This is Valerie Castile, mother of cop-murdered Philando Castile, embracing Don Damond, fiancé of cop-murdered Justine Damond. They were together at a march through the streets of Minneapolis that was joined by people of multiple races. Residents along the route came out of their homes to show support.
As long as gangs of cops are roaming the streets with license to kill, this is how it ought to be.
Castile’s black son was slaughtered (for the crime of being a lawful gun owner) by a pale-complected gunman, Jeronimo Yanez.
Damond’s white fiancée was blown off the face of the earth (for the “crime” of dialing 911 to report possible illegal activity) by a black gunman, Mohamed Noor.
It ain’t about color. It’s about justice. And about freedom and tyranny. It’s about whether American residents of any hue are going to continue to be the hapless prey of gangsters with badges — and of the officials who send killer cops onto the streets — and the judges who invent for them concepts of “immunity” — and the higher-ups who cover for them with secrets called “personnel matters.”
This is Chris Miller. He’s the next-door neighbor of killer Mohamed Noor. Here’s what he has to say about the man Minneapolis officials handed a gun and turned loose on an unsuspecting populace — and on one gentle Australian yoga teacher who apparently had no idea what policing has become in the U.S.:
“[Noor] is extremely nervous … he is a little jumpy … he doesn’t really respect women, the least thing you say to him can set him off,” Mr Miller said.
“When they say a policeman shot an Australian lady I thought uh, oh but then when they said who it was I was like, ‘OK.’”
He said Noor, who has refused to explain to investigators what led him to shoot dead bride-to-be Damond, was a strict and ill-tempered presence in the townhouse block, where children play together in a playground in a small park between the units.
“He got into it with the kids, they were outside playing and something got stuck in a tree and he came out and he just started yelling at the kids because they were out here playing,” Mr Miller said.
“He has little respect for women he has little respect for blacks and kids,” said Mr Miller, who is African-American.
“He has an air like you just couldn’t really be around him.”
Miller’s description of Noor as “jumpy” sure accords with the circumstances in which he chose to shoot Justine Ruszczyk Damond. If his description is as accurate as it seems, you have to ask why anyone would hire Noor as a cop, let alone send him out with an even less experienced partner. Wouldn’t the briefest psychological evaluation have pegged that man as a time-bomb?
Noor, who has refused to talk with state investigators, reportedly feels he’s being singled out or abandoned by his fellow officers because he’s a minority man who shot a prosperous white woman. In his 21 months as a cop, he’s had three complaints lodged against him, one of which was closed with no action, two of which were still open at the time he killed a woman whose only crime was calling such a creature to her home.
Well said, Claire.
It’s not going to change until [the theoretical good] cops stop closing ranks behind these privileged murderous thugs. And until mainstream conservatives stop protecting them. And until police departments drop the rules that allow collusion to get stories straight, and when there simply is no way to straighten out the story there must not be rules that allow refusal to talk to investigators. And the investigators must stop being cops. And…
Oh, there’s just a whole helluva lot of things that have to change before this can change.
If you or I had done this, we would have the “right to remain silent” – and we’d rot in jail until we changed our minds about exercising the right. Noor’s probably still getting paid.
Makes me wonder: In a world where elaborate rules have evolved for getting away from a police encounter alive – what purpose do police serve anymore?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNh2xVDhny80
Sorry Claire, I thought just the URL for the video would show up, not the video itself….
This might help some people:
Instructions for disabling autoplay in your browser.
Yes, only the URL is supposed to show up, but it seems as if every time there’s a system upgrade, our settings come unset. I hate autoplay as much as anybody. So I’ll follow jed’s advice but will also see about re-setting this site properly.
OTOH, that was a terrific, if terrible, video.
IANAL. If one has ever taken a self defense class, especially a class focusing on firearm self defense, it’s made clear what the circumstances deadly force can be used. This is often referred to as the ‘Reasonable Man Doctrine’ showing defense against aggressor’s opportunity, jeopardy and ability. These elements have weight in court and they must be proven for it to be self defense.
The threat to you or innocent others must be:
a) a threat of death or egregious bodily harm
b) the aggressor has to have the means, ability and intent to cause said harm
c) the threat has to be immediate in nature
d) you yourself cannot be engaged in an otherwise unlawful manner (exceptions apply)
“I was in fear for my life.” Yeah, you better be able to articulate in court that the threat was real or that of a reasonable man would have thought the same. We have all seen recent LEO involved shootings where a jury should have been able to see where a threat was imagined or never was at all but the LEO only ends up packing his bags to another career.
Police do have arrest powers. Yes, there is the whole continuum of force thing for resisting. But they still cannot deploy deadly force unless the same elements of the Reasonable Man Doctrine exist that every person walking on God’s earth must follow.
Screw departmental policy. It has zero bearing on lawful self defense.
Here is the thing though. If someone who promised to harm me and he whipped out a cell phone and I shot him, I’m going to prison forever. It’s murder and rightly so. If an LEO is in that circumstance, the attorney general is probably not going to charge him and a grand jury will probably never see it. And the department will say he properly followed policy. Also, if it gets to trial, the state’s judge presiding over trial controls the narrative the jury sees.
Everyone can see there are two sets of rules. And it’s not just the use of deadly force. It’s also conduct that us normies wouldn’t engage in that sometimes LEO’s do.
It’s not going to change until [the theoretical good] cops stop closing ranks behind these privileged murderous thugs.
Etc. etc., as has been said too many times to count.
There will come a point where, unable to determine which are the “good” cops and which aren’t, the only recourse will be to regard all cops as exactly the same.
The cops will not enjoy it when that happens, but it won’t matter – that will be the point where society ends and anarchy begins. Cops don’t seem to have figured out that an organized, civil society needs police, but those police must operate within finite constitutional and statutory constraints, plus a layer of basic civility. Every day. Every encounter. No exceptions.
When police, as a group, conspire to avoid consequences for one member of the group, it condemns the entire group. If police cannot police themselves, one day someone else will – police believe they are unreasonably hamstrung by the constitution and the courts, but if they continue on the path they’re on they ain’t seen nothin’ yet; the citizens will demand not just constitutional, statutory and fiscal accountability but retribution.
Trust is hard earned and easily lost. A society in which trust has evaporated in official processes is one in which everyone lives at risk, constantly, and one in which citizens refrain from engaging in official processes and resolve issues themselves. Due process gets replaced by bodies in dumpsters.
Minneapolis is probably a lost cause, unavoidably committed to becoming Mogadishu. Other cities are not, and a number of those are worth saving.
I doubt that Minneapolis is a lost cause – the spotlight is on that city now, and the protesters have been both “positive” and reasonable, while TPTB, whether by nature or because they have no choice, have *seemingly* been trying hard. It might be that they started too late to clean up their act, but they are sending a few right vibes at present.
“There will come a point where, unable to determine which are the “good” cops and which aren’t, the only recourse will be to regard all cops as exactly the same….
This is currently what’s happening, and has picked up speed in the past, I would say, 2-3 years.
“Trust is hard earned and easily lost.”
This too has picked up speed, not just cops but politicians, and now the media. In truth, traditional institutions of all sorts have recently come under the microscope by the public – and about time. The public may not always draw the correct conclusions – according to us, at least – as to cause or how to fix it, but the harsh spotlight is making tradition nervous. And that’s a good thing.
After I got out of the service in 1979, my first two jobs were in casino and hospital security and I was an armed and sworn peace officer. There could be a lot of trouble to occur in both a Vegas casino and a Denver inner city hospital and I had to deal with plenty of volatile situations, but in the 2 1/2 years that I was a peace officer, I only had to draw my pistol once and it wasn’t on a person, it was during a building search. I worked with a few guys who were full of themselves and their positions as there was a certain amount of power that we held and that power would go to some people’s heads. They had no business being peace officers or law enforcement officers.
Police shootings lead to distrust and hatred of police. They feel the distrust and dislike, and they imagine that there are people out to get them, which is somewhat true. So they are on alert for possible violence against police, which is confirmed by rare anti-police violence and amplified by sensationalist reporting. So the police feel isolated and targeted and put themselves on a hair trigger to protect themselves, resulting in overreaction and…more inappropriate police shootings.
They cycle continues. I don’t see how this can’t just get worse.
I think the reason I get uncomfortable with all lives matter is the implication that somehow black lives matter is not a worth while sentiment. To be clear this article did a decent job in trying not to undermine others, but I really dislike the lack creativity when it came to using the phrase “all lives matter” and the fact that it was used in the blurb for the article.
As it’s been said so many times, black lives matter is not a movement aimed to discredit anyone else’s experience. Black people have understandable fear of the justice system, whether it’s from police violence or brutality or having the right people actually convicted when there is a person of color involved. Juries are often less empathetic to cases involving black victims than they are to white victims. black lives matter is about addressing the historical precedent of not treating black people fairly within the justice system. It does not take away from the many cases where other races (including white people) are not treated fairly, because I agree our judicial system lacks any sort of enforceable standard.
It’s like the idea that feminism isn’t just about women. You can be a feminist and still want boys to have better education. You can support black lives matter and still call for more police reform across the board. The main reason I defend black lives matter is a simple one, we want the same thing, accountability from our judicial system.
If you want to stop the factionalization of our communities, you need to stand up for other communities when they cry out. You start to disparage them based on race, then you become the problem. It’s in their right to band together, as there are safety in numbers. If you think of it in terms of being excluded from conversation of a larger picture, then you’ve missed the point.
I don’t disagree with the overall sentiment of “all lives matter” but don’t try to take away the power from a group that has similar interests to your own. If the point is to cause change through questions of ethics that get brought up by how the police operate, there should be a way to work with groups like black lives matter to strengthen your aim.
When we advocate for something, we can’t undermine other people that help us get to where we are today. You don’t like the hierarchy? Then don’t play into it, move beyond it. If you really don’t believe in hierarchies, then you have to give black lives matter just as much respect as you give you’re own goals, especially when many of objectives of both ideologies would be mutually beneficial.
To be fair the opposition of black lives matter, it’s not particularly well defined. There’s so much misinformation out there on what it is, and some contradicting actions that have been played out by the group. But that’s any grassroots movement out there, if you think that it’s unusual then you’re not paying attention to history or even the movements or organizations that you might support.
TL;DR
Black lives matter is not against you.
You can work together to address the same issues. Don’t disrespect other attempts at the same thing, unless you are hoping to shoot yourself in the foot.
I hate to make this comment,but its oh so true….I used to feel bad when a cop got killed,now..not so much.Karma is a bitch.
Im damn sick and tired of the gangbangers in blue.They can steal your money without cause at all,now stealing more money from us than burglars!
They are immune to criminal prosecution and murder with impunity,this was NOT the case when i was growing up.
We have become a Banana Republic as far as police actions go.
Im sick of it!
“I think the reason I get uncomfortable with all lives matter is the implication that somehow black lives matter is not a worth while sentiment.”
Matthew — Thank you for the thoughtful comment.
I differ quite a bit. I hope no one would ever try to deny blacks (or any other group) the validity of their experience. I know blacks and Latinos are the main targets of police wrath, cowardice, and corruption. But when someone chooses to rally under the banner “Black Lives Matter,” they’re the ones drawing the line; they’re the ones pushing away potential sympathizers. They’re saying that, to them, other lives don’t matter. They’re saying that police violence is entirely about race, when in fact it’s about a lot of other, larger, cultural and political problems.
If Justine Damond’s friends formed a “White Lives Matter” or “Australian Lives Matter” group, they’d hardly expect blacks or Latinos to rally to that cry.
Ditto with feminism. Absolutely feminism could and should be about bettering the lot for everybody. But current-wave feminism is too often about privileged women at elite universities whining that men are oppressing them — while men in working-class neighborhoods all over the country are sinking into uselessness and despair.
Claire’s post just went in before mine.
Matthew – Yes, black lives matter, as do all lives matter. But when you deliberately distinguish yourself from ALL lives, as do Black Lives Matter (officially organized or not), then you call attention to the differences, not the sameness. And in calling attention, you imply that you want and/or should have special privileges and rights by default *because of* (n this case) beng black.
The same is true of feminism (and what does that mean any more?). When feminism began, it was called Women’s Lib and my reaction was, No, it should be Human Lib: instead of freeing just women from stereotypes and women’s activities, jobs, dress codes, etc., human lib should free ALL people – men, women, and children – from cliches and standardized comportment. But that wasn’t what the feminist “leaders” wanted from the beginning – they _wanted_ inequality for men, they wanted to be top sergeant on the political scene. Equality for one does not mean equality for all when you force the “other” out of his position.
Black lives matter not because they are black, but because they are living, breathing people. To call attention to their needs does not hasten those needs into existence, but it does hasten resentment from others who have the same needs but no way to vocalize them – resentmet that is especially true when their _modus operandi_ is loud and belligerantly in-your-face.
WE (others with the same needs) would be glad to “work together” but much of [black, union, women, etc] Lives Matter is geared to specific groups and specific goals for only those groups, and they often have no desire to work with US for equal or universal gain. They think in us-vs-them terms, and our response is inevitably negative.
Claire, Pat,
I need to take some responsibility for Matt’s comment. It’s been an on-going debate between the two of us for a couple of years. When I sent the link to this article, I included my own comment “All Lives Matter.”
Matt’s response is partly to me, not so much to the article. What I liked about the article was that a similar situation happened to two different races and both came together to identify the root cause: police violence. I hope this leads to a melding of Black Live Matter and people who are against all police state violence, regardless of the race of the victim.
Matt may not be wrong. He is advocating for an understanding of Black Lives Matter and Feminism that is not commonly heard. The most frequently quoted people are those who are overtly anti-white or anti-male. I don’t know to what extent those two movements include people who take the broader view. Matt has a different understanding, perhaps due to exposure to different sources of information.
“The most frequently quoted people are those who are overtly anti-white or anti-male. I don’t know to what extent those two movements include people who take the broader view.”
Re feminism, Matthew should read Wendy McElroy (WendyMcElroyDOTcom), starting with this essay:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.153 ,
found under Individualist Feminism – Theory.
“Matt may not be wrong. He is advocating for an understanding of Black Lives Matter and Feminism that is not commonly heard.”
I’m glad you inspired Matthew to comment, Ron. It’s a good discussion. Personally, although I differ with his viewpoint, I don’t think Matt is wrong. As you say, he’s just coming from a different perspective — and one I’m glad to see here.
I think, too, that when I saw the article I copied those photos and quotes from I was just glad to see some unity against tyranny for a change. At a time when people have become divided by so many issues that ought to unite them, with each group clamoring for its own political favor, that unified mourning and unified resistance made my heart soar.
Yes, certainly black lives matter, as do all of them (except perhaps for those who have no concerns about the lives of others). The problem is with the organization. Here’s one black man’s view: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/28/black-lives-matters-real-agenda/
I agree with Ron; the situation can only get worse. Greg Ellifritz has sensibly pointed out that unless police training improves considerably – and he doesn’t expect it to – these kinds of events will continue to happen.
Making this case even more tragic for us is the fact that Noor is a Somali immigrant. Even though he broke with his family to become a policeman, he apparently showed zero affinity for any of the citizenry. It’s possible he had no patience for behavior that wouldn’t have been tolerated in Somalia. As flawed as our situation is, dealing with the Somali police would have to be iffy by comparison. Back in the ’70’s affirmative action was such that it was extremely difficult to fire a black person; if a business didn’t seem to have enough minorities the most qualified white person need not apply. And with all the PC hype surrounding the wonderful decision to hire a Somali immigrant as a cop, any complaints could be expected to be swept under the rug. He certainly seems like an accident waiting to happen that police and civic officials were very conscientiously trying to ignore. It wasn’t one of them that died, anyway.
Rioting, burning and looting tends to create an attitude of “Black Lives Don’t Matter”.
The small southern town where I was brought up the cops tended to be the guys who couldn’t get a job doing anything else so they became the town cop.
There are good people and there are bad ones, cops are no different, when a force has someone working for it with the wrong type of attitude those at fault are not just that individual but also those who worked with him & knew what he (she) was like and did nothing, his supervisors and the people who run the department are all responsible for his actions too, just by bringing justice to the one who did the dirty deed is only a small part of the solution of eliminating such behavior, IMHO the whole rat nest needs to be eliminated if that type of behavior is really deemed unacceptable.
Comrade X, I cannot disagree with your summary but I do not believe it can happen in America because of one factor. Police Unions. As long as they are “shielded” by this blue mafia protective society, even City Councils have little control. I would love to see more articles about how to correct this protection racket and remove the special rights afforded police by their Union contracts.
Oh, there’s just a whole helluva lot of things that have to change before this can change.
IMHO there’s really one starting point, and it gets routinely disregarded. In almost every town, the police chief is hired and fired by the City Council. Officers are city employees. It’s the City
Council that establishes law enforcement priorities, and for too many of them the main priorities are things like how much money the PD raises in fines and court costs. Other similar priorities follow.
If you want to change the way the next cop you meet deals with people, change the City Council. Don’t expect change if the City Council replaces the police chief, but doesn’t change law enforcement priorities.
Unfortunately there are too many cities where the same politicians have been in charge for decades, but they keep convincing voters that This Year Things Will Change.
It would be interesting to research the use of deadly force statistics between municipal police officers, and sheriff’s deputies, in states where the county sheriff is directly elected, and answers to voters instead of county government.
LarryArnold, I also would like to see the difference between elected sheriffs and appointed ones but I believe that Unions have distinctly more power and leverage than City Councils. Are there any police forces that are Not unionized? That would make an interesting comparison also.
.
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-unions/
Great comments here to Claire’s posting. No, I’m not being sarcastic.
NWA had it right years ago…
I’ve been thinking for some time about the idea that there are three kinds of people in the world – wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. For anyone unfamiliar with that concept, run a search and you will find some good essays fleshing it out.
For me, the persistently nagging question is this: we’ve all heard the saying, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” But what of the wolf in sheepdog’s clothing?
“I would love to see more articles about how to correct this protection racket and remove the special rights afforded police by their Union contracts.’
+1