sexta-feira, 2 de abril de 2021
Derek Chauvin trial: police chief to testify against former officer in 'remarkable move'
Derek Chauvin trial: police chief to testify
against former officer in 'remarkable move'
Chief Medaria Arradondo’s testimony over George
Floyd’s death may be unprecedented, experts say
Oliver
Laughland
@oliverlaughland
Fri 2 Apr
2021 11.00 BST
As the
prosecutor Jerry Blackwell addressed the jury for the first time in the murder
trial of Derek Chauvin last week, he reeled off a list of witnesses expected to
testify: from eyewitnesses who watched as the former officer held his knee on
George Floyd’s neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds, to forensic pathologists,
use of force experts and members of the Minneapolis police department.
Among the
most significant on this long list was the most senior member of that
department, Chief Medaria Arradondo.
It is, of
course, rare for an officer-involved death to make it to criminal trial, but it
is rarer still – perhaps unprecedented, experts say – for a police chief to
testify against one of their own former officers.
Arradondo’s
testimony is likely to be a powerful weapon in the prosecution’s case as the
defense will attempt to argue that Derek Chauvin’s protracted use of a
knee-to-neck restraint was in line with use of force guidance.
“It’s a
pretty remarkable move on the part of the prosecution,” said Dr Cedric
Alexander, the former police chief and public safety director of DeKalb county,
Georgia.
He added:
“It’s very rare that you’re going to see a chief either appear for the defense
or the prosecution. But each one of these kinds of events brings its own set of
circumstances. And in this particular case, where you have a knee to the neck
and it’s being questioned ‘was that trained technique?’ To be able to have the
chief of police… to under oath testify is clearly going to be of importance.”
Although a
spokesperson for the Minneapolis police department would not comment on the
nature of the chief’s testimony, Blackwell made clear in his opening statement
that Arradondo was not likely to pull his punches.
“He is
going to tell you that Mr Chauvin’s conduct was not consistent with Minneapolis
police department training,” Blackwell said. “He will not mince any words. He’s
very clear. He will be very decisive, that this was excessive force.”
A unanimous
decision is needed to convict Chauvin on any of the three counts he faces, of
second degree murder, third degree murder and manslaughter, making forceful
testimony alongside the plethora of video and medical evidence imperative for
the prosecution.
By
contrast, in 2016, at the murder trial of the former North Charleston police
officer Michael Slager, who shot unarmed Walter Scott from behind as he ran
away, in a fatal incident also captured on shocking video, North Charleston’s
police chief, Eddie Driggers, testified for the defense. Driggers told the jury
that Slager had appeared to comply with department guidance before he opened
fire and described him as a “very good officer” during testimony.
The judge
eventually declared a mistrial with the jury deadlocked 11 to 1 favoring
conviction. Slager later pleaded guilty to federal civil rights charges in a
separate indictment and was sentenced to 20 years.
Arradondo,
Minneapolis’s first Black police chief and a lifelong veteran of the
beleaguered police force, assumed his position in 2017 and was thrust into the
national spotlight as soon as Floyd’s death occurred. He moved to fire the four
officers involved in the incident within days, in the face of significant
criticism from Minneapolis’s police union, who accused him of acting “without
due process”.
“This was a
violation of humanity,” Arradondo said a few days after Floyd was killed. “This
was a violation of the oath that the majority of the men and women that put
this uniform on [take] – this goes absolutely against it. This is contrary to
what we believe in.”
At the same
time, a majority of the city council explored efforts to disband the entire
police force and later voted to divert significant police funding, $8m, into
other public services including new mental health teams created to respond to
certain 911 calls. The department also saw a “staggering” number of officers
seeking disability payments in the wake of the uprising that gripped the city,
sparking fears of a staffing shortage.
“The chief
is under tremendous pressure,” said Laurie Robinson, former assistant US
attorney general and the co-chair of Barack Obama’s Taskforce on 21st-Century
Policing, created in the wake of the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson,
Missouri. “This may be the hardest police chief job in the country at this
point, between the tensions around this trial, pressures from the community
dealing with the aftermath of the George Floyd death, the calls for changes in
the department and the protection of the community that’s dealing with rising
gun violence and crime.”
Some local
activists acknowledged the significance of Arradondo’s coming testimony but
argued it was only a first step.
“It’s a
good thing that he’s going to testify against Chauvin but at the same time we
need justice,” said DJ Hooker, a 26 year-old local organizer with the Black
Lives Matter movement. “Getting Chauvin convicted, that’s a way to get justice.
Getting the other three killer cops convicted, that’s another way to get
justice. But also, getting systemic change. That’s also justice. And that’s
also what we need to work on getting.”
Hooker
pointed to the demand for greater community control over the hiring and firing
of officers via an elected civilian council as one example of systemic change.
Alexander,
also the former president of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives, said the fact that Arradondo was the city’s first Black chief could
add more pressure on the testimony. In 2007, then a lieutenant, Arradondo
himself, along with four other officers, sued the department over racial
discrimination in a case that was settled $740,000.
“Certainly
being the chief of color in a situation that involves a white officer and a
Black subject and is so sensitized around race could put an additional stress
on a chief of color. But the reality is you approach this just like you would
any other situation. And that is with facts, and that is with balance.”
Both
Robinson and Alexander agree that Arradondo’s testimony could lead to more
police chiefs being called to the witness stand in the future.
“The public
is certainly asking for more transparency and and more accountability. So I
would not be surprised in the future if you see more police executives that are
being requested to testify, either for the defense or the prosecution,”
Alexander said.
A nossa condição zombie
CRÓNICA ACÇÃO
PARALELA
A nossa condição zombie
António Guerreiro
2 de Abril de
2021, 9:56
https://www.publico.pt/2021/04/02/culturaipsilon/cronica/condicao-zombie-1956630
Muito antes da
era zoom e da instalação do teletrabalho como regra geral, na qual entrámos em
corrida forçada há cerca de um ano, já estava em acção o processo que nos
transforma em zombies. Esta zombificação do mundo já estava latente numa fase
anterior, quando ainda se preferia utilizar uma palavra da psiquiatria do
século XIX, em vez de nomes inquietantes concedidos por filmes de género, e se
falava de uma hipnose geral, isto é, dos poderes hipnotizadores, alucinatórios
e fantasmagóricos dos media. Basta, aliás, declinar a palavra media no
singular, e dizer medium, para que a esfera do mediúnico seja evocada e
entremos assim na ZAD dos fantasmas (ZAD: zona a defender): onde começa o mundo
da medialidade começa também a dança dos fantasmas e dos mortos-vivos.
Antes de
Baudrillard ter designado a “sociedade dos simulacros”, antes de Vilém Flusser
ter definido as “tecno-imagens”, antes de Debord ter configurado a “sociedade
do espectáculo”, antes da espectrologia do nosso tempo que até produziu
leituras sofisticadas de Marx, Günther Anders descreveu longamente, no seu
livro de 1956 sobre o ser humano como um ser antiquado (o título original é Die
Antiquiertheit des Menschen; na tradução inglesa do livro, Antiquiertheit é
traduzido por Outdatedness, e na tradução francesa, por Obsolescence), o modo
como os media de massa nos condenam ao estatuto de zombies. É num capítulo
intitulado Considerações Filosóficas sobre a Rádio e a Televisão que Günther
Anders desenhou o “mundo como fantasma” e apontou o que ele entendia ser o
principal efeito mediúnico da rádio e da televisão: o de fazer de cada
consumidor “um trabalhador em domicílio, não remunerado, que contribui para a
produção do homem de massa”. Noutro momento, Günther Anders utiliza a expressão
“eremitas de massa”.
Talvez seja
conveniente apresentar Günther Anders: filósofo e ensaísta alemão que viveu
entre 1902 e 1992, o verdadeiro nome deste judeu alemão é Günther Stern. Foi o
primeiro marido de Hannah Arendt (entre 1929 e 1937), que conheceu quando ambos
eram alunos de Heidegger. Com a ascensão do nazismo, seguiu os passos de muitos
outros intelectuais judeus: fugiu da Alemanha, em 1933, para Paris (foi aí que
se divorciou de Hannh Arendt) e de Paris foi para os Estados Unidos, tendo
regressado à Europa em 1950. A sua obra só a partir do início deste século
começou a ter uma forte projecção. O teor apocalíptico dos seus textos sobre a
ameaça da bomba atómica, no tempo da guerra fria, assim como as cores negras
com que pintou o progresso da civilização técnica, fizeram com que fosse muitas
vezes assimilado ao pessimismo cultural que tinha tido uma forte expressão na
Alemanha, após a Primeira Guerra. Mas Günther Anders não pertenceu de facto a
essa constelação que também albergou alguns representantes da “revolução
conservadora”, um ambiente político-cultural do qual Anders sempre esteve
distante.
Lido hoje o livro
mais importante da obra de Günther Anders, as suas teses e intuições parecem
análises e descrições do nosso presente mais imediato. “ A nossa normalidade é
uma história de fantasmas”, escreveu ele, para a seguir acrescentar: “Muitos
habitantes do mundo real já foram definitivamente vencidos pelos fantasmas e são
já reproduções de fantasmas”. É provável que as teses de Anders só recentemente
tenham chegado ao momento em que se tornaram legíveis. A condição zombie, na
época do zoom e do teletrabalho, deixou de ser um cenário especulativo. Mas
entre o mundo de Anders e aquele com que estamos confrontados há uma linha de
continuidade e de ascensão progressiva do zombie. No início deste século
começou-se a assistir em várias cidades do Estados Unidos a marchas de
indivíduos mascarados de zombies, de “corporate zombies”, que pareciam paradas
carnavalescas. Numa delas, em Wall Street, os manifestantes (silenciosos, sem
pronunciar qualquer mensagem) mascaram notas de banco do jogo do Monopólio,
parodiando a pulsão nutritiva do capitalismo financeiro. O filme de George Romero,
A Noite dos Mortos-vivos , parece ter servido de inspiração a este “povo
zombie” que foi mais longe do que o simples “Occupy Wall Street”. A palavra de
ordem desta massa zombie era “Occupy everything”.
Livro de
recitações
“Quase metade dos
portugueses fez menos sexo durante a pandemia. Satisfação sexual também
diminuiu.”
In Expresso, 30
de Março de 2021
Sobre as questões
do sexo, as sondagens são sempre pouco fiáveis. Mas esta é muito verosímil.
Toda a gente sabe que o ambiente familiar, doméstico, conjugal, é pouco
favorável à subida da tensão libidinal e à satisfação do desejo. Sem as
incursões fora de casa, a única coisa que cresce é o deserto. Este tipo de
inquéritos e sondagens permite dar uma ideia aproximada do nomadismo e da
infidelidade. Mas faltam sondagens que dêem conta de outro fenómeno: muitos
casais, após algum tempo de conjugalidade, passam à situação de jejum
permanente e apenas partilham o espaço e a economia domésticos, a amizade, o
companheirismo, a solidariedade e um afecto que nada tem de sexual. Quando não
partilham nada disto, passa-se á violência doméstica. Mas a miséria sexual entre
os membros do casal é talvez o tema mais recalcado da história da
conjugalidade.
A message to the Brits forced to return home from Spain: this is the Brexit you voted for
A message to the Brits forced to return home from
Spain: this is the Brexit you voted for
It’s tragic how little the British public was informed
about the benefits of free movement, or of the variety of things they would
stand to lose upon Britain’s departