The Practicality of Consumption.

Money carries a lot of weight where ever it goes. It is respected across borders, cultures, and ideologies. It compromises principals just the same as it inspires great accomplishments. It is said to be the root of all evil and in its pursuit, many atrocities have been committed in its name. It has been worshipped as life itself and to some life is deemed not worthy of living without it. The mystique is real because the perception and value placed upon it are so very real. It is the basis of operation in modern society, but its use is still not understood by the multitudes of people who stalk and chase it in their daily pursuits. The time and effort spent in its acquisition is often not reflected in the time and thought given in its consumption and how it is spent. Money is the basis of existence in a material world and can bring riches and favor beyond its face value even if it can’t buy you, love(?). Make no mistake about it money is power and respect, the more money you have the more of each you will receive.

Ever stop to wonder about the value and power of money, it has no value, it is a measurement representative of value, but has no value other than that perceived and manufactured to be accepted as an assigned worth or denomination. That is where its power is in the acceptance and significance placed upon it. The ruling power or government assigns a value that is accepted as a unit of exchange or buying power replacing a bartering system to regulate the consistency of value. It basically replaced trading cows and livestock for goods and services. Before money wealth was judged in a much different way mostly by how much livestock or land one owned. As time progressed and personal services were offered money was the exchanged consideration used as payment to establish a uniform value for services by its acceptance in exchange. It is a matter of supply and demand, determined by is who has it and how badly does someone else wants it.

Money is known as currency because it is expected to “circulate” as a unit of trade equivalent to the value of your time and effort. That is where the gift and the curse lie depending on which end of the currency you are on, the giving end or the receiving end. We are conditioned to accept that the power is all on the giving end but that is not an absolute truth. Those on the giving end have consolidated a position superior to yours because they have something that you want, and you must meet their expectation to receive it. Once it is received then the “flow” changes and the power switches because now they need to put it back into the system in order for the system to survive, their wealth to increase, and the cycle to continue. You earn it, they pay you, and you spend it back into the system starting the process all over again. Money like water must circulate or flow to remain fresh and a current of electricity must flow to produce power but when stagnant becomes a hazard, so it is with currency or money.

The circulation is the key to the value, the velocity of turnover, but since the source of money is much smaller than the need to get it there is a small window of transfer of power and the collective power of the “flow” must be concentrated for the impact to be felt. The effectiveness is not in spending it but in where and how you spend it as well as what you spend it on. The economic strength is in the fist and not the fingers for economic impact to be felt and concessions to be offered or demanded. Smart money will offer concessions prior to being adversely influenced but the majority will only bend to the inevitable when left no other monetary choice.

I once held a job that I liked very much but it was not economically feasible for me and promotions and pay raises seemed to elude me forcing me to seek other opportunities. When it became known that I intended to leave and I gave my two weeks’ notice, only then were offers made to retain me only because I was leaving. I did not have the same value to that entity until it threatened their objective. I still left because I felt that if I was as valued as they now claimed then why was I not straightened out before now to give me what I deserved in order to retain a so-called valued employee. The same is true with buying power. Many consumers have been refused accommodations which would be goodwill and good business practices until they threaten cancellation, then customer retention can offer you a much better deal to keep you. The question is what were they doing to you before if this was available to you but withheld? Cell phone and cable companies were good for such practices in which consumer dissatisfaction gave rise to other alternatives to address the problem and created the competition that had not existed before.

I state that to state if you feel a void will exist for a product, service, or quality of a product then history and economics have proven that someone will create and most likely improve upon that product to meet consumer satisfaction and expectations. Whatever you can’t do without; ask yourself how did you get by before it and what if it became unavailable what would you do? It is most likely a matter of convenience but mostly a preference rooted in status and prestige as a psychological separation elevating your self-worth. That elevation is externally influenced making your economic decisions habitual rather than rational. If any manufacturer of clothing, went out of business you would simply find another manufacturer to your liking. Current trends often make the decisions for you, but why can’t you make the decision for yourself of how and where you spend your money? How you spend your money should be a direct reflection of what you had to do to get it and what is the value of what you spend it on.

There is a huge difference between cost and price. At what cost will you surrender to pay the price of what you want. If you feed it, it will grow and if you starve it will wither or adapt. That is the power of how you spend your money collectively to feed that which feeds your needs outside of the purchase itself to indicate that they gratefully recognize that you have other choices and personal value. If you do not recognize or more sadly do not exercise your choice, then what incentive do they have to value your economic voice or their disregard of it. The strength of the intertwined vine or collective voice is the “bottom line” language that is spoken all around the world and in all languages, financial survival speaks loudly and causes economic mountains to yield.

Why would you enrich those who have offended you or your culture when they stand categorically opposed to your interest except to receive your money? This is funding the opposition and reinforcing their disregard for your voice in addition to assuming an entitlement to your money because you refuse to sever a dysfunctional and abusive consumer affiliation. This is functionally funding your opposition and fueling their continued resistance to your significance. Old heads knew this and would often state they would not spend their money with those that did not support their interest or respect their person or culture. This has evolved from a personal or cultural resistance to include ideological resistance. Those who offend your ideology should not be supported or patronized to encourage their opposition to your existence.

A prime example is the Washington professional football team who have for many years has still refused to change their offensive name but would declare they do not embrace racism. They don’t embrace racism, they are a symbol of it. All those who patronize them, do business with them, or freely sign with them are complicit in their racism and are the reason they can continue it because there is no fiscal accountability. Civil discord has not gotten it done simply because the Indigenous People, the true forefathers of this land, didn’t have the economic power to fiscally force a change. Aunt Jemima, phonetically ain’t that yo momma, has been recognized as offensive, and despite her endearment to millions of breakfast tables she has finally reached retirement age. They could no longer risk the fiscal fallout and moral objections among Black folks and those whose ideology would no longer condone it. It moved them to suddenly examine the true costs and move in their best interests.

The same support and ideology should be extended to support those native to this land whose voices are muffled as once were such groups as the LBGT community, domestic violence victims, and others.

