Sunday, October 26, 2014

So. Why The Difference?

A black man, unarmed, reportedly surrendering, is shot down and killed by police in the streets of Ferguson, MO; a black man, standing still, holding an air rifle from the store shelves and talking on the phone to the mother of his children is shot down and killed by police in the Walmart in Beavercreek, OH; a black man in custody and handcuffed, lying prone on the ground is shot and killed by police in Los Angeles, CA; a white man, surrendering to police after an hours-long stand off, "armed" with two pocket knives, is shot by police and mortally wounded in Albuquerque, NM; and on and on like this all around the country, day in and day out, to the number of a thousand or more year in and year out.

In Sacramento on Friday, a sheriff's deputy was shot and killed by a suspect who was in the driver's seat of a car which was (apparently) under suspicion by deputies. The deputy's partner fired back at the suspect and may have wounded him, but the suspect and his accomplice successfully fled, attempted one unsuccessful carjacking in which the driver of the other car was shot in the head and wounded, attempted another successful carjacking, then took the pickup truck of a gardener which they drove to Auburn, CA, where another deputy was shot and killed and a third was wounded.

Both suspects were eventually arrested and are now in custody. Apart from the initial returned fire in Sacramento, no other shots were reportedly fired by law enforcement during the massive hours-long manhunt and eventual capture of the suspect and his accomplice -- who turned out to be his wife.

Why the difference?

Since I learned about this incident in California yesterday, I've repeatedly asked myself that question, "why?" So many suspects are simply shot and killed by police execution-style, yet in this case, it didn't happen when it well might have, especially while the police in Auburn were in the process of capturing the suspect in a home they had entered.

A key may be in the statement of Placer County Sheriff Ed Bonner, 
“The suspect is in custody, as you know,” Bonner said quietly. “I think there’s those people who would say, ‘Well, you know what, I wish you’d killed him.’
“No, that’s not who we are, we are not him. We did our job..."
That's stunning really, given the widespread street justice dispensed by law enforcement all over the country, leaving so many dead, many of them innocent of wrong-doing, most of them no threat to police or others.

Yet here is a case in which two deputies were killed, another and a civilian wounded, and suspects are taken into custody without killing them. How... odd.

I've thought about why, and I've wondered, "Did they think the suspects were white?" Yes, so often, race enters into the equation, with black and brown men subjected to "street justice" by police far more often than white men are (though it's wrong to assume white men are immune. They are not.) "Were the suspects white?" The man involved has been identified as a Mexican national, but no pictures have been released (apart from a distant one as he is being transported to the hospital for assessment and treatment of his wound(s). It's impossible to say from that picture whether the suspect appears to be white. But being a Mexican national does not automatically mean he is brown. It's not clear what race his wife is, but it's likely she is white (the Salt Lake City origin of the couple indicates as much, but again, there is no certainty as yet.)

Would perceived whiteness have been a reason not to kill them? Perhaps, though I doubt it.

The man was reportedly armed with an AR-15 which he was not particularly hesitant to use, and the woman was reported to have a pistol in her purse. Whether she ever brandished or used it, I don't know, but she is charged with carjacking and attempted murder, so possibly she did use her gun, if only to show it.

Were police hesitant to use lethal force against them because they knew that at least one of them was armed with an automatic rifle and would use it? I doubt it, but it's possible. The fact that a suspect can and will shoot offensively and shoot back, as had already been demonstrated by this suspect, is sometimes enough to cause a bit of hesitation and trepidation by law enforcement. But just as often or more often, they will kill armed suspects, or suspects they think are armed, using concealed snipers if necessary, without a sign of hesitation or trepidation. This seems to have been an instance in which officers in Auburn knew where the suspect was hiding and tightened the cordon around that house while a team prepared to enter it, which apparently they did and and when they did the suspect (apparently) promptly surrendered.

How often have police entered a house -- on a no-knock warrant, say -- and shot dogs and people without a moment's hesitation? It happens all the time. Not this time, though. Why?

"That's not who we are."

Maybe that really is the key to understanding the difference between what happened in Sacramento and Auburn on Friday and what seems to be happening every day of the week somewhere else in the country.

Maybe the officers of the Sacramento and Placer County Sheriff's Departments are not Killer Kops -- unlike so many of their colleagues around the country.

If they're not, why aren't they?

Still more to ponder.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Two Deputies Shot And Killed in California. Suspect Apprehended and In Custody After Multi-County Chase.

Two deputy sheriffs were killed in California yesterday, one in Sacramento, one in Auburn. I was alerted to this news by a friend's email, otherwise I might not have known about it.

The suspect allegedly shot and killed a Sacramento County sheriff's deputy outside a Motel 6 in suburban Sacramento yesterday morning when the deputy approached the suspect's car. The deputy was shot and killed before he could reach the car to ask the occupants what they were doing. The car, containing the shooter and a female passenger sped off. Before they did, the officer's partner opened fire on the car and its occupants, apparently without effect.

According to the Sacramento County sheriff's office, the shooter and his passenger, who may be his wife, then tried to carjack a driver's vehicle a couple of blocks away, but the driver apparently resisted and was shot in the head. They then drove a short distance where they carjacked another vehicle which they drove some distance away to another residential area where they took a gardener's truck at gunpoint -- after detaching the gardener's equipment trailer.

The couple were spotted some distance away at a county park; police were dispatched but the couple had already driven quite a distance farther on, to I-80, which they drove to Auburn, another twenty five miles or so from the scene.

In Auburn, Placer County deputies spotted the truck and pulled it over. As they approached the vehicle, the driver opened fire, killing one deputy and wounding the other. From that point, the story is somewhat confused. Apparently other deputies arrived on the scene and arrested the female passenger while the driver/shooter escaped the scene on foot to a house nearby where he hid for several hours while heavily armed officers patrolled the area searching for him.

They entered the house where he was hiding and arrested him. Apparently he surrendered without incident. He was apparently wounded in Sacramento when the car he was driving at the Motel 6 was initially fired on, but he was not badly injured.

My account is taken from the Sacramento Bee's report of the day's actions. The report is fairly coherent, though it is not at all clear why deputies were approaching a car in the parking lot at the Motel 6 in the first place. The fact that the driver, Marcelo Marquez, was apparently able to kill two deputies, wound another, as well as wounding a civilian, elude capture for hours and yet was apprehended and taken into custody alive and apparently relatively unharmed is... little short of astonishing given the litany of individuals who are killed by police day in and day out all over the country, too often for little or no reason.

Placer County Sheriff Ed Bonner had this to say yesterday:

“The suspect is in custody, as you know,” Bonner said quietly. “I think there’s those people who would say, ‘Well, you know what, I wish you’d killed him.’
“No, that’s not who we are, we are not him. We did our job. I’m incredibly proud of the men and women who go out there every day and put their life on the line, and today this organization, this family, has suffered a horrific loss.”

What he's saying goes against so much routine police dogma and doctrine, however. By contemporary policing standards, every civilian is a potential enemy illegal combatant -- especially if they are brown or black male -- a threat to be neutralized, neutralized with as much force as the officer deems necessary.

But that isn't quite what happened in either Sacramento or Placer County yesterday. A man who was clearly a threat -- who had allegedly killed and wounded officers and a civilian, was pursued and apprehended without killing him or even (apparently) severely wounding him. Civilians in Auburn especially were put through a very difficult situation when schools were locked down and checkpoints established, manned by heavily armed police who seemed to have no problem implicitly threatening them, putting much of downtown Auburn under a hostile occupation.

The questions I would ask about yesterday's events in Sacramento and Auburn start with "Why the difference" between that and, say, almost any of the more than 1,600 police killings since May 1, 2013 -- some of them in Sacramento and Placer Counties. What was it that allowed or required police and sheriff's deputies from city and county agencies throughout the area (one I'm very familiar with having once lived in that general area of Sacramento and Placer Counties for decades) to apprehend the suspects without killing them whereas in so many, many, many instances documented over and over and over again, police use lethal force all but instantly in confrontations with civilians.

What made the difference this time?

I don't know. I have some ideas, but I'll have to think about it a bit more and ask other questions along the way.

There's a followup story in the Bee that's also interesting, pointing out that Marquez and his wife were apparently from the Salt Lake City area, and that there was "nothing unusual" about them.

I would also point out that the killing of law enforcement officers is EXTREMELY RARE in this country, vastly fewer than the number of police killings of civilians. That two were killed and one was wounded yesterday in Sacramento and Auburn is remarkable, especially given that the alleged shooter is still alive, and according to reports is willing to speak with the media -- though he is not being allowed to while the investigation continues.

I grieve for all those killed and wounded yesterday in Sacramento and Auburn. It shouldn't have happened, ideally it wouldn't have. It's remarkable that law enforcement officers were able to apprehend the suspect and his wife/accomplice without using lethal force.

It's a story that needs to be told more fully. There are many lessons to be learned...

Standard Model Police Shooting Story -- Example #1

Boy, these stories are so standardized, you could write them in your sleep.

[#1643 "Killed by Police" since May 1, 2013]

A New Bedford, MA, man named Luis Roman was shot and killed by Dartmouth police Thursday night after they claimed he armed himself with two guns and opened fire at them when they approached his car.

Could be, who knows?

The issue here is not so much the incident itself -- because we don't know what really happened -- but the reporting of it in the Boston Globe. To wit:

The Globe characterizes Roman right off the bat by claiming in the first sentence that Roman (allegedly) swore he was not going back to jail.

Then in paragraph after paragraph, Roman is further characterized as a violent repeat offender, even though the charges against him were either dismissed or were "continued without a finding" -- all of them. Nevertheless, the Globe's story of this incident presents Roman as a desperado, intent on killing his girlfriend and the police who were called to her apartment when she reported Roman had broken into it.

As happens in almost all mainstream media reports of police involved killings, police statements about the incident are reported as fact, undeniable and undisputable, unless and until significant public push-back occurs, at which time, "there is a debate."  Or even better, "a conversation." The victim is routinely maligned -- typically as a habitual criminal, a drug user, a child sex offender, or some such -- to make clear that, whether or not the victim was armed and/or dangerous, the victim deserved to die.

In this particular case, the victim's long criminal record (despite the fact that there were no convictions) is presented first. His arrogant mug-shot is displayed. The outstanding FTA warrant from 2012 is mentioned.

He is presented as a burglar on the night of his death. He is alleged to have broken into his former girlfriend's apartment and damaged her television and computer. She was the mother of his child and she had taken out a restraining order on him in 2010 alleging that he had attacked and threatened her.

He left the apartment before police arrived to investigate. Whether anyone was in the apartment when Roman allegedly broke in is unclear. He allegedly called the father of his former girlfriend to find out if the police were there, and told that they were, he said (according to police statements) that “he was coming back to the apartment and that he had his gun out, ammunition, and said he wasn’t going back to jail.”

He arrived, the police told him to get out of his car, he started to, then got back in, "brandished" one of two guns and fired two shots at police as they approached the car. An officer fired back. The man was transported to the hospital where, after CPR, the man was pronounced dead. Officer is now on routine paid leave, investigation is continuing. The end.

Not quite, however, because the story goes on to detail the assertions made by his former girlfriend in her restraining order application. Then there is a long section of the report on other allegations against him, as well as the statement that "Roman was well-known to the police." But interestingly:
A long list of charges dating back to 2007 and including assault, assault and battery, breaking and entering, and more drug charges, were all brought against Roman and ultimately dismissed, according to court documents.
All of this detail serves the purpose of impugning Roman and making the case that he deserved to die, as -- according to the standards of the media -- all perps who are killed by police must. Whether Roman actually fired at police officers approaching his car is -- I would say -- an open question. He may have. He may not have, but we should (by now) be skeptical of police statements. Firing, brandishing, reaching... all of these actions and more are routinely used to justify police killings, but without solid corroboration, we can't be sure that any such thing actually happened.

But what we can always be sure of is that the reports appearing in the media regarding the incident will always feature and focus on the victim's alleged "badness."


This story is one of the purest of its kind.

NOTE: I'll have some things to say about the killing of two deputies in California yesterday when I get a chance later. For now, though, I'll just say that I wouldn't have known about it unless a friend emailed me with a sideways reference... had to look it up.

Are The Dems Throwing This Election -- Too?

It wouldn't be the first time.

Every indication is that the Dems will lose the Senate and make no substantive gains in the House. A few governorships may switch parties. This will not benefit the People in any way, but even if the Dems were to take control of the House and Senate, it wouldn't much change things.

Politics in this country is a function of a rigid two party system that is essentially a single-party system with two collaborative branches. Years ago, the Dems had a lock on the political apparatus and the government, unbroken for more than 40 years. Now we're getting close to a similar lock for the Rs. The Dems cooperate in allowing R control, just as the Rs cooperated during the era of Dem control. After all, the policies that come out of these parties will be essentially the same.

That's a big problem for the People, because neither party represents the People. Both parties are functions of the will of the Rich. Both serve the Rich. Neither considers the Will of the People to be anything they must attend to.

Consequently, we have a lot of sideshows and nonsense, no progress in the public interest, and massive levels of corruption and increasing incompetence in government. I laugh whenever I hear Rs accusing Dems of "corruption," or vice versa. Both parties are ridiculously corrupt, and there seems to be nothing whatever the People can do about it.

I began to pay attention to this year's election when I read that Colorado's Mark Udall was likely to lose his Senate seat. Now this struck me as important somehow. The Udall family is an institution in the Rocky Mountain states, and there seemed no reason to me that Udall would lose his seat while his cousin Tom is doing very well against a Radical Republican in bordering New Mexico. Why the difference?

Is it because there are so many more Radicals in Colorado? I don't think so. I suspect the difference has to do with the nature of the election itself, and -- perhaps -- the unwillingness of the Dem Party machine to support incumbents or opponents on a broad scale.

In other words, "throwing the election." Dems are quite capable of winning any election they choose to. I've seen how they operate, however, and the party's Big Wigs make their choices of who to support -- and who not to -- based on what they want in the end. Often enough, especially for the last 30 years or so, they don't want political victory or dominance. They seem to prefer being foil to powerful Rs. Thus, election failures where there logically shouldn't be. It happens over and over again.

Since the 50 State Strategy was abandoned after the 2008 election, we've seen repeated failures to elect Democrats, and we've seen a greater policy fusion between Dems and Rs. They're practically indistinguishable these days, and as Harry Truman famously said, "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." (Whether he actually said it or not is beside the point.)

So. Here we go again.

(Since neither party represents the People, this post is a point of interest only. Regardless of which party is in charge of the House and Senate, our system assures that policies will be practically identical.)

Friday, October 24, 2014

This IS "Justice" -- as the High and Mighty See It

There's been a great deal of angst and handwringing over the selective leaking of information favorable to Mike Brown's killer Darren Wilson apparently from information only available to the prosecutor's office and the Grand Jury so leisurely "considering" whether to indict the Brave Officer Wilson over the incident.

The leakage is seen as corrupting and specifically intended to influence the grand jury proceedings and public opinion with the upshot being no indictment of the Brave Officer just trying to protect himself and others from the big-scary black man. Or something.

So when the riots come, there will be justification for shooting into the Angry Mobs of Agitated Negroes. And so forth.

This is all being bruited about as the likely outcome of the leisurely proceedings in St. Louis by all and sundry. It has become the Standard Narrative.

The thing of it is, the people of Ferguson and St. Louis have not been playing to script. They have their own ideas, no matter how the Powers That Be try to shape the narrative to present a defense of the System As It Is, Things As They Are, and the justified suppression of the Natives.

It's amazing to witness. Now we're coming close to the dénouement, and people in the news -- apparently -- are getting themselves all worked up over the "impeding riots," when Young Officer Wilson isn't indicted.

Jebus. If I recall correctly, the killers of John Crawford in Ohio weren't indicted by the Grand Jury, either. They declined to indict, so the story went, because the Officers, Brave and True to Their Calling, genuinely thought the Negro With A Gun was an Active Threat To Themselves and/or Others, and when that is the Genuine Belief of Law Enforcement, there is no legal basis for indictment. Or so we are to believe. Grand Juries generally don't have the option of indicting on "no legal basis." The purpose of turning these cases over to a Grand Jury is to give the appearance of public accountability to a process that is basically a rubber stamp of internal decisions already arrived at.

So. John Crawford's killers were not indicted. Police officers who use deadly force on innocent and guilty alike are almost never indicted so long as they use the magic phrase: "I feared for my life and/or that of others."

That's all they have to do to get away with murder.

It happens all the time, and there are no riots, rarely is there more than a demonstration and march or two. There were no riots in Ohio, despite the egregiousness of the killing of John Crawford III. There were no riots in New York, despite the egregiousness of the killing of Eric Garner. There were no riots in Los Angeles, despite the egregiousness of the killing of Ezell Ford.  The idea that there will be riots in Ferguson when Officer Wilson is not indicted for the egregious killing of Mike Brown is an expectation based on a fantasy of what Ferguson residents see as justice.

The Ferguson police and other authorities in the area have been trying for months to incite riots in Ferguson without success. They've consistently accused the crowd of violence against police and property, but the crowds of protesters have not been violent. A handful of individuals -- widely regarded as provocateurs -- have engaged in arson, looting and vandalism periodically, but these people have been denounced by most of the crowd, a crowd which on the whole has consistently been determined and nonviolent. The contrast between police statements about the crowds and the protesters and the reality could not be more acute.

The police have repeatedly claimed -- without evidence -- that members of the crowd have thrown rocks and fired weapons at police lines. The only thrown objects that witnesses have testified to are bottles, plastic bottles, often empty plastic bottles, water bottles in other words. Even they are widely thought to be the result of provocateurs within the crowd trying to incite violence.

From the day of Mike Brown's execution on Canfield Drive, the police have behaved as if they are at the scene of a riot when there has been no riot. The burning of the QuikTrip two days after the killing is seen by Ferguson residents as an aberration, something not in character with the community, and likely not done by anyone in the community. The burning of the QuikTrip was the sole act that might be called 'rioting', but who did it? The answer to that question is still unclear.

There are many other questions left unanswered or muddled by events, including questions about a number of shooting incidents that did not involve members of the crowd of protesters but which were elided into the protests by police in a rather pathetic effort to smear the protesters and justify the highly inappropriate deployment of military-style force against the demonstrators.

The police were in effect the rioters, not the crowd. And this was clear to anyone who was witness to events in Ferguson. It was so clear, in fact, that the police were forced to step back and stand down. They simply looked absurd.

But it's clear they are determined to suppress a riot no matter what.

A riot they incite once the Grand Jury refuses to indict, an indictment that has been demanded but never expected by the protesters. Huh.

The refusal to indict is seen as genuine Justice by the Powers That Be. As long as they feel they are being protected by the police, they're satisfied with whatever the police do to those scary people in the streets, including shooting them down in cold blood. It's part of the job police are expected to do to maintain a sufficient level of fear among the Rabble. That's how Justice is supposed to work in the eyes of the High and the Mighty, no matter what we're taught in school or what the foolish Rabble believes about it.

Justice serves the Mighty.

Everyone else gets what they deserve.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Not Probable Cause

Message: we don't care, and you can't make us. Nyah!

Dateline: Trenton, New Jersey

As part of a larger art project, Voc:al Up:holstery arranged to have the rollup door of a vacant business painted with a mural honoring Mike Brown (with permission). Beside his larger-than-life portrait were the words:

Sagging pants... is not probable cause

The Trenton police were not amused and sent the city's "graffiti blasters" to remove the offending art from the streets of their fair city. They said it "sent the wrong message about police and community relations."

Mkay. Shooting an unarmed teen dead in the streets sends the right message? Gotcha.


At least some of the "graffiti blasters" wanted to document the mural before it was covered over.

They really do want an uprising, don't they? Angling for riots, aren't they? Before the election, right? Or maybe just after.

Stolen Lives

One of many October 22 Coalition actions against police brutality -- choose your chant

Today marks the 19th Annual Stolen Lives march against police brutality. Think about that. The 19th Annual March Against Police Brutality.

You would think that after so many years of marches and demonstrations against the culture of police violence that something would be done. But nothing is done. In fact, the situation is arguably getting worse, year over year. 

The statement of the October 22 Coalition in full:
The Call for the 19th National Day of Protest to Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation

here for formatted version in pdf.

On the eve of the 19th annual National Day of Protest to Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation, a defiant new spirit is in the air. In Ferguson, Missouri, people continue to rise up in outrage against the killing of Mike Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old Black youth who was just days away from starting college. Despite the rapid and ruthless militarization of the town by racist police and the National Guard, people defied curfews, tear gas, rubber bullets, and calls for a return to business-as-usual—and oppression-as-usual—by protesting and rebelling for ten consecutive, sweltering nights in August. Thousands from around the country gathered in Ferguson this past weekend to stand in solidarity with the brave people of Ferguson. These are the moments where the decades of racist abuse, criminalization, and police terror at the hands of this system came crashing against fearless resistance from the very people it seeks to control, inspiring justice-seeking people not just nationwide, but around the world. The National Day of Protest was founded to oppose exactly these kinds of abuses. This year, in big cities and small towns, in the face of police brutality, repression, mass incarceration and the criminalization of youth we say, Let the spirit of Ferguson ignite hearts nationwide with an uncompromising passion for justice!

In the United States, this year has seen a litany of state violence, with increasing documentation and coverage making these ongoing atrocities more difficult to deny. Over 800 people have been killed by law enforcement nationwide, at least 200 since Mike Brown, and at least 23 people in one week. Although police criminalization of and violence against women and transgender people is nothing new, they have become more newsworthy of late. There seems to be no level too low for law enforcement to stoop in their violence, whether it is against children and young teens, the elderly, the deaf, or those who are emotionally or mentally distressed.

In New York City, the era of mass criminalization of Black and brown communities through "stop and frisk" was supposed to be over thanks to the election of a supposedly progressive mayor. What de Blasio brought instead though, was the return of William Bratton, the architect of Stop and Frisk! Bratton's highly oppressive "broken windows" style of policing, in which the smallest "crimes" are aggressively policed, has already led to an increase in police brutality and public mistrust. In this year, NYPD's use of "Broken Windows" has led to the highly publicized chokehold death of beloved community member Eric Garner, the beating of an 84-year-old immigrant man for allegedly jaywalking, a chokehold on a 7-month pregnant woman for barbecuing in front of her home, a young man kicked in the head while lying on the ground handcuffed, numerous people beaten for falling asleep on the subway, a raid of Harlem housing projects, and numerous other atrocities. Even some of the most well-known cultural aspects of New York are under attack, as subway performers are being arrested at astonishing rates simply for trying to earn a living as they have been doing for decades. Meanwhile, the same City Council that voted so strongly for police reforms earlier this year has remained silent in the midst of a new "progressive" administration, lifting their voices only to cry out for 1,000 more cops!

We have seen other attempts at creating some modicum of accountability being thwarted or ineffective, such as the gutting of civilian oversight mechanisms and useless federal investigations of police departments by the U.S. Department of Justice, while those who document police misconduct are under attack. But we applaud the different ways that people have risen up and persevered.

Law enforcement departments across the country have come to use on a routine basis the exertion of military enforcement and control in communities that are deemed a "social disturbance." Although there has been a long history of the militarization of police, the revelation of just how much military weaponry has been supplied to local law enforcement by the Pentagon and how the uprising in Ferguson was dealt with are a sobering reminder of the capabilities of law enforcement to exert standing army-like control over the population of non-combatant civilians. It also would be a moral crime to ignore the fact that the intensification of police arms and enforcement is borne out of the desire, on behalf of the state, to quell the expression of people of color in their demands for justice.

Through the unabated organizing and pressure from the people, we can rejoice over the release of political prisoners Lynne Stewart and Eddie Conway (and hopefully soon Sundiata Acoli), but we must continue our fight for the many political prisoners who continue to be unjustly locked up, along with the hundreds of thousands imprisoned for non-violent offenses due to discriminatory practices in the criminal justice system. The U.S. has the highest number of prisoners in the world, incarcerating almost one-third of the world’s female prisoners, and having more than 60% of prisoners being people of color – still a minority of this nation’s population. Despite solitary confinement being internationally designated as torture, over 80,000 languish in such conditions, including some as young as 16. Solitary confinement led to a death sentence for some, and more egregious evidence of torture in prisons are now coming to light. This brazen inhumanity is exemplified by border patrol’s abuse of immigrant children seeking safety within our borders, and the warehousing and deportation of literally millions of immigrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Under such a corrupt system, no imprisonments are legitimate!

