Happy Black Emancipation Day

 

When the truth is a Lie

Rejoice! Hallelujah! Free at Last! Happy Jubilee! Juneteenth is now a holiday. Finally, a day our ancestors never thought would come or perhaps a day they only dreamed about but could it be a day they had already seen. A day full of promises.

Could it be a day that other than symbolically we have yet to have seen? Civil Rights, the Voting Act, Black History Month, and Martin Luther King Jr. Day brought some of the exact lofty expectations and exaltations. Please make no mistake about it; it is progress. We will take it as part of an ensemble while questionable as acknowledgment or satisfaction of meaningful change.

Let history in the future look back and be the judge if June 19th being declared a national holiday is the beginning or just another layover on the way. From this point, history looking back reveals some very curious methods of demonstrating the freedom and emancipation of Blacks in America since that initial day of liberation in 1863.

First, many have diligently and heartfeltly worked to bring about the recognition of this holiday. Second, there are many, many more who rejoice in the celebration of the symbolism of this day. Third, the swell of pride can barely be contained within the satisfaction of its recognition.

A day that is symbolic and celebratory. By no means do I want to diminish or criticize the meaning of its importance, impact, or impression for those feeling the accomplishment or validation of its achievement. However, I wonder if the degree of pride celebrated is really a source of pride symbolically or otherwise comparatively. It has to be contemplated forgoing the reality of its subsequent impact; what is the meat on the bone?

At its core, governed by the reality of its intent, purpose, application, and legislation, what was really “given,” promised, or protected by the notification of freedom. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation changed the practice but not the perception or acceptance of slavery regarding legislative integrity, only the procedure but not the context.

A quasi end to slavery and its overt methods giving way to the begging of equality and the beginning of pseudo freedom. Is Juneteenth a memorial to the atrocity or a celebration of relief from it? Quantify and contextualize the reprieve against the covert and sinister practices that have limited its impact.

If this is a celebration of relief, why are we still subjected to the injustices of discrimination rooted in slavery? Its implications both seen and unseen are effectively both overtly and covertly practiced in principle and purpose. Should it be a day of mourning the indignities suffered and the struggle to shake the remnants of its ideology?

The two-edge sword cuts efficiently on both edges, but the handle is safe from its wounding damage. The handle controls the blade, but who is holding the handle? Whoever controls the handle guides the cut. So, was what was given really received on this day? Was it not granted over two and a half years before and the notification amounted to permission to know.

The question of the delay of freedom’s notification to finally reach the outer regions granting freedom makes me wonder if it was the beginning of liberty or the end of slavery. They appear to be two different things at closer inspection in practice and law but did we fully get either?

Then it would follow that why would you celebrate the delay of the information or change above the day it was enacted into law, January 1st, 1863? Not much had essentially changed except now everyone knew about it. What about those who had already known or where it had already taken effect?

When and where it did take effect was it more in word or prominent by deed? Slavery was followed by Jim Crow and its many variations of systemic racism and injustices. Coloreds only water fountains and lunch counters existed after the Juneteenth notification. Ask Claudette Colvin or Rosa Parks about freedom to ride the bus without being required to give up your seat for a white person.

How easily are we now deceived or pacified by our need for acceptance and validation? We now have the audacity to celebrate a day that did not deliver on what our expectation and interpretation of its intent was. Have we forgotten what was promised? It did technically mostly deliver on not being a physical slave, it did not deliver on freedom from not being treated as a slave or inhumane, but then it never promised that did it?

Forced labor became coerced labor in many cases, and no education became limited or scripted education tilted towards discouragement. In many ways, there is no definitive way to deal with slavery other than to do what it takes to put it behind us by meaningful change of substance.

For example, removing qualified immunity for law enforcement, changing the economic barriers to the equal probability of a possibility of fairness, quality healthcare, education not designed for social engineering, fair taxation, loan and banking reform, criminal justice system reform, and many other reforms or proclamations would have far more reaching substantive benefits than a holiday celebrating something that in principle has yet to happen.

For a bonus, these changes would not be racially biased and would have universal benefits ensuring universal acceptance. Generally, it would be better for the Black condition if certain things were discontinued instead of a hollow holiday celebrated.

As a free nation, do we not, as everyday citizens have the right to celebrate any day we would like without that day being a national holiday, for example, your birthday? Then why do you need the government’s permission to celebrate any day of collective importance to you? You know they sell ribs, beer, and fireworks for celebrations other than government-sanctioned holidays.

For that matter, we have Kwanza, which is largely ignored. At the same time, Christmas is widely celebrated as a government-sanctioned holiday, and credit is given to a white myth, I mean Santa Claus. Thus, it could be misconstrued that we need government approval and validation to determine our cultural celebrations.

Lack of a holiday has never damaged the Black condition. Still, many other societal and institutional injustices have, so why not address them because our grievances won’t disappear with a holiday, but they might with stipulations that address inequities.

We need reciprocity to get what we have contributed to others receiving, what they have been given in equal value, context, and quantity to be reflected in the principles of our Freedom. Freedom can now be defined as the Freedom from discrimination and systemic obstructions to our unhindered participation in the American dream.

Freedom where any racial context is inconsequential to the veracity of our skill and ambition as the only factors, no more or no less than anyone else’s. That should be the interpretation and understanding attached to Juneteenth, not pacifying anyone’s guilt or outrage.

Juneteenth is a participation trophy where nothing was won or given of value. A holiday can’t be given to instill pride and validation to a race of people because, at its essence, it shares the same psychological bondages as slavery to permit you something that should be within your power and dignity to grant yourself.

It is facetious to celebrate something within you because someone permitted you to have the courage to do so. It is, however, an indictment of how far we need to progress psychologically. To claim our pride, identity, and self-acceptance fortifying our strength of self-determination.

 

 

Our validation is a singular individual journey that gives rise to our collective accumulation of ascension by removing ourselves from being part of the problem and demonstrating a statistical representation of the solution. To be counted in our progress.

Like in the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy was told she always had the power just needed to summon it up. Juneteenth, in many ways, was a promise unfulfilled. It has yet to be realized because slavery was transformed into discrimination. It has operated ever since the notification of Freedom reached the far regions of geography but has yet to fully reach the distant regions of modern time.

Time has carried the water of this ideology while bailing water only to have some refilling the vessel of hate. Therefore, celebrating this holiday does very little beyond giving you another reason to fire up the grill and not have to work.

When the celebration ends and the congratulations are done, there will still be more pressing issues that await us. So when we have to get back to the work of substantial practical progress, remain diligent not to let the celebration douse our commitment and resolve needed later to focus on the task at hand.

Any solution upholding Juneteenth purpose and intent lays between the ears of both those who champion or oppose its essence. That is where the problem started and hides. The mind conceals or reveals the perspective whereby the solution rest.

But for now, let us celebrate this day as creating temporary possibilities to pacify a truce of interests and acknowledgment of slavery but not its ills. Recognizing its ending but blinded to its revival in a different form. If this seems cynical or ungrateful, I ask, should I be celebrating Freedom or the end of slavery?

Freedom from the chains implied the condiments of Freedom from discrimination and suppression. Freedom in its essence could not have been given if after a century and almost three score long fight still not received by now. Again, slavery ends but Freedom does not begin. So there goes that delay again.

As the handler of the sword, the wielder is impervious from the damage of the blade. While those who are cut continue to cry out, where is the relief, the Freedom from damages? Should not the one injured be the judge of the injury? Truth is a lie when it is proven false and can’t survive scrutiny, or when it is brutally honest but so truthful it is repulsive and rejected as a falsehood to preserve ignorance. Which is this? The biggest lie ever told is the truth when you do not want to accept it. The lie begins where the truth ends. Where Freedom from discrimination never began.

Warning! Straight no chaser. 

Truth is similar to quicksand. The more you struggle, it engulfs you. So. there can be no opposition where there is no resistance. Likewise, there can be no resistance where there is no opposition. It’s a silly notion that the last day we were notified of our Freedom made transgressions evaporate to become free. They only lessened. Only the coercion, free labor not fair labor, and physical restraint diminished while other ramifications increased. Therefore, are we free from the ramifications of being free?  

We were not promised or given Freedom. They stopped robbing us of it. It was not theirs to take, so how could they give it? Now no longer a slave, are there those who do not know this still? Do we still not fully enjoy our rights despite slavery or freedom from it? The appearance of Freedom without conviction is the problem.

Consequently, being free but unaware until notified gave us a mental perspective devoid only of physical suppression. The question is, what was that perspective? Were better techniques used to accomplish the same effect? Do other’s actions promote we still are not free or do ours that we don’t know we are free? Capitulation is surrender, and submission is by defeat, both primarily of a weakened spirit. Protect yourself at all times from both.

The options are either resistance of the status quo or the system submits you regardless of race, especially if you are black, narrowing the objective and defining the rules. There is no mystery often regarding the rules, but so what, to smell success overcome them because you ARE Black. The motivation is for the smell of it. 

Boasting of the obstacles overcome smells better than crying over obstacles that overcame you. Mental toughness and an analytical resolve supply your mind with the tools needed to overcome barriers. Any breach has been allowed to penetrate your mental perimeter to weaken your spirit. Be careful what is served that you devour; consider the menu and motive before consuming.

This celebration is diluted because the holiday benefits everyone whether they want it or not. Our experience paid for this day, so where are specific concessions for us with practical solutions to our Black condition. We are hustling backward for what we already grind for with everyone else now along for the feast. For transgressions against Blacks, it’s reasonable to assume any concessions would be specifically directed toward a black redress without exceptions.

Many issues linger despite the late notification or holiday for us to be patronized away from essential changes. A benefit analysis reveals the sum impact of the holiday probably is not a substantial change. Its practical benefit is not much more than if it had not been declared a holiday. It is devoid of any meat on the bone. Granted, the holiday is an absolutely appreciated acknowledgment if you accept payment in holidays, not practicalities.

Freedom is a concept manifested more in what is not taken than what is given. It is the availability of choices unhindered. Freedom gives you more options and a better selection, but not what is available to choose from, instead only what you can choose from. How available and accessible are these choices? Freedom restricts what you can not do while defining what you are allowed to do.

Freedom taken and is unable to be returned, dignity tarnished but cannot be restored, and permission still by your notification indicates the facade of Freedom yet to be realized. Unable to take or grant either now leaves only the lingering phycological afflicting bondage of spirit and mind to be shaken. We freely control that unless we relinquish it. Stand on it, stand in it, but don’t loiter around it. Loitering is a sign of hesitation. Claim it, not be told it.

Therefore, you are always free, but your options are always regulated. The mind evaluates what it is told, distinguishing whether you are notified, already knew, or believe. So it was not the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, or the last notification made on June 19, 1865, that freed the slave it was being told.

You must know your self-worth within your mind without being told or having to ask. A strong will and a knowledgeable mind are formidable opponents when the mind becomes an elite intellectual weapon. A weapon always at the ready, rendering you unable to be disarmed. Our mind is the final frontier of contention to be conquered by us to guarantee our Freedom by our permission. Like Dorothy, we always had the power.

Knowledge is the currency of prosperity, and that is why it is always forbidden. Knowledge is Freedom. Know that, practice that, and become that. We must master our minds. You must be made to remain ignorant to remain a slave, obedient, or perpetuate a slave mentality. Ignorant of knowledge but mostly of ourselves and our possibilities. A piece of paper signed or late word spread is no longer sufficient control to restrain our minds or liberties. Our lack of discipline and determination is.

As Ten Bears said, no four corners of a paper can hold the iron. The iron is in the tongue when you speak, and in the actions you take. And if I might add, the iron is in the mind’s thoughts and heart’s determination to defeat any obstacle placed before you. 

We must know by now!

Happy Juneteenth to all.

Enjoy your Freedom and holiday.

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating a Buzz

 

Patriotism and The American Way

Why does it Taste so Different?

Here we go again. The Capitol revolt at its core is aggression to preserve a mangled distortion of truth and a delusional rejection of reality.

An effort to circumvent an outcome that did not unfold according to a preferred advantage. The proclaimed love and allegiance to Democracy, Capitalism, and the Constitution has revealed itself to be a farce when white privilege and rogue expectations are unfulfilled.

Fairness and equality have never been the American way, with more than a thumb of collusion on the scales and at the highest levels subversively unbalancing the scales of justice. Justice is not blind but peeking to distinguish who it shall be imposed upon and who has an inalienable right to the exclusion or special consideration from its application.

Claiming the founding fathers at your back and the confederate Flag at your front, this violent takeover attempt screams insurgence and only in whispers can be called a coup.

“Loyal patriots” now fight not for the country but in mutiny against it to unseat our government and overrun the Capitol chambers decimating Democracy.

Camouflaged as patriots while masquerading as protestors, the insurrectionist has undertaken to highjack a national election and have the moral integrity of this country bent to their ideology. A minority ideology at that according to election results.

It is an obvious annihilation of and contradiction to Democracy at the behest of the highest office in the land. Not aligned with but in direct opposition to that which you claim to hold dear, our democratic society.

It is not about Resident drumpf either, at least in principle, but he did promote the fabrication and this notion of patriots. They are not patriots, and white folks are not the only ones to have served this country as real patriots.

A wide variety of racial backgrounds and women served in defense of this country despite being discriminated against, segregated, and/or excluded from service.

These groups have all persevered to serve their Flag and country honorably. These groups have served in some capacity from the beginning of this nation to support this country, especially doing times of war. Only the traitorous confederates have ever turned on this country and now seek a resurgence. There are examples of when patriots were patriots and not all white.

At the birth of this nation, a patriot merchant has been historically acknowledged as the first to give his life in defense of what would become the nation we know today.

This patriot was Crispus Attucks, a Black Man. He was the first to be shot and killed, which started the American Revolution by the Boston Massacre that ignited freedom from British rule.

He was a former slave and partly of Native American heritage. To honor his moral courage and contribution at the founding of this nation, he was laid in State, which necessitated the waiver of segregation laws.

He took two to the chest while others were shot in the back. His murderer, a white British soldier, and others were placed into custody. They were put on trial to symbolize the fair justice this land would later become known for, instead of being lynched for their crime immediately.

Even back then, six were acquitted of the eight soldiers who fired shots, and two were convicted and given reduced sentences. Once again, a Black Man shot and his white murderers shown leniency and defended by John Adams. This brand of fair justice is still on display today.

I guess some might say Crispus Attucks did not serve. Some others would say that Crispus Attucks served America before America was. However, there is no dispute that he gave his life at the very start of this nation while confronting tyranny or at the very least protesting it.

He is the very first American Hero; he was “the first to defy and the first to die” at age 47. Attucks and the other four brave protesters murdered set off the Boston Tea Party against British rule and injustice. As they say, the rest is history, but it is not surprising that they blamed the protesters for being fired upon. So, modern-day patriots, check your history.

William H Carney, born a slave, escaped slavery through the underground railroad. He was the first Black soldier to earn the Medal of Honor for valor at Fort Wagner during the Civil War. He took three shots in total but managed to fight on, picked up the American Flag, and carried it the whole time while advancing.

He was taken to a field hospital, relinquishing the Flag while never letting it touch the ground. Let us not forget that he had been shot three times after he picked up the Flag but still managed to keep the American Flag from touching the ground.

Andre Cailloux of Drew Brees’s very own beloved New Orleans was born a slave and became a Union Captain. He had his arm blown off by cannon fire during combat but continued to spearhead the charge on a suicide mission while he was gravely wounded until he was killed. It was commonplace to give the most dangerous missions to the “colored” units, who did a lot of the heavy lifting.

Many other Black heroes are listed in history for their valor during the Civil War against the Confederates attempting to overthrow America’s government.

However, because the treasonous Confederates fought against the American Flag and this country being soundly defeated, I guess you could say they were on the wrong side of history again. The Confederate flag stands for treason and slavery; what else was the Civil War about but preserving economic advantage.

American Sergeant Henry Johnson, a Black Man, single-handedly fought off German soldiers in the trenches of France during WWI. He was injured twenty-one times. As a result, he was one of the first Americans to be awarded the prestigious French Croix de Guerre Avec Palme, the highest award given by France to anyone.

He was awarded the Purple Heart and Distinguished Service Cross posthumously in the United States 57 years and 63 years after his death. As a member of a negro unit, he used a knife, a rifle, and his bare hands to fight off two dozen German soldiers.

When he was not busy fighting also managed to save lives. But, unfortunately, the racism of that time prevented many black patriots of valor whose heroics were absolutely needed but not awarded.

The Tuskegee Airmen nicknamed “the Red Tails” fought in WW2 with exemplary distinction escorting planes critical to the supply chain. Their war efforts significantly contributed to the Allies’ victory.

So skilled and fearless this “colored unit” that despite the extreme racism and segregation pervasive at that time, they forced the United States military out of extreme necessity and often at white squadron’s request to use them to ensure safe missions and swing the advantage to the allies.

They are not to be confused with the Tuskegee Study done in 1932, where black men were used as research specimens for the government study of syphilis. Done without their consent or knowledge and allowed to go untreated. The men were intentionally infected with syphilis which caused blindness, insanity, other ailments, and ultimately their premature deaths. Did they serve medicine?

Patriots of a different kind, I guess, for the advancement of medicine. In 1940 when penicillin was discovered as the cure, they still were not offered treatment.

When it became unethical to conduct such experiments in the U.S., they merely moved them to Mexico and began experimenting on their population. These human trials are why old heads did not trust the medical profession; better to be sick than dead.

Doris “Dorie” Miller, a cook, jumped in the gunnery seat and operated anti-aircraft weapons with no training and attended to the wounded later was awarded the Navy Cross.

The day was December 7, 1941, that day that will live in infamy known as Pearl Harbor. He was the first responder to defend this country against that attack. That probably qualifies as a patriot.

The right to protest is in the DNA of this country. The voice of the people heard and their right to demonstrate their discontent with the treatment of citizens.

The Vietnam War was a very unpopular war with the American Flag burned by white Americans, soldiers treated far worse than kneeling before the Flag, and the soldiers returning “home” from service spat upon. We needed civilian patriots then to not stand for that disrespect of the Flag and returning troops.

Ohio National Guard fired upon Kent State students protesting the Vietnam War on a college campus for protesting. Four students were murdered and nine others injured on May 4, 1970, the outrage and fallout from the student-led protest shutdown colleges across the country.

Resident Richard Nixon, that purveyor of racism, would be proud of Resident drumpf deadly antics now to “dominate” protesters he opposes but supports those who violated Democracy in the worst way since confederacy.

The hope that students and young people will lead us out of this shameful history is in question since some have been poisoned with wanting to “make America great again.

Many Black Women patriots also made significant contributions to the freedom that allows others to enjoy liberties that they did not. In addition, many other marginalized people of different racial backgrounds have and continue to serve this country and Flag.

Women, including Black Women, have and still fight for equality, safety, and recognition to this day.

For many years women were never treated as full citizens, believed by Charles Darwin to have the mind of a child, justifying their denial of the right to vote or run for office. The Women’s Suffrage Movement is still essentially being fought today since 1848 but is now reflected more in wage disparity and health care.

So, when it looks like this is just a racial issue, it is not nor is it a group’s radical claim to Patriotism despite others’ contribution. It is a discrimination issue manifested and facilitated by racism and sexism. Racism is the longest and most vile offense among many that fuels this brand of Patriotism quivering behind morality and religion.

Black folk’s specifically and others in general, have a record that speaks for itself of being patriots when respecting the American Flag and military service. America’s record speaks for itself too when it comes to this Democracy and the Flag, but this is a flag that never gave a dam about anyone but “white males.”

Is Democracy is just for white radicals to disperse according to their will and not be confined by the principles upon which it rests?

Well, that’s a fat cat’s easy street if you can find it. Despite Black’s service to this country, the “love” has yet to be fully felt. Instead of love, hundreds of years of brutality and economic suffering under this Democracy that you claim we should love so much.

Still, no violent storming of the Capitol because an election did not meet our black expectations or the horrible treatment we have suffered. Now tell me what seems like a better reason.

We would love Democracy more if it had done for us what it has done for you. Despite that, we have fought for the American dream that does not include us despite exhausted patience and the insanity of forgiveness.

