Why You Are Wrong About Police Shootings #BaneLion

File under: For Great Justice

"Did you see what happened before the shooting?"

This question is invariably asked by those seeking to defend a law enforcement officer when there are allegations of excessive uses of force. Often, I would like to reply: "did YOU see what happened before the shooting?!" This question is, though somewhat understandable and almost excusable coming from the lay person, is highly non-nonsensical and betrays a limited understanding of justified use of lethal force. It is especially baffling when proffered by individuals who claim to "keep and bear arms" for personal defense and support the Constitution.

When Lethal Force Is "Justified"

In determining if one is justified in using lethal force against another, the standard is NOT whether the shooter was justified at the moment the altercation began or when he or she drew the firearm. The standard is if the shooter had justification to shoot at the moment he or she squeezed the trigger. Justification would be shooting to prevent imminent or immediate bodily harm or death, either in defense of yourself or someone else. In such a situation where a reasonable person would feel fear, lethal force is justified. However, when the threat ends or at a point where a reasonable person would no longer fear death or bodily harm, lethal force is no longer justified. This means that if you have a good reason to draw your firearm that you DO NOT have a hall pass to unilaterally kill someone.

Cops Are Not Street Judges

If this is the standard for everyday citizens, shouldn't the limitations for sworn peace officers be just as stringent if not more so? Well, turns out it is indeed. Police are required to use modes of force that have a lower likelihood of causing death to apprehend a resisting or fleeing suspect, before using lethal force as a force of last resort. Lethal force is authorized only when a felon is an immediate threat to officers and citizens, or the felon is fleeing and likely will be an imminent threat to others. That's it.




This means that at the moment the police officer uses deadly force against a suspect, if the suspect is not threatening or assaulting someone, or is not a dangerous felon in flight, then the use of force in that situation was not justified--meaning it is a crime. That officer has broken the law, should be stripped of his or her badge and tried in a court of law. Just as you or I would if we committed the same offense.

License To Kill?

What about situations where using lethal force IS justified? As mentioned earlier, this is NOT a license to kill. It is protecting your right to defend your life or someone else's with the amount of force necessary to end any and all existential threats. This means self-defense is the application of judicious force--not unlimited force. If one continues to apply lethal force against an assailant AFTER the individual has been sufficiently incapacitated then this transforms from a justifiable self-defense scenario, to an aggravated assault, attempted murder or homicide.




This should be no different for police. If a suspect ceases threatening behaviors and attempts to comply, or if the police use lethal force on an incapacitated target, that is excessive force and a crime. The officer has broken the law, should be stripped of his or her badge and tried in a court of law.

Where Do We Go Next?

The line of reasoning that breaking the law or resisting the imposition of force by the state (a.k.a. resisting arrest) is somehow a justification for abridgment of the Constitution and revocation of all rights without just due process is a bogus argument. The Constitution is here to limit government abuses and protect the rights of the individual--even when the individual is not respecting the rights of others. If we continue to make excuses for this behavior, the situation will never be fixed. Therefore, the first step to solving the problem is, as always, admitting that we have one to being with.

Police officers have a dangerous and difficult job. Holding them to higher standards of conduct makes it even more so, nevertheless we must. It is a tough calling, not for the timid, cowardly, incompetent or those lacking the most superlative moral character and judgement. Therefore, my solution to police excessive force is to weed out the bad cops who represent the uniform with dishonor

It Starts At The Bottom

The Constitution protects the rights of the accused. Police are not super-citizens above the law.

There is a shortage of well-qualified police officers nationwide and leading desperate departments to accept all comers. This is a grave mistake. There needs to be much stronger vetting and much more stringent standards regarding mental health and past allegations of domestic abuse or professional misconduct. Also, departments who employ a policy of only hiring applicants of average or below IQ need to abandon it in favor of hiring more discerning and judicious candidates.

Leading From the Front

What is indoctrinated in cadets in the academy sticks with them throughout their careers. Unfortunately, police training is decades out-of-date with changes in technology and crime, and out-of-touch with the community police officers must patrol. Police officers are being ingrained with a hyper-militarized mindset, leading to an inherently adversarial relationship with the community at large. This tension is highest in areas where crime and poverty is highest, and police resources are lowest.

Police officers need enhanced training to safely and effectively resolve encounters with persons undergoing a medical or mental health crisis. Departments must also audit their standard operating procedures for dealing with: domestic disputes, procuring evidence for warrants, when tactical raids are warranted, how raids are executed, encountering protesters/open carriers/citizens filming public servants, stops/detentions for non-violent crimes and other situations that frequently result in unnecessary injuries and fatalities.

The innocent should not fear harm will come to them at the hands of the state.

The wall-of-silence culture must stop. If you see something say something, should apply foremost to those tasked with upholding the law. In this vein, police officers should face stiff penalties for failing to report abuses of power or corruption. When there is a incident involving use of force by an officer, it should be investigated by a third party, NOT by the department itself. When officers or police administrators violate the public trust, they need to be fired, prosecuted and barred from ever wearing a badge again.

The Right Tools For the Job

When it comes down to an interaction between a public servant and a member of the public, it should never be a case of he-said-she-said. These encounters need to be recording in high definition audio and video. Officers should be outfitted with eye-view, body and dashboard recording devices that capture both video and sound, and there should be severe disciplinary action for not ensuring that such are operable before entering the field and recording during a stop. It has been state numerous times that this is a legal safeguard for the officer AND the community. There is no reason these are not standard everywhere.

Police should be highly visible and available in the community. Every patrol car should have two officers and every neighborhood should have officers walking/cycling the beat. A lack of presence leads to a lack of confidence in the police by the public, and a lack of backup leads to a lack of confidence in themselves by the police. This is a recipe for discord, fear, distrust, anxiety and paranoia. There can be no working relationship between the police and the community in such an environment.

Police should be trusted members of the community, not an occupying paramilitary force.

Officers on patrol, need better firearms and firearms training. This might seem antithetical to the sentiment of a post about excessive use of force by police, but it is nonetheless true. Police officers are notoriously terrible shooters who frequently miss a suspect standing right in front of them or wound innocent bystanders as a result of bad shooting habits. Moreover, entering a situation out-manned and outgunned ratchets up the tension and anxiety to an even higher level. Officers on patrol need to be able to confidently engage a potentially hostile suspect, and if necessary, shoot with accuracy and precision to end the threat quickly with a minimal loss of life or collateral damage. Further, if the common refrain is that "my Taser didn't work," isn't time to replace the Taser with something that works better?

Our Part

Ultimately the power to change this rests in your hands. What will you do?

The responsibility to improve this situation doesn't just fall upon the shoulders of law enforcement. The is a multifaceted issue that must be attacked from multiple angles. The first thing we must do as citizens is curtail the crime and violence within our own community, by refusing to remain silent out of fear. The lawless make the job of the law officer more difficult and dangerous, increasing the likelihood that one day that cop is going to misjudge a situation and harm someone who should not be. We have to root out the bad seeds in our neighborhood, not only to make them safer for ourselves, but also for those who maintain law and order.

We have to take our civic duty seriously. If you see abuse or corruption, record it and report it. If you have a mayor who doesn't hold the police accountable or a sheriff who doesn't keep a tight reign on his or her deputies, that person should be removed posthaste. Extreme poverty is a strong attractant of violent crime; politicians who criminalize person choice or who vote for job-killing taxes and regulations should also soon find themselves out of a job.

Obey the law yourself, provide for your own safety and security, and avoid involving the police when not necessary. Many people who die pursuant to an interaction with the police were individuals in a medical or mental health crisis, and probably did not need the police at all. Make sure that you and your loved ones are receiving the type of care needed to function smoothly in society. If someone is not a physical danger to another person, refrain from involving the police--whether they are physically/mentally ill or not.

Last year over 1,000 persons were killed by police. Calling the police should not be a risky proposition for a law-abiding citizen. If we stop making excuses and start making changes, one day it won't be.




Thank you for reading. If you enjoyed this post, I would greatly appreciate you sharing it on Facebook or Twitter. Please feel free to tell me what you think on my Facebook page. If you would like to keep up with future posts subscribe above, 'LIKE' the Facebook page and follow me on Twitter.

@bdotTM "Your Struggle and My Struggle are Two Different Things."

File Under: We Are In This Together

That observation comes from an article posted by VIBE magazine on rapper Jay-Z's response to a 2012 comment by historic entertainer and activist, Harry Belafonte, calling for celebrities of today to take a more meaningful role in social change.  The comment really epitomizes the mindset of anyone who could believe that the rapper was justified in his words and manner of attack.  And Jay-Z has plenty of sycophants willing to endorse his utterly classless counter-assault.

How could one person get so much wrong in one statement?  This statement intimates that Harry Belafonte was not struggling for others, but for himself, and that Civil Rights was only about black people.  It implies that the world can be divided cleanly into: black/white, me/you, us/them, rich/poor, Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative, or American/Not.  It says there is no "our struggle," there is only "your struggle" and "my struggle." It believes that "your struggle" ended sometime before I was born and I have no responsibility as a human being of any race/ethnicity/status to contribute to the ongoing fight.  This is the self-serving, me-centric attitude that permeates our society, our politics and our policy.  It is the reason asian children manufacture $200 sneakers in horrendous sweatshops for pennies.  It is the reason starving, AIDS-infected children die in diamond mines or genocides in Africa.  It is the reason thousands of young black men and teenagers are murdered every year in America's inner cities.  It is the reason thousands of women suffer abuse and rape in less developed countries.  Because their struggles are not my struggle.  I have no responsibility to anyone or anything other than myself.  My only duty in life is to amass possessions, and shuck-and-jive for Massa in the hopes that one day he gives me my freedom.

Even if you set aside Jay-Z's unmitigated hubris and his gross impertinence for speaking to a man four decades his senior in such an irreverent manner, you have to see that Jay-Z (and those like him) are in prime position to positively impact the lives of millions in a more than monetary way, and they absolutely are not.  No one expects every celebrity to be Mother Theresa, and despite his sizeable giving, Jay-Z is far from the gold standard of charity and philanthropy.  Every able-bodied, sound-minded man and woman who walks this Earth has a responsibility to leave it better than he or she found it.  Those who have more or are given more, should do more.  This is not because celebrities are special or have special insight.  This is because if those with less are always the ones putting forth the most effort to turn the gears of change, then we as a species are going to get nowhere fast.

"The end is not yet. This is a beginning. The times ahead are just as difficult as the times behind." ~Charleston Heston

#LaRevolucion: Eyes Not Wide Shut

Reading about the documentary, “Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire,” hosted by rapper and actor Ice-T, I had an epiphany.  I finally realized what the problem is: guns are not sexy. Not guns themselves, but the idea and those who represent that idea. I'm not saying Ice-T is not an attractive man. However, there is a certain segment of society who considers anything he has to say, no matter how right it is, to be fruit of the poisoned tree – especially if it is something they do not like or care about. They are prejudiced, and rightfully so if those prejudices are based solely upon his works as a younger man. The real problem is the Wayne LaPierres, the Larry Pratts, and the bow-tie-wearing Alan Gottliebs. They scream rich, white, stodgy, out-of-touch, aloof, abrasive, and corporate. And in Gottlieb's case, dorky and a little creepy. Frankly, the only thing unapologetic about being rich and white that remains popular right now is cheesecake, and even that could be burned upon the low-carb/no-carb cross at any moment. Moreover, when the CEO of Bushmaster breaks a six-month silence to comment on the tragedy of Newtown and what he has to say is about as deep as a kiddy-pool, you really begin to not want to invite Second Amendment Advocates over for dinner.  They are desperately in need of some "regular guy" in black-face to shuck-and-jive and show Americans that guns are OK, cool, and sexy.