The Call for a Month of Resistance to Mass Incarceration, Police Terror, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation declares that this “will not stop unless and until millions of people, of all nationalities, stand up and say NO MORE, in unmistakable terms. The history of this and every other country shows that without struggle, there can be no positive change; but with struggle this kind of change becomes possible.”

October 22nd is a day that people around the nation have mobilized every year since 1996 for a National Day of Protest to Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation. It is crucial that we bring forward a powerful National Day of Protest in cities and towns across the U.S. to challenge the ongoing violence against the people. This October 22nd, stand with thousands across the country to express our collective outrage, creativity, and resistance in response to the crimes of this system. On October 22nd, WEAR BLACK, FIGHT BACK!

JOIN US if there is already an October 22nd event in your area. CREATE one if you are in an area where there is currently no group organizing. For listings of activities around the country, see below.

I'm not familiar enough with every action in every city listed, but a quick look indicates to me that each of these cities has had experience with absurd levels of police violence that have led to the deaths of hundreds, more than a thousand, every year for decades.

A recent -- and highly evocative -- example was posted on "Killed by Police" yesterday:

(#1635 killed by police since May 1, 2013)
[My summary:]
A suicidal man in Roy, Utah, called the suicide prevention hotline (remember those?)  No doubt due to hotline protocol, the suicide prevention organization notified police. Police arrived at the home of the man threatening to kill himself, and several hours of "negotiations" ensued -- negotiations that often consist of no more than repeated commands to drop weapons and come out with hands up, often accompanied by repeated threats of use of lethal force, and/or deployment of concussion and sound grenades and snipers
"Negotiations" apparently failed, and a SWAT Team was deployed. Shortly thereafter the man was dead, shot by police -- one assumes by a sniper deployed with the SWAT Team -- though the "investigation" is ongoing. The man is said to have been armed, though it is not known whether he ever threatened police or if he shot at them or why the man was suicidal or really anything about the incident except that he was suicidal and he's dead. Yet another killed by police.
 Oh well.

So many things are so wrong on so many levels with this story, but the routine killing of suicidal individuals by police snipers is heartbreakingly repeated again and again throughout the country. It is professional/progressive policy, procedure, and protocol to use lethal force -- generally summary execution by a police sniper -- whenever an armed (or said to be armed), mentally ill or suicidal individual refuses commands to surrender. A term of art has invented: "suicide by cop." Cops are more than willing to oblige. More than willing.

The dead continue to pile up.

I'm all in favor of the October 22 Coalition demonstrations, but after 19 years, you'd think some progress would be made. But it's not being made -- despite the much higher level of public notice and public interest in the problem of police violence in this country.

Something else again is called for.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Are We Asking the Right Questions?

All the indications suggest that the PTB are not about to budge with regard to the increasing levels of police violence against the population. So long as they -- the PTB -- feel protected from the Rabble by the police the killing and brutality and mass incarceration consequent to the various "wars" against the Proles will continue. It will arguably increase in bloodlust and cruelty.

There is no indication at all that the protests have had more than a marginal impact on the increasingly bizarre and freakish and murderous behavior of police in this country. In some cases we've seen the police redouble their violence against the Rabble and even on occasion use their snipers and armaments against the lower levels of the High and the Mighty.

Those who complain that the police behave like an occupying army have a point, but from the responses of elected and appointed officials in the face of these complaints, behaving like an army of occupation is the point of modern day "progressive" policing. We see it everywhere. It is now the standard.

What must be done to change it?

Obviously, what has been done so far has not changed it.

Oh, make no mistake. Police culture has changed over the years, especially since 9/11, but it's not because of any demand or requirement by the People. The change has come due to the demands and requirements of the High and the Mighty themselves. They are so frightened that the Rabble might rise, that the poor and suppressed minorities might revolt, that the shrinking middle class might wake up from its torpor and arrange a real revolution, that they insist the police in their employ use whatever force they deem necessary to neutralize any perceived threat.

So long, that is, that the threat is seen to be Out There -- among the Rabble.

Having been given this sort of free rein, however, the police see threats to be suppressed everywhere. Everyone is a potential threat in their eyes, and neutralization is necessary in their eyes more and more often, despite the lack of crime, the lack of resistance, the lack of opposition. Yet the killing goes on and on, the brutality and cruelty is enhanced. This is emblematic of a broken system spiraling out of control.

The intervention of the Department of Justice is not intended to reduce the killing and brutality, it is intended to professionalize it.

What can the Rabble do about this state of affairs?

I argue that there is not much the Rabble can do directly beyond what is being done. The protests and lawsuits bring needed attention to the problem, but so far they have not had a positive effect on police behavior toward what they regard as threats.

There are those who say that the Rabble has to start shooting back. That may happen, but I doubt it, simply because the people are so massively outgunned. A killing spree -- far greater than the one under way now -- would ensue. There might be a positive outcome one day, but for the duration, there would be an overt civil war between the police and the Rabble (rather than the covert one we see now.) 

Instead of shooting back -- which would be attacking the symptom not the problem itself -- the answer may be in stepping back and stepping aside.

The police serve a necessary function on behalf of their employers -- and those employers are not the People. Police, by and large, are not supervised or controlled by elected officials. They are almost all under the authority of city managers and county executives. Those people, by and large, serve powerful local economic interests and very powerful national political and economic interests. They regard the People -- the Rabble -- with hostility and contempt. Often their hostility and contempt is quite openly expressed.

They are the ones who need to be confronted, but they will generally only respond to confrontations by people they consider their peers or superiors. Confrontations by people beneath them are ignored or dismissed.

The people they consider their peers and superiors are not elected officials. They are instead the "movers and shakers" in their communities, and the very richest and most powerful players in the markets. What those people demand is what their employees do, generally without objection or resistance.

The Rabble play no part in that game. At best, they are seen as little more than pawns, exploitable and expendable.

Consequently, when the Rabble rises, as they will from time to time, the initial response by Authority is bewildering in its excess and inappropriateness. That excess and inappropriateness can be used to de-legitimize police and civic authority, but what happens then?

So far, no one has quite figured out what to do then.

Perhaps a more important question than what to do, is  "What kind of community do we want?" And then to ask "How do we get that kind of community?"

De-legitimzing authority that is not serving the people has a role to play in answering the second question, but the first question often doesn't get asked at all, or if it is asked it is in the context of preserving the status quo, and responses are limited to stakeholders -- who often are not the ones who are being victimized by the out of control occupation force that the police have become.

What are the common interests between the so-called community stakeholders and the victims of police violence? I've never heard that question asked in the forums I've attended on the issue of police violence. To me, it is a key question, because it represents the "space between" where solutions can be found.

It's obvious that the police have no intention to listen to the victims of police violence and be responsive. They don't believe they have an obligation to do so. Given that city managers and county executives -- who are actually in charge of police forces -- are so frequently and so openly contemptuous of the people in general, it's no wonder police feel no obligation to the general public. The police don't serve them. The police serve the people in charge, starting with their chief -- who is often no more than a figurehead -- then the city or county executive, then the rich and powerful people those people serve.

Those are the ones who have to tell the police to back off.

I suspect they can and will do it when the victims of police violence expand beyond the Rabble. It's already begun.

Of course the High and Mighty protecting one another from police violence doesn't do much to protect the common people. That is only likely when it is in the interests of the elites to do so and order the police to stand down.

Getting to that point will require the elites to value the lowly and common folk much more than they do today.

Next time, I'll try to explore some ways to do that.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Now That We Know This -- And Have No Excuse For Not Knowing -- What Do We Do?

"Police killing ruled 'justified'" -- every single time. No matter what, if the officer says he (or rarely) she felt threatened, then any use of force including lethal force is almost always ruled "justified," and the officer is in essence rewarded for a job well done. Killing, crippling and maiming, causing any amount of emotional and psychological trauma on witnesses, survivors and victims, ruining lives, destroying communities, all of it and more is ruled "justified" if the officers says he or she felt "threatened." Or if, as is so often the case, the officer's absolute authority is questioned...

Now that we know this -- and we have no excuse not to know it by now -- the question is what is to be done?

Tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in payouts to victims of police brutality and murder have had no negative affect on police departments or on elected and appointed officials who write off these sometimes extraordinary payouts as simply the cost of doing business, or as a necessary public safety expense. To them, all these millions are nothing; they are not coming out of the department's budgets or the officer's pockets, or the hides of city administrators. Ha! They're a levy on taxpayers, either directly or indirectly.

The protests don't have any perceptible effect on the culture of suppression, oppression, and killing that has routinized and professionalized among police forces nation wide. The public can rise and yak and yabber all they want about the brutality and killing. Officials and their officers don't care. It's nothing to them, except perhaps some welcome overtime for the officers on the line, and damn, isn't it fun to get out all those riot costumes and toys and threaten the crowds of protesters with immediate and lethal force when they get uppity? Heh. Put them in their place.

"Scathing" reports by the DoJ and investigative journalists haven't had much of an effect on the police killing spree, except for this: when the DoJ issues a "scathing" report, the police undergo a "progressive professionalizing program," in which their rules and their training is coordinated with the "best and most progressive" national policing standards. It doesn't necessarily cut down on the killing for it isn't necessarily meant to. The killing and brutality may get the Rabble riled up, but that's rarely the problem. The problem is that the police aren't doing it right. Once they have the rules and the tools and the training that meets national standards, they're home free. Use of force, especially lethal force, is now routinized. Have at it.

As long as the Right People are served and protected, what's to worry? What's to complain about?

If that means a thousand or more of the Rabble are gunned down by police every year -- 3 or 4 a day, every single day -- so what? If that means tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of the Rabble are brutalized and traumatized by police every year, often arbitrarily -- so what? If that means millions upon millions of Americans are sent through the bloated prison industrial system -- so what? As long as it's primarily the Rabble who's subjected to this, why should anyone who matters care? They don't. They won't. It doesn't bother them because it doesn't involve them.

The way the officials in Albuquerque have behaved toward the problem of police violence and killing is instructive and it should be seen as exemplifying the point of view of most officials faced with growing outrage and protest by the Rabble toward police.

The only time they concern themselves with the opinions of the Rabble regarding the conduct of the police -- or really regarding much of anything else -- is when the Rabble interferes with comfort, convenience and routines of those in charge. The response then is always the same: suppression. If need be: oppression. Otherwise the Rabble is really rather free to carry on as they choose, but no one (who matters) is listening, and no one (who matters) gives a good god-damn. Even if they put on a show of "concern..." Sure. Right. Whatever. They have more important things to do, and a far more important clientele to serve.

The mayor and city manager of Albuquerque have been quite clear that they are not interested in hearing from victims of police violence. The mayor refuses any but the most distance-keeping contact, and the city manager's interactions are typically filled with bluster and threats toward those who seek justice. He was, after all, the chief officer of the New Mexico state prisons. (A whole long other topic, but it is informative to understand where he is coming from, and to understand that his state prison tenure was considered "progressive.")  It's useful, too, to understand that the mayor and city council of Albuquerque are not in charge of the police. As is the case in most cities around the country, the police are not accountable to nor are they supervised by elected officials. They are only accountable to the city manager or the equivalent, an appointee who often holds the mayor and council hostage to an agenda that the public is essentially unaware of. In Albuquerque, too, the appointed police chief appears to be a figurehead, nothing more. From appearances, he has no authority and very little knowledge. The police department appears to be run directly out of the City Administrator's office with little or no consideration of the "chief." That, too, is not all that unusual in city administrations around the country.

How city governments actually work is another topic that I could go on about at great length but not here, not now.

To these people and especially to those whom they serve, "justice" means suppression of the Rabble by any means necessary, including killing and brutalizing them routinely for any reason at all -- or no reason but to keep them in a state of fear, panic and terror.

For whatever reason, many of the Rabble are convinced they can get justice by appeal, but most often they can't. There is no one to appeal to who cares. There are very few who the Rabble might appeal to who see justice in the same way the Rabble does.

That's a major problem right there: "justice" to the victim/citizen is one thing, "justice" to the perpetrator/ruler is quite a different thing. "Justice" to the perpetrator/ruler protects them from the Rabble; "justice" to the Rabble is something else again: a brake on excess, exploitation, and oppression and an expression of social fairness.

So how does the Rabble deal with this situation? What will it take to change the dynamic sufficiently to reduce the rate of killing and brutalization by police on the one hand and ensure fairness on the other?

Is it even possible or have we reached the point where the Powers That Be have so divorced themselves from the interests of the People, there is no longer any way to heal the divide?

What then must we do?

Let's explore the topic next time....

Friday, October 17, 2014

Resistance is Futile?

Americans and the world have experienced an interesting Post Labor Day ride so far; there's no telling where this careening handbasket is headed, but Chaos seems to be the principal objective of our diminishing set of High and Mighty.

Chaos. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. And futility.

Don't forget futility.

For years I've tried to ponder on the subject of what Our Betters could possibly be thinking while they go about making a titanic mess of local and global affairs and fight one another for pre-eminence and wealth.

What could they be thinking? Can there actually be thought behind these endlessly appalling and chaotic developments we are witnessing day in and day out? It hardly seems possible.

They clearly want us to believe that any action we might take in opposition to their madness is futile, utterly futile. We can do nothing about what they're doing -- except submit, willingly or unwillingly, it doesn't matter.

We can complain all we like, but it doesn't matter. They will do what they will without regard to what we may or may not think about it.

As long as we don't do anything to interfere with their comfort and convenience, why should they care what we think about anything?

For the past several months the growing movement against police violence and murder has been protesting and demonstrating in many cities around the country, demanding police accountability and an end to police murder. The James Boyd killing in Albuquerque in March started a series of protests and demonstrations that have spread across the country, to New York and St. Louis in particular after the killings of Eric Garner and Mike Brown, but there have been so many others. Hundreds and hundreds killed by police since Boyd was killed, more than 200 since Mike Brown was killed in August.

Are we supposed to think that our protest is futile? Are we supposed to believe that the police have been given free rein to hunt and kill at will? Are we supposed to believe that police owe the public no accountability for their actions, they are only accountable to... to whom? Or to what?

Are we supposed to believe that poor people, homeless people, mentally ill people, people of color and young people are always fair game for police, and that old people, defiant people, and anyone carrying or "reaching for" what might-could be a gun will at any arbitrary moment subject to summary execution?

And are we supposed to accept this state of affairs, submit compliantly, uncomplainingly?

Is that right?

Is that how it is?

Cosmetics and public relations seem to be the response of those in authority to the protests of the people against police violence, and when they don't work, there has been a quick reversion to threats, intimidation, and more violence. At no point during the continuing series of protests and demonstrations against police violence and murder have those in authority made any concession to the demands of the protesters. For the most part, those protests and protesters have been ignored by those who can actually do something about the problem. To the extent they have been acknowledged, the acknowledgement has been cosmetic or brutal.

In other words, nothing substantive has taken place to correct the problems of police abuse, misconduct, mayhem and murder. The killing goes on and on and on, a steady tattoo of three or four victims a day, day in and day out, world without end, amen.

How many are brutalized and crippled, who knows? How many are living with PTSD and psychological trauma because of police brutality and misconduct is anybody's guess but it must be in the many tens of thousands.

The police refuse to accept any responsibility for their misconduct and bloodlust, and to an extent I can understand. They are doing what is expected of them by their superiors and by their elected and appointed employers. What the public thinks about it is of little or no concern to them. They reject out of hand any accountability to the public -- apart from routine cosmetic statements which seem to have been produced en masse by PR departments.

So what are we to do? The protests continue to be ignored or put down or and in many cases the "issue" is individualized and shunted off to agencies, departments, grand juries, and district attorneys to "investigate" -- which typically means endless delay -- and then do nothing except exonerate the officer(s) involved. As long as procedures are followed, how could there possibly be a problem?

The public will just have to learn its lesson.

Oh, now and then a few officers, the lowest ranking, may have to retire early or fall on their swords to mollify the public, but nothing is done to alter the policies and protocols that lead to so much carnage. Not "nothing." No, what tends to be done is to "professionalize" the policies to make them even more certainly lethal more often. In other words, what tends to be done is to make things worse. The various domestic wars on crime ensure that the policies and protocols that lead to the carnage and killing remain in place.

The public barely knows what's really going on let alone how to undo the nightmare. A simple count of the dead is one thing. To understand why is something else again.

As long as that is the case, the futility of resistance is assured, no?


We never really know in advance what kind of action will move the powers that be to reform. We must try and try again until we have found a way to do it.

Meanwhile, the imposition of Chaos continues unabated.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

This Was No Split Second Decison

I want people to understand this about police shootings.

So often we hear the police rationale that in a "life or death situation" police have to make "split second decisions" on whether and what kind of force to use in any given circumstance. Sometimes, of course, those decisions lead to "unfortunate loss of life." Oh well. Police "should be able to go home to their families at night." Case closed.

So often we hear the excuses. So often the excuses are false.

The decision to kill is not made in a "split second." Sometimes these decisions are made hours, days, months and even years in advance, not based on what is happening but based the on protocols and policies of sniper squads and special weapons and tactics teams.

Once deployed, the death of the suspect is all but certain. It has nothing whatever to do with "split second" decision making. It has everything to do with the expectations and training of those assigned to do the killing.

KRQE in Albuquerque has done detailed reporting on how it worked in the case of a mentally ill homeless man, James Boyd, shot to death in the Sandia foothills last March. That shooting triggered months of protest and the release of a scathing report from the Department of Justice on the routine violations of civil rights and the many other failings -- some of them clearly criminal -- of the Albuquerque Police Department.

Boyd was shot to death as he was surrendering after a multi-hour standoff between him and as many as 42 officers and a police dog (a dog which was sicced on Boyd and bit him severely after he was shot and paralyzed.) Two of those officers, Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy, shot Boyd to death. Sandy, at the least, has now been documented to have made the decision to shoot him hours before the deed was done. It was his assignment as a member of the elite Repeat Offender Project.

Recently, too, another APD killer, a police sniper named Sean Wallace, has been awarded a commendation by Police Chief Gorden Eden for his outstanding service. So far, he has shot and killed three -- or is it four -- unarmed men. It's his assignment on the force. Of course, the award was for helping to take armed men into custody without shooting them to death, so maybe it's a sign of progress. Maybe not.

Many police forces employ snipers and elite officers and units whose main function is to kill. Once they are assigned and deployed, the suspect will more than likely die.

There is nothing "split second" about it -- except when the bullets enter the person's body.

Monday, October 13, 2014

Wow. Inspiring

The events in St. Louis overnight have been inspiring and moving as all get out. Rebelutionary_Z has been on the front lines, and I've been catching up with some of his archived video.

The first one I looked at was a march to and rally at St. Louis University. Thousands were there. They held their arms high in solidarity for four minutes of silence in the memory of Vonderrit Myers and Mike Brown -- and how many others who have been killed by police? Today's total looks like 1613 since May 1, 2013; at least 860 killed by police since January 1 of this year.

It was inspired for the march organizers to take over the plaza at St. Louis University for the rally, despite the objections of campus security. "Out of the dorms, into the streets!"

Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

Next I watched the confrontation between the police -- who were beating their sticks on the pavement -- and the marchers on the way to the University. We've seen this scene so often not only during the confrontations in Ferguson and St. Louis but around the world it seems. The police, by killing so many, and by acting such fools delegitimize their authority. They just can't help themselves, I guess...

Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

And so it goes.

Today's actions are dubbed "Moral Monday," something that's been ongoing in North Carolina for some time.

It's an idea whose time has come.


Sunday, October 12, 2014

The Revolution Continues... ?

While I've been otherwise engaged, events in St. Louis have taken on quite a broad-based character leading to protests and demonstrations and violent police reactions in the city and surrounding areas.

I've watched a bit of Rebelutionar_Z's livestream recordings from the Shaw demonstrations and the sit-down at the Quik Trip, and it's inspiring. People are taunting the police, and the police are reacting with their usual intimidation and violent tactics, and as we saw in Oakland during the Occupy protests, the upshot is that authority loses legitimacy.

The QT action overnight demonstrates how the process works.

The video below is long, but it's easy to scroll through. At about 33 minutes in, the po-po's tank arrives to threaten the demonstrators, and from that point, things get intense. At about 50 minutes in, the videographer is pepper-sprayed in the face -- again, he says it's the second time in three days that he's been sprayed -- and several in the crowd are sprayed as well. Listen for calls of "Medic!" The police follow crowd clearing protocol without resorting to tear gas, but there are reports of "snatch-and-grabs" and violent arrests. These are typically intended to frighten members of crowds into leaving. They usually work reasonably well. But in this case, the crowd refuses to be intimidated after the confrontation, they walk away.

Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

The police tactics are routine by now, but in this case there's a quality of absurdity made manifest by the police outnumbering the protesters at some points, with the appearance of the tank and the police challenge of camera people. The police claim to be threatened by people with cameras. Indeed.  They are violently arresting sit-down, nonviolent protesters. They hide behind shields, but not everyone in the police line has a shield. One of their vehicles has to be jumpstarted in the street. It's just ridiculous.

"Who do you serve? Who do you protect?"

Obviously, it's not The People.

More videos here.

Others on scene include Tim and Luke. Bella Eiko is in town.

Some mainstream coverage has been occurring as well.

Thousands of people are participating in demonstrations, a fair contingent of youthful anarchists as well as a large group of local and national activists.

The tipping point isn't here yet, but it's coming.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

The Quest Continues

Street scene in St. Louis, c. 1915

I've been spending the last few days going through what seem to be endless archives of photos of Indianapolis, St. Louis, and parts of California that were important sites in my family's and ancestors' history.

The street scene above, for example would have been familiar to my mother's biological father the year before he died. The location is about two miles from where he was killed in 1916.

Union Traction Building in Indianapolis, c. 1910
Periodically after 1900, my mother's biological father worked as streetcar conductor in Indianapolis, and he would have been very familiar with this building and the streetcars that connected the various parts of Indianapolis and the outlying communities. As far as I've been able to find out, he left Indianapolis for St. Louis in 1912 or 1913.

Knights of Pythias Building, Indianapolis, c. 1910

I doubt my mother's biological father was a Pythian, but her stepfather became a member in Indianapolis. It was through his Pythian connections, I'm pretty sure, that he was able to find work in California when he and my mother and her mother left Indianapolis forever in 1917. Her stepfather started as a mechanic for a garage in Santa Maria and worked his way up to garage manager by 1930. He would hire another Pythian in that year to be the service manager for the garage. That man's brother-in-law, hired at the same time, would become my mother's first husband and my sister's father.

U-Auto-Stop, Willits, CA c. 1931

This was the service station and auto-court my mother's stepfather purchased sometime after 1930 and ran in Willits, CA, until 1939, when he sold it and he and my mother's mother moved to Reno where claimed to be a "mining engineer." Something tells me that the "mine" was a fraud, but I don't know.

These are just some of the photos I've been sorting through. Most of the sites where these people were living and working from about 1900 to 1940 or so are long gone. But the rail yard in St. Louis at the end of St. Louis Avenue is still there.

Wabash Rail Yard at the end of St. Louis Ave, St. Louis, MO, c. 2012 via the Google
[I added a bunch of pictures and links but apparently didn't save them. Oh well! Here are some others....]

These are some additional pictures I've found that give me a better idea of the environment members of my family and some of my relations came from:

Both my mother's mother and her mother worked as telephone operators for the Fletcher American National Bank from 1910 or earlier to 1915 or 1916. This picture isn't them... so far as I know:

I wonder who's watching me....
"Number pluh-leeze" c. 1912
Fletcher American National Bank, c. 1915. They had other buildings in Indianapolis as well, but this is likely to be the place where they worked:

Note the street car. At various times in his life, my mother's father worked as a street car conductor, and as I was going through a bunch of Indianapolis street car pictures, I found this one:

Among other things, what's interesting about this picture is the location, E. Michigan Street and N. Emerson Avenue, the line's termination point. According to the story where I found the picture, the E. Michigan Street line was completed to N. Emerson Avenue in 1911. The E. Michigan line ran half a block from where my mother's relations -- including her mother and grandmother, her brother and a cousin -- were living in 1910 and where my mother would live after she was born in 1911. Lawrence, my mother's biological father, was working as a streetcar conductor in 1911. Wouldn't it be something if one of the men in the picture is her father? If the picture was taken in 1915, as stated in the story, it couldn't be him as he was then in St. Louis, but if it were taken any time between 1910 and 1913, it could be.

Progress Laundry c. 1911
This is a picture of the Progress Laundry that opened in 1910. One of my mother's aunts was working as a laundress in 1910, at a laundry not at home (so unlike Mildred Pierce's mother, she didn't take in other people's washing). I don't know that she worked at the Progress Laundry -- there were a number of laundries in Indianapolis at the time -- but it wouldn't surprise me.

A saloon:

Wm Brommer Saloon c. 1909
Looks like they cleaned it up and cleaned the customers out for the picture. I don't know that Lawrence frequented the Brommer Saloon, but he probably visited it -- and a number of others -- while carousing around the town.

The drug store Lawrence was alleged to have burgled in 1912 was owned by a fellow named Ferdinand A. Mueller, who soon thereafter went on to other pursuits:

Mr. Mueller's drug store on E. Washington Street is no longer there. Pretty much nothing is there anymore but parking lots. But Mr. Mueller told the the police and newspapers that so far as he knew, nothing was taken from his store in the infamous burglary.

Saturday Evening Post, published in Indianapolis, December 18, 1915.

Dreher's 1916 Simplex Guide and Map of Indianapolis -- detailing streetcar lines, how to get where you want to go, and showing views of the city.

Afterwhiles, by James Whitcomb Riley. My mother had several copies of this. I didn't know why. Now I do. She also had some other Riley books. Lawrence's middle name was... Riley.

A Hoosier Romance, by James Whitcomb Riley. 1910.

Sooty, gritty, grimy Indianapolis in the movies, c. 1916.

The Golden State, the Sunset, and the California all were "Limiteds" that passed through the orange groves of Southern California back in the day. Looks like the picture dates from before 1920.
And so, they arrive. My mother, her mother, and her stepfather arrived in California in 1917, perhaps in June, perhaps in October. They took the route to Santa Ana where Leo and Edna were wed, then they headed up the coast to Santa Maria where they stayed at least until sometime in the 1930s (haven't quite sorted out the year they left, but it was after 1930.) The postcard is part of the collection of a Canadian fellow named David who has been posting them on his blog since 2009. Many of his cards are simply charming.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

No Wonder She Never Spoke of Her People

Herself, c. 1930
The picture of my mother was taken when she was about 19. In her day, she was considered quite a beauty, and she liked the picture well enough that she had it enlarged and mounted into one of those photo folders that people had in those day. I don't know what happened to the original one as I no longer have it, but I can recall seeing it on the mantle or on a bookshelf from a very early age. I've seen pictures of her taken in the 1930s posing by her snazzy '34 Dodge roadster or in a garden filled with flowers, and to my eyes, she was stunning. She must have turned a lot of heads. In this photo, though, she appears to be so... sad.

She sometimes hesitated to speak of her people, who she came from, but she did speak of them now and then. She wasn't entirely silent. It's just that I don't think she really knew very much, especially about her biological father. She was told about him, but she said she never knew him and didn't remember what he looked like. She had no pictures of him. And I don't think she even knew his first name.

She knew his last name. She used it on some official documents, but most of the time, she used her step-father's last name as her maiden name.  It was much easier to do so, but I don't think he ever adopted her legally. I'm not entirely sure that her mother was legally married to her biological father, either.

What I've found in the records -- and I'm surprised at how much there is online -- is a pretty tangled up story, so this may run long as I try to unravel it.

My mother's father's first name was Lawrence or Laurence (he used both) and he was probably called "Larry" as that's what one of the references I found said he was known as. He was born in September of 1878 in Lebanon, Indiana, a little burg outside of Indianapolis. His father, David, was a Civil War veteran with the Indiana Volunteers who had a civil service position with the federal pension office, and later became a land agent with the state of Indiana. He had six sons.

Larry was the second youngest. He apparently showed a great deal of promise when he was a boy. He was on his elementary school honor roll time and again for perfect attendance and scholarship, and he was engaged in all kinds of activities including appearing in a school pageant recreating a battle in the Civil War when he was 8 or 9 years old.

His family moved to Indianapolis not too long afterwards, around 1889. Larry's oldest brother, Harold, went to St. Louis around 1890 where he worked as a printer and later as a linotype operator for the big circulation daily, the Globe-Democrat. Larry's other brothers, George, Edgar, Clyde and Frank became distinguished in their own way.

Well, except for Clyde. Clyde was working on the railroad, as an up and coming engineer for the CW&M RR out of Wabash when he went hunting with some friends in November of 1898. He'd been married for less than a year and had a six week old son. According to newspaper reports, he accidentally shot himself in the shoulder with his shotgun. The wound was apparently frightful, the only answer being to amputate his left arm at the shoulder, but it wasn't enough to save him. He died at the age of 26, barely settled in as a husband and father.

David's other sons, however, went on and did very well for themselves indeed.

George founded and operated a prominent accounting firm in Indiana which later merged with one of the largest national firms.

Edgar became a distinguished botanist who traveled all over the country and the world. Later he would join his brother's accounting firm, and later still, he would become a real estate investor in Florida where he died at the ripe old age of 101.

Frank was a lawyer who founded a respected legal firm in Indianapolis, the very belly of the beast as it were. He was apparently quite well known for his tenacity in court and in life. Frank and his wife Edna were the ones I found a record of years ago, and because my mother's mother's name was Edna, too, I thought maybe Frank was my mother's biological father.

But I was wrong.

Her father was Larry -- or Lawrence or Laurence -- the black sheep of the family. Larry was practically the definition of Black Sheep.

After doing very well in school in Lebanon, Larry embarked on the life of a rowdy in Indianapolis, the Big City. The first record of arrest I found for him was in 1893 when he was 15. He was arrested with an accomplice named Lyle Justice (oh, the irony) for a string of burglaries in Indianapolis. I don't know how that case was decided as I found no record of followup.

Larry married for the first -- and possibly the only legal -- time in 1896 or 1897 (accounts vary as they will do in this kind of research) to a young woman named Maud who would later -- after her divorce from Larry -- live with the Justice family, and still later she would move to St. Louis and marry Larry's oldest brother Harold, or at least live as his wife. As I said, it's a tangled web.

Maud was the mother of three of Larry's six children. That is, three of the six that I've found so far. There may be more. Who knows? He got around, Larry did. Maud gave birth to Larry's sons George and David, both of whom would eventually move to California, and one of whom, George, would come visit my mother in Los Angeles after she tracked him down somehow. I have no idea how she found him, as he'd changed his name "professionally" and I believe was calling himself Frank King at the time, but officially, he still went by his birth name. At any rate, I recall him coming to visit when I was seven or eight, and for hours and hours he and my mother chatted away about all the things they didn't know about their father.

Maud was also the mother of Florence who went to live with Larry's brother Frank and his wife Edna after Edna apparently had a miscarriage or stillbirth and Larry and Maud had divorced. The boys stayed with Larry for a while, and then were raised by their grandparents as far as I could find out. They didn't, so far as I know, go with Maud -- who had quite a life herownself.

My grandmother Edna (not Frank's wife, the Other Edna) enters this picture sometime around 1907, which would be around the time that Larry and Maud were divorced. Edna was about 17. She claimed to be married to Larry, but I have only found evidence of Larry's legal marriage to Maude, not to anyone else. And so far as I can tell, Edna and Larry never actually lived together, never lived as husband and wife at all. Which would explain why my mother had so few memories of him.

For example, during the time that Larry was supposedly married to my grandmother Edna, he was reported to be squiring around the countryside with his wife and son David visiting friends and relatives. Which wife he's with isn't clarified as her first name isn't mentioned in the reports, but David was Maud's son. For her part, Maud was going visiting, too. She took a trip to St. Louis around 1908 to visit Larry's older brother Harold, for example. These things were commonly noted in the papers at the time, and I keep finding more and more of them. After Larry's death, Maud would live as Harold's wife. But they would separate before Harold died, and he would marry a very young woman named Lillian who was his wife when he died in 1940. The last record of Maud I've found was also in 1940. She was living as a servant in the household of a family in Indianapolis who I otherwise have no information on but they are probably tangled up in this saga somehow as well.

My mother was born in November of 1911. According to what I have found in the research, another woman in Indianapolis gave birth to a son Virgil in March of 1911, and claimed that Larry was the boy's father. This report comes from Virgil's descendants, however, and I don't know how it was determined that Larry was Virgil's father. We'll leave that an open question for the time being, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Virgil were Larry's son by another woman, a woman he was seeing at the same time he was supposedly married to my grandmother.

Edna was living with her mother and two aunts and her brother and a cousin a mile or so from Larry's parents' home where Larry was living with his sons in 1910. Later, Larry would move down the street where he was living with another family next door to relatives of the man who would become my mother's stepfather. How tangled does it get?

In May of 1912, Larry was arrested after a foot chase through the mean streets of downtown Indianapolis. Shots were fired by Larry's pursuer, and a plate glass window at a restaurant was broken. Larry was apprehended and charged with burglary of a drugstore. He denied the charge but he was suspected in a long string of burglaries in his neighborhood, as well as other petty crimes. The case was turned over to the grand jury, and I don't know the disposition, but soon after, Larry was gone from Indianapolis.

In August of 1912, my grandmother Edna filed for divorce from Lawrence, but again, I don't know the disposition. After Larry was killed, Edna claimed to be a widow, and as far as I know, she never mentioned to my mother that she had divorced Larry before he died.

My mother believed that her father was a streetcar conductor in Indianapolis who died in a collision when he was crushed between the cars. That's the story she told me, and she said that's the way she heard it from her mother.

Only Larry wasn't in Indianapolis and he wasn't working as a streetcar conductor when he was killed. He was in St. Louis working for the Wabash RR at the St. Louis Avenue yards as a freight train switchman. According to news reports of his death, on December 19, 1916, a refrigerator car collided with another freight car in the yards. Larry was between them and died.

His death certificate states that he died from "shock and injuries" from the collision -- with the following note in parens below:

"(Body cut in two.)"
Oh my.

No wonder his then-wife Marie filled out the death certificate with a very shaky hand, and according to her statements on the certificate, she knew very little about her husband, not even his correct age.

After Larry disappeared from the records in Indianapolis, he doesn't turn up again until a daughter by Marie named Helen is born in 1914. His brother Harold had been in St. Louis since about 1890, and there are other relatives there as well, some of them working on the railroad. Larry's brother Clyde had been a railroad engineer in Wabash, Indiana, when he died, and Larry worked as a railroad switchman in St. Louis for the Wabash line. During his working life, Larry had held all kinds of jobs in Indianapolis, including that of streetcar conductor, milk inspector, railroad brakeman, and so on. He seemed to work most often as a conductor, but he's listed in many other positions in the city directories. Every year, he seemed to be doing something different.

Of course, given his tendency to burgle and womanize, and doG knows what all else he did, it's probably little wonder he didn't hold a position for very long.

I have to believe that his arrest in 1912 was a turning point in Larry's life. He wasn't a child anymore, he was 34 (though his age is reported to be 30 in the news item of his arrest.) He had several children, perhaps five or more, a couple of wives, and he hadn't settled down. Not even close. When he was arrested, he was living with a family down the street from his parents' house and next door to a family from which my mother's step-father, Edna's second husband, would come. My mother believed that her step-father had been a friend of Larry's and a working colleague on the streetcar line -- which may be true -- but Larry was also accused of burglarizing his neighbors, so I doubt that he and my mother's step-father were particularly close.

My mother's step-father -- his name was Leo, but he went by a nickname I've forgotten -- was the nephew of Alex who headed the household next door to where Larry was living in 1912 when he was arrested. Leo's parents and siblings were living a few blocks away at the time. Leo was living with his parents in 1910, and it's likely that he was visiting his family down the street. It's just as likely that he knew Larry's relations in the neighborhood as well. My grandmother Edna and her mother and aunts were living a half-hour's walk or less from the section of town where Larry and his parents and Leo and his relations were living, and it would have been a ten minute ride on a streetcar.

I've Googled many of the addresses listed for these people and other relations in Indianapolis and other cities, and not surprisingly, many of them aren't there any more. It was a long time ago, after all. The house where Larry was living in 1912 when he was arrested is gone. The site is a vacant lot. The house where Leo's uncle and family were living is still there but it's an abandoned ruin. The house were Larry's parents were living is still there and it's currently home to a family (at least as of the latest Google street view taken in June of this year.) The house where Edna and her relations were living is gone, replaced in 1915 with fire station.  The station is not operating, but it's still there and serves the fire department's historians.

The house where Larry and his wife Marie and daughter Helen were living in St. Louis when he was killed has been replaced with a freeway off ramp. But the St. Louis Avenue railyards are still there. From the overhead view, it looks like it's a Superfund site, as I can well imagine.

Larry was killed in St. Louis in December of 1916 when my mother was five years old. She recalled that at the funeral, Larry's "other family" showed up and it was a great scandal. She said she remembered that there was a little girl named Helen with the other mother, and she felt so sorry for her. She remembered this happening in Indianapolis, but Larry's funeral was in St. Louis where he is buried. Maybe my mother and her mother went to St. Louis for the funeral, and maybe they were the "other family" and such scandal as there was was because of them. I don't know.

But within a few months of Larry's death, Edna and my mother Virginia, and Larry's friend Leo left Indianapolis for California and never looked back. I'd been told that Leo and Edna were married in Indianapolis, but I found a marriage certificate that said they were married in Santa Ana, California, in October of 1917. Edna declared herself to be a widow at that time and she used Larry's last name, which she did not do in Indianapolis. Leo had never been married.

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe they arrived in California in June of 1917, and they were already settled in Santa Maria where Leo went to work as a mechanic for the German proprietor of an automobile dealership. He would become a service station proprietor on his own account. Later he would become a mining engineer in Reno. He worked at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard as a machinist during WWII, and he owned a motor court in Willits when he died in 1945.
I found additional information about him, and the "motor court" story is not quite what I was told or remembered. I'll try to unravel it. Leo  worked in California as a mechanic for an auto dealer. Then, by 1930, he had his own service station. Then he bought a motor court and service station and moved to Willits, probably after my mother was married for the first time. In 1939, he sold the business in Willits and moved to Reno, where he claimed to be a mining engineer for an outfit that may have been just him. That venture seems not to have done well, and in 1941, he's in Vallejo working at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard as a machinist. He died in 1945 in Sonoma. How he got there or what he was doing there, I don't know.

Edna died in 1941 in Vallejo while Leo was working at Mare Island. She had cancer and could not be -- or was not -- treated in time to save her life.

On at least one occasion, Ida, Edna's mother, came out to California to visit. My sister was about seven or eight when Ida came calling sometime in the late '30s, and she remembered her as quite a character, sharp-tongued and funny. My sister thought she was British. Ida was in Chicago with her son Ralph (Edna's brother) in 1917, but she went back to Indianapolis at some point where she lived with her sisters again, and she died in Indianapolis, sometime before 1940. She had been a widow since 1904.

My mother died in 1987. It was only after her death that I became very curious about her biological father who died when she was so young. I don't know if she knew her father had been a petty and apparently habitual criminal. If she did, she never said anything about it. She knew he had another family, but I don't know if she knew how many children he sired, or how many "other families" there were. There are hints in the records I've found that he may have been a drug addict; if so, it might explain some of his behavior. His character was certainly quite different from that of his brothers. From what I can tell at this distance, his parents were very staid and were probably mortified by his actions and behavior. I expect it was their decision to send him to St. Louis to get right with himself and build a decent life and to get away from the bad habits and the bad crowd he was running with in Indianapolis. It seems he may have tried to do that, but fate intervened. I haven't been able to read the full motto on his gravestone, but the last line is "Duty called and took a life." Indeed.

His death was gruesome and I'm not sure my mother really knew how horrible it had been, that he'd died in pieces, not unlike some of the soldiers who were being slaughtered in Europe at the time.

I'm not sure my mother knew that his life was pretty wild -- apart from the "scandal" she knew about, the "scandal" of his other family, which she always thought was at the other end of the streetcar line.