Mediaboss Marketing

FRIDAY, JAN. 27, 2017, 1:21 P.M.

The Foley Speakers Room at Washington State University was crowded to excess Thursday, as students, faculty and community members gathered to hear community organizer and activist Charlene Carruthers discuss the Black Lives Matter movement.

The event was part of the Foley Institutes Coffee and Politics series.

Carruthers, who said she has been an organizer and activist for the past 12 years, discussed the experiences in her adult life that led to her current mission with the movement and what should happen next.

It was actually when I was a first-year student in college that I got the opportunity to go study in South Africa, she said. It blew my little mind. I was learning for the first time what it is to be black in an international context.

That new knowledge, in combination with her life in Chicago which she described as a deeply segregated city inspired her to get involved.

I knew what was still happening to black people and I wanted to do something about it, she said.

Carruthers said people connect recent events to the creation of the Black Lives Matter movement.

A lot of people say this movement era began in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Some people mark it by the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. Some folks start it Aug. 9, 2014 (the day of Michael Browns death in Ferguson, Mo.).

For Carruthers, none of those dates marks the movements beginnings.

For me the movement for black liberation started the first moment an enslaved African was forced to a land outside of their home, she said.

The beginning of her own organization, Black Youth Project 100, was publicly launched Saturday, July 13, 2013, the same day George Zimmerman was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin.

The date had been set for a year, she said. I dont believe in coincidences.

While Carruthers doesnt call any of the recent dates the beginning of the current movement for black lives, they are meaningful.

All of these moments lead up to many, many, many moments, and I dont even know whats going to happen next, she said.

Carruthers said she hears a good deal about the importance of peaceful protests, but she maintains the nonviolent practices her group and others employ cannot be effective if authorities dont follow the same guidelines.

The most violent entity in this land is the state, she said. We cannot have any conversation about nonviolence if were not starting with the violence the state participates in.

Carruthers said as groups move forward in 2017, they need to work hard to increase their numbers, and white activists wanting to help will have quite a bit of work to do.

You all have a lot of cousins to collect, she said.

Activists are also moving into territory where its uncertain what they will be up against, but it wont be easy, Carruthers said.

(It) is wild, and were going to lose quite a bit, she said.

Follow this link:
Speaker at WSU discusses race and activism - The Spokesman-Review

For those already not enamored with a "stand your ground" law that makes it easier for people in Florida to shoot and kill with impunity, get ready:

Lawmakers might be about to make it worse.

Anyone familiar with the name George Zimmerman knows our controversial law says you can use deadly force with no obligation to back down or flee if you feel threatened. Critics say stand your ground has the potential to cheapen human life, and a Tampa Bay Times investigation found the law has been applied unevenly across the state.

The way it works now "works" being the operative word a person who has been charged but claims immunity from prosecution because he says he legally stood his ground can get a hearing before his trial to make his case. If the judge agrees the defendant is covered by the law, the charge is dropped. If not, the defendant still faces trial.

And, flaws in the law notwithstanding, this seems pretty reasonable.

An elected state attorney has considered the facts of the case and the law and has decided there is probable cause to charge and try someone. That defendant believes what he did was justified under the law. So explaining why before a judge before his trial does not seem like too much to ask in order to get those charges dismissed.

Now, and for the second year in a row, Republican state Sen. Rob Bradley from Fleming Island wants to shift the burden of proof to prosecutors. To his mind, the state should have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" before any actual trial why stand your ground does not apply.

For the record, there has been no great public outcry for this. The senator says it's the principle of the thing.

So if that whole cheapening-of-human-life argument wasn't already working for you, consider the possible practical effects.

People in the court system predict that with this change, a lot more defendants will take a crack at stand your ground. It's a defense attorney's obligation to use all the tools in the toolbox and this would be a mighty powerful one. Any lawyer worth his salt will consider it if there is even a hint that a case might look like self-defense.

Hillsborough's new state attorney Andrew Warren says this would significantly disrupt the operation of the justice system, potentially requiring two trials in any case involving violence. "We should be finding ways to make our system more efficient while making our neighborhoods safer," says Warren. "This bill does neither."

And advantage the defendant over victims' families and witnesses worn down at the idea of not one but two court proceedings.

It should not surprise you that Senate Bill 128 has the support of the National Rifle Association. (By the way, did you see the NRA's Marion Hammer complaining recently that sheriffs ought not be allowed to appear before lawmakers in Tallahassee armed and in uniform to talk about, you know, laws that will affect public safety? Unless, as one sheriff pointed out, they happen to be advocating for an NRA-backed cause. But I digress.)

Under the current law, a defendant who says he was legally standing his ground has the right to show why before his trial. Fair enough. Changing this would be both burdensome and unnecessary. Potentially empowering, too and not in a good way.

Sue Carlton can be reached at carlton@tampabay.com.

Carlton: Standing your ground? Prove it 01/27/17 [Last modified: Friday, January 27, 2017 9:23pm] Photo reprints | Article reprints

Originally posted here:
Carlton: Standing your ground? Prove it - Tampabay.com

Sen. Carrie Ruud, R-Breezy Point, introduced Senate File 292 in the Senate, but the original is a House of Representatives bill authored by Rep. Jim Nash, R-Waconia, House File 238. Rep. Josh Heintzeman, R-Nisswa, is one of the sponsors of the House version, introduced Jan. 12.

Although the formal title is the "Defense of Dwelling and Person Act", both Ruud and Heintzeman described it as a "Stand Your Ground" bill. Stand Your Ground laws eliminate the legal expectation that people should try to get away when confronted with aggression outside the home, rather than use force. This expectation is called the "common-law duty to retreat" and is used to determine whether people truly were justified in using deadly force or not.

"Stand Your Ground" laws drew nationwide attention when Florida's version of the law played a role in the case of George Zimmerman after he shot black teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012.

The existing law in Minnesota, which gives the right to use lethal force to prevent "great bodily harm or death," or within one's home in order to prevent a felony, is expanded to authorize lethal force under an additional circumstance.

Under H.F. 238, people are also authorized to kill in order to stop what they reasonably believe is a "forcible felony" in most locations, even outside their home. The bill defines forcible felony as a crime punishable by a jail sentence of more than one year, and which includes the use or threat of force. It lists examples of offenses that fit under the criteria, ranging from first degree murder to crimes like arson and third degree assault.

The bill also lowers the threshold for killing to prevent "great bodily harm or death" to simply "substantial bodily harm." Under the definition of the term in a separate, existing Minnesota law, substantial bodily harm is "bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member."

Duel in a parking garage

Heintzeman posed the hypothetical scenario of what someone is supposed to do if attacked outside their home.

"I think people are worried that if they're in a parking ramp and somebody approaches them with a knife or a weapon or a bottle or something, even a gun, are they within their right to defend themselves?" he said. "You tell me .... because Castle Doctrine can be interpreted at times (to say) no, you have an obligation to get away rather than defend yourself in that situation."

Heintzeman asked rhetorically where someone could flee to in a parking ramp.

"Do you risk going to jail and defend your family, or do you defend yourself in another way?" he said.

Crow Wing County Attorney Don Ryan brought up the same scenario of being attacked in a parking ramp to explain why he thought the bill was a bad idea. In Minnesota, people already have the right to use deadly force in self-defense outside the home if deadly force is being meted against them by their assailantbut they have a legal duty to try and get away first if they can.

"Let's say (you're) standing in a parking garage and there's someone 100 yards away, and they pull a knife and put it over their head," Ryan supposed. "They're saying 'I'm going to kill you' and they come running at you. You're right next your car where you can quickly open it up, close it, lock the car and start driving away. That would be a reasonable duty to escape, right? Under this bill, you could just pull out your gun and shoot them, because there's no duty to retreat anymore."

The Minnesota County Attorneys Association opposed a Stand Your Ground bill when it was introduced earlier in the decade and opposes it now, as it's come up in 2017, Ryan said.

"From my perspective, I don't see why this bill would enhance public safety," he said.

The bill removes objective standards surrounding self defense and forces law enforcement authorities to prove what people who used deadly force were thinking when they pulled the trigger, Ryan said. It also creates a presumption that people are automatically immune from prosecution if they act in self defense, he said.

"Now we've just got people running around with guns, and if they feel threatened, they get to shoot people," he said.

Not 'the Wild, Wild West'

Ruud said she doesn't expect the bill to pass this session, rather, she wants Minnesotans to know gun rights are still a priority to lawmakers. She also wants the initiative to get committee hearings so the new crop of freshman legislators know what's in it.

Although Ruud couldn't think of any specific instances of constituents telling her they weren't safe because of existing self defense law, she added that she's heard from those who wish for the elimination of the duty to retreat, inside their home or out.

Asked about the dissent against similar Stand Your Ground Laws, Ruud pointed out that the 2003 law that allowed Minnesotans to carry handguns in public was also met with fears of diminished public safety, which turned out to be overblown.

"I'm aware of the controversy, but I also know that when we passed the (Citizens') Personal Protection Act, everybody said it was going to be the Wild, Wild, West," she said. "In all these years since it passed, we have seen the exact opposite. There hasn't been anyone who has a permit that's really been convicted or used that gun in a crime. So, we think that putting forward good laws, and having people understand what it's all about, is the best way to go."

More:
Local legislators introduce 'Stand Your Ground' bill - Brainerd Dispatch

A new bill under consideration by the Florida Legislature would make it easier for defendants to use the "Stand Your Ground" defense when faced with use of force charges.

For years, Florida laws have had provisions for self-defense immunity, protecting people who use force in self-defense from being prosecuted. There are certain restrictions on where and when you are justified in using various kind of force in self-defense.

In 2005, Florida passed "Stand Your Ground" legislation, which greatly expanded the circumstances in which an individual could use justifiable force. Florida Statute 776.012 expanded the application of self-defense to cases when you might have an opportunity to retreat.

George Zimmerman used this defense successfully in avoiding punishment after shooting and killing TrayvonMartin in 2012.

Zimmerman and his legal team mounted this defenseat trial, but they could have used itat a pretrial immunity hearing.

And a new bill that has passed committee muster in the state Senate could make it easier to get immunity for claims of self-defense including in situations of stand your ground, making that option more attractive for defense attorneys and their clients

The way it works now, if you are arrested for killing someone, you can request an immunity hearing if you thinkthe killingwas done in self defense and should not be prosecuted.

In that hearing you have to show that it was, in fact, self defense. Theburden of proof is on you, the defendant.

But Florida Republican Sen. Rob Bradleysays thats not in the spirit of the law, which puts the onus of proving guilt on the state.

He wants to shift the burden in pretrial immunity hearings to the state. Under his bill, prosecutors would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you cant use the stand your ground defense.

What I hope is the outcome is that people who should not go to trial should not go to trial, said Bradley, of Orange Park near Jacksonville. If a prosecutor does not have evidence to convince a judge at a pretrial hearing, then the prosecutor doesnt have enough evidence to go to trial and get a conviction before a jury.

Here's the proposed change to the statute:

In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution...

But many prosecutors dont think this is a good idea.

For one, it means theres less to lose for defendants brought up on use-of-force charges to try out this defenseby requesting an immunity hearing.

The bill also sets the standard of proof to beyond a reasonable doubt, the same standard as a full trial.

Pulling together that kind of evidence for a pre-trial hearing is exceptionally burdensome, says Phil Archer, state attorney for the 18th Judicial Circuit (Brevard and Seminole counties).

If youre going to hurt someone, if you are going to kill someone, the least we can require is that at a preliminary hearing that you carry the burden of telling us why we should give you complete immunity, said Archer.

The bill passed favorably out of committee with a 5-4 vote.

A related bill has been filed in the Florida House and has been referred to the Criminal Justice Subcommittee and Judiciary Committee.

See more here:
Florida Considers Bill To Make It Easier To Use The 'Stand Your Ground' Defense - WLRN

Native Son is an exceptionally powerful play.

One that potentially could goad white Marin residents into pushing harder for black social equality.

But I question whether the Marin Theatre Company, where the 90-minute shows running, isnt merely preaching to the choir even if that liberal choirs singing Black Lives Matter in multi-part harmony.

Id be willing to lay odds there wasnt a single Trump voter in the audience on opening night.

The nonlinear play, adapted from an iconic, groundbreaking 1940 novel by Richard Wright about systemic racism, justice and freedom, is at once surreal and impressionistic, jaggedly zipping across timeframes of present and past.

And, if a theatergoer will allow it, sure to get under his or her skin no matter what color that skin is.

I first read Wrights novel in my early teens. I loved the passion and vitriol yet understood little because I didnt know any oppressed black people.

Reading Native Son, however, led me to Ralph Ellisons Invisible Man, several of James Baldwins essay collections and novels, and, eventually, The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

Not to mention a love of race records and, ultimately, Alan Freeds radio broadcasts that extolled the virtues of rhythm and blues.

None of that, of course, could lead me a white male to genuine empathy.

And neither (though Nambi E. Kelley marvelously adapted it from the book) did the MTC play.

Despite its inherent passion and vitriol, mega-potent acting by Jerod Haynes and the rest of the sterling ensemble, top-notch directing by Seret Scott, and ultra-exciting stagecraft, sound and lighting.

It all takes place in cold, snowy Chicago, in the minds-eye of Bigger Thomas, a 20-year-old black man from a rat-infested environment who accidentally kills a white heiress and flees the crime scene.

Wright, son of a sharecropper who liked to insert his Communist leanings into his work, based his novel on a real story, one in which a black man was electrocuted.

Kelley who purportedly began working on her adaptation right after George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin in 2013 fabricated Biggers alter ego/conscience in the corporeal form of The Black Rat, a shadowy figure who often replicates Biggers words.

And sometimes contradicts them.

That voice is riddled with echoes of the trap the protagonist finds himself in, summed up by this line:

White folks dont let us do nuthin.

Bigger, in fact, is not allowed to be a man but a subhuman person.

A big rat he kills early on becomes a palpable metaphor reflecting his self-image, yet its chilling to watch his descent into a hell that reflected real life in the late 30s and, sadly, real life in 2017.

The play in contrast to the lily white society that rapidly closes in on Bigger, and the lily white cat constantly fondled by one supporting character is dark.

Unfortunately, considering who just took up residence in the White House, the audience has scant hope of escaping like darknesses in the near future.

Native Son will play at the Marin Theatre Company, 397 Miller Ave., Mill Valley, through Feb. 12. Night performances, 7:30 p.m. Tuesdays through Sundays; matinees, 2 p.m. Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Tickets: $22 to $60. Information: (415) 388-5208 or marintheatre.org.

Go here to read the rest:
'Native Sun' is a potent tale of black oppression, but - Marinscope Community Newspapers