From [HERE] The Kansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday asked state officials to investigate after a black man was detained by police while moving into his home, then allegedly harassed for weeks and blocked by the police chief from filing a racial bias complaint with the department.
Karle Robinson, a 61-year-old Marine veteran, was held at gunpoint and handcuffed in August as he was carrying a television out of a rented moving van into the home he had bought a month earlier in Tonganoxie, about 30 miles west of Kansas City.
“I’d like to see those cops and that chief lose their jobs because this was uncalled for — this is strictly racial profiling,” Robinson told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday.
He added that if he were white “we wouldn’t even be having this conversation right now.”
The ACLU of Kansas said in a news release that it was a case of “moving while black” and that the organization asked Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt to investigate the matter or refer the group’s complaint to the Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training. The attorney general’s office said in an emailed statement that it has reviewed the ACLU’s letter and forwarded it to the commission in accordance with Kansas law.
“Mr. Robinson believes his detention was motivated by his race rather than a reasonable suspicion that he was committing a burglary,” Lauren Bonds, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas, said in the group’s release. “It also appears that the Chief of Police prevented Mr. Robinson from filing a credible, legitimate complaint and that is not in compliance with reporting and intake standards. He must not interfere with citizens registering complaints.”
The incident involving Robinson is one of the latest examples of situations in which law enforcement officers have had encounters or confrontations with African-Americans over their own belongings. In the Chicago suburb of Evanston, Illinois, city officials approved a $1.25 million settlement with a black man who sued after police tackled him and arrested him for stealing a car that turned out to be his own.
rights - fantasmatic or fictitious objects having no reality in actuality by those imagining as an identity being in possession of them. Rights are cultural gratuities perceived through various fantasy frames, recognized, and sometimes even created, by man's system of law to provide a modicum or pretense of civility under a system whereby their very undermining and violation is vouchsafed. Rights are merely rites unless you know how to assert and defend them in order to enjoy them. 2) things people are free to do whether they are able to or not. 3) conditions of existence required by hue-man's nature for their potential survival (primarily against the cartoon that kills, i.e., the wholly unconscionable entity called the "State"). It is a mistaken notion that rights are enjoyed by one at the expense of the many—that is the realm of privilege. Enjoyment of rights in a neo-imperialistic world controlled by Yurugu through the Greater System (Symbolic Order), paradoxically, entails not only a recognition of their inevitability but, equally, their impossibility. How can we be endowed with rights, or even know what rights are when they are based on binary considerations? Rights, as ontological ephemera, cannot be universally observed, recognized, realized or, enforced—and paradoxically, act also as its own eternal source for its assertion and vessel for its fulfillment in our imaginary enjoyment of them. While the law reads rights referentially, what is universally needed in the praxis of rights discourse today is a particular re-inscription, demystification or reontologising of rights (revivified and convivial) by the pan-gendered subject-citizen-decoder—taken symptomatically rather than seriously. Most people rarely experience the cognizance of being property of corporate fictions because as long as you don't violate the rules of society your real status as feudal-property-slave is not involved or revealed. If there is no 'I,' to what and to whom do rights as objects accrue? Those who are confused by suffering (and the subject of same) require a re-onotoligisation of rights through the trajectory of meaning independent of their existence. Rights and even 'lefts' (i.e., what remains after all of our imaginary rights are traced to their inception as figment) for that matter, like good and evil, are human inventions which humans treat as non-human realities. While fantasy frames invent rights, romanticism reinvents them. Enjoy your symptoms and play with your syndrome—the symptom is the solution. Read carefuly the holding in the supreme Court case of U.S. v. Babcock. Rights are myths—obedience to servitude or jail is the reality. (See: Abilities, Bill of Rights, Monoright, Servitude, Fantasy, Jurisdiction, Human Resources, Citizenship, Frankenstein, Autonomy. Rule of Law, Surrogate Power, Indigenous Power, Yurugu, Jouissance, Privilege, Disobedience, Duty & Willpower)