Ferguson Officer Wilson a no-show in separate drug case claiming excessive force
Ferguson
police officer Darren Wilson, the selfsame Officer Wilson who
unceremoniously shot down and killed unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown
this year, did not show up for a scheduled court appearance in a
separate incident this week.
It was an illegal drug case in which
Wilson was the arresting officer last February.
In fact, all half-dozen of Wilson's cases wherein he is the arresting
or investigating officer have been placed on hold – except for the drug
case against one Christopher Brooks (pictured above courtesy of USA
Today).
This particular case seems to have slipped through the legal
cracks. Indeed, a grand jury (separate from the Michael Brown grand
jury) has been tasked to review the case against Christoper Brooks.
As per USA Today, a judge approved a request by prosecutors Monday to
refer Brooks' case to a St. Louis County grand jury. However, Ed Magee,
a spokesman for Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch (the same
prosecutor “prosecuting” the case against Wilson in the Brown matter)
later said that the Brooks case (as well as all cases involving Wilson) is "on hold" until the Brown matter is resolved.
Interestingly, Magee called this grand jury referral and delay of
pending cases involving Wilson “standard procedure." That is, when
police officers are not immediately available to testify in court, they
are given an automatic, no-questions-asked, benefit of doubt
because...well...just because.
This is particularly interesting because when defendants are “not available” or fail to show up in court -- for whatever reason
-- their cases are never deferred, delayed or put “on hold.” Warrants
for their arrest on sight are immediately issued; and when found, they
are placed firmly behind bars – and without bail until a judge deigns to
grant them a hearing. That indeed is what would have happened to
Christoper Brooks had he not been in court for his preliminary hearing, doncha know.
As for the instant case, Christopher Brooks' attorney Nick Zotos
alleges that award-winning Officer Wilson "roughed up" his client when
Brooks refused to hand over the keys to a locked car parked in his
grandmother's driveway. After the “roughing up” of Brooks and the
forcible taking of his keys, Wilson and his fellow officers say that
they found drug paraphernalia and several ounces of marijuana in the
vehicle.
Zotos wants the charges against his client dismissed for two reasons:
1) The arresting officer did not show up in court for the preliminary
hearing which is where the charges are made and the judge determines
their validity; and 2): "Wilson is compromised as a witness," said
Zotos.
That's putting it mildly. It may the understatement of the year.
Apparently, it was the judge who moved the case to the grand jury, a
motion opposed the by McCulloch's office. And, it is not clear whether
Brooks made the allegation against Wilson before or after Brown was
killed.
As has been widely reported, Officer Wilson was given a police award
last year. But, did you know that that award was proffered for his
actions in this very case – the one wherein he now refuses to appear in
court?
James P. Towey is general counsel for the Missouri Fraternal Order of
Police and a former general counsel for the St. Louis Police Officers
Association. As such, he may be considered an apologist...er
advocate...for all police and especially for Wilson during this
“difficult” period. Towey allows, for example, that Wilson may be
willing to publicly discuss this, the Brown, and any other case in the
future.
Obviously, however, if Wilson is ever charged, let alone
convicted, of any wrongdoing in any of his pending cases, I'm betting
that he will remain closed-mouth. And, of course, Towey would not reveal
the whereabouts of Wilson, who has remained in hiding since his
shooting to death of Michael Brown last August 9.
As to Wilson's award, Zotos was not impressed:
"We give trophies every day for just showing up," he said after the
brief hearing in St. Louis Circuit Court. "If you play on the team, you
get a trophy."
As indicated, the judge in the Brooks case, together with the county
prosecutor's acquiescence, agreed to move the Brooks drug matter to the
grand jury.
The real question is why. Why must this award-winning cop now
suddenly be shielded from public scrutiny? Think about it. There are now
two grand juries sitting in judgment of this one Ferguson police
officer. The secrecy of grand jury proceedings means that Wilson will
not have to testify in “open” court; that his testimony will never have
to be revealed; that the case against him will never have to be made
public.
Obviously and clearly, the fix is in for Officer Darren Wilson. He is
in an undisclosed location, still getting paid, still empowered with
badge and gun and authority. Both of these grand juries, will come back –
whenever they decide to come back – with verdicts of “no bill” – no
wrongdoing in either case against Officer Darren Wilson.
