Assessing Jamaica At The End Of 2018/​A Look At The Avoidable Failures:

June 2013, in a stun­ning and incom­pre­hen­si­ble deci­sion the US Supreme Court in a 5 – 4 ide­o­log­i­cal deci­sion struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act in the case of Shelby vs Holder.
Holder being, Eric Holder the then sit­ting Attorney General of the United States.
The Ruling freed up nine states, most­ly in the South, to change their elec­tion laws with­out advance fed­er­al approval.
Our coun­try has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the major­i­ty. “While any racial dis­crim­i­na­tion in vot­ing is too much, Congress must ensure that the leg­is­la­tion it pass­es to rem­e­dy that prob­lem speaks to cur­rent con­di­tions..“
In lay­man’s lan­guage, [the law worked too well so it’s time for us to roll it back]. Never mind that there is an inces­sant assault against the vot­ing rights of racial minori­ties today in dif­fer­ent forms in dif­fer­ent states.

December 2018 the People’s National Party announced it no longer sup­ports the states of emer­gency in the Parish of Saint James because what­ev­er the police are doing now they can pro­ceed along the same path with­out the emer­gency pow­ers which gives them the author­i­ty to lock up vio­lent crim­i­nals for extend­ed peri­ods of time with­out charge.
Now here is the sober­ing real­i­ty. The state of emer­gency was declared in St James as a direct result of a vio­lence lev­el which was unprece­dent­ed.
The extent of the killings was such that it scared the rich hote­liers who were skit­tish about their bot­tom line.
Now, as I have said in a pre­vi­ous arti­cle there are only two or three rea­sons why vio­lent crime would take a pre­cip­i­tous 72% drop in the parish of St James and those rea­sons are (a) the vio­lence pro­duc­ers have tak­en flight (b) they are locked up by the police or © a com­bi­na­tion of both (a&b).

We can have a debate about the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of lock­ing up killers we have no evi­dence to charge crim­i­nal­ly and I am pre­pared to debate the legit­i­ma­cy of doing so.
Desperate time calls for des­per­ate mea­sures. If a state is to sur­vive by tak­ing dras­tic mea­sures what bet­ter time to do so than send a mes­sage through how it treats its most vio­lent crim­i­nals?
We may talk until we are blue in the face as the Nation’s Opposition par­ty has done about not break­ing the law to enforce the law. We may even pull out graphs and dia­grams using graphs to make our point as to why we believe there is no need for a con­tin­u­ance of the mea­sures.
Or we can talk to the peo­ple who are on the ground, the peo­ple who live in the com­mu­ni­ties and are ter­ri­fied that if the pow­ers are removed which gives the secu­ri­ty forces the author­i­ty to hold vio­lent crim­i­nals, their com­mu­ni­ties will in short order be awash in their blood and that of their loved ones.

What I find dis­gust­ing and indeed mind-numb­ing­ly igno­rant is the argu­ment being used by the PNP, that a drop in homi­cide in 2018 ought not be cel­e­brat­ed because on the Government’s watch last year 1616 homi­cides were report­ed to the police.
The con­tention being, since the JLP presided over the 1616 num­ber in 2017, it should receive no cred­it for the fact that hun­dreds few­er have been mur­dered this year.
So if there was any doubt in any­one’s mind about the polit­i­cal nature of the PNP’s deci­sion to pull its sup­port, the lat­ter con­tention ought to put those doubts to rest.

In the final analy­sis, the reduc­tion in mur­ders this year what­ev­er the final count turns out to be should give no one com­fort that the state had to flood the streets with the bod­ies of secu­ri­ty per­son­nel to real­ize few­er homi­cide num­bers in spe­cif­ic geo­graph­i­cal areas.
The take­away from this is that sure, the crim­i­nals are run­ning away from the secu­ri­ty forces when they flood the streets in force, but as soon as they deter­mine the move­ments of the secu­ri­ty per­son­nel they are right back at work killing and doing what­ev­er else they do.

So clear­ly the solu­tion is not in flood­ing the streets with bod­ies, even though that has an effect tan­ta­mount to that of cot­ton can­dy.
The prob­lem is that a nation can­not sur­vive on cot­ton can­dy but the coun­try’s lead­ers are too heav­i­ly invest­ed in the idea of fillers and fast food stop­gap meth­ods to take the time to pre­pare the right kind of diet which will give the nation sus­te­nance for gen­er­a­tions to come.
The prob­lem here is that the nations une­d­u­cat­ed are cry­ing out for lead­er­ship and the edu­cat­ed which are sup­posed to give that lead­er­ship are self-cen­tered moron­ic idiots who have their heads too far up their own ass­es to do any­thing about crime.
It behooves them to take a lis­ten to Damion Crawford, but the self-impor­tant bour­geoisie are reluc­tant to pull their heads from their ass­es and lis­ten to any­one but the sound of their own voic­es.
And so we get an echo cham­ber of non­sense from the very same dogs chas­ing their sil­ly tails.



Chicago Officer Jason Van Dyke Guilty Of Murder In Laquan McDonald Shooting

A jury also found the offi­cer guilty of 16 counts of aggra­vat­ed bat­tery in the teen’s killing.

By Andy Campbell

A Cook County jury delivered a verdict in the murder trial of Chicago Officer Jason Van Dyke, charged in the 2014 on-duty sho

A Cook County jury deliv­ered a ver­dict in the mur­der tri­al of Chicago Officer Jason Van Dyke, charged in the 2014 on-duty shoot­ing death of Laquan McDonald.

Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police offi­cer charged with mur­der in the 2014 shoot­ing death of teenag­er Laquan McDonald while on duty, was found guilty on Friday.

A Cook County jury found Van Dyke guilty of sec­ond-degree mur­der, as well as 16 counts of aggra­vat­ed bat­tery. He was acquit­ted of offi­cial mis­con­duct, and a charge of first-degree mur­der was vacat­ed for the sec­ond-degree mur­der con­vic­tion. 

Judge Vincent Gaughan revoked bail and ordered Van Dyke tak­en into cus­tody to await sen­tenc­ing lat­er this month.

The jury delib­er­at­ed for less than eight hours over two days in the case, in which Van Dyke faced the pos­si­bil­i­ty of life in prison for shoot­ing 17-year-old McDonald 16 times on a Chicago street in October 2014.

Chicago police were on high alert as the city pre­pared for a ver­dict in the rare tri­al of an offi­cer accused of mur­der for an on-duty killing. Hundreds of police were seen pack­ing street cor­ners and city parks. Jurors, who delib­er­at­ed for five hours on Thursday and about 2 12 more on Friday, were sequestered by Judge Vincent Gaughan and kept at an uniden­ti­fied hotel overnight.

Van Dyke tes­ti­fied in his own defense that he feared for his life and that McDonald was behav­ing errat­i­cal­ly (an autop­sy revealed PCP in his sys­tem). His defense team cit­ed a state law that allows offi­cers to use dead­ly force if it’s nec­es­sary to stop a flee­ing sus­pect who has com­mit­ted a felony while using a dead­ly weapon, accord­ing to Vice News. McDonald was car­ry­ing a knife at the time, but police dash­board cam­era footage refut­ed Van Dyke’s claim that the teen was aggres­sive­ly swing­ing the blade at him.

Three oth­er offi­cers await tri­al on charges of try­ing to cov­er up the killing and obscure the inves­ti­ga­tion.

Assistant pros­e­cu­tor Jody Gleason argued that Van Dyke had no right to fire even one shot, let alone 16, includ­ing sev­er­al that struck the teen in the back, and while he was already on the ground. Subscribe to the Politics email​.How will Trump’s admin­is­tra­tion impact you?

It’s Jason Van Dyke fir­ing bul­lets, rip­ping into the flesh of Laquan McDonald 16 times. That’s not jus­ti­fied, that’s not nec­es­sary — that’s first-degree mur­der,” pros­e­cu­tor Joseph McMahon told jurors, accord­ing to NPR. He urged jurors to con­vict on first-degree mur­der and aggra­vat­ed bat­tery.

Van Dyke’s lawyer, Dan Herbert, com­pared the scene that night to a mon­ster movie, telling jurors that McDonald had attacked a truck dri­ver and slashed a police vehicle’s tires just before he was shot.

When a mon­ster turns and looks at the vic­tim, that’s when the music starts to play,” the defense lawyer said.

Two alter­na­tive jurors who were dis­missed from the tri­al on Thursday said they would have leaned toward find­ing the offi­cer guilty of mur­der, accord­ing to the Chicago Tribune.

One of them, a white woman, not­ed that oth­er offi­cers on scene that night didn’t use dead­ly force. 

Where was [McDonald] actu­al­ly caus­ing an issue that Jason Van Dyke thought that he need­ed to use dead­ly force? I just didn’t under­stand that,” the alter­na­tive juror told the news­pa­per.