Forgive me, but I see race as a silent
partner in most American values, in the collective outlook expressed
as boos on issues of honesty during the televised debates. Nobel
economist Paul Krugman in his New York Times column is right--the US elections are a
political marketplace full of scams! Take honesty, the most dangerous
denial is not Ben Carson's but Carly Fiornia's; his, personal income,
false promises; hers, fiduciary responsibility, material
misrepresentation. She lies not suggesting error, but with an angry
edge of unrelenting disdain and hardness about her claims.
But
the new theory! (Tying race, GOP candidates, political economy &
values!) Our empirical model assumes: What if the black
guy (US President Barack Obama) did good: disasters cleaned up (BP
oil spills, hurricanes, massive fires, floods, snow storms), economy
recovered (investments and profits reach records, but wages low),
taxes steady (cuts for the rich blocked), safety nets sustained,
expanded (Obamacare or the ACA). Opponents have two choices: attack
with the failing examples found in any big system--or embrace
America's fascination with the outlaw, lift it above the margins for
a return to the mainstream. The new normal has been too well
received! So mount up the outlaws and turn them into a posse for a
reset!
Here they come! Revolutionary
leaders! Each with a specialty, income graft for self and friends a
common theme; they unite to shift US national values to the
authoritarian right. Their thinking goes: We must meet the stretch
threat (think police violence, esp. those officers who find it an easy stretch
to classify all defiant actions as threatening), we can't guarantee the good
people (Barack, et al.) will stay good! Resist deception! Be vigilant! Mean is
better!
So the mean, greedy people, some quiet spoken, others
harsh and angry, are running for office. They are creating a public
climate. Changing the values in the public trust. The Republican
candidates have not visited (aye, two) Mother Emanuel AME Church or offered
tribute to Charleston's martyrs. In 3 debates, no moderator has asked about this silence and its omission. And South Carolina is an early state. Hillary Clinton sat front row; Joe Biden stayed over for church, and President Obama give the eulogy for Rev. Clementa C. Pinckney, Emanuel's pastor, a state senator, husband and father of two, killed as one of the nine martyrs.
Leadership is sitting a standard for child safety--the woodshed is done. The nine Charleston families offered forgiveness; Richland County's Sheriff is offering blame and cause and effect. By silent consent, Republican candidates, then, are the political arms of Sheriffs like Richland County, South Carolina's Leon Lott (my home state!) who acted like an Spring Valley 8th grader saying "she started it." A parent-less 15-year old child (in state custody!), deeply depressed (we, a community, know the difference between a child out of control and one deeply depressed, without energy or will, who has shut down) broke inside and frozen in her hurt and pain--she met vicious, physical, brutal violence. With her in the seat, a muscle-building police officer flipped her chair upside down, then snatched her out, dragged her and sent her sprawling through the air. She was arrested and put in handcuffs and blamed by the sheriff as if her pain and childhood can be dismissed. Because she quietly did not comply with male adults whose demands stretched the threat, making her feel afraid and unsafe--as easy as Carson and Carly countered that real truths were false.
Leadership is sitting a standard for child safety — the woodshed is done. The nine Charleston families offered forgiveness; Richland County’s Sheriff is offering blame and a false narrative of cause and effect. He sees the child’s actions as a “command problem,” “a failure to obey.” Really, it’s a child’s problem: she is scared, abandoned, in pain, withdrawn; authority made her shut down.
The President may have stopped the sales of military equipment to police departments, the war-time mindset is still there, front and center: listen to the sheriff’s read of an orphaned girl. We hug our kids. Not cartwheel them upside down backwards in their school desks and sling them down the room. We hug our kids. Not handcuff them.
By their silent objections, Republican presidential candidates, then, are the political arms of Sheriffs like Richland County, South Carolina’s Leon Lott (my home state!) who himself acted like an Spring Valley 8th grader saying “she started it.” A parent-less 15-year old child (in state custody!), deeply depressed (we, a community, know the difference between a child out of control and one deeply depressed — without energy or will, who has shut down) — broke inside and frozen in her hurt and pain — she met vicious, physical, brutal violence. With her in the seat, a muscle-building police officer flipped her chair backwards and upside down, then snatched her out, dragged her and sent her sprawling through the air. The officer through his lawyer says these violent actions of physical aggression, his escalating during the entire sequence, were lawful and proper.
She was arrested and
put in handcuffs by the officer and blamed by the sheriff as if her
pain and childhood can be dismissed. It was a rehearsed action, a
reflex narrative, for the courts and cameras. Its crime sense.
It clearly ignores the needs and circumstances of the child. That phone was her touchstone. Because she quietly did not comply with male adults whose demands stretched the threat, making her feel afraid and unsafe — fearful and frozen, her shut down easily misinterpreted — as easy as Carson and Carly countered at the debate that real truths were false.
Officer Ben Files Assaults Student.
Sheriff Deputy Ben Files Assaults Student.
Sheriff Deputy Ben Files Assaults Student.
In the international and American tradition of non-violent resistance, as explained by Henry David Thoreau, practiced by Gandhi and Dr. King, violence cannot be used to detain non-violent protests.
“If you are silent about your pain, they’ll kill you and say you enjoyed it.”
- Zora Neale Hurston, American writer and anthropologist.
The fact that a law is on the books does not make it a training standard or a default standard. In this case, the law is being used to justify actions after the fact, ignoring all actions, evidence, and behaviors that do not fit, and or not sanctioned by law or training.
The law never replaces the feelings of the heart or common sense.
Violence often hides behind the law. Crime hides behind the law. Cruelty hides behind the law. Opression hides behind criminal statues. Many country's have laws that have allowed genocide.
Your argument belongs in and with this group of "laws." Your logic concludes that "lawful" has no limits and ignores the fact that the student was well within her constitutional (see the 9th amendment) and statutory rights as a child to peacefully remain in her seat until a guardian was called.
And which law, which code, which society allows and permits an officer to turn a chair upside down, and then throw a student across the room? Also, witness concurrently report the student was never "belligerent," a loaded term that misrepresents the facts as blandly as you have misinterpreted the law--as well as the peaceful conduct that is the character of any society, between children and adults. No adult has the right to throw a child across the room for remaining in her seat.
Disturbing Schools Law for
South Carolina
Student Affairs Info and Policies
•
Student Code of Conduct
Disturbing Schools Law for South Carolina
SECTION 12. Section 16
(A) It shall be unlawful:
(1)For any person willfully or unnecessarily(a) to interfere with or to disturb in any way or in any place the students or teachers of any school or college in this State, (b) to loiter about such school or college premises or (c) to act in an obnoxious manner thereon; or(2)For any person to (a) enter upon any such school or college premises or (b) loiter around the premises, except on business, without the permission of the principal or president in charge.
(B)
Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof, shall pay a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or be imprisoned in the county jail for not more than ninety days. ( C) The summary courts are vested with jurisdiction to hear and dispose of cases involving a violation of this section. If the person is a child as defined by Section 63
----------------------
- Disturbing Schools Laws for South Carolina
This student has broken Disturb Schools Law. The student has then resisted arrest.
Ben Fields did nothing wrong. How would you arrest a belligerent that puts themselves in danger by resisting arrest while sitting in a chair that could injure them? What should Fields have done? Call in a police negotiator perhaps? This kind of thing is exactly the reason why Disturb Schools laws exist.
This student was arrested for Disturbing Schools. She broke the law and was being arrested. The officer asked her to cooperate and she refused. By refusing to cooperate she was resisting arrest. She refused to get out of seat and was warned that she was about to be physically removed and she still refused to cooperate. While getting the student out from behind the desk/chair the officer was trying his best to prevent her from being injured on the chair or desk. If he wanted to hurt her he could have but clearly he was not trying to hurt her - just get her away from the desk and chair. By trying to remain in desk/chair the student put herself in danger.
Maybe you do not understand Disturb Schools law. It is quite broad. A student can be arrested for saying a swear word for example. This student has broken Disturb Schools law by refusing to cooperate with the teacher and then refusing to cooperate with police and then to top it off she resists arrest. And you claim that she is a victim of police brutality? That is utterly ludicrous.
Many student of that school held a Walk Out in support of the police officer Fields and called for him to get his job back. Many of the students that took part in the Walk Out in support of the police officer were African American students.
The Disturb Schools laws exist for a reason and that is to stop students like this from disturbing schools and preventing other students from learning. You act as if refusing to put phone away is no big deal. Of course it is and you are just encouraging this behaviour with your comments. Do you think that all students should be allowed to ignore teacher requests and class rules or just African American students? Do you want all people to disobey police orders and resist arrest or just African Americans?
This was not a case of police violence and this officer is a victim of a leftist political agenda and a mob mentality hysteria created by people like you. In my opinion you should be ashamed for promoting such hate and division and you should also read up on Disturb Schools Law. The student broke Disturb Schools Law and then resisted arrest.
The common theme with most of these youtube clips of so-called police brutality is that the so-called victim ( belligerent ) has refused to obey police orders and then resisted arrest. What you have written here is not helping at all mate. All you are doing is encouraging minorities to disobey police orders and to resists arrest. You are also encouraging students to ignore teachers and break Disturb Schools laws.
This is a very important social issue in America; police violence against minorities and young adults, including women.
Comment