Police rioted this weekend, justifying the point of the protests

Anthony L. Fisher BUSINESS INSIDER 6/1/2020

Police officers in Minneapolis on Saturday aiming at a Reuters TV cameraman during nationwide unrest following the death of George Floyd in police custody. REUTERS TV/Julio Cesar-Chavez

In cities across America this past weekend, many police officers committed acts of violence, callously violated citizens' rights, and abandoned the rule of law.

There's an institutional rot at the heart of policing in this country, which stems from privileges afforded to law-enforcement officers that allow them to break the law, abuse their authority, and hurt innocent people. 

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to squash "qualified immunity" for police officers, but even that wouldn't be enough.

Police unions almost universally resist any measures at transparency and accountability, and it is far too easy for bad cops to either stay on the job or find new law-enforcement jobs after they've been fired. 

THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE IS NOT A UNION 
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-fraternal-order-of-police-is-not.html

Democrats need to get over their reflexive pro-union posture, and Republicans should drop their knee-jerk fealty to armed authority, and defend the civil liberties of Americans.

In cities across America over the past several days, many police officers rioted.

Wanton acts of violence were committed. Rights were callously violated. The rule of law was abandoned.

To be sure, there were plenty of good and noble acts by the police over the weekend. Some police chiefs marched peacefully with protesters; others made it a point to directly engage in dialogue with their community. Countless officers protected innocent people and their property and also did their best to ensure as safe an environment as possible for peaceful protesters.

No cops deserved to be attacked with projectiles. This shouldn't be controversial.

The violence and property damage associated with the civil unrest is inexcusable. The looting is indefensible. Both do incredible damage to any cause seeking justice, especially ones fighting to end police brutality and reform the criminal justice system.

None of that makes analyzing the events of the past few days, the underlying causes, and the motivations of the participants any easier. Far from a binary good-versus-bad determination, there are myriad issues to unpack. But any conversation focused only on the riots and looting and not law enforcement's penchant for excessive force and institutional resistance to accountability is both disingenuous and unserious.

For the moment, I'm going to focus on the institutional rot at the heart of policing in this country, in which the privileges afforded to law-enforcement officers allow them to break the law, abuse their authority, and hurt innocent people.

These privileges are codified into police-union contracts with governments and backed up by the conservative interpretation of an 1871 law known as Section 1983.

Under the interpretation, which protects police officers from facing liability in civil courts for violating citizens' civil rights, those who feel their rights have been violated by a police officer need to prove that a nearly identical situation was ruled a violation of civil rights in the same jurisdiction for the courts to even consider revoking so-called qualified immunity from the officer accused.
Police rioted

In Minneapolis — the city where the nationwide unrest was sparked by the killing of George Floyd, a black man who died May 25 after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, knelt on his neck for over eight excruciating minutes — members of the police and National Guard marched through a quiet neighborhood as if it were Fallujah in 2004.
—Tanya Kerssen (@tkerssen) May 31, 2020

The militarized police barked orders at citizens, commanding them to go back into their homes. Even though the city's curfew specifically allowed for residents to be outside on their own property, one officer took a look at a small group of women on a front porch and said, "Light 'em up," before one of his colleagues fired paint canisters at them.

They were on their front porch. They were observing curfew rules. The cops were the lawbreakers.


Another Minneapolis officer performed a drive-by pepper-spraying of peaceful protesters and media members in broad daylight.

As violence erupted in at least two dozen US cities, some of the worst instincts of law enforcement were on display.

In Louisville, Kentucky, the police seized and destroyed a substantial amount of bottled water being used for the relief of peaceful protesters.

In Salt Lake City, an armored police officer who had no crowd to disperse still felt compelled to walk directly toward an elderly man with a cane and shove him to the ground.

In New York, two New York City Police Department vehicles plowed through a barricade and into a crowd of protesters. A young man with his hands in the air had his mask pulled down by an NYPD officer, who then pepper-sprayed him at point-blank range. And in at least one attempt at crowd clearance, officers manhandled and assaulted anyone in their way.

In Charleston, South Carolina, a young man among a group of kneeling protesters gave a tearful speech at the armored cops opposite them. After he pleaded with their humanity, even telling the cops he loved them, a group of officers charged toward the protesters and pulled the speaker into custody. He was arrested while peacefully protesting and exercising his freedom speech.
—(っ'-')╮ (@sweeeetdee_) June 1, 2020

Police officers can often face mortal danger and extreme stress in their line of work. But with the government-sanctioned power to deprive citizens of both life and liberty, they are required to swear an oath that they will be responsible, honest, and lawful in the use of such power.

Police officers, by and large, try to uphold that oath. But police unions and many police departments do everything in their power to make that oath empty words by fighting any legitimate attempts at transparency and accountability when it comes to the use of force.

This has needed to change for decades. Now could be the moment it must.
The Supreme Court should squash 'qualified immunity' once and for all

Floyd's death won't be in vain if it leads to the Supreme Court finally doing away with the "qualified immunity" interpretation of Section 1983 of the US Code — which essentially provides cover to keep officers from being held accountable in civil courts for violating citizens' civil rights.

Clark Neily, the vice president of criminal justice at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, wrote in The Bulwark that the general conservative interpretation Section 1983 was a rare — and I'd say cynically hypocritical — instance of the right abandoning its "originalist" approach to the Constitution.

As Neily puts it, victims of police violence have little recourse in the court system "unless they can find a preexisting case in the jurisdiction with nearly identical facts" to their own incident. That puts the onus on victims to prove their rights were actually violated, because a basic interpretation of the Constitution won't do.

Floyd's family would essentially have to find a case in which a cop killed someone by kneeling on his or her neck for an obscene length of time to get Chuavin's qualified immunity waived. The fact Chauvin had at least 18 complaints against him alleging abuse and inappropriate behavior doesn't factor into the equation.

Originalists have to contort themselves into pretzels to interpret the statute's language so it gives law enforcement the exclusive benefit of the doubt in nearly every instance. Essentially, many constitutional conservatives believe in limiting government authority as much as possible, except when it comes to holding the police accountable for abusing their authority. And for now, the courts have backed that interpretation.

Floyd's killing could change that.

The Supreme Court has the opportunity this week to decide to take on any of the dozens of cases challenging the qualified-immunity interpretation.


But that's not the only systemic issue preventing any meaningful reforms of police accountability.

Police unions all over the country have negotiated into their contracts all kinds of inappropriate and unjust protections from facing justice for their actions.

The Black Lives Matter-associated group Campaign Zero created a valuable database of police-union contracts that shows "72 of the 81 cities' contracts imposed at least one barrier to holding police accountable."

Some of these include a grace period of up to several days after a fatal police-involved shooting before an officer can be interviewed. Others essentially keep disciplinary records from public view permanently.


The militarization of police — fueled by the Department of Defense's "section 1033" program that hands over surplus military equipment to local police departments — was curtailed near the end of the Obama administration but restarted in force by the Trump administration.

And then there's the fact that in this country, it is disturbingly easy for a police officer fired for abuse, corruption, or other causes to find another job in law enforcement. In some states, it's harder to get a license to braid hair than it is to be certified as an armed agent of the state.

Thanks to a confluence of public-sector union power, a federalist system of government, and the unwillingness of many local and state governments to keep and share databases containing the names of bad cops who have been fired for cause, bad cops keep working.
Policing isn't a basketball game

According to Teresa Nelson, the ACLU of Minnesota's legal director, the Minneapolis PD's union boss Lt. Bob Kroll told her in 2015 that he saw complaints against officers as similar to fouls in basketball.


"If you're not getting any fouls, you're not working hard enough," Nelson says Kroll told her, as reported in The New York Times.

Chauvin had at least 18 complaints. That's enough to foul out of three NBA games.

Kroll, according to public records, has had at least 29 complaints made against him.

Lest it needed to be said, policing is not a game and accusations of abuse are not basketball fouls. Policing, when done incorrectly, destroys life and liberty.


Kroll cavalier attitude about the community's relationship with police, and the offensively dismissive view of the need for accountability, is a major part of the reason these protests are happening at all.

Throw in all the incidents of heavy-handed to outright criminal behavior by law enforcement during this terrible weekend in American history and it's clear that change is needed.

When the dust settles, we don't need a "law and order" bootheel to make things better, we need the political will to demand that the law enforcement community reform itself away from its occupying army posture and make its disciplinary records transparent to the public.

If the police won't reform on their own, we need to summon the political will to fight the police unions — protected by Democrats' reflexive pro-union posture and Republicans' knee-jerk fealty to armed authority — and defend the civil liberties of Americans.

Read more:
Don't make social media tech bro billionaires the arbiters of truth
The accusation against Joe Biden has Democrats rediscovering the value of due process
Forget Twitter, the Trump campaign's frivolous lawsuits are next-level threats to the First Amendment
Coronavirus hero Cuomo helped create New York's disaster


This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author(s).

THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE IS NOT A UNION!

IT IS A FRATERNAL ORDER 

 LIKE THE KU KLUX KLAN IT ORIGINATED AS A  WHITE COP ONLY INITIATORY SECRET SOCIETY TO PURSUE ITS CAMPAIGNS AGAINST BLACKS, ANARCHISTS, HOMOSEXUALS, MIGRANTS, CHINESE, PUERTO RICANS ETC., ETC. 

 IT IS THE SOURCE OF POLICE BRUTALITY AND VIOLENCE, WHICH IT USES LIKE THE KLAN BUT WITH THE PROTECTION OF A COP BADGE. 


FOP NEEDS TO BE ABOLISHED IT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!

HISTORICALLY IT IS ALIGNED WITH THE REPUBLICANS AND THE FAR RIGHT 


Perhaps the biggest gift was delivered by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in person at the FOP’s annual convention in August. Sessions was the event’s keynote speaker and announced there that Trump would sign an executive order restoring the 1033 program, which gives local police departments surplus military equipment including bayonets, tanks, and grenade launchers. "We have your back and you have our thanks," Sessions told the crowd. According to news reports, the audience reacted “with roaring cheers.” (2017)

COMMENTARY
Why the Fraternal
Order of Police Must Go
The nation’s largest police organization
does more harm to public safety than good.

PAUL BUTLER

“A PACK OF RABID ANIMALS.” That’s how John McNesby, president of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, described local Black Lives Matter activists who picketed outside the home of a Philly cop who shot black suspects in the back on two separate occasions. After the officer was suspended, the local FOP had a fundraiser for him, with proceeds from the $40-per-ticket event going toward the officer’s living expenses.
This commentary was published in collaboration with The Nation.

McNesby made the remarks at a Back the Blue rally in August and caught heat for his choice of words. It wasn’t the first time. Another Philly cop made headlines last year for having a tattoo of a spread-winged eagle under the word “Fatherland.” McNesby defended the cop’s apparent shout out to the official emblem of the Nazi Party, saying the tattoo was “not a big deal.”

In my book “Chokehold: Policing Black Men,” I argue that the U.S. criminal justice system is premised on the control of black men and that this fact explains some of its most problematic features—mass incarceration, the erosion of civil liberties, brutal policing, and draconian sentences. The behavior of McNesby, and FOP leadership more broadly, further supports my claim.

Even as law enforcement has become more racially diverse, the FOP seems committed to putting white men in charge. Those leaders consistently take stances against the safety and rights of black Americans. As a result, the organization serves as a union cum fraternity for white cops and has a retrograde effect on policing, especially as it relates to civil rights.

The FOP is the nation’s largest police association, boasting more than 300,000 members belonging to its 2,000 or so local chapters—some of which are unions and others which are simply fraternal organizations. There’s also a national FOP that lobbies on various issues pertaining to law enforcement and labor.

The FOP’s national leadership consists of seven white men. Such a lack of diversity is striking in an organization that claims 30 percent of its members are officers of color. And many local chapters appear to be run by white cops—even in cities with police forces that are predominantly of color.

Baltimore’s police department, for example, is 44 percent black, but its FOP has never had a black leader. The D.C. FOP chapter board is mainly white, even though the Metropolitan Police Department is predominately black. The Chicago FOP has no black officers on the executive leadership team. Neither does the nine-member executive leadership board of the California state group.

Time and time again, those who are empowered to speak on behalf of the FOP have made it a point to support police officers involved in questionable shootings of black Americans and other alleged abuses.

One local chapter in Maryland raised money for Darren Wilson, the white officer who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson. After Chicago officer Jason Van Dyke was fired for shooting 16 bullets into Laquan McDonald, he was hired as a janitor by his local FOP.

After 12-year-old Tamir Rice was killed by a Cleveland officer, the president of the Miami FOP tweeted “act like a thug, you’ll be treated like a thug.” Jay McDonald, president of the Ohio FOP and the current vice president of the national FOP, started an online “Stand with Cops” petition asking for support for officers in the midst of the backlash to Tamir’s killing.

Despite all of this, or perhaps because of it, the FOP has an outsized impact on criminal justice policy, especially in the Trump administration.

The organization endorsed Donald Trump for president during the 2016 race and soon after the election issued an "advisory" for the new administration’s first 100 days. The document reads like a wishlist of everything a fan of violent and undemocratic policing could hope for, and the FOP got most of it.

They got the deprioritization of the Obama administration’s policing commission recommendations, reversal of the DOJ’s ban on private prisons, the return of civil asset forfeiture, the end of DACA and a crackdown on sanctuary cities—all of which aimed to reduce the harm done to communities of color by the criminal justice system.

Perhaps the biggest gift was delivered by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in person at the FOP’s annual convention in August. Sessions was the event’s keynote speaker and announced there that Trump would sign an executive order restoring the 1033 program, which gives local police departments surplus military equipment including bayonets, tanks, and grenade launchers. "We have your back and you have our thanks," Sessions told the crowd. According to news reports, the audience reacted “with roaring cheers.”

Some might believe that the FOP’s behavior and agenda are functions of its role as an organization that advocates for police, but the example of other police organizations suggests that’s not the case.

The Major Cities Police Chief’s organization supported the Obama policing commission’s recommendations while the FOP advisory included "de-prioritizing" "some or all" of them. The FOP is known for defending just about any officer involved in the high-profile killing of a black man while the leadership of NOBLE, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, continually calls for police reform in response to such events.

Perhaps most striking: when the president urged police officers to not be “too nice” with suspects, his remarks were condemned by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Foundation, the acting director of the DEA, and police chiefs across the country. The president of the national FOP’s response? "The president's off the cuff comments on policing are sometimes taken all too literally by the media and professional police critics.”

To be sure, the FOP’s agenda is probably most informed by a warped sense of what it means to protect its membership and the law enforcement community more broadly. The result, however, is an organization that is regressive and anti-accountability with deadly consequences for communities of color, black communities in particular.

Something must be done.

Congress as well as state and local lawmakers should convene hearings on racial bias in the FOP to better understand an organization that operates with little transparency but is so heavily embedded in our system of policing. Additionally, civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU should target the FOP as a barrier to police accountability. Community organizations and activists should make it clear to their local police departments that citizens will never have confidence in cops who belong to a group so hostile to civil rights.

Finally, individual officers of conscience, and departments with a will to police democratically, should divest from the FOP. A mass resignation from the FOP by officers of color and their white allies would send the strongest message that an old boy network of Trump supporters does not represent the modern face of law enforcement.

The last part is maybe easier said than done. As unions, some local FOP chapters are entrenched in police departments around the country. They negotiate compensation and protect the labor rights of officers. Many provide life insurance, disability benefits, counseling services and legal representation for members. Still, they’re not the only game in town.

There are other police organizations, some with more diverse leadership and better track records on civil rights, poised to displace the FOP. It’s time that happens for all our sake.

The FOP, as currently constituted, should be relegated to the same historical dustbin as organizations like the Sons of the Confederacy and the White Citizens Council. Were it to go out of business, and more diverse voices in law enforcement lifted up, the streets would be safer and policing would be more transparent and accountable.

Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor, is the Bennett Boskey Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School and the Albert Brick Professor in Law at Georgetown University. He is the author of “Chokehold: Policing Black Men.”

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/10/11/why-the-fraternal-order-of-police-must-go  

Daily news and opinion about criminal justice 

A weekly roundup of top stories from the web 

New and notable Marshall Project stories 

Essays from people involved in the system

SEE
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/06/police-rioted-this-weekend-justifying.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/06/not-real-trade-union-head-of.html

Trump's praise for China over Tiananmen Square years ago was a preview of his support for military crackdowns on the George Floyd protests

 

John Haltiwanger BUSINESS INSIDER

In 1990, President Donald Trump (then a real estate magnate and private citizen) praised China for showing the "power of strength" via its notorious, bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square the year prior. 

Hundreds, possibly thousands, of unarmed protesters were killed in June 1989 when the Chinese military opened fire on them in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. 

Trump's praise for China over the Tiananmen Square massacre foreshadowed his support for the use of the military against anti-police brutality protesters in the US in 2020. 

The president on Monday told governors they were being too "weak" on the protesters and needed to "dominate" them, and he's repeatedly championed sending in the military to break up the nationwide demonstrations. 

The demonstrations were catalyzed by George Floyd, a black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for eight minutes.


Thirty years ago, Donald Trump said that China had shown the "power of strength" when its troops massacred pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square the year before. Trump's words foreshadowed his general disposition toward protesters as president, and offered a preview of his support for military crackdowns on anti-police brutality demonstrations in the present day.

It was March 1990, and Trump was being interviewed by Playboy magazine about his life as a real estate mogul. At one point, Trump was asked about a trip he'd taken to Moscow a few years prior.


Trump said he'd been "very unimpressed" with the Soviet Union.

"Their system is a disaster," Trump said. "What you will see there soon is a revolution; the signs are all there with the demonstrations and picketing. Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That's my problem with [former Soviet President Mikhail] Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand."


Trump was then asked if he meant "firm hand as in China."

"When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength," Trump replied. "That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak...as being spit on by the rest of the world."

On June 4, 1989, after several weeks of pro-democracy and pro-reform demonstrations, Chinese troops entered Tiananmen Square in Beijing and fired on unarmed people. Hundreds, possibly thousands, were killed.

In this June 5, 1989 file photo, a Chinese man stands alone to block a line of tanks heading east on Beijing's Changan Blvd. from Tiananmen Square in Beijing. AP

Fast-forward to 2020, and Trump has called on US governors to use law enforcement to "dominate" protesters who've flooded the streets of cities across America to demonstrate against police brutality. The protests were inspired by George Floyd, a black man who died last week after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for roughly eight minutes. Floyd was unarmed.


While many of the protesters have demonstrated peacefully, there has also been rioting and clashes with police. Law enforcement has been widely accused of exacerbating the situation with the use of force, including employing tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets against protesters, demonstrators, and journalists in some cases.

After nearly a week of unrest, and a weekend in which Trump hid in a secure White House bunker (and saw the lights turned off at the presidential residence), Trump on Monday told governors they were being "weak" in response to the demonstrations. He's urged governors to deploy the National Guard, though nearly half of the country has already done so.

Over the course of the past week, Trump has routinely expressed support for the use of the military to quell the protests, and at one pointed tweeted "when the looting starts, the shooting starts." The tweet was flagged by Twitter as "glorifying violence."
—Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020

The president later walked back on his "shooting" tweet, but has continued to advocate for the use of the military against the demonstrations.

Trump, who as president has repeatedly praised authoritarian leaders, on Saturday threatened to use the "unlimited power" of the US military against protesters, and warned demonstrators at the White House they could be met with the "most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons."

On Monday, Trump said GOP Sen. Tom Cotton was "100% Correct" after the Arkansas senator advocated for the use of military force to respond to the protests.

Experts on authoritarianism have warned that Trump's rhetoric has increasingly resembled that of autocratic regimes. Responding to Trump's tweet on shooting protesters last week, New York University historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat told Insider, "This is what American authoritarianism looks like."

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut on Monday implored his Republican colleagues against allowing their "party's position become pushing for an American Tiananmen Square."

"Turning the army on protestors is what dictatorships do. It's literally the antithesis of America," Murphy tweeted.

TRUMP WANTS ARMED NATIONAL GUARD IN THE STRETS, FIFTY YEARS AFTER KENT STATE

 


Kent State massacre: 50 years since the shooting that ...
https://www.cnn.com › kent-state-shooting-50th-anniversary-trnd
May 4, 2020 - (CNN) Fifty years ago today, the Ohio National Guard fired on Kent State University students as they protested against the Vietnam War.

The Legacy of Kent State Shootings, 50 Years Later | History ...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com › history › fifty-years-ago-kent-state-ma...
May 1, 2020 - For the past half-century, Kent State has been trying to live down those 13 seconds of bloodshed on Monday, May 4, 1970. Five days prior ..

50 years ago, the Kent State shootings sparked student unrest ...
https://www.nationalgeographic.com › ohio-kent-state-university-shooting
May 4, 2020 - Fifty years ago today, Monday, May 4, 1970, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on students protesting the Vietnam War on the campus of ...

Kent State at 50: In 1970, a local newspaper dominated the ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › lifestyle › media › 2020/05/01
May 3, 2020 - 50 years ago, a local newspaper dominated the story of the Kent State tragedy. Could that still happen? At Kent State University, a group of ...

Kent State -- After 50 Years - Inside Higher Ed
https://www.insidehighered.com › quicktakes › 2020/05/04 › kent-state-aft...
May 4, 2020 - Fifty years ago today, the Ohio National Guard fired on Kent State University students during an anti-war protest, killing four students and ...

Kent State massacre: The shootings on a college campus 50 ...
https://www.nbcnews.com › news › us-news › kent-state-massacre-shootin...
May 3, 2020 - 13 seconds, 67 shots, 4 dead: 50 years ago, the Kent State Shootings changed the country, and the anniversary was remembered.

Kent State Massacre: 50 Years Later - Spectrum News
https://spectrumnews1.com › oh › columbus › news › 2020/05/05 › kent-s...
May 5, 2020 - KENT, Ohio — Fifty years ago on May 4, 1970, the Ohio National Guard opened fire into a crowd of unarmed Kent State University ...

Remembering the Kent State Shooting 50 Years Ago - AARP
https://www.aarp.org › politics-society › history › info-2020 › kent-state-s...
May 1, 2020 - Four protestors were killed in 1970 by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State in Ohio. Here are eyewitness accounts of that tragic day 50 years ..

50 years later: Kent State remembers May 4, 1970 shooting ...
https://fox8.com › news › 50-years-later-kent-state-remembers-may-4-197...
May 4, 2020 - Fifty years ago today, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on Kent State students during a war protest killing four of them and wounding nine ..

Kent State: 50 Years After the Shootings | The Nation
https://www.thenation.com › article › politics › kent-state-shootings-fifty
May 4, 2020 - The radical notion that repression breeds resistance was borne out at Kent State in the years after the killings.

Kent State shootings - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Kent_State_shootings
The Kent State shootings were the shootings of 13 unarmed Kent State University students in Kent, Ohio by the Ohio National Guard on May 4, ... The incident marked the first time that a student had been slain in an anti-war gathering in ... Across the U.S., campuses erupted in protests in what Time called "a nation-wide ...
‎Mary Ann Vecchio · ‎Kent State University · ‎Ohio National Guard · ‎Kent, Ohi

The May 4 Shootings at Kent State University: The Search for ...
https://www.kent.edu › University History
Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been ... During the first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war ... Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college ... Nearly 1,000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear ...

How the Kent State massacre marked the start of America's ...
https://www.theguardian.com › us-news › may › kent-state-massacre-mark...
May 4, 2020 - The national guard had been on campus for a few days. ... But the young student at Kent State University in Ohio was mistaken. Fifty years ago today, 28 soldiers opened fire on anti-Vietnam war ... We thought it was happening.” ... The massacre was not the first mass shooting on campus by men in uniform.

Kent State Shooting - Causes, Facts & Aftermath - HISTORY
https://www.history.com › topics › vietnam-war › kent-state-shooting
Sep 8, 2017 - Four Kent State University students were killed and nine were injured on ... of the Ohio National Guard opened fire on a crowd gathered to protest the Vietnam War. ... President Nixon addressed the nation on television two days later. ... U.S. military incursion into Cambodia resulted in protests at colleges ...

Opinion | Four Students Were Killed in Ohio. America Was ...
https://www.nytimes.com › 2020/05/04 › opinion › kent-state-shooting-protest
May 4, 2020 - The Kent State shootings marked the end of the 1960s, and the ... On Friday, May 1, 1970, just after noon, about 300 students at Kent State University, outside ... two students in Mississippi, were killed by police officers in the wake of a ... National Guardsmen killing white college students — over the years, ...

The campus massacre before Kent State




The first mass police shooting on a U.S. college campus happened two years before the Ohio National Guard opened fire on student protesters at Kent State University.

1968 ORANGEBURG MASSACRE BLACK UNIVERSITY SOUTH CAROLINA STATE 3 KILLED, 47 INJURED Related link

May 4, 1970: Kent State Massacre
Time Periods: People’s Movement: 1961 - 1974
Themes: Democracy & Citizenship, Laws & Citizen Rights, US Foreign Policy, Wars & Related Anti-War Movements

We remember Kent State (May 4, 1970), Jackson State (May 15, 1970), and Orangeburg (February 8, 1968).

At Kent State University, the Ohio National Guard shot unarmed college students — some who were protesting the war and others who were passing by. The guards fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students (Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Knox Schroeder) and wounding nine others.


National Guard at Kent State University.

Howard Zinn wrote in You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train about the massacre and meeting the family of one of the four students.

The Cambodian Invasion provoked nationwide protests, and on the campus of Kent State University, in Ohio, trigger-happy National Guardsmen fired into a crowd of unarmed student demonstrators, killing four of them, crippling another for life. A photo flashed around the world showed an unarmed young woman, her face anguished, bending over the body of one of the dead students.

On television I saw the father of one of the victims, Allison Krause, barely able to control his grief, pointing to the fact that President Nixon had referred to student protesters as “bums.” He cried out, “My daughter was not a bum!”

A few years later, when some visiting parents were sitting in on the introductory session of my course “Law and Justice in America,” I handed out the syllabus, which included as one of the course topics the shootings at Kent State. At the end of the session, one of the new students came up and introduced herself and her parents. She was Laurie Krause, the sister of Allison Krause. I recognized her father from the television screen and felt a pang of unease that their unspeakable grief was represented so matter-of-factly on a course syllabus. But they seemed to appreciate that the Kent State affair was not forgotten.

The spring of 1970 saw the first general student strike in the history of the United States, students from over four hundred colleges and universities calling off classes to protest the invasion of the Cambodia, the Kent State affair, the killing of two black students at Jackson State College in Mississippi, and the continuation of the war.

Laurie Krause co-founded the the Kent State Truth Tribunal. Read more at HowardZinn.org.

While most people know that students were killed at Kent State in 1970, very few know about the murder of students at Jackson State and even less about South Carolina State College in Orangeburg.

In Orangeburg, two years before the Kent State murders, three students were killed and 28 students were injured — most shot in the back by the state police while involved in a peaceful protest. Learn more from the film Scarred Justice: The Orangeburg Massacre 1968.

The Jackson State killings occurred on May 14–15, 1970, at Jackson State College (now JSU) in Mississippi. A group of student protesters were confronted by city and state police. The police opened fire, killing two students and injuring twelve.

Related Resources

TEACHING ACTIVITIES (FREE)
Teaching the Vietnam War: Beyond the Headlines


Teaching Activity. By the Zinn Education Project. 100 pages.
Eight lessons about the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers, and whistleblowing.

TEACHING ACTIVITIES (FREE)
A Revolution of Values


Teaching Activity. By Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 3 pages.
Text of speech by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the Vietnam War, followed by three teaching ideas.

Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)


MATERIAL
Camouflaging the Vietnam War: How Textbooks Continue to Keep the Pentagon Papers a Secret


Article. By Bill Bigelow. 2013. If We Knew Our History Series.
While new U.S. history textbooks mention the Pentagon Papers, none grapples with the actual import of the Pentagon Papers.


FILMS
Scarred Justice: The Orangeburg Massacre 1968

Film. Produced by Judy Richardson and Bestor Cram. 2009. 57 minutes.
A documentary film that brings to light the story of the attack by state police on a demonstration in Orangeburg, South Carolina — leaving three students killed and 28 injured.



THIS DAY IN HISTORY
Feb. 8, 1968: Orangeburg Massacre

Two years before the Kent State murders, 28 students were injured and three were killed in Orangeburg, SC — most shot in the back by the state police while involved in a peaceful protest.

THIS DAY IN HISTORY
May 15, 1970: Jackson State Killings


College student Phillip Lafayette Gibbs (21) and high school student James Earl Green (17) were killed by the police during an anti-war protest at Jackson State College.

Police used tear gas, RUBBER BULLETS, FLASH BANGS, to clear protesters from Lafayette park so Trump could take a photo at St. John's Church

• Law enforcement in Washington, DC, fired tear gas and rubber bullets to clear peaceful protesters from an area near the White House on Monday.
• The attack, in front of St. John's Church, started just before President Donald Trump spoke in the Rose Garden. He then walked to the church and was photographed holding a Bible.

'Exactly what President Trump wants': Democratic governors are shunning Trump's calls to 'dominate' protests using military forces

\

© Rich Pedroncelli/AP Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Rich Pedroncelli/AP
Democratic governors widely shunned President Donald Trump's request to "dominate" the protests across the country by using National Guard troops.
"Society that's about dominance and agression, this is what you get," Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said. "Not because of the protesters, but the conditions that led to this moment where protests was inevitable."
Some states like Oregon have been reluctant to activate their National Guard forces.
Gov. Kate Brown activated 50 Oregon National Guardsmen as a "support function only" service to law enforcement operations "behind the scenes."

Democratic governors widely attempted to cool the president's fiery rhetoric following a contentious conference call earlier on Monday, in which Donald Trump advised the state leaders to "dominate" the ongoing protests after the killing of George Floyd.


On Monday morning, Trump held a phone call with governors as riots erupted throughout the country. Protests demanding justice for Floyd, a 46-year-old black man who was initially arrested on suspicion of passing counterfeit currency, and riots took off shortly after his death earlier last week.

During the call, which was obtained by several news outlets, Trump said the governors would look like "fools" if they failed to restore order.

"If you don't dominate, you're wasting your time. They're going to run over you," Trump said. "You are going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate."

Trump also criticized their hesitancy to activate the National Guard and encouraged the leaders to reinforce law enforcement operations. Around 5,000 National Guard troops from 15 states and the District of Columbia were activated as of Monday.

"I don't know what it is politically where you don't want to call out people," Trump said, referring to the state's National Guard assets. "They're ready, willing, and able. They want to fight for the country. I don't know what it is. Someday you'll have to explain it to me. But it takes so long to call them up."

Some states like Oregon have been reluctant to activate their National Guard forces. Gov. Kate Brown activated 50 unarmed Oregon National Guardsmen as a "support function only" service to law enforcement operations "behind the scenes."

"Our goal, and the goal of the overwhelming number of protesters should be to reduce violence," Brown said Monday afternoon. "You don't defuse violence by putting soldiers on our streets. Having soldiers on the streets across America is exactly what President Trump wants. He's made that very clear on a call this morning."© Matt Slocum/AP Protesters rally in front of Pennsylvania National Guard soldiers, Monday, June 1, 2020, in Philadelphia. Matt Slocum/AP

Following the call, Democratic governors scrutinized Trump's remarks and accused him of fueling the discontent emanating throughout the country.

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said in a press conference on Monday that it was "time for more empathy, more care, more capacity to collaborate."

"Society that's about dominance and aggression — this is what you get," Newsom said to reporters. "Not because of the protesters, but the conditions that led to this moment where protests was inevitable."

Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts said the call with Trump was disheartening but not unusual.

"I know I should be surprised when I hear incendiary words like this from him, but I'm not," Baker said. "At so many times during these past several weeks, when the country needed compassion and leadership the most, it was simply nowhere to be found."

"Instead, we got bitterness, combativeness, and self-interest," Baker added. "That's not what we need in Boston, it's not what we need right now in Massachusetts, and it's definitely not what we need across this great country of ours, either."

Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker expressed his concern to Trump directly during the conference call: "I am extraordinarily concerned about the rhetoric that has been used by you," he said, adding that "the rhetoric coming out of the White House is making it worse."

"Right now our nation is hurting," Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan also said in a statement. "Americans are in pain and desperate for leadership from the White House during one of the darkest periods in our lifetimes."

"The president's dangerous comments should be gravely concerning to all Americans, because they send a clear signal that this administration is determined to sow the seeds of hatred and division, which I fear will only lead to more violence and destruction," Whitmer added. "We must reject this way of thinking."

Republican governors, however, applauded Trump's tough stance and supported the activation of National Guard troops.

"I don't think we're prosecuting enough people," South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster said, adding that "strength works."

"You have to dominate, as you said," McMaster reportedly said. "I think now is really the time to get serious prosecuting these people, finding out where their organizations are, who is paying the money."

Trump is too 'scared' to give an Oval Office speech to the country, President George H.W. Bush's speechwriter says


dchoi@businessinsider.com (David Choi)

© TheBushLibrary/YouTube President George H.W. Bush in an Address to the Nation on the Los Angeles riots on May 1, 1992. TheBushLibrary/YouTube

Despite a pandemic, economic turbulence, and protests across the country, President Donald Trump has yet to give a recent Oval Office address to the nation.

Trump's aides downplayed the effectiveness of a potential Oval Office address.

During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, President George H.W. Bush delivered one of these speeches. (THE LAST TIME THE INSURRECTION ACT WAS USED)

One of Bush's speechwriters told Insider that Trump's remarks about the protests were "very overdue" and that "we've come to associate the Oval Office with moments of drama and of tragedy."

In an address to the nation from the Oval Office of the White House on May 1, 1992, President George H.W. Bush outlined his administration's plan to quell the Los Angeles riots in California.

The riots, prompted by the acquittal of three of the four police officers involved in the Rodney King beating from a year prior, were attributed to over 60 deaths in the county and over $1 billion in property damage.

Shortly after the verdict for the case was read on April 29, 1992, riots broke out in South Central Los Angeles. Video shot from news helicopters depicted a chaotic scene that unfolded — including a white truck driver being pulled out of his vehicle and beaten by rioters amid the backdrop of looted buildings.

Two days after the riots kicked off, Bush took to the radio waves and television screens in a national message. In the roughly 12-minute speech, Bush said he sympathized with civil rights leaders and was "stunned" by the video showing King's beating.

"What you saw and what I saw on the TV video was revolting," Bush said, referring to the violent beating of King. "I felt anger. I felt pain. I thought, 'How can I explain this to my grandchildren?'"

"Civil rights leaders and just plain citizens fearful of and sometimes victimized by police brutality were deeply hurt," Bush added. "And I know good and decent policemen who were equally appalled."

Video player from: YouTube (Privacy Policy, Terms)

Bush immediately launched a federal criminal investigation, led by then-attorney general William Barr, into King's beating and denounced the riots. After the Justice Department's investigation, a year after the state jury's verdict, two of the police officers were convicted and sentenced to serve two and a half years in prison.

In his televised address, Bush denounced the riots and said, "What we saw last night ... is not about civil rights."

"It's been the brutality of a mob, pure and simple," Bush said. "And let me assure you, I will use whatever force is necessary to restore order. What is going on in LA must and will stop. As your president, I guarantee you this violence will end.

"None of this is what we wish to think of as American. It's as if we were looking in a mirror that distorted our better selves and turned us ugly. We cannot let that happen. We cannot do that to ourselves."

Curt Smith, a former speechwriter for Bush and a senior lecturer at the University of Rochester, collaborated with other writers on the president's speech at the time.

"It was received very well," Smith recalled to Insider. "This was a speech that was of considerable consequence."

Smith noted that the speech, which came during the spring of an election year, was difficult to prepare because Bush was attempting to balance two "cross-cutting" issues: Bush was trying to restore law and order in a community that had exploded with racial tensions, while at the time same time opposing the initial Rodney King verdict.

"Bush was outraged at the King verdict as he made that very clear in the speech itself," Smith said. "And, as he tried to point out that we are a nation of laws, we must respect the sanctity of verdicts rendered by a jury — even those with which we disagree."

"The speech was very well-constructed and Bush worked on this speech quite heavily because he knew it was important," Smith added. "I think he handled it extremely well."

© BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images President Donald Trump holds a Bible while visiting St. John's Church across from the White House after the area was cleared of people protesting the death of George Floyd June 1, 2020, in Washington, DC BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

Eagerness to 'dominate'

A week after the death of George Floyd on May 25, protests have spread across the country. Floyd, a 46-year-old black man who was initially arrested on suspicion of passing counterfeit currency, died in police custody, and the case is currently being investigated by the Justice Department.

President Donald Trump's tone since Floyd's death has included moments of somberness as noted during his scripted remarks at the SpaceX launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Saturday.

"The death of George Floyd on the streets of Minneapolis was a grave tragedy," Trump said at the time. "It should never have happened. It has filled Americans all over the country with horror, anger, and grief."

"I understand the pain that people are feeling," he added. "We support the right of peaceful protesters and we hear their pleas. But what we are now seeing on the streets of our cities has nothing to do with justice or with peace."

Some critics claim his remarks to unify the country ring hollow, overshadowed by his eagerness to mobilize US military forces.

He's also faced criticism from conservatives. During a Fox News segment on Monday evening, opinion host Tucker Carlson said Trump's inaction was "distressing" and that his aides failed to understand "the gravity of the moment."

"How can you protect my family? How are you going to protect the country? How hard are you trying," Carlson asked on his show.

"If you do not protect them, or worse than that, if you seem like you can't be bothered to protect them, then you're done. It's over. People will not forgive weakness," Carlson added.

© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images President Donald Trump makes a statement in the Rose Garden about the ongoing unrest across the nation on June 1, 2020 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

In a short speech at the Rose Garden on Monday afternoon, Trump urged state governors to deploy their National Guard assets in order to "dominate" the streets and threatened to use military force if the violence was not quelled.

Bush's speechwriter, Curt Smith, said Trump's remarks at the Rose Garden, a week after Floyd's death, were effective in providing calm to the country but "very overdue."

Absent from Trump's repertoire was a solemn Oval Office speech, similar to the one Bush delivered during the Los Angeles riots. Smith said there was not a major difference between an Oval Office speech or one delivered at the Rose Garden, but admits "there is ... a certain grandeur, that has come to be associated with the Oval Office."

The practice of delivering an Oval Office address dates back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's tenure and his mastery of radio, according to Smith. President John F. Kennedy also capitalized on the medium with the proliferation of television sets.

"We've come to associate the Oval Office with moments of drama and of tragedy in some cases," Smith said. "But certainly with the grandeur of the presidency. So I think it would have benefited him."

Trump's surrogates have recently dismissed the idea of an Oval Office address as an unnecessary platform during the crisis. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said during a Fox News interview on Monday morning that Trump had "already issued several statements."

"A national Oval Office address is not going to stop antifa," McEnany said, referring to the amorphous anti-fascist movement, that Trump has alleged to have fueled the riots throughout the country. "What's going to stop antifa is action. And this president has committed to acting on this."

"Even if he gave the most beautiful and perfect speech, they're going to say, 'Who cares, this is his fault?'" an unnamed Trump adviser also said to Reuters.

Smith theorized that Trump has been "scared to opt that approach because several of his speeches from the Oval Office have not been received as favorably by the public as he would have liked — which is really his own fault."

Trump recently gave a scripted Oval Office address about the US's response to the coronavirus pandemic in March, which was widely criticized for its confusing and misleading statements.

"Trump is, for lack of a better term, a 'people person,'" Smith said. "I think he reacts well to feedback from other people — that is, even in the Rose Garden, he has members of the press there who may not like him. But at least he has them to speak to and to bounce the speech off of."

"When he's giving a speech in the Oval Office, he has no one except the teleprompter," Smith added. "And the teleprompter is a very difficult instrument to master. He may need to revert to the Oval Office address, but I would urge him to practice a great deal more than he has."