Patriotism is a choice, a collective pride, albeit an individually made choice. Patriotism has transcended our atrocious experiences, harsh treatment, blatant discrimination, and even brutal murder. Talking about loving Patriotism under duress or unfulfilled expectations.

You would not expect the Jewish community to salute, fight for, or stand for the Nazi Flag with the atrocities against their people, but Blacks not only still stand but also serve a flag and country that should thank us for our service.

In times of crisis like 911, we are one nation, America Strong. Still, otherwise, we are n—-rs, relegated to second-class citizenship whose voting preferences should be overturned by a mob on capitol hill.

The very foundation of America was built on the brutality of slavery, and the same Constitution of The United States of America, which never included Black folks, might need to start sincerely including us for real. We fought too.

I think we have earned the right not to be treated dismissively. If not, I believe we have earned the right to protest by peacefully kneeling to symbols that have oppressed us. Our oppression has been much worse than the founding father of America have ever experienced or “patriots” whining about an election lost.

The alternative to kneeling is standing up straight and tall with our backs un-bent, displaying the same valor for ourselves that we have time and again displayed for this country.

All those who may feel our centuries-old struggle feel their own, demonstrating their dissatisfaction by their vote. In a democratic society, we have somehow become unpatriotic by not storming the Capitol attempting to overthrow Democracy.

The Black Man has every right to be constantly in fear for his life regularly given America’s continued assault on our lives and dignity. This is nothing new, but it has gotten very old.

Of all the law enforcement personnel at the Capitol, only one shot was fired despite thousands of violent terrorists besieging Democracy and even causing death. At the same time, none was in fear of their life to fire a shot except one.

Some did appear to be too busy yucking it up, giving tours, or fleeing but not in fear to use force deadly or otherwise if as if it were one black man with his back turned. No fear, no enforcement, no preparation, and no problem.

Encouraged by their deceitful and egocentric leader, white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and enemies of Democracy attempted a violent insurrection. He whipped them into a violent frenzy that can only move in large numbers and with intimidation and consent but mostly with weapons.

Overwhelming odds are a common theme of their beer muscle courage and Gestapo tactics. Their efforts were very short-sighted unless it was implied complicity that they could, or it was preferable to unseat the government and install a dictator. By some appearances and concessions, it might not be too far-fetched by the lack of resistance shown.

The people in a majority have spoken in more overwhelming numbers united not by race but as citizens of a democracy. Yet, when violent armed puppets lack even the courage to process disappointment, instead, they bellyache and hatch a coup to eradicate any future elections, especially if they do not agree with the outcome.

So, the American military will be deployed against citizens protesting racism for looting stores but not against terrorist looting democracy and forcing entry into a beacon of democratic structure fundamental to our countries existence and national security.

King David, a boy still, stood courageously against the mighty Goliath with just a slingshot, not with his boys, a mob, or heavy weaponry.

A lone protester in China among many protesters unflinchingly positioned himself in front of an armored tank in Tiananmen Square with steeled resolve. Without his boys or heavy weapons, armed with only his courage and conviction.

Where is the courage from some of our elected officials to protect Democracy? Instead, some folded to the whims of one man? Although he had law enforcement and the military at his discretion, he still did not deploy them, thereby endangering some legislature’s lives during the attack?

A failure of this magnitude cannot be exaggerated or summarily dismissed. The government was on the brink of being maimed or overthrown.

The Resident can admonish and sanction the Chinese government over Hong Kong, but he does or threatens to do the same in a democracy. At least they admit to authoritarian rule. As the bigoted puppet master’s anxiety level escalates over the end of his term, so did his desperation and blunders.

While the country fragments, he produces a karmic cause and effect that his hate base has to find ever more blatantly bizarre explanations to explain and dismiss his actions.

He has kept them on their toes with little to work with but plenty of blatant lies and divisive tweets. With pathological lying so acceptable to his base, they should encourage their spouse and children to lie whenever they open their mouth.

His lies have become more divisive and hazardous to Democracy, as well as an obstruction to the current administration. So why are career people considered knowledgeable in their field, exceptionally experienced, and highly qualified silent and disposable in favor of his delusions and ambitions?

Is it because they don’t want to risk not being re-elected or appointed in the future, or have their careers ruined at the cost of the country, our Democracy, and the Constitution?

Is it acceptable to pander to cronyism and nepotism by placing your enablers and uniquely unqualified children in government positions as if this is your family business? I remember when that use to be a crime or least frowned upon, but it has added to the element of instability.

Look at the country and our diminished position in the world severely compromised by a coup attempt, and we can all see the ramifications of the disastrous atmosphere he created.

Meanwhile, his dog whistle and overt urgings to his misguided base have not ceased when he is no longer in office. Therefore, one must ask if he becomes more or less dangerous when he no longer has the pretense of restrictions associated with the oval office.

Patriotism must stop being used as a justification and symbol of oppression and white supremacy. Beware “thugs and looters” when the looting starts the shooting starts but rest assured Capitol terrorists when the siege begins, he will sit back and grin.

Elections are for the people’s majority to always be heard in the end. Majority rules, history has taught us that. It is Patriotism for Democracy and the American way. To ensure more Patriotism for the country then maybe diminish the un-patriotic actions.

Is it more distressing to kneel or turn away from the flag as opposed to openly advocate for civil war and overthrowing the government that the flag represents? Just as all have the freedom to honor the flag, all also have the freedom to not so much.

Please reconcile using coercion but being resistant to its use. Seemingly some are patriotic to their perspective, not the principles of freedom. 

P.S. At any rate, without Twitter to keep him up at night, I hope Patriotism can sleep well.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

Aubrey’s Deadly Jog

 Posse Comitatus

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest condolences to the family of Ahmad Arbery and hope that my intent to shed light does not in any way deepen the family’s grief and mourning but be an instrument to assist in achieving justice and perspective. Every person is born with a purpose in life, no matter how long or brief that life may be, sometimes to achieve a higher purpose.

The purpose may be beyond our understanding and reasoning, which only deepens our pain. However, that purpose may not have been for them to achieve longevity but rather to be the catalyst for the advancement of a cause. In this situation and similar situations, the grand purpose may be to become the straw that stirs the social consciousness and brings about historical change. Yet, for whatever reason, some are chosen to be bona fide crusaders to advance a cause greater than themselves.

All law enforcement and prosecutors should know as part of their mandatory training that the only thing that separates the general public and the police in authority is the police’s ability to arrest for misdemeanor crimes and issue citations within their jurisdiction. In addition, all citizens have the right to make a citizen’s arrest regarding felony crimes, although not recommended and strongly discouraged.

Although that action comes with strong recommendations to avoid making those arrests, encouraged instead to have minimal contact or interference outside of notifying the police. An off-duty policeman’s standard of intervention is not mandatory but only to take a police action that can be as simple as calling the police or reporting their observations.

To make a citizen’s arrest in a felony matter, you must first have intricate knowledge of what constitutes a felony and the various exceptions that should be considered, such as the force continuum. The main exception is you cannot legally shoot anyone over property regardless of the property’s value or the felony status of the theft.

Not only do police know this, but anyone with a concealed carry permit is taught this as part of their CCW training for receiving a certificate and permit. You also cannot instigate a situation and then claim self-defense or being in fear for your life. This information is disseminated by the instructor giving the certificate in a mandatory state-issued handbook educating you on the matter. That is why they have police academies and extensive training to distinguish arrest powers.

Civilians attempting to hold someone forcibly on nonfelonies for them refusing to submit to your curiosity and lack of authority is kidnapping. That person is essentially being kidnapped and not even close to meeting the legal threshold needed for a felony citizen arrest. He had no reason or legal obligation to comply with his own kidnapping or legally comply with someone who had no right to confront him brandishing weapons. Kidnapping is to remove someone and restrict their movements without authority and against their will or consent.

Did this group of self-appointed champions of good know his intent and if he may have been an investor, interested home buyer, had approval, an employee stopping to check, or if he was in fact trespassing? Their knowledge of the law would have to extend to understanding criminal mischief, criminal trespassing, criminal damaging, vandalism, unoccupied structures, petty theft, and grand larceny to start with, in addition to Aubrey’s constitutional rights. He clearly was not carrying stolen property.

None of the above mentioned would grant them the right that they acted upon, especially not being directly affected as owners. Did they notify the contractor for confirmation? What was their authoritative jurisdiction? Did they have the minimal legal corpus delicti to affect an arrest, detain him, or make a voluntary request that required him to submit? What was the evidence of a crime? So now their prima facie probable cause was based on what felony crime they were reasonably sure that he had committed. What authorization did they have to confront Aubrey violently?

Their lack of in-depth investigation required at the very most being warned or advised? Their proliferation of fabricated burglaries in the neighborhood, which went unreported, had nothing to do with this situation since you cannot burglarize a place with no doors, windows, or encasement to prevent or have the expectation of preventing access or entry. If these vigilantes were aware of the others who committed the same atrocity, are they now justified to hunt them down, or how did they confront them?

Were they most likely already aware of others who had done the same, but something differentiated Aubrey from them? Were others disregarded for the same violation and their actions permitted because of their race? If he were white, would they have reacted differently, also overlooking him?

You would expect a veteran law dog to be slicker rather than a principal participant in killing someone over property and not even his property. Also, Aubrey was a gentleman jogging and not using furtive moves, evasive actions revealing a criminal intent, or any urgency resembling fleeing a crime. So, why would it be necessary to confront him in the highest threat pyramid mode instigating a code red situation with weapons?

Armed private citizens can be assumed to be robbers or an assault attempt. The real police must announce who they are loud and clear and advise you of their suspicions when ordering you to comply while in uniform and with a patrol car. Private citizens demanding compliance while their authority is unknown or nonexistent leads to these sorts of issues. That is why citizen arrests are ill-advised unless life is endangered.

What was the vigilante’s declaration that would make Aubrey react in fear for his life from a good old fashion roundup or threat of serious physical harm? The only reason for the weapons display was a projected fear of a deliberate intent to confront him while armed. Even with a numbers advantage while confronting him, why would the cowardly lions go that far if they were that afraid.

They could have just followed him until the real champions of doing good on the city payroll could have arrived. Having a shotgun drawn for a conversation was unnecessary, revealing the fear that they claimed which was their creation. Governed by using the minimal force necessary, what were they afraid of going even beyond police authority, and if they were that afraid, why did they?

In law enforcement, there is a natural progression of how things routinely unfold. But, unfortunately, this would appear outside of that natural progression in the lack of their initial arrest for nearly two months and the appearance of a suspected coverup. The coverup has to stop creating a dangerous atmosphere that significantly damages a portion of the public’s trust in believing that you must abide by the law when applied against you. Unfortunately, however, it isn’t applied for you.

The law must also abide by its own standards when broken against you and applied against another even if they are white. Thus, by law, all the affirmative defenses are useless if you place yourself in harm’s way intentionally, are an instigator in the wrong, or third-party defenses that arise out of lack of right or authority with no obligation or danger except that undertaken and created by you.

They exhibited more authority than the police are allowed, and no one had a problem with that. I guess even the retired law dog forgot that he was retired. There are too many discrepancies and other exculpatory facts unknown to the public revealing misconduct to be defended.

The examination of tapes or radio transmissions between dispatcher and responders, any separate dispatcher tape and log or notes, landline conversations and texts outside the official system, frame by frame scrutiny of the video taken, and visual enhancement to determine specific elements, electronic devices, emails, conversations had and statements made after the fact will definitely expose their criminal intent and any concealment efforts.

Their story is prone to crack under closer scrutiny exposing their true motivation, racist state of mind, past discriminatory beliefs, validating deceptions, and glaring inconsistencies. The law is specific but frequently manipulated and ignored as a matter of principle regarding these incidents on a racial basis and a case of selective enforcement. This has been justice the American way.

Others get off on what we routinely are arrested immediately for or are imprisoned. I guess justice really is blind but seemingly only to the facts. Some are routinely afforded concessions not made available to us, even while merely jogging. Some who would state they are absolutely diametrically opposed to racism and categorically deny their hypocrisy still saw no need for immediate arrest for this cold-blooded murder.

Brazen negligence and dereliction of duty must be punished, accompanied by a firing or resignation in addition to the prosecution of any coverup undertaken. Someone like that, despite personal views, cannot remain in a position of exercising that degree of lack of judgment, regardless of their color.

When will public officials be held accountable as a general deterrent, powerfully demonstrating that the public and other public officials will not tolerate it? The hypocrisy of it all, not to apply a proper and consistent legal application, is obviously stacked to white privilege or law enforcement bias.

Any official coverup is almost as egregious as the crime. It reveals an acceptance and approval for the offender and the offense while a murder did occur. The injustice you cannot feel is revealed by your barbaric inclinations reflected by your inaction. Bigotry unfit for public office and a tacit approval condemning your fitness to serve.

As for the vigilantes, there could not be hatred without a hater, nor could there be a lie without a liar to tell it. When characterized by fear or hate, it reveals the weakness in your mind that cannot be concealed. You absolutely cannot claim to stand your ground or be in fear for your life when you run up on someone trying to put the smackdown and get scared because they didn’t wither.

Why did you initiate a conflict then cry out to the universe of being in fear of your life but not in fear of committing your savagery or bigotry? If some crazed bigot chased you down carrying a shotgun and armed with murderous intent, what are you to then think? You were probably outraged that a courageous Black Man still would not submit and cower in the same fear that you showed while consumed by your racism.

If you were a victim of what you are a practitioner of, imagine the victim’s perspective jogging one minute and life slipping away the next paying your price without proof of a crime because you wanted to be a cowboy. Practitioners of the unspeakable and sympathizers within the system that aligns with you saw no fault in your actions have exposed themselves. They should be prosecuted along with you.

Considering the violation of human dignity after the murder and essentially the abuse of a corpse by violating all human decency to take a trophy picture and video your escapades led to your demise. Reversing the roles and you would be outraged and rampaging for justice but recommend endless tolerance from us.

Now you want to throw a rock and hide your hand? In fear of YOUR life, what about Aubrey having more reason to be in fear for his life while hunted by multiple assailants? Those officials who aligned themselves with your actions have effectively identified themselves as accomplices after the fact to have attempted to aid and abet concealment of a murder. No one can be proud of your lack of courage, lack of human decency, and inferiority complex disguised as vigilantism that proves nothing is beneath you or your supporters.

Devout no doubt in your religion that states thou shall not kill, but still indiscriminate killers because you are entitled, afraid, and think you have a better spoon to be beyond the law. Needing someone to discriminate against to make you feel better about yourself, but the racism and fear remain even when the numbers are disproportionately in your favor and carrying a shotgun. Maybe the answer to curbing this racism is to give you some spinach-like Popeye or a pretend medal like the cowardly lion, perhaps even some decency of character.

Veteran law dog must have forgotten that this is not the 1950’s. But then, I guess at least now you don’t have to worry about the old neighborhood or your house anymore; accommodations will be provided for you and hopefully for life. The contractor or owner of the structure is at home eating dinner while you and your vigilante gang are headed to prison, not realizing that being the neighborhood enforcer was not your role. Now you are being held accountable for your vigilante murder.

Justice and arrest were delayed for over two months. There were repeated refusals before an arrest was made or proper handling of an apparent state murder violation of an unarmed black man, as well as DOJ civil rights hate crime specifications violated. Justice will not be complete until the murder conviction and imprisonment of the three vigilantes.

The dereliction of duty by police, prosecutors, and district attorneys demonstrating beyond bad judgment after the fact to absolve murder need to be identified and exposed. Once exposed, they need to be prosecuted according to the degree of their wrongdoing that undermined their office, positions, legal responsibility, and public trust.

A prevailing national mentality has emerged from the shadows to reflect seething racism seeking to justify and implement alternative interpretations and unlawful applications of law to ignore atrocious crimes and murders against Blacks. Those whose actions have identified themselves to exercise these mentalities with illegal ramifications demonstrate a criminal act that merit prosecution.

Behind the scenes at the highest levels, the Trump presidency, the dog whistle has been issued in a not so discreet or subtle way stating fine people on both sides. But, unfortunately, this dog whistle creates an atmosphere where this racist conduct is encouraged and applauded by the racist puppet master, delighted how the puppets dancing on strings are ignorantly carrying out a racist agenda.

The 2020 election in Georgia revealed resistance to lawful changes that didn’t meet your expectations and ignited extreme opposition to the rule of law. The law is to be upheld when contrary to other’s expectations but disregarded when applied to yours or somehow deemed fraudulent when you are disappointed. The legal process must be equally applied without compromise or variations of compliance by those who enforce it, even if not by those governed by it.

Racist consent no doubt created the atmosphere to draw these bigots out of their vigilante closet. Perhaps politics gassed them up to make America great again by divisive rhetoric, racist tolerance, and assumption of white immunity. Nero, a mad man, was said to have fiddled while Rome burned; he now tweets while America burns and while you will sit in jail. You should have chosen more carefully your actions and your inspiration.

These perpetrators of murder and enablers of these murderers share an overtly appalling commonality which is a blatant mockery of accountability and scorn of prosecution. They are cohorts of the same criminality. That cannot be allowed to go unsanctioned while justice is mutilated to anemic integrity and corrupt contortions.

Vigilante’s actions circumventing the law and standard of justice when committed undermines the legal system for civilized expectations of conduct and due process. Ongoing and collective intent to minimize this murder transforms individual acts of atrocity into unacceptable systemic indulgences in violation of state law, the RICO Act, Consent Decree investigation, and DOJ hate crimes or civil rights violations.

The murder and coverup investigation regarding all participants should leave them subject to the highest degree of legal condemnation. This is mandatory not only for the loss of Mr. Ahmaud Arbery’s life by murder but the integrity of the legal system to be respected and representative for all. If not, the law is respected by none, not those committing atrocities or those refusing to be subjected to them.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

Tactical Protest

 Objective Campaign

The intent and purpose of protest are to demonstrate the objection, frustration, and dissatisfaction of circumstances denied redress, which can no longer persist without adjustment or change. Civilizations have been toppled over disregard for the people’s protest of conditions that will not be tolerated. Protest can be stifled, but eventually, it resurfaces and overcomes the suppression of the people’s will. History always repeats itself in this regard, and change prevails, or extinction occurs.

Effective methods of protest vary with the extent of outrage and the ramification of its effect to force change. Additionally, the passage of time influences the efficiency of the protest methods used to settle any such grievances. The more widespread the objection, the higher the expectations for change are. The more likely a revolutionary demand emerges that requires radical adjustments to the system according to the people’s will and acceptability.

The method of the specific change’s ultimate purpose and other expressions of frustration should not be confused or used to dilute it by the actions used to achieve that change. Radical responses have erupted during protests where force has been met with force. Peaceful protest has also been met with force. The circumstances under which demonstration is conducted must be focused and flexible to maximize its effectiveness while minimizing the harm to the protesters being suppressed by this force.

Harmful exposure to protestors should be minimized and is equally as important as the cause. However, perhaps with the societal climate changing, a new political administration settling in, and the Covid virus still lurking, it may be time to adjust the tactics. Maybe, use more strategic, effective, and conciliatory tactics conducive to the desired change making the outcome more attainable. This is not to suggest not to keep the pressure on or lessen the expectations but to achieve objectives differently to galvanize resources across a spectrum of solutions and support more efficiently.

Any protest should consolidate active and passive support not to alienate resources or allies that can be an asset supporting change or at the very least not standing in opposition to it. The total Black population is roughly 48 million or 14.7 percent of the total U. S. population of 328 million, leaving approximately 280 million people that are other than black. With 67 percent estimated at some point to support racial equality, it is clear that an additional 52.3 percent (171 million) would be helpful.

Taking it to the streets with bullhorns had its place in the past and may still contain a level of effectiveness. However, today a precise focus combined with efficient use of human resources applying technology can disseminate messaging and informational exchanges beyond physical opposition to gain more of an advantage.

More modern tactics can resolve some significant concerns and limit the negative impact on protesters, the alienation of allies, and the alternative actions or narratives levied against the protestors. Protest tactics, methods, and ideologies need to be updated; surgical precision, not blunt force, is required. It is not the skill of the sword but the skill of the swordsman that directs the blows.

Destruction is an emotional response to frustration that is not equivalent to passion or progress. It undermines the success of legitimate efforts and squanders opportunities for meaningful action, resolution, and advancement. The objective is to facilitate focused disruption and change without random destruction or ill-fated confrontation. A tactical advantage has the purpose of engagement with a minimal footprint or target but maximum effect.

Inflicting disruption and affecting changes without being subject to retribution and resisting dispensing collateral damage to innocent parties not involved in the engagement is the goal. Specific tactics can define most responses by manipulative design, thereby aligning the reaction with the purpose of the tactics while working to position the objective for success. Success can often be attainable without conflict when the opposition’s energy is converted or depleted to benefit the protest objective. You cannot lose when causing methodical attrition to the opposition unless by surrender.

Conflict is always an option but becomes exhausting and depleting when recklessly deployed as a default reaction. It should be the last resort even when conflict is the first chosen action. This is not a doctrine of non-violence but a perspective of principle to not become or commit the very oppression we are protesting against. It only justifies their response, fear, and treatment of us, forming a perspective contrary to change while enforcing resistance. Resistance needs to be weakened and not fortified.

It serves no meaningful purpose to destroy or loot except to indiscriminately inflict pain upon someone who has not harmed us directly or who may be sympathetic to the objective of the protest. Protest awry presents the opportunity to express anger, emotions, or repressed personal vendettas by offering an outlet under the disguise and protection of collective outrage for the cause. The business of protest is not personal; it is collaborative, the collective objective is primary, and it will provide some resolution for many of the personal vendettas.

Destruction for the therapeutic purpose of soothing angry feelings or emotional outbursts is not practical or efficiently convincing and mostly futile without focused goals for achievement. Being under the influence of a mob mentality or raging emotions undermines the collective purpose of tactically maneuvering to accomplish our stated objectives and changes. Avoiding compromise by self-imposed distractions or succumbing to emotions is essential in executing a strategy for change.

Our anger turned inward or against us is on us and counter-productive. Emotional intoxication creates an impairment to clear thinking and promotes regrettable actions alienating allies from supporting our cause. Regression into our deferred pain or submission to displays of emotional fervor prolongs our condition. As the past has consistently proven, anger subsides with time and expression, making it unsustainable and unreliable motivation to propel protest or change.

Pent-up emotional frustrations must be controlled, transformed, and refocused for any protest’s sustainable strength and integrity. The mind must be engaged, not the emotions, for logical actions and sustainability of intent. The insanity of our same approach without results is evidence of itself that we have traveled this road many times before to find ourselves on the same road again. It is past due time to change approaches for perhaps a different result other than being angry, stubborn to self-examination, or prone to destructive behavior.

Confrontation is the lowest level of persuasive negotiation or communication with the greater force usually dictating the terms and conditions over the lesser force. Overcoming a more significant force or power does not involve direct altercation but a strategic and analytical negation of their advantage. Primitive expressions of anger acted out from past pain are counter-productive to future gains.

Anger disregards intellectual pursuit and persuasion, surrendering to and conceding an inability to reason or debate our objective convincingly. Commitment finds a way to achievement by not succumbing to surrender or outburst when faced with obstacles but engages adaptation.

Our strategy’s disciplined and foundational principles have to remain firm in its conviction but flexible in its focused execution to sustain the expansion of our influence and support the acceptance of our objective. The cultivation of our base requires that they be informed of the purpose and the method of achieving it. Their determination, resources, talents, and skills, when efficiently deployed, will effectively optimize their contribution to the collective objective.

The methods used should be surgical and fluid in dissecting the obstacles to the objective’s realization. When the methods and techniques are organized and unified, the impact can undoubtedly be predictable and quantified. However, when we come to do serious business, then keep it strictly business. Doing business with tangible results with measurable outcomes must be structured by expressed policies and concessions aligned with our agenda.

Appeal to one political party or ideology has historically failed, resulting in bouncing from one extreme to another, never achieving the wholesale changes sought. More realistically, it has led to being conquered by exploiting our differences and personal ambitions instead of unified by our commonality of interest and objective. This division has no viable focus, momentum, or process to make demands much less change.

The insanity of the same old protest tactics has yielded glacier changes considering the last 60 years of progress since the bullhorn and slogans that rhyme have formed the focal point of social justice protest. Unfortunately, as a result, perceptions remain tainted (theirs and ours), assurances hollow, and equality still elusive.

That is not to discredit the efforts and accomplishments of those who have gotten us to this frontier. Instead, it suggests that to fully benefit from these unprecedented times embracing tactics conducive to current sentiment and public consciousness would seem wise. We can then avoid unnecessarily repeating the same futile cycle where destruction overshadows progress.

A multidimensional approach must be utilized, attacking the systems and perpetrators of injustice and those who would align themselves with justifying or concealing institutional and societal violations. Political and legislative recourse is the most pervasive and effective way to universally isolate and identify systemic injustices to punitively and economically persuade or penalize transgressions and transgressors alike.

It is imperative to use all those who would align themselves with our objective of equality and fairness to address both major political parties to propose, pledge, and produce programs, legislation, and penalties. The precise agreed-upon procedural implementation and application should be transparent and obvious.

Changes to existing structures in violation must be urgently undertaken and remedied. Given the opportunity to honor any assurances, visibly effective actions would be the only acceptable verification. Our political and economic courtship must be accompanied by this bouquet as well as by any other suitors who would seek favor with us.

Since beggars have never been choosers, for us to have a choice, we must develop further options to empower our interest without other’s permission or compliance. Therefore, make it necessary and in their best interest to create a coalition with us essential to their own success demonstrated by their actions seeking and validating our trust.

Political and economic prowess is fundamental to being respected as a force to be reckoned with and afforded the same first-class citizenship considerations as any other group. A major cohesive political initiative is needed to consolidate a coalition of grievances to remedy historical and systematic discriminations. Redress inclusive of our grievances and interest, including those marginalized within the diversity of our ranks.

While the political influence and legislative reform are the most pervasive and effective methods, economic protest is the most immediate and convincing consideration to facilitate change. Mutual goals, shared results, cultural awareness, and systematic bias can all be altered by the bottom line.

Maximum strength can be derived from the imposing of strategies that impact and weaken the financial interests of those in opposition. Let our spending do the heavy lifting against immovable obstacles and damaging objectives. Money penetrates many adverse resolves.

Preparing, educating, and directing our base in our preferred way of resistance or persuasion is the most impactful initiative. Financial withdrawal puts us at no physical risk, allows us to remain lawfully blameless, and is an exercise in our spending discretion that can be heard without ever being seen but felt. It is called discretionary spending, and it is our prerogative.

The tactical concentration of resources and the creative application of proven techniques reversed engineered and effectively used against us can be effective for use by us. Hostage negotiators seek to humanize hostages to captors by deflecting their ideology, making them reluctant to harm the hostages. The most prevalent is self-identifying with the hostages and reflecting their similarities to elicit empathy from the captors. They must be made to see themselves in you or see the similarities of you in themselves.

Lima syndrome techniques can be used effectively towards those who are not hopelessly entrenched in their ideology and position to encourage sympathy for those who have wronged or are wronged. Their injustice is their shame which they feel compelled to resolve along with civilized impulses of compassion. The same technique can reverse social engineering to reject racism and instill a more socially compassionate affinity for equality.

Conversion of the ideologies and perspectives of people must hold a more significant enticement to change old thoughts rather than to adhere to them. First disproving those antiquated beliefs, then embracing the voluntary integration to their identity a genuine acceptance of the change. Their hurtful actions becoming vile, distasteful, and regrettable to themselves.

Protest not aligned with core beliefs results in resistance as a survival mechanism as if they were personally attacked. This personal attack is then internally adapted to reconcile those core beliefs to justify resistant thoughts and actions. Any required change must be a self-revelation where an acceptance or realization transforms those actions and attitudes to a different set of core beliefs aligned with a new perspective.

The concept of addition by subtraction seems counter-intuitive, but much can be gained by what is taken away. It is far more challenging to remove a thought and replace it than to place it there initially. In this regard, social engineering must be addressed relative to racial inferiority or superiority complexes perpetuation. Spreading of either must prevent the ratio of people who learn, are taught, display, or are made to feel either.

Repetition and reinforcement of these concepts lead to their prevalence and, when reversed, can lead to these concepts being rejected. Time and patience utilizing reverse-engineering of the propagation of these concepts where there then becomes an overwhelming presence of the desired one, and the absence of the unwanted one leads to the extinction of the unwanted behavior. Like potty training of sorts, it instills a level of conditioning that is socially acceptable, compelling, and enduring.

 

 

Aside from the many psychological and behavioral modification techniques available, procedural adjustments can be similarly effective on institutional and structural entities. These agencies entirely comprised of people operating within those systems are either governed by, restricted by, or compelled by some parameter of conduct or procedural mandate. The adjustments can be implemented when an understanding of their protocols, mandates, and operations is utilized.

Intimate knowledge and understanding of these parameters can nullify, neutralize, restrain, or mobilize their resources. Conflict is short-sighted when others can do the heavy lifting for our purpose. For example, resources can be utilized for our protection or against us depending on how we maneuver their interpretation of our intent. Let their muscle support our intent and against any known antagonist intent, as the national guard did for school desegregation in the sixties.

To lessen the possibility of conflict and be equally effective, a massive crowd assembled in one place without a specific agenda for their collective assembly is not tactical or practical when our assembly results in their assembly as a stronger, more fortified consolidated force. Peaceful assembly locations should be carefully chosen, and agendas precisely directed and fully understood with contingency plans against conduct clearly undermining our purpose. There have to be no tolerances for egos, flexing, insults, emotions, or agent provocateurs, just our objectives and goals.

Any conduct while assembled under our flag reveals whether you are with us or for yourself, in which case this unwanted activity damages our purpose. Our protest must occupy the high ground morally, intellectually, and geographically to move separately but in coordination, while converging collectively into a specific purpose and method to achieve that purpose. Disbursement into smaller crowds that spread resources and divide commands demonstrating clear, peaceful intentions minimizes herd mentality on both sides, and our communication can become more sustainable and direct.

If a breakdown should then occur, it would be isolated to that one location and not into collective chaos as when there is one massive assembly. At peaceful assemblies, law enforcement has to respond to any probability as a paid captive audience. So instead of yelling, insulting, or confronting them, why not try to convert them or at least salvage the ones who may find themselves marginalized within their own ranks as well as sympathetic to our protest and objective.

It is a marketing opportunity since they cannot leave, and exposure to our ideology cannot be avoided. This time and opportunity can be used to hear or see our message and possibly promote it in places where we cannot. By the same measure, the key is not conflict but expense. The more they stand there, the larger the expenditure becomes until it becomes too much on the city budget. City officials will want to negotiate a resolution because law enforcement will also complain and protest about their own conditions and attrition. It will then become a matter of wasted resources and weakened morale.

Law enforcement, city officials, and city council can be required to meet with the public at any number of safe environments where we can put a name and face with a promise or proposed action. The police department is always open to receiving complaints, must investigate, and must give a disposition to the submitting complainants. Churches, schools, community centers, and government facilities can all be utilized for community events and meetings. If they can’t come to us, then we can always peacefully assemble and go to them. Systems and resources are always susceptible to being overwhelmed.

Law enforcement reform starts with the hiring practices of who they put into the uniform and an asserted effort to increase their interaction and familiarity with the culture of the community they serve. Avoidance of bias deployment of selective enforcement throughout the community, a better internal and public accountability system, and assurances that reflect departments and specialized units ratios align with the community demographics are also needed. Discretion is encouraged where minor offenses build goodwill and correction instead of revenue and criminal intent.

Removing the overseer, occupying force, and adversarial culture and mentality of law enforcement to be above the people they serve is crucial to better policing. Changing the officer’s expectations within the department to be less numerically driven as the basis for the court system, jails, and general fund revenue. Additionally, training needs to be directed at mental and psychological options for compliance, de-escalation, and control under fearful or stressful situations that simulate reality. Indeed, a different type of training and increased training is in order.

Engaging the political and legal process at the municipal, county, and state level to change the city charters, county enforcement, and state laws mandating more accountability and transparency removes many instances of abuse. The other component to remove abuses is to remove those who obstruct or violate the intent or equal application of the law. City Charters can make the Police Chief accountable to the public and not the mayor. The law is full of remedies that are not currently aligned with the will of the people or used to reconcile them.

The political structure of this country is established upon majority rule, even if that majority is by one. The path forward seems clear to keep that which has served us well in the past, embrace that which reveals itself to be effective moving forward, and discard that which has not produced the desired results.

The use of technology, emails, social media, and the like that can be consolidated at the push of send is a powerful tool to disseminate protocols, actions, and objectives. Information is the new currency, and shared education is the manner of transport to expose the iniquities of history and the needed corrections now and in the future for advancement.

The objective must be exalted above the method of the objection, the message superseding the messenger, and the change sustained beyond the sacrifices made. All those concerned are welcome to be agents of change under this directive that lessens harm to the integrity of our concerns.

We must practice policy-driven professional protest, not random emotional exhibitions of extortion. Some of the methods and techniques available are time-sensitive and subject to subversion. There are forces actively attempting to legislate and criminalize specific actions to abolish or lessen their use and effectiveness, making it more difficult to protest without retribution and retaliation.

These laws designed as countermeasures to suppress voting and protest have been announced or anticipated which the development and implementation of effective alternative methods must be employed that are impervious to being undermined. Force is used for revolution, which is not reasonable since our goal evolves and it is not the overthrow of the government. On January 6, 2021, an attempt was made on the Capitol by anarchists hell-bent on suppressing our objectives and the incoming administration as well as the imposition of theirs.

Force in the form of civil unrest and civil disobedience, as it is termed, has minimal effect, being localized at best and a squander of human resources at worst. Using revolution employing force and confrontation, the butcher’s tools generate casualties and opposition with the need to maintain coerced compliance. Evolution is the tool of the master akin to chess outmaneuvering the opposition manipulating their move by intellect and persuasion to anticipate their move and checkmate them with their contribution.

We are not equipped for revolution by force and should not be so inclined when the results move us farther away from our goals. On the contrary, the times are ideally suited for evolution, with the circumstances ripe with the proper strategic approach. The surgical attainment of our prime objectives should aspire to minimal exposure and maximum benefit. With that in mind, adaptation and progression do not have to be glacier, but it will take some time and sustained effort.

To survey the factual landscape and assess the most effective course of action, the first thing we must do is control our emotions and remain reasonable about the sequence and scope of our goals. We can not succumb to the emotional compulsion to express our frustrations through destructive methods that yield only a release of anger but limited results.

We must then logically analyze the playbook being used against us for vulnerabilities and deficiencies. Many have historically been the same, but the support has waned, significantly exaggerating the weaknesses exposing new paths to change. Just as their ideological numbers have weakened, ours have been strengthened, forging overt empathy and allegiances towards justice for us.

Dissent and allegiances in unison with a significant number of people who should not be alienated or excluded from their contribution to a mutual objective. For example, some have aged out of active protest in the streets. However, they still can significantly contribute if an avenue for their participation was available which remained within their capabilities. The same holds for adolescents who can contribute in their own particular way or those who would need to remain anonymous for their own preservation but would love to contribute if provided a way.

The racist or conservative value ideology has to be exposed for what it is and the lack of inclusion of some who support it, not realizing that they are not included except for achieving a goal that will discard them. Conservatism is rooted in the past, which does not include alternative sexualities, gender roles not male-dominated, inter-racial relationships, immigrants who visually do not look white, and the list goes on.

These are the divisions and vulnerabilities which need to be exposed. The 2020 election and the strategy utilized by Stacey Abrams and many others are symbolic of the horizontal attack on a vertical establishment. The legs can be taken out to make the head fall.

The divide and conquer tactics that have been so effective against us redirected against the social intimidation used to sustain this stain of racism can now be used as never before to topple this system of discrimination. Isolating its methods and motivations cultivating change for its own survival or wither isolated from the acceptability of change. The implosion of maintaining their discriminating ideology will collapse when starved. The pen is mightier than the sword, and the briefcase more effective than muscle can use their momentum against their purposes when redirected for our purposes.

The prototype builds a horizontal coalition targeting as many local gatekeepers as possible from the school boards to city council from the infrastructure that governs them by vote, city charters, or other legislation that either changes their policy and functions or promotes the compromise needed for our redress.

The latest census report does not accurately reflect the shifting demographics of those by their designation whose interest would more closely align with our objectives for their benefit. The number of those who would oppose or actively resist has diminished when put into the context of racial and economic oppression, which comparatively suppresses their prosperity as well.

Focusing on the horizontal social foundation is where the legal and meat on the bones changes will be more attainable and intensively affected at the grassroots level. Producing new socio-economic norms not constricted by race, gender, or discrimination will require more vertical institutional infiltration.

It would be regrettable not to fully benefit from this unprecedented time in a diametrical shift of ideologies, theirs and ours. Confronting this plague of racism that has persisted for centuries has spilled out into the open, and we can not refuse to update our strategy conducive to meaningful change.

There was civil unrest under the previous administration as clashes of ideology and practice, but that most certainly seems not to be the case with the Biden-Harris administration, so why would the method of protest be the same for friend and foe. They deserve a chance to benefit us from the highest levels as they have pledged without being encumbered by behavior that undermines their efforts or strengthens the opposition.

By demonstrating their actions and those appointed by them, they have demonstrated more willingness toward fairness than we have been recently accustomed to. So let us do our business while they do their business unencumbered by each other and in support and coordination towards a just objective.

We can use all the help we can get and can not afford to squander our allies or resources by our emotional behavior or lack of logical strategy. So many of these protests are in response to the loss of life of individuals whose family gets constantly bombarded with reminders of their loss. They deserve closure and resolution reflective of the pain they endure and provide the progress that can be the only thing to minimize their loss and provide some degree of comfort.

So first and foremost, let us not get too wrapped up in our anger to exacerbate their pain without honoring the progression needed as a result of THEIR loss. We must embrace their wellbeing and make sure they are provided for while we claim our actions are on their behalf without honoring their wishes or embracing their condition.

Remember, it is about their families and protest, collectively, not us individually releasing anger. We must remain diligently respectful of their loss. United, we stand erect consolidated in purpose and with the integrity of our convictions to demonstrate that which we demand.

The teachings of Sun Tzu or the Five Rings present conceptual tactics of principle and concept. The study of Hannibal from Carthage and Shaka Zulu reveals helpful strategic maneuvering of resources, innovation, and positioning. These learnings are military tactics that will prove effective in a civilian application of protest.

War tactics applied to peaceful thought processes guiding social movements whose ideology is adapted to reflect the logical application of their concepts not to create war but to create evolution and progression. They are designed to minimize conflict and self-inflicted collateral damage while ensuring success in overcoming obstacles by a coalition of consensus.

The question is will we put an end to some of this nonsense or wait for others who have less incentive? But, again, the perspective of tactical protest is wisest, not demonstrations of emotional outbursts.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

 

 

 

Resisting Arrest Gone Wrong

Refrain from Assault.

Let me state that this is not to bash the police, and I support Police Officers and their safety when confronting dangerous and violent criminals who endanger lives. However, I will not honor these rogue policemen who act from being afraid or, even worst being callous and reckless with their use of force.

Fresh off of the Chauvin verdict, some would say do not resist arrest, merely comply with lawful or unlawful police commands, do not attempt to flee or escape, or force the police to use force against you to gain control. For them, we need to redefine resisting arrest and noncompliance that necessitate the use of force being used against someone.

There is the legitimate reality where force is needed to effect an arrest or prevent death or serious bodily harm. However, during these times, it must be distinguished whether the arrestee is resistant or combative. The difference between being resistant is not wanting to comply, attempting to get away, and combative is actively attacking the police person to inflict damage. Either way, the level of force must reflect the level of threat posed and the totality of the circumstances, including the crime committed.

For example, let’s examine a real-life situation and determine for yourself from the police person’s perspective the degree of fear for their safety or how the combative noncompliance of the suspect contributed to the use of force against them.

Afterward, you can determine for yourself if the suspect posed a sufficient danger and warranted the use of force against them. Keep in mind that laws and police policy and procedures govern the use of force, and noncompliance alone may not be the only criteria for force. Still, there may be some mitigating circumstances to take into account.

This involves a suspect who the responding policeman believed was fleeing the crime scene after an attempted theft offense and being confronted by the store personnel. When the policeman confronted the thief, he was met with disregard for his command and attempted to escape the scene.

He immediately, for his own safety and the protection of the public, physically engaged the thief with physical force to subdue and prevent their escape. The policeman then believes he was met with a monumental struggle that clearly left him out of breath and presumably exhausted, eventually needing backup to control the suspect.

Thank goodness backup arrived to lend assistance as the suspect appeared to be a handful for both police persons. There would have been a tremendous outcry from the public for another non-compliant criminal if deadly force had been used.

Once even handcuffed on the ground face down, subdued, and reasonably under control from the previous struggle, the thief still was insistent on making it home. Due to the struggle, the suspect did suffer some injuries, but deadly force was avoided displaying the police person’s restraint under challenging circumstances.

The suspect’s history was unknown at the time, and I am still unaware of their criminal history, if any, or their propensity to assault police personnel. We cannot allow that, as the policeman to first encounter the suspect repeatedly advised the suspect that he was having none of it. He further explained to the suspect why force was needed and the folly of not complying with his commands. The suspect still did not seem to grasp the gravity of the situation or comply.

To further clarify the danger the suspect posed, the suspect was a 73-year-old white lady for those who it may make a difference. She is approximately 4′ 10′ tall and eighty pounds suffering from dementia. The Young Turks reported her name to be Karen Garner living in Loveland, Colorado. The video captioned “Cops assault elderly woman with dementia” can be seen on TYT. The incident occurred on June 26, 2020. It has come to light because of a federal lawsuit against the police for excessive force. It was captured on police body cam.

The merchandise attempted to be stolen from Walmart amounted to $13.88, which was recovered by Walmart personnel. When confronted, she produced a card to pay and had the ability and willingness to pay but was refused by store personnel and sent on her way.

The police were still called for this scenario. They caught her down the road, walking where he confronted her, ordering her to stop. She did stop, repeatedly stating that she was going home, and proceeded to do so. Shortly after this point, the policeman physically engaged her wrangling her to the ground in rodeo fashion.

Before we go on to be clear, let’s sum up the crime and the policeman’s recourse or authority to respond in how he did. The store refused payment and let her go. The store retrieved their merchandise which amounted to petty theft. The store, most likely and by all indications, would decline to prosecute for the attempted theft. Folks, this is Walmart we are talking about and an elderly lady with dementia.

Furthermore, these stores might want to reconsider always calling the police on these very petty crimes, which they most likely will not waste their time prosecuting. The claim was she pulled down an associate’s mask. However, all charges were dropped.

Think about if she should have even been arrested or given a citation, not to mention physically manhandled for such a petty crime. She suffered injuries to her shoulder (dislocated), arm (broken), and wrist (sprained), not to mention assorted bruises and cuts with blood drawn as a result of this forceful encounter. What was he arresting her for if Walmart had washed their hands?

More importantly, he never advised her she was under arrest, which he must do, never tried to deescalate or reason with her or impede her path. He just basically attacked her for daring to not heed to his command without regard for any prevailing circumstances except arrogant indignation for what he told her to do. It would appear her greatest crime was not obeying his orders, notwithstanding her diminished mental capacity to understand him or her frail condition both mentally and physically.

The policewoman who responded as backup you would have thought was more compassionate or observant than him, but she assisted him and mimicked his demeanor against the little old lady. Thus, the policewoman essentially was an accomplice in the assault of an elderly lady with a seemingly apparent mental condition.

Imagine the confusion and pain she must have experienced. It should be noted that often individuals with these disorders have a higher threshold for pain and thus do not exhibit pain as you would expect or the ability to communicate it. It is a vast difference between holding her or grabbing and twisting, which can be seen to have occurred indicating intentional infliction of pain.

There were much better options available which no one can deny, and the usual justifications I am sure will be offered and possibly entirely accepted and supported. However, the typical protocol after the tussle, she should have been taken for medical evaluation and treatment after being finally advised that she was under arrest and then taken to jail.

The jail personnel should have refused to accept her if she had any injuries. Instead, it was reported that the police persons stated that she was uninjured and she was booked into jail. She suffered from four to six hours before she was sent for medical evaluation and her injuries treated.

One would wonder if the situation would have been handled better if a supervisor was notified to respond on scene and be aware of the circumstances’ totality. A higher ranking official, a sergeant, did respond and reprimanded a brave civilian for interfering with police business. However, he joked and condoned the treatment of this elderly woman, did not order that she receive medical treatment, or display the judgment one would expect from a supervisor.

Furthermore, separate use of force documentation would have revealed the sergeant’s investigation into the justification for using force. The police department and the city’s dubious claim that they had no knowledge of the incident until the federal lawsuit was filed seems disingenuous.

The footage was police bodycam, and a request had to be made to receive. Thus the delay in filing the lawsuit may be directly attributed to a delay in receiving the incriminating video.

Nevertheless, think of all the resources and personnel; police, medical, booking officers, clerk’s office, prosecutor, and judge. Some other incidental personnel sprinkled in who would have had some dealings with this case. Now we can add federal investigators, attorneys, more judges, and most definitely lump-sum taxpayer’s money again.

From a humanistic standpoint and concern for her health, we can only imagine how she suffered and has been impacted. We can only wonder what fate the two police people and their supervisor have faced or if medals and a parade were for taking down such a danger to society.

All three need to be fired, arrested, and charged with felony offenses. Desk duty and suspensions are not sufficient. Damn the cancel culture nonsense. They do not deserve a second chance to display such horrendous judgment again. The lack of compassion is stunning, and the visual use of force unjustifiable.

This video turned my stomach but is an illustration of what is wrong with policing. She wasn’t black, young, thuggish, armed, a threat on her best day, or any of the other worn-out identifying cliche, which is usually thrown out there for excuses. She is our mother or grandmother. That is who she is!

This is in full display for all to see the arbitrary authoritative gutless resort to excessive force against her. Imagine how anyone else would have fared, deadly force, maybe? This cannot be blamed on training or lack of training directly attributable to the individuals involved detachment from the public they should serve while intoxicated with power and control. In case you were wondering, all parties involved were white.

It is the arrogant authority deranged mentality that absolute control and obedience must be imposed. I hope they have better patience and compassion with their family and loved ones who may not understand or comply with their every word. This is guerrilla and gorilla policing at its worst, which can easily be mistaken for racism if a person of color would have been the victim.

It is not always training, racism, or fear for life and limb that elicit these kinds of responses. Instead, it is a propensity for control and authority with no tolerance for anything other than immediate and total compliance under any circumstances. It is not even terrible judgment but a complete disregard for self-restraint or policy and procedures.

This would appear to be an extreme isolated incident that could not repeat itself. By contrast, another equally fine set of police handled a suspected burglary in Port Allen near Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in exemplary fashion.

They responded to a burglary in progress and caught the suspect red-handed calmly sitting in a chair on the porch when they arrived. The suspect seeming dangerous and highly suspicious, attempted an explanation but to no avail. However, it was no fooling the keen senses of these police persons due to their training and experience.

The one policeman preemptively had his taser trained on the suspect, who was slow to respond while offering a lame excuse. Luckily, force was averted, and he could be handcuffed and placed in the zone car.

No harm, no foul, and all is well. But, unfortunately, the menacing suspect then began to yell for help of all things after stating that he did not need to be roughhoused. The policeman who had convinced the suspect earlier to surrender without incident or he would light him up with the taser then encouraged the suspect not to remain silent.

After the suspect continues to yell for help, the policeman then did what he had advised the suspect he would do when his threats and intimidation had failed. He repeatedly tasered the suspect while the suspect was seated in the zone car and handcuffed.

Further investigation revealed that the suspect lived in the house and had misplaced his key and broke his window to gain entrance into his home as he had advised them while calmly seated on his porch. Once confirmed, it was decided that his crime was disturbing the peace by yelling for help and warranted his arrest after having the hell tasered out of him.

The man is Izell Richardson Jr., a 67-year-old man with a bad back and black for those who it may make a difference. He was cooperative and secured in the zone car when the policeman entered the rear of the zone car to taser him at close range. Charges were trumped up, no pun intended, and he was arrested and taken to jail. An officer at the jail then called for medical attention for him to be taken to the hospital for treatment. He was not charged with any crime.

Port Allen can start ponying up his settlement as well. To be tasered for verbal disobedience not directed at the police or inciteful while secured and handcuffed in the zone car is not criteria for using force to this magnitude. Maybe it would have been better to ignore him or listen to him explain.

Mr. Richardson Jr, who is black, is the victim of the systemic police abuses many complain about, except racism probably was not the case since the brave policeman who assaulted him was black also. Nevertheless, he was also representative of the fear for their lives and the terror some civilians have in police encounters.

Both of these incidents have striking similarities if you examine them closely and the symptoms are the same as the Chauvin case. The symptoms are the visual or noticeable manifestations of the illness, disease, or dysfunction. It is the indication of disease, not the disease. Whether we want to recognize them or not, we have seen the signs, but to continue to ignore the symptoms allows the disease to progress and become terminal.

Claims of support and protection for the police are actually the protection of the system. Improving the system to ensure it is healthy and at optimal operation should be the middle ground consensus for all concerned.

Democrat or Republican, black or white, fund or defund, pro-law enforcement, or otherwise must be able to come to a truce for opposing opinions to agree that some of this nonsense and hypocrisy can be dispensed with as distasteful to all concerned. Strong arm assault will not be tolerated.

Perhaps it is time for the police to protect and support the police by not committing these senseless acts of outrage that cause the collective condemnation of their profession. The above two scenarios clearly demonstrate the abuses and lack of oversight from the overseers to police themselves. So, let’s agree to universally police them on this type of nonsense to make it clear that this shit won’t be tolerated, especially with our seniors.

At least we should agree on that unless we were raised by wolves, hell, even if wolves raised us. These are two separate cases of felonious assault on seniors without sufficient justification or cause. The police persons involve getting due process which they did not allow their senior victims.

We cannot contest every aspect of a broken system unconditionally, supporting blatant criminal assaults especially captured by the very police bodycam itself. But, come on now, what could possibly be the delay in arrest and charges prima facie to the video evidence?

These actions forfeit their right to any consideration, and if it is built into the system, then it is time to change the system that gives allowances for this behavior. It is inconceivable that arrest and charges are not immediately upon discovering felony assault on seniors without any police personnel charges preferred swiftly and harshly. It would be nice to extend this protection to everyone. Still, at least we should agree on how we are not about to let our seniors and children be treated in law enforcement encounters, especially like these two non-threatening situations.

This lady and man had their Constitutional Rights violated in much the same fashion that we have seen many times before. Sadly, until rogue policing is strongly punished and denounced, we will most likely continue to see it over and over again. Meanwhile, there are still those who unconditionally support the police in any misconduct or brutality they are jammed up committing, displaying sympathy and support for the police.

Most police do not support this nonsense. News flash they are not the police when committing crimes and these blatantly unconscionable atrocities. They are criminals with criminal behavior carrying a badge.
If they are here to protect and serve, I would hate to meet those here to harm and violate. It is getting to be hard to tell the saints from the sinners.

This is not to condemn all police or policing, but even among the ranks, you have to admit that this is getting to be ridiculous and very damaging. Maybe someone should let these bad apples know they are wearing body cameras and should conduct themselves as such. The egregious must be expunged from your ranks. It amounts to their individual accountability versus your collective condemnation. Amputate the disease so the police body can survive.

Respect to the women and men who do the job with honor and hopefully the tarnish from those who do not will remain with them as individuals for them to be held to task. The time has come to separate the wheat from the chaff, the good from the rotten. Policing is classified as a profession, and profession indicates professionals and respectability.

The hiring process, authoritarian culture, and tolerance for impropriety must be addressed to prevent further erosion of respect and authority. Zero tolerance, and if not, the noose you tighten will be your own, and as for Port Allen and Loveland, where is the love or discretion for the seniors?

This cannot be tolerated, so I would encourage everyone to see the videos and judge for yourself before it becomes a reality near or dear to you, like your parents or children. On that, we should agree, and we can dispute the rest, just not the seniors. A journey starts with the first step, and incremental concessions are an excellent first step. Arrest and charges against the police are a better first step in cases like the above.

We know the consequences of resisting, but what are the benefits of complying or non-combative behavior? A little finesse, patience, and persuasion could save an enormous amount of settlements. But, unfortunately, police settlements are becoming the most unpleasant way to riches.

If the police refuse to accept better options, they encourage payments, skepticism, condemnation, mistrust, and oversight. Many cities are self-insured, which comes out of the city budget or rainy day general funds, while insurance companies insure others.

When will the risk to insurance companies become so great that they refuse to accept the liability or indemnify themselves against misconduct and these large settlements? When will the public or police tire? At some point, the tarnish will be too much for the good Officers to bear, or at least not a laughing matter of pride.

Let me ask you a question to put this into context. I like to reverse engineer situations as if debating where the opposing viewpoints are assigned and not chosen for argument. Just stack it up, flip it, and smooth it out, so pin this twist of fate.

The white police personnel encounters both scenarios where they either damage the black man breaking bones or taser the black man in the back of the zone car while he is handcuffed. Now flip it where the black police personnel encounter the white lady and do the exact same. This should crystalize for opposing viewpoints the crux of the condemnation.

It sometimes is not racial except by the context of the parties involved and the appearance of racism so close that you cannot tell the difference. It is sometimes a culture and psychology present among police developed out of a fear, separation, superiority, and survival indoctrination exaggerated and rampaging out of control, which compels these actions and condones them. The culture comprising the system can only be affected to the extent of changes in the mindset of personnel.

The system changes the personnel, the personnel changes the system, or one or the other needs to be replaced, if not both. Abolishing the police is ridiculous. Transformation is wise. It is amazing how a bunch of egg heads always knows what is best for everybody except themselves.

Here are suggestions for a three-step tango to target the problems and changes needed. One, give a questionnaire to all police departments and court personnel surveying their raw anonymous opinions of their operations, procedures, applications, and suggestions for improvement.

Two, if the hiring practices cannot more evenly reflect the population served, they should be well-versed in the people they protect and humanize a sensitivity to them. As part of the police academy training, it should be mandatory to visit rec centers, festivals, and various neighborhoods to familiarize themselves with the people and the people to the police.

Three, incentivize correction and not monetize punishment for police profit via court appearances, the city and courts via general fund revenue, and the prisons via slave labor.

Everyone does not need to go to jail, but statutory or discretionary punishment must be identical for everyone. For example, the right to bail is not a right if you cannot afford it, so a tier of offenses that clearly outlines personal recognizance releases from jail and bailable offenses in addition to high or non-bail crimes.

It would relieve over-crowding and the system’s accountability for the room, housing, and health of those in their custody. Consider increase community service for a contribution to society instead of a drain. But, unfortunately, desperate times call for desperate measures or at least a shift in ideology.

Fear of exposure, fear of honesty, and projections of failure for deviation from the old system we already know either don’t work or is inefficient will seek to prevent changes. The money to pay for these and other changes can come from the money saved from settlements and repetitive expenditures for resources to maintain the old antiquated system.

So back to the duality of reality. There can be no resistance where there is no opposition, just as there can be no opposition where there is no resistance. There must be compromise and concessions from all sides and assurances to heed and abide by the fair determination of the criteria set forth. Anyone in violation would clearly be deemed out of pocket and subject to that tier of consequences and conditions without respect to color, wealth, or occupation.

The adherence to a one-dimensional past developed for the singular benefit of becoming less of a majority demographic. Supported by a two-dimensional arrogance to maintain and justify the historical, cultural nepotism of those benefits is withering. Put under the three-dimensional microscope of current demographics now demanding a four-dimensional futuristic solution to propel us forward.

What has been can no longer be, and if the changes needed are not met, then what could be will never be. Yesterday is gone. The world is changing, and the old policies of oppression and authoritative domination of the people or suppression of their expression generate one hundred percent dissent and dissatisfaction whatever your position or opposition.

So we all have to give a lot to get a lot, and that is something we all can no longer resist for things to go right.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

George Floyd Part 3 of 3-Deductive Conclusions and Forfeited Integrity

 Uncompromising Evaluation

An objective examination has to be detached from the desired outcome or emotional inclination and should only examine the facts and actions as they were observed to have occurred. Then compared to any explanations given when evaluated against these observations will yield the most precise determination of guilt or innocence.

Strictly an uncompromising assessment of the deeds alone removed from the person’s identity performing the act will objectively reveal if the deed was justified regardless of who the doer of the deed may have been.

For the exact purposes of guilt or justification of actions, it is practically irrelevant who committed the act but only if they had a legal right to do so in the manner in which they did. It comes down to right or wrong, proper or improper, no matter who did it, friend or foe. Impartiality demands that if that same set of circumstances existed with you, it would be considered fair and just.

This is the ultimate perspective of neutrality of judgment required concerning the application of the law. With this lens of detachment, the incident can begin to be clarified.

The clerk initiated the encounter requesting a police response in c/w Mr. Floyd passing a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill. The police responded to find Mr. Floyd was located in the driver’s seat of his vehicle. He was removed from the vehicle, placed in cuffs, and escorted to the sidewalk, where he was seated.

He was then escorted across the street without incident but resisted being placed in the rear of the squad car. He claimed to be claustrophobic, a recognized mental disorder of anxiety, but no exclusion from being placed in a squad car or arrested.

A brief struggle of control ensued with Mr. Floyd being resistant to being placed in the rear of the squad car but not actively combative or aggressive toward the policemen. His practical intent was not to be placed in the squad car, but it was not to inflict injury upon the policemen.

Being placed on the ground prone is a judgment call and at the policemen’s discretion but would seem to contradict any claims of their concern for his previously displayed distress. Moreover, there was oddly no verbal attempt to deescalate the situation or attempt to calm his anxiety, especially since it was not a violent crime or exigent circumstances.

If possible verbal de-escalation is the first tactic on the force continuum scale and would have seemed preferable considering the investigation into the details of the counterfeit twenty had not begun in earnest. They still had not determined what their course of action would or could be. Enforcement of the law dictates that restraint be used comparatively to the crime committed unless escalating circumstances command a more intensive response. Just as you would not use swat for a jaywalker, the response given must be proportionate to the crime committed and the response received.

That notwithstanding, once prone on the ground, Mr. Floyd’s mental state reflected his physical state, he was submitted. He was within the policemen’s control and physically compliant.

He was also verbally compliant, pleading for his life and stating his physical condition of respiratory distress and that he could not breathe. Mr. Floyd offered no further resistance to being placed in the car because he was prone on the ground 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? Chauvin demonstrated his total control of Mr. Floyd by Chauvin’s hands being in his pockets, indicating that whatever resistance that had been present, Mr. Floyd was well under control at that point.

Furthermore, Mr. Floyd provided no resistance from the point of being unconscious or deceased, although Chauvin continued the neck pressure with his hands casually in his pockets. Suspect control or threat of harm was never a concern. Chauvin’s casual placement of his hands in his pocket from the start reveals that any threat had been subdued.

Mr. Floyd was 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 Chauvin ensured that Mr. Floyd had no chance at survival or revival. No corpus delicti or proof of guilt was ever established since the intent was not established that he knew it was bad money.

It should be noted that if Mr. Floyd had been one hundred percent compliant, the incident would have unfolded differently; however, did his non-compliance rise to the level of force that was used and sustained on him. Of course, cooperation with law enforcement is always preferable, but the force used for non-compliance must be measured to the circumstances.

It should also be noted that so callous was Chauvin’s indifference that even Mr. Floyd’s plea for his deceased mother or his unconscious state elicited no compassion from Chauvin’s demented implementation of the ”law.”

Now let us examine the policemen’s actions individually and collectively to establish any culpability. No culpability means that they had no effect on his death, and it probably would have happened anyway at that exact particular time. They did not send four policemen for a counterfeit-twenty assignment, so who received the call and who was 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. Was there a procedural discrepancy with the response to the assignment?

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. Before being escorted across the street, at least one officer stated that Mr. Floyd was noticeably distressed. What actions did he take as a result of this observed distress, and when? What were the signs?

If he was, in fact, believed to be in distress, it should have changed from a possible arrest situation into providing medical assistance. The main reason is city liability. If he were 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 to his room around the clock to guard him. To avoid their liability and the city’s, he should have been passed off to medical personnel. He could have then been made a named suspect for future charges.

Aside from that, it is their legal and sworn obligation to provide assistance and not continue pursuing arrest when medical attention is needed while under their control. The policeman who first noticed the distress had the most responsibility to notify the others of Mr. Floyd’s suspected condition and why he thought so.

Considering his suspected medical distress and only having the ability to arrest with prior authorization from the Secret Service for permission, that should have made them get him medical help and be on their way. Instead, it becomes problematic with the suspected medical complication and lack of jurisdictional authority to arrest.

Once taken to the ground on his stomach alongside the squad car with his hands cuffed behind his back, he posed no threat to the four policemen or no threat to escape. It is nearly impossible 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 no longer necessary to bring a person under control. Once unresponsive, he was incapable of any resistance or threat.

Minimal force required to effect an arrest is the standard to justify force, but there is no justification for its use and no allowance for it legally when it is no longer necessary. What is the justification for kneeling on a deceased man’s neck for over two minutes and 46 seconds after his suspected expiration? The application of the knee to the neck area is where the criminality begins, and Chauvin’s mental state of mind begins to be detectable and exposed.

At this point, the complicity of the other policemen’s state of mind can be determined, regardless of whether they had participated or not in the restraint; their intent also became apparent. Thus, two policemen did knowingly, purposefully, willingly, and physically participate to some degree in exerting force and providing assistance to Chauvin to further his criminal excessive use of force with no legal justification.

They essentially participated in the assault of Mr. Floyd since there was no legal justification for force. The third policeman served as a deterrent and threat to discourage anyone who would intervene. With Mr. Floyd fully compromised, there was no need for any continued force or support of it.

Chauvin did knowingly, willfully, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently steadfastly hold his knee to Mr. Floyd’s neck area, resulting in his death even if only a contributory factor. If argued that Chauvin’s intent was not to kill Mr. Floyd but to restrain him, at what point did Mr. Floyd no longer need restraining?

Additionally, Chauvin’s excessive force was knowingly and purposefully applied, resulting in Mr. Floyd’s death rendering the force intentional and his death consequential to that force. Finally, it is expected that an 18-year veteran reasonably would have known the possible consequences, especially when warned and other policemen stated concerns.

What cannot be argued is that Chauvin’s knee was certainly intentionally placed there for nearly a nine-minute duration of time. But, further, he knowingly, willfully, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently without regard for the outcome because he replied to concerns acknowledging his disregard.

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, fully displaying the ease of his depravity, arrogance, and control.

The force used on Mr. Floyd by any officer once he was on the ground on his stomach handcuffed was a criminal act and felony assault by virtue of the policemen being armed and the assault resulting in Mr. Floyd’s death.

Excited delirium by compression is asphyxiation, defined as suffocation or a smothering effect. Breathing restriction and compression by weight is always the main trigger and can clearly be determined to have played a significant role in Mr. Floyd’s death.

As a policeman, you cannot facilitate a crime, or if you observe a crime, you are sworn to intervene, and it does not specify who is committing the crime. Any unlawful act you are sworn to intervene and prevent. There were multiple failures to intervene or pursue an alternative action that could have saved Mr. Floyd’s life.

Intervention could have occurred at the point when Mr. Floyd was believed to have been in distress before crossing the street, at the moment when he complained of breathing difficulties with Chauvin on his neck, and at the point when he had no pulse when checked.

Furthermore, another crucial time of inaction was when an officer suggested sitting him up to avoid the known concern of death from the explicitly mention excited delirium concerns, which was the eventual outcome. When Mr. Floyd was found unresponsive while the public begged for his life were all points when and where intervention should have occurred legally.

During the assault, Chauvin verbally responded, disregarding all concerns and information he knew or should have known. He was 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, assuming he has the most experience and discernment knowing what to do or, more importantly, what not to do.

Chauvin knowingly continued his felony assault and discouraged other courses of mitigation or intervention. He knowingly and purposefully did hold his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck and maintained it there, fully aware of the risk and without legal justification. The other policemen’s actions were to do nothing to end this excessive use of force and were actively complicit in holding witnesses at bay using the authority of their uniforms and weapons, arguably as criminal tools.

The issue of crowd control is separate from the excessive use of force on Mr. Floyd. A different response regarding crowd control should have been directed toward the crowd. In no way was he responsible for the crowd reaction when he did not encourage it, but police misconduct incited it.

No obstruction charges or otherwise has been levied against any member of the crowd, just as no additional force on Mr. Floyd should have been used against Mr. Floyd for the crowds’ actions. Their fear from the crowd was due to Chauvin’s use of excessive force, not a menacing crowd threatening violence but a rebuking crowd.

They used their uniforms and intimidation of their authority in the furtherance of Chauvin’s crime. Had it not been armed, uniformed policemen involved, there is a more likely chance a civilian would have intervened, preventing Mr. Floyd’s death. Instead, they provided protection while Chauvin committed his crime displaying their complicity and willful approval of Chauvin’s actions by their inaction or support of his actions.

The two rookie policemen knowingly acted to support Chauvin to further his felony physical assault, thereby consenting to his actions and sharing his Mens rea, intentional infliction of unnecessary force. Their state of mind was to willfully, purposely, recklessly, and negligently with full knowledge against all perceived risk consent to excessive force by at one point physically assisting. Obviously, they did not oppose it or intervene to prevent it but did assist in it.

Citizens and bystanders 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 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 led to his death.

It is evident that Chauvin’s intent was to disregard the risk of death to Mr. Floyd, continuing even when Mr. Floyd was deceased. Chauvin 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 at various times. This was a homicide committed by a policeman that was aided and abetted by three other policemen.

Citizen video, police bodycam, radio transmissions, and multiple witnesses in broad daylight in full view of the public were not deterrents to their crime but present overwhelming evidence against their actions.

The question of intent or guilt for Mr. Floyd’s death would seem undeniable. Still, due process of law and possible plea bargain or sentencing arrangements could be the only reason to claim innocence, certainly not the legal justification of their actions. So how can anyone defend their actions?

Mr. Floyd was a human being treated inhumanely, well below any standard that should be acceptable from law enforcement. Accordingly, the law has no accommodation for such actions. Mr. Floyd’s Constitutional and Civil Rights were trampled and suffocated from his body without compassion by policemen who now hide behind their rights seeking compassion for themselves.

Their Constitutional Rights will be upheld, and due process assured them where defense attorneys would attempt to blame Mr. Floyd for his own death while being handcuffed on the ground. Despite the force continuum, display of excessive force on a deceased man, discrepancies in observable actions, and their implausible explanations, they will try to justify the reprehensible by claiming no laws were broken by them. Perhaps along with some form of qualified immunity will be claimed.

Aside from the verdict still to be rendered from the courtroom, the City of Minneapolis has rendered its verdict. A historic settlement of 27 million dollars to settle the wrongful death lawsuit regarding this incident. The size of the settlement reflects the horrific depravity beyond reason, vindication, protection of the law, or moral standards. It was an honorable action by the City not to justify or minimize the colossal injustice that caused Mr. Floyd’s death. Instead, it is an exemplary example of admission of blatant guilt to preserve government and law enforcement integrity.

Defending obviously egregious acts effectively diminishes public respect for and compliance with law enforcement and encourages resistance to unfairness. The public trust, which took many good deeds and years to establish, can be nationally destroyed instantly by one act such as Chauvin’s. It is only regained when the law is enforced equally, including against law enforcement personnel that violate their sworn duty.

Obvious and blatant violations of the law, 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 policing creates problems for them and erodes their protections.

The negative consequences are suffered by the law enforcement community, even more so than the public. Although everyone in the public does not interact with law enforcement, all law enforcement are public servants and must adhere to a code of conduct imposed on them due to the repercussions of Chauvin-like behavior.

The implementation of body cameras, loss of credibility, attrition of public perception, the increased propensity for resistance and aggression against personnel, defunding issues, decreased union and bargaining power, and the restrictions on equipment fearing abuses against the public are responses to law enforcement injustices.

Other ramifications are more hazardous working conditions, decrease public cooperation, GPS on vehicles, restricting search warrant criteria, use of force and contact documentation, morale decline, and dissension among the ranks.

Hiring and staffing difficulties, federal oversite, qualified immunity protections removed for honest mistakes, and many more are directly related to law enforcement not being willing to police themselves. When law enforcement cannot self-regulate themselves, then more restrictive levels of accountability are placed upon them.

Law enforcement must evolve beyond the pathology and culture it traditionally has operated under to change its method of operation, progressing beyond the rugged, physically tough beat cop authoritatively demanding unconditional, absolute submission to their authority.

No longer exempt from judgment, being protected by their arrogant elite status as the law or by the repressive intimidation of dreadful consequences separated from the people they should serve. Coercion by a quasi-military occupying force which civilians must categorically comply with or force will be justified, is no longer tolerated.

Being law-abiding should not require a humbling and submission to authority even when unlawful acts reminiscent of vigilantism are imposed by law enforcement. Instead, you must simply enforce the law, not become the law.

Unfortunately, police have historically been the enforcement arm of racism, immigration, minority control, and labor and union disputes at the direction of those with undue influence over policy or preference. As a result, they have enjoyed a royal centurion discretion accountable only to their superiors to whom they answer, relegating the commoners beneath the power invested in them, creating fearful respect.

The regulation of authority, punishment, and freedom instill a reflexive apprehension when dealing with law enforcement. We all know the feeling when a police car activates its lights behind us. The perception and projected expectation of behavior during these encounters are generally uneasiness until relieved by their demeanor or the reason for the encounter.

It is usually magnified to a conditioned anxiety if you are a member of a demographic where abuses have been normalized or expected. Racism has always been entrenched in law enforcement and the military with a culture of tolerance and a lack of condemnation, implying a tacit if not often explicit approval endorsing that authoritative abusive mentality when no action is taken, or it is condoned.

This tendency towards an adversarial mentality must be modified and admonished when inappropriate. A police versus the public mentality reinforces a war-like occupying force perspective where the opposition is dehumanized to justify abuses and violations of their dignity and humanity.

Insisting their rights and treatment is an inconsequential consideration and rationalization for lack of accountability regarding your treatment of them. War or law enforcement displayed at its worst should have regulations regarding the rules of engagement, treatment, and capture that it must follow. Law enforcement must follow the guidelines established and, when blatantly in violation, should concede error instead of the righteous indignation of defiance to being judged.

If you will not listen or display reason, you essentially provide no other option except not to be reasoned with, thereby encouraging non-compliance. Thus, you are further justifying a forceful response in a self-fulfilling hazard of your creation.

Evolution is preferable to revolution when reflecting or pursuing social changes, and cooperation by persuasion to convince rather than rugged physicality or force seems a better alternative. To accept surrender is preferred to forceable submission, and if fair surrender will not be accepted, then resistance is encouraged. The goal is not a calibration of machismo but the easiest obtainment of an objective.

Let force be the response to conflict and not the cause of it. Influences of the history of policing by implication, ideology, and methodology must reflect the future of societal tolerances to preserve the most respect and support for law enforcement. The job is not for everyone, maybe not the faint of heart or brutally inclined with limited people skills. For the maximum support for law enforcement to be maintained, there have to be admissions of obvious wrongdoing and misconduct.

It is counterproductive for law enforcement to support violations of wrongdoing; it exposes that the system is broken, and they will not fix it without further restriction of their authority. Law enforcement must be subjected to the same laws they are sworn to enforce, not above them.

It is sometimes necessary and always better to relinquish the part for the good of the whole. But, nevertheless, good decent Officers must not be cast under a cloak of scorn with elevated hazards under hostile working conditions to defend the indefensible.

The police union dues, morale, and resources should not be spent despite members’ dissent for actions they disagree with and know to be wrong. 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 not to 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 and send me to prison for your actions. This is understood.

The police union has an obligation to defend officers and not waste the members’ resources 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.

The actual thin blue line and honor among officers is not to ruin or let a fellow officer get jackpotted on your dime. United we stand separately we fall so that others are left standing. The primary offender should accept the brunt of the burden to alleviate as much as possible on the remaining policemen. That is the real code.

The union has a responsibility to protect the union body above an individual member, understanding that one must sometimes answer so that others may serve without contempt. However, refusing the obvious accountability disparages the union’s principles and, by association, the principles of your union members that paints the 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 righteous needs of the many outweigh the detrimental actions of the few. But, if they blow it so badly, then you must step away and condemn their actions even if by absentee proxy of removing your unwavering defense, if not your conditional 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, good and bad, wear the same respected uniform, it is hard to tell from the outside looking in, but you know from the inside, the good from the bad.

The decision must be made among the ranks, the bosses, the prosecutors, and the judges but mostly the street cops on the front line who are the most vulnerable not to allow members to tarnish them by criminal behavior because you become silently complicit by aiding and abetting that as well. The street cops surely suffer the consequences most.

When the union sees no evil and the union staunchly proclaims with arrogant indifference their support for crimes such as this, they tolerate it by demonstration and proclamation. Then, the only logical conclusion left is that this could be an undetected RICO violation of an ongoing culture of a criminal enterprise with known collaborators and tolerance for criminal activity and corruption.

It invites investigations and attention. But, at the very least, it is a poor demonstration of leadership that endangers law enforcement and promotes an insidious culture waiting to implode again.

We know what it should say about Chauvin, but what does it really say about those who would defend this public assassination. Who can be proud of this abomination or defend its despicable representation as good policing? 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 by supporting these actions? Did these actions meet departmental expectations, and are they representative of what a police union and police department can be proud of?

If they did not fear for their actions, they should not fear having it called for what it is and suffer the consequences. At its core, it is murder by all standards for all involved, which should come with extended stay, room, and board, complimentary amenities, free utilities, plenty of company, and lifetime membership for Chauvin should also be included.

More specifically, extensive prison time for violations of all four levels of accountability and serious deterrents must be imposed. The success of any conviction is not in assessing the highest charges but in dispensing the most prison time to be served. At the Judge’s discretion, sentences should run consecutive, meaning one after another, which means maximum prison time.

Local, national, and global outrage has been agitated to condemn this vile murder, while some would defend this evil at enormous cost claiming support of law enforcement or Mr. Floyd’s non-compliance. This is not racial, black or white, but human. He was a human being with a family and loved ones whose actions did not rise to the level of what we all witnessed.

It should never be witnessed or suffered again. If this were done to an animal, the depravity would be apparent and the outrage universal, or would you prefer that this happen to other men, women, and juveniles as justified standard police operating procedures, especially over minor offenses.

Police procedure and conduct are what is on trial. So why hasn’t the ongoing protest, property destruction, billions of dollars in resources and lost productivity, racial division, and decay of law enforcement respect, safety, and morale not been enough to admonish the actions of one man’s barbaric casual act of murder?

Remember, this is all over a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill, and the question must be asked was it worth it?. If you need any further guidance on if it was worth it, the City of Minneapolis just gave 27 million reasons why it wasn’t.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

George Floyd Part 2 of 3- Logical Reasoning

Facts & Questions

Sometimes you must go backwards to retrace and unravel an incident, then proceed forward to a place of clarity. A review or reenactment from the end of the critical incident that claimed Mr. George Floyd’s life analyzed in retrospect will reveal the points incriminating to all parties involved based on the visual evidence and factual inference of the application of the law.

An examination from the end to the beginning of the encounter is a very distinct way to isolate the mental State of mind, the Mens Rea, or intent, so it is legally established. The criminality, the mea culpa or fault, can be best demonstrated by everyone’s actual actions or inactions at critical times according to legal standards.

Were these actions justifiable based upon what was known at the time, what should have been known, or what was being observed throughout that time? Was it within the law and police procedure or a violation? Does the action’s justification rise to the level of its application to the circumstances? Was it legally necessary and permissible? The answers all serve as actual testimony to the facts.

According to the law, inaction can also be an action when there was a duty to act. If there was inaction, was there a duty to act? What action should have been taken, and how could that action have affected the outcome? As a fluid evolving situation, the timing and chronological sequence matter greatly to the incident’s legality and outcome. Diligent analysis of the timing and sequence will reveal crucial determinations of criminality and culpability.

 Our method will state the facts as we believe them to be accurate and then ask the pertinent questions raised. Finally, in Part 3, we will examine the answers by deductive reasoning of the legal application of the law and police departmental policy and procedures, analyzing and suggesting the obvious logical resolutions and interpretations.

Facts: Mr. Floyd, while in handcuffs, was surrounded by four policemen and physically restrained 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 by the EMT unit.

Questions: Who radioed in for medical assistance, and at what point during the incident? How many policemen involved spoke with radio regarding medical aid, the reason for the request for EMT, and if requests were made to step up their arrival due to Mr. Floyd’s physical decline? When stating Mr. Floyd’s condition, was there any mention of Chauvin on his neck restricting his breathing? Was that due to an omission or concealment? What was said during the radio transmission? What do the dispatcher recordings and separate notes reflect?

When was a supervisor notified, and by whom did any policemen involved make notifications to advise command? Were there recorded specialized channels that communicated more sensitive information? Did that happen, by whom, and at what time? Were they recorded and reviewed if such secure channel communications took place and reviewed as they most likely should have been pursued by discovery or duces tecum?

What were EMT’s dispatched communications? At what point did the EMTs determine that Mr. Floyd had no vital signs indicating death? Was it before transport, during transport, or at the hospital by medical personnel? What life-saving steps did the EMT’s take, and how did Mr. Floyd respond? Once at the hospital, what life-saving steps were taken, for how long, and by who. What was the information given by the EMTs, are their paperwork and interviews complete and consistent with this information, and when was Mr. Floyd’s actual pronouncement of death?

Were there real-time 911 calls from the public as the critical incident occurred, and how many? What was the content of the policemen’s excited utterances as excited utterances by any party are generally admissible in court as evidence of knowledge or intent? When was the location secured and treated as a crime scene with the Use of Deadly Force Team or Homicide Unit notified to respond on the scene? Was deadly force protocol initiated and maintained, specifically the separation of policemen and preventing collaboration of statements before interviews? Was witness identification and statements gathered?

Facts: The primary policeman later been identified as Chauvin, an 18-year veteran of the force and the senior officer on the 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. It does not matter which way Mr. Floyd’s head was turned. It would still be exposed. Also, the greater 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 simultaneously. This restriction occurred for an estimated 8 minutes and 46 seconds, of which approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, presumably unconscious, and probably deceased.

Despite public outcry, repeated warnings expressing concern from fellow officers, and Mr. Floyd’s very own plea Chauvin continued to apply pressure with his total body weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck. The force continuum scale governs police use of force and justifies what type of force is permitted. Code red is the highest level of threat and response category. Any neck restraint classifies as a code red on the force continuum scale, which categorizes the severity of its use as deadly force.

With code red being the highest threat level assessment, the resulting response can only be to preserve life or avoid serious bodily harm but not gain compliance. Any neck restraint is considered deadly force whether used against a policeman or used by a policeman. Due to the deadly force used on Mr. Floyd, it is very likely to have caused or contributed to his death and inflicted serious physical harm upon him. Thus, the necessity or articulation for its use is a problematic violation from its initiation and certainly its continuation.  

Reiterating that he was handcuffed hands behind his back, prone on the ground with four policemen surrounding him already searched and determined to be free of weapons. These circumstances do not support a code red response and neck restraint regardless of however applied. Therefore, it is not and cannot be justified according to the force continuum scale. 

There is, however, no dispute that Mr. Floyd’s death was caused on the scene before EMT arrived, with Chauvin’s neck restraint a factor. Without Chauvin’s knee as a factor, it would suggest that whatever other factors that contributed to Mr. Floyd’s death, he would have succumbed to them at that very moment anyway without Chauvin’s use of excessive force. 

The State certifies the Police Academy and dictates the training criteria and curriculum, which extensively covers the use of force. The City swears in the cadets to become officers, they have the ultimate legal liability and extensively covers the use of force. Technically, the use of force can be shots fired down to as minor as placing someone in handcuffs without incident voluntarily and with utmost cooperation.

The City gives the authority to arrest for misdemeanors and issue citations. The State gives the authority for deadly force and felony arrest, which is why you go to County Court for State charges. Although the State gives you the authority to use deadly force, the City is responsible for that force and subsequent training once the police are sworn in.

 By all standards applied both State and City, force of any kind must be the minimal force necessary to effect an arrest. Thus, force should discontinue proportionately as resistance lessens or it is no longer necessary. But in this instance, it becomes clear it was unnecessary to effect an arrest or gain compliance when Chauvin has his hand in his pocket, and there was no need to use his hands to control Mr. Floyd.

Questions: The question then becomes, was the knee justified in the first place based on the criteria for its use? If he had been a code red threat at any point, what level of threat did he present once he was unresponsive and feared unconscious or deceased?

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? Was there any discernable level of threat or fear of any kind with four officers present, and Chauvin’s hands in his pockets while his knee was on Mr. Floyd’s neck? 

Would the threat level seem under control and become suspect when policemen feel comfortable enough to turn their back and not be engage otherwise if any threat existed? Was Mr. Floyd allowed to comply, and were there verbal commands and instructions issued for compliance? Had compliance and control already effectively been achieved when three officers had only secondary participation? 

Were Mr. Floyd’s pleadings not an opportunity to ease the use of deadly force. Maybe issue orders to comply following a clear indication of his willingness to comply. But, instead, they disregarded their responsibility and duty to discontinue or cause to be discontinued the use of force absent his resistance or its necessity.

Despite all the concerns about Mr. Floyd’s medical 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 prone on the ground on his stomach? If we believe their concern for Mr. Floyd’s medical condition, wouldn’t their actions be even more baffling?

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 deadly force was not altered to the level of Mr. Floyd’s lack of ability to resist or actual resistance, nor was there any possibly life-saving officer intervention. 

Was a taser, pepper spray, verbal persuasion, or other compliance techniques or less-lethal option available? Why did Chauvin eventually take his knee off Mr. Floyd’s neck? Was it because Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, or Chauvin had killed him? No, that is unlikely because that had already apparently happened minutes before. It was confirmed by no pulse being felt by another policeman. Was the EMT’s arrival the only thing that finally prompted him to remove himself off of Mr. Floyd’s neck?

Aren’t illegal orders and criminal actions to be disobeyed and not participated in or furthered in addition to expectations to be prevented? Isn’t it understood and enforced in any military or quasi-military organization, including the police?

Is it not your vow and commitment to uphold the law and not break it? The movie A Few Good Men is a prime example. You should have done something and had a duty to stop it but did not. If you had intervened, maybe even after Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, could he have been still alive or potentially revived?

 

 

 

Would Mr. Floyd more likely have survived if not for his encounter with Chauvin’s knee? If we cannot say yes for sure that Chauvin was the cause of Mr. Floyd’s death, then we cannot say no either for sure? Can it be denied that the fact is three officers had a duty to step in and stop it, but they did nothing? Instead of intervening at various life-saving points, did they not aid and abet in the murder by either actively assisting or providing protection and crowd neutralization to deter citizen intervention?

Facts: Mr. Floyd is stretched out prone on the ground, handcuffed with hands behind his back face down after being placed there. Prior to being placed on the ground, Mr. Floyd was resistant to being placed in the squad car.

Questions: Were the duration and events which occurred while placed face down on the ground the best course of action or option available, or an indication of indifference to unnecessary use of force? 

Was standing him alongside the squad car or maintaining the position of him being partially in the squad car more preferable given his level of resistance?

What were all policemen’s roles in attempting to get him into the squad car and removing him, placing him on the ground? Whose decision was it to place him prone, and why if he was almost entirely in the squad car?

At what point did they each participate in the chronological order of events and why? Was there a detectable amount of frustration or agitation from the policemen towards Mr. Floyd? Was the reasonableness and level of force used lawful and necessary? 

Facts: The foundation of the law is what was known or reasonably suspected at the time. It governs probable cause and reasonable suspicion from the Constitution and Bill of Rights down to municipal law enforcement and policemen conduct. 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.

Their histories have no bearing on considering the facts and motivations known at that time, not overriding any action that occurred then. The prevailing influence of histories consistently demonstrates a propensity to act according to a previous pattern, a reluctance exhibited to refrain from an activity, or implied tendencies during an incident. Histories are indications of conduct consistency and by no means restrictive of any number of actions or responses, both positive or negative, demonstrated which are inconsistent with that history.  

Mr. Floyd’s criminal history reveals no prior consistency of code red behavior towards police personnel. Also, after the fact consideration for the two rookie policemen’s lack of history bears no mitigating circumstances to avoid accountability but may indicate their experience but not their lack of knowledge regarding appropriate force. Histories are indicators but not always relevant implications that can be related to a current incident. It also has to be presumed that Chauvin’s alleged previous racial undertones must be considered equally as Mr. Floyd’s run-ins with the law if histories are a factor.

Questions: Why would Mr. Floyd’s history be unfavorable for him, but the history of the four officers not be unfavorable for them if so revealed? So are we to assume the history of the two veteran policemen is disregarded, the history of the two rookie policemen taken into consideration for clemency, but Mr. Floyd’s history held against him?

How could the unknown history at the time somehow indicate that Mr. Floyd needed treatment as a code red level threat in this incident? 

If Mr. Floyd’s history were unknown at the time of the encounter, what bearing could it have on the incident? If he were a priest, what relevance would that have on the incident if unknown, none? How could the incident not be a judgment on the actions of the participants at the time, which would render histories after the fact as irrelevancies?

Facts: The policemen walked Mr. Floyd across the street without incident, and he seemed to have some minor passive resistance but not actively aggressive behavior. He was handcuffed with minimal resistance and without incident or struggle. Mr. Floyd’s action upon being removed from the vehicle would not constitute resisting arrest or being combative. Therefore, it did not meet the physical standard or required warnings to cease and desist or placed under arrest for resisting.

It appeared he was confused and more verbally resistant, attempting to have explained to him what was going on and turning to talk but definitely not combative. Officers said that they noticed a concerning level of distress upon handcuffing Mr. Floyd.

Questions: Before being removed from the car, was Mr. Floyd adequately advised as to what the encounter was concerning? After showing signs of distress during handcuffing, why was Mr. Floyd 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 showed signs of distress, why did Chauvin place his knee on his neck, further complicating his distress? What was observed, and what physical signs and indications conveyed that was concerning? What, how, and when were the signs escalating, indicating decline? 

If Mr. Floyd showed signs of distress, at what point was this radioed in, and with four officers present, what assistance was he given? Is it prudent or customary to further restrict someone’s breathing if distress is suspected? Was there a belief that Chauvin’s weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck was in any way assisting him and a benefit to his distress? Was the delay in requesting medical attention from the initial suspicion before bringing him across the street justified, or the whole distress story a fabrication to cover the cause of his death?

What should have been the policemen’s response? Was there any reason for any delay in offering assistance, requesting EMT, or removing Chauvin off the neck of what you have stated was an obviously medically distressed person? If Mr. Floyd showed signs of distress, what distress signs were radio notified of to better inform the EMT dispatcher of the progression of his symptoms other than a grown man being on his neck? 

Imagine suspecting he was having a heart attack. Would you place him on his stomach with an over 200-pound man on his neck? Why was no aid rendered or attempted during his distress after he displayed no pulse? After displaying no pulse, did the other officers feel it was a lawful and necessary use of force for Chauvin to remain on Mr. Floyd’s neck?

Facts: The policemen responded to a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill passed at the store and received information that directed them to Mr. Floyd across the street. Almost immediately upon approach, the policeman escalates the situation by unnecessarily pulling his gun, revealing his disposition that Mr. Floyd knew it was a counterfeit bill. His demeanor was to prevent an escape or assume a threat level fearful enough to pull his service weapon, but why? You cannot just draw your gun on someone for a conversation. Was there a visible threat, 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 be forwarded 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? Finally, did they know that they lacked the authority to arrest him without providing he knew that it was counterfeit? 

Subsequently, was the counterfeit money found to have Mr. Floyd’s DNA or prints on it confirming after his death that he had indeed possessed the fake? Could they or did they know if Mr. Floyd had knowledge that it was counterfeit or how he obtained it?

Aren’t the Secret Service only 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 at all used? Is it common knowledge that counterfeit money is in public circulation and could conceivably fall into the unsuspecting hand of any law-abiding citizen unbeknownst to them?  

Is there a point where the crime does not justify the force used or even handcuffing for a nonviolent cold stand or questioning? Can the actions leading to his death be justified compared to the nature of the crime, the public danger posed, or threats posed endangering the policemen’s safety? Was Mr. Floyd’s race a factor in the handling of this incident? Were the other policemen in fear of Chauvin or his reputation? Would a conversation, patience, or verbal persuasion have been more suitable, and is it also taught as a tool for law enforcement?

Reverse engineering of the circumstance and events reveals the highest contrast in logical continuity between what actually happened and what is said to have happened. Often when constructing a fabrication, it cannot pass the scrutiny of reverse analysis. It is constructed to make the pieces fit conceptually in a progression that only lends itself to conventional rationale, not in-depth questioning. The contemplation of why something would be necessary if the previous assertion is true becomes an evident contradiction. If it were true, it would be no need for the subsequent action.

For example, if they had honestly thought Mr. Floyd was experiencing distress before his death, why would Chauvin continue his behavior, or they allow it. It stands more to reason that they needed to conceal something and quickly falsified an implausible explaination that contradicts their prior assertions, actions, and the chronological sequence of events.

Their explanation leaves them exposed in too many areas lacking justification to be accurate. Moreover, it blatantly illuminates that if what they said were true, then countermeasures would not have been necessary, or otherwise, their action could not have been consistent with their initial assertion.

All indications are that their concern was for exposure from Chauvin’s reckless and willful misconduct, which left them assessing what they were part and parcel of was improper. Mr. Floyd needing medical attention could only be exacerbated by the distress inflicted upon him by Chauvin and their inaction. 

Now that the illumination of contradictions has been identified by the questions raised, then deductive conclusions of guilt can be examined and proven. Furthermore, did the punishment fit the crime or did the tactics fit the situation? Keep in mind even self-defense only allows for the force that neutralizes a threat and not beyond the danger posed.     

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

George Floyd Part 1 of 3– Your Applied Judgment

Procedural Legalities for those who might not know.

 

First, I would like to say respect and blessings to the Floyd family for me speaking on their loss.

Here in part 1, I will attempt to explain the legal aspects and implications of the case to provide a better understanding of the charges and trial considerations. Unfortunately, many assumptions from a civilian or layperson perspective deviate from the intricacies and nuances of the law.

Consequently, to make a better determination requires that we first establish the pertinent laws, criteria, and instructions needed to make an informed legal judgment. The distinctions of the law rely strictly on what can be proven, while what appears to be obvious evidence of proof can often differ from the letter of the law.

The first consideration did you actually commit the crime, and the primary element of proving you did commit the crime requires meeting the statutory legal standard for that crime. Then the mental state of mind and sanity are the following two main elements to be established.

The mental state of mind of knowingly is generally the most difficult mental state of mind to prove but usually carries the harshest penalty. The more serious the crime committed, the more precise the elements of the mental state of mind are to determine. This determination makes specific mental distinctions more challenging to prove.  

When ascertaining an individual’s mental state of mind, the law does not define when the origination of intent begins or the duration of that intent. Instead, the law only considers at what point a specific intent is detectable and its effect proven or demonstrated to substantiate that level of intent. In other words, not the duration of intent before or during the commission of the crime, but the intent present before or during contributing to the commission of that crime.

Proving intent is determined from the point it transitioned from obvious lawful actions to illegal or criminal acts. The intent comprises the observable actions and behavior individually or collectively exhibited, then applying the level of knowledge or should have known the outcome or risk of those actions and behavior. It is further judged by indifference or remorse for the outcome. The intent is the critical element in determining which statute was broken and to what degree.

The elements of a crime by statute are the first consideration, and the second is the degree relative to a mental state of mind. Thus, for example, murder is defined as the act of causing the death of another and has specific specifications and conditions, including elements that refer to various states of mind and jail terms. 

Murder classifications by degree are first-degree involving premeditation with intent. Meanwhile, second-degree is intentional killing lacking any malicious intent. Third-degree is with a depraved heart or mind disregarding human life. Lesser degrees involve manslaughter, etc. Third-degree murder is a charge only available in three states: Minnesota, Florida, and Pennsylvania being the three.

Third-degree murder is classified as the mental state of mind that displays depraved indifference but is not intentional; first and second degrees are deemed intentional. The enhanced specification of the felony murder rule is when during the commission of another felony, for example, felony assault in the first degree. Assault is generally defined as a physical attack inflicting physical harm or causing the fear of harm or threatening harm. 

Pursuant to the felony murder rule, an assault leading to death would be a first-degree felony assault. Elements of assault of a felonious nature should apply since the use of excessive or unnecessary force contributing to death is definitely a criminal act meeting the criteria. Assault can also be a lesser included crime or violation of the primary charge. 

The second criteria refer to Mens Rea, 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 cause a crime to be committed.

The elements and intent of that specific statute determine which criminal charges are brought. Although there may be a murder, the intent is what establishes what degree of murder. The levels of intent that establish degrees are purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, negligently, or as it applies to this case, depravity.

Actus Rea is the action taken to perform the criminal act or the physical action taken supporting the criminal act. The elements and intent derived from these illegal actions determine the number of violations charged from the same actions or incident.

Multiple charges can emerge from a single incident based upon how many statutes can be verified violated along with the accompanying jurisdiction to prosecute the violations. When multiple persons are involved, each role is ascertained as either having not participated or prevented, assisted in committing the offense, or being complicit in its commission.

Complicity is any part of the planning, execution, concealment, or escape designed to facilitate or participate in a crime. Any tools or methods to further that crime is viewed as evidence of complicity and a criminal tool. Complicity is the same degree of crime as the crime being aided and abetted.

The commission of the crime of complicity does not require direct physical involvement, just furtherance of the crime. For example, if the charge or crime is first-degree murder, then the complicity is to the same degree. If it is a misdemeanor, then complicity is a misdemeanor of the same degree.

It should be noted that any firearm carried during the commission or furtherance of a crime is an automatic felony by statute, even if that crime is a misdemeanor. The theft of a candy bar is a misdemeanor but a theft of a candy bar while armed is a robbery, constituting theft by use or implication of force. All four policemen were armed at the time of the critical incident making whatever violating actions automatic felonies.

Hate crimes are a separate set of considerations and probably unlikely in this instance to be proven. Kidnapping is defined as removing someone from the place found without authority to do so or restrict their movements without consent or authority to do so.

Kidnapping would apply in a very narrow sense if interpreted as any lawful custody ended when the criminality of excessive force began. Thus, unlawful restriction of his movements without legal right to do so by the excessive physical force negated any lawful authority. 

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. Thus, at the point of Chauvin’s knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck, it is mandatory that he had been placed under arrest and informed of such but well beyond being detained.

Adherence to state law, departmental policy and procedures, and observance of his Constitutional and Civil Rights require that prior to that degree of force that it must be necessary to have had placed him under arrest.

Assuming a pattern of tolerance exposing systemic violations of excessive force or violation of Civil Rights is also found, in that case, a federal consent decree and oversight is pursued by the DOJ. DOJ inquiry is entirely separate from any state charges.

The RICO Act is the DOJ federal statute regarding ongoing criminal enterprises involving murder, kidnapping, and other patterns of crime or corruption. Thus, previously used against police personnel and police departments when a widespread and systemic commission or tolerance of excessive force and other crimes existed within a police department.

It targets any law enforcement coordination, tolerance, or collaboration of crime or unlawful conduct. The RICO Act was designed to specifically 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. A Consent Decree is to prevent unlawful conduct and violations of Constitutional and Civil Rights. Violations of lawful procedural processes and prescribed sequences of actions become highlighted in situations like this to examine the legality of actions or any violations of rights specific to the proper execution of police duties and use of force.

 

 

 

One should also be aware that specific evidence that may be considered overwhelmingly prejudicial may not be allowed to be presented at trial, avoiding the appearance of bias affecting a defendant’s due process to a fair trial. The presiding judge and presumed law will determine rules of courtroom procedures to prevent improprieties or appeals.

Motions to suppress evidence or testimony will undoubtedly affect the perspective of those questioning the proceeding or desiring a particular outcome. After jury selection, the jury will be charged with their responsibilities and instruction and maybe sequestered for the trial. As always, a defendant has the right not to take the stand and testify on their own behalf without prejudice against their innocence. 

It is also essential to keep in mind not to become too consumed by the charges but instead the totality of the sentence if found guilty. The number of counts with a finding of guilty can be substantial if ran consecutively instead of concurrently.

Consecutive meaning one sentence of time after another, while concurrent means the time of all sentences will be served simultaneously. For example, ten years on two counts consecutive is twenty years, while ten years on two counts concurrent is a ten-year sentence.

Part 2 will examine the logical questions raised by the facts known or should have known at that time. Some of these questions are not as obvious but have a technical legal bearing on the legality of actions based on their justification and timing of enactment. However, it will also raise many of the obvious questions that come to mind.

Was Mr. Floyd placed under arrest, and at what point was he placed under arrest? Who placed him under or informed him that he was under arrest, and for what reason? Was he otherwise being lawfully and reasonably detained? Was the search of his person lawful according to the chronological order of events or his arrest?

The above legal considerations and presumptions were explained as a jury would impartially consider them to reach a verdict by applying the law to the circumstances. The above-detailed explanation of the law is to expand the comprehension of the novice to provide a relevant basis of understanding for an informed judgment.

I am not a lawyer, and the above is my general understanding and experience applied to this incident. With that said, the above legal references may differ slightly in different jurisdictions but are basically as stated. Thus, providing a foundation for those who are unfamiliar with the law, we can begin to scrutinize the actions taken by all parties.

Part 3 will explain the observations, deductive conclusions, and the application of the law as it relates to the encounter for the legal justification and culpability of each party. For example, 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? What actions are taken when suspected medical distress is presumed? Should not force discontinue when no longer necessary for an arrest?

If excessive force is used to restrict breathing and blood flow, does that not constitute a contributory cause to affect Mr. Floyd’s death? We will also examine procedural and protocol stipulations resulting from abuses to consider how support for these policing abuses diminishes law enforcement credibility and incites more restrictive policy changes.

Furthermore, procedures and protocols must be followed and reasonably executed with factual accounts given. Contradictory accounts are signs of coverup and deceit. Falsifying tour of duty reports, deadly force reports, false and misleading statements made or given are crimes.

Usually admissible in court is all excited utterances during the incident pointing to the mental state of mind at the time or a need to conceal it. We will attempt to clearly surmise the displayed mental state at the time of any observed actions or inactions with a duty to act. Some other influences and implications will be considered to contextualize the perceptions that explain the varying responses which attempt to condone Chauvin’s misconduct.

A brief cursory synopsis of the event as they chronologically occurred provides the basis on which any determination can be made by first establishing the assumptions under which we can evaluate the deadly incident. Accordingly, the facts and circumstances that I am aware of are as follows to clarify the foundation of my understanding to apply my observations.

 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 located in the driver’s seat of his vehicle. 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 on the sidewalk were de-escalated. Mr. Floyd was not combative verbally or physically. Mr. Floyd was escorted across the street without incident or struggle, although minor resistance.

The video view was then obscured by a squad car briefly. Mr. Floyd was assisted to the ground, and Chauvin was observed to have his knee and shin across Mr. Floyd’s neck area when the view was regained. The subsequent video did show Mr. Floyd objecting and resisting being placed in the squad car, claiming claustrophobia.

While prone on the ground 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. After several minutes of the sustained weight of approximately over two hundred pounds on his neck, Mr. Floyd not only showed no signs of resistance, but he also showed no signs of life.

They were legally responsible for his safety while under their control, custody, or detention. They had a legal obligation to discontinue any force when Mr. Floyd was no longer resistant or combative, and it became no longer necessary.

It has been determined that Mr. Floyd is suspected of succumbing 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 hands behind his back, excessive weight on his back, and definitely neck pressure 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. Every possible risk factor for this condition was present, and the risk of this condition was suspected by other policemen and brought to Chauvin’s attention, expressing concern.

This is a brief inquiry into the facts known to the public with a detailed logical examination of them. We are examining the facts for the highest level of conviction for those whose actions deserve it.

