Tag: Systemic Oppression

Rippling Effect

 

  Thurston’s Thoughts

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Oh My!

Rippling Effect

Diversity, equity, and inclusion is defined as policies and programs that promote the representation and participation of different groups of individuals. DEI encompasses people of different ages, races, ethnicities, abilities, disabilities, genders, religions, cultures and sexual orientations. Its rejection is a concept reducing human characteristics to a monolithic selection ignoring the multiplicity comprising all social and human spectrums. DEI is a concept in practice which reflect a universal reality of existence, a unification of complimentary elements configuring the whole.

Think in terms of cells, organs, DNA, thoughts, knowledge, weather, and so forth which function as a singular element contributing to an aggregate system in circuits of dependency, interaction, and stimulation. Even these elements are formed by a combination of smaller elements. So theoretically speaking, all existence is an expanded elemental representation participating in the combination of smaller definitive factors or parts interwoven into the composition. Therefore, DEI is a logical and rational function of existence creating a rippling effect of diverse presentations and configurations in a sequence of domino effects.

As a mathematical principle, the sum of the components cannot exceed its total. Considering DEI as the sum total of humanity, omitting any portion would diminish the totality and any collaborative value. An equation consist of a conclusion and the criteria used to calculate that conclusion. The reversal of an equation is usually the way to verify the equation by logic and objectivity. However, when both are conversely applied they produce fundamentally flawed conclusions of subjectivity. Commonly misunderstood applications of DEI is often reduced to race and racism narrowing its meaning and purpose from the endeavor of addressing discrimination.

So, the formulative equivalence and objective is a recipe of DEI diminishing discrimination producing impartiality of opportunity by access. To pursue or support exclusion exposes the equation to a defective process. It violates the humanistic and societal paradigms of life similar to some periodic table of elements like hydrogen being disregarded as a key contribution fundamental to structure, form, or composition. The broken circuit of reasoning and emotional subjectivity can then only be justified to destabilize or deconstruct efforts to eliminate discrimination. Discarding segments of society prevents social stability except by coercion and exploitation promoting greater divisiveness by omission.

Suppression and history applies the how of exclusion to the aligned objective of discrimination surrendering a cautionary tale. A profound fragility dependent on discrimination by any repressive means necessary to maintain power, control, and a socio-economic advantage creates a vacuum. The parameters of access or representation must be restricted accordingly lessening contributions while increasing the incentive and resentment ripe for dissidence of greater proportions to remove the barriers to autonomy. It essentially isolates the ideology of exclusion to a peninsula of antagonism imprisoning its practitioners.

So, DEI is an antidotal self-fulfilling prophecy of progression increasing contributions while lessening confrontation. Any policies of exclusion and exploitation of today creates the conflicts and crusaders of tomorrow. Again, by definition everyone belongs to multiple categories of DEI calling into question its dominant preoccupation with race while not opposed to other segments of DEI. Truth be told there are NOT MANY business entities, universities, or banking empires who DO NOT have many racial blemishes which directly benefited their injustice. For most DEI is an annuity escrow account for previous contributions of venture capital whose payment has been withheld especially regarding race. 

This racial application is the reason DEI is generally considered division by racial marginalization, bias policy, and prejudicial practice historically proven but contemporarily denied. But DEI would become obsolete by lack of its necessity and use much like antiquated hand signals to indicate vehicle turning direction. Consequently, from a historical perch of observation DEI is a detection system to correct discrimination and not a mechanism creating it. A surplus of delusion, cajolery, and deception to conceal the imbedded hierarchy of discrimination and social injustice is inherent as primary ingredients in the subsidy of anti-DEI rhetoric and systemic practices.

As far as anti-white discrimination based on the Fifth Amendment of equal protection under the law, where were and are these defenders when its violations were and are against Blacks. DEI is a remedy to the “unequal protection” under the law systemically practiced not only by exclusion but also racism, suppression, and  exploitation. This poses the question of when did “unequal protection” under the law for Blacks stop? DEI actually assures a meritocracy by addressing the arbitrary blinders of discrimination. Since overt racial discrimination was practiced, should not the remedy target the violation.

If exclusion by racism created the disadvantage then inclusion through racial access would logically relieve it. Seemingly, each according to their disadvantage by historical exclusion whether racial or not. But why is race always the deal breaker? Surely it is ridiculous to pay a person who has not worked the wages of those who did. So, DEI is not discriminative to those who haven’t suffered under discrimination to receive or prevent the “wages” of those who did. It is compensatory behavior and not punitive but corrective policy.

It is reciprocity for the restitution of advantages garnered by discrimination. The concept is universally accepted and practiced except when race is the point of contention. By definition and appearance this is the racial discrimination which currently justifies the need for DEI by the continued racial exclusion from social restitution. It is society’s debt which only requires sharing access to the rewards and opportunities plundered by discrimination. A meager accommodation to address the imbalances of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment whose marginalization created the disparities addressed by DEI.

It does not diminish opportunity, instead it expands access and the resulting contributions. Only a narcissistic psychopathic mentality would deem a socially level playing field as an inequality to them after benefitting from their inequality to others. Thus, the perceived social equality threat remains the elementary objection, not DEI. So, to the periodic table of fear and ignorance we can add diversity, equity, and inclusion. Oh my!

P.S. Things in the rearview mirror may be closer than they appear, but so is discrimination.

 

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

Democratic Apartheid

Affirmative Action

Democratic Apartheid

Apartheid is generally defined as a policy or system of segregation or discrimination of a supposedly “minority” or “inferior” group based on race. Apartheid more deeply explored is actually the principles and ideologies architected for exploitation and abuses securing power, control, and narcissistic stature. Still, what are the doctrines of apartheid when the barriers are just as impenetrable as they are sustained by other ideologies camouflaging the intent by the method or justification? The ends often are justification for the means and the elasticity of morality allowing humanitarian abuses.

Although the brutally violent assaults on ethnicity are now usually the last resort, the subtle initiates of its replacements achieve the same results. It is not only a period in African history ending in 1994 but an act throughout American history expressed as an affirmative action of policy, society, and practice reflecting the subjugated delineation of a people to be dominated without violation of the perpetrator’s consciousness, religion, or morality. It requires a declassification of others humanity below the pedestal of a self-aggrandizing self-image of superiority or larceny of opportunity and resources.

This counterfeit social status is a construct of a narrative so propagandized to replicate the delusion as an entitlement associated with a biased concession by oppressive division. It prognosticates the separation of opportunity or rights enjoyed above those rendered. This very act of identity isolation is an allocation of humanity subsidizing the restrictions and tolerance metered out to maintain dominance by exclusion. The racially rationalized advantage of apartheid to the benefactors is now a discrimination against them when it is no longer the modus operandi of societal norms.

So, in essence any measures taken to offset the ill-gotten advantage is unfair to their continued abuses. Consequently, theoretically speaking by this logic any exclusion of a group based on expanded access or a “set aside” for another group is unfair despite the historical context or remedies sought thereof. Therefore, would not military service be such a “set aside” of unfairness to those who did not serve? There are many such “set asides’ such as job seniority, union membership, family legacy, senior citizens, adulthood, and virtually every societal absolution fits the exclusionary definition.

The only difference is not the act of recognition but the criteria of selection based upon a determinate such as the word “race” which makes it unfair. In the context of “race” it is not selective but corrective. If one child eats all the cake from the other child, would it not be fair to the child who has consumed more than their fair share to be curtailed from excluding the other’s consumption as a measure of DEI? The concept of DEI has its faults but not as many as the history or policies it seeks to remedy. Actions to perpetuate  social, economic, and political underclasses appeases a serenity of privilege but agitates the capitulation to injustice.

Injustice by coercion eventually is unsustainable and does not invite tranquility of society but instead sustainable resentment to subjugation. Ethnicity, gender, economics, and opportunity are measures of segregation restricting fairness but in all distorted fairness is promoted as having no disadvantage beyond the advantages not received. There are those hindered by the oppressions which others cavalierly dismiss as non-existent or discontinued. However, the advantage survives the gap created from its presence. The ideological virus of segregationist policies and practices infects the ascension of humanity by stifling contributions as an affirmative action to promoting confirmation of its unfair privilege.

The accusation goes from woke to radical left to Christian conservative values instead of subjective strongarming of ideologies beneficial to a biased agenda. So, affirmative is a conformation. Action is an activity taken. Democratic is a consensus. Apartheid is an abomination of humanity’s sovereignty. Combined they are a confirmation of activities agreed upon to execute an abomination against the sovereignty of a segment of humanity. When the moral check is due from the feast of oppression, the bloated diner cannot skip out on the bill or complain about its payment for a meal they consumed and thoroughly enjoyed.

It is not unreasonable and certainly expected that the provider is entitled to be compensated for the services they provided. There is no dispensation of self-determined nonpayment to avoid settlement or criminal culpability. By the way, it is also customary and expected that a tip accompany the payment. Absent reparations surely affirmative action, DEI, or other corrective measures to discrimination are a smaller domestic cost or social escrow than the billions sent abroad for foreign wars. What about an affirmative action towards funding the domestic war on the historical racial exploitations of America’s democratic apartheid of biblical proportions?

 

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

Dark History Bright Future Anthem of Evolution- Table of Contents

 

Dark History, Bright Future-Anthem of Evolution by Thurston K. Atlas

Dark History Bright Future   Anthem of Evolution 

  Introduction to Thurston’s Thoughts

 

A-  The Historical View                                               Part B-  Interpretation                      

A- Theory of Critical Race 20                       B- Distorted History  35                       

A- Absolute Certainty  50                              B- Most CeArtainly Did 62                     

A- To Tell the Truth 71                                  B- Pulling the Curtain 93.                    

A- Overdrawn Account 107                         B- The Big Payback 125                         

A- Twisted Reality 147                                  B- Madness to the Method 168         

A- Happy Emancipation  185                      B- Regifting Freedom Again  197      

A- Disturbing Display 220                          B- Hustling Backwards  237                

A- No N-word Allowed 259                         B- Speak no Evil, Do no Harm 270.   

A- Tactical Protest 293                                  B- Power to the Purpose 312.               

 Don’t Say It if We Don’t Mean It  346

 Hard Hat and a Lunch Pail  434

 Mindlessly Tethered  576

 Conclusion 587

 Appendix  601

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CJ5ZX29F

https://www.whenplaytimeisover.com/

#darkhistory,brightfutureanthemofevolution

#thurstonkatlas

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

Dark History Bright Future Anthem of Evolution- Introduction

Dark History, Bright Future-Anthem of Evolution by Thurston K. Atlas

Dark History Bright Future  Anthem of Evolution

Introduction 

Every so often, there is a seismic shift in circumstances brought about by a demand for change. Those who benefit most from change position themselves to capitalize upon that change. They then endeavor to maintain their advantage to sustain their benefit. But, the same is even more true for those adhering to the existing circumstances anticipating changes unfavorable to their concerns. It is the short-sighted cycle of selfish accumulation and consolidation without considering long-term implications or progress.

In an ironic twist, this hedonistic short-sightedness, selfish exploitation, and immediate gratification usually initiate the resulting demand for change. Figuratively milking the cow dry. The cycle feeds upon itself, continuing to circulate cleverly disguised with different variances of the same dynamic and sequence of results benefiting the usual suspects. Therefore, we must change the operational dynamics to alter the cycle and change the outcome.

The current process is constructed whereby there is no scenario where we, as Black people, collectively win. The odds are partly because our effort to shape the dynamic lacks definition and unity while facing staunch opposition. Speaking to power is vastly different from having authority. Speaking to power is more or less a formal complaint, while authority only exists to the extent it is recognized or exercised.

The objective is well defined in these terms on what shapes the narrative or dynamic. It is having power and speaking with authority. We need our power recognized to configure methods asserting authority to regulate our desired outcome. Primarily, the plight of our race is what is understood must not only be spoken but, to a more significant degree, demonstrated. The demonstration is not in organized protest or rioting but psychology and sociology. Let us systematically break down our constraints with brutal honesty, good, bad, or indifferent.

We must navigate a progressive path to acknowledge our power despite the history of slavery and any arising inferiority insinuations. The historical narrative has predominately focused on the dredges of slavery while ignoring or embezzling Black people’s achievements and contributions before, during, and after slavery. That narrative propagates inferiority to fill the void created by deception furthering the ignorance of white superiority and their insistence on Black subservience.

We should take an analytical approach to detect, identify, isolate, infiltrate, and dismantle our challenges regarding racism. So before any other considerations, it must first be determined what is the objective. Next, what are the strengths and vulnerabilities of the challenge? Then, how can the challenge be divided and overcome? Followed by what portion of the challenge must be prioritized and focused upon for maximum or strategic neutralization? Then finally, what will be installed in its place, and how will it be implemented to further achieve our objective?

The process will then come full circle, returning to the initial intent and evaluating it from its beginning to the acquisition of our objective. The subsequent actions are the steps needed to create any power-wielding authority or influence quantified by practical results. So, the starting point is to build power they cannot ignore. The goal in building it is a strong horizontal foundation. That is the strategic phase, but there is also the practical logistics of having the unity, personnel, and preparedness to accomplish the task.

Any movement starts in silence and thought, building a presence where the efforts cannot be snuffed out in its development or execution. Consequently, preparation creates resistance to collapse,  countering an anticipated condition or a predictable response based on contingency and method of implementation. A lesser power can withstand a more significant power when properly positioned to diminish the options and possibilities of opposition. Any concepts deployed must be applied using psychology and translated into sociological, political, and economic strategies.

Amazon Excerpts

https://www.whenplaytimeisover.com/

#darkhistory,brightfutureanthemofevolution

#thurstonkatlas

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

Dark History Bright Future Anthem of Evolution- Book Description

Dark History Bright Future  Anthem of Evolution

Book Description 

Thurston presents a candid examination of the sociology of racism, modern social systems, primitive rituals, and religious manipulations cloaked in conformities of ignorance. This is a casual forensic inquiry of history, methodologies, ideologies, and consequences of racism, religion, and economics to formulate narratives leading to our modern challenges of divisiveness and conflict. The sanctity of ignorance must be individually and intellectually dissected for suggestive solutions and future perspectives to identify historical traps of distraction, dehumanization, and deceit.

The book’s goal is to stir discovery, self-evaluation, discussion, and the rejection of counter-productive ideologies, behaviors, and conformities designed for subjugation. Among the evaluations are suggestions for solutions understanding the context of time, genetic migration, economic motives, political influence, military conquest, spiritual corruption, and psychological captivity.

 Not surprisingly, these transcend race to maintain exploitation through servitude as essential to a ruling class heavily reliant upon etymological illiteracy. This anthem of evolution is a call to shed the mental shackles of forbidden curiosities and rational impossibilities. Dare to explore your beliefs as the iceberg of deception melts under factual scrutiny. This must have book is an expansive journey into the tip of this deception and ignorance binding us. Free your mind, un-shield your eyes, and hear clearly this resounding message.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CJ5ZX29F

https://www.whenplaytimeisover.com/

#darkhistory,brightfutureanthemofevolution

#thurstonkatlas

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

Dark History Bright Future Anthem of Evolution- “African American”

Dark History, Bright Future-Anthem of Evolution by Thurston K. Atlas

Dark History Bright Future  Anthem of Evolution

Excerpts regarding the term “African  American” 

Page 176

Otherwise, there is a distinction such as African American or minority, not of lesser numbers, but as disadvantaged. Never just American. The Olympics is the only time we are simply American. No other race or nationality are referenced by a land many of them never visited and ties dating back over four hundred years. They at least have a country instead of just a continent of origin. However, many have populated this country to have the interim title removed from their designation, simply being called Americans.

Undoubtedly, the ability to Americanize one’s image for easier assimilation diverts attention from themselves, especially by ostracizing others, particularly Black people. Those who arrived by immigration now bemoan immigrants while concealing apparent hints of their immigrant origins.  White and light complexion immigrants easily assimilate into the white culture or middle class and are excluded from adverse comparisons and discrimination. Once incorporated, they quickly develop no allowances for a diversity of perspectives or cultures not rejected by their new identity and cultural spectacles.

Their culture is surrendered in exchange for a new identity welcoming them to the Americanized white subgroup. Not having their identity stolen but surrendered, they fail to see the damage and trauma caused by never feeling or escaping the prolonged ostracization our people have faced. Regarding the “African American” plight, they don’t know the half of it. The sting of the whip or the noose around the neck of it. They instead become members of the system by white association. The system and the integration become indistinguishable.

People are molded to be inflexible and dismissive, while systems are designed rigidly but fickle. Taking the country back for conservative values is maintaining the violation of church and state for religious values to mandate legislative foundations supplementing sociological biases. These customary biases and identities are preferred as normal behavior well entrenched, while any deviation is abnormal or fearfully anticipated. The imbalance that produces their comfort disregards the aggrieved party’s demand for consideration, essentially minimizing and dismissing claims with indignant outrage.

The way it has been is prone to narcissistic impositions by rejecting the evolution of intolerance and discontent to instead embracing inclusion. The majority inclination has shifted from the majority ideology of controlling minority populations. Yet, the now racist minority ideology resists the changing times seeking to rule the majority. The ignorance of the past attempts to paralyze the present and remains opposed and fearful of future possibilities and expectations. Redefining the constructs of society, self-identity, and equality is deemed a threat.

Marginalized society is no longer happy with whatever scraps procured, instead wanting whatever possibilities and considerations advantaged white’s receives. Wanting equilibrium of opportunity and social treatment impartially available and applied. The contempt and discontent are prevalent and pervasive on many levels regarding a biased irrelevant and suppressive application or standard.

However, a stark difference exists, whether it is gender inequality, pay inequality, religious discrimination, educational gaps, healthcare deficiencies, lifestyle orientation, and many others, not just racial profiling and social injustices. Moreover, many deep traumas have been directed towards all subgroups not representative of the dominant controlling group despite being members of other dominant subgroups such as educated, male, or the double whammy, Black and female. Every subgroup has a learned behavior with defining expectations and benefits and is subjected to judgment from other subgroups’ prejudices.

However, the problem arises when it minimizes or infringes on another subgroup to be defined by the standards beneficial to the dominant subgroup. Thus preferences are common to all humans or specific taxon, but the exercise of dominance and privilege where none exist based upon a manipulated interpretation or advantage violates humanity. Continued practice of this violation is not a deterrent for change, it invites it by unfairness. On the contrary, it dictates perseverance because to concede is to assure the imbalance of identity, perspective, and privilege continues.

Page 389

I have a theory, maybe a wacky theory but follow me. Suppose we travel back far enough to the origin of life in Africa. Wouldn’t that make everyone walking the earth African and all Americans African American? Suppose all bi-racial people claim their presumably socially dominant racial identity instead of the lowest relegation of their racial identity. Wouldn’t that make them white if they so choose?

Sort of the reverse one-drop rule where one drop of white blood would make you white or whatever race contributed to your identity. If Canaan was made Black by Noah to curse his father, Ham, then can’t all Blacks claim to be White being descendants of the pure seed of Ham directly from Noah or Canaan when he was white? What about as a descendant of Adam? Genealogy allows for claims of many variations of race or identity.

Furthermore, if people can choose to be non-binary, a singular person can identify as plural, and anyone can be white then why can’t Blacks claim to be any race, even white or no race, as a matter of self-identity, even for government purposes? Why not if it is based on self-identification or ancient history? So what is African American? Is it a color, a lineage, or a classification that secretly segregates us as a distinction other than American?

Look at any government form; under white, it does not have any distinction outside the collective family of white, none indicating origins or lineage. Maybe, everyone’s identity should be an x on forms to eliminate race as a consideration. Makes me wonder if race or gender is even needed since it is questionable what benefits the distinction brings. Arguably, it is more used for discrimination. This could indicate that some re-evaluating needs to occur when these terms have or should have no bearing on determinations or qualifications. But let’s go to the deep waters.

Case in point, to some the greatest President of all times, 45, who claims the confederate heritage and an all-American persona grandfather and grandmother was born in Kallstadt. But he claims white, not German or European. It goes unquestioned and is acceptable because, quietly, most designations of white fall in the immigrant category of impersonating a legacy of American heritage.

My grandmothers and grandfathers were born in Mississippi and Georgia, but I need to claim African American. Their parents and grandparents were born in America. It is a sly segregationist distinction where Black and brown people are further diluted as people of color. These distinctions are misleading, ambiguous, or flat-out lies. We are relegated to a continent or hemisphere, while other races belong to a country, province, city, or culture.

Whites can be of any nationality to claim white. All dark complexion people are not directly from Africa, although all humanity is from Africa, so how far back are we going? If that make all Americans African American by ancestry, whereas a naturalized African would be what? African Americans too, regardless of color. If born in Africa and naturalized in America, that seems to make you African American more than Black. But what that would make you is knowing your natural heritage, which we cannot claim. Still, their struggle is not removed from ours, our reference point is simply different.

Therefore African American signifies unknown origins and lost heritage. How many claim America as their homeland and heritage to take back America? But their roots don’t go back as far as ours in America? They will claim the country but not the atrocities. That would make America ours before it was theirs by way of their immigrant legacy. We have been the N-word, coons, coloreds, negroes, blacks, people of color, and African Americans in the ever-shifting saga of our assigned identity. I claim Black with pride just as others claim their distinction, even confederate, but they refuse to claim squatter.

Black is a legacy American whose ancestors were subjected to slavery, reminding me of my obligation to not defile their sacrifices and tribulations. The analogy is often inconsistent when attempting to retrofit an identity or association. By that metric, is there such thing as Confederate American or Immigrant American according to their heritage and ancestry? Most whites are of immigrant origins compared to descendants of slaves, but they also arrived on a boat, most after us. African American is furthering an insidious distinction that undermines the concept of equality. Minority applies to everyone from Black people to gender, disability, religion, and soon-to-be white in approximately thirty years.

Race is a delusion of numbers and classifications by disproportionate criteria. The technical distinctions defy logic while casually applied. By designation, the census and office of OMB consider African Americans to be anyone whose ancestors’ origins are traced back to the lower regions of Africa, below the northern portion or sub-Saharan. I would imagine even indirectly from another land. So realistically, African American is a polite way to say slave descendant. Everyone else on the globe can be considered white, even if from Africa.

By definition, it is firmly consistent a dark complexion person or so-called Black from the northern part of Africa is white by geography. So with the geographical origins set by that criteria, how does anyone else become classified as African American if not by color? The spectrum of color variations in all lands further extracts light complexion appeal as the overwhelming and overriding criteria simulating whiteness but not by geography. So by geographical designation as evidence, it reveals in general not where they hijacked us from but a dark skin aversion.

By the same curiosity, what slave trade or immigration globally have others undergone in four hundred and fifty years? Does it reflect their geographical origins for direct comparison to ours during the same period? That changes many things in the world, but many it doesn’t change. Globally connect the systems, ideological cultivations, and echoing beliefs throughout that time for an accurate portrait of comparison. From origin to evolution, follow the continuity of repetition over time. The repetition of time cast its shadow as truth without breath possessing only time with more assumed than spoken.

Page 399

This brings it back full circle to the descendant from slavery labeling disguised as African American. Maybe they need to know to exclude us rather than ensure we are included. White includes every light complexion nationality without further distinction whereby they are incorporated by deceptive but established means regardless of time or history in America. Skin tone grants automatic membership and privileges from day one. This is also true for other darker complexion nationalities so long as they are not Black.

Page 401

It would then seem culture not colorism is at play. It also confirms white is more of a social status of inclusion not a race. With African American meaning the descendant of slaves and white meaning everyone else, including descendants of slave owners, it also denotes us not being accepted as belonging on or from this land. White exclaim they need to take their country back, but it was inhabited when they arrived, but no mention of returning it and definitely not vacating it. But, we are welcome to return by boat to Africa when we have been here before almost everyone saying we don’t belong.

Relocated by slavery, our designation is the closest estimation of commonality, Africa, even if over four hundred years ago or more. But, African American also denotes being of unknown origins or lineage from a miscellaneous bin of humanity. It gets confusing because white is miscellaneously composed and defined only by what has not been included, Black people, ignoring genealogy. African American is an oxymoron. Africans suggest we don’t belong here, and American likewise suggest we don’t belong there. Yet, we are tolerated in America as orphans with no specific nationality or ancestral identity.

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

Africa’s Incarcerated Liberation

Sub Heading 4

Generate custom solutions with the possibility to create synergy. Amplify outside the box thinking yet be on brand.

Link 4

Sub Heading 5

Demonstrating sprints in order to innovate. Build innovation to innovate. Drive outside the box thinking and try to think outside the box.

Link 5

Sub Heading 6

Leverage cloud computing but funnel users. Repurposing stakeholder management yet think outside the box. Grow core competencies with a goal to re-target key demographics.

Link 6

Sub Heading 7

Generate custom solutions with the possibility to create synergy. Amplify outside the box thinking yet be on brand.

Link 7

Sub Heading 8

Demonstrating sprints in order to innovate. Build innovation to innovate. Drive outside the box thinking and try to think outside the box.

Link 8

Sub Heading 9

Leverage cloud computing but funnel users. Repurposing stakeholder management yet think outside the box. Grow core competencies with a goal to re-target key demographics.

Link 9

  Thurston’s Thoughts

Economic Captivity

Africa’s Incarcerated Liberation

Africa’s Incarcerated Liberation is provisional freedom under imposed conditions of autocratic approval. The context of current African events, post-transatlantic slave history, and historical geopolitical atrocities of ideologies long ago presumed abolished still flourishes. Attempts to hide its presence and purpose only expose the ideology’s modus operandi aligned with its prime objective.

So, any glare of scrutiny reveals the deformity of imposed arrangements that accomplish the same result but by far more insidiously disguised methods. The circumference of a circle is the radius of all it encompasses. An ideology’s radius is not full circle because, as various methods may have run their course, the philosophy rotates around its axis tethered to its origin.

Therefore, the ideology has only completed a cycle along its radius. The contemporary cosmetic makeover of exploitation and oppression are inheritances of racism. The liberation from imperialism, colonialism, and captivity is once again substituted with delusions of inclusion, blatant exploitation, and indiscriminate subjugation.

The names and locations remain the same while the method and degree of severity are metered to the level of tolerance, vulnerability, or coercively incentivized leverage. The political and economic arm-twisting extortion is an autonomy and resource shakedown of rippling proportions and stagnation.

Many may suspect this is a reference to their location and circumstances. However true that may be, this is a reference to where, for many of us, the larceny all began in Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, there is no need to regurgitate centuries of slavery’s atrocities. History is often viewed as the past and negligently absent of the radius of current events.

So, let’s focus on global diplomacy, specifically between 1884 and 1960, dictating the current events. This modern enslavement ideology incognito manifesto is either captivity by economic dependency or suffocation by debilitating sanctions. It is not a ghost or a vile resurrection but, despite denials, a sinister sequel for all to see.

The historical colonialist ideology and ominous expression are evident in the many intrusions currently occurring in Africa. These violations are globally and intentionally omitted and reduced by political propaganda, instigated instability, and guided distractions.

Still, nonetheless, briefly suspending the subjectivity of our reality to assess recent rumblings in Africa objectively reveals the supremacy ideology’s naked encroachment. It is a political, economic, and sociological macrocosm of the historical microcosmic racist replication in practice.

These are global incursions from decisions made not so long ago significantly contributing to global and regional conflicts and abuses of today. These incursions are not ancient history or geriatric grievances but modern-day dilemmas and devastation vindicated by antiquated reasonings. The despicable resumes, characters, and motivations of these social architects and their intent are generally unquestioned but not always known.

The current supposedly diplomatic process reflects the lack of diplomacy in its original purpose. This diplomacy of extortion and extraction has endured time and alteration. The current arrangement generates and sustains insatiable foreign interest, stifling African countries and the whole continent. Obviously, fairness is not considered good diplomacy.

Africa’s stipend from the benefits and development of their resources and wealth accumulation are geo-politically regulated as a domino effect of chattel slavery in practice and ideology adjusted for modern times. So, moving swiftly through history, the foundational premise for current consideration is the present geopolitical disorder in Africa.

The current cycle of historical revelations in Africa is inherited from atrocities committed primarily in the 1900s and well within the range of two generations. The precursor was established in about 1883, including Otto Von Bismarck of Prussia and Germany, “the butcher of the Congo” King Leopold II of Belgium, and The Berlin Conference.

They are the ignition for both world wars, the formation of NATO and the UN, Apartheid, and the current model of economic mugging of the Sub-Saharan African continent. It is characterized by developmental strangulation, pilfering fiscal policies, and embezzlement of political sovereignty. This mugging causes and regulates the stagnation of African progress, infrastructure, and self-determination.

This imperialist coalition and mentality of racist geopolitical directives are internationally and openly tolerated. So, by the strict definitions and mechanisms of superiority psychosis, crimes against humanity, and economic asphyxiation, we can properly establish the lingering geopolitical impact creating the present economic and sociological conditions in Africa and beyond.

Conditions of instability and intentional manipulation orchestrate the question to fit the answer. Instability is the smokescreen offering few options. But does the instability cause the need, or is it created to justify it? Ask yourself, whose objectives are realized? The imbalance reveals the answer as an exploitive business and social blueprint.

These flagrant violations are blatantly displayed strutting across the global stage. These fundamental global observations of current world events mirror many of history’s rogue ideologies. The principles of liberation are only remotely reflected in contemporary political and fiscal dealings with countries in Africa. Examine the practice and principle for the method and mandate.

A brief overview of the policies causing the destabilization of the Sahel region can only be by predisposed social and fiscal design. The coincidental subsidies siphoned reveal a shameful narrative of malicious oppression and subversion. This sabotage cultivates a fertile cycle of social hardship, resource depletion, and wealth heist.

What is the accumulated wealth depletion? Under the promises and cloak of democracy, international assistance, regional development, and security support, the price is no longer worth it. Often, the ulterior motives of exploitation are concealed by smiling faces, glad hands, and righteous postures. The economic three-card monte game slithers as a vicious predator amidst a vulnerable reliance of little resort.

Subsequently, history repeats itself as expectations have again proven to be a fleeting friend and dependency a fatal flaw. The geopolitical coalitions formulated then are still definitively shaping the global landscape. So, let’s explore recent history and present implications to analyze the objectives, methods, and consequences critically.

The vast and tangled web of this foundational diagram is the Berlin Conference or Congo Conference in 1884. It established territorial boundaries, regulated the orderly post-colonialization of Africa, and expulsion of fiscal and political autonomy. This is, by all accounts, allegedly post-chattel slavery.

Otto Von Bismarck, who was the seminal inspiration for Adolf Hitler, assembled the conference. Hitler aspired to return Germany to the greatness it possessed under Bismarck and in rebuke to the crippling Treaty of Versailles. Bismarck believed in blood and iron diplomacy as coercive persuasion for German unification and expansion by conquest, as later did Hitler.

Hitler’s racist inclinations and hatred were significantly honed by the twisted Aryan sentiments of Sir William Jones, Joseph Arthur de Gobineau, and Johann Gottlieb Fichte under Bismarck’s shadow. A direct ideological lineage can be connected from them to Germany’s role in both world wars. Bismarck’s temperature was conquered by all means, similar to the Doctrine of Discovery and several Papal Bull decrees of the Church.

The following century plus of global racism and predatory arrangements were influenced accordingly, especially in the southern hemisphere. European imperialism and Aryan proclivities and immoralities of global parasitic psychosis were disguised and deployed once again. History obscures the significance of Bismarck’s ravage on Africa by bolstering his value to Germany and Europe fostered by a cooperative effort to divvy up and occupy Africa.

The Berlin Conference (1884-1885) hosted by Bismarck at the request of Portugal was mostly to referee trade routes and territorial rights of European intruders pursuing imperialistic conquest in Africa. Next, enter Leopold II, who was appointed ruler of this region, ushering in a revitalized level of brutality and exploitation, including genocide, mutilation, and abduction to compel slave labor.

Leopold killed over ten million Africans as well as the dismemberment of children. Remember, this is not over four hundred years ago but a little over one hundred years ago in the early 1900’s. Ironically, a change in geopolitical appetite ended Leopold’s reign of terror in Africa.

The next period in Europe witnessed a scavenging instability the conference sought to rectify. During the 1910s, the feeding frenzy of ambition and consolidation led to WWI (1914-1918). The conclusion of WWI resulted in Germany being liable and gutted by penalty and debt.

This debilitating condition created the perfect political storm for the rise of the Third Reich, ultimately leading to WWII (1939-1945) and the 1938 Time Magazine Man of the Year’s campaign of anarchy. Diplomatically, the combustive period of the 1910s to 1960 experienced global unrest and unabated conquest.

The incidents of sanctioned consolidation blossomed with the Treaty of Versailles (1919), the Monroe Doctrine (1923), the United Nations (1945), Apartheid (1948), NATO (1949), and many more alliances to consolidate global dominance and control by asserting their dogmatic ideology. It is regulated by power, greed, and imperialistic arrogance. 

The lingering ideologies span the preceding beliefs and prevailing interpretations, postulations, and fabrications of Jones, de Gobineau, and Fichte’s entitlements of imperialistic excuses and misconceptions. Consequently, a post-WWII reality exposing the freedom and democracy protecting hooligans reveals the continuation of the same ideology supplanted by a revised explanation.

The global application is directed primarily at former colonies of colonialism, territories of conquest, and long-suffering lands of predatory exploitation despite their so-called liberation. Even after independence, the global colonizers continued to maintain authority and undue influence, similar to Jim Crow.

The ideology is the enslaver, while the act is the blunt instrument of submission such as force, debt, under-development, geopolitics, and many others to subvert liberation. Liberation is mainly granted to a degree of fading adherence or Africa’s inability to wiggle out from under manufactured obstructions and challenges. Liberation has proven elusive and transactional, although dated for reference.

Mali (1960 France), Niger (1960 France), South Africa (1994 Nationalist Party, 1961 Britain), Libya (1951 Britain) Chad (1961 France), Burkina Faso (1960 France), Ghana (1957 Britain), Guinea (1958 France, 1973 Portugal), Senegal (1960 France), Nigeria (1960 Britain), Namibia (1990 South African Apartheid), and Botswana (1966 Britain).

Unfortunately, there are many more countries in Africa and globally whose presumed liberation is reasonably recent or ignored. Furthermore, this formula is applied unilaterally against those not protected by the coalition of power and privilege.

The trajectory of favor produces drastically different narratives. Therefore, some countries’ liberation and sovereignty are embraced while others are summarily dismissed according to the whims of power. But often and coincidentally, by a spectrum of melanin and lineage.

Without the blessings of power, liberation is granted but conditionally recognized. Therefore, the spin cycle of covert oppression is overtly perpetuated, and violations are disregarded not according to statute but to status. Still, many of Africa’s “liberations” between the fifties and the nineties reveal many such arbitrary emancipations.

That is only twenty-nine to seventy-two years ago. Although relatively modern, it’s been plenty of time for liberation to take hold. So, a current analysis substantiates that the de facto bondages, abuses, and exploitations are deliberately continued. Many African countries are currently members of ECOWAS under French patronage.

This voluntary arrangement is enforced by multi-national troops and NATO as international police serving as the foreign interest protecting muscle. The crux of the problem betrays a voluntary arrangement because why is military force threatened if a sovereign liberated nation wants to withdraw?

Are disrupting food, restricting airspace, isolating by embargo, and imposing electricity sanctions a diplomatic response? A humanitarian response? A Geneva Convention response? Likewise, where is the international outrage? Why does French interest supersede Niger’s best interest in Niger?

Apparently, the swindling of African resources is far more welcomed in France than the African. Why do America and others unflinchingly support France in this mugging of Africa? But, heaven forbid a foreign government would interfere with American or French sovereignty. 

Yet, by comparison, European countries and others are conversely supported with billions in aid and weapons. Their sovereignty and liberty are almost unilaterally supported. So, the global defenders of justice, democracy, and liberation must deem these African countries’ autonomy or arrangements differently from Europeans.

The aid, unconditional support, enabling of abuses, selective enforcement of rights, and wavering fairness overwhelmingly indicate a distinct pattern. Many African nations’ plights are interchangeable, while France’s pattern and reputation is as a devoted offender by plunder, oppression, and history.

The specifics are unconscionable but obviously not inconceivable. France is grandfathered into power as a courtesy of their history and geopolitical maneuverings more than their current military prowess. They are a permanent member of the UN Security Council for this reason. 

They are core obstructionist to sanctions unfavorable to their aligned axis of abuses. As a result, France enjoys certain immunities as a curtsey to a global political façade strung out dependent on resources extracted from Africa. Africa literally keeps the lights on in France and contributes significantly to France’s wealth and prestige.

Therefore, France’s stature is mostly a bloated facade of nostalgic political romanticism and self-aggrandizing hypocrisy. As a pseudo-former slave trader craving Africa’s resources more than the chattel of old in an evolving world where African natural resources are so vital to many, France is unscrupulous.

So-called diplomacy and manipulated desperation are the briefcases for being triple-crossed into coerced seductions and reluctant solicitations as the preferred negotiating manner. But, the lurking method is brute force if disruption threatens foreign ulterior motives.

In particular, France, as a former colonizer, becomes the ECOWAS country’s current overseer, straw-bossing these African estate’s prosperity. The problem has become the improbable solution, except the improbable solution has always been the problem. The international hooligans and their transgressions must be judged by today’s standards when their incriminations are now being committed.

These are by fact, history, and current occurrences executed under autocratic rules and an exploitive ideology dressed a little better and more refined. A staunch unity of humanity, race, religion, decency, and consciousness must reject these exploitations and abuses conducted in any name, nationalism, anger, religion, or ignorance.

What is done to the least of us in the name of most of us takes no courage, just an advantage of power and a depraved mentality. But, dare we expand ourselves from our peepholes and illuminate the undeniable shackles of oppression still panoramically hobbling Africa and others? It is an insult to everyone’s humanity and integrity except for those whose self-identifying sadistic palette requires atrocities.

In which case, Bon Appetit, because atrocities abound. By our resolute and vehement condemnation, all must denounce any appetite for subjugation under any banner claiming any level of fairness, justice, integrity, or humanity. Should not inhumanity be inhumanity despite who commits it? 

Many African Nation’s recent declarations of sovereignty are, in reality, liberation from an ideology whose captivity, abuses, and destruction has spanned hundreds of years. So, despite mainstream national and international media disinterest in African geopolitics and exploitation, we must summon the courage to look, listen, investigate, and analyze the facts.

We must express outrage and categorically condemn these breaches of fundamental sovereignty and humanity. They are destined to invite more direct and collateral damage than actual benefit if not stopped. Consider it far less courage than the courage needed to struggle for economic survival, defend political sovereignty, or declare humanity under multi-national threat.

By what legitimate means does the divine right of life absent oppression not extend to all? Genocide by sanctions, pseudo-diplomacy, or briefcase is no different than by brutality except the method but not the consequence or culpability.

So, like many others, the African must continue to summon the nobility of spirit and identity, which is the foundation of courage. The courage to not self-sabotage, submit to adversity, or enticing hallucinations of empty promises of progress. To take courage in hand and chest to stand resolute in unity and not to repeat the actions of tribalism and feuding that led to our ancestral division and enslavement.

Africa must protect Africa as primarily a solidarity of common purpose, not a separation by differences. Standing unified with your neighbors, although you may have internal disputes to be settled amongst yourself. Africans must not rise up against Africans, period, especially for France. 

The legendary Nigerian must stand with its legacy of pride intact, remembering that last time, it didn’t stop until it was everyone. ECOWAS is what you do if you choose to, but AFRICAN is WHO you are. Be extremely careful of the tool of enslavement using you against you while the puppet master pulls the strings. European commanders used Africans to commit atrocities against other Africans for the misguided benefit of the conquerors.

History only repeats itself where it was not learned the previous time. Now ECOWAS is poised to sanction and threaten an attack on other Africans for the insult of France? After all, has France not committed an insult against Africa? Whose insult is greater, liberation or exploitation?

America recently has experienced a series of labor disputes and strikes to force negotiations for better labor conditions. Is this not also a labor dispute to demand negotiations according to profit and contributions? Why would war, military force, or starvation be the counteroffer to a legitimate labor concern?

If a laborer cannot withdraw their time, exertions, or resources for inadequate compensation, are they liberated? Undoubtedly, the democratic world can applaud and support such an inalienable right and rebellion against tyranny inspired by America’s revolution from British oppression centuries ago.

Seemingly, the African/French arrangement is past its cycle, and the rubber must finally hit the road. It is time for African liberation to display the essence and substance of principle and prosperity with the same terms, conditions, and respect as everyone else. Our actions must negotiate our appraisal and our compromise, not obstruct our autonomy.

Unity of purpose is awakened in Alkebulan to end it where it began. France and the bandits that incite Africa’s oppression and instability must encounter Africa’s unified self-reliance and resistance. Presented as a boulder to broker the best probabilities by collective bargaining of resources. The usual cycle of redistribution by war disguised as a fathom threat, political necessity, or humanitarian purpose of last resort must be avoided.

War reallocates wealth, wealth encourages deprivation, deprivation breeds poverty, poverty attracts subjugation, and subjugation erects justification, which triggers mutual resentment. This cycle causes a reset to protect fiscal, political, and ideological advantages, leading to conflict and resistance opposing change to maintain control and promote stagnation.

These spin cycles of socio-economic agendas transcend national accountability and bootstrapping it to the top. Their imposition generates pretexts by historical controls of coalitions and manipulations. The problem can’t become the answer, while the answer becomes the question, allowing liability and obligation to switch polarities.

The bait and switch follows a prescribed pattern of deceit. When the hidden sponsor of chaos is the savior from that chaos, it insulates the sponsor to prolong the chaos. The deception is a savior’s hologram easily manipulated.

Notwithstanding the previous “liberations,” the ECOWAS is the Economic Community of West African States with fifteen members. It is an economic trade council fostering self-sufficiency through member cooperation, which some members also threaten war and destruction on other members seeking autonomy from France.

The ECOWAS states official languages are French, English, and Portuguese. It is ironic how language reveals past conquests and lingering influences or, more precisely, ideological exposures. African economic stability and development rest on eliminating these influences fiscally and ideologically. 

The African must collectively regulate legacy resources such as gold as other nations do oil, as a true coalition of interests intertwined for African development and prosperity. Any great reward at a future time requires current sacrifice. However, curving time to future prosperity must be geared towards a future time of anticipation and innovation. 

Uranium, Lithium, Cobalt, and other resources are essential for the projected future. But they are also the currency and social exchange for immediate self-sufficiency and development. Unity aligned with strategic coalitions to accelerate facilitating development can be leveraged simply by AFRICA’S protection of its resources.

That is now what the marauders seek. The key is figuring out how to keep from being slapped down in the reinvestment of African capital concentrated comprehensively to produce the industry and infrastructure by tactical economic and political calculation.

The invigoration of African progress is society motivation, investment stimulation, and prosperity accumulation. The difference is these African contributions cost less sacrifice than the arrangement with France, which benefits very few Africans. Besides, any African reinvestment venture swells the African pot for African harvest.

France’s current portfolio, resume, and policy regarding the ECOWAS nations in the year 2023 demonstrate strains of colonialist treachery. What does France provide for what it receives? The gold, uranium, and other resources alone are not enough. France also requires the use of French currency, the French central bank, a military presence, their language, culture, educational indoctrination, and defacing of self-identity.

To strip people of their identity is to assign one to them. Economically suppressing a people by deprivation, scarcity, or regulation of necessities solidifies the population’s dependency. The nation’s dependency is achieved by debt and underdevelopment concealed as hope. Therefore, the misconception of assistance is the trap of dependency multiplied by fifteen countries and an entire region.

There has been some progress and benefit, but the arrangement now has been rejected. The routine plight of the ECOWAS nations striving to grasp the prize always held just out of reach along with the fruits of their wealth generation is over. Some ECOWAS nations are among the poorest nations in the world. This poverty exists despite the richness of natural resources, which repeatedly and disproportionately do not benefit them.

By the way, the United States has a military base in Niger and an unconditional full diplomatic support for France. With France, the United States, and others present in Niger for years now, why has terrorist not been neutralized? If terrorists are causing the instability, would increasing the stability depend on decreasing the terrorists? So, the continuing instability justifies the foreign presence.

Likewise, by extenuation, are the terrorists serving a purpose? Without them, another reason for occupation must be contrived. Nevertheless, the web still spirals. The cloak of global domination and power has proven to be too irresistible and problematic a garment to shed. So it continues. Consequently, the chaos of conquest continues unabated but not undetectable.

Evidently, other major global players of dysfunctional concealments, such as the IMF, World Bank, United Nations, and NATO, provide cover, proving justice must truly be blind. Accomplices are the World Courts of Human Rights, economic councils, international courts, and many others by selective outrage, hollow authority, or cowardly apathy. 

Apparently, by observation, their mission statements are selectively applied, willfully ignored, or, worst, illicitly complicit. Authority absolved cannot overlook, facilitate, concede, or commit the very violations they were created to adjudicate, oppose, penalize, or eliminate, even if they don’t enforce them.

They are not part of the solution but protectors of the problem, which now includes them. These co-collaborators weld fiscal, governmental, judicial, or humanitarian malfeasance to administer buddy passes, winks, and nods of acquiescence. These co-collaborators ignore violations or facilitate abuses as guardians shielding the violators and their interests.

IMF’s purpose is monetary stabilization of currencies, growth, and prosperity. Still, it fosters debt and allows policies contrary to its purpose. The World Bank fights poverty through development and capital investment but is plagued by favoritism and curious transactions.

The UN has disappointed miserably in its purpose of international peace and security by forsaking human rights and humanitarian compassion while seemingly oblivious to economic, ethnic, and sovereign violations. International law and fairness are decimated by the collusion of powerful security council nations and some others’ partiality preventing unilateral accountability, sanctions, or actions of remedy by a singular vote of obstruction.

Too often, NATO is the antithesis of crisis management by fostering instability, crisis, and exploitation. Their force is the puppet master’s shield and sword protecting fraudulent interests based on illegitimate geopolitical agendas. Many other international organizations are paper tigers with hollow authority or little fortitude, but must their voice or outrage also be hollow?

The answer is apparently very hollow and discretionary, depending on who the offender or victim may be. This moral corruption discredits and sabotages the integrity of the process and intent by selective enforcement and colonial alliances of imperialistic mentalities. France, Britain, and the United States have stirred the pot of oppression for centuries. 

Not to isolate them from other foreign marauders like Portugal, Spain, Germany, and Belgium by misdeeds but only by current power to orchestrate massive instability, predatory obstructions, and authoritarian directives. ECOWAS nations yield fifty percent of their gold to France’s central bank for the privilege of being exploited by the mandatory use of the French Franc.

Now imagine all these international organizations being unaware of France’s bevy of violations. What can be the only logical answer? Even the clear-cut declarations of the Geneva Convention violations are ignored without a whimper of international outrage. I wonder if the loophole is only if war is declared or not.

To further the discrepancy, a different response and reasoning is applied for the same circumstances committed by a different group. For example, Niger’s coup was against its leader. Still, France swole up offended by a liberated country they have no legitimate proxy over. Yet, rebuking France’s colonialist residue is considered an assault on France.

War is inhumane, but exploitation and inhumanity are a declaration of or an invitation to war, which eventually results in conflict and resistance as the only options. However, a staunch back with courage intact can be the only answer if it is the only solution. The imperialistic exploitation of supremacy ideologies of the early twentieth century cycles out as its grip of global ignorance wanes.

So, consider the impact on France’s fiscal stability, the Olympic Games in France in 2024, the denouncing of colonialist proclivities of greed and exploitation, or the default futility of a piranha-like feeding frenzy of aggression defending the indefensible. France must decide since they left Africa no other choice, but now France’s choices are limited to African decisions.

This is an economic and moral dilemma for France and their dependency on exploiting resources and a fifty percent gold tariff on the ECOWAS. It is time to renegotiate the terms, diplomatically, of course. Ultimately, French etiquette must prevail unconditionally, yielding to African political sovereignty, fiscal resuscitation, and wealth retention.

Otherwise, the emerging projection is a global conflict and regional instability to maintain a century-old imperialistic Bismarck ideology of a world structure and perspective that no longer can exist or should exist. The time has certainly come to weigh the consequences. Time is not in a bottle of old but urgently upon us. Now, the answer to this has become the question.

In whose name can France be defended? Not even Bismarck’s name. Please make no mistake about it, Africa’s incarcerated liberation continues the racist colonialist ideology rooted not only in history but right before our eyes. It is crystal clear for those who would only take a glancing look.

 Are these the kind of policies or actions, regardless of the ethnicity of the victim, we can condone to protect the economic exploitation of a sizable portion of a continent and humanity? This geopolitical slavery is not from long ago or unknown, so all that remains is liberation in practice and observance. 

Liberation is not transactional as a reflection of fiscal, political, or cultural surrender but a declaration of humanity. History will bear witness to us as it has stood against those before us. We must recognize the unilateral sovereignty and humanity of others to ensure ours. The passion is in the persuasion and not the perspective.

It undoubtedly should not be punishment for daring to better African nations with African resources. Everyone else not oppressed is allowed, and now so will Africa, not by permission but by declaration. Today, a clash of history, ethnicity, religion, or ideology must not devolve into a default response of destruction or display of power but cooperation and compromise of persuasion.

The world is trembling from the addiction to inhumanity and exploitation that must address the compulsions of ignorant ideologies promoting inhumane directives. Otherwise, resentment, rebuke, and rebellion are inevitable. Any apprentice of power must know, eventually, that the dignity of rebellion swells the courage to rise up, transcending fear and control.

The courage to resist instead of cowering in the safety of servitude and exploitation is intrinsic when pushed to the brink. We should all be afraid of what or who we will become if we are indifferent to the plight of others either by our hand, on our behalf, or in our view. But equally important, who are they made to become by us? Life and dignity of life must be mutually maintained.

The world is quick and definitive to stand with others. Perhaps it is time for the radius of concern to encompass the African. If not, don’t cry about who does or when ties are severed. That cycle is over. A new cycle has begun. Now, who dares stand with Africa and Justice against atrocities of geopolitical extortion? I do, do you?

 

 

 

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

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 protect 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

 

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

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



 Uncompromising Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was also verbally compliant, pleading for his life and stating his physical condition of respiratory distress and that he could not breathe. Mr. Floyd offered no further resistance to being placed in the car because he was prone on the ground and not aggressive, combative, or evasive at all; he was secured.

But was he in custody? Had he been advised that he was under arrest? Chauvin demonstrated his total control of Mr. Floyd by Chauvin’s hands being in his pockets, indicating that whatever resistance that had been present, Mr. Floyd was well under control at that point.

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

Mr. Floyd was never able to account for the bad money transaction where a fake twenty-dollar bill turned into a homicide. Before dying, Mr. Floyd had to pass out first, meaning he was still alive but unconscious.

Chauvin’s continued pressure, in addition to rendering Mr. Floyd unconscious Chauvin ensured that Mr. Floyd had no chance at survival or revival. No corpus delicti or proof of guilt was ever established since the intent was not established that he knew it was bad money.

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

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

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

Was radio notified that they were assisting, and should they have even been there? If Chauvin was assisting on the run, then he should have remained secondary and let the assigned car handle it to their discretion. Was there a procedural discrepancy with the response to the assignment?

Two policemen arrived, and shortly thereafter, another two policemen arrived. The first two to arrive on the scene engaged Mr. Floyd, and he was placed in cuffs. He was subsequently seated on the sidewalk. Nothing extraneous so far as excessive physical force except perhaps the way he was approached could have been handled better.

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

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

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

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

Once taken to the ground on his stomach alongside the squad car with his hands cuffed behind his back, he posed no threat to the four policemen or no threat to escape. It is nearly impossible to get up quickly or otherwise from that position or launch an assault.

If it was necessary to place him prone on the ground, then there is no policy, procedures, or training that allows for any force which is no longer necessary to bring a person under control. Once unresponsive, he was incapable of any resistance or threat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chauvin’s actions revealed a mindset of punishment, not restraint, with his hands in his pocket to disguise the downward force and balancing of his full weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck, fully displaying the ease of his depravity, arrogance, and control.

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

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

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

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

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

During the assault, Chauvin verbally responded, disregarding all concerns and information he knew or should have known. He was an 18-year veteran on the job, a field training officer, and the senior man on the scene. The senior man is always held to a higher standard, assuming he has the most experience and discernment knowing what to do or, more importantly, what not to do.

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

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

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

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

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

Citizens and bystanders with no time on the job or academy training knew the risk. Mr. Floyd and the public were trying to tell the policemen repeatedly. All four policemen were fully aware that their actions or inaction posed a significant risk to Mr. Floyd’s life, even insinuating it themselves. The consequences of their actions or inactions were known or should have been known that serious bodily harm or death would be the result.

Due to the 8 minutes and 46-second duration of the homicide beginning when Mr. Floyd was handcuffed on his stomach on the ground, all four policemen displayed knowing, willful, purposeful, reckless, and negligent conduct at various intervals while Mr. Floyd was the victim of excessive force that led to his death.

It is evident that Chauvin’s intent was to disregard the risk of death to Mr. Floyd, continuing even when Mr. Floyd was deceased. Chauvin continued until the EMTs arrived. None of the policemen did anything to stop Chauvin or aid Mr. Floyd. All four policemen displayed each of the required mindsets during the duration of the lengthy deadly incident at various times. This was a homicide committed by a policeman that was aided and abetted by three other policemen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obvious and blatant violations of the law, duty, and public trust cannot be condoned and tolerated, especially when it is this egregious and erodes the public trust. Such egregious acts make it hard for good Officers to maintain public trust when this kind of policing creates problems for them and erodes their protections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The police union dues, morale, and resources should not be spent despite members’ dissent for actions they disagree with and know to be wrong. The first rule of policing is to go home every night from the job, the will to overcome and to survive encounters.

The second is not to let someone send you to the penitentiary and jackpot you by their actions. I am not going to do your time for you or with you. I will not let you jackpot me and send me to prison for your actions. This is understood.

The police union has an obligation to defend officers and not waste the members’ resources by publicly and arrogantly condoning unquestionably damaging behavior, which compromises the whole department’s credibility. A policeman has a fiduciary duty to supply the union with actions they can defend but not to the detriment of the union members, the police department, and the whole legal structure.

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

The union has a responsibility to protect the union body above an individual member, understanding that one must sometimes answer so that others may serve without contempt. However, refusing the obvious accountability disparages the union’s principles and, by association, the principles of your union members that paints the good officers with a bloody brush. When these policemen’s actions do not give you anything to work with, you must save the ship instead of circling the wagons.

The righteous needs of the many outweigh the detrimental actions of the few. But, if they blow it so badly, then you must step away and condemn their actions even if by absentee proxy of removing your unwavering defense, if not your conditional support.

How many of your members agree with having their dues spent for this? How many good OFFICERS have to suffer as a whole nationally with the public perception that you promote? When you, good and bad, wear the same respected uniform, it is hard to tell from the outside looking in, but you know from the inside, the good from the bad.

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

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

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

We know what it should say about Chauvin, but what does it really say about those who would defend this public assassination. Who can be proud of this abomination or defend its despicable representation as good policing? What manner of twisted articulation can justify these four policemen’s actions?

Why the extraordinary efforts to justify this behavior and claim that these actions were necessary and legal? Why lose all credibility to represent the other members by supporting these actions? Did these actions meet departmental expectations, and are they representative of what a police union and police department can be proud of?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

George Floyd Part 2 of 3- Logical Reasoning



Facts & Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts: The primary policeman later been identified as Chauvin, an 18-year veteran of the force and the senior officer on the scene. Mr. Floyd was pinned to the ground by his neck by Chauvin’s left knee and left front shin area applied to the carotid nerve or artery area of the neck traversing the windpipe, trachea, and larynx.

The carotid artery is located on both sides of the neck. It does not matter which way Mr. Floyd’s head was turned. It would still be exposed. Also, the greater torque or twist of the head, the greater the vulnerability of this neck artery to causing unconsciousness or a fatal outcome. It restricts oxygen and blood flow simultaneously. This restriction occurred for an estimated 8 minutes and 46 seconds, of which approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, presumably unconscious, and probably deceased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once Chauvin’s knee was on his neck constituting deadly force, at what point was Mr. Floyd not a code red threat or actively resisting with the threat of death or serious bodily harm to anyone? Was there any discernable level of threat or fear of any kind with four officers present, and Chauvin’s hands in his pockets while his knee was on Mr. Floyd’s neck? 

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

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

Despite all the concerns about Mr. Floyd’s medical condition expressed before Mr. Floyd laid lifeless, what threat to four policemen’s life or limb was Floyd with his hands cuffed behind his back prone on the ground on his stomach? If we believe their concern for Mr. Floyd’s medical condition, wouldn’t their actions be even more baffling?

With Chauvin on his neck, when did Chauvin order him to comply, or more importantly, what chance did Chauvin give him to comply? Even unresponsive with no pulse, the use of deadly force was not altered to the level of Mr. Floyd’s lack of ability to resist or actual resistance, nor was there any possibly life-saving officer intervention. 

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts: The foundation of the law is what was known or reasonably suspected at the time. It governs probable cause and reasonable suspicion from the Constitution and Bill of Rights down to municipal law enforcement and policemen conduct. The history of the policemen involved was not known at the time, just as Mr. Floyd’s history presumably was not known at the time either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts: The policemen responded to a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill passed at the store and received information that directed them to Mr. Floyd across the street. Almost immediately upon approach, the policeman escalates the situation by unnecessarily pulling his gun, revealing his disposition that Mr. Floyd knew it was a counterfeit bill. His demeanor was to prevent an escape or assume a threat level fearful enough to pull his service weapon, but why? You cannot just draw your gun on someone for a conversation. Was there a visible threat, or what justified this approach?

Questions: Was the twenty-dollar bill marked and taken as evidence prior to approaching Mr. Floyd? Did they know the counterfeit protocol of notifying the Secret Service and recording the individual’s information to be forwarded in a report? Should they have known counterfeiting is a federal crime and is only arrestable by a federal agent or by prior federal authorization? Finally, did they know that they lacked the authority to arrest him without providing he knew that it was counterfeit? 

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

Aren’t the Secret Service only interested in printing operations and patterns, not random twenty-dollar bills in which they cannot prove knowledge or intent? With authority to investigate but not arrest, why was any force at all used? Is it common knowledge that counterfeit money is in public circulation and could conceivably fall into the unsuspecting hand of any law-abiding citizen unbeknownst to them?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0