Saturday, November 1st, 2008



(I shot the sheriff
But I didn’t shoot no deputy, oh no! Oh!
I shot the sheriff
But I didn’t shoot no deputy, ooh, ooh, oo-ooh.)
Yeah! All around in my home town,
They’re tryin’ to track me down;
They say they want to bring me in guilty
For the killing of a deputy,
For the life of a deputy.
But I say:

Oh, now, now. Oh!
(I shot the sheriff.) – the sheriff.
(But I swear it was in selfdefence.)
Oh, no! (Ooh, ooh, oo-oh) Yeah!
I say: I shot the sheriff – Oh, Lord! -
(And they say it is a capital offence.)
Yeah! (Ooh, ooh, oo-oh) Yeah!

Sheriff John Brown always hated me,
For what, I don’t know:
Every time I plant a seed,
He said kill it before it grow -
He said kill them before they grow.
And so:

Read it in the news:
(I shot the sheriff.) Oh, Lord!
(But I swear it was in self-defence.)
Where was the deputy? (Oo-oo-oh)
I say: I shot the sheriff,
But I swear it was in selfdefence. (Oo-oh) Yeah!

Freedom came my way one day
And I started out of town, yeah!
All of a sudden I saw sheriff John Brown
Aiming to shoot me down,
So I shot – I shot – I shot him down and I say:
If I am guilty I will pay.

(I shot the sheriff,)
But I say (But I didn’t shoot no deputy),
I didn’t shoot no deputy (oh, no-oh), oh no!
(I shot the sheriff.) I did!
But I didn’t shoot no deputy. Oh! (Oo-oo-ooh)

Reflexes had got the better of me
And what is to be must be:
Every day the bucket a-go a well,
One day the bottom a-go drop out,
One day the bottom a-go drop out.
I say:

I – I – I – I shot the sheriff.
Lord, I didn’t shot the deputy. Yeah!
I – I (shot the sheriff) -
But I didn’t shoot no deputy, yeah! No, yeah!

In the tradition of my previous post… I’m gonna post some songs or videos about these bastards. BLAMMM!

Look at police brutality’s history

Author: Jessica Watson-Crosby 
People’s Weekly World Newspaper, 04/01/04

The title, “Street Justice:A History of Police Violence in New York City,” says it all. Police brutality is an integral part of law enforcement history in the United States. Marilynn S. Johnson uses the history of the organized police force in New York City because it is the oldest (1841) and the largest (up to 40,000 at times) in the country. 

The history is cyclical, going through phases of violence, corruption and reform. The targets of the violence have never varied – the poor, the working class, political dissidents and ethnic minorities. 

From the point of view of its victims, police were seen as protecting the upper classes. Police violence only came under scrutiny when “decent” people became victims, usually accidentally. 

Many police see themselves as part of the upper classes – the enforcers of social values – even while the upper classes see them as ignorant brutes. As a rule, the upper classes were willing to tolerate police corruption, seeing it as a small price to pay for having them do their brutal work. 

Police are guaranteed a steady living. Unlike other workers, they typically are not threatened by layoffs or pay cuts. These conditions allow them to see themselves separate and apart from the community of workers and even allow them to see striking workers as their enemy. 

Because their targets are the powerless, police act with virtual impunity. One constant in the history of police brutality has been singling out African Americans for harassment. 

Who is poor, who is an immigrant, who is working class – all of these have shifted over time. But African Americans, no matter their social status – in fact, regardless of class – have never stopped being in the sights of police violence. There is now a saying, “(Fill in the blank) while Black”: walking, driving, etc. 

Johnson observes that when police respect the community and brutality goes down, so does all crime. As the number of citizen fatalities by police goes down, police fatalities are reduced as well. 

Over the years, reform measures have worked. Billy clubs were changed to a lighter material and then abandoned; firearms training improved; now every gunshot fired must be accounted for. 

What Johnson does not make clear as well as she could is who the police really work for – that they are the gatekeepers for the moneyed classes. 

Overall, this book is an insightful and instructive look at law enforcement in the United States. 

The author can be reached at nyblackradicalcongress@yahoo.com.

Here we go again people. The Thugs are at heavy for 2008. We had Sean Bell and now it’s Michael Mineo. And you think the Police aren’t Thugs? Well the may not be but they sure are the Henchmen. Peep The Article from The New York Times:

Grand Jury Weighs Accounts of Police and Brooklyn Man

Grand juries are usually presented with a set of witnesses and facts neatly packaged by the district attorney, with the decision to indict often an easy one.

This is not the case with the special investigative grand jury meeting now to examine the claim of a Brooklyn man that police officers sodomized him with a piece of equipment on Oct. 15. About the only facts each side can agree on is that the man, Michael Mineo, 24, a body piercer from the Prospect-Lefferts Gardens neighborhood, ended up in a hospital after the police, believing he was smoking marijuana, chased him into a subway station, tackled him and, after finding no drugs, let him go with a summons for disorderly conduct.

Among the facts shrouded in confusion are: How did he get to the hospital? Why was he not arrested or charged with a crime? And, perhaps most important, what were his injuries and how did he get them? The Police Department, after initiating an internal inquiry, is standing behind the five officers present that afternoon. The police have interviewed Mr. Mineo and said the facts do not support his accusation. A spokesman said Mr. Mineo’s claim of being sodomized “is not supported by independent civilian witnesses on the scene.” The officers remain on duty.

 

With the conflicting versions, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said on Wednesday that a grand jury was needed.

“The statements of the complainant and the statements of witnesses are so disparate, and charges here so serious, that I think the investigative grand jury is appropriate in this case,” Mr. Kelly said.

 

Mr. Mineo’s lawyers, Stephen C. Jackson and Kevin L. Mosley, said that as three officers held their client down in the Prospect Park subway station, another shoved a walkie-talkie antenna or other piece of police equipment into his rectum. They said Mr. Mineo was left with a tear in his rectum that left him hospitalized until Oct. 19, and that hospital records, which they have declined to provide to reporters, attributed the condition to “anal assault.” They said a doctor made that diagnosis.

Both the police and the district attorney’s office have seen his medical records. One law enforcement official said the records show that Mr. Mineo suffered internal tears just inside his rectum. But another law enforcement official, seemingly contradicting that account, has said that Mr. Mineo suffered no internal injuries indicating that his rectum was penetrated by a foreign object. That official said Mr. Mineo suffered a tear just above his rectum, a bruise to the side of his head, injuries to his side and an injury to the outside of his abdomen. Both officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is not closed.

Mr. Mineo’s lawyers said they have five witnesses bolstering his claim. But a person familiar with the investigation said that a transit worker in the subway station’s booth, and his 12-year-old son who was visiting him, both told investigators they did not see officers jamming anything into Mr. Mineo’s rectum in the moments when Mr. Mineo yelled that they were.

 

Forensic tests on one officer’s equipment found no presence of hair, fibers, bodily tissue, fecal matter or blood. Mr. Kelly on Wednesday declined to say whether the results of more sophisticated DNA tests were known.

There have been several accounts of how Mr. Mineo got to Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center.

Originally, Mr. Jackson said Mr. Mineo used his cellphone to call his boss, who drove to the subway station and then drove Mr. Mineo to the hospital. On Tuesday, Mr. Jackson said it was a male “roommate” who took Mr. Mineo to the hospital. Mr. Mineo’s boss at the Downtown Brooklyn tattoo parlor where he works, Jason Amolsch, also lives with him, but Mr. Jackson said Mr. Amolsch was not the person who took him to the hospital.

Mr. Amolsch said on Saturday that he hailed a cab for Mr. Mineo’s trip to the hospital, but that he did not ride there with him.

One law enforcement official said two female roommates of Mr. Mineo’s accompanied him to the hospital in a livery cab. It is not clear to whom the official was referring. One female roommate, Jilma Brown, 20, said she did not see Mr. Mineo until days later; another, Keasha Brown, 25, declined to comment.

Before the police released Mr. Mineo they wrote him a summons for disorderly conduct. But the document, released by the State Office of Court Administration, raises as many questions as it answers.

It makes no reference to the marijuana cigarette the officers said they saw Mr. Mineo smoking. Though it says Mr. Mineo provided a state benefits card as identification, Mr. Jackson said he did not believe Mr. Mineo had any identification with him at the time. The law enforcement official said Mr. Mineo told investigators he was not carrying identification. If that were true, it raises the question of why the officers did not take him to the station house, the official said.

Reporting was contributed by Ann Farmer, Christine Hauser, Colin Moynihan, William K. Rashbaum and Nate Schweber.