Lessons from Breonna

 

Search Warrant Reform

The underlying principles of a search warrant originate within the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment maintains the right against unreasonable search and seizure, especially in our residence. To protect this essential Constitutional Right, the law requires at a minimum that there be sufficient probable cause and a sworn oath by an affiant to the facts and truthfulness of that probable cause.

The affiant is the law enforcement official seeking the warrant, usually a police person. A material violation of either the compulsory probable cause or the sworn integrity of its content violates the foundation of the Fourth Amendment Rights. Moreover, it excludes or invalidates the tenets of any warrant issued and the signing judges’ fiduciary creed.

The judge’s duty is procedural to assess the legality but not validate the probable cause, as they have no way of knowing the accuracy of the information that would support that probable cause. The affiant bears witness that the facts of the probable cause are true and accurate according to their personal knowledge. 

The judge then signs the search warrant on the sworn testimony of the affiant, which indemnifies the judge and places the burden squarely on the affiant to justify the warrant. Therefore, acts of willful deceit to obtain a warrant by the affiant are criminal.  

The search warrant is a two-part document. The most important part is the affidavit, which outlines the probable cause used to obtain the search warrant detailing the suspected crime or illegal activity. The search warrant precisely states the premises, person, contraband, or other criminal tools to be searched or seized along with any evidence that may confirm the suspected activity.

The warrant must be executed within 72 hours. The exceptions such as no-knock, contingent, or otherwise are described within the search warrant. A night-season search warrant must be expressly stated and permits the execution of the warrant outside of the regular allowable hours. Night season is generally considered to be between 10:00 pm to 7:00 am and is deemed to be risky and more dangerous than the execution of a typical search warrant. 

Just as a no-knock warrant language is explicitly stated, so is a night-season warrant stating the specific circumstances justifying its nighttime execution. The Taylor search warrant execution time was at approximately 12:30 am and fits into the definition of a night season search and must contain language in the affidavit allowing night season execution. The affidavit is secret and usually not disclosed.

Still, the search warrant portion, part two of the warrant, must be given to a person or left on the premises of the place to be searched, along with a search warrant inventory detailing the items seized. A search warrant return packet must be submitted to the county clerk’s office within days after executing the search warrant to conclude the process. At this time, the request for sealing the warrant is made.

In the Taylor case, certain elements can be stipulated that probable cause did exist for the warrant to be sought for Taylor’s premises. However, other aspects of the affidavit are not authenticated as factual, timely, or containing firsthand knowledge. Therefore, these elements, which were absolutely material to obtaining the search warrant, should either have been stated differently, amended, or omitted. 

Any known deviation from the truth stated within the affidavit technically is false and a violation of the oath the affiant takes, stating that they swear personally to know all probable cause to be true and accurate. Hence, this deviation invalidates the affidavit and, consequently, the search warrant due to probable cause issues. 

To satisfy the judicial integrity regarding this particular warrant, many discrepancies of perception and fact contradict practicality and the legality of the stated probable cause. Those discrepancies also prevented a clear and precise depiction of the warrant’s justification and compromised the judicial integrity of the warrant. Thus, deception, incompetence. or both is indicated by the factual inconsistencies and questionable actions in obtaining the warrant.

Clarification and resolution of the probable cause are vital to assessing the legality of the issuance of the warrant. Administratively the search warrant validation began with the investigative facts that led to obtaining the search warrant. It is where any inquiry or Grand Jury proceedings should begin to legally establish the police right to be there or even initially to obtain the warrant. You must start from the beginning.

Regarding the Postal delivery of packages of suspected drugs to Breonna Taylor’s residence, there was no confirmation to validate that claim. In fact, no packages were delivered, only letter mail was received there. Additionally, although a common practice of drug traffickers, it must be proven that the receiver opened the package. Thereby knowledge of the contents is proof they are criminally engaged. The alleged package appeared unopen according to police.

Suppose the allegations were true that multiple packages believed to contain suspected drugs had been received. In that case, conducting further investigation could have conclusively determined a pattern of Taylor’s proven participation in drug activity existed. The package could have been targeted during transport for surveillance and exigent circumstances. 

All other elements of probable cause appear to be factual assumptions, but these assumptions are not based on timely or currently valid information. Facts or further invest revising or explaining Walker’s, the new boyfriend, appearance and presence at that juncture of the investigation was lacking. The time contrasting the search warrant probable cause observations and intel relative to the discontinuation of the relationship between Taylor and the ex-boyfriend, Glover, should have been a consideration for pause. 

Walker’s presence created uncertainty and changed the dynamics of activity at Taylor’s residence. So had the alleged operation changed with the relationship change? The initial probable cause was not supported by further investigation or assessment despite Walkers’ presence. The investigation continued as if no dynamic had changed. As if business, as usual, was still being conducted between Taylor and Glover, namely that her residence was a stash house or a delivery point.

Other elements of probable cause were equally insufficient. Legal acts are not evidence of a crime unless proven to be knowingly and willingly used in the commission of a crime. Thus, cell phone and vehicle registrations in her name, while unadvisable, are not prima facia criminal. Although, some other evidential probable cause did indicate some degree of her knowledge and prior participation. 

 

Her continuation of participation for search warrant purposes must be established to be current. Otherwise, an arrest warrant or indictment for prior activity is appropriate, not a search warrant. These observations should have amended the facts avoiding the appearances and commission of any misrepresentation of the facts. Establishing current conduct revealing a continuation of Taylor’s participation despite the relationship change was needed.  

Most of the information appeared to be stale, should have been known or disregarded as not useful. The investigation process substantiates the suspicions, the participants, and the probable cause to establish the case. That investigation then sustaining the suspicions of drug trafficking, results in an affidavit and a search warrant being drawn up. It is the reason to secure the proof as the standard for probable cause.

It appears that both were drawn up by the lead detective, not a prosecutor, and then presented to a judge for approval and a signature. This practice is legal and permissible in some jurisdictions while banned in others to safeguard objectivity, completeness, and the substantiation of the required legal criterion of the probable cause. Eliminating the prosecutor’s input removes a level of objective, scrutiny, and legal knowledge.

The affidavit should contain the investigative techniques used to build the probable cause. It appears that surveillance was heavily used and presumably to some degree informants. The value of informants is not limited to information but also drug buys and the identification of suspects. Thus, the affidavit would also include whether drug arrests or drug buys were utilized and if undercover officers were used for any of the drug buys. Using undercovers solidifies the firsthand chain of testimony.

Furthermore, it needs to be disclosed if a confidential reliable informant was the source of confirming the delivered package contents as drugs. Did a CRI provide any information relative to Glover’s activities pertaining to Taylor or her premises? Without these additional sources and verifications, the search warrant criteria are extremely suspect. With this amount of uncertainty, a warrant never should have been obtained, and had the facts been known, never signed.

Administrative checks on residences, phones, vehicles, and individual’s backgrounds assist in building probable cause. In addition, multiple arrests of individuals leaving the drug house after buying drugs further establishes activity at drug houses. What were the verifiable investigative techniques detailed in the affidavit, and when?

Any packages observed leaving Taylor’s residence by Glover could only be speculated to contain drugs. Therefore, using collaboration with the Postal Inspector establishes if drugs were shipped through the mail. Any suspicious packages should have been appropriately investigated before delivery. Additionally, if Glover was observed to leave Taylor’s apartment with a package and had an active warrant or other means, it was probably prudent to apprehend Glover and the package to prove that he was receiving drugs there. 

While in transit was the most opportune time to intercept Glover. He had the least legal or Constitutional protections at that time against being arrested and searched incident to arrest. Supposing Glover was observed to go to a drug house and active trafficking observed. In that case, raiding it using exigent circumstances and securing it until a search warrant is sought afterward was legally permissible. After a fresh delivery, presumably seizing the maximum amount of drugs. 

With the postal package seemingly being the pivotal action that initiated probable cause for the search warrant issued for Taylor’s residence, it was never definitively determined to contain drugs or be recurring drug activity. At any rate, even the referred to postal package occurred nearly four weeks before the warrants’ execution, as well as recorded phone calls that implicated Taylor’s participation. Both were stale.

Considering the misrepresentation of the verification regarding the delivery of drug packages to Taylor’s residence, the unknown contents of the packages retrieved by Glover, and the time-lapse between other stated probable cause securing of a search warrant violates the principle and intent of the law lacking Constitutionality. 

It is unlikely that a judge would have signed a search warrant. It is also unlikely that a judge suspected that a night-season execution of the search warrant on a soft target was necessary. Otherwise, it is a contradiction. A prosecutor review would have surely required more clarity of probable cause and more recent justifying evidence.

While there are specific indications of Taylor’s knowledge of Glover’s activities, the evidence was somewhat circumstantially outdated and no longer accurate or subsequently proven. They found no evidence after the deadly incident to support the probable cause as current or accurate.

The implications and ramifications of the affiant’s sworn assertions of probable cause resulted in actionable infractions that would not have occurred otherwise, which ultimately resulted in Taylor’s death. The affiant committed a legal infraction in obtaining the search warrant, constituting a crime that would have resulted in no warrant being issued and definitely not being executed in the night season. 

Additionally, search warrants should have each page numbered and signed by the prosecutor drafting it and the judge issuing it on every page to prevent substitution of original authorized content. Furthermore, the prosecutor’s original copy should be submitted to the clerk’s office later reconciled with the search warrant return package to authenticate the contents as original.

Currently, only the last page of the affidavit and search warrant are signed by the judge. The prosecutor’s copy remains on their hard drive or is discarded, never reconciled with the detective’s returned search warrant.
The criteria for the search warrant or probable cause perhaps need two affiants to affirm the facts lessening the chance that two officers would tell the same lie under oath. Currently, it is an honor system of claims without proof aside from drug test results and one detective’s word.

If swat is not utilized for entry, the entry team should be cohesive, competent, skillful, and experienced. Assembly of random personnel should be avoided unless under extreme circumstances. The main reason for this is performance and tactical. An experienced entry team would never fire into a structure from outside under any circumstances or bottleneck the egress.

These are some of the main issues, revelations, and remedies concerning search warrants from probable cause to execution. Any earnest reform should address these issues if a serious undertaking of accountability is assumed. The Breonna Taylor case has many of these problems present, culminating in her death with any one element erased, she would still be alive. This is the lesson from Breonna Taylor’s incident that should not be ignored. Search warrant reform should evolve with law enforcement capabilities and criminal techniques.

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

 

Grand Jury Proposal

The Totality of the Facts

The entire Breonna Taylor case from the beginning has been cloaked in secrecy with limited information disseminated. I believe that this has not been done by accident. While the Grand Jury proceedings have shed some light on the incidents of that night, it has also cast much doubt on the grand jury.

Unfortunately, full disclosure and complete access to the facts may never be obtained, but there should be a release of information that satisfies the many unanswered questions that exist. It should also cover questions about the grand jury process that manipulated the outcome.

You must ask the right questions for a correct answer to create transparency and shed the appropriate insight into the case. These questions and answers should then be presented to another Grand Jury in their entirety so that an unbiased informed decision can be made for possible charges and indictments, if any. Thus, following the trail of truth wherever it leads and whomever it implicates.

The Grand Jury proceedings by law are kept secret, as well as the identity of the Grand Jurors. These are the first two flaws of the proceedings, notwithstanding the constitutional traditions which permit manipulation of abuses and loopholes. The criteria of member selection can influence the decision by a predisposition of perspectives slanted toward a particular outcome affecting the decision maker’s interpretation of the evidence.

Members should maintain anonymity redacted from the public record and view, but member protocol needs adjusting under these exceptional circumstances. The criteria for member selection may very well be questionable when these exceptional circumstances arise. Maybe random selection, maybe not, but the point is there is no transparency conducive to understanding the process.

Secondly, if the person alleged in the proceedings is a public servant of public record acting in a public capacity, why are their proceedings private in contrast to their public service. It would stand to reason that secrecy is their right if operating privately but not in a public capacity. It is a determination relative to their public actions, not a private capacity occurrence.

It is a mixture of public and private concerns governed by strictly private rights as a citizen when the actions were not of a private citizen nature but a public employee. Standards for public employees distinguish acts committed as an employee or elected official as violations of public expectations. If the offense is public, should the determination not also be public to promote transparency and fairness?

Make the presentation of evidence public but not in its entirety, only satisfying the level of charges sought. Another alternative to protecting the integrity of the secrecy of the proceedings is to have opposing interests present or ensure that an impartial conveyance of the facts is conducted. The proceedings could then remain private but balanced in their presentation.

Whatever alteration must ensure the totality of the facts and possible charges be presented to avoid steering or to restrict the grand jury process. The saying goes, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich meaning the outcome can be manipulated beyond reason, but the opposite is also true. It can be restricted beyond reason by the limitations of the information or charges submitted. This phase is where the abuses and loopholes exist.

It has the overwhelming potential to distort the purpose and outcome by tampering with the intent necessitating transparency. Nevertheless, transparency is required under these extraordinary circumstances of mistrust, and the skepticism created even sometimes among the members of the Grand Jury themselves. The demand for procedural disclosure has raised suspicions about the credibility of the process, evidence, and charges presented.

The Grand Jury is tasked with a no bill or true bill determination but can only consider the charges put before them. Meaning an indictment is either denied or upheld considering only the evidence and the suggested changes presented to them. They have no power to suggest charges or have any knowledgeable requirements of the nuances of the law.

They rely on the prosecutor’s presentation of the facts and the changes suggested. They cannot consider charges that have not been presented to them. Facts unknown to the Grand Jury, in essence, restrict their considerations to only the choices available to them. So, the facts not presented have probably more impact on the decision to indict or not than what is presented.

With that said, to avoid any impropriety and maintain impartiality, all evidence and witnesses should be presented to the Grand Jury. Then the culmination of that information made public or arbitrated as an Amicus Brief with only the names of the individuals redacted for their protection and anonymity if they are not public servants.

This will preserve the transparent disclosure of the facts and the value of the evidence presented without significantly impacting the integrity and procedures of the Grand Jury.

To highlight these procedural principles or lack of, altering a judicial determination while claiming impartiality in submitting the complete facts warranting no charges, consider their practical impact. With an understanding of the possible methods used, it becomes evident where and how undue influence and tacit persuasions can go undetected.

A city settlement had been reached in the Taylor case prior to the grand jury proceedings revealing some level of acceptance, if not an admission of guilt or liability. The settlement alone indicates that the city’s position was much more fragile and dubious than errant shots into an adjacent apartment which caused no bodily harm. To prevent the facts from being vigorously pursued, establishing uncontestable culpability, this is the first maneuver.

The settlement agreement has probably restricted some of the family’s rights to legally implement key principles such as duces tecum or discovery to reveal elements pertinent to the events of that night. Thus, surmising it would behoove the city to enter into a settlement before the legal wrangling began, only if it admitted no guilt, regulated disclosure, and restricted recourse.

The settlement would certainly restrict any recourse or some of the family’s further exercise of legal rights about the case. The optics and practicality appear peculiar, and the settlement obscured the State Attorney General’s obligation for full disclosure to address the family’s interest.

Public outrage was then the only recourse remaining for accountability considering the facts not presented to the grand jury. The outrage has subsided as they knew it would despite no full disclosure or honoring of legal request for evidence still not released a year later.

Furthermore, a settlement was not negotiated with the victims of the grand jury indicted action signifying undisputable criminal negligence against an innocent family in the adjacent dwelling. Conversely, the family of Breonna Taylor, where no indictment was returned in connection with her death, was given a settlement.

It seems strange that a so-called totally justifiable shooting would warrant a twelve-million-dollar settlement, and the victims of the unquestionable reckless endangerment would not result in settlement of any known dollar amount thus far.

That said, to further examine the events of that night, much more remains to be scrutinized using deductive reasoning of the evidence parameters not presented to the grand jury before they could reach a decision.

Presenting the evidence with the spectrum of charges applicable and letting the grand jury make a legal determination on what does or does not support an indictment would secure an objective assessment. After all, convening the grand jury to provide an objective assessment and factual determination was the objective.

To make an objective assessment, it cannot be a limited or subjective presentation of the facts. The totality of evidence to be fully presented and considered should include the search warrant process and probable cause, the execution of the search warrant and critical incident review, and all witness testimony or statements taken, including fellow officers.

In particular, the swat team personnel criticized the shots fired into the apartment, striking Taylor as an unconfirmed target and suppressive fire.

Further consideration must include a comprehensive review of all evidence, any incriminatory or exculpatory indiscretions of significance, and any revelations from subsequent investigations.

In addition, they must be reviewed for any impact on impartiality or transparency on Grand Jury revelations for any reasonable charges as a procedural matter. Thus, as a projection of consequences since material facts were misrepresented, which would have prevented obtaining a search warrant, all actions resulting are attributed to that lie.

Consequently, no search warrant would or should have been granted or sought. No search warrant, no murder since there was no legal right to be there. Since a lie leads to the critical incident, why would not the liar be held criminally accountable for every action the lie set in motion?

Similar to a getaway driver, planner, or lookout for a criminal act. This principle is applied to civilians universally, then why not the police, especially when a murder was the result. It was not presented to the grand jury, but the city fired him for it.

Undeniably, in addition to the State Attorney General (AG) or prosecutor suggesting charges, there needs to be an agreed-upon individual acting in the capacity of Amicus Curiae to assure an impartial and fair interpretation of the evidence presented and application of the law. That would ensure that all interests are equally represented fairly and objectively to satisfy any accusations of impropriety or coverup.

To ignore the impact of the crime committed by lying under oath as the affiant securing the search warrant, which resulted in the firing but not prosecution for the lie or murder, is reprehensible. Don’t look any further for a colossal abuse of the grand jury process by omitting facts and evidence. It was known at the time before the grand jury was seated.

The complete and thorough examination of the evidence should be of paramount interest to all parties for a just resolution. Therefore, when assessing actions of that night, any police action relying on pertinent information must be known before or at the time of the occurrence or incident in real-time, not after the fact. The lie was known.

Subsequent information ascertained by further investigation or implication only frames the structure for support or rebuttal by which the circumstances of that night can be evaluated.

It is not sufficient to cite traditional grand jury protocol protections when the AG has been exposed to have practiced deceit by commission and omission. Instead, the process must be presented and released for objective examination and understanding since exposing the previous secretive process as a farce and wholly inadequate.

The process cannot be suborned to conceal, deny, or mislead accountability for malfeasance or misfeasance. The integrity of the Grand Jury system must supersede and resist the impulses to disguise the guilt of law enforcement with equal enthusiasm as it applies to imposing it on others.

The purpose of an exhaustive probe is not to create doubt but to establish clarity and transparency of application and interpretation of the facts. There is a fiduciary duty to present the facts in their entirety. Total satisfaction for all is not realistic or attainable, but fairness, complete presentation, and honest determination should be.

Conceding that some partialities are not factually based and governed by the emotions of opposing beliefs, no matter the outcome, there will remain a contention of disputing opinions.

However, when proceedings are properly conducted in full consideration of the facts conveyed unbiasedly and transparently, a greater level of satisfaction is obtained whomever the outcome disappoints. The total and indisputable facts must be revealed and judged accordingly, letting blame fall where it may.

The Taylor case illustrated some methods of abuse when manipulating the system, but there are other methods involving circumvention by avoiding the process. Any homicide should be presented to the grand jury even if an arrest is not made.

This provides transparency and clearance of wrongdoing. The circumstances should be submitted as a matter of facts, not presentation, then the charges resulting from the actions can be determined fairly. The Ahmaud Aubrey case best illustrates the circumvention of the law by not submitting the facts to a grand jury.

Several refusals occurred before exposure of the facts necessitated multiple arrests and indictments for his murder. Federal charges were also brought. So how could there be several determinations that there was no crime unless it was to conceal the facts and the participant’s guilt?

The mere submission of the facts to a grand jury was the difference between injustice and justice. This cast doubt on the motive and judgment of the prosecutor and law enforcement, who initially refused to arrest or indict, remiss in honoring the facts. The errant determination rested in their hands, resulting in a coverup.

This is a common occurrence to pretend no law was broken and no crime was committed. Thus, the appearance of impartiality masqueraded as a thorough investigation while biasedly corrupted. It amounts to a dereliction of duty exceeding bad judgment and should be examined for any criminality.

If these decisions are unduly influenced, that would be a crime. However, if this crime was in furtherance of concealment of another’s crime, they should share their fate since they decided to share their concealment.

To not present the case to the grand jury at the minimum is either law enforcement misconduct or prosecutorial misconduct, if not both. An expanded system of review or panel of review would remedy these biases of judgment and injustice.

It should also trigger a personnel review when the misjudgment is this blatant. If criminal intent is not proven, it most certainly sustains disciplinary actions. The system must have deterrents and enforcement of violations to assure its integrity.

Those entrusted to uphold the integrity and intent of the law violate this by deceptive means or concealment of material facts. In that case, they should be exposed and judged harshly, perhaps by having their facts presented to a grand jury.

These grand jury proposals will address some abuses, loopholes, and circumventions to no longer be allowed to be exploited under the pretense of justice. Corrupting the process is corrupting justice and promoting violations. Grand jury reform for public employees should reflect their capacity as a servant to the public, not a private citizen. Furthermore, automatic grand jury review of instances similar to the Aubrey case has to be mandatory. 

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

Spread No Further

Legacy of Contamination

I remember as a young fella, quite naturally I am going back a number of years, but I remember a television show named Lost in Space. The main characters were Dr. Zachary Smith and a robot. Dr. Smith was always whining and nervously candy-assing his way through every episode.

When confronted with danger, he would sell you out in a heartbeat. The robot would repeatedly proclaim, this does not compute Will Robinson, and malfunction shutting down when anything was beyond his programming and understanding.

Contamination is understood to mean a state of impurity or poisoning of something that results in spoilage, corruption, infection, or unfitness. It also spreads with a hazardous impact throughout entire countries, continents, or the world. By definition, the following most certainly will qualify as such toxins, when the contamination is ideological, but the intent was purposeful. It magnifies the outrage.

The biggest obstacle to dealing successfully with these contaminates have been far more than the lack of recognition and transparency but the outright lies that continue to be perpetuated and promoted. Instead of the names changing to protect the innocent, the names of the guilty remain the same, while their guilty deeds are made innocently invisible.

In an old gangster movie it was said, if you do not fear for your deed, then why fear for your name. No one should deny them their full credit if we are to be led to believe that these deeds are so admirable. If so deservingly earned, why not attach their name to all they have done. After all, they have been glorified and exalted to be of exemplary emulation as influences on America.

Ronald Reagan, Charles Darwin, King James I (or aka the IV), Great Britain, Christopher Columbus, Capitalism / Colonialism /Patriotism, and Healthcare have surely earned such distinctions in no particular order but with long-lasting implications. And now, yes, added to the infamous ranks is none other than the nefarious Donald Trump himself.

If you wonder whether the current pandemic is man-made, then there is no such question concerning the influence of the pandemics mentioned above. Of that, we can be sure. However, although I imagine all did some good, we could have all been better off without them considering the damage done.

Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)– the great communicator and alleged drug dealing undeniable racist of trickle-down elitist economics. His impact and the impact of his directives can still be felt today with a legacy of crack cocaine aided by Oliver North, who later was head of the NRA.

They stood accused by the U.S. Government and history. The Iran Contra scandal was a way to circumvent the workings of the U.S. government funding protocol by not only trafficking drugs but guns and funneling money for a war in a foreign country.

Drug addiction and other forms of inebriation to cloud judgment and diminish will or resistance are weapons used against populations for hundreds of years and cause many years of dysfunctional impediment. Whether building wealth, raising cash, funding objectives,or promoting corruption, drugs have proven quite lucrative and effective.

That the crack epidemic was directed towards the black communities should come as no surprise. It could have been foretold by Reagan’s shared racist views with disgraced Presidential bigot Richard Nixon.

In October of 1971, Ronnie was recorded long before his Presidency by Nixon of the “these cannibals” utterances. He stated,” to see those- those monkeys from the African countries, damn them, they are still learning how to wear shoes.” Reagan was indeed a man of his time as many in government shared this sentiment regarding Blacks in America.

This ideology seems to have played out in his presidency after his California governor stint, where he proclaimed that housing discrimination was a property owner’s right. He was against sanctions of Apartheid in Africa as President. His trickle-down effect politics at its core is F— ’em and feed them cheese while taking care of the elite interest at the top.

There was considerable economic suffering among minorities and low-income Americans under his eight-year tenure, which ended in 1989. In addition, Reagan created a legacy of drug addiction, crime, and incarceration lasting over thirty years after leaving office. His impact was not only felt in the States but other drug-torn countries and toppled governments.

Charles Darwin (1808-1882)– revealed his bigoted evolution by his obviously primitive twisted mind while masquerading as a scientist promoting a premise of natural selection. Furthermore, he believed in racial hierarchy and gender superiority, stating that the woman’s brain was similar to a small child’s brain, well beneath a man’s brain.

The Descent of Man principles were taught as fact, further perpetuating this privileged class and racist view. It exalted the Caucasian male, especially the European Caucasian, claiming that the negro and the Australian or aborigines are closer to the ape and gorilla in all matters. All other members of humanity were also beneath the white male but above the colored.

The New York Times advocated and found no fault with others displaying a pygmy male, Ota Benga, in the Bronx Zoo in a cage with monkeys to prove Darwin’s Theory of evolution. The Bronx Zoo, then owned by William Rockefeller, had no problem displaying it in 1906, claiming he was a cannibalistic link between the African and apes.

Instructed and enforced consciously and subliminally that the white race was superior to all with the white male at the top of the evolutionary chain. Darwin encouraged genocide to fully exterminate and replace savages throughout the world in addition to a duty to and justification for slavery thinly veiled as Social Darwinism. Supported by his equally misguided cousin, Francis Galton, they convinced or justified what continues to plague the world today nearly 140 years after Darwin’s death.

These two gave rise to eugenics (1883) which greatly inspired Adolf Hitler and Nazism (1933) based on the reproduction of a master race. Undesirable elements of humanity, such as the poor, uneducated, immigrants, and minority populations, were to be exterminated. Today they are widely known as not only minorities but “essential workers,” expendable.

Hitler was known to say if you tell a big enough lie enough times, it will become true. Darwin has yet to be fully discredited and exposed. Mimicking this Trump lies so much today with similar results as Hitler and praise of the swastika-like symbol confederate flag.

King James I (1566-1625)– that practitioner of behaviors supposedly forbidden and denounced by the most famous book in the world, which bears his name, the Bible. He has been of particular detriment to society.

He has violated the trust and sincere yearning for the Christian guidance of billions of seekers by being in a position at a time in history to manipulate and change the Bible. It reflects his purpose and ambition of control, vanity, and systematic racism.

The issue of marriage and homosexuality has been vigorously debated and rebuked. Marriage, at times, was just a contract of a partnership between two parties that needed the support of each other to accomplish a task. It had nothing to do with gender or a sexual relationship; it was just business. In comparison, using self-righteous judgments of impositional morality against those who choose to live outside the mainstream traditional acceptance of both, condemnation is inflicted.

King James I in the era of #metoo would have been a prime offender allegedly primarily canoodling with Lord Buckingham of British and Buckingham Palace fame as his longtime same-sex lover through coercion or the Weinstein technique of courtship. His infidelity and sexual appetite were rampant, contrary to the book that bears his name, but vanity was his primary sin and objective.

Lord Buckingham proclaimed himself to be the “slave and dog,” a not very royal title, of King James at his disposal to be turned every which way but loose. The next time someone stands on a stack of King James Version of the Holy Bible condemning homosexuality, infidelity, fornication, and same-sex unions, remember he openly practiced them. The charade continues nearly four hundred years after King James’ demise.

Charles Darwin was of British descent like King James and his self-proclaimed slave and dog Lord Buckingham marking a long and less than royal history of racism in Britain. The London Company, Henry VIII, William Shakespeare, Elizabeth I, and Charles I was embedded in British racist society. This honored their racism and garnered adulation for the whiteness of their influence, bloodline, and royalty. 

Christianity had struggled before Constantine’s vision before a victorious battle which converted him to Christianity and his Council of Nicaea (325, 381).

If not for Constantine and King James I, you might now worship animal deities, numina, or ancestral worshipping. They were pervasive practices in Rome before embracing Catholicism. Now, sprinkle in some Titus of Flavian lineage and Theodosius I for influential good measure shaping modern Christianity.

The Catholic Church has also committed some unholy deeds and indulgences. They were a prominent presence benefiting directly from participation in the slave trade and spreading their religion to educate heathens. This served more to deter slaves from revolt and resistance while having been robbed of their resources and identity.

Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) a murderer and marauder, which perhaps none have done better when it comes to conquest and colonialism. His influence can be felt in America, the Caribbean, Mexico, South America, and Canada as he spread his European brand of death, bondage, disease, and greed.

He had ambitions of conquering Asia and proving to the Spanish Crown that he could strong-arm gold, precious resources, and slaves in sort of a bum rush midnight raid. In the process, he left a path of destruction, genocide, theft, and slavery everywhere he went and influenced those who followed to do the same.

 

The Taino of Arawak descent was the first to taste his homicidal thirst on the island of Hispaniola, Columbus taking advantage of their cultural lack of aggression and abundance of hospitality. He left them decimated and diseased coincidentally with smallpox and extinction.

Smallpox was gifted to the Native American or Indigenous people of this land long occupied by them. Somehow, that which had already been discovered and indeed occupied was whitewashed. It was credited to Columbus’s exploration as his discovery.

Columbus is no hero worthy of a national holiday. He is a squatter and, most appropriately, a war criminal and a warmonger without opposition, compassion, or a war. He is the father of colonization in the new land bringing slavery and death while providing how it can be done to an inviting population.

His sole purpose was not to prove the world was round or to discover new lands but was motivated by a decree to see who he could jack of their resources and enslave their people, and that is why he is an American hero today.

The pride some so adamantly claim of Columbus’ heritage must be made in full disclosure and support of his genocidal ways. It is a shameful commentary that no one else of that heritage can be deemed more deserving than him.

The father and founder of slavery in the Americas unleashing discrimination lasting over five hundred years later. Colonialism/Capitalism was built on robbery, theft, deception, and oppression, including death. It is no longer practiced exclusively against the poor, immigrant, purposefully ignorant, women, and minorities but the working and middle class.

Yes, the middle class is now infiltrating the lower class when they thought they were safely above it. Pure greed recognizes no boundaries. Laissez-Faire is the foundation of Free Market Capitalism to not interfere with the free market of survival of the fittest unless it affects the rich.

The Marxist theory of socialism and the Fascist principles urging ultra-nationalism and racism are inbred with today’s capitalism. Capitalism, Marxism, and Fascism are conducting an intimately salacious threesome in a democracy where it is unchecked. It is becoming a dictatorship suppressing criticism and truth obliged by silence or vigilantism to protect the money or political ideology that protects the power.

The great American Revolution and the Boston Tea Party were supposedly about taxation without representation, but what about representation without taxation. Some rich do not pay any taxes at all and boast of it. How is that possible or acceptable in a country founded on tax disputes and fairness?

Capitalism is becoming straight-up indentured  servatude and exploitation where assistance to the poor is primarily considered socialism while the bailouts and incentives for the wealthy are justified economic policies.

The healthcare system image is as long as you owe them, they will never be broke, and you will never be well. Healthcare itself is not the problem, but the rules the system is forced to adhere to for its survival. It promotes corruption from within, seeming like a high-stakes poker game where significant resources or DEBT are required to participate. Same for educational and student loans, the game is debt.

Medicine is an instrument used to launder money and redistribute wealth, probably better than the stock market. Consider all the substances which are legal but detrimental to your health. Many create not only sickness but outrageous medical expenses. There can be no other justification other than money. Look no further than the opioid crisis.

Crack was devastating, and it had a child named OxyContin, cousin to the dog food dating back to the Vietnam war exit and before. Opioids and heroin are nothing new, but the last 60 years have spanned these three illicit drugs to continue to be a destructive toll on populations by design.

Then, crack was a crime heavily and unevenly punished, but Oxy and dog food is now a disease by demographic selection. Opioids created wealth through sales and now through treatment.

Marijuana, which has many medicinal purposes, is only now being utilized, but the argument against it being its unknown effects and addictive nature. Other substances are allowed, encouraged, and addictive with industry backing and profits. This does influence their acceptability with well-known health damages if that is the case. This is where the lobbyist and special interest groups come into corrupt the reality of its danger.

Compared to the things that we know the side effects of with no medicinal purposes, the argument is weak. If addiction is a concern, then what about alcohol, cigarettes, or sugar, among many. Control of hemp products, the newspaper industry wars, and good old racism is again the original root opposition of a ban on marijuana.

Donald J Trump (1946 -, 45th President of U.S.) that stern representation of the Confederate legacy, American heritage, and Patriotism. He can boast of himself dodging the draft, an immigrant background by way of his grandfather coming here after being dispelled from his country for dodging the draft, and family roots from the drumpf’s of Kallstadt, formerly of Bulgaria, not the patriotic founding fathers.

Real Patriots of the Republic to make America great again would not participate in any government stimulus, assistance, subsidies, bankruptcy protection, business or corporate bailout as an inspiration and example of their beliefs just like their opposition to the vaccine. Instead, they participate in the overthrow of the government and an election without realizing what happens when you tire of Trump, elections again? Not likely.

However, when the shoes get tight, where are your patriotic principles now. Without excuses, please, since you reject all reason, then please give no excuses. The puppeteer exploits your ignorant complicity to threaten your beloved Constitution and Democracy for his glory.

If you would relinquish your freedom to vote him out or his offspring, then what? Racism is the number one killer in the world of opportunity, whether by drug addiction, economic suppression, or any other socially engineered construct of control.

No wonder it is hard to advance, it is most likely to have been by effective design and not human frailty or lack of ambition. Most of these atrocities were committed in the name of morality, religion, and politic. The rest can be attributed to pure unadulterated greed. Now Patriotism is the new buzzword and dog whistle.

Arianism is the belief that Jesus is above man but below God, which a twisted adaptation is used today to promote racism in essence insinuating that the white race is above all other races. That and Patriotism are alibied to save the country. Their Patriotism aims to restore America to what principles or period and, how by government coup, mass murder, or slavery?

The above examples of how dangerous these fallacies, grandiose delusions of superiority, mass deceptions, and wanton acts against segments of society are promoted. It is transmitted as intentional contamination of reality and faith persistent throughout time. It ignores truth and fairness but embraces ignorance, violence, and inequality from a self-appointed group of moral law and order manipulators with religious principles.

They want you to believe the meek will inherit the earth but let us not forget even Jesus warned of a house divided. Something more closely resembling fairness, equality, and freedom must emerge soon if we avoid the fate of all great civilizations before us. The clouds of unrest rumble on the horizon of implosion.

With the former leader of the free world attempting to install himself as a quasi-dictator by promoting insurgence via a violent takeover of the Capitol lawmakers in one fell swoop, our foundation is wobbling badly right now yall. Like all of the above, Trump’s actions will have long-lasting repercussions both at home and abroad. The chaos has been ignited.

We are a resilient nation when in solidarity. We have survived much, but as we now tussle with the Covid-19, which Trump unduly exacerbated by admittedly downplaying the presence and deadly consequences, regardless of how it originated. He bungled the response.

The foundation of what has stood for 244 years is on the brink of destruction and collapse in four years of one man. A day of ego soothing indiscretion and foolishness carried out by his army of terrorists threatens Democracy.

Remember, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. This is how dictatorships and strongmen come into power, but they keep control by oppressing those who brought them to power. They prefer the iron fist technique of persuasion for their longevity of rule.

These above-referenced influences of American foundational structure and guidance have a very well-earned placed in history and should be rightfully singled out for their intentional and insidiously contrived transmission of mental and social contamination. Let us not forget the accompanied death and suffering. Now we can add the destruction of Democracy and Capitalism.

You cannot have Capitalism without Democracy. Trump is not solely to blame because the table was set long before him. He just feasted at the table. However, he can be held to account for his contribution, and many share his vision if not his methods. This needs to spread no further.

Hopefully, it is not too late to forgive them, for they know not what they do. Seduced and cajoled by a snake oil salesman bent on deceit, vanity, and ego inflation selling miracle notions and poisonous potions. It is the puppet master who pulls the strings when the puppet dances.
Now, this seems like being lost in space with the cowardly constantly whining Dr. Smith and the robot, who frequently cannot compute reality and have malfunctioning meltdowns. A sellout and his malfunctioning companion, the public.

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

 

Patriotism and The American Way

Why does it Taste so Different?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

Democracy Divided

Solomon’s Dilemma 

Often when making a decision, it may become advisable and even necessary to visually project that if a particular scenario plays out to its logical conclusion, what are the ramifications and unintended consequences created. Next, without any consideration for the standard of evidence required to prove or disprove an assertion, it must be presented to be evaluated.

If such favorable evidence exists for consideration, why would it not be presented regarding voter fraud and election indiscretions as claimed? Denials of a result without counter-evidence are just outlandish claims or machinations of not accepting defeat.

It is a delusion that you were not defeated or could not have been defeated, especially when performing your personal best, although you were out-performed. 

Assuming any of these bellyaches which were repeatedly denounced and rebuked by authorities mostly considered favorable to you had any merit or sliver of truth, they indeed would have been upheld or revealed by now.

A preferred scenario to invalidate or rectify an election dispute instead of presenting evidence was to overthrow the Capitol violently and forcibly install Trump. First, however, it must be further explored for feasibility.

Assuming Ex-President Trump were to be installed as some form of ultimate authority by the violent dissent and frenzy of his followers after overtaking the Capitol and its politicians. What would that authority or title be? Would there be future elections?

To prevent Democrats from ever being able to ruin the country, would it then be a one-party Republican union? How would the majority and larger number of voters who rejected Trump be conceded?

A one-party political system is a monarch or dictatorship, especially if installed as a violent toppling of the existing government. These actions would exempt democracy from being practiced. Historically speaking, not many dictators have been democratically voted out after dissatisfaction arises among those who forcibly installed them.

I would assume then that there would probably be no need for the Senate, a House of Representatives, or Supreme Court since the boss would be running things. A new governmental structure would have to be established, solidifying his hold over the government and people, usually involving military obedience and gun control. He could and would not risk what happened for him to occur against him, including freedom.

It would seemingly invite military action against segments of the public deemed to be insurrectionists to your insurrection. Government, Military, and Law Enforcement would have to purge their ranks of sympathizers partial to democracy and the ballot box.

Many who fled these regimes worldwide would now be subjected to it in America, some by their own violent hands. So at least there will be something to compare it to when wondering what’s the impact on Freedom and Democracy.

The societal echelon would reflect the prevailing correction of the racial pecking order restoring America to immoral greatness again. Some religious Freedoms and groups would most certainly not be tolerated at all, hopefully amongst them, not yours, of course.

Returning to a time of core values might be a time that did not include acceptance of you. Remember when those core values did not trust a catholic to be President when JFK ran? At what point might your Republican fervor and ideology divert from the mainstream to exclude yourself?

Further assuming other implications such as the economic impact and the resulting global disruptions caused by a government overthrow is first and foremost the certainty that an unstable republic could no longer be the default currency of the world.

This action alone would overnight send markets crashing, devalue U.S. currency, annihilate retirements, wipe out pension funds, trigger government defaults, and collapse the economy. Perhaps it would even allow the likes of China to gain world dominance, and things would undoubtedly be different around here then.

The uncertainty it would create in the global economy for civil war to emerge in America is the most ingenious method to influence a conceptual change in politics and devaluation of money, not to mention political strength. Without hard asset value or fiat currency, the alternative is implementing a digital-only currency with no value except for perceived with controlled access.

Crushing financial and economic devaluations of banks, securities, debt, credit sources, mortgages, transportation, businesses, and insurance industries surely would suffer substantial losses.

On the other hand, the Covid 19 virus damage to the economy would pale compared to civil war notwithstanding dealing with Covid simultaneously. We would be sitting ducks while being too busy fighting amongst ourselves.

Medicaid and Medicare would most likely be disrupted severely, and methods of payment and delivery of medication and medical services. With the transportation of food and goods decimated, online delivery of products extinct, and civil unrest-related safety hazards magnified, the chaos would all need to be calculated.

If you thought Covid had you afraid to go outside and closed things down, think again. What company or currency would be sustainable if the government lost its spending and buying power and compromises to the operating systems that facilitate them.

The labor force would be made totally unstable and fractured. Additionally, Federal aid to states and cities uncertain, ceasing of federally funded or subsidized programs, societal disorders and criminal desperation spiked, despair for personal survival widespread, and the total dysfunction of the judicial, criminal, and penal systems across the nation simultaneously destroyed.

The power grid, water systems, and sewage and waste systems would cease to function or be sporadic.
Consider your subgroup treatment under democracy and then reimagine it without.

Sexual preference, sexual identities, interracial unions, racial protections, or religious freedoms, for example, which is not the consensus among the typical insurrectionist tolerances, would likely be trampled as your right not to be infringed upon.

Wherever your conduct diverts from these minority voter’s preferences as not aligning with their historic racist, sexist, or caste system indulgences or beliefs, what protections from persecution would exist for your subgroup? If you need a hint or assurances reflect on history, you would certainly be relegated back to the dungeon of society.

Once subjected to the imposed conservative values heavily influenced by so-called Christian values and enforced by radical violence and racist suppression follows the forced conversion and acceptance of a heritage steeped in the dormant biases of the past.

This practice has been preferred, and escape has proven to be quite elusive. The escalation and justification are moral and patriotic values under the cloak of religion manifested in racism, exploitation, sexism, and inequality as it always has been. Only blatantly and without remorse again under the new regime MAGA style.

Now those advantages can be relied upon by you with those nostalgic yearnings no longer frozen in the past. So great is this prevailing denial and deception; some are delusionally and utterly convinced the election was rigged against the restoration of division instead of its repudiation.
The variance within the ranks of those who would collectively argue election fraud fractionally disagree to the extent and manner it could be proven except as established by force.

This sense of acceptability on display now makes it comfortable again to proudly proclaim what was only allowed to be shamefully whispered. Backed by patriotic proclamations and First Amendment rights threatens any opposition that attempts to change this stagnant illusion of time and detachment from progression.

With your quality of life now no longer threatened by the advancement of other people but secured by the systematic advantages and suppression of other’s fair opportunity. Home of the brave’s valor bolstered by Second Amendment rights instead of the quality of your ability.

Most nationalities have been discriminated against at some point in their history, especially their origins in America, to now claim inclusion and exemption by white membership. That said, immigration standards would have to absolutely be adjusted to reflect the caliber of people worthy of populating the new republic.

What to do with the unworthy who are here, enslave them again? The moral insurrectionist would definitely have their immigration limits and standards. It most certainly would not be reflected by those who stormed the Capitol, whom then-President Trump complained how raggedy they were dressed for an overthrow while disguised as bums. Could this be a time when he was right, no?

No longer being a democracy, it then follows that Democracy could not possibly be encouraged or supported anywhere worldwide, having a collateral effect on other countries’ sovereignty. Moreover, the global political reverberations caused even beyond those mentioned could not be calculated by any measure.

There must be a comparative assessment of the purpose, benefit, and damages probable in this pursuit of the forceful irrational implementation of a minority of voter’s candidate. The succession of states is even more problematic, but I guess he could be the President of Texas or Florida.

If there is evidence as to why the overwhelming majority of voters’ democratic and constitutional rights should be discarded to install a minority of voters’ preferences, let it be presented.

If the bombastic claims have not been presented as proof by now, it may be time to shit or get off the pot if you are not going to use it. But, if it is to be told, then tell it and back it up with proof just as you would request of those who you would doubt.

It is way past time to put up or shut up. The shattering of the country has begun to show its fragility when force is the first discourse for the disappointment of legal voter choices of elected officials instead of providing the proof.

Four years in power and favorable supporters inclined to protect and promote Trumpism by concerted efforts to stack the deck to cajole and coerce the election outcome also failed. Still, there are no claims that withstood judicial repudiation.

Beyond the rhetoric, there must be a recognition that sometimes your team doesn’t win, and the officiating was just despite your wishful outcome. There are always reasons why someone won, and someone lost aside from someone has to look at themself first.

Consider it could have had something to do with dissatisfaction with Trump’s lies, judgment, or performance. But, with clear conscious and honest reflection, the impact of the mishandling of the Covid-19 virus, the racial discord, harsh policies of implementation of immigration, indifference to truthfulness and accountability, international political scorn, and the attack on voter confidence which led to a historical engagement of voters has to be factored into the loss.

The current condition of Lenin-styled scorched Earth tactics from a vindictive now-former President should expose all that needs to be known.

Brought into focus and reason, this version of society brought about by a treasonous insurrection aftermath would be deeply unfavorable to most. The majority forced adherence would, I assume, not be contrary to the spirit of the insurrection of Democracy and that brand of governmental control.

Many politicians have come and gone. But, no matter how popular or unpopular they were, the democratic republic has stood as a representation of the people’s will. Democracy is about collectively agreed-upon rules of conduct even when your choice is not preferred. It is not the galvanizing of force but instead consensus of votes.

The reality is a self-inflicted destructive feeding frenzy where extensive devastation and destruction prevail, or an eager opportunistic regime moves in to conquer in the chaos. This is not about one man but about how he created an atmosphere to cultivate and encourage an undercurrent of sentiment that frankly needs to be addressed and rejected.

By the same token, some would say that he merely exposed that which had been denied but insidiously present and vigorously demonstrated being used now against the very seat of Democracy. Either way, we all can agree from our own perspective that WE have a problem that needs a resolution, no longer being able to deny the corrosive implications and its destructive existence.

The agreement has always been our societal collective majority voting preference, not our minority voting preferences. Even when that preference was oppressive and evil, it was still the preference exercised until progress overtook ignorance.

Force had been was used to uphold injustice, the collective majority to change it. Now it comes down to the good of the many by consensus and healing, choosing survival or those rupturing Democracy by sedition for a debilitating future.

The simplest perspective to apply is the wisdom of King Solomon, reputed to be the wisest man ever to live. When confronted with the two women’s dilemma, each asserts themselves to be the child’s birth mother. Wisely, the King instructed that the child be split in two, with one half given to each woman, surely killing the child.

The King knew that the birth mother with genuine love would sacrifice their preference for the child’s survival. The child is Freedom by way of Democracy. The question is if God-fearing patriotic insurgents would rather suffer the ramifications of overthrowing the government, ensuring the death of Democracy? Is your Patriotism conditionally unconditional?

To preserve their lie while providing no proof of former President Trump winning, they are proven not to possess a genuine love for Democracy. No one has put any meat on the table proving he won, even while some Republican voters flocked away from him. So, by default, supporters have demonstrated their ultimate claim, loyalty to a lying sycophant.

To split the child is to kill the child; Democracy and Freedom murdered and cannibalized after withstanding many foreign threats only to succumb to domestic upheaval without merit. There are indeed those in favor of splitting the child. Some will not loudly and explicitly denounce these domestic terrorist actions and sentiments threatening the country’s split.

The temporary faint of outrage identifies their motives and cowardice to displease Trump, although he has no qualms about talking all under their clothes. They succumb to his bully tactics and their own power grab instead of their pledge of office and obligation to the wellbeing of the republic they should serve without fear of Trump’s scorn.

Their obstruction of anything by default that the new administration proposes and constant reliance on Trump for approval in government affairs is borderline treason by Republicans. Those Democrats sitting around waiting for bipartisan conciliation are borderline remiss by de facto when considering the Republicans had no such reservations when they were in power.

United, there is strength but also survival. Survival for the country’s existence cannot endure what it has been allowed to become, nor can it survive just as a baby split in two cannot survive. Democracy and the virtue of fairness must be allowed to expand to all segments of society to survive.

There is a lot at stake for partisan disappointment in one election to ruin the country when there is always the people’s majority vote for the next time. For a former President to advocate for dividing the country, we should know that he has no concern for Democracy and would rather see it split if not under his power.

King Solomon would definitely see through this ploy and not divide the child or give it to the callous heart of a deceitful liar bent on vengeance.
The choice is simple mutual compromise or civil self-destruction by sheer cannibalism. AS always our fates remain intertwined.

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

Aubrey’s Deadly Jog

 Posse Comitatus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

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

Tactical Protest

 Objective Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

 

 

 

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