In fear for your life

 Deadly Force.

The standard for legal justification of deadly force is the same for police and civilians, but it is interpreted and applied differently. Therefore, following the law and exercising your rights must include adherence to the application of the law and the procedures or scrutiny if deadly force is used by you or against you, whether civilian or law enforcement.

The standard default declaration is to proclaim being in fear for your life. It has no meaning but is generally understood to mean something that is subjective but not specific to the situation. You only think you know what it means but it has a different meaning to everyone projected upon and applied to a situation. It is vague and supports a spectrum of fear levels based solely on fearful anxiety.

The time when that is acceptable as the primary justification for using deadly force has passed and defies objective reasoning or quantification. Thus, fear should no longer be sufficient or a factor for using deadly force. Instead, the actual circumstances should constitute a code red threat or tactical disadvantage creating an imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death, not to gain compliance or quell any fear.

Being in fear for your life is very subjective. It can primarily reflect your psychological frailty instead of the actual circumstance you are in or confronted with actually being a serious bodily harm threat. Specific physical and mental allowances must be made for a variance of vulnerabilities, the prevailing circumstances confronted with, and the objectively reasonable response. Still, an actionable threat must be the primary reason for any legal lethal force response.

Realizing that most civilians have uncertainty regarding when deadly force is appropriate and required lends itself to a tendency to erroneously use deadly force based solely on fear, not the threat. Sometimes law enforcement being unaccustomed to high risk or confronted with unfamiliar situations, can react with certainty but erroneously or prematurely from fear or anger, not the threat. Force must be reasonable and unavoidable, and prudent in its exercise where your actions did not create or escalate the threat.

When deadly force is used, the standard for reasonableness, even when justified, requires it must remain within that which is not excessive. The standard applied by law for both civilian and law enforcement is to use the minimal force necessary to neutralize a threat based upon the known or reasonably perceived circumstances at that time but not to your level of fear.

Your perception is formed by the actual events or circumstances existing at that time and the threat’s ability to carry them out, resulting in serious bodily harm to you. According to the law, it is explicitly forbidden to use deadly force to protect property regardless of the value of that property. Deadly force is only supported as a counter to serious bodily harm.

The subjective factors that influence deadly force use are age, size, gender, physical limitations, specific previous victimization, etc. The list is long, but the actual justification must be supported and based on specific factors justifying the action to be warranted and always from a defensive perspective.

These many considerations are supporting factors of articulation but not justification for deadly force. The harmful threatening act is the only primary justification that can be legally considered. The rest is just supporting elements of that action or threat. The perception of a serious bodily harm threat must also be of the nature to be carried out at the time of your reaction.

You must have the fundamental knowledge of what perceptions of a threat you were responding to, why you reacted that way, and whether you can legally respond that way with a force that will likely cause serious physical harm or death. It must be a reaction to their actions supported by a reasonable response to a specific pending or imminent articulated threat.

Being in fear should not be the emotional state you are in; instead, the apprehensive projection of the threat if allowed to progress to a reasonable conclusion. You cannot instigate or agitate a confrontation and claim to be in fear of the situation you created. It would be best if you remained near blameless in your contribution to the circumstances causing the conflict.

For example, a vehicle moves forward and backward, not sideways. If law enforcement knows this places themselves in the forward or reverse path of a vehicle without escape options, they have essentially created their own danger. Therefore, deadly force should not be used. Instead, better judgment should.

Everything articulated should be their actions and your response. You must only do what someone’s actions force you to do. Reacting for your safety must be warranted and justified by your right not to submit yourself to the discretion of whatever misfortune, harm, or criminal intent that may be forced upon you.

If placing yourself in harm’s way and then the assumed harm is attempted, then by default, you ultimately initiated that attempt. If it was expected to possibly occur, knowing the risk and danger, you actually allowed it to happen by your actions.

Deadly force must always be reactionary to a threat unforeseen or unavoidable. Knowing the standards under which you will be judged, feeling confident in your response, and committing yourself to restraint as necessary increases your advantage of legally responding to a deadly threat with little hesitation and minimal scrutiny.

Understand that fear is where your concerns and insecurities overcome your confidence and commitment. What may weaken your resolve to resist or survive is strictly subjective to your fear of inadequacy and not a response to the actual threat. Reacting to the actual threat is responding to the resolution of the threat and not the resolution of your fear. Under this perspective, fear has no place in the equation for consideration of your actions.

There is a distinct difference between a response for your life or being scared and frightened. Fear is from within; it is something that you choose to accept and project. Fear is closely related to your level of preparation, familiarity, comfortability, and any unfavorable circumstances present. When these levels are low, your anxiety is high, so fear is more of a reflection of your personal state of mind than the threat confronted with, even when lethal action is necessary and unavoidable.

Anger is fear projected outwardly, and fear is anger projected inwardly upon yourself. No one can account for your or another’s fear, biases, or insecurities. No one should have to account for why you or anyone is afraid of the dark or an impending danger that does not exist outside your mind.

Fear is often a stereotypical or conjured projection causing an irrational override of reality. So, fear must be removed as the primary criterion for using deadly force. Fear is an admission and display of irrational behavior and most likely an indictment of your confidence.

Legal justification is the principal standard and level of responsibility that anyone carrying a firearm consent to by carrying that firearm and definitely by using deadly force. Insinuated by implication and association are also all bullets fired being accountable to the shooter. It has nothing to do with the shooter. Instead, the person getting shot to provoke and justify that action of being shot.

What did they do to get shot that was a reaction to and material reflection of their behavior? From the shooter’s perspective, they did this, and I reacted as such. Not, I did this due to my fear of unwarranted anticipation of an unobserved action or being absent of any overt indication of danger. Much like chess, only one move is made then the opponent must make a move until checkmated. Your move is executed only after the opponent has made their move which you then counter or prevent.

When deadly force is used, there is a legal responsibility to stop when it is no longer necessary, even if initially justified. As the threat level changes, force adjustments must change, adhering to minimal force necessary to discontinue the threat. Excessive force occurs when the adjustment is not made or justified in the beginning. That standard applies to less than deadly force as well. Passive resistance is not a justification for deadly force.

The standard criteria already legally established for deadly force should be firmly applied and enforced with violations fully prosecuted to discourage the motivation and occurrences of its violation by civilians and law enforcement. Law enforcement and vigilantism must especially be scrutinized to diminish violations of publicly accepted legal expectations and legally established statutes.

Even cowboys recognized in the wild west that shooting someone in the back or from behind was inherently wrong because it was cowardly and suspect of the threat they posed with their back towards you or running away.

Multiple gunshots to the back should be assumed murder absent some extraordinary circumstances and articulation to justify the nearly indefensible. Possessing a gun that is not in a position to be used most certainly falls under the same reprehensible cowardly actions since it is legal in most places to possess a firearm.

In the use of deadly force, there needs to be fully transparent investigations and personal accountability according to the governing state and federal laws, police department general police orders of operation, the departmental expectation of conduct and tactics, and civilian or officer-initiated encounters. In addition, civilians should be vigorously held to the same factually based reactions rejecting their reckless behavior, frivolous encounters, and fear of situations they created or had no legal standing to enforce instead of an imaginary justification of fear.

Being comfortable in situations requires mental preparation to visualize likely scenarios prior to encountering them. Lack of knowledge and preparation manifests itself in panic and fear, which is prone to overreaction. Memory retention and muscle memory are then trained by conditioning them where your only concern is logically and methodically dealing with the threat or circumstances without panic.

Proficiency in your craft, whatever it is, breeds confidence, even if it is baking a cake. Target acquisition is the next issue of paramount importance. You must be sure before firing what you are shooting at, why you are shooting at it, with what you are using to shoot at it, can you strike the intended target, and how many times is reasonable to fire to eliminate the threat but not necessarily the person.

You should not just unload on someone out of fear without articulating why it was necessary. At this point, it becomes suppressive fire without a confirmed target or justified circumstances. Controlling your anxiety avoids reckless behavior and unreasonable actions which are regrettable or debatable.

Recent news examples that illustrate the lack of these principles are the Breonna Taylor, Jacob Black, and Duante Wright shootings. In the Taylor case, the lack of target acquisition and discipline under stress laying down suppressive fire. The Black case poor tactics and poor suspect control to prevent him from moving contrary to risk aversion.

Mainly seven shots to the back being excessive to repel the perceived knife threat, which had not yet become direct. The Wright case where panic and overreaction mentally short-circuited the motor skills and muscle memory familiarity to perform an act your body knew was wrong but that your mind overruled to grab the wrong weapon.

You can train for stress, but only stress simulates stress and fear is always present with the uncertain where you feel unprepared, even taking an exam or a critical event. Still, fear must be processed and redirected to heighten the ability not to immobilize it. The first consideration is always to minimize risk to yourself by your tactics to maneuver to minimize danger.

You must be proactive to predict, eliminate, prevent, or minimize the risk, escalation, or damage you must do to someone by limiting their opportunity to harm you before deadly force has to be used. You cannot account for other’s actions but are responsible for your tactics and actions, so control what you can control, yourself.

Excessive force and deadly force must be responsive to the deafening outrage and continued advancement of transparency and accountability regardless of who the violators are. The public now demands it, and the law requires it to be applied equally without prejudice or reservation, thereby minimizing the fear that others have for their life in these encounters.

The police must now also police themselves to raise their shared duty of accountability to these known standards and restore public trust to the previous levels enjoyed and beyond. Ongoing training should reflect this, and violations should be exposed to protect the integrity of the uniform and profession to establish a law enforcement culture in line with the changing times and respect for life. Civilians must adhere to a standard of conduct that does not initiate or invite deadly force to stay out of the gray zone subjecting themselves to fear.

Remember to eliminate fear; you can practice until you don’t make a mistake but can also practice until you can’t make a mistake to be genuinely proficient and eliminate fear. It is about taking life seriously to invest the time and resources into training yourself lessening fear and promoting better judgment when carrying a firearm.

Taken from my forthcoming book, the Pointman.

Thurston K. Atlas
Creating A Buzz

Diluted Justice and Pure Morality

Judgement Day- Home Team always Win 

Justice and Morality are as old as civilization and communal survival aiding in the coexistence of different norms. They often are confused with each other because both are sometimes present at the same time. They are really just both agreed-upon social norms that provide society’s guidelines and govern the restrictions of its members.

Justice aspires to punish wrongful acts and distribute fairness ethically. However, morality is more concerned with good or bad and right or wrong in principle. The question then becomes who sets the standard and how binding it is for all to follow or submit to as an arbitrarily accepted social standard.

They are really close in definition but not in practice, application, or agreement. Under some circumstances, it remains the same and, in others, has an entirely other interpretation based on who is observing or practicing it. It can be virtuous over here while prudish over there.

The variations of each are endless and fluid, but some are consistent within a range or scope of understanding and, at times, baffling. A duality of the same condition by definition diluted is weakened in strength or lessened purity while pure is unadulterated or without dilution or contamination.

Let’s get to the point without any emotional blinders or folks head jumping time over concepts that their mind or experiences refuse to give allowance for to understand that their adherence to the home team undermines the strength and clarity of their assertions and positions.

