thepeoplesrecord
thepeoplesrecord:

US marshals shoot unarmed man in Albuquerque, seize cell phone cameras from witnesses April 2, 2014
As Albuquerque residents take to the streets to protest against the ongoing slayings of citizens by their local police department, federal agents got into the act by opening fire on an unarmed man Tuesday morning, then seizing cameras from witnesses.
But more citizens with cameras arrived on the scene as a group of U.S. Marshals stood around the victim, Gilberto Angelo Serrano, proving unafraid to voice their displeasure at the trigger-happy culture that apparently has seeped into all levels of law enforcement in Albuquerque.
Realizing they were outnumbered by cameras, the U.S. Marshals could only ask people to stand back, not bothering to try and stop them from recording as they tried to wrap a bandage around the head of the man they had just shot, who was laying on the sidewalk bleeding.
But a witness named Gabriel Valdez said the Marshals confiscated his cell phone camera as well as his mother’s camera as “evidence,” when he did not even start recording until after the shooting.
The incident took place around 10 a.m. when a group of Marshals were trying to apprehend a fugitive who was driving his truck.
According to KRQE:

“Get out of the car! Get out of the vehicle! And then boom! She shot like right away. She just shot right away,” Gabriel Valdez said.
That’s how one witness describes the gunfire that rang out in the South Valley Tuesday morning.
“He never pulled out a gun, nothing,” one witness told KRQE News 13. “His hands were on the steering wheel.”
“This is enough! This is ridiculous!” another witness said.
KRQE News 13 talked to one witness who says he had his cell phone taken away from him.
“I have evidence on there they said because I have video on there, not video of the actual shooting, but of everything else,” Valdez said.

In an interview with a New Mexico live streamer, Valdez said that the Marshals first asked to see what he had recorded, so he handed them the phone.
Then once they had the phone in their hands, they refused to return it to him, not even to allow him to write down telephone numbers he had on the phone. That segment of the interview begins at 5:16 in this video.
Full article

thepeoplesrecord:

US marshals shoot unarmed man in Albuquerque, seize cell phone cameras from witnesses 
April 2, 2014

As Albuquerque residents take to the streets to protest against the ongoing slayings of citizens by their local police department, federal agents got into the act by opening fire on an unarmed man Tuesday morning, then seizing cameras from witnesses.

But more citizens with cameras arrived on the scene as a group of U.S. Marshals stood around the victim, Gilberto Angelo Serrano, proving unafraid to voice their displeasure at the trigger-happy culture that apparently has seeped into all levels of law enforcement in Albuquerque.

Realizing they were outnumbered by cameras, the U.S. Marshals could only ask people to stand back, not bothering to try and stop them from recording as they tried to wrap a bandage around the head of the man they had just shot, who was laying on the sidewalk bleeding.

But a witness named Gabriel Valdez said the Marshals confiscated his cell phone camera as well as his mother’s camera as “evidence,” when he did not even start recording until after the shooting.

The incident took place around 10 a.m. when a group of Marshals were trying to apprehend a fugitive who was driving his truck.

According to KRQE:

“Get out of the car! Get out of the vehicle! And then boom! She shot like right away. She just shot right away,” Gabriel Valdez said.

That’s how one witness describes the gunfire that rang out in the South Valley Tuesday morning.

“He never pulled out a gun, nothing,” one witness told KRQE News 13. “His hands were on the steering wheel.”

“This is enough! This is ridiculous!” another witness said.

KRQE News 13 talked to one witness who says he had his cell phone taken away from him.

“I have evidence on there they said because I have video on there, not video of the actual shooting, but of everything else,” Valdez said.

In an interview with a New Mexico live streamer, Valdez said that the Marshals first asked to see what he had recorded, so he handed them the phone.

Then once they had the phone in their hands, they refused to return it to him, not even to allow him to write down telephone numbers he had on the phone. That segment of the interview begins at 5:16 in this video.

Full article

moniquill

misandry-mermaid:

shan-is-a-fan:

hogwartsisbiggerontheinside:

2damnfeisty:

cunt-lyfe:

They did something right

About time.

OH My GOD!! I thought there was no way for this to be real. This is so wonderful!!!!!!!!

It’s about time that the SCOTUS got something right!

I don’t think people understand what a HUGE step forward this is.

  • Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence.1
  • Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.2
  • Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.3
  • Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.4
  • A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm.5 In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim.6
  • Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.7
aibnbf

flippydoodle:

Caste Discourse in Kerala is Impossible (Part 2)

Dr. Sanal Mohan and Prof. Yesudasan in conversation with Prof. Gopal Guru about the ways in which Malayalam newspapers and journals have refused to address the question of caste in Kerala. They also talk about their personal experiences with casteism, and how the Malayali identity is based on a specific exclusion of Dalits and minorities

dougcmatthews

odinsblog:

The way that the Stand Your Ground statute is used in jury instructions boils down to this: ALL THAT ANY NON-BLACK SHOOTER NEEDS TO DO IS TO SAY THAT THEY WERE AFRAID FOR THEIR LIFE…because scary Black person. It matters very little if the so-called “reasonable fear” existed in reality, or only in someone’s mind, or not at all

Newsflash: ANY given reason =/= “reasonable fear”

I’ve sat on a jury as a foreman before, and please believe me when I say…during deliberations in the jury room, “reasonable” can easily become, “well, he did give a reason for his fear" if someone strong (or Black) isn’t there to immediately shoot that thought process down

Here is the complete text of the Florida #SYG statute (written by ALEC, btw) which ultimately finds it’s way into Florida’s self defense (aka #SYG) jury instructions

But here’s how the interpretation plays out:

image

Make no mistake: Dunn didn’t use the words ‘gangster’ and ‘thug’ in his testimony by mistake. You don’t have to look any further than the glaring difference between how Richard Sherman was derided and pilloried as a “thug” vs. when White people like Mayor Rob Ford and Michael Grimm (R-NY) aren’t even arrested after being caught on film using drugs or making credible death threats, let alone not called a thug. Those two words—thug and gangster—and many more have become heavily weaponized and racialized, and they are ‘polite’ stand ins for the n-word. And that coded language didn’t just happen all on it’s own

And let’s be real here, for far too many armed White people, unfamiliar Black bodies are plenty of reason to be fearful…all the way to the point of immediately applying lethal force (please see also: implicit shooter bias, Renisha McBride, Jonathan Ferrell, etcetc, etc, etc, etc)

This has to stop

mamie-caro
Women reading romances are being encouraged to accept the idea that violence heightens and intensifies sexual pleasure. They are also encouraged to believe that violence is a sign of masculinity and a gesture of male care, that the degree to which a man becomes violently angry corresponds to the intensity of his affection and care. Therefore, women readers learn that passive acceptance of violence is essential if they are to receive the rewards of love and care. This is often the case in women’s lives. They may accept violence in intimate relationships, whether heterosexual or lesbian, because they do not wish to give up that care. They see enduring abuse as the price they pay. They know they can live without abuse ; they do not think they can live without care.

bell hooks, Feminist Theory, From Margin To Center

Traduction :

Les femmes qui lisent des romans d’amour sont encouragées à accepter l’idée que la violence augmente et intensifie le plaisir sexuel. Elles sont aussi encouragées à croire que la violence est un signe de virilité et une preuve d’affection masculine, que le degré de violence dans la colère d’un homme correspond à l’intensité de son affection et de son amour. En conséquence, les lectrices apprennent que l’acceptation passive de la violence est essentielle si elles souhaitent recevoir en récompense amour et affection. C’est souvent le cas dans leur vie. Les femmes acceptent parfois la violence dans leurs relations intimes, qu’elles soient hétérosexuelles ou lesbiennes, parce qu’elles ne souhaitent pas faire une croix sur l’affection. Elles pensent qu’endurer l’abus est le prix à payer. Elles savent qu’elles peuvent vivre sans violence ; elles ne pensent pas pouvoir vivre sans affection.

thepeoplesrecord

Seven homeless people freeze to death in wealthiest area of the country

thepeoplesrecord:

December 19, 2013

A 50-year-old California man  described by relatives as a “loving father and a doting grandfather,” White had been living on the streets of Hayward for years. He wanted to work and was able to find odd jobs here and there, but it was never much or consistent enough to afford a place to live. Hayward has no emergency shelter with beds for single men, so White slept outside.

But things were looking up. Last Saturday, White was  second on a long list to get permanent supportive housing in Hayward. He had been waiting in line for months and it seemed as though he might finally catch a break.

White died on Sunday.

Temperatures in the Bay Area plummeted to near-freezing on December 10, an uncommon occurrence in a region generally known for its lack of inclement weather. White’s body was found in the old Hayward City Hall courtyard. He’d been beaten up and robbed by multiple men, who took the new winter coat White’s sister had  given him on Friday. He was wearing just a hoodie and shorts. His cause of death is still being determined, but police  speculated that his death was weather-related.

White is now the seventh homeless person in the Bay Area to die in the cold since November 28. The others were Daniel Brillhart, 52; Enrique Rubio, 56; Andrew Greenleaf, 48; Daniel Moore, 53; and two men in the East Bay and Peninsula whose names have not been released.

According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, approximately 700 homeless people die from hypothermia every year. Those deaths tend to occur in the East Coast and Midwest, not California. But temperatures in the Bay have repeatedly dipped below freezing in the past few weeks, leaving thousands of homeless people in danger.

The Bay Area has one of the highest homeless populations in part because of the explosion of recent wealth that has led to increasing inequality and a lack of affordable housing for those without high-paying tech jobs. The San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area is the wealthiest in the country, even outpacing New York-Connecticut and Washington DC-Maryland-Northern Virginia. This influx of money has  brought higher housing prices and more evictions in the past few years.

And for those viscerally impacted by rising inequality, life is especially difficult when the temperatures drop. Many communities in the Bay Area lack emergency shelters, in part because freezes aren’t very common. But what happens to many of the thousands of people living without shelter in the Bay Area, waiting for their name to be called for the few affordable housing units that exist? “What happens is they die on the street,” Betty DeForest, director emeritus of South Hayward Parish,  wrote in an email to the City Council last week following White’s death.

In other words, we live in a society that leaves many people too poor to survive but are surprised to see them die.

Source

socialismartnature

socialismartnature:

The Seventh U.S. Cavalry charging into Black Kettle's village at daylight, November 27, 1868. (Library of Congress) The Seventh U.S. Cavalry charging into Black Kettle’s village at daylight, November 27, 1868. (Library of Congress) 

themythofcishetiphus

misandryspice:

bookishboi:

beggarbelief:

bookishboi:

Fallon Fox is the world’s first trans MMA fighter. Deal with it.

[Read Her Story Here.]

Probably going to annoy people but … It’s good that trans people are allowed to be MMA fighters but if we must “deal with it” and by the tone it is obviously not a big deal (which it isn’t) why are they pointing out Fallon is a trans fighter? She should just be a fighter. I wouldn’t have known she was trans if not for people publicizing it.

Because 1 in 12 transgender people will be murdered.

Because 70% of those murders will be perpetrated against people of color.

Because 50% of transgender people will be victims of violence.

Because 25% of transgender people are victims of physical/sexual assault.

Because 49% of transgender people will attempt suicide at some point in their life.

Because 18% of all homeless youth are transgender.

Because 15% of all transgender people live in extreme poverty.

Because 16% are forced to work in an underground economy to survive.

Because despite all of these statistics, transgender people account for less than 5% of the population.

Because seeing people like her give us hope.

And sometimes, that shit fucking matters.

Also it’s important to keep in mind that trans* women have  a ridiculous amount of pressure on them to “pass” (not that this is a priority for all trans* ladies or trans* folks in general) which often means sticking to traditional gender roles despite maybe not always wanting to do so in an attempt to have their gender identity be recognised and validated, so Fox’s MMA training and practice is not only subverting gender roles and expectations but a lot of shit that comes with the roles that trans* women are expected to preform and that’s incredibly significant and should not be ignored or erased for the sake of cis convenience.

Basically: this is a huge middle finger to trans*misogyny and it needs to be recognised and celebrated.

divinehours-deactivated20130928

Instead of catering to mainstream rhetoric, Griffin could be using her platform to talk about the dire lack of social services for sex workers outside of prison, due to criminalisation and social stigma - and use her spotlight to bring the public a far more nuanced look at the sex trade.

There are many unhappy workers in the sex industry, just as there are many unhappy workers in many other kinds of work, and criminalisation only serves to exacerbate the level of exploitation and violence in this market; nevertheless, sex workers demand the same human rights and labour rights as all other people. Moral reform lectures, delivered to prison inmates, are not the best use of state resources when many other preventative social services are direly needed.

hikikomori-picture-show

hikikomori-picture-show:

Messieurs. Imaginez. Vous vous baladez dans la rue, d’un pas nonchalant et décontracté. Vous pensez à tout un tas de trucs. A ce que vous allez manger à la maison, à votre rétroviseur à réparer, à votre prochaine soirée entre copains. A priori, ça va pas trop mal. Puis d’un coup, une voiture s’arrête à votre niveau. L’automobiliste vous demande son chemin. Vous répondez poliment et reprenez votre route. Mais la voiture ne reprend pas sa route. Elle vous suit au pas, vous pose tout un tas de questions. Où vous allez. Si vous êtes du coin. Votre p’tit nom. Si vous avez envie d’aller prendre un pot. Putain de pot de colle, le gars ! Face à votre mutisme, il se tire.
Ou alors, vous êtes dans le train. Vous avez les écouteurs sur les oreilles, un bon bouquin dans les mains. De temps en temps, vous jetez un œil sur le paysage. Un gars s’assoit en face de vous. Vous vous en fichez. Alternez votre regard entre la campagne qui défile et les pages du livre. Mais vous sentez le regard du mec sur vous. Insistant. Puis à travers la musique diffusée dans vos écouteurs, vous percevez un bourdonnement. Le bonhomme vous parle. Poli, vous éteignez la musique, retirez le casque et demandez de répéter. Il vous demande si vous êtes chinois, parce qu’il y a une asiatique sur la couverture du livre que vous tenez. Et que vous avez des yeux bridés. Vous répondez que ce n’est pas le cas, souriez poliment et retournez à votre lecture. Le gars vous demande d’où vous êtes. Comment vous vous appelez. Quel âge vous avez. Qu’est-ce que vous faites tout seul dans ce train. Qu’est-ce que vous faites dans la vie. Ce n’est pas un échange, mais un interrogatoire. Vous ne vous intéressez pas à cet homme, n’avez aucune question à lui poser. Mais il n’est pas agressif, alors vous répondez à chaque question. Aucune raison de taper un scandale à ce type si calme qui veut juste causer. Mais ses yeux scrutateurs sont pesants. Il voit bien que vous n’avez pas envie de parler, mais ça lui est égal. Voix du contrôleur. Votre train arrive en gare de Toulon, terminus. Vous descendez du train. Vous entendez le mec vous suivre. Monsieur. Monsieur. Attendez. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Il vous suit. Vous faites mine de recevoir un appel et d’être pressé. Accélérez le pas jusqu’à votre bus. Semé. Merde, c’était quoi ce type ?
Ou bien, êtes-vous en train d’attendre des amis à la terrasse d’un café. Là aussi, vous lisez tranquillement, profitant du petit vent qui caresse votre nuque et des fins rayons du soleil perçant délicatement les feuilles des arbres. Des mecs s’assoient à la table voisine. Ils vous regardent. Chuchotent. Pouffent de rire. L’un d’entre eux vous interpelle. Vous demande ce que vous lisez. Si vous attendez quelqu’un. S’il peut s’asseoir à votre table. Vous faites votre plus beau sourire pour décliner, en disant que vous attendez des amis. Le mec fronce les sourcils et reste à sa place. Silence. Puis il revient à la charge. En disant que vous avez de beaux cheveux. Vous trouvez ça bizarre mais remerciez. Toujours poli. Ne jamais faire de vague. Surtout qu’il n’y a pas de raison. Sont pas méchants, après tout. Alors pourquoi cette gêne ? Ces gars cherchent juste à être sympa… Ils vous demandent l’heure. Ce que vous faites dans la vie. S’il était bon, ce p’tit sirop que vous avez commandé. Ah oui, faut boire frais en été. Impossible de lire tranquille. Le flux de questions banales ne s’interrompt pas. Vous ne comprenez pas. Heureusement, vos amis finissent par arriver et s’installent à votre table. Les gars d’à côté finissent leurs verres et s’en vont.
Ou alors, venez-vous d’apprendre une mauvaise nouvelle. Vous êtes triste, agacé, fâché, et vous portez cet état sur votre visage. Regard fermé, lèvres pincées. Ou non, même pas. Rien à signaler. Neutralité. Vous marchez dans la rue. Puis votre gueule accroche d’un coup le regard d’un bonhomme. Qui vous lance à la cantonade qu’avec un sourire, vous seriez tellement plus beau ! Vous zappez. Vous êtes plongé dans vos pensées. Puis vous entendez un murmure, un crachat sec derrière vous. « Pauvre con. »

En étant de bonne foi, messieurs, si un de ces cas de figure arrive, vous ne trouvez pas ça un peu… déplacé ? Sans rire, ça ne vous embêterait pas un peu, qu’un gars cherche à devenir votre pote de manière forcenée ? Insistante ? Oppressante ?

Ces bonshommes qui veulent nouer contact avec vous, d’un coup, comme ça. Qui veulent votre amitié à tout prix. Un sourire. Ou peut-être que ce n’est pas ça qu’ils veulent. Que ce regard et ce sourire ne sont que des préliminaires. Ce que ces gentils messieurs veulent, c’est vous dans leur plumard. Ou sur une banquette arrière. Le cul écarté. La bouche humide. La salive lascive. Vos trous dilatés. Vous êtes choqués. Bordel de merde, vous n’êtes pas pédé ! Pas question de se faire enculer ou de sucer ! Vous n’aimez pas les hommes. Vous n’aimez que les fentes crémeuses, les globes ronds et doux des seins sous vos mains, les bouches carmines et sans poil autour. Pas question de vous retrouver avec ces bouches velues à embrasser, des sales queues à sucer, cette douleur atroce à endurer. Aucune raison d’écarter le cul ou tirer la langue pour un membre non désiré. Et quand bien même vous seriez homo, ne trouveriez-vous pas normal qu’on vous foute la paix ? Que vous ayez le droit de choisir celui pour qui bander, plutôt qu’il s’impose à vous ?

Pourquoi être flattée de susciter le désir bruyant, pesant, envahissant de personnes pour lequel on n’a, justement, aucun désir ? Un regard est une chose. J’aime regarder les belles filles. J’aime les filles tout court. Pas toutes. Mais certaines. Que j’ai aimé d’amour, corps et âme. J’aime aussi les hommes. Tout court aussi. Pas tous. Certainement pas. Mais certains. Y en a même un avec qui je partage ma vie, c’est dire. Mais je n’attends pas qu’on me désire en retour. Le plaisir du voyeur me suffit. Je comprends les voyeurs. On est pareils…

Mais pour certains, caresser ton cul et tes cuisses de l’iris ne suffit pas. Il faut plus. Et tu dois les aimer, ces gars qui viennent te chercher. Te prendre par la main, pêcher ton sourire crispé forcé. Sans distinction. Sans avoir le choix. Sans droit de regard. Sils viennent me chercher, c’est pour pas que je n’oublie que si je montre mes jambes, c’est uniquement pour eux. Pour leurs beaux yeux. Pour leur queue.

Et si je l’ouvre, c’est que je suis une pauvre conne qui ne sait pas ce qu’elle veut.

to anyone suggesting that guns prevent rape:

  • rape isn’t 80% rapist’s fault and 20% the raped person’s fault.
  • rape is 100% the fault of the rapist.
  • 99% of the time, the rapist is a male.
  • which means that the only “rape prevention” worth a shit statistically is going to focus on altering men’s behavior. 
  • if you gun freaks want to use something violent to stop rapists, then let’s go with mandatory prosecution of all rape claims and mandatory castration for all convictions. 
  • how’s that for you?

dirtydarwin

dirtydarwin: