Only Racist Authoritarians Claim that Having Less Freedom or Less Melanin is Superior. Never Mind About, 'What if Rittenhouse was Black?'- What if Ahmaud Arbery was Strapped? Would He Still be Alive?

Quoting Snell Putney, FUNKTIONARY states, "If the people of a democracy are allowed to do so, they will vote away freedoms that are essential to that democracy." 

ON KEEPING THE PIECE. On behalf of their Authorities liberal doo-gooders are using the Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery to advocate for freedumb. FUNKTIONARY defines freedumb as:

the state of unrecognized psychological captivity that sheeple remain in because they don't speak the language of reality nor edit truth from perfecting heart to perfecting power--and when truth is spoken around them, refrain from being open, or impervious to it thus being forever chained to its distortions and limitations. 2) the mindset that proposes "since we are liberated, we are also free." 3) the mindset that operates upon the notion that you can have individuality without accountability or responsibility. 4) the pretense that reality is truth and vice-versa. People cherish unwarranted assumptions and relish their freedumb because they have been socialized into self-censorship along with misidentification with the ego-mind--the absence of knowledge of Self. (See: Phfreedom, Truth, Unfreedom, Dumbelievers, Self, Belief Systems, True Self & Reality)

No matter the outcome of either trial white liberals will mindlessly demand less freedom in the form of more gun control and limits on the right of self defense. All weekend pundits and Black drones have been parroting their liberal masters on dependent media, talking about ‘what if Kyle Rittenhouse were Black?’ Fuck that; What if Ahmed Arbery had an AR-15? Would he still be alive?

Disarming law abiding Black people prevents them from being able to defend themselves against criminals and the government. As such, gun controls and gun bans disempower Black people and readily subject Black communities to government and criminal violence, rendering Blacks helpless, solely dependent and slave-like in their relations with government authorities who prey on them and control them under the pretense of protection.

FUNKTIONARY defines “slaves” as “disarmed men and women.” It further explains that a “gun ban” is the precursor to servitude. Enslavement is like old age; it creeps up on you. Banning guns to reduce crime is like banning sex to reduce rape.” [MORE] Contrary to indoctrination from freedumb advocates in the dependent media, the 2nd Amendment is not for primarily for hunting animals or for self-defense from thugs. Rather, it exists for when all other rights have failed. An armed population is necessary to check authority and tyranny. As stated by 9th circuit judge Alex Kozinski,

“tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history—Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

. . . The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 569-570 (9th Cir. 2003) quoted in FUNKTIONARY

Police prey on Black people and function as our public masters. If a “public servant" is uncontrollable, unaccountable, can’t be hired or fired by you, has irresponsible power over you and provides a compulsory “service” then he is actually your master. Dr. Blynd makes it plain, "people who are awake see cops as mercenary guards that remind us daily through acts of force, that we are simultaneously both enemies and slaves of the Corporate State - colonized, surveilled and patrolled by the desensitized and lobotomized drones of the colonizers." Brazen cops so frequently abuse their uncontrollable powers that no Black driver, pedestrian, shopper, juvenile, adult or Black professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that so-called 4th Amendment rights afford any meaningful protection from cops. Cops interfere with Black people’s freedom of movement and right to be left alone any time they desire. Black people are more than 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. [MORE] Moreover, Black men are conservatively estimated to be 3 times more likely to be killed by cops than white men. Alex Vitale explains “It is largely liberal fantasy that the police exist to protect us from the bad guys.” In reality, police exist to manage the behavior of Blacks & Latinos within a free-range prison disguised as a democracy. The goal of authority is to place you in greater confinement. Another goal is for Black people to relinquish individual responsibility for defending themselves and to depend upon their public masters to do so in their provision of “public service” that cannot be refused. Discussing authoritarian indoctrination, Larken Rose states,

One of the main problems that the peasants must be trained not to deal with themselves is violent conflict. It is imperative that they view you (and your enforcers) as the only protection against rob­bery, assault, and murder. In short, they must be indoctrinated in such a way that they do not even want to be able to defend them­selves. The reason is simple: if the peasants feel capable and enti­tled to "enforce justice" themselves, they might just decide to enforce a little justice against you. And that obviously won't do. 

They must be trained to give up their belief in their right to defend themselves, which is not an easy thing to do. You must attack "peasant justice" in any ways you can think of, such as: 1) '"Vigilante justice can never be as just or fair as our system"; 2) '"You can't possibly protect yourselves; let us do it"; 3) "If you have a gun. you 'II only hurt yourself: 4) "'If the peasants were allowed to use force, there would be chaos'"; 5) "Private protection agen­cies would just deteriorate into competing gangs of thugs"; and so on. Often privately-enforced justice is referred to as the people "taking the law into their own hands" which reinforces the idea that only enforcers of "the law" should ever use force, and of course the lowly peasants can't be allowed to do that." [MORE]

Anything else cops do, good or bad, is random or incidental to the aforementioned goals.

Here, no matter the outcome of the Kyle Rittenhouse or Ahmed Arbery trials, under the pretense of making Black people safe, liberal authoritarians (and their believers) will mindlessly advocating for more gun control. However, it is obvious that a disarmed public is helpless and even more subject to governmental and thug violence. The idea that an otherwise criminal minded individual will stop himself from committing a violent crime with a gun because new gun laws are created is not rational. Dr. Blynd explains "Those who use guns to "break" (violate) the law [criminals] will have no problem breaking the law to get guns (to commit violent crimes against you). The same people who fear firearms in the hands of the people also fear information in the minds of people. Dr. Blynd asks “If guns supposedly cause (or encourage) crime, why are we arming police officers?" As explained by Larken Rose, “Crime statistics and common sense both demonstrate that passing a “law” against private weapon ownership will effect only the “law-abiding,” with the result being that the basically good people will end up less able to defend themselves against aggressors. And that is exactly what politicians want, because they have the biggest, most powerful gang of aggressors around (cops).”

It is also obvious that the neuropeons who hunted and murdered Mr. Arbery knew he was unarmed and felt free to step to him because of it. Importantly, if Arbery had a gun he might be alive today; obviously a gun would have given him a greater chance at survival.

At any rate, lawful gun possession was not a material legal issue in the Arbery or Rittenhouse case. Arbery’s killers lawfully possessed their weapons. Similarly and contrary to dependent media nonsense, Kyle Rittenhouse also lawfully possessed [he did not purchase it] that AR-15 in Kenosha when he defended himself against white men who assaulted him. As such, the application of gun laws to the Arbery and Rittenhouse trials is more proof that authorities (liberal or conservative) and their jesusized believers will use any contingency as a resource to expand their control over people.

Persons who tell you that having less freedom are selling you slavery. There is obvious inherent tension and hypocrisy between simultaneously being against police abuse and pro-gun control or disarming law abiding Black citizens. The ad-hoc, knee-deep political positions of white liberals and their believers are proof they’re not really concerned with the health, wealth, and mental well-being of black people and their politics are in no way geared to neutralize or destroy the system of racism white supremacy. Rather, liberal politics are solely designed to get out the Black vote and to maintain master-servant relations, the gravamen of the system of racism white supremacy.

The Rights of the Accused used to be a Liberal Cause but After the Rittenhouse Trial Freedumb Do-Gooders Want to Limit Self-Defense. Would Having Less Trial Rights Result in More Blacks Going to Jail?

[MORE] It is important that those who advocate on behalf of black lives don’t accidentally advocate for an equality of degradation or less “rights” or more slavery for all. It is true that if Rittenhouse was black he would have been arrested on the spot and that he was presumed innocent and given the benefit of the doubt by white authorities solely because he is white. Clearly, black people should be treated the same way but are not due to the system of RWS. But, to demand that all persons be similarly subjected to a system of injustice or similarly degraded in the manner black people are is perverse or reverse advocacy for “freedumb.”

Furthermore, advocates for Black people should overstand that the application or inapplication of any law by racist lawmakers, jurors, judges, law enforcement officers, prosecutors and prison officials will create injustice for non-whites if they are practicing racism when doing so. Neely Fuller calls such laws "non-laws." Racism is the problem, not laws. It is deception or delusional to believe that the elimination of or creation of more laws will have an affect on the way in which racist white people relate to Black people.

From the beginning, in the spectacle the dependent media has parroted a racial narrative in this self-defense case involving white-on-white crime. This episode is not like the Freedom Summer murders of white civil right workers in Mississippi in 1964. Here, the white teen defended himself against white men participating in a riot. Undoubtedly rioting has political value - but unlike regular protest it is unlawful. Do persons rioting have a reasonable expectation that nobody can interfere with their conduct when they are rioting? Similarly, would a thief attempting to take a car stereo really have a gripe to pick if someone caught him and beat his ass? Were do-gooders really expecting the court to balance the “reasonable expectations” of rioters with the defendant’s right to self-defense?

Allegations and theories must be tested against reality - in the legal context, proven in court with evidence. Testing theories in the real world determines their actual worth. In the Rittenhouse case the theories that he was a “chaos tourist” looking for trouble or that he was a racist looking to harm Blacks on behalf of white property owners were not established at trial by the government. Such theories and allegations turned out to be nothing more than MSNBC, CNN and others talking points - talking points in accord with the appetite of the liberal viewer, not in accord with what actually occurred in reality. The prosecution failed miserably to prove Rittenhouse was a villain - watch the government’s cross examination of Rittenhouse for yourself and try to stay awake. Contrary to the liberal narrative, uncontradicted evidence demonstrated that the teenager worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha, where his father lived. However bad his judgment in showing up with a weapon he didn’t own at a riot, his intention was to stand guard in front of businesses and administer first aid. [MORE] The white prosecutor’s eye rolling and sarcasm are not evidence and did not impeach the teen’s testimony.

The facts and legal issues at trial did not concern racism white supremacy. Rittenhouse was not charged with killing or attempting to harm anyone black or randomly killing people he thought were black. Contrary to the media’s implied narrative, the government did not allege that Rittenhouse murdered or assaulted the 3 white men because they were protesting on behalf of black people or that he did so to defend the rights of aggrieved white property owners. In fact, he did not randomly attack anyone. From the videos, evidence and unimpeached testimony it appears obvious that he was under attack and defended himself. The following facts were undisputed by the Government;

in a matter of seconds, Rittenhouse killed 1) Rosenbaum (a white man) after he was chased by the white man across a parking lot. Rosenbaum lunged toward the rifle before Rittenhouse, who was trapped against parked cars, fired. According to Mr. Rittenhouse and another witness, Rosenbaum had threatened to kill the teenager earlier in the night. 2) Then while fleeing the scene with a group of people chasing him he fell down in the street. While on the ground another white man hit him in the head with a skateboard. While still on the ground Rittenhouse fatally shot the white man (once) as said white man attempted to also kick him in the face. Subsequently while trying to flee 3) a 3rd white man attempted to grab Rittenhouse’s gun, so Rittenhouse shot him once and fled.

Clinging to the racial narrative despite reality is called dogma.

What is Uncle Brother’s goal here? Is it to do away with self-defense, so people can no longer defend themselves? Liberal doo-gooders in the dependent media have been actually discussing curtailing the right to self-defense. Implying that only costumed authorities should have the right to use force [see do-gooder in this video at 11:23]. This is the low calorie logic of slaves. Having less freedoms will make us more free? Apparently, the media intends to further purposefully confuse the public by conflating the “the right of self-defense” with the police use of ‘deadly force’ and the concepts of political authority [the right of authorities to initiate force and the citizen’s legal duty to obey, even if unlawful] and sovereign immunity. Will having less rights on the street be a good thing for law abiding black people in their relations with police or criminals? How about for the thousands of Black defendants who will be subject to greater confinement in the racist criminal justice system. In fact, Wisconsin, the source of the do-gooders reactionary politics, leads the nation in locking up Black people [MORE]. Clearly, less rights or a diminished right to self defense at trial would only help authorities to lock up even more black folks. If these freedumb fighters want to do something about the defense of self-defense it might be to advocate for changing laws that prohibit citizens from using self-defense against an unlawful arrest by cops (the law in most states). Of course that would mean that liberal do-gooders would actually begin to challenge “authority,” instead of worshipping it, violently imposing it on others and believing it solves the problems that it causes.

The following information below is presented for greater understanding and refresher material in light of the misinformation presented about self-defense and the extraordinary number of Black people incarcerated in this already unjust system of injustice.

From [Sentencing Project] When former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck in 2020, the world witnessed the most racist elements of the U.S. criminal legal system on broad display. The uprisings that followed Floyd’s death articulated a vision for transforming public safety practices and investments. Almost one year later, Chauvin was convicted for Floyd’s death, a rare outcome among law enforcement officers who kill unarmed citizens. The fight for racial justice within the criminal legal system continues, however. The data findings featured in this report epitomize the enormity of the task.

This report details our observations of staggering disparities among Black and Latinx people imprisoned in the United States given their overall representation in the general population. The latest available data regarding people sentenced to state prison reveal that Black Americans are imprisoned at a rate that is roughly five times the rate of white Americans. During the present era of criminal justice reform, not enough emphasis has been focused on ending racial and ethnic disparities systemwide.

Going to prison is a major life-altering event that creates obstacles to building stable lives in the community, such as gaining employment and finding stable and safe housing after release. Imprisonment also reduces lifetime earnings and negatively affects life outcomes among children of incarcerated parents.1) These are individual-level consequences of imprisonment but there are societal level consequences as well: high levels of imprisonment in communities cause high crime rates and neighborhood deterioration, thus fueling greater disparities.2) This cycle both individually and societally is felt disproportionately by people who are Black. It is clear that the outcome of mass incarceration today has not occurred by happenstance but has been designed through policies created by a dominant white culture that insists on suppression of others.

At the same time, states have begun to chip away at mass incarceration. Nine states have lowered their prison population by 30% or more in recent years: Alaska, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Alabama, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, and California.3) This decline has been accomplished through a mix of reforms to policy and practice that reduce prison admissions as well as lengths of stay in prison. Still, America maintains its distinction as the world leader4) in its use of incarceration, including more than 1.2 million people held in state prisons around the country.5)

Truly meaningful reforms to the criminal justice system cannot be accomplished without acknowledgement of its racist underpinnings. Immediate and focused attention on the causes and consequences of racial disparities is required in order to eliminate them. True progress towards a racially just system requires an understanding of the variation in racial and ethnic inequities in imprisonment across states and the policies and day-to-day practices that drive these inequities.6)

This report documents the rates of incarceration for whites, African Americans, and Latinx individuals, providing racial and ethnic composition as well as rates of disparity for each state.7) The Sentencing Project has produced state-level estimates twice before8) and once again finds staggering disproportionalities.

Key findings

1. Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at nearly 5 times the rate of white Americans.

2. Nationally, one in 81 Black adults in the U.S. is serving time in state prison. Wisconsin leads the nation in Black imprisonment rates; one of every 36 Black Wisconsinites is in prison.

3. In 12 states, more than half the prison population is Black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

4. Seven states maintain a Black/white disparity larger than 9 to 1: California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wisconsin.

5. Latinx individuals are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 1.3 times the incarceration rate of whites. Ethnic disparities are highest in Massachusetts, which reports an ethnic differential of 4.1:1.

Recommendations

1. Eliminate mandatory sentences for all crimes.
   Mandatory minimum sentences, habitual offender laws, and mandatory transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal system give prosecutors too much authority while limiting the discretion of impartial judges. These policies contributed to a substantial increase in sentence length and time served in prison, disproportionately imposing unduly harsh sentences on Black and Latinx individuals.

2. Require prospective and retroactive racial impact statements for all criminal statutes.
   The Sentencing Project urges states to adopt forecasting estimates that will calculate the impact of proposed crime legislation on different populations in order to minimize or eliminate the racially disparate impacts of certain laws and policies. Several states have passed “racial impact statement” laws. To undo the racial and ethnic disparity resulting from decades of tough-on-crime policies, however, states should also repeal existing racially biased laws and policies. The impact of racial impact laws will be modest at best if they remain only forward looking.

3. Decriminalize low-level drug offenses.
   Discontinue arrest and prosecutions for low-level drug offenses which often lead to the accumulation of prior convictions which accumulate disproportionately in communities of color. These convictions generally drive further and deeper involvement in the criminal legal system.

Click here to read the full report.

The following information is from the DC Criminal Jury Instructions. The instruction is typical.

Instruction 9.501 SELF-DEFENSE--AMOUNT OF FORCE PERMISSIBLE

A.-- NONDEADLY FORCE

A person may use a reasonable amount of force in self-defense. A person may use an amount of force which, at the time of the incident, s/he actually and reasonably believes is necessary to protect himself/herself from imminent bodily harm.

B.-- DEADLY FORCE

A person may use a reasonable amount of force in self-defense, including, in some circumstances, deadly force. "Deadly force" is force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. A person may use deadly force in self-defense if s/he actually and reasonably believes at the time of the incident that s/he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which s/he can save himself/herself only by using deadly force against his/her assailant.

C.-- EXCESSIVE FORCE (TO BE USED WITH EITHER DEADLY OR NONDEADLY FORCE)

Even if the other person is the aggressor and [name of defendant] is justified in using force in self-defense, s/he may not use any greater force than s/he actually and reasonably believes to be necessary under the circumstances [to prevent the harm s/he reasonably believes is intended] [to save his/her life or avoid serious bodily harm].

In deciding whether [name of defendant] used excessive force in defending himself/herself, you may consider all the circumstances under which s/he acted. A person acting in the heat of passion caused by an assault does not necessarily lose his/her claim of self-defense by using greater force than would seem necessary to a calm mind. In the heat of passion, a person may actually and reasonably believe something that seems unreasonable to a calm mind.

____________________________________

Comment:

Where evidence of excessive force is present, Part C of the instruction should be given, preceded by Part A or Part B, depending upon whether the defendant is charged with an offense involving the exercise of nondeadly force (A) or deadly force (B). See generally Sacrini v. U.S., 38 App. D.C. 371 (1912) (holding whether defendant's actions are reasonable depends upon whether the circumstances known to the accused would cause a reasonably prudent person, situated as the defendant, to believe s/he is being or about to be attacked); Kinard v. U.S., 96 F.2d 522, 68 App. D.C. 250 (1938) and McPhaul v. U.S., 452 A.2d 371 (D.C. 1982) (holding that defendant's belief must be both reasonable and bona fide to find self-defense); Perry v. U.S., 422 F.2d 697, 137 U.S. App. D.C. 260 (1968) and Inge v. U.S., 356 F.2d 345, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 6 (1966) (finding whether excessive force was used is determined by all the circumstances of the particular case); Brown v. U.S., 256 U.S. 335 (1921) (finding that claim of self-defense is not necessarily defeated because defendant, acting in heat of passion brought on by the assault, used more force than would have appeared reasonable to a calmer mind; if one reasonably believes s/he is in immediate danger of grievous bodily harm, deadly force may be used in defending her/himself); U.S. v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222, 157 U.S. App. D.C. 219 (1973) (defining deadly force as force capable of inflicting death or serious bodily harm).

Cross references: Nos. 9.500-9.505, Self-defense--related instructions.

Pennsylvania in a Rush to Lock Up Black People: In 2019 7X More Blacks Were Locked Up than in 1970. Although Blacks are 11% of population, they are the Majority of Persons w/life and 20 Yr sentences

FAMM has released a new report, Time for Justice: The Urgent Need for Second Chances in Pennsylvania’s Sentencing System (link is external),” which looks at the harms and injustices of extreme sentences in Pennsylvania, with a focus on minimum sentences of 20 years or longer. The report also provides recommendations for reform (press release available here(link is external)).

Key findings include:

• In 2019, Pennsylvania imprisoned more than seven times the number of people that it did in 1970.  That growth was driven by punitive policy choices, not increases in crime, and it did not make Pennsylvanians safer.

• Pennsylvania is a national leader in imposing extreme sentences.  This ranking is largely driven by two laws: the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment required for first- and second-degree murder, and the denial of parole eligibility to anyone serving a life sentence. In Pennsylvania prisons, 13.4% of people are serving life without parole (LWOP), compared to only 3.6% nationally.

• The population serving extreme sentences in Pennsylvania has surged over the last few decades. There were more than nine times as many people serving extreme sentences in 2019 than there were in 1980.

• Pennsylvania’s extreme sentencing practices have overwhelmingly impacted people of color, especially Black people, who make up less than 11% of Pennsylvania’s population but 65% of people serving life sentences and 58% of those serving non-life sentences of 20 years or longer.

• Pennsylvania’s extreme sentencing practices have created a large (and growing) elderly prison population, which increased thirtyfold from 1979 to 2019.

Pennsylvania’s extreme sentences are a high-cost, low-value proposition for taxpayers.

• Researchers have found no evidence that severe sentencing policies discourage people from choosing to engage in crime.

• Extreme sentences are not necessary for preventing recidivism, because the vast majority of people who commit crimes — even very serious crimes — naturally grow out of criminal behavior as they age and mature.  For example, of the 174 Philadelphia juvenile lifers — all originally convicted of homicide — who were resentenced and released following landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, only two (1.1%) had been reconvicted of any offense as of 2020.

• Based on average incarceration costs, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) is spending $220 million per year to incarcerate 3,892 people who have already served at least 20 years.  The true cost is undoubtedly higher, because incarceration costs increase dramatically as people age and need more medical care.

• The average cost for incarcerated individuals in skilled or personal care units is $500 per day (or $182,625 per year), more than three times the cost for the general population.

LA Cty Cop Gets Off After Murdering Latino Man: No Gun or Threat to the Cop Existed as He Drove Away But Juries Believe Whatever Cops Say. Is Self-Defense or Belief in Authority the Problem?

IN CONTEMPT OF REALITY. Presenting Facts in Accord with the Appetite of the Obedient, Believer in Authority, Not in Accord with Reality. 'A mind that is filled with belief is a mind which can project anything according to that belief.'

From [HERE] and [HERE] A County sheriff's deputy Luke Liu was found not guilty of manslaughter by a jury on Friday, after a two-week trial. It is the first time since 2020 that a law enforcement officer has been prosecuted for an on-duty shooting.

Closing arguments wrapped up Thursday afternoon in the manslaughter trial of L.A. County Sheriff’s Deputy Luke Liu, who faced up to 11 years in prison for fatally shooting Francisco Garcia in a Norwalk gas station in February 2016. 

Liu pulled his cruiser into a 7-Eleven parking lot near Alondra Boulevard and Studebaker Road because he believed Garcia, 26, was driving a stolen Acura. After a brief interaction, Garcia tried to speed off but Liu chased him on foot and opened fire, shooting the man in the back four times. Liu tried to perform lifesaving measures at the scene, but Garcia died a short time later.

The deputy claimed that he was struck by Garcia’s car and was in fear for his life because he believed the driver was reaching for a weapon. But several witnesses have said the car did not make contact with the deputy, and an emergency room doctor testified earlier this month that Liu suffered no significant injuries during the altercation. Detectives did not find a gun in Garcia’s possession or inside the car. 

During the two-week trial, Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher Baker has repeatedly asserted that Liu unnecessarily escalated a minor vehicle stop into a fatal clash, costing Garcia his life while endangering others.

“The defendant made one tragically bad decision after another, contrary to common sense, contrary to his own training and contrary to his own departmental policy. He lost his head,” Baker said, adding that “if that situation was dangerous to anyone, that danger was caused by the defendant himself and his own terrible decisions.”

Defense attorney Michael Schwartz has countered that Garcia’s movements gave Liu reason to believe the 26-year-old had a weapon, meaning his decision to fire in self-defense was reasonable.

Photos from the scene show a pipe and metal steering wheel lock in the vehicle. While there’s no evidence indicating Garcia was trying to use either against the deputy, Schwartz said Liu started firing when he was standing at the driver’s side window and saw Garcia’s hands move in that direction. Witnesses have testified that Garcia was reaching for the car’s gear shift, but Schwartz argued all that matters was Liu’s perception in the moment that Garcia might have been reaching for a deadly weapon. 

“You’re supposed to interpret things not with 20/20 hindsight, but with the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” Schwartz said to the jury.

Schwartz has also repeatedly cited the fact that there was a murder in the gas station the night before the shooting as reason for Liu to have been in fear for his safety, though he has acknowledged there is no evidence connecting Garcia to the prior killing. The car Garcia was driving was stolen, but neither side presented evidence that Garcia stole it. 

Several witnesses testified that Garcia did not strike Liu with his car and was attempting to flee from the deputy rather than harm him. Retired Los Angeles Police Department Capt. Greg Meyer, a use-of-force expert who normally testifies on behalf of police officers in court, took the stand earlier this week and heavily criticized Liu’s tactics on the day of the shooting.

Meyer said Liu’s actions violated L.A. County Sheriff’s Department policy and generally accepted police practices that advise against shooting at moving vehicles when a suspect is unarmed. He also said Garcia did not pose an imminent risk to anyone in the gas station, including the deputy.

“Deputy Liu stated that he was injured when Garcia’s car hit him, however the single photograph provided by Liu himself appears to document [minimal] injury, if anything,” Meyer said. “It is clear that Garcia was trying to escape, however, there appears to have been no serious risk to the deputy or the public if Garcia got away.”

Meyer also cast doubt on Liu’s rationale that he feared for his life because he believed Garcia was reaching for a weapon, asking why the deputy did not take a defensive posture or react in any way before running after the car and opening fire.

Liu did not take the stand in his own defense. The lone witness Schwartz called was the former second-in-command of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, Robert Fonzi, who now serves as a use-of-force expert. 

Fonzi testified that Garcia’s decision to flee and his suspicious movements would have been enough to justify Liu’s fear that his life was in danger, noting that California law does not require police to wait to see a weapon before using lethal force.

“If they wait until they see a gun or a weapon, the officer likely won’t go home,” Fonzi said. “He is reacting to the actions of Mr. Garcia and the vehicle, and based on those actions he responds in a manner that he believes is reasonable.”

Former Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey filed charges against Liu in 2018, marking the only time she moved to prosecute a police officer in an on-duty shooting during her eight years in office. Despite years of calls for Los Angeles-area law enforcement to be held accountable in shootings, and recent large-scale protests calling for criminal justice reform in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer last year, Liu’s trial has been a relatively muted affair. 

When Liu was first charged, deputies lined a courtroom in support of him. But for most of the past two weeks, the gallery has been nearly empty. A few people have filled the seats reserved for law enforcement, presumably in support of Liu, but they refused to speak with a Times reporter or identify themselves when approached earlier this week. 

Maria Luz Ruiz Partida, Garcia’s mother, has been in court every day, coming downtown directly after working a 6 a.m. shift at her accounting job. The Norwalk woman has followed each piece of testimony and evidence intently, sometimes with tears in her eyes as prosecutors replayed the grainy video of her son’s death or flashed an image of Liu crouched over Garcia’s bloody body laid out on concrete.

Ruiz Partida says she’s been frustrated that her son’s death seemingly went ignored by the protesters who criticize police for fatal shootings, but also acknowledged she hadn’t spoken out about his killing until this week for fear it might impact the criminal case or spark demonstrations that “would turn into something ugly.” 

Ruiz Partida said that while her son had been arrested in the past and had some problematic friends in Norwalk, he “would never hurt anybody” and posed no danger to the deputy. Ruiz acknowledged that her son had a criminal past, and court records show he had multiple convictions for burglary, drug possession and driving without a license between 2010 and 2012. But he’d never been convicted of a violent crime, records show. 

Ruiz said her son was a family-driven man who enjoyed weekend barbecues and dinners with his family, gave long, handwritten birthday cards to his mother and had completed a GED program shortly before his death so he could try to build a better life for his daughter, who was 8 years old at the time of the shooting. 

“He was very loving, he was loved by a lot of people, his friends and family, all of his family. ... Now he’s very missed,” she said.

While she was surprised and relieved when Lacey filed charges against Liu, Ruiz said, she’s hesitant about allowing to allow herself to believe the deputy will actually be convicted. 

“I still don’t know if I should like expect for something to be done,” she said. “I’m still not wanting to make myself hopeful.”

Los Angeles to Settle Case where LAPD Cops Assaulted a Blind Black Man and then While He was Strapped to Hospital Bed Cops held a Towel Over his Mouth and Nose Until he Passed Out

From [HERE] and [MORE] A legally blind Black man who alleges police officers tackled and beat him outside his South Los Angeles home and then further abused him after taking him to a hospital for medical care has tentatively settled civil rights claims against the city, according to court papers obtained Saturday.

Michael Moore, 63, alleges that while he lay strapped to a gurney unable to move and surrounded by hospital guards and Los Angeles Police Department personnel, an LAPD officer held a towel over his mouth and nose until he passed out, according to the suit filed last year in Los Angeles federal court. The video also appears to show a white cop with his hand over the black man’s mouth while he was strapped to a hospital gurney.

According to the lawsuit, the officer held his hand over 63-year-old Michael Moore’s mouth until he lost consciousness at a hospital in downtown L.A. The suit also alleges LAPD falsely claimed Moore resisted arrest and threatened firefighters and an officer.

Details of the settlement were not disclosed. A notification filed with the court said the lawsuit was tentatively settled in its entirety on Nov. 11, following mediation sessions. Because the settlement is contingent on approval by the city’s claims board, budget and finance committee, city council, and mayor, it may take several months to be finalized, lawyers for both sides said.

The complaint sought unspecified punitive damages under claims including unreasonable search, unlawful seizure, excessive force, failure to intervene, battery and negligence. It names as defendants the city of Los Angeles and various LAPD officers.

The lawsuit alleges Moore — who has a history of mental illness — was arrested in February 2019 after officers misread actions caused by his disabilities as criminal activity when they came to his apartment following a medical aid call.

Moore was charged with multiple counts of assaulting a peace officer or firefighter with a deadly weapon and resisting an officer. A jury acquitted him of all charges but not before he spent 139 days in jail awaiting trial — he was unable to afford bail, court filings state.

On Feb. 28, 2019, officers arrived at Moore’s home after he got into an altercation with a woman who had been using his kitchen, court filings state. They argued about her cleaning the kitchen before she allegedly struck Moore in the face and shoved him, causing him to fall down a flight of stairs.

The lawsuit alleges she also told Moore her friends could kill him.

Before officers arrived, firefighters responded and Moore told them he could drive himself to the hospital, court filings state. But after they left, they allegedly told LAPD officers waiting outside that Moore has mental illness and is blind.

Police descended upon Moore’s apartment moments later.

“Mr. Moore did not realize that he was already surrounded by police officers, who
had crept up the stairs without identifying themselves as police or even announcing their presence,” court filings state.

As they prepared to arrest Moore, one of the officers allegedly said, he is “like blind so, he doesn’t even know we are out here,” according to the lawsuit.

Moore felt someone grab and twist his wrist, and officers “twisted his neck, slammed his head to the floor, beat him, and jammed their knees into his back,” the lawsuit states. They allegedly did not respond when he asked why he was being arrested and carried him down the stairs in handcuffs.

He was taken to Dignity Health – California Hospital Medical Center in downtown L.A., where an officer’s body camera footage shows him strapped to a gurney.

A group of medical workers, hospital security guards and officers were standing around him when one of the officers cupped his hand over Moore’s face, which is covered with a white towel, the video shows. He screams “I can’t breathe” multiple times, and later in the video, he falls quiet and his body lies still.

The lawsuit alleges the officer was “pressing his hands on Mr. Moore’s face for another minute, at one point repositioning his hands to press even more firmly on Mr. Moore’s mouth and nose.” This allegedly blocked Moore’s airway, causing him to lose consciousness and make his body go limp, according to the lawsuit.

The officer is seen later in the video taking his hand off of Moore’s face. A medical worker eventually removed the towel, court filings state.

Moore’s attorney said his client can be heard on tape crying out “I can’t breathe!” at least three times.

Moore remains “deeply traumatized” due to the alleged assault and is unable to sleep, is afraid to go outside and “lives in constant fear of the police,” according to his attorneys.

Aurora to Pay $15M for White Cops Brutal Murder of Elijah McLain. 3 Cops Unlawfully Stopped and Attacked 140lbs Black Man Walking Home, Piled on, Choked and Sedated Him as he Begged and Vomited

From [HERE] The city of Aurora, Colo., will pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the family of Elijah McClain, an unarmed 23-year-old Black man who died after law enforcement officers put him in a chokehold while he was on his way home in 2019. He was less than 100 feet away from his front door when white police officers unlawfully stopped and seized him.

Aurora officials said the settlement was the largest ever paid by the municipal government, and a lawyer for McClain’s father told the Associated Press that it was the biggest for a civil rights case in Colorado’s history. The agreement to drop the civil suit filed against the city last year was approved after a mediation hearing at a federal court.

The $15 million figure is more than double the $6.5 million that Aurora paid to settle officer-involved lawsuits between 2010 and 2017.

The findings of Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (D) were damning. Aurora police engaged in repeated abuses against non-white people, especially Black people, treated people of color differently from their White counterparts, repeatedly used excessive force and failed to properly document interactions with the public, according to the investigation.

Aurora’s police department cooperated with the state investigation, Weiser told reporters at the time. A separate city probe, released in February, found that Aurora officers had no legally justified reason to stop, frisk or use multiple chokeholds on McClain.

McClain died at a hospital after a violent arrest on the evening of August 24, 2019. McClain was walking home after he had gone to a corner store to purchase a soda or ice-tea.

McClain, who routinely wore masks when outside because he had anemia and became cold easily, according to family, refused to stop for officers when they first contacted him. However, the police apparently had no legal justification to stop him in the first place. “I have a right to go where I am going,” he said. The white Aurora officers involved were Randy Roedema, Jason Rosenblatt and Nathan Woodyard.

According to the federal indictment:

WOODYARD arrived first and ordered Mr. McClain to stop. WOODYARD did not see Mr. McClain with any weapons, but he noted a grocery bag and that, in his opinion, Mr. McClain was “suspicious.” Immediately after WOODYARD contacted Mr. McClain, ROSENBLATT joined WOODYARD, and the stop quickly turned physical. The officers grabbed Mr. McClain's arms then forcibly moved Mr. McClain over to a grassy area near where the officers first contacted Mr. McClain and pushed him up against the exterior wall of a nearby apartment building. ROEDEMA grabbed the grocery bag out of Mr. McClain’s hands and threw it to the ground. He did not examine the bag’s contents. The bag contained cans of iced tea. Mr. McClain was struggling as the officers attempted to restrain him. While Mr. McClain was pushed up against the wall and struggling, ROEDEMA told the other officers that Mr. McClain had reached for ‘your gun” Neither ROSENBLATT nor WOODYARD knew whether “your gun” meant ROSENBLATTs or WOODYARD's gun. ROEDEMA later said that Mr. McClain reached for ROSENBLATT's gun. ROSENBLATT stated that he did not feel any contact with his service weapon.

Officers are instructed that to perform a carotid control hold an officer uses his or her bicep and forearm to apply pressure to the carotid arteries on the sides of a 1 subject's neck, thereby cutting off blood flow to the subject's brain and causing temporary unconsciousness for the purpose gaining compliance or control ROSENBLATT stated that he applied an unsuccessful carotid control hold to Mr. McClain, and WOODYARD then applied a carotid control hold that resulted in Mr. McClain going unconscious and snoring. Mr. McClain suffered bodily injury. He was was rendered unconscious, suffered hypoxia, and his physical and mental condition were impaired. The risk of hypoxia and cerebral hypoxia was exacerbated by applying two carotid control holds. ROEDEMA also placed Mr. McClain in a bar hammer lock. Abar hammer lock is a physical defensive tactic whereby a subject's arm is held back behind their back to gain controlof the subject. ROEDEMA stated that he “cranked pretty hard” on Mr. McClain's shoulder and heard it pop three times. ROEDEMA, WOODYARD, and ROSENBLATT had all been trained that the carotid hold posed dangers and should never be administered more than once.

l hold, and ROSENBLATT radioed for Aurora Fire Rescue to respond to the scene. At the same time, Mr. McClain regained consciousness, the struggle resumed, and WOODYARD reported that Mr. McClain started to twist and pull away while on the ground. ROEDEMA, ROSENBLATT, and WOODYARD wrestled Mr. McClain to the ground. ROEDEMA tried to maintain control of Mr. McClain by putting his entire body on top of Mr. McClain in an attempt to sprawl him out.

The officers reported that Mr. McClain exhibited extraordinary strength. (a frail, 140-pound man, the three officers assumed that he was on drugs or a stimulant, performing for the camera, a white cop stated “Whatever he is on, he has crazy strength,” )The autopsy found only ketamine and marijuana in his system. )The officers placed Mr. McClain in handcuffs, and the officers continued to restrain Mr. McClain. ROEDEMA, ROSENBLATT, and WOODYARD remained on top of him and continued to hold him on the ground despite pleas that he could not breathe. 'WOODYARD rolled Mr. McClain onto his side into the “recovery position.” Officers were trained that if they administered a carotid control hold they had to place the individual in the “recovery position,” meaning placement on one’s side rather than in the prone position. Mr. McClain vomited multiple times while being restrained. Mr. McClain vomited into his mask during the struggle, and it ultimately came off after the handcuffs were secured. There was evidenceof vomit found inside the mask. Mr. McClain's handcuffs behind his back restricted his movement and prevented him from removing the mask.

Around this time, additional officers arrived on scene. ROEDEMA and ROSENBLATT continued to hold Mr. McClain on the ground, while WOODYARD walked away and was replaced by another officer. None of the officers checked Mr. MeClain’s pulse or monitored his airway, breathing, or circulation. ROSENBLATT straddled Mr. MeClain's legs, while ROEDEMA was positioned at McClain's back; Mr. McClain's hands were handcuffed behind his back. During this time, Mr. MeClain said his name, stated that he could not breathe and that what the officers were doing “really hurt,” Mr. McClain reported that he did not have a gun, did not do that sort of thing, he asked for help, and asked to find his phone. ROEDEMA applied, and directed other officers who responded to apply, pain compliance techniques to the handcuffed Mr. McClain. While restraining Mr. McClain, ROEDEMA increased pressure causing Mr. McClain tocry out, “Ah, ow, okay, okay.” KOEDEMA responded, “Well, chill out! You've already been told several times to stop.” Mr. McClain spoke again and ROEDEMA picked up Mr. McClain's torso and forcibly pushed it to the ground, causing Mr. McClain to cry out, “Ow!”

ROEDEMA was the senior patrol officer on scene and directed other officers. Mr. McClain repeatedly stated that he could not breathe. ROEDEMA ignored Mr. McClain's repeated statements that he could not breathe. Initially during the restraint, ROEDEMA, ROSENBLATT, and WOODYARD were all on top of Mr. McClain, and they were lying on his back. Throughout the restraint, two or three officers were physically restraining Mr. McClain, with ROEDEMA on his back and controlling him there, and with ROSENBLATT on Mr. McClain's legs. Other officers on the scene told ROEDEMA to make sure Mr. McClain could breathe, and ROEDEMA dismissed those reminders, asserting that Mr. McClain could breathe.

Additionally, prior to the restraint period, Mr. McClain vomited into his mask, which he was unable to remove during the struggle and once restrained. In addition to the vomit inside Mr. McClain'’s mask, Mr. McClain vomited repeatedly while being restrained on his side. Gurgling sounds by Mr. McClain were audible in body-worn camera video footage. Medical evidence indicated that this was evidence of potential aspiration while he was restrained. Mr. McClain's breathing further indicated he had hypoxia? following the police restraint and use of the carotid control hold. Medical evidence also conveyed that Mr. McClain was in a hypoxemic state with decreased cerebral oxygenation. Finally, Mr. McClain suffered from metabolic acidosis from the physical struggle with police. Hypoxia, hypoxemia? and metabolic acidosis, all constitute serious bodily injury. Individually and collectively, they pose a substantial risk of death or a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body. [MORE]

On the same day when McClain died, Adams County District Attorney Dave Young [racist suspect servant of white authority in photo] found no criminal actions by Aurora police during his investigation into the death of Elijah McClain. Dave Young, in a letter dated Friday to Aurora Police Chief Nick Metz, said: “From the officers’ perception, it went from an investigatory stop to a potential life-threatening incident, and it certainly raised the officers’ use of force.

According to a letter released by the 17th Judicial District Attorney’s Office Friday evening. “Applying the facts of this incident, to the applicable Colorado law, the evidence does not support the filing of any state criminal charges against the involved officers for the unfortunate and tragic death of Mr. McClain.” [MORE]

Two years after McClain’s death, the three police officers and two paramedics were indicted by a grand jury on 32 counts, including manslaughter.

DA Concedes Pervis Payne Cannot Be Executed. Intellectually Disabled Black Man has an IQ of 68.4 and Murdering Him Would Violate the 8th Amendment Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment

EJI reports, The district attorney in Memphis, Tennessee, announced yesterday that the state will no longer fight to have Pervis Payne executed. Instead, in light of expert findings about Mr. Payne’s intellectual disability, the state will ask the court to replace his death sentence with two life sentences.

In 2002, the Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia held that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits imposing the death penalty on people with intellectual disability.

Mr. Payne’s attorneys have argued that he cannot legally be executed because he is intellectually disabled, citing evidence that he has a functional IQ of 68.4 and well documented adaptive deficits.

Dozens of witnesses, including family members, teachers, and coworkers, described his inability to read, do simple math, retain information, or do tasks like prepare a meal, do laundry, or shop for himself even as a teenager.

Tennessee courts refused to consider Mr. Payne’s intellectual disability claim, citing procedural rules.

Earlier this year, the Tennessee Legislature passed a new law that allows people like Mr. Payne to petition the trial court for a determination of whether they are intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty.

Pursuant to the new law, a hearing to determine Mr. Payne’s intellectual disability was scheduled for December 13.

District Attorney Amy Weirich said in a statement that a state expert who examined Mr. Payne and available records in advance of the hearing “could not say Payne’s intellectual functioning is outside the range for intellectual disability.”

“After review of the evidence, law and expert opinions, the State stipulates the Petitioner would be found intellectually disabled,” prosecutor Steve Jones wrote in a court filing, according to the Independent.

As a result, the state withdrew its request for a hearing and conceded that Mr. Payne cannot be executed because of his intellectual disability.

Mr. Payne, a Black man, was convicted and sentenced to death in the killings of a white woman and her two-year-old daughter in 1987, when he was 20.

Throughout the past 33 years he has been on Tennessee’s death row, he has maintained his innocence, explaining that he was near the crime scene because his girlfriend lived across the hall, heard a noise and went to help, was overwhelmed by what he saw, and he panicked and ran in fear.

His attorneys said DNA testing on previously untested evidence found male DNA from an unknown third party on key evidence, including the murder weapon—findings they said are consistent with his innocence claim.

After the prosecutor’s announcement yesterday, Mr. Payne’s counsel said they will continue to fight for his full exoneration.

“Our proof that Pervis is intellectually disabled is unassailable, and his death sentence is unconstitutional,” Mr. Payne’s attorney, Kelley Henry, said. “The state did the right thing today by not continuing on with needless litigation. This matter will now come to a close in a very short period of time. We however will not stop until we have uncovered the proof which will exonerate Pervis and release him from prison.”

Mr. Payne was scheduled to be executed last December before a delay was announced.

Pasadena Settles Anthony McLain Suit for $7.5M. White Cop Murdered Black Man by Shooting Him in the Back as He Fled After Unlawful Seizure. Video Contradicted Cops who Claimed to See Gun

The city of Pasadena will pay $7.5 million to the three young children of a Black man fatally shot by a police officer as ran away during a traffic stop last year.

The settlement covers one of three lawsuits filed by the relatives of Anthony McClain.

“Sadly, the money being paid on behalf of the city will not bring my son’s father back to life,” Kimberley Jenkins, the mother of one of McClain’s children, said in a statement from her attorney, John Burton. “We are still waiting for the officer who shot and killed him to be held accountable.”

Anthony McClain, a 32-year-old father of three, was shot by a white officer during a traffic stop on Aug. 15, the Pasadena Police Department said.

Around 7:52 p.m., officers stopped a four-door, dark-colored Infiniti without a front license plate. McClain was the passenger. 

When police asked the driver for his license, the driver said his license was suspended. The driver cooperated with police after being asked to get out of the car, the department said.

McClain, who was also asked to get out of the car, is seen on video getting out, then running away from the officers. There appears to be no lawful basis for the cops to detain or seize the Black man because he was the passenger in the vehicle. While a passenger may be ordered out of a vehicle for officer safety the Supreme Court has explained that unless the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion, he may not further detain a passenger. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). Cops apparently did no articulate any reason they wanted to detain McLain. The driver may have been under arrest for something but that did not provide the police any justification for detaining or arresting McClain. Flight alone is not a basis for an arrest.

Police say he reached for an item in his waistband, which they believed to be a firearm.

“The natural swinging movement of the individual’s arms while running revealed what both officers immediately recognized as a firearm in his left hand,” according to the department.

With two officers chasing him, McClain can be seen turning and looking at the officers over his right shoulder. Police say they feared he was turning back to shoot at them, so the officer closest to McClain shot at him twice.

It wasn’t immediately clear that he had been shot, as he continued to run “for a considerable distance,” police said. He eventually fell.

McClain sustained at least one gunshot wound, and was given immediate medical attention, according to the department. Paramedics arrived and transported him to a hospital, where he died.

Caree Harper, the McClain family’s attorney, said what police saw in the video was a large metal belt buckle, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Neither McClain nor the second officer fired a weapon. No weapon was found on McClain, but a gun was recovered across the street.

“The death of Anthony McClain in 2020 was a tragic end to the life of a father of three minor children,” the city said in a statement. “This settlement, with no admission of guilt or wrongdoing, will prevent further prolonged and expensive proceedings. The Los Angeles [County] District Attorney’s Office continues its review of the 2020 incident and the Pasadena Police Department’s administrative review is pending.”

Gardena (CA) Settles Suit for $1.3M for Executing Kenneth Ross. Fleeing Black Man Posed No Threat when White Cop Shot Him w/AR-15 from Distance. Afterwards, Police Delayed Aid and Turned Off Cameras

From [HERE] The child of a Black man who was fatally shot by Southern California police in 2018 — and whose death spurred lawmakers to enact a state law that decertifies officers who act criminally or with bias — has settled a federal lawsuit with the city of Gardena for $1.3 million, according to an attorney for the man’s son.

Kenneth Ross Jr., 25, was killed by police in 2018 after officers responded to reports of a man firing his weapon in a park in Gardena, a city in the South Bay region of Los Angeles County. His death also prompted calls for police reform.

Attorneys Carl Douglas and Jamon Hicks, who represented Ross’s 8-year-old son, announced the settlement Wednesday in a news release. Ross’s mother and father also settled separately with the city for lesser amounts. “Obviously, the money won’t bring him back,” Hicks said.

IN photo sgt Michael Robbins, now retired, fatally shot Kenneth Ross with his AR-15 as he fled. Previously he had worked at the Orange Police Department where he had been involved in at least one shooting there. Black strawboss DA Jackie Lacey concluded the shooting was legally justified

According to the complaint:

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, Defendants, including SERGEANT ROBBINS, received reports of shots fired at or near 12812 Van Ness Ave. in the City of Gardena.

There were no reports that any individual had been shot or injured in connection with the reported shooting.

At least one witness reported that the shots fired sounded like they were coming from two different guns.

According to officers, radio updates indicated that the alleged suspect was running south on Van Ness Ave. and was described as “a male with long dreadlocks wearing shorts.”

Several officers, including SERGEANT ROBBINS, responded to the reports of shots fired.

The first officer to respond reportedly observed DECEDENT running in Rowley Park, approximately a quarter of a mile from the intersection of the reported shots. She pointed her service weapon at DECEDENT from her vehicle, followed him into the parking lot of Rowley Park, and broadcast his description and direction of travel over police radio.

A second officer arrived on the scene, pulled out his Taser, and ordered DECEDENT to stop.

Around the same time, Defendant SERGEANT ROBBINS arrived on the scene, armed himself with his department-issued AR-15 rifle, pointed it at DECEDENT, and threatened to shoot him.

DECEDENT continued running south adjacent to the parking lot of Rowley Park with his side and back to officers. His hands were empty.

DECEDENT did not make any aggressive movements, furtive gestures, or physical movements, which would suggest to a reasonable officer that DECEDENT was a threat to any officers or the public in general.

Without attempting to diffuse the situation or use other means to stop DECEDENT, and despite DECEDENT’s mental health problems being well- known to CITY OF GARDENA law enforcement and officials, Defendant SERGEANT ROBBINS fired his AR-15 rifle at DECEDENT, striking him in the back and shoulder.

No other officer at the scene discharged a firearm.

Defendant Officers, including SERGEANT ROBBINS, immediately began ordering potential witnesses to leave the scene.

Defendant Officers, including SERGEANT ROBBINS, waited approximately five minutes before moving to render aid to DECEDENT.

Defendant Officers then flipped DECEDENT’s lifeless body over. One officer attempted to do chest compressions, but it was clearly too late.

Defendant SERGEANT ROBBINS then directed all officers to turn off their cameras.

Defendant Officers, including SERGEANT ROBBINS, did not find a gun on or near DECEDENT’S body, despite Defendant SERGEANT ROBBINS’ claim that DECEDENT pointed a gun at him.

At no time during the course of these events did DECEDENT pose any reasonable threat of violence to the officers or the public in general. Nor did DECEDENT do anything to justify the use of deadly, excessive, unreasonable, unlawful, and unnecessary force against him.

Defendant SERGEANT ROBBINS negligently and recklessly assessed the situation and met the DECEDENT with deadly force, without having probable cause to believe that DECEDENT had committed a forcible and atrocious felony or would commit a forcible and atrocious felony in the future.

At the time he was shot, DECEDENT was an unarmed, mentally ill, black male running away from officers that had threatened to shoot him.

By either failing to realize that DECEDENT was mentally ill or deliberately disregarding his mental illness, and by engaging DECEDENT without using less lethal tools at his disposal, Defendants, including SERGEANT ROBBINS, demonstrated a deliberate indifference to DECEDENT’s and Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights.

In the Presence of a Black Teen Delivering Newspapers a White Dewitt Cop Became Psychopathic, Delusional:"He's Trying to Ram Me!, Shots Fired!," then Detained Him, Pointed Gun and Threatened His Life

The Psychopathic Racial Personality. Dr. Bobby Wright explains that by and large, white people treat each other humanely. But in their relations with non-white people, racists function as psychopaths. 'Psychopaths simply ignore the concept of right and wrong. The racist has no morality where race is the variable.' [MORE] When white cops brutalize other whites, white prosecutors, white judges, white jurors and the white media usually ensure that the cop is held accountable.  Similarly, Dr. Welsing explained, "always, in the presence of color, whites will feel genetically inferior." [MORE]

When racist white cops are in the presence of color, especially Black men, they can no longer see things as they really are. "A mind that is filled with belief is a mind which can project anything according to the belief. When you see things always remember this." If he is an unaware person, in the presence of non-whites his mind is blown, full of smoke, shit and in attachment to his weakness. Anything the cop does in this sleeping state will be stupid and dangerous b/c he is unconscious has a belt full of weapons, the power of the state and he is authorized to kill.

From [FTP] Video has surfaced this week of a white DeWitt police officer Chad Vorce stalking an innocent black teenager — for the sole fact that he was black in his neighborhood.

The incident unfolded in January of this year but video was only recently released. Vorce’s ridiculous use of force and racial profiling unfolded after he saw 19-year-old Alexander Hamilton driving in his neighborhood.

The idea of a black teen in his neighborhood set Vorce on a string of events that would leave Vorce without a job and the teen nearly killed. Hamilton was in the neighborhood that morning because he was working. He was a newspaper delivery man and he had many customers in Vorce’s neighborhood.

Despite Hamilton being entirely innocent, Vorce, who was off-duty and out of his jurisdiction at the time, decided the follow the teen. Clearly confident that the young Black man was out of his place, Vorce called 911 and continued following the innocent newspaper delivery man.

Seeing that someone was following him, Hamilton stopped to ask what was going on. He attempted to back up so he could pull alongside Vorce, but every time he did, Vorce would back up further. Eventually, Vorce’s suspicious behavior caused Hamilton to simply drive away — but Vorce kept following.

He’s “a Black male in the area, and he needs to be checked,” Vorce said on the 911 recording.

“He’s trying to ram me!” Vorce said of the teen backing up and trying to talk to him. “I’m going to go shots fired if he does it again!”

When Hamilton pulled into a nearby gas station, that’s when Vorce completely lost it.

Vorce jumps out of his truck and is pointing his gun at Hamilton. At this point, Hamilton would have been entirely justified pulling his own gun and killing Vorce as he had no idea Vorce was a cop, and a gun pointed in your face is most assuredly a deadly threat.

As another officer arrives on the scene, Vorce once again, incites Hamilton’s race as a reason for the stop, “He fits the same description, black hoodie… frickin’ Black guy.”

But there was no description to fit. Police weren’t looking for anyone that night and Vorce was the only threat on the streets.

“He told the kid right to his face,” another officer said about the incident. “He’s like, when I see a Black guy in my neighborhood, I think you’re doing stuff like this.”

It would take nearly five months for his department to fire Vorce and despite losing his job, Vorce faced no other discipline. He assaulted an innocent teen with a deadly weapon, stalked him, unlawfully detained him, and broke a slew of other police department regulations, yet he walked free.

“At the conclusion of an investigation by the Michigan State Police on March 24, 2021, the incident did not result in the Clinton County prosecutor pursing criminal charges,” the city government told AP. “The city of DeWitt then conducted an internal investigation of the incident involving the off-duty police officer. We have the utmost confidence that the city of DeWitt has taken appropriate action in this matter.”

3 White Ewing Cops (NJ) Indicted by US Attorney for Repeatedly Stepping on the Back of a Black Teenager's Head while He was Handcuffed and Lying Face Down in the Snow

From [HERE] Three white Ewing cops were indicted on federal charges Friday after they were caught on tape stomping on the head of a handcuffed Black teenager while he was prone on his stomach during an arrest in 2018. He does not appear to be resisting in the video.

The indictment, unsealed Friday, charges Officers Matthew Przemieniecki, Justin Ubry and retired Lt. Michael Delahanty each with civil-rights deprivation under color of law for their roles in the Jan. 5, 2018 beating of a 16-year-old Black teenager from Burlington, according to the indictment obtained by The Trentonian.

Delahanty, 51, of Robbinsville, and Przemieniecki, 43, of Hamilton, both face felonies carrying up to 10 years in jail if they’re convicted. Ubry, 33, of Burlington, is charged with a misdemeanor count carrying a maximum of a year in prison. All face fines ranging from $100,000 to $250,000 if convicted.

The indictment states as follows:

On the morning of January 5, 2018, in Ewing Township, New Jersey, the ground was covered in snow and ice and the temperature was well below freezing.

On January 5, 2018, ETPD officers responded to a report of a stolen vehicle in Ewing Township. Officers located the vehicle, which had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in Ewing Township. Law enforcement observed Victim 1, the driver of the vehicle, running away from the scene of the accident.

Thereafter, ETPD officers found Victim 1 inside a detached shed located at the rear of a residential property in Ewing Township. Officers 1 and 2 physically removed Victim 1 from the shed and brought Victim 1 to the ground, which was covered in snow.

While Victim 1 was lying face down on the ground, Officers 1, 2, and 3 began to handcuff Victim 1. Multiple other ETPD officers, including defendants DELAHANTY, PRZEMIENIECKI, and UBRY, stood nearby and observed the arrest in progress.

Victim 1 did not physically resist ETPD officers at any time.

While Officers 1, 2, and 3 handcuffed Victim 1 and while Victim 1 remained lying face down, defendant DELAHANTY, unprompted, stepped on the back of Victim 1's head, pressing it into the snow.

Immediately thereafter, defendant PRZEMIENIECKI stepped closer to Victim 1 and kicked snow three times directly into Victim l's face.

Immediately thereafter, defendant UBRY stepped closer to Victim 1 and kicked snow directly into Victim 1's face.

After Officers 1, 2, and 3 handcuffed Victim 1, defendant PRZEMIENIECKI again approached Victim 1 and stepped on the back of Victim 1's head, again pressing it into the snow.

Officers 1, 2, and 3 did not request or require additional assistance from other ETPD officers in handcuffing Victim 1. Under the circumstances, the force that defendants DELAHANTY, PRZEMIENIECKI, and UBRY applied to Victim 1 as described in paragraphs 5 through 8, above, was unreasonable and excessive.

Phoenix Approves $5M Settlement in Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin Case. Cops Murdered Black Man in Public; Snapped his Handcuffed Arms Over his Head, Sat on his Head and Held Him Down, Suffocating Him

COPS SEIZED UPON THE HOMELESS BLACK MAN B/C HE WAS TRYING TO USE THE BATHROOM AT A COMMUNITY CENTER AND HE HAD HIS SMALL DOG W/HIM. AFTER GRANTING HIM PERMISSION TO USE THE TOILET THEY ARRESTED HIM FOR HAVING AN OUTSTANDING MISDEMEANOR WARRANT FOR MARIJUANA PIPE POSSESSION (THEY DISCOVERED THE WARRANT WHILE WAITING FOR HIM TO URINATE). SAID ARREST MAY SEEM PETTY AND THEREFORE AVOIDABLE BUT IT IS A MOST NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF HAVING A LEGAL SYSTEM BASED ON PHYSICAL COERCION (YES MEANING VIOLENCE) AND OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY. EVERY LAW OR ORDER FROM AUTHORITIES IS A COMMAND BACKED BY THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THOSE WHO DO NOT COMPLY. [MORE]

From [HERE] Phoenix, Arizona officials agreed to pay $5 million to settle a lawsuit over the January 2017 death of a Black man during an arrest attempt in which he cried out that he couldn’t breathe as officers held him down.

The 7-2 vote by the City Council ends the lawsuit by the sister of Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin, who was homeless and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia.

“Although they (city officials) didn’t acknowledge any specific kind of wrongdoing, the settlement makes a strong statement — and for that reason, I am happy we could move forward,” said Muhaymin’s sister, Mussallina Muhaymin.

On January 4th, 2017, Muhammad Muhaymin Jr. was stopped by police for attempting to use a public restroom accompanied by his service dog, a chihuahua named Chiquita. Muhammad was non-violent and non-confrontational, yet at least four officers from the Phoenix Police Department ripped his dog from his arms, got on top of him, seriously injured him, and finally choked him to death as he cried out “I can’t breathe!”.

Video evidence of the incident shows the officers torturing Muhammad. They snapped his handcuffed arms over his head—tearing ligaments and causing extraordinary pain. They suffocated him, sitting on his head and holding him down while he begged them to stop until his body grew limp and he died pressed into the concrete. [MORE]

The Phoenix Police Department officers’ own body cam footage clearly shows their use of excessive and deadly force on Mohammad. Two medical examiners, including a Maricopa County Medical Examiner, ruled Muhammad’s death a homicide.

Court records say Muhammad Muhaymin died after multiple police officers allegedly twice put their weight on his body, including after Muhaymin was restrained. [MORE]

Judge Finds White KC Cop Guilty of Murdering Cameron Lamb. Black Man had One Hand on His Phone and the Other on the Steering Wheel When a Liar Cop Executed Him in His Driveway. Faces Only 6 Yrs Jail

From [HERE] DeValkenaere is the first Kansas City law enforcement officer to be convicted for the fatal shooting of a Black man. Following the conviction, the department suspended DeValkenaere without pay.

A Jackson County judge found Kansas City police detective Eric DeValkenaere guilty of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action in the fatal shooting of 26-year-old Cameron Lamb, a Black man.

"What we sought in this case was a just outcome and that's where we stand today," Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker told reporters shortly after the verdict was rendered by Presiding Judge J. Dale Youngs. 

Police tracking a car involved in a traffic incident in December 2019 followed Cameron Lamb as he was pulling his red pickup truck into the garage of his backyard in Kansas City, Mo. Without a warrant or permission allowing them on the property, two plainclothes detectives “stormed around the side of the house” and demanded to know where he was.

Then, while Lamb, a Black man, allegedly had one hand on the steering wheel and the other on his cellphone, Detective Eric DeValkenaere, who is White, offered no warning before shooting him four times while the man was still in his truck in the driveway, hitting him twice and killing the 26-year-old, attorneys say.

The department said that DeValkenaere had been suspended pending termination as a result of his conviction.

DeValkenaere is believed to be the first Kansas City law enforcement officer since 1941 to have stood trial for the fatal shooting of a Black man. The police officer in the earlier case was acquitted. 

Jackson County prosecutors argued that DeValkenaere recklessly shot Cameron Lamb on Dec. 3, 2019, as Lamb was sitting in a pickup truck and backing into his garage at 41st Street and College Avenue. 

The shooting occurred not long after a police helicopter spotted a red truck chasing a purple Mustang at speeds of up to 90 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood.

Prosecutors argued that DeValkenaere acted recklessly by entering Lamb’s property without a warrant, knocking over a makeshift fence and firing his weapon within seconds of coming upon the pickup truck.

DeValkenaere waived his right to a jury trial and the case was tried before Youngs. The four-day trial ended last week and Youngs took the case under advisement. 

In finding DeValkenaere guilty on both counts with which he was charged, Youngs ruled that Lamb had an expectation of privacy on his property and that DeValkenaere and his partner, Sgt. Troy Schwalm, had no justification to enter onto the property, as both did that day. Schwalm was not charged in the case.

Delivering his verdict from the bench in a courtroom packed with supporters and family of both DeValkenaere and Lamb, Youngs said that the two plainclothes policemen had no arrest warrant, no search warrant and no probable cause to obtain either. 

Neither were there exigent circumstances nor a hot pursuit that might have justified their entrance onto the property, Youngs said, noting that the car chase had ended some time earlier. 

"Based on the court's review of the law and the facts, the court concludes that the backyard and particularly the carport were within the curtilage," Youngs said, referring to the area immediately surrounding a dwelling. "And the occupants demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy." 

Youngs took about 13 minutes to read his findings of fact and conclusions of law. As he pronounced DeValkenaere guilty, DeValkenaere slumped slightly in his seat and lowered his head. 

Shouts of jubilation could be heard in the courthouse hallway as the courtroom emptied, and members of Lamb's family and supporters tearfully embraced. 

DeValkenaere faces a minimum statutory punishment of three years on the involuntary manslaughter conviction and a minimum statutory punishment of three years on the armed criminal action conviction. 

He remains free on bond pending sentencing, which Youngs said he would set at a later date. 

Altogether, the trial and convictions marked a stunning development in the strained relations between the Jackson County Prosecutor's office and the Kansas City Police Department. 

Baker, the prosecutor, has accused the department of not providing a probable cause statement in the case, forcing her to take the case to a grand jury. 

In an extraordinary letter addressed to Kansas City Police Chief Rick Smith in April 2020, Baker said that police "hold a special place in our community" and, for that reason, they have strong protections under Missouri law. 

"But officers are not entitled to a special process when they are the subject of a criminal investigation. Investigations must be neutral," she wrote. "Our system depends on this. Neutrality is especially important when you are investigating someone who works within your own ranks."

After the verdict, S. Lee Merritt, a lawyer representing the Lamb family, called it "momentous" and "historic."

"These instances of justice in our system are far too rare, but there was something that happened here that was different," he said outside the courthouse.

Merritt represents the parents of three of Lamb's minor children, who have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against DeValkenaere and the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners. 

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said he did not view the guilty verdicts as an "indictment broadly" of the Kansas City Police Department. 

CDC Forced to Admit It Doesn’t Collect Data on Natural Immunity to COVID

From [HERE] The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, said it has no record of an individual previously infected with COVID becoming reinfected and transmitting the virus to others.

The FOIA request, submitted Sept. 2 by attorney Aaron Siri of the Siri & Glimstad law firm on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), sought the following information:

“Documents reflecting any documented case of an individual who: (1) never received a COVID vaccine; (2) was infected with COVID once, recovered, and then later became infected again; and (3) transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to another person when reinfected.”

The CDC responded Nov. 5, stating:

“A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. The CDC Emergency Operations Center (EOC) conveyed that this information is not collected.”

According to Siri, the revelation that the CDC does not collect data on people who have acquired natural immunity to the virus raises questions about vaccine mandates, specifically how the the government, or employers can mandate vaccines for people who may not need them and who could be at a greater-than-average risk of experiencing an adverse reaction to the shots.

In a blog post, Siri wrote:

“… yet the CDC is actively crushing the rights of millions of naturally immune individuals in this country if they do not get the vaccine on the assumption they can transmit the virus. But despite clear proof the vaccinated spread the virus, the CDC lifts restrictions on the vaccinated?! That is dystopian.”

Siri added:

“Every single peer reviewed study has found that the naturally immune have far greater than 99% protection from having COVID, and this immunity does not wane. In contrast, the COVID vaccine provides, at best, 95% protection and this immunity wanes rapidly. I am no mathematician, but a constant 99% seems preferable to a 95% that quickly drops.”

The response from the CDC came as part of a broader exchange between the agency and Siri’s law firm, dating back to this past summer, in which ICAN and Siri’s law firm submitted a citizen’s petition to the CDC calling for restrictions on those individuals with natural immunity to be lifted.

Kyle Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty of All Charges in Killing of Two White Men, Injuring Another. White Jury Found that the Teen Defended Himself Against White-On-White-Crime

Kyle Rittenhouse was NOT CHARGED WITH KILLING OR ATTEMPTING TO HARM ANYONE BLACK OR RANDOMLY KILLING PEOPLE HE THOUGHT WERE BLACK. CONTRARY TO THE MEDIA’S implied NARRATIVE, THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ALLEGE THAT RITTENHOUSE MURDERED OR ASSAULTED THE 3 WHITE VICTIMS BECAUSE THEY WERE PROTESTING ON BEHALF OF BLACK PEOPLE OR THAT HE DID SO TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF WHITE PROPERTY OWNERS. IN FACT, HE DID NOT RANDOMLY ATTACK ANYONE. FROM THE VIDEOS, EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IT SEEMED THAT HE WAS UNDER ATTACK AND DEFENDED HIMSELF; The following facts were undisputed BY THE GOVERNMENT;

IN A MATTER OF SECONDS, RITTENHOUSE KILLED 1) A WHITE MAN AFTER HE WAS CHASED BY THE WHITE MAN, 2) then WHILE FLEEING THE SCENE WITH PERSONS CHASING HIM HE FELL DOWN in the street. While on the ground another white man hit him in the head with a skateboard. while still on the ground RITTENHOUSE FATALLY SHOT THE WHITE MAN (once) as SAID WHITE MAN ATTEMPTED TO ALSO KICK HIM IN THE FACE. SUBSEQUENTLY WHILE TRYING TO FLEE 3) a 3RD WHITE MAN ATTEMPTED TO GRAB RITTENHOUSE’S GUN, SO RITTENHOUSE SHOT HIM ONCE AND FLED.

From [HERE] and [HERE] The saga of Kyle Rittenhouse has shown the extent of America’s political polarization. But the not guilty verdict returned by 12 unanimous jurors in his Kenosha, Wis. murder trial Friday shows that when presented deliberately with evidence and forced to reason with one another, Americans can still agree on basic facts.

And the facts presented at trial made it very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense when he shot three men, killing two, who attacked him amid an anarchic scene in downtown Kenosha last summer when he was 17.

The encounters were captured on video. Joseph Rosenbaum sprinted after Mr. Rittenhouse, who ran away across a parking lot. Rosenbaum lunged toward the rifle before Mr. Rittenhouse, who was trapped against parked cars, fired. According to Mr. Rittenhouse and another witness, Rosenbaum had threatened to kill the teenager earlier in the night.

As Mr. Rittenhouse tried to flee toward police lines, he was pursued by a mob. The teenager eventually fell down, and fired when one man tried to kick him in the face, another tried to hit him with a skateboard, and another approached him and raised a pistol.

The prosecution said Mr. Rittenhouse was a “chaos tourist” who provoked the violence. Yet the teenager worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha, where his father lived. However bad his judgment in showing up with a weapon he didn’t own at a riot, his intention was to stand guard in front of businesses and administer first aid.

As all this was laid out in open court, the prosecution’s case appeared to flounder. Pundits baying for a guilty verdict blamed the Kenosha County Judge, Bruce Schroeder, for favoring the defense. Judge Schroeder’s real offense was weighing motions carefully to allow a fair trial. His admonishment of the prosecution for questioning Mr. Rittenhouse about exercising his right to remain silent was entirely appropriate. Remember when the civil liberties of criminal defendants were a liberal cause? [MORE]

COVID = a Pandemic of Obedience [the highest form of the power-fear systemic]; 'We are now 20 months into “2 weeks to flatten the curve" and people are still hopelessly lost in the official narrative'

Is it Voodoo or a Lack of Dependent Media Propaganda that is Preventing COVID From Spreading in Haiti? Only 649 Total Deaths in a Country of 11 Million People Not Wearing Masks or social distancing or in a lock-down, Less than 1% Vaxed

From [FreedomArticles] Operation Coronavirus has shown how mass hypnosis can be inculcated into entire populations, around the world. We are now 20 months into “2 weeks to flatten the curve” and there are still many people hopelessly lost in the official narrative. The NWO (New World Order) controllers know that narrative is everything. To control the information and to control the way people interpret that information is the absolute power to control perception. Why do you think Bond villain and WEF head Klaus Schwab just held another WEF (World Economic Forum) event on introducing The Great Narrative? A really effective narrative has a hypnotizing effect. This article will take a deeper look at how the official COVID narrative has been able to induce people into a state of fear, disempowerment, compliance, obedience and mass hypnosis – and how it continues to do so – in a manner identical to the brainwashing propaganda of a cult.

Still Buying the Official Narrative …

Look around you. Do you see many people, including family, friends and colleagues, who are still buying into the official narrative – even at this stage in the game when there has been so much information to destroy it? Even when Big Pharma have admitted the vaccine was never designed to stop transmission? Even when recent statistics from VAERS (as of November 12th 2021) show 875,653 adverse events following COVID vaccines and 18,461 COVID vaccine deaths? We need to recall that the 2010 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study concluded that under 1% of vaccine adverse events or side effects are ever reported; going by that, that would mean 87 million COVID vaccine injuries and 1.8 million COVID vaccine deaths in the USA – a nation of 330 million (over 1/4 of the country injured). Mass murder is certainly no exaggeration.

Clinical Psychology Professor Explains Mass Formation

In this interview on The Pandemic Podcast, Mattias Desmet, a professor of clinical psychology at the Belgian University of Ghent, explains the psychological reason why so many still buy into the narrative. He outlines 4 conditions that need to be present that allow people to fall for an absurd official narrative, become hypnotized and fall into what he calls mass formation. Mass formation (also known as mass psychology, mob psychology or crowd psychology) studies how human behavior is influenced by large groups of people. This brief description gives an overview of it. Gustave Le Bon, Sigmund Freud, Leon Festinger and Philip Zimbardo have all contributed to the understanding of this concept. Essentially, when people become part of a crowd, they deindividuate. There is a tendency for people to give away their personal identity, self-responsibility, self-awareness, guilt, empathy and other individual morality-related attitudes and behaviors. A mob mentality can take over.

Desmet cites the following 4 conditions as necessary precursors to mass hypnosis:

1. Lack of social bond/connectedness
2. Lack of meaning/sense making
3. Free-floating anxiety and psychological discontent
4. Free-floating frustration and aggression

When you have a society where there is already a lot of general anxiety, and where people are uprooted psychologically and spiritually because they are disconnected from their essence and their purpose (and from other humans too), they are ripe for exploitation. The NWO controllers melded together this free-floating anxiety with the fear of the virus (fear of disease/death). I encourage all readers to familiarize themselves with the NWO blueprint which was revealed in 1969 by Dr. Richard Day. It talks about how the world would be socially engineered so that everything would be chaotic and in a constant state of flux, and people would be encouraged to move away from their hometowns and families, so that people would be more disconnected from each other and feel less grounded.

Desmet describes how such people with these 4 conditions develop a very small field of attention, both mentally and emotionally, and seem unable to expand it even when faced with the facts. He gives examples from historical totalitarian regimes, saying that usually only around 30% of the population becomes hypnotized. Another 40% is not hypnotized but is cowardly, too afraid to speak up. This is why people must continue to speak out now during the COVID scamdemic. Historically, once the opposition is silenced or destroyed, the dictator becomes even more monstrous, metaphorically devouring his own children (killing his own people/supporters) as Hitler and Stalin both did.

Mass Hypnosis Leads to Mass Psychosis

Mass hypnosis isn’t even the final destination. It can go even further into mass psychosis, where an entire population becomes infected with madness and loses its ability to think clearly and rationally. Sound familiar? This After Skool/Academy of Ideas video does a great job of explaining mass psychosis – an epidemic of madness that occurs when a large portion of society loses touch with reality and descends into delusions. With anxiety already present in large amounts in the population, the foundations were already there to generate a pandemic of compliance – for that is what Operation Coronavirus really is, a pandemic of compliance. With decades or even centuries of relentless propaganda, the general population was a fertile ground for seeds of collectivism and authoritarianism to be sown and grown. [MORE]

K Rittenhouse’s white-on-white-crime/self-defense Trial is as White as Elizabeth Holmes' Trial but Due to Bignorance, People Believe Black Protesters were Murdered in Defense of White Peoples Property

WHITE COLLAR CRIME. On June 15, 2018, following an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California in San Francisco that lasted more than two years, a federal grand jury indicted ELIZABETH Holmes and former Theranos chief operating officer and president, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, on nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Both pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors allege that Holmes and Balwani engaged in two criminal schemes, one to defraud investors, the other to defraud doctors and patients. After the indictment was issued, Holmes stepped down as CEO of Theranos but remained chair of the board. If convicted, Holmes faces a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison, and a fine of $250,000, plus restitution, for each count of wire fraud and for each conspiracy count [MORE] and [MORE]

WHITE ON WHITE CRIME. As with the rittenhouse case, the above facts at issue and charges in the trial are unrelated to racism WHITE SUPREMACY. RITTENHOUSE IS NOT CHARGED WITH KILLING OR ATTEMPTING TO HARM ANYONE BLACK OR RANDOMLY KILLING PEOPLE HE THOUGHT WERE BLACK. WHILE HE MAY HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR TROUBLE AND MOTIVATED TO GO TO KENOSHA FOR THE WRONG REASONS, CONTRARY TO THE MEDIA’S implied NARRATIVE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT RITTENHOUSE MURDERED OR ASSAULTED THE 3 WHITE VICTIMS BECAUSE THEY WERE PROTESTING ON BEHALF OF BLACK PEOPLE OR THAT HE DID SO TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF WHITE PROPERTY OWNERS. IN FACT, HE DID NOT RANDOMLY ATTACK ANYONE. FROM THE VIDEOS, EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IT appears OBVIOUS THAT HE WAS UNDER ATTACK AND DEFENDED HIMSELF; A JURY WILL DECIDE WHETHER HE USED TOO MUCH FORCE WHEN HE DID SO. The following facts are undisputed BY THE GOVERNMENT;

IN A MATTER OF SECONDS, RITTENHOUSE KILLED 1) A WHITE MAN AFTER HE WAS CHASED BY THE WHITE MAN, 2) then WHILE FLEEING THE SCENE WITH PERSONS CHASING HIM HE FELL DOWN in the street. While on the ground another white man hit him in the head with a skateboard. while still on the ground RITTENHOUSE FATALLY SHOT THE WHITE MAN (once) as SAID WHITE MAN ATTEMPTED TO ALSO KICK HIM IN THE FACE. SUBSEQUENTLY WHILE TRYING TO FLEE 3) a 3RD WHITE MAN ATTEMPTED TO GRAB RITTENHOUSE’S GUN, SO RITTENHOUSE SHOT HIM ONCE AND FLED.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THOSE WHO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF BLACK LIVES DON’T accidentally ADVOCATE FOR AN EQUALITY OF DEGRADATION OR LESS “RIGHTS” OR MORE SLAVERY FOR ALL. IT IS TRUE THAT IF RITTENHOUSE WAS BLACK HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED on the spot AND THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY PRESUMED INNOCENT AND GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BY WHITE AUTHORITIES SOLELY BECAUSE HE IS WHITE. CLEARLY, BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME WAY BUT ARE NOT DUE TO THE SYSTEM OF RWS. BUT, To DEMAND THAT ALL PERSONS BE SIMILARLY SUBJECTED TO A SYSTEM OF INJUSTICE OR DEGRADED IN THE MANNER BLACK PEOPLE ARE IS PERVERSE OR REVERSE ADVOCACY FOR “FREEDUMB.”

FROM THE BEGINNING, IN THE SPECTACLE THE DEPENDENT MEDIA HAS PARROTED A RACIAL NARRATIVE IN THIS SELF-DEFENSE CASE and unfortunately BW WAS ALSO MEDIA HOAXED BY THEIR NONSENSE. what is DOGGY’S GOAL HERE? IS IT TO DO AWAY WITH SELF-DEFENSE, so people can no longer defend themselves? A DOO-GOODER actually IMPLIED that yesterday ON DEM NOW that ONLY COSTUMED AUTHORITIES SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE FORCE TO DEFEND YOU OR others [see Do-gooder in below video at 11:23]. THIS IS THE LOW CALORIE LOGIC of simpletons, SLAVE THINKING, DON'T BULLSHIT YOURSELF. WATCH THE VIDEOS AND THE TRIAL TESTIMONY YOURSELF AND DON’T ALLOW THE DEPENDENT MEDIA TO CONTROL YOUR THINKING or NEVER be a part of anyone’s deception.

According to FUNKTIONARY:

bignorance - big-time ignorance; ignorant of being ignorant, unaware of being unaware. There is ignorance and then there is ignorance of ignorance. The first is bliss, the second type is deadly. If you don't know that you are ignorant, you can never do anything about your ignorance. Most of us are ignorant of being ignorant. But once you become aware that you then you can start working on it by working on yourself through various self-knowledge and self-remembering modalities. The most fundamental of these modalities is what I refer to as "Unlearning" or being informed that you're not just uninformed but misinformed and the ways to overcome this condition and the underlying condition that lead (or gave rise) to it---thereby becoming a reality hidden from you yet readily recognizable by those who have awakened. (See: Unaware & Ignorance)

freedumb - the state of unrecognized psychological captivity that sheeple remain in because they don't speak the language of reality nor edit truth from perfecting heart to perfecting power--and when truth is spoken around them, refrain from being open, or impervious to it thus being forever chained to its distortions and limitations. 2) the mindset that proposes "since we are liberated, we are also free." 3) the mindset that operates upon the notion that you can have individuality without accountability or responsibility. 4) the pretense that reality is truth and vice-versa. People cherish unwarranted assumptions and relish their freedumb because they have been socialized into self-censorship along with misidentification with the ego-mind--the absence of knowledge of Self. (See: Phfreedom, Truth, Unfreedom, Dumbelievers, Self, Belief Systems, True Self & Reality)

WIS JI-Criminal 805 Privilege: Self-defense: Force Intended or Likely To Cause Death or Great Bodily Harm — 939.48 (Wisconsin Jury Instructions - Criminal (2020))

805 PRIVILEGE: SELF-DEFENSE: FORCE INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM — §939.48

[INSERT THE FOLLOWING AFTER THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME ARE DEFINED BUT BEFORE THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS.]

Self-Defense

Self-defense is an issue in this case. The law of self-defense allows the defendant to threaten or intentionally use force against another only if:

· the defendant believed that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference[i] with the defendant's person; and

· the defendant believed that the amount of force the defendant used or threatened to use was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference; and

· the defendant's beliefs were reasonable.

The defendant may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).

Determining Whether Beliefs Were Reasonable

A belief may be reasonable even though mistaken.[ii] In determining whether the defendant's beliefs were reasonable, the standard is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant's position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense.[iii] The reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the defendant's acts and not from the viewpoint of the jury now.

[IF RETREAT IS AN ISSUE, ADD APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION HERE — SEE WIS JI-CRIMINAL 810.]

[IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT PROVOKED THE ATTACK, ADD APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION HERE — SEE WIS JI-CRIMINAL 815.]

State's Burden of Proof

The State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense.

Jury's Decision

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all elements of [iv] have been proved and that the defendant did not act lawfully in self defense, you should find the defendant guilty.

If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.

COMMENT

Wis JI-Criminal 805 was originally published in 1966 and revised in 1993. This revision was approved by the Committee in June 2000 and involved adoption of a new format, nonsubstantive changes to the text, and updating of the comment.

The 1994 revision of this instruction changed its format to allow integrating the description of self-defense with the instruction for the crime charged. See the Comment to Wis JI-Criminal 800. Instructions for homicide offenses include models for cases involving self-defense. See Wis JI-Criminal 1014, 1016, 1017, and 1022.

--------

Notes:

[i]. For purposes of self-defense, "unlawful" means "either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both." Section 939.48(6). Further instruction on what constitutes "unlawful interference" in the context of the facts of a particular case may be desirable.

The word "unlawful" also appears in sub. (2) of §939.48, which provides that a "person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others . . ." loses the right to claim the privilege of self-defense. [See Wis JI-Criminal 815.] In State v. Bougneit, 97 Wis.2d 687, 294 N.W.2d 675 (Ct. App. 1980), the court held that engaging in what would be considered disorderly conduct under §947.01 could constitute "unlawful conduct" for the purposes of §939.48(2).

The "unlawful" component of "unlawful interference" is just one part of the predicate for invoking the privilege of self-defense. As stated in the instruction, the defendant must have believed "that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference with the defendant's person and [must have] believed the amount of force he used or threatened to use was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

[ii]. This treatment of "reasonably believes" is intended to be consistent with the definition provided in §939.22(32).

[iii]. The phrase "in the defendant's position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense" is intended to allow consideration of a broad range of circumstances that relate to the defendant's situation. For example, with children (assuming they are old enough to be criminally charged), the standard relates to a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience. Maichle v. Jonovic, 69 Wis.2d 622, 627-28, 230 N.W.2d 789 (1975).

Another situation where the personal circumstances become important in defining the self-defense standard is in a case involving a battered spouse. Wisconsin cases dealing with the subject have tended to use doctrines other than self-defense in these cases. In State v. Hoyt, 21 Wis.2d 284, 128 N.W.2d 645 (1964), for example, the theory of defense related to "heat of passion, caused by reasonable and adequate provocation" rather than self-defense. Likewise, in State v. Felton, 110 Wis.2d 485, 329 N.W.2d 161 (1983), provocation and not guilty by reason of mental disease were considered to be the relevant doctrines. However, some cases of this type may legitimately be considered under self-defense rules: the history of abuse between the spouses may be relevant to evaluating whether the defendant's belief in the need to use force was reasonable. See, for example, State v. Gomaz, 141 Wis.2d 302, 414 N.W.2d 626 (1987).

[iv]. In the two blanks provided, insert the number of elements that the crime has and the name of that crime, where the crime has a convenient short title. For example, for a case involving simple battery under §940.19(1), the sentence would read as follows: “. . . that all four elements of battery have been proved . . .” See Wis JI-Criminal 1220A. If the crime does not have a convenient short title, use “this offense” instead. For example, for a case involving substantial battery under §940.19(2), the sentence would read: “that both elements of this offense were proved, . . .” See Wis JI-Criminal 1222A.

WIS JI-Criminal 805 Privilege: Self-defense: Force Intended or Likely To Cause Death or Great Bodily Harm — 939.48 (Wisconsin Jury Instructions - Criminal (2020))

Governor Calls Off Murder, Grants Clemency to Julius Jones [Master Allows Innocent Black Servant to Live, Subjects Him to Life in Prison without Parole]

From [HERE] Hours before the State of Oklahoma was scheduled to execute Julius Jones today, Gov. Kevin Stitt granted clemency to Mr. Jones and commuted his death sentence to life in prison without parole.

The Oklahoma Board of Pardon and Parole recommended that Mr. Jones’s death sentence be commuted to life in prison with parole on September 13, after board members expressed doubts about his guilt in a 1999 shooting.

The Oklahoma Board of Pardon and Parole recommended that Mr. Jones’s death sentence be commuted to life in prison with parole on September 13, after board members expressed doubts about his guilt in a 1999 shooting.

“I believe in death penalty cases there should be no doubt, and put simply, I have doubts in this case,” board Chairman Adam Luck said. “I cannot ignore those doubts, especially when the stakes are life and death.”

In its first-ever commutation hearing in a death penalty case, the board voted 3-1 in favor of the commutation recommendation after Scott Williams recused himself because of a professional relationship with Mr. Jones’s attorney. The three votes came from Mr. Luck, Kelly Doyle, and Larry Morris.

Ms. Doyle said she had doubts about the case against Mr. Jones and believed it was “not in the best interest of the state” to execute him, The Frontier reported. She also pointed to the “excessive nature” of the death penalty for someone who was a teenager at the time, given “what we know now about brain science and brain development.”

The decision came after a four-hour hearing that included testimony from the victim’s family, an Oklahoma County prosecutor, and advocates for Mr. Jones.

One week after the board issued its decision, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals set a November 18 execution date for Mr. Jones. Gov. Stitt did not act on the board’s recommendation, saying it should be addressed in a clemency hearing. 

The board held a three-hour-long clemency hearing on November 1 and voted again to recommend that the governor should grant clemency and commute Mr. Jones’s death sentence. 

Julius Jones, now 41, was just 19 when Paul Howell, a white insurance executive, was fatally shot in Edmond, Oklahoma, an affluent suburb north of Oklahoma City.

Mr. Jones, a Black man, has long maintained his innocence, alleging that he was framed by the actual killer, who testified that Mr. Jones was the shooter and, Mr. Jones said in his commutation application, planted incriminating evidence in his home.

The only eyewitness description of the shooter did not match Mr. Jones’s appearance at the time of the crime—it matched codefendant Chris Jordan, the State’s key witness against Mr. Jones. And in recent years, four people have come forward to support that Jordan framed Julius Jones and bragged that he made a deal with prosecutors to get out of prison after only 15 years, the Black Wall Street Times reports.

For every nine people who have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, one person has been identified as innocent.

Bryan Stevenson, Letter of support for Julius Jones

Racial discrimination affected Mr. Jones’s trial in troubling ways, EJI director Bryan Stevenson wrote in a letter of support to the board and the governor. In a case with a Black defendant and a white victim, the prosecutors struck all qualified African Americans from the jury pool, except for one. One seated juror who was tasked with deciding Mr. Jones’s culpability and fate told another seated juror, “They should just take the n—r out and shoot him behind the jail.”

These remarks are rooted in our nation’s history of racial terror lynchings. EJI has documented nearly 6,500 racial terror lynchings in America between 1865 and 1950, and it was not uncommon for Black people to be abducted from jail and shot “out back.”

In Okemah, Oklahoma, a Black woman named Laura Nelson and her teenaged son, L.D., were kidnapped from custody before they could stand trial on murder charges. Members of the mob forcibly removed them from the jail and hanged them from a bridge over the Canadian River. The mob presumed Ms. Nelson and her son were guilty and stripped them of due process, deciding that a trial was not worth anyone’s time.

The juror who used the n-word to refer to Mr. Jones and suggested that he should be lynched explicitly said that the trial was “a waste of time.” He voted to convict and execute Mr. Jones, but when the other juror told the judge about these comments, the judge tolerated the remarks and never disclosed them to Mr. Jones’s lawyers. They were concealed until 2017, and even though Mr. Jones’s appeals lawyers filed numerous pleadings, no court has reviewed the merits of this claim because of procedural bars.

After Mr. Jones’s case was featured in an ABC documentary in 2018, millions of people signed a petition in support of Mr. Jones and a number of high-profile supporters joined the effort to get his sentence commuted.