our sons’ stories—with legislators and the Department of Justice. Together, we will be loud and forceful. Together, we will tell our lawmakers that the system has to change, that we have to stop protecting these officers who are killing our children without cause.

I’ll never get my son back, but if I raise my voice along with the voices of other mothers who have experienced unbearable loss, perhaps we’ll be able to help save the lives of other mothers’ children, and bring our children’s murderers to justice.

JERALYNN BLUFORD from Oakland, California started the Justice4AlanBlueford Coalition on May 6,2012 after her 18 year-old son Alan Blueford was shot and killed by a police officer in East Oakland. From there The Alan Blueford Center 4 Justice was established in Oakland, California, as a place to help heal the community. They offer our resources to help restore the community as they struggle against police brutality. She also organized Helping Heart 2 Heal, a conference to inspire, empower, and restore healing for mothers that are suffering with the pain of losing their children and loved ones.

December 3, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , | Leave a comment

No Indictment for NYPD Cop Killing Man in Chokehold in Viral Video

By Carlos Miller | PINAC | December 3, 2014

Just over a week after a Missouri grand jury found no probable cause against a Ferguson cop who shot a teen to death, a New York grand jury found no probable cause against the NYPD cop who choked a man to death in a video that went viral in August.

Eric Garner, 43, died after being confronted by undercover cops who accused him of selling untaxed cigarettes.

A protest is scheduled tonight at Rockefeller Center at a time when the nation is already experiencing protests throughout the country after a grand jury failed to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old teenager.

The one difference is that the Garner case was captured on video, leaving little room for speculation as to what took place. In fact, chokeholds have been banned by the NYPD since 1993 because too many suspects died in custody.

But evidently, it was not enough to convince the grand jury there was enough probable cause to charge NYPD officer Danny Pantaleo, who was seen smiling and waving at a camera in the minutes after he killed Garner as you can see in the video below that also shows paramedics ordering Garner’s lifeless body to stand up without making any attempts to revive him.

Garner’s death was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner’s office two weeks after the incident. The decision comes two days after President Obama announced he would seek funding to supply 50,000 body cams to police officers throughout the United States to hold them accountable.

But as we can see here, even with video evidence, it is nearly impossible to charge a cop for killing unarmed citizens.

The man who recorded the incident, Ramsey Orta, was arrested on weapons charges shortly after the video went viral in what many believe was in retaliation. […]

A few weeks after the incident, the New York police union held a press conference explaining that if you don’t comply, you will die. That video is below.

UPDATE: Justice Department to open civil rights investigation in Eric Garner case

December 3, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Obama to Continue Arming Nation’s Police with Military Gear, But with Some Tweaks

By Noel Brinkerhoff and Danny Biederman | AllGov | December 3, 2014

He expressed serious concerns over the police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, and the subsequent public outcry over the heavily militarized response by the police to the protests.  He went so far as to say the nation needed to keep its police forces from turning too much into military units. But in the end President Barack Obama is unwilling to slow down or stop the transfer of military weapons and equipment to law enforcement agencies.

Instead, he just wants to tweak the federal programs responsible for helping militarize police departments across the United States.

“We found that in many cases these programs actually serve a very useful purpose,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. Supporters claim that providing surplus military gear to local law enforcement help police departments that are strapped for funds. A review by the Obama administration found that nearly half a million pieces of military-type gear—including mine-resistant vehicles and night-vision equipment—have landed in the hands of local police departments across the U.S.

An announcement out of the White House this week said the administration would establish new standards and guidelines for programs, such as the much discussed 1033 program operated by the Pentagon. But officials won’t end them or scale them back.

This from a president who said in August “there is a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement, and we don’t want those lines blurred.”

Now, he just wants to improve “transparency and consistency” when it comes to federal efforts that have transformed police officers into looking like soldiers with body armor and assault rifles that ride around in tanks.

One change Obama wants is for more officers to be equipped with body cameras to record their actions while on duty. This plan would cost $75 million and buy upwards of 50,000 cameras for local departments to employ.

He also is seeking better coordination between the five federal agencies that provide military hardware and other items to police and sheriffs.

“Agencies do little to coordinate efforts and often lack mechanisms to hold police accountable for misusing equipment,” according to The Wall Street Journal, so Obama has “directed his staff to draft an executive order to develop common standards for the programs. He said the new standards would ensure that law enforcement agencies aren’t building a militarized culture.”

Trevor Burrus, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, was critical of the Obama administration’s unwillingness to curb the outflow of military gear to the nation’s police. “It is possible to constrain these programs with oversight, but it doesn’t seem like many people are really wanting to do it,” he told the Journal. “The gear that they have needs to be reassessed…some of it has no legitimate law enforcement purpose.”

To Learn More:

Obama Calls for Policing Standards, Funding in Wake of Ferguson (by Colleen McCain Nelson and Byron Tau, Wall Street Journal )

7 Ways the Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization (by Radley Balko, Huffington Post )

Obama Offers New Standards on Police Gear (by Mark Landler, New York Times )

Obama: Wants to Avoid ‘Militarized’ Police Culture (by Nedra Pickler, Associated Press )

Unions Successfully Beat Back Movement to De-Militarize Police (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov )

Militarization of the Police…Ferguson Edition (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov )

$4.2 Billion in Military Hardware Donations Fuels Militarization of U.S. Police Forces (by Danny Biederman and Noel Brinkerhoff)

December 3, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Mentally Ill Man Refuses to Take Medication So SWAT Shows Up and Kills Him

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project | December 2, 2014

Midland, TX — Rosendo Gino Rodriquez, 49, was shot dead in an altercation Monday while Midland Police were conducting a routine welfare check.

The Midland County mental health unit was conducting a regular welfare check at a home on the 2700 block of Washington Street, when things went sour. According to the Midland police, Rodriquez became “aggressive” during the welfare check.

The term aggressive is used loosely by the MPD, as they claim he acted out said “aggression” by running away from them, back into his house, and barricading himself in a room.

The Free Thought Project would like to clarify the definition of aggressive for the MPD: ready or likely to attack or confront; characterized by or resulting from aggression. 

A person running in their house and locking themselves in a room is hardly an act of aggression. However, the MPD treated it as such and responded with its SWAT team, BearCat armored vehicle and bomb squad robot with a camera to gain a look inside the home, as well as a DPS helicopter.

Police claimed that after Rodriquez went inside, they may have heard gunshots. However no gun was found, nor evidence of any shots.

Family members say their father had not been on medication. Monday’s welfare check was intended to talk the man into taking his medication.

Rodriquez, whose family has been trying to get him help, was likely distraught by this heavy onslaught of police presence and became quite fearful, locking himself in his bathroom with a machete.

City spokeswoman, Sara Bustilloz said police attempted to use “many methods” including a negotiator to make contact with Rodriquez and end the situation without incident. However, the “many methods” were simply rubber bullets which proved to be ineffective, thus leading to the incompetent officers switching to real bullets.

“This is not how we want these situations to end,” Bustilloz said. “We want them to end without incident, and we do everything in our power to make sure we can do it that way first.”

Officers eventually confronted the tormented man in his bathroom, where they found Rodriquez armed with a machete. After the heavily armed men in body armor, who apparently all forgot their tasers that day, “feared for their lives,” they opened fire on the man, killing him.

According to CBS 7, per normal protocol, an external investigation into the officer-involved shooting will be completed by the Texas Rangers, and two officers involved in the altercation, who are identified as Sgt. Mitch Russell and Officer Sean Sharp, have been placed on administrative leave pending the completion of an investigation.

This incident is but another tragic example of the level police incompetence when dealing with the mentally ill.

A recent report out of California showed that the overwhelming majority of police have not completed state certification that focuses on the training in dealing with mental illness, suicide behavior, and drug use; this lack of training is evident, nationwide.

Instead of compassion and patience, which should be used in dealing with mentally unstable people, police most often resort to violent escalation.

The incompetence and negligence is rife throughout all levels of law enforcement which is why these deadly actions on behalf of the MPD will likely be ruled “justified.”

It’s not like police departments don’t know that this training exists, the information is out there. We’re simply witnessing callous disregard for the the preservation of life.

In a two-part study, researchers looked at use of the crisis intervention team, or CIT, model, a 40-hour program to train police to respond to those with mental health issues. They interviewed 586 officers, 251 of whom had received CIT training, and reviewed more than 1,000 police encounters with individuals believed to have behavioral disorders.

Officers who participated in CIT training were more knowledgeable about mental health issues, treatments and de-escalation skills, according to findings published in the April issue of the journal Psychiatric Services.

What’s more, when looking at emergency responses, incidents involving officers with CIT training were more likely to result in transport to mental health services and less likely to culminate in arrest. Researchers found that officers who had participated in training were also much more likely to indicate that the highest level of force used in their emergency response was verbal engagement or negotiation.

With the increased prevalence in autism and police aggression in general, something must be done before anymore innocent lives are taken.

December 2, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

US protesters demand the right to live

By Eric Sommer | China Daily USA | December 1, 2014

A UN anti-torture panel that is investigating the United States said on Friday it was deeply concerned by what it described as the high incidence of police brutality and shootings – especially against African-Americans – in the US.

The most basic human right is the right to remain alive. The anger which has swept through Ferguson, Missouri, and has boiled over to other cities across the United States, is an elemental protest against those who have been gradually taking away this right.

The killing of unarmed African-American teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson is only the most publicized instance of daily police killing of unarmed people in the US. Statistically, American citizens are much more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.

No complete record of police killings in the US is available. But about 400 police killings a year were listed in a US federal database covering only a fraction of the country during a seven year period ending in 2012. Worse, nearly two times a week a black person was killed by the police in the cities listed in the incomplete report.

Among those killed by US police in the past week or so are Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy in Cleveland, Ohio, who was shot while playing in a park with a toy gun; Akai Gurley, whose only crime was walking down a dark staircase in his own apartment building in New York City; and Leonardo Marquette Little at a traffic signal in Jacksonville, Florida, who police claimed turned violent while resisting arrest.

To fully understand the epidemic of police killings, we have to see them in the broader context of the progressive militarization of US society. In the past 15 years the US has engaged in a series of wars, military occupations, bombings, air strikes and destabilization of other countries. These wars have inured a large part of the population, and of the police, to endless waves of military activities and related violence. Government reports show that about 20 percent of the US federal government budget is devoted to military costs. But the US War Resistors’ League, taking into account a broader set of military-related costs, estimates that about half the federal budget is devoted to the military.

A large amount of military equipment bought with this money has been turned over to civilian police departments, perhaps out of fear that declining living standards in the US could lead to mass unrest by American working people. … Full article

December 2, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Subjugation - Torture | , | Leave a comment

America’s epidemic of killer cops

By David Hoffman | Pravda | December 1, 2014

Question: Why would cops in America shoot, strangle, or beat to death an unarmed person?

Answer: Because they can.

It is a sad reality in today’s America that cops can not only do these things with immunity and impunity, they can actually do them in front of thousands, sometimes millions, of witnesses, and still get away with it.

Don’t take my word for it. Look at the horrific beating death of Kelly Thomas, a homeless man in Fullerton, California. Videotaped evidence showed six (yes six) cops beating an unarmed Thomas as he begged for his life. According to the Website Police State USA, some of these officers are laughing after the incident, and one even boasts about hitting Thomas “probably twenty times in the face with [his] Taser.”

Yet, in an all too predictable pattern, a jury of idiots acquitted the cops charged in Thomas’s death.

Although protests erupted after this egregious verdict, both Thomas’s death and its aftermath failed to receive the extensive media coverage that has been devoted to the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Some have argued that this is because Thomas was white, so his case lacked the racial elements America’s corporate-controlled media love to exploit for ratings and profits.

But even though the media may be guilty of selectively promoting stories of police brutality based upon their racial components, it should also be remembered that these same media are equally complicit in making African-Americans the “face of crime,” thus fueling an environment of suspicion and fear that often causes African-Americans to be treated more harshly by police, prosecutors, and judges, and for crimes committed against them to be taken less seriously.

If there is one positive that can be salvaged from the events in Ferguson, it is that alleged cases of excessive force and police brutality that did not influence national news like the Brown killing are now being revisited. According to the Los Angeles Times, South Bend Tribune, and Huffington Post, other victims include James Boyd, a homeless man who was shot by police in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Amadou Diallo, an innocent man who was shot nineteen times in New York City after being mistaken for a fugitive; Samantha Ramsey, shot to death by a sheriff’s deputy in Boone County, Kentucky; Christopher Moreland, who was, according to a federal judge, beaten “mercilessly” by two cops in St. Joseph County, Indiana; and Jonathan Ferrell, shot ten times by a Charlotte, North Carolina police officer while looking for help after a traffic accident.

Sadly, the names on this list could go on, but the message is clear: In all these cases, except for Ferrell’s, either the killings were ruled to be justified, prosecutors and/or grand juries refused to indict, or the cops were acquitted of any wrongdoing. And in Ferrell’s case, it actually required a second grand jury to secure an indictment because the first apparently thought “voluntary manslaughter” was too severe a charge for a white police officer who gunned down an unarmed African-American.

Which raises two more questions: How and why?

The “How” is simple. Investigations of excessive force follow predictable patterns.  First, there is the “investigation” (aka cover-up). In this phase, cops seize cellphones and other videos from witnesses as “evidence,” to ensure the media and public don’t have access to them. Then police reports, stories, and testimony are fabricated to ensure an officer’s actions comport with existing laws regarding use of force. Next, all officers are coached to get their stories straight, and to conceal any evidence that contradicts the “official” version.

Then comes the prosecutor’s role. In America, most county prosecutors are elected officials. As such, they usually campaign on the basis of their “conviction rates,” and/or being “tough on crime.” The office of prosecutor often segues into opportunities to obtain higher political offices or judgeships. But achieving these ambitions requires a symbiotic relationship with the police; therefore, prosecutors will do nothing to injure that relationship, and anything to maintain it.

So if victims of police brutality and/or excessive force survive their ordeals, they are likely to be charged with a plethora of imaginary crimes. The prosecutor then tells the victim that the charges will be dropped if he/she agrees to not take further action against the police. If the victim refuses this “deal,” the prosecutor will work zealously to obtain a bogus guilty verdict, to not only “justify” what the cops did, but also to weaken any potential civil lawsuit the victim might file.  If a police brutality and/or excessive force victim dies, all the better, because only the cops are around to tell their well-rehearsed version of events.

If prosecutors are concerned about the political fallout from refusing to indict cops accused of using excessive force, they will frequently conceal their biases behind a so-called “grand jury.” Evidence and testimony presented to a grand jury is largely in the control of a prosecutor and thus can be extremely one-sided, leading many in the legal profession to joke that a prosecutor could obtain a grand jury indictment against a grapefruit with little difficulty.

This is why many in Ferguson, and throughout America, are looking askance at the grand jury verdict in the Michael Brown case, and how prosecutorial bias favoring the police might have affected how testimony and/or evidence was presented.

What a grand jury really does is give prosecutors a facade to hide behind. They can face the public with a, “Gee whiz, it’s not my fault an indictment wasn’t issued. It was the grand jury’s decision.”

On those extremely rare occasions when cops are actually put on trial for using excessive force, it is almost a certainty that defense attorneys will be blessed with a panel of jurors who view every cop as Andy of Mayberry, and therefore will readily swallow canned arguments about how police officers have dangerous jobs and risk their lives to protect the public; how these officers were simply “following their training”; and how the person they injured or killed was being “non-compliant,” “combative,” and/or “appeared to be reaching for a weapon.”

