Tag Archives: US politics

Four Reasons the “Only 8 Unarmed Black Men Killed by Cops” Argument is Complete Garbage

Apologists for police brutality have a number of tricks up their sleeves for trying to justify the death and abuse suffered by their fellow citizens at the hands of police. They love to throw out half-baked and partially understood statistics in this attempt to shield criminal cops from ever being held accountable for their crimes.

At the current time with such energy behind a movement to reform the country’s corrupt police force, they have seized upon repeating in a mantra like fashion the line that “only 8 (or 14 or whatever) unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019.”

There is so much wrong with this statement that it’s almost hard to know where to begin addressing it all. USA Today published a decent article pointing out multiple flaws with this statement, but they missed some significant details that show the complete irrelevance of this claim and the questionable character of anyone spreading it.

I’m not really going to address the racial issue much, because to me it’s a secondary injustice that only matters because of the primary injustice of police unnecessarily brutalizing and killing people and rarely seeing any significant consequences. I’ll just say this: it is true that Native Americans and African Americans are more likely to be killed when interacting with police than are white people. However, whites get killed by police too because police kill, and racism makes this problem worse.

Below are four specific points that briefly explain how this “only eight” canard is dubious at best and furthermore reveal the lack of discernment being used by anyone repeating it.

 

1 – Is someone being “armed” in and of itself justification for a cop to kill or brutalize a person?

The people spreading the “only eight” canard are conflating the word “armed” with the idea of an violent criminal. They’re not the same thing at all. They seem to assume or at least want us to assume “armed” means the victim was actively shooting or otherwise threatening someone. But really, it doesn’t tell us much about what conspired at the scene of the killing at all.

I had a recent exchange with a cop who tried to justify a local killing by police of a teenager by telling me the victim was “armed” at the time. However, the victim was riding his bicycle home and was run over by the cop who perpetrated the crime with his car. The kid never brandished a weapon and never threatened anyone. They just happened to find a “weapon” on his body after killing him. He was “armed.”

This is the USA. We have this thing called the Second Amendment that recognizes Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. For this reason the United States is home to the most heavily armed population in the world. A significant number of law abiding citizens carry a weapon, also known as being “armed” on American streets.

A licensed concealed carry holder like Philando Castile could be murdered by police and be listed as “armed” at the time of their killing whether they were engaged in any crime or not.

So, if being “armed” in and of itself is not enough reason for police to kill then why make the point at all? Why not tell us how many people killed by police were actively shooting, pointing their weapon or in some way, ANY way presenting a GENUINE THREAT at the time of their killing? I suspect it’s because they would rather not have that conversation. It would require too much honesty.

2 – “Armed” with what?

What exactly does “armed” mean anyway? I get the idea they’d like us to assume it means the victim had a gun. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. A pocket knife or a beer bottle can be a deadly weapon. To a cop any number of mundane objects can be considered a weapon and a reason to shoot. Maybe it was nunchucks or a really sharp pencil. We just don’t know. All we know is they were “armed.” Or at least we know the police said they were.

Unless we know exactly what each person killed by police was “armed” with, we don’t even know what that statement means. Really, it doesn’t mean anything at all, at least as far as justifying a killing.

 

3 – Even if the victim was “armed” with some object, that does not preclude murder.

Simply put: A person can be murdered & the cop not even know they were “armed” until after searching their dead body or automobile and finding something they can consider a weapon. If a cop doesn’t even know a person is armed before killing them as it was with the young boy mentioned in point #1 above, it doesn’t even matter. It’s an irrelevant detail only discovered after the fact and then being used in an attempt to justify murder.

A detail like this doesn’t matter to the police brutality apologist. To them all that matters is the victim was “armed.”

4 – How do we even know the victim was “armed” in the first place?

To me, this might just be the most important point on this short list.

Who says the victim was “armed” in the first place? Were there any neutral witnesses or are we just going on the word of police involved in the killing? The “official” report is the police report as reported by the police involved.

Are we supposed to just listen and believe? Should we #BelieveAllCops, as if cops don’t lie and fabricate or plant evidence to cover their asses? Is that your fantasy world? I’ve got news for you. Cops lie and falsify evidence all the time, because they can get away with it.

A cop in Florida was recently caught planting illegal drugs on people for what seemed to be nothing more than his hobby. Dozens of people were sent to jail, and had their lives ruined. At least one person lost custody of their children because of this cop’s lies and this is just a single cop. Bottom line: cops lie. The “official” reports mean absolutely nothing on their own merit.

In conclusion, anyone pushing the “cops only kill a few unarmed people” are one of two things. At best they are naive.
Or they are something much worse; intentionally being deceptive, using meaningless statistics to justify the continued murder of the “undesirable classes.”

Maybe some people have chosen to believe in the myth of these angelic and honorable beings called police who are incapable of doing wrong. They should not be surprised when they are ridiculed for this naïveté because holding and perpetuating such ideas is harmful to a free society.

Opposition to the Redskins Name is About More than Being Offended

The Washington DC football team announced on Monday that it would be retiring it’s racist mascot causing nation-wide discussion. Yours truly has certainly been well into the fray.

A young lad has sought to question me on my stance and impugn the validity of Native American concerns on this subject. As is a standard practice of mine, if it takes more than a couple paragraphs to make my point online, it goes on the blog. So, here we go.

“Yeah that’s some who are offended, I know some indigenous people who aren’t. Aunt Jemaimahs family begged for the company to not issue a rebranding, apparently syrup is now racist too. I’ve never understood why anyone other than a white guy with a sunburn would be offend of the term “redskin”. OUR skin isn’t red. Who cares.”

 

It helps to have taken the time to learn the history of that term and Native Affairs in this country. One who has would be less likely to conflate different unrelated issues while repeating sound bites and talking points from conservative media.

It’s not simply “some who are offended.” It’s the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most representative Native organization in the country which has advocated for the interests of Indians for nearly a century. It’s the American Indian Movement, Idle No More, countless tribes, and nations and virtually every native activist movement in this country for 50 years who have recognized the ill social affects of caricatures being the dominant representation of native people in media while rich white people make millions of dollars from it, despite what your buddy on the street might think.

It’s not that the r-word is offensive as in it hurts little snowflake feelings. It is literally the Native American equivalent of the N-word. It is a word used historically as a means to dehumanize Indians.

Throughout the 19th century that term was used to designate Natives as wild savages who were only suited to be killed, hunted down like rabid animals. Bounties were paid for “redskins.” Often times scalps were taken as evidence for the number of “redskins” killed to fetch a higher payment. Be assured when someone called us redskins they were not “honoring” us. They were saying we were less than human and just in the fucking way.

Indians are not honored by a dehumanizing term historically used to encourage and promote our genocide. This is a genocide that continues today by definition as per the UN Council on Genocide, and Raphael Lempkin who coined the term. Natives are still fighting for basic rights and amenities as human beings while mostly white millionaires continue to get rich off the legacy of genocide and colonialism, portraying Indians as the things of their fantasies.

This all gets into media representation and how it impacts the quality of Native life. Indians are only about 1% of the US population. Most of those are concentrated in a few states and mostly in remote communities. So, the average American does not have any meaningful interaction with a Native American on a daily basis, much less a native community. These people get the majority of their perceptions of Indians from media and sports. This includes some natives as well who have been acculturated, are often urban and do not interact with a native community.

How Natives are represented in media affects how we are viewed by the majority of the population. How we are viewed by the majority of the population matters when we need our issues to be taken seriously and acted upon in an appropriate manner.

If we are viewed as impish caricatures, savage beasts, or even romanticized relics of a bygone era, we are not seen as real human beings. That affects the socio-political environment which we as 1% of the population are powerless to overcome on our own.

If we’re not viewed accurately as real, modern humans then our tribal sovereignty is not viewed as something to take seriously. Our land rights are at risk, our religious rights are at risk (did you know Indian religions were outlawed until 1978?), our very existence as Indian people is at risk. And when these harmful stereotypes infect our own youth it has been shown to negatively impact their self perception and limit their imagination as to what they’re capable of achieving in life. This has long-term negative implications for individuals as well as for tribes and nations.

There is far more at stake here than simple hurt feelings about the color of our skin.

Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America

Today, January 20, 2016 Donald J. Trump placed his right hand on the Lincoln Bible and a bible from his childhood and swore his oath of office as the 45th President of the United States. It was an emotionally charged and patriotic event for the country that took up arms and won our independence from England 241 years ago.

In his inauguration speech, President Trump recapitulated the messaging that won him the presidency in a hotly contested election process. He began by acknowledging the significance of the peaceful transfer of power that defines the democratic process of the United States, and he thanked the Obamas for their help during the transition process.

The President repeatedly made reference to this being a transfer of power from a small group of elites in Washington DC back to the American People who have born the expense and suffered the cost of a faltering economy, impoverished inner-cities and a failing education system under their rule.

        

He promised “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer,” and that “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.” He issued a strong criticism of business as carried out by Washington over the past that has “made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.”

Trump stated unequivocally that “from this moment on, it’s going to be America First,” explaining that “we will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” He assured us that “we will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.”

In a plea for a unity in the nation the President told us his oath is one of allegiance to all Americans. “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” He reminded us of “that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.”

          

He assured us in classic Trump fashion that America will start winning again like never before, and concluded his remarks with “Together, We Will Make America Strong Again. We Will Make America Wealthy Again. We Will Make America Proud Again. We Will Make America Safe Again. And, Yes, together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God Bless You, And God Bless America.”

A new day dawns in the United States that will be felt throughout the world. The era of Obama is in the rear view. Today begins the era of President Trump.

The future is ahead of us.