Since his aquittal in the murder of black teen Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman has been called a "ticking time bomb" by the Police Chief of the town where he resided and his estranged wife has expressed doubts about his innocence in the murder of Trayvon Martin.
Protesters at the Minneapolis, MN rally in response to George Zimmerman's not guilty verdict, July 15, 2013. (Photo: Fibonacci Blue)
By Ronald Jackson George Zimmerman has been arrested for domestic violence in Orlando, FL according to a report from the Associated Press. Seminole County Sheriff deputies reportedly responded to 911 "disturbance call" at a house. The alleged "domestic dispute" involved a girlfriend who was not Zimmerman's estranged wife.
Zimmerman's girlfriend, Samantha Schiebe, told the 911 dispatcher that Zimmerman broke furniture and pointed a shotgun at her, according to Dennis Lemma, chief deputy with the Seminole County (FL) Sheriff's Office. Zimmerman was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, a felony, other misdemeanor charges and held without bail. A search warrant is being sought to hunt for guns believed to be hidden inside of the home where Zimmerman was arrested.
911 CALL
George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering teenager Trayvon Martin. He was later involved in a domestic violence dispute with his estranged wife who has revealed doubts about his innocence in the killing of Trayvon Martin. The Police Chief in the Florida town where Zimmerman once resided has called Zimmerman a "ticking time bomb" and another "Sandy Hook" waiting to happen.
Since his aquittal in the murder of black teen Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman has been called a "ticking time bomb" by the Police Chief of the town where he resided and his estranged wife has expressed doubts about his innocence in the murder of Trayvon Martin.
Protesters at the Minneapolis, MN rally in response to George Zimmerman's not guilty verdict, July 15, 2013. (Photo: Fibonacci Blue)
By Ronald Jackson George Zimmerman has been arrested for domestic violence in Orlando, FL according to a report from the Associated Press. Seminole County Sheriff deputies reportedly responded to 911 "disturbance call" at a house. The alleged "domestic dispute" involved a "girlfriend" who was not Zimmerman's estranged wife.
George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering teenager Trayvon Martin. He was later involved in a domestic violence dispute with his estranged wife who has revealed doubts about his innocence in the killing of Trayvon Martin. The Police Chief in the Florida town where Zimmerman once resided has called Zimmerman a "ticking time bomb" and another "Sandy Hook" waiting to happen.
By Peter Hart During his interview with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (11/3/13), NBC Meet the Press host David Gregory offered up this fanciful account of the Tea Party movement's origins during a discussion about internal GOP fights:
Look, the reason there is a Tea Party right now goes back to President Bush. I actually think it goes back to the beginning of a more robust security state after 9/11; the government expands to deal with security. There's also Medicare Part D. There's a lot of government spending, and then there's ultimately the bailouts, which conservatives start to rebel against. And then President Obama continues that.
This is the kind of rhetoric Tea Party figures like to trot out when critics note that a movement that claims to be concerned about government spending was sure quiet (or nonexistent) during the Bush years. But Gregory arguably manages to take it one step further by linking the right-wing movement to a critique of the national security state and Medicare Part D.
NBC Meet the Press Host, David Gregory interviews Mitt Romney.
Which Tea Party movement is this? As a refresher: The movement really geared up in the wake of comments by CNBC host Rick Santelli (2/19/09), who was outraged by government plans to offer help to distressed homeowners (i.e., not the Wall Street bailouts). His call for "tea party" protests against policies to help these "losers"–issued just a month after Obama's inauguration–resulted in the first wave of such protests. Glenn Beck, then a host at Fox News Channel, took up the cause too. Some of the most visible examples of Tea Party activism were the "town hall" protests against what would eventually become the Affordable Care Act. The Tea Party "brand" was adopted by many well-known, well-connected figures in the Republican Party, like Dick Armey.
What did they all want? It wasn't always clear; as Steve Rendall and I wrote (Extra!, 5/10), the movement is full of political contradictions that media often failed to explore, but
there's one consistency they ignore in painting Tea Partiers as wholesome adherents to small government, constitutional principles and so on: the movement’s singular and often racialized loathing of Barack Obama.
Corporate pundits have spent years coming up with more flattering descriptions of the Tea Party than what they most clearly seem to represent. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman said they "began as a protest against Republicans for being soft on deficits." His colleague David Brooks wrote that the "Tea Parties are right about the unholy alliance between business and government that is polluting the country." Someone should alert the Koch Brothers!
Newsweek's Jon Meacham once wrote that the Tea Party could be good for everyone, since it was about "the recovery of the spirit of the American Founding." Time's Michael Crowley suggested the movement was animated by disgust with Wall Street; they believe that "Washington and Wall Street are in bed together, colluding for power and profit at the expense of the little guy." He also argued that Tea Partiers are about calling out "an elite Washington–New York establishment that lies to the public to cover for policies that enrich the wealthy and strengthen the powerful."
This is a remarkably charitable view of an obviously right-wing movement that began just as soon as a black Democrat took office. That's not to say that all Tea Party activists are motivated by a racialized loathing of Barack Obama; but to suggest that the Tea Party exists to express dissatisfaction with both major parties and the national security state, and that Obama's presidency just so happened to coincide with the rise of this movement, stretches even the most active imagination.
Reprinted with permission from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.
“A big majority of those killed are Latinos and Black people,” while the police officers are mostly White, says Mike Prysner, one of the local directors of the Los Angeles chapter for ANSWER — an advocacy group that asks the public to Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. “It’s a badge of honor to shoot gang members so [the police] go out and shoot people who look like gang members,” Prysner argued, giving the example of 34-year-old Rigoberto Arceo, who was killed by police on May 11. READ MORE...
Lawyer Says Evidence to Be Released From Huffington Post: DETROIT — The lawyer for a man implicated in the shooting of 19-year-old Renisha McBride believes evidence will show her client’s actions were “justified.” McBride died after being…
An Israeli human rights organisation on Monday accused the government of promoting "racist" policies in its decision to establish a Jewish town in the place of a Bedouin village. The cabinet on Sunday approved the establishment of "two new communities…
Wilfred Jackson: United States Navy - SEABEES World War II - "The Pacific"
________
The Warriors That HBO Forgot
It took me less than 5 minutes to find these photographs and accompanying information online. So why were blacks almost (if not completely) absent from HBO's World War II series "The Pacific" (produced by Steven Spielberg & Tom Hanks) and almost every other Hollywood movie about WW II in "The Pacific?"
This video is dedicated to the black men and women who served and died in The Pacific during WW II.
Can conversations about women in pop move beyond a binary of agency or exploitation?
By Reni Eddo-Lodge The feminist debate after Miley Cyrus’ VMA performance rarely touched upon the issue of race. A comparison with Rihanna’s ‘Pour It Up’ video illuminates the dominant tropes being played out in pop culture
Photo: Sean MacEntee
Sinead O’Connor and Amanda Palmer have swapped open letters, concerned about the future of Miley Cyrus. Between feminist cries of slut shaming, paternalistic concerns of exploitation, and sex positive insistencies of agency, the conversation spirals round with no end in sight. Both Palmer and O’Connor’s letters do not deem race worthy of including in their analyses of Cyrus’ behavior. But why would they? Solidarity is, as always, for white women.
There has been much written about Miley Cyrus' image change. She is not the first white girl to adorn herself in mainstream perceptions of blackness like a Halloween costume, reveling in actions tantamount to the modern day black face. Before her, there was Kreayshawn. Iggy Azalea simmers in the background, too. When Iggy publicly claimed Miley stole twerking from her, irony curled up in a ball and died.
Photo: StarblindKing
Thus, history is rewritten. Twerking’s pop culture reference morphs into whiteness – lacking legitimacy until a famous white person co-opts it for themselves. Elvis was perhaps the most famous example of this phenomenon. Eminem openly rapped about it. In his White Rapper FAQ, comedian Aamerr Rahman writes ‘benevolent white people […] who want to forcibly colonize, appropriate and redefine other people’s culture and history are how racism and wars started.’ In her essay Can the White Girl Twerk, Ayesha A. Siddiqui defines this as ‘racial drag’.
Miley Cyrus’ VMA performance was the cumulative effect of her continued work toward this point. The black women backing dancers who surrounded her performance were difficult to distinguish. Their eyes were blacked out with sunglasses, but then, no one was looking at their faces. Their bodies were voluptuous- wide hips, thick thighs- a stark contrast to the former Disney star. Every so often, Miley would stop to slap or motorboat their flesh. They were relegated to the side lines so that she could shine.
There was outcry when Miley’s VMA performance partner Robin Thicke used almost naked white and light skinned black women in the background of his latest pop video, Blurred Lines. When it comes to her backing dancers, Miley’s objectifying tactics are not dissimilar.
White women – conventionally attractive white women with access to class privilege – are the "housecats of society." as Chelsea Fagan succinctly puts it. Subject to gendered oppression, of course. But ‘so much [of this] oppression stems from condescension, infantilisation, and over protection.’ What both Fagan and Siddiqui discuss frankly is the perceived purity in straight, white female youth.
Alongside a new found penchant for nudity, Miley considers the perceived hyper-sexuality of black female flesh intoxicating enough to attempt to emulate. She imitates an ugly colonial narrative that stems from a violent past. Our waists, our hips and our thighs are not inherently sexual once we’re released from the restrictions of the male gaze, or the stranglehold of white dominated cultural appropriation.
Photo: Eva Rinaldi
At the polar opposite of pure white womanhood is blackness and the implications that come with it. Suspicion, aggression, and hyper sexualisation - each adjective is gendered. Like the trope of pure white womanhood, they are rigid and restrictive. Against a backdrop of structural racism and white supremacy, white women indulging in this perceived state of blackness is the ultimate rebellion.
Whilst Miley Cyrus rapidly becomes the pop culture reference point for twerking, Rihanna’s ‘Pour it Up’ video snatches the reference back. The comparison between the two, then, is where much maligned black female flesh fits into performance - if it does at all.
Maya Angelou writes it well. ‘Does my sexiness upset you? / Does it come as a surprise / That I dance like I've got diamonds / At the meeting of my thighs?’
One could argue it’s a subtle difference. But in a video co-directed by the artist, black women are released from the margins, and are taking center stage. Whilst Miley uses black female flesh as props to make a point, Rihanna takes the position of both client and dancer. Fur coat, shining rocks and dollar bills all signify unbridled power. A pick up artist might call it peacocking. There is no male gaze on screen to lap up the scenes.
What’s prized as aspirational or desirable in white women’s bodies is not the same as black women’s bodies. We’re not represented in many mainstream representations of beauty. Black female artists, then, who opt to twerk center stage with pride, are making a statement. With limited access to the structure of pure white womanhood, we operate within racialized respectability politics. Described well by Tamara Winfrey Harris in Bitch Magazine, respectability politics require black women in the public eye ‘to be noble examples of black excellence. To be better. To be respectable’.
Photo: Julia Stavale
Against this backdrop, Rihanna's attitude can be read as an act of radical self-love. Black women’s bodies, in her limited sphere, are free from the patriarchal construction of the male artist. Whilst too many mainstream representations of sex positivity have sorely lacked any analysis of race, its central ethos has encouraged women to explore and celebrate many aspects of their sexuality free from patriarchal judgement and barriers. Why then, isn’t Rihanna’s twerking celebrated as sex positive agency? Where are the defence barriers insisting that criticism of her is rooted in slut shaming?
Pop music has a long way to go before women can step onto a stage without worrying about their looks. We are too far down the slippery slope of trading on objectification for any conventionally attractive female pop star to totally reject the rules of the game. It would be disingenuous to suggest that liberation can be found in expressions of agency alone, but it’s clear that the conversation about must stretch beyond agency or exploitation.
---- About the author Reni Eddo-Lodge is a writer based in London. She campaigns for a living and is interested in social justice. Her writing achieved a high commendation from Channel 4's Best Young Blogger competition back in 2010, and she blogs here.
US journalists have a hard time knowing what to do with terrorism stories when the culprits are not Muslim, even though, in their own country, the vast majority of terrorism is carried out by non-Muslims (Extra!, 8/13).
Pavlo Lapshyn was sentenced to 40 years in prison in a British courtroom on October 25 (Guardian, 10/25.) Lapshyn was convicted of stabbing to death 82-year-old grandfather Mohammed Saleem on April 29, as he returned from evening prayers at a Birmingham mosque; and planting at least three bombs targeting Muslims, one that authorities say would have been lethal had a scheduled mosque prayer service not been postponed.
White supremacist killer Pavlo Lapshyn.
"I have a racial hatred," Lapshyn told investigators. "I would like to increase racial conflict, because they are not white and I am white."
This story of terrorism hardly registered in US news media. According to the Nexis news database, Mohammed Saleem and Pavlo Lapshyn were mentioned in just 10 US newspaper and news wire stories, most of them brief Associated Press and States News Service wires (e.g., Associated Press, 10/25; States News Service, 19/25). The New York Times was alone among major newspapers, running a detailed report on October 23.
Saleem’s story can be contrasted with that of British Army Sergeant Lee Rigby, murdered by Islamist assailants in a London street a few weeks later. Rigby and his killers, Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, were mentioned in 570 US newspapers and news wire stories.
There's more than one reason for that. Rigby's killers stayed at the murder scene and were videotaped talking about killing the soldier. But it's hard to deny that one reason Rigby's story got than 50 times the coverage of Saleem's is that it fits a false and damaging media narrative about who are the perpetrators and who the victims of such horrific acts.
A look at those states where Republicans are using the Supreme Court's recent decision on the Voting Rights Acts to turn back the clock on voting rights.
by Kara Brandeisky and Mike Tigas ProPublica, Nov. 1, 2013. Last year, we wrote extensively about photo ID laws and the Supreme Court's decision to strike a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, with gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, and the debt ceiling and healthcare debates already shaping the 2014 midterms, we're revisiting voting policies to see which states have enacted tougher restrictions since the Supreme Court ruling in June.
President Johnson signs Voting Rights Act in 1965, surrounded by elected
officials and Civil Rights leaders. Almost 50 years later, minorities, the
poor, and the elderly are still fighting to maintain full voting rights.
Remind me – what is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act? Under the Voting Rights Act, states and localities with a history of racial discrimination needed to get permission from the federal government to enact any changes to their voting laws, in a process called "preclearance." As of June 2013, nine states, mostly in the South – Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia – needed to get any new voting laws pre-approved. Some counties and townships in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota and Michigan were also subject to preclearance. Section 5 first applied to states that imposed literacy tests or other unfair devices, and had low voter registration or turnout. Congress later expanded the law to add jurisdictions with sizable minority populations and English-only election materials. States and localities could "bailout," or get off the preclearance list, after 10 years of elections without any problems. Several smaller jurisdictions bailed out over the years, including parts of Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Hawaii, and Colorado. Of course, some of the biggest voting law battles of the 2012 election were in states not covered by Section 5 at all, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
What did the Supreme Court strike down in Shelby County v. Holder? The Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that the preclearance formula was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, which gives states the power to regulate elections. The Court ruled that the coverage formula was "based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day." From the decision:
One important technical point: the Supreme Court actually left Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – the part of the law that describes how preclearance works – intact. Instead, the Court struck down Section 4, which explains which states and localities are subject to preclearance. If Congress amends Section 4, the Justice Department can start enforcing Section 5 again.
Why does this matter? While literacy tests are a thing of the past, voting rights advocates say that statutes that limit early voting and registration, require voters to show photo ID, and purge voter rolls still disproportionately affect poor and minority voters. The Supreme Court's June 2013 decision also effectively shifted the burden from states to citizens. Before, a state subject to preclearance had to demonstrate that a new voting law was not discriminatory and let voting law experts in the Justice Department evaluate it before it could be implemented. Now it is up to voters to challenge voting laws by filing lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination. But most court cases involving Section 2 have been limited to redistricting, not other controversial voting measures, says Yale University law professor Heather Gerken.
Four leaders of the Civil Rights Movement: From left: Bayard Rustin,
Andrew Young, (N.Y. Cong.William Ryan), James Farmer, and John Lewis
in 1965. John Lewis is now a member of the House Representative
representing Georgia's 5th District, now forced to continue voting rights
fight — thanks to the Supreme Court and the Republican Party.
"With redistricting, there's always one very wealthy political party or another who can hire some very good lawyers and go into court and challenge it," Gerken said. "But a lot of the types of things that were challenged under Section 5 were smaller questions, like, ‘Can you change a polling place? Can you shut down early voting hours in ways that might affect the black community?' There are things smaller than redistricting that can fall through the cracks."
What have preclearance states done since the Supreme Court ruling? NORTH CAROLINA: Two months after the Supreme Court decision, North Carolina passed a number of measures, including strict new photo ID requirements. The law also eliminates same-day voter registration, shortens the early voting period by seven days, and specifies that ballots cast at the wrong polling station will be thrown out. Some changes will be phased in starting in 2014, and the photo ID provision goes into effect in 2016.
The North Carolina NAACP and a civil rights group called the Advancement Project have filed a lawsuit challenging the changes. The Justice Department also filed a suit of its own. But the suits venture into some new legal territory.
"What North Carolina did was definitely at the extreme of practices in this country," Gerken said. "So if anything is vulnerable to a suit, it's likely to be the North Carolina law. But again, the case law was built around redistricting cases. It wasn't built around this kind of work."
TEXAS: Last year, a federal court rejected Texas' voter ID law, calling it "the most stringent in the country." The panel also rejected the state's redistricting maps, finding that they protected white incumbents while altering districts with minority incumbents. But on the very day of the Supreme Court ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would "immediately" enact both measures.
The photo ID law requires voters to present an approved form of photo identification, where before they could present mail, utility bills or other proof of voter registration. The Justice Department had refused to approve the law based on the state's findings that Hispanic registered voters were far less likely to have the approved photo IDs. The new law also requires the photo ID presented on voting day to match the state's voter rolls — complicating voting for some married women and others with name changes.
The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the newly enacted photo ID requirements and joined an ongoing lawsuit against the disputed redistricting maps.
FLORIDA: After the Supreme Court ruling, Florida resumed its plans to remove non-citizens from its voter rolls using the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database. The Department of Homeland Security database helps government agencies check the immigration statuses of people applying for government benefits like drivers' licenses, housing assistance, or Medicaid. But opponents of Florida's measure say that SAVE data is faulty and not meant for elections, and that using the database to verify voter rolls will disenfranchise eligible voters. (Colorado legislators rejected a bill to purge rolls based on SAVE data for this very reason, but that didn't stop Secretary of State Scott Gessler from moving ahead with the plan.) The Miami Herald found that Florida voters flagged for verification were disproportionately Hispanic, and most turned out to be citizens. The Department of Justice has also said that SAVE is not meant to be "a comprehensive and definitive listing of U.S. citizens," especially since it doesn't include data about people born in the United States.
A nonprofit group has challenged the law, but a federal court dismissed the lawsuit after the Supreme Court ruled that Florida was no longer subject to preclearance. Another group has appealed a similar case to the 11th Circuit.
VIRGINIA: Virginia passed a number of voting laws this spring that seem likely to go into effect in wake of the Supreme Court ruling.
The Virginia legislature passed a photo ID law last year (which the Justice Department approved), but the more recent measure goes further to limit what kinds of voter identification are acceptable. Voters can no longer show utility bills, bank statements, government checks or paychecks before they vote, but they can get an ID for freeif they don't already have one.
Voters wait in long lines in Virginia, Tuesday, Nov 5, 2013.
The new laws also require the Virginia State Board of Elections to remove ineligible voters by comparing state voter rolls with the SAVE database and other states.The Democratic Party of Virginia has sued the state over the interstate crosschecks, contending that the database has erroneous information and the law will disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters, but a federal judge rejected the suit for lack of evidence. As of Oct. 17, the Board of Elections had already purged more than 38,000 voters.
SOUTH CAROLINA: In October 2012, a federal court blocked the implementation of South Carolina's photo ID law until 2013. The court found that although the law was not discriminatory, there was not enough time to implement changes before the 2012 election. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said the Supreme Court ruling now allows states to "implement reasonable election reforms, such as voter ID laws similar to South Carolina's."
MISSISSIPI: Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said Mississippi will enact a strict photo ID law by 2014. The state says it will provide free transportation to government offices where voters will be able to obtain free photo IDs.
ALABAMA: Secretary of State Beth Chapman said Alabama would also enact changes to its photo ID law by 2014. Like Virginia, Alabama used to accept other kinds of non-photo identification, such as utility bills and Social Security cards. But the new law requires voters to present photo IDs (the state will also provide free voter IDs to those who don't have them). Legislators passed the measure in 2011, but Alabama stalled in submitting the law for preclearance.
ARIZONA: The Supreme Court issued another significant ruling on voting laws this summer: In Arizona et al. v Intertribal Council of Arizona, Inc. et al., the Court ruled that Arizona, formerly a preclearance state, could not unilaterally require voters to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote in a federal election. But the Court said Arizona could sue the Election Assistance Commission to get the federal voter registration form amended to require proof of citizenship. Now, both Arizona and Kansas have sued the commission.
In case their legal challenges are unsuccessful, the states are setting up two-tiered systems of voter registration, requiring proof of citizenship for state and local races but not federal ones. So far, Kansas has suspended registration for about 17,500 voters until those they submit proof of citizenship.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Four Directions Inc., a Native American voting rights group, has asked the Justice Department to investigate why Secretary of State Jason Grant has so far refused to use federal money to fund satellite voting centers for registration and early voting on some Native American reservations.
What about non-preclearance states? The 35 states that were not subject to any kind of preclearance were unaffected by the Supreme Court decision. But several of those states have also moved to tighten voting rules this year.
ARKANSAS: This spring, Republican legislators overrode the governor's veto to pass a law requiring voters to show photo IDs. If voters don't have them, they can cast provisional ballots and return with IDs by the Monday after the election. The state will also provide free IDs to people who do not already have them.
IOWA: In late March, Iowa implemented an administrative rule allowing Secretary of State Matt Schultz to begin a voter roll purge using the SAVE database. Activists have sued Schultz in an attempt to stop the purge.
INDIANA: In May, Indiana enacted a law requiring officials to check voter rolls for individuals registered to vote in other states. The advocacy group Project Vote worries that the measure could lead to voter purges.
TENNESSEE: This spring, Tennessee passed a bill restricting the kinds of IDs that can be used to vote. Previously, voters could show student IDs, out-of-state IDs, library cards, or any other IDs issued by counties or municipalities. Now only photo IDs issued by the state of Tennessee or the federal government are acceptable. The Green Party of Tennessee has sued the state over the law.
So, where does all of this leave the Voting Rights Act? The Supreme Court left it up to Congress to write new preclearance criteria. In a July hearing, House Republicans showed little interest in rewriting Section 4. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., says there's actually quiet Republican support for the issue. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., made headlines when he publicly supported restoring the law.
"There is at least one Republican, and you'll find out in the future a lot more, that is committing to putting life in this most important civil rights act that got a stab in the back from the Supreme Court," Sensenbrenner said.
Gerken, the law professor, isn't optimistic that Congress will come up with a new Section 4 formula. But she said there are other actions Congress could take. For example, she has advocated that Congress adopt an "opt-in" approach and allow civil rights groups to file simple complaints for the Justice Department to investigate. Then the agency could halt the implementation of discriminatory laws as necessary.
Yale law professor Travis Crum has also suggested a "bail-in" measure, by which Congress could instead strengthen Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, letting courts put states under preclearance if their voting laws violate the 14th or 15th amendments.
As part of the Justice Department's lawsuits against Texas and North Carolina, the federal agency has asked the courts to put those states back under preclearance.
This post will be kept up-to-date. Has your state or local government restricted voting rights since June 2013? Tweet at me, email me at kara.brandeisky@propublica.orgor leave a comment below.
Hero Cop Blew the Lid Off of the NYPD's Racially Discriminatory "Stop-and-Frisk" Practices and he Backed Up his Claims with Audio Recordings Documenting "Stop-and-Frisk" Quotas
Officer Adhyl Polanco saw "Stop-and-Frisk" in practice for himself when his bosses at the NYPD told him and fellow officers they had to meet "Stop-and-Frisk" quotas or face punishment.
Village Voice Cover Story
Polanco made surreptitious recordings of his commanders describing the quota system. He eventually provided the recordings to various media outlets including in the Village Voice which published excerpts. He also served as a key witness for "Stop-and-Frisk" victims who challenged the constitutionality of the practice in court. Office Polanco was suspended with pay for several years after he publicized the "Stop-and-Frisk" quotas and when he returned to work he was placed on "modified duty." Polanco points out that even he was "Stopped-and-Frisked" as a cop who was simply on his way to work.