The answer to the “Why” question is a little more complex.

I have argued in several previous Pravda.Ru articles that America’s so-called “legal system” is not designed to obtain truth, nor is it concerned with even the most rudimentary principles of right and wrong. In fact, the “system” will work harder to perpetuate and rationalize injustice than it will to obtain justice, and will almost always ignore, and in some cases even reward, criminality that serves it.

But juries are only exposed to the system on a case by case basis. So why do so many of them routinely excuse actions by cops (and wannabe cops like George Zimmerman) that would cause them revulsion and outrage if committed by civilians?

As I suggested above, one problem is the media-created perception that causes white, middle class Americans to fear crime more than they fear interactions with the police, and to associate criminality with racial minorities. Racial minorities, however, while sharing this fear of crime, must also struggle with the burden of being automatically perceived as criminals by the police, because of their skin color, dress, hair style, music, and/or location where they happen to be walking or driving.

Another problem is the fear of acknowledging police brutality. Several of the alleged excessive force victims I’ve discussed in this article were white, so it is evident that nobody is exempt from being victimized by police brutality.

But that is a discomforting scenario to live with. People do not want to believe that a late-night trip to the grocery store, or a stroll through a parking lot (Kelly Thomas), driving home from a party (Samantha Ramsey), or seeking assistance after a traffic accident (Jonathan Ferrell) can result in an encounter with police that ends in their death. So the natural instinct is to blame the victims of police brutality, to find something, anything, no matter how minute, that can be used to rationalize a cop’s actions.

Lastly, and perhaps most tragically, is the belief that some people are disposable. Predominantly white, middle class juries, whether they consciously admit it or not, may not consider the life of a racial minority, or a homeless person, to have the same value as theirs.

The final question that many are reluctant to discuss is “Who really wants to be a cop?” After all, some of the canned arguments used by defense attorneys have undeniable veracity: Cops do have dangerous jobs, and they routinely witness the worst in human behavior.

There are (with some exceptions) usually two types of people who want to be police officers: Bullies who desire the power over others being a police officer brings; and idealists who enter the profession with the noblest of intentions, but eventually find themselves succumbing to a bitterness and disillusionment that compels them to either cover-up for the bullies or become one. This means that incidents of police brutality and/or excessive force frequently evolve from egotistical anger against individuals whose only “crime” is disrespecting a cop’s authority.

The reason so many cops go unpunished is because those who control America’s so-called “criminal justice” system fear that punishing cops for their criminality will not only result in the loss of officers currently employed, but also discourage others from wanting to become cops.

In other words, ignoring, excusing, or covering up incidents of police brutality and/or excessive force are considered by those in power to be acceptable alternatives to having a shortage of police officers.

The irony is that all the cops, prosecutors, and jurors willing to ignore, excuse, or cover-up police brutality and/or excessive force are not doing society any favors. They are causing all cops, not just the bullies, to be viewed as corrupt, brutal, and racist; they are fueling a cynicism that reduces the public trust and cooperation so essential to solving crimes; and they are further dividing America along racial and economic lines.

David R. Hoffman is the Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru

December 1, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Texas Cop Places Woman in Chokehold for Video Recording

UPDATE: Texas Cop Loses Job for Chokehold on Woman, 2nd Cop Disciplined for Ordering Footage Deleted

By Carlos Miller | PINAC | November 30, 2014

A Texas cop placed a woman in a chokehold because she was video recording some type of police activity in the parking lot of what appears to be a fast food restaurant after she refused to provide identification.

It started when Corpus Christi Sergeant J.E. Lockhart stormed up to Lanessa Espinosa, who was standing a good distance away from the investigation, accusing her of interfering – after a nearby cop from another agency accused her of being a “jailhouse lawyer.”

“There is a probable cause for us to be out here,” Lockhart said. “I want to know who you are, so I’m requesting your ID. You fail to ID, I’m going to take you into jail. And that’s law.”

“What’s my charge?

“You’re not being charged with anything.”

“Then I don’t have to show you my ID, sir.”