It is more of a reflection of where your feet are and the conditioned or adopted perspective that results from a liberal or conservative application of your reality to impose your truth upon others. Liberals generally live and let live while conservatives hold tight to adherence and dissemination of their perspectives upon others. It is many times a cognitive dissonance ignoring the discord between philosophy and application.

In actuality, neither can be an absolute truth. Still, justice and morality can be a more inclusive comprehensive display of the virtue and veracity of your perspective that separates yours from opposing ones but strangely enough align them on common ground.

If we are outraged by attacks on the police, then we should be equally outrage by attacks on civilians by the police. If we are outraged by the police killing black and brown, we have to be outraged by black and brown killing each other. The blade cuts both ways with integrity as the dividing denominator.

When your politician or political party has been in lockstep with racist or divisive rhetoric for many, and you have fully or partially embraced that, then you dilute your hypocritical view that someone else is supporting division by their words or actions.

You cannot be silent when it is the home team and criticize the opposition for the same or similar things. You see, this is where the justice becomes diluted and the Morality less than pure. When you set the table and prepare the meal, you lose credibility to complain and deny your transgressions while bemoaning others.

The caterpillar’s knowledge is defined by the confines of its cocoon, unable to see beyond its perspective or limitations. The butterfly is transformed by expanding and shedding its limited existence to a sphere of expanded consciousness and possibilities.

The human perspective and experience are much the same in a micro or macrocosm of reality as you expand outward from your cocoon of a singular view towards a transformative multi-sensory one. It reflects the contemporary evolution of thought and perspective that is the adaptation of survival in a larger cocoon or radius of understanding.

There is a distinct difference between compromise and being compromised, between concession and surrender. If a majority sets justice and Morality as a social norm, then it would stand to reason the same dynamic should be used to change it in the adaption of a different standard.

Look at domestic violence and its acceptability that traumatized generations of women and children, once a social norm and even encouraged. Its acceptability has run its course, and while it is still a reality, it is condemned for the despicable act of self-hatred projected outwardly victimizing vulnerable targets masquerading your cowardly inadequacies and lack of self-control as dominance.

The same is valid with these moral judgments and racial prejudices on who do not deserve the same considerations as you because, in all your righteousness, their culture is not yours. Most people’s fortune or misfortune is simply a matter of to whom and where they were born.

It was not their choice of who, when, where, what culture, advantages, or disadvantages they were born into. It was not your choice what education, principles, or demons your parents struggled with or suffered from. There are times when it is not even yours regarding yourself, but even if born in the lowlands, you can scale the peak.

It is a mix and match, but there are plenty that we claim credit for that was the pure luck of the draw, a sort of social genetics. Be careful of judgments and values we place on others because of despair for our challenges or lack of gratitude for our blessings.

The pandemic should have taught us all something about how our circumstances can change overnight through no fault of our own to find ourselves in a food line, business or career obliterated, or the shoes tight and the purse-string light. Comparisons are always dangerous and usually an exercise in subjective status in a derogatory manner.

It gets real really fast when we become them, and these are the shoes we now walk in, or we ride in the struggle buggy for the first time. So it is all the same application to a different situation. So when we judge by a certain measure, we must make sure we do not fall short of being judged by the same measure. So when your words condemn others, make sure your actions don’t condemn yourself.

It would only stand to reason that to protest for social justice, against systemic racism, and denounce racial inequality are absolute legit demands. Still, we must also flip the coin and hold ourselves to a level of accountability that does not dilute the integrity of our demands or promote the impurity of other’s morality.

We must handle our end of the table, which we have control over. We control our spoon while we must cajole others into managing theirs. That within our power, we must grab holt of and correct while continuing to demand our humanity from others but let’s also require and demonstrate that ourselves.

They are two different things but closely related, and I believe interdependent upon each other. I trust that the better we treat ourselves and each other, the more our internal communal dynamics will improve with or without external help.

The dreaded talk that black and brown parents have with our children needs to expand beyond the usual topics to include their behavior and ours. We can only hope that white families have a dreaded talk with their children beyond the sphere of their cocoon.

The same criteria applied to Chauvin and many other cases of excessive use of force by police must be applied to the senseless excessive use of force by us against us in our communities which is equally terrifying and on a larger scale.

We cannot allow ourselves to be numb to the conditions in our midst that are claiming so many of our people, especially our young people. It reminds me of the saying that even if you have old tattered clothes, they should still be clean clothes.

If this is where we start and is all we got, then we have to make the best of it, and it will bear crop in the harvest season with cultivation, patience, and time. The struggle is real out there but also within here. If we suffer the most, then we need to find solutions for our generational provisions and safety.

We need change, theirs and ours. By whoever it applies, each taking their transgressions out of the equation or conversation of social dysfunction. Let’s give them something else to talk about, whoever they are. Peace, prosperity, and wisdom to the people that justice and morality will become less subjective to emotions and perspectives but aligned with unwavering integrity, progress, and resolve.

With that said, let me ask a question if the prevailing racial strife and circumstance had different parties inserted, then would it change the perception, or would the same hold true.

For example, insert black, gang bangers, or opps instead of the police within the situations mentioned playing out in the inner cities across too much of this country. Would that not be just as unacceptable and disgraceful, maybe even more so because it would be us doing it to us. Injustice or murder should not change according to who and where it is done.

The expectations have to be condemnation even when committed by us if the anticipation is for accountability for actions. It should not be judged by who is doing it but by what is being done. Then it would stand to reason that our outrage has to be focused on the act and the perpetrator, or at some point, our validity and impact diminishes of demanding better.

It is the parable of the goose and the gander; it should be the same with different players and with the same standard applied. Consider how many black lives would be saved if the two scenarios met in the middle and were lessened, but we control our communities.

Protest is cool against the system but let’s play our position on the opposite end to display love, patience, and change. The change demanded from others; we must demand from ourselves and reframe from that which alibis police use of force and irregularities. 

It will not eliminate their behavior, but it will lessen our contribution to it, making it evident and irrefutable to any misconduct. Some changes we seek without must be the change we are willing to create within. Giving no concession to inequality by keeping our knees straight, our backs unbent, our character intact, and our perseverance soaring in pursuit of our humanity and pure justice from a diluted morality.

We are not victims or survivors; we are warriors in pursuit of our humanity armed with intellect and integrity that does not require anyone’s permission. The resolution resides in time and commitment now so that the following generations can shed the disparaging and condescending cloaks of racial biases and economic gloom.

A strong ten-year commitment followed by another ten-year cultivation period will make tremendous permanent strides like the mighty oak, which grows into its strength over time. The seeds are the children raised to know no other way, feel no other way, or accept no other way because you can only feel inferiority if it resides in you.

Racism’s historical ramifications must be exposed, adjudicated, and conquered, but being a resilient people, it is not preventive of our ascension and perseverance. It can only be if we allow it to be; it is the victim mindset of despair and submission every time we ask for permission.

Therefore, just as we band together to protest against these evils, let us collaborate to establish our humanity adhering to our own social norms, which embrace each other.

If freedom is free, then we are free to frame our destiny. Enforcing justice and morality in our communities, creating social norms more in line with our integrity, desires, and prosperity can be done by us to better police ourselves.

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

 

Crimes Against Humanity The Extended Reality

Hard but True, Raw but Real

Let’s get down to business removed from the political correctness and pretense of social graces to speak openly without regard for contrived moral consciousness, forced remorse, or unwilling accountability.

Instead, let‘s put everything on the table out in the open to analyze everything regarding present and future projections regarding racism and discrimination.

Strictly speaking, it is a culmination of psychological conditioning, economic exploitation, and opposed interest which stubbornly continues similar to an addiction to delusion. The delusional obsession is to an entitlement of preferential accommodations and self-image of superior character selfishly pursued at the expense of all others not in your identifying group.

Blacks seemed suitable and were easily identified by their dark skin tone for exclusion. Your subgroup sustaining a subculture of suppression while claiming to be above all groups of animals and humans at the self-proclaimed pinnacle of the biological chain.

Thereby elevating your subgroup above all others by standing hoisted high upon your artificially privileged advantage, looming above all creation. It is like the great Oz, who was not the all-powerful portrayed but a sniveling insecure little round man hiding behind a curtain of vulnerability pretending to be invincible. This created great fear and respect as long as the curtain remained closed.

Pulling the curtain back reveals the fear and inadequacies that lead to the need for and continuation of this façade. Without this belief and confronted by reality, the acceptance of no such advantage before God or man means the masquerade is up. This creates the stubborn need to refuse to relinquish that idea because it is the core of your being, your identity.

It is shocking to your core and psychologically devastating to deny the foundation of your beliefs despite overwhelming evidence that it is not valid. Further, to admit your atrocities committed to cheating your way to the top is inconceivable to the psyche, so the ramifications are minimized.

That only leaves one alternative: denying its benefits and doing everything to keep it going; otherwise, the image is shattered, and so are you. It then becomes a desperation of survival where racism and discrimination must continue. To remove them would be symbolically likened to removing your air, but literally, your attitude of superiority is closely followed by its advantages.

Furthermore, the diminishing of your future demographic advantage brought about by fewer babies born per family while you are ambitiously pursuing wealth and careers. Finally, considering inter-racial relationships of all kinds, sexual alternatives without procreation, and the death of staunch racist ideological individuals over time lends itself to a bleak racist demographic projection.

The continuation of this projection is not favorable to the white male dominancy of society. The white male historically had no consideration for anyone, including the white female, with one exception: inclusion when and to the degree that you were needed to sustain their position.

Now their reckless actions have had unintended results that have undermined the very purpose they sought to preserve. Now it is a crisis of survival thirty to fifty years down the road from now. Change has long been set in motion, and change is coming. Adaptation to change has always been the key to survival, and survival reliant upon cooperation within the species.

I am not under the illusion that racism is about to end anytime soon but will allow for the whimsical notion that the ideological DNA of some individuals bent on racism or their survival dependent on racism may abandon it.

The glacier shift of the racist collective to be persuaded of the benefit for themselves in changing their unjust perspectives, the closer integration of racial identifiers and similarities, the demise of bigots, and discouragement by the punitive connotations attached are the mitigating factors for change.

There is no easy way to say it and no need to sugar coat it in the context of history if judged by the last hundred years and the next hundred years. A little over a hundred years ago, in 1906, it was acceptable to daily put a black pigmy named Ota Benga in a cage with monkeys in the Bronx Zoo on display to visually convince the public of the animalistic nature and close proximity of blacks to animals.

This undoubtedly contributed to his eventual suicide but definitely even more lasting was the effect it must have had on whites who witnessed it. The New York Times wrote in support of this barbarity as basic eugenics on displaying the missing link for perpetuating myths and stereotypes to be taken as fact.

There can be no misconception that there have always been decent and compassionate whites who have denounced slavery, racism, and discrimination. Over time their numbers have increased to the present multi-race coalition in solidarity with blacks about the horrendous treatment endured with the necessity to end it and install equality.

It is an advantage and privilege that they do not want or need at the immoral expense of other human beings. The key to committing these atrocities is to devalue, reduce, and dehumanize your victims to a deserving or irrelevant position unworthy of empathy or compassion. But the question then becomes who appointed you to make such a determination.

You see, that is where religion and other forms of reinforcement and repetition are applied to believe and validate anything to defend and promote their belief, no matter how sanctimonious and preposterous the justification may be.

The elements of this twisted reality are a classic example of schizophrenic behavior, where their self-perceived contradiction to and diversion from reality morphs into a nightmarish fragmentation permitting unthinkable behavior and lack of willful remorse, making it easy to repeat.

The extreme aggression, savage demeanor, and arrogant defense of the atrocities committed under the guise of conservative Christian values go without saying that they would appear to be contrary to any actions a Christian not suffering from extreme mental illness would ever commit. 

Compound that by its pervasive nature, and it reveals a group brainwashing seemingly under demonic psychological indoctrination resulting in mental slavery to racism powerless to resist its destructive programming. 

A programmed compulsion of righteous evil and disregard for actions expecting no consequences. The portrayal of blacks as savage, dangerous, sexual predators, stupid, animalistic, and the list goes on and on serves to conceal the depravity of the accuser when their actions are compared against the accused.

The racial slur “coon” has its origins in hunting and killing human beings for fun. How could the indiscriminate murder, enslavement, beatings, and rape of blacks not be more indicative of the savage provoking tendencies of whites claiming to be civilized? Now, who has demonstrated the absolute savage and animalistic predator actions of a barbaric inclination if not whites?

The transference of these ghastly behaviors, which are identifiably one-sided against blacks, serves as the propaganda-driven denial of the racist incubation reflected by whites without concealment. Just educate yourself on the extent and practices to better understand both sides’ journey and current condition.

Rejection of the facts may be the only way to align yourself with the insanity and brutal reality blacks have faced at the hand of whites in this country. The dehumanizing realization of white atrocities is understandably frightening to whites wondering how people can be treated so viciously and still stand for the flag, defend the country, and endure the bullshit.

Patriotism is the current code for allegiance to inequality and misplaced blame on others for actions and disappointments resulting from your own miscalculations. Exclusively claim to be the only guardians of patriotism has resulted in an erosion of its principles by the mangling of its meaning, application, and demonstration.

Forced adherence to your manipulation of superiority into patriotism on anyone who does not look like you has had the effect of creating resistance to something which was never a point of contention. It has always been inequality.

The current fervor of voting rights is more aligned with voter suppression than voter fraud because the day has passed when you could regulate an outcome of the election, as evidenced by the election of former President Obama.

The will of the people’s vote cannot be calibrated to assure victory for you, so it must be suppressed against you. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been enacted if it were not needed in response to racism and voter suppression. Whites agreed that this was the case, and countermeasures had to be explicitly implemented to ensure that the target of these oppressions, blacks, had judicial protections for voting.

So, it would stand to fact and reason that neither the Civil War nor the Emancipation Proclamation abolished the slavery mentality. The ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865 abolished slavery, but it then transitioned into Jim Crow and blatant systemic prejudices.

One hundred years after the Civil War ended, the need for legislation was a recognition that racism, voter suppression, and discrimination were still the Jim Crow law of the land. It would then be counterintuitive that discrimination and oppression had continued beyond the Civil War, but sadly, very true it had.

Affirmative action and similar actions would not be if these ongoing oppressions ended when some claim. But, unfortunately, many have continued despite these alleged remedies. It is an affront to decency to have the unmitigated gall to whimper about reverse discrimination and unfairness of opportunity allocations and access based solely on race designed to alleviate the disadvantages systematically imposed upon others by you.

To deny fairness to others by declaring your plight of unfairness and inequality is to either proclaim yourself stupid, irrational, or a racist. I would like to think the best of you and, given the benefit of the doubt, assume that you are simply irrational.

The overt discrimination and exclusion practiced have been solely based upon race, but to bemoan your suffering by the inclusion of others while crying about opportunities you had readily denied others exceeds an elevated threshold of irrationality.

To be held liable is not discriminatory or discretionary but should be expected. Cancel culture cannot be used for absolution to ignore your culpability granting blanket immunity oblivious to your actions.

It is deemed unfair by a cry of cancel culture regarding white’s accountability for their transgression when facing societal condemnation or discontinuation of patronage. Drawing the line and adopting unpleasant consequences by withdrawing voluntary support is not an obligation owed to the offender but a right of the offended.

White males lack the credibility to complain. They have always been on the till with improper privilege subsidized on the public draw. Their hand in the cookie jar and thumb on the scale of justice. They value freedom, prosperity, and fairness exclusively for themselves and are quick to complain when their expectation of preferential treatment is not met.

It is ridiculous to insist that such monumental injustices be swept under the rug while even the slightest rebuke of your privilege is exaggerated to an intolerable injustice. Stop it. They don’t make rugs or exaggerations that huge. This strategy to alienate yourselves from blame by denying your privilege by claiming victimization again contradicts the historical facts of your actions.

The mentality and benefits are so great that some would masquerade themselves as part of the Confederate heritage. One is born in Canada of Cuban descent and named Rafael as Texas Ted to Americanize his image for easier assimilation into the good ole boy’s club.

Could you imagine the difference in perception between Rafael Cruz and Ted? Another would claim his Confederate membership even though his lineage is German. The drumpf clan, whose real fortune is that his grandfather was exiled from his native land for draft dodging returning to America where he had fled.

Neither of these persons’ American lineage extends beyond their grandparents at best. Nonetheless, they have claims of their Confederate heroes and heritage. But white skin, anglicized name changes, and cultural adaptation allowed them to assimilate and minimize if not avoid racial discrimination.

This is the lure of white privilege while distancing themselves from their true heritage and diverting attention from themselves by ostracizing others and denouncing immigrants when their families are not too far removed from the immigration tree.

What better to illustrate a reversed crab-in-the-barrel mentality? Instead of franticly keeping them in, they keep them out, designating more assurance of privilege for themselves. A sort of all-in-the-family of preferential treatment requiring adaptation of Confederacy biases.

White skin alone is the prominent inclusion factor, with prejudice is a bonus. MAGA is an adaptation of the make Germany great again philosophy used by Hitler in his rise to power and espousal of white privilege in a maniacal pursuit.

Tell a big enough lie enough times very loudly over prolonged periods that the people will not only believe it but accept it as the truth was Hitler’s mantra. These same tactics are familiar tactics of American Republican politics and ideology today, raising the question that if the nostalgic return to a MAGA time was possible, then what time would that be.

Would it be a time for lynching, coon hunting, forced labor, or any other litany of atrocities since there was never a time when they did not exist in America? What elements of slavery and discrimination would be preferable?

Are these the conservative Christian values we are to return to, as demonstrated by history? Lesser forms of expressing these values are still present. Unfortunately, the Republican party has been maligned with acceptance and promotion of these aspirations by association with MAGA principles.

If not a return to slavery, the continual furtherance of white privilege by the dehumanization and discrimination of blacks specifically and minorities in general, now to even include the poor. Let’s call it what it is, and you should say what you mean.

No further proof that America is off the rails realistically beyond redemption than half the elected officials refuse to denounce an insurrection or exclaim that it is wrong to murder a black man by choking him out in broad daylight placing your knee on his neck.

There is plenty more, but what more do we need. Refusal to condemn and reject these actions actually condones them. The reason why they are acceptable is that it furthers your agenda. If a dog had been choked out, Republicans would have been outraged because it does not further their agenda, and their estimation of the dog is above the dehumanization felt for blacks.

Do you for one second think they care about unarmed blacks being killed and sprayed with bullets as long as it is understood that, for example, whites storming the Capitol are not to be treated like the n-word. Only one shot fired, but a black can be fired up multiple times in the back. No precautionary show of force or mass arrest, but some would still ask what disparity?

Not condoning or requesting a violent response but simply highlighting the disparity that seemingly can only be based on race. What happened to the stance of when the looting starts, the shooting starts?

On Capitol Hill, where an overwhelmingly almost exclusive mob of whites attempted to overthrow the government in the ultimate act of looting, there was less enforcement than if a Nike store was being looted. Furthermore, the outcry is deafening from those being held accountable.

Can you imagine their shock and indignation at being called to answer for the very attempt to overthrow the government? What is this country coming to when whites are being arrested for being patriots to the Confederacy? Amazingly, Blacks are even expecting equality and redress?

The discrepancies of response and expectation change when blacks are involved with the law unequally applied or by anyone even expecting it to be applied equally. How can one unarmed black be more of a fear-provoking threat and intolerance than a whole mob of insurrectionists?

The justification for Capitol Hill law enforcement restraint was praised, while questionable articulation for using deadly force against unarmed blacks is not condemned. Not advocating for less respect for white lives but equal respect for black lives.

There has to be a comprehensive understanding, standard, and application of the law that does not give carte blanche for law enforcement misconduct and abuse of citizens.

Qualified immunity must have clear objective parameters where protections are no longer enjoyed and resources expended for disqualifying conduct. Law and order, crime and punishment, as well as wrongdoing and judgment, must fall unabated on the actions committed and the person who committed them, not the exemption of their guilt by race or profession.

 

 

The guilty deed is tethered to the guilty’s name if integrity is to be maintained; otherwise, it occasionally and eventually will lead to some feeling they are left with no choice but to resist detriment. When left with no choice, the choice is then made clear. While police are necessary, their actions cannot be above the law simply because they are essential and less likely to impact a white person adversely.

By the same indication, police interactions are negatively exaggerated; citizens are emotionally inflamed and apprehensively predisposed. This reflects the reverberations from injustices and perceptions that influence citizen’s cooperation and politeness.

The point is that a recalibration needs to occur on both sides, but the abuses of authority are not immune to the adjustments required to improve interactions. On the contrary, the submission to injustices brings about a greater dissatisfaction and a resistance that escalates into a more hazardous condition for all concerned. On the other hand, mutual respect deescalates conflict and promotes cooperation.

What encourages resistance, divisiveness, and danger is injustice, racism, and despair. The cause and effect are apparent, and the dismay at the resulting outrage is disingenuous, and of course, based on if it is happening to you. A plea for solidarity healing society only becomes an objective when you are not making the concessions or the balance of power has shifted away.

Only, if you stand to lose or lost something, it would have been better and more convincing had that been your mantra when you had the leadership influence. Now the tables have turned, the plea for bipartisanship is uttered, and the priority of moving forward together healing a fractured country at a fragile time is encouraged at our disadvantage.

Renovations are always best when you are already working on improvements requiring one cleanup. Suggesting that grievances are delayed for the good of the whole would somehow benefit us is contrary when your concern was and has been to benefit only yourself.

So many times in the past, this conciliatory posture has only resulted in a delay, not improvement proving to be a sadistic prank time and time again. So, suppose this is truly a time of healing and bipartisan cooperation. In that case, the Republican leadership should try to cast at least one bipartisan vote as a sign of their sincerity.

