#blacktivity

Blacktivity – Black Boy (@dreadflintstone) (@shadecobain) Black Boy by Blacktivity

#poets #nationalpoetrymonth

Black Boy - Blacktivity (Ill Tone x Shade Cobain). Uncivil Rights 2.28.19 #blacktivity #hiphop #boombap #boombaphiphop #beatmaker #hiphophead #producerslife #beatmaking  #producerheaven  #beatsforsale #boombapbeats #maschine #porthuron #pittsburgh  #boombapfocus #woke #hiphopjunkies (at United States) https://www.instagram.com/p/BtvnjvVgv-y/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=8b5qnr8ebha7

There’s something brewing in this bill proposed by the Virginia General Assembly, HB. 1398...

This bill was proposed on January 11, 2017, approximately 9 days in advance of Trumps inauguration by a republican member of the Virginia Assembly, which though led by a democratic governor and lieutenant governor in the executive branch, is majority red in the legislature. The bill’s co-sponsors include 14 other republican delegates and only one democrat, (Kaye Kory – district 38, representing Fairfax County).  It should also be mentioned that Virginia is not only a key battleground state in presidential elections, and neighbor to the nation’s capital, but that 2017 is an election year in which a litany of republican candidates will be setting their sights on the Governor’s Mansion. At least four republicans have declared their candidacy; former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie, businessman Denver Riggleman, Chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors and former lieutenant governor candidate (circa, 2013) Corey Stewart, and State Senator Frank Wagner. There are also four more people on the list of potential candidates who may throw their hat into the ring for the republican nomination; former Lieutenant Gov. Bill Bolling, former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, financial consultant and former U.S. Senate candidate (circa, 2014) Shak Hill, and former State Senator Jeff McWaters. Meanwhile, the democratic party has only two candidates at the forefront of the race for governor, current Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam and the most recently announced Tom Perriello, former democratic congressman and diplomat under President Barack Obama. There are two other names that have received scant attention for the democrats in the race, U.S. Congressman Gerry Connolly and Virginia’s Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran. However, considering the lower profiles of the latter two, it may well come down to a battle of 8 against 2. Considering such a political landscape both nationally and state wide and considering that it’s quite arguable that as such a state like Virginia goes, so goes the nation, it’s plausible that the introduction of this bill could in part be a wink and nod to the Trump administration’s call for “law and order”. What’s more, if republicans win back the Governor’s Mansion not only does this bill stand a greater chance of being passed to the detriment of future protesters, but Virginia may very well stand as a “shining example” of similar laws to be implemented in other states, something Trump would potentially single out for praise. But besides the sheer politics of it all, what makes this bill detrimental? Well for one it begins by drawing a false equivalency couching it in terms of “hate crimes”. As is well documented hate crime laws on the federal, state, and local levels, arose from civil rights legislation which were used to fight segregation and the extra-legal violence toward Blacks in the south. Such laws, bills, and policies were later expanded to include protections for other minorities. In this way, these were laws that were responses to systemic ills, many of which were (and are) enforced by many police departments themselves, at the behest of the state of course. Furthermore, police officers already have protections under the law that hand out severe penalties considering the dangers of their job. For instance, in Virginia it is a class 6 felony to assault a police officer, murder of a police officer is classified as capital murder and is punishable by death or life in prison, not only this but Virginia is one of 14 states that have adopted the Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights provision into its state statue. This was first set forth in 1974 following the Supreme Court ruling in the cases of Garrity vs. New Jersey (1967) and Gardner vs Broderick (1968). This is essentially intended to protect police officers from investigation and prosecution arising from conduct during official performance of their duties and provides them with privileges based on “due process” not normally afforded to regular citizens. The most glaring feature of this law, is that it prevents the creation of civilian oversight and review boards and under this policy police officers are judged only by other officers. With such protections, already in place for police officers, it seems outlandish if not redundant, that a bill such as the Virginia Assembly’s HB 1398 would even be proposed. But, what if you are a member of the dominant political party in the nation on the state level, and you want to give a wink to police officers and your “law and order” president? What if seeing the protest that are bound to continue under Trump’s presidency, you decide you want to build in protections from protester critique? This brings me to the key aspect of this bill and its potential threats. Its vague language and the unjustified leeway in which it could potentially be applied. To begin with, it doesn’t state the specifics as it pertains to “criminal acts”. If there are criminal acts outside of the realm of which police officers are already protected from by law, what are these acts? How are they different specifically? Are these stated criminal acts considered more heinous or more reckless than the one’s already defined in the current penal codes that protect officers? If so, then how? Such unanswered questions and sweeping generalizations are dangerous in that the law can be applied to nearly any situation. This is of interest when police officers are faced with civil unrest and protest like that which has happened in the wake of news breaking police brutality cases. The state could very well say under such a law, that mass protest (or some portion of it) is a criminal act, particularly where the police are involved. To what extent could this infringe upon the public’s right to assemble, and freedom of speech? To that I answer, more than quite a bit! In addition to this, the provisions from the Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights explicitly state that police officers can govern themselves which is to say that they have their own code of justice. Another problematic aspect of this law is that if enacted, those deemed in violation of these said “hate crimes” will be placed in a data base not open to the public, except at the “superintendent’s” discretion. In this case, it would mean the lead officer or department in charge of the investigation of such a hate crime. Given the history of policing in the United States, it’s fair to say that if one was convicted of something for which one wanted to dispute and needed access to “evidence” to prove his or herself innocent, the chances of receiving such information are probably slim to none. If that sounds like something that could lead to a McCarthy like blacklisting of citizens for dissenting, then you may be right. The bill goes on to speak of criminal acts with “the intent of instilling fear or intimidation”. This piece of the bill rings problematic for two reasons. First, police officers though entitled by human nature to feel fear, are or should be trained in how to handle it. The job of an officer is to protect and serve his or her citizens from crimes of and violations of all sorts and as such being trained properly both psychologically and physically should prepare one for the potential dangers that could be faced. What’s more is that most people who are familiar with litigation in some form, know that one of the harder things to prove in a court of law is intent. Who’s to say what a person’s intentions are unless there is hard evidence that can point to it, or a witness that can substantiate it. And even in the case of the latter, witnesses are still subject to variables such as self-interest (non implication, bribery, etc.) that could play a role in a testimony. By the sound of the proposed bill however, it seems as if the intent of another could just as easily be decided by the victimized officer themselves. How many times has points this loophole been abused? Way too many. Lastly, along with the term “any illegal act” which in and of itself is broad, the most troubling and telling words of this proposed bill are; “all other incidents, as determined by law-enforcement authorities”. Law enforcement officers are called such because quite frankly, it is their job to enforce the law. There are a set of laws put forth in the U.S. Constitution as well as each state’s own constitution or statue that are supposed to work in unison with local policy to protect the rights of citizens, and the job of an officer is to see to it that such laws are being enforced. But, creating or determining what incidents constitute as illegalities is beyond the wheelhouse of any police officer and to put it bluntly, illegal. Yet this is what some in the Virginia Assembly (and probably other state legislatures if this passes) want to put forth as a justifiable bill. In the age of Trump’s “law and order” doctrines, and in the face of the criticism and protest he some colluding republicans will inevitably receive, such a play reeks of a kleptocratic government in the works which understands that on the federal, state, and local levels, it will at many points need reinforcement of the police state. Whether the United States of America will become a full-on banana republic remains to be seen, and comparisons to such governments may or may not be a bit premature. But, if this bill that has been proposed in Virginia is to take root, and spread like wildfire to other states, this, coupled with some of Trump’s own statements (one telling quote in which he threatened to “send the Feds” into a “carnage” ridden Chicago) are yet more red flags for the future of equal protections and democracy in this country.

View On WordPress

Great time rockin with @dreadflintstone last night in Port Huron. #blacktivity #moemawnaedon #joeysmooth #surfacelevelrecords #porthuron