References
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/darren-wilson-ferguson-police-officer-no-show-for-court-testimony-1.2782152
http://gawker.com/darren-wilson-no-show-threatens-to-derail-year-old-drug-1640793206
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/30/cases-involving-ferguson-police-officer-on-hold/16466333/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories
http://blacklikemoi.com/2014/09/darren-wilson-show-court-hes-accused-manhandling-suspect/
Category
GOP rep. tells army generals to resign en masse in protest of Obama's foreign policy
A sitting member of congress, a Republican, has taken his dislike and
disagreement with all things Obama to an entirely different, and very
likely treasonous, level.
According to the Colorado Independent newspaper, US Rep. Doug Lamborn
(R-Colo.) told a secret meeting of Army generals that it is their duty
to resign en masse in order to not just protest but to derail President
Obama's military moves in the Middle East. His remarks came just as
US-led air strikes continued Friday near the Syrian border with Iraq.
Lamborn,
who is running for reelection against a retired Air Force General, told
a group of voters of his prior meeting with the generals – and he
allowed that he was not the only Republican congress-creature who
advocated mass resignations by Army generals:
“A lot of us," he said last Tuesday, "are talking to
the generals behind the scenes, saying, ‘Hey, if you disagree with the
policy that the White House has given you, let’s have a resignation.’”
(Emphasis added).
And, to make a mass walk-out by Army leaders attractive, he assured
the generals that if and when they resigned – as a unified group – they
would be seen by real Americans as true American heroes, and “go out in a blaze of glory.”
Even more interesting (and frightening) is that Lamborn is a member
of the House Armed Services Committee. Throughout his eight years in
Congress, Lamborn has remained pretty much a “back bencher,” never
attracting any real attention to himself beyond one doomed legislative
proposal: the championing a House-approved measure to defund National Public Radio.
The Independent suggests that this congressman could not possibly be
serious about urging mass defections among the army's general staff. It
seems to think that this may just be a publicity stunt geared to
energize his flagging reelection campaign.
I, however, believe he is serious, and reflects the views of
not just a number of fellow GOP congressmen and women, but their far
right constituencies as well. Indeed, as a member of the House Armed
Services Committee, there is little doubt that he regularly meets
“behind the scenes” in “executive” or classified sessions, with military
generals. In these meetings, it is quite possible, if not probable,
that he and other Republicans suggest and explore all manner of ways and
means to undermine Obama – including resignations to disrupt Obama-led
foreign policy during a war.
In past administrations, when a member of Congress disagreed with a
president’s foreign policy, he or she usually made passionate speeches
against the policy and/or introduced or supported legislation limiting
or defunding the particular policy with which they disagreed. Not so
with this current group of Obama-haters. The "normal" and "usual" ways
of expressing disagreement with this president have long ago gone
by the boards -- if civil discourse and disagreement by conservatives
and Republicans were ever in place at all vis-a-vis President Obama.
Private meetings with generals in the midst of a war and calling upon
them to “go out in a blaze of glory,” is patently, obviously treasonous
and this congressman and/or the generals who heed his advice should so
be charged.
As stated, Lamborn is up for re-election against retired Air Force
Gen. Irv Halter (D). Halter agrees that Lamborn is way "out of bounds"
with this call for mass defection. He told the Independent that,
“Our elected officials should not be encouraging our military leaders
to resign when they have a disagreement over policy. Congressman
Lamborn’s statement shows his immaturity and lack of understanding of
the American armed forces. Someone who serves on the House Armed
Services Committee should know better.”
Commentary
This move by Rep. Lamborn demonstrates once again the depth of the
outright hatred of President Obama by so-called conservatives generally,
the right wing, and most Republicans particularly.
It seems that these people would rather see the entire country fail
rather than allow any “success” whatsoever by Obama's administration.
The call for army generals to resign in protest is only therefore one
step removed from calling upon rank and file soldiers to desert their
posts.
Yet, this is what Lamborn's “call to arms” really means.
A follow-up step would logically be for these selfsame generals and
deserting soldiers to turn their weapons on the White House itself.
Amazing.
A video of Lamborn's remarks may be viewed here.
References
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-rep-urges-us-generals-behind-the-scenes-resign
http://www.krdo.com/news/lambron-under-fire-for-controversial-comments-on-obamas-military-policies/28290324
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/doug-lamborn/
Category
Another white cop shoots unarmed black man -- this time for following orders (Video)
On Wednesday, South Carolina state trooper Sean Groubert, 31, was
arrested and charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated
nature after his dashboard camera surfaced and showed the unnecessary,
unwarranted, and presumably illegal attack.
The video clearly shows Groubert firing at Levar
Jones, a black motorist, at point-blank range as Jones reached into his
vehicle to retrieve his driver's license – at Groubert's request.
After the shooting stops, Groubert is heard telling Jones that he “stopped” him because of a seat belt violation.
The dirty details:
Jones pulls his white SUV into a Shell gas station/convenience store.
His vehicle was completely stopped. He removed his seat belt and exited
the vehicle.
Groubert pulls up on him and asks, “Can I see your license please?”
Jones then turns back toward the still open door to get his license from the vehicle.
Groubert in a panic and rage immediately begins screaming, “Get out
of the car! Get out of the car!” and begins shooting at the unarmed
Jones. Jones had just left his job. He turns and faces this policeman,
throws his hands high into the air with his right hand holding onto his
wallet.
But the officer continues to fire upon him even while his hands are up.
Amazingly – and thankfully – of the total of four shots only one hit Jones in the hip, and his injury is not life-threatening.
Commentary
A recent study has shown that a black man is killed by white police officers, “security” agents, or white vigilante types every 28 hours.
For those many, many white people – “conservative,” liberal,
libertarian, or of any other political persuasion – who insist that
“Driving While Black” (DWB) springs from black folks' mass paranoia, or a
trigger-happy penchant to play the so-called “race card,” this story
with its undeniable video should convince even the most ardent white
supremacists that DWB is a real and present danger each and every time a
black person turns the ignition in his or her vehicle.
This time, however, because of (and only because of) the video evidence, it appears that at
least a modicum of “justice” may will out. This cop is actually facing
criminal charges for his actions and, indeed, has already been fired.
According to The State, former officer Groubert could get 20 years in prison upon conviction.
Look carefully at this footage. Listen carefully as well. Jones
repeatedly asks this cop why he shot him. Finally, Groubert says he
stopped him for not wearing his seat belt.
The video shows that Groubert actually passed Jones, backed up, and then approached him.
After being shot, the cop orders Jones to the ground, hands behind
his back. Jones is still trying to figure out why this is happening.
“Why did you shoot me?” he asks. “Sir, I was just doing what you
asked....getting my license.”
The cop finally says he shot Jones because he reached head first into
his car after what he just knew was a gun. He is heard saying as much
just before he fires at Jones who has his back turned to the officer.
Jones, befuddled and injured, says, “I'm sorry.”
The cop never once apologizes for shooting him.
Every 28 hours.
This shocking (and graphic) video may be seen here.
References
http://www.brothersonsports.com/shocking-video-of-south-carolina-cop-shooting-black-man-for-following-instructions/#prettyPhoto
http://abcnews.go.com/US/dashcam-captures-south-carolina-trooper-shooting-unarmed-man/story?id=25749239
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/25/sc-trooper-faces-felony-assault-charge-after-shooting-unarmed-man-during/
http://www.wltx.com/story/news/local/2014/09/24/video-released-released-of-trooper-involved-shooting/16187305/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/24/ex-trooper-who-shot-unarmed-man-faces-charges/16178961/
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-black-man-killed-every-28-hours-police-or-vigilantes-america-perpetually-war-its
Current Events
23-year-old Hillary's letter to Chicago 'radical' Saul Alinsky reveals search for truth
As Hillary Clinton gears up for another expected run for the White
House, a previously unpublished 1971 letter between the erstwhile
Secretary of State, US Senator, First Lady and the late leftist and
Chicago-based “community organizer” Saul Alinsky has been published.
The Washington Free Beacon posted a 1971 letter
from the then 23-year-old law school graduate revealing her
still-forming ideological bent and shedding considerable light, with
20-20 hindsight, on Hillary's future intellectual development.
“Dear Saul,” the letter begins. “When is that new book [Rules for
Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment
of Revelation?”
“Rules” was (and still is among many former, current and upcoming
“radicals") considered the bible for those who are determined to effect
radical change in this nation-state.
The future New York senator continued:
“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for
Radicals – Alinsky's prior tome] and need some new material to throw at
people.”
Alinsky’s widely read 1946 practical and theoretical guidebook on the
ways and means of effective (results-oriented) community organizing
became a staple among and required reading for those in the 1960s who
protested America's war against Vietnam, demanded civil and human
rights, Black Power and women's rights. (The Gay Liberation Movement was
in its infancy at the time).
Future First Lady Clinton's '71 letter to Alinsky acknowledged and
thanked him for his work in bringing anti-war and human rights movements
to the "mainstream" of American political discourse -- and for his
profound effects in helping focus her personal world view:
“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in
the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton. At
the time, she had just played the role of “moderator” during a Yale
University student election as to whether that campus should join other
campuses which were calling for a nationwide anti-Vietnam War student
strike. She had just graduated and moved to California.
“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and
would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any
chance of our getting together.”
As to her law school experience, Clinton told Alinsky that she had
“survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for
organizing intact.”
“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law
School and the people who haunt them," Clinton wrote, "the more
convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work
ahead, — if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to
mean more than eloquence and frustration."
The former Republican and “Goldwater Girl” had first met Alinsky as a student at Wellesley in1969.
Alinsky's “Reveille” encouraged community organizers to "fan the
latent hostilities" of poor whites, blacks and browns of the ghettoized
cities while "search[ing] out controversy and issues, rather than avoid
them."
The book Clinton was so eagarly anticipating urged organizers to
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it," Alinsky
wrote.
In an indication that she is not and never has been the total
and unrepentant "radical" which today's right loves to aver, she
presciently added this little gem to her l971 letter to Alinsky:
"Hopefully we can have a good argument sometime in the future."
Alinsky's secretary, Georgia Harper, responded
to Clinton's letter telling her that the boss was away on a six-week
trip to Southeast Asia, but that she had taken the liberty to read
Clinton's letter anyway.
“Since I know his feelings about you I took the
liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent
to wait for two weeks,” Harper wrote in the July 13, 1971, response.
“And I’m glad I did.”
“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying
at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,”
Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if
there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”
Interestingly, according to Clinton's 2004
memoir, "Living History," Alinsky had offered her a job after she
finished at Wellesley, but she turned him down in favor of an Ivy League
legal education.
“He offered me the chance to work with him when
I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided
instead to go to law school,” she wrote. “[He] said I would be wasting
my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system
could be changed from within.”
Saul Alinsky
Yes. For the right wing, conservatives, the Tea Party, et al., Saul
Alinsky had a real and present influence in the intellectual development
of both Hillary Clinton (and Barack Obama). Both Clinton and Obama
studied and to a greater or lesser extent followed his methods of
political organization of the poor and marginal.
Thanks to the right wing's takeover of most media outlets (save the
Internet!), Saul Alinsky has come down to us as a shadowy, radical
”Chicago-style” political bogeyman rather than as the actual political
philosopher and grass roots activist whose deep-seated beliefs and
practical application thereof helped to fuel the often real radicalism
of the 1960s. His true meaning and significance in shaping American
politics has therefore been virtually completely obscured by a
correspondent right wing radicalism which has assigned Alinsky,
his motives, and his progidies to an undifferentiated "left wing" world
filled to overflowing only with those who "hate" all things “American.”
This process of delegitimizing Alinsky had begun within his lifetime,
and 23-year-old future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
recognized both Alinsky's significance and the right's efforts to
discredit him even then. “You are being rediscovered again as the New
Left–type politicos are finally beginning to think seriously about the
hard work and mechanics of organizing,” she wrote.
“Hopefully we can have a good argument sometime in the future.” I
repeat and emphasize these words of young Hillary Clinton because they
capture the mutual respect she and Alinsky shared while simultaneously
acknowledging that there were significant areas of disagreement between
the two.
Thus, these words indicate that Hillary Clinton was no “right” or
“left” wing ideologue – at least not at the time this letter was written
in 1971.
On the contrary, like most young people during those turbulent times
and at that highly impressionable age, she was deeply involved in an
active search for the truth.
References
http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-saul-alinsky-letters-155526953.html
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/22/hillary-letters-clinton-saul-alinsky-correspondence-revealed/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/saul-alinsky-secretly-controls-hillary-too.html
Category
Black Missouri politicos form 'Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition,' challenge Democratic Party
A
significant number of black Democrats in Missouri are vowing to
withhold support in the upcoming elections from any candidate –
Democrat, Republican or Independent – whom they deem as “disrespectful”
of the black community.
According to the AP, the just organized Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition,
headquartered in St. Louis, will monitor political candidates' positions
on education, jobs and racial profiling. At this writing, however, the
Coalition, has not pointed to any specific candidates, according to the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Still, St. Louis County Chairwoman Hazel Erby,
the Coalition's leader, has indicated that it is adopting a “wait and
see” attitude as to the candidacies of Democrat Steve Stenger and his
Republican opponent state Rep. Rick Stream. Stenger and Stream are
locked in a battle for the St. Louis County executive's post.
It was last week when many speakers at a St. Louis County Council
meeting loudly excoriated Stenger and demanded that he disavow and
denounce his well-publicized support for County Prosecutor Robert
McCulloch, who, in turn, has politically supported Stenger.
The issue, of course, is that McCulloch's police officer father was
killed by a black suspect. McCulloch is now responsible for the possible
prosecution of Ferguson cop Darren Wilson who killed unarmed teenager
Michael Brown on August 9.
Also, during McCulloch's 25 consecutive years as county prosecutor,
he has not once successfully prosecuted any police officer for the use
of excessive force, police brutality, or police misconduct of any kind
whatsoever.
Stenger has left no wiggle room in the matter, though. He dismisses
the uproar and disapproval of Ferguson's heretofore non-voting black
population as of little consequence to him politically because his
appeal is directed to the larger, white, rural, and pristine suburban
enclaves – the vast majority of St. Louis County.
Thus, Stenger's response to the black people of Ferguson?
"The answer is, 'no,' I'm not going to denounce Bob McCulloch,"
Stenger said, according to the Post. "He has been our elected prosecutor
for 25 years, and by state law he has been charged with doing a
complete, thorough and unbiased job. And I truly believe he will do
that."
Thus, the Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition, and most black people
throughout this nation-state, rather reasonably suspect that McCulloch's
personal and professional history preclude and disqualify him from
handling Wilson's prosecution. Indeed, his obvious and personal biases
and prejudices will unduly influence his decisions in the investigation
Michael Brown's death at the hands of police officer Darren Wilson.
As for the Republican in the county executive race, Stream has said
that he supports not only the naming of a special prosecutor to handle
the investigation in order to "remove all doubt about having a fair and
independent investigation,” but he has also called for the appointment
of special prosecutors for future police shootings.
Erby has issued a statement thusly: "We are all serving notice that
we are not going to support candidates just because they have an
insignia of a donkey behind their name."
Stenger, currently a fellow county council member, has pooh-poohed
Erby's and the Coalition's efforts, saying that he does not expect them
to impact his relationship with her or the council.
"I value her opinion and concerns a great deal," he said. "Directly
and indirectly she has expressed her concerns for her community and our
community. I hope this is the first step toward a meaningful dialogue."
Fannie Lou Hamer
Beginning life as a Mississippi sharecropper, Fannie Lou Hammer (1917 – 1977) became a towering and iconic voting, civil and human rights
leader.
Like Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and so many, many
nameless others before her, by the time of Hamer's death at 59, she had
captured this nation-state's imagination and focused its attention on
the plight of downtrodden blacks nationwide with a determined and
unstoppable will rivaled only by her contemporary Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. himself.
Fannie Lou Hamer was a driving force during the Mississippi Freedom Summer of 1964.
As a child and adult, Hamer suffered all and more of the then usual
indignities reserved for black people at that time. Among many other
atrocities, including beatings and over-work, by the age of 13, she was
picking 200 to 300 pounds of cotton per day. She received only the bare
minimum of “education.” And, like 99 percent of black Mississippians,
she endured the absolute denial of any voice whatever in the political
affairs of her country, state or city. As a black woman, she was, in
fact, the victim of forced sterilization by the white powers that be in
Mississippi under the theory that if something was not done, blacks
might someday actually outnumber whites and could and surely would
reverse the racial table on them.
And so, in the early '60s when the Civil Rights Movement came to Mississippi in the form of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,
Hamer jumped at the chance to get involved. Registration of
Mississippi's 400,000 unregistered black people was SNCC's primary
focus. Later she served as Vice-Chair of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. She became the face and voice of Mississippi's disenfranchised blacks when the MFDP challenged the Democratic Party at its National Convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
It was her down-home, plain-spoken manner and unquestionable belief
in the absolute righteousness of her peoples' plight and cause which
rocketed her to national fame and effectiveness as a civil and human
rights activist.
Space does not allow for a more complete exposition of Fannie Lou
Hamer's impact on the civil rights movement. I invite you (especially
young people) to look her up.
Suffice it to say, though, that the black politicians of Missouri
could not have chosen a more appropriate namesake for their movement to
revamp Missouri's antiquated white political power structure, and force
it -- kicking and screaming, of course – into the 21st century.
References
http://www.mynextfone.co.uk/breaking-news/st-louis-mo-ap-some-black-democrats-say-they-h30335.html
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/09/17/ferguson-protesters-demand-justice-council-meeting
http://breakingbrown.com/2014/09/black-st-louis-politicians-reject-disrespectful-democratic-party-form-fannie-lou-hamer-party/
http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_5509968c-3e8c-11e4-b8fa-d3c00efcf341.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/17/1330422/-What-Type-of-Racists-are-They-62-of-White-St-Louis-Residents-Support-the-Killing-of-Michael-Brown
Current Events
Black Hollywood actress 'detained,' cuffed as a prostitute for kissing white husband in public
Comes now from the “kissing while black” department, Hollywood star Daniele Watts (Django Unchained and the TV show Partners) was recently “detained,” handcuffed and thrown into the back of an L.A. police cruiser for publicly kissing her white husband.
Unfortunately for Watts, L.A.'s finest only know one way to react
when an interracial couple displays affection for each other – assume
that he is a “trick” and she is a prostitute. At least, that was the
rationale given by the police for accosting Watts and her husband, as reported by Mic.com.
This high-profile case of racial profiling occurred not in the deep
dark ghettoes of New York or Chicago, but in the middle of the glitter
of tinsel town – Los Angeles' hallowed enclave known as Studio City.
According to Watts and her husband, Brian James Lucas, two police
officers mistook them for a prostitute and client as they lip-locked on
the street.
It didn't help matters, though, that Watts refused to produce
identification when the cops began questioning her. She was then
promptly handcuffed and placed in the back of their car as they tried to
find out exactly who she was. She was released shortly thereafter.
Watts describes her ordeal much better than I can on her Facebook page. I reproduce it in its entirety below:
When the officer arrived, I was standing on the sidewalk by a
tree. I was talking to my father on my cell phone. I knew that I had
done nothing wrong, that I wasn’t harming anyone, so I walked away.
A few minutes later, I was still talking to my dad when 2 different police officers accosted me and forced me into handcuffs.
As I was sitting in the back of the police car, I remembered the
countless times my father came home frustrated or humiliated by the cops
when he had done nothing wrong. I felt his shame, his anger, and my own
feelings of frustration for existing in a world where I have allowed
myself to believe that “authority figures” could control my BEING … my
ability to BE!!!!!!!
I was sitting in that back of this cop car, filled with
adrenaline, my wrist bleeding in pain, and it occurred to me, that even
there, I STILL HAD POWER OVER MY OWN SPIRIT.
Those cops could not stop me from expressing myself. They could
not stop the cathartic tears and rage from flowing out of me. They could
not force me to feel bad about myself. Yes, they had control over my
physical body, but not my emotions. My feelings. My spirit was, and
still is FREE.
I will continue to look any “authority figure” in the eye without
fear. NO POLICE OFFICER OR GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ME.
WE ARE EQUALS. I KNOW THAT I WILL ALWAYS BE FREE BECAUSE THAT IS THE
NATURE OF MY SPIRIT.
Watts played CoCo in Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained and currently co-stars with Martin Lawrence in Partners.
Watts' husband, Lucas, had this to say on Facebook. “Today, Daniele Watts
& I were accosted by police officers after showing our affection
publicly. From the questions that he asked me as D was already on her
phone with her dad, I could tell that whoever called on us (including
the officers), saw a tatted RAWKer white boy and a hot bootie shorted
black girl and thought we were a HO (prostitute) & a TRICK
(client).”
Think about this ladies. Being accused of prostitution because you
kissed your husband in public. The expression on this woman's face says
it all. Utter humiliation and degredation...the final realization that
she really is not considered fully human by whole segments -- millions
upon millions of people -- in this nation-state.
Opinion
As the personal property of white men for hundreds of years, it has
taken an almost equal amount of time for these rulers of the world to
adjust to the ever-changing dispensation – that women (white, black and
otherwise) are no longer their personal possessions.
With very few but spectacular exceptions, it was not until the late
'60s when the minuscule number of black actresses in Hollywood were
allowed to play any roles other than:
- • Loyal maids to white women,
- • Buxom “mammies” and nannies to white children,
- • Conniving, loud and devious Jezebels,
- • Incessant brow beaters of their depressed black husbands (“Amos & Andy's 'Sapphire'), or
- • The default role of the ubiquitous, sex-obsessed and promiscuous prostitute.
In Watts case, she just had to be a prostitute in the eyes of
these two L.A. police officers. As her husband said, she fit the profile
– and so did he as a tattooed white dude feeling up a black woman in
the middle of Hollywood.
These cops probably figured that if he wasn't a
trick, he was probably her pimp. In the cops' minds, the absolute last
two things these people could be were a possible "legitmate"
boyfriend/girlfriend duo, -- and certainly not a married couple.
But the point here is not these two peoples' relationship. It is the
assumptions about and the “liberties” taken with black women's bodies:
The rape.
The working-them-like-a-mule.
The rape.
The forcing them to deny their own children in favor of yours.
The rape.
Making her man ... her black man,
And sometimes ... her children
watch.
The rape.
References
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/09/lapd_confuses_black_actress_for_prostitute.html?wpisrc=newsletter_jcr%3Acontent%26
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/daniele-watts-arrested-django-unchained-actress-detained-in-los-angeles-after-being-mistaken-for-a-prostitute-9731871.html
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/13/black-actress-daniele-watts-handcuffed-d
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/django-unchained-actress-daniele-watts-handcuffed-by-police-after-kissing-white-husband-1465388
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755113/Django-Unchained-actress-claims-handcuffed-detained-police-mistaken-prostitute-kissed-husband.html
'Game changing' new video shows white workers' immediate reactions to Michael Brown's killing
What
is being called "game changing" new footage showing the reactions of
two white construction workers who actually witnessed Ferguson,
Missouri, teenager Michael Brown's killing has been released.
The video
has been published by CNN. It shows a number of black people gathering
at and near the site immediately following Brown’s slaying. The two
white construction workers are clearly visible in the foreground and can
be heard talking as they face the killing zone.
“He had his f**king hands in the air,” the worker shouted. He later
told CNN that he was not from Ferguson and did not want to be
identified. The boy's “hands were up” when he was killed, he repeated.
"The cop didn't say get on the ground. He just kept shooting." He then said that he actually saw Brown's "brains come out of his head." And, once more with even more emphasis: "His hands were up!," he shouted.
And, for the first time, we hear from the man’s fellow construction
worker, also seen in the video. He told CNN that Brown was indeed
running away from the policeman; that Brown "put his hands up;" and that "the officer was chasing him."
Both men again reiterated that they did not see how the incident began.
The video was recorded on the cellphone of an unidentified witness, CNN reported.
A number of legal eagles have weighed in on the obvious importance of
this new evidence and have made the following interesting, cogent, and
damning points as to Wilson's culpability.
These witnesses are white
Like it or not, believe it or not, these two construction workers'
whiteness will play a pivotal role in this case. They also do not live
in Ferguson and have presumably had no untoward encounters with Ferguson
police in the past.
The reason their whiteness is important, indeed crucial, is because
this killing of a black manchild by a white policeman occurred in
America. It is just that simple. It is just that basic. This is a
fundamentally white supremacist nation-state still mired in white
racism. The skin color of every "criminal justice" defendant is
therefore the first consideration in determining his or her guilt or
innocence.
Mark Geragos, a CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney broke
down this racial dynamic for us in terms of the composition of the
grand jury hearing this case even as we speak. There are nine whites and
three blacks on the 12-member grand jury panel, he says.
"You now have some witnesses who the majority of this grand jury are
going to better relate to. I hate to say it, but that's the reality of
it, and that's why it's a game changer to me," Geragos said.
Of course, Geragos is only stating a truth and the hard reality that
black people have lived with for their not quite five-century sojourn in
this nation-state. For the vast bulk of this country's history, black
people were not allowed to testify against white people in court. After
slavery ended, of course, and straight through to the civil rights
movement, black testimony was always considered less “credible” –
especially against white defendants.
This video is almost in real-time
Of all of the testimony of eye- and earwitnesses, these construction
workers' videotaped reactions are apparently almost contemporaneous with
the shooting. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin explains, "You have practically in real time
someone discussing what they saw, and that's just good evidence," Toobin
said.
The white guys corroborate all of the black witnesses
Every single black person who claims to have seen this killing
insists that Brown was trying to surrender using the universal “hands
up” signal.
Sunni Hostein, also of CNN, weighed in with this:
"They're saying that he was running from the police officer and that
his hands were up," she said. "I don't know what other witness testimony
at this point or account we have to hear. The bottom line is having
your hands up is the universal sign for surrender."
Hostin, however, seemed confused as to why or how the two white guys'
statements are given more credibility than a whole handful of black
witnesses.
"Five other witnesses from the community said the exact same thing,
and it is befuddling to me how with these two witnesses, suddenly this
is a game changer," she said.
Commentary
We are getting closer to a video of the actual killing. I contend
that such a video is out there and will be released whether Wilson is
indicted or not.
Officer Wilson's defenders will continue to support him despite this new “game changing” evidence – or perhaps because of it. Indeed, look for them to double-down in their defense of this latest state-sanctioned killer of a black manchild.
They will first note and take comfort in the fact that the two white
witnesses admit to not seeing the initial contact between Brown and
Wilson. That leaves just enough room for their hope and prayer and
fervent belief – for their fevered imaginings to concoct and take solace
in even the faintest possibility that this big black thug called Brown
somehow and for some mysterious reason attacked their honest, upstanding, hardworking, and above all, innocent white cop who was just doing his duty.
"You have to look at where they're standing," said Neil Bruntrager,
general counsel for the St. Louis Police Officers' Association. Where
the men were positioned is important, he said, because rather than the
50 feet away that they claim, it seems more like 100 feet from the
shooting. Thus, "They couldn't have seen everything," he said,
dismissing their entire testimony as unworthy of even the slightest
consideration.
Wilson's defenders will also claim (hope) that there is more
(preferably exculpatory) evidence out there that has simply not been
publicized. They are also banking on a long grand jury process so that
things might cool down with the coming cold weather. Folks don't riot
during winter, you know. Although a mid-October date had been earlier
mentioned as a likely time when the grand jury would indict or not
indict, officials have now backed off that, saying it could take several months for the grand jury to review all the evidence.
And, Wilson's defenders will hang their hats on the fact that this
video simply does not show the shooting itself – close, but no cigar.
That would be an important point in any defense Wilson might make in
court. An attorney for the unidentified man who filmed the video told
CNN that he began filming about 40 seconds after the shooting.
Bruntrager also says of the video that, "What you have is a
conversation that's occurring after the fact," – well after the fact.
Well, not quite ... as a matter of fact, the videographer, as noted
above, began filming just 40 seconds after the shooting stopped.
Finally, what Bruntrager doesn't mention is what that "after the fact" conversation between the two white construction workers was about: the obvious fact
that his saintly police officer is likely a cold-blooded child killer.
And, from the video, it appears that these two white guys began
protesting against this killing even before any black people did.
References
http://rt.com/usa/187400-ferguson-witnesses-shooting-reaction/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cnn-new-video-shows-eyewitnesses-michael-brown-shooting
http://q13fox.com/2014/09/10/new-witnesses-describe-michael-brown-shooting-scene/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/new-witnesses-video-offer-details-on-michael-browns-shooting#3s2cjtr
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2751762/He-f-g-hands-air-New-video-Michael-Brown-incident-reveals-witnesses-horror-police-shooting.html
