EYEAM4ANARCHY

Danger! Police in Area

The first "Police Fatality Public Fact-Finding Review," regarding the murder of Stanley Gibson by Metro Officer Jesus Arevalo, is scheduled to take place on Thursday February 28th beginning at 9:00 am and will be located at the Clark County Government Center, where the Clark County Board of Commissioners hold their regular meetings.

We'll be meeting up at 8:00am in order to organize together and go over the specifics of what we will be doing to bring attention to Stanley's murder. It's incredibly important for anyone that cares about justice and supports accountability for police that commit crimes against people within the Las Vegas community to be there and make their voice heard for past victims of police violence and to prevent future innocent victims.

In spite of the long-winded name change, the new process that was created by LVMPD's Sheriff Gillespie and Chris Collins of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association (Police Union) is designed to do anything but allow the public to find facts. The reality is that it is much worse than the original, much maligned, Coroner's Inquest system that it will be replacing.

Unlike the Coroner's Inquest, the Police Fatality Review will involve no opportunity for testimony from witnesses and only voluntary testimony by the police involved in the shootings, which the LVPPA has already gone on record as saying that pretty much has no chance of happening.

What it amounts to is a choreographed staging of the police department's version of events with zero representation from a genuine neutral party, the victim's family, or independent witnesses. Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson actually referred to it as a "performance," while endorsing it, during the Commissioner's meeting in which it was initially proposed. That's just how much of a blatant and callous cover up the Police Fatality Review is.

The first case to go before this Police Fatality Review involves the murder of Stanley Gibson, an unarmed man who was shot seven times by Jesus Arevalo in spite of having committed no actual crime and having had his vehicle blocked in by several police cars so that it was unable to move. Stanley, a disabled veteran, who was lost and suffering a panic attack as a result of PTSD and other ailments he suffered during his time in the Persian Gulf, represented no direct or imminent probability of harming anyone at the time.

Caution Police State

There was no reason for any of the dozens of heavily armed police to feel in any way threatened by him. And the fact that of all those cops there, only Jesus Arevalo felt the need to fire the shots that killed Stanley Gibson only supports that conclusion.

Instead of holding someone that at best was grossly negligent that night accountable for his actions, D.A. Wolfson, Sheriff Gillespie, LVPPA's Chris Collins, the Clark County Board of Commissioners, and every other member of the LV Metro Police Department are closing ranks around him in a misguided attempt to cover up yet another officer involved shooting under what could only mildly be called questionable circumstances.

Anyone living in Las Vegas should be well aware that there is a longstanding problem with brutality and outright murder by members of Las Vegas area police departments, especially those of the LVMPD. In several cases, especially those involving Stanley Gibson, Erik Scott, Trevon Cole, Henry Rowe, and Rafael Olivas, the circumstances behind the shooting have been incredibly questionable, if not completely inexcusable.

The obvious reason for the mounting body count by local police is the fact that no Las Vegas area police officer has EVER been held accountable for shooting someone, no matter how questionable that shooting has been. Replacing what was already a terribly flawed system with one that not only retains those flaws, but incorporates even less transparency and can only be seen as a conscious effort to ensure the police never have to fear being held accountable for deaths they cause not only doesn't address this problem, but in reality actually makes it harder for the police to do the things they are supposed to do by creating a lack of trust and discouraging any support for police from the people living within the community that they work.

It's a self-perpetuating downward spiral that only exacerbates an already toxic and often violent relationship. The time to put an end to this has already passed and things can only get worse at this point if the transparency and accountability that Sheriff Gillespie promises so often isn't actually upheld truthfully and with honest intentions.

As of right now, I have been unable to find any info regarding the specifics of the expected length of the kangaroo court that will begin Thursday or restrictions on public entry into the chambers where it will be held. Although, I suspect this lack of information is intentional, if I do come across that information I will post it here.

Note: this was originally published specifically as a response to a question that was posed recently by a member of another blog group, however more generally, this addresses criticisms of that type which are often directed toward feminists/feminism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Strawman Cometh

Not only is it unfair, it's extremely dishonest and intellectually lazy. It's your typical, garden variety strawman which is only meant to distract from legitimate issues involved in a subject or debate. Something that is akin to saying "feminist issues don't need to be addressed, because they are wrong in their attitude toward men." The obvious fallacy lies in the fact that feminism's legitimacy should be based on the actual validity of their positions. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that feminists don't care about violence against men, then that doesn't invalidate such issues as equal property and contract rights, equal voting rights, opposition to forced marriages, sexual and reproductive rights, economic and employment equality, and, of course violence toward women.

All of these, and many more, are issues that feminism has dealt with and none of them are dependent on feminist's attitudes toward men in order to have value as an issue. In fact, every one of them is an issue that could be debated, independent of feminism's advocacy for them, as a stand alone subject. You certainly don't have to be apathetic toward violence against men to believe that women should have a right to vote, receive equal pay, and not be sexually harassed or physically abused.

Men Are Big Boys

The reason that feminism is associated closely with those issues is because they are issues that profoundly affect women. For obvious reasons, feminists have a primary interest in issues that effect women. It really shouldn't be surprising that a group chiefly populated by women would take up matters that relate mostly to women. By the same token, why shouldn't men be the ones advancing uniquely male issues, such as violence (exclusively) aimed at men? It generally follows that the person or group most effected by discrimination drives the discourse surrounding that topic. All the more so, being that feminist issues generally involve women's treatment by, or in relation to, men.

Furthermore, men simply don't need feminists to run to their rescue, because they are very much capable of standing up for their own rights. Men are overwhelming represented within every segment of society, including government, business, and the media. There is no shortage of access to venues for men to address issues that predominantly effect men. By contrast, most feminist issues would receive little, if any, attention if not for the fact that a group devoted to issues effecting women exists.

Feminists Are Multi-taskers

Having established that men are the ones responsible for men's issues, yet another reason this isn't a fair question is because it assumes and/or falsely implies that feminists aren't in fact involved with issues that relate to violence against men or other non-female groups. Truth is that activists are rarely involved in one, singular group or issue. There are many subjects and political disputes that effect individual activists that might not necessarily be universally connected to women's issues. Thus, while they might appeal to certain feminists, they would not be a part of feminism itself. For instance, a vegetarian feminist is likely to be involved in animal rights groups; an Asian feminist is likely to be involved in anti-racism groups; a feminist, who is also a pacifist, is likely to be involved in anti-war groups, etc.

It's rather naive or simple-minded (if not both) to believe that people involved in one group are incapable of being involved with or having sympathetic feelings toward other groups and issues that might be outside the realm of the first group. In regards to violence, it would be unlikely that you would find a peace rally that did not have its share of feminist attendees. While that might not relate specifically to violence toward men, it certainly would include them. So, not only is it unfair to make such a statement, it is an expression of ignorance and probably willful ignorance at that.

Originally published on My HubPages

It's one of the most prevalent and enduring myths regarding Anarchism. It's reinforced daily with news reports of countries that have "descended into anarchy" or political pundits railing against things that we can't do because it would (gasp!) lead to anarchy. The idea that Anarchy and chaos are synonymous has been firmly entrenched within the lexicon of modern imagery. Yet, it couldn't be much further from the true nature of Anarchism. Anarchists don't oppose society, order, or laws in general. What they do oppose is the idea that one segment of any society should arbitrarily be elevated above and given the power to lord over the rest of that society, not the existence of society itself.

In order to understand the distinction it is essential to avoid confusing governance with the Government. The Government, as an institution, is a segment of the population which is set apart from and above the population in general. They are imbued with unwarranted privileges and vested with the authority to dictate to the rest of that population, usually against the will of the vast majority of that populace, generally by force, and often without having to observe those same rules themselves. On the other hand, governance is simply the rules by which a group structures the society in which they live. Anarchists believe that it is not only possible, but actually beneficial that members of any society be free and willing participants of the governance of that society. Such self-governance ensures that the members of that society have a vested interest in it's welfare and success. In contrast, a multi-tiered system of society creates a situation in which an individual or group of individuals is elevated above the rest of society. At best, this creates opportunities for corruption and abuses of authority. At worst, this leads to outright slavery of those at the bottom rungs of that ladder.

Furthermore, in reality, most Anarchists are opposed to unnecessary violence and destruction and many even are pacifists. The Government, however, has always, without exception, resorted to force of one type or another to impose their will upon their subjects. In fact, the very nature of hierarchal rule creates an "us against them" type of relationship that encourages conflict between those making the rules and those being ruled. Many simply accept the idea that, because some level of governance is necessary within a society, then we must bow down to and be abused by people who take advantage of that need to justify and legitimize their crimes and extort special privileges from the rest of society. Anarchists recognize that there is a better, less violent, way.