"Armed" and Disobedient and Black -- and the Lies Police Tell

As my handful of readers may know, I've been involved in anti-police violence campaigns for a couple of decades now, starting with an effort in Sacramento spearheaded by the NAACP to curb police brutality in the mid-'90s. In those days, killings by SPD were rare (I wish they still were), but Sacramento police were notorious for essentially arbitrary and random violence and brutality toward civilians. The reports that we collected from citizens were horrifying and graphic. They were used as part of a long campaign to bring accountability and reform to the Sacramento Police Department, a campaign which was partially successful.

The important part of the success of the campaign, at least to me, was that there was a significant reduction in the use of brutal tactics by the SPD and a consequent rise in public respect and regard for the police. This was not simply a matter of implementing a "stop beating us" comand from the top -- there were many components to the reform effort -- but that was a big part of it.

Although the campaign was spearheaded by the Sacramento NAACP, the reports and statistics we collected demonstrated clearly that most of those subjected to police brutality at that time were white, for the most part poor whites. Hispanics, Asians, American Indians, and Blacks were not exempt by any means, nor, interestingly were women exempt, but there seemed to be a pattern of police brutality toward poor whites that was intended to leave a message of pain and terror in poor white communities, regardless of any actual criminality.

The same message was being delivered to other poor and ethnic minority communities in Sacramento. " Get outta line, or just be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and we'll beat the shit out of you."

(Note: Sacramento Sheriff's Department was -- and arguably still is -- worse by an order of magnitude, but the Sheriff's Department was not the direct target of the anti-police brutality campaign at that time. Nevertheless, they, too instituted some reforms as a result of the campaign -- as well as a result of numerous lawsuits brought against them for death and injury to civilians.)

One of the factors discovered during this campaign years ago was the litany of lies the police (and sheriffs) told to justify and excuse their brutality toward the public. These lies were ingrained into the culture of policing, so woven into that culture that I don't think the police even knew they were telling lies any more; lying was all but unconscious. But it was a fact.

They would routinely claim, for example, that the individual "resisted arrest," when it was patently untrue -- but nobody (who mattered) questioned police accounts, so why shouldn't they lie about their behavior and that of the public they supposedly served? Why shouldn't they? They lied about struggles that never took place. They lied about reasons for encounters. They lied about crimes supposedly in progress, flights of suspects that weren't and so on.

These lies were caught out and called out again and again, but this was before body cameras and the ubiquity of cell phone cameras, so it was the officer's word against the public's, and for the most part, the officer's word -- even if it was a lie -- trumped the public's testimony every time.

Every time. That was an immense frustration, of course, and if it hadn't been for the intervention of the police chief, the mayor and the city manager, I don't believe there would have been any change to police behavior as a result of our campaign.

There was a lot of media coverage, however, and those individuals did intervene, and there were reforms. Accountability mechanisms were put in place -- not the one we wanted, a civilian review board, but at least there was something -- and behaviors were modified. Community policing programs were instituted (we can argue about that another time), and the number of complaints of brutality against the police dropped remarkably. While people might not have trusted them completely, the level of respect and trust between the police and the public improved substantially.

So. Success? Partially, yes. The situation seems to have deteriorated since then, and there's apparently been a lot of backsliding within the police department, but I'm not close to that situation any more, so I can't really comment on it -- except for the singular recent episode of the SPD killing of Joseph Mann which I have referred to in past posts and will refer to again in this one.

As I say, Sacramento police were not known as notorious killers back in the '90s and they still aren't in comparison to some other cities. Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. The number of killings by SPD is still quite low, although it has "ticked up" over the years. But the killing of Joseph Mann was shocking for the lies the department told to justify it, and for the obvious execution that took place in front of multiple video cameras.

It was a parallel incident to many of the outrageous street executions that have been taking place all over the country, documented by video and horrifying the public over and over again. Homeless, black, "armed", and in crisis, men (and some women) are targeted by police for summary execution nearly everywhere it seems. How did we descend to such depths of depravity where such conduct by police is acceptable or more and more routine?

That was one of the issues that ran through the campaign to stop police killings in Albuquerque, a campaign I was peripherally involved with. Over and over again police were killing.executing homeless, mentally ill, "armed" individuals (mostly men, but one woman notoriously) and they seemed to relish the job. They would routinely lie about it, too.

People in ABQ finally said "enough" when police snipers Dominque Perez of the SWAT team, and
Keith Sandy of the Repeat Offenders Project shot and killed James Boyd in the foothills of the Sandia Mountains in March of 2014. Boyd was homeless, mentally ill, and disobedient. He was "armed" with two small folding knives which he used to ward off police on scene. Ergo, he was subject to summary execution. Perez and Sandy did the job, and they are now on trial for murder 2. During the trial, I learned there was another police sniper on scene who would have done the job -- except for the fact that Sandy and Perez and another officer were in the way. Oh for fuck's sake.

How did we descend to this level of depravity?

The absence of mental health care services, crisis intervention, and de-escalation/non-lethal tactics and options by police is well known, indeed it's notorious, throughout the country. The Boyd case is quite a bit more complex, however, and I won't go into that right now. The upshot over and over again is that people who shouldn't be dead are killed by police routinely. Police show "depraved indifference" for the lives of whole categories of individuals whom they kill with near total impunity, despite studies and task forces and reports, and particularly despite protests which have one message: STOP THE KILLING!

In some places -- including Albuquerque at least temporarily -- the message gets through. But in others? No. Not yet anyway.

If you are considered "armed" -- whether you are or not -- disobedient, and (particularly) if you are black, and you are in a confrontation with police, most often if the police are white, but not always, be prepared to die, because they will kill you.

They believe sincerely that killing you is their job. They have been rigorously taught and conditioned to believe you are an existential threat to be "neutralized," and almost always, when they perform their job in "neutralizing" you -- ie: killing you -- they are absolved of criminal liability, indeed, in many cases they are rewarded.

Recent cases include the street execution of Joseph Mann in Sacramento in July, police dashcam and private surveillance video of which has been released within the past week. There was a shaky and distant civilian video released in August, but it did not clearly show what happened. Sacramento police refused outright to release their dash cam and/or body cam videos of the incident claiming that doing so would "compromise the investigation." When the civilian video was released by Mann's family's attorney in August, however, it strongly suggested that the police account of what happened was a lie. Then, last Monday, the Sacramento Bee obtained and released a relatively clear surveillance video of the shooting, demonstrating all but conclusively that SPD had in fact lied about what happened, and showing without any doubt at all that Mr. Mann was summarily executed on the street, as have so many disobedient black men been executed.

The next day, SPD released three dash cam videos showing parts of the incident, confirming that indeed SPD had lied about what happened, and yes, Mr. Mann was executed by two police officers -- who I have been told will be fired within the next few months. The police chief has announced his impending retirement. The mayor has declared that "something" (unspecified) "should be done" about this... later clarified as "more transparency" which is not a solution at all, but he did appoint a subcommittee to review and make recommendations about "protocols..." I'm not holding my breath.

Meanwhile in Tulsa, a disobedient but unarmed black man, Terence Crutcher,  was shot and killed by a clearly panicking police officer, "in fear for her life," (the take away quote being, "I have never been so frightened in my life!") because... ???

Crutcher was not (apparently) obeying her "commands" -- when did police obtain the authority to command civilians, and who granted that authority? -- but he was not threatening her in any objective way, either (disobedience is not a priori a "threat.")  The initial statements from Tulsa police about the incident were lies, but that's standard protocol it seems.

Crutcher was not armed, and he did not "reach into" his vehicle for a weapon (there was none) as stated by police, nor did he "reach for" a weapon in his waistband or pocket (there was none.) According to his family's attorney, he could not have reached into the vehicle because the driver's side window was rolled up. The police account that he had done so was a fantasy, or it was a deliberate and cynical lie.

The statement by the officer that he was not showing her his hands (thus justifying her panic and fear) was shown to be... "inoperative" when video from police dash cams and a helicopter camera showed Crutcher walking away from the officer (with her gun drawn) with his hands raised high over his head. He disobeys her (in that he does not stop and get on the ground) but he does not in any way whatsoever threaten her. When he reaches his car, he does not reach into the vehicle and he does not reach into his pocket (contra the statements of police) yet he is shot with a taser and police bullet essentially simultaneously. He falls, gravely wounded, while police back away "infearfortheirlives and thesafetyofothers," as Crutcher bleeds out on the street -- standard protocol in police involved shootings. Later, the officers involved in firing upon Crutcher are seen crouched behind a police car while other officers tend to Crutcher, some (astonishingly) surprisingly not infearfortheirlives and thesafetyofothers, and actually providing something like first aid -- all but unheard of in cases of police involved shooting.

Betty Shelby, the officer who fired the fatal shot, was promptly charged with manslaughter.

Her panic and fear apparently not overriding clear evidence that shooting and killing Terence Crutcher was not justified in the eyes of the district attorney.

We'll await results of a trial.

In Charlotte, Keith Scott was shot and killed by a black police officer for reasons that are unclear despite statements by CPD that he was armed and disobedient -- and black -- and we know what that can and too often does lead to.

The Charlotte police department has adamantly refused to release body and dash cam video of the incident citing the ongoing "investigation," but also describing the videos as "inconclusive" and "ambiguous" as to whether or not Mr. Scott was armed and/or "threatened" the officers.

His family saw one of the videos (or perhaps more) and stated through their attorney that one can't tell what -- if anything -- Mr. Scott has in his hand, whether a gun or a book or anything at all, but also stating that police accounts of Scott "advancing" on officers or threatening them in any way are simply false. No such thing happened.

But who knows, as police will not release the videos, and a North Carolina law is shortly to go into effect forbidding  release of police video absent a court order. Oh my.

So Keith Scott's wife released her own video of the incident, a video which does not show Mr. Scott until after he's been shot, but which, interestingly, suggests that the still photo which CPD released which they claim shows the gun Mr. Scott had and "brandished" at police and "refused" to drop at police command, may not be a gun at all, and which shows conclusively that no such object was at Mr. Scott's feet shortly after he was shot.

Charlotte police not only have not released their own videos of the incident, they have been lying  ("as is standard in cases of police involved shootings" as I put it in a previous post) about what happened and have been issuing false information (such as the photo they have circulated showing a "gun" at Scott's feet.)

"Armed", disobedient, and black is too often a death sentence in this country. "Armed," disobedient and mentally ill in this country is too often a death sentence in this country. The mere report of someone "armed" and disobedient can too often be a death sentence in this country. And too often, police are protected from criminal culpability when they kill someone in this country.

On the other hand, police in this country are trained and conditioned to believe that a  disobedient black or mentally ill individual represents an existential threat to be "neutralized" -- regardless of whether he or she is "armed." Preferable "neutralization" is death.

Many police departments have designated killers whose specific job duty is the "neutralization" of threats. Most police departments place "force protection" (ie: protection of police officers) at the top of their priority list. Safety and protection of civilians -- particularly of suspects/subjects -- may not even be on their list of priorities at all.

Police are trained and expected to be confrontational, authoritarian, and aggressive in most cases where they suspect or encounter disobedience or anything less than immediate compliance with their often contradictory or incomprehensible "commands." In most cases, police are given free latitude to use any level of force they deem appropriate or necessary to gain compliance or to neutralize a threat based solely on their perception at the moment.

"Second guessing" their "split-second decisions" is forbidden. The only standard recognized by courts and many departments is the stated perception of the officer at the moment he or she uses whatever force the officer deems necessary including lethal force -- ie: "fearingformylifeandthesafetyofothers", invoked as a mantra. Thus it is almost impossible to hold police officers criminally liable or even administratively responsible for anything they do under color of authority (apart from some sexual misconduct.)

Killing is fine; lying about it is "standard protocol"; having an affair can (but most often won't) get them fired. Domestic abuse and/or rape might get them in court...

I ask again, how did we descend to such a level of depravity? And what does it take to reverse the descent?

That's a topic for another post. The issue is complex, but the problem is not hopeless. "Reform" is not always the answer, nor is it always possible. Sometimes "abolition" is the only way forward. It has been done a few times when irredeemably corrupt police departments have been abolished altogether, but the movement for abolition of police departments is only in its infancy. There is a growing recognition that something is terribly wrong with policing in this country, but the rot infects the entire justice and corrections systems, top to bottom. That rot is paralleled in the social service realm, education, economic and political sectors as well.

The United States has been on this downward socio/political spiral for more than a generation. Not that everything was perfect before -- far from it. What we need to do is recognize that the current course -- including police impunity, but not limited to it -- is unsustainable and there needs to be a collective determination to institute fundamental systemic change.

Betrayal -- the Gliniewicz Thing and So On and So Forth

So he killed himself for fear of being exposed as an embezzler and worse, and he staged it to blame the fictive "War on Cops" for his death. I see. Thousands poured out for his funeral wherein he was hailed a Hero, yadda yadda, and media police departments and media fell all over themselves to laud the man and his sacrifice to serve and protect the rest of us.

Only none of it was true. It was all false.

It was all false. The man was a veritable demon, an example of the kind of monstrosity police departments are infested with, often led by as was the case here, and the kind of things the police have been allowed to get away with for generations. Literally, they can do just about anything they want so long as what they do does not inconvenience or discommode the powerful.

Anything.

Murder most foul, so far as we know now, was not one of Gliniewicz's specialties, but as more information comes out, we may learn of this or that murder at his hand.


We do know that a police officer who shot an unarmed man in the back twice, killing him, after tasing the shit out of him was acquitted of all charges the other day -- because, according to her lawyer, "she feared for her safety."



Yes, well, obviously the officer is out of her fricking mind as she repeatedly fires off her high voltage taser while screaming incomprehensibly at the man she kills -- who is writhing in pain on the ground. Whenever he does or doesn't do something, she screams some more, and then after firing off her taser again, inexplicably she shoots him with her firearm twice in the back and then she continues to scream at him.

This is insane behavior of a roided up madwoman who should never, ever be allowed near a firearm again and should not, under any circumstances be employed as police officer. By rights, she should be in custody and in rehab.

But no. Her statement is "I shall return to police work." Which is the utter last thing she should be doing. She is unfit in every imaginable way.

No doubt she justified her actions in her own mind, much as Gliniewicz must have justified his somewhat less lethal (so far as we know) but outrageous actions in his mind, because they are possessed of god-like powers that society (or the law at any rate) has granted police officers -- so long as they don't interfere with the High and the Mighty, the Powerful. After all, Mearkle only killed another druggie on the run. What's to worry? One more piece of human trash to dispose of, no?

Gliniewicz on the other hand was stealing from a program that was funded by some of those High and Mighty, and he was using the money for surprisingly selfish and apparently absurd ends. And in his god-like sense of self, he was commanding and threatening to protect himself. Ultimately, it came to an end when he killed himself, but even then, he produced a scenario to blame others -- the so called "anti-police warriors" -- a blame which was picked up and widely spread by FOX "news" and other media, and by police departments and even the FBI and DEA chiefs, as part of their ongoing wagon-circling and protective hunkering down in the face of mounting public criticism of police violence.

For criticizing violent policing is "War on Police."  That's how it's been characterized by many of those who should know better. There is no "War on Police." There is a police war on the public, however, and they're pulling out all the stops -- to ensure their invulnerability. Their tactics utilize the same sort of falsehoods and rationalizations that went into Mearkle's and Gliniewicz's self-justifications for outrageous conduct.

One of the tactics long used by our military in the seemingly endless overseas imperial adventures is to draw out the opposition, making them visible and thus making them vulnerable to extermination. At one time, this was done by troops jeopardizing their own safety, by showing apparent vulnerability, but no longer. Now it is generally a case of "Death from Above" based on "intelligence."

Drones or AC-130s or what have you are sent on extermination missions based on "intelligence" that says suspected militants are or will be visible at thus and so location and must be terminated with extreme prejudice.

