Saturday, December 3, 2022

Dear Police and White People: My Black Existence is NOT a 10-31


It is no societal secret to anyone with a beating heart, that America's criminal justice and other legal systems are in need of a serious overhaul. In a world where cellular phones receive more updates than a living, breathing document (i.e., the American Constitution) which houses the source of all governmental powers and freedoms is absolutely appalling. Unfortunately, like this antiquated document, not a lot has changed since the signing of what James Madison affectionately dubbed, a "bundle of compromises". Needless to say, not a lot of compromises were made either. Once the ink dried inside Independence Hall on September 17, 1787, slaves and women were still not considered to be actual people and the right to vote was a power vested only in rich, white male landowners. 

This should come as no surprise considering the Constitution came into effect as a means for the country's elite to put down future uprisings by strengthening the powers of the federal government. A not so novel idea presented by none other than founding father and man who wears dentures derived from the teeth of slaves, George Washington. In August 1786, Revolutionary War veteran and farmer Daniel Shays, led a rebellion in Massachusetts against the high taxes being levied by an unsympathetic government. Farmers returning home from the war received none to very little compensation for their services, and had to purchase goods on credit upon their return from action. As a result of the economic crisis, sheriffs seized farms from veterans who could not pay taxes, or in many instances, imprisoned them. Sounds familiar right? This is the exact issue that caused the American Revolution, high taxation! Shay's Rebellion revived American Revolutionary debates, and matters concerning proper scope of the federal government.

After attending several townhall meetings and debt-relief talks with rich, merchant elites failed, armed rebels took action. Rebels began seizing and returning confiscated lands to their rightful owners, physically preventing debtors courts from convening, and stopping tax collectors from collecting debts by force. Debtors' discontent was widespread and extended well beyond Massachusetts. Unrest spread throughout the states in places including Connecticut, Maine, New York, and Pennsylvania. The significance being that the Articles of Confederation were no longer an effective means of governing the states and the rebellion served as the perfect catalyst for the Constitutional Convention. Ergo, the formation of the new government following the conclusion of the Revolutionary War. Even in the 1700s, people saw a significant need for change which did not equate to being anti-patriotic. In fact, the opposite held to be true: These military veterans loved America so much, that they were willing to bear arms in order to fight against socioeconomic and civil injustices. 

All this to say, it is not an act of terrorism to fight vigilantly for what you believe in and against injustices. There is a serious need today for people to begin separating America from its government, and elected officials. Contemporary policing practices have fared no better despite contemporary unrest in addition to violence by the state against citizens for having an opinion contrary to that of local governments. Another advent of the 1700s, is the formation of slave patrols. In 1704, the colony of Carolina became the first to establish patrols designed to wrongfully maintain economic domination by returning victims of slavery back to wealthy landowners, and punishing victims because these human-beings were literally considered property. Similar to the militias organized by James Bowdoin (i.e., governor of Massachusetts) and the wealthy merchant class during Shays Rebellion, slave patrols were designed to control slave populations and protect the interests of the rich. Reverting back to the rebellion briefly, it is worth mentioning that Shays Rebellion was quelled by well-organized militias funded once again by the wealthy. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun because the taxation issues and socioeconomic class wars of the past rage on to this very day. The similarities between slave patrols and modern American policing are uncanny. 

Both were created to control the behaviors of minorities and other disadvantaged groups (i.e., modern day slave populations). The more than 150 slave statutes enacted by Virginia between 1689 and 1865, are proof of legally sanctioned law enforcement organizations dating back before the civil for the express purpose of protecting the interests of slave owners via state sanctioned control of peoples being held captive against their own wills. Modern policies are a mirror image of the past and still rest firmly on the erroneous, racist rationalization that we as Black people are subhuman. Racist have gone as far as to murder, disenfranchise, and defame Black people on a global scale using cheap, multi-colored mass printing innovations achieved during the Gilded Age. Despite the Reconstruction Era giving way to the Gilded Age, not everything was covered in gold. In 1865, two years after the beginning of Reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan was founded. By 1870, the organization had spread across majority of the southern states and utilized as a mechanism for RACIST white southerners to terrorize Blacks and resist Republican Party Reconstruction policies aimed toward establishing economic and political equality for Black Americans. Notably, The Republican Party is the original party that championed economic, political, and social equality for Black people. 

In fact, it was the Whig Party that was formed in 1834 primarily to oppose Andrew Jackson's slavery and banking policies. After the Kansas-Nebraska Bill dissolved the terms laid out by the Missouri Compromise and allowed for slave or free status to be chosen by states, the Whig Party dissolved. They later emerged as the Republican Party in 1854. The issues and elites have not changed, the nature of the political landscape has merely evolved over the centuries. Today, the rule of law is not set into place for the safety of the American people, the objective is still all about control. There are so many laws in place to regulate the behavior and activity of people that as an American on American soil, there have been times where I have feared going outside unless I had a specific purpose or place to be for the reason that I am being constantly followed in my own neighborhood. I have lived in the same area for over three years, and each time I show up to exercise in broad daylight in my own neighborhood, a patrol car will materialize out of nowhere and watch me. The police will argue that this is for the safety of the residents, but I will make a strong argument that this is an overreach of power and blatant intimidation. 

There are over [insert number of laws] on the books that are specifically aimed at controlling the behavior of people. In a world where reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and consensual encounters have been thrown out the window, being Black is reason alone to effect an investigatory stop. The media campaigns depicting Blacks as uneducated degenerates has emboldened Whites to treat us with complete and utter disregard. People will purposely move to the other side of the sidewalk when they see me, refuse to treat me with the most common of human decency, and of course systematic racism stemming from legally sanctioned discrimination all serve as types of oppression that negatively impact the advancement of Black people. I am essentially a second class citizen in my own country. As James Baldwin so eloquently stated, "To be African American is to be African without memory and American without privilege". This statement is a loud echo of how exactly how I feel. 

 The modern prison industry has reinstated the ownership of chattel by allowing the elite to purchase prison stock.  In other words, local governments agencies are funding de jure racism, cutting costs associated with racial oppression, and creating a modern day slave trade trade by allowing wealthy individuals who are disproportionately White undue to any kind of personal merit, to own stock shares in human livestock.



SPOILER ALERT: A LOT OF PEOPLE DIE!!! I would describe Squid Game as Hunger Games in reverse with adults acting in stead of children killing other man children while playing children's games (Such a nostalgic American introduction to Korean traditions). The show is depressing, a chilly personification of present societal decay and a potential insight into what the future may hold if the current political situation does not change. The similarities are uncanny: (1) Everyone's desperate and resultantly, more easily influenced. (2) Financial duress is fueling fear and addiction (e.g., the protagonist's addiction to gambling). (3) Massive debt due to severe money mismanagement by everyone (including the government), (4) An ineffective political system, (5) Onset childhood nostalgia brought on by the hellscape created here on Earth by adults. (6) A numb, defeated, demoralized, and desensitized general populous  (7) An excessive amount of violence. I'm not religious in the conventional sense of the word, but as the Bible has so eloquently stated, "There is no new thing under the sun". Sure, even in the midst of a societal collapse, we've all a few glimmering moments.  

Before I stick a final dinner fork into this show (It'll make sense after watching it), I'm going to make an attempt to praise select aspects of the show. Squid Game places a huge emphasis on community–The good, bad, and everything in between. Aside from the obvious message that desperate people do desperate things (An unfathomable concept in reality, but for some reason far more palatable when represented in extremes), Seong Gi-hun (Lee Jung) enters the contest in search of a better life for his family a friends in addition to repaying two large debts he owes. Gi-hun is an alcoholic, low-wage earning chauffeur growing more estranged by the day from his ex-wife and child...The epitome of down and out. He makes for an interesting, yet safe choice for a protagonist because he's relatable to the down and our adults watching the show. He allies himself with the other debtors who also seem to have hearts of gold. Cho Sang-Woo, a junior classmate and childhood friend of Gi-hun's before attending Seoul National University's prestigious business school. He's wanted by the police for stealing money from his clients. Kang Sang-byeok, a North Korean defector who desires to bring her mother to South Korea and rescue her younger brother from an orphanage. Oh Il-nam (O Yeong-su), an old man with a brain tumor who would literally rather get rich or die trying.

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

A Black Person's Guide to Surviving a Police Stop

 According to The Guardian, police have killed nearly 600 people during traffic stops since 2017. Roughly 10% of these stops involve minor traffic infractions which equates to 110  murders annually for traffic violations. Unfortunately, deadly encounters with law enforcement during traffic stops, including minor infractions, disproportionately affect people of color. While there has been a call to reduce low level traffic stops, 25 people have been killed so far this year as of April 2022 during routine traffic stops. As most of us already know, police traffic stops have very little (if anything at all) to do with public safety. It has been shown to us time and time again that the benefits do not outweigh the deadly outcomes of these police encounters. With these statistics in mind, I am going to use my expertise as a law school graduate, police academy graduate, and minority who has been the subject of a violent police stop to explain how to survive one. The Black community ignores me; and White America constantly oppresses. No one came when my grandmother was murdered by a white EMT worker, so my perseverance is for her.

Evolution of Policing and The Reasonable Suspicion Standard:

Since the 1920s, police have been used for traffic enforcement. However, the role has evolved primarily to stop, detain, and search people they believe to be involved in criminal activity. The traffic stop is now merely the catalyst setting into motion the chain of custody, providing the officer with the required reasonable suspicion standard necessary to affect an investigative detention later on leading to an arrest if lucky-an undignified death at worst. Merriam-Webster defines reasonable suspicion as an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time. The supporting argument for this definition hinges on the false notion that this standard is in fact objective and based on specific information known to the officer at the time. While it sounds good on paper, objectively justifiable on its face is merely a compound adjective meaning action and/or behavior (in this case, suspicion) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in the representation of facts that is also defensible. 

I. Fourth Amendment

Or to put it not so gently into the words of our legal system, as long as a collective group of bigots (i.e., a jury of the bigot's peers) can allege that their bigoted actions are not influenced by personal feelings or emotions in considering and representing facts, it's okay so long as their bigoted position is defensible-moreover, it will be defended snd upheld as the supreme law of the land. The standard is aimed at confirming or dismissing the officer's suspicions which are hardly free of objectivity and defensible irrespective of the officer's erroneous morale.  This is not justice, and I'm pretty sure I state the obvious when I say this is not right. The Fourth Amendment, one of the pillars of criminal law, is supposed to be designed to protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court declared open season on minorities by giving police officers not the power to stop an alleged suspect on the street (innocent until proven guilty right?) under the 4th Amendment, but also the power to frisk them without probable cause to arrest IF they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed (reasonable), is committing (less reasonable), or is about to commit a crime (completely unreasonable) and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous". What is considered reasonable varies from person to person and while it is reasonable to stop and frisk someone who has committed a crime (probable cause), no police officer is reasonable in violating someone's rights prior to the commission of a crime. In this 1963 landmark case, the officer was said to have reasonable suspicion based on three men pacing in front of a jewelry store and refusing to give the officer their names.

1. If You Are Stopped:

i(a). The Street: If you are stopped on the street outside of a vehicle, always remain calm. On paper, the law appears fair and just in terms of its parameters for allowing police to collect evidence and conduct investigations. Generally, there are three levels/types of police encounters: (i) voluntary/consensual encounters, (ii) investigatory stop, and (iii) an arrest. I preface this information by saying that most            police encounters are not consensual and this should be placated by the fact that this article concerns          surviving a police stop (i.e., encounter). However, we will start with consensual encounters. I repeat,        remain calm. A consensual encounter involves someone being approached by the police and the police        officer initiating a conversation with the individual being approached. Typically, and this is where it gets dicey, the officer will ask to see a form of identification, the same as they would during a "routine" traffic stop. The encounter SHOULD involve the person approached being able to walk away, having the right to decline identifying themselves to the police, and being able to voluntarily communicate to law enforcement that they do not wish to speak to them. It SHOULD NOT involve police barking out commands, any kind of physical commands, the police turning on lights or sirens, restricting a person's  ability to move freely, or the use of physical force. More often than not, this is not the case. The next type of encounter is an investigatory detention, or Terry Stop: The police are allowed to briefly stop someone when officers have reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity. The problem with investigatory detentions is that they give law enforcement the right to preemptively stop someone if they believe a crime has been committed (reasonable), in process (less reasonable), or is about to be committed (completely unreasonable). And lastly, there are arrests. An officer needs probable cause (i.e., a police officer's good faith belief that a crime has been committed and the person being arrested committed the crime) in order to affect an arrest. Good faith, or blind ignorance?

i(b). Violation of Rights on The Street: During a so-called consensual encounter, Remain calm, and since critical thinking has been removed from the American curriculum, scan your surroundings. Scanning gives a person the advantage of fully accessing the totality of their circumstances and actively checking the surrounding area for indications as to whether or not his or her rights are being actively violated. Furthermore, if you are a savvy individual who knows your rights and armed with the proper information to articulate them, while not a safeguard against violation of those rights, it is an excellent tool for prevention. If your life is not in immediate threat of danger and there is 100% certainty of your innocence and the laws applicable to your situation, DO NOT COMPLY. If it is matter of life and death, live to fight another day. However, simply complying with illegitimate acts of violence against members    of the American public legitimizes illegitimate, corrupt power. To quote the honorable Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The key things to remember during a consensual encounter is to ask yourself, "Would an average person feel as though they were free to leave the situation"? This is the legal standard by which the law will judge your circumstances. 

Next, are investigatory detentions. As previously stated, you are not free to walk away during an investigatory detention so long as the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in a crime. The detention however, must be brief. NOTE THE TIME OF THE STOP, record whenever possible, and have a trusted friend or witness present either by phone or preferably, in-person. Remember, officers only have the right to Terry Frisk for weapons without probable cause and this is a limited search for weapons ONLY. A Terry Frisk is a limited search for weapons. Generally, of the outer clothing, but may also consist of areas within the person's control and which pose a danger to the officer. Here, biases will be challenged, does a person pose a danger because of their location, skin color, clothing, education, or demeanor based on their own unique human experiences?

ii(a) Inside A Vehicle: If you are stopped by the police while inside a vehicle, remain calm. Stop the car in a safe place, preferably one with adjacenet cameras and lots of pedestrian activity. Next, shut off the ignitition, turn on the internal cabin light,row down the window part way, and place your hands on the steering wheel. It is sad that civilians have to come up with a solid gameplan to survive a traffice stop and work hard to ensure that our protectors feel comfortable in order not to take our lives. However, this is the sci-fi around us and I suppose we all have to adjust accordingly if we wish to live. Vehicular stops are unique in that the same oppressive tactics are used, the case law simply changes. In Carroll v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that is legal to search a vehcile without a search warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that evidence is inside a car or exigent circumstances exist where officer believes vehicle may be removed from the area along with its contents prior to being able to obtain a search warrant.


II. Fifth Amendment:

The Fifth Amendment protects people against double jeopardy, being compelled to bear witness against themselves, or depriving a person against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. It protects against other things as well, but for purposes of this article, I'm only exploring its most applicable functions. In 2004, nineteen years after Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, that laws require citizens to disclose their identities to police officers and that the person must comply when the police officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime that is about to be committed or has been committed or the citizen will be charged with obstruction of justice. Once again, given the amount of people being wrongfully profiled and murdered by police, it is past time that America revisits what is considered as reasonable. Chambers v. Florida made a feeble attempt to resurrect the self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment essentially by outlawing torture as a means of extracting confessions out of alleged suspects. Furthermore, not only is physical torture of American citizens not an ethical way of getting information, but physical pain has the tendency to make confessions unreliable. Moreover, even after an arrest, a person is to be read their Miranda Rights which includes the right to remain silent. The things we say, even when we are innocent with good intentions, has the potential to affect our lives in either a positive or negative aspect. 

III. Sixth Amendment:

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of the criminally accused to a public trial without unecessary delay, an impartial jury, the right to seek counsel, the nature of the charges, and confront all accusers. The most important of these guarantees in criminal law are, the right to a public trial without undue delay and the right to an impartial jury. Sadly, due to a lack of funding in public education and resources, it has been commonly accepted that no more than about 5% of all crminal cases ever go to trial. The other 95% are either dismissed or a plea bargain is arranged between defendant, the defendant's attorney, and the prosecutor for a "compromised" disposition. The bigger picture being, only 5% of the American people are actually making thier accusers and prosecutors work to prove that they are in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a crminal case, the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which means that the arguments and evidence presented by the prosecution establishes the defendant's guilt so clearly that they must accept be accepted as fact by any rational person. This is a very difficult stanadard to meet. It only seems rational that Defendants would actually may the government work in order to satisfy it. However, the numbers show this is far from the case. The most important takeway from this article is to never surrender your rights without being informed of your rights and the process in which to take them.

IV. Conclusion

I tried not to bombard the reader with my own story and the injustices therein, but experience is an excellent teacher. I learned that sometimes knowing the law, the process, and what my rights are within these parameters will still not be enought to prevent inequities from occurring. However, knowledge will prevent them from prevailing. Police were unable to file charges after harrassing and physically assaulting, and towing my vehicle. I did not receive any financial compensation for the harms committed against, but I did gain a lot of dignnitiy and a victory knowing that I changed the situation through knowledge instead of allowing the situation to change me or my criminal record.

“Reasonable suspicion.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/reasonable%20suspicion. Accessed 22 Nov. 2022.