When examined chronologically, we can form a logical theory of the policemen’s actions. Actions supporting their justification, truthfulness, and intent; or actions exposing their culpability as exhibited by their conduct.

To meticulously examine their actions, Part 2 regarding facts and questions will reverse engineer the incident and assertions alleged, unveiling glaring discrepancies, immoral judgments, and skeptical justifications.

Remember that inaction is an action also. It is duel accountability for what you have done and for what you have failed to do. Examining the police’s reverse chronological sequence should demonstrate their mental state of mind and when it transitioned to become criminal. In a full review, we will also present Mr. Floyd’s actions and mental state of mind until his death.

First and foremost, Mr. Floyd, his toxicology or his actions are not on trial, and racism is not on trial. What is on trial is was the policemen’s conduct and actions, specifically Chauvin’s, within the realm of law and if that was a demonstration that we can condone as legitimate police procedures and conduct applied across the board against men, women, and juveniles.

Was it acceptable to remain on someone’s neck for nearly nine minutes even after they demonstrated no pulse and the other policemen to allow it, as well as dismiss the contributory consequences to Mr. Floyd’s death by doing so? That is the only question the jury needs to answer. But, first, we need to answer what precedence is set. And, secondly, what does that say about anyone who supports it and why?

 

Let me ask you a question, hypothetically speaking, if Mr. Floyd was one hundred percent wrong on all accounts, does that make Chauvin’s actions suitable or legal on all accounts?

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

The Black Trilogy-Crimes Against Humanity Part 3

REPARATIONS and RESOLUTIONS.

The solution is plain and simple in concept, although admittingly complex and comprehensive in its application and solemn and unwavering in commitment. The commitment requires meaningful change, including grievances and infringements where substantial damages and exploitation have been identified.

These can be self-identifying and voluntary admissions or exposed and involuntarily sanctions. The remedies should reflect the capacity and benefits of their participation.

War crime tribunals pursue individuals many decades past their crimes having been identified. Once their transgressions are exposed, their identity becomes known, their location secured, and their participation verifies their pursuit is relentless.

No matter how small or how much time has passed, whether they are remorseful or not, they are subject to the penalty of law for their actions. Countries, businesses, and institutions have the same moral and ethical societal obligations to refrain from crimes against humanity or become subject to redress and accountability. 

Under God’s law and moral righteousness, if not by man’s written law, this should be rectified since we have always known the what, the who, the excuses, the locality, and the refusal to be held accountable.

Man’s law and history’s alterations have always sought to indemnify these iniquities, manipulate reality, and contort societal structures protecting the guilty or claiming their immunity. Unadulterated chronicles of history have constantly spewed forth the guilty whose deeds were so openly practiced that a resolution would seem uncontested. Unbiased enforcement of the law does not require the guilty to consent or be remorseful, only to have committed the act.

The resolution should include the national and international companies and entities exclusively funding initiatives for Blacks and their communities because others have been funded at the exclusion of Blacks, so they have already essentially received theirs.

These profiteers of slavery should be compelled to mea culpa and commit to corrective measures. Their vile narrative as citizens of the world amended to reflect that the sins and fruits of those sins be acknowledged by redeeming actions to offset the destructive effects of their exploitation of Black people.

Let history then be the future measure to judge the actions and manner that these atrocities were corrected and a commitment to redress demonstrated. Avoidance of racist elements and the resulting harmful repercussions have been ignored, allowing the accumulation of and exacerbating a resolution.

Since access to wealth and equal opportunity were denied, fairness demands that it is now what must be provided. Let us not be naïve about what will or should be done, but the sincere objective understood in its undertaking. The details and implementation of the means to accomplish this are complex, but the need for a determined commitment is clear.  

Imagine if the United States of America is a house. The citizens are the house’s occupants. The leadership is the parents in a cooperative and committed relationship dedicated to keeping the family dynamic strong while working to overcome difficult times. Staying together for the occupant’s benefit realizing the value of the individual parts and any selfish interest will fracture the good of the whole house.

A house divided cannot stand as conditions worsen and the foundation begins to crack. One party cannot seek to minimize the problem because it is most slanted toward their benefit and convenience without consideration for the consequences, sufferings, or contributions that have contributed significantly to the success of the household.

If the other party being marginalized daring to cry out that they have a problem, then WE should have a problem, and a conciliatory resolution needs to prevail.

In America’s house, regarding the context of recriminations for racial discrimination, the establishment of a Declaration of Resolution must be incorporated into the societal structures to begin to rectify slavery and Jim Crow.

Only then can renovations begin to repair America’s inescapable history as proud purveyors of crimes against Black humanity on a national and global scale. The guilty parties were interchangeable, the occurrences countless, and the despicable actions beneficially incorporated; so, must it be with the impact of the resolution.

Any Declaration of Resolution must comprehensively consider the following points: principle-based and not relegated to a person, occurrence, or movement but an unwavering commitment. It must be implemented in a context devoid of grandiose individual acclaim but sculptured in collective indebtedness, not to be accusatory but factual, where everything must be on the table for examination.

Finally, anoint and elevate the necessity above all else, creating a force and not a target. The insanity of using failed divisible methods must yield to an effective consolidated sustainability resistant to sabotage and subjugation tactics.

To skim the surface of grievances that historically touches all levels of government and society, I have taken the liberty to offer these considerations with what has been my humble observation. It can be amended or supplemented to whatever the agreed-upon or negotiated redress is in the form of authentic actualized measures that resonate as vociferously as the indignations, exploitations, and atrocities have.

Government and legislative processes

Government and legislative processes compelling meaningful policy changes and enforcement. Focused statutory enactments and legislative imperatives to ensure proper implementation, established legal precedence and procedures inclusive of authentic fairness, actual unbiased application of representation, and accessibility in equal diligence to reflect Black inclusion, protection, prosperity, and participation across the governmental spectrum.

Educational content and teaching

Educational content and teaching need to be corrected regarding historical inaccuracies and perspectives to remove the racial superiority indoctrinations. Any exaggerated accomplishments, eugenics referenced and brainwashing propaganda, or religious misrepresentations thoroughly rebuked. The sinister intent of material concealments distorting the Confederate heritage, racist validations, and delusional impressions of condescension exposed.

Black history and African heritage should be portrayed in their truth, accuracy, and glory. Education should reflect the unadulterated truth comprehensively conveyed without propaganda purposes. It has to inform and depict an accurate illustration of knowledge and history. Access to this knowledge should be available and disseminated at any location inaccuracies have been dispensed.

Dispelling deceptions where an inquisitive mind exists to pursue it without undue influence but with an open mind to accept, reject, correct, or improve it through individual exploration. My personal approach to knowledge is to know it without the need to accept it or believe in it but only to know and understand it.

But debatably, one of the biggest detriments to blacks has been our lack of inclusion in various financial, economic, investment, insurance, annuities, and retirement fund management structures. Access to capital, general monetary instruments, and wealth-building opportunities and principles used for our advantage previously used to our disadvantage.

This lack of knowledge, emphasis, and exposure has historically prevented our compounded accumulation of wealth by a determined bias of fiscal design. When finally allowed to read, they could not let us count accumulating wealth. 

Law enforcement and criminal court

Law enforcement and the criminal court are beyond repair as it is currently constituted, but that is not to say it is not needed. What is required is an operational modernization, an ideological upgrade, with many procedural techniques, policies, and tactics revamped to not so readily lead to force that is deadly or otherwise.

A display of empathy for the situations and circumstances that those they encounter come from or are relegated to as a predisposition of their employment. The police should also understand and familiarize themselves with the people they police through prior community exposure and interaction as part of academy training.

Transparency and accountability need to be based on admitting improprieties, abuses, and damages when they occur and are apparent. The justifications and constraints used for actions, intent, fairness, and respect for the public should be the parameters that law enforcement must abide by.

Not blanket qualified immunity for misconduct or violations. Any consumer warranty or protection is voided after a disqualifying action or breach, so should it also be with qualified immunity. This standard should not be circumvented, subjective, arbitrary, or ambiguous.

Adjustments and changes to the expectations of policing and the reasonable execution of the law are required. Police immunity from their actions has come and gone. Appropriate conduct is demanded, and transparent recognition of misconduct is presumed where accountability is the paramount responsibility of police duties concerning the public. It must also be with themselves to maintain respectability and integrity of enforcement.

Blacks caught up in the criminal justice system are there for many reasons, definitely for some of our ill-advised decisions for one reason. But, these causes can often be based on limited choices and options that are frequently the result of economic desperation reflecting discrimination and lack of viable options.

This is sometimes a reflection of bias and the financial status and hopelessness created by purposeful default. Thus, making it seldom by choice but more by condition. Nevertheless, it is the best choice out of several bad choices that seem like a good idea at the time.   

When the only seemingly readily accessible choice is a bad choice when chosen by us but a similar bad choice or absent an option unavailable to us when selected by someone else, the judgment cannot be different. Not to justify poor decisions but to simply better understand their possible origins in thought and deed.

Who is arrested and for what crimes depends disproportionately on how and where law enforcement resources are directed. Lack of opportunity and despair often dictates the propensity for committing crimes. At the basis of many crimes, regardless of race, are economic ramifications and the lack of opportunities to avoid them.

It is part of cultural conditioning and reinforcement considering the accessibility of alternatives. Still, just as we expect others to be liable for their decisions, we must be responsible for ours. Therefore, the impartiality of the equal application of the law must also be applied.

Sentencing for crimes and assured due process of law should be statistically no harsher or restrictive where the race can be a discernable factor. The demographic percentages of arrest and incarceration for blacks sounds very few alarms but yields plenty of devious justifications and dubious convictions. The bail bond system aids in the process as a caste system more reflective of economic status than crime.

The bail bond system is a subtle system of prolonged incarceration and guilty plea-provoking motivations devoid of consideration of actual guilt. However, it often produces plea bargain inspirations for a guilty verdict. Lack of bail has been known to soften the resolve regardless of guilt.

Cash bail needs to be abolished as the antiquated racist system it has been and as currently constituted its application, because it is a straight-up inclination to penalize someone based on economics instead of the crime committed.

Bond money after the fact has no impact on the commission of your crime, your guilt, your return to court, propensity to commit another crime, or your willingness to intimidate a witness. How much money you have does not determine these things, but other considerations should including victim impact, criminal past, and ability to deter further illegal actions.

The law has proven to be only as good as someone’s willingness to respect and abide by it, not money for bond. The bond is intended as a surety note meaning a financial instrument of assurance, not guilt or a return to court because it does not assure either of the other two.

Property ownership and housing

Property ownership and housing conditions, geographic housing choices, and neighborhood investment and development often leave Black people in a stagnant spiral of declining or horizontal growth, which reiterates generational poverty and despair. Thus, never venturing outside the familiar confines physically or economically of the circumstance we have come to know.

 Sure, there will be those who escape this purposeful fate, but a vast number cannot stray too far away from its grip. Property ownership and property valuations have long been a primary method of wealth accumulation and the effective denial of such by discrimination.

Housing is also manipulated for redlining, gentrification, and gerrymandering affecting government services, bias-influenced redevelopment, and suppressive political or electoral representation. Property tax, abatements, and other government allotments impact everything from the standard of education and schools to the services received.

Lack of enforcement of housing codes, higher insurance rates, usuary interest rates, and many other fees and hidden barriers further absorb resources to impair black wealth. The social, financial, and political withholdings further the imbalance of resources that can be used for our own prosperity instead of those secretly siphoning from us.  

Banking and lending practices

Banking and lending practices further discrimination encouraging loan and credit denial. Predatory lending practices and the lack of fundamental capital investment creates property ownership barriers.

Obstacles to entrepreneurship, transference of wealth impediments, lack of wealth-generating opportunities, and restrictive scalability in equity positions limit avenues to participation that have not been customarily extended to the Black experience or available fiscal options.

Given the number of banks, insurance companies, and other organizations, including Wall Street, who profited from human trafficking in the slave trade, there should be no shortage of remunerations and expertise to alleviate and change these prevailing harmful financial elements of the Black experience.

Being very familiar with balance sheets, accrued liabilities, accounts payable, venture capital contingencies, maturity dates, and the like, there should be no hesitancy to the existence of the obligation even if reluctant to the terms.  

 

 

Food

The nutritional value of food is the foundation of good health, especially in young children and older adults. Therefore, the affordability and availability of that food are the two primary factors in choosing what to eat or feed our family. Of course, convenience is also a significant consideration, but convenience can be overcome by discipline and the availability of better options.

Cultural preferences shaped by generations of lack of available, affordable choices led to a lack of options, concern, or awareness of what we are essentially consuming and the effect on our digestive system and organs, igniting a ticking time bomb. The quality, freshness, and mislabeling, along with the chemicals and ingredients, furthers any damages the wrong foods create.

The healthcare implications, illnesses, and associated diseases which heavily stricken the black community can substantially be attributed to our dietary choices. Our nutritional choices are directly associated with our economic condition and proximity to better choices.

Fast foods, low-quality foods, and sugary drinks are our main dietary health risks, and usually, the cheaper the food, the unhealthier it is to consume. Food deserts and lack of fresh vegetables and grains are nutritional considerations that affect our health as much as income inequality.

It is the combination and culmination of several things. Food co-ops and farmer markets are things blacks must undertake and support, denouncing the unhealthy choices synonymous with illness. Once supplied, it is incumbent upon us to make a concerted cultural shift to embrace a healthier diet.

Nutritional education correlates to health and wellness. Consider this, would you let your child sit and eat 12 teaspoons of sugar, not to mention the calories equivalent to a bottle of Pepsi? What about a 12-ounce Coke that has 10 teaspoons? Sugar is one of the prime addictive and destructive offenders hidden in drinks.

It is not only the food choices but the drink choices as well. Nutritional education is a must to offset the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries’ dependence on black suffering, much like the criminal justice system’s reliance on the black arrest.

Black farmers are not prioritized on the same level as other farmers on the food chain supply side, and capital for equipment and innovation is harder to secure or more challenging to get approved for. This is a method to coerce them into unfavorable financial conditions and land forfeitures.

The discrimination against the black farmer makes farming expenses unsustainable for them and their products less profitable while subsidizing the white farmer’s success. Elimination of food deserts and affordable quality food must be made available to the Black community.

Healthcare and medical conditions

Healthcare and medical conditions usually correlate with the quality of care, the timeliness of care, the coverage of care, the cost of care, and the continuation of care. These have all proven to be problematic for blacks, in particular impacting our quality of life.

The only way to secure these objectives for those unemployed or underemployed is to take a vow of poverty and remain under the threshold to qualify for assistance. To maintain healthcare, you then must remain unproductive.

Discrimination in the medical field has created disparities in routine preventive services, seniors’ medications, and senior care. Proper nutrition, mortality rates, childbirth, and prenatal care reveals a racially disproportionate exposure.

Mental health and substance abuse addictions are struggles criminalized, adding to our concealment and cautious skepticism of treatment. These are some of the primary afflictions gone underserved for generations. Furthermore, lack of affordability, medical access, and apathy to medical symptoms combines to account for escalating medical conditions that plague our community to date.

Lack of engagement from the medical community resulting in callousness and neglect has been insidiously infused, contributing to the Black communities’ mistrust. These patterns and practices have created mistrust, discouragement, misinformation, disregard, and lack of engagement. Comparatively, quality options, proximity to medical facilities, and integrity of medical personnel would foster less cynicism regarding discrimination.

Reparations and methods of payment

Reparations and methods of payment by the profiteers should include but not be limited to money, products, services, internships, trust funds, endowments, foundations, equity, credit, ownership, grants, management, and employment opportunity. Hence these remedies should be clearly defined and verifiable. Not readily susceptible to misappropriation, corruption, manipulation, overvaluation, or discontinuation.

It should be prioritized for at least three generations of duration with sustained and confirmed diligence. It should also be enforced by law and penalty if breached. Whatever the business or specialty of the purveyor should be the very least consideration that they can offer since we are sure that they at least possess that service, so cash is not the only option.

The government is not totally responsible for reparations since this as a nation of people and businesses that fully or partially participated in or benefited directly or indirectly in the atrocities by commission, complicity, or silence. They should also pitch in for the solution since they were party to the problem and benefits. The cry for reparations would have ended many years ago before the issue became so convoluted if racism had discontinued.

 Damn denouncing an act that has continued despite hundreds of years of broken promises and systematic abuses and discriminations. So, the biggest most valuable reparation is the discontinuation of the oppression of black prosperity since by now, it should be apparent that the days of breaking our spirit are forever over. Despite the tyranny and murder rained down on us, we have proven to be resilient.

Slavery, superiority, and discrimination originally were a matter of economics. Please make no mistake about it. Now, it is a matter of mental illness driven by delusional groupthink by everyone knowing it was nonsense, including you. However, still needed are others to believe it to preserve your privilege.

The terror of your white privilege no longer comforting you has led to this irrational masquerade claiming an unfairness to you and pseudo bravado afraid of a world without a rigged advantage to bolster your fallacy. It was justified by manipulated and deceitful nonsense, and you have enriched yourself enormously with the many benefits of this fallacy.

Many arguments are made against reparations, but the one that can not be made is that you did not commit the atrocities. That you didn’t do it. That it was not done. So next time an unarmed black man is murdered by law enforcement, or they decide to rest for 8:46 seconds on his neck murdering him, condemn the shit, and consider that as a down payment on reparations that only cost you your voice and having a soul. 

Acknowledgment

The lack of acknowledgment for the contributions of our service across this country causes patriotism to be used to imply whites were the only ones who defended or contributed to America’s preeminence.

Our contributions to invention, law, business, education, sports, science, entertainment, social and humanitarian efforts, literature, heritage, and politics need to be appropriately accredited to us without the whitewash of thievery or misappropriation.

Recovery, forgiveness, and grace all begin with admission and confession. There can be no prospects of redemption with persistent denial, excuses, and minimalizations.

Warring countries have been rebuilt, populations compensated, and even the treasonous rebellious Confederacy south rebuilt and welcomed back into the union. Yet, on the other hand, the leadership of the Republican party coddled an insurrection with overt racial overtones on the Capitol, threatening democracy.

None of these transgressions have been a part of the Black experience or nor have black people received this substantial generosity of consideration.

European immigrants were recruited and given land, resources, and encouragement to own slaves to assimilate with white America to help to maintain a disproportionate ratio of whites to blacks. Thus, white skin tone rather than origination took precedence over dark skin. 

Today to assimilate having white skin, you can call yourself Ted instead of Raphael or abandon your German heritage and grandfather’s name of drumpf, claiming the confederate heritage as your own despite your immigrant roots. Immigrants of a white skin tone from anywhere or of white European descent can stand at a distance and be considered white and sometimes even closer if they do not speak.

But no matter how distant within eyesight, a Black person can stand and not be considered anything other than Black on sight. You see, the dark skin tone is the sole determinant. All of this is still true today for European descendants who can brag about how they came to this country and got assimilated to being white and benefited from masquerading as such. 

Immigration of any darker complexion people is considered undesirable, while white immigrants are favorable to maintain and restock the white majority. Fortunately, that majority is waning along with their privileged white utopia.

Therefore, whites’ advantage and privilege enjoyed for so long now require that they pass the sugar. The taste of honey has long been hoarded and requires an equitable allocation of concessions and redress to be conceded. 

The implementation of equality and the resulting rise in the Black quality of life will vicariously benefit all races and all elements of society, including the Black one this time.

These gestures have been made before for immigrants, other countries, and other races. So, it is not unreasonable that the Black race that has suffered the most should now enjoy the same consideration and expectation. No longer subjected to malicious intent simply because of a darker hue of complexion.

Those who would cry far left-wing ideology, socialism, and socio-economic welfare, I would submit reparations is the most far right-winged proposal imagined. Demonstrated by your willingness to bail out the one percent, Wall Street, big banks, and big business for the overall good of the country and health of the economy as being too big to fail. 

Never know when you will need us again, and America you will. So it would seem wise and prudent that Blacks and equality are also TOO BIG TO FAIL too! The same actions are needed even if it is referenced by a different label or perspective, not called reparations. So you see, we are united in our prerequisite for this action if not in our method how. Consider it services rendered or a down payment deposit.

God bless America and the wisdom for America to change for its own salvation, preservation, and prosperity equally. Let us pray in honor of the Christian cloak of deceit that you have hidden under for so long, the nation’s tolerance for inequality, and the conditioning of the black race to beg for deliverance where it is expected to forgive you for you surely deny what you have done.

So, let us pray.

Forgive them, father, for they have sinned, but they have not repented or atoned for their sins. Instead, they have practiced and concealed these abominations cloaked in your name to not only discredit you but to discredit themselves.

Justifying their brutality and moral deprivation in your holy name by committing the most atrocious of sins against a segment of your people. Centuries corrupting all that should be held sacred according to your word.

They do not seek your judgment, for surely you are not pleased, and condemnation can only follow. Salvation has been leveraged for gold, silver, sugar, and cotton with no regard for humanity.

Even less respect for your holiness or the one you sent who surely cannot pay for these sins. Without repentance, they have been rebuked. So practiced by Britain and America in every corner of the globe since before the United States’ inception.

They have worshipped this idolatrous slavery obsession and the false prophets above you and the very humanity that they still refuse to recognize also as your creation.

They have borne false witness and even murdered in your name. The above-stated crimes against humanity for earthly riches have blinded them to your glory and caused them to pervert your word masquerading as a true believer forsaking your honor without remorse of their deeds.

They have neither been meek, merciful, pure of heart, or peacemakers. They have forsaken justice, are devoid of integrity, have offered exploitation to the downtrodden, and have broken every covenant of yours in spirit and action.

They cannot offer their tarnished soul for redemption but for eternal condemnation for freely choosing and committing these atrocities. By your word, you condemn them and with their actions and words, they condemn themselves!

The soil is drenched with blood, horror, and abomination from these purgatory fixations, steadfast commissions, and continued denial. We can only pray they repent acknowledging their transgressions and denouncing the evil they imposed through the oppression of our Black ancestry.

For their horrendous crimes against humanity and religion, I fear saying three Hail Mary’s and two Our Fathers is not sufficient for these trespasses. Confession, repentance, and reparations for damages would be a sign to humanity and God of their sincerity for salvation by not only word but by deed.

And, of course, to no longer practice or tolerate these repulsive transgressions ever again towards anyone as they have no justification. It might just be the difference between salvation, survival, or being judged harshly stricken by your wrath.

It might be said to practice what God’s word teaches, not the hypocrisy of scribes nor Pharisees worshipping the coin, politics, or a defeated President! Time to submit to a reckoning and atonement, for Christ’s sake and America’s, we can only pray.

P.S. This is not an indictment of religion, just how it has been and continues to be used to accomplish and justify evil intentions by self-proclaimed conservative, patriotic evangelical God-fearing racists.

This in no suggests a blanket accusation against all white past or present in America regarding slave trade involvement or racism. However, it does illustrate the factual account of who, when, and what it applies. I think we can all agree if the shoe fits, it can only be your shoe Cinderella.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

The Black Trilogy-Crimes Against Humanity Part 2

 Naming Names

These culprits can be recognized by name, face, deed, nationality, or government as history speaks loudly regarding their identification. Everything has an origin or beginning, just as there cannot be a lie unless there is a liar to tell it. The lie starts with the telling of it, not its conception; the conception reveals the unspoken intent. It is always the act, which is damaging, but the thought gives breath and motivation to the deceitful act. The deceit and causes of racism can generally be attributed to religion, deception, greed, and insecurity manifested in slavery, discrimination, and fear.

These crimes against humanity were introduced into America by Britain as a model of an aristocratic utopia for white Anglo-Saxon protestants of etiquette. Primarily envisioned by Britain and King James, the same sponsor of the King James Version of the holy bible, aided by European countries and monarchs to enrich themselves. Greed and wealth-building were the overwhelming factors. Murder, kidnap, and brutality were the methods. Exploitation, remorse, or humanity was not even an afterthought.

These conditions and aspirations set forth a calamity that is still prevalent four- hundred plus years later. The names and intent associated cannot be separated from history or the resulting atrocities, interwoven with religion in general and Christianity in particular. Christianity was used as the moral justification and mitigating reason for self-pardoning their animalistic sensibilities for committing such diabolical acts of butchery. Just as their deceit, greed, and disgrace knew no limits, nor did their depravity.

Googling any King James bible verses about slavery and ponder how the bible has been systematically used to justify slavery sanctioned as the word of God. Scriptures were interpreted and manipulated specifically to promote white superiority for whites to be worshiped as God-like to designate servants and heathens beneath them.

Whiteness alone was construed as the apex of the human species ordained to exploit and dismiss the black race primarily as servants beneath animals. The deception is that Noah cursed Canaan, who was black, to be a servant because Canaan’s father; Ham, who was also black, saw Noah’s drunken nakedness, had knowledge of Noah’s wife, or sexually violated Noah as Noah slept.

Logically speaking, if the cursed Canaan was black, then his father Ham was also black, and so were Ham’s brothers being the pure seed of Noah which would have made Noah black. Therefore, the theoretical analysis of the story implies Ham being of pure seed of Noah, was Black.

Ham’s brothers, also being the pure seed of Noah, were more likely made white to elevate their status. This justified Ham’s lineage through Canaan as black slaves condemned to servitude. The racial disparity and distinctions between pure seeds do not accommodate separate races among Noah’s pure sons but instead bolsters the deceptive entitlements for slavery.

Conversely, if Ham were black, why did his color differ from Noah’s lineage of the same seed supposedly white? Would they also have to be black, too, or Ham’s white color conveniently manipulated to justify black servitude. Noah displayed no such power until the day he curses the generations of Ham because Noah got liquored up and was seen naked. It leaves a lot for the knowledgeable faithful to gullibly assume, especially if Ham’s grave sin changed Ham’s skin color. If Ham had been white, Canaan’s skin tone would have changed because he had already been born.

It is highly speculative since God curses and Jesus does not exclude from his blessings and salvation. Presumably, even Canaan’s descendants should have received deliverance by Jesus after Noah’s curse. Are we to believe that Noah was elevated to God-like status to curse generations and after the fact his curse above Jesus’ salvation and teachings? Were slave masters then explicitly elevated to Christ-like status to be worshipped and obeyed as if they were God or just below Christ? Was this blasphemy run amok to further justify slavery yet adhere to Christian principles that allowed such savage atrocities?

Jesus is attributed as preaching to love thy neighbor as thyself. Still, evidently, the enslavement and oppression of other humans are not included in that concept among some so-called Christians even to this day. Maybe that was why it was essential to spread Christianity throughout the world to “lost sheep” to effectively enslave their minds so thoroughly that even now, the efforts and contamination persist beyond logical reasoning. The lie has become the doctrine, and the doctrine has been embraced without the scrutiny of analytical rationale.

It seems the further fulfillment of King James’ desire to elevate himself above Jesus has been sinisterly realized by sleight of hand interpretation to create unwitting followers of King James’ doctrine, not God’s. First, King James sought immortality by having his version worshipped as the guidance to be practiced as religious law circumventing God and Jesus. Later a secondary utilization was most certainly creating a pure-blooded utopia for British colonization by exploiting an obedient black slave labor force controlled by religion to cultivate the land, manufacturing crops, and harvesting the resources in America.

The psychological sorcery of an omnipresent invisible deity that demands absolute obedience and enduring suffering from us had to be superimposed over their motive for their justification and our submission. No wonder Christianity was essential to slavery at every turn to psychologically oppress Blacks and arrogantly embolden white supremacists with their obligatory conjured-up validation. Even the Catholic Church sanctioned, acquiesced, and participated in slavery to aid in their wealth accumulation. Only in 1965 did they declare it a dishonor to God and took a firm and sincere posture against slavery, denouncing it.

History’s monumental deceit is that taxation without representation started the American Revolution. Still, unfavorable business terms were the reason when the British wanted a more significant cut of what they had bankrolled. The slave labor Britain sold at cost had no future cost accrued other than room and board. In addition, they commonly committed wanton abuses of the worst kind acquiring this slave labor which was more or less disposable and pure profit.

The American Revolution was fought over profits from slavery, not for taxation but the contract default arising from obligations regarding slavery, an armed renegotiation of sorts. Thus, it was essential for a higher return on investments on the seed money and resources provided. Commodity trading is a fair analogy for their business transactions, as we will later learn.
History reveals at some point, twelve total sitting U.S. Presidents have owned slaves, which is twenty-six percent of the total presidents throughout history.

Four of the first five. Sixty-six percent of the first eighteen Presidents spanning over approximately 70 years until 1859 owned slaves. Also, sixty-six percent or eight of the first twelve Presidents owned slaves while in office, despairingly including no less than the two biggest offenders that beacon of Democracy first President George Washington (317) and third President Thomas Jefferson (600+). That is an accurate reflection of the beginnings of the United States government and its perspective on slavery. Zachery Taylor was the last sitting President to own slaves while in the White House.

Slave ownership concluded with President Grant before him holding office. Yet, racial prejudices, abuses, and indifferences have undeniably continued with documented instances, utterances, and interpretations that more recently have included Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Trump.

The guarded thoughts and motivations revealed privately in the select company can only be imagined, but the detrimental public ramifications to blacks through legislative and monetary policy is a reality. Unfortunately, it has always been the American way, with discriminatory tolerances in the oval office and within every level of government and law enforcement.

The history of the Supreme Court reflects Black representation and consideration poorly within America’s history. For example, there have been seventeen Chief Justices and one hundred and four Associate Justices since 1789, and that is a total of one hundred and twenty-one Justices, but only two have been Black Justices. Most notably, the beloved and renowned civil rights icon, The Honorable Thurgood Marshall, in 1967 was the first black Justice, so that is only two in roughly a two hundred- and thirty-one-year span. In addition, Supreme Court decisions have historically been against black interest, sanctioned disparities, and have upheld racist practices.

George Wallace in 1963 challenged the federal government as Governor of Alabama, protesting the desegregation of education. As a result, student busing in the ’60s and ’70s became necessary and was met with staunch resistance against an opportunity for equal education for the black population.

The Iran Contra scandal was President Reagan and Oliver North’s ruse to illegally fund the overthrow of Manuel Noriega by racially and demographically designating cocaine infiltration into the Black community. That ignited the crack cocaine epidemic and eradicating decades of Black gains while initiating the criminality of Black crack cocaine addiction. When one form of racism or discrimination subsides or is no longer acceptable, then another more covert and more effective method replaces it along with the ensuing justification.

Some forms of racism were transformed while others continued simmering beneath the collective consciousness in hopes of rising again once agitated to the surface. It was most recently disguised as a political movement of conservative values echoing Confederate ideology and stolen electoral representation of all things. The Confederacy dogma has persisted despite their defeat and treason against the United States.

The civil war ended with the defeat and collapse of the Confederacy in 1865, only to linger as a southern legacy. Their appalling heritage was openly honored without much condemnation, representing a lingering tolerance and insult to Blacks directly and indirectly to the United States. Their flag was even taken along for an overthrow of the Capitol to symbolize a foreign government takeover bogusly masquerading as patriotism.

Where else can a loser be allowed to fly their banner and display monuments? The Confederate flag is a direct dissent against the Union’s victory and an embrace of a racist past symbolizing racism more than any other symbol in America. Unlike other wars, the Confederate flag represents only slavery, the only southern dispute of the war for economic reasons.

The bigotry is deeply rooted and accepted that it has penetrated the military and government in name, action, and celebration. It took a full one hundred years for the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure and protect Black participation in politics and government, while that defeated flag has not seen one day of prohibition.

The Union’s protest of slavery was primarily due to the unfair economic practices and advantages created by slave labor that disproportionately enriched the southern states, although the Union also eagerly participated indirectly and profited from southern slavery. Remember that Grant was probably the most renowned general against the Confederacy and had slaves during the war but before his White House tenure as President.

After President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which he was assassinated for because of opposition, Andrew Johnson became President. He refused to honor Gen. Sherman Field Order 15, pledging reparations in the form of forty acres and a mule for freed slaves in 1865. Former slaves fought to ensure the Union’s victory, but the contribution was not compensated as promised and defaulted on assuring continued discrimination and generational poverty.

However, the 1862 Homestead Act gave free land for settlement, but free land was given to immigrants as had been the practice as a starter kit for slaveowners, free slaves included. Native Americans received reparations, as well as Japanese for being held in internment camps. Even countries that have been at war with the United States have received reparations, but not Blacks. There is no more a compelling reason or justification for blacks to receive compensation instead of the continued discrimination, systematic denial of humanity, and outright murder thru excessive use of force against Black men, women, and children.

After the Civil War, the Union most certainly equally promoted Jim Crow and the confederacy south, with America once again united by their racism. Confederate ideology marches on with racism at the helm. It masquerades as southern pride and conservative values. The Confederate intent and persistence of racism have remained strong and, just as recently as 2020, has been explicitly displayed to expose the enormous and robust support for its prominence with proud proclamations of its pervasive ignorance. 

Britain, France, Portugal, Dutch, Spain, and America were some of the more prominent countries that participated and benefited greatly from slavery without any meaningful acknowledgment or compensation to blacks worldwide. The Royal Family has accumulated substantial wealth and tradition from the slave trade via their royal bloodline and the British empire. Maintaining the Royal family façade at its core is an ode to racism and superiority claims. 

Lord of London, Bank of London Barclays with trillions in assets, JP Morgan Chase, New York Life, Dupont, AIG, Aetna, Wells Fargo, Citibank, Bank of America, Brooks Brothers, Domino Sugar, New York Stock Exchange, Oxford, Dartmouth, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Yale, Brown, Rutgers, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Tiffany Co, Wachovia, Norfolk Southern, New York Life, Rothchild, Providence Bank, CSX, and many other companies, entities, or lineages from then still stand today enriched by their slave trade involvement.

It is likely and safe to assume that most entities with a long history were benefactors of slavery. The Stock Market and Wall Street were heavily involved in the slave trade. Wall Street and the NYSE were established for the express purpose of slave trading, operating lawfully by decree since December 14th of 1711 as the official slave vending site in New York, sparking the building and expansion of the city. Most port cities were heavily dependent on slavery, even in the north. 

The United States has indemnified itself from the International Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court regarding its past of crimes against humanity related to Blacks, slavery, and atrocities committed on American soil against Black captives. Therefore, any atrocities committed on American soil by law are beyond international jurisdiction and condemnation escaping liability. The United Nation General Assembly condemned Apartheid in Africa, but the atrocities against Blacks in America has been largely ignored, insincere, and certain changes generally ineffectual.

 If taxation without representation was the reason for America’s revolt, can we not consider murder, forced slave labor without compensation, and systemic racism as a legitimate provocation for black protest? The unforeseen ramifications of the proliferation of slavery, political suppression, and racial discrimination throughout America have had the unintentional consequence of creating the seminal resistance that has prevailed from Blacks enraged by its atrocities to demand accountability for those atrocities.

Whites have not endured, anywhere near, comparatively the degree of suffering in which they have dispensed but are quick to bemoan and cry ouch when their privilege is diminished, or an election is not of their preference. Racism is a form of mental illness, and discrimination is a form of cheating. Psychological journals officially classify racism as a mental disorder arising from insecurity and low self-esteem.

Notwithstanding the need to cheat, cheating can be defined as a deliberate fraudulent subversion of fairness and morality by altering probabilities to gain success. The realization then has to become an admission that their humanity is tremendously self-devalued, without an unfair advantage, bringing into question their level of perseverance and achievement without fraudulent concessions. Your advantage is keeping others at an exploited disadvantage.

White America never foresaw a day when the imbalance of their influence would diminish to the point where they would have to address their advantages and abuses under the scrutinizing consciousness of history and fairness. The crimes levied against Black humanity have been obvious, and the perpetrating groups of benefactors have been identified. Still, yet no liability has been meaningfully accepted or imposed for damages caused. Legally retribution is customary for damages suffered. Words are not as sufficient as actions, and empty promises have been much more enduring than genuine commitment. 

This conservative ideology wants to force acceptance of their deeds and beliefs upon everyone as in the past and dismiss opposing views while declaring a clear conscience free from damages or redress. The past would insinuate a present discontinuation. The conservative values façade long used to camouflage the absolute certainty of the atrocities committed and the participating parties leaves no doubt other than what will be the remedy.

The forcing of their racist principles and propensities upon others starkly contrasts to even God granting humanity freedom of choice of belief. This should now leave no choice but to force some redemptive principles upon yourself towards an equitable resolution by ideology, government, business, and institutional structure. 

CONFESSING FEAR.

The fear of a level playing field looms larger than the fear of repudiation of racism or historical condemnation for the carnages of your atrocities. The distress of reckoning with your historical malfeasance, which was so completely and appallingly applied, is deeply rooted in your reluctance for retribution and your forfeiture of advantage. It is challenging to visualize amends when contemplating that maybe with equality, your advantage will evaporate or paranoia of the future when the demographics change. The fear is, “it ain’t no fun unless you are holding the gun.” 

You fear a syndrome like the cats in the cradle and the silver spoon where you dread a non-white-dominated America may become just like you but towards you. When you firmly held the stick, you beat the “hell” out of minorities, specifically Black people. Still, now you imagine yourself slowly losing your grip begging for leniency and dismissing grievances if the oppressed should ever hold the stick. It is anxiety produced over the consequences, repercussions, and accountability for your nightmare of exploitation, cruelty, and oppression of the Black race.

Consumed fully by the draining burden and deception needed to maintain by any means necessary the portrayal of sham supremacy that never existed, that was manufactured, and is increasingly ineffective. The fear even extends to a refusal to acknowledge the nightmarish realization that you could have ever espoused such evil that it nauseates your very consciousness igniting your furious denials despite your history’s revulsive accuracy. Denial of the truth does not diminish the facts, and perhaps you are what your record says you are, or at least history says so.

Fearing looking into the mirror and reconciling your past with your current refusal to acknowledge the advantages you received and the damages it has caused only aggravates the problem and delays the solution. The time has come to settle the four-hundred-year-old accrued debt and recognize that the benefits of the advantages unjustly created for yourself must be justly shared and available to all. The change must be a diametrical shift from the absolved systemic discrimination, deliberate persecution, and calculated economic disadvantages committed against Blacks to specifically include Black’s recommendations for the remedy and promotion of prosperity for the damages of our prolonged racial exploitation.

 If you do something outstanding, you want recognition and a parade, so if your deed is not so great, then why would that not be allowed to be acknowledged and exposed as well. Imagine if a competing team electronically stole signals, took PEDs (performance enhancement drugs), blatantly had the rules or officiation rigged to their advantage, or any number of other methods used to cheat.

They effectively influenced victory to glorify themselves to your team’s detriment. Would those gains be discredited, resented, deemed illegitimate, and in need of adjustment to ensure a level playing field and truth? That is what everyone should be equally allotted, a level playing field where a standard measurement is applied equally for self-actualizing opportunities and accomplishments without exemption.

 You cannot be fearful when your actions have caused your fear; it is called cause and effect or intentional provocation. If you were not bellyaching when you committed the act, do not bellyache when exposed, and the sanctions become due. You enjoyed the meal, now pay the bill. Reparations must be recognized as a deserved remedy for combat services rendered, the harm done, injustices practiced, and thefts committed.

Blacks have experienced them all without fair and equal compensation. It is morally reprehensible that these crimes against Black humanity continue to persist, are minimized, and dismissed. The time has come to soothe the outcry from the rampages and ravishes that sully all that America claims to stand for and promote worldwide but does not practice on American soil, claiming immunity, ignorance, or statute of limitations. Crimes against humanity have no statute of limitations or immunity.

 To categorize an action, then examine the action devoid of name or race. If it is disgraceful and inexcusable, label it as such and assign the culprit to be held accountable and prescribe a remedy to be enforced. Finally, it is time to put a name on it, name names, and add up the deeds. Grades, credit rating, criminal record, career stats and rankings, designations, and accomplishments a few widely accepted measurements of you being what your history says you have been. They represent accepted systems of acknowledgment and accountability, as do reparations.

If you had not committed your action, then there would not have been a reaction created. To make your fear more palatable than your atrocities, in this case, fear should not be a state of anxiety but an acronym and a pledge to black people of Freedom, Equality, Atonement, and Reparations. Then redress for damages by the offending parties should be made forthcoming without complaint or compromise.

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz