When does Police Defense become Police Brutality?

Taking it Too Far...

Often times we hear of brutal acts committed by the police towards civilians. We tend to gaze in shock and sometimes even offer our own personal opinions amongst ourselves, but how many times do we truly assess what’s going on and how often it is occurring. Do we ever further our research on the many countless attacks that have taken place thus far? In fact, if you simply Google the phrase “police brutality’ you would be surprised how many hits you get and the grotesque images. For instance there is a website that is dedicated to the “Top Thirty Cases of Extreme Brutality,” (http://brainz.org/30-cases-extreme-police-brutality-and-blatant-misconduct/). Now to some, that may not appear as a large number but when you read these horrific stories you receive somewhat of a “wake up call.” Now within all these cases the police have argued that they: feared for their lives, have reasonable evidence to believe the suspect was armed, or have created some lousy excuse to justify their actions. Knowing this the question remains: When does police defense become police brutality, what is justified as going too far?

In Galveston, Texas a twelve year old girl was mistaken as a prostitute, based mainly on the tightness of the shorts she was wearing, and taken into custody by police. The little girl, Dymond Milburn, went outside her mother’s house one evening to switch the circuit breaker. While she was outside a blue van pulled up in front of her house and three men grabbed her and tried to place her in it. At the time the young girl was unaware that these men were undercover police officers, who had mistaken her for a prostitute. Dymond immediately began to panic and grabbed the nearest tree as she screamed for her father. The officers decided that she was resisting arrest and began to brutally attack her with both their flashlights and fists. Her parents eventually heard her yelling and rushed outside to find them attacking their daughter. She was transported to the hospital following the beating where she had bruises, cuts, double vision, a bloody ear, and both eyes were blackened. Three weeks following this incident both Dymond and her father were arrested for allegedly assaulting a public servant.

By this brief description one may not be convinced that the police did anything wrong. However, with further investigation it is clear that this was another brutal attack by law enforcement. The police did not have the correct address that was given to them in the call. There was also a description of the alleged prostitutes that they were supposed to be looking for: “three white females,” this young lady was African American. The three police officers’ main defense is that Dymond and her parents were well aware of the fact that they were police because they had on shirts and badges that identified them as such, and stated it verbally. They also stated that when Dymond began to try and run away from them she yelled “F**k you, I hate the police.” The officers also said that Milburn struck one of them in the face however, this contradicted with their original story in which they stated she ran to hide behind a bush and when they try to obtain her she began to cling on to it. So the question remains was this act legitimate?

The answer is not at all. Too many times the police get away with doing whatever they want and however they wish to. They excuse their actions by saying “I felt threatened” or “the individual wouldn’t cooperate, my safety was at risk”. But who’s to determine what’s threatening or not? How do you know when the officers were only protecting themselves and when they were using their authority to their advantage? Is there anything one can implement to even stop this from reoccurring so many times? At this time, no, because it is solely based on the character of the officer and/or his judgment. So at the end of the day individuals will just have to face the fact that if you’re at the wrong place or even in the same vicinity, at the wrong time you may just find yourself to be a victim of so called “police defense!”

Sources:
http://cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=458:pre-teen-12-years-old-sues-officers-for-assault-arrest&catid=3:news&Itemid=1
 
http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=85aa1df1635a3bbb
 
 
By: Jazmon Kearse

Justice For the Mentally Retarded by Chelsea Johnson

When reading the anecdote at the beginning of Raven's post I was horrified. I was appalled by the way the man's family had treated him all of his life. It is no wonder that he would go to commit such a heinous crime. But it then made me ask: Why should he not be removed from society? I am not surprised that he is dangerous after the way he was abused his entire life. However, if a mentally handicapped person is a danger to society, I believe he too should face consequences so that he is unable to kill again. Raven gave many reasons why its easy for mentally ill to be wrongly accused, but her anecdote concerned a guilty person so the scenario and justification for not using the death penalty does not work. Yet, I agree with Raven that the death penalty is not the answer, but possibly a prison for the mentally ill or a mental institution is appropriate. The death penalty is never the best choice, because so often people are wrongly accused. We can never take back a life. I feel that by locking a perpetrator up in a prison for the rest of his life we are still making him face grave consequences where his life will never be the same. However, in that case, we still have the opportunity to set him free if he is proven innocent. Beyond reasonable doubt is not enough when concerning a human being's life.

Justice For the Mentally Retarded By: Raavin R Evans

        “A difficult breach birth left Johnny Paul Penry with organic brain damage, which was compounded during infancy and early childhood by his mother's brutal beatings. A paranoid schizophrenic herself, she hit her son on the head, broke his arms several times, dipped him in scalding water, burned him with cigarette butts, and forced him to eat his own feces and drink urine. She routinely locked him in his room without food, water, or sanitary facilities for twelve to fourteen hours at a time, then beat him when he could not help defecating in his room.

      

          Johnny Paul Penry dropped out of first grade, and as an adult his mental age is still comparable to the average six and a half-year-old child. His I.Q. has been measured between 50 and the low sixties. (The average I.Q. is 100). His aunt spent a year just trying to teach him to sign his name. In 1979, Penry was accused of the murder of Pamela Mosely Carpenter in Livingston, Texas, and he confessed to the police. Although he could not read or write, name the days of the week or months of the year, count to one hundred, say how many nickels are in a dime, or name the President of the United States, Penry was sentenced to death by a Texas jury.

     
       Ruling on Penry's appeal, the U. S. Supreme Court held in 1989 that the U.S. Constitution did not prohibit the execution of persons with mental retardation. It overturned Penry's sentence and ordered a retrial, however, because the jury's instructions did not permit it to give effect to the mitigating evidence of Penry's mental retardation and childhood abuse. At Penry's second trial, the judge presented the jury with essentially the same flawed sentencing instructions as at the first trial and Penry was sentenced to death once more. The Supreme Court has stayed his execution pending consideration of his appeal. Oral argument in his case is scheduled for March 27, 2001”

          Dating back as early as the Fifth Century B.C.'s Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets, in the Seventh Century B.C.'s Draconian Code of Athens, in the Fourteenth Century B.C.'s Hittite Code and in Eighteenth century B.C. in the code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, the death penalty has been the most favorable method of punishment by lawmakers for individuals who committed heinous crimes. The use of the death penalty is internationally. With a focus on the death penalty in America, Britian had the most influence on America’s use of the death penalty. The first known execution was in the new colonies, in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608 of Captain George Kendall. The death penalty has had a constant revolution of suspension and reinstatement. Before the 1960’s in America, the death penalty was considered legal and moral, because the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were interpreted as permitting the death penalty. Later the use of the death penalty was considered as "cruel and unusual" punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. In June of 1972 with the Furman v. Georgia Supreme Court Case, The Supreme Court effectively voided 40 death penalty statutes and suspended the death penalty. Several years later, in January of 1977, execution resumed with the execution of Gary Gilmore.

       Since the introduction of the death penalty, the most utilized methods of the execution have been hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, electrocution, and the most recent, lethal injection. Currently there are 34 states that permit execution, and Texas being the number one state to date to have utilized the death penalty most often. To this day there is still much debate about whether or not the death penalty is unconstitutional. Before 2002, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the topic of whether or not individuals who are mentally retarded should be executed.

           In 1976, the death penalty was reinstated, and up until the banning in 2002, approximately thirty-five people who were mentally retarded had been executed. Individuals who are a part of such groups such as Human Rights Watch opposed the execution of mentally retarded individuals because they believed that mentally retarded individuals were incapable and had limited ability to reason along with navigate within the world. Unlike other adult criminals who do not mentally retarded, those deemed mentally retarded have grave difficulties with communication, learning, logic, strategic thinking and planning. Some may argue that it depends on their level of retardation to decide whether or not they have such difficulties. But, whatever their degree of retardation, they have difficulty learning from experience and understanding causality.

       In 2001, Governor Rick Perry of Texas decided to veto a bill that would cease execution of inmates who were considered mentally retarded. Others like Perry argue that these individuals know right from wrong, thus they knew that the crime that they were committing was wrong. Those who oppose this notion highlight that to question whether or not an individual knows right from one, is a test of criminal insanity, and most mentally retarded people are not insane.

      Often times the question of whether they committed the crime or not is up for debate because it is very easy to get a confession out of individuals who are mentally retarded. According to many health experts, this is easy because because retarded people often are susceptible to suggestion and eager to please the authorities. Also, Timothy Derning, a psychologist who has been an expert witness in capital cases around the country revealed that although they may know right from wrong they don't trust their own opinions, which causes them to confess.

           Although the execution of mentally retarded individuals no longer occurs, it is shocking and disappointing that this ruling was not made earlier. Lives that could have been spared have been lost, and no use of precedent can bring them back. Although that fight has been won, the next battle to be won is the elimination of the death penalty as a whole.

Parents Can Help the Problem!

Parents Can Help the Problem! By Ashley Calloway I agree with the author. I feel that TV in the 21st century has truly been detrimental to the minds of young children. Shows such as Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood are no longer aired at prime time slots, causing children to turn to other scheduled programming. As Shaunte and Jazmon previously stated, the content of children’s television shows is getting worse as time goes by. But I believe that rather than focusing on the negatives, parents should address the problem and take the initiative to protect their children from the harmful images they are subjected to. As parents, they have the ability to control what a child watches and how often they watch television. I feel that parents in America do not take it upon themselves to implement rules regarding the television and ignore the issue at hand. As a parent, you must pay close attention to the shows your child is watching and even watch the shows with them. This is a good way to regulate access to violent television because the parent is seeing the content on a first hand basis. This also allows for bonding time between the child and parent. A good way to control the amount of television children watch is to remove the remote from their room. This enables the parent to know exactly when their child is watching television and what they are watching. Majority of major cable networks also provide parental settings in which parents create a password and stop certain shows from being shown. I feel that all the blame cannot be placed on the entertainment industry and producers of these shows. Although they are generally responsible for the content they present, parents can also take the initiative to protect their children from the images displayed. Pop culture is filled with many controversial issues but there is always to sides to a story. As people in the 21st century, we must take note to societies faults and try to fix them rather than constantly complain.

Is Television Viewing Harmful to Children? by Shaunte Francis

Is Television Viewing harmful to children? This question has been asked many times in the past and the most frequent answer is yes. Many people feel as though television has no positive effects on children and that children should not watch television at all. Violence on television, inappropriate behaviors, and how they negatively affect children has been an ongoing debate for a very long time, which is why I chose to touch on this topic.        

Pediatricians recommend that children younger than 2 years old should not watch television at all, meanwhile three-quarters of American children currently live in homes where a television is on most of the time. Previous research has concluded that babies and toddlers who watch television for long periods of time have a significantly higher risk for developing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) by the time they are 7 years old.Heavy television viewing throughout childhood has also been shown to contribute to behavioral and sleep problems. Children usually imitate what they see, so if a character on television is behaving violently or aggressively, the child is more likely to behave in the same manner.

Those who believe that television is harmful for children fail to look at the positive effects that it actually does have on our youth. Television is a significant influence in the socialization of children, and it can be filtered through a variety of sociological mechanisms such as the family. Children's viewing preferences are influenced by what they perceive their parents would want them to watch, and parents who emphasize family relations and the interpersonal nature of those relations are the ones in control of their children's viewing behaviors. Television itself is not to blame, but rather the parents who allows their children to watch certain programs and do not look after their children. Yes, parents may not always be around to monitor their child's every move, however, that is where values instilled in children by parents come into play. To me, it is like being able to determine right from wrong, and as children, it is quite easy to distinguishh between the two.

          Educational programs such as Sesame Street as well as many others, allow frequent viewers to obtain higher grades in Math, English, and Science as opposed to children who do not watch the programs. Children's television programs enhance self-esteem and their understanding of others' feelings and behaviors. Mister Roger's neighborhood was the primary, best-designed program that aimed at addressing the social and emotional development of young children. In experimental studies with pre-school children, this television show enabled them to increase thier pro-social behaviors which included sharing, helping, and cooperating with others.

          According to kidshealth.org, coming up with a family TV schedule, watching television with children, and talking to them about what they see on TV are practical ways to make screen time more productive. For instance, if something that you do not approve of appears on the tv screen, take time out to ask the child thought provoking questions such as "Do you think it was ok when those two mean got into a fight?." Television can be used to explain situations and express feelings toward difficult situations such as sex, love, drugs, etc. Adults can teach their children to question and LEARN from what they see on tv. Therefore television is beneficial, not harmful, and since television is here to stay, parents must view it as a resource and not necessarily a menace.

The Nonsense on TV...
Response By: Jazmon Kearse

As a child I was taught at the young age to know the difference between real and fake. My mother made sure we comprehended that you couldn't imitate what you always saw on television. I mean honestly I believe that if you educate your children first whatever appears on the television will not reflect their way of thinking. However, with me being a parent now I have taken on a new approach.




When I was growing up there were lots of cartoons and educational shows, but now they all seem to have either been cancelled or only play for a short amount of time. For instance while I was home with my son I would try to find some television shows that he could look at and/or hear that would soothe him, but I seemed to only find these ridiculous cartoons. For instance I liked the Backyardigans but was skeptical about it when I learned that the two characters that are supposed to represent the African Americans are named Uniqueqa (Not sure if the spelling is right…but you get the idea) and Tyrone. I mean seriously? Were there not any other names available? There’s also this show called Max and Ruby. Now these two little rabbits live all by themselves with not a parent insight. And the entire episode consists of Max doing what he’s told not to do repeatedly and Ruby telling him he’s wrong. All this teaches is obedience, there’s no educational aspect of it at all! Then I noticed that after 11am Nick Jr. ended and these brutal cartoons come on.



There’s Fairly Odd Parents where Timmy Turner is either getting beat up or creating some sort of chaos. And SpongeBob Square Pants where he always has some sort of ridiculous problem or is getting into spats with Squidwird. This represents once again another cartoon of no substance. Then when I turn to the Disney Channel there’s a group of “non-masculine” men singing and dancing around the screen. Now I have no problem with homosexuals, before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I am just saying can we not introduce children to this at the prime ages of six and under!



I mean where’s the shows like Gullah, Gullah Island, Allegra’s Window, and Rugrats where you learned life lessons and about using your imagination. I know that eventually my son will grow up and want to watch television but the question is if there’s violence in children’s shows now what will be in those of the future.



I hear what you are saying that if you sit and talk with a child about what you watch that you can prevent them from being affected by the media. But let’s be honest if a three year old child flips through the channels trying to get to Nickelodeon and sees a man and women partaking in sexual intercourse, how would you go about explaining that? I can’t say who is wrong or right on this topic but I will say that as a parent I know that I am very reserved about whether or not Kaden will be watching television as often as he wishes.

AMERICAN: To Be or Not To Be

By Jessica Davis

Illegal immigration is a topic that has pervaded many areas of discussion in the past decade. It has become a platform for many political campaigns, an economic factor for our country and a cultural adjustment for many Americans. Supporters of illegal immigration argue that America is neglecting its tradition of being a melting pot that encourages immigration and cultural diversity. However, I strongly feel that this erroneous statement distorts the idea of the tradition of diversity in America to support a one sided view. I am the daughter and product of a first generation Jamaican-American family that immigrated into this country 50 years ago, so being culturally accepting is not a challenge to me. However, to see the country that I love become saturated with illegal immigrants causing economic and social despair, and be disregarded by politicians as a “too far gone” issue is revolting and should in no way be acceptable.


Many supporters claim that there are many benefits to securing illegal immigrant rights that allow them to remain in the country. However, I must plead to attest to the substantial negative effects of illegal aliens. Supporters argue that illegal workers are occupants of “menial”, low paying jobs that natural born Americans “won’t work.” However, with the unemployment rate at 9.8% (Sept. 2009) I’m sure Americans struggling to feed their families and keep their homes would be willing to work these jobs….IF they were available. Also, these jobs that were once available as part time jobs for teens and the elderly are now consumed with under the table workers. Another fact is that because these jobs are being replaced by undocumented workers who do not have tax pulled from their paychecks, our government (which is already in an economic crisis) is losing even more money causing a reduction in money for education, health care and social programs. The aforementioned services are all offered to illegal immigrants at little or no cost to the immigrant. So where does this money come from? I’ll tell you! YOUR pocket! The money that you earned working a part time or summer job is being used to pay for illegal immigrants to fed, educated and medically cared for on a daily basis. So now the fact remains that illegal aliens are benefiting from an economy to which they have contributed nothing. The last argument I will make (but definitely not the last argument on the topic) is the fact that because the U.S. is not properly monitoring who enters the country, we are being invaded with people who in their country of origin had committed acts of violence and are criminals fleeing persecution. Why should our country be polluted with people who have attitudes of lawlessness and couldn’t fathom the idea of a legal system if their life depended on it? With horrible violence related directly to drug cartels and illegal criminals at an unbelievable high, why isn’t now the time to crackdown on naturalization laws?

There are reasons that the process to becoming a naturalized citizen is both extensive and encompasses various costs. These requirements ensure that those who desire to be American citizens truly WANT to bear allegiance to this country. It makes sure that economically our country is not hurt by an influx of immigrants and it reemphasizes the idea of lawfulness that our country once was prided. If illegal immigration is brushed off and ignored what will be the motivation for legal immigration and the observance of the very necessary naturalization process? If illegal immigration is able to continue without consequence or penalty, this occurrence will have a horrific snowball effect that could lead to the downfall of lawful structure our country observes. Is this really what America wants?

Campaign For Change: Anorexia in Fashion

By: Ashley Calloway

For years the fashion industry has prided themselves on upholding a very strict criteria for their models. Designers such as Emilio Pucci, Chanel and Dior only work with models that are beautiful as well as a size zero. Due to the fashion industry’s obsession with size, models have been known to develop a series of eating disorders with the most common being anorexia. A study done by the Model Health Inquiry showed that around 40% of models suffer from an eating disorder (medicalnewstoday.com). As models try to disguise their sickness by drinking large amounts of water, it is not unknown that these young women are endangering their health for the sake of the catwalk.

One would think that the industry would want to address this issue, but they are the ones imposing this size zero body image. It took the courage of photographer Oliviero Toscani and the Italian fashion line Nolita to initiate the debate on anorexia in the fashion world. Their campaign focused on anorexic model Isabelle Caro, whose sickness has gone beyond her. The photo shows the reality and danger of anorexia and promotes social awareness. Although risky, I feel that this campaign is groundbreaking because people within the industry are addressing the problem. Some critics feel that the campaign would actually encourage aspiring models to copy the image presented on the billboard (cnn.com/Europe). But due to the severity of the campaign, very skinny models were actually banned from the Madrid and Milan Fashion Weeks; this is an impactful statement in itself, inspiring models to remain healthy. I feel that this campaign was very effective in clearly displaying its message as well as served as an eye opener for thousands of people and the models themselves. This is a very progressive first step to fighting the battle against anorexia in fashion.

(Sources: CNN Europe http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/26/anorexia.model/, Medical News Today http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76241.php)