As #EndSars trends online, Nigerian police squad disbanded
Amnesty International listed an alleged 82 cases of torture and execution carried out by SARS (Special Anti-Robbery Squad) 

Renee G October 11, 2020

The Grio Top 3 10/9

Following days of widespread protests against police brutality, Nigeria’s police chief has announced the dissolution of a notorious anti-robbery unit.

As previously reported in theGrio, the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) has long been accused of harassing and extorting young people and targeting those who have dreads, are dressed in nice clothing, or driving nice cars.

Read More: Nigerians rally against police brutality with #EndSARS campaign

Along with unlawful arrests, SARS has also been accused of being responsible for kidnappings, inflicting torture, and even murdering innocent people.

While #EndSars trended online in Nigeria for several days, thousands of people marched across Nigerian and in multiple cities across the world this week to demand the unit be disbanded.

Hello @PoliceNG. You have told US that SARS has been dismantled. But have you told THEM??
— Anto Lecky (@AntoLecky) October 11, 2020

In a statement on Sunday, Muhammed Adamu, inspector general of police, said the unit had been abolished “with immediate effect,” a move that was “in response to the yearnings of the Nigerian people.”

However, according to Adamu, the unit would be redeployed to other police commands, formations and units, which sparked outrage and condemnation by some activists online who vowed to keep up their campaign, demanding accountability and justice for the victims of police brutality.

The “disbanding” of SARS is step 1. This has happened before. We have to build a form of community safety that actually makes Nigerians feel safe. Let this be a battle that’s part of a larger movement against corruption to demand a government that truly serves us 🇳🇬#EndSARS
— Jidenna (@Jidenna) October 11, 2020

Adamu added that the Nigerian police force intended to investigate cases of alleged human rights violations by working with civil society organizations and human rights groups.

In a Twitter post, the Nigerian presidency promised that the police unit, which was founded in 1992 in an attempt to combat robbery, would be disbanded immediately.

Read More: South Africa ruling opens way for apartheid-era prosecutions of police who tortured and killed activists

In June, a report by Amnesty International listed an alleged 82 cases of torture and execution carried out by SARS under the supervision of high-ranking officers. The report accused the squad of “systematic use of torture” and alleged the existence of torture chambers within the Nigerian Police Force.

NZ ELECTION
Sam Neill Is Team Legalize Marijuana

By Kristy Puchko | Celebrity | October 9, 2020 |


Election day is coming! Not just in the U.S., but also for New Zealand. That not only means a chance to vote for politicians who support causes Kiwis care about but also the chance to vote on referendums. This year, that includes “Cannabis legalization and control referendum,” which as you might guess is about whether or not the recreational use of marijuana should be legal in New Zealand.

Among those supporting the referendum is national treasure Sam Neill, who took a break from posting about wine, pigs, and Jeff Goldblum to share this on Twitter:


NEW ZEALANDERS everywhere! Make sure to VOTE in this critical election. Have YOUR say. And while you’re at it, let’s get sensible and finally LEGALISE cannabis .Decriminalise it, regulate it, tax it- the whole community benefits( not gangs) #makeitlegal #VoteYesOnCannabis #CBD pic.twitter.com/ETeyr6paK3— Sam Neill (@TwoPaddocks) October 9, 2020

OK. While we’re at it, here’s the pigs and Goldblum content that Neill offered up this week.

First up: Please enjoy a #badpig scratching himself.

No wonder my fences are shagged. Even the rams are shocked #BadPig . pic.twitter.com/0d9C6C7i52— Sam Neill (@TwoPaddocks) October 8, 2020

Then, the best Pence/fly joke on the internet.

We say it again: Follow Sam Neill on social media. It is basically self-care.

Trump slight against Gold Star families adds to military woes

BY REBECCA KHEEL - 10/11/20 

President Trump has sparked a new wave of criticism over his treatment of members of the military after suggesting he may have caught the coronavirus from Gold Star families.

The latest row comes after a series of scandals in which Trump was accused of disparaging service members, giving his political rivals an opening and calling into question whether he can hold on to a bloc of voters seen as central to his base.

With the presidential election now less than a month away and Trump trailing in both national polls and key battleground states, the president can ill afford more incidents that generate negative headlines and risk alienating any service members, veterans or other military supporters.

“If the polls can be believed, he’s in the stop-the-bleeding phase of the operation,” said Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who was a White House adviser to former President George W. Bush. “And he keeps nicking himself, sometimes with paper cuts, sometimes with deeper slices. But whatever it is, it's not the thing that he needs.”

The latest self-inflicted wound came when Trump said he thinks an event at the White House that honored families of slain service members could be the source of his COVID-19 infection.

“I figured there would be a chance that I would catch it,” Trump said in a phone interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo on Thursday. “Sometimes I'd be with, in groups of, for instance, Gold Star families. I met with Gold Star families. I didn't want to cancel that. But they all came in, and they all talked about their son and daughter and father.”

“And I can't back up, Maria, and say, ‘Give me room. I want room. Give me 12 feet. Stay 12 feet away when you talk.’ They come within an inch of my face sometimes,” he added.

“They want to hug me, and they want to kiss me. And they do. And frankly, I'm not telling them to back up. I'm not doing it. But I did say it's like — it's obviously dangerous. It's a dangerous thing I guess if you go by the COVID thing,” he said.

Trump appeared to be alluding to a Sept. 27 event at the White House for Gold Star families. One person who was at that event is known to have since tested positive for the virus: Coast Guard Vice Commandant Adm. Charles Ray.
ADVERTISEMENT

None of the Gold Star families are known to have since tested positive as of Friday.

Doctors have not disclosed how or when Trump may have gotten the virus, and White House officials have repeatedly refused to answer questions on when his last negative coronavirus test was.

“Considering it has been 13 days since the event, all Gold Star family are all doing well and exhibit no symptoms of COVID-19,” Timothy Davis, president and chief executive of the Greatest Generations Foundation, a nonprofit that helped families attend the event, said in a statement.

All Gold Star family attendees were tested by the White House medical team before entering the building and tested negative, he added.

The White House has sought to clean up Trump’s comments. Communications director Alyssa Farah told reporters he was not blaming Gold Star families for his infection but rather laying out a timeline of events within the period in which he might have been exposed.

“His point was merely that in the time frame that he was potentially exposed, there were a number of different venues he'd been at and individuals he had interacted with that it could have come from — and by no means are blaming anyone who was present,” Farah said. “And we did take a lot of precautions for that event. So based on contact tracing, the data we have, we don't think it arose from that event."

But Trump did not call out any other recent event specifically, such as the Sept. 26 White House ceremony where he announced his latest Supreme Court nominee. Dozens of attendees and their contacts have tested positive for COVID-19 since that event, which top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci referred to as a “superspreader” Friday.

Nor was it the first time Trump appeared to blame military-connected individuals for the White House outbreak.

After close aide Hope Hicks tested positive at the beginning of the month, Trump told Fox News’s Sean Hannity that “it’s very, very hard when you are with people from the military or from law enforcement.”

“And they come over to you, and they — they want to hug you, and they want to kiss you because we really have done a good job for them. And you get close, and things happen,” he said.

After Trump’s Gold Star families comments, congressional Democrats pounced.

“Can you believe that he would say such a thing?” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked at her weekly press conference.

The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, meanwhile, called the remarks “a shocking statement even for this president.”

“Instead of casting aspersions on the families of the fallen for infecting him, President Trump should be transparent about his own actions, who he met with and when, and release detailed medical information including a timeline and do some real contact tracing to help stop the spread,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a statement. “Stop blaming, deflecting and denying, Mr. President, and start leading.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), an Army veteran who lost both her legs when her helicopter was shot down in Iraq, tweeted that Trump “has no shame,” while Marine veteran Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) tweeted that Trump blaming Gold Star families “when he has been flouting medical advice since day one of the pandemic would be laughable if it weren't so reprehensible.”

“The President who refused to stand up to Putin in defense of our troops is now offloading blame on Gold Star families, who've sacrificed everything for our nation,” Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) said in his own tweet. “It’s time for this President to show respect for our military & take responsibility for his failed #COVID response.”

Warner appeared to be alluding to an alleged Russian plot to offer the Taliban bounties for killing U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan. Reports about the bounties over the summer caused a firestorm for Trump, who has said he never raised the issue in calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump also faced a scandal last month over allegations first reported by The Atlantic that he called U.S. troops who died in battle “suckers” and “losers.” He has denied the reporting but fanned the flames of that scandal by then accusing Pentagon leaders of deciding to send forces into war to appease defense contractors.

The successive scandals have given the Biden campaign ammunition to attack. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden hit Trump over the “suckers” and “losers” comments at the first presidential debate, though Trump quickly pivoted to attacking Biden’s son Hunter.

At the vice presidential debate on Wednesday, Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), cited all of those scandals — as well as Trump dismissing troops’ brain injuries in Iraq earlier this year as “headaches” and his repeated criticism of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for being a prisoner of war — to argue Trump has a “pattern” of disparaging the military. Vice President Pence defended Trump against “slanders” he described as “absurd.”

Trump has weathered controversies over his treatment of the military and veterans before. His criticism of McCain dates back to the 2016 election, and during the same cycle, Trump also feuded with a Gold Star family.

But Trump’s political situation is more precarious now, Feaver said.

“It's hard for anything to penetrate and sink in nowadays,” he said. But the White House “went to some length to try to walk that statement back, clarify what the president meant to say, etc., etc., which they don't bother for many of his other equally offensive comments. And so that tells you that the White House political people understand that this is toxic in a way so that even though it's hard for anything to sink in, it may still matter.”

Remembering Ruben Salazar, pioneer Latino journalist
BY RAUL REYES, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 08/29/20 

© Getty Image

Fifty years ago, journalist Ruben Salazar, 42, set off to cover an anti-war protest in East Los Angeles and never returned.

The march, known as the Chicano Moratorium, drew over 25,000 people on Aug. 29, 1970. It was a largely peaceful gathering until law enforcement moved in, drawn by reports of looting. Then the rally descended into chaos and violence. By the end of the day, hundreds had been arrested and three people were dead, including Salazar. He died after being struck by a canister fired by a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputy.

On the anniversary of his death, Salazar’s legacy deserves to be remembered and celebrated. He was a pioneering Latino journalist whose impact is still felt today. His killing was a seminal moment in the Mexican American civil rights movement. And the issues that he cared about matter now as much as they did half a century ago.
ADVERTISEMENT

Salazar was born in Juarez, Mexico, in 1928 and grew up in El Paso. In an age when opportunities for Latino journalists were extremely limited, he carved out an exceptional career. He was a foreign correspondent and one of the first Latino reporters at the Los Angeles Times. He interviewed President Eisenhower, Cesar Chavez, and Robert F. Kennedy. Later he became news director for a Spanish-language television station, while continuing as a columnist for the L.A. Times. He illuminated the lives of Latinos for his readers, explaining in a 1970 column that “A Chicano is a Mexican-American with a non-Anglo image of himself.”

The circumstances around Salazar’s death have long been viewed as suspicious among activists of his generation. Prior to his death, he had confided to his friends that he was worried about being targeted by law enforcement. But the 1970 coroner’s inquest did not result in any criminal charges against the deputy who killed him, and a 2011 review of Salazar’s case by an independent watchdog agency found that Salazar’s killing was neither intentional nor targeted.

Fast-forward 50 years: Police violence against Latinos continues to be a significant problem. Research from the Washington Post has found that, since 2015, Latinos are the second-highest demographic killed by police, after African Americans. Just this year, James Porter Garcia, 28, was killed by Phoenix police in July as he sat in a parked car; Andres Guardado, 18, was fatally shot in the back by a Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s deputy in June; and Carlos Ingram Lopez, 27, died while being pinned down by police officers in Tucson in April. Like Salazar’s case, none of these incidents has received sustained national attention. So Latinos have much to learn from the Black Lives Matter movement about amplifying the need for justice in our communities.

Salazar forged his career before the concept of “diversity” existed. Yet even as the U.S. Latino population has grown to nearly one-in-five Americans, Latinos remain under-represented in the media. A 2018 Pew Center report found that newsrooms were 77 percent white. Ironically, the lack of Latino representation continues to be an issue at the L.A. Times, where Salazar once worked. In July, a caucus of Latino employees wrote an open letter to management calling for better community coverage and representation.

Salazar’s death is also relevant because Americans are living under an administration that is generally hostile to Latinos, immigrants, and journalists. The ideals that Salazar believed in, like freedom of the press, seem under siege. Consider that Latinos were among the many journalists who reported experiencing excessive police force this summer while covering the George Floyd protests. Or that President Trump has labelled the news media “the enemy of the American people.”

True, Salazar likely would never have seen himself as a martyr for a cause. He was not a political figure or an activist. But his reporting on immigration, racial profiling, and Latino identity was ahead of his time. He achieved success despite his facing discrimination. His death led to the formation of a professional organization for Latino reporters in California, which paved the way for the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. It’s no wonder that he was known as la voz de la Raza, the voice of the people.

Ruben Salazar was dedicated to seeking the truth and to accurately depicting the Mexican American experience. His story is a reminder of how far Latinos have come in the struggle for visibility and justice – and how far our community still has to go.

Raul A. Reyes is an immigration attorney and member of the USA Today Board of Contributors. A graduate of Harvard University and Columbia Law School, he is also a contributor to NBCNews.com and CNN Opinion. You can follow him on Twitter at @RaulAReyes, Instagram: raulareyes1.

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Kaepernick: Abolish police, prisons
BY JOSEPH CHOI - 10/11/20 

© Getty Images

Former NFL player Colin Kaepernick called for the abolition of police and prison systems in a new essay, abandoning his former demands for reform as ineffective and incapable of solving the issues of police brutality and high incarceration rates in the U.S.

The essay is part of a new series called "Abolition for the People" which is created through a partnership with Kaepernick Publishing and "LEVEL", a publication by Medium that concentrates on the lives of Black and Brown men. Kaepernick's essay is the first of 30 that will be published in the next few weeks.

In his piece, "The Demand for Abolition," Kaepernick argues that institutions of justice should concentrate more on the well-being of people instead of controlling them. He laments the lack of progress and the continued killing of unarmed black people by the police that has occurred since he began protesting in 2015.

Kaepernick said reform was unviable during the ongoing discourse.

"Ultimately, I realized that seeking reform would make me an active participant in reforming, reshaping, and rebranding institutional white supremacy, oppression, and death," Kaepernick wrote.

"To be clear, the abolition of these institutions is not the absence of accountability but rather the establishment of transformative and restorative processes that are not rooted in punitive practices," he writes. "By abolishing policing and prisons, not only can we eliminate white supremacist establishments, but we can create space for budgets to be reinvested directly into communities to address mental health needs, homelessness and houselessness, access to education, and job creation as well as community-based methods of accountability."

Police reform and spending has become a central issue in a year filled with protests against police brutality amid a renewed Black Lives Matter movement. In Minneapolis, where George Floyd was killed, the city council vowed to "dismantle" the police department and set up a "transformative new model of public safety" in its place.

Kaepernick first made national news when he kneeled during the national anthem in 2015 to protest police brutality against Black people in the U.S. At the time he was a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, though he has gone unsigned since 2015. His silent protest began a nationwide trend of players kneeling during the national anthem.

These acts of protest have been become highly divisive with many calling for players to be kept from playing if they protest. The NFL initially required players to stand or remain in the locker room, but Commissioner Roger Goodell has since said the league was wrong to oppose players' peaceful protests.

Void the police contracts
BY ANDREW KOPPELMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/13/20 




© Getty Images

Police unions all over the United States have negotiated contracts that protect officers from discipline for misconduct. The result is that, so long as these deals are in force, cities are stuck with officers who are uncontrollably reckless and violent. But a body of forgotten law from the 19th century shows that states can free themselves from these fetters.

In most large urban departments, the contracts thwart misconduct investigations by protecting officers from being interrogated immediately after an incident. Often the officer is given all the information that the questioners have before the interrogation, including any videos, making it easier to lie about what happened. Complaints are voided unless they are filed within a very short time. Anonymous complaints are prohibited. Investigations that are not concluded quickly are automatically ended. They are not recorded in the officer’s personnel file.

In Chicago, Officer Jason Van Dyke had more than 20 complaints against him, but the union contract prohibited the city from placing them in his file. So, his pattern of bad behavior went unnoticed until he shot Laquan McDonald 16 times. Van Dyke claimed self-defense, asserting that McDonald threatened him with a knife. No action was taken until the public release of a video showing that Van Dyke was lying and that he started shooting while McDonald was walking away. Van Dyke was subsequently convicted of second-degree murder. Absent the union contract, he might have been taken off duty before he could kill anyone. Better discipline of the worst officers would have a huge effect: The 1 percent of officers who have the largest number of civilian allegations against them generate almost five times the number of payouts and over four times the total damage payouts in civil rights litigation as police as a whole.

Discipline of police officers should not be a subject of collective bargaining. Yet the contracts are there, and some of them will not be revisited for years to come. They are the reason why unionized police are more likely to engage in violent misconduct and more likely to kill civilians, particularly nonwhite ones. The foolish concessions of past governments protect that small minority of cops who are as bad as Van Dyke.

America has faced this kind of problem before. When that happened, the Supreme Court empowered states to escape contracts that threatened the public — and that power still exists.

In the early 19th century, the nation experienced a religious revival. Its most momentous consequence was the new antislavery movement that led to the Civil War. But it also targeted other moral failings, notably gambling.

States had for many years funded public works by contracting with private corporations to run lotteries, typically for a term of years or until a given sum of money had been raised. By the late 1820s, there were hundreds of such grants.

The Constitution prohibits states from “impairing the obligation of contracts.” In the 19th century, the Supreme Court cited the Contracts Clause in nearly half of the cases in which it struck down state laws. No agreement between a legislature and a private entity could be undone. In one notable case, a legislature could not reverse a corrupt land deal enacted by its predecessor.

So, states that wanted to abolish gambling had their hands tied. Courts held that opponents of lotteries had to wait until the existing grants expired.

Eventually, however, the courts took a different view, one that remains the law today. In 1879, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a state law rescinding a 25-year grant of the right to operate a lottery. It declared, in a decision that has never been overruled:

“No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. . . . Government is organized with a view to their preservation, and cannot divest itself of the power to provide for them. For this purpose the largest legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself.” The agencies of government “can govern according to their discretion . . . but they cannot give away nor sell the discretion of those that are to come after them.”

Kaepernick: Abolish police, prisons

If states can abolish lotteries, even when past legislatures have contracted away that right, then they must have the power to abolish contractual terms that endanger the safety of their citizens. The problem might be addressed by a simple state law declaring that discipline of police officers may not be a subject of collective bargaining, and that any contractual limitation on such discipline is void as against public policy. There are notorious political obstacles to reform, but in some states, the police unions will be less powerful at the state level than when dealing with individual cities.

Discussions of police misconduct today tend to focus on broad remedies such as abolishing qualified immunity or criminal prosecution of officers. But before reaching for this heavy artillery – tools that are only likely to have any effect in the most egregious cases, leaving most police misconduct untouched – states should consider reclaiming their power of ordinary supervision, the capacity to get rid of employees who cannot do their jobs competently and safely.

Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University, is the author of “Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty? The Unnecessary Conflict” (Oxford University Press, 2020).

A Black man is suing a Texas city for $1 million after he was tied to police on horseback during an arrest

Taylor Ardrey, INSIDER•October 11, 2020

Galveston police officer Amanda Smith secures Donald Neely with a rope after she and officer Patrick Brosch arrested the homeless man for criminal trespass in Galveston, Texas, U.S. August 3, 2019, in a still image from video released October 2, 2019. Galveston Police Department/Handout via REUTERS

A Black man is suing Galveston, Texas for $1 million following his 2019 arrest where he was led by city police officers on a rope as they were riding horseback.

Donald Neely's lawsuit said the incident resulted in "embarrassment, humiliation, and fear," according to KPRC.

Galveston Police Department's Police Chief Vernon L. Hale apologized after the arrest saying his "officers showed poor judgment in this instance and could have waited for a transport unit at the location of the arrest."

A homeless Black man whose handcuffs were attached to a rope while police were riding on horseback during an arrest last year is suing Galveston, Texas for $1million, according to KPRC.

According to his lawsuit, Donald Neely was arrested for trespassing in August of last year and said the incident resulted in "embarrassment, humiliation, and fear," KPRC reported.

"Neely felt as though he was put on display as slaves once were," the lawsuit said. "He suffered from fear because one of the horses was acting dangerously, putting Neely in fear of being drug down the street by a run-away horse."

Following Neely's 2019 arrest, the Galveston Police Department's Police Chief Vernon L. Hale issued an apology for how the situation was handled by officers P. Brosch and A. Smith.

"First and foremost I must apologize to Mister Neely for the unnecessary embarrassment. Although this is a trained technique and best practice in some scenarios, I believe our officers showed poor judgment in this instance and could have waited for a transport unit at the location of the arrest. My officers did not have any malicious intent at the time of the arrest, but we have immediately changed the policy to prevent the use of this technique and will review all mounted training and procedures for more appropriate methods," Chief Hale said in a 2019 press release.

Footage of the incident circulated on social media and sparked outrage and criticism about the way Neely— who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia when he was young— was escorted by the officers.
—ABC13 Houston (@abc13houston) October 11, 2020

"Especially being African-American. Not that we lived in that day and time, but we all studied. We know the history, and to think in 2019 they saw fit to treat him like they would have treated us back then, it's just very disturbing," Neely's sister-in-law told KTRK-TV.

Neely wants a trial by jury for his case, according to ABC News.

Read the original article on Insider

Black man sues over incident in viral video showing police on horse leading him by rope
BY JOHN BOWDEN - 10/11/20

© Storyful

A Black man from Galveston, Texas, is suing city officials after two officers on horseback used a rope to lead him down the street.

Video that went viral in August showed 43-year-old Donald Neely handcuffed being led by two officers with the Galveston Police Department who had arrested Neely for criminal trespassing. 

The lawsuit obtained by ABC News said that Neely "suffered from handcuff abrasions, suffered from the heat, and suffered from embarrassment, humiliation and fear as he was led by rope and mounted officers down the city street" during his arrest.

The suit also says officers should have realized that Neely "being led with a rope and by mounted officers down a city street as though he was a slave, would find this contact offensive."

The city's police chief apologized for the spectacle at the time and pledged to no longer use mounted officers to transport arrested persons.

“Although this is a trained technique and best practice in some scenarios, I believe our officers showed poor judgment in this instance and could have waited for a transport unit at the location of the arrest,” the city's police chief said in a statement at the time.

“My officers did not have any malicious intent at the time of the arrest, but we have immediately changed the policy to prevent the use of this technique and will review all mounted training and procedures for more appropriate methods,” he added.

Neely's sister sharply criticized the manner of her brother's arrest in an interview with The New York Times in August, explaining that Neely battled homelessness and mental illness.

“They don’t care to know the whole story,” Taranette Neely said at the time. “You're a criminal in their eyes. You’ll always be a criminal. Ain’t no redemption for you. You’re trash. And that’s how they treated him.”

NUTTY AMERICANS
One-third of Americans believe the coronavirus was sent by God, poll finds

Most Americans believe the coronavirus crisis has a lesson to teach humanity.

BELEIVE IN SCIENCE NOT RELIGON

By Joseph Guzman | Oct. 9, 2020 THE HILL

Story at a glance

86 percent of U.S. adults said they believe there is a lesson for society to learn from the pandemic.

35 percent said they believe the lesson was sent by God.

The poll was conducted among more than 10,000 U.S. adults from July 13-19.

Life has gone sideways for millions of Americans due to the coronavirus pandemic. Businesses and schools have closed, many are unemployed and more than 212,000 people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19.

As the country continues to grapple with the health crisis, the majority of Americans believe there is some kind of lesson to be learned from the tragedy.

Our country is in a historic fight against the Coronavirus. Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

A Pew Research Center Survey conducted in July found that 86 percent of U.S. adults said they believe there is a lesson for humanity to learn from the pandemic. More than one third, 35 percent, said they believe the lessons were sent by God, compared to 37 percent who disagree with that claim.

Thirteen percent of respondents said they didn’t believe in God or believe there was a lesson to be learned from the coronavirus crisis.

The poll was conducted among more than 10,000 U.S. adults from July 13-19, with 3,700 who gave qualitative responses about what kind of lessons could be learned from the pandemic.

The responses included lessons about God and religion, government and politics, and priorities with respect to relationships with others.

“God is telling us that we need to change our ways or he will send a virus that will make us be alone so that we have time to think about how we live our lives. We all need to live as one, we are all children of God,” a 58-year-old man told Pew Research Center.

Other respondents said the virus has revealed where society has fallen short in confronting issues like racism, climate change and economic inequality.

“Capitalism has caused us to develop an unsustainable and inhumane system,” a 30-year-old man told Pew. “We should take this opportunity to restructure our society so that people can spend more time with family and so that there are appropriate safety nets in place to protect people when disaster strikes.”

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CORONAVIRUS RIGHT NOW

US SENATOR TOOK OFF MASK REPEATEDLY ON FLIGHT. HE CHAIRS COMMITTEE THAT OVERSEES AIRLINE SAFETY

HERE ARE THE EFFECTS THE STEROID DEXAMETHASONE COULD BE HAVING ON TRUMP

FAUCI SAYS IT'S ‘OBVIOUS’ HE HASN’T BEEN INVOLVED IN TRUMP’S CARE

FAUCI WARNS TRUMP’S RECOVERY COULD GO INTO REVERSAL

THE WHITE HOUSE DECLINED THE CDC’S OFFERS TO HELP CONTACT TRACE THE ADMINISTRATION’S CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK


Published on Oct 09, 2020

The Psychology of Crowds, Protests, and Riots
Recent findings on crowd psychology are reviewed.

Posted Oct 11, 2020


Source: pixabay/RJA1988
George Floyd protests

In an article published in the October 2020 issue of Current Opinion in Psychology, John Drury of the University of Sussex reviews recent findings on the psychology of crowds. The present article will be a selective review of these findings, as they relate to the psychology of protests and riots.

Recent events have increased public interest in the psychology of protests and riots:

This summer, we saw protests and demonstrations against police brutality toward African-Americans and other minorities.

The protests began after the death of an African-American man named George Floyd. Floyd died after a Caucasian police officer, Derek Chauvin, appeared to kneel on his neck for a long time while arresting him. The video of the incident, which shows Floyd repeatedly saying he cannot breathe, caused public outrage.

The protests turned violent in some places, resulting in riots and looting. Meanwhile, as the police and the military tried to control the crowds, more instances of police brutality were caught on tape.

But violent protests have not been limited to racial justice movements. For instance, anti-mask protests occurred frequently early during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown orders. Most recently, after new lockdown orders in New York, Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jews have been protesting and clashing with the police.

Regardless of the cause, an important question regarding riots and protests is what happens to people, on a psychological level, when they join protest movements? How do protest groups influence the identity of individuals? And what happens when people engage in violent protest or confront the police?

To answer some of these questions, let us examine a model of how conflicts between crowds and the police start and escalate.

Crowd psychology: The elaborated social identity model

According to the elaborated social identity model, conflicts between the crowd and the police emerge when the following two conditions are met:

Asymmetrical categorical representations: Both the crowd and the police view their own actions as legitimate and the actions of the other as illegitimate.
Asymmetrical power relations: The police are able to impose their view of what is legitimate on crowd participants (e.g., through superior technology or organization).

The model also suggests when actions by the police are perceived as treating all members of the crowd in the same negative way, particularly if these actions are seen as illegitimate (e.g., police brutality), the result is an extension of the sense of collective identity in the crowd. In other words, this unifies the previously heterogeneous crowd in their opposition to the police.article continues after advertisement

This is associated with a number of psychological changes in crowd participants.

Crowd identity changes

One change concerns the content of identity. For instance, if “moderates” who are protesting racial injustice are seen as “radicals” by the police and the subject of police brutality, then moderates might see themselves as radicals as well. When they do, they might begin to consider true radicals (e.g., those trying to provoke the police) as part of their larger group too. This results in an expansion of group boundaries.

People in this bigger group might experience greater empowerment too, especially if there is a sense that members can rely on mutual support as they face the police force, now the enemy.

When the collective identity changes, as above, sometimes the group’s goals change too. If the initial goal was protesting against racism or police brutality, the new aim might become overpowering the police in order to defend the right to protest. In this way, legitimacy may also be redefined, and crowd members beginning to view their own violent actions as legitimate forms of self-defense.

Predicting riots

So, it seems the actions and reactions of the crowd and the police could quickly escalate to dangerous levels and give rise to rioting.

A good predictor of rioting in one location, Drury observes, is rioting elsewhere. This is because of two different mechanisms, involving strategy and collecting identity.


Source: Pixabay/metaliza01

WHEN THESE GUYS SHOW UP A RIOT BREAKS OUT

One way people, including groups, influence each other involves collective identity—who we are and what we should do. So, when rioting is taking place elsewhere, it serves as a signal that rioting behavior is acceptable by other people who share the same collective identity.

Another method involves rioting as a strategy and is related to the perceived vulnerability of the police. Since rioting is usually prevented by the police, the fact that a riot is taking place somewhere can be seen as a signal that the police are weak.

Long-term influence of protests and riots on identity

Sometimes the identity changes people experience after participating in protests have long-term consequences. Drury notes these changes may be objective (e.g., changes to family and marital status, consumer behavior, work-life balance) and/or subjective (e.g., legitimacy, radicalization, empowerment, self-esteem).

For example, previous research has shown that when compared with non-protesters, people who participated in the 1960s anti-war protests had fewer children and were overall less likely to have children. Activism affects one’s choice of careers as well. In general, after participating in protests, people are more likely to “choose jobs in the knowledge, social and creative area.”

A positive view of crowd psychology

Let me end with some positive aspects of crowd psychology.

Despite the negative consequences of riots and looting, and the general unease regarding any sort of crowds during the current COVID-19 epidemic, the psychology of protests and crowds also suggests mass gatherings—be they to protest injustice, to express joy (e.g., after a game), or to gather for religious purposes (e.g., the Hajj)—could have positive effects.article continues after advertisement

In fact, participating in mass gatherings can be associated with powerful collective emotions, such as self-confidence and pride. As research on religious mass gatherings has shown, positive emotions may be experienced due to a sense of recognition of one’s views, validation of one’s values, and a sense of solidarity in giving and receiving support.


About the Author

Arash Emamzadeh attended the University of British Columbia in Canada, where he studied genetics and psychology. He has also done graduate work in clinical psychology and neuropsychology in U.S.

CRISPR researchers, awarded the Nobel Prize, say the technology could defeat coronavirus

The Nobel Prize was given to scientists who discovered a tool that helps us precisely alter DNA


Artists renderings of COVID spores and CRISPR (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

MATTHEW ROZSA OCTOBER 11, 2020 

Earlier this week, the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to a pair of scientists who discovered a genetic technology that can alter DNA — and, perhaps, help researchers treat COVID-19 and other future diseases.

The scientists who discovered this technology, known as the CRISPR/Cas9 genetic scissors (or CRISPR for short — clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats), are Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier from the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens in Berlin, and Dr. Jennifer A. Doudna from the University of California, Berkeley. In an interview with TechCrunch last month, Doudna explained that their technology could prove essential in fighting both the novel coronavirus and other dangerous microorganisms.

"It's really interesting to think about the ability to program CRISPR to be detecting not only the current coronavirus, but also other viruses," Doudna told Tech Crunch in September. "I don't think any of us think that, you know, viral pandemics are going away — I think this current pandemic is a call to arms, and we have to make sure that scientifically, we're ready for the next attack by a new virus."

CRISPR has become a household acronym, famous because of its potential to easily edit any organism's genome. CRISPR technology can and has been used to modify crops into genetically modified organisms (GMOs), correct genetic disorders and prevent or treat diseases.

CRISPR works by using a version of the protein Cas9 (one that has been complexed with a synthetic guide RNA) as a pair of molecular scissors, capable of "cutting" strands of DNA at pre-specified locations and adding new genes, removing existing ones or both. 

The award of the Nobel Prize to CRISPR researchers symbolizes its tremendous promise to medicine. Indeed, scientists are already trying to use this technology to treat people with COVID-19. Scientists at Stanford University and the Molecular Foundry were working on using CRISPR technology to fight influenza when, in January, they decided to pivot toward trying to fight the novel coronavirus. Those scientists developed a technique known as PAC-MAN, or Prophylactic Antiviral CRISPR in human cells. Their next step is to try to synthesize PAC-MAN with other gene altering technologies and use that on animals. If that works, they will then try to test this technology on people, in the hope of more effectively treating those whose novel coronavirus infections developed into the COVID-19 disease.

CRISPR technology was developed after scientists learned how bacteria and archaea (single-celled organisms that do not have a nucleus) use CRISPR-derived RNA and a variety of Cas proteins to demolish the DNA of viruses and other foreign invaders. In 2017, a team of scientists led by researchers at the University of Tokyo managed to show CRISPR in action for the first time. Yet knowledge of CRISPR was taken one step further when Charpentier was studying a deadly bacteria called Streptococcus pyogenes and discovered tracrRNA, a previously unknown molecule that the bacteria used to slice up DNA.



After publishing her discovery in 2011, Charpentier began working with Doudna to both recreate this genetic manipulation tool and simplify its molecular structure so that it can be more easily used by human beings. Finally they figured out how to use the genetic scissors to alter not just virus DNA, but DNA molecules from any predetermined site.
Advertisement:

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and one of the first people to decode the human genome, expressed great satisfaction at Charpentier's and Doudna's recognition.

"This technology has utterly transformed the way we do research in basic science," Collins told The New York Times. "I am thrilled to see Crispr-Cas getting the recognition we have all been waiting for, and seeing two women being recognized as Nobel Laureates."