MISTREATING AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY TO IMPLEMENT A POLICE STATE!
POLICE INCOMPETENCE AND MISSTEPS AGGRAVATE Ferguson Protests and Violence = Ferguson Police Released Robbery Video Despite DOJ Concerns
FERGUSON AND ALL POLICE MUST DO THIS OPENLY AND HONESTLY:
Use Community Policing Defined as = Philosophy of policing based on the concept that police officers and private citizens working together in creative ways to solve community problems related to crime, fear of crime, social and physical disorder, and neighborhood decay. = Police departments develops a new relationship with people in the community, allowing them a greater voice in setting local priorities, and involving them in efforts to improve the overall quality of life in their neighborhoods. It shifts the focus of police work from handling random calls to solving problems.
Helpful to break down the concept of community policing into three primary functions as defined earlier:
#1 Fostering a partnership of police and citizens to involve the whole community in strategies to promote greater public safety.
#2 Taking a problem-solving approach to identify and effectively address the underlying conditions that give rise to crime and disorder.
#3 Transforming the organization to respond to community needs more effectively.
By developing strategies that can further the goals of these three primary functions, community policing enables the community improve its overall capacity to reduce crime and increase public safety.14
GET RID OF THE POLICE STATE AND PUT COMMUNITIES IN CONTROL!
Ferguson Police CHIEF = AGAINST DOJ RECOMMENDATIONS Released a video showing a robbing of a convenience store the CHIEF SAID HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POLICE MURDER OF MICHAEL BROWN. = DOJ told CHIEF it would SPARK VIOLENCE BUT RACIST CHIEF DID IT ANYWAY!
Ferguson AVERAGE BLACK FAMILY INCOME = BELOW POVERTY LINE = 50+% LIVE FAR BELOW POVERTY LINE! OPPRESSED DESPERATE PEOPLE GOVERNOR IS PURPOSELY EXPLOITING!
PREDICTABLY = AGAIN POLICE VIOLENCE: Friday night Ferguson cops sprayed crowds of protesters with tear gas while looters robbed stores.
POLICE REFUSE = TO ARREST THE OFFICER WHO MURDERED BROWN + EVEN REFUSED TO RELEASE A PICTURE OF OFFICER WILSON WHO SHOT MICHAEL BROWN MANY TIMES. = FURTHER ANGERING THE MISTREATED COMMUNITY!
NOW THE MISSOURI POLICE STATE IS IMPLEMENTING “THE ANCIENT SUNDOWN LAWS” OF RACISM in Ferguson = THANKS TO INCOMPETENT GOVERNOR NIXON.
Ferguson Erupts Again; Tear Gas Fired by POLICE IN MILITARY GEAR AGAIN!
Police in riot gear showed up again in POLICE STATE FASHION!
SUNDOWN LAWS IN FERGUSON! = MISSOURI GOVERNOR SHOWS HIS COMPLETE INCOMPETENCE AND LACK OF CONCERN FOR JUSTICE IN PRESS CONFERENCE!
AGAIN A POLICE STATE: Tensions flared as protesters rushed into a convenience store that Michael Brown was accused of robbing and were confronted with tear gas from police wearing riot gear.
Multiple stores were Robbed and burned BUT Black activists protected many other stores and helped return peace.
Ron Johnson said someone was throwing rocks and other objects! = Police deployed tear gas, but no arrests were made.
MISTREATING AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY TO IMPLEMENT A POLICE STATE AND PURPOSELY AGGRAVATE VIOLENCE!
MISSOURI + Dred Scott (1800? – 1858) was a man born into slavery who tried many times, but failed, to gain his freedom through the Missouri courts.
DRED SCOTT case reached the U.S. Supreme Court case eventually contributed to the outbreak of civil war between the southern and northern states.
Dred Scott was born into slavery around 1800 in slave quarters and was moved with other slaves to a cotton plantation. 1838 Dred and Harriet Scott were sent to St. Louis.
Dred Scott a slave who sought his freedom through the American legal system. The 1857 decision by the United States Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case denied his plea, determining that no Negro, the term then used to describe anyone with African blood, was or could ever be a citizen. The decision also invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had placed restrictions on slavery in certain U.S. territories. Northern abolitionists were outraged. The Dred Scott case became a rallying point for them and contributed to the election of Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860.
1843 SCOTT tried to arrange freedom for himself and his wife OFFERING $300 TO THEIR OWNER FOR THEIR FREEDOM. She refused. The Scotts took the matter to court, filing separately; they had lived for extended periods in a free territory, and he had lived in a free state. Therefore, their petitions claimed they were free, based on the 1824 Missouri Supreme Court decision in Winny v. Whitesides, which established the standard, “once free, always free” in cases of this matter. Ironically, his first trial, in June 1847, was tossed out on a technicality—he couldn’t prove he and Harriet were owned by Mrs. Emerson.
1850 retrial, the couple were granted their freedom, only to have it taken away by the Missouri Supreme Court after two years. At the time the case went to the state supreme court, all parties agreed that the decision in Dred Scott’s case would also apply to Harriet’s. Up to this point, it was a run-of-the-mill case of its type, not uncommon in Missouri. However, many people believe the state’s supreme court justices, who reflected Missouri’s increasingly pro-slavery stance, were looking for an opportunity to overturn the decisions that had benefitted slaves seeking freedom. Their decision denying the Scotts’ freedom appears to be when the case took on political overtones. It was also during this hearing that Mrs. Emerson’s lawyer introduced for the first time the argument questioning the authority of the U.S. Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories.
SUPREME COURT = Dred Scott Vs. Sanford
1857 Scott appealed to the United States Circuit Court in Missouri, which upheld the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision. Scott and his lawyers then appealed to the Supreme Court. Odds were awful as 5 of the 9 justices were from slave-holding families.
MARCH 1857 The Dred Scott majority opinion stated that because of Scott’s race he was not a citizen and had no right to sue under the Constitution. Stretching beyond the case of the moment, the court’s decision also invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that had for nearly 40 years placed restrictions on slavery north of the parallel 36 degrees, 30 minutes, in the vast territory of the Louisiana Purchase.
The Supreme Court’s ruling galvanized the abolition movement and spurred Abraham Lincoln to publicly speak out against it, the event that led to the resurgence of his personal political career.
Sons of his original owner, Peter Blow PAID THE LEGAL FEES = One of many mysteries surrounding this case and after failing to obtain his freedom through the courts, they purchase Dred and Harriet Scott for $750 and set them free. Dred died nine months later, September 17, 1858. Harriet lived until June 17, 1876.
Dred Scott Decision: The Lawsuit That Started The Civil War By Gregory J. Wallance
Abraham Lincoln’s Speech on the Dred Scott Decision (1857)
“In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but, as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the five States—New Jersey and North Carolina—that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away; and in a third—New York—it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, though the number of the States has more than doubled. In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but since then, such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation, as to amount almost to prohibition. In those days, Legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery, in their respective States; but now it is becoming quite fashionable for State Constitutions to withhold that power from the Legislatures. In those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man’s bondage to new countries was prohibited; but now, Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those days, our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed, and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him; ambition follows, and philosophy follows, and the Theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him, and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrent of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is.
Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought forward his famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He scorned all opposition, and carried it through Congress. Since then he has seen himself superseded in a Presidential nomination, by one indorsing the general doctrine of his measure, but at the same time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation, and its gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful rival Constitutionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but by the division of adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly four hundred thousand votes. He has seen his chief aids in his own State, Shields and Richardson, politically speaking, successively tried, convicted, and executed, for an offense not their own, but his. And now he sees his own case, standing next on the docket for trial.”