That's how the MSF hospital in Kunduz was targeted. Of course the military knew what the target was. Let's not fool ourselves, please. The US military has repeatedly targeted hospitals, clinics, ambulances, etc, just like the Israeli military does, and it's no accident, no "mistake." It is deliberate. According to reports, medical personnel running from the bombed out hospital were also targeted individually, and some were killed as they ran.

If you've ever seen a video of an attack by an AC-130 you know it can be horrifying and immensely destructive. You also know that the attackers know what they are attacking -- whether it be a school, a community center, a mosque or a residential compound, they know.

So the idea that they somehow didn't know the MSF hospital was what it was is false on its face. Of course they knew. They knew that attacking it could be considered a war crime, too, and they didn't care.

Not a bit. Why should they? Nobody can hold them to account. Nobody.

MSF tries but they don't seem to be getting anywhere. The powers that unleashed the attack refuse to allow an independent investigation, and so that's where things will lie for the foreseeable future, in limbo, with everyone knowing what happened, but no one held culpable for it.

This attitude has been transferred to policing wholesale. It is almost impossible to hold officers legally liable for anything they do while on duty -- so long as what they do does not impinge on the prerogatives of the Important People.

Police have been granted almost complete legal impunity to kill at will, and to do just about any other kind of violence against the public so long as it doesn't interfere with the comfort and convenience of Their Betters, and the officer(s) can rationalize their actions as reaction to "fearing for their lives and the safety of others."

Gliniewicz apparently interfered with his Betters interests whereas Mearkle did not.

Such a long row to hoe...

Impunity Marches On

Bob McCulloch is turning into quite the little sideshow these days. He's the so-called St. Louis County prosecutor who rigged and manipulated the grand jury to return a no-bill on Darren Wilson for the execution of Mike Brown. [Note: I use the term "execution" in preference to "murder" because his actions and his excuses are in line with someone who summarily executes (under color of authority) rather than someone who premeditates and kills.]

McCulloch went public with the fact that he knew Witness 40 -- Sandra McElroy -- was bullshitting, lying, fabricating, etc, when she was called before the GJ to testify to what she had "witnessed" that day on Canfield Drive. Her testimony was almost word-for-word corroboration of Darren Wilson's story as reported in the St. Louis Post Dispatch the previous day. McElroy's testimony has been quoted numerous times in the media -- particularly on FOX -- to "prove" that Brown was charging the officer and did not have his hands up, yadda, yadda.

Except the "proof" is a fabrication.

McCulloch claims he knew it was fabrication and lies when his staff put her on the stand. So? The chest-out brazenness of it is pretty shocking. But then he's also said that plenty of witnesses lied to the grand jury, some on behalf of Brown and some on behalf of Wilson, and all he did was give the grand jury as much evidence and testimony as he could and let them decide whether there was evidence sufficient to charge Wilson with a crime.

They said "No," like nearly all grand juries and DAs do.

No matter what the cop does, what the testimony and evidence show, cops are almost never-ever charged with a crime when they kill someone. Sexual indiscretions, on the other hand, can get them into plenty of hot water.

McCulloch's brazenness in this case mirrors his brazenness in many others, wherein he not only refused to indict cops who committed "street justice", he used the opportunities to smear the victims and witnesses alike, just as he did in the Darren Wilson matter. It is his way, and it's the way of most DAs. Cops are perhaps imperfect, but the people they kill are monsters who need to be put down, at least in the culture and lore of the police/DA continuum. No matter the facts.

We're seeing this brazen impunity play out again and again, all over the country, in almost every case of police killing, while the People raging in the streets over it risk becoming part of the background noise of a society and globe in crisis.

I may have said it before, but it looks to me like Authority -- in the persons of Bob McCulloch and his counterparts in much of the country, and in the persons of chiefs of police and police union honchos, and in the persons of governors and various other political leaders -- are deliberately trying to incite rebellion, perhaps as a means to gauge the depth of resistance to the New Model American System.

In other words, there is at least a suggestion in McCulloch's behavior and that of the various PDs involved in the killing of Mike Brown and its aftermath of a deliberate intent to cause rebellion in order to study it, counter it and suppress it. A large-scale social experiment you might say.

There is a growing recognition that the American justice system -- from the cops on the beat to the Supreme Court -- is broken. Disparate justice is the rule, impunity for those with power vs harsh retribution for those without is the standard. There is no sign that Our Rulers will do anything to redress the legitimate grievances of the People and restore balance to a justice system out of whack.

Incidents keep piling up, but nothing substantive is done about it. Too many people like things just the way they are.

And people like Bob McCulloch and his counterparts are brazen as all get out about it, because they know that nothing can or will be done about it under the current system, and they are confident that the current system will endure, no matter the rebellion in the streets.

Impunity marches on.

Officers Keith Sandy and Dominique Perez, the Executioners of James Boyd, to be Indicted on an Open Count of Murder???? Get Out...

Word has been circulating in Albuquerque that the men who killed James Boyd on March 16, 2014, in the Sandia foothills east of town will be indicted on an open count of murder sometime in the spring or whenever Bernalillo County District Attorney Kari Brandenburg gets around to it.

Will wonders never cease?

Actually,  this Wonder is one to take with a grain of salt. Given her history, Brandenburg would not indict them -- or any other police officer performing his "duty" -- without enormous political pressure, and the way she's said to be going about it, skipping the grand jury and going directly to a judge who will rule on whether or not there is sufficient evidence to go to trial at a preliminary hearing (think Perry Mason), indicates she is not interested in a conviction, only the cover of an indictment to show that she "did her job," and oh well, isn't it too bad, just too damn bad, that these two get off.

Previously, it was reported that the parallel FBI probe of the Boyd execution was unlikely to result in any charges.

Also, too, it's possible neither of these stories is true. They may be put "out there" as oil on the waters.
----------------------------------------------------
In other news, Jeremy Dear, the APD officer who stalked and killed Mary Hawkes in April of 2014, was let go from the department for his consistent failure to turn on his body camera when interacting with the public. There was no video of the Hawkes killing because -- apparently -- Dear didn't turn on his camera once again, ergo... bye bye. Problem is, he has a team of lawyers (all police officers seem to have a team of lawyers these days) who strenuously object to his dismissal and are working to get his job back.
------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Shane Todd, the State Police sniper who operates in the Albuquerque area and who shot and killed Kendall Carroll in Albuquerque and Ernest Atterberry in Moriarty and who has shot and wounded others, has not been named as the shooter who fired at and wounded a suicidal Christopher Gallegos on Interstate 25 the other day. The lack of information in this incident is troubling. Whether Todd was the shooter in this incident remains unknown. There are hints that he was shot by officer(s) who approached his truck, but what actually happened remains a mystery.
----------------------------------------------------
The Bernalillo County Sheriff's Deputy who shot and killed Adam Padilla the other day as Bobby Unser watched has not yet been named either. My sense is the deputy may have panicked when Padilla got out of his car and approached the officer -- who may have just discovered outstanding warrants on Padilla.

Impunity vs Inconvenience

During the latest round of protests against police violence, murder and impunity, activists have repeatedly shut down freeways through many cities as well as taking over major intersections for anywhere from a few minutes to an hour or more.

There have been nearly constant complaints that these tactics of inconvenience are alienating would-be supporters. It may or may not be true, but the simple fact is that the inconveniences of freeway shut-downs and other roadway difficulties are commonplace, everyday occurrences. They're routinely caused by construction and reconstruction, wrecks, police chases, loose dogs or cattle, you name it. One's convenience is forever being messed with, and most people long ago came to grips with it.

Yet when protesters shut the freeways down or hold a die-in at the shopping mall or disrupt a meeting of the powerful to ensure their voices are heard, pearls are clutched and garments are extensively rent over the inconvenience these dambed protesters cause and how much trouble they're making to no object whatsoever.

It's bizarre. Especially in contrast to the complete impunity with which police and many of the high and mighty seem to operate. Compared to the injustice of that impunity, the inconvenience of a protest shut-down ("If we don't get it, shut it down!" "Who shuts shit down? We shut shit down!") is as nothing. Compared to the looting of the entire economy and everybody's pocketbooks conducted by the titans of finance, the sporadic and mostly targeted looting that took place in Ferguson and a few other places is nothing. Compared to the destruction of whole communities caused by both the police and the titans of finance, the arson that took place during some of the protests (attributed to the protesters but without evidence or proof) was nothing.

Impunity is the keyword here. Some people, agencies and institutions seem to have it. Others do not. The police get away with mayhem and murder all the time, and they are celebrated and praised for it. The financial sector loots with complete impunity -- and they are rewarded when they do something particularly outrageous particularly well.

The military seemed to set the standard in Iraq and Afghanistan for the use of force and impunity we see among police. In Iraq, any Iraqi seen with a weapon was subject to summary execution. Hundreds or thousands of Iraqi civilians attempting to protect their homes and property from the invaders or from criminals were shot on sight. In Iraq and Afghanistan, if a military transport was caught in traffic or a native-driven vehicle or pedestrian was in the way of a military transport, crushing the vehicle and everyone in it, running down the pedestrian, or what have you to get through to their destination was routine. Check-point murders were almost too frequent to count. If the Iraqi or Afghani native didn't instantly obey the commands of the checkpoint officers, and the officers perceived any kind of threat from the native, lethal force was authorized and employed with some relish. If there was a resistance attack on troops, troops were authorized to open fire on everyone in the vicinity, and in "clearing" buildings, everyone found inside, regardless of status, was subject to immediate execution. Every Iraqi and Afghani male between the ages of 16 and 60 was usually seen as a threat and a combatant, again, regardless of status, and many were killed simply because of their gender and age.


Iraqi and Afghani dogs and donkeys were considered existential threats and were often shot on sight. Wounded civilians and fighters were often left unattended, and in one particularly horrifying incident in Fallujah documented by Kevin Sites, a line of wounded men sitting against the wall of a mosque were shot to pieces by brave American soldiers, and one was shot dead lying on a stretcher as the hopped up troop who killed him screamed "He's faking he's dead!!!"

These and many, many other murders during the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan were considered "justified" so long as those committing them were following the rules of engagement, rules that were never clearly articulated to the local population, rules that could always be invoked and interpreted to absolve the killers of culpability. Thus many thousands died most of them innocent of any transgression they knew of, and the troops committing the homicides got away with it.

The situation is not exactly analogous among domestic police forces, but it is very similar. Similar enough for the comparison between domestic police and an occupying army to be frequently noted.

The only time troops were seriously held to account was over sexual offenses and issues. And so it seems to be among domestic police forces as well. Those who are caught in sexually compromised situations may well wind up in court for their trouble, but let them kill someone or run them down, or otherwise leave a trail of blood behind them, and they might just get a medal and a parade. It's a totally screwed up institutional situation in which there is no justice -- at least no justice by any definition the victims and survivors would recognize.

And yet the perpetual injustices of a warped and insensitive system are somehow to be endured by the victims and survivors while a few minutes' inconvenience caused by those protesting this insanity is considered intrusive and alienating, even by many "good liberals."

It's bullshit.

People are dying and there is no justice. Individuals, families, and whole communities are being destroyed by police and by policies of those on high, and there is no justice.

The fact that someone might have to wait a while during a protest against injustice and impunity is just too damn bad. Deal with it.

"No justice, no peace! No racist police!"

From what I've seen, the protests have been remarkable in many ways. The numbers getting out into the streets to protest police impunity and injustice and demand police accountability are impressive. As I've said, we've -- finally -- reached the tipping point on the issue of police violence and murder, and changes will come.

How it will resolve is still something of a mystery, though, and I don't trust those in power and authority to do the right thing. They certainly won't do so on their own, and they will only do as little as possible under pressure. They seem to revel in the mock-military bloodshed they commit and do not want to give it up willingly. So we'll see.

In the meantime, abundant respect and praise to the protesters. Solidarity!

Speaking of Which -- The LAPD Thing

Newspaper delivery truck shot to pieces. Oops.

Yes. Well.

When I saw a brief mention on the news yesterday that a former LAPD officer had shot a bunch of people, had issued a "manifesto", and disappeared and then saw something about Torrance police shooting two women in a blue pick up (Oops! Sorry! Wrong one!) it was all I could do to keep my blood from boiling. This is the kind of impunity by those with guns -- and that includes the police and in this case ex-police -- that gets people into a froth and frenzy. Why are people with guns going around shooting like this seemingly more and more often? Why do they think they have a right to do it with impunity?

During the day, I didn't really follow the events of the manhunt, and I had no idea whether other people had been shot by police or by the fugitive ex LAPD officer, but if any had been, I wouldn't have been surprised. Later in the evening, I found a site that posted the uncensored version of Christopher Dorner's "manifesto," and I read part of it, and...

Oh dear.

I saw why LAPD was in such a total meltdown. It's not just police departments, it's practically the entire government at every level dreading the day when one of their "own" as it were goes on a rampage like this and tells the world exactly -- and truthfully -- why. It's similar to the days when "going postal" became a meme and a metaphor for abused workers taking their anger and frustrations out on their bosses and fellow workers.

The LAPD has been a witches brew of intrigue and corruption, lies and brutality, murder and worse, going back generations. All the efforts at reform dating especially from the Rodney King Thing in 1991 have largely been eyewash, and everybody knows it. The system carries an incurable disease within it. The only real answer is to abolish the Department (and all kinds of ancillary and dependent agencies) and start over. This is true of many urban police departments and not a few non-urban ones. When operated with such impunity, it's hard not to become corrupt.

Dorner's specific complaint, that he was unjustly accused and fired because he broke internal omerta regarding an instance of police brutality rings very, very true. No doubt this has happened to many well-meaning and idealistic officers over the years, and not solely in LA. Witnessing misbehavior and brutality and worse on the part of fellow officers is pretty much a daily occurrence, and what to do about it is a dilemma for officers who want to do what's right but who don't want to lose their jobs for exposing what they witness.

That's a real threat: say something and you're out. Object and you're out. And you will be smeared and denounced, you may be threatened or actually endure great bodily harm, and on occasion you may be murdered.

So what to do? What to do when internal controls and "reform" doesn't work? What to do when you are targeted?

Most people will try not to get into that situation to begin with, which means going along to get along. That's basically how most government and large corporate employees at very level typically endure. They have, they think, little choice if they want to stay with the Company.

Whistleblowers are not welcome, and their supposed protections are a joke.

So now we have a situation in Southern California where one of the LAPD's (former) "own" has had enough of the abuse and is taking matters (and guns) into his own hands to exact revenge.

Police forces in Southern California appear to be in full panic mode because they know or believe Dorner can do it -- get plenty of revenge at the place and time of his choosing. Almost nothing is more terrifying to authority.

In their zeal to capture or kill their enemy, they shoot at anyone and anything they think might pose a threat. Thus two newspaper delivery women are shot in Torrance -- because they I might be someone who threatens them, Dorner or someone, anyone, and they're in a scary blue truck which looks something like the one Dorner is said to be driving. C'est la vie. Oh well. Too bad, so sad. The women, they say, will recover.

In the nearly endless series of mass murders in this country, police and government, the rich and powerful, the High and the Mighty, Authority, are almost never the targets or the victims. There are exceptions to be sure, and when there are -- as in say Tucson, or Oklahoma City -- the response is almost always the same: panic.

Nearly every level of government in this country now operates behind high barricades, protected by phalanxes of armed guards and elaborate protocols for responding to threats. Protest or refusal to comply is equated with terrorism, and terrorism is the excuse for suspending the Bill of Rights (well, except for the Sacred Second, so it isn't "tyranny" yet!) and plenty of other provisions of law and custom which once protected the People from rampant abuse.

No more.

The culture of oppression, corruption, and impunity has become institutionalized among those in power to the point where they barely recognize the fact.

All they know is their right to power and their fear. When someone with a gun goes after them, they panic, as the police in Southern California have panicked. It is their worst nightmare.

I sincerely hope that no more innocents are targeted and victimized -- by anyone -- in this current state of fear and panic, but it's a wan hope.