Mass Shootings, Gang Shootings, Police Shootings

Our recent spate of social tragedy has been visited upon our numbed citizenry by mental defectives, drug-gang members, and our entrusted law enforcement personnel.  While we have limited influence over the first two of these groups, the latter should be directly within our span of control.  We need to reform, at a federal level, a minimum set of standards for the use of lethal force by all law enforcement.  

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is an oft-quoted phrase in our Declaration of Independence. Those words outline three examples of the unalienable rights which the Declaration says have been given to all of us, and which governments have been created to protect.  Too often of late, we have seen where our sometimes-undertrained police personnel make tragic mistakes, over-react, or otherwise escalate a situation that might have been handled without the loss of life. 

Years of Police Shootings Make Headlines

As a country, we have been conditioned to accept a certain amount of violence.  We have lost respect for the sanctity of human life.  This is wrong.  Our law enforcement personnel should be trained to de-escalate situations and avoid the use of lethal force except to prevent further loss of life.  It should never be the first response to a stressful situation.

We rightly resolve most criminal enforcement of our laws within our states and local government jurisdictions.  This policy only becomes a problem when police actions, sometimes coupled with local politics, interfere with justice being served.  When lethal force is used against our citizens in an irresponsible manner, people may die unnecessarily, and sometimes those who die are just innocent bystanders.  Our citizens can too often become the victims of the “whoops-factor” of police mistakes, poor police training, and/or racial intolerance with little or no accountability.  This is wrong and can be addressed.

We don’t need to defund our police, in fact, the opposite of this may be true.  We need to perhaps spend a bit more and realign our priorities when it comes to police training, police policy, and the screening of current personnel and new hires.  Perhaps we should disarm some of our police force and put them into the communities to become a factor in preventing crime in the first place.

We have all seen evidence during our war on drugs, where police forces receive monetary windfalls through forfeiture or in response to terrorist activity and that money is spent on equipment and not training.  We see large purchases of armored personnel carriers, more powerful weaponry, larger SWAT units, and virtually anything that makes our civilian police forces look more like an army geared to attack a foreign enemy.  Couple this militant attitude with a few racists among the ranks of our police forces and you have a formula for disaster. 

Florida Highway Patrol vehicle at 2003 FTAA demonstration in Miami
(photo Jack Dallas)

When it comes to police policy, no officer should be tempted to draw a lethal weapon to control any criminal behavior that does not otherwise put lives in danger.  Traffic stops, serving arrest warrants, attempts to flee custody, etc., should not be cause for lethal force unless that action would risk other loss of life in a foreseeable manner. 

For a 26-year veteran police officer to yell, “Taser! Taser! Taser!” before drawing her actual firearm and firing one shot before screaming “Holy shit, I shot him,” is more than just a tragic mistake, it is an example of inadequate training.  Her muscle memory was more geared to drawing her lethal sidearm than her Taser.  Was Duante Wright at that moment an imminent threat to anyone?  Should even a Taser have been used in this situation?  Tasers are less-lethal, not non-lethal; (one in 400 may die from being Tasered).  If you watch the video of this incident, you will see that even the officer who held Mr. Wright’s hands behind his back didn’t know how to proceed and apply the handcuffs he was holding. 

I respect but do not envy the job of law enforcement.  Those jobs should be well-remunerated and only offered to those physically and mentally equipped to handle the task.  Train them, screen them, test them, and train them some more.  Reevaluate them on a regular basis.  We need to overhaul police training which currently emphasizes technical and tactical aspects of policing over mediation, problem-solving, and cultural competency.

The doctrine of qualified immunity that protects all government officials acting within the scope of their governmental duties, needs to be more qualified.  Too often that sense of immunity creates an atmosphere of shoot first and we will not be held accountable.

Protesting Qualified Immunity

Overhauling civil rights legislation to create federal standards for the use of lethal force by police against its citizens, should not be a partisan issue, but these days, everything is.  Life matters and the term Black Lives Matter should just be accepted as a rhetorical statement of fact.  The evidence shows that people of color are more likely to be the targets of police shootings when race population sizes are factored in.

Qualified Immunity defined

So, we have two issues that need to be addressed.  The first factor is that police shooting “accidents” happen far too often and the second being that these “accidents” happen to people of color disproportionate to their numbers.  How you explain that latter statistic, without considering an element of racism among the ranks of our police, escapes me.  Despite Sen. Tim Scott’s assurances last night after President Biden’s speech that, “America is not a racist country,” the only people who may believe this would have to be in medically induced comas or similarly indisposed.

I strongly support our local police forces, but I also recognize that their task is being made more difficult with poor training, a few “bad apples” slipping into their ranks, and an unclear message of when lethal force is justified.

There is an irony here in this police force being deployed
in front of the Torch of Friendship
(photo Jack Dallas, FTAA demonstration, Miami, 2003)

Police reforms, addressing qualified immunity, legislative changes to federal statutes, independent review panels, improved transparency, etc., are all easy to identify as necessary, but hard to enact as a matter of national policy.  If we haven’t been able to pass gun legislation to help curb access to guns by mental defectives in the 9 years since Adam Lanza killed 20 six and seven-year-old children, and eight adults at Sandy Hook, then police reforms seem like a long shot.  But being difficult is not a sign to stay silent on the matter.

Conservatives, WWW (What Went Wrong)

While the term conservative is almost synonymous with Republican politics in the U.S., beyond our borders it also has meaning. There was a time when the word conservative didn’t equate with being inconsiderate, unyielding, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, or evil. While there may be isolated examples of these traits on the liberal side of the fence, it seems that many conservatives almost relish such identification.

There was a time when I was able to identify with many conservative values. Smaller versus larger government would be one example. A balanced budget and fiscal responsibility would also be worthwhile goals. In the past, I have voted for Republican leaders. I think that Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and both Bushes were good Americans and, even if their decisions were many times flawed, they were basically good people doing what they felt was right for our country. Our recent White House occupant called himself a conservative, but he merely gave lip-service to conservative ideals for his own selfish purposes. Now, many who identified as conservative have adopted much of the evil that was hidden within the true heart of that false god.

The whole world would now seem to be going to Hell in a (conservative) handbasket. I was never sure what that original phrase meant exactly, but I’m getting nearer to understanding it. Globalization has brought us closer together, if not physically, at least ideologically. What impacts one area reverberates around the world and creates often profound changes in other locales. Our tolerance or intolerance for one another is amplified for better or worse by our new proximity. What may have existed in microenvironments elsewhere without acknowledgment, is now a factor in life within our own sphere of existence.

When intolerance of our fellow man raises its ugly head in latitudes and longitudes far away, that hatred seems to spread faster than the goodwill we might otherwise crave. Even if a majority of us are kind and good to one another, it seems that malevolence prevails among the shockwaves that ripple across our globe with devastating effects.

Two recent and unrelated stories from around our planet recently brought this concept into better focus. The first involves the small town of Krasnik, Poland. The religious conservatives of this small town of 32,000 souls, decided that their majority religious values were more important than the rights and views of a small minority of their other inhabitants. That minority was the LGBT community who were undoubtedly in their midst. Two years ago that community decided that they needed to be “free of LGBT” and accordingly passed a resolution to that effect. The resolution had no practical value aside from announcing that homophobia was alive and well in Krasnik.

Krasnik, Poland

The religious right was relieved with their pronouncement that their sense of morality would be declared to one and all and perhaps their route to heavenly glory would be assured. The net impact of their resolution was of no consequence to most Krasnikians (I’m guessing that's who they are) except for one Cezary Nieradko, a 22-year-old student who was the only openly gay resident of Krasnik. It seems the local pharmacist decided that the new resolution meant that Mr. Nieradko no longer was deserving of his heart medication. Not wanting to risk his life in this openly hostile town, he was forced to move to nearby Lublin where, although they too had an anti-LGBT resolution, they were at least a bit more open-minded.

This otherwise meaningless resolution would not have gotten much attention outside of Krasnik and those other similar homophobic Polish towns, but Poland is part of the European Union. Now it would appear that there is a price to pay. The European Union is committed to tolerance and equality and they too passed a different resolution declaring all 27 countries to be a “Freedom Zone.” Now, the otherwise meaningless resolution passed two years ago has financial consequences. Krasnik was to have received foreign funds for the financing of electric busses and some youth programs which were particularly important as young people were leaving in large numbers. That financial support has now been pulled.

For me, this religious commitment to a homophobic resolve exemplifies a worldwide dichotomy of values. In this instance, Poland is a Catholic nation and by some accounts from within that religion, as many as 40% of its priests are gay. (This figure came from an interview I watched of an openly gay Catholic priest who confirmed that he was regularly having relations with other Catholic priests and had been for many years.) You may debate this guesstimate of homosexual priests in the Catholic church, but most would agree that the figure is certainly not zero and perhaps could be higher than the number quoted.

Whatever your feelings on this particular matter, it should be safe to say that a majority of Krasnikians are intolerant of others in their midst who might be different. Whether or not this intolerance amounts to hatred or mere distrust, we have one group of people who hold their beliefs to be more important than the rights of others. If they would only look more closely at the teachings of their declared religion, they might just find a different answer.

As I mentioned early on, this analysis involves two seemingly unrelated stories. The second article that I ran across involved another group of conservatives that are so committed to their cause as to devote financial and personal resources to conservative issues in a manner most would find abhorrent.

This example is but one of many similar incidents but tells a story of conservative values running amuck. When your belief system involves controlling and bending others to your will with no regard for the rights, ideas, and feelings of others, you are no longer an individual with a righteous cause. You are a tyrant without a soul.

Enter one Pete Hatemi, a poly-sci professor at Penn State University. He received a request from a student that he become a faculty adviser for a conservative campus group. It was Mr. Hatemi’s policy to not get involved in student groups of any affiliation. He did a bit of research before he made his reply and found that the group calling itself Young Americans for Freedom was a national group with several chapters. They were self-declared white supremacists, believed QAnon conspiracy theories, and supported the KKK and the Proud Boys.

Professor Hatemi prepared his response. After declining their request he cautiously offered some advice questioning their timing (after the January 6th Capitol riots). He suggested that they reflect on “what you and your organization stand for.” Professor Hatemi didn’t know it but he had kicked the proverbial conservative hornet's nest. His response was taken out of context, rephrased and twisted, and published on a conservative website, Campus Reform. It was also distributed in The Federalist, The Blaze, and the Post Millennial conservative publications.

This opened the floodgates for hate mail and threats of violence directed at the professor and the university administration. It turns out that Campus Reform is published by the Leadership Institute, a forty-year-old nonprofit financed by billionaires like the Koch family. Over the years, Campus Reform has targeted hundreds of college professors with online harassment campaigns calling for their removal. This group also uses "doxxing," a term with which I was unfamiliar. The term came into being to describe the activities of hackers to publish private information with malicious intent.

Koch Brothers help fund attack news Campus Reform

Stories published in Campus Reform have been picked up by mainstream media like Fox News and Breitbart which further fans the flames of conservative faux-outrage. A 2020 review of Campus Reform showed that with 1,570 articles posted, they targeted 338 individuals. This study also revealed that 40% of these targets received “threats of harm” because of these articles. As might be assumed from this groups’ goals, Black professors were disproportionately targeted for their ire.

So, as conservatives continue to express outrage for the “cancel culture” of liberals, they too practice their own version of "cancel culture" to further their conservative goals. While I think much of the far-left cancel culture is over the top, the conservatives have taken this tool to a new level of absurdity.

If this were just some natural outpouring of student protest over deeply held beliefs, it might be seen as a mere consequence of our democratic freedom of speech; except of course the threats of violence and malicious harassment. The motivations here are however suspect. This is especially true when you find out that Campus Reform began a policy change about eight years ago when they tried to realign themselves as a “news” site. It was at this time the well-financed organization began paying for dirt.

They began recruiting student correspondents and would pay them $50 per story of any perceived “liberal misconduct” and $100 if the story included video or photos. They developed a tier reward system where correspondents could rise from bronze to silver status where they would be paid $75 per article. After 15 articles they would hit gold status and get paid $100 for each story. They could earn business cards, press passes, and a “blue check” on Twitter that lets people know your account is of public interest and authentic.

With the financial backing of our monied conservative oligarchy, Campus Reform could help like-minded “correspondents” become media stars with recommendation letters, mentorship opportunities, resume help, and a chance for their stories to go viral. The best of these could get on Tucker Carlson Tonight or Fox and Friends. One of the site’s more prolific writers published over 250 articles with a potential income value of over $26,000. Not bad for a working student with a laptop and an eye and ear for “liberal missteps.”

You can just imagine how creative conservative outrage can be when there is a financial incentive. If you think this is just some college hijinks, think again. Alyssa Johnson, an Asian American, once tweeted a response to an incoming student’s racial slur and was excoriated by Campus Reform. After an onslaught of threats, she was forced to leave her home. She had to erase her social media profiles, unplug her phone, and eventually had to relocate with her husband. While the police indicated the threats amounted to criminal behavior, she decided to avoid further confrontation. The conservative intimidation tactic had worked, Mrs. Johnson was silenced.

So, what do these two stories tell us about the “new conservatives” as I will label them? I refer to them as new because they certainly don’t resemble the conservatives of my youth. I see here two seemingly unrelated stories that expose the inherent evil that may be disguised with a cloak of apparent goodwill. Religion and patriotism are inherently good but to use them as weapons for evil, I find particularly reprehensible.

Perhaps the town of Krasnik will continue with its resolve to "be free of LGBT," lose their public transportation upgrade, lose their youth programs, and lose other possible investments when businesses don't find suitable workers. All of this because their youth have left for greener pastures in Warsaw. Their town may fade into obscurity and the problem of being kept free of LGBT will resolve itself.

While these two stories were not directly related, they highlight a few of the major flaws in the current conservative movement. Demonizing minorities and using lies and twisted truths to marginalize liberal ideals may work in the short run, but karma is a dish best served cold.

It is time for true conservatives to take back their party and bring about much-needed reform. Not all conservatives are QAnon supporting, Nazi-loving, racist, white supremacists, but there are enough of them in their ranks to spoil the entire barrel of apples. Perhaps it is time to heed the words of Professor Hatemi and reflect on “what you and your organization stand for.”

Mann and Morality

For those of us of a certain vintage who also happen to bear the curse of that pesky Y-chromosome, we all knew about the Mann Act. We didn’t know its fine legal details or history, we just knew that when you turned 18 it would be dangerous to “date” anyone younger. Eighteen was the magical birthdate where you became eligible to go to jail, old enough to get drafted and die for your country, but still too young to drink or vote. You didn’t know much at that age, but you understood that the consequences of “dating” a girl under 18 could be severe. The older you got beyond 18, the more you knew the dangers of that threshold. It was the law.

Back then, we had all heard of the problems faced by Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, and Elvis Presley, all of whom had relationships with young girls. Jerry Lee Lewis ended up marrying his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22. Elvis was 24 when he began dating 14-year-old Pricilla Beaulieu on a German army base. Chuck Berry was arrested under the Mann Act for transporting a 14-year-old runaway girl across state lines for immoral purposes while he was 33. Because of the racial double standard, Berry was imprisoned while Elvis remained free. Jerry Lee was ostracized by music buyers for a while, but he was supported by the girl’s family. I don't know if people were more upset with her age or the fact that she was his cousin.

Apparently, while the Mann Act existed for mere mortals, celebrities were governed by a different set of laws. Politicians of the day were not yet protected by celebrity; in fact, the opposite was true. Just a whiff of a scandal involving extramarital sex could be problematic and sex with a minor would sound the death knell for your political career.

It would now appear that, under the guidance of Donald Trump’s moral compass, a few of his political followers have strayed from course. These associates are about to get acquainted with that century-old law that clarifies, at the federal level, the wide disparity of rules within state regulations.
The Mann Act goes back to 1910 when, admittedly, our social mores were more onerous and constricting. It was also known as the White-Slave Traffic Act. This act made it a felony to transport any woman or girl across state lines for prostitution, “debauchery,” or immoral purpose. It was a broad and vague little piece of legislation and, until its clarification by way of amendments in 1978 and 1986, it was used to enforce whatever morality was in vogue.

Even after its amendments, it was still illegal to transport women for prostitution or “illegal acts.” While the original law was passed in the hysteria of xenophobia, particularly regarding the Chinese, and a fear of young girls being forced into prostitution by organized gangs of foreigners, its main use was to prevent sex with minors and to prevent Black men from having relations with White women. This latter “crime” was recently brought to light with Donald Trump’s pardoning of Jack Johnson, aka the Galveston Giant, a Black boxer, and the first-ever African American world heavyweight boxing champion. Mr. Johnson’s crime was that he was a successful Black man and married to a white woman. He was charged under the Mann Act and got a year in prison.

Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz is a major Donald Trump friend and supporter. He is currently under investigation for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old minor girl. Since he paid for her travel, the federal Mann Act can be used. Another Donald Trump supporter, Joel Greenberg is also under investigation for the sex trafficking of girls ages 14 to 17. Mr. Greenberg is friends with both Matt Gaetz and Trump's friend Roger Stone. Another Trump friend is currently on trial for sex trafficking of minors, Ghislaine Maxwell. She of course was the associate of Trump's friend Jeffrey Epstein also involved in the underage sex trade.

So, among personal friends of Donald Trump who have been charged or indicted for having sex with minors we now have Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Matt Gaetz, and Joel Greenberg. It must be pointed out here that Donald Trump has never been charged with sex with a minor as he has only bragged about his access to Miss Teen USA dressing rooms where girls were undressed because he could “get away with things like that.”
While I don’t think anyone mentioned above was unaware of the criminal nature of these offenses it is somewhat astonishing that they chose to ignore the risk. Perhaps the privilege of wealth will continue to protect them, excepting of course Jeffrey Epstein whose charges got “resolved” in an unpleasant fashion either at his own hand or with some assistance. Joel Greenberg is a particularly despicable character for many other reasons besides the sex trafficking of minors. I would think it likely that a jail cell will be in his future. Ms. Maxwell would also be a likely candidate for incarceration.

I don’t know if Matt Gaetz is guilty or innocent, but if being a major putz was a crime, he would be found guilty and sentenced to life without parole. It is noteworthy here that Matt Gaetz was the only representative in the House to vote against The Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act. That somehow seems odd, particularly in light of this recent investigation.

Just another note from my growing up. I was taught that you are known by the company you keep. I don’t have one friend or acquaintance who has been accused of a sex crime. Donald Trump seems to attract a different set of friends with standards that many would find despicable. If Donald Trump is the new Messiah sent by God, I would venture to say we are all in trouble. I think God is pissed off about something.