Mediaboss Marketing

The Forum recently published a story by Matt Henson, Expert: North Dakota's new 'stand-your-ground' law does not apply to officers . Reading this article, it seems that the intended message is to say that police officers have stricter rules of when they get to kill people, compared to ordinary citizens. Thats not true.

The article does say that our new stand your ground law (passed in 2021, which loosens use of force rules) does not apply to police officers, which is technically true, but misleading. What these laws do is remove the duty to retreat. This means that someone has to be backed into a corner before they can fight back. The article is misleading because police have never had this duty to retreat to begin with. You cant remove something that isnt there.

Back in 2012, 'stand-your-ground' laws made national headlines after George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. This was the initial event that sparked the whole Black Lives Matter movement. The law never applied to this case because Zimmerman was laying on the ground, which counts as being backed into a corner. But nonetheless, the media ran with the narrative that these laws allow people to shoot first, ask questions later. That is definitely not true.

Readers may be wondering at this point, When is it legal to kill people? The answer to that question is, Almost never Almost.

The rules for deadly use of force are very strict, and they continue to be very strict even with these new 'stand-your-ground' laws. First and foremost, the defenders life must be in imminent peril. You cannot take someone elses life if your own is not currently being threatened. A deadly threat that has since passed, or a hypothetical threat in the future, is not good enough.

For example, last year in Fargo, a man robbed half a dozen stores in the span of a couple days. His crime spree ended when he got to a pawn shop and the clerk pulled his own gun, causing the robber to flee. After the robber fled, the threat against the clerk was over, but the clerk chased after him and shot at his getaway car. Prosecutors charged the clerk and he pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment. What he did is not allowed under North Dakotas deadly force law, despite being the victim of an attempted robbery.

Second, you cannot be the initial aggressor in the fight. For example, if you try to rob someone, and they pull their own gun to defend themselves, but you shoot first, that is not protected by the law. The right to self-defense applies to innocent victims, not the perpetrators of crime.

Third, you cannot use more force than is necessary under the circumstances. For example, if someone is punching you in the face and you would be otherwise justified in defending yourself, you dont get to pull out a gun and shoot them. Deadly force can only be used to stop a deadly threat. If you want to defend yourself from that situation, get pepper spray. The law values the life of a criminal more than your bloody nose.

The law is a bit more complicated than that, but broadly speaking, those are the rules. In some states, there is a fourth rule that you have to run away if that option is available to you; this is the duty to retreat. Removing this fourth rule does not change the other three rules. To call these new laws shoot first, ask questions later is a malicious misrepresentation of the facts. The Forum didnt say that but other media companies do.

The purpose of this letter was to point out the rules for police use of force are a bit different. Those first three rules still apply, but police have never had a duty to retreat, even without the new law. I did say police are allowed to use deadly force in more circumstances than ordinary citizens. For example, police are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect after the commission of a violent felony, and the suspect is likely to endanger the public unless apprehended without delay.

Ordinary citizens cant do that. You dont get to be a vigilante.

The rules for police are still pretty strict. But when The Forum implies citizens have it easier than police because we recently passed "stand-your-ground," thats not true.

Note: Im not a lawyer.

William Smith lives in Fargo.

This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

See the original post here:
Letter: What is a 'stand-your-ground' law? - INFORUM

The saga of Emmett Till has once again returned to the public sphere.

Till was a 14-year-old boy from Chicago who was visiting relatives in Tallahatchie County, Mississippi, during the summer of 1955. He was kidnapped under cover at night, mercilessly beaten, shot, and thrown into the Tallahatchie River for having the supposed audacity to flirt with a white woman.

Carolyn Bryant asserted Till grabbed her while making lewd, crude and profane comments, which included whistling toward her. She testified to this before an all-white jury during the trial of her husband, Roy Bryant, and his half-brother, J.W. Milam. She later recanted that part of her story.

So why are we discussing Tills legacy again? Because last month, a team reportedly found an unserved warrant charging Bryant in Tills 1955 kidnapping, and his relatives want authorities to arrest her. Unfortunately, the Justice Department officially closed its investigation into Tills murder back in December, denying his family the justice they have long sought.

There is much written history that highlights the grim and terrorizing reality for Black people in the South during this largely oppressive era. An all-white, all-male Southern jury in mid-20th century Mississippi had absolutely no intention of convicting two white men for murdering a young teenage Black boy, despite absolute evidence of their guilt. In fact, in closing arguments, the defense made the case that, as white, Anglo-Saxon men, they had a conscientious duty to render a not-guilty verdict.

Tills murder was a prime example of how Black men have long been targets of pathological paranoia, hatred and malice. Black men (in the case of Till, a child), have been seen as particularly dangerous to the safety of white women. Truth be told, we have seen this sort of adultifying of Black children time and time again. Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old pre-teen from Cleveland who was shot by police within seconds of the officers arriving on the scene, was thought by cops to be maybe 20. Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was murdered by unhinged vigilante criminal George Zimmerman, was referred to as a 20-something guy.

More than a few bodies of Black men (often innocent) were strung up on trees and burned alive, with body parts chopped off and sold as souvenirs to mentally unhinged spectators who took sadistic delight in such a horrid spectacle. Oftentimes, it was based on the claims of a white woman, whose words (regardless of their truth) took precedence over the rights and dignity of a Black person. Its impossible to know how many Black people lost their lives due to false accusations.

Recently, the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting obtained a copy of an unpublished memoir by Bryant, who now goes by Carolyn Donham, in which she reportedly wrote that she sees herself as much as a victim as Emmett Till! Talk about adding insult to injury, or rather murder.

Today, Bryant is 89 years old. Despite the fact that she is an octogenarian, Bryant and anyone else still alive who contributed to this horrid event should face some sort of justice. Tills decades-old blood remains on her hands, and possibly those of others. The case is a sad reflection of what all too often actually occurred during this most dark and sordid era of American history.

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Read more:
Justice remains elusive in Till's murder | | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

Photo: Connecticut State Police

A Connecticut man has been accused of pushing an 11-year-old Black boy on Monday. According to state police, 48-year-old Jameson Chapman assaulted the child while was he riding his bike in Deep River Monday evening. The boys mother immediately informed police. Troopers then went to her home and saw video footage of the incident, as stated in a criminal information summary.

The suspect was subsequently arrested and charged with second-degree breach of peace, risk of injury to a child and third-degree assault. After watching just a couple seconds of the video I immediately went into flight or fight and jumped into my car to go look for the guy, Desiree Dominique, the victims mother explained.

Dominique claimed her son and a friend were riding their bikes around when Chapman accidentally bumped into them and lashed out on her son.

Where did you grow up? Did you grow up in Connecticut? Chapman can be heard asking the boy in the video.

No, he replied.

No, you didnt. Exactly, so get the fuck out of town, Chapman said.

Shortly after, the child was pushed. Dominique shared that her son has cuts and bruises, but the psychological impact has also taken a toll. Hes terrified to leave the house, she said. Dominique also said that this entire ordeal has been very scary as a mom.

G/O Media may get a commission

Save $19

Retinol Renewal Kit

This kit from Dermelect is here to help protect your face and keep it flawless as long as possible.Wake up looking dewy fresh, and years younger, at least in your pores.

Black people know all too well the dangers we face for just leaving our house. The reality of Black children being treated like adults is a painful reality they face daily. We saw this when police killed Tamir Rice when he was just 12 years old. Trayvon Martin was just 17 years old when he was killed at the hands of George Zimmerman.

Chapman was held on a $10,000 bond and transported to Hartford Correctional Center. He is due to appear in Middletown Superior Court on July 11.

See the original post here:
White Man In Connecticut Arrested After Pushing 11-Year-Old Black Boy Off Bike - The Root

Nancy Pelosi's Democrats clearly hope the January 6 hearings will prevent them from drowning at the ballot box this November. But conservatives should view the panel as prologue for a different investigation into a series of disturbances that have had a dramatic and deleterious impact on our lives.

Congress needs to look into the 2020 riots, the Black Lives Matter organizations that coordinated them (not the concept that black lives matter, which is unimpeachable), and their founders. We can call the hearings the Joint Action for Congressional Knowledge hearings, or JACK, after Jack Del Rio, the NFL coach who was fined $100,000 simply for drawing the common-sense comparison between the 2020 riots and the events of January 6, 2021.

Americans live in a changed country today because of 2020. Since then, every institution, from school to the office, houses of worship, the military, sports leagues and the corporate world, has been tinted with a heavy dogmatic hue that was mostly absent before.

The hundreds of riots that took place in the second half of that year also left immense property damage, assessed at up to $2 billion, and at least 25 people dead. Moreover, the murder rate went up by a record 30 percent in 2020, leaving open the question of whether some kind of "Ferguson Effect"the phenomenon of police pulling back after BLM riots or after deadly force goes viralwas at fault.

>>>BLM Global Network Foundations Creators Are Not Interested in Black Lives

Since several prominent Black Lives Matter organizations that coordinated the 2020 disturbances were set up by individuals who have embraced violent action, and called for the "complete transformation" of America and the "dismantling of the organizing principle of this society," one can't be faulted for asking whether violence and the called-for dismantling are linked.

The BLM leaders want to break up the nuclear family, ditch capitalism, and adopt "participatory democracy." That is because BLM co-founders Alicia Garza and Patrisse Cullors were trained in both Marxist doctrine and praxis by theoreticians who want to destroy the United States.

All of this calls for a congressional investigation, one of our society's self-defense mechanisms. Congress has a responsibility to ask questions of those who organized and carried out the disturbances of 2020.

A committee looking into the 2020 riots must of course avoid the credibility shortcomings that have plagued the Jan. 6 panel. Both parties must be allowed to appoint members, because cross-examination is indispensable in eliciting the truth.

The architects of BLM are Americans with constitutional rights, even if they want to overthrow the constitutional order. They are free to try to peacefully persuade their countrymen to dismantle society, abandon capitalism, eliminate the police and courts systems, and embrace the central planning called for by LeftRoots, a revolutionary group for which Garza is a member of the coordinating committee.

But society also has the right to know what their goals are, and society has a right to be safe. The BLM groups cannot unconstitutionally use violence or intimidation to make their arguments.

The January 6, 2021, invasion of the Capitol was a stomach-turning event, a national embarrassment. Participants who broke the law must be prosecuted. But it would be fatuous to pretend that they have had anywhere near the social, cultural, financial, or political clout that the BLM organizers enjoy.

Our schools do not teach children material that originated with the Jan. 6 rioters. Americans are not forced into training sessions at work to instill the worldview of the Jan. 6 rioters. Our foreign policy is not crafted to comply with the tenets of the Jan. 6 rioters, whatever they might be.

BLM organizations, whether the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) or the more loosely organized umbrella Movement for Black Lives, have real power. BLMGNF says it sent out 127 million emails in the second half of 2020, out of which 1.2 million "actions" were taken.

>>>Black Lives Matter Leaders Arent Capitalist Converts, They Still Want To Dismantle the U.S.

Today, everywhere they turn, Americans hear that we live in an "oppressive society," that we have "systemic racism," that "white supremacy" reigns, that certain individuals are irredeemably "privileged," and that "capitalism is racist." These are absurd claims. Yet they have become holy writ. The organizing principles of society are being dismantled.

These are the messages that form Black Lives Matter's ideological platform. Our media have amplified them since BLM was first formed in 2013 with the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin, and when it added political muscle after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. Since 2020, these messages have entered every nook and cranny of American life.

All this has been based on the claim that police use lethal force more often against blacks than against whites. But studies of the issue, such as this one from Harvard, found no detectable racial differences.

It is time for the riots' leaders to be dragged into Congress and asked under oath what coordinating role they played, what their intent was, and what else they mean to do to American society.

Read more here:
We Need a Congressional Investigation Into the 2020 Riots - Heritage.org

The entire enterprise of conservatism is dedicated to protectingwhat conservatives see as a natural hierarchy. When you add in the religious fanaticism now present on the Supreme Court, you see that natural hierarchy as established by God. The rich are rich because God favors them. God ordained that the poor be poor, and there's nothing to be done about it.

What makes this brand of fanaticism so interesting is that its adherents feel that they must enforce this natural order, and make sure the poor know that it's their natural lot, and that God's anointed are here, apparently, to make their condition worse. The irony here is that the fanatics believe that the Almighty needs their help in making the wretched more miserable. Why should any being called the Almighty need the help of us lowly humans? After all, there is plenty of misery in the world without our heaping more on on purpose.

It's our fellow humans who need our help, not the Almighty.

The Supreme Court's recent rulings have chipped away at the wall between church and state (Carson v. Makin); made it easier for people to get guns (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen); and made it impossible for women in many states to get an abortion (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization).

It's that final ruling I'm out concerned with today, but I'll say a little about the others, too.

In this second Gilded Age, the income gap between rich and poor has grown into a yawning chasm. The super-rich have started their own private space programs, while the poorest Americans are denied a minimum wage high enough to feed themselves. In light of this, the overturning of Roe v. Wade tells a poor woman that, no matter how she got pregnant, or whatever the condition of her fetus, she cannot abort it. She must accept the consequences of her actions.

The rich have their own discreet means of getting their wives and daughters out of trouble.

Imagine. Well, you don't have to imagine, because it's now reality.

God forbid that if a woman (of necessity helped by a man) makes a mistake and does not want a baby (perhaps because she's too young, or lives in grinding poverty), she be allowed to save her own future and not carry the burden of supporting that child to adulthood.

God forbid that if a woman is raped, she be allowed to prevent that child from being brought into the world.

God forbid that a woman who is carrying a child with a serious birth defect be allowed to prevent a child's lifetime of misery by aborting it.

God forbid that a woman should seek to remove a child that has died in her womb before term.

God forbid that any poor woman be allowed to ease her own burden. No, the poor must accept their lot and accept any increased burden life heaps on them. After all, it's their sinful behavior that got them pregnant in the first place.

Meanwhile, the rich are forgiven everything. They are allowed to misbehave because they can afford it.

The other two decisions (guns and religious "rights") make an interesting combination with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Making it easier for anyone to get a gun swells the ranks of the two opposing camps: bad guys with guns, and self-righteous assholes with guns.

The proliferation of guns makes life so much more interesting. Self-righteous assholes with guns (George Zimmerman) will be making their own mistakes and killing not necessarily bad guys with guns, but the unarmed (Trayvon Martin) at greater rates. Occasionally, they'll be mistaking their own family members for intruders.

Coupled with the tearing down of the wall between church and state, the individual's right to carry military-grade weapons will make everyone ready for any future religious wars that living in a theocracy normally produces. After all, declaring ours a Christian country, while denying non-Christians their religious freedom, brings up the interesting question of who is a Christian and who isn't. When religion and politics are unmixed, such questions are matters of civilized theological discussion. But when religion confers political power, the question of who is a real Christian turns deadly. The existence of rival religious militias during the Lebanese Civil War provides a pattern for America's own future as a "Christian nation." Who is, and who isn't, a Christian? A Mormon? A Catholic? A Baptist? Which kind of Baptist? A Methodist? A Jehovah's Witness? A Seventh Day Adventist? Well, that can be sorted out in our AK 47-saturated country, no problem.

The religious fanatics in the Supreme Court are rushing us as fast as they can towards a society that is unlivable. A society no sane person would want to bring a child into. A society where a woman might want to have an abortion.

Link:
Religious fanatics are now running the country - Daily Kos