Thursday, October 30, 2014

Oh So It's A "Gift" Now?

First the Pope, now Tim Cook:
Tim Cook: 'I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me'
Personally I could care less who's anus Tim Cook wishes to put his penis into. I also didn't need an announcement to know just what he is. I also did not purchase Apple stock because of what Tim did in the privacy of his own home.

This comment however is beyond the pale. Firstly it implies that those of us who are not homosexual, that would be the vast majority of us, are somehow lacking a "gift from God". That's utter bullshit and he ought to be called on it.

Secondly, in nature strict homosexuality = genetic dead end. Therefore it is not biology's "gift" but rather a genetic kiss of death (particularly if you are the last of your line). Of course we are moving into a new realm of artificiality (which I will post upon soon..so much so much) where this kind of bullshit can be thought of as reasonable.

But this is all to be expected in a society in which people think they deserve some kind of special attention and consideration because they are not white, male and heterosexual.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Christian Bale Moses Commentary vs. Accurate Portrayals

So the news is that some folks are upset because Christian Bale, a white male playing a character set in pre-colonial, pre Roman empire, Egypt (located in Africa for those who don't know) said that Moses was barbaric and schizophrenic.

73% of people polled said they would see the Moses movie so long as there aren't any blatant "mistakes" in the movie.

Apparently the fact that there are white people playing Africans in Africa doesn't phase these folks one bit.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Isn't That A Cluster Bomb?

Since the height of the protests, the department has spent almost $25,000 buying 650 teargas grenades, smoke-and-gas grenades, smoke canisters and “hornets nest” CS sting grenades, which shoot out dozens of rubber bullets and a powdered chemical agent upon detonation
Sounds like a less than lethal cluster bomb to me.
It has spent a further $18,000 on 1,500 “beanbag rounds” and 6,000 pepper balls, paintball-style projectiles that explode with a chemical irritant when they strike a protester. The department uses LiveX branded pepper balls, which are billed as ten times hotter than standard pepper rounds.
Honestly I don't think any of that is necessary. But then again, I'm OK with a level of force that most people are not comfortable with.
Observers from Amnesty International said in a report earlier this month that an excessive police reaction to a small minority of violent protesters who threw bottles in Ferguson had run the risk of killing demonstrators and impinged on their human rights.

They noted that the so-called “less-lethal” ammunition shot at crowds in Ferguson – such as wooden bullets, beanbag rounds, and rubber bullets – “can result in serious injury and even death”. The report found that “at least two children were treated for exposure to teargas” during the protests.

“Equipping officers in a manner more appropriate for a battlefield may put them in the mindset that confrontation and conflict is inevitable rather than possible, escalating tensions between protesters and police,” said the report.

Amnesty Intl. can STFU. They are like that nurse who love to talk about their rights and shit but never want to talk about their obligations and duties. People throwing rocks at police should feel glad that they are lucky enough to be met with less than lethal force. There are MANY MANY alternatives that could be used.

And Amnesty, like many other liberal groups like to place the blame for situation on the wrong people. If someone is killed by a less than lethal round shot by a police officer due to some "protestor" throwing a bottle at him or her, the responsibility lies with the idiot who threw the bottle.

Nobody who takes to the street peaceably (that does not mean quietly) should have to worry about actions by the police (other than usual crowd control). But if some criminal minded people with their own agendas come in and gets somebody hurt or dead, its that person's fault. Full stop.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Alexander Reid Ross: Liar

Writing in Counterpunch:
With the police behavior in Ferguson—assaulting crowds, killing people, spreading misinformation, and making false arrests—as well as the response from hate groups like the KKK, the riots in Ferguson, which began with peaceful protests until the police reacted with brutality, threatens to become another putsch; a historic victory for the revanchist right wing and the undoing of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, just as Wilmington was part of the undoing of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that found its keystone in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Anyone who has been following the actual events in Ferguson knows full well that the riots in Ferguson did not start with police "brutality". The stores that were looted were done because the folks who wanted to did so and the police were explicitly told to stand down and let it happen.

Alexander is yet another person who believes that it is always the fault of someone else for the behaviors of certain people.

Study finds white people associate superhuman words with black people

This isn't actually anything new.
n a series of experiments, psychologists show that white people were quicker to associate superhuman words (ghost, paranormal, spirit, wizard, supernatural, magic, and mystical) with black faces relative to white faces. Also, when explicitly asked, white people indicated that a black person was more capable of possessing superhuman qualities—and would need less medication to alleviate pain—than a white person. [My underlines]
That last part reminds me of a story of a black woman in a hospital during either Jim Crow days or thereabouts. She was having a baby and the doctor had a set of interns with him. He allegedly told the interns that black women were like mules and could just pop out babies without much pain or fuss and so it wouldn't be necessary to provide much pain medication. The report was that the woman, hearing this made sure to hollar and scream as much as possible in order to show how much an ass that doctor was. I cannot verify the story of course. The thing about that claim, particularly in the past was that it likely stemmed from two phenomena: 1) The bush system among certain groups in Africa where circumcision is practiced (male and female) usually has a requirement that the person being cut no cry out or otherwise show [much] discomfort while being cut. Such a display would likely disqualify that person as being able to move on into social adulthood or otherwise show them to be a coward of sorts. The possible value of silence in the face of pain and discomfort may well have survival value. 2) The punishment of enslaved Africans would no doubt lead to having to literally work though pain. After all, after getting whipped, you don't exactly heal in a few hours. Therefore it is likely that many Africans not only acquired, as a survival tactic, the ability to deal with high levels of daily pain, but possibly taught their offspring how to deal with it as well.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Pot, Meet Kettle.

A Justice Department spokesman has called the leaks “irresponsible and highly troubling”. The spokesman added: “There seems to be an inappropriate effort to influence the public opinion around this case.” [My underlines]
When Gov Jay Nixon called for a trial of officer Wilson prior to any fact finding or the results of a grand jury, he was engaged in an "inappropriate effort to influence the public opinion around this case". Where was the Justice Department [sic] when that occurred?

When US Atty General Holder went to Ferguson talking about how he understands as a "black man", he was engaged in an "inappropriate effort to influence the public opinion around this case." Where was the reprimand? Matter of fact why wasn't he fired on the spot?

If the Justice Department [sic] wants to be credible it must either deal with all parties engaging in "inappropriate efforts" or it should shut up and be quiet. That is what we call equal justice. It's not that hard.

St Louis Regulations on Security Personnel

Last night I posted on the autopsy of Vonderritt Myers and the fact that the officer involved in the shooting was off duty and working security for what is assumed to be a private entity. I mentioned that this fact proves troubling since it would appear that "security" personnel are under stricter limitations as to what they can do and how far their jurisdiction goes. Here is St Louis's web page on private security firms:
he Private Security Section is responsible for the processing, training, and licensing of all applicants for security licenses in the City of St. Louis. With the exception of St. Louis Police Officers, all persons performing a security function in the City of St. Louis must be licensed to do so through the Private Security Section. This includes police officers from other jurisdictions who are working in the City of St. Louis.
My reading of this is that St Louis PD officers do not have to go through the PSS but I think they still have to follow the rules outlined in the text, particularly:
Watchman – A person employed without police powers and without authorization to carry weapons or protective devices. A watchman performs the tasks of observation and reporting on or in a designated area and may include patrolling a public street. A watchman has no powers of arrest, search or detention and must wear an approved uniform....

Security Officer – A person employed with certain police powers to protect life or property on or in designated premises. A security officer’s powers exist only within the established property owned or leased by the contracting employer and to incidents occurring on the premises. If qualified, a security officer may carry a firearm and certain protective devices.

You'll note that a "watchman" has no police powers. So even if an off duty police officer was employed as a watchman he cannot up and run after a "suspicious male". Now we know from the report that the officer was wearing his uniform. Since the above text says that uniforms must be worn, it is possible that the officer was employed as a watchman. In which case he was NOT authorized to chase anyone who is simply "running away" without having witnessed some crime.

If however the officer was employed as a security officer then his abilities are expanded. But these powers only extend to the property "owned or leased by the contracting employer". I would have a hard time agreeing that some private entity could lay claim to a public street or sidewalk or random bushes that the officer claimed Vonderitt jumped out of. So if it was the case that the officer was acting as a security officer, it would have to be shown that he was acting to protect property owned by the contracting firm.

Thus far I have not seen any information naming the company that this off duty officer was working for but it seems that such information would be highly relevant towards the legality of this officer's actions.

[Update]

Found Kansas City's regulations

The legal authority vested in a sworn law enforcement member working off-duty employment is limited to the enforcement of federal law, state statutes and municipal ordinances. Officers cannot use police authority to enforce a private employer’s policies and regulations.
Enforcement of federal law, state statutes and municipal ordinances. Again, since running away at the sight of a person in a police uniform is not a crime under any of the aforementioned codes, under what authority did that officer begin to make chase (if St Louis is under the same or similar regulations as Kansas City).

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Autopsy of Vonderitt Myers Raises Questions

Now this is muddy.
Wecht says Myers was shot eight times – six of those shots were fired at his back, possibly as Vonderit ran from the police officer.

Wecht showed the wounds in Vonderit’s legs and said one of the shots shattered his femur.

Wecht also says Vonderit was shot in the groin and the fatal shot was to the right side of his head between his eye brow and ear. Attorneys for Myers’ family say the shots are consistent with what eye-witnesses said at the scene — that Myers was running away from the officer.

I think the shot to the head is going to be most problematic. The claim is that Vonderitt shot at the off duty cop working security (for who?) One question is whether under the law an off duty police officer has the same privileges as an on duty officer when it comes to dealing with "suspects". That is, can he chase folks acting "suspiciously"? If fired upon, can he give chase and return fire? And lastly, do we have evidence to support the claim that the gun jammed 3 times?

Unlike the Wilson-Brown confrontation where Wilson is acting under color of law, I'm not entirely sure that this off duty cop is covered the same way while working "security" (for who?).

The incident that led to the shooting began about 7:30 p.m. CT when an off-duty officer noticed three men near the corner of Shaw Boulevard and Klemm Street in St. Louis. Police Chief Sam Dotson said during a news conference that the men began running when they saw the officer, who responded by chasing one of them. The officer was working as a security guard at the time, but wearing his St. Louis police uniform, Dotson said. [My underlines]
Is it proper for an officer working a private security firm to be wearing his police uniform? What are the regulations about that. This is important, IMO, because it's one thing to run from a police officer (as was claimed) it is another to run from a rent a cop. Furthermore running is not a crime unless one has been detained by an officer. There was no report of the officer/security guard detaining or asking to detain Vonderitt.

So STLPD is going to have to explain the protocols of it's officers working security in STLPD uniform. It is going to have to explain the powers they have when off the clock and working for a private agency. It is going to have to explain whether a officer working for a private company has "shoot to kill" jurisdiction or even "shoot" jurisdiction outside of the private property being "secured".

This is definitely NOT a Michael Brown situation.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Stolen Water

Reading the Detroit News:
But a woman said her water bill jumped $600 after neighbors helped themselves to her outside faucet, using it so often they broke the handle.

The woman, Barbara Russo, said she didn't blame her neighbors for their actions.

"If you treat people like animals, you can only expect them to behave like animals," she said.

See that's theft. You can't blame the government for neighbors who steal water for their own use and who don't even have the decency to knock on your door and offer to pay you for the water they use. See this "I have a right to free shit" is THE problem in this whole thing.

Mind you it's not everybody.

lls, have led to residents helping neighbors by giving money, jugs of water or running hoses to their homes.
My hat is off to these people practicing collective work and responsibility and cooperative economics. They either understand or will understand it is this concept that lead to the building of water works in the first place. And why it is how civilization grows and spreads. But those people who stole $550 worth of water from Barbara did so NOT because of the water shut offs. No. They are WHY there are water shut off's in the first place. They are the people that feel that they have a God given right to take what other people have worked and earned. The have no regard for anyone except for themselves and only see other people and institutions as something to game and exploit.