There is apparently nothing that will change their minds...

This is a political post. 

Angeli Rose Gomez is a mom in Uvalde, TX. During the shooting she drove to the school to get her kids. And the cops put her in handcuffs. So, she then got out of the handcuffs, jumped the fence and went into the school and got her kids. While the city police stood outside waiting for backup for nearly an hour.

The same city police who bragged on social media about how every officer had Level 4 body armor. The same city police who in a town of 16,000 maintained it's own SWAT team. The same city police whose budget ate up over 40% of the jurisdiction's budget.  The same police who, after couple of officers were grazed after being fired upon, stood outside an active shooter situation at a still occupied public school for more than FORTY MINUTES. I'm going to be honest, the response of Uvalde police department is beyond the pale. The law enforcement who did finally enter were Federal Agents whom the police onsite actually instructed to wait because... well, something.

Ironically, the state's commission on law enforcement's 2020 training manual states clearly "a first responder unwilling to place the lives of the innocent above their own safety should consider another career field."

The fact that we're still having to discuss mass shootings is horrifying. The fact that we haven't had the time and are still processing the previous week when someone walked into a public space and opened fire is even more horrifying. And now we're hearing the kids 911 calls and finding out that some of the children may have "bled out" from their wounds and  could have been saved had there been earlier intervention. We should all be outraged by children now relating stories of covering themselves with blood as camouflage and crawling out of windows to escape while law enforcement stood by. Hell, the Canadians are so outraged by what happened to US that they're changing their gun laws. But we aren't.

Or we should. Because the NRA convention (which by the way was a gun free event due to safety concerns) was held down the road not five days later. And the same folks who swore this was a terrible tragedy spoke at the event about the importance of being able to own a gun. Because the only thing that beats a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. This is the part where you should be really upset. Because the argument that a "good guy" with a gun could have stopped this tragedy is upended by the reality that at least 19 "good guys" stood idly by trying to formulate an attack plan/waiting for backup while children died. Some argue that if the teacher had been armed maybe it wouldn't have been so bad. I guess in a way, making clear that teachers are much braver than police officers.    

Isn't it weird how the story officials are telling us keeps changing? And how if this were someone explaining to the officials, like maybe the police, that they'd immediately get suspicious in regards to what actually happened. But we're not.  

Even as I write this the fallout gets worse and worse. The day after the Governor sat on a stage and lauded the heroism of the brave police officers. Various officials couldn't sing their praises loud enough. But social media is the devil, and video from the scene and those 911 calls rose from the ether and made them out to be fools. Now they're all backtracking, pointing fingers and whatnot. Abbott has revised his story to the ol' tried and true 'say it was a mental health issue', conveniently forgetting HE just cut the state's mental health budget. Officials in that Uvalde city police department are now ducking calls from the state.Because whatever caused this, easy access to guns and ammo did NOT add to the problem. Or so they say.

Seriously, WTF?

This is the America we live in. The conservatives want to Make America Great Again. Like in the 50's. And considering this rampant gun culture and the Supreme Courts latest rulings, I guess they meant the 1850s. 

Use Your Words

This is a political post. 

I saw a post on Twitter today that disturbed me, but for all the wrong reasons.

At some point during a rally in Minneapolis, the mayor walked out to speak with the protesters. He came out without security, in a t-shirt and indicated that he knew that there was a real problem, that sweeping changes needed to be made, listed some he was ready to work towards and that he was ready to get to work.

Then he was asked, point blank, as a YES or NO question, if he would commit to defunding the Minneapolis police department.

Really?

First, is he even able to do that? Second, what exactly does defund the police department mean? Third, did the mayor know what you meant?

On the face of the phrase is not entirely clear. It's not quite like the familiar phrase Black Lives Matter. I ask the question what does it mean because while it's a slogan that apparently has found a home in our rage at the injustice we've faced since 1865, the actual meaning is not as clear as anyone yelling it thinks it is. Even the background of the shot of a greatly demoralized mayor of Minneapolis had signs that said "abolish the police," which I believe means something different than just defund the police. Or does it? Little things like that, that disconnect, gives the impression that even among those enthusiastically supporting the idea, the meaning of those particular words in that arrangement are a little too open to interpretation. It doesn't help that it is just muddled enough that the conservative media machine can and has latched onto the phrase, subsequently giving it the worst possible interpretation in an attempt to paint the protesters as people who want to destroy America.

It's a broad phrase Defund the Police, as most slogans are, but in this case it feels like it's garbled and the because the people who originated know what they mean and are real excited to use it, but they've erroneously assumed everyone listening knows what they mean. Or worse, suggest the confused Google it to find out. Google it? We live in a HEADLINE society.

So, does "Defund the Police" mean that thirty days from the notice of defunding that policing simply ceases to exist in municipal Minneapolis? It can't mean that. What about domestic violence incidents? What happens with the trafficking of illicit narcotics? Not weed, I mean meth or something worse.  Would a young woman who has been raped just on her own? Are we going to private security or street justice?

Or does "Defund the police" mean that we're scaling back if not eliminating completely the militarization of the police and taking those resources and creating programs to help citizens instead of criminalizing them? More community outreach programs, more drug therapy, more jobs programs, etc.? On a side note, I know that I find it odd that while doctors and nurses battle a disease that has killed 100,000 Americans they must must do so in trash bags and with equipment donated by people with home 3D printers, our police, who are using police brutality against a police brutality protest, are decked out head to toe in the Boys in Blue Law Enforcement 2020 Spring Collection. I think it shows that our spending priorities are just a skoosh off.  

It's the second one if you're not clear.

Later, the Minneapolis City Council would would agree to the concept, the defunding and then further dismantling of the current police department and rebuilding from scratch. I would suggest rebuilding the destroyed precinct and using it as a new headquarters. Symbolic. Now, this is a great FIRST step, but we also need new systems and checks in place to make sure the new structure doesn't even start down the path of the old.

My next question is - so what was with that grandstanding? It's obvious from the City Council's actions that the Mayor didn't have the sole power to defund the police. And putting him on the spot to promise to do so was just cruel. Either he had to lie and say he would knowing he didn't have the authority, or say he couldn't. To his credit he didn't lie. But what really happened was they took a potential ally and set his ass on fire. Instead of taking him in and using him to work the agenda (short and long term) to suit the needs of the people, the person on the dais pulled that "I'm the captain" now bullshit. This may make other future potential allies wary. Now, in this case this one objective was still achieved, but what about the others on the list?

Seriously, that "You either wit' me or against" me aesthetic really doesn't work outside of a two person relationship. We need to learn to stop asking for absolutes in a world full of grey and trying to simplify the complex questions by framing them as all or nothing slogans.

We need to use our words.

This Should ALWAYS Happen

This is a political post.

Officer Krystal Smith, Ft. Lauderdale (still from CNN footage)

The black woman in this photo is Officer Krystal Smith. She works in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. During a Protest Demonstration in that jurisdiction a face-off occurred between the police and protesters. During those tense moments, Officer Steven Pohorence, the man at the far left of the photo, shoved a kneeling protester who had their hands raised out of his way.

Officer Krystal Smith immediately checked him. She snatched his ass up, and chewed his ass out. And he looks honest to God shocked that someone with the same uniform on as him might not agree with something he's done. Please be aware, Officer Smith is not his superior officer. She's just a cop who saw wrong and because she was in a position to do something she went and did it.

This should have happened in Minnesota.

Now, this is the important part. Officer Pohorence has been with the department for four years. But there are 71 use of force cases in his file and in at least 51 incidents in which he has drawn his gun. It's not clear if the some of these incidents occurred concurrently or if all these incidents occurred in just the four years he's been with this department. But if that is the case you have to wonder why this officer is still interacting with the public. And still possesses a badge.

I haven't slept good in five days wondering when someone is going to run into a cop with a record like this one. We've already heard ominous audio from the people who are supposed to be responsibly handling this situation. And there a people like this officer out there.

What would help right now, is more of those people who claim to be good cops to step up and be the good cops we need right now. 

Thoughts on a Riot

This is a political post. 

First, I don't condone violence and looting. Primarily because I don't want violence used against me nor do I want my stuff taken. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So I don't condone the violence and the looting.

But I understand. 

These black men protect an officer during the unrest.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Black people have been peacefully marching and protesting for decades now, and as modern technology has allowed us to capture and share for all the world to see the indignities we've been reporting that we've been facing since the end of the Civil War the need for action feels more urgent. These things based in racism are not our imagination. These things are happening. And we've all seen the increase in the documentation of these flagrant abuses in the past few years. It's clear evidence. Less open to interpretation, although some still try. In the case of George Floyd, there was evidence of his cooperation with the police while being arrested for passing a bad check. Of him being held down after he'd already been secured in handcuffs. Of the other police officers joking as their colleague murdered a man in the street. Slowly and painfully. George Floyd did what he was supposed to, what was expected, what was advised.... and still, here we are.

That made it especially troubling when the local district attorney said they needed more investigation before he could bring charges. Which was confusing, because every law enforcement official who wandered in front of a camera indicated that what the officer did violated all the protocols of any kind of restraint training. We KNOW there are people who are arrested on suspicion, mere suspicion. There was clear video evidence of the actions taken. It's not unusual for additional charges to be brought after an individual is in custody. So what was missing? I'm really curious to know exactly what they were looking for, aren't you?

Because if they had instructed the officers be taken into custody immediately after the city fired them, all of this protest would have been less likely to have happened.

That's just my opinion.

So, for the rioting and looting, I understand. I don't condone it or support it, but I understand.

Every few weeks it seems we add to the list a new name. Maybe they were jogging. Maybe they were bird watching. Maybe they rolled through a stop sign. Maybe they were asleep in their own home. But they're black, and alive and apparently that's enough. Their friends and families mourn them. We discuss them and ask for justice. And far too often those who took the lives of another are exempted from justice because..., well, pick your reason. But remember whatever that exemption might be it would not be afforded to the current victim if the situations were reversed. It's a terrible cycle that seems to be on endless loop.

And as for the circumstances surrounding the rioting and the looting, well, it's complicated. The same proliferation of video that revealed the outrageous behavior that got us here is also revealing that the flashpoints that drive the crowd MAY be artificial. And pushed the crowd stumbles, and a body in motion stays in motion. The outrage they'd been suppressing releases. And their act becomes in effect a society howling in pain and frustration of the deprivation of basic respect and dignity. 

So I don't condone or support violence or looting. But I understand.

Photo By Ryan Vizzions

Now, I know this won't get far, but to those questioning how to answer this, here is my suggestion:

The mayors of those cities in unrest need to announce today that they are meeting with community leaders to address the problems. Pick a day, a week or so from now and set the meeting. They should know who the community leaders are, but there probably need to be three or four new voices in there as well. And it should be televised, on public access or the local channel or whatever. The days of quiet meetings behind closed doors on these larger issues are over for the minute. The the mayor and the city officers or city council should go and LISTEN. Not explain, not talk, not justify, but LISTEN to the those people that they were elected to lead. Today there seems to be a desperate need of elected officials to play to their base, almost exclusively, seemingly forgetting that they've been elected to lead not just people who voted for them, but everybody. Listen, take notes, answer questions. And this doesn't need to be one meeting, or two meetings, but a series of meetings. Each televised and advertised, open to the public for viewing and comment.

Around the third or fifth meeting the mayor should start asking questions, addressing concerns and hashing out solutions. Real implementable solutions. And then, with the help of the city officials or council, IMPLEMENT THOSE SOLUTIONS.

If this listening and change occurred after peaceful protests, then there wouldn't be violent protests. If there were actual systemic change after people knelt, or marched, or rallied, or at least honest attempts, then there wouldn't be instances where people feel the rage necessary to riot and loot.

One would have thought that this was obvious.

And it means that maybe next time someone decides to march peacefully, our leaders will come out to engage them and hear their concerns instead of...whatever it is they're doing now.

I'm tired

Here we are again. Again.

How much are we as a people supposed to endure? Damn. Just Damn.

George Floyd. He shouldn't have been treated that way. That's all I got.

I'm just so tired.

Both sides of the street?

So this weekend, after the city of Atlanta was stopped by an overwhelming TWO inches of snow, I bundled up and rode out to a Fight party.

There's nothing quite like a good fight party. Usually peopled by people who aren't really there to see a fight, but who came for a party, it gives a function substance, a focal point if you will. Usually fight party goers are a little rowdier, a little more vocal, a little more raucous as the fight excitement permeates the crowd. It's a group focal point for an event, a kind of a theme, and not that single focal point, which is usually the chick with that nice butt in them really tight pants. It makes a party a little bit more than an excuse to get drunk and hit on drunker women. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Nothing.

So I show up and it's surprisingly full. The got big screens and flat screens all over, plenty of food, liquor looks plentiful, the women look friendly and all that's missing from the basement is a pole. I'm almost disappointed when the fight starts.

So as we watch Roy Jones play with Trinidad - beating his own stomach, poking out is chin, doing the Harlem Shake between rounds - the cops show up. In like round six.

Now this is a grown folks party. No weed. Everybody still got their clothes on. It's all cool.

Or rather it's not. Cause what has happened is some folks parked on the wrong side of the street.

Party Rule No. 6 - Parking - When partying at a home in a subdivision, one must take care that all invitees park on the same side of the street, as to not impede possible emergency traffic. Failure to follow this rule may result in local law enforcement ending the party prior to your planned time.

(As side note, I once had a party go so well, that 4am I called the cops on myself to get them folks out the house)

During the fight they start announcing that if you parked on the that side of the street, you need to move your car. For the number of folks there, that would be a whole lot of cars. Now, as we didn't all disgorge from the house like ants, a few rounds later the police decide that now...they want both sides of the street in the subdivision clear. Both sides?

I realize a rule or two was broken, but is that grounds to break up a peaceful gathering? Did I just get the new millennium equivalent of the fire hose? What just happened here?

Realizing that it would take the tow trucks time to arrive on scene, I watched until they read the decision, then broke camp. In the future, I'll be reviewing the rules and regulations regarding subdivision parking for wherever the hell I party.

Barkeep, make that a double shot of espresso. I need something strong.