Ferguson Worked as Intended: For the Maintenance of the Doctrine of White Supremacy in the US

STEVEN JONAS, MD, MPH
SENIOR EDITOR

Stephens: he found a way to justify (in his mind) the unjustifiable.

Stephens: “Our system commits no such violation of nature’s law. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the Negro. Subordination is his place.”

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he doctrine of white supremacy was invented in 17^th century North America to justify the use and practice of slavery in the British colonies (and at the time not just limited to the south of what became the United States, but in all of them). Just before the First US Civil War, the doctrine was well-summarized by Alexander Stephens, a Southern Unionist who later became Vice-President of the Confederate States of America under the arch-secessionist Jefferson Davis.

PLEASE CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Stephens memorably declared:

column published in 2009, as it started the First Civil War in support of secession, the South had six principal war aims:

The preservation of the institution of African and African-American (the latter the courtesy of the slave owners and slave masters) slavery and its uninhibited expansion into the Territories of the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountain region, and the Southwest.
The acceptance by the whole United States of the Doctrine of White Supremacy on which the institution of slavery was established.
The establishment and subsequent strong prosecution of American Imperialism outside of North America (a position much more strongly held in the South than in the North).

Except that the institution of chattel slavery does not exist, the South achieved all of its war aims, some of them beyond the wildest dreams of any of its leaders. While for the most part that victory is pretty-well self-evident, I have detailed how they did that in, among other places, the column cited above and in my book The 15% Solution. Perhaps most importantly, the Doctrine of White Supremacy dominates the thinking of much of the white US, both consciously and unconsciously.

Birth-of-a-nation-klan-and-black-man
In D.W. Griffith’s famed Birth of a Nation, Hooded Klansmen catch Gus, a black man described in the film as “a renegade, a product of the vicious doctrines spread by the carpetbaggers.” Gus was portrayed in blackface by white actor Walter Long. The KKK was, of course, the righteous avengers.

Above a quote from none other than the normally revered Woodrow Wilson, used by Griffith in his film. Three decades later, Hollywood again shed tears for the plantocracy way of life in Margaret Mitchell’s elegy for the South, Gone with the Wind.

In Gone With the Wind the Southern way was presented as a genteel civilization unjustly trashed by the coarse, mercantilistic North.

Hattie McDaniel, Olivia de Havilland and Vivien Leigh, the indomitable Scarlett O’Hara, In Gone With the Wind. The Southern way was romanticized as a genteel civilization unjustly trashed by the coarse, brutish and mercantilistic North. What made Jewish tycoons in Hollywood want to whitewash the South? That question is yet to be answered.

Then, what immediately followed the end of the First Civil War in the South was, on the economic side, the assurance of the perpetuation of a living situation for the freed slaves that in many ways mimicked slavery, that is share-cropping (“40 acres and a mule” died under the veto pen of the Southern successor to President Lincoln, Andrew Johnson). On the political side, the first objective of the formation of the original Ku Klux Klan was to deny the freed slaves the vote, which was fully accomplished following the withdrawal of the Union Army occupiers in 1877. This system, along with social and commercial segregation, “Jim Crow,” stayed in place until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. With the recent Supreme Court decision voiding a key section of that Act as it applied to the South, along with the Republican national voter suppression campaign, African-American, as well as Latino, voting is being once again repressed, both by making it physically more difficult as well as by the imposition of a version of the poll tax: the acquisition, with no taxpayer support, of the “Voter ID.” And etc., etc., etc. (I will leave the discussion of whether voting accomplishes anything in this nation to other editors on this blog.)

And so, you might be saying at this point, what this all has to do with the killing of Michael Brown, black, by the police officer Darren Wilson, white. It has everything to do with it. An unusual event? No, of course not. For example, in the month between July 17 and August 17, 2014, 60 persons were killed by police officers, almost all of them black or Latino virtually none of them involved in committing a potentially fatal offense. As The World Can’t Wait put it: “the murder of Black and Brown youth by the state goes on like clockwork.”