“You’re involved in an investigation. You want to interfere with an investigation, you’re going to jail for interfering with a police officer in performance of his investigation. Do you understand that? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?”

Espinosa understood that Lockhart was out of line, so she said she was in fear for her safety and took a step back, which was when another cop placed her in a chokehold.

Espinosa turned the camera on herself as she was getting chokehold by the cop from the other agency, whose agency has not been determined because Corpus Christi runs into four counties and I haven’t been able to make the patch out.

That cop then turned her over to Lockhard, who handcuffed her.

Espinosa has not responded for comment from PINAC over the incident, but public records show she was not arrested.

UPDATE:

The video of a Texas woman getting placed in a chokehold and handcuffed for refusing to provide her identification ended up going viral where it was covered by a local television news station at the top of the news hour Monday night.

However, KIII-TV reporter Bill Churchwell finished the segment by providing misinformation about the law when it comes identifying yourself to police, informing viewers that citizens are required to identify themselves whether or not they have been lawfully arrested.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Texas Failure to Identify law makes it a crime for people to refuse to identify themselves if they have been lawfully arrested or if the person provides false information if they have been lawfully detained.

However, when news anchor Joe Gazin asked Churchwell about this law, the reporter stated the following:

“Well that is required whether you are a witness or involved in an incident, you are required to  tell officers who you are,” Churchwell said.

Churchwell is most likely getting his information from police without bothering to look at the actual statute, which is a big mistake because we all know police are clueless about the laws they are supposed to enforce.

But that is the norm for mainstream media reporters who don’t want to risk questioning their local police department and therefore lose access to the daily information that enables them to report the news without putting in much effort.

However, it didn’t take long for a viewer to set the record straight on KIII-TV’s Facebook page about the law.

Screenshot 2014-12-01 20.45.23

 

Blogger ExCop-LawStudent, a former Texas cop turned law student, also elaborated about the law on his blog.

In the video, a police officer with an unknown police department† claims that Lanessa Espinosa is a “jailhouse lawyer” because she actually knows what the law says. She pointed out that she did not have to identify herself unless she was “being charged.” At that point Corpus Christi Senior Officer‡ J.E. Lockhart comes up and demands ID and tells her that he will arrest her if she doesn’t provide ID.

The problem is that § 38.02, Texas Penal Code, does not authorize an arrest for failure to ID on a mere detention unless the person provides a fictitious name. We’ve covered that several times, here, here, here, here (also in Corpus), here, here, here, and here.

There are several things wrong with the video. First, the officer from the unknown department is choking Espinosa with an arm-bar choke hold. If you look at the video at 1:12, you’ll see the officer’s forearm cutting directly over Espinosa’s adam’s apple in the same manner that killed Eric Garner in New York. The arm-bar choke hold is almost universally viewed as deadly force, and completely inappropriate here when the crime is at best, a misdemeanor under the officer’s mistaken idea of the law.

Second, it is a false arrest. Even more so, it is an arrest because she is exercising her right not to provide identification when he knows (or should have known) that the arrest is unlawful, and that he intentionally denied her of her freedom when he knew (or should have known) that his conduct was unlawful. Folks, that the definition of Official Oppression, § 39.03, Texas Penal Code, and is a Class A misdemeanor.††

Some states have what are called “stop and identify” laws, which requires citizens to identify themselves if they have been detained, but Texas is not one of those states, which is why it only requires a citizen to identify themselves if they’ve been arrested.

There is no state where citizens are legally required to provide identification merely because a cop demands it unless the cop has detained you because he had a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime.

That doesn’t mean cops won’t demand your identification because they do it all the time, many times under intimidating threats of arrest, which is why we must remain recording in these situations.

And if a cop tells you he has the right to ask you for your identification, tell him you have the right not to provide that identification. … Full article

December 1, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Hearing collapses in Egypt trial of 494, including Irish teen

Reprieve | December 1, 2014

A mass trial hearing for almost 500 people collapsed this morning in Cairo, with the judge failing to attend and defendants unable to enter a court packed with masked pro-Government supporters.

