It’s Clear, They Don’t Care When They Pull The Trigger…

One Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven-bul­lets in the Back.

The killings have become so com­mon­place nowa­days that there is hard­ly a point in detail­ing them one by one, even though each sto­ry needs to be told.
Do you recall when the American Government would feign inter­est in human rights? You remem­ber that, oh, so you do read and, you do pay atten­tion. Yup, they start­ed a war in Iraq under the guise of bring­ing Democracy and human rights to an old coun­try. One that has sur­vived and thrived for thou­sands of years, long before there was any thought of some­thing called American Democracy, but I digress.
Okay, so I went too far back, so let us leap for­ward a cou­ple of thou­sand years.…… For those of you who served in law-enforce­ment in Jamaica, some of you read. You will recall when the Americans used their state depart­ment to cas­ti­gate and penal­ize tiny Jamaica about alleged law-enforce­ment abuse?

Ok then, if you are able to recall those events, you will also recall that even as they demo­nized the JCF for what they char­ac­ter­ized as [extra­ju­di­cial killings], their over 18’000 police depart­ments pret­ty much inves­ti­gat­ed them­selves and still do to this day, they oper­ate out­side of any inde­pen­den­t’s agen­cies abil­i­ty to inves­ti­gate their oper­a­tions, and the Government itself placed itself above all inter­na­tion­al bod­ies that would mon­i­tor the use of force by law enforce­ment agen­cies around the world.
That bla­tant and arro­gant stance by America in plac­ing itself above inter­na­tion­al laws is not con­fined to police use of force, it also applies to the International court of jus­tice that they have been instru­men­tal in set­ting up in the Hauge after the sec­ond world war.
After the court ruled that the United States’ covert war against Nicaragua was in vio­la­tion of inter­na­tion­al law (Nicaragua v. the United States), the United States with­drew from com­pul­so­ry juris­dic­tion in 1986 to accept the court’s juris­dic­tion only on a dis­cre­tionary basis.[9] Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter autho­rizes the UN Security Council to enforce Court rul­ings. However, such enforce­ment is sub­ject to the veto pow­er of the five per­ma­nent mem­bers of the Council, which the United States used in the Nicaragua case.
In oth­er words, the United States by its actions, placed itself and the pow­er­ful veto-wield­ing mem­bers of the coun­cil, above inter­na­tion­al laws.

No American politi­cian, or oth­er lead­ers from any west­ern white-run nation that may have vio­lat­ed inter­na­tion­al law have ever been arrest­ed and charged, much less brought before the Hauge Tribunal. Are we to believe that the only Politicians who break inter­na­tion­al laws are black and brown ones from Africa and the Middle East?
I can think of a few that aren’t black or brown who has been accused of com­mit­ting breach­es against inter­na­tion­al laws and they are mov­ing around freely with nary a care in the world.
Not a sin­gle one has found them­selves before the International court since the Germans did after the sec­ond world war.
Instead, only Black and brown lead­ers have been dragged before the court, lit­er­al­ly ren­der­ing it devoid of legit­i­ma­cy.
As a con­se­quence, some African Nations have removed their coun­tries from the author­i­ty of the court. The biased & arro­gant nature of the American’sactions has jeop­ar­dized pop­u­la­tions around the world, mak­ing them vul­ner­a­ble to abuse by despot­ic lead­ers.
If their lead­ers are not sub­ject to inter­na­tion­al laws who will hold them account­able?
Oh, I for­got, the Americans will bomb them into obey­ing American dic­tates.
But this is not about America’s arro­gance on the inter­na­tion­al scene, at least not in this arti­cle, it is about American police who oper­ate nation­al­ly, yet out­side any account­abil­i­ty from inside the United States or the out­side world.

Over a decade and a half ago the FBI warned about KKK and oth­er white suprema­cist ele­ments infil­trat­ing law enforce­ment.
This is in addi­tion to the fact that American police depart­ments have always been agen­cies of death and oppres­sion to the black com­mu­ni­ty.
The American Government to date has done noth­ing worth­while, out­side of what the Obama Administration did in get­ting a few depart­ments to enter into con­sent-decrees with the US jus­tice depart­ment with a view to imple­ment­ing some mea­sured reforms.
In oth­er words, the head, which is the Government (the Dog), can­not get police, (the tail), to com­ply with the laws, much less best prac­tices. So in this dystopi­an Orwellian exis­tence, the tail wags the dog.
There are a cou­ple of ele­ments at play here, (a) Qualified immu­ni­ty: This is a doc­trine lit­er­al­ly cre­at­ed by the United States Supreme court, that pro­tects gov­ern­ment employ­ees from expo­sure to civ­il actions when they are act­ing on behalf of the state.

Qualified immu­ni­ty doc­trine gives gov­ern­ment offi­cials broad — if not entire­ly lim­it­less — pro­tec­tion against fed­er­al law­suits.
The Supreme Court held in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), “gov­ern­ment offi­cials per­form­ing dis­cre­tionary func­tions, gen­er­al­ly are shield­ed from lia­bil­i­ty for civ­il dam­ages inso­far as their con­duct does not vio­late clear­ly estab­lished statu­to­ry or con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of which a rea­son­able per­son would have known.
In prac­tice, how­ev­er, qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty can pro­tect tru­ly egre­gious con­duct by police. As the Supreme Court put it in Malley v. Briggs (1986), qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty “pro­vides ample pro­tec­tion to all but the plain­ly incom­pe­tent or those who know­ing­ly vio­late the law.”[vox]
The con­vo­lut­ed stan­dard that would make one such employ­ee liable to civ­il action by an aggriev­ed par­ty is that he/​she would have to have known that his/​her actions were so egre­gious and that there was estab­lished prece­dent in a case already decid­ed sim­i­lar to the one being brought.

Simply put, if there is no sim­i­lar case already decid­ed by the courts that match the one a defen­dant wish­es to pur­sue, there is a greater chance of a snow­ball sur­viv­ing in hell, than that case pre­vail­ing. In oth­er words, the Court gave police carte blanche to do what­ev­er they want with­out con­se­quence.
(b) Police Unions are so pow­er­ful that Mayors Governors and leg­is­la­tors are pet­ri­fied to cross them, so the coun­try is vir­tu­al­ly locked in a mafioso vice-grip in which it’s cit­i­zens are being mur­dered by the state but the politi­cians are pow­er­less to do any­thing about it. Politicians are behold­en to the police Unions because they accept mon­ey from them dur­ing their cam­paigns. In fair­ness to them, it is a dif­fi­cult prob­lem, if they refuse their sup­port they have to face an elec­torate that idol­izes the police with the crit­i­cism that they are anti-law ‑enforce­ment.

Because of that, Powerful police unions in big cities like New York can pret­ty much do as they please out­side the lines of what the duly elect­ed Mayor or coun­cil mem­bers like, and be as dis­re­spect­ful as they want to them with­out con­se­quence.
At the end of the day, the Mayor will crawl back to the Union, tail between the legs, heap­ing praise on the union that had just heaped dis­dain and dis­re­spect on him or her.
© White Americans gen­er­al­ly glo­ri­fy and wor­ship police, pri­mar­i­ly because police have always been oppres­sive toward Blacks. Getting a major­i­ty of whites to acknowl­edge that there is a police prob­lem in America is a tall order because of their hatred for their Black neigh­bors.

(d) Additionally, the white nation­al­ist in the white house encour­ages law enforce­ment not to be kind and gen­tle to peo­ple they arrest.
He did so as he address­es law enforce­ment gath­er­ings across the nation. A cou­ple of law enforce­ment agen­cies pushed back against his advice, but the vast major­i­ty of them yucked it up, as he made those state­ments.
Who do you think were the peo­ple he was telling those state-sanc­tioned abusers to be bru­tal to? Do Do you think they were white peo­ple?
To date, noth­ing has been done about the FBI’s warn­ing.
Police will con­tin­ue to kill Black men, it is okay by the white house, it is okay by the supreme court, it is okay by the Republicans in the US House & Senate, it is okay by Republican Governors, Mayors, and Legislators, It is okay by pros­e­cu­tors and it is okay by a whole bunch of white peo­ple.
(e) All across America, there is a plu­ral­i­ty of white peo­ple who have no prob­lem with police killing Black peo­ple, their par­ents and grand­par­ents attend­ed lynch­ings and glee­ful­ly enjoyed them.

Months ago it was George Floyd in Minneapolis, Derrick Chauvin knelt on his neck until he was dead. Yesterday it was Jacob Blake in Kenosha Wisconsin, sev­en bul­lets to his back. They do not even pre­tend that the per­son they shoot had a weapon any­more. It is okay accord­ing to white juries and courts to shoot Black peo­ple, what the hell do they care if they are shot in the back? What do they care about how many times they are shot, or where the bul­lets land?
The cop who shot Jacob Blake decid­ed when he pulled the trig­ger sev­en times, that it was okay to shoot him in the back. That is text­book polic­ing.….… his union will come out say­ing that he had a war­rant or that he was reach­ing for a weapon so the cow­ard who fired the sev­en bul­lets is jus­ti­fied under the law.
They will trot out the crim­i­nal record they made sure he had from he was in school and that will be jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for what hap­pened to him on Sunday, August 23rd.

Mike Beckles is a for­mer police Detective cor­po­ral, busi­ness­man, free­lance writer,
he is a black achiev­er hon­oree, and pub­lish­er of the blog chatt​-​a​-box​.com. 
He’s also a con­trib­u­tor to sev­er­al web­sites.
You may sub­scribe to his blogs free of charge, or sub­scribe to his Youtube chan­nel @chatt-a-box, for the lat­est pod­cast all free to you of course.