On January 1, 2017, the state of Missouri will implement a public school policy sure to accelerate the descent into police state dystopia. See, Missouri Revised Statutes 565.054 and 565.056.
The Hazelwood School District put out a memo to parents and guardians stating that, according to Missouri statute, fights at school or on buses will be treated as felonies — which can result in up to four years of prison, fines or probation.
“Dear Parents/Guardians:
We want to make you aware of a few new State Statutes that will go into effect on January 1, 2017, which may have a drastic impact on how incidents are handled in area school districts.
The way the new statue reads, if a person commits the offense of an assault in the third degree this will now be classified as a Class E Felony, rather than a misdemeanor. If he or she knowingly causes physical injury to another person (hits someone or has a fight with another individual and an injury occurs) – one or both participants may be charged with a Felony.”
Gone are the days when teachers broke up fights and sent the kids home, calling the parents and perhaps suspending the kid if it was a serious incident. “School Resource Officers” or local cops now arrest the kids and, if there is any perceived injury (an arbitrary judgment), will charge them with third-degree assault – treating children cooped up in school as if they are violent adults on the streets.
“What does this mean for students?
For example, if two students are fighting and one child is injured, the student who caused the injury may be charged with a felony. Student(s) who are caught fighting in school, bus or on school grounds may now be charged with a felony (no matter the age or grade level), if this assault is witnessed by one of the School Resource Officers/police officers (SRO) or if the SRO/local law enforcement officials have to intervene.”
It doesn’t stop there. Even attempts or threats to cause harm will be treated as a Class A misdemeanor, which can bring up to a year of prison time. If the assaulted person is considered a “special victim,” a Class D felony can be imposed which can mean up to seven years in prison.
The Free Thought Project has reported on numerous examples of how public schools are increasingly relying on armed cops to carry out discipline, thereby criminalizing the age-old reality of children behaving badly.
This has resulted in the increasingly prevalent phenomenon known as the “school to prison pipeline.”
The Arizona State Law Journal found that over the last three decades, there has been a marked shift in public schools to using law enforcement instead of school administrators and teachers for students violating school rules.
Approximately 260,000 students were referred to law enforcement during the 2011-2012 school year, and about 92,000 students were arrested on school property. Unsurprisingly, these numbers affect disadvantaged minority students the most.
The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) documented disturbing examples of children being subjected to law enforcement, just as a shocking video emerged of a cop brutalizing a teenage girl in the classroom for misbehaving.
”Some police actions involve alarming physical altercations, with kids subdued and handcuffed. Others may be handled without much force. But law-enforcement involvement in school discipline has routinely resulted in kids—some as young as elementary school-age—summoned to court to answer charges that they committed crimes. Frequently, charges include battery or assault in connection with schoolyard fights or disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace at school —issues that some believe should be handled by school officials, not cops.”
The worst state is Virginia, with a rate of 16 students per 1,000 being referred to law enforcement. One school had a shocking 228 students, most between 11 and 14, that were referred to cops. A 12-year-old girl was charged with obstruction of justice for clenching her fist at a cop. 11-year-old Kayleb Moon-Robinson, who is autistic, was slammed to the floor for walking out of class too early, and then was charged with felony assault on a police officer and disorderly conduct.
Other shocking examples include five- and six-year-olds being handcuffed, arrested and booked into jail for throwing temper tantrums. Dress code violations, tardiness, and even passing gas have all led to students being referred to law enforcement.
CPI describes how early exposure to law enforcement and the “justice system” has a devastating impact on the mental health of children, and makes it more likely they will grow up to live all or part of their lives behind bars.
“…prosecuting kids in court for low-level accusations like disorderly conduct and battery is actually backfiring; kids become stigmatized, develop records and often disengage from school. The risk increases that they’ll progress to more serious trouble, especially if core emotional or mental-health or learning problems go unresolved or inadequately treated.”
The Arizona State Law Journal confirmed that incarceration increases delinquency and future involvement in the justice system, and “the official processing of a juvenile law violation may be the least effective means of rehabilitating juvenile offenders.”
“No one should underestimate the negative consequences associated with incarcerating a juvenile, both to our society as a whole and to the youth themselves, which is the end result of the school-to-prison pipeline. Empirical research demonstrates that incarceration produces long-term detrimental effects on youth, including reinforcement of violent attitudes and behaviors; more limited educational, employment, military, and housing opportunities; an increased likelihood of not graduating from high school; mental health concerns; and increased future involvement in the criminal justice system.”
By enacting their draconian new rules, the state of Missouri is completely ignoring science, instead, falling back on uniformed state agents with badges and guns – trained to confront the worst of society – to deal with misbehaving kids in school.
Missouri is ignoring the proven benefits of “restorative justice.”
“Thus, rather than excluding the student from the school community for misbehaving, which potentially can cause resentment, disrupt that student’s educational progress, and lead to recidivism and dropping out of school, one of the primary goals of restorative justice is to integrate the offender back into the school community as a productive member.
In essence, restorative justice practices are conflict resolution tools that involve victims, offenders, and other members of the school community. Using formal and informal conferences, or “circle groups,” victims share with offenders how they have been harmed by the offender’s behavior, offenders have opportunities to apologize to the victims, and, with the help of the victims and the other members of the school community, conference participants devise remedies for the harmful behavior.”
Instead of smart approaches like restorative justice, Missouri is set to plunge its children into a police state nightmare — guaranteeing a long-term rise in prison population and further destroying the mental health of the most vulnerable individuals.
Congratulations to Kimberly Gardner on her outstanding primary victory!
Last month, we posted, "We Need Black Prosecutors". The voters of St. Louis decided the same thing and elected Kimberly Gardner as the democratic nominee and the next presumptive St. Louis City Circuit Attorney. In a city that is majority African-American, it is of extreme importance that St. Louis is finally positioned to have it's first Black Circuit Attorney. Ms. Gardner will become the most powerful person in the St. Louis City criminal justice system.
When a kid commits a crime, the justice system has a choice: prosecute to the full extent of the law, or take a step back and ask if saddling young people with criminal records is the right thing to do every time.
"It's easier to build strong children than to repair broken men"
Adam Foss, a former assistant district attorney in Suffolk County, Massachusetts discussed how prosecutors can change lives. He is among the type of black prosecutors we had in mind when we wrote our post last month. Below is a video of a TED talk Mr. Foss gave about the power of the prosecutor. At the beginning of his talk, he asked the audience a few simple questions that drove home a very powerful point that too many prosecutors miss.
What makes Ms. Gardner's victory even more amazing is the fact that she won dispite the fact the neither the St. Louis Police Officers Association or the Ethical Society of Police (St. Louis' black police union) endorsed her. Both unions endorsed other candidates. As a result, Ms. Gardner doesn't have any political obligation to police officers.
I've never had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Gardner, but the limited interviews and news clips I have seen, indicates she shares some of the same sentiments as Mr. Foss.
I believe Ms. Gardner will be a fine circuit attorney dedicated to her new position and will be a refreshing change from the current administration.
However, there is no greater protection than personally understanding your rights. It's still important to educate yourself about the law and how our court system works.
The deaths of Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, the police ambushes in Dallas and Baton Rouge resulted in more post being published on this site than any other month in our history. The police shooting of Charles Kinsey while he laid on the ground with his hands up demonstrated that even when you do everything imaginable to prevent police violence against you, it may still occur.
Court.rchp.com has over 200 pages and posts, hundreds of informative videos and is constantly growing. Bookmark our site so you can visit again, because there's too much information to digest in one visit. Start with our home page, then Understanding Missouri Courts and Legal research for Non-Lawyers to get an overview of what it takes to represent yourself when you have legal issues. You might decide that self representation is not for you. Gaining additional knowledge can help you better understand the legal process and the concepts your lawyer may discuss with you.
Our rights are under attack and unless you take steps to learn how to preserve those rights, they will simply fade away. Don't learn the hard way that you can not always depend on others to help you. You must learn to help yourself when it comes to legal issues. The article below provides you with 40 reasons why you should use this site to learn more about the law and how to use it for you benefit.
What does it say about our society that it uses its jails and prisons as the primary detention facilities for poor and black and brown people who have been racially targeted and jail them with the mentally ill and chemically dependent? It's a crisis not just for those locked behind bars, but for all of us. (Photo: AP)
Five. Once stopped, Blacks and Latinos are also more likely to be searched. DOJ reports Black drivers at traffic stops were searched by police three times more often and Hispanic drivers two times more often than white drivers. A large research study in Kansas City found when police decided to pull over cars for investigatory stops, where officers look into the car’s interior, ask probing questions and even search the car, the race of the driver was a clear indicator of who was going to be stopped: 28 percent of young Black males twenty five or younger were stopped in a year’s time, versus white men who had 12 percent chance and white women only a 7 percent chance. In fact, not until Black men reach 50 years old do their rate of police stops for this kind of treatment dip below those of white men twenty five and under.
Seven. The consequences of traffic tickets are much more severe among poor people. People with means will just pay the fines. But for poor and working people fines are a real hardship. For example, over 4 million people in California do not have valid driver’s licenses because they have unpaid fines and fees for traffic tickets. And we know unpaid tickets can lead to jail.
Thirteen. This system creates a lot of jobs. Jails and prisons provide a lot of jobs to local, state and federal officials. To understand how this system works it is good to know the difference between jails and prisons. Jails are local, usually for people recently arrested or awaiting trial. Prisons are state and federal and are for people who have already been convicted. There are more than 3000 local jails across the US, according to the Vera Institute, and together usually hold about 500,000 people awaiting trial and an additional 200,000 or so convicted on minor charges. Over the course of a year, these local jails process over 11.7 million people. Prisons are state and federal lockups which usually hold about twice the number of people as local jails or just over 1.5 million prisoners.
Eighteen. Those who are too poor, too mentally ill or too chemically dependent, though still presumed innocent, are kept in cages until their trial dates. No wonder it is fair to say, as the New York Times reported, our jails “have become vast warehouses made up primarily of people too poor to post bail or too ill with mental health or drug problems to adequately care for themselves.”
Twenty Nine.The Sentencing Project reports that over 159,000 people are serving life sentences in the US. Nearly half are African American and 1 in 6 are Latino. The number of people serving life in prison has gone up by more than 400% since 1984. Nearly 250,000 prisoners in the US are over age 50.
Thirty. Inside prisons, the poorest people are taken advantage of again as most items such as telephone calls to families are priced exorbitantly high, some as high as $12.95 for a 15 minute call, further separating families.
Thirty Five. Race is a multiplier of disadvantage in unemployment for people who get out of prison. A study by Professor Devah Pager demonstrated that employers who were unlikely to even check on the criminal history of white male applicants, seriously discriminated against all Black applicants and even more so against Black applicants with criminal records.
Thirty Eight. The US spends $80 billion on this big business of corrections every year. As a retired criminal court judge I know says, “the high costs of this system would be worth it if the system was actually working and making us safer, but we are not safer, the system is not working, so the actual dollars we are spending are another indication of our failure.” The cost of being number one in incarceration is four times higher than it was in 1982. Anyone feeling four times safer than they used to?
Thirty Nine. Putting more people in jail creates more poverty. The overall poverty rate in our country is undoubtedly higher because of the dramatic increase in incarceration over the past 35 years with one research project estimating poverty would have decreased by 20 percent if we had not put all these extra people in prison. This makes sense given the factthat most all the people brought into the system are poor to begin with, it is now much harder for them to find a job because of the barriers to employment and good jobs erected by a criminal record to those who get out of prison, the increased number of one parent families because of a parent being in jail, and the bans on receiving food stamps and housing assistance.
Forty. Putting all these problems together and you can see why the Center for American Progress rightly concludes “Today, a criminal record serves as both a direct cause and consequence of poverty.”
What does it say about our society that it uses its jails and prisons as the primary detention facilities for poor and black and brown people who have been racially targeted and jail them with the mentally ill and chemically dependent? The current criminal system has dozens of moving parts from the legislators who create the laws, to the police who enforce them, to the courts which apply them, to the jails and prison which house the people caught up in the system, to the public and business community who decides whom to hire, to all of us who either do something or turn our heads away. These are our brothers and sisters and cousins and friends of our coworkers. There are lots of proposed solutions. To learn more about the problems and the solutions are go to places like The Sentencing Project, the Vera Institute, or the Center for American Progress. Because it’s the right thing to do, and because about 95 percent of the people who we send to prison are coming back into our communities.
The article was republished with permission under license from CommonDreams
Bill Quigley, the author of this article, is Associate Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. He is a Katrina survivor and has been active in human rights in Haiti for years. He volunteers with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) and the Bureau de Avocats Internationaux (BAI) in Port au Prince. Contact Bill at quigley77@gmail.com
The prosecutor is the most powerful figure in the American criminal justice system. This is particularly so because, as the Supreme Court has recognized, the criminal justice system in the United States today “is, for the most part, a system of pleas, not a system of trials.” In the state courts where over ninety percent of criminal cases are prosecuted, ninety-four percent of the convictions are the result of guilty pleas, and ninety-seven percent of federal convictions are the result of guilty pleas. In this system of pleas, prosecutors have enormous advantages and often dictate not only the crimes defendants are convicted of, but the sentences that are imposed.
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch addressed the National Black Prosecutors Association who are in St. Louis participating in a weeklong convention about the criminal justice system. Melba Pearson, the group's president, said the organization’s annual conference is being held in St. Louis because of the heightened focus on policing in light of the fatal 2014 shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer.
The City of St. Louis is a majority black city. However, the police and prosecutor, two institutions that have the most devastating effect on the lives of black folk are headed by white men. As I read the Post article, I couldn't help but consider the irony that McCulloch, the poster child of prosecutorial misconduct, was explaining to a group of Black prosecutors the “lousy job” that prosecutors do. Sadly, McCulloch on several occasions has appeared bias towards police and racist in some of his actions.
Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson (Center) has sought to use prosecutorial discretion to fight racial gaps in justice.
St. Louis is roughly 48% black and 47% white according to the most recent census data, but the prosecutors of both the circuit and municipal court levels are white. In the State of Missouri, county prosecutors are 99% white. There is only one black elected county prosecutor in the entire state; Shane Farrow in Moniteau County Missouri. Unfortunately, Mr. Farrow is being prosecuted himself for an accident that occurred, ironically in Columbia, MO, which recently gain national attention for racial discrimination.
Recent incidents in Ferguson, New York, Baltimore, Columbia and most recently Baton Rouge & Minnesota demonstrate the racial bias and divide that exist within our society. White police officers are quicker to stop and arrest black people and white prosecutors are quicker to bring charges against black suspects, especially when the evidence may not be compelling. The said reality is that many low-income defendants, even those that are innocent, may plead guilty to avoid the possibility of longer sentences. See the Kansas City Star article, "Study finds that Missouri and Kansas prosecutors are overwhelmingly white".
The primary election for St. Louis City Prosecutor is on August 2, 2016. It is my hope that a strong black candidate whose sole motivation is not to punish, but to rehabilitate, will be elected. However, as Phillip Agnew with Dream Defenders mentioned;
"It's not just a matter of having a representative that's on the city counsel, or in the mayor's office or on the police force that looks like you; they've gotta come from the community, know the issues of the community and then it's folks in the community that remind them everyday that we pay your bills and watching every single day to ensure that the platform on which we elected you with is followed and also defend you when those people who seek to calibrate the system and right the system as it's been built, seek to come at you for that office."
Unfortunately, I don't know any of the candidates well enough to make a recommendation. The Ethical Society of Police, a minority organization of about 215 St. Louis city officers who are almost all black, voted at their February 25 meeting to endorse Patrick Hamacher, a white candidate, in the race for St. Louis circuit attorney. I was surprised that they had not endorsed Steve Harmon, a former police officer and the son of former Police Chief Clarence Harmon. See the Atlantic article, "Most States Elect No Black Prosecutors".
I don't know much about Mr. Hamacher and he might be a great candidate. However, he and the other white candidate, Mary Pat Carl, currently work as prosecutors under Jennifer Joyce. In fact, Ms. Carl was endorsed by Joyce.
The St. Louis Prosecutor's office appears to be a corrupt system. In corrupt systems, decent people end up with three options: get out, conform or be crushed. There are always good, moral people who look at what's happening around them and decide that they can't live with themselves if they go along with it. However, such people are almost always bullied, marginalized and destroyed. In bad systems, the decent person is the freak, the oddball, the awkward crank who is not a team player, not one of us. Both Hamacher and Carl were promoted while working for Joyce and seemed to have flourished, which by default means they conformed. I understand that most people do, but it doesn't earn my vote.
Regardless of who you support, if you're registered, you need to vote! If you're not registered to vote, you need to get registered, however, it's too late for the August 2nd primary. If you don't vote, don't complain, you got exactly what you're efforts earned.
Twelve police officers were shot, five are dead and two civilians were also injured in an ambush during a peaceful protest of recent lynchings by police. Our condolences go out to all the victims and their families.
Hundreds of people of all races were marching down Lamar St. between Commerce and Main, mere blocks from Dealey Plaza where President Kennedy was assassinated, when gunfire erupted around 9 p.m. last night from the top floor of a parking garage.
The ambush was a cowardly act and the wrong type of response to recent lynchings by police of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.
One suspect was killed and police have several suspects in custody. Dallas Police Chief, David Brown, said the following about the dead suspect; “he was upset about Black Lives Matter, he said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers. The suspect stated he was not affiliated with any groups, and he stated that he did it alone.
Dallas Police Chief David Brown was absolutely correct, police do need and should expect our support, however, support should not only run in one direction. When police officers murder innocent people or even suspects, other officers need to stop protecting them. When good police remain silent about the deeds of bad cops or when those deeds are covered up, they increase the likelihood that this type of response will eventually take place by someone mentally ill and angry.
Innocent man originally identified as a suspect
Mark Hughes, the brother of the Dallas protest organizer, was exercising his second amendment right to open carry, similar to Oath Keepers during the Ferguson Protests. Hughes was named in the media as a suspect because he was seen earlier with an AR15 rifle strapped over his shoulder. The police do not want us to jump to conclusions because of videos, but they jumped to conclusions and placed a man's life in jeopardy, simply for exercising his constitutional right to bear arms.
I don't believe assault weapons should be authorized for civilians, but the open carry law should apply equally to everyone. Original gun restrictions and the first modern gun laws were intended to keep guns out of the hands of black people. See video on our "Armed and Black" post.
Mark Hughes speaks to the media after the Dallas Police Department erroneously announced him as a suspect involved in the fatal shooting of several officers during a protest on Thursday.
Double standards must stop
The video above demonstrates the type of double standard that must change in this country. During the Ferguson Protests, none of the multiple white guys carrying assault rifles who called themselves the Oath Keepers were ever named as suspects when shootings occurred during those protests.
A person identified as Changa, an organizer with the Dallas Action Coalition told a reporter from The Daily Beast; “If you don’t give the people justice after a certain amount of time they get hopeless and seek other means of justice.” In his 20 years of activism, Changa said, he could not get any response from the local Dallas community. “So it’s sad, but it’s ironic.”
Changa's expression is similar to those expressed by Frederick Douglass 130 years ago; “Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”
The shooting in Dallas is the result of a disease that if left untreated will most likely be repeated. The symptoms of racism, poverty, oppression, and injustice when combined results in anger, hopelessness, mental illness and retaliation. We have seen these symptoms take the lives of black men and women in urban areas all across America for years. Some young black men, especially those who believe they have nothing to lose, are starting to focus their anger on targets other than themselves.
Trevor Noah from the Daily Show give a great critique of the double standard in this country during a discussion about the fatal shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.
The video footage of the Dallas shooting is equally clear, however, I don't expect anyone would dare suggest that we should use restraint before reaching to conclusions. Five police officers were murder, end of conclusion! Two black men were lynched by police, end of conclusion!
If video exists of a suspect shooting one of those officers, no one would suggest sending that suspect home with pay until an investigation is finished a year later. No, I expect that suspect to be immediately arrested if possible. It would be an insult to those officers who gave their lives in the line of duty to suggest anything less. However, when a police officer clearly committed murder on video and is sent to the comfort of his home and taxpayers are forced to continue providing the murderer with a paycheck, that is an insult as well. The ultimate insult occurs when no charges are brought against the officer.
While we pray for the families of the twelve officers injured and killed, let's not forget the twelve victims name above and all the others who were killed by police "for no apparent reason". That's why these protests all over the country are taking place because police for all intents and purposes are above the law. There is no equal treatment under the law as long as police officers can abuse, humiliate and murder innocent people with impunity and suffer no consequences.
Black police officers
A black female Cleveland Police officer, Nakia Jones, recently acknowledge that fact in a stirring and moving video she made in response to the Alton Sterling lynching.
Officer Jones isn't the only Black police officer complaining about racism in the ranks. Below is a video of three Black St. Louis Police Officers discussing their negative experiences with white officers.
Ironically, just yesterday, the St. Louis Black Police Union called for the resignation of Sam Dotson, the current police chief, because of racism, discrimination, cronyism and even crime within the department.
The media's attention will certainly be focused on Dallas and rightfully so. The police chief, mayors, governors and other public officials and leaders will argue it's time to stop protesting and fully support the police. That would be a false narrative.
I am pro-police, but I am anti-brutality. I don't want to live in an area where I can't call and rely on help from the police. But that's the whole point! I shouldn't fear encounters with police, especially during times when I need them the most; but that is the reality. To stop protesting obvious injustice with certain police encounters would be a monumental mistake and would only embolden and invite continued brutality and murders by rogue officers.
Potential dangers of rogue police
When police lose respect for the people in a community or when a community fears its police force, there's a sort of unspoken invitation for corruption. Police are public servants and as Officer Jones so eloquently stated, they take a vow to protect and serve.
Years ago, I heard rumors that the white police chief, who has long since retired, was the head of a local drug cartel. I originally dismissed those claims as an urban legend, and I am not now saying those rumors are true, but over time I seriously began to wonder if they were true. A close family friend called to report what she suspected was drug activity on her block. There was no action taken against the suspected drug house, but housing inspectors showed up to her house the next day resulting in citations costing thousands of dollars and had to mortgage her home to make the repairs.
A relative, who had gone to jail on drug charges and has since passed away, upon mention of calling the police, stated how the then police chief controls drug activity in St. Louis. He said police officers harass, arrest, shakedown and even kill drug dealers competing with drug dealers who are a part of the police network. I know of people making anonymous calls to police to report drug activity who were later retaliate against by the same drug dealers. After hearing about these sort of incidents and others over the years it became increasing difficult to not consider the possibility that the rumors might be true.
Regardless, it's time to take back control of our communities, public officials and require them to serve us properly or get out of the way so we can find others who will. One of the major issues with St. Louis City Police Officers is that they are not required to live in the city in which they serve. That doesn't make any sense to me. Every other city employee is required to live in the City of St. Louis within 120 days of employment. Most city employees are required to maintain residency to keep their jobs, but police officers are allowed to move after seven years, as we stated, police are above the law.
As Jessie Williams recently stated, "The burden of the brutalized is not to comfort the bystander. That’s not our job, all right, stop with all that. If you have a critique for the resistance, for our resistance, then you better have an established record of critique of our oppression. If you have no interest in equal rights for black people then do not make suggestions to those who do. Sit down."
Another black man, Philando Castile was lynched yesterday. The lynching happened late Wednesday during a traffic stop after being pulled over for a "busted tail light" in the St. Paul suburb of Falcon Heights. Castile's girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was in the car when Castile was shot, live streamed video after the shooting.
According to his girlfriend, Mr. Castile notified the police officer that shot him, that he was licensed to conceal and carry and that he had a firearm on him. The officer asked for his license and registration. He explained that he was about to reach for his wallet to comply and that's when the officer fired.
I was just finishing making boycott comments concerning Alton Sterling when I learned about this incident involving Philando Castile. As a community, we have to do more than just march. We must respond differently to make this stop. We need to withhold our support as consumers from companies that are no speaking up on our behalf and use our dollars as weapons.
These police killings are senseless, I cried like a baby after watching these videos. I don't want to hear any more about how the police fear black men, how a particular officer feared for his life or how I don't understand the stress police officers go through. If certain cops are that fearful or the job is that stressful, those officers how can't handle the pressure need to seek other careers. I couldn't help but think, my god, this could have so easily have been one of my children.
During a news conference Thursday morning, Diamond Reynolds accused the St. Anthony, Minnesota police of murdering her boyfriend, Philando Castile, right before her eyes. "They took his life for no reason," …. "He took his last breath in front of us."
Reynolds accused the St. Anthony police of racism and poor treatment of her and her young daughter, who was also in the car at the time of the shooting. "They took me to jail. They didn't feed us. They didn't give us water," she said. "They put me in a room and separated me from my child. They treated me like a prisoner."
She wants the police officer who shot her boyfriend arrested and charged with murder. "He should not be home with his family. He should be in jail in handcuffs." … "He didn't do anything; he did exactly as the police asked," … "I want justice."
During a televised CNN interview, Philando Castile's mom stated, 'We are being hunted'
Last July, President Obama visited a federal prison to put a spotlight on mass incarceration and excessive drug sentencing laws. We applaud Obama's acknowledgment and efforts.
However, as we have mentioned before, it seems as if it took white kids becoming addicted to drugs, especially heroin, in epidemic proportions before any real policy change began to happen.
The following is republished with permission from ProPublica.
Two years ago, President Obama unveiled an initiative to give early release to potentially thousands of federal prisoners serving long sentences for low-level drug crimes. The initiative has barely made a dent, and a resignation letter from the president’s recently departed Pardon Attorney lays out, at least, one reason why.
“The position in which my office has been placed, asking us to address the petitions of nearly 10,000 individuals with so few attorneys and support staff, means that the requests of thousands of petitioners seeking justice will lie unheard,” wrote Deborah Leff, who resigned in January.Leff also wrote that her office was denied “all access to the Office of White House Counsel,” which reviews prisoners’ applications before the president gets them.
Leff also wrote that her office was denied “all access to the Office of White House Counsel,” which reviews prisoners’ applications before the president gets them.
Since his announcement two years ago, the president has granted early release to just 187 prisoners.
Leff’s resignation letter was obtained by USA Today.
Dysfunction in the Office of the Pardon Attorney is nothing new: ProPublica reported on problems in the office that stretch back to 2001. Take the case of Clarence Aaron, a black man sentenced to three life terms for a cocaine deal, even though he wasn’t the buyer, seller, or supplier.
Aaron’s appeal for clemency was denied by then-President George W. Bush, even though the prosecutor’s office and sentencing judge supported clemency. Why? Here’s ProPublica's original story:
Records show that Ronald Rodgers, the current pardon attorney, left out critical information in recommending that the White House deny Aaron’s application. In a confidential note to a White House lawyer, Rodgers failed to accurately convey the views of the prosecutor and judge and did not disclose that they had advocated for Aaron’s immediate commutation.
Rodgers was removed in 2014 and replaced by Leff. Obama ultimately ordered Aaron’s release in April 2014.
A statistical analysis of nearly 500 pardon applicants during the Bush administration suggests that advocacy makes a difference. Applicants with a member of Congress in their corner were three times as likely to win a pardon as those without such backing. Interviews and documents show a lawmaker’s support can speed up a stalled application, counter negative information and ratchet up pressure for an approval.
Reacting to stories published by ProPublica, the Department of Justice announced in August 2012 that it would commission a study testing racial disparities in presidential pardons. Nothing further has been publicly disclosed about that effort and it’s unclear whether the study was ever completed. ProPublica has contacted the department to ask them the status of both that and for further comment on Leff’s resignation. They’ll update as soon as they hear back.
When I expressed my disbelief to my 16-year-old son that the police officer responsible for killing Tamir Rice, was not indicted, he replied; why are you surprised, the police never are!
Racial bias most certainly plays a part in the officer's perception of the threat posed by Tamir Rice. It's doubtful that the same officer would have reacted the same way if it had been a 12-year-old white kid. That perception has to change!
During 2015, according to the Guardian, 1,139 people were killed by law enforcement officers, 223 of whom were unarmed. The Washington Post lists 980 people killed by police officers, 91 of whom were unarmed. I can only imagine how many more people might have died if police actions were not under scrutiny.
Below is a video compilation of police shootings of mostly unarmed people to demonstrate how easy an innocent person can be killed by mistake by police officers.
Admittedly, police have a dangerous job and I understand their need to protect themselves and their right to go home at the end of their shift. However, many of the unarmed people killed by police also had the right to continue living. If trained police officers are justified killing a 12-year-old kid with a toy gun while playing in a park, then when is it ever unreasonable for an officer to use deadly force? When is the officer's fear for his safety unreasonable?
During 2015, a total of 129 federal, state and local law enforcement officers died while on duty. Not all of those deaths were caused by violent acts against the officers; 18 died from heart attacks, 8 from illnesses, 32 from automobile or motorcycle accidents, and 4 from other accidents.
When the deaths from illness and accidents are excluded, a total of 67 law enforcement officers from the FBI, U.S. Border Patrol, Marshal Service, State Police, Highway Patrol, local police and other agencies were killed.
I want police officers to go home after their shifts, but I also want my sons to come home after their encounters with those officers. I don't want them to fear those encounters.
Unfortunately, biases both conscious and unconscious exist and influence how many police officers react and interact with others. We have seen too many horrible videos of police treating people poorly and it needs to stop.
People with the least power are victimized the most. The more you educate yourself about the law and your rights you decrease the likelihood that you will be victimized.
A castle doctrine is a legal concept that a person's home or any legally occupied place; a vehicle or workplace, that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force up to and including deadly force to defend themselves against an intruder.
The castle doctrine removes the duty to retreat when the victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home. Deadly force may be considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".
On Sunday, November 29th, a 13-year-old child was killed while trying to steal change from a car. Obviously, all the details are not known, but so far it doesn't seem as if the three kids, ages 11, 13 and 14 posed any type of danger to the person that shot and killed the 13-year-old.
Over the years, I have had cars stolen and broken into several times. My windows have been broken out at times simply for the change in an ashtray, I've had parts stolen from my vehicle including a radio and even my catalytic converter (part of the muffler system). As frustrating and upsetting as those events were, I did not then and still do not consider that theft worth someone's life.
As a society, we are placing too little value on life and seem to believe that making a bad decision or a very poor choice is an excuse to kill. The kids involved made very stupid choices and they should have known that they were placing themselves in danger by going into someone else's car, but should we authorize the death penalty for breaking into a car or even car theft.
That child's death is a tragedy and I would bet that the person if given a second chance, would choose not to pull the trigger. My heart goes out to both the family of the child who died and the 60-year-old man who shot the child. I'm certain he was devastated once he learned he had killed a 13-year-old child.
Hopefully, this situation will make thieves think twice before stealing and make people think before pulling the trigger over property. That vehicle could have been how the man made his living, making the car more valuable in his mind than for most. However, stealing from cars should not be punishable by death!
The primary purpose of the castle doctrine is to allow people to protect themselves from harm, not their property. Had the thieves not been kids, but armed criminals, the property owner may have been the one killed.
All kids have the potential to do stupid things and make bad choices. I made a bad decision in the past and I'm sure others reading this have as well.
In June 2015, the City of St. Louis announced that more homicide and gun possession cases would be turned over to federal prosecutors. This seemed to be an eerily familiar tactic of using demographics to covertly target a specific race for criminal prosecution and mass incarceration. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal criminal cases usually begin with Federal law enforcement, not state level police.
Missouri Constitution Changes
The Missouri Constitutional Amendment 5, which 60 percent of voters supported this summer, declares the right to keep and bear arms “unalienable” and subjects laws restricting gun rights to “strict scrutiny.”
See: Article I, Section 23, of the Missouri Constitution The measure amended Article 1, Section 23 to read as:
Section 23. "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction."
Residents now have the right to keep ammunition and accessories, as well as the right to defend their families with firearms — a right previously limited to defending home, property and person. The amendment also repeals wording that states that the right to bear arms does not justify carrying concealed weapons.
Lawmakers can still pass laws limiting the rights of convicted violent felons and people with mental illnesses.
Gun rights taken too far?
I legally own a gun, but I did not vote for the amendment, I believe the right to bear arms has been extended too far. When the right to bear arms was written into the constitution, the United States was still a frontier nation. Owning a gun for protection, hunting for food and fur were survival necessities. There was also a lack of organized law enforcement, so the citizens policed themselves. The newly formed nation was still in a state of war and an armed population was considered necessary for its defense.
Guns during the late 18th century usually only shot one round before having to be reloaded and it took considerable time and effort by today's standard. The revolver didn't exist until 50 years later and the Gatling gun, the first rapid fire gun came during the civil war. When the right to bear arms was included, Congress couldn't have conceived of the automatic and assault weapons easily available today. In the era of military drones, individuals being armed will do little against government tyranny.
Having the right to bear arms doesn't mean having the right to bear any type of weapon that exists. When someone starts manufacturing drone-mounted weapons, will Americans have a right to bear those as well? After all, drone weapons would make it easier for hunters to find and kill their prey.
I believe the right to bear arms as it currently exists is outdated and needlessly causes people to die. Gun rights including conceal and carry, make it more difficult for law enforcement to determine, who is carrying because of a legitimate sense of self-defense and who is carrying for criminal intent. If the only people allowed to carry weapons were law enforcement officers, by default, everyone else carrying weapons would be considered criminals.
It's harder to detect when someone has a gun for the wrong reason, people who should not have them can easily blend in with legitimate gun owners and that is where the danger lies. Legal gun ownership is the only reason there are so many illegal guns. People either steal legally obtain guns from others, or people purchase guns legally and sell them to others who intend to commit crimes with them.
Rights For All
However, since they do exist, those gun rights should apply to everyone equally. Selective Federal prosecution could result in a situation where certain groups of people are enjoying gun rights and others are denied that right. Just as the "War on Drugs" was unequally applied, it's easy to see how the practice of federally prosecuting gun crimes could be.
The race issue won't be just that the judge is going, "Oh, a black man, I'm gonna sentence you higher", the police will go into low-income minority neighborhoods and that's where they will make most of their gun possession arrests. If they arrest you, now you have a prior, so if you plead or get arrested again, you're gonna have a higher sentence. There's a kind of cumulative effect. The same thing happened during the "War on Drugs".
St. Louis prosecutors could seek prosecution in federal court in cases that otherwise would be tried in St. Louis Circuit Court, an area with substantial minority populations. Because the federal districts are much larger – they are made up of many counties – they are predominately white. Crimes that are usually prosecuted in state courts can be prosecuted in federal courts based on any “federal interest” such as a carjacking.
In the report, Racial Disparities in Federal Prosecution (PDF), the following was stated: "Unwarranted racial disparities in decision-making may result from outright conscious animus, including the use of race-neutral criteria (such as class or geography) as a pretext for impermissible consideration of race, or from unconscious racial stereotyping."
"One former U.S. Attorney explained the complicated relationship between federal prosecutors and local law enforcement, in which federal prosecutorial decisions may be influenced by the decisions of local agents: “Where [law enforcement] … wants to get a quick statistic is often where … the racial disparity occurs. It’s a lot easier to go out to the ’hood, so to speak, and pick somebody than to put your resources in an undercover [operation in a] community where there are potentially politically powerful people.”
War on Drugs
During the "War on Black People," disguished as a "War on Drugs", that began with Nixon, exploded under Reagan and continued under Bush and Clinton; a very expensive drug, originally considered the affluent drug of choice, cocaine, was used to create a new cheap substance called "crack" cocaine.
Crack Epidemic
Demographically, crack users were mostly black, powdered cocaine users were mostly white. One might wonder how the legal penalties for crack ended up being 100 times worse than powdered coke.
Congress had been whipped into a frenzy by the drug-related death of basketball star Len Bias, which led to an overhaul of drug laws. It was widely reported that Bias died from a crack overdose. During hearings on the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Congress heard bogus testimony from Johnny St. Valentine Brown, a narcotics cop who testified (with no actual evidence) that crack was 100 times worse and more addictive and damaging than regular cocaine.
Brown presented himself as an experienced narco-cop and a trained pharmacist, with several glowing letters of recommendation from important judges. Based on Brown's testimony, Congress included a 100:1 disparity in sentencing in crack vs coke, and it's widely seen as the first major push in the disastrous War on Drugs.
It was later discovered that Len Bias had actually died from regular cocaine, not crack. Years later in 2000, Brown plead guilty to perjury charges. Johnny St. Valentine Brown was convicted for lying about most of his credentials. He was never trained in pharmacology, and his recommendation letters were forgeries.
During his sentencing, Brown submitted several letters to the sentencing judge, in a bid for a more lenient sentence. After giving Brown a favorable sentence, the Judge contacted each of the letter-writers to thank them for interest in Brown's case. However, it was learned that Brown had counterfeited each of the letters and the supposed writers were "stunned" to learn of the forgeries. Brown was then charged with contempt of court and ordered to stand trial for the forgeries.
Heroin Epidemic
The fastest growing demographic of drug addicts are white communities. Suddenly instead of criminalizing drug use, now we want to treat it as a disease.
Instead of derogatory terms such as "crackhead", "abuser" and "junkie" to describe drug users when they were black; media now uses terms such as "chemically dependent", "psychological dependence on a drug" and "substance use disorder" to describe white drug addicts.
Drug addicts are now suddenly considered "patients" to be treated rather than "criminals" to be jailed. Below are some news articles announcing the demographics of heroin.
Unfortunately, black folks believed the lies that were told, were quick to jump on the "crack" bandwagon and agreed that tougher sentences for drug users were the right thing to do. Too bad a whole generation of black men were jailed, often without treatment before society determined drug addiction is more of a medical than a criminal condition.
Dual Sovereignty and Double Jeopardy
There's a fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy right? Yes, but there are exceptions. Under the right circumstances, you can be tried twice for the same crime!
Double jeopardy only applies to one jurisdiction at a time. A state government cannot bring a second prosecution against you for the same state crime once you've been acquitted. The same goes for the federal government regarding a federal offense. If the offense if both a state and federal crime, a person can be legally tried more than once for the same crime.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . ."The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:
retrial after an acquittal;
retrial after a conviction;
retrial after certain mistrials; and
multiple punishment
Dual Sovereignty allows the double prosecution of a person by more than one state for the same crime, where both states have jurisdiction for the prosecution, and notwithstanding the double jeopardy rule.
"The dual sovereignty doctrine is founded on the common-law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government. When a defendant in a single act violates the peace and dignity of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct offenses." Heath v. Alabama, 474 US 82 (1985).
The other issues become, if the Federal prosecution fails to secure a conviction, the City could then prosecute under Missouri's sovereignty rather than Federal. In United States v. Lanza, 260 US 377 (1922), in a case involving prosecution of liquor prohibition, the courts recognized the separate sovereignty of both state and Federal courts.
What to watch for
Watch to see who this tactic is used against. If it is only used against black defendants or mostly when the victim is white, that could indicate racial bias.
Prosecutors are afforded a great deal of power and are often consider the most powerful participant in the judicial process; so it's important to monitor the prosecutor's actions so you can make informed decisions during elections.
New Orleans Example
Federal prosecutors have repeatedly sought the death penalty in New Orleans, Richmond, St. Louis and Prince Georges County, Maryland, where African Americans make up the majority of the population in the county and the jury pools. The decision to prosecute federally in these jurisdictions alters the racial makeup of the jury pools from predominantly black to predominantly white. Those same federal prosecutors seldom seek the death penalty for crimes that occur in counties with largely white populations.
For example, the decision to federally prosecute three men for a murder that occurred during a bungled bank robbery in Orleans Parish in January of 2004, transformed the jury pool from one that was predominantly African American to a jury pool that was predominantly white. Indeed, ten of the jurors that sentenced John Wayne Johnson to death in that case were not from Orleans Parish, but from the white-flight parishes that gave rise to the election of white supremacist David Duke to the state legislature, the re-appearance of the Ku Klux Klan, and the appointment of a Justice of the Peace who refused to certify interracial marriages.
Black Prosecutors
St. Louis is roughly 48% black and 47% white according to the most recent census data, but the prosecutors of both the circuit and municipal court levels are white. Missouri county prosecutors are 99% white. There is only one black elected county prosecutor in the entire state; Shane Farrow in Moniteau County Missouri. Unfortunately, Mr. Farrow is being prosecuted himself for an accident that occurred, ironically in Columbia, MO, which recently gain national attention for racial discrimination.
Recent incidents in Ferguson, New York, Baltimore and most recently Columbia demonstrate the racial bias and divide that exist within our society. White prosecutors have historically been quicker to bring charges against black suspects, especially when the evidence may not be compelling. The said reality is that many low-income defendants, even those that are innocent, may plead guilty to avoid the possibility of longer sentences.
Kilwa Jones will be prosecuted in federal court for the robbery and shooting of Chris Sanna. Sanna was paralyzed when he was shot after leaving Busch Stadium with his girlfriend near the end of a Cardinals baseball game. Since the crime was committed on federal property, the prosecution can occur in federal court.
Let's not make the same mistake made during the "crack" frenzy. During my fifty years on Earth, I've lost family members and friends, including Lorenzo Rodgers, a St. Louis City Police Officer, to gun violence. I mentioned a retired army friend on a page concerning Uplands Park, MO; that friend was Lorenzo's cousin, which is how Lorenzo and I met.
Former police chief Clarence Harmon, then a Major, tried to recruit me to the department after Lorenzo's funeral. Had it not been for the fact that I had just attended my friend's funeral, I may have explored that option. I attended college with Harmon's son Steve, a retired police officer, and lawyer that announced in April that he might run for prosecutor.
I understand how enticing it can be to jump on the first available solution, but not a solution that does more harm than good. Let us not exchange "crack" with "gun possession" as the new mass incarceration tool. We shouldn't allow prosecutors to selectively prosecute.
Schoolyard fights now a felony.
Schoolyard fights now a felony.