Reports from the makeshift courtroom in Tora prison suggest that there was no judge in attendance throughout, and the room was full of supporters of the Government – many wearing masks in an apparent attempt to intimidate defence lawyers. The families of the 494 defendants were reportedly barred from entering the room, while the prisoners themselves were not called in.

The group of 494, arrested in August 2013 in a sweeping crackdown on protests, includes several juveniles being tried in violation of Egypt’s Child Laws – among them Irish teenager Ibrahim Halawa, who was 17 at the time of his arrest. Mr Halawa has reported being tortured and denied medical attention during his 18-month detention.

The 494 face potential death sentences, in the latest in a series of mass trials that has attracted condemnation from the UN, US, and Egyptian rights groups.

Today’s hearing has been postponed for another month – continuing a long hiatus in effect since August this year, when a three-judge panel resigned mid-hearing citing their ‘unease’.

The proceedings come days after another court handed down sentences totalling 340 years to 78 children in a mass trial at which their lawyers were not allowed to be present.

Maya Foa, head of the death penalty team at legal charity Reprieve, which is assisting Mr Halawa, said: “The chaos at today’s hearing shows this mass trial for what it is – a mockery of justice. The defendants and their families were shut out of the room, but masked Government supporters were allowed to attend in droves – and the judge didn’t even turn up. Meanwhile, these 494 people have already spent 18 months in prison, and been told they could face death at any time. The international community must intervene now to prevent this travesty from going any further.”

December 1, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture | , | Leave a comment

Interview with Uruguay’s Carlos Alejandro: Uruguay Elections

B3sVtXEIYAAoMQA

teleSUR | November 28, 2014

UPDATE: Vazquez wins Uruguayan presidential election

teleSUR talks to the Broad Front’s Carlos Alejandro, to understand in more depth the elections and their consequences.

teleSur: Carlos, what have been the standout points of the Broad Front’s campaign?

Carlos Alejandro: There is no political debate in the second round of elections. Really, the right wing has been knocked back, they experienced a serious setback in the first round. They really thought that polls would be right, and that the Broad Front wouldn’t get more than 45 percent of the votes.

The main point of this campaign is to uphold the Broad Front government’s achievements in all areas, especially those related to freedom and equality.

Over the past 10 years, we’ve approved a series of laws, like establishing the 7-hour work day for rural workers; a domestic worker law limiting the number hours they are allowed to work.; the same sex marriage act, a sexual and reproductive health law, which includes legislation on abortion. We want to clarify that it is not an abortion law, because that is one of the themes being debated.

Also being debated is the widening of political engagement among the population; a freedom of information law; the barriers to education; the role of women in politics; all of these are central to the election debate, coming above even economic matters. It’s a rare thing when the economy gets overshadowed in an election … it’s the only political debate they are having in Brazil.

Here in Uruguay what we’re debating is how to better ourselves, how to create better conditions, which is a debate we don’t want to have with the right wing, because they’ve shown us for the past 150 years that they cannot take care of those problems, problems we are resolving, and laying the ground work to have that debate with the people who will truly benefit from these policies.

TS: You have said that if Vazquez is re-elected, he would carry on with the Broad Front’s policies. However, there are many controversial policies that Jose Mujica implemented, like abortion, and the marijuana law, which Vazquez is known to oppose. What will happen if he is elected with regard to these topics?

CA: Tabare was against these projects. He didn’t support them, and furthermore, during his last administration, he vetoed the same law that was later approved under Mujica. But as they are both from the Broad Front, which passed the law, it’s not up for discussion. Nothing will change from the way it was approved during Mujica’s government. There is no political sign that suggests that Tabare will erase what Mujica did.

Regarding the marijuana law in particular, it is very clear within the party, that it is a law still being studied and analyzed, that can and will be corrected if necessary; it is new not only for Uruguay, but in the whole world; we know there are other places who have had similar experiences, like in some of the states in the U.S., but in our case, we want to resolve the drug problem, take the market for marijuana away from organized crime, and create conditions to rehabilitate not only marijuana users, but hard drugs too.

In this sense, our aim is to deepen the changes we have already made, improve what has been done, and improve what has been done badly.

TS: How is Vazquez viewed in Uruguay?

CA: Tabare is a man of the people, what we call “de a pie,” down to earth. He comes from a similar humble background as many other Uruguayans.. The Right cannot forgive him for paving the way —via his education and intellect— for the Left to get into power.

Tabare is a man of the Left, even though the political pragmatism he uses makes him seem more centrist, and not as left-wing as many would like; but he has a great feel for politics, and what both he and Mujica can do effectively is scope out what the people want, but in different ways.

Tabare ended his term with approximately 68 percent of approval, which shows that, beyond the problems that existed during that administration, Tabare ultimately received approval for what he did during his term. And I believe that the result of the October 26 elections shows that the Uruguayan people support his candidacy again.

TS: And how is right wing perceived the Uruguayan people?

CA: I think that the clearest example is that the Right didn’t have a clue how to face the second round of the elections. I’ll reiterate what I said before, they relied too heavily on the polls; they thought they were doing well, so did not work to create the conditions in case the scenario changed.

TS: Do you think that the Brazilian election result might influence the results in Uruguay?

CA: Not for this runoff, but yes, I do believe that the political change in the last days in the Brazil elections, with Marina Silva leading in the polls for so many months, and the possibility that the PT could lose the elections, caused some to be nervous, and a little bit worried. Not only us left-wing activists, but among people who would not necessarily identify themselves as left-wing.

TS: What challenges would a new Broad Front government face?

CA: I have said for many years that the most important thing is to not let down the electorate which voted for us and gave us the opportunity to govern. We have developed all of our policies that aim to improve the quality of people’s lives based on this basis; where we can keep generating societal change and evolution, and most importantly, within a region which is our neighborhood. Latin America is our neighborhood from which we relate to the rest of the world. In this sense, our internal policies have an external objective; to project the country within the region, prioritizing regional integration.

TS: So a Tabare Vazquez government would strengthen regional integration?

CA: Yes, definitely. We’re trying to create the conditions to solidify existing regional integration effortslike MERCOSUR, UNASUR, CELAC, ALBA … those projects are here to stay, and we want to make them robust.

We have shown we are a serious political party, dealing with, for example, the case of the Syrian refugees, and the problem of the Guantanamo prisoners. Doing so doesn’t mean we’re trying to cover-up for, or save Obama’s administration, but instead we are trying to resolve the situation for the prisoners, and help Guantanamo to go back to being part of Cuba.

TS: The case of the Syrian refugees is very interesting…

CA: Let me tell you an anecdote. The union for bank workers has a place for the children of its members to live in Montevideo if they go there to study. When President Mujica announced that Syrian families — who were refugees in Lebanese camps — would come to Uruguay, the young people living in the union’s accommodation talked to the leadership, and offered to share their bedrooms with the Lebanese translators who are there to help the Syrians with their Spanish, and adapting to life in Uruguay. For us, that gesture is not only seen as a humanitarian act, but it means that our youth is getting involved in a political issue that does not directly affect them, far away from our borders. That is very important to us, that they get involved, and understand what is it about.

This also shows the possibility and the capability that we have to resolve these issues. To welcome these Syrian families in Uruguay, so they can work here, have a life here. And it is the same with Guantanamo, a topic that Pepe [Mujica] said was not suspended, but on hold until November 30; and that after the elections, regardless who is the new president, he would continue to advocate for, and engage in, negotiations, so those six prisoners without a sentence can come to Uruguay and be free here. This is a very important political gesture by the Broad Front that needs to be highlighted, and it will reverberate with future governments.

Carlos Alejandro is the Broad Front’s director of international relations, as well as member of the Broad Front Commitment group. A member of the Broad Front since 1983, he has a background of union activism.

November 30, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , | Leave a comment