Black Strawboss NYC Mayor to Involuntarily Remove Mostly Black Mentally Ill People From the Streets and Force Them Into Hospital Prisons. Is this Black Power?

From [HERE] Acting to address “a crisis we see all around us” toward the end of a year that has seen a string of high-profile crimes involving homeless people, Mayor Eric Adams announced a major push on Tuesday to remove people with severe, untreated mental illness from the city’s streets and subways.

Mr. Adams, who has made clearing homeless encampments a priority since taking office in January, said the effort would require involuntarily hospitalizing people who were a danger to themselves, even if they posed no risk of harm to others, arguing the city had a “moral obligation” to help them.

“The common misunderstanding persists that we cannot provide involuntary assistance unless the person is violent,” Mr. Adams said in an address at City Hall. “Going forward, we will make every effort to assist those who are suffering from mental illness.”

The mayor’s announcement comes at a heated moment in the national debate about rising crime and the role of the police, especially in dealing with people who are already in fragile mental health. Republicans, as well as tough-on-crime Democrats like Mr. Adams, a former police captain, have argued that growing disorder calls for more aggressive measures. Left-leaning advocates and officials who dominate New York politics say that deploying the police as auxiliary social workers may do more harm than good.

Other large cities have struggled with how to help homeless people, in particular those dealing with mental illness. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a law that could force some homeless people with disorders like schizophrenia into treatment. Many states have laws that allow for involuntary outpatient treatment, and Washington State allows people to be committed to hospitals if a judge finds that they pose a threat to themselves or others.

Officials in New York said the city would roll out training immediately to police officers, Emergency Medical Services staff and other medical personnel to “ensure compassionate care.” But the city’s new directive on the policy acknowledges that “case law does not provide extensive guidance regarding removals for mental health evaluations based on short interactions in the field.”

The policy immediately raised questions about who, exactly, would be swept up in it, and some advocates for people with mental illness warned it could face legal challenges.

Existing state laws allow both the police and medical workers to take people involuntarily to a hospital when their behavior poses a threat of “serious harm” to themselves or others. Brendan McGuire, chief counsel to the mayor, said on Tuesday that workers would assess people in public spaces “case by case” to see whether they were able to provide basic needs such as food, shelter and health care for themselves.

The city directive states that “unawareness or delusional misapprehension of surroundings” or “delusional misapprehension of physical condition or health” could be grounds for hospitalization.

The effort will also involve an increase in the use of Kendra’s Law, which lets courts mandate outpatient treatment for those who are a danger to themselves or others and which was expanded by Albany lawmakers in April.

Frequently, homeless people with severe mental illness are brought to hospitals, only to be discharged a few days later when their conditions improve slightly. Mr. Adams said the city would direct hospitals to keep those patients until they are stable and discharge them only when there is a workable plan in place to connect them to ongoing care.

Hospitals often cite a shortage of psychiatric beds as the reason for discharging patients, but the mayor said that the city would make sure there were enough beds for people who were removed from the street. He noted that Gov. Kathy Hochul had agreed to add 50 new psychiatric beds. “We are going to find a bed for everyone,” Mr. Adams said

The number of homeless people with severe mental illness who do not live in shelters is, at the very least, in the hundreds. According to the Coalition for the Homeless, an advocacy group, studies have shown that a large majority of unsheltered New Yorkers have mental illness or other severe health problems. About 3,400 people were living in streets and subways in January, according to an annual estimate that is often criticized as an undercount.

Since the pandemic, a series of random attacks in the streets and subways has left many New Yorkers feeling that the city has become more unpredictable and dangerous. .

Crime has increased sharply in the subways this year, and the mayor said last month, “When you do an analysis of the subway crimes, you are seeing that it’s being driven by people with mental health issues.” [MORE]

BOHICAN Hakeem Jeffries is "Pro-Black" So Long as that Means 2) Having No Black Agenda or Black Messaging, 2) Parroting and Doing Whatever Elite White Liberals Say and 3) Being Pro-IsrAlien Genocide

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:

BOHICAN – Bend Over Here It Comes Again Negro. Sniggers are the last of the buck-dancing Bohicans. “I am the last of the Bohicans,” he said, “…and I will never be broken. I am the last and worst of my breed—and the final token.” (See: Snigger, Coin-Operated, Samboism, Uncle Tom, Possumist, Turdistan, Piece-Activist, Niggeroe & GOP)

From [HERE] Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York Wednesday became the first Black leader of either major political party in Congress. House Democrats voted unanimously for him to succeed Nancy Pelosi as leader of the House Democrats, and Jewish leaders and pro-Israel groups welcomed their choice. 

The Democratic Majority for Israel called him “a staunch supporter of the critical relationship between the United States and Israel” and the American Jewish Congress noted that Jeffries “has shown himself to be a determined supporter of the Jewish people — one who has never hesitated to call out antisemitism and all those seeking to harm Jews.” 

In a news conference after the caucus vote, Jeffries said Democrats, who will be in the minority beginning in January, will “push back against extremism whenever necessary.”

The ascension of Jeffries, 52, to a top leadership position was swift. Following his election to Congress in 2012, when he defeated an anti-Israel candidate, Jeffries — a lawyer who had represented Brooklyn in the New York State Assembly and worked at the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison — was immediately deemed a rising star by party leaders. 

During that first Congressional campaign, Jeffries was compared to former President Barack Obama, who wowed the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and became president just two years after he won his Senate seat in Illinois

Black Hyundai Executive Suing, Claiming Racism, Retaliation

From [HERE] A former Hyundai executive at the automaker’s Montgomery plant has filed a federal lawsuit, claiming she was fired from her position after being singularly excluded from leadership, with her position diminished because of racism.

Yvette Gilkey-Shuford, who said she was previously the top ranked female and Black executive at the auto factory until her position was terminated in June, earlier filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Her lawsuit was filed today in U.S. District Court for Alabama’s middle district. She is suing for compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and lost benefits.

In a statement, Robert Burns, vice president of human resources & administration at Hyundai Motors Manufacturing Alabama, said the company “respectfully disagrees with the claims outlined by the former employee. The claims will be vigorously defended with information presented during the litigation process.

“HMMA provides a workplace free of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, national origin or ancestry, citizenship status, physical or mental disability, genetic information, veteran status, uniformed service member status or any other status protected by federal, state or local law,” Burns said.

According to the suit, Gilkey-Shuford worked for Hyundai for 19 years, eventually becoming Director of Administration in 2018. Yet she claims upon assuming the position, she found her responsibilities diminished and was the lowest paid director.

Fourth Circuit Says Infrequent but Repeated Comments Can Create a Hostile Working Environment Based on Race

From [HERE] Over the past decade or so, the Fourth Circuit has gone from requiring a very high demonstration of racially motivated behavior to a standard that allows claims to go to trial based on a considerably lower level of conduct. This pattern continued earlier this week when the court reversed a grant of summary judgment against an employee who alleged that she had been subjected to a sporadic series of racial comments and behavior over a long period of time.

In Laurent-Workman v. Wormuth, the plaintiff was a civilian Department of the Army employee who alleged that she had been exposed to a race-based hostile work environment. She claimed that a white co-worker made several comments disparaging African Americans during the course of her employment. She also alleged that her supervisors ignored her complaints about this behavior, and later retaliated against her. The district court dismissed the claims, concluding that the plaintiff’s allegations of sporadic comments over an extended period of time did not constitute a severe and pervasive hostile work environment based on race.

The Fourth Circuit reversed this decision with the exception of a portion of her retaliation claim, remanding the case for a jury trial. The court noted that in order to reach the threshold for a racially hostile work environment, plaintiffs are not required to show that they were exposed to daily conduct. The court also allowed the case to go to trial despite the fact that the alleged comments made by the plaintiff’s co-worker were general comments about African Americans and were not personally directed at her.

This decision is consistent with the Fourth Circuit’s long-term trend of relaxing the factual and legal standard necessary for plaintiffs to prove hostile environment racial harassment. Employers faced with such suits cannot expect federal courts to dismiss claims on the basis that the racially motivated conduct was upsetting but not severe enough to constitute a hostile working environment. These decisions make it more important than ever for employers to conduct training covering all types of harassment and to enforce their anti-harassment policies when complaints are received from employees.

White SAPD Officer Indicted for Attempted Murder, Assault. Cop Wrongly Believed Parked Car was Stolen and Wildly Opened Fire on a Latino Teen. Continued to Shoot as the Boy Fled and Posed No Threat

From [HERE] A white San Antonio police officer has been indicted on attempted murder and assault charges after he shot an unarmed 17-year-old in a McDonald's parking lot in October, prosecutors announced Thursday.

A grand jury handed down the indictment for James Brennand, a San Antonio Police officer. He is charged with one count of attempted murder and two counts of aggravated assault, Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales told reporters. The police apparently fired the cop due to the shooting.

"Justice means making sure that man never works as a member of law enforcement, making sure that that man never has a gun and a badge," Gonzales said. [what difference, if he is easily replaceable with another person with the right to attack people in unprovoked situations?]

Erik Cantu was eating a meal in his parked car outside a McDonald's on October 2 when Brennand approached the vehicle, thinking it was a car that had previously evaded him, according to police. Usually cops check tags to make sure the car is the same - unless it’s driven by a non-white person. Body camera footage shows Brennand opened the door, and a visibly startled Cantu backed up and started to drive away with another passenger inside. Brennand fired his weapon 10 times at the car.

Cantu was critically injured with wounds to vital organs and spent nearly eight weeks in the hospital. His family announced his release last week, saying he still has a long road of recovery ahead. He sustained injuries to his stomach, diaphragm, lungs, liver, bicep and forearm.

“He is cut from the center of his chest down to his stomach, has staples, tubes in his mouth, tubes in his sides,” Cantu Sr. said previously.

It was also revealed that Cantu Jr. had a tracheotomy. Casarez previously stated her son still has a bullet lodged near his heart and said it would do more harm than good to remove it. It’s unclear if that’s still the case.

He is represented by Atty Ben Crump in a civil case.

Brennand was fired from the San Antonio Police Department days after the shooting. Just over a week after the incident, he turned himself in to police and was arrested on two counts of aggravated assault by a public servant -- one for each passenger. He was released from custody after posting $100,000 bond for each count, the Bexar County Sheriff's Office said.

San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said at the time of the arrest, "There is no question in anybody's mind looking at that (body camera) video that the shooting is not justified."

The police chief has said Brennand's actions violated the department's policies against shooting at moving vehicles.

Each count of aggravated assault Brennand faces carries a sentence of five to 99 years, and the attempted murder charge added by the grand jury carries a sentence of two to 20 years.

Asked if he'll be seeking the maximum penalty, Gonzales said, "The maximum punishment appears to be appropriate."

"Rights" or Favors from Master? Video Shows White Cops Drag a Black Woman Out of a Car to Force Her Do Field Sobriety Tests, which are Voluntary for WF in Kansas City, a liberal City

OUT OF YOUR CAR NGHR. WE NEED TO TRY TO GET EVIDENCE OF YOUR IMPAIRMENT SINCE WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TO ARREST RIGHT NOW. From [HERE] An Independence police dashboard camera captured the October arrest of a local neighborhood leader who claims she was racially profiled. Rachel Riley was pulled over on Oct. 4 by Officer Brett Schmidli after she allegedly crossed railroad tracks as the safety arms were lowering. The 57 year old has served as president of Kansas City’s East 23rd St. Pac Neighborhood Association for eight years. She’s been involved with the organization for two decades.

Kansas City is a city dominated by white liberal politics. The black votary loves white liberals.

Earlier this month, Riley said she was racially profiled and organized a protest in front of the police department. Attendees then marched across the street to Independence’s municipal court where she had a hearing on the traffic citation and a charge of interfering with police. The video shows Schmidli order her out of the truck so he can check her eyes for impairment. Riley asks for a sergeant.

White liberal reporters, who believe and parrot whatever cops says, omitted: Generally, a driver is not required to partake in a field sobriety test and may refuse to do so. Keep in mind that this is different from refusing to submit to a breath or blood test.

“I fear for my safety,” she says. He then opens the driver’s side door. “Don’t pull me out of the car,” she says. He grabs Riley out of the vehicle and she is handcuffed. As she is being walked to the patrol car, she accuses him of being racist. They go out of view of the video, but Riley can be heard saying, “Why are you manhandling me? Why are you harassing me?” She was taken to jail. Riley said the encounter left her traumatized.

John Picerno, a white Kansas City criminal defense lawyer, said if police make a valid car stop, an officer has the right to ask you to exit the vehicle and you must comply.

Correct; you maintain your freedom through obedience to mindless authority [on a content free basis do whatever you are told] in the free range prison - Otherwise you will be subject to the force continuum. No person can disobey authority - it is supreme above all human affairs in barbaric societies. In reality, your so-called “rights” are actually favors subject to the approval of your public masters, who provide a mandatory public “service” that cannot be declined. Authorities are superhuman individuals or persons given special, greater powers to rule over people.

To be clear, all persons have the natural right to defend themselves and come to the defense of others if they believe another person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. Private security workers and guards also work under said natural law.

In contrast, police officers also have the extra or additional “power” to act offensively as aggressors; the right to attack people or initiate unprovoked acts of violence against people whenever they deem it necessary. Police are said to have such powers when they are acting on behalf of “authority.” As such, police are lawfully empowered to attack (make arrests) people, touch them against their will, assault them, interfere with freedoms in many ways, kidnap people (detain and transport) or imprison them. In turn, “citizens” are said to have a moral and legal obligation to obey police commands and have no right to even resist an unlawful arrest in most states.

The problem is that there is no rational basis for authority. Authority, the basis for all governments and rulership, is a farce. Government “authority” can be summed up as the implied right to rule over people. It is the government’s ability and moral right to forcibly control citizens, its right to be obeyed and the citizen’s corresponding moral and legal obligation to obey.’ Authority requires that government’s laws, commands and orders to be obeyed on a content-neutral basis (regardless of whether they agree or not.) [MORE] Michael Huemer defines political authority as “the hypothesized moral property in virtue of which governments may coerce people in certain ways not permitted to anyone else and in virtue of which citizens must obey governments in situations in which they would not be obligated to obey anyone else.” Said hypothesized moral property makes government the supreme authority over human affairs.

Authority has no meaning in reality because it does not come from people nor is it derived from any natural source. All governmental power allegedly comes exclusively from the people. Citizens delegate their individual power to government and it’s representatives for them to represent citizens. Such representation works much in the same way agents represent their principals in all kinds of business or other contractual relationships. For instance, a manager at McDonalds represents the owner of McDonalds when she carries out the owners business everyday ordering inventory and hiring workers, etc. She is the agent, the owners are the principals. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her. For instance, you grant the babysitter access and power to use your living room but not the basement. And it goes without saying that an agent cannot have more power than the principal because all said power originated exclusively from the principal.

Inexplicably, the government has granted itself the authority to do things that no individual could do. While citizens have the inalienable right to act in self-defense or come to the defense of others, citizens have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on other people and no right to forcibly control other people. As such, it is logically impossible for citizens to delegate the right to forcibly control others to the government - because citizens cannot possibly delegate rights that they don’t have. In other words, if you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then you cannot delegate or authorize anyone else acting on your behalf to do so. Clearly for example, your neighbor has no right to stop, search and detain you and put you into handcuffs, kidnap you and lock you in a basement for failing to comply with one his commands. So, how could your neighbor delegate a government representative the power to do so?

Larken Rose explains, ‘in the case of “government,” the people whom the politicians claim to represent have no right to do anything that politicians do: impose “taxes,” enact “laws,” etc. Average citizens have no right to forcibly control the choices of their neighbors, tell them how to live their lives, and punish them if they disobey, So when a “government” does such things, it is not representing anyone or anything but itself.’ As stated, it is a logical and legal impossibility for a representative to have more power than the person he is representing. Larken Rose explains, “you can’t give someone something you don’t have.” There is nothing complicated about this. Rose states;

“Despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations, all modern belief in “government” rests on the notion that mere mortals can, through certain political procedures, bestow upon some people various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with. The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. There is no ritual or document through which any group of people can delegate to someone else a right which no one in the group possesses. And that self-evident truth, all by itself, demolishes any possibility of legitimate “government.”

Rose explains if those in “government” have only those rights possessed by those who elected them, then “government” loses the one ingredient that makes it “government”: the right to rule over others (”authority”). If it has the same rights and powers as everyone else, there is no reason to call it “government.” If the politicians have no more rights than you have, all of their demands and commands, all of their political rituals, “law” books, courts, and so on, amount to nothing more than the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis. Nothing they do can have any legitimacy, any more than if you did the same thing on your own, unless they somehow acquired rights that you do not have. And that is impossible, since no one on earth, and no group of people on earth, could possibly have given them such superhuman rights.” [MORE]

Just Another Excuse to Murder NGHRS: White Cops React to a Grandson Holding Grandfather at Knife Point, Shoot Both to Death

Utah Court Grants New Trial to Black Man Sentenced to Death after Trial by White Prosecutor who Used False Testimony Coerced by Police

From [HERE] A Utah judge has granted a new trial to death-row prisoner Douglas Carter, finding that prosecutors knowingly withheld from the defense evidence that police coerced false testimony from two key witnesses, coached them to lie, provided them “thousands of dollars in financial benefits” to implicate Carter, and threatened them with deportation and loss of their son if they did not cooperate.

Carter, who is black, was charged with murdering a white woman, Eva Oleson, who was the aunt of the Provo City Police Department police chief. No physical evidence linked him to the crime. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in 1985 based upon a confession to police that Carter said was false and coerced and the testimony of two witness, Epifanio and Lucia Tovar, who were in the country illegally and claimed Carter had confessed to the murder.

Epifanio testified at the trial that Carter had come to him prior to committing the crime and told him that he intended to “rape, break, and drive,” that night, left his house, and returned within a couple of hours, then confessed to him in detail how he had committed the crime and performed a physical demonstration, while laughing. Lucia verified the timeline to which Epifanio had testified and said she had seen Carter acting something out. The weekend before the trial Epifanio also supposedly revealed the location of the murder weapon to the police, after having told the police in several prior meetings that he did not know where the gun was.

Following depositions and an evidentiary hearing, Utah County District Court Judge Derek P. Pullan(pictured) issued a 115-page ruling on November 23, 2022 granting Carter a new trial. The Tovars testified by deposition that police and prosecutors had offered them gifts and money, coached them to lie in court, and threatened them with deportation if they didn’t cooperate. Pullan found that the false version of events the Tovars provided police prior to trial had become more and more favorable to the prosecution as the payments increased, that prosecutor Wayne Watson was aware of the payments, that Watson knew Epifanio lied when he testified that the sole benefit he had received for his cooperation was a check for $14, and that Watson knowingly failed to correct Epifanio’s lie.

Pullan also found that Provo Police Lieutenant George Pierpont, who had elicited the alleged confession from Carter, had threatened the Tovars before eliciting favorable statements from them, that either Pierpont or Watson told Epifanio to testify that Carter said he was going to go “rape, break, and drive” before the murder, that Watson knew that Epifanio’s testimony was false, and that Watson failed to correct the false testimony once it was given.

Prosecutors announced on November 28 that they will appeal the ruling.

The trial court’s ruling came more than 35 years after Carter was first tried. His death sentence was initially overturned in 1989 because of an unconstitutional jury instruction. The Tovars had disappeared in the interim and prosecutors read their prior testimony into the record of Carter’s resentencing trial in 1992, at which he was again sentenced to death. The Utah Supreme Court upheld that death sentence in 1995. 

Carter’s lawyers located the Tovars in 2011, and the Utah Supreme Court ordered the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing based on their “damning revelations” that Provo police had paid their rent and given them groceries and gifts in the months leading up to the trial, told them to lie about the payments, and threatened to deport them or take their infant son from them if they did not continue to cooperate. The court ruled that the new evidence of police and prosecutorial misconduct left the Tovars’ trial testimony “tainted as a whole,” and it ordered the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Carter’s claims.

In a deposition taken for that hearing, Epifanio testified that he lied about Carter saying he planned to rape anyone, but in a meeting with Pierpont and Watson, “the term ‘rape, break, and drive,’ came up,” and one of the two men told him to use that phrase in his testimony. He testified that the police had instructed him and Lucia not to disclose the payments they had received.

Epifanio also testified at the deposition that he only used the “rape, break, and drive” language at trial because he believed that the police wanted him to say that. He testified that if he did not testify at trial the way the prosecution wanted, “[the police] had told me they would accuse me of being an accomplice, and that they would put me in jail, and that they would deport my wife, and that they would take away my son.” Lucia’s deposition testimony confirmed that the police had threatened to deport them and separate them from their son on multiple occasions.

Both Epifanio and Lucia also testified about police officers paying their utilities, giving them rent and grocery money, and even sending them and their children Christmas presents prior to the trial. Watson was aware of this financial arrangement but did not correct the record when Epifanio testified during trial that he had only received $14 from the state for testifying. 

When deposed, Watson first claimed that he did not remember the Tovars, did not know that they were not legal residents of the United States, and did not believe he had called them to testify. Then, after admitting to knowing that the police made rent payments to the Tovars, he said that he did not correct Epifanio’s false testimony that he had only received $14 because he did not know the exact amount the police had paid for his rent and had assumed Carter’s counsel would correct the record. Watson denied knowing that Epifanio had been coached to say that Carter had planned to “rape, break, and drive.” 

Ultimately, the trial court determined that the State had an obligation to inform Carter’s counsel that the police had threatened the Tovars with deportation, that police officers had been making substantial payments to the Tovars in the lead-up to the trial, and that Watson had committed misconduct by allowing Epifanio to falsely testify that Carter told him that he was planning to “rape, break, and drive” and that he had only received $14 from the state. Judge Pullan found that either Watson or Pierpont had been aware that the testimony was false, and that Watson had a duty to correct the falsehood.

As Judges Show Leniency to White Cops Who Murder Blacks, MO Authorities Execute Black Man Convicted for Murdering a White Cop After a Trial where Racist Prosecutor Deliberately Struck All Black Jurors

From [HERE] and [HERE] Despite a court-appointed special prosecutor’s request to vacate his death sentence, Missouri death-row prisoner Kevin Johnson was executed on November 29, 2022. The Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding a stay in the case less than 36 hours before the scheduled execution. Missouri Governor Mike Parson announced during the court's hearing that he would not grant clemency in the case.

White authorities murdered him by lethal injection. 

The execution went ahead after the US Supreme Court denied his request for a stay of execution. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, according to the court’s website. On Monday, the Missouri Supreme Court had denied Johnson’s request for a stay after hearing arguments that racial discrimination played a role in his prosecution.

Johnson, 37, was pronounced dead at 7:40 p.m. CT. He didn’t give a final statement, according to Missouri Department of Corrections spokesperson Karen Pojmann.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Mary Elizabeth Ott appointed E.E. Keenan as special prosecutor on October 12. Keenan’s investigation found that Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch sought death sentence for Black defendants charged with killing police officers but didn’t seek the equivalent for a white defendant, Trenton Foster, charged with the same crime. The investigation also uncovered a memo indicating that McCulloch’s team struck Black jurors “deliberate[ly]” during Johnson’s second trial. Johnson’s first trial had resulted in a hung jury. Keenan concluded that, “These facts and others leave no serious doubt that Mr. McCulloch’s office discriminated,” and, in a November 15 motion, he urged the court to vacate Johnson’s death sentence so a “lawful trial and sentence may proceed.” 

WHITE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS PRACTICE RACISM TO CONTROL AND DOMINATE BLACK PEOPLE. WHOMEVER CAME UP WITH THE FANTASTIC MYTH THAT MOST WHITE REPUBLICANS ARE RACIST AND MOST WHITE LIBERALS ARE NOT RACIST WAS A MASTERFUL LIAR, AS IT MAY TAKE BLACK SHEEPLE ANOTHER CENTURY TO UNRAVEL AND DROP SAID JESUSIZED BELIEF. IN PHOTO GOVERNOR MIKE PARSONS (R), JUDGE MARY OTT (D), PROSECUTOR ROBERT mccullough (D) AND OTHER WHITES WORKED TOGETHER TO PROSECUTE AND MURDER KEVIN JOHNSON TO GET REVENGE FOR THE DEATH OF A WHITE COP. WHITE SUPREMACY IS A SYSTEM OF WHITE BEHAVIOR - a team effort of white collective power or a conspiracy among white individuals and/or groups of white people 2) to control and/or dominate non-white people 3) by engaging in impersonal conduct or speech that is a) genocidal or otherwise detrimental to their social, economic and mental or physical well being or b) that perpetuates the white supremacy dynamic.

IF YOU BELIEVE RACISM IS ABOUT SAYING BAD WORDS AND HAVING MEAN THOUGHTS OR AFFILIATION WITH CLOWN GROUPS LIKE KKK/NAZI’S THEN YOU HAVE BEEN CONSUMING DOGMA FROM THE SAME PEOPLE WHO SEEK YOUR COOPERATIVE AND VOLUNTARY CONTROL.

Ott denied Keenan’s motion on November 16 and in a later order on November 19 cited the time constraints preventing parties from appropriately preparing for a hearing and the court from “thoughtfully consider[ing]” the facts. Ott wrote that it was “inexplicable” that these claims were brought forward only 14 days prior to Johnson’s execution date and found it “disconcerting” that the St. Louis County Prosecutor’s office requested the court appoint a special prosecutor only a month earlier in October. On November 21, Keenan filed a motion with the Missouri Supreme Court, which set oral arguments regarding the stay of execution for November 28, one day before Johnson’s execution date. “There is no benefit to the public in rushing this execution forward tomorrow,” Keenan told the court. “What staying this execution will do is allow the legal process to proceed and, whatever the outcome is, it will ensure the public can have confidence that if we have a process or the death penalty that is carried out equitably and in a way the public can have confidence in.”

If an Armed White Man Wearing a Costume Stopped a Black Man, Refused to Explain Why and Grabbed Him to Cuff Him, Would it be Reasonable for Him to Fear for His Life? La Cop Shoots Black Man on Video

From [HERE] Louisiana State Police released body camera footage showing a Rapides Parish sheriff’s deputy fatally shooting an unarmed Black man in the head during a traffic stop. The Nov. 6 incident sparked outrage in the predominantly Black city of Alexandria.

At a press conference, not only was Anderson’s body-worn camera footage shown but also footage recorded by a bystander at the traffic stop.

In the video, Derrick Kittling, 45, is seen being stopped by Deputy Rodney Anderson in Alexandria, in central Louisiana, while driving a Chevrolet Silverado pickup during the day in a residential neighborhood.

In the body-cam footage, when Kittling steps outside of his vehicle, the deputy tells him to “stay right there” but also says to walk toward his truck, which Kittling was standing beside after getting out of the driver’s seat.

Anderson is never heard saying why Kittling is being stopped. When Kittling asks why he is being stopped, Anderson does not answer.

Anderson then tells Kittling to “walk over here,” but Kittling appears to be confused.

“Walk to your truck,” the deputy says while Kittling is standing by the truck’s door and the deputy remains in his car.

Anderson then steps out of the patrol car and asks Kittling to keep his hands out of his pockets. Kittling then walks to the back of his pickup truck, as directed. Anderson grabs Kittling’s left arm.

“What’s the issue?” Kittling asks Anderson.

Anderson says Kittling isn’t following his orders and tells him to turn and face the truck. Kittling asks the deputy if he can get his phone, but the deputy responds “We will get to that” and stops him from getting his phone.

Kittling appears to remain confused during the entire encounter.

“What I did? What is wrong with you? While are you grabbing on me, man? Why are you grabbing on me, bruh?” Kittling asks Anderson.

“It’s tragic with what happened to Derrick, but unfortunately it is more than likely to happen again.”

- Rev. Randy Harris, Mt. Triumph Baptist Church in Alexandria

The deputy tells Kittling to put his hands behind his back several times, but Kittling, still confused, asks Anderson, “For what?”

At this point, just about 4 minutes and 30 seconds into the interaction — a struggle begins.

The sheriff’s office claim that Anderson “lost control” of the Taser and that Kittling retrieved it while it was on the ground during the struggle.

In the video, the deputy can be seen pulling out the stun gun and firing at Kittling. Kittling appears to try to block the Taser before the two end up struggling on the ground.

The officer is seen fighting with Kittling from various angles. The struggle lasts about one minute, then the deputy fires a shot.

“Shots fired, shots fired,” Anderson says.

From the deputy’s dashboard camera, he is seen carrying the gun and looking at Kittling while he is on the ground.

Anderson then makes a call toward other officers and tells them he shot Kittling in the head.

Black strawboss Col. Lamar Davis, head of the Louisiana State Police, told local media during the press conference that Kittling was stopped for a window tint violation and having a modified exhaust.

When asked by reporters on Sunday, Louisiana State Police did not indicate whether Anderson violated department policy.

“We are also gathering that information with regards to their protocols, their policies, their training and so forth. And we will be able to better determine that information once we receive that,” Davis said at the press conference.

Davis also said the agency had not determined whether Kittling was tased. Davis also would not say if the taser ever struck Anderson during the struggle.

“We can’t say for certain that he was actually tased or whether the officer was tased. There is a lot that goes into researching this.”

Kittling’s family has retained civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump to represent them.

Since Kittling’s fatal shooting, protests have been held throughout Alexandria.

“That sheriff’s department under the current Sheriff Mark Woods has a plethora of problems when it deals with African Americans,” Rev. Randy Harris, an organizer and protester in Alexandria, told HuffPost. “It’s tragic with what happened to Derrick, but unfortunately it is more than likely to happen again. I have zero faith in the sheriff’s department.”

John Crawford Case Revived: Without Warning a White OH Cop Fatally Shot a Black Man Shopping @ Walmart w/a Toy Gun @ His Side. A White 911 Caller Had Falsely Reported 'Black Male Pointing Gun @ Kids'

No Right to Bear Toy Guns/Black Objects for Blacks: BLACKS ARE PROHIBITED FROM HOLDING ANY BLACK OBJECTS OR GUNS IN THEIR HANDS IN PUBLIC, EVEN IN OPEN CARRY STATES LIKE OHIO. No matter what legal truths may exist in court books and statutes etc., in actual reality Blacks are prohibited from possessing guns in the free range prison. Blacks are subject to omnipresent interference by cops with their freedom of movement and their right to be left the fuck alone, Black people are 3X more likely than whites to be murdered by cops and the police have no legal duty to protect any particular citizen from harm unless they are in custody (known as “the public duty doctrine”). Said factors exist in a legal context in which law enforcement is uncontrollable by citizens, generally unaccountable to them, police can’t be hired or fired by citizens and have irresponsible, limitless power over people to take life on the street as they see fit while providing a compulsory “service” that citizens have no “right” to decline. [MORE]

AS SUCH, BLACKS HAVE NO MEANINGFUL RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE IN A SYSTEM OF RACISM WHITE SUPREMACY.

Whether the black individual poses a threat or possessed it unlawfully or lawfully is beside the point; all that matters is the skin color of the black object holder. Any black person in possession of a gun or a black object in their hand or physically near a gun or black object or any black person says they ‘have a gun,’ can be executed anytime, anyplace by cops. [MORE]

From [HERE] A federal appeals court has revived a wrongful death claim against Walmart by the family of a Black man who was fatally shot by a white police officer inside a store in Beavercreek after picking up a pellet rifle from a shelf.

Twenty-two-year-old John Crawford III was shot at the store in suburban Dayton in August 2014 after a white man called 911. A judge dismissed his family’s wrongful death claim, but a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed that in a 2-1 decision Wednesday, the Associated Press reported.

Two judges concluded “a reasonable jury could find that Walmart failed to prevent Crawford from carrying a look-alike AR-15 openly around the store,” which could alarm shoppers, confuse police and cause an officer to respond as though the weapon were real.

The decision means the family can proceed toward trial on the wrongful death claim along with its other pending claims against the retailer, including negligence, one of the family's attorneys, Michael Wright, said Friday.

Friday evening, Walmart responded to a request for comment from News Center 7.

“We take the safety and security or our customers seriously and continue to sympathize with [the] family of John Crawford. We respectfully disagree with the court’s ruling, and we will continue defending the company,” said Randy Hargrove, senior director, National Media Relations Corporate Communications for the Bentonville, Arkansas, company.

The family previously settled a wrongful death claim with [WHITE] Beavercreek and its police.

A grand jury [WHITE PROSECUTORS] declined to indict the officer who shot Crawford.

Ronald Ritchie, the white 911 caller who reported that a Black man was “pointing a gun at children and people” in the store also wasn’t charged. The prosecutor who made that decision said he didn’t find evidence that the caller knew the information he provided was false. However, video synced with the time of his 911 call clearly show the Black man was not even interacting with other shoppers in the store, let alone pointing a gun at children or people. At any rate, police are required to independently corroborate the information they receive from dispatch and other sources in order to establish probable cause. When the white cop encountered Crawford he posed no threat to anyone.

In real life Crawford picked up an un-packaged BB/pellet air rifle from a display inside the store's sporting goods section and continued shopping in the store. Another customer, Ronald Ritchie, a racist suspect, called 911. According to Ritchie, Crawford was pointing the gun at people and at children walking by, and messing with the gun. All of the statements were lies or inaccurate statements.

Security camera footage showed that Crawford was talking on his cellphone and holding the B.B. gun as he shopped, but at no point did he aim the B.B. gun at anyone. His family said he was talking to the mother of his two children. Crawford continues to walk through Wal-Mart aisles and passes by other customers, who do not appear to react to his presence. 

After the security camera footage was released, Ritchie recanted his statement that led to the fatal shooting and stated, "At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody", while maintaining that Crawford was "waving it around". Two white officers of the Beavercreek Police arrived at the Walmart shortly after their dispatcher informed them of a "subject with a gun" in the pet supplies area of the store.

RACIST SUSPECT 911 CALLER RONALD RITCHIE. RACISTS FUNCTION AS AN AUXILIARY POLICE FORCE AGAINST BLACKS IN A SYSTEM OF RACISM WHITE SUPREMACY. SIMILAR TO NAZI GERMANY, WITH REGARD TO NON-WHITES, ESPECIALLY BLACK MALES, WHITE FOLKS ARE WATCHING YOU WITH HYPER-ALERTNESS. IF ANYTHING YOU DO MAKES THEM FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE THEY WILL CALL THE COPS ON YOU. IN THE CONTEXT OF WHITE AMERICAN DOMINATION TO THE RACIST, THERE IS NO INNOCENT BLACK MALE, JUST BLACK MALE CRIMINALS WHO HAVE NOT YET BEEN DETECTED, APPREHENDED OR CONVICTED. THEIR MERE PRESENCE INSPIRES IN WHITE AMERICANS, FEARS OF BEING ASSAULTED, RAPED, ROBBED, OR SOME OTHER INDEFINABLE DREAD OF BEING CRIMINALLY VICTIMIZED.' [MORE]

The video shows Crawford continuing through the store. He paused at some store shelves, and it appears he’s still on the phone, fiddling with the gun as it swings, pointed toward the ground. Then, police enter the frame to his side; you can see Crawford turn his head, fall to the ground, scramble in the other direction, then turn back around before ultimately falling to the ground. It’s unclear whether he dropped the gun before being shot or after.

Sean Williams, one of the two police officers that arrived, shot Crawford in the arm and chest. He was later pronounced dead at Dayton's Miami Valley Hospital.

According to Crawford's mother, the video shows the officers fired immediately without giving any verbal commands and without giving Crawford any time to drop the BB gun even if he had heard them.

The Guardian revealed that immediately after the shooting, police aggressively questioned Crawford's girlfriend, Tasha Thomas, threatening her with jail time. The interrogation caused her to sob uncontrollably, with hostile questions suggesting she was drunk or on drugs when she stated that Crawford did not enter the store with a gun. She was not yet aware of Crawford's death at the time of the interrogation. Thomas died in a car crash months later.

Following the shooting a grand jury decided not to indict any of the officers involved on charges of either murder, reckless homicide, or negligent homicide.

Lead prosecutor Mark Piepmeier, also a racist suspect, said that the case revolved around whether Crawford obeyed police orders to drop the gun. “Was the officer reasonable to think himself or someone else would receive physical harm?” Piepmeier said at a news conference, the Enquirer reported.  “The law says police officers are judged by what is in their mind at the time. You have to put yourself in their shoes at that time with the information they had.”

Less than two weeks before the incident Officer Williams and others received what prosecutors called a “pep talk” on how to deal aggressively with suspected gunmen. Williams and his colleagues in Beavercreek, a suburb of Dayton, were shown a slideshow invoking their loved ones and the massacres at Sandy Hook, Columbine and Virginia Tech while being trained on 23-24 July on confronting “active shooter situations”.

“If not you, then who?” officers were asked by the presentation, alongside a photograph of young students being led out of Sandy Hook elementary school in December 2012. A caption reminded the trainees that 20 children and five adults were killed before police arrived.

The white prosecutor then took the unusual step of presenting the set of 11 slides from a presentation given to officers in the July session and other evidence to a grand jury in Greene County. Piepmeier signaled that the slides may have been important to the decision. “A question I have, and I think a jury would have, is how are the officers trained to deal with a situation like that,” he told reporters. [wha? does that sound like he wanted to prosecute the cop?]

He described the presentation as “almost like a pep talk for police officers,” which informed them: “You have to go after these things, you can’t ignore them”. They were told to rid themselves of the mindset that “it’s a bad day to be a cop” when confronting people who “have used, are using or are threatening to use a weapon to inflict deadly force on others”. [MORE]

“And that was, really, the question for this jury,” said the special prosecutor. “Looking at everything, was the officer reasonable in thinking that either himself or someone else was going to receive death or serious bodily harm”. [MORE]

Crawford’s family released a statement after the grand jury decision: “The Wal-Mart surveillance video and eyewitnesses prove that the killing of John H. Crawford III was not justified and was not reasonable. It is undisputed that John Crawford III was in Wal-Mart as a customer and was not posing a threat to anyone in the store, especially the police officers.”

Crawford's mother believes that the surveillance tape shows the police lied in their account of events, and has spoken out against the killing at a "Justice for All" march. The family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Walmart and the Beavercreek police department. [MORE]

The Justice Department conducted its own investigation. White prosecutors at the Justice Department declined to issue charges against the white officer.

U.S. Attorney Benjamin Glassman, racist suspect in photo, said they found insufficient evidence to pursue charges against Beavercreek police Officer Sean Williams, who fired the fatal shot. They said investigators analyzed store surveillance video using resources at the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, interviewed witnesses and used an independent crime scene reconstruction expert in their review.

"The government would be required both to disprove his (Williams') stated reason for the shooting — that he was in fear of death or serious bodily injury — and to affirmatively establish that Officer Williams instead acted with the specific intent to violate Mr. Crawford's rights," they said in a statement, adding that the evidence "simply cannot satisfy those burden.

Racist 911 Caller and Cop Niggerize a 9 Yr Old Black Girl Collecting Insects: Child Detained in Street After White Man Falsely stated, ‘There’s a Black woman spraying trees. Wearing Hoody. Scares me’

From [HERE] The mother of a 9-year-old Black girl in Caldwell is speaking out after her neighbor – a former town council member – called the police because the child was spraying spotted lanternflies.

"You don't call the police on a 9-year-old. You call the police when there is danger. Bobbi was not a danger to anyone,” says Monique Joseph.

Joseph says her daughter Bobbi has been trying to save one tree at a time along her block in Caldwell from the insects, which are an invasive species. She's been doing it with a homemade solution she learned on TikTok, using vinegar, water and apple cider.

But on one of those days, neighbor Gordon Lawshe called the police.

“There’s a little Black woman walking and spraying stuff on the sidewalks and trees on Elizabeth and Florence,” Lawshe said in the call. “I don’t know what the hell she’s doing. Scares me though.”

“Do you have any clothing, description or anything?” the dispatcher asked.

“A real small woman, real tiny. She’s got a hood on,” Lawshe replied.

Police responded to the call and that interaction was recorded on a police body camera. The officers quickly realized there was no danger.

“She’s obviously fine,” the officer said regarding Bobbi.

Joseph says that after the interaction Lawshe did apologize.

"He did apologize under the guise of telling me he was reporting a lost little girl,” Joseph says.

But she says that this upset her because it was different from the call to police.

"He used triggering words that have led to the death of too many Black and brown children and even adults. ‘Black,’ ‘I'm scared,’ ‘She's wearing a hood,’” Joseph says.

Lawshe has since hired an attorney who has sent a message to the media.

“Since Mr. Lawshe has been accused of being a racist, he and his family have received threats to their person and property. Mr. Lawshe and his family have been defamed and will continue to be defamed until the innuendo and direct accusations and attacks against Mr. Lawshe and his family cease."

Joseph says that she wants her daughter to know that she is not in trouble and that she wasn’t doing anything wrong. "The job at that minute was to make sure Bobbi knew she wasn't doing anything wrong,” Joseph says.

Joseph says she is speaking out because whether it's Bobbi or another child, he or she should be able to walk outside without being profiled and questioned by police officers.

Joseph says she contacted the Caldwell police chief to try to arrange a private conversation between her and Lawshe but he declined. The two neighbors have not spoken again.

Atlanta to Pay Only $1M to Settle Rayshard Brooks Case: White Cop Murdered Black Man by Shooting Him in the Back as He Fled from Misdemeanor Arrest, Posed No Threat. Cops Could Have Got Arrest Warrant

Mr. Brooks was under arrest for a traffic violation, which is a minor misdemeanor. As such, he was not a fleeing felon. The Supreme Court has explained the use of deadly force to prevent escape is unconstitutional, at least in regard to white citizens that is. The Court has explained,

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. 

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead… Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. 

Tennessee v. Garner - 471 U.S. 1 at page 11 (1985).

THE WHITE COPS HAD BROOKS’ CAR, DRIVERS LICENSE AND KNEW HIS ADDRESS. He could have been arrested at a future time. as such, the use force was unnecessary and evil

From [HERE] The Atlanta City Council on Monday voted to approve a $1 million settlement payment for the family of Rayshard Brooks, who was shot and killed by a police officer.

Brooks, a 27-year-old Black man, was shot following a confrontation with two white police officers in June 2020. The shooting came just weeks after the death of George Floyd under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer. It sparked a new wave of demonstrations in Atlanta against police brutality and racial injustice.

A white special prosecutor appointed [racist suspect in top left photo] consider the case announced in August that the use of deadly force was “objectively reasonable.” Pete Skandalakis, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, said he would not pursue charges against Officer Garrett Rolfe, who shot Brooks, and Officer Devin Brosnan.

Attorneys for the Brooks’ family say they remain disappointed that no charges were brought against the officers, but they said Monday that Brooks’ family is pleased to have reached a settlement with the city. The wrongful death lawsuit was filed in September 2021 by Brooks’ widow, Tomika Miller, and his estate.

The City Council voted 15-0 Monday to approve the settlement. It said they “continue to hold out hope that the Dept. of Justice will intervene in this matter.”

Police responded on June 12, 2020, to complaints of a Black man sleeping in a car in the drive-thru lane of a Wendy's restaurant. Police body camera video shows the two officers having a calm conversation with Brooks for nearly 40 minutes.

White police officers said he resisted arrest after failing a field sobriety test during the Friday night incident. After a struggle they shot him as he fled away from them.

Video shows Brooks on the ground outside his car, struggling with two police officers.

Brooks grabbed the Taser of one officer. After a few seconds, Brooks broke free from the officers and began to run from police. One officer then used a Taser on him. The pair then run out of the frame of the video. 

Seconds later gun shots are heard along with someone yelling "I got him!" The video then shows Brooks prone on the ground. The black man posed no threat as he fled away from the white cop; at the time of the shooting the white cop had to have been at least 30 feet away from him. He was smart to run - they were trying to kill him.

Rolfe was fired the day after Brooks died, but his dismissal was reversed in May 2021 by the Atlanta Civil Service Board. The board found that the city failed to follow its own procedures for disciplinary actions.

Alabama Governor Suspends Legalized Murders of Inmates Due to A History of Botched Executions. Its Death Row is 50% Black, even though the state is Only 18% Black

From [HERE] After two failed execution attempts and a torturous multi-hour execution of a third person within the past four months, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey has officially suspended executions in Alabama. Today, the governor asked the state’s attorney general to withdraw pending motions to set execution dates for Alan Miller and James Barber. She also asked the Attorney General’s Office to forgo seeking additional execution dates until the Alabama Department of Corrections conducts a “top-to-bottom review” of the state’s execution process.

In response to the governor’s announcement, EJI issued the following statement:

Governor Ivey’s call for a suspension of executions is a welcome and huge relief to many of us who see the tragedy that has come out of these horrific failed executions.

A society is judged not just by its response to crime and criminality but also by how it treats people who are imprisoned, condemned, and punished.

What has happened during executions in Alabama is unconscionable, unnecessary, and completely avoidable.

State officials need to own their failures with these recent torturous executions, and our dangerous and out of control prisons, if things are going to improve.

Lower federal courts in both of the recent executions took the rare step of telling Alabama officials that executions should not proceed given the uncertainty and unreliability surrounding Alabama’s protocols and procedures. The State ignored these federal orders, which resulted in shocking, torturous proceedings that provided justice to no one.

Improved reliability will require state officials to not just blame condemned prisoners, lawyers, and others who have a right to insist on constitutional procedures that are not cruel.

It will mean thoroughly examining their own protocols and procedures and being less secretive and dismissive of the great responsibility they have if they are going to engage in lethal punishment.

A History of Botched Executions and Attempted Executions

Governor Ivey’s announcement came just days after Alabama failed in its attempt to execute Kenny Smith. Mr. Smith had been strapped to a gurney for over an hour while state correctional staff tried unsuccessfully to establish IV access. The State called the execution off shortly before midnight on November 17.

The State’s botched attempt to execute Mr. Smith is actually the third time in the past four years that it has failed to carry out a lethal injection. On September 22, Alabama botched its attempt to execute Alan Miller when prison staff could not establish intravenous access and the execution had to be suspended.

And in 2018, Alabama was forced to call off its execution of Doyle Hamm because prison staff could not set an IV line after two and a half hours. Then-ADOC Commissioner Jeff Dunn told reporters, “I wouldn’t characterize what we had tonight as a problem,” but photographs revealed that the execution team had jabbed Mr. Hamm with needles more than 10 times in his feet, legs, and groin, likely puncturing his bladder.

Less than four months ago, a protracted and gruesome process was revealed surrounding the July 28 execution of Joe James, who was subjected to several hours of torturous needle sticks before he was executed.

Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm issued a statement today agreeing with Governor Ivey’s action. “Everything is on the table,” he said, “from our legal strategy in dealing with last minute appeals, to how we train and prepare, to the order and timing of events on execution day, to the personnel and equipment involved. The Alabama Department of Corrections is fully committed to this effort and confident that we can get this done right.”

Judge Rules Black Woman Can't Watch Missouri Authorities Murder Her Father. Kevin Johnson's Execution Set for Tuesday, Convicted for Murdering White Cop in Racist Trial Conducted by White Liberal DA

White Judge Denies Gov Request to Stop Kevin Johnson's Execution for Killing White Cop. The Same White Liberal DA from Michael Brown's Case Struck Black Jurors and Sought Death on the Basis of Race

From [HERE] A 19-year-old Black woman is too young to witness Missouri authorities execute her father, who was sentenced to death for killing a white police officer when he was a teen, a federal judge ruled.

Khorry Ramey requested to be present for Kevin Johnson’s final moments, but US District Judge Brian Wimes, who is Black, said in a ruling that execution witnesses need to be at least 21 years old, NBC News reported.

Missouri and Nevada are the only states that require witnesses to be 21, Ramey’s attorneys argued.

“I’m heartbroken that I won’t be able to be with my dad in his last moments,” Ramey said in a statement, adding that he “has worked very hard to rehabilitate himself in prison. I pray that [Gov. Mike] Parson will give my dad clemency.”

Johnson, now 37, is scheduled to die by lethal injection Nov. 29 for the 2005 killing of Kirkwood Police Officer William McEntee, a crime he committed when he was 19 and Ramey was 2.

He selected his daughter as one of the five people permitted to witness his death, but the Missouri Department of Corrections rejected the request, a move the ACLU argued violates both the First and Fourteenth amendments.

“Missouri executes people, like Mr. Johnson, for crimes committed as adults but before their 21st birthday illustrates the irrationality of the statute’s requirement that execution witnesses not only be adults but also at least 21 years old,” the filing states.

Missing her father’s execution will cause Ramey “irreparable harm,” her attorneys said.

Last week a Special Prosecutor appointed to review death row inmate Kevin Johnson’s case filed a motion to vacate Johnson’s death sentence – a highly unusual move in a system where prosecutors always push to uphold convictions and sentences. It asked the court to vacate his conviction due to the pervasive racism in his trial. His trial was prosecuted by Robert McCulloch, the same racist suspect liberal DA who sabotaged the Michael Brown grand jury and declined to file any charges against the white cop who murdered him the street. A white judge denied the request.

Shawn Nolan, attorney for Kevin Johnson, said, “The Special Prosecutor’s investigation and motion to vacate raise serious concerns about whether Mr. Johnson received the death penalty because he is Black.”

“That should concern everyone about the integrity of this sentence, but it should especially disturb judges tasked with protecting the integrity of the legal system, a responsibility that is at its apex when a death sentence is on the line. Instead, the motion was summarily denied in just a few hours.”

Nolan said Johnson’s appeals have not ended.

“Our hope is that the court will reconsider that ruling or that the Supreme Court of Missouri will order the evidentiary hearing that is required by law in this circumstance. There is no reason for this execution to go forward without this process,” Nolan said.

“To do so would make a nullity of the statute authorizing prosecuting attorneys to file such motions when the facts at their disposal compel them to do so.”

According to Nolan, the State argued that “at every stage of the capital prosecution overseen by former Saint Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch, race played a decisive factor. The Special Prosecutor concluded that as a result, the State’s prosecution violated the Equal Protection clause.”

The Special Prosecutor also included these facts:

-Of the five police-killing cases that occurred during his tenure in office, McCulloch sought the death penalty for four Black defendants and declined to seek it against the one white defendant charged with killing a police officer.

-In that case, McCulloch’s office sent a written invitation to defense counsel to submit mitigating evidence and granted the defense nearly a year to prepare their arguments against the death sentence. However, in the cases with Black defendants, McCulloch never issued an invitation to submit mitigating evidence that might convince him to not seek death.

According to the motion to vacate, the Special Prosecutor attempted to contact McCulloch several times during his investigation into the case during the past month. McCulloch did not acknowledge any attempts at contact “all while giving a two-hour news media interview.”

The Special Prosecutor’s investigation also showed that no one on Mr. Johnson’s prosecution team could justify their actions to pursue death for cases with Black defendants and not in a case with a white defendant.

The Special Prosecutor also argued that Mr. Johnson’s prosecutors “intentionally discriminated against Black jurors,” based on his discovery of a prosecution memo that revealed an intent to impermissibly strike jurors based on race.

McCulloch and his team’s racial discrimination against jurors only highlights the pervasive racism underlying the entirety of Mr. Johnson’s trial. 

Since Declaring Racism a "Public Health Crisis" White Liberals in Milwaukee Got Sicker: Black Residents were 18X More Likely to be Frisked and 5X More Likely to be Pulled Over than Whites Last Year

COMPLEMENTARY, GULLIBLE BLACK BORGS WATCH AS a MILWAUKEE PUBLIC MASTER SYMBOLICALLY DELETES RACISM WHITE SUPREMACY IN 2019. THANKS BUDDY

Black Citizenship Low in Milwaukee, a City Dominated by White Liberal Politics From [HERE] More than halfway through a court-ordered reform process, Milwaukee police are still disproportionately searching people of color in traffic and pedestrian stops and too often doing so without justification, new reports say.

Black residents were 18 times more likely to be subjected to a frisk and 4.8 times more likely to be pulled over than white people last year, according to two monitoring reports authored by the Boston-based Crime and Justice Institute released this fall.

Hispanic and Latino residents were 2.4 times more likely than white people to be frisked after encountering police in a traffic stop, informal street interview or another kind of encounter. And even accounting for differing crime rates, Milwaukee officers conducted frisks more often in Black, Hispanic and Latino neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods, the reports found.

The results are discouraging for activists who sought to reform the department's stop-and-frisk practices. Fred Royal, a vice president of Milwaukee's NAACP branch who works closely with the Police Department, said he did not expect a major cultural change to occur in four years but was still disappointed with the progress.

"I can’t understand how they cannot do the constitutional policing that they say they’ve been so committed to doing, which would justify those stops and frisks," he said.

Police and other city officials maintain the consent decree has led to notable improvements.

In a joint statement from Mayor Cavalier Johnson’s office, the Police Department and the Fire and Police Commission, the city said it is investing more time to determine what specifically is driving the disparities and is requiring more officer training on identifying biases.

“The city is resolute that constitutional policing occurs in each and every police interaction,” the statement said. “Mayor Cavalier Johnson is committed to assisting the FPC and MPD with the appropriate resources to attain the goals of the settlement agreement.”

The reform process, known as a consent decree, stipulates that Milwaukee police must meet certain benchmarks for at least five years. Four years into the agreement, the state's largest police agency has not met all of those requirements for a single year.

Black People are More than 3X Likelier to Face Homelessness than Whites in the UK and US [necessarily includes jurisdictions dominated by liberal politics and where Black Voter Turnout is High]

THE SYSTEM OF RACISM WhiITE SUPREMACY IS A GLOBAL SYSTEM. THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CONCERNS THE UK BUT African Americans, who represent 13 percent of the general population , account for 39 percent of people experiencing homelessness and more than 50 percent of homeless families with children. This imbalance has not improved over time. [MORE]

From [HERE] Black people are more than three times as likely to experience homelessness than their white counterparts, with a third of those who had been homeless also reporting discrimination from a social or private landlord.

The findings are from a new UK-wide study published by Heriot-Watt University, which found “overwhelming evidence” that people from Black and other minority ethnic communities face disproportionate levels of homelessness. 

The report found race, ethnicity and discrimination-related factors affect homelessness risks indirectly as well directly, through increased levels of poverty or the chances of being a renter rather than an owner. This, in turn, increases exposure to homelessness. Once the indirect effects were accounted for, the study found the relative risk of homelessness for Black and some other ethnic minority-led households grew significantly. 

Halima Begum, chief executive of the Runnymede Trust, the race-equality think-tank, said the report made for “extremely difficult reading”, but that “sadly, its findings aren’t surprising”. 

“What this research makes clear is that the heightened risk of homelessness faced by certain ethnic minority communities cannot be fully explained in socioeconomic or demographic terms alone, but is in fact down to a person’s race and ethnicity when those other factors remain a constant across all those experiencing homelessness.”

Matt Downie, the chief executive of Crisis, the homelessness charity, added that the study’s findings “should shame us as a country”.

The new report’s conclusions echo those of 2005 research for the then-Labour government, which found Black and minority ethnic households were around three times likelier to become statutorily homeless than the white population. 

Earlier in 2022, Inside Housing reported that households with a Black lead applicant accounted for 9.7% of the 268,560 households owed an initial prevention or relief duty in England in 2020-21, despite Black people making up only 3.5% of England’s population. By contrast, while 84.9% of people in England are white, 69.6% of homeless households in 2020-21 were white. 

The new study referenced almost identical data from 2021-22, with Black-led households accounting for 10% of homelessness cases and white ones 68%.

The Heriot-Watt research, which drew on a wide range of statistical sources, found Black people reported disproportionately high levels of homelessness across a broad spectrum of experiences.

This included sleeping rough (termed ‘core homelessness’), applying to a council for homelessness relief, and simply perceiving oneself as being without accommodation, having lost a settled home. 

It concluded that, in England, Black households were more than three times likelier than white ones to apply to a local authority as being homeless or threatened with homelessness. Households of mixed ethnicity were twice as likely as white ones to apply. 

While figures have tended to show Asian-led households as being under-represented in homelessness statistics, a picture that was borne out in the new study, researchers concluded that people from Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities were especially likely to experience ‘hidden homelessness’.

The study found 24% of Pakistani- and Bangladeshi-led households experienced overcrowding between 2017 and 2019, compared with 14% of Black-led households, 8% of Indian-led households and just 3% of white-led ones. 

Across the same timescale, it concluded that Black, and Pakistani and Bangladeshi households were five times likelier to experience affordability problems than their white counterparts. Black, and Pakistani and Bangladeshi people were twice as likely to be private tenants facing unaffordable rents, and three times as likely to have any form of housing need. 

Besides reaffirming evidence demonstrating the disproportionate experience of homelessness among people from Black and some other minority backgrounds, the new study also uncovered links between homelessness and discrimination. 

Drawing on data from the English Housing Survey, researchers found that 32% of Black people who had been homeless had also experienced discrimination from a social or private landlord – double the level of those who had not been homeless. A similar pattern was evident among Asian households and, to a lesser degree, among those of mixed ethnicity. 

The report suggested the finding could indicate that experiences of discrimination drive heightened exposure to homelessness, or that Black and other minoritised ethnic groups who become homeless are exposed to higher levels of discriminatory behaviour, or both.   

Glen Bramley, a professor of urban studies at Heriot-Watt and co-author of the report, said he found the apparent link between homelessness and the experience of racism “particularly distressing”, even among the other “shocking disparities” revealed. 

“This needs further investigation, and we are committed to this ongoing work,” Professor Bramley said. “In subsequent reports, with more in-depth statistical analysis and through the addition of a supporting body of qualitative evidence, we hope to better inform the housing sector and government and, in turn, help to address these stark inequalities in the most extreme forms of housing need.”

Mr Downie said the homelessness sector, as well as national and local government and society more widely, “must acknowledge and root out the injustices [uncovered] and advocate for long-term systemic solutions if we’re to ultimately end homelessness for good”.

Responding to the new report, Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, the housing and homelessness charity, said that racial inequality and discrimination were “hard-wired into our housing system”. 

“The direct link between homelessness and racial discrimination cannot be ignored and more has to be done – Heriot-Watt’s work is helping to lead the way,” Ms Neate said. 

“Homelessness is a structural problem that needs major structural solutions,” she added. “Any commitment to ending homelessness and creating a fair and secure housing system must take into account the clear role that the legacy of racial discrimination has played and how it continues to plague society.”

[In the Spectacle News-Actors Show You How to React to News] Biden is Still Separating NonWhite Immigrant Kids from their Families but White, Liberal Media Conceals the Story b/c It Has Dogma to Sell

From [HERE] The persecution for her work as a lawyer in Colombia had gotten so bad that Victoria and her husband, Anton, decided they needed to start lying to their son. They couldn’t stay in Colombia any longer, but they also recognized the dangers of fleeing — especially with their son, Felipe, who was 10 at the time. So they told Felipe the family was taking a vacation to Mexico. Maybe they would even get to go to the United States, they said.

It was all a ruse to keep their son calm, to protect them from people who might target them as they traveled through Mexico.

Once they hit U.S. soil in late May, the family found Border Patrol agents and gave themselves up to ask for asylum, after which they were placed in detention to await processing. 

“I’m sorry, my beautiful child,” Victoria recalled telling Felipe. 

He was upset with his parents — they had lied to him; this was no vacation — but couldn’t contain his excitement about being in the United States. 

“We weren’t running or hiding,” Victoria later said. “I brought evidence to show immigration officials in support of our asylum application and told the immigration officials about why we fled Colombia to save our lives.”

Despite her preparations, Victoria became nervous when, a few days into their detention, agents took Felipe away, saying that they were taking him to an appointment. He was gone most of the day. That evening, another agent brought him back; his mother hugged him tightly. 

One or two days later, on or about May 29 — the exact date is unclear — Victoria and Felipe were taken to another room from which they could see, but not speak to, Anton. After some paperwork and an interview, an officer told Victoria that they were taking Felipe to have a snack. 

“They opened the door, took him away, and then closed the door,” Victoria said. She had heard about family separations, but didn’t think the U.S. government was still taking kids away from their parents. 

Victoria sensed something was amiss and began asking officials where her son was. “I don’t know,” immigration officials told her repeatedly. Almost six months later, she hasn’t seen him.

More than 5,500 children, including breastfeeding infants, were forcibly separated from their parents during the Trump administration’s family separation policy, which began as a pilot program in El Paso in early 2017. On June 20, 2018, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials to stop separating families, but the practice continued. In 2019, the Texas Civil Rights Project documented 272 cases of family separation. Most of those cases — 223 — were extended family members, including siblings, aunts, uncles or grandparents, or legal guardians or step-parents. 

In January 2020, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) established select criteria under which children can in fact be separated from their families: Immigration authorities may only do so if they deem the parent unfit, if the parent is going to be prosecuted for a felony, if the parent is hospitalized, or other specific circumstances.

The incoming Biden administration promised to stop such separations for good and offer reparations for the previous administration’s harms.

But as the case of Felipe shows, immigration officials have continued to separate parents and children in violation of the policy. From the start of the new administration to August 2022 — the latest month for which data has been published — U.S. authorities have reported at least 372 cases of family separation. [MORE]

BE SAD ABOUT THIS. BOO-FUCKING HOO. MADDOW AND OTHER WHITE LIBERAL LIARS RIDE THE WAAMBULANCE ONLY WHEN REPUBLICANS SEPARATE NON-WHITE KIDS AT THE IMAGINARY BORDER.