4 Police Officers Killed at Dallas Demonstration

Update: pic.twitter.com/qBJe3q0EtN

— Dallas Police Depart (@DallasPD) July 8, 2016

At least four police officers have died following a shooting at a Dallas demonstration over the police killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. Local news crews were live on the scene of the peaceful demonstrations when the gunfire rang out and appeared to hit officers.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown had released a statement earlier in the night confirming the initial injured and casualty tallies, which included three dead, three in critical condition, and two in surgery at that time. Brown’s statement indicated that there were at least two snipers who shot at the police officers from an elevated position.

There is no information on the shooters or the motive at this time and, as is always the case with breaking news, waiting to find out the facts is better than speculation. But the deaths of these officers was not justified regardless of motive. Nor do the deaths of these officers absolve the officers who killed Castile and Sterling of those misdeeds. Tragedy isn’t a zero-sum game.

Legal Carry Laws Didn’t Protect Philando Castile and Alton Sterling from Police

Two black men murdered by police in two days. Eyewitness videos, one live streaming on Facebook as the crime happened, support that neither man was doing anything that necessitated the police opening fire. Yet the fact that both victims were legally carrying guns will be used by many to excuse away the deaths.

“Well, he had a gun, so what were the police supposed to do?”

Some will say, right after posting a Facebook meme supporting open carry laws that imply such laws would keep everyone safer. Combine that attitude with the fact that white mass shooters like Dylann Roof go into custody alive and well, and the implication is clear: the mystical land where more guns equal safety does not have space for black people.

Philando Castile was  killed Wednesday night  following a traffic stop near St. Paul, Minnesota for a broken taillight. Castile, who was in his car with his girlfriend, Lavish Reynolds, and her 4-year-old child, had just left a hair appointment where he was getting ready for his birthday. According to a live stream Reynolds posted to Facebook after Castile was already shot, the police had told the adults in the car to put their hands up but then asked for license and registration. Castile reached for those documents, which were in his wallets, while also responsibly telling the police that he had a gun. Reynolds called out that he was legally carrying, but the police opened fire regardless.

The police shot a man who was complying with demands, informed them he had a gun so they wouldn’t get the wrong idea if they spotted the weapon, and was in a car with a small child.  But still, some will say:

“Well, she didn’t film what actually happened with the police. So she could be lying,”

Let us turn to the case of Alton Sterling, who was killed by Baton Rouge police Tuesday. Police had gotten a call saying that a black man in a red shirt who was selling CDs in front of a convenience store had threatened someone with a gun. Alton Sterling fit that description and was legally carrying a gun, reportedly due to fears of being mugged.

Two eyewitness videos emerged showing what happened when police confronted Sterling. The officers tackled Sterling, called out about a gun, then opened fire at point-blank range. After the shooting, an officer can clearly be seen taking something from Sterling’s pocket, which appears to be the gun in question. Neither of the two videos, filmed from two different angles, show any evidence that Sterling ever reached for his gun.

Some will say:

“Well, I heard he had a criminal record, and he was waving his gun around before, so what did he expect?”

Sterling did have a criminal record but there is no evidence that the police knew that before responding to the scene. The call hadn’t been about Alton Sterling specifically. According to CNN, the call came from a homeless person who said Sterling showed the weapon when the person persistently asked for money. A police dispatcher changed that to a man “pulling a gun”.

The Justice Department is opening an investigation into Alton Sterling’s killing and Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton requested a similar investigation into Philandro Castile’s killing. History has shown that little comes of these investigations.

Some will say…No, screw that. Forget what some will say. Some will always say because saying is easier than confronting or admitting. There’s only one right thing to say to executions without cause.

Say his name:  Philando Castile.

Say his name:  Alton Sterling.

Explosions in Istanbul Airport, 28 Deaths Reported

The Guardian (and many other) news sources are reporting that three suicide bombers detonated in the Istanbul Atatürk, which is the nation’s largest airport. The number of dead is currently 28 and the wounded at 60 but bear in mind that these numbers often change due to the updating information made available.

The bombers appear to have detonated the devices before the international terminal security checkpoint, but there are also reports that at least one bomber made it deeper into the airport. The initial bombs were likely detonated early due to a police officer starting to follow the bombers outside the airport and possibly exchanging fire.

(Please forgive the careful language. I’m being overly cautious because the early details of these events tend to be at least partly wrong.)

Reddit has live updates that are fairly good at correcting or updating inaccurate information. The stream also contain links to how those in the area can help out.

There are the standard early rumors that the attack is connected to ISIS but nothing concrete. Turkey is unfortunately no stranger to terrorist attacks and Istanbul alone was recently the site of a car bombing that killed 12. Kurdish militants took responsibility for that attack.

After a Filibuster and Sit-In, Supreme Court Quietly Rules on a Gun Law

Democratic Congresspeople have finally started to push hard for gun law votes and it only took the worst mass shooting in American history. Democratic Senators staged a filibuster that held their Republican brethren in place into the wee hours of the morning. Votes were held but nothing passed. Last week, House Democrats staged an overnight sit-in that earned a lot of attention, and ire from Paul Ryan, but no votes.

Today, on a particularly busy Monday, the Supreme Court ruled  6-2 in favor of gun bans that keep the weapons out of the hands of domestic abusers convicted of a related reckless conduct misdemeanor. The circumstance isn’t covered in federal background check requirements, which do cover specific domestic abuse convictions, but the Court ruling states that 34 states and D.C. all have local laws that would block a gun sale to an individual with a misdemeanor of reckless infliction of bodily harm.

The plaintiffs were convicted of domestic abuse-related misdemeanors in a state with the extra screening in place. If the Court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, that screening protocol wouldn’t have been allowed in the future.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Elena Kagan., who was joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Thomas filed the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Sotomayor. You can read the full text of the ruling here.

 

Supreme Court Smacks Down Texan Anti-Abortion Law

The Supreme Court just ruled 5-3 to strike down provisions in an anti-abortion Texas law – and Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, in particular, took the state’s “women’s health” reasoning to task. The ruling marks the most notable abortion-related decision from the Court in over a decade – and comes as many other states try to pull the same legal trickery to close clinics.

The ruling focused on House Bill 2, or HB2, which was passed in 2013 when Rick Perry was still governor of the Lone Star State. The Court focused on two difficult to pass provisions. One provision required abortion clinics to pass a level of facility scrutiny not required of other out-patient surgical centers. The other required doctors to have admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinic, which was a tough hurdle to jump considering the wide geographic spread of the clinics. Lawmakers claimed that the provisions were there in order to ensure women had access to the best, safest healthcare possible.

Justice Stephen Breyer didn’t buy that reasoning and said so in his majority opinion, writing: “We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access..”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a long-time abortion rights supporter, also brought the smackdown in her concurring opinion.  Ginsburg wrote, “Texas argues that H. B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, ‘complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.'” Ginsburg then pointed out that childbirth and many other common medical procedures have greater risks of complications than abortion but those facilities didn’t face the same level of legal scrutiny.

And then Justice Ginsburg brought it with some phrasing that sent Merriam Webster hits skyrocketing: “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety.”

(Faute de mieux translates to “for want of something better” or “for want of a better alternative”.)

The Supreme Court’s decision could have a nationwide effect as many other states have already passed or are considering similar legislation as an end-run against abortion providers in general or Planned Parenthood clinics specifically.

Justices Breyer and Ginsburg were joined by votes from Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The dissenting opinion was led by Justice Thomas and backed by Justices Roberts and Alito. You can read the full text here.

Save

A Quick Way to Know Carly Fiorina is Lying About Planned Parenthood

“Why is Phil from ‘Modern Family’ in this Planned Parenthood video? Weird.“

Carly Fiorina keeps on talking about a supposed Planned Parenthood sting video showing “….a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” Fiorina first mentioned it during the last Republican debate but has stuck to her story.

There is an easy way to know that Fiorina is lying about the video’s existence, and she inadvertently revealed that reason during an interview:

“Planned Parenthood will not and cannot deny this because it is happening. It is happening in this nation,” Fiorina continued. “And taxpayers are paying for it. Planned Parenthood desperately wants everyone to think this isn’t going on. Because when Americans realize it is going on, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, they are horrified. This goes to the character of our nation and it must be stopped.”

Fiorina is 100% correct that people who are pro-choice, anti-choice, and everything between would take up the pitchforks against Planned Parenthood if the video she is describing did exist. Congress could easily pass the defunding, Obama wouldn’t veto that defunding because of the video revelation, and Planned Parenthood would cease to exist. The whole ordeal would be over in a matter of weeks and Fiorina would likely waltz straight into the White House at election time.

Question:  So why hasn’t Fiorina, her staff, or the video makers released this video, which would bring about one of the easiest political victories in decades?

Answer: Because she is outright lying. Or received a seriously mislabeled copy of Dawn of the Dead and bumped her head really, really hard. But probably that “outright lying” part.

What We Know — and Don’t Know — About the Chattanooga Shootings

Four U.S. Marines were murdered yesterday at a Navy Operational Support Center in Chattanooga. The Marines have now officially released the names of the slain: Gunnery Sgt. Thomas J. Sullivan, Staff Sgt. David A. Wyatt, Sgt. Carson A. Holmquist, and Lance Cpl. Squire K. Wells. The New York Times has some preliminary biographical information about the victims here.

Shooter Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez* was killed during the motive has not yet been disclosed. So there’s a lot of information about this case that’s still guesswork and it’s always dangerous to leap to conclusions this early in a news story. Note that Dylann Roof was a different scenario because he purposefully left a living witness who was told the motivation.

But here are a couple of quick notes on this incident, beyond the fact that this is another heartbreaking tragedy:

Domestic Terrorist is the Right Word

I’ve seen protests on Facebook about the televised news bowing to “P.C. pressure” and calling this a domestic terrorist attack. But domestic and international terrorism refer to the geography of the incident and the suspect and not to the religion, country of birth, or skin color of the shooter.

Here’s the definition of domestic terrorism from the FBI:

“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S

International terrorism, in contrast, happens primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction. So the Chattanooga shooting joins the diverse ranks of domestic terror events that include the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Charleston shootings. If it’s found that the Chattanooga shooter had significant planning help from an overseas organization, the incident could be moved to the international terrorism column. But right now there’s no evidence to support that move.

Devout Muslim Arrested for Drunk Driving

The shooter was Muslim, started growing out his beard, and posted some cryptic but not overtly threatening blog posts, which some are taking as a sign that he radicalized. He was also arrested in April  (autoplay vidoe) for drunk driving in a car that smelled of weed and possibly had signs of cocaine use. If he was radicalizing, it was either extremely recent or he simply cherry picked the areas of extremism that he found appealing.

Gun Debate

There’s not enough information out right now to say whether any anti-gun measures — or the presence of more guns at the site — would’ve made any difference in this situation. Hold off on these arguments until more is known about what happened and how.

* I followed NPR’s lead on the spelling of the shooters name and used the version used by the FBI.

Here’s Why Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Aren’t Violating the Religious Freedoms of Clerks and Judges

The latest baffling confusion involves whether state clerks or judges or any other government-appointed licensing officials have the right to deny same-sex marriage licenses. No, those officials do not have that right and that’s because of legal-based reasons. I’m not  just saying that because I’m a liberal hellbent on destroying the sanctity of marriage, Southern heritage, and the fabric of our country. (What can I say? I’ve apparently had a productive June.)

Same-sex marriage is now legal across the U.S. because the Supreme Court deemed bans unconstitutional. While it basically amounted to the same outcome, it’s important to realize that the Supreme Court was ruling that a ban challenged in a lawsuit was unconstitutional (due to the 14th Amendment) and not actually passing a new law.

The new legality has nothing to do with personal religious or social beliefs. A court designed in the Constitution interpreted and upheld said Constitution. That’s the long and short of the matter. You don’t need to personally accept the ruling, but that won’t change the fact that the ruling is legal. And government-employed licensing officials have a legal obligation to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

“First Amendment! Freedom of religion!”

Requiring a government employee to perform legal job duties is neither a First Amendment violation nor a freedom of religion violation.

The First Amendment does protect citizens from persecution for expressing religious beliefs. But a government clerk named Doris isn’t a private citizen when she is at work. The government is the boss and Doris is the employee. Contrary to popular mistaken belief, the First Amendment does not in any way protect you from being fired if you don’t do your job or say something your boss doesn’t like.

If Doris is deeply religious and feels she can’t in good conscious issue a same-sex marriage license, Doris needs to find a new job. A vegetarian cashier at the grocery store isn’t allowed to refuse to ring up meat purchases. You don’t get to cherry pick the rules you follow at work, especially when your job involves upholding the law.

As a side note, if Doris was willing to work on divorce paperwork, her claims of religious protest become a bit hypocritical. The Bible is anti-divorce.

“Let’s just Ignore the Supreme Court ruling!”

This has been proposed as a way “around” the Supreme Court ruling for officials not wanting to issue licenses. I don’t think the arguers realize how this could backfire if it did work.

Again, the existence of the Supreme Court is specified in the Constitution so if we throw that out, the Second Amendment would also be fair play. Not a good road to go down.

You don’t have to like the Supreme Court’s ruling and people on both sides frequently don’t agree with the Court. But trying to throw out the rulings you don’t like also risks losing the ones you do. Gov. Jindal and the other wannabe Court banners should consider the fact that the Court helped keep the Second Amendment broadly defined, which meant more gun rights.  Guess it isn’t Obama coming for the guns after all.

(Image Source: Mrs. Betty Bowers)

Leave “The Dukes of Hazzard” and Gone with the Wind Alone

Somehow the past week has gone from protests over South Carolina flying a Confederate flag at full mast after a race-motivated massacre to Warner Bros. pulling replicas of the General Lee car from the market. My initial amusement (Walmart ban, because where did that come from?) and joy (good on you, Alabama, for taking down your flag without fanfare) moved into annoyance (No, a liberal army isn’t coming to take the flag from your yard. I personally don’t care if you have 20 flags in your yard. That’s your choice.) And now bewilderment. What’s the point in banning images of the General Lee and one film critic  calling for a ban on Gone with the Wind?

Does the flag need to be eradicated from government usage? Absolutely. Even if we were to pretend that the flag isn’t steeped in some nasty racial history, which it is but I’m tired of having that argument at this point, there’s another reason to get the flag off government buildings. It’s the flag of an army that fought against the United States and lost. We don’t fly Japanese flags at Pearl Harbor, why should we fly Confederate flags on government buildings?

But what’s the point of banning things like the General Lee and Gone with the Wind? For the record, Warner Bros. is only banning promotional of the Lee where the Confederate flag is clearly displayed, which is moronic because the flag and entering through the windows were like three-quarters of the point to that car. It’s not a car that happened to have a Confederate flag — it was a Confederate flag that had a car underneath.

There is also a difference between trying to remove governmental support for the problematic flag of an opposing army and trying to pretend that no one ever supported the flag and/or racism. Banning all media pertaining to the flag and its acceptance — or to slavery and its acceptance — are going to do more harm than good.

A common argument for the flag is that it helps people remember where they came from and their heritage. And that’s absolutely correct — the Confederate flag does represent where our country stood as of last week. Trying to eradicate history because it’s embarrassing or insensitive isn’t a good precedent to set.

And this is when the slippery slope argument is actually relevant. Because where does the removal of racist imagery or themes in media stop? Are we also going to ban H.P. Lovecraft or Agatha Christie, whose Ten Little N-words was changed to Ten Little Indians because that was considered the more sensitive title?

This is an emotionally charged time for people on both sides of the issue. But legitimate discussions and calls for removal of the flag will get lost in the chaos if we don’t also speak out against censorship and forced amnesia.

Talking about Talking

[Note: I was pretty angry when I wrote this, as I think is clear. I decided to hold off before publishing to make sure the sentiment was correct. It is. While I’m not as hot as I was, I think the anger many of us have felt, and still feel, will not go away. I hope it doesn’t.

I may have changed some of the tone of this if I had the benefit of taking some time before I wrote it. But I think it’s worth letting stand as-is.]

So, we need to talk about Charleston. Nine more dead – all black. A terrorist (yes, terrorist) who details exactly why he did it. Even had trouble, because they were “so nice,” but was committed enough to the cause of racism to carry out the attack with guns anyway. Fox News and Republican leadership (mostly indistinguishable anyway) talk about the mystery of why this happened. Suggest we need to arm pastors because of this undeniable attack on Christianity.

How do they do it? How can they look at themselves – look at us – and claim that President Obama was politicizing his speech about Charleston when they so blatantly are doing it themselves? How can they? How dare they?

I had a friend (who is a Republican political consultant) suggest that we are taking focus off the victims and the community in Charleston by talking about racism (common Republican trope). In particular, he was nonplussed that the confederate flag, still flying at full mast because of the state’s racism, was brought up as an issue. He was also upset that we were talking about guns. As if these things could be separated from the tragedy that these victims in Charleston are feeling. As if “guns” was a disembodied noun floating in the ether and the history of racism that the confederate flag represents was separate from an experience of victimization by a racist.

Spare me.

These are the issues that created the victimization and constantly re-victimize people. If we do not talk about racism, if we do not talk about guns, if we do not term this terrorism (I will discuss the “hate” of whites vs. the “terrorism” of non-whites in another post), if we do not talk about why we have such disparity with other countries regarding the death of blacks, if we do not talk about why we have huge manhunts for Muslim bombers of foreign descent who kill three but buy Burger King for white killers of nine, if we do not talk about all of these things, what the hell are we talking about?

Almost nothing.

We’re talking about talking, which is almost the same as not talking about anything. Except it’s worse because it’s used to not talk about something important.

I am usually a fan of restraint. Even now, I am a fan of restraint in action. But we should feel, all of us, a righteous anger. And it should be directed at those who will not talk about these things that hurt us. At those who twist this into something it is not.

I’m tired of talking about talking. I will be talking about problems now. And I will start talking by addressing those who will not acknowledge real issues that are affecting everyone because it is inconvenient to their political ideology. I will talk to those people who are dodging issues by using the families of victims of terrorism and gun violence as shields. I will talk to whoever says that these things are not real, or not worth talking about.

You should be talking too.