"I would like to talk to you about protecting your civil liberties from encroachment by your corrupt government officials"  Did you say it in Snape's voice?

In contrast, who doesn't want to have dinner with Matt Damon, Morgan Freeman, Beyonce, Will Ferrell, or even Barack Obama? They are sexy, talented, smart, funny, and charming; but most important they are famous and adored by millions. They are in the business of being likable, and have cadres of lawyers, accountants, and bodyguards to see to the liberties they encourage you to disregard as they sit isolated in in their gated communities on hill-top mansion estates. In a world where Justin Beiber, Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne can not only be considered musicians, but also be wildly successful or where Jersey Shore is entertainment is it any wonder nobody cares about serious things like Constitutional Rights or government corruption?

"I'm Morgan Freeman, and this is Matt Damon.  I think you should let Matt Damon have his way with your daughters.  And don't go listening to those cookey conspiracy theorists either.  Your government loves you and is here to protect and serve.  Morgan Freeman, Morgan Freeman ...Morgan Freeman."

To all the flannel shirt-clad, Pabst Blue Ribbon hipsters born after 1989, they think revolutionaries are convicted felons or the likes of Che Guevara because their formerly anti-American, ex-convict professors or some ex-convict musician told them so. At the other end of the spectrum are the battered, betrayed, and frightened individuals, from boomers to 70s babies, whose economic trains ran out of fuel long ago and who are now merely hoping they can pay for that hipster's education and coast into retirement in one piece. America is choking to death on the Left/Right Paradigm, and those vacuous celebrities are so well-liked because they are the icing and cherries on a crap cake. Celebrities make the common people feel good about how bad things are, ignore how bad things will become, and feel happy or righteous doing doing absolutely nothing of meaning about it.

I get it: you have a lot on your plates; you have been lied to, used, and abused; and, you are just plain old sick and tired. I get it, I honestly do. However, it is not our piece of icing and sprinkle-covered excrement cake passed off as The American Dream that is at stake here. We are fighting for so much more than that. The decisions we make, the causes we support, and the stands we take are all for the future of America and the future of the world. We can not allow a mindless face-for-hire to dictate to us what is beneficial or detrimental for us and our families. We must dig deep into our hearts and souls for personal truth, use our own minds to think logically, and use our own voice to speak our will into existence. The time is now to do away with superficial values or distractions. Refuse to prostrate yourself before the false idols set before you on your TV screens by the media, corporations, and government – and cast them down. A revolution is coming. The world as we know it is ending. You have to decide for yourself whether it will be a good change or a bad change – whether it will be a world in which you wish to live.

"Arrival to Earth" by Steve Jablonsky from Transformers: The Score released 2007 on Warner Bros.

Fanaticism Goes Full-Retard

File Under:  I cannot make this stuff up.

The "true" Klan (Ku Klux Klan) is not racist, doesn't believe in hate, and is against violence.  That wasn't a joke, at least not on my part.  Check out the video:


All-righty.  As the great-grandson of two sets of sharecroppers from the deep south, one of which died as a result of injuries suffered in a house fire set by the Klan, that certainly is shocking news to me.  To the Inter-webs I went a-looking.  Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on The Ku Klux Klan:

"The modern KKK is not one organization; rather it is composed of small independent chapters across the U.S."

Since as early as I can remember, the Klan has always been one unified, national organization all about White Power and the death of anyone who was not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.


So how did we go from lynching blacks, burning crosses to terrorize people, and filibustering civil rights amendments on Capitol Hill to joining forces with Black gang members to thwart a Klan rally?  Here is Imperial Grand Wizard Bradley Jenkins in his own words from the pages of VICE (click link for full interview):

"VICE: Hi Bradley. What did you mean when you said I'd spoken to a “fake Klan”?Bradley Jenkins: We call these other Klans "pop-up Klans." Our government made it very easy for people to call themselves Klans by splitting all the Klans up. The United Klans of America are the true Klan—we have a history, we have a charter. We're not a hate organization, we're just a fraternal white organization. [...]

And you consider Thomas Robb’s Knights of the KKK to be a pop-up Klan?Oh, I won't even tell you what I think of that man. He used to be a good Klansman, but look at the difference between his website and ours: he's begging for money on every page. Sure, it takes money to operate, but begging for $40 to $50 a month from people who are losing their jobs just isn't right. [...]

So you don’t see the UKA as a hate organization?Putting on public rallies with the robes and the hoods and screaming and hollering doesn't accomplish anything. Let me tell you what I hate: I hate that my country is going down the tubes and that Europe is going down the tubes. I hate that we have people who are totally blind to the Islamization of our world. [...]

The UKA has been linked with some very serious incidents in the past, though?That was a different time and it's something you can't change. But if you look at other Klan organizations, they have scum in their ranks because they don't do background checks. It's all about quantity to them, whereas United Klans of America is concerned with quality. I'm a military veteran and an ex-cop. In fact, child molesters and immigration are two of our biggest issues. The Klan leadership figures out ways to inform communities about those issues without telling them it's coming from the Klan. We don't really want them knowing it's coming from the Klan, actually. The Klan is a means to an end. [...]

If you're not racist, why not start a new organization than become the leader of one with a long history of racism?Because there has to be someone who stands up and establishes what we're about. Myself and the four other Imperial wizards have come to the conclusion that 2013 is the time for that to happen. It will be the year that people realize the Klan is not a huge hate organization."

Well, smack me on my bottom and call me Susan (I don't know why you would do that, but something needed to go right there for transition).  Fascinating.

So as you probably surmised the title of this blog entry, I am not buying this radical change of heart on Klan ideology.  It seems that as tolerance seeps its way into the deepest roots of hate and divisiveness in America, the KKK (real, fake, or otherwise) is finding its numbers, wealth, and relevance dwindling.  Like the Dixiecrats (who were no longer in power or the mode) and the Republicans (who were getting trounced in elections) of old, this new breed of "true" Klan recognized it is time for the old flippity-flop and some good ol' fashioned spin-doctoring.  After decades of White Bashing over active and passive white complicity in hundreds of years of discrimination, suppression, and genocide one of these "educated" Klansman got the idea that White Pride would be a much more appealing draw than the messy business of killing in the name of White Supremacy.  Furthermore, maybe, just maybe if they could successfully remove themselves far enough away from the negative image they created for themselves then they could navigated the Hate Boat back into the waters of the power elite, thus reintroducing their extreme ideology back into national policy.

However, am I wrong?  Is there room for organizations like UKA in America, or the world?  Are they different from groups like: Aryan Nations, IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda?  Moreover, is there any reaching across the isle of moderation and civility with open arms to formerly militant extremists in the wake of a true enlightenment and reformation?  In essence, is a change of  this magnitude possible and are we as reasoned people obligated to embrace it?  I do not know.  Maybe we are co-dependent on our connections to the past, even the negative ones, and like Albi and the badly-burned Albanian boy, it's just different, very different.  Maybe I am an intellectual dinosaur and DaJuan Horton and Bradley Jenkins are the what the new face of America will be: an inconceivable coalition of diverse people with hard to categorize and label beliefs.  Mayhaps, we will come to judge this new Klan by the same criteria we judged the old -- by its words and deeds.

"Don't Let the Man Get You Down" by Fatboy Slim from Palookaville released 2004 on Astralwerks

Was Civil Rights Legislation Passed In Error and Does It Matter in 2010?

File Under: Convoluted Theories of BS

"There's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." – Future U.S. Senator from South Carolina (who notoriously filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for over 24 hours), James Strom Thurmond in 1948.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

All right, here is another Facebook spillover. I apologize sometimes I can be over-zealous when commenting on wall posts. Essentially the original took umbrage with Maddow’s slanted-seeming “gotcha” attempt at a fresh, juicy target on her show in the above clip. Some comments felt the interview was an attack that Paul successfully countered; others felt that this was an interrogation showing Paul to be a dangerous choice for a legislator. I do not perceive Maddow as being better or worse than other shows on primetime cable network "news.” She pressed her guest for an answer, he gave it, and she disagreed. I think around the 9:00, 12:00-13:00, and again at the 14:30 minute mark Paul succinctly addressed the question. He thinks discrimination is bad, he believes in 80-90% of the articles in the Civil rights Act of 1964, and he believes that businesses should determine how they do business where public interests are not concerned. The interview was straightforward and Paul's position sounds perfectly defensible to me.

I agree with Paul's argument that a) the government should not police social issues but b) sometimes, it has no other choice. This country has been equivocating on racial equality issues since before the signing of the Declaration of Independence - mainly to preserve some sort of a union wherein future generations can find solutions that confound current generations. The problem is that we do not actually do that - definitively. Civil Rights laws were another set of slapdash "no duh" laws crafted to stop the country from tearing its insides out and get us out of a turbulent era whole. You cannot cure stupidity with a law, you can only add layer upon layer of bandages on it until the burden of bandages outweighs the problem they were covering up in the first place. That said, I also agree with Maddow that without such laws there is nothing to stop these "institutions" from returning. I think as a nation we are backsliding from the stances we took in the 50s and 60s. However, I do not think that another piece of civil rights legislation as important as the Civil Rights legislation of the 50s and 60s will come before Paul or anyone elected this year. Therefore, this question is in fact the first salvo of red herrings, straw men, and other diversionary tactics to come this year.

I will however say what Paul and no other politician conscious of his or her career would say. If I genuinely believed a tenant of the Civil Rights Act violated the Constitution I would have voted against the act in totality if I could not get the offending piece removed or modified. I would have been a starving, rabid wolverine with a sore tooth in my pursuit of passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 WITHOUT the offending Articles. I think what Paul might be quibbling over is Titles II and VII. On the surface, they do overstep based upon capitalist and democratic philosophy. Nevertheless, what people who adhere to Paul's philosophy do not understand is that private organizations are only private in so much as they are funded and operated by private citizens. Every resource, product, and service, harvested, manufactured, or delivered in this country belongs to the people who participate in the functioning of this democratic republic. What is scary is that social networks (read: clubs and other “private” groups) are a resource as well. That makes some people shiver I am sure, that is another discussion for another time. No this is not a socialist agenda it is a fact. Imagine trying to haul lumber cross-country, or go on a cross-country family trip if every gas station, diner, park, motel, shopping mall, or other necessary piece of infrastructure had the right to wantonly discriminate against anyone based on whatever criteria they wanted. That would be somewhat difficult would you not agree.

Now you may feel that your great times 4 grandfather came to this country with nothing but $5 dollars and a dream, he worked himself to death so that when his son grew up he could go to Harvard, and because that son had the savvy to invest in real estate one day his son had the startup capital to buy his first oil well, and on and on and on, any notions of “shared” anything is rubbish. However, from the moment great-granddad raised his hand and swore allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, his $5 dollars, hard work and everything it wrought became part of the collective effort to make America great. The difference is, in America, we supposedly allow the person actually doing the work to enjoy the lion share of the benefit - supposedly.

What does that have to do with Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It is quite simple. I need to be able to walk into ANY business anywhere and receive service. I need a quality, safe, and reliable product or service that is no different from the one sold to the person before me or sold to the person after me. I need to know that if I place an application with a company my application will be considered based on my qualifications and experience, and that only a more qualified or experienced person will be selected in my place. I need to know that my family will be able to buy groceries, for a fair price, at the most convenient supermarket. I need to know that mine, my family’s, and my friends’ lives, liberties and happiness have protection beyond what means we are capable of protecting as individuals. That is how a smooth economy operates. That is a “more perfect union.” This in a way feeds into the concept that certain issues should be determined at as low a level of government as possible. However true that might be, we simply cannot entrust people to do what is naturally right in every instance across the board. Had we waited on the community to decide that such issues were paramount many individuals would be waiting still.