Conservative Twitterati Try to Go After Marilyn Mosby - End Up Looking Like Damned Fools

How dumb is dumb? Well, when ignorant, dumbo conservatives can't handle the truth, and especially can't wrap their febrile minds around a person with a fearless sense of justice and impeccable integrity seeking it. That this person - Marilyn Mosby - is the product of five generations of police officers would seem to indicate more support than attacks - but not for the conservo Twitterati, most of them brainwashed by Hannity, O'Reilly and "Fox n' Friends".

When I saw Prosecutor Mosby's announcement yesterday, I told my wife: "Make no mistake she will be attacked by the racist knuckledraggers". They hide behind the veneer of politics  and pseudo-justice but as the Southern Poverty Law Center's recent "Intelligence Report" noted - it is all about racism since Obama's 2008 election.  While the numbers have somewhat diminished, a residue of hardcore hate groups remain. See e.g.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2015/spring

 So no one can tell those of us involved in deep politics that the nasty flood of backlash that's followed the Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Walter Scott and now Freddie Gray incidents - deaths is merely ordinary expression of  "un- PC" pinions. Oh no! Not now, not ever. Each vile backlash which cast the murdered victim as bringing on his own death and in addition referring to them  as "apes" or "gorillas" discloses the comments are not value -neutral regarding race. They are imbued with the same sickening racism that cast Obama as a "skunk" on a Facebook page - creating the incident that led me to break off any family relations with a brother in OK.

The latest example erupted from the right wing noise machine on Twitter yesterday - with some of the tweets given below with the Twitter addresses of the sorry senders:

Ben Shapiro:

This is a textbook case for recusal for Marilyn Mosby, by the way. Here's her husband blowing off looting

--
Here,  as one salon.com writer put it: "to Ben Shapiro,  Breitbart’s Editor-at-Large, the conservative calculus is clear: five generations of police officers — including, at a minimum, at least five members of her immediate family — don’t even remotely equal one husband. Her husband essentially functions like a zero, so no matter how many other family members you multiply against him"

Of course, Shapiro's other inexcusable transgression is conflating Ms. Mosby with her husband - a Baltimore councilman - intimating their interests must be the same.

Other idiotic tweets from the conservo backwaters:

Adam@keepitrealist:

Wow, Marilyn Mosby is married to Nick Mosby, the riot and looter apologist. Can you say conflict of interest?

Mythos@victorsteve:

marilyn mosby:"I have a racist narrative that matches my ideological bias & corrupted brain. all cops are murderers until further notice"

mike matheson @mikematheson5

@FoxNews WRONG cops r innocent! mosby let being BLACK LIB KKKrat influence Being BLACK lib kkkrat comes 1st 2 them This decsn is RACIST

Richard Colon @porthosposrtosp

The prosecutor is a rookie, racist and political and working with the mayor, al shapton and the White House in this case

This is just a sampling but the rest aren't any better: all drenched in blatant racism and/or unfathomable ignorance.  The typical trash racist, of course, will always seek to re-interpret the views of her husband and impute them to her, or seek to conflate the two separate people as one. The fallacy of "re-composition".

The dreck from the likes of "Mythos" discloses a foolish twit incapable of even processing the special prosecutor's words when - after her charging statement- she noted that the Baltimore Police Department deserved high praise and could not be sullied based on the actions of a few. She re-asserted that in her interview last night, telling Chris Hayes: "I understand and respect that most police officers are risking their lives day in and day out. They're on the streets of every urban city, not just Baltimore, and risking their lives for the betterment of their communities."

And again, let's bear in mind she comes from five generations of police officers and both her parents were cops.

The other congenital morons who bring up  Ms. Mosby's "conflict of interest" are also averse to the facts at hand, including that there can be no such "conflict" between a prosecutor and councilman. One "makes the laws" the other enforces them. As she also told Chris Hayes in her interview:

"There is no conflict of interest! My husband represents the district in which I live. I am the Baltimore city state attorney. I represent his district and thirteen other districts throughout the city. I prosecute crimes there. I don't have to turn on the news or open a newspaper to see the impact of crime there. All I need to do is open up the door. So there is no conflict of interest."

As for the claim by Richard Colon (funny how his surname describes the human large intestines), that the "prosecutor is a rookie" - this is an out and out red herring. As Mosby pointed out in her Hayes' interview: "The people of Baltimore elected me to exercise my discretion to apply justice fairly and equally with or without a badge."

Colon also errs by imputing that experience trumps integrity in such a case, when - given that one is properly qualified for the position,  it is always integrity that is of highest import. Something that LBJ and his "Warren Commission" might have contemplated and invoked  - but then it was never LBJ's intent to do that, but rather to cover up his own role in the JFK assassination.

She also pointed out that any alleged "independent prosecutor" would in fact be a political  appointee, not elected.:

"Where's the accountability? Someone political is going to appoint someone else."

Hence, the political nature of the appointment would likely undermine any pursuit of justice in the case.

The tweet by Mike Matheson, meanwhile, is classic racist. Anyone who would scrawl such keyboard feces as:

mosby let being BLACK LIB KKKrat influence Being BLACK lib kkkrat comes 1st 2 them This decsn is RACIST

Is projecting his own blatant racism - in this case against all blacks - onto the person. He, in fact, is likely a "KKK" or at least a KKK sympathizer, who probably gets off when they burn crosses on the lawns of black people. He also probably calls Obama a "monkey" or represents him as a skunk as my now disowned Okie brother did once upon a time.

As for the claim of a "rush to judgment" as asserted by the head of the Baltimore Police Union, this canard was also easily dispatched by Ms. Mosby who informed Chris that:

"From the time we learned of this tragic event, we started canvassing the area, speaking to witnesses, reviewed hours and hours of video surveillance, reviewed hours and hours of statements in the case, and medical records. This wasn't something that was quick, fast or in a hurry or a rush to judgment. This was a thorough investigation that we were conducting in parallel with the police department. So the information that was provided to us yesterday by the police department is information we already knew. ....This was a thorough investigation, we applied the facts to the law and we pursued this case fairly and appropriately."

Make no mistake that the backlash by racist conservatives against Marilyn Mosby is not about to end soon, not by a  long shot. There is way too much racist hatred in this country to keep it stoked - as the SPLC Intelligence Report notes. But she should know those of us who are sane and sensible back her up to the fullest!

The racist knuckledraggers may try all they want to slander her as an "out of control ape" or "racist tramp" but such reckless invective is all they have in their disgusting corner. We see her as the epitome of fearlessness and adherence to the rule of law - not merely dismissing charges because the crimes were committed by those wearing badges.

Kudos also to the ex-Baltimore cop whistleblower, Pete Castle, who exposed the crimes of  two of his mates (beating shackled prisoners),  highlighted last night on 'All In'. He was abandoned by fellow cops as a 'snitch' - disclosing their ethics as no better than those felons who try to hide their crimes while in the 'can'.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/02/america_is_back_to_lynching_baltimore_freddie_gray_and_the_noxious_legacy_of_white_supremacy/


And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/02/bill_maher_compares_baltimore_police_to_the_catholic_church_the_institution_covered_for_pedophiles/

Yes! There ARE TOO Damned Many Laws And These Provoke Cop Interference!

Let us rationally try to trace to the source the actual reason for the too frequent use of excessive force by cops. At root, if we think about it, it's because of too damned many pennyante,  pissant laws that congress critters, mendacious state legislators and others have put on their books. Let's fix ideas by examining the words below of Nick Gillespie, from a piece on The Daily Beast.  This is to do with the cops coming down on Eric Garner:

"Clearly, something has gone horribly wrong when a man lies dead after being confronted for selling cigarettes to willing buyers."

Noting that it is totally irrelevant what Garner was charging for each "loosie" - whether 50 cents each or a buck. Doesn't matter! He had willing buyers, willing to pay what he was asking! And to Gillespies' further point, he didn't deserve to even have a police record for previous infractions because the law itself was an ass. The creation of dubious laws by lawmakers grafting for extra bucks (mucho extra bucks) who actually (in NY) socked on a $5.85 tax per pack of cigs was an outrage. This made them so expensive as to drive them underground which left those like Eric to take advantage of nonsense while making a few bucks on the side. But the Staten Island cops treated it like murder one coming down on him, or peddling smack to kids.

Look, I am no fan of cigs and if I had my way all would be outlawed for reasons I've given in earlier posts. They are not only a blight on the environment - when people toss butts away- but a continuing source of serious health problems.

However, if a person wants to shorten his or her life by puffing the damned things, let them - so long as it's not in my face or in my house. In this scheme of things, Garner should never had been pulled up for such a rinkydink  "crime" and absolutely shouldn't have lost his life from an over  the top cop takedown. I mean, good god, Garner wasn't selling coke or crank! It was freakin' LOOSE cigarettes - which are lawful entities, not prohibited under federal "controlled substance"  laws.

But as Stephen Carter has noted in a recent Denver Post op-ed ('Law Puts Us All In Same Danger as Eric Garner', Dec. 6):

"The problem is actually broader. It's not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It's every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they're right"

Carter goes on to point out that better training "won't lead to perfection" but "fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence."

On this he is correct, and although I disagree with Libertarians on multiple issues, it is inevitable that there would be concordance on at least one or two. I mean, even a broken clock is right twice each  day! It also stands to reason: the more laws on the books, especially those enforced to the letter- no matter how idiotic or trite - the greater the potential for police entry and violence.

This can range from the facial beating of a homeless elderly woman in LA - merely for walking across an expressway ("jaywalking") to the case of a 22 yr. old kid in Louisiana being jumped by cops (and facing 20 years) for possession of 1 oz. of  marijuana - which would be legal here in Colorado. To the case of a wheel chair -bound father of two in Tampa, FL, whose home was violated by a SWAT team that dragged him out as his wife and kids became hysterical (this was featured on a 'Penn & Teller' Bullshit Episode dealing with the law). His "crime"? He had 90 days of prescription pain killer meds - prescribed by his physician for unabated pain from a previous road accident - while Florida's absurd law only allowed a 30-day supply. He was therefore convicted as a drug pusher!

Legal scholar Douglas Husak, in, 'Overcriminalization: The Limits of Criminal Law', observes that federal law alone includes more than 3,000 crimes - fewer than half of which are found in the Federal Criminal Code.  All the rest are scattered through other statutes Thus, even a citizen who wants to faithfully abide by the law  - hence be a "lawful citizen" - is up against it. The reason? Because of this legal mish mash - or 'muck', take your pick of parlance - he has no way to ascertain what the actual laws are.

As Carter emphasizes, this "is a violation of the principle that the state cannot punish without due notice."

Yet the record shows the state does do this and uses the rubric that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". But this is nutso baloney. Obviously, if one doesn't know the law he cannot be guilty of intentionally violating it.  If there is no intention, there is no crime! If I travel to Barbados, and am unaware of that nation's law that prohibits the wearing of camo pants - I cannot be held to account or brought up on charges if I show up in them. One has to be given a warning first, say upon one's arrival at Grantley Adams Airport.

This is basic common sense, but of course, as most Libertarians and anarchists will point out, in many cases the law pivots on precious little common sense - as in the case of going after those selling loosies like Garner was.

Husak also notes that in addition to the  above cited federal legal morass, an astonishing 300,000 or more federal regulations which may be enforceable through criminal punishment at the discretion of the relevant administrative agency.  Incredibly, no one knows the actual number and many citizens only learn when they come up against it - say on passing through customs - when they are caught bringing in some entity or other that is prohibited.

Husak himself estimates that more than 70 percent of American adults are guilty of committing a crime that could lead to imprisonment. On citing this, he then quotes the legal scholar William Stuntz to the effect we "are moving toward a world in which the laws on the books makes everyone a felon."

So maybe it's no surprise that cops look on the public suspiciously, as if everyone is a likely felon.

Added to this is the reckless law-making process cited by  Husak which pinpoints a growing tendency of state legislatures- including congress- to toss in a criminal sanction at the end of countless bills to do with countless issues. Quoting Stephen Carter on this phenomenon:

"It is as though making an offense criminal shows how much we care about it."

The trouble is - in the words of Carter again:

"Well, maybe so. But making an offense criminal means the police will go armed to enforce it. "

But as in the case where numerous innocent people are scooped up in police dragnets, and some even imprisoned (or executed) based on false charges or mistaken identity, Husak notes the costs of facing criminal sanction are so high - often because criminal law can't sort out the law abiding from the non-law abiding. After all, if 70 percent of Americans may not even know they are lawbreakers, then how are you going to distinguish them from real lawbreakers.

Think now of how much less money and time would be squandered in prosecutions, incarcerations etc. if half or more of existing laws were removed from the book as useless. These would include picayune fare like having an ounce of MJ on one's person, or possessing a particular type of sex toy  - which earns you slammer time in Virginia or Texas.

Think of how much less money (in lawsuits) police departments would have to shell out to widows and other family members for killing relatives viciously taken down "in the line of duty" for going after a ridiculous "crime" like selling loose cigarettes to willing buyers on street corners, or loitering. Think about that and then tell me you don't agree with Husak's take on over criminalization.

Carter himself is generous to the cops - at least the normal ones, not the hyper-aggressive macho men who subscribed to "take down" over "talk down" when confronting an unarmed civilian- when he writes:

"The criticism is of a political system that takes such bizarre delight in creating new crimes for the cops to enforce. It's unlikely the New York legislature, in creating the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes, imagined that anyone would die violating it".

Indeed, but now one has: Eric Garner. And sadly he is now being cited in some blogs as "having a criminal record" for what?  Well, violating the same stupid law several times earlier! But to me, Garner remains blameless because the law itself is absurd.

Maybe now, given the NY cops  yen to protect each other to the hilt in grand jury testimony, the state legislature will use Garner's death to act and remove that idiotic loosie law.

They might also consider altering the format of the whole grand jury system, which has been shown to be at the mercy of the DA or prosecutor in any given case - deciding which evidence to present, which witnesses to allow, and which charges to let the grand jury decide. In the Garner case, as Chris Hayes has pointed out, the most likely charge by which to nail Pantaleo - reckless endangerment - was taken off the table. Allowed only the two most extreme charges, the jury punted.

Until states and the feds change the legal landscape to make laws more rational and open, we will be seeing more "Eric Garners" in our future and much more civil unrest.  Call it the law of "inaction and reaction".

See also:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349342/--Comply-or-Die-policing-must-stop?detail=email#

Garner Case Shows Aggressive Cops Need Attitude Adjustment

The segment on 'Morning Joe' several days ago was noteworthy in singling out the Michael Brown incident  as a case where a hyper-aggressive cop (Darren Wilson) could have backed off or called for backup  - but didn't. He chose instead to be the "macho man" and confront an unarmed Michael Brown for swiping a whole pack of cigarillos, then shooting him eight times at near point blank range in the process. The point of the legal guests on 'Morning Joe' is that such an incident called for "talking down" and not "taking down". If one on one talking down was too much for Wilson (or he was too terrified of a guy he described as "bigger than Hulk Hogan" while he was "like a 5 year old"), he needed to get other cops who could.

The problem is that today, too many hyper-militarized cops only want to take down, not talk down. Also exemplified with the Eric Garner case, where Daniel Pantaleo jumped in to confront and wrestle down Garner with a choke hold - rather than use a talk down. After all, big as he was, Garner was still unarmed. In the best case of all, of course, the aggressive Pantaleo and his 'crew' could have left it alone. I mean, for chrissakes, bringing a guy down for selling loose cigarettes? (About which I will do a later post regarding too many damned laws, which provide too many excuses for violent police action. Reduce the number of laws and reduce the incidents!)

But the Garner case also brings up the issue of police power trips, especially by the most aggressive cops. If these guys are then already of a mindset to take down, they will not display the patience and communication skills to talk down. (Note 'talk down' is most often used with persons attempting suicide - but needs to be generalized for all lesser crimes!)    After all, to a Neanderthal or militarist macho authoritarian,  it's easier to tase, shoot or choke than to talk. They want only instant resolution without taking time or trouble  - a recipe for disaster in our ever more complex social world.

The problem is that projection of ego and absolute power is what demands the slave posture. But no citizen, who is unarmed and basically minding his or her own business, should be subjected to this over the top public humiliation - even if he gives a cop some backtalk. And it certainly shouldn't be met with lethal force! Writer Kimberle Crenshaw, in a salon.com interview, puts the power dynamic exposed by these aggressive cops in perspective:

"We look at that video [of Eric Garner] and we can look at what’s happening in Ferguson and see that what was going on was not about policing against particular harms or injuries, it was policing against certain bodies and attitudes that those bodies have. It was about Eric talking back, and not throwing himself, basically, on the ground in a “yes master” kind of position."

Get that? A "yes massah" position, like a slave! In other words, the only way poor Garner could have spared himself was to immediately drop to the ground, and adopt a submissive slave position to the 'massah' cop, Pantaleo (who let us be reminded - as Chris Hayes noted this evening - has already faced 3 lawsuits for use of excessive force.)

 This hearkens back also to the patriarchal, prejudiced attitudes of the southern cops in MS and AL during the era of Bull Connor and the civil rights marchers. When Connor and his imps turned their fire hoses on the mostly black crowd and yelled at specific stubborn marchers,  "Git down on yorn knees, boy!"

Subservience and slavery! The only postures that would be acceptable, to a power drunk, aggressive cop-  if one was not to be construed as "resisting arrest". Hence, the only available postures that could have spared Garner's life. 

Ms. Crenshaw goes on:

"It’s about the imposition of authority and control. And that is the highway through which racial power is colliding with these bodies. So when I think of a dam, I think about shutting down that highway altogether and redirecting that energy.

The idea of all power and control [in policing] is the same as the underlying way the military thinks of itself —  we shock and awe with our power and control. In community policing, that means an officer tackles people, puts a chokehold on someone or shoots someone during an encounter about selling loose cigarettes or walking in the middle of the street."

Again, a spot on observation, especially invoking the military analogy. The same way we as a nation, subjugate lesser nations with our power trips of shock and awe - so also power driven cops subjugate "suspects" with power moves like choke holds for a petty offense like selling "loose cigarettes".

This is power gone mad, as well as authority, in both cases.

Crenshaw's last point is most apt:

"When I think about training, I think about the people who can model police and community interaction outside the need to create total control and domination."

This again is relevant. It was also Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts who wrote ('Does It Matter?') that one is least served in gaining compliance by the use of outright force. Even if the subject is perceived to "resist" - force is absolutely the wrong way to go. One instead empathizes and puts himself in the subject's mind and position and then there can be a "talking down" instead of a taking down. The issue inheres in seeing the humanity in the person, as opposed to seeing him as a "beast" or "wild ape". Therein the problem resides!

As long as aggressive cops are on the loose, alas, the take down reaction won't cease and meanwhile the outcry and public protests and civil disturbances will grow - until they reach a level such as we beheld in the Ukraine in the spring.

It redounds to the benefit of police departments around the country to train their personnel to deal with unarmed citizens without using force as a first resort, or even last. Talking down should be the priority, and if a cop fails at this, he needs to be removed from the force as unstable and incompetent in complex social dynamics.

Brute force in dealing with people will no longer be tolerated by the rank and file of citizens, as the current wave of protests show. The sooner police get that into their noggins, the better off we all will be.

See also:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349342/--Comply-or-Die-policing-must-stop?detail=email#

Excerpt:

Tyrannical cops wear their entitlement disorder on their sleeves thus:

When I am on the job it's your responsibility to make my life as easy as possible and don't do anything that might get me angry or otherwise set me off:  Just do exactly what I tell you, precisely and without delay, no matter how unreasonable.  If I decide I want to frisk you, let me.  If I decide I want to arrest you, let me.  If this is the fifth time I've hassled you this month, let me.  My whim counts for more than your dignity.

NY Grand Jury Blows It In Eric Garner Murder Case: Would Body Cameras Have Made Any Difference?

Body camera worn by Denver police officer: But if visual evidence is ignored by a grand jury they won't be of much use.

"I honestly don"t know what to say.....I think what is so utterly depressing is that none of the ambiguities that existed in the Ferguson case exist in the Staten Island case and yet the outcome is exactly the same: no crime, no trial,  All harm, no foul - we are definitely not living in a post racial society. And I can imagine a lot of people out there wondering, how much of a society are we living in at all." - John Stewart


I just watched the video of the NY cop putting Eric Garner into a choke hold for the fifteenth time. It is as clear to me now as it was the first time, that Eric Garner's death was a homicide - as the autopsy showed.  And the cop doing it needed to have justice meted out - yet a comatose grand jury delivered a "no indictment" verdict.

Eleven times Garner screamed "I can't breathe!" as three cops wrestled him down and the main culprit  (Daniel Pantaleo) choke-held Garner on the NYC sidewalk, with the victim obviously in distress. Even if one is sympathetic to "the shield" and perhaps a former cop- it is incredible one would not see this behavior was way out of bounds and merited a finding of at least manslaughter by the grand jury.

Now, without a proper verdict- indictment or charge-  WHO will take care of Garner's family, his wife and six kids?  Or will they now be homeless or have to take to the streets to beg for money? It is a question worth asking, especially given that the cops came down on him for selling frickin' cigarettes without a license!  Murdered for selling cigs! What the hell is wrong in this country, especially with those who are supposed to "serve and protect"?

In my earlier post (Nov. 25) on the Ferguson grand jury case, I had written:

"had Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson been outfitted with such a miniature (body) camera - like the police in Laurel, MD - it is doubtful things would have gotten to the stage they did in Ferguson.  All the events would have been immediately accessible and there'd have been no "fatal span" of time within which witness accounts conflicted.  The grand jury, as opposed to only being exposed to Wilson's account and images of his injuries, could have also seen events as they actually went down. "

But as John Stewart observed in his Daily Show comment, a video record was available and has been replayed a million times of Garner taken down and choked. How bad does the vision of the grand jury have to be to indict?  If they can ignore this visual evidence, indeed, why would they take the visual records from body cameras any more seriously? They surely wouldn't and hence the outcome would be the same whether visual video evidence was available or not.

In many instances of such visual evidence, as in the case of the LA cop that wrestled a homeless elderly black lady to the ground several months ago (for crossing a highway) and punched her several times in the face - idiotic explanations and pseudo-justifications reign. "She was resisting! Didn't you see it? She was putting up a fight!" Errr....no, she was not! She was supine on the ground, and you had your meaty legs straddling her arms so she couldn't move and you were punching the fuck out of her face.  What? Do these renegade cops think we're blind? Or stupid? Fortunately, the LA cop had to face the music (on further investigation) and the dept. disposed of that bad egg.

Look, no one is saying ALL cops are bad! Indeed, the sight of the Portland police officer hugging a crying black kid ought to resonate with all of us, e.g.



So let's not get it into our heads that all cops are evil, or fascist storm troopers just because of the incidents in Ferguson and Staten Island and the impotent verdicts of the grand juries in each case.  But at the same time, police departments need to help themselves in an era of burgeoning citizen distrust by ridding themselves of as many "bad apples" as possible. Like the bad apples in the military these jerks do the various precincts no good and can give them a bad name - not to mention paying out millions in damages, as has occurred  in Denver (recently documented by The Denver Post.).

Kudos then to the valiant and decent police around the nation, but brickbats to those creeps that pollute their departments and poison community relations while destroying the essential trust of citizens!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/04/doj_releases_scathing_report_on_cleveland_police/