A husband and wife couple, who happened to be Muslim, killed 14 people and wound 22 during a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015, the deadliest such tragedy in three years.
Donald Trump has suggested banning Muslims from our country by spewing vicious propaganda in reaction to the shooting tragedy. Surprisingly 25% of surveyed Americans and 38% of GOP primary voters agree with him. Trump's rhetoric and ideology is reminiscent of "slavery back in effect".
One of this country's founding principles is freedom of religion, which is enshrined in the first amendment. Even if you dismiss that principal, the logic of Trump's proposal and those that agree with him is flawed.
Are all white people the same? Are all black people the same? Are all Christians the same? Are all Muslims the same?
The answer to all of those questions is NO!
People are individuals with individual characteristics. Even my two sons who live within the same household, raised by the same parents are as different as night and day. One is religious, the other not so much, one is athletic, the other not so much, one is small the other large, one is very social and outgoing, the other more reserved and quiet, one is silly the other one more serious and the list could go on and on. Of course, as I have mentioned before, they also have many similar traits such as intelligence, kindness, likability, being respectful, love of music, travel, family and friends and again the list could go on and on.
As of December 2nd, 353 mass shootings have killed 462 and wounded 1,317 people in 220 cities, according to the website shootingtracker.com. The majority of the shooters were Young White Christian Males rather than Muslim.
However, no one would dare suggest banning Christians or even profiling young White males. White privilege prevents most people from even considering the profiling of white males. But as soon as the perpetrator is someone other than White, the discussion changes and stereotypes and prejudices are introduced.
Whenever I hear a person make racist or derogatory statements against a whole group of people based on stereotypes, I realize that person probably expresses similar sentiments about the group I belong too. A person making generalized negative comments to me about one group is probably making negative comments about my group to others.
As expressed in an earlier post, "First They Came", once we allow the unreasonable exclusion or discrimination of one group, it makes it much more easier to discriminate against the next group. Eventually, the discrimination may reach you or one of your family members or friends. And if you don't speak up for others, you can't expect others to speak up for you.
Today the St. Louis Post Dispatch published, "Joe Holleman's list of the 10 best Christmas movies of all time". I couldn't help but notice not a single Black Christmas movie was listed. I'm not criticizing, Mr. Holleman, he has every right to his personal choices; and many of his choices were pretty good movies.
Since part of this site's mission is historical balance, I thought it might be good idea to list some Black Christmas movies. The last five movies are the actual full length movies, enjoy!
THE PREACHER’S WIFE (1997)
Good natured Reverend Henry Biggs finds that his marriage to choir mistress Julia is flagging, due to his constant absence caring for the deprived neighborhood they live in. On top of all this, his church is coming under threat from property developer Joe Hamilton. In desperation, Rev. Biggs prays to God for help – and help arrives in the form of an angel named Dudley.
LAST HOLIDAY (2006)
Upon learning of a terminal illness, a shy woman (Queen Latifah) decides to sell off all her possessions and live it up at a posh European hotel.
THIS CHRISTMAS (2007)
A Christmastime drama centered around the Whitfield family's first holiday together in four years.
THE BEST MAN HOLIDAY (2013)
When college friends reunite after 15 years over the Christmas holidays, they discover just how easy it is for long-forgotten rivalries and romances to be reignited.
BLACK NATIVITY (2013)
A street-wise teen from Baltimore who has been raised by a single mother travels to New York City to spend the Christmas holiday with his estranged relatives, where he embarks on a surprising and inspirational journey.
THE PERFECT HOLIDAY (2007)
A young girl turns to a department store Santa in the hopes that he will help find a new husband for her divorced mother.
A MADEA CHRISTMAS (2013)
Madea dispenses her unique form of holiday spirit on rural town when she's coaxed into helping a friend pay her daughter a surprise visit in the country for Christmas.
Dear Secret Santa (2013)
Beverly Hills banker/workaholic JENNIFER comes home to her small Northern California town just before Christmas when her dad, TED , takes a bad fall while putting up decorations. While home, Jenny begins getting romantic Christmas cards from an unknown admirer, who turns out to be her old neighbor and the unrealized love of her life, JACK. There's just one problem- Jack died in a car accident three years ago.
HOLIDAY HEART (2000)
A drag queen takes in a drug addict and her daughter and helps raise the daughter.
THE KID WHO LOVED CHRISTMAS (1990)
A Chicago jazz musician seeking to adopt a young boy after his wife is killed in a car accident has to deal with a large amount of conflict with those who could approve the adoption, along with an offer to play in New Orleans.
A DREAM FOR CHRISTMAS (1973)
Click image to watch movie
A Southern minister is assigned to a poor church in California where the congregation is drifting away and the church itself is scheduled for demolition.
A DIVA’S CHRISTMAS CAROL (2000)
When an ego-driven superstar (Vanessa L. Williams) loses her holiday spirit, the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future visit her.
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality". – – Desmond Tutu
First they came for Black men, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not Black.
Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.
"First they came …" is a famous statement and provocative poem written by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following text as one of the many poetic versions of the speech:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
White Lives Matter Too!
A White man died from injuries suffered while in St. Louis City jail. The homeless man was arrested for trespassing. The man's mother believes police beat her son and told a reporter that she and family members were shocked when they saw Gilbert’s body at the morgue. “He’s black and blue and swollen all over,” she told a reporter Wednesday. “It just blew our mind when they pulled the curtain back. I wanted them to pull the sheet further down because we wanted to see his full body. They killed our kid. My husband went nuts. We knew immediately that this was no head injury or wrestling around — no, they beat him.”
During an event that took place earlier this year in Washington, MO, a White man was tasered while handcuffed, but in his case the incident was captured on video. The police officer has since been fired and Washington, MO paid an undisclosed amount in settlement of a lawsuit.
People and organizations such as Black Lives Matter are not imagining police brutality, it does happen. It's just a matter of time before the injustices people remain silent about, visits them. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
The St. Louis City Police Department announced today; they will begin a body camera pilot program. Only a few officers will have them, so I expect videos will often be unavailable when the situation is questionable. However, I expect to see many videos that prove the suspect's guilt.
With controversial St. Louis City police shooting deaths since Michael Brown including Kajieme Powell, Vonderritt Myers, Isaac Holmes and Mansur Ball-Bey, there's no viable reason why officers shouldn't have body cameras. The only legitimate privacy concern is when an officer enters a private residence or any other non-public location. In public spaces, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there is no expectation of privacy, so there is no valid reason not to require body cameras, other than to shield officers and the City from accountability.
Police officers provide a very important and necessary function including public safety. They are authorized by law to use deadly force and there should be some protections built is to make sure that deadly force is absolutely necessary. Even when police officers use excessive force unless there's a video is involved, the police officer's version is never questioned, until video surfaces.
The average person is a decent law abiding person, but criminal laws exist against theft, robbery, rape, murder and a host of other crimes. Those laws don't exist because every person is expected to commit crimes, they exist because some people do. We don't need body cameras because all police officers are rogue or corrupt, we need them because some are.
As I've expressed many times before, I believe most police officers are hard working and honest with an extremely stressful and dangerous job to do. However, unchecked power is dangerous. The "founding fathers" understood that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". The authorized unquestioned use of deadly force is absolute power!
Since a technology exist that allows checks and balances on the use of police force, it should not be a contract bargaining issue. I can think of no other circumstance where an employee is allowed to dictate to his employer what type of equipment will or won't be used in the performance of their duties unless it involves some sort of safety issue. In this instance safety is involved; those of both the police officer and the public.
Police lives matter too
Body cameras protect police officers too! Many suspects will be more aware that their actions are being recording which should result in reduce resistance; because it will be much easier to prove and charge resisting arrest. The videos will often exonerate police officers in situations such as Elkhart, TX.
A 24-year-old rookie St. Louis city police officer was shot Sunday, November 22nd and, fortunately, a suspect was quickly caught. I'm happy they caught the person allegedly responsible, but that is what I expect. I can't recall many crimes when a police officer is a victim, where no suspect is caught. I'm certain it happens, but those instances are most certainly exceptions rather than the rule. Body camera video will help get convictions.
I have friends who are or were police officers and even some of them have expressed frustration with other police officers. Below, three black St. Louis police officers describe their experiences with white officers on the Jamie Allman Report.
One of my friends was killed when he was only 23. His funeral was attended by what seemed to be every police officer in the city and police officers from various departments blocked traffic and lined the route to the cemetery. I was reminded of him on November 22nd and I'm glad his family didn't experience what my friend did. I wonder if body cameras would have made a difference in my friend's case. Maybe the suspect wouldn't have been so quick to pull the trigger, knowing his actions were being recorded.
Another friend was severely burned while responding to a domestic situation. A flammable substance was thrown at him and ignited and my friend's shirt, which was mostly synthetic, melted onto his skin resulting in severe burns over most of his upper body. St. Louis City police uniforms were changed as a result of that incident. Flame and heat resistant materials were used to better protect officers. I doubt that a body camera would have prevented my friend injury, but body camera will make it much easier to get convictions and longer sentences for these types of acts.
Television's Judge Joe Brown, who served a five day prison sentence this summer, stated that jails are slave warehouses. Brown was found in contempt when he reportedly became verbally abusive to court workers and ignored Juvenile Court Magistrate Harold Horne's warning to calm down. Watch the video of his comments concerning that incident on our corrupt judges page.
During an interview he presented a very interesting take on mass incarceration. He acknowledges systemic racism and discrimination while finding many of the victims of mass incarceration complicit in there own destruction. Brown points out that most people in jail did it to themselves by pleading guilty, most likely because of plea bargains. He touches on Ferguson, Black Lives Matter, and Blacks not exercising political power correctly
He invoked W.E.B. Du Bois' talented tenth concept and expressed the view that part of the problem is that many of the most talented people in the black community do give back and are only concerned only about themselves.
Today mark the 60th anniversary of the spark that ignited the the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the civil rights protest movement.
On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order to give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled. Parks was not the first person to resist bus segregation.
Rosa Louise McCauley Parks, February 4, 1913 – October 24, 2005, was known as "the first lady of civil rights" and "the mother of the freedom movement". Parks' act of defiance and the Montgomery Bus Boycott became important symbols of the modern Civil Rights Movement. She became an international icon of resistance to racial segregation.
Rosa Parks – Quiet Revolutionary – The Documentary
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.
Like millions of other Americans, I will sit down and enjoy a hearty Thanksgiving meal and count my blessings; but in the back of my mind will sit the irony and hypocrisy of the celebration.
Most of us were taught an incomplete, if not inaccurate, portrayal of the first Thanksgiving, particularly of the event’s Native American
participants. History of the Thanksgiving holiday often sugar coats crimes committed against Natives by British and American white men in order to protect their image. The American Indians are oftentimes depicted as 'ignorant' and 'non civilized' in order to excuse any wrongdoing in by European invaders.
As a child, I didn't know any Indians, and I certainly didn't understand that the name "Indian" was based on a Columbus' mistake; thinking he had reached India when he had actually reached the Caribbean. Sadly, the images I saw on television is how I thought of Indians during my childhood, now I know better.
Unfortunately, African Americans have endured the same sort of irony, hypocrisy, negative depiction and imagery as Native Americans. Many white people in this country do not have regular contact with black people, so television often forms their opinion of who were are.
Fairy Tale Myth
The myth usually goes a little something like this:
Pilgrims came to America, in order to escape religious persecution in England. Living conditions proved difficult in the New World, but thanks to the friendly Indian, Squanto, the pilgrims learned to grow corn, and survive in unfamiliar lands. It wasn’t long before the Indians and the pilgrims became good friends. To celebrate their friendship and abundant harvest, Indians in feathered headbands joined together with the pilgrims and shared in a friendly feast of turkey and togetherness. Happy Thanksgiving. The End.
From this account, the unsuspecting child might assume a number of things. First, they may assume that pilgrims merely settled the New World, innocently, and as a persecuted people, they arrived to America with pure and altruistic intentions. Second, children might assume, and rightfully so, that Indians and pilgrims were friends, and that this friendship must have laid the framework for this “great American nation.”
Most history books portrayed Native Americans at the gathering as supporting players. They are depicted as nameless, faceless, generic “Indians” who merely shared a meal with the intrepid Pilgrims. The real story is much deeper, richer, and more nuanced. The Indians in attendance, the Wampanoag, played a lead role in this historic encounter, and they had been essential to the survival of the colonists during the newcomers’ first year.
Betrayal and Genocide
So let’s take a look at a different version of history; a fuller version:
One day, the Wampanoag people of the Eastern coast of the Americas noticed unfamiliar people in their homelands. These unfamiliar people were English pilgrims, coming to a new land which they dubbed “America,” in order to settle and create a new life.
The Wampanoag were initially uneasy with the settlers, but they eventually engaged in a shaky relationship of commerce and exchange. Also, in observing that the pilgrims nearly died from a harsh winter, the Wampanoag stepped in to help.
The Wampanoag chief, Massasoit, eventually entered into agreements with the pilgrims, and, on behalf of the Wampanoag Nation, decided to be allies while each nation coexisted in the same space together. At one time, the Wampanoag and pilgrims shared in a meal of wildfowl, deer, and shellfish.
After Massasoit’s death, the Wampanoag nation became weakened as a result of disease contracted from the English. It wasn’t long before the pilgrims began tormenting surrounding tribes, burning entire villages to the ground, while indigenous men, women, and children lie sleeping.
Uneasy with the growing cruelty, greed, and arrogance of the new people in their homelands, the Wampanoag began to distrust the pilgrims. The pilgrims soon demanded that the Wampanoag submit to them, and give up all their weapons.
Shortly after, the pilgrims and Wampanoag were at war, and in the end, the pilgrims rose victorious. At the close of the war, the Wampanoag were nearly decimated, and the son of Chief Massasoit, Metacom, was killed by the pilgrims, dismembered, beheaded, and his head impaled on a spear outside of Plymouth. Metacom’s young son was sent to the West Indies as a slave, along with numerous other Wampanoag and surrounding tribes.
A day of Thanksgiving was declared, and to celebrate, the pilgrims kicked the heads of dead Indigenous peoples around like soccer balls.
As indigenous nations throughout America were continually betrayed by European settlers, killed by disease, germ warfare, hunted for bounties, sent overseas as slaves, and ultimately pushed out of their homelands and onto prison camps (now commonly known as reservations), few survived the depressing conditions. As a result of centuries of historical trauma, indigenous nations today have staggering rates of depression, mental health disparities, suicide, and deaths due to alcohol and drugs. Indigenous people continue to struggle to cope with historical trauma, and heal deeply imbedded wounds which stem directly from colonialism.
The Wampanoag were a people with a sophisticated society who had occupied the region for thousands of years. They had their own government, their own religious and philosophical beliefs, their own knowledge system, and their own culture. They were also a people for whom giving thanks was a part of daily life.
Like the Wampanoag, thousands of Native American nations and
communities across the continent had their own histories and
cultures. Native Americans have lost almost everything– their ancestral lands, dignity, and even their culture.
Before the Wampanoags met the English colonists, they
had interacted with other Native people politically,
socially, culturally, and economically. They had exchanged
goods and materials, as well as foods, food technologies, and
techniques for hunting, gathering, and food preparation. So when
the Wampanoag came into contact with the English, they already
had a long history of dealing with other cultures.
The first interaction with the Wampanoags in 1620
enabled the English colony’s survival. Although the English were
interlopers, the Wampanoags shared their land, food, and
knowledge of the environment. Early cooperation and respect
between the two groups were short-lived, however, as
white settlers wanted to expand their land holdings. This would be the history of most relationships between Natives and non-Natives for the next two hundred years.
Even so, Native American contributions continued to be
essential to the survival of Europeans. If not for the generosity
and knowledge of the Native peoples who met the explorers
Lewis and Clark during their travels in the Northwest from
1804 to 1806, their expedition probably would have ended in
disaster.
Ultimately, Native encounters with Europeans resulted
in the loss of entire Native communities, traditional ways of life,
indigenous knowledge, and access to foods that had sustained
Native people for thousands of years. War, genocide, disease,
dispossession of lands, and deceitful federal policies
profoundly affected American Indian communities and their
environments.
While glossing over the very real consequences of colonialism, the mythical version of Thanksgiving creates a fairytale of land theft, betrayal, brutality, and genocide, virtually functioning to erase the very real and traumatic experiences of entire indigenous nations. This phenomena of whitewashing and outright erasure of indigenous history, in many instances, is not only inhumane and oppressive to the indigenous people, but it is also unfair to all Americans who stand to learn from rich and equally tragic history.
Without question, colonialism is great for the colonizer, and disastrous for the colonized. Colonization reduces entire populations, and leaves generational wounds that linger stubbornly for centuries. This is a lesson that all Americans must heed.
As a result of propagating the mythical version of Thanksgiving, American children and adults alike, become confused about history, and moreover the Thanksgiving lie outright prevents a collective American understanding of the contemporary struggles of Native American people today.
Excerpts from an Indian Country article were used in this post.
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.
Are black people in American suffering from a collective unrecognized and untreated mental disease caused by slavery, reinforced by Jim Crow and perpetuated by institutionalized racism?
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
After years of continuous war, most of us are familiar with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). When in danger, it’s natural to feel afraid. This fear triggers many split-second changes in the body to prepare to defend against the danger or to avoid it. This “fight-or-flight” response is a healthy reaction meant to protect a person from harm. But in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), this reaction is changed or damaged. PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as mugging, rape, torture, being kidnapped or held captive, child abuse, car accidents, train wrecks, plane crashes, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes.
Stockholm Syndrome
During a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.
This phenomenon has come to be known as Stockholm syndrome, a psychological disorder in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness. A similar psychological trait may lie behind battered-wife syndrome, military basic training and fraternity hazing.
Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome
Sister Souljah's original intro to her 1995 recording, "Final Solution: Slavery Back in Effect", which imagines a police state where blacks fight the re-institution of slavery, stated:
If your white great-great grandfather
KILLED my great-great grandfather
And your white great grandfather
SOLD my great grandfather
And your white grandfather
RAPED my grandmother
And your father stole, cheated, lied and ROBBED my father What kind of fool would I have to be to say,
“Come, my friend!” to the white daughter and son?
What happens to a group of people when they have been subjected to more than two centuries of slavery, another century of slavery by another name, and then a half century of institutional prejudice and oppression?
Dr. Joy de Gruy Leary makes a compelling argument, which is roughly a connection between PTSD and Stockholm Syndrome to explain some behaviors of Black Americans who have suffered almost 400 years of trauma under slavery, Jim Crow, systemic racism and negative media imagery.
