Friday, December 30

UPDATE: Defendant in Walter Scott Death To Be Retried After Mistrial Declared

Before you read this post, I have to offer a disclaimer so that you won't think I'm any crazier than you already do. Or perhaps so that you won't think I'm newly crazy... Anyway, several months ago I began having trouble with Blogger (again) and have been  unable to correct the issue. I'm tired of taking hours to get out a post (or days) and have it still not be correct. So, I'm just posting this the way it is; perhaps someone will be able to help me correct it. (I do know some HTML 5/CSS 3)  The issue is the font; if you notice, in some places it's sentence case while in others it's all uppercase. I didn't do that, when I wrote it everything was in sentence case. When I hit Preview though, it all changed....
************************************************************************************

Well hallelujah,  democracy lives! I won't say 'justice', because we haven't seen that yet, but I'm praying  for it! Especially in this case, where they have it on videotape that the man was running away from the police officer after a traffic stop and the officer pulled  his gun and shot the man in the back, then placed a Taser by his dead body. His claim was that he was in fear for his life because the man running from him might have turned around and charged the officer!!!
"Slager testified that even at 18 feet away, Scott still posed a threat to him and could have turned around and charged him."
So he didn't shoot because the man was turning around, fumbling at his waistband, yelling threats, none of the usual dumb excuses; he shot because he thought the man who was obviously so scared that he was running away might turn around (at 18 feet  away) and charge him. Meaning the man  might run back the 18  yards he'd gained and attack the officer. If he was scared enough to run in the first place, why does this guy think we're going to believe that he thought the runner might turn around and come back? Nah, don't wash with me officer, no way. You shot him because he was 18 feet away already and gaining ground with every step, and you couldn't let it be said that you lost him because he outran you, so you took him down. (Of course that's JMHO)

Here's the story for you to read yourselves.

Walter Scott Cop To Be Retried for Murder in 2017

Ex-officer Michael Slager will again face a state jury trial for shooting Scott in the back beginning on March 1.

BY: The Root Staff
POSTED: December 30, 2017

Monday, December 12

Felony Charge Dropped For Jury Foreman - What Is Wrong With This Headline?

Personally, i thought there was a rule or something about impaneling a jurist who has a pending criminal case? Wouldn’t that seem like a good reason for the defense to not want to impanel him? After all, he’s a youngish black man with a pending criminal case, he might take this case as a way to “get back at the system” for what’s being done to him? At the very least he might try to swing the jury around to seeing it from his point of view, that of the ‘downtrodden blacks’ ؟ 

FELONY CHARGE DROPPED FOR JURY FOREMAN AS HE SERVED ON MICHAEL SLAGER TRIAL

THE ONLY BLACK JUROR WHO ALSO SERVED AS FOREMAN DURING THE MICHAEL SLAGER TRIAL HAD A PENDING FELONY CHARGE AGAINST HIM THAT WAS SUDDENLY DROPPED BY PROSECUTORS DURING THE TRIAL. IRONICALLY, SLAGER’S TRIAL ENDED IN A MISTRIAL.
ACCORDING TO THE POST AND COURIER, DORSEY MONTGOMERY WAS INDICTED LAST YEAR ON BREACH OF TRUST WITH FRAUDULENT INTENT FOR OFFERING $5500 IN DISCOUNTS WHILE WORKING AT BEST BUY, BUT HE WAS STILL CHOSEN FOR THE JURY ANYWAY. IT APPEARS THAT MONTGOMERY’S CHARGES WERE DROPPED THREE WEEKS INTO THE TRIAL WHICH WAS ALSO THE DAY THAT HE WAS APPOINTED AS THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY. HAD MONTGOMERY BEEN FOUND GUILTY HE COULD HAVE SERVED UP TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.
IT’S UNCLEAR IF MONTGOMERY’S PAST WAS BROUGHT UP DURING JURY SELECTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE BARRED THE PUBLIC FROM ATTENDING THE EARLY PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL. SLAGER’S LAWYERS ADMIT THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF THE 35-YEAR-OLD’S CHARGES AND THAT HE DID NOT OPT TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM THE JURY PANEL, THE POST AND COURIER REPORTED.
I’M A BIG BOY,” MONTGOMERY TOLD THE NEWSPAPER ON THURSDAY. “WHATEVER TRANSPIRED TRANSPIRED. WHAT HAPPENED HAPPENED. WHATEVER WAS DONE WAS DONE.
MONTGOMERY HAS BEEN DOING THE MEDIA ROUNDS LATELY, RAISING A FEW EYEBROWS WITH STATEMENTS SUCH AS PRIOR TO JURY SELECTION HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE WALTER SCOTT SHOOTING; THAT RACE DIDN’T SEEM TO BE THE DRIVING FACTOR FOR THE JURY’S DECISION; AND THAT HE BELIEVED THAT SLAGER, WHO SHOT SCOTT IN THE BACK AND PLANTED A TASER ON HIS DEAD BODY, “DIDN’T DO ANYTHING MALICIOUS.”

“Didn’t do anything malicious”???? Did i read that correctly? “planted a taser on his dead body”?? That wasn’t malicious, trying to make it look as if he was attacking the cop so the cop could kill him??? What was it then, if it wasn’t malicious??? Someone, anyone! Please tell me exactly what that is, if it’s not malicious???

This is the definition I found for ‘malicious’:
adjective
  1. characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.
"malicious destruction of property"
synonyms:
spitefulmalevolent, evil-intentioned, vindictivevengefulmalignmeannastyhurtful,mischievous, wounding, cruelunkind; More

Dorsey Montgomery, please tell me that again, that what the cop did was not ‘malicious’; sure sounds like it to me!

Sunday, December 11

If We're "Making America Great" Why Does This Happen?

The initial incident actually happened in mid-November 2016, on Veteran's Day. Chili's Restaurant gave a free meal to all veterans, who were required to show proof of service if it was requested. I think this is so sad... first that this man, this veteran,  fought to defend this country only to be treated like a common criminal when he went to  Chili's for a meal;  then, when he speaks out about the mistreatment he received there, he gets death threats and has to move. And what started the whole thing at Chili's? Allegedly it was a Trump supporter! Another portend of things to come for blacks, women, and any other  historically downtrodden minority.

Veteran Denied Chili’s Discount Moves Out of Home Because of Threats

ERNEST WALKER HAS MOVED HIS FAMILY OUT OF ERNEST WALKER SAYS THAT HIS ADDRESS WAS PUBLISHED AFTER BEING DENIED (WRONGLY) A CHILI'S DISCOUNT, AND HE NO LONGER FELT SAFE AT HIS HOME.

Ernest Walker
Ernest Walker has moved his family out of their Ovilla, Texas home because of racially charged threats he's reportedly received,  according to WFAA-TV.  This is reportedly not the first time the U.S. Army veteran was disrespected. He received an apology from Chili's restaurant after getting denied a free mail on Veteran's Day.
According to  WFAA, Walker says that ever since he decided to speak out about the treatment he received at Chili's, he and his family have been targets of anonymous threats. "We've received phone calls, and it's always a restricted line," Walker explained. People are saying , 'Hey, we know where you live.'"

The threats that Walker and his family have been receiving have reportedly been arriving through phone calls, mail, and online. After a Dallas media agency published his address, Walker and his wife decided to move out of their home.

"We had to protect ourselves," Walker said. "So we had to leave. We had to take our dog away from the house because there was threats  against our dog.
Walker and his supporters are set to host a free luncheon for vets next month.

"This country right now is wounded," said Walker. "There needs to be a healing process.  For the people that reached out to me from all different colors, races, creeds, and religions, that let me know there is hope for this country."

Saturday, December 10

Well, Well, Well, And So It's Confirmed....

Or Should I Say " And So,  Once Again, It's Confirmed"?


From The Root: 
USA Today did a thorough investigation of fatal pursuits between 1999 and 2015 and  found that though African Americans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population they are 28 percent of those killed—including innocent bystanders.
Boston Police, April 19, 2013, in Watertown, Mass. Jared Wickerham/Getty ImagesPhoto by: Jared Wickerham/Getty Images
Innocent bystanders!! Not just black men who commit crimes and run from the police? Not just black men who try to take an officer's weapon?Not just black men who do not listen to an officer's orders? Wow, that's amazing!!  Yes, I'm being sarcastic, in answer to the many people I've come across whose first response to another killing is 'Well, they shouldn't have been committing crimes' or 'They shouldn't have been in the area' or something else equally as asinine.
Here's the article, which was originally published on April 19th, 2013:

In a first of its kind investigation, USA Today found that black people in the U.S. have been killed in police chases at a rate nearly three times higher than anyone else. The rub is that this included both those fleeing law enforcement and innocent bystanders. The outlet was able to thoroughly and meticulously illustrate yet another example of long-standing and deadly inequality in U.S. policing.
Pursuits are among the most dangerous police activities. They have killed more than 6,200 people since 1999. Black people make up 13 percent of the U.S. population but are 28 percent of those killed in pursuits whose race was known.
Among the findings (which strongly confirm a disparity and a likely bias in policing):
  • Blacks have been killed at a disproportionate rate in pursuits every year since 1999. On average, 90 black people were killed each year in police chases, nearly double what would be expected based on their percentage of the population.
  • Deadly pursuits of black drivers were twice as likely to start over minor offenses or non-violent crimes. In 2013 and 2014, nearly every deadly pursuit triggered by an illegally tinted window, a seat-belt violation or the smell of marijuana involved a black driver.
  • Black people were more likely than whites to be chased in more crowded urban areas, during peak traffic hours and with passengers in their cars, all factors that can increase the danger to innocent bystanders. Chases of black motorists were about 70 percent more likely to wind up killing a bystander.
USA Today examined federal records for 5,300 fatal pursuits since 1999, when the government started tracking the races of people killed in car crashes. USA TODAY also took a deeper delve into 702 chases in 2013 and 2014, reviewing thousands of pages of police documents and hours of video of pursuits across the nation.
The racially lopsided death toll mirrors almost exactly the disparity in police shooting deaths. Yet police chases have remained largely unexplored even as the Justice Department moves to track more carefully other types of deadly interactions with the police.
The outlet shared its findings with nearly a dozen of the nation’s leading researchers on race and policing as well as police department officials who predictably claimed that race is not a factor.
“This is not giving someone a traffic ticket. This is people dying,” said Jack McDevitt, director of Northeastern University’s Institute on Race and Justice. “The cost of having small disparities is huge because you’re ending up with loss of life.”
Police officials, including those from the Michigan State Police, said a suspect’s race has no impact on officers’ decision to pursue. Instead, they suggested that any disparity was likely a byproduct of police spending more time in high-crime neighborhoods.
The news org even analyzed fatal pursuits in the daytime versus night, when police are not as clearly able to see someone’s skin color. It found that in daylight, 31 percent of the drivers involved in deadly police chases were black, but in darkness 21 percent of the drivers in deadly chases were black.
Whatever its causes, the disparity is clear:
For every 100,000 black people in the United States, 4 were killed in police chases over the 17 years between 1999 and 2015.
For every 100,000 people who are not black, 1.5 were killed.
Read more of this provocative and important report at USA Today.


Saturday, December 3

A Note of Thanks To The Woman Who Recorded Jennifer Boyle at Michels.

Some Black Protesters Could Learn A Lot From This White Woman.


A lot has been said about this woman Jennifer Boyle, about her racism, her  insensitivity, her out of her head rants at both Michels and Peet's Coffee.  She's been splashed all over social media, and millions of people have spent so many incalculable minutes of their valuable time discussing her and her antics that there isn't really anything new to be said about her....
What I want to say is to the woman who recorded this video. THANK YOU. Our society has become so apathetic and uncaring that most people would have just shaken their heads and walked by. If anyone did record it, it would have been for the shock value, or for the notoriety they could get among their peers. Listening to the conversation when she approached you, no one would have ever known that you were just an ordinary shopper, out with your child doing some shopping. For the most part you did not take sides other than to tell her she needed help for her ranting and raving manner; even when she accused your child of stealing and you of having a "husband who's cheating on you" and of having "a pathetic life" you remained calm, and continued to record. You didn't get into a debate with her (as the manager spent about 8 minutes doing, to no avail) or get outwardly angry and start yelling at her, you very calmly continued to record her antics, even when she claimed to be recording your child (which I don't believe she did.)

A lot of people watching that video probably jumped up at that point and exclaimed loudly what they 'would have done' if it had been them; they would have  hit her, or told her off, or "slapped the  *^#@  phone out of her hand" (an actual quote from someone I know!) , and there are those who would have done exactly that. What good would it have done though? We saw what the manager accomplished.  (Nothing.) For every reasonable, logical thing the manager said, Boyle came back with more nonsense.  If someone (say you, the video recorder) had hit or, or cursed at her, or damaged her phone, at the very least you would have become embroiled in that woman's fantasy of discrimination at the hands of all non-Trump supporters,  at the very worst you would have been arrested and charged with assault, which there would have been video of, so you would have been found guilty and would have a record. Besides which, your child would have had to suffer watching mommy get taken away by the police.  Not cool....

It's my personal opinion of course, but I think you did exactly the right thing.  You stood up for what was right (by making a video of as much as you could) you didn't back down when she came over to you, and you didn't inflame the situation any further by overreacting to her. She spent a couple of minutes trying to goad you into doing something, then moved away to look for other 'prey'.  You and your child were still there, not in jail, not bruised, and still recording. I understood the shaking afterwards. Don't worry about it, being that close to that much hate and/or insanity can do that to you.

I think all the rioters and looters and violent protesters out here could learn a lot from you. If you give the enemy a reason to focus on you, your cause is lost and forgotten, i.e. if you had screamed or cursed at her, the fact that the video was about her behavior would have been lost. It would have become all about you and how you behaved. As it was, I got a very clear picture of her and what she was doing, and how uncalled for it was.  This is what's happened with BLM; everyone has become so riled up about some of the protesters' behavior that what they are protesting, the original basis for BLM, has been pushed aside.

For me, your video was about much more than the wild raving of some woman. It clearly showed the difference between Trump supporters and non-supporters, and validated some of what so many have said about the upcoming administration.

Thank you.




*The opinions expressed in this blog are those of its author only, and in no way represent Blogger, Google, or any other entity.