MSNBC THE LAST WORD: SHOCKING MISTAKE IN DARREN WILSON GRAND JURY

Post by Maple Heights African American Gazette.

FERGUSON AND ELSEWHERE: CARDS STACKED AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE

NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER

Post by Maple Heights African American Gazette.

ARE MAPLE HEIGHTS POLICE ENGAGED IN PUBLIC INTIMIDATION?

Several residents (who attended) stated  that at the last Maple Hts city council meeting, the police were videotaping the meeting.

 

 

What does this mean if true? Well, police videotapes, we would think, constitute public record and are kept in police departments for various people  to access (especially the police).  Would you feel comfortable talking about police abuse/misconduct/racism/cutting police  salary/benefits at a council meeting knowing the police had your name, face, address, your statements, etc. forever stored? 


We don't have a problem with members of council videotaping for educational purposes, or council for public record; or even the general public videotaping a council meeting.  There does appear to be a big problem when it is done by the police.

 

 

African Americans should be engaged in any discussion of the videotaping of any public meetings (in their community) by the police, and if found unconstitutional/violation of their civil rights/civil liberties  then the videotaping by them (law enforcement)   should be challenged, stopped and if necessary legal remedies sought. 

 

 

As stated in another post, any predominantly African American community (city) where the legal/judicial system (which includes l aw director, council, safety director, law enforcement)  is predominantly white, probably (but not always) means institutional racism is entrenched in your community (city). 

 

 

The law enforcement community   has already been faced with outrage over privacy rights violations, racial profiling, stop and frisk,  murder, excessive force, and now they could possibly face a charge of public or racial intimidation by videotaping at public meetings (?)

 

 

African American communities have allowed institutional racism to continue in their communities sometimes for fear of retribution and/or intimidation by law enforcement and the legal/judicial system.  Well, it seems Maple Heights police may have driven that point home.

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

 

 

"Summary:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

 

 

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

 

 

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any."
 
 
 
SEE ALSO: COLOR OF LAW ABUSES

PROBLEMS WITH OUTSOURCING AND PUBLIC MERGERS

Cities have turned to outsourcing  and mergers as a  panacea  to financial budget constraints  [a result of,  to some degree, poor  government policies and a lack of intelligent, creative urban planning].   Unfortunately, this has led to other problems; specifically, higher unemployment rates among the poor and "people of color". 

It's   bad enough (even insulting at times)  that predominantly African American communities are under-represented in the workforce (public and private), but increasingly devastating are the ongoing threats ... "outsourcing" and "public mergers".

Aside from the issue of a lack of minority contractors, does outsourcing release a city from regulations and laws designed to protect certain groups from being discriminated against in hiring? 

Are these private companies [that we've outsourced to] scrutinized for their hiring practices?  It shouldn't matter if you are public or private, if you are receiving tax payer dollars, public monies, you should be bound by the same state affirmative action programs, anti-discrimination laws, EEOC regulations, etc. [A word to the wise ... those cities who band together to use the same private company,  ... you better make damn sure those regulations and laws are being complied with.]  

African Americans need to take a look at  the companies their city contracts with. 

African Americans (esp. in  predominantly Black neighborhoods) also need to take a close look at:  who is delivering their mail and packages;  who is reading their gas and electric meters; who the cable guy is; who represents them; who teaches their children; ... Where I live, I see a lot of white males in these roles (with the exception of teachers who are mostly white females).

What is most alarming is that more and more Blacks (esp. Black males) are disappearing from the [full-time] workforce.  While this is alarming, it is not surprising.  The "system" has created problems (social, financial, political, legal, structural) that is unique, offensive, and devastating  to African Americans and other "people of color".  In the mix  [laws that give certain groups (dominated by whites)  an advantage,  our unjust legal/justice system, overcriminalization,  the for-profit prison system, and law enforcement (which is predominantly white and designed to act in one's own best  interests)  which has the power to completely destroy an individuals life], and you  get some understanding why Blacks and other "people of color"  have higher unemployment rates than other racial/ethnic groups.

It's high time we  address these issues, and also come up with intelligent and creative ways to insure that "people of color" are properly represented in every industry in the workforce.

RELATED:

Top 6 Outsourcing Disadvantages: Outsourcing Disadvantages: Reasons That Outsourcing is Bad for Your Company  By James Bucki

How Employers Weed Out Unemployed Job Applicants .. 1/14/2011


Employment Law Outsourcing Checklist (Mar 2006)


What is White Supremacy?

Michelle Alexander at Riverside: New Jim Crow convict under-caste 

 

Police addicted to drug money: Column

[BEAUTIFUL STRUGGLER] Jonathan Ferrell: Supposed to Die?

POLYGRAPH TARGETS RACISTS

Sounds like a fantastic idea .... how about all prosecutors and judges  too?

 

"Police chief’s polygraph targets racist applicants

by Sheila Burke, Associated Press | March 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM

 

COOPERTOWN, Tenn. (AP) — A police chief hired to rebuild a tiny Tennessee department dismantled by scandal is using a lie-detector test to keep racists off his force.

 

 

Coopertown Police Chief Shane Sullivan took over the department in November, becoming the 11th chief in as many years. He was hired on the heels of a series of police scandals that for a few months left Coopertown with no police at all. Years before that, a mayor was voted out of office after the local prosecutor accused him of racism and running a notorious speed trap.

 

 

Law enforcement experts say Sullivan’s polygraph approach is unusual, though some departments use the devices for other purposes during the application process. Others try to root out bias in other ways. One polygraph expert warned that lie detectors can’t accurately predict racism for reasons that include people’s inability to recognize their own racism.

 

 

Sullivan said he doubts racists will even apply for the force if they know about the tests."

 

 

CONTINUE READING HERE

What About those Brand New Police Vehicles?

A bunch of folks in Maple Heights have been asking about the brand new police vehicles they see cruising around. 

They are especially concerned because money meant for people (who abut the railroad)  in districts 3 and 5, was thrown into the general fund recently (because of a resolution that was passed in March of this year).  Some of the residents who abut the railroad in districts 3 and 5, will only be receiving 20% of that "railroad" money.  The rest of the money went into the general fund.

Anyway, according to a resident from district 5, she said she called Eric Dean, the finance director, to ask about the new police vehicles.  She was concerned because she was told (by others) that the city had financial problems.  

She said that the finance director stated that the last vehicles that were purchased [by the city of Maple Heights] were purchased in 2008; whereupon she asked if she could have a written accounting of how the railroad special fund monies were spent before being transfered into the general fund; and now that the railroad special funds have been transfered into the general fund, how is that money being spent?  She's still waiting for a response from the finance director.

[Update 7/20/2012: Since this post, Mr. Dean has been very helpful in providing financial information requested.  He is the only department head that has responded with information that we've requested. Various members of council have also decided not to respond to our requests for information.  We'll post those names in another post after August 1st]

So there are several questions on the table.   1. If the vehicles were purchased in 2008, why are we just seeing these vehicles now?  2. If they are not purchased vehicles, are they leased vehicles? 3. If leased, how are we paying for them?  4. Since the special fund money went into the general fund, on what has money in the general fund been spent?

Another resident added: "Yeah, they must be really proud of those vehicles, because you hear police sirens more often. Don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing."

Related:

City of Maple Heights, March 7, 2012 council meeting

Railroad money gets locked into special fund

07_18_2012_WENS_10_04_PM_4427

It's a shame, but the following is just a fact of life that minorities have been dealing with for a very long time.  We're now finding that people who are peacefully protesting are having their rights violated.

It's best to be forewarned, then to give up your legal rights.

 
From Alternet: by Scott Morgan

"5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search (Even if You Have Nothing to Hide)

From the streets of the Bronx to the suburbs of the Nation's Capital, you never have to look hard to find victims of the bias and corruption delivered by the drug war.

February 22, 2012

Do you know what your rights are when a police officer asks to search you? If you're like most people I've met in my eight years working to educate the public on this topic, then you probably dont.

It's a subject that a lot of people think they understand, but too often our perception of police power is distorted by fictional TV dramas, sensational media stories, silly urban myths, and the unfortunate fact that police themselves are legally allowed to lie to us.

It wouldn't even be such a big deal, I suppose, if our laws all made sense and our public servants always treated us as citizens first and suspects second. But thanks to the War on Drugs, nothing is ever that easy. When something as stupid as stopping people from possessing marijuana came to be considered a critical law enforcement function, innocence ceased to protect people against police harassment. From the streets of the Bronx to the suburbs of the Nation's Capital, you never have to look hard to find victims of the bias, incompetence, andcorruption that the drug war delivers on a daily basis.

Whether or not you ever break the law, you should be prepared to protect yourself and your property just in case police become suspicious of you. Let's take a look at one of the most commonly misunderstood legal situations a citizen can encounter: a police officer asking to search your belongings. Most people automatically give consent when police ask to perform a search. However, I recommend saying "no" to police searches, and here are some reasons why:

1. It's your constitutional right.

The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless police have strong evidence (probable cause) to believe you're involved in criminal activity, they need your permission to perform a search of you or your property.

You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime, so long as you aren't crossing a border checkpoint or entering a secure facility like an airport. Don't be shy about standing up for your own privacy rights, especially when police are looking for evidence that could put you behind bars.

2. Refusing a search protects you if you end up in court.

It's always possible that police might search you anyway when you refuse to give consent, but that's no reason to say "yes" to the search. Basically, if there's any chance of evidence being found, agreeing to a search is like committing legal suicide, because it kills your case before you even get to court.

If you refuse a search, however, the officer will have to prove in court that there was probable cause to do a warrantless search. This will give your lawyer a good chance to win your case, but this only works if you said "no" to the search.

3. Saying "no" can prevent a search altogether.

Data on police searches are interesting, but they don't show how many searches didn't happen becausea citizen said no. A non-search is a non-event that goes unrecorded, giving rise to a widespread misconception that police will always search with or without permission.

I know refusing searches works because I've been collecting stories from real police encounters. The reality is that police routinely ask for permission to search when they have absolutely no evidence of an actual crime. If you remain calm and say no, there's a good chance they'll back down, because it's a waste of time to do searches that won't hold up in court anyway.

4. Searches can waste your time and damage your property.

Do you have time to sit around while police rifle through your belongings? Police often spend 30 minutes or more on vehicle searches and even longer searching homes. You certainly can't count on officers to be careful with valuables or to put everything back where they found it. If you waive your 4th Amendment rights by agreeing to be searched, you will have few legal options if any property is damaged or missing after the search.

5. You never know what they'll find.

Are you 100 percent certain there's nothing illegal in your home or vehicle? You can never be too sure. A joint roach could stick to your shoe on the street and wind up on the floorboard. A careless acquaintance could have dropped a baggie behind the seat. Try telling a cop it isn't yours, and they'll just laugh and tell you to put your hands behind your back. If you agreed to the search, you can't challenge the evidence. But if you're innocent and you refused the search, your lawyer has a winnable case.

Remember that knowing your rights will help you protect yourself, but no amount of preparation can guarantee a good outcome in a bad situation. Your attitude and your choices before, during, and after the encounter will usually matter more than your knowledge of the law. Stay calm no matter what happens, and remember that you can always report misconduct after things settle down.

Finally, please don't be shy about sharing this information with your friends and family. Understanding and asserting your rights isn't about getting away with anything, and it isn't about disrespecting police either. These rights are the foundation of freedom in America, and they get weaker whenever we fail to exercise them."

"Scott Morgan is Associate Director of FlexYourRights.org and co-creator of the film 10 Rules for Dealing with Police."


Update:
5/16/2012
Stop And Frisk Lawsuit Gains Class-Action Status, Judge Slams NYPD Over Policy


-