Extending the olive branch for once instead of demanding concessions to conform against conventional wisdom and our best interest. Having exhausted all your deceitful persuasions, your advantage by inequality has run its course leaving you fearful of the void. There is plenty of work to be done and time is squandered not resolving the issues that can and will no longer be silently suffered.

The accumulated depletion of will and resources will not accomplish your objective since your preference is not the only consideration to be considered. Compromise and cooperation can not be adverse abstract principles. They are the way forward. You can not persist in taking pride in obstruction and destruction to exert a futile exercise of power.

History is undefeated and has proven that resistance to change and stubborn ill-fated indecision has led to obsolete power and doomed existence. The arrogance of America will not let it recognize that there have been many demises of world power among nations based on the civil disorder and refusals to make changes.

The societal collapse is often preceded by extreme economic instability and fluctuations, infrastructure and labor deterioration, hunger and chaos, and then governmental collapse. Balance and equilibrium are universal laws, and imbalance by its nature is unstable and prone to collapse. Due to the imbalances of racism and oppression, societies worldwide are now wobbling.

Now the question is which will come first, the change or the collapse? I do not believe it will be changed because of its opposition and the universal foundation of deceit it has taken to last this long. It is collapsing under its own weight of deception and denial. Think about a celestial gravitational collapse that occurs due to the contraction of its own weight or pulls inward, succumbing to disorder.

Why is America exempt from collapsing from contraction resisting the harmony and order of the universe or God’s will? No need to look to the sky since history and anthropology can confirm the earthly demise of civilizations that once had great power. The turmoil of the year 2020 was a premonition that cannot be survived repeatedly, especially with the tailwinds still being felt.

Progress and transformation to form a more perfect union not defined or restricted by the past is the way forward. Those who long for the past are afraid of the future. Uncertain of their prospects and secure with the status quo without regard for advancement but clinging to stagnation to prolong their significance.

By nature, the young become old, and the old gives way to the new. This country was built on racism and the surpluses from black labor. Vast wealth and resources have been accumulated and shielded from blacks without question. Can there be any further denial of that? Should there be a recognition of that in words and redress? Damages can not be undone or life restored, but mending can be pursued.

Since I have stated my pessimism or realism about significant change not being forthcoming, let me just express what could or should happen. The first restorative action which will have the most significant impact is to cease and desist the nonsense, to just knock it off. Despite all the lives lost and mangled, the economic inflictions have had far more reaching implications than the murders.

Personally, more apologies, ineffective methods, or promises are not needed. The deaths caused and atrocities committed cannot be rescinded, but the wealth benefits denied can be recuperated like when stolen artifacts are returned. The government, businesses, and institutions should pursue more than conversational remedies since they received real monetary benefits. Money would be a suitable substitute for words.

Financial is not the only form of payment, and the government should not be the only payer but make no mistake, slavery was about the benjamins, so the benjamins need to be paid.

Services are the most likely form of payment that only require tendering the services, terms, or business you already provide, such as free higher educational opportunities. Generations of descendants of slave owners have benefited greatly from what they established to pay it forward for their ancestors.

The primary distribution would be opportunity, development, and investments but mainly just stop the bullshit for us to receive a fair shake. Since no white person today has owned a single slave, it seems only reasonable. But, they most certainly are recipients of racist privilege, enjoyed the restrictions levied, or been enriched by the bias practices so entrenched in American society.

So it is not unfair that someone else would get a fair shot after your road has been paved by discrimination. Forty acres and a mule was the unfulfilled promise, and eliminating discrimination still a dilemma, but economic viability and sustainable resources are the reparations now required.

The Civil War basically set the parameters for economic profit-sharing the way the American Revolution did, only domestically this time. As a result, the north received a more equitable distribution of the profits and a more sensible voluntary method of extracting the surplus of exploitative profits from black labor based on black’s lack of options and suppressed conditions. The south received the ability to continue operating as usual with the adaptation of the new extraction method, supposedly voluntary labor with slightly lower profit margins.

They both received plausible deniability. The dehumanizing treatment was pretty much the same, and freed blacks still worked on the plantation scratching out a living at the master’s behest only now the new and improved way of debauchery was called Jim Crow.

The Industrial Revolution beginning in 1860, greatly influenced the end of legal slavery and the most likely cause of its abolition because it transitioned from sole dependence on human labor to machine labor.

It created new models of efficiency and manufacturing, making the old slave model obsolete, but it did not eliminate the need for a permanent underclass to manage the machines. Instead, it lessened the method of physical labor required and increased the productivity for greater profits more evenly distributed among the north and south.

Thus, the master-slave relationship became the boss-to-worker relationship model still practiced today as the basis of the economy with many of the same philosophical principles regarding labor.

The master to slave mentality and dichotomy persists today for whites to become indignant at the very suggestion that discrimination exists or the audacity to expect relief. There is a diametrically opposed residual effect of this mentality that has dissipated over time but still exists.

A polar opposite of a shared personality disorder, racist whites psychopathic character traits devoid of compassion or remorse and black’s submissive need for permission and conciliation. The refusal of whites and the request of black regarding reparation displays both mentalities. If they are delusional, then we are imaginary, or is that the other way around? It is hard to tell.

Centuries of bigoted behavior still leaves us in the position of requesting what an overwhelming number of whites refuse to give or recognize. However, the context of slavery and the psychological realities created a subculture of survival for blacks which in essence has manifested into our saving grace and sustaining resiliency. The missing piece has been cohesion securing an identifiable targeted objective with a solitary concentration.

Targeted penetration into isolated and sustainable components using relentless incremental campaigns of focus building scope and momentum. So, if reparations are forthcoming, then beautiful, but until then, we must forge ahead from a position of fortitude, focus, and resolve to realize that a shift in the paradigm of our perspective is the most efficient and assured way of securing equality.

Previously suffering from an extreme deficiency, we now have sufficient agency to pay ourselves first. Meaning no permission is needed from others for assurances of equality, but that as always, we must renew our efforts from where we are now with what we have to build alliances and coalitions for prosperity and equality starting with us.

We have enough, we have plenty, but the division of our resources and purpose cannot be counterproductive or diverted. Discipline is needed. Certainly not separatism, we have paid too much but inclusion on our terms to equally wet our beak.

Repeated requests always transform into pleading, which is always distasteful under any circumstances and rarely effective since it grants the power to refuse or grant the request. Far from being downtrodden or self-pitying, we should be encouraged at how far we have come, what we have had to overcome, and what final frontiers of racism we are near to conquering.

You never had the right to dominion over us, so now we do not need to seek your permission for our salvation. Reparations are for your salvation. Again, the most valuable gesture would be to knock it off, but either way, we have made tremendous gains to close the gap, notwithstanding the tremendous gap that remains.

Rest assured your children will not face the retribution of your actions but will have to adjust to the extinction of your privilege. Your survival as a race will not be endangered as you claim to fear, but your most significant fear of the elimination of your advantage will be realized. The privilege or displeasure of white America will no longer be the paramount concern on which society operates.

Your substantial resistance should be more productively directed toward rectifying the problem, not denial and concealment to continue your comfort. The hypocrisy of denouncing bullying, being too strong for bullying does not extend beyond being too weak for racism, perhaps the greatest form of bullying. Your racist fragile psyche and mind are dependent on the intimidation of racism. The poisoning of a feeble mind believing that white skin somehow makes you divine.

Deprived of privilege, your means of survival will not be like the constant struggle for survival from the lowest socio-economic status of society like ours has been. It will not be sabotaged by the systemic injustices you have consistently heaped upon us.

The crux of many issues in the black community has been influenced by slavery and Jim Crow, which will not be anything you will have to contend with as contributing influences of dysfunction in your communities only as a haunting nightmare of your actions.

Black is not only a race but has been a condition, a condition that has had an extreme toll. Levies for atrocities and crimes against black humanity were committed over centuries. An overdue tariff is owed in this realm but may be collected in another with your soul.

Deflection or denial of these conditions cannot be independent of issues confronting the black community since close examination will likely reveal a correlation to slavery, discrimination, or the psychological trauma caused by them.

Not to mention the generational poverty caused and endorsed. Therefore, the repeated insistence on deflecting onto other problems in the black community does not absolve you of your infractions or justify our exclusion from equal treatment under the law or equivalent opportunities.

A three-dimensional understanding of a four-dimensional problem leaves you one dimension short of a resolution. The Confederate heritage and the American legacy are synonymous with each other from the inception of this country and the founding father’s vision.

If the founding fathers were as wise and incredible as they are portrayed, then why was slavery allowed to be woven into the fabric of America’s DNA? It was intentional, and maybe why some whites think they need to take the country back for white exclusivity following its purpose.

The founding father’s guidance and influence is still the overriding authority today of adherence suggesting their vision has transcended nearly four-hundred and fifty years of governance but not the detrimental effects of slavery.

The constant square peg in a round hole predicament of stretching the interpretation of their intent on matters they could not have envisioned essentially expresses the intent of the current interpreter.

The emphasis is then on the current interpreter to subjectively convey their own understanding and guessing the original intent or interpretation. Clarity of interpretation then is the paramount objective or selective choice of a subjective interpreter but still conjecture.

The confusion and misconceptions of understandings and allowances of iniquities have traversed, deviated, and wandered over time with the subjective translations of intent and purpose. Still, the one constant has been economic exploitation by the manner of racism.

In their infinite wisdom, the founding fathers should have calculated the compounded effects and centrifugal implications of racism. So, therefore, they never envisioned one day having to address the restitutions accrued and the adjudication required to resolve reparations. Accordingly, it was recognized that restitution was owed but reneged upon with the forty acres and a mule promise.

They should have had the foresight to envision that it would become one of the perils of the country surviving just as the American Revolution had. Refusing remedies to offenses unjustly enforced creating a domestic threat from dissatisfaction.

Attempting to maintain their advantage suppressing anyone or anything that supported a change, even the government. The last time it was called the Civil War, and this time it is called Trumpism, MAGA, Patriotism, and Republican complicity.

If my words, tone, and honesty are harsh, then the reality has been more harsh and bitter to experience for us over a prolonged period of centuries. Feeble attempts to misrepresent, reduce, or quantify our damages expose the unwillingness to understand, preventing a resolution.

You must first understand then accept the problem thru the spectrum of the casualties caused before you can rectify them. Racist ideology and white’s resistance to being held accountable leaves me unconvinced that significant change or national reparations are on the horizon, but collapse is impending.

The combination of racism and economics fueling the downfall as symptoms of the illness. The disease is self-righteous arrogance not capable of change exposing a self-destructive premise.

If repeated reminders of discrimination and disregard for resolution are any indication that racist compulsion leaves bigots powerless to resist and hopelessly cursed destined to be like the scorpion’s sting, being in their nature to sting even if it destroys them as well.

There can be no genuine remorse without redress and consequences to express and satisfy the wounded, but the truth is that there can be no healing without remedy. While some are hoping and wishing, I am well beyond the age of believing Santa Claus is real or if real reparations or healing will be achieved any time soon.

P.S. Be sure to wear your seat belt. We are expecting some stubborn turbulence ahead.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz