The attacks in New York City on 9/11 brought together a nation that every year since has unified on social media and internet outlets under “#9/11” and “#NeverForget.” When a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut claimed the lives of 20 children, as well as six adults on December 14, 2012, we prayed and posted: “#PrayForSandyHook” and “SandyHook.” The terrorism in Paris on November 13, 2015 bonded the world through posts and photographs captioning “#PrayForParis.”

“Pray for Paris” courtesy of [Bensun Ho via Flickr]

Following the police shootings and misconduct of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, and so many more, a movement ensued highlighting “#BlackLivesMatter,” which morphed into the debated “#AllLivesMatter” movement. We picketed. We rioted. We protested and stood divided across the nation. We demanded societal change. When a mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church, we worked to mend the broken community and sent virtual support with “#PrayforCharleston” demanding more stringent gun control laws and mental health screening.

We have been victims and survivors. We have been divided, yet banded together. We have fought and we have been loud. So where is our unifying and our fighting fervor now? Where is our voice recognizing the 380,000 Nigerian brothers and sisters living within the United States whose families and friends in Nigeria are experiencing sheer terror at the hands of Boko Haram?

Boko Haram, an Islamic militant group whose name loosely translates into “Western education is a sin,” has been waging a murderous war in the poorest part of Nigeria in an effort to overthrow the Nigerian government. While the group has been slowly establishing itself between 2005-2009, it gained worldwide recognition in 2014 when it kidnapped 276 schoolgirls, most of whom have not returned to their families to date.

Mohammed Yusuf, has, over the years, rallied a following to the group through the widespread distribution of his speeches on tapes. So far, his followers have treated human beings like animals–slitting throats without reprieve. In 2009, Yusuf was killed in a security bust, which left the elusive and merciless Abubakar Shekau in charge of Boko Haram. His unforgiving and relentless tactics to make Northern Nigeria an Islamic state have left almost 20,000 people dead–slaughtered. There have been approximately 2.5 million people displaced from their homes and villages, children parentless, mothers widowed, and mass graves full of innocent bodies.

Image courtesy of [EU/ECHO/Isabel Coello via Flickr]

The scariest part? Boko Haram has made good on essentially every threat and every hellish promise made. Most recently, Boko Haram took to bombing the village of Dalori, in the northeastern part of Nigeria, where 86 people were shot, burned, or killed by suicide bombs. A man hiding in a tree heard the shrieks and screams of the children trapped in burning huts as Boko Haram soldiers and supporters destroyed the city. Government troops were unsuccessful in overpowering the militant group.

Boko Haram has pledged its allegiance to ISIS/ISIL and its members have set out to spread terror upon all those who are not willing to join them in their absolutely extremist path to form an Islamic state.

So where is the coverage? Why has the U.S. mainstream media failed to highlight this horrific situation in any detailed capacity? Where are the Twitter feeds and Facebook posts flooding with “#PrayforNigeria” statuses? And where is the action? There has been no lack of military action against ISIS and its ideologies, so where is the same level of response to a terrorist organization that has pledged allegiance to ISIS and has killed thousands? Forget the basic human need and the widespread teachings of terror–are we just willing to help if we have some personal or political interest in mind?

As media dictates the important issues that today’s society will focus on, particularly during election year, has our censorship failed the people of Nigeria?

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boko Haram and Widespread Terror in Nigeria: Where is the Outrage? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been just over a year since the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, but the United States is still reeling from the revelations about police brutality and the issues in our criminal justice system. One of the most controversial aspects of Brown’s case involved the choice of the local grand jury not to indict the police officer who shot him, Officer Darren Wilson. The aftermath of that non-indictment, among others, sparked a new law in California that was just signed by Governor Jerry Brown. Under the law, grand juries will no longer be used to investigate the deaths of people allegedly killed by police officers.

Although processes differ from state to state, as well as on the federal level, traditionally there are two different ways that suspects can be indicted. In California, either a prosecutor can files charges and then bring the case before a judge in a preliminary hearing, or they can present evidence and seek an indictment from a supposedly unbiased grand jury. The new law, which will go into effect next year, eliminates the latter option.

The reason that California is eliminating the use of grand juries in police-involved deaths comes directly from concerns about transparency that are inherent in the grand jury system. The process usually just involves a group of private citizens receiving evidence from a prosecutor, without a judge or defense attorney present. The prosecutor essentially controls the flow of evidence–yet it’s the grand jury’s decision whether or not to indict. So, if a grand jury fails to do so, the ire falls on them, not the prosecutor. While this is supposed to protect witnesses and keep the presumption of innocence, critics of the process believe it favors the police and allows the prosecutors to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Under the new California law, however, the decision will be made by the prosecutor–and the hope is that they conduct fair and unbiased investigations and file charges if they’re needed. The move is supposed to foster transparency and accountability.

California state Senator Holly J. Mitchell, who wrote the bill, stated:

The use of the criminal grand jury process, and the refusal to indict as occurred in Ferguson and other communities of color, has fostered an atmosphere of suspicion that threatens to compromise our justice system.

However, not everyone is as optimistic that the change will help make sure that officers who do use force inappropriately are held accountable. In fact, another state, New Jersey, has taken literally the opposite approach to ensure that proper oversight is given to police-involved deaths. New Jersey has mandated that civilian grand juries be used in those cases, and created some guidelines and parameters for that use in order to ensure that cases are presented uniformly.

It is very clear that there are certain aspects of our justice system that warrant a re-examination; police-involved killings certainly make the list. While California’s move away from grand juries could end up leading to more transparency, more change may still be needed to make sure that the prosecutors on whom the burden now falls are subject to fair oversight. It’s a step in the right direction, but let’s just hope it’s a big enough step.

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 California Bans Grand Juries in Police-Involved Deaths: Will it Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

Beginning as a social media hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter developed into a movement and became a leading force in the fight against police brutality and racism across the nation. People from all walks of life are uniting for justice, are inspired to speak up, and most importantly are ready to take action. But how did #BlackLivesMatter reach the masses? How has it developed into such a profound transformational force? Read on to learn more about #BlackLivesMatter, its inception, and the movement to end police brutality and racial inequality in the United States.

What is #BlackLivesMatter?

#BlackLivesMatter (BLM) is a movement that focuses on anti-African-American racism in the United States. It was founded by three Black women: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. Although it began as a social media hashtag, they created the infrastructure for the overall campaign, framing it as “not a moment, a movement.”

According to #BlackLivesMatter, racism is still prevalent in American society through the marginalization of Black communities, which are intentionally left powerless and voiceless. In this regard, the movement asserts the right of all Black people to liberation.

BLM has opened up a broader conversation about long-standing racism and violence against Black communities in the United States. It aims to affirm the lives of all Black people who suffer from racial oppression in American society, including Black trans people, Black queer people, Black immigrants, Black incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people, Black millennials, Black women, low-income Black people, and Black people with disabilities. 

The Inception and Evolution of #BlackLivesMatter

#BlackLivesMatter was created after Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American boy from Florida, was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, on February 26, 2012. In July 2013, Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges.

The outcome of the trial led to resentment from Black communities, and America as a whole, as Martin was unarmed when Zimmerman shot him. The day after the acquittal, people took to the streets in major cities including Miami, New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, Newark, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Charlotte. More than 100 U.S. cities held demonstrations in support for Trayvon Martin.

Garza, one of BLM’s co-founders, used Facebook to express her outrage over the fact that nobody was held accountable for the death of an unarmed Black teenager. She finished her sentence with the phrase “we got us and our lives matter.” Cullors went further and added the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter when re-posting her friend’s message. People started to use this hashtag when talking about racism and extrajudicial killings of Black men in police custody. As a result, #BlackLivesMatter was born as a national organizing project. Watch the video below to learn more about #BlackLivesMatter from Garza.

Nearly a year later on July 17, 2014, Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York, after a police officer allegedly put him in chokehold for 15 seconds while trying to take him into custody. That’s when #BlackLivesMatter started to solidify as a movement. According to Elephrame, a social media tracking website, two days after Garner’s death, more than 300 people marched in Staten Island, including Garner’s family.

Less than a month after that, on August 9, 2014, 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown, was shot to death by Darren Wilson, a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Demonstrations became pervasive in cities both large and small. Thousands of people travelled to Ferguson to participate in marches, demanding justice for Brown and other victims of police violence. The #BlackLivesMatter hashtag became omnipresent on Twitter in relation to Ferguson protests and racism in general. More than 119 cities participated in a National Moment of Silence honoring the many Black citizens who have died as a result of police violence. Watch Oakland residents speaking on Ferguson and #BlackLivesMatter protests in the video below.

During the ensuing months, divided demonstrations continued to transform into a collective force. At the end of November 2014, 12-year-old Tamir Rice was shot and killed by a police officer in Cleveland, Ohio. As the Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the New York police officer who used the chokehold to take Garner into custody on December 3, 2014, people began to demand justice even more fiercely. More demonstrations were held, reaching as far as Paris, London, and Melbourne. By the end of 2014, #BlackLivesMatter was already a strong platform for many protesters, with a broader mission, and a list of demands. 

The movement carried into 2015. BLM continued to incite discussions in academia, art communities, religious establishments, and high schools and universities. A #BlackLivesMatter exhibit was featured in an art gallery in Seattle, providing viewers with different perspectives on the movement. Cornell University Africana Studies and Research Center held a community talk about #BlackLivesMatter and the current state of activist movements, taking a social history perspective. These are only few examples of the movement’s proliferation and effects.

On March 4, 2015, a St. Louis County grand jury acquitted Wilson of all charges in the death of Michael Brown. The actions of protesters became even more pronounced, disrupting public transportation and shutting down highways and bridges while marching for Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and many others.

On April 19, 2015 another Black man, Freddie Gray, died in the hospital after he was taken into custody by the Baltimore police. The events that followed shook the whole country as protests turned violent in some areas. Some police officers were injured, a state of emergency was declared, the National Guard was activated, and a 10 p.m. curfew was established in Baltimore. However, all officers involved in Gray’s death were charged with a range of crimes, including murder and manslaughter. During these latest events, many local chapters of #BlackLivesMatter marched in solidarity with Baltimore, including those in Chicago, Ferguson, and New York.

In the last 289 days, there were 431 general demonstrations and 430 for individual victims of police brutality, totaling at least 861 #BlackLivesMatter demonstrations.

An International Voice 

#BlackLivesMatter has a visible connection to other movements across the nation and abroad. Nationally, Palestinian solidarity activists, the low-wage workers movement, and Black Youth Project 100 (BYP 100) among others, all marched in support of BLM. In addition, medical students at 70 colleges, the so-called “White Coats for Black Lives,” held demonstrations in #BlackLivesMatter support. Internationally, Hong Kong’s pro-democracy marches and London’s Campaign Against Police and State Violence, among others, also stood in solidarity with the #BlackLivesMatter movement and its cause.

#BlackLivesMatter Tactics

The main tactic of the #BlackLivesMatter movement is to disrupt business as usual, including work, commuter travel, commerce, and other daily activities of U.S. residents. The rationale behind this tactic is based on the premise that people across the country need to wake up and recognize that anti-Black racism is a pervasive part of American society. BLM protesters disrupted traffic on Interstate 93 in Boston, shut down the BART station in West Oakland, California, partly shut down the Mall of America, and disrupted business as usual in many other places, all in the hope of drawing attention to its cause. 

What does #BlackLivesMatter aim to do?

#BlackLivesMatter put forward national demands and a vision for a new America. It seeks legal redress in the Michael Brown case, and asks the government to release the names of all officers involved in killing Black people for the last five years. It also calls for the creation of an advocate’s network that can institute changes across police departments, and demands that the federal government discontinue its supply of military weapons to police departments across the country. #BlackLivesMatter also demands more re-investment programs, specifically, re-directing law enforcement funds to federal departments charged with providing employment, housing, and educational services.

According to #BlackLivesMatter, its vision for a new America is as follows:

We Want an End to all Forms of Discrimination and the Full Recognition of our Human Rights. The United States Government must acknowledge and address the structural violence and institutional discrimination that continues to imprison our communities either in a life of poverty and/or one behind bars. We want the United States Government to recognize the full spectrum of our human rights and its obligations under international law.

In its vision, the movement includes not only the end of racially charged police violence and structural changes in police departments across the states, but also demands decent housing, quality education, and the end of the prison industrial complex and the school-to-prison pipeline.

#BlackLivesMatter developed rather specific proposals with regard to the de-militarization of local law enforcement departments across the country, including requesting a comprehensive review by the Department of Justice into systematic abuses by police departments, and the repurposing of law enforcement funds to support community-based alternatives to incarceration. While not all demands are specific and policy oriented, BLM is working in conjunction with think tanks and non-profits such as the National Organization for Women and Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation, to continue conceptualizing policy aims. 

Criticism of #BlackLivesMatter

Even though many Americans support #BlackLivesMatter, there are those who simply don’t believe that racism in the justice system exists. In this view, African Americans encounter law enforcement frequently because they commit more crimes, thus more of them end up in the prison system. Police officers are viewed as protectors of public order, while African Americans are seen as solely responsible for the current state of their community. Watch the video below to learn more about this point of view.

In addition, an #AllLivesMatter hashtag was created to counteract the #BlackLivesMatter movement. In this view, law enforcement should treat all people with respect and dignity. The rationale is as following: if #AllLivesMatter, then #BlackLivesMatter too. Essentially, #AllLivesMatter protesters are making a point of including all races in the conversation about police brutality; however, supporters of #BlackLivesMatter as well as its founders consider such phrasing an act of colorblindness that completely excludes race from the equation, devaluing the whole point of the movement.

Conclusion

#BlackLivesMatter has already established itself as a movement for social change, transforming isolated incidents of police brutality into a larger agenda of eliminating racial inequality in American society. It’s impossible to predict if the movement will be able to sustain itself until it reaches its goal and the government meets BLM’s demands; however one thing is sure, #BlackLivesMatter is already changing peoples’ perceptions of racial inequality in America, creating dialogue, and clearing out the path for future leaders who will take on the issue of anti-Black racism. 

Resources

Primary

#BlackLivesMatter: National Demands

#BlackLivesMatter: A Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement

Additional 

Elephrame: Track Black Lives Matter Demonstrations

Occupy: Black Lives Matter: The Evolution of a Movement

Political Research Associates: Five Right-Wing Media Narratives Attacking the ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement

Front Page Mag: Which Black Lives Matter?

Huffington Post: Stop Slandering Black Lives Matter

National Review Online: Black Lives Matter

Huffington Post: Reactions on the Streets After the George Zimmerman Verdict

Gothamist: Black Lives Matter Protesters Stock Forever 21 With ‘Never 21’ T-Shirts

Thee New York Times: Baltimore Enlists National Guard and a Curfew to Fight Riots and Looting

KARE11: Black Lives Matter March in Support of Baltimore

Michigan Live: EMU Student Wears ‘Black Lives Matter’ T-Shirt Over Gown at Graduation

Huffington Post: What People Are Really Saying When They Complain About ‘Black Lives Matter’ Protests

King 5: Art Gallery Features ‘Black Lives Matter’ Exhibit

Star Tribune: Twin Cities Students Walk Out of Schools to Join Black Lives Matter Protest

The New York Times: Beyond ‘Black Lives Matter’ 

Alternet: Eight Developments of the Black Lives Matter Movement Most People Don’t Know About 

Dick Gregory: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Heard Around the World

NPR: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Slogan Becomes a Bigger Movement 

Cornell University: Scholar Leads Talk on ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement 

Washington Post: From Trayvon Martin to ‘Black Lives Matter’

International Socialist Review: Black Lives Matter: A New Movement Takes Shape

The New York Times: Six Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death

California Sunday Magazine: How Three Friends Turned a Spontaneous Facebook Post Into a Global Phenomenon

Boston Globe: Protesters Snarl Morning Commute on I-93 Near Boston

Sfist: Protesters Chain Themselves to BART Trains at West Oakland, Temporarily Halt Transbay Train Service

Huffington Post: #BlackLivesMatter Protesters Shut Down Part of Mall of America

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BlackLivesMatter: How a Hashtag Sparked a Powerful Movement appeared first on Law Street.

We know their names by heart because they’ve become the public faces of a national epidemic. Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice–five names that represent the unjust murder of unarmed black males. But there are many more names on that list, including 53-year-old father of four Walter L. Scott. Scott was shot and killed Saturday by an white South Carolinian police officer while attempting to run away. A graphic of the video of the shooting has surfaced, leading to public outrage and resulting in the officer who shot him being charged with murder.

Be advised that the video below contains both graphic images and language.

According to the New York Times, the officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, attempted to justify the shooting, saying he feared for his life because Scott had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after Slager had stopped him in a Mercedes-Benz for a broken taillight. In the video, however, Scott is seen running away when Slager fires seemingly eight times at his back before finally collapsing.

At a news conference Tuesday, authorities announced that after viewing the video footage, they had decided to charge the officer with murder. North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said during the news conference.

When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. And if you make a bad decision, don’t care if you’re behind the shield or just a citizen on the street, you have to live by that decision.

Police reports indicate that Officer Slager reported on his radio, “shots fired and the subject is down; He took my Taser” moments after the shooting. But the taser defense story could potentially be a sham. During the initial scuffle at the beginning of the video something looks to have been either tossed or knocked to the ground behind the two men. After the shooting, the officer then runs back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and picks something up off the ground and then appears to drop an object near Scott’s body moments later. Unfortunately it’s tough to determine the full story because the images are shaky and unclear. Many are now speculating that this object was the officer’s taser, which he was potentially planting in order to corroborate his story, but that has yet to be proven by investigators.

The bystander who filmed the video has not yet been identified, but is being hailed as a hero by Scott’s family for providing the footage to them, which they then turned over to the New York Times. In the video below, Walter Scott’s brother and family attorney Chris Stewart react to the shooting, with Stewart making the bold statement “running from an officer doesn’t result in the death penalty.”

Stewart has a vital point that running away should not be a death sentence, but Supreme Court case law may beg to differ. In Tennessee v. Garner the court declared that officers may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if there’s probable cause that the suspect “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” Officer Slager may try to use this precedent in his criminal defense or in the civil suit against him that Scott’s family has declared that they intend to file.

This avoidable incident has only helped fuel public distrust for law enforcement as well as raise questions that there may be serious discriminatory problems ingrained in our police forces, as proved evident in Ferguson. One thing however is certain–Walter Scott’s story, while unfortunately not unique, does matter.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Carolina Cop Charged With the Murder of Walter Scott appeared first on Law Street.

Despite the fact that it’s often grainy and shaky, citizen-generated footage has become a permanent fixture in our current media landscape. Armed with something as simple as a cellphone camera, people are always ready to capture anything at a moment’s notice. That was especially the case last July when New Yorkers recorded controversial video footage of Eric Garner‘s arrest which led to his death. However a new Texas bill could soon make close up videos like that illegal.

The bill, which was filed in the Texas House of Representatives this past Tuesday by Representative Jason Villalba (R), would make it a class B misdemeanor to photograph and film law enforcement within 25 feet of you. The bill would also make it illegal for citizens to photograph officers from within 100 feet while that citizen is carrying a handgun.

Here is a full copy of the proposed bill courtesy of PetaPixel.

According to the Washington Times, only radio or television stations that hold an FCC license, or newspapers that are published at least once a week, or magazines that appear “at a regular interval” and are “of interest to the general public” can legally record the police within the 25 feet range. The long list of “exceptions” listed in the bill provided comedic material for some:

A handy graphic to help folks understand their rights under @JasonVillalba‘s proposed #txlege #HB2918. CC: @Copwatch pic.twitter.com/5pgr0WwtnK

— Tony McDonald (@TweetTonyMac) March 13, 2015

Representative Villalba took to Twitter to explain and defend his bill in a series of tweets, stating its purpose is to help prevent interference with law enforcement, not to restrict the ability to keep them accountable.

@brettsanders My bill does no such thing. Just asks filmers to stand back a little so as not to interfere with law enforcement. — Jason Villalba (@JasonVillalba) March 12, 2015

HB 2918 is meant to protect officers, NOT restrict the ability to keep them accountable. It DOES NOT prohibit filming. @TMPALegislative — Jason Villalba (@JasonVillalba) March 12, 2015

@bdrileysaustin I have not restricted filming police. Merely asking folks to stand back a little to let the cops do their job. — Jason Villalba (@JasonVillalba) March 13, 2015

There may be some legal issues with the bill–in 2011 an appeals court deciding Glik v. Cunniffe ruled unanimously that private citizens are allowed to record police. What’s also interesting is the Washington Times pointed out that Texas already has legislation that makes it illegal if someone “interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law.” These facts make you wonder if Villalba’s law does have an alternative agenda.

Critics were quick to voice their opinions on the bill with most of them calling it unconstitutional, which it very well might be. Public photography is considered a form of expression and thus a form of speech–it’s protected under the First Amendment. But, the First Amendment is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions that make it acceptable in some situations for police to request photographers to move back for safety purposes. On the other hand, this bill may have little to do with keeping the peace and more to do with maintaining police peace of mind. While it may serve some useful purposes, I do predict its passing would be highly unlikely, especially at a time when the police are being heavily scrutinized by the American public.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Bill Could Make Photographing Police a Crime appeared first on Law Street.

There have been edits made to Wikipedia pages about some high profile deaths at the hands of police in New York City. Those edits have now been traced to 1 Police Plaza, the headquarters of the New York Police Department (NYPD).

The edits seem to have focused on the pages regarding three of those deaths–Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo. Eric Garner was killed on July 17, 2014, after being put into a chokehold by an NYPD officer. While in the chokehold, he wasn’t able to breathe, lost consciousness, and passed away. Sean Bell died after being shot by an NYPD officer in Queens in 2006. He and two friends were shot a total of 50 times after leaving his bachelor party. Amadou Diallo was shot at approximately 41 times by NYPD officers and passed away in 1999. These three instances are often cited as examples of profiling, discrimination, and racial biases in the ranks of NYPD.

Most of the edits to those entries attempted to diminish the seriousness of the situations, and downplay the allegations levied against NYPD after each of them. For example, the Garner entry was edited so that “chokehold” was changed to “respiratory distress.” There was also an instance in the Garner entry where the sentence “use of the chokehold has been prohibited” was edited to read “use of the chokehold is legal, but has been prohibited.” The explanation of what happened before the takedown was changed from “Garner raised both his arms in the air” to “Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke.” The line “Garner, who was considerably larger than any of the officers, continued to struggle with them” was also added. While some of these changes seem subtle, they are clear attempts to imply that the NYPD’s actions against Garner were justified.

There was also an attempt to delete Sean Bell’s page altogether. According to Capitol New York, the user made a note on Wikipedia’s list of “articles for deletion” saying:

He [Bell] was in the news for about two months, and now no one except Al Sharpton cares anymore. The police shoot people every day, and times with a lot more than 50 bullets. This incident is more news than notable.

There were also attempted edits or edits made to other pages, including NYPD’s very controversial “stop-and-frisk” policies. Capitol New York pointed out (bolding theirs):

‘The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department to stop, question and, if the circumstances of the stop warrant it, conduct a frisk of the person stopped.’ was changed to ‘The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the circumstances of the stop warrant it, conducts a frisk of the person stopped.’

This was also added to the entry on stop-and-frisk:

The rules for stop and frisk are found in New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio.

An internal review is being conducted due to the edits. At this point, it’s not known who was involved or how many pages were affected. A watchdog Twitter account has been set up to tweet whenever Wikipedia edits are made from a computer with an NYPD IP address, although it has yet to catch anything since it was created. It may have been inspired by one of those for Congress, called @congressedits. That account tweets anytime a computer with a Congressional IP address edits a Wikipedia entry.

The NYPD’s edits look bad–it’s an attempt to downplay legitimately dark spots in its history. Its time and resources would certainly be better served working to prevent incidents like the deaths of Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo in the future.

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 NYPD Caught Editing Negative Wikipedia Entries appeared first on Law Street.

In light of recent high profile police killings such as those of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri last August, Eric Garner in Staten Island, and 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, a national discussion has developed about the force used by police officers against American citizens. In the most recent development in that discussion, President Obama called for all police shootings to be reported to the federal government so that kind of information is readily available and transparent.

This call comes after Obama’s December 2014 recommendation to establish the “Task Force on 21st Century Policing.” According to the White House,

The task force will examine how to strengthen public trust and foster strong relationships between local law enforcement and the communities that they protect, while also promoting effective crime reduction.

The task force will engage with federal, state, tribal, and local officials; technical advisors; young leaders; and nongovernmental organizations to provide a transparent process to engage with the public.

The task force is chaired by Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey and Laurie Robinson, a criminology professor at George Mason University who was formerly an Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ office of Justice Programs.

That task force has now come back to the President with its recommendations–the suggestion that police forces be required to report their shootings is just one of them. This comes after multiple high profile officials had made similar statements about the necessity of recording the incidences of police shootings. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed a similar sentiment in mid January when he stated in a speech,

I’ve heard from a number of people who have called on policymakers to ensure better record-keeping on injuries and deaths that occur at the hands of police. I’ve also spoken with law enforcement leaders — including the leadership of the Fraternal Order of Police — who have urged elected officials to consider strategies for collecting better data on officer fatalities. Today, my response to these legitimate concerns is simple: We need to do both.

FBI head James Comey made similar statements in a speech at Georgetown University a few weeks ago when he stated, “It’s ridiculous that I can’t tell you how many people were shot by the police in this country last week, last year, the last decade – it’s ridiculous.”

There isn’t any information yet about how the reporting of police shootings and force will be handled–whether it will go through the FBI or some other agency is yet to be seen.

This recommendation from the task force comes as that conversation about police shootings continues in the U.S. Last night, a video of a Los Angeles Police Department officer fatally shooting a homeless man went viral.

Here’s the video, although fair warning–it’s pretty brutal and graphic:

Officers claim that it was a struggle over one of the cop’s guns, and it very well may have been, but either way it’s a disturbing video in which deadly force is used very quickly. The conversation about police shootings in the United States is very far from over–a database may be able to be used to help make that conversation even more productive.

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 Task Force Calls for Police Shootings to be Reported to Federal Government appeared first on Law Street.

News of a secret detention facility in Chicago broke this week and it’s sparking horror and outrage across the country.

This “black site,” revealed by the Guardian, is a nightmare image straight out of a post-apocalyptic movie. People are “arrested” and taken to this site, which is inside a warehouse in Chicago’s Homan Square. Then they are subjected to inhumane treatment. They aren’t afforded the rights that the U.S. Constitution promises all of us. For example, lawyers claim they aren’t able to visit their clients at the site, and beatings and other forms of violence occur. In some ways most disturbingly, it’s all off the books. People who are taken to the Homan Square site aren’t entered into the Chicago PD system, or have any records of their detainment. As Anthony Hill, a criminal defense lawyer put it, “They just disappear, until they show up at a district for charging or are just released back out on the street.”

Read more: Chicago Still Dangerous Despite Absence From Crime Rankings

The facility at Homan Square is being dubbed a “black site” as a nod to the CIA detention facilities in the Middle East, although others have called them “shadow sites.”

The Chicago Police Department is, of course, trying to play Public Relations catch up. It’s claiming that nothing untoward has happened at Homan square, providing a statement that included:

CPD [Chicago police department] abides by all laws, rules and guidelines pertaining to any interviews of suspects or witnesses, at Homan Square or any other CPD facility. If lawyers have a client detained at Homan Square, just like any other facility, they are allowed to speak to and visit them. It also houses CPD’s Evidence Recovered Property Section, where the public is able to claim inventoried property…There are always records of anyone who is arrested by CPD, and this is not any different at Homan Square.

These revelations come at an interesting time–the United States has been engaged in a discussion over the power of our police forces for a while now. Reports of increased militarization, racial profiling, and human rights abuses are finally seeing the light of day and mainstream news coverage. From Ferguson, Missouri, to New York, New York, people this Fall stood up in protest against police treatment of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and others. This information out of Chicago seems to be just the latest in a long, terrifying list. It’s horrible, reprehensible, and heartbreaking, but it’s by no means unsurprising.

Reading the Guardian piece, complete with the many, many horrifying examples of what purportedly happens at this detention center, reminded me of a powerful speech by FBI Director James Comey just a few weeks ago. He talked a lot about innate racial biases in law enforcement, particularly in light of those events I mentioned above. Although his speech was by no means faultless, there were many honest truths to which Comey seemingly spoke. At one point, he said:

A mental shortcut becomes almost irresistible and maybe even rational by some lights. The two young black men on one side of the street look like so many others the officer has locked up. Two young white men on the other side of the street — even in the same clothes — do not. The officer does not make the same association about the two white guys, whether that officer is white or black. And that drives different behavior. The officer turns toward one side of the street and not the other. We need to come to grips with the fact that this behavior complicates the relationship between police and the communities they serve.

While there’s no indication exactly what race those interred at Homan Square are–there are certainly claims that many of the people brought there are low-income, and black, Hispanic, or members of other minority populations. It’s sad, in light of Comey’s speech and the events of this summer, how easy this becomes to imagine. Chicago’s police force taking those who lack resources, subjecting them to inhumane treatment, and not worrying about the consequences. It’s easy to silence a voice when that voice is nowhere near a microphone. While it’s yet to be seen what will be borne out of these revelations, I wouldn’t be surprised if more “black sites” exist in other cities. There’s a big problem here–and this is just one more piece of the puzzle.

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 Chicago “Black Site” Allegations Yet Another Example of Police Brutality appeared first on Law Street.

A recent slowdown by New York Police Department officers has ignited a debate over what the role of police officers should be and to what extent policing should focus on minor crimes.

According to the New York Post,

There were just 1,191 parking summonses handed out between Dec. 29 and Jan. 4 — down nearly 93 percent from the same period last year, when 16,008 of the dreaded orange envelopes were slapped on windshields

The NYPD slowdown involved a nearly complete abandonment of enforcement for low-level crimes like parking tickets and public order offenses. While slowdowns can have many different causes, it appears that the recent one in New York is a result of the rising tension between police officers and Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The New York Post also reported that the slowdown will cost the city roughly $10 million per week in lost ticket revenue. Doug Turetsky, of New York’s Independent Budget Office, put that number in context by comparing it to the city’s $77 billion annual budget; however, if losses continued over a long period of time the effects would be notable.

The Associated Press further noted that only one arrest was made and zero tickets were issued for low-level offenses on New Years Eve, a day when roughly one million people flock to the city. Despite this dramatic decrease in enforcement, there was actually a modest decrease in the number of reported serious crimes over a two-week period when compared to the same time span one year earlier.

Recent activity suggests that the NYPD slowdown is coming to an end and may have even stopped completely. Commissioner Bratton threatened to take away sick days and vacation time until ticket and arrest numbers returned to normal levels. While the slowdown may be over, it renewed the debate over the underlying policing theory present in many American cities.

Broken Windows Policing

Although the NYPD slowdown can have important implications for the NYPD and New York City, it has also called the Broken Windows style of policing into question. Behind the Broken Windows theory is the idea that disorder leads to both fear and more crime. The theory was first established by professors George L. Kelling and George Q. Wilson in an article they wrote back in 1982. They argued that the proactive enforcement of laws pertaining to lower level and often very visible crimes, like breaking windows, will restore order to public places and prevent additional crimes.

Put in their words:

The unchecked panhandler is, in effect, the first broken window. Muggers and robbers, whether opportunistic or professional, believe they reduce their chances of being caught or even identified if they operate on streets where potential victims are already intimidated by prevailing conditions. If the neighborhood cannot keep a bothersome panhandler from annoying passersby, the thief may reason, it is even less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger or to interfere if the mugging actually takes place.

New York City was actually a primary testing ground for the Broken Windows style of policing. The strategy came to New York in 1993 under the tenure of Commissioner Bill Bratton, first  appointed by Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Bratton later returned to New York to once again act as Commissioner under de Blasio in 2014. Broken Windows is frequently attributed to the city’s dramatic decline in crime during the 1990s.

Kelling stands with his theory in light of the recent debate. In an interview with the New York Daily News he argued that while it is unlikely that one week-long slowdown will have a meaningful impact on crime numbers, he did caution about long-term effects. Kelling continued to argue that maintaining order will meaningfully constrain the crime levels in the city, but also acknowledged that the maintenance of order is not intended to punish people. Kelling argued that the underlying principle of Broken Windows remains strong, but policing methods may still be updated to fit the present circumstances.

New York’s Crime Decline

Between 1990 and 2012 New York City’s violent crime rate per 100,000 people has decreased by nearly 75 percent and the total number of murders went from 2,245 in 1990 to 335 in 2013. While most cities in the United States experienced significant decreases in their violent crime rates since the 1990s as well, New York has far outpaced the national average and has continued that downward trend in recent years.

Before you ask, there was also a decrease in the actual number of broken windows over the past several years (and yes, there is data on that).

Although it is impossible to determine whether or not Broken Windows policing caused this decrease–many factors typically impact a city’s crime level–it is likely that policing played a role. Despite this correlation, many are calling for the end to Broken Windows as a modern policing philosophy. It has long been criticized for its effects on minorities, which tend to be the target of many ‘order-related’ arrests, but the recent death of the unarmed Eric Gardner at the hands of the NYPD has sparked further protest.

The Policing Debate

While it is unfair to claim that Broken Windows policing caused the death of Eric Gardner, such a policing strategy will increase the number of times minorities are stopped by the police. Arresting people for committing crimes like selling loose cigarettes, the act which precipitated Gardner’s encounter with police officers, will simply increase the likelihood that altercations occur in the future.

Supporters of Broken Windows argue that it is not the underlying theory that causes tragedies like Gardner’s death, but rather it is the training and tactics that officers employ that lead to abuse. As a result, people call for police reforms that would improve tactics and training; however, evidence may also suggest that police reform may not adequately address problem. Last summer the NYPD ended its controversial stop-and-frisk policy due to complaints that it disproportionately violated the rights of the poor and minority populations, yet problems persist.

Despite the removal of stop-and-frisk as an important policing tactic, situations Gardner’s encounter with the police still occur and continue to disproportionately affect minorities. The Broken Windows theory sought to reduce public fear by bringing order to public places; however, it has also helped create a different kind of fear among minority populations, which is developing into increasingly more hostile attitudes toward the police. In a series of polls asking people whether or not they believe the police treat blacks and whites equally, a significant gap between white and black perception emerges. The most recent poll suggests that a majority (52 percent) of white respondents have a “great deal of confidence” that both races are treated equally; among black respondents that number dipped to just 12 percent.

Distrust and fear toward the police has led to hostile interactions between minority populations and law enforcement officers. Supporters of the Broken Windows theory of policing may be right when they argue that enforcing order can reduce crime rates and fear among the general public; however, attention must also be paid to the additional implications that aggressive policing of low-level crimes may have.

What is the role of Broken Windows policing when many of the broken windows have been fixed? Crime in New York City has experienced massive declines over the last two-and-a-half decades, and according to its crime statistics is now a pretty safe city relative to its population size. Creating order may serve an important role in reducing crime, but when crime has already decreased by such an extent should it be enforced as aggressively as it was in the 1990s?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Slowdown Ignites Debate Over Broken Windows Policing appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, December 20, Ismaaiyl Brinsley shot and killed two NYPD officers in their patrol car, then proceeded to commit suicide with the same gun on the platform of a nearby subway station. The officers, Wenjian Liu, 32, and Rafael Ramos, 40, were shot in the head and upper body by Brinsley’s semiautomatic handgun. Although this shooting occurred outside of recent protests in the city, which have been almost completely nonviolent, tensions between the NYPD, protesters, local communities, and politicians continue to grow.

Brinsley boarded a bus from Baltimore to New York on Saturday morning with the intention to kill police officers, an intention that he expressed on social media that morning.  He posted a picture of a silver handgun on Instagram with the caption, “I’m Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours…Let’s Take 2 of Theirs.” He also referenced the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner in the same post.

After arriving in Manhattan, he made his way to Brooklyn where he ambushed Liu and Ramos.  In a press conference with Mayor de Blasio, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton responded to the murders saying, “quite simply they were assassinated.”

Earlier that morning Brinsley got into a fight with his ex-girlfriend, Shaneka Nicole Thompson, in Baltimore. The argument ended after Brinsley shot Thompson in the stomach, stole her phone, and fled the scene according to Baltimore County Police. As of Sunday, Thomson was in critical, but stable, condition in a local Baltimore hospital. A friend of Thompson’s notified Baltimore police later that day after seeing Brinsley’s Instagram photo, and an alert was sent to the NYPD shortly before the Brinsley killed Liu and Ramos.

Acting Alone

It is important to realize that Brinsley was not a participant in recent protests in New York, and his actions do not represent a departure from the peaceful methods employed up to this point. Instead, Brinsley was a man with a long history of arrests and a record of mental issues. He was arrested 19 times for various minor offenses, many of which included firearms, the Washington Post reported. In 2011, he received a two-year sentence in a Georgia prison for felony gun possession, though his actual release date is difficult to determine.

According to relatives, Ismaaiyl Brinsley was on medication for a brief period and he admitted to being under the care of a psychiatrist or in a mental institution during a court hearing. His family further noted that he likely had some undiagnosed mental issues and according to his sister, he was “an emotionally troubled kid. He needed help and didn’t get it.” The police have identified an increasingly aggressive social media history, which became particularly antigovernment and antipolice in recent weeks. Relatives also told authorities that Brinsley attempted to hang himself a year ago.

Tensions Mount

The murders of Officers Liu and Ramos have intensified the debate between protesters, the police, and city officials. The president of the NYPD’s largest union, Patrick Lynch, said that the murders are the result of the recent protests and Mayor de Blasio’s response. According to Lynch, “there is blood on many hands, from those that incited violence under the guise of protest to try to tear down what police officers did every day.”

Supporters of the police argue that since Eric Garner decision, Mayor de Blasio has not sufficiently assisted police officers. From meeting with protest groups to taking a hard line against police misconduct and brutality, many disagree with the mayor’s treatment of the police. In fact, a group of officers publicly turned their backs on the mayor before a press conference on Saturday night.

Whether or not you agree with the protesters or the police, arguing that recent nonviolent protests caused the deaths of two police officers is completely off base. The evidence revealed so far indicates that the shooter acted alone. Brinsley, who had a long arrest record and a troubled history, was not compelled to kill two police officers by peaceful activism. While recent events may have created tension between police officers and communities, connecting them to an unwarranted act of violence is simply unjustified.

Instead, we should see the recent shooting for what it is–the act of a man with a long criminal history and mental health problems. Arguing that Brinsley shot two police officers because of protests fails to explain why he also shot his ex-girlfriend that same morning. Brinsley was clearly a troubled man, and while that does not come close to justifying his actions, it does indicate that what he did does not extend beyond himself. Recent protests may have brought the issue to public consciousness as they intended to do–they represent one response to a set of events. Other reactions, specifically violent ones, represent an unrelated and unjustified response.

Recent protests in New York raise opposition to a legitimate issue–police violence–and attempt to open up a dialogue with the police and local officials. Both supporters and critics alike should at least acknowledge the movement’s nonviolent nature. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but conflating violence with recent protests will only serve to make matters worse. Civil rights leaders have already denounced the killings. While some may disagree with their decision not to heed Mayor de Blasio’s call to pause demonstrations until after the officers’ funerals, the fact is that this shooting was an unrelated event.

The deaths of officers Liu and Ramos truly are tragedies. Regardless of context, any act of such unwarranted violence can never be condoned. Americans should be able to mourn their deaths as well as the death of Eric Garner at the same time without feeling any tension between the two. Being opposed to police misconduct is not the same as being antipolice, and supporting the police does not mean you should ignore their mistakes.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Deaths Escalate Tensions in New York appeared first on Law Street.

From bizarre laws to college admissions strippers, Law Street has you covered on everything you might have missed last week. Our number one story of the week came from Marisa Mostek who added the Pacific Northwest states to her series of the Dumbest Laws in the United States. Hint: hope you don’t want to buy a new mattress on a Sunday, because that’s out of the question. Anneliese Mahoney wrote the #2 post on Columbia University’s policy allowing students who have experienced trauma to petition for delayed exams, which became a hot topic in the context of the recent Ferguson and New York grand jury decisions. And Ashley Shaw had the #3 post of the week with a report on now-defunct FastTrain College’s admissions practices that will have you scratching your head and wondering how this happened in real life. ICYMI: check out Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1 The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Pacific Northwest Edition

I was wrong a couple weeks ago when I said that California laws are crazy. Many of the Golden State’s laws that I mentioned now seem completely sane in comparison to those I’ve discovered in Washington and Oregon. For example, if you are trying to woo the opposite sex by saying your dad just won the lottery and drives a brand-new Lamborghini when in fact he doesn’t have a dime to his name, you better think again. In Washington state it is illegal to pretend that your parents are rich. Read full article here.

#2 Columbia Law takes Progressive Stance on Mental Health

In light of the incredibly controversial and nation-sweeping announcements that grand juries in Missouri and New York failed to indict the cops who killed Michael Brown and Eric Garner, respectively, Columbia University Law School made an announcement. It regarded the reactions that some of the students may be having to those verdicts, and offered counseling, opportunities to talk to professors regarding the indictment. Read full article here.

#3 BS in Dancing: When Stripper Work Admissions, It Might be a Scam

With a name like FastTrain College, you probably expect a top-notch education system along the lines of Harvard or Yale; however, what you apparently get is a different type of top entirely. When FastTrain wants you (so basically if you are a man), it will send out its top admissions officer. And by top officer, I of course mean an exotic dancer dressed provocatively in an effort to lure you into the school. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a few weeks since the announcement that the Ferguson grand jury would not indict Officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown to death. It’s been about a week since a Staten Island grand jury announced that Officer Daniel Pantaleo would not be indicted for the death of Eric Garner. Protests have continued in many major cities, and everyone is still talking about the injustices inherent in our judicial system. #ICan’tBreathe, a reference to Garner’s last words as he died after being put in a chokehold by Panteleo, is still trending on Twitter as I write this.

Now, celebrities are starting to get involved. A few nights ago, Kobe Bryant and other members of the Los Angeles Lakers wore “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirts before their game.

Kobe and the rest of the #Lakers wearing #ICantBreathe T-Shirts during warm ups ( pic via @lakers ) pic.twitter.com/kd2OlxrZfm

— Jeff G. (@TheSportsDude) December 10, 2014

The Lakers weren’t the first team to participate in protests. The St. Louis Rams, shortly after the Ferguson grand jury decision, walked out onto the field with their hands in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture that has been a symbol of the Ferguson protests:

Rams players said they ‘absolutely’ would repeat ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture http://t.co/lxshSRD8wrpic.twitter.com/H4Z71QQWau

— Sportsnet (@Sportsnet) December 4, 2014

Rams player Davin Joseph also kept his support going by writing “I Can’t Breathe” on his shoes before a recent game:

R.I.P Eric Garner pic.twitter.com/i84grny7pR

— Davin Joseph (@DavinJoseph75) December 7, 2014

Detroit Lions player Reggie Bush also showed his support with a homemade “I Can’t Breathe” shirt:

ICYMI: Reggie Bush supports Eric Garner with message on shirt http://t.co/N6oDRFTcQD pic.twitter.com/LqMsc2eCsx — Josh Katzenstein (@jkatzenstein) December 7, 2014

It’s not just professional athletes who are showing their support; other celebrities have chosen to throw their weight around as well and bring attention to the Brown and Garner-inspired protests. Singer/songwriter John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen, a model, paid for an entire fleet of food trucks to serve protesters in Lincoln Square in New York on Sunday. 

.@johnlegend and his wife pay for a food truck to feed #EricGarner supporters at #NYC protest. http://t.co/HYLPqHTFZxpic.twitter.com/0JJqqEuIIu — Jassiel Perez (@fl_dreamer) December 8, 2014

Finally, members of Congress have shown their support. Four members have done the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture on the floor of the House of Representatives: New York Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Yvette Clarke, and Texas Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green. 

Four Members of Congress do ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ gesture on House floor. http://t.co/EMPkdTk6otpic.twitter.com/YanQI5RzJ4 — NYDN Politics (@NYDNPolitics) December 2, 2014

Although many celebrities have made their opinions known about the lack of indictments in these cases, these athletes, celebrities, and politicians have stood out. They’re in good company–it’s only by bringing attention to these issues that we can ever hope to enact change. 

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 #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Celebrities Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

The decisions by grand juries not to indict the police officers who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York–both unarmed black men–have sparked a visceral reaction from many Americans coast to coast. In the case of Garner, the reaction transcended partisan politics, with conservative voices such as Glenn Beck expressing disbelief at how an unarmed man being choked to death on camera was not enough to even start a criminal proceeding against his killer, Officer Daniel Pantaleo.

On the other hand, there are those who reject the idea that the system failed these victims and their families, and that these outcomes are indicative of a larger institutional design that disproportionately victimizes black people. They tend to view these cases as “isolated incidents,” unfortunate yes, but perhaps unavoidable in a society where police are confronted with violent crime on a daily basis. Inevitably, they veer into defaming the victim’s character. “It’s not like Michael Brown was an angel. Did you see the video of him robbing that store just before the shooting?” I have even heard some version of these quotes uttered by people very close to me, whose opinions I hold in high regard. Yet, here they are apologizing for murderers.

It is not difficult to see the striking parallel between this behavior and the victim-blaming that surrounds cases of rape and domestic abuse involving women. “Well she was wearing a short skirt” “Wasn’t she drunk?” “Why did she go back to him?” A system designed to protect men at the expense of women will scrutinize the woman’s actions to see what she did to bring such misfortune upon herself, rather than investigating the criminal actions of the male perpetrator. This, in turn, engenders a deep distrust of the system among women and explains why a majority of sexual assaults go unreported.

Similarly, a system designed to protect white lives at the expense of black lives makes it acceptable to blame the black victim of a senseless murder. Whether 18–year-old Brown or 43-year-old Garner were “angels” before their lives were cut short bears no relevance on whether their killers should be held accountable for their untimely deaths. Those who feel these are appropriate counterarguments to an issue that’s been blown out of proportion by the media are products of this system and these are misplaced attempts at appearing “fair and balanced.” That Officers Wilson and Pantaleo may never face a public trial for their actions means that the system worked as it was designed. Unfortunately, this also means that the distrust of law enforcement in black communities was only compounded. Obama’s call for $263 million for body cameras on police may increase transparency, but trust will elude us until we can seek justice in a system untainted by vestiges of the racial caste system that this country was built on.

Kesav Wable

Kesav Wable is an attorney practicing in New York, as well as an accomplished actor and writer. His short film For Flow, an HBO American Black Film Finalist in 2011, was broadcast on HBO/Cinemax, and he continues to develop scripts for the stage and screen. Contact Kesav at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Victim Blaming Nurtures an Unjust System appeared first on Law Street.

One of my favorite parts of my job here at Law Street is that I get to work with incredibly intelligent individuals with whom I occasionally disagree. Blogger Allison Dawson is one of those people. Today, she wrote a piece entitled “Columbia Law Students Can Postpone Exams in Light of Grand Jury Decisions.” It’s a great take–but I think there are a couple important points missing.

For some context, here’s the background: in light of the incredibly controversial and nation-sweeping announcements that grand juries in Missouri and New York failed to indict the cops who killed Michael Brown and Eric Garner, respectively, Columbia University Law School made an announcement. It regarded the reactions that some of the students may be having to those verdicts, and offered counseling, opportunities to talk to professors regarding the indictment, and this:

The law school has a policy and set of procedures for students who experience trauma during exam period. In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition Dean Alice Rigas to have an examination rescheduled.

There’s a crucial part there that I want to make sure we’re all very cognizant of, and that’s that a Columbia Law student can’t just walk into Dean Rigas’ office and say “hey, I’m feeling weird about these indictments, can I take those exams later?”

The Academic Procedures outlined by Columbia make it pretty clear that petitioning to not take an exam isn’t really an easy practice. It certainly seems that a petition is by no means a guarantee to skip an exam, and that Columbia takes petitions pretty seriously. Columbia’s policy states:

Some petitions can be decided on within two to seven business days; others may require a meeting of the Rules Committee or the faculty and will take longer. It is advisable to make your petition as early as possible and not to assume the results of a petition.

A follow-up letter makes it seem like they really would only allow someone to postpone an exam under rather dire circumstances. The Vice Dean for Curriculum, Avery Katz wrote:

Accordingly, students who wish to request a rescheduled exam, or other similar accommodation, should either write to the office of Registration Services with an individual explanation of the basis of the request, or speak in person with an academic counselor in the Office of Student Services.  Unless time pressure is severe, meeting with an academic counselor is the preferred alternative, in case our student services staff can offer support or other resources that may be helpful.

I truly hope that if anyone uses this to try to get out of taking an exam, that Columbia would catch it with its policies. To anyone trying that, here’s a message to you: you’re a shitty person, and you are making it harder for those who actually do need to postpone an exam. Honestly, I highly doubt that many people will end up asking to postpone their exams because of these grand juries, or that Columbia will honor those requests.

All that being said, the fact that Columbia Law is recognizing that the grand jury announcements could have been triggering for a student is excellent. I agree with Allison that our future lawyers need to be able to accept and learn from the outcomes of our legal system, but I think that’s oversimplifying what those failures to indict really mean. The grand jury decisions were symptoms of significantly larger issues in our justice system, like racial inequality, police brutality, and a culture of violence. The protests that have continued all around the nation show that these conversations didn’t stop when those grand juries made their decisions.

No one gets to dictate what could cause someone to have emotional or mental difficulties and need help. Columbia Law has policies in place that allow students to make their case if they are suffering from anything that would impede performance on exams. The letter that went out yesterday just clarified that. There will of course always be people who try to take advantage of the policy, and I truly hope Columbia Law is able to identify those people. But the fact that Columbia is taking such a progressive view on mental health and triggers is truly refreshing. It’s the thought that counts, and for Columbia Law, this truly was a good thought.

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 Columbia Law Takes Progressive Stance on Mental Health appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

There are some things that I have a hard time understanding and this is one of those instances. Columbia Law School has announced that it will allow its students to postpone their exams.

Why, you ask? Well my lovelies “the law school has a policy and set of procedures for students who experience trauma during exam period,” reads interim dean Robert Scott’s message to students this weekend. “In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition Dean Alice Rigas to have an examination rescheduled,” Scott continued. Scott is referencing the recent non-indictment decisions in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases.

I understand that there are some differences of opinion in both cases over the grand juries’ decisions, but for a law school to concede to the notion that its own law students have been traumatized by them is just baffling. These students are literally spending entire months learning about the law but somehow may not be able to handle the outcomes of our justice system? Where is the logic in that? Columbia Law School just basically said that its law students do not understand the very thing they are learning.

Should a student have his own opinion and perspective on a subject? Absolutely! But should he be allowed to take advantage of the situation and get away with postponing his exams? Absolutely NOT!

If students cannot handle the decision of a grand jury, and fully understand that process, then they should drop out of school and find a new profession. Not everyone is indicted. Not everyone wins their case This should be the perfect time to teach students about the process, not coddle them. Plus, let’s be realistic: some of these students will take full advantage of a situation to buy themselves a little more time to study or do things they otherwise would not be able to do if they actually took their finals on the dates already scheduled.

Interim Dean Scott also states that “for some law students, particularly, though not only, students of color, this chain of events is all the more profound as it threatens to undermine a sense that the law is a fundamental pillar of society designed to protect fairness, due process and equality.” So, what it seems that he’s saying is that law students could very well have lost their respect and passion for the law because the grand jury’s made a decision based off of facts and testimony? I’m more miffed by the fact that this man thinks that law students will lose respect for the law because the grand jury did its job!

Laws are not perfect, people are not perfect and things don’t always go the way that you want, but to not be able to handle that reality is concerning.

I can appreciate that Columbia Law School is trying to take care of its students but this is not the way to go. Embrace the controversy and make this a learning moment for all.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia Law Students Can Postpone Exams in Light of Grand Jury Decisions appeared first on Law Street.

If you live in a major metropolitan area, or honestly even a small one, there’s a very decent chance that you’ll see protests today. You probably saw some last night as well. For any of you who have been living under a particularly comfortable and sheltered rock lately, the protests focus on the cases of two black men killed by police officers. Michael Brown, an 18 year old in Ferguson, Missouri, was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014. On November 24 it was announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Wilson. Next, there’s the case of Eric Garner in New York, who was killed by Officer Daniel Pantaleo on July 17, 2014. Pantaleo was filmed putting Garner in a chokehold, even though that tactic is banned by the New York Police Department.

Here’s an example of the “hands up don’t shoot” gesture being used in protest:

"Hands up, dont shoot!!" #NYC #FergusonDecision #justice pic.twitter.com/OwMfX72v4H

— Arnaud Montagard (@arnaudmontagard) November 26, 2014

And Garner’s last words, which have become a rallying cry:

I almost can't read this. So painful. So ugly. #ICantBreathe pic.twitter.com/KVVbK6Gf0A

— Tessa Francis (@tessafrancis) December 4, 2014

Those are the roots of the protests, the catalysts. But the protests aren’t just about these two men. They’re about the greater issue–or more appropriately issues. I’m not trying to make an exhaustive list here but these protests are about the national conversations we need to have on racism, racial profiling, police violence, police militarization, etc, etc, etc. The protests are about a broken system–the deaths of Brown and Garner are tragic symptoms of this system.

The protests have been taking place all over the United States. New York, where Garner was killed, was especially busy. There was a “die-in” at Grand Central Station yesterday evening; a “die-in” is when protesters lie on the ground, silently.

Hundreds of people staged a "die-in" at Grand Central in NYC after #EricGarner decision. http://t.co/che6tRNyli pic.twitter.com/8cNl2DsEUw

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 4, 2014

Protesters marched through New York City and temporarily blocked traffic at major transportation hubs, including the Lincoln Tunnel. One of the protesters explained her motivations, saying:

Every 28 hours a young black man is killed by police. Only 2 percent of police are indicted. Those numbers are crazy. It’s telling young black men that their lives don’t matter and their deaths can be passed over.

Protests were also very active in our nation’s capital. Last night, protesters flooded Dupont Circle and stopped traffic, as well as at some other locations in Northwest Washington. Today there will be a protest over by the Department of Justice at 4:00pm.

Protesters blocking DC intersection to protest non-indictment in #Garner case. Protest is peaceful. Cops standing by pic.twitter.com/j0JSd9B62O

— Athena Jones (@AthenaCNN) December 4, 2014

Cities all over the country look like this, and I’m going to leave these pictures and videos here, because I think they say more than words ever could:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Philly protest at Tree Lighting event at City Hall #FergusonPHL #BlackLivesMatter #HandsUpDontShoot: http://t.co/FpDJKfBylC #EricGarner

— Daryel Jay (@DaryelJay) December 4, 2014

Oakland, California:

#EricGarner protest in Oakland. #NoJusticeNoPeace #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/0yxNmnJQQM

— Diana Saverin (@dianasaverin) December 4, 2014

Seattle, Washington

Seattle protests no indictment for NYPD officer whose chokehold led to death of #EricGarner >> http://t.co/nXEihNYg4p pic.twitter.com/I6PZktVbge

— KIRO 7 (@KIRO7Seattle) December 4, 2014

New York, New York

Garner widow on husband's killer: 'No I, don't accept his apologies’ http://t.co/NLncfA5Mft pic.twitter.com/pbkP6TCoVA

— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) December 4, 2014

Those are faces of change. Faces tired of the way that our system has been failing. Faces that have had enough. Faces that deserve to be, finally, listened to.

If you’re interested in joining a protest, here’s where they’re happening today. They aren’t going to end anytime soon, because this crisis clearly isn’t ending anytime soon either.

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 #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Americans Continue Protests appeared first on Law Street.

Happy December, folks!

Have you all awakened from your turkey coma? Good. Because the situation in Ferguson has taken an interesting turn, and you’re going to want to be alert for this one.

The Oath Keepers have descended upon Ferguson in response to the riots, taking up armed positions on the rooftops of local businesses to guard against looters. Working as a sort of vigilante militia, these rooftop patrollers are veterans, ex-cops, and paramedics. They work at night and, apparently, they’re prepared to shoot down anyone who crosses their path.

So, here’s the thing about the Oath Keepers. On the one hand, some folks are happy they’re there. Local business owners who are receiving their protection have reported feeling safer, and that’s pretty great.

However, the Oath Keepers are a super problematic—and frankly, pretty scary—organization, and their presence in Ferguson is anything but benign.

The Oath Keepers are a radical, militant, right-wing non-profit that was founded in 2009. Not coincidentally, their appearance aligns perfectly with the election of President Obama and the rise of the Tea Party. The Oath Keepers are—shockingly—mostly white men, and their stated mission is to protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights and to prevent a dictatorship from ever taking hold in the U.S.

But really, that’s a lot of coded language for racist, paranoid, gun fanatics who decided to form a vigilante militia in response to a black president being elected to office.

Here’s what the Oath Keepers are really about—they’re a particularly militaristic arm of the Tea Party, a group that sprang up with Obama’s election because conservatives were scared as fuck. The economy was (and, let’s be real, still is) in the shitter, thanks to Republican tax policies that caused the housing crisis of 2008. Their beloved straight, white, Christian, family-man conservative president, George Dubya, was leaving office and being replaced by someone new and relatively unknown. The face of the United States was changing drastically.

So, naturally, conservatives freaked the fuck out. Enter the Tea Party and its bevy of reactionaries—folks dressing up in colonial garb, romanticizing the Founding Fathers and their Constitution, ignoring the existence of slavery, and holding up signs of President Obama fashioned as Hitler, the Devil, and a monkey, all demanding to see his birth certificate.

Yeah, so, the Oath Keepers are those people. Except they carry guns and act as unlicensed, armed security guards whenever things start to happen that they don’t like.

What’s high on their list of things they don’t like? Black people rioting in the streets after a grand jury decided that their lives don’t matter, and that we should all just collectively shrug our shoulders as another young black man’s life gets cut short—like Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner before him—and hold no one accountable for his death.

This the type of shit that gets the Oath Keepers riled up to restore order. God forbid people of color should rise up and demand that their lives be valued by the American justice system.

This is the third time in three years that we’ve had to collectively mourn the untimely death of a young black man, shot down because his blackness made him threatening to the shooter. And those are just the cases that have made national headlines. How many more people of color have been cut down in the last three years by a justice system that’s stacked against them?

More than any of us would like to admit.

And so, as the Oath Keepers descend upon the city of Ferguson, it’s no coincidence that the men standing on shop rooftops with guns are mostly white, and the assailants they’re taking aim at are mostly black.

These radical right-wingers are feeling all kinds of sympathy for the store owners whose businesses have been looted. And that sympathy isn’t entirely misplaced. It’s not a situation that any of us would wish on another person—to have their life’s work plundered or burned to the ground.

But if we all take a step back from the riot-shaming that is implicit to the Oath Keepers’ presence in Ferguson, it’s clear what side of this issue the radical right is on.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said that a “riot is the language of the unheard.” And conservatives, like the Oath Keepers, want to keep the unheard quiet. They’ll shoot them down to preserve the silence if they have to.

Instead of patrolling rooftops, threatening to gun down people who are fighting for their lives, the Oath Keepers should be listening to this latest outcry from the unheard.

They’re telling us that black lives matter. Michael Brown matters. Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner matter. And, contrary to what the American justice system might have us believe, these losses aren’t to be taken lightly.

So please, Oath Keepers, get the hell off the rooftops. Stop trying to intimidate the unheard people of Ferguson into silence.

Try listening to them instead.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dear Oath Keepers: GTFO of Ferguson appeared first on Law Street.