Thursday, April 9, 2015
Union News and Politics Report: [UNP Editorial] Law Enforcement & You
Union News and Politics Report: [UNP Editorial] Law Enforcement & You: Hello readers. Welcome to the first UNP editorial. Sorry it's been a while since my last update, I'm still figuring out how to blo...
[UNP Editorial] Law Enforcement & You
Hello readers. Welcome to the first UNP editorial. Sorry it's been a while since my last update, I'm still figuring out how to blog properly. Since I've been soul (and news) searching, there has been yet another high profile police shooting. The shooting of Walter Scott by (now former) Officer Michael Slager has re-ignited the debate about police violence. This time however, it has taken on a different tone. Let me be clear; I take great pains to examine both liberal and conservative viewpoints in my news reporting and in any conversation in which that I engage. It is my personal belief that the liberal viewpoint maximizes freedom while curtailing artificial influence on the governing bodies that guarantee and protect those freedoms.
Having politically declared myself; please dear reader, allow me to express the extreme satisfaction... and sadness that the death of Walter Scott has finally forced the issue of our police state across the aisle and has Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents and apathetic millennials sitting up and listening. What is the problem? Is there a problem?
With the shooting of Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch desperado George Zimmerman, the public began asking the question, "What puts a person in the sights of the castle doctrine (a law; often informal; which makes it... not illegal to kill a person if they're threatening your property on your property, e.g., shooting a robber in your living room (or apparently shooting a black kid for walking in a gated community).
The death of Michael Brown began to focus the public on video and the disconnect that law enforcement (LE) seems to experience when one of their own seems to take matters into their own hands (as opposed to being arresting officers of the law). The death of Tamir Rice begged the question, "If LE are so willing to massage the truth, who is safe?"
These issues and questions are important to understand the firestorm that now surrounds Michael Slager. For too long, police have operated with an, "us versus them," mentality. When it becomes necessary for the Supreme Court to rule that police don't have to "protect" or "serve," at some point the public (who vastly outnumber the gang known as the police) begin to ask, "Why am I a suspect? Am I being detained? Am I free to go?"
To the generally law abiding citizen, these questions may seem unnecessarily standoffish and to LE, downright disrespectful. The question then is never posed, "Who is supposed to be respected?" When a child can be shot for walking in a gated community at night, a man can be choked to death for selling single cigarettes and a man can be shot for driving with a tail light out (in addition to having missed apparently a bunch of child support payments), who is safe? All of these people were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It's the essence of American criminal justice. They say it on every episode of, "Cops."
LE will say that the job is stressful. Everyone lies. No one knows the whole story. The fact is that, even they don't know the whole story many times. Instead of, "waiting for all the facts." LE automatically assume their brothers in blue were right. That was the narrative that LE gave the family of Walter Scott. Mr. Scott was about to TAZE Officer Slager, was the tale... then video surfaced of Officer Slager shooting Mr. Scott as he fled.
Perhaps we will reach a point in this country where protect and serve, actually equal protect and serve. Where the public can trust LE not to open fire when they're surprised to find that non-white races carry wallets. I am hopeful. The advent of body cameras is a damn good start too.
Expect a part 2 soon... this is obviously not done.
Having politically declared myself; please dear reader, allow me to express the extreme satisfaction... and sadness that the death of Walter Scott has finally forced the issue of our police state across the aisle and has Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents and apathetic millennials sitting up and listening. What is the problem? Is there a problem?
With the shooting of Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch desperado George Zimmerman, the public began asking the question, "What puts a person in the sights of the castle doctrine (a law; often informal; which makes it... not illegal to kill a person if they're threatening your property on your property, e.g., shooting a robber in your living room (or apparently shooting a black kid for walking in a gated community).
The death of Michael Brown began to focus the public on video and the disconnect that law enforcement (LE) seems to experience when one of their own seems to take matters into their own hands (as opposed to being arresting officers of the law). The death of Tamir Rice begged the question, "If LE are so willing to massage the truth, who is safe?"
These issues and questions are important to understand the firestorm that now surrounds Michael Slager. For too long, police have operated with an, "us versus them," mentality. When it becomes necessary for the Supreme Court to rule that police don't have to "protect" or "serve," at some point the public (who vastly outnumber the gang known as the police) begin to ask, "Why am I a suspect? Am I being detained? Am I free to go?"
To the generally law abiding citizen, these questions may seem unnecessarily standoffish and to LE, downright disrespectful. The question then is never posed, "Who is supposed to be respected?" When a child can be shot for walking in a gated community at night, a man can be choked to death for selling single cigarettes and a man can be shot for driving with a tail light out (in addition to having missed apparently a bunch of child support payments), who is safe? All of these people were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It's the essence of American criminal justice. They say it on every episode of, "Cops."
LE will say that the job is stressful. Everyone lies. No one knows the whole story. The fact is that, even they don't know the whole story many times. Instead of, "waiting for all the facts." LE automatically assume their brothers in blue were right. That was the narrative that LE gave the family of Walter Scott. Mr. Scott was about to TAZE Officer Slager, was the tale... then video surfaced of Officer Slager shooting Mr. Scott as he fled.
Perhaps we will reach a point in this country where protect and serve, actually equal protect and serve. Where the public can trust LE not to open fire when they're surprised to find that non-white races carry wallets. I am hopeful. The advent of body cameras is a damn good start too.
Expect a part 2 soon... this is obviously not done.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Indiana Governer Signs Controversial "Religious Freedom" Bill
Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) signed into state law a bill that they are calling the "Religious Freedom Act." The move has angered many liberals who argue that the bill may have been structured in such a way as to specifically allow companies to legally discriminate again LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgendered, Queer) persons.
While the bill makes no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity, many construe the language of the bill to mean that, starting July 1st, 2015, Indiana companies with religious objections to LGBTQ lifestyles can legally refuse to serve people who identify with said lifestyles. The Governor has made it a point to stress that the bill was not at all aimed at legalizing discrimination, but would indeed formalize into Indiana law freedom of citizens and business owners to be exempt from state regulation that would lead to, "burdening a person's exercise of religion." This may extend from anywhere to a liquor store run by Christians not being compelled to open and sell on Sunday, to a Jehovah's Witness not being compelled to receive certain types of medical treatments [author's note].
Opponents claim that the wording of the bill was intentionally written so that establishments could refuse previously protected people service based on religious objection. Meaning that a racist establishment owner could claim religious exemption to serving Jews, or a doctor could claim religious exemption to prescribing contraceptive birth control. It is unclear at this time whether many persons and establishments are construing the bill in this way. In fact, there have been a few prominent supporters who have echoed the Governor's assertion that the bill is not a license to discriminate.
There will be more to this story as the Governor travels the state to make the case that this bill, "is simply about giving the courts guidance and establishing the same standards that have existed at the federal level for more than 20 years," citing the federal Religious Freedom Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993. Expect an upcoming editorial from me in the near future.
While the bill makes no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity, many construe the language of the bill to mean that, starting July 1st, 2015, Indiana companies with religious objections to LGBTQ lifestyles can legally refuse to serve people who identify with said lifestyles. The Governor has made it a point to stress that the bill was not at all aimed at legalizing discrimination, but would indeed formalize into Indiana law freedom of citizens and business owners to be exempt from state regulation that would lead to, "burdening a person's exercise of religion." This may extend from anywhere to a liquor store run by Christians not being compelled to open and sell on Sunday, to a Jehovah's Witness not being compelled to receive certain types of medical treatments [author's note].
Opponents claim that the wording of the bill was intentionally written so that establishments could refuse previously protected people service based on religious objection. Meaning that a racist establishment owner could claim religious exemption to serving Jews, or a doctor could claim religious exemption to prescribing contraceptive birth control. It is unclear at this time whether many persons and establishments are construing the bill in this way. In fact, there have been a few prominent supporters who have echoed the Governor's assertion that the bill is not a license to discriminate.
There will be more to this story as the Governor travels the state to make the case that this bill, "is simply about giving the courts guidance and establishing the same standards that have existed at the federal level for more than 20 years," citing the federal Religious Freedom Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993. Expect an upcoming editorial from me in the near future.
Welcome to the Union News and Politics Report!
Welcome to the Union News and Politics Report!
Crisis in Yemen! Germanwings plane crash! Levi Pettit apologizes! Ted Cruz gets Obamacare! What does all this mean to you? Well, here at UNP Report, I intend to help you find out. Television news and other blogs tend to editorialize news so that, in our current times, the news you get isn't necessarily the news you need. Conservatives can go to Fox news to learn that Obama is making a deal with Iran that will almost certainly end with one of our biggest enemies in the region having nuclear bombs pointed at both the US and Israel. Liberals can go to MSNBC to learn that Ted Cruz may be Canadian, or at least only technically American and thus ineligible to even become President. Meanwhile moderates are left with whatever high profile puff piece falls in between (Levi Pettit apologized for leading his fraternity in a racist song, but refused to disclose where or how he learned it).
What if news returned to a time when the happenings of the day were simply reported and any editorializing was clearly labeled as such? This blog will be my attempt at returning news to a state in which the Fairness Doctrine reined supreme over the outrage and yelling. For the uninitiated, the Fairness Doctrine was a policy in the US from 1949 through 1987 that stated that all sides of a controversial topic must receive equal airtime. This was the era of some of the best news reporting and thusly, an era of a largely moderate (for the time) and thoughtful (for the time) populace. Everyone has an opinion, we don't need the news to give it to us.
Herein, we'll examine news topics from all sides and allow the reader to form their own opinions, and since I do love to editorialize, I will offer my own opinion in clearly marked posts. You may agree or disagree with me personally, but here is all the news that's fit to click!
Crisis in Yemen! Germanwings plane crash! Levi Pettit apologizes! Ted Cruz gets Obamacare! What does all this mean to you? Well, here at UNP Report, I intend to help you find out. Television news and other blogs tend to editorialize news so that, in our current times, the news you get isn't necessarily the news you need. Conservatives can go to Fox news to learn that Obama is making a deal with Iran that will almost certainly end with one of our biggest enemies in the region having nuclear bombs pointed at both the US and Israel. Liberals can go to MSNBC to learn that Ted Cruz may be Canadian, or at least only technically American and thus ineligible to even become President. Meanwhile moderates are left with whatever high profile puff piece falls in between (Levi Pettit apologized for leading his fraternity in a racist song, but refused to disclose where or how he learned it).
What if news returned to a time when the happenings of the day were simply reported and any editorializing was clearly labeled as such? This blog will be my attempt at returning news to a state in which the Fairness Doctrine reined supreme over the outrage and yelling. For the uninitiated, the Fairness Doctrine was a policy in the US from 1949 through 1987 that stated that all sides of a controversial topic must receive equal airtime. This was the era of some of the best news reporting and thusly, an era of a largely moderate (for the time) and thoughtful (for the time) populace. Everyone has an opinion, we don't need the news to give it to us.
Herein, we'll examine news topics from all sides and allow the reader to form their own opinions, and since I do love to editorialize, I will offer my own opinion in clearly marked posts. You may agree or disagree with me personally, but here is all the news that's fit to click!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)