Public lands dot significant portions of America’s landscape from coast to coast. Managed by a variety of agencies, these lands and waters are home to diverse ecosystems and prime settings for recreational activities. With an immense amount of annual foot traffic and billions of dollars of revenue generated, public lands play a substantial role in American lives.

For decades, there have been debates over whether or not these lands should be turned over to the states or private organizations. Now changes could become a reality, as Capitol Hill is filled with lawmakers who support transferring millions of acres of public lands away from the federal government. But the consequences of such a transfer may have more negative impacts than positive, and many citizens feel that access to public land is an American birthright.

Background of Federal Lands and Agencies

The majority of public lands in the U.S. are held in trust by the federal government and managed by a variety of agencies. According to a 2014 report, the federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, which is about 28 percent of all the land in the United States. Four agencies own over 600 million acres of that land: the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. The lands are utilized primarily for recreation, preservation, and natural resource development.

U.S. Forest Service

President Benjamin Harrison established the National Forest system with 13 million acres and 15 forest reserves through the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which gave the president power to set aside and reserve public lands. Conserving land for the people was a national priority, as was obtaining acknowledgement that forested areas needed special protection from the exploitation of natural resources. With 155 forests and 20 grasslands currently totaling over 191 million acres, these lands overseen by the United States Forest Service reach diverse populations and are extremely popular destinations for a variety of outdoor and recreational activities. According to a National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report, there were over 180 million visits made to National Forest sites in 2015.

“US Federal Land Agencies” Courtesy of National Atlas of the United States: License Public Domain

The Bureau of Land Management

The BLM is responsible for managing 247.3 million acres of public land–one-eighth of all the landmasses in the country. From grazing permits to mining and coal leases, the agency administers 205,498 miles of fishable streams, 2.2 million acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 4,500 miles of National Scenic, Historic, and Recreation Trails in addition to multiple-use trails for recreation purposes. The BLM collects a significant amount of revenue from public lands. In 2016, the agency made $2 billion in royalty revenue from federal leases; the Outdoor Industry Association also estimates that $40 billion in federal tax revenue comes from the recreation industry on public lands.

The Western Concentration

Other agencies such as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers participate in federal land management and administration. Most of the federal land ownership is concentrated in the western part of the country, contributing to greater controversy over ownership and use of federal lands in the area.

Public Trust Doctrine

The public trust doctrine is a long-standing principle that the government holds some lands in trust for public use, regardless of any private property ownership. Generally, this applies to land, water, and natural resources, such as beaches and navigable rivers. While the doctrine itself varies heavily from state to state, the public may fully enjoy any public trust lands, waters, and natural resources for a “wide variety of recognized public uses.” These rights became established in the U.S. after Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, an 1892 case that held that the government cannot alienate a public right to lands under navigable waters.

“Fall Color at Natural Arch – Daniel Boone National Forest” Courtesy of US Forest Service -Southeast : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Additionally, the public trust doctrine puts a limit on private rights. A landowner may not alter their property in such a way that it would interfere with use of public land. Moreover, the doctrine specifically protects the land from misuse by the state. A state may not convey public trust lands if the conveyance could substantially impair public use of lands or waters. Thus, any move to privatize public lands may be in direct violation of the public trust doctrine, particularly if the sale would then impair the public’s use of such land or water.

Plans to Privatize Public Lands

The collective ownership of these lands, however, could possibly change if lawmakers continue down their current course. House Bill 3650, introduced to the House of Representatives in September 2015, directs the Department of Agriculture to “convey to a state up to 2 million acres of eligible portions of the National Forest System.” These portions of conveyed land will be administered and managed “primarily for timber production.” On June 15, 2016, the Natural Resources Committee voted to adopt H.R. 3650; it is currently awaiting the next stage in the lawmaking process.

Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah introduced a piece of legislation at the end of January 2017 that was later dubbed the Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act. In a press release for H.R. 621, Chaffetz claimed that 3.3 million acres of land maintained by the BLM “served no purpose for taxpayers.” If the bill passed, ten states were poised to lose federal land. However, he withdrew the legislation in February 2017 after facing harsh criticism from his constituents.

“Gunnison National Forest Colorado” Courtesy of David : License (CC BY 2.0)

Despite the withdrawal of H.R. 621, Republican lawmakers still laid out a plan to give away roughly 640 million acres of land in early 2017. Lawmakers overwrote the value of federal lands by changing a single line of rules for the House of Representatives, making it easy to dispose of federal property–even if it ends up losing money for the government and there’s no compensation for American citizens. In essence, the change states that transferring public land to “state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays.” The land would be given to the states, and then could possibly be sold to private owners.

As a result, places like the Grand Canyon National Park and Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which are rich in uranium and copper respectively, may be up for grabs first. The oil-rich lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could also be vulnerable for sale. According to Alan Rowsome, the senior director of government relations for The Wilderness Society, it seems very likely that Alaska’s national lands will be open for drilling under a Republican-controlled House. Many western states are already taking the necessary actions to prepare for public land transfers.

Criticism of Privatization

First things first: critics fear that local governments with small budgets will not be able to manage the land once it is transferred to them by the federal government. In the summer of 2016, the Forest Service spent $240 million a week to fight forest fires, and the Department of Interior has estimated that the cost of deferred maintenance is around $11 billion. Over time, whenever federal land has been given to states, it has become less accessible. Between 2000 and 2009, Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of public land; in Colorado, citizens may only use 20 percent of state trust land for hunting and fishing.

Private ownership of public tracts of land has profound consequences, as it will probably affect land managed and regulated by conservation programs or private entities, likely reducing public access. Public access to National Forests contributes greatly to state economies; a report completed by the Outdoor Industry Association found that the outdoor industry directly impacts over six million jobs and contributes to $646 billion in outdoor recreation spending. The Outdoor Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of groups that support outdoor activities, has argued that any action to transfer lands to private hands is a “public land heist.”

A 2016 Harvard Kennedy School study, found that 95 percent of the American public believes in the importance of protecting national parks and 80 percent would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to do so. Such an overwhelming response certainly indicates that protecting public places is incredibly important to Americans.

Conclusion

While there is still time before these resolutions become law, plans to privatize our forests have been set in motion on numerous occasions. If Americans’ access is restricted and these lands are exploited for a profit, the primary purpose of establishing public lands for citizen use will disappear. In the famous words of President Teddy Roosevelt, champion of conservation and public lands, “I believe that the natural resources must be used for the benefit of all our people, and not monopolized for the benefit of the few . . . Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.”

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Land is Your Land: Should Public Lands Be Privatized? appeared first on Law Street.

A South Carolina judge declared a mistrial Monday after jurors said they couldn’t reach a unanimous decision in the case of a white former police officer charged with killing an unarmed black man, Walter Scott.

The 53-year-old father of four had been stopped by North Charleston police officer Michael Slager because of a broken taillight in April 2015. According to Slager, a scuffle erupted and Scott took his stun gun. Scott then attempted to flee, and Slager shot him multiple times in the back while he was running away. He died on scene.

Feidin Santana, an eyewitness to the shooting, captured a video of the encounter with a cellphone and the footage soon went viral.

That THIS could not be declared “murder” in America should tell you EVERYTHING about our justice system. #WalterScott.

Just horrendous. pic.twitter.com/2mPnMXh84b

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) December 5, 2016

Slager was charged with murder and released on a $500,000 bond in January 2016. He was later indicted on separate charges by a federal grand jury for deprivation of rights under the color of the law, use of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and obstruction of justice.

Slager’s attorney argued that his client didn’t know whether Scott was armed or not and that he had acted out of fear for his own life. He said:

The officer never had a chance to pat him down for weapons, nor did he know the whereabouts of the passenger in the vehicle Scott was operating without a registration or insurance. Scott ran from a very minor traffic stop, and Slager had no knowledge why.

However, the cellphone video showed that Slager dropped a black object on the ground before firing. After shooting Scott, Slager is then seen picking up the object and placing it next to the lifeless body.

On Friday, the jury in the case said it hadn’t been able to reach a verdict, but the judge ordered them to keep deliberating until Monday. One juror in the case said he couldn’t make the decision to convict Michael Slager. Reportedly, he was the only member of the jury “having issues” and he wrote in a letter to the court, “I cannot and will not change my mind.” By Monday, the judge declared a mistrial.

The news left many people feeling hopeless.

My God #WalterScott. Feeling numb all over. It’s the ton of bricks one feels on their heart & head knowing we have been here before!

— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) December 5, 2016

#MichaelSlager killed a man who was no threat and ran from him, planted a Taser, LIED on the stand and still wasn’t convicted #WalterScott

— Scooby (@TheRealistDom) December 5, 2016

there are no words. #WalterScott‘s life mattered. if seeing him shot in the back wasn’t enough for a conviction how can we ever get justice?

— Franchesca Ramsey (@chescaleigh) December 5, 2016

Outrage erupted in North Charleston after the killing of Walter Scott, but residents’ anger intensified even more due to the racial imbalance clearly evident in the police force. Even though only 37 percent of the population is white, 80 percent of police officers are white.

Slager has reportedly been emotional and regretful during the trial.

“Going back 18 months later and looking at everything, things could have been different” he said. “My family has been destroyed by this. The Scott family has been destroyed by this. It’s horrible.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mistrial Declared in Case Against Officer Who Killed Walter Scott appeared first on Law Street.

Everyone’s favorite ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s released a statement expressing its support for the Black Lives Matter movement last week. Now a group of police officers are calling for a boycott of the ice cream.

Last Thursday, Ben & Jerry’s wrote in a statement:

Systemic and institutionalized racism are the defining civil rights and social justice issues of our time. We’ve come to understand that to be silent about the violence and threats to the lives and well-being of Black people is to be complicit in that violence and those threats.

Most social media users greeted the news with joy.

Why Ben and Jerrys woke af

⚡️ “Ben and Jerry’s release statement in support of Black Lives Matter”https://t.co/N75HRmAv4B

— Chocolate Metaphor (@_MikePearson) October 7, 2016

But the police organization Blue Lives Matter, which was created after the killings of two NYPD officers in Brooklyn in December of 2014, released a statement on Monday urging “all Americans” to boycott the ice cream brand. It said:

Ben & Jerry’s just recently announced their support for Black Lives Matter along with a misinformation campaign accusing law enforcement of widespread systemic and institutionalized racism. Many companies have offered misguided statements of support for Black Lives Matter in the past, with the false belief that they are expressing support for civil rights.

The event gave birth to the hashtag #BenAndJerrysNewFlavor and a bunch of suggestions for new flavors in honor of the company’s statement.

He Was Unarmed Dough #BenAndJerrysNewFlavor

— NUFF$AID (@nuffsaidNY) October 7, 2016

Fudge The Police #BenAndJerrysNewFlavor

— W.E.B. Dem Boyz (@Kevunn) October 7, 2016

#BenAndJerrysNewFlavor New Cone, Who Dis?

— Taco Bout It (@Anthoneezuss) October 7, 2016

Blue Lives Matter claims in the statement that Ben & Jerry’s endorsement of Black Lives Matter is anti-police and dangerous, because it inspires people to kill police officers by spreading false and misleading information about the police being racist. It said that BLM is not a civil rights group, but a political one, fighting for its own goals such as a disruption of the Western nuclear family structure and tax-paid damages for harms inflicted on black people. They wrote:

By not only attacking law enforcement, but openly supporting Black Lives Matter, Ben & Jerry’s is sure to anger most Americans who do not agree with the political causes that they are supporting.

Ben & Jerry’s is used to speaking up when it comes to supporting causes it cares about. The founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, have previously supported the World Wildlife Fund and Occupy Wall Street. They also supported Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and even honored him by creating a special ice cream flavor for him; chocolate mint with the name ”Bernie’s Yearning.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Group Demands Boycott of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream appeared first on Law Street.

Footage from a dashboard camera and a body camera on one of the police officers involved in the shooting of Keith Scott in Charlotte last week have finally been released. It turns out the one officer who wore a camera didn’t turn it on until after Scott was already on the ground.

Two videos were released late Saturday after mounting pressure and some violent protests that left people wounded and one dead. The footage from the dashboard camera shows a plainclothes officer aiming his gun at a car. The officer in the car with the dash cam gets out and joins him. Then Scott is seen exiting his car and backing away, and the officer without a uniform fires four shots. Since the video is from inside the police car, there is no audio to prove what was said. But it’s clear that Scott did not aim any gun at the officers at that point.

The body camera footage is grainy and jumpy and shows an officer standing behind Scott’s car, as the officer wearing the camera comes up and knocks on the window with his baton. Scott is then seen getting out from the car but disappears from the video. Next time he’s in the picture, he’s on the ground. The sound on the camera is not turned on until this point, which is why it’s unclear what happened and who said what. It’s also impossible to see from that footage whether Scott had a gun or not. When the sound is turned on, the officers are heard yelling “handcuffs, handcuffs” and asking each other whether they are okay, while Scott is moaning and lying on the ground dying.

Body camera footage shows Keith Scott shooting https://t.co/W0NhU5sBn8 pic.twitter.com/t44YKbjFlK

— Ruptly (@Ruptly) September 25, 2016

Charlotte was the first major city in North Carolina to start using body cams for officers in 2015. The cameras are always on, but they don’t save the footage until the officer presses a button to activate it. That’s when the audio sets in, and it also automatically saves the last 30 seconds of video from before that.

According to protocol, all patrol officers should wear a camera and must activate it as soon as they anticipate any interactions with civilians. But the officers who first approached Scott were wearing plain clothes and therefore did not have any cameras. They claim they realized Scott had a gun, so they retreated to put on police vests and wait for a uniformed officer. That officer was wearing his camera, but he waited to activate it until after Scott was shot.

This news upset many.

Yet another example of why body cameras are not the way to end police shootings. Sometimes, cops don’t turn them on. https://t.co/Q1jNRKYYkU

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) September 26, 2016

But this might be the last footage you see from a police shooting in North Carolina. A new law goes into effect on October 1 that will prevent the public from obtaining footage from body or dashboard cameras. According to Governor Pat McCrory it’s about: “respecting the public, respecting the family, and also respecting the constitutional rights of the officer.”

Under the new law, police videos like the ones in Scott’s case would no longer be considered public record.

The day before the footage was released, Scott’s wife published her own video of what happened, in which the officers are heard yelling “drop the gun” to Scott inside his car. She repeatedly says, “he doesn’t have a gun,” and also points out that he has a traumatic brain injury and just took his medicine. In the video she begs the officers not to shoot her husband, right up until they shoot him.

Wife of #Charlotte police shooting victim #KeithScott films encounter https://t.co/kL9M8WjC4P

— YouTube Newswire (@ytnewswire) September 23, 2016

The attorney for the Scott family, Justin Bamberg, argued that the officer not activating his camera is both a violation of department policy and also meant there was little evidence to show what had actually happened. He said:

Information that we could have had is forever gone because of this officer’s failure to follow department policy and procedures. Those policies exist for a reason, and there is a reason the CMPD equips its officers with body cameras–because body cameras provide visual evidence so that when tragic things do happen we don’t have to question exactly what happened.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Officer Did Not Turn on Body Camera Until After Keith Scott Was Shot appeared first on Law Street.

Betty Shelby, the police officer who shot Terence Crutcher on a highway in Tulsa, Oklahoma last week, was formally charged with manslaughter. Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler announced on Thursday that he had charged officer Shelby with first-degree manslaughter, which would amount to a minimum of four years in prison if convicted.

In a brief statement about the charges, Kunzweiler said, “The tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Crutcher are on the hearts and minds of many people in this community.” Shelby was booked at the local county jail early Friday morning before being released on a $50,000 bond. Crutcher’s family members said that they approved of the charges and hope that Shelby’s prosecution will lead to a conviction.

Crutcher’s twin sister, Tiffany, said after the announcement, “This is a small victory. The chain breaks here. We’re going to break the chains of police brutality.”

Tulsa Police Officer Betty Shelby will face first-degree manslaughter charges in death of Terence Crutcher: https://t.co/qgCni2r96U pic.twitter.com/cKXAxAqiw6

— Complex (@ComplexMag) September 22, 2016

Crutcher’s car broke down on the interstate last Friday and a woman called 911 reporting that a man was running away from the vehicle as if it was about to blow up. Betty Shelby, who was responding to another 911 call about domestic abuse, came across Crutcher and his car. She got out and started asking Crutcher what was wrong, but he reportedly ignored her questions and kept mumbling to himself. As the interaction unfolded, backup arrived at the scene and Crutcher was later shot and killed.

The court documents claim that Shelby shot Crutcher “unlawfully and unnecessarily.” The filing argues that she became emotionally involved and overreacted to the situation. Shelby’s attorney Scott Wood said that Crutcher was acting erratically, which led Shelby, who Wood said is a drug recognition expert, to believe he was on drugs. She claims to have feared for her life before she fired the shot, and said that Crutcher kept patting his pockets and she couldn’t tell if he had a gun. Crutcher was unarmed and there was no weapon in the car.

A video of the incident shows Crutcher with his hands raised in the air shortly before he was shot. Shelby apparently ordered him to go back to his car and another officer tasered him as he approached the driver-side door. Shelby then shot Crutcher shortly after he fell to the ground.

Police say that Crutcher was reaching into the window before he was shot, but the attorney for the Crutcher family, Benjamin Crump, later said, “The window was up, so how can he be reaching into the car if the window is up and there’s blood on the glass?”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tulsa Officer Charged With Manslaughter in Terence Crutcher’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday night violent protests erupted in Charlotte, North Carolina, over the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott earlier that day. The protests came the day after police in Oklahoma released video footage of the shooting of another man on Friday, Terrence Crutcher.

The protests started peacefully, close to where Scott, 43, was killed. They went on until late at night, with people chanting “Black Lives Matter.” In the early morning hours of Wednesday, demonstrators started blocking traffic on the interstate and even opened up backs of tractors and trucks to take out the cargo and set it on fire in the streets. Others broke into a local Walmart. Police used tear gas and flash grenades to interrupt the riots, during which at least 12 police officers and 11 civilians were injured.

#Charlotte #cmpd pic.twitter.com/LJVfhRcgUc

— Adam Rhew (@AdamRhew) September 21, 2016

On Tuesday afternoon police looking for another man with an outstanding warrant approached Scott, who was sitting in his car outside of an apartment complex. Police say Scott got out of the car carrying a gun, and then got back in. When they got closer he got out again, and according to the police statement, the officers felt their lives were in danger and felt compelled to shoot.

But according to Scott’s family, he was unarmed and disabled, and was reading a book in his car while waiting for the school bus to drop off his son.

Here’s the man’s sister. She says he did not have a gun. @CMPD says he did. @WBTV_News pic.twitter.com/JwHMixy9m7

— Sarah-Blake Morgan (@SarahBlakeWBTV) September 20, 2016

His brother said the cop that shot Scott was undercover and dressed in normal clothes. He was shot four times and pronounced dead at a local hospital.

The brother of the victim in the officer-involved shooting says that the cops were undercover. pic.twitter.com/PBrDwkjEdm #Charlotte

— Beatrice E. Peterson (@MissBeaE) September 21, 2016

The family claims Scott didn’t own a gun, but the police say they did recover a firearm at the scene. Police Chief Kerr Putney said that although the police officer who shot Scott was dressed in plainclothes, he also had on a police vest and there were uniformed police at the scene. But he couldn’t say for sure whether Scott aimed his weapon at anyone, nor did police specify what brand or model of gun they had found.

The man who was shot on Friday evening was Terrence Crutcher, 40. He was waiting for assistance next to his car that had broken down on a road in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when female police officer Betty Shelby, who responding to a domestic violence call, found him. When she asked what had happened, he didn’t answer, and according to her attorney, he kept ignoring her questions. When he reached toward his vehicle, she thought he was grabbing a weapon and shot him.

The video that police released on Monday show the man surrounded by several other officers before he falls to the ground. In another video from a police helicopter circling the scene, one officer is heard saying Crutcher is “looking like a bad dude,” and “looks like time for taser.”

“Looks like a Bad Dude” why don’t you Say his name instead #TerrenceCrutcher pic.twitter.com/USSL3TjBzE

— The HBCURoundTable (@HBCU_Roundtable) September 20, 2016

According to the Crutcher family’s lawyer, it is impossible that he reached inside the car for a gun, since the window was rolled up and blood stained on the outside.

Both officers involved in the shootings of Crutcher and Scott have been placed on paid administrative leave.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protests in Charlotte Sparked by Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott appeared first on Law Street.

When police were called to a burning car in Riverview, Missouri, around 2AM on Tuesday morning, they found the body of activist Darren Seals inside, shot to death. Seals, 29, was a prominent activist who protested after black teenager Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. He was by the Brown family’s side the evening it was announced the officer involved in the shooting was not indicted.

Seals’ supporters expressed their grief on social media.

His name was Darren Seals. RIP. pic.twitter.com/Cd4NQuqBvX

— Torraine Walker (@TorraineWalker) September 6, 2016

Some think he was targeted by the police for his strong commitment to the protests over Michael Brown’s death, a belief that Seals himself seems to have expressed on his Twitter.

@LegendaryQueen8 yea 10 detectives pulled me and my 14 year old brother over, pointed guns on us, and told me “choose your enemies wisely”

— King D Seals (@KingDSeals) July 25, 2016

St Louis County Police said they investigated the incident as a homicide but have no suspects. The block where Darren Seals died was involved in another police matter about a week ago when an older woman was found dead in her apartment. However that death appears to have been a suicide.

According to the police, Seals lived about 12 miles away from where he was found dead. Seals described himself on his Twitter account as a businessman, revolutionary, activist, fighter, leader, and “unapologetically black.” After he engaged in protests after the shooting of Michael Brown, he told MTV about the experience in an interview. Even though he described holding Brown’s mother after they heard the results from the non-indictment as feeling “her soul cry,” he also described the protests as fruitful:

I don’t recall anyone having a longer protest, a more productive protest, a more creative protest than what we did. I don’t think people will ever really appreciate what we did until years from now. We really did the best we could.

Seals also led protests with a group called Hands Up United, which wanted to change police policies through the campaign Polls Ova Police. Some people believe this work made police officers target Seals during the last weeks of his life.

#DarrenSeals spent his last days under constant harassment from STL Police. Any investigation into his murder needs to start there IMO.

— D (@Delo_Taylor) September 7, 2016

Seals repeatedly declared his distance from the Black Lives Matter movement and claimed it is simply a newly formed group taking credit for what different local protesters, including him, have been working hard on for years.

#BlackLivesMatter people did to Ferguson what white people did to mother Africa, come in steal all our resources then leave us for dead..smh

— King D Seals (@KingDSeals) September 2, 2016

In the end, Darren Seals became a symbol for the battle he fought, but details about his death are still unclear.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ferguson Activist Darren Seals Found Shot Dead in Burning Car appeared first on Law Street.

The Olympics in Rio de Janeiro have finally started, with the official opening ceremony on Friday night celebrating the history and culture of Brazil. But it’s not all fun and games–activism is present too and the Black Lives Matter movement hopes to make its voice heard.

Brazil has had a rough time leading up to the games. The country is in a tough recession, the impeachment of President Dilma Rouseff weighs heavily, doping scandals abound, and the Zika virus and contaminated water concerns have made the games a hard task for organizers.

But the ceremony was a success despite a limited budget, featuring the Brazilian National anthem played by acoustic guitars, and traditional dancing as well as a tribute to the different peoples who make up the country of Brazil.

#Olympics2016 underway with opening ceremony highlighting Brazilian history https://t.co/d01ObmmrsG pic.twitter.com/LJiaXyqqXv

— ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) August 6, 2016

This is the first Olympics held in South America, so there are high expectations for this year’s event. And naturally, activists take the opportunity to get their issues acknowledged in the limelight.

The Black Lives Matter movement is well established in the U.S., but Brazil does not yet have an equivalent movement that is as vocal and well organized. That is why on July 23, a couple of activists from BLM traveled to Rio to walk together with some 200 Brazilians in a protest march against police violence. The march ended in a ceremony at the Candelaria Cathedral, the location of the 1993 police killings of eight children sleeping by the church.

The population of Brazil is very diverse due to its history of European explorers, Black slaves, indigenous people, and Japanese immigrants. People with darker skin tones are often discriminated against and victims of police violence–according to an August 2016 report by Human Rights Watch 77 percent of victims of police killings in Brazil are Black.

“The most important thing that we can do is build together and mobilize our people to spread the word,” said Daunasia Yancey, a BLM member among those in Rio, to AOL news.

This obviously isn’t the first time that activists have taken action at the Olympics. Back in 1968, athletes took a stand against racism and police violence when runners Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists during the Summer Olympics in Mexico.

https://twitter.com/pbeckham_/status/761656365680951297

Other athletes have gotten involved in this activism as well. Recently, Michael Jordan has spoken out against the shooting of Black Americans by police officers, saying: “I am saddened and frustrated by the divisive rhetoric and racial tensions that seem to be getting worse as of late. I know this country is better than that, and I can no longer stay silent.”

“No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in the Olympic areas” says a clause in the Olympic handbook. But even though it may not be articulated, big sporting events always involve politics in one way or another. It could be an important stage for BLM as well as other movements to highlight their issues during such a widely observed sporting event.

This year, it remains to be seen whether any athletes take action and show their political agenda, and how far they are willing to go.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Olympics in Rio Has Started and BLM Hopes to Make a Change appeared first on Law Street.

A standoff with the police ended in the fatal shooting of a 23-year-old woman in Baltimore on Monday. Now authorities say she tried to live stream the event to Facebook and Instagram as it was happening. Her 5-year-old son was shot in the arm and is being treated at hospital.

Three police officers arrived at the apartment of Korryn Gaines and her boyfriend Kareem Courtney on Monday to serve them warrants–Gaines for failing to appear in court over a traffic violation, and Courtney for an assault case. But when the officers entered the apartment, Gaines threatened them with a shotgun while holding her son, Baltimore police Chief Jim Johnson told CNN on Tuesday.

What Happened

According to Johnson, the police retreated to the hallway. During the standoff, Courtney left the apartment with a 1-year-old toddler and was arrested. After that, the standoff with Gaines continued for a couple of hours, as Gaines captured and streamed the exchange on Facebook. She then said she would kill the police officers unless they left. Gunfire erupted between both sides and Gaines was fatally shot. It is unclear why the police fired the first shots instead of backing off or waiting for backup.

The question is why there is no body camera footage from the cops, since police officers in Baltimore have been equipped with body cams since May.

The Background

According to NBC, Gaines was pulled over in March for having a piece of cardboard fixated on her license plate that read: “Any government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be held criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right to freedom.”

She failed to appear in court for the March incident, which is why police came to her home on Monday. However, it is also questionable why three police officers would be required for a non-violent intervention like this.

Supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement reacted strongly on social media.

Police had at least 10 non lethal options they could've used with #KorrynGaines.

Guess how many they used before shooting her?

ZERO.

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) August 3, 2016

But critics have questioned why Gaines should be labeled a hero when she threatened police officers with a gun while having her 5-year-old by her side.

Black privilege: the ability to use a 5 year old as a human shield against the police and still be labeled a hero by CNN.#KorrynGaines

— Right Wing Raven (@KazeSkyz) August 3, 2016

For those of you who claim the police had no other choice, but to shoot. #KorrynGaines https://t.co/UAYuNICQoU

— Sharhonda Bossier (@BossierS) August 2, 2016

Police asked Facebook and Instagram to deactivate Gaines’s accounts during the standoff to facilitate the negotiating. Reportedly, her followers asked her to not comply with the officers. The Facebook video was removed, but the short videos she posted before that on her Instagram account are still online.

The spokeswoman for Baltimore County Police Elise Armacost told reporters that she didn’t think the shooting had anything to do with race.

“There was every attempt by the negotiators to calm her and encourage her to leave the apartment peacefully,” she said. “I think if the same situation evolved with a person of any race or ethnicity we would have the same outcome.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Standoff in Baltimore Kills Mother, Wounds 5-Year-Old Son appeared first on Law Street.

Former congressman and radio host Joe Walsh threatened Obama and Black Lives Matter supporters on Twitter late Thursday night. In a tweet that since has been deleted he said “this is now war,” before warning Obama to watch out and that the “real America is coming for you.”

Former GOP Rep, now radio host, @WalshFreedom, deleted this tweet last night after the #DallasPoliceShooting: pic.twitter.com/RzhzJmY1QW

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) July 8, 2016

Thursday night was the deadliest night for police officers since 9/11, leaving five officers dead after gunmen fired shots at police during a protest against police shootings. Republican Joe Walsh was very active on Twitter throughout the night posting several updates blaming Obama and liberals for the tragedy.

Obama says Cops are racist so 2 uneducated black thugs shoot 10 Dallas Cops tonight, killing 4.

Wake up silent majority. Stand w our Cops.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

BLM should be categorized as a hate group.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

Totally ignoring the recent shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, or for that matter all 136 black people that have already been killed by the police this year, Walsh had the guts to say it’s “time to stand against the cop haters.”

It's time 4 patriotic Americans to stand up & stand against all the Cop haters – from Obama to the thugs on the street.

It's way past time.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

10 Cops shot.

You did this Obama.

You did this liberals.

You did this #BLM.

Time to defend our Cops. Wake up. https://t.co/Zoc3x2xlMk

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

Finally he “explained” his tweets to the Chicago Tribune on Friday morning, saying that of course he didn’t call for violence against Obama or Black Lives Matter, because “It would end my career and it’s wrong. I would never say anything as reprehensible as that.”

Walsh was criticized by a lot of people, including activist and musician John Legend.

Joe Walsh needs to be arrested for threatening our President. STFU @walshfreedom

— John Legend (@johnlegend) July 8, 2016

A Racist History?

Walsh is from Illinois and has a history of making racist  and offensive statements.

In 2011 when Walsh was in Congress he expressed his thoughts on the reason for Obama’s election in an interview with Slate.

Why was he elected? Again, it comes back to who he was. He was black, he was historic […]a black man who was articulate, liberal, the whole white guilt, all of that.

At a meeting in 2012 Walsh talked about radical Islam as a threat “at home,” saying “It’s in Elk Grove, it’s in Addison, it’s in Elgin,” referencing various towns in Illinois and upsetting local Muslims.

In 2013 Walsh started hosting a radio show after losing his seat in Congress. Only a year later he came under fire for using racial slurs when talking about American football, including the n-word. He was shut off from his own show and appeared to have no idea why.

The station keeps cutting me off. I don't know why

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

And here comes to the General Manager. It appears I can say Redskins, which is supposedly offensive, but when I say other words, commercial

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

Walsh seems to be lacking self-censorship and social skills. Maybe he should just stay away from his Twitter account for now.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former Congressman Joe Walsh Tweets Threats about Obama and BLM appeared first on Law Street.

Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy became a GOP and Tea Party darling recently when he clashed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over cattle grazing rights to federal land. BLM confiscated — and subsequently returned after escalating safety concerns — nearly 400 of Bundy’s cattle because he has allowed them to graze on federal lands without a permit for many years, racking up an unpaid bill of over $1 million. This led to a standoff between Bundy, his friends, and Federal agents. There’s been a lot of back and forth in the political sphere — for example, Harry Reid called Bundy’s supporters domestic terrorists and everyone freaked out. And the entire incident turned Bundy into a de-facto spokesperson against Federal power, with many high-ups in the GOP supporting him.

And as so often happens — remember Joe the Plumber? — the poorly vetted farmer supported by the GOP as a representation of what is so great about this nation turns out to be pretty racist.

I’m just going to let you read Bundy’s words for yourself, courtesy of Adam Nagourney at the New York Times, because really, they’re too spectacularly offensive to paraphrase:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

I don’t think I need to go into how spectacularly disturbing these statements are as a whole, but let’s just be very clear. This man, Cliven Bundy, essentially just said that he thinks that African Americans were better off as slaves. To national press. As someone who has been following politics essentially since I could read, this is probably one of the worst things I’ve ever heard.

First, in my probably futile attempt to interject some logic into Bundy’s statements, it’s clear the guy is a huge hypocrite. Because you know who receives a whole ton of government subsidies? Farmers and ranchers. Including those like Bundy himself.

In fact, that’s kind of what this entire debate is about — Bundy losing access to some of those very valuable subsidies. As a rancher, Bundy was able to graze his cattle on Federal land for about $1.35 per animal, per month. Similar accommodations on private land would run about $8-$23 per animal, per month. Now because of some policy changes, those subsides were going to be a bit less generous and create some other logistical problems, leading to Bundy’s standoff with the government. Yeah, he’s totally just against other people getting government subsidies, and thinks that getting them teaches other people bad lessons.

So how did this crazy man end up supported by some major players in the GOP, including Fox News pundits, Senator Rand Paul, and Senator Dean Heller? (Although to be fair, after the racist statements came out, both Paul and Heller ran away from supporting Bundy as fast as they could.) Well to start, I think there’s something in the Tea Party’s unwavering devotion to the idea of “grassroots politics” that can be scary. The story hit national news, and immediately, the Tea Party and others rallied around him. There was no consideration that the guy in a standoff with Federal Rangers might be insane. There was no consideration that this man, who was being held up as a shining example of the little man, the oppressed farmer, and the patriot, needed to be vetted.

And that’s dangerous. Fox News, and other conservative media picked up this story right away and stuck by the man, giving a voice to the crazy racist who would usually be limited to sending offensive chain emails to his relatives or writing a letter to the editor every single week in his local paper. Now I, of course believe in free speech, and think that Bundy should have the ability to say whatever the hell he wants, even if it is gag-worthy. But the national microphone he’s been given is concerning, because now the rest of us have to listen to his racist drivel. All of this could probably have been solved by just one of those politicians who supported him sending a staffer out with a notepad and asking, “Hey Mr. Bundy, how do you feel about ____.” I have a feeling he’d have been more than willing to share his racist opinions pretty quickly.

Whether or not Bundy is right about his squabble with the Federal Government, which I think is actually at least a legitimate debate, the way in which this entire thing has played out should be incredibly concerning for the GOP. If they want to argue about the use of Federal land, fine, do that through discourse, or legislation, or debate. I’m happy to entertain that conversation. But to use a crazy racist rancher who is probably causing the expenditure of even more tax dollars by dragging the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies into this is just bad politics, plain and simple.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tea Party Darling Cliven Bundy is This Cycle’s Racist Joe the Plumber appeared first on Law Street.

“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans.”

Only in Nevada…

Yes, those are the actual words of Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, addressing a twenty year range war between a Nevada rancher and the federal government.

For two decades, Cliven Bundy, a 67-year-old rancher, has been embroiled in a battle with the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency within the Department of the Interior that administers public lands.

The longstanding dispute reached its boiling point last week when the BLM seized nearly 400 of Bundy’s cows, alleging the animals were “trespassing” on federal land. Following the BLM roundup, hundreds of Nevadans showed up to protest the actions of the federal agency, claiming the BLM had overstepped its boundaries and infringed upon states’ rights. Looking much more like an armed rebellion, many protesters carried handguns and rifles and all shared Bundy’s sentiment that “this is a lot bigger deal than just my cows.”

The Conflict

While the fight between Bundy and the BLM has become a full-blown debate over states’ rights, it essentially boils down to a dispute over ownership: federal vs. state. Bundy, along with hundreds of fellow Nevadans who demanded the release of his cattle, believe the land in question, a 600,000-acre area near the Utah border known as Gold Butte, belongs to the state of Nevada. The Bureau of Land Management, on the other hand, assumed control of the land as part of a conservation effort in 1993 and has sought to maintain order ever since.

Cliven Bundy’s Case

When the BLM took control of Gold Butte and other federal lands back in 1993, it wasn’t to stick it to Cliven Bundy and other ranchers who had used the land for decades. Rather, the BLM claimed the seizure was an attempt to save the desert tortoise, an endangered species that was given the status of “threatened” in 1990. According to the Washington Post, the conservation measures included “the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat.”

Not convinced by the conservation effort, Bundy accused the government of “land grabbing” and was not willing to relinquish his grazing privileges for another wildlife preserve. Fast forward to 2014 and the situation hasn’t changed much. Despite numerous lawsuits, court orders, and even violence between the BLM and ranchers – bombs were “anonymously” sent to land management offices in 1995 and 1996 –Bundy has consistently refused to remove his cows from the land.

A descendent of Mormons who settled in the area more than 140 years ago, Bundy claims he holds an “inherent right” to graze the land. He simply refuses to recognize federal authority on land he believes belongs to the state of Nevada. Although Bundy has agreed to pay any fees he owes, he will only fork over his money to Clark County, Nevada – not the BLM.

The Bureau of Land Management’s Case

Despite the skepticism of Bundy and other’s regarding the federal agency’s motive for seizing the land, the BLM has stuck to its story of conservation. For Bureau of Land Management Chief Neil Kornze, the issue is black and white: Bundy has been repeatedly breaking the law.

“This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public-lands ranchers do every year,” Kornze told CBS News. “After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially,” he continued.

After he refused to comply with BLM restrictions, the Bureau revoked Bundy’s permit in 1993 and have fined him countless times for grazing on federally protected land. Despite this, Bundy has never applied for a new permit nor has he paid any fines.

In 1998, a federal judge in Las Vegas ordered Bundy to remove his trespassing cattle from Gold Butte. After attempts to settle outside of court in 2013, the BLM implemented two federal court orders to remove Bundy’s cattle.

Current Status

Citing “serious concerns about the safety of employees and members of the public,” Kornze called off the roundup of Bundy’s cattle this past Sunday, releasing the 400 cows that were gathered.

While the question of whether Bundy is a law-breaking rancher or a champion of states’ rights remains up for debate, the conflict has paused for the time being.

Still, both sides recognize that they remain very much at odds. Those on Bundy’s side claim the fight has only just begun, and the BLM released a statement saying “the door isn’t closed” and that they would “figure out how to move forward with this.” That being said, the BLM’s decision to back down – and effectively allow Bundy and his followers to win the heated standoff – could prove to set a dangerous precedent for the future.

The situation in Nevada has even captured the attention of members of the U.S. Senate. While Nevada Senator Dean Heller calls the BLM’s  tactics “heavy handed,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made it clear that the actions of Bundy and other ranchers will not go unpunished. “It’s not over,” Reid said. “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

[Fox News] [CBS News] [Washington Post]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle of the Butte: Rancher Takes on the Federal Gov’t appeared first on Law Street.