There is a reason for this state of affairs and it is not just that some white cops are racists and truly regard blacks and Latinos as second-class or non-citizens, with no rights. It is not just because a district attorney decides on his own that he is not going to play prosecutor in this particular case, but rather defense attorney for the accused, which he can do until the cows come home in the absence of any means of cross-examination either of the accused or his witness supporters (one of whom made her own racism abundantly clear in her personal journal. Furthermore, there was no attorney to stand in on the true prosecutorial side to challenge, before a judge, what the mis-named “prosecutor” was actually doing in defending, not prosecuting.

Oh yes, and as for why District Attorney Robert McCulloch chose to make his announcement of the Grand Jury’s decision in prime time rather than around the time when it was reached, about 2PM in the afternoon? Well, he did just win re-election, so that’s not it. No. This man was addressing all white US who think the way that he does, and all the white law enforcement personnel across the US who don’t want to have to worry too much should they just happen to kill an African-American or Latino in the course of duty. McCulloch, who would likely deny vigorously that he consciously thinks in this way at all, it being so ingrained in the thought-processes of so many US, is, along with the modern Republican Party in the Congress, the Supreme Court and many state and local governments sending out a clear message: White supremacy lives. And so, not to worry.

For many US, white supremacy is the doctrine that governs their lives. They, sub-consciously for the most part, need to feel secure in that thinking. And they need to feel that US “law enforcement” is doing its part to provide them with that security. I am not talking about feeling secure in their physical surroundings, for given how highly segregated US society is, that is not too often an issue. I am talking about what goes on inside their heads. And so Michael Brown is killed, and the killing will not stop. Actually, in terms of the number of deaths, police killings of black and Latinos make lynching in the Old South (which was not always of blacks, mind you), except in the early days of the practice, look like much ado about not too much. Marches, demonstrations, police lapel cameras (“oh dear, in the heat of the moment mine fell off”), civilian review boards, and etc. are not going to change the reality in the US, still submerged under the victory of the South in the First Civil War and what it accomplished. Only the Second Civil War, which is coming, may be able to change that.

It should be noted that the United States is the only advanced capitalist country in which the political economy is dominated by such a doctrine as that of White Supremacy, and its use by, over time, one party or the other for political purposes. The only other country in which the political use of a doctrine of bigotry, prejudice, and racial superiority focused on a particular social grouping within the society came to so dominate its political economy, combined with an imperialistic foreign policy, was of course Nazi Germany. And we all know to where that led.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

http://www.puntopress.com/jonas-the-15-solution-hits-main-distribution/, and available on Amazon.

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO THE GREANVILLE POST BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES—EVER. That’s a guarantee.

Missouri AG Confirms Michael Brown Grand Jury Misled by St. Louis DA

WEEKEND EDITION

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]ubsequent to a previous report from Lawrence O’Donnell the Missouri Attorney General has confirmed with Last Word that they instructions given the Michael Brown Grand Jury describing the Police “use of force” laws was incorrect and misleading.Video from Program

The background of this situation is that Lawrence O’Donnell reported that after reviewing the transcripts of the Darren Wilson Grand Jury, his analyst discovered that Assistant District Attorney’s working for Bob McCullough gave the Jurors an outdated copy of Missouri Lawthat all that was required for an Officer to use deadly force is their “reasonable belief” that there was a threat.

directly before Darren Wilson’s testimony giving the impression that all that was required under the law for Wilson to kill Michael Brown was his belief that he was in danger, without the additional requirement of probable cause for such a belief.

The Missouri AG now proclaims that was wrong and the Missouri Law needs to be changed and updated to reflect the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Continue over the fold to read more.

O’Donnell: The Missouri Attorney General says “The Police Use of Deadly Force Law in Missouri must be changed.” in response to my question to the Attorney General he said:”Among the problems tha Ferguson has brought to light is the need to update Missouri’s use of deadly force statute. This statute is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Tennessee v. Garner. Consequently, it is important this statutue be amended by the Missouri legislature to incorporate the Garner decision to avoid confusion in the criminal justice system”

Chris Koster
Missouri Attorney General

O’Donnell: As I have stated on this program there should be no confusion in the criminal justice system because the United States Supreme Court clarified the proper, and legal, and constitutional use of deadly force by police, 29 years ago.

There are two clear possibilities here. Either the St. Louis County District Attorney’s Office was aware of this conflict and deliberately attempted to give the Grand Jury a false impression of the law, only to slip in a unclear, unexplained “correction” at the last minute which would be far too weak to override the prevailing impression gained from weeks of testimony which had been reviewed through a jaundiced lens…Or…

The St. Louis County and other DA’s throughout the state have been regularly misleading juries and grand juries with the mistaken and wrong impression that probable cause is not required for law enforcement before deliberate deadly force can be deployed legally because they just don’t know any better.

And worse even still, are Officers walking the streets of Missouri – or other states – also under this incorrect impression that all they need to use deadly force is to “feel threatened”?

This of course begs the question of what happens then when you get people like Rudy Giulianior Joe Scarborough or Bill O’Reilly or Ted Nugent or -pick a conservative, any conservative- telling everyone that Young Black Men are, by definition, A Threat? (see video below)

I think we can see what you get from that, even when controlling for demographics young black men are about seven times more like to be killed by law enforcement than just about any other group.

Considering the fact that Darren Wilson has made public statements that he actually went through the thought process: “Can I Legally Kill This Guy?” and then in about 3.5 seconds decided for himself that he could when his judgement on what was truly legal in that situation, like that of the DA, may have been factually and constitutionally wrong – it begs yet another critical question, has this statute been updated in New York?

Could that, or a similar issue, be a factor in the decision by the New York Grand Jury not to indict Officers involved in what the NY Medical Examiner’s Office called “A homicide”?

Naturally since New York’s Grand Jury law’s don’t allow their testimony or deliberations to be revealed to the public we don’t know what they were told, or what they weren’t told.

What the New York Daily News Reports is this:

Under New York State law, police officers can use force to affect arrests, prevent escapes and to protect themselves and others from physical harm. New York law further provides that citizens may not physically resist. Arrests are to be challenged in court, not on the street….

As a practical matter — on the basis of past cases — the grand jury would likely indict only if it found malice or some intention to hurt Mr. Garner or that a gross disregard for Mr. Garner’s well-being is what created the tragic ending during this routine arrest. Finding that the officer was careless or that the arrest was bungled will not rise to the level of a crime.

So if the office doesn’t “intend” harm, they can’t be charged – which essentially means they can’t get away with Murder, but they still can potentially get away with Manslaughter.It’s “Ok”, if they didn’t really mean it and all that really requires is not getting caught bragging about it afterward, right? Sure.

Unlike the Wilson case, Officers in New York clearly didn’t make the deliberate decision that the subject was “a threat” and chose to use deadly force, they were – as best we can tell from the Snuff Film we’ve all seen by now – just trying to make an arrest with a difficult subject and in the process violated NYPD Policy in using a choke-hold and piling onto him while ignoring the subjects repeated signs respiratory of distress.

I can’t breath. I can’t breath. I can’t breath…

But they didn’t “mean” it – so, whatever.The National Institute of Justice states that:

Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.Police should also:
Ensure that those injured receive medical aid.
Ensure that the family of any injured person is notified.

So, no – not Murder, but someone was definitely slaughtered, yet no one has been held accountable for it.Again.

What I additional found was the actual New York Statute of Police Use of Force to Effect an arrest, and the quick answer to the question of whether it reflects the Constitutional Case Law, just as Missouri’s law did not, is IMO… “No!”

1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or
attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to
prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he or she reasonably
believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and
to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, or in
self-defense or to defend a third person from what he or she reasonably
believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force; except that
deadly physical force may be used for such purposes only when he or she
reasonably believes that:
(a) The offense committed by such person was:
(i) a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or
attempted use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(ii) kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the
first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
(b) The offense committed or attempted by such person was a felony and that, in the course of resisting arrest therefor or attempting to escape from custody, such person is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon; or
(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the
arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another person from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

IANAL, but I don’t see any mention that the Officers need probable cause for their “reasonable belief” that deadly force is necessary. Would that have made a definite difference to the St. Louis or New York Grand Juries? I honestly don’t know, but having the law be incorrect in two states where this has happened doesn’t make me all that confident about Justice being reached fairly in Ohio [Jonathan Crawford, Tamir Rice], Utah [Darrien Hunt] or other states.This may not be the last case – even in the last 12 months – where people feel compelled to take to the streets in protest because the police and the DA and the courts and various legislatures have grossly failed in their duty to protect all of our citizens equally.

But… and there is a big butt… the NY statute also says this.

2. The fact that a police officer or a peace officer is justified in
using deadly physical force under circumstances prescribed in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of subdivision one does not constitute justification for reckless conduct by such police officer or peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he or she is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

[Having re-read that last section I realize the “reckless conduct” limitation only applies to “innocent persons…who aren’t being arrested”. So what happens when the reckless conduct is against people they are trying to arrest? This right here, could be the loophole Officer Pantaleo and others escaped through.]What both of these cases, as well as others, have shown is that the Constitution we think we are governed by, and the laws that are supposed to be put in place in consistency with that Constitution – aren’t being followed by our legislatures, aren’t being correctly implemented by our police and aren’t being enforced by our DA’s and Grand Juries.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a problem. A big problem.

2:37 PM PT: Lawrence mentioned this during the full segment and I don’t want to leave it out:

This is not usually a problem as the relevant case law is often attached to the statute when it’s provided to juries or grand juries. This is partly why legislatures don’t constantly revise all their laws everytime the SCOTUS makes a decision, the courts and DA’s are supposed to keep up to date and handle it.

Less so the Officers on the street.

The point here is that St. Louis County DA, either by accident or by design, didn’t provide the case law until 6 weeks later after all the testimony and exhibits were done.

2:58 PM PT: Officer Pantaleo stated to GJ, due to some partial releases, that he was trained at the academy to use that particular choke maneuver. The first problem with that is that choke-holds were supposedly banned as part of NYPD policy after the choke-hold death of Anthony Baez in 1994, which led to Officer Francis Livoti being prosecuted Federally – after being indicted twice then acquitted in State Court – and was ultimately sentenced to 7 years in prison. Pantaleo is only 29 years old, so since the entire time that he’s been on the Force, and when he went through the Academy, the choke hold has been banned by NYPD.

The second issue is that he’s doing it wrong. The point of the carotid choke hold is to restrict blood flow to the brain and render the subject unconscious by compressing the arteries, It’s not to put pressure on the windpipe which can be crushed in the process. From the video Pantaleo is putting his full weight directly on Garner’s windpipe, not on his carotid arteries which are on the sides of the neck. This mistake a major reason by many PD have banned the practice for decades. What Pantaleo, and the other officers who piled on top of Garner thus further compressing his chest and helping to asphyxiate him, was a public hanging without the rope.

3:11 PM PT: Not to pile on, but Police took seven minutes to give Garner CPR after they took him down.

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO THE GREANVILLE POST BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES—EVER. That’s a guarantee.

Behind the Video of Eric Garner’s Deadly Confrontation With New York Police

U.S. CRIME

Josh Sanburn | @joshsanburn (Originally July 22, 2014)

TIME talks with the man who filmed the fatal incident on Staten Island

Updated July 23, 2014

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n July 17, Ramsey Orta was talking to his friend, Eric Garner, about where to eat dinner — Friday’s, maybe, or Applebee’s. They eventually decided on Buffalo Wild Wings, but Garner never made it. Soon, a fight broke out nearby, Orta says, and after Garner helped break it up, New York Police Department officers on the scene accused Garner of selling untaxed cigarettes and attempted to arrest him.

Meanwhile…

Garner, a 43-year-old father of six who was unarmed at the time, argued with the officers about why he was being targeted. To corral Garner, one officer used what appeared to be a chokehold, a technique banned by the NYPD. Several others helped drag him to the ground. Garner, who had a history of health problems, died soon after.

Orta recorded the incident on his phone and the video has helped turn the fatal encounter from a local tragedy into a national debate over the use of force by police. Orta, 22, says he’s known Garner for several years and called him “the neighborhood dad.” Orta’s video shows what appears to be one officer pressing Garner’s face into the sidewalk as other officers attempt to subdue him. On the ground, Garner can be heard repeatedly saying “I can’t breathe.”

CLICK TO ENLARGE ^

“I felt like they treated him wrong even after the fact that they had him contained,” Orta says.

Since Orta’s video became public after being published by the New York Daily News, the officer who grabbed Garner by the neck, Daniel Pantaleo, was ordered to turn in his badge and gun; another was reassigned to desk duty. The four emergency medical workers who responded to the scene have also been suspended without pay. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said he was “very troubled” by the footage, and both prosecutors and the NYPD are investigating the incident.

Lynch’s lack of flexibility and total support for his union members does a disservice to police in general . The man shows his mediocrity in striking such predictable poses. To deny a crime recorded on video is simply stupid.

Patrick J. Lynch, the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, criticized the department’s response as “a completely unwarranted, kneejerk reaction for political reasons and nothing more.”

Orta recorded another violent arrest at the same location in Staten Island a week earlier. He says officers have harassed him since the Garner video became public, but he says he isn’t likely to put his camera away if something happens in his Staten Island neighborhood again.

“It just gives me more power to not be afraid to pull out my camera anytime,” he says. “Even if they’re pushing me back, I might just like keep going forward and if I get arrested, hey, I got something on camera.”

Video reported by Paul Moakley, edited by Raymond Chu

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO THE GREANVILLE POST BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES—EVER. That’s a guarantee.

ALERT: No indictment in Eric Garner’s homicide

BREAKING NEWS
Cop Won’t Be Indicted For Eric Garner’s Chokehold Death

If you get a feeling of nausea upon hearing this verdict, you are not alone. Every single person should be revolted at this latest instance of injustice in the United States.

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] grand jury voted Wednesday not to indict New York City police officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner, multiple sources confirm. Pantaleo put 47-year-old Garner into a chokehold during an arrest for selling untaxed cigarettes on July 17. In a viral video of the arrest, Garner can be seen screaming “I can’t breathe!” multiple times until his body goes limp. A medical examiner later ruled his death a homicide.

Cops ganging up on Garner, and clearly using too much force, despite his cries of difficulty breathing. It’s all documented in multiple videos.

Chokeholds are banned by NYPD guidelines, and Garner’s death prompted large protests across the city.

MEANWHILE, the nation has yet to see a bankster in a chokehold, let alone one killed by the police. And even in such case that would be wrong if not outright criminal cop behavior.

The grand jury’s decision Wednedsay comes just over a week after a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri declined to indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

This is a developing story…

VIDEOS BELOW / They speak for themselves.

http://youtu.be/IYSnp1UGVGc

http://youtu.be/En5linhM7Qo

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO THE GREANVILLE POST BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES—EVER. That’s a guarantee.

An Instant of Paradise

First published in our sister site, Cyrano’s Journal Today

[“Isolation” by Neriak.]

By Gaither Stewart, Senior Editor.

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO THE GREANVILLE POST BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES—EVER. That’s a guarantee.