We cannot discount grievances based on race, but we must also embrace grievance based on ideology to raise the tide for all oppressed humanity especially those in our midst who we have thoughtlessly contributed to the oppression of. Like many cultures, the Indigenous People too have been through a lot and should be shown some love and respect by utilizing the power of our collective economic flow. To support degradation is to support their continued oppression, the original sin, and the exploitation of this country that has gone on far too long. It is way past time for a correction.

You should spend your money were your core values and decency are reflected and if change cannot be provoked then fiscal support should be withdrawn. The flow of money is the twist of the arm that receives the most immediate and comprehensive adjustments. The fiscal survival of these entities that support systemic racism, whether public or private depends on our “flow” of currency and our silent agreement to continue hurting the collective good. The flow or circulation must be strategically directed or removed. Money like blood circulates and lack of circulation leads to amputation or death. The focus of economic power is the most efficient and effective tactic because it forces a voluntary change to sustain their survival. It has been proven to work because it is what has been used against us.

Moral of the story < The queen of soul said it best when she SANG “R E S P E C T find out what it means to me”. When there is no respect for me or my culture then you must get paid by those who agree with you, never by those who you oppose. The personal fiscal policy and funding by those who sincerely reject racism and discrimination against whatever historically marginalized and exploited group should be to listen to that group about remedies and redirect their collective resources to accomplish the removal of those restrictions. Propaganda and atrocities have been committed and it is true that perhaps the worst has been committed in days gone by, but that does not justify the continuation of discrimination and privileged entitlement by those who are now living. By your participation, you are roundly condemned, and by its continuation, you condemn yourself just as those before you have been. Put this shameful past behind you, not by denial and misconceptions but acknowledgment and realization of remedies. The weapon of a fair labor/wage movement and the persuasion of the people’s economic patronage when focused ensures your money should never go where your influence can not go.

P.S. Please reconsider these fashions, designers, and manufacturers that have been overtly offensive. I am sure there are others who make quality products that deserve the chance and your business. To wear and be seen in these costumes shows the psychological dependency and cost you are willing to pay for prestige or status. When they show you who they are, believe them, and spend where you are respected, and can be respected. If you must then you get it started, it has to start somewhere, be a trendsetter. Be the straw that stirs the drink!

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

Please follow and like us:

Cultural Differences

Cultural Differences

We are all culturally designed by the initial foundation of our existence in accordance with our environment. Our environment is determined by our parent’s circumstances and their environment, which we do not choose and to an extent was probably chosen by someone else, perhaps their parents. Even if they decided to change their environment or circumstances, they decided you just influenced their decision and was born into it. Where we are born has much more influence on us than who we were born to. This environmental influence has an inverted effect, as we get older the influence of our environment expands to adjust to changes while the parental influence declines. The parental influence remains strong because it is part of our experience and our experiences shape our perspectives, but still it declines in a substantially active manner over time.

The status and cultural vindication among your self-identifying group or the norms of your geographical location is the measurement that you mostly judge yourself by and which others probably judge you by as the collective standard of that place and time. The goal is to assimilate to your environment and the subgroup that you aspire to become a part of or have found yourself to be a member of. If you not choosing then someone has chosen for you, your environment has made the choice. Your subgroup has many different levels, developed preferences, and motivations that constantly changes with time. What is permitted, tolerated, encouraged, or prohibited changes constantly which requires your adaptation? As the circumstances change so must you adjust for the present and future as opposed to functioning in a time long past.

The cultural pull to cling to the past as tradition can create illusions of a present constructed of the past without consideration for the reality of changes and practical application outside your subgroup. To stay contained within your subgroup is a norm of that group but not for interaction with those outside your subgroup. There is never an argument when everyone is in agreement, but any deviation and some fraction is dissatisfied and exploiting a distinction solely based upon opposition to their preference or choice. When dealing with those outside your subgroup, cultural, environmental, and geographical approval; you must allow to some degree of your dissatisfaction, for them to allow the same degree of their dissatisfaction.

When in Rome you do not have to do what the Romans do but practices that do not infringe upon you are of consequence to only those who practice them. The problem becomes when a perspective or tradition is imposed upon a different environment other than those in agreement with them or one that is designed to harm them. This is not currently in step with time as the world has become global and movement is not confined to our little piece of real estate or experiences. There needs to be a respect for others’ differences and geographical influences without abuse of others rights as a human being and resident of the universe. Assimilation is not to become identical to some subgroup or environment at the expense of your culture but to reflect the collective commonality of coexistence.

Assimilation is more of an idea than action because control of what someone self-defines themselves as is strictly subjective. Suppose you are categorically opposed to someone for whatever reason, can you stop them from feeling the opposite for you if that is what they choose? What about a sports fan-favorite team, can you stop a person from cheering for that team despite your disapproval or knowledge by claiming it as yours? It becomes an illusion of a perspective projected outward without the distance to travel outside yourself, so it remains within you having no effect on other’s shared preferences. You are a member of many groups that without your consent you do not sanction the membership of. What about a song you like, can you control who else likes it, or a certain flavor of ice cream whose favorite it also may be?

What you share cross-culturally is far more when examined in a humanistic perspective than from a cultural or geographical perspective, just as everywhere people want the best for their children and if you do then why can’t others be allowed to want the same as well. Geography limits the human imagination and acceptance because it restricts the definition of your commonality to a location, nationality, or race. This restriction is reinforced, diluted, and distorted according to who has conquered who at what point in history and what external challenges are to be confronted. When in times of crisis, danger, and the need for solidarity the division within these subgroups is expanded beyond these allegiances to the maximum group affected. In other words, it grows exponentially from your home to your neighborhood, to your city or state, to your country, and finally the whole world; in addition to every other subgroup such as gender, race, wealth, poverty, religion, and so forth when faced with a common threat.

When the shoes get tight and the rubber meets the road, need seems to be the overwhelming uniting factor across all cultural and geographic boundaries. As language can travel without a passport and across all boundaries then commonality of interest travels even further, is more understood, and universally embraced within that common interest or need. If a global threat from an invading celestial force descended upon earth, then we would all suddenly become earthlings and not of our identifying subgroup but binding together for the greater good and our common survival against a shared threat.

 

 

To assemble under certain affiliations is essentially an act of comparison of preferences to an outside group having established your group’s criteria and beliefs with various hierarchy within the group as far as levels of deeds, acceptance, and dedication. There are levels to everything, and the corresponding judgments or values assigned. Validation from an external source that confirms your group identity robs you of your individuality because you must submit your self-identification to that of the group’s external projection. Reinforcing your externally validated self-identity to belong becomes the goal instead of adapting to changes within yourself and your environment. Stubbornness leads to foolishly suffering and necessary extinction as time moves on and new realities emerge replacing faulty practices.

Justifying our preferences in accordance with our reality within a larger reality that interacts and encompasses our’s only functions within our smaller reality. The larger reality functions outside the limitations of our acceptance and understanding creating a mental resistance forming a paralysis in time and mind. The denial of a culture you reject often have foods and products that you accept but not the people or culture that produces it. Rather illogical when you think about how often you put it in or on your body. Cultural differences should be embraced as the variety of life that stimulates life’s experiences. It is only a part of that which comprises the whole of you and your experiences while allowing for all that is beyond your culture and experience to expand your completeness.

That which threatens your identity is a byproduct of your lack of self-acceptance and dissatisfaction of your circumstances projected upon another group justifying a convenient lie over the uncomfortable truth. The conscious mind convinces and deceives you of what the subconscious mind knows to be painfully true. A group’s assimilation into their predominate self-identity and values that validates their worthiness based upon others’ perceived deficiencies thereby increasing their own value in comparison to feeling better about themselves is an illusion. The dishonor that validates them is insignificant compared to the acceptance of the group, not their culture. It then becomes their group culture to conceal their fear of change, tolerance, and acceptance to maintain group acceptance.

It is upon you to celebrate your experiences as respect to your parents, culture, and traditions that formed your identity as a cultural foundation but it is not for everyone who does not share the same influences but has their own influences to observe. These references should not be discredited and cheapened by the practices that serve to further an insult to the dignity of others, celebrate discrimination, or are widely associated with reminders of atrocities. It is wrong to celebrate an injustice against someone whether that injustice is performed by you or someone else. The perpetrator cannot determine the impact upon the afflicted, the afflicted must determine their own grievances and the impact of the injustice.

Celebrate and be proud of your individual spirit to be self-determined since there is only one of you in your uniqueness and embrace acceptance of your diversity from everyone else who walks the earth. What the eyes see is outwardly focused as a projection of you into your environment where there is still only one of you to be celebrated and cultivated. Embrace your uniqueness and accept other’s uniqueness because there is only one of them. In the end, we all share the same uniqueness and commonality; there is only one of us.

Moral of the story < The threat to our common survival is not of a celestial adversary but one that has been engineered on earth that threatens our children’s future and our coexistence as a species. If you want to exist, then you must allow others to exist including plants, animals, and humans, all equitably. We are all citizens of the universe whether we like it or not. Let’s make the best of it and bring cultural differences and socially engineered deceptions to examination and adapt from the past so that there can be a future. The greatest empires and civilizations the world has ever known have had an exploration date for one reason or the other. We should at least make our demise something out of our control instead of protecting a global threat or festering our inability to denounce past atrocities and exploitations. Everyone must make at least a little sacrifice, the world has change dimensionally and so should we. It is not always where you are from but where you are that you must adapt to.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

Please follow and like us:

A different kind of Revolution!

This is a conflict that has been fermenting for centuries since the beginning of civilization and with all the advancements of the whole, this conflict has defied resolution by our greatest minds, and those who were so inclined to sincerely challenge its existence and expose its foundation. Change has been glacier-like, slow, and frigidly cold. Acknowledgment has denied its existence. History has provided justification. Diligence has lacked stamina. A resolution has evaded reality. Despite all of this the spirit has transcended time. It is inevitable that change eventually yields to the passage of time. The time has taken its place and the time has come. Father time is undefeated, and change has an unblemished record as well. One thing for certain and two things for sure, time will pass and change will happen. It is the evolution of life.

In the last few years, Colin Kaepernick as an NFL player started actions directed towards bringing awareness and acknowledgment to racial injustice in addition to law enforcement conduct and its use of force. Compelled by his message, the Kaepernik message was besieged on most sides and condemned, but he maintained the integrity of his conviction when others abandoned him. He found new supporters who were also compelled by his message. Unfortunately, he also had ample examples to support the need for his message and concern. The injustices just keep on compiling, seemingly unabated, with the very incidents that compelled him to action.

That action was taking a knee. Taking a knee, that’s right. No further words, gestures, use of force, or violence; just taking a knee. Colin Kaepernick set the table when he peacefully kneeled and he was torched from the highest offices to the lowest places for protesting by kneeling. If the seriousness we are all witnessing today had taken place then on all sides including the supporters and opposers the cost would have been a conversation. In the time since he first kneeled before the symbols that have been touted while committing atrocities against black people in particular and most people in general including women, he has been vindicated. He was protesting injustice, not the flag or national anthem. Not only the injustices that he knelt for but many, many other injustices have come to the surface, but not because of a change of public acceptance of his knee but the occurrence of a much more infamous knee.

This knee could not be ignored but the knee was felt around the world. This knee was seen around the world and acknowledged for what it was, a crime against humanity. This knee was Chauvin’s knee, the arrested and disgraced policeman charged with the murder of George Floyd. It is befuddling that he has support for his actions by his police union. But it is not just ironic a person of such little regard for a Black Man’s life as Chauvin has ignited a worldwide condemnation of racism bringing about the changes Chauvin seemed to reject the most. Mr. George Floyd’s name will be mentioned in antiquity with history being the judge of not only America’s original sin but America‘s continued sin. He is the spark that lit the fires of World War III.

George Floyd, Colin Kaepernick, and others both living and deceased have paid the ticket and bared witness to the necessity of a mandatory acknowledgment of the huge ongoing systemic racism and abuse of black people. Beyond words, a resolution of action is called for to address these injustices in a meaningful way that is in consideration of what those who have been oppressed demand and not only what the oppressor offers. In villages, cities, states, providences, countries, or whatever there are many crusaders against injustice but it is like a strand alone. There have been many George Floyds worldwide. Every location around the world has its own barbaric accounts of current medieval persecutions based on some element of their existence be it racial, religious, sex trafficking, economic status, gender, or whatever the justification is buried in.

A worldwide movement and demand for change which has been delayed far too long demands that humanity is equally extended to all especially in the legal, public, institutional, opportunity, and societal realms. Chauvin’s knee ignited outrage around the world over Mr. Floyd’s murder but on a much grander scale, it ignited the strands to become a cable of collective strength against oppressive situations whether they exist in South America, Europe, Asia, and or any continent of Earth. This is a dimensional change in the consciousness of the people that has spread around the world. It could not be foreseen that those afflicted by any of the ism(s) that it would unite people under racism globally. Global racism is not just a black problem, it adversely affects many people who have been similarly marginalized with the expectation to suffer quietly and peacefully.

 

 

 

 

Chauvin’s ultimate deed was to unite something never in the history of the world seen or done before by anyone. He is the very first to unite people from all corners of the world to shout emphatically for change not on religious principles but human principles, freedom, and equality. The people, an army, were amassed in the streets of the world to say the Black Race has suffered mightily under the privilege and ignorance of oppression as others have suffered too. The Black Race is not alone in their suffering, there are many other races and segments of society that have suffered systemic oppression too. The people’s demand for change is sparked by their very own oppressive circumstances as well, but Mr. George Floyd was the origin of ignition for the will of the people to become exceedingly strong when intertwined.

People around the world are fed up with their own oppressive situations and the deadly discrimination black folks around the world are challenged with and the dissent reverberated internationally with the murder of Mr. Floyd. The collective humanity in general and the humanity of the offenders specifically is tarnished by all these acts against humanity by either commission, omission, or silence. Long since the slave trade, the participants to this business are well known but have yet to be fully exposed or confess their benefit or culpability.

Many Africans were forcefully deposited all over the western hemisphere and Europe. The enslavement of Africans and their descendants helped to fuel worldwide opposition to the practice of racism and unites the black people of the world. Racism against the descendants of enslaved Africans anywhere they were enslaved is part of a colonial wealth stealing deception perpetuated and enforced by the dealers of exploitation and oppression.

Persecution through racism and discrimination is the firewood that combusted, into an abundant flame. Kaepernick was the fluid that made the wood more combustible. George Floyd was the spark the ignited the fire. America’s current state of brutal and murderous inclinations is the oxygen and until the wood burns out or the oxygen is removed the fire will continue to grow. The firewood of racism and discrimination is very flammable and plentiful to keep the endurance and fortitude of the peoples will be engaged while seeking solutions and change.

This WW III will not be fought like any war before it, it will be fought by the will of the people, the UNITY of HUMANITY. By the people’s elevation in knowledge, acceptance, and consciousness, the survival of our humanity cries out for the implementation of an ongoing sincere resolution, and the dissolution of bias and systemic racism. WE must commit ourselves not to be the problem and not to promote it but participate in the solution.

Everyone fits in at least one group discriminated against not always based on race but gender, sexism, immigration, poor, overweight, tall, short, smart, righthanded, and on and on; but what makes me better because I don’t belong to your group or you don’t belong to mine? The people are waking up to the deceptions and lies to promote ignorance, separation, and conflict while being financially exploited.

The protests are equally about hopelessness and despair, they are a cry out to the atrocities committed on fellow human beings. The protest for a better existence is met with riot responses and tear gas to enforce your interpretation of the law justified by the hypocrisy of unequal protection under your law and unjust application of your law. The exploitation of the people is reaching the point of being unsustainable as it has throughout history it has been proven.

The weapons of this revolution will be fought with the fortitude of the people to stay the course since we have never been closer globally or otherwise. We must build support against a common enemy. The deadly deed now heard and seen around the world has sparked outrage threatening to topple economies and governments amassing an army of millions united across all borders of the world whose voices have risen to protest because of a Black Man’s murder, Mr. George Floyd. Salute to world change, gratitude for sacrifices made, and resiliency for sacrifices still to be made for change.

Moral of the story < The miseducation and bogus science that has enslaved many people over many years have reached the point where it is preventing the evolution of the future with the burden of antiquated thoughts, actions, and beliefs. The lies were frequent and well-told to protect and enhance the perpetrators, but history and truth have prevailed to lift the ignorance that was based upon divisiveness that served you so well for so long. If all good things must come to an end, then surely all bad things can not last forever. The movement is not restricted by race or any other consideration, the only requirement is a willingness to contribute to change. Agents for change all look alike, like contributors to change.

It is time to begin recognizing equality and human rights worldwide!

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

Please follow and like us:

Candid Video Part 3

George Floyd, Logical Reasoning.

Part 3

Deductive Conclusions

The force used on Mr. Floyd by any officer once he was on the ground on his stomach was a criminal act and felony assault by virtue of the policemen being armed. As a policeman, if you see a crime you are sworn to intervene, and it does not specify who is committing the crime. At the point when he was believed to have been in distress before crossing the street, at the point when he complained of breathing difficulties with Chauvin on his neck, at the point when he had no pulse when checked, at the point when an officer suggested to sit him up to avoid the known concern of death which was the outcome, at the point when an officer explicitly mention excited delirium concerns, at the point when Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, and at the point when the public begged for his life were all points when and where intervention should have occurred legally.

During these times, Chauvin verbally responded disregarding all concerns and information which he knew or should have known being an 18-year veteran on the job, a field training officer, and the senior man on the scene. The senior man is always held to a higher standard because it is assumed he should know what to do or more importantly what not to do. Chauvin knowingly continued his felony assault and discouraged other courses of action of mitigation or intervention. He knowingly and purposefully having placed his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck and maintained it there fully aware of the risk and without justification. The other policemen’s actions were to do nothing to end this excessive use of force and were to actively hold witnesses at bay using the authority of their uniforms and weapons. Had it not been uniformed policemen involved there is a more likely chance a civilian would have intervened preventing Mr. Floyd’s death. They provided protection while Chauvin committed his crime using the collective power of the uniform they represented as a criminal tool to further allow Chauvin’s actions.

Sometimes it becomes necessary to relinquish the part for the good of the whole. Good decent Officers must be cast under a cloak of scorn with the elevated hazard under hostile working conditions to defend the indefensible. The police union dues, morale, and resources will be spent despite their dissent for actions they disagree with and know to be wrong. Defending obviously egregious acts greatly diminishes public respect for law enforcement and encourage resistance to avoid this outcome. Public trust which took many good deeds and years to establish can be destroyed instantly but swiftly regained when the law is enforced equally including against law enforcement personnel that violate their sworn duty.

The two rookie policemen knew that their actions permitted Chauvin to further his physical felony assault thereby consenting to his actions and sharing his Mens rea. That state of mind was to willfully, purposely, recklessly, and negligently with full knowledge against all risk consented to excessive force. It is clear, they did not oppose it. People with no time on the job or academy training knew the risk. Mr. Floyd and the public were trying to tell the policemen repeatedly. All four policemen were fully aware that their actions or inaction posed a significant risk to Mr. Floyd’s life even insinuating it themselves. The consequences of their actions or inactions were known or should have been known that serious bodily harm and/or death would be the result.

Due to the 8 minutes and 46-second duration of the homicide beginning when Mr. Floyd was handcuffed on his stomach on the ground, all four policemen displayed knowing, willful, purposeful, reckless, and negligent conduct at various intervals while Mr. Floyd was the victim of excessive force that lead to his death. It is obvious that Chauvin’s intent was to disregard the risk of death to Mr. Floyd continuing even when Mr. Floyd was dead and continued until the EMTs arrived. None of the policemen did anything to stop Chauvin or aid Mr. Floyd. All four policemen displayed each of the required mindsets during the duration of the lengthy deadly incident. This was a homicide committed by a policeman that was aided and abetted by other policemen. Citizen video, police bodycam, their own radio transmissions, and multiple witnesses in broad daylight in full view of the public were not deterrents. Now within the world view and scrutiny, the malicious murder was seen and the people have spoken loudly, voicing their disgust, a moral indictment has been rendered. How can anyone defend these actions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Mr. Floyd was previously known to Chauvin then that could reveal additional intent or premeditation. The courtroom drama will now most likely play out attempting to justify the indefensible. The success of the conviction is not in imposing the highest charges but in dispensing the most prison time to be served. At the Judge’s discretion sentences can run consecutive meaning one after another which is generally more prison time than the total of separate charges ran concurrent or at the same time. I have seen a five-million-dollar cash bond or no bond due to certain crimes, a threat to public safety, and a threat to public peace. If they did not fear for their actions, then they should not fear to have it called for what it is and suffer the consequences. To the core, it appears to meet murder 1 standards for all involved.

Obvious and blatant violations of the law, of duty, and public trust cannot be condoned and tolerated especially when it is this egregious and erodes the public trust. Such egregious acts make it hard for good Officers to maintain public trust when this kind of policemen are creating problems for them. Everyone who has worked any place for any extended time knows who ain’t about nothing and will make the shoes tight for everyone causing their problem to be everybody else’s. They will put you in the jackpot along with themselves, but this jackpot comes with extended stay, room, and board. Free amenities, free utilities, and plenty of company, and lifetime memberships are also available.

The first rule of policing is to go home every night from the job, the will to overcome, and to survive encounters. The second is do not let someone send you to the penitentiary and jackpot you by their actions. I am not going to do your time for you or with you, I will not let you jackpot me. The police union has an obligation to defend officers but not to waste the union dues of members by publicly and arrogantly condoning unquestionably damaging behavior which compromises the whole department’s credibility. A policeman has a fiduciary duty to supply the union with actions they can defend but not to the detriment of the union members, the police department, and the whole legal structure.

What manner of twisted articulation can justify these four policemen’s actions? Why the extraordinary efforts to justify this behavior and claim that these actions were necessary and legal? Why lose all credibility to represent the other members you represent by supporting these actions? Refusing obvious accountability as anyone else doing something similar would face, exposes your principles and by association, and the principles of the members can paint good officers with a bloody brush. When these policemen’s actions do not give you anything to work with you must save the ship instead of circling the wagons. The need of the many outweighs the need of the few. If they blow it so bad then you must step away and condemn their actions even if by absentee, removing your support.

How many of your members agree with having their dues spent for this? How many good OFFICERS have to suffer as a whole nationally with the public perception that you promote? When you all, good and bad, dress alike and wear the uniform it is hard to tell who is who from the outside looking in but you know from the inside. The decision must be made among the ranks, the bosses, the prosecutors, and the Judges but mostly the street cops on the front line to not allow someone to endanger them by their criminal behavior because you become complicit by aiding and abetting that as well. When the union sees no evil, and the union staunchly proclaims with righteous indignation their support in critical incidents such as this, then by demonstration and proclamation the only logical conclusion left is that this is a RICO violation of an ongoing criminal enterprise with known collaborators and tolerance of criminal activity and corruption. It is a poor demonstration of leadership that endangers us all.

P.S. All four policemen’s assets and homeowner’s insurance should remain susceptible to claim until all adjudications and proceedings are complete and they are determined to not be subject to claim. Also once divorced the husband/wife confidentiality clause remains intact covering the period of the marriage which may be a maneuver to protect and transfer assets. The assets are a vicarious liability to the wife by their marital union which has been known to encourage in this case the husband to take full responsibility for his actions agreeing to absolve her of joint financial liability.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

Please follow and like us:

Candid Video Part 2

George Floyd, Logical Reasoning, and Deductive Conclusions.

Part 2

The law when looking at an individual’s mental state of mind does not define when origination of intent begins or time duration of intent, it looks at what point a specific intent is detected and the effect of that intent that can be proven or demonstrated. In other words, not how long before committing the crime, but just what intent can be proven before or during the commission of the crime and contributed to the crime.

Establishing intent can be determined from when it shifted from obvious lawful actions to illegal or criminal actions. Intent that is consistent with the observed actions and behavior individually and collectively, considered while applying the standard of knowing or should have known the outcome or risk of those actions and behavior. The intent is the key element in determining which statute was broken and to what degree. The elements of the crime by statute is the first part and the second part is the degree. First degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc. The levels of intent are what establishes the degrees as purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.

Mens rea is defined as the guilty mind. Mens rea accounts for a person’s mental intentions to commit a crime, or knowledge that one’s actions or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. Actus rea is the action taken to perform the criminal act or the physical action taken behind the crime. Intent and the elements of that specific statute determine criminal charges and although there may be a murder that has occurred the intent is what establishes what degree of murder.

Complicity is any part of the planning, execution, concealment, or escape designed to facilitate or participate in a crime. Any tools or methods used to further that crime can be viewed as evidence of complicity and/or a criminal tool. Complicity is the same degree crime as the crime being aided and abetted, the commission of the crime of complicity does not require direct physical involvement. For example, if the charge or crime is murder 1 then the complicity is to the same degree as murder 1. If it is a misdemeanor then the complicity is a misdemeanor of the same degree.

Kidnapping is to remove someone from the place found without authority to do so or restrict their movements without consent or authority to do so. Detaining a suspect is different from the arrest of an individual. To detain someone a policeman must have the right to do so and it must be reasonable in duration and circumstances. Was Mr. Floyd placed under arrest and at what point was he placed under arrest? Was he being lawfully and reasonably detained?

Falsifying tour of duty reports, deadly force reports, false and misleading statements made or given, and excited utterances during the incident points to a mental state of mind at the time or a need to conceal it. What is the police department’s protocol when dealing with counterfeit money of such a low denomination and quantity? Do they routinely arrest and do arrest records reflect the protocol of these routine arrests?

The RICO Act is a federal statute regarding ongoing criminal enterprises involving murder, kidnapping, and other patterns of crime or corruption. It has been used against police personnel and police departments before when a wide-spread and systemic commission or tolerance of excessive force and other crimes existed within a police department. The RICO Act is specifically designed to prosecute organizations that operate as a cooperative pattern of criminal activity with centralized leadership. The Department of Justice sanctions organizations with a Consent Decree to monitor and alter how departments operate. Hate crimes are a separate set of considerations and probably unlikely in this instance. It should be noted that any firearm carried during the commission of a crime is an automatic felony by statute even if that crime is a misdemeanor. Theft of a candy bar is a misdemeanor but a theft of a candy bar while armed is a robbery. All four policemen were armed at the time of the critical incident.

The above legal considerations and deductions have been explained as a jury might consider reaching a verdict by applying the law to the circumstances. We understand that Mr. Floyd was alleged to have paid for items with a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill and the store requested a police response. Upon the police responding Mr. Floyd was found to be in his vehicle. Mr. Floyd had ample time to flee the scene if he wanted or if he had a reason to such as knowledge of the counterfeit bill. His actions were not supportive of someone of knowingly passing bad money nor did he flee the area immediately in a way that reflects a guilty mind. When and how did the clerk know that the bill was counterfeit? Is it not widely practiced to light or pen check bills of a certain denomination and was this done? If Mr. Floyd was not rejected or confronted in the store is there any evidence that he knew of his crime? How much time lapse from the transfer of the fake bill and was it placed in the cash register at all? Were there other people in the store at the time making purchases and could there be a mistake? Were there other people in the store at the time when the crime was discovered by the clerk?

Let us assume that Mr. Floyd did indeed know that he passed bad money. He was not immediately placed under arrest so he could not be resisting arrest. From the officer’s initial contact with Mr. Floyd, he was resistant to questioning. He was removed from the vehicle, placed in cuffs, escorted to the sidewalk where he was seated. Any acts of resistance from initial contact to being seated had been deescalated and Mr. Floyd was not combative verbally or physically. Mr. Floyd was escorted across the street without incident or struggle. The view was obscured by a squad car, he was assisted to the ground, and Chauvin was then observed to have his knee and shin across Mr. Floyd’s neck area when the view was regained.

Mr. Floyd’s mental state was also reflected by his physical state. He was within the policeman’s control and physically compliant. He was also verbally compliant pleading for his life and stating his physical condition of distress. At times two other officers assisted in restraining Mr. Floyd’s mid-torso area and legs while Chauvin had already established his position on Mr. Floyd’s neck area. Mr. Floyd’s only resistance was in response to the pain being inflicted upon him and not aggressive, combative, or evasive at all; he was secured. But was he in custody, had he been advised that he was under arrest?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After several minutes of the sustained weight of approximately two hundred pounds on his neck, Mr. Floyd not only showed no signs of resistance, he showed no signs of life. Mr. Floyd provided no resistance from the point of being unconscious or dead although Chauvin continued the neck pressure with his hands casually in his pockets. Mr. Floyd was dead and never able to account for the bad money transaction where a fake twenty-dollar bill turned into a homicide. Before dying, Mr. Floyd had to pass out first, meaning he was still alive but unconscious. Chauvin’s continued pressure in addition to rendering Mr. Floyd unconscious he ensured that he had no chance at life. This is Mr. Floyd’s culpability and no corpus delicti or proof of guilt was ever established since the intent was not established that he knewn it was bad money.

Now let us examine the policemen’s actions to establish any culpability. No culpability means that they had nothing to do with it and probably it would have happened anyway. They did not send four policemen for a counterfeit-twenty, so who received the call and who were they assisting? Was radio notified that they were assisting, and should they have even been there? If Chauvin was assisting on the run then he should have remained secondary and let the assigned car handle it to their discretion.

 

Two policemen arrived and shortly thereafter another two policemen arrived. The first two to arrive on the scene engaged Mr. Floyd, and he was placed in cuffs. He was subsequently seated on the sidewalk. Nothing extraneous so far as excessive physical force except perhaps the way he was approached could have been handled better. Next Mr. Floyd was escorted across the street towards the store. Prior to being escorted across the street at least one officer stated that Mr. Floyd was noticeably in distress. What actions did he take as a result?

If he was in distress; it should have changed from a possible arrest into a providing medical assistance situation. The main reason is if he was having a heart attack and was under arrest then the city would be liable for his medical care, hospital stay, and would have to assign an officer in his room around the clock to guard him. Aside from that, it is your legal and sworn obligation to provide assistance and not continue pursuing arrest. The policeman who first noticed the distress had the most obligation to notify the others of Mr. Floyd’s suspected condition and why he thought so. His suspected medical distress and only having the ability to arrest with prior authorization from the Secret Service for permission should have made you get him medical help and be on your way.

It has been determined that Mr. Floyd succumbed to excited asphyxiation also known as excited delirium by compression of his neck and chest restricting his breathing. Elevated heart rate, excited breathing, prone position on the stomach with his hands behind back, excessive weight on his back, and definitely his neck are elements of this phenomenon well known to law enforcement with heart failure usually the cause of death. Breathing restriction is always the main trigger and can clearly be determined to have played a significant role in Mr. Floyd’s death. The key was the weight being forced down on his neck, the amount of time it was continuously applied with force, with the full intent of its application never considering that it was enough even when he was unconscious and dead.

Once assisted to the ground on his stomach alongside the squad car with hands cuffed behind his back, he posed no threat to the four policemen or a threat to escape. It is hard to get up quickly or otherwise from that position or launch an assault. If it was necessary to place him prone on the ground then there is no policy, procedures, or training that allows for any force which is not necessary to bring a person under control. Minimal force required is the standard to justify force, when it is no longer necessary or was not justified in the beginning there is no allowance for it legally. What is the justification for kneeling on a dead man’s neck for over two minutes after his death?

The application of the knee to the neck area is where the criminality begins, and his intent begins to be exposed. It is also at this point that the complicity of the other policemen started regardless of if they had participated or not in the restraint, their intent also became apparent. Two did knowingly, purposefully, and willingly, physically participate to some degree in exerting force and providing assistance to Chauvin to further his criminal excessive use of force with no justification why. With Mr. Floyd fully compromised there was no need for force.

Chauvin did knowingly, willfully, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently apply his knee to Mr. Floyd neck area which resulted in his death. If argued that Chauvin’s intent was not to kill Mr. Floyd but to restrain him, at what point did he no longer need restraining. What cannot be argued is that Chauvin’s knee was intentionally placed there for that duration of the time knowingly, willfully, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently without regard for the outcome. Chauvin’s actions revealed a mindset of punishment, not restraint, with his hands in his pocket to disguise the downward force and balancing of his full weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

This is just a brief inquiry into the facts known to the public with a logical examination that will be needed for the highest level of conviction for those whose actions warrant it. Now when it is examined moving forward, we can form a logical theory of the policemen’s actions to better determine the justification, truthfulness, and intent revealing fault as exhibited by their actions. Remember that inaction is an action too, for what you have done and for what you have failed to do. Examining the chronological sequence of the policemen’s actions will demonstrate their mental state of mind and when it shifted to become criminal. We will also in full review demonstrate Mr. Floyd’s actions and mental state of mind contributing to or causing his death.

Please follow and like us:

Candid Video Part 1

Case of George Floyd, Logical Reasoning.

Part 1

Facts & Questions

Sometimes you must go back to get around an obstruction and then proceed forward to the destination. A review or reenactment from the end of the critical incident that claimed Mr. George Floyd’s life analyzed in retrospect can reveal the points that were incriminating to all parties involved based on the visual evidence and deductive reasoning of the application of the law. This is a clear way the mental state of mind legally, the mens rea or intent, can be established and the criminality, the mea culpa or fault, can be best demonstrated by everyone’s actions or inactions. If there was an action, was it justifiable based upon what was known at the time, or what could have been known at the time, is the legal standard. If there was inaction, was there a duty to act, what action should have been taken, and how that action would have affected the outcome. As a fluid evolving situation, the timing and chronological sequence matters greatly. We will state the facts as we believe them to be and then ask the questions raised.

Facts: Now Mr. Floyd, a Black Man, is stretched out on the ground handcuffed hands behind his back laying on his belly after being placed there.

Questions: Why was it necessary to place him on his belly face down and not in one of the squad cars or stand him alongside the squad car? Whose decision was it to place him there and why? Where were the other three policemen and what were they doing? Who else participated in placing him on the ground on his belly and what were their roles, for how long? At what point did they participate in the chronological order of events and why? Is this normal operating procedure for this type of situation?

Facts: Mr. Floyd was surrounded by four white policemen and physically restrained, while in handcuffs, by at least three of them at different times during the incident. He was removed from the scene by responding EMTs on a stretcher presumably lifeless by all appearances. He was then transported to the hospital.

Questions: Who radioed in for medical assistance and at what point during the incident? How many policemen involved spoke with radio regarding medical aid or requested them to step up their arrival due to Mr. Floyd’s decline? What was said during the radio transmission? What does the dispatcher separate notes reflect? Are there restricted channels that more sensitive information is communicated over? Did that happen and by whom and at what time (this is usually reserved for bosses or specialized units)? If such secure channel communications took place are they recorded as they most likely should be?

What were EMT’s dispatched communications? At what point did EMT’s determine that Mr. Floyd had no vital signs indicating death? Was it before transport, during transport, at the hospital by hospital personnel? Once at the hospital what steps were taken, for how long, by who, was there any information they received from EMTs, and when was the pronouncement of death? Were there real-time calls from the public as the critical incident occurred and how many? What was the content of the policemen’s excited utterances and the reason for the call for EMT? Excited utterances by any party are generally admissible in court.

Facts: The primary policeman at this point has later been identified as Chauvin, an 18 year veteran of the force and the senior officer on scene. Mr. Floyd was pinned to the ground by his neck by Chauvin’s left knee and left front shin area applied to the carotid nerve or artery area of the neck traversing the windpipe, trachea, and larynx. The carotid artery Is located on both sides of the neck so it does not matter which way Mr. Floyd’s head was turned it would still be exposed. The greater the torque or twist of the head the greater the vulnerability of this neck artery to causing unconsciousness or a fatal outcome. It restricts oxygen and blood flow. This occurred for 8 minutes and 46 seconds with 2 minutes and 53 seconds of Mr. Floyd being unresponsive and probably dead.

Despite public outcry, repeated warnings and concern from fellow officers, and Mr. Floyd’s very own plea Chauvin continued to apply pressure with full body weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck. Neck restraint is a code red on the force continuum scale and considered deadly force when used against a policeman or used by a policeman. Code red is the very highest threat level assessment and actions to preserve life or avoid serious bodily harm. The force continuum scale governs police use of force and the need for what type of force. Due to the force used there is however no dispute that Mr. Floyd’s death was caused on the scene before EMT arrived.

Questions: The State which certifies the Police Academy and dictates the training criteria and curriculum that extensively covers the use of force. The City which swears in the cadets to become officers and has the ultimate legal liability also covers the use of force extensively. The use of force technically can be as minor as placing someone in handcuffs without incident voluntarily and with their utmost cooperation. The City gives the authority to arrest for misdemeanors and issue citations. The State gives the authority to arrest for felonies and that is why you go to County Court for State charges. The State gives you the authority to use deadly force, but the City is responsible for that force. Force of any kind must be minimal force necessary to effect an arrest and should be discontinued as resistance lessens or it is no longer necessary.

 

 

The question then becomes was the knee justified in the first place? If he was a code red threat then how did you get him so easily handcuffed in the first place, how many officers did it take to cuff him, what level of threat did he present once he was cuffed, and how? Once Chauvin’s knee was on his neck constituting deadly force at what point was Mr. Floyd, not a code red threat or actively resisting with the threat of death or serious bodily harm to anyone? What about any level of threat with four officers present and Chauvin on his neck? Was he given the opportunity to comply and were there conflicting commands? Was Mr. Floyd pleading not an opportunity to ease the use of deadly force, indicated his willingness to comply, as well as a responsibility and duty absent of his resistance? After all the concerns about Mr. Floyd’s condition expressed before Mr. Floyd laid lifeless, what threat to four policemen’s life or limb was Floyd with his hands cuffed behind his back on the ground on his stomach. With Chauvin on his neck, when did Chauvin order him to comply, or more importantly what chance did Chauvin give him to comply? Even unresponsive with no pulse the use of force was not altered to the level of Mr. Floyd’s resistance nor was there any officer intervention? Was a taser and or pepper spray available or another less lethal option? Why did Chauvin take his knee off Mr. Floyd’s neck? It was not because he had killed him, that had already happened minutes before and confirmed by no pulse being felt by another policeman. 

Illegal orders and criminal actions are to be disobeyed and not participated in or furthered and in addition, should be prevented. This is understood and enforced in any military or quasi-military organization, A Few Good Men is a prime example. You should have done something and if you had maybe even after Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, he could have been still living or potentially revived. We cannot say yes for sure, but we cannot say no either for sure, the fact is three officers had a duty to step in and they did nothing. Instead of intervening at various points, they did aid and abet in the murder by either actively assisting or providing protection and crowd neutralization as a deterrent to citizen intervention.

Facts: The history of the policemen involved was not known at the time just as Mr. Floyd’s history presumably was not known at the time either. That has little bearing on the consideration of the facts, except to indicate a previous pattern, after the fact that implies tendencies during the incident. Mr. Floyd’s criminal history reveals no prior assault on police personnel. Also, after the fact consideration for the two rookie policemen’s lack of history bears no mitigating circumstances to avoid accountability. Histories are indicators but not always relevant facts that can be related to the current incident.

Questions: Why would Mr. Floyd’s history be unfavorable for him but the history of the four officers not be unfavorable? So, the history of the two veteran policemen should be disregarded, the two rookies should be taken into consideration for leniency, but Mr. Floyd’s history, unknown at the time somehow indicated that he needed to be treated as code red level threat in this incident? If Mr. Floyd’s history was unknown at the time of the encounter, then it had no bearing on the incident. If he were a priest what bearing would that have on the incident if unknown? None.

Facts: The policemen walked Mr. Floyd across the street without incident and seemed to have some minor passive resistance but not actively aggressive behavior. It did not appear that his lower body was resistant, and he was handcuffed without incident or struggle. He was cuffed with minimal resistance. It appeared as if he was taken aback and more verbally resistant to find out what was going on and turning to talk but definitely not combative. Mr. Floyd’s action upon being removed from the vehicle would not constitute resisting arrest because it did not meet the physical standard or required warnings to cease and desist or be placed under arrest for resisting. Officers said that they noticed a concerning level of distress upon handcuffing Mr. Floyd.

Questions: Prior to being removed from the car was Mr. Floyd properly advised as to what the encounter was about? If at thpoint of handcuffing Mr. Floyd if he was showing signs of distress why was he even taken across the street at all? If Mr. Floyd was showing signs of distress why was he placed on the ground face down? If Mr. Floyd was showing signs of distress why did Chauvin place his knee on his neck further complicating his distress? If Mr. Floyd was showing signs of distress at what point was this radioed in since out of four officers present, there was no reason for the delay? If Mr. Floyd was showing signs of distress what distress signs were radio notified of to better inform the EMT dispatcher of his symptoms? Whatever distress did they suspect, what should have been the officer’s response? If he were suspected of having a heart attack would they place him on his stomach with an over 200-pound man on his neck? Why was no aid rendered or attempted during his distress?

 

Facts: The policemen responded to a counterfeit twentydollar bill being passed at the store and received information that directed them to Mr. Floyd across the street. Almost immediately upon approach, the officer escalates the situation and pulls his gunWas there a visible threat, was there a gun, or what justified this approach?

Questions: Was the twenty-dollar bill marked and taken as evidence prior to approaching Mr. Floyd? Did they know the counterfeit protocol of notifying the Secret Service and recording the individual’s information to forward in a report? Should they have known counterfeiting is a federal crime and is only arrestable by a federal agent or by prior federal authorization? Does the counterfeit money have Mr. Floyd’s DNA or prints on it? Could they or did they know if Mr. Floyd had knowledge that it was counterfeit or how he obtained it? The Secret Service is interested in printing operations and patterns, not random twenty-dollar bills in which they cannot prove knowledge or intent. With authority to investigate but not arrest why was any force used? Is there a point where the crime does not justify the force or even handcuffing for a nonviolent cold stand or questioning?

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

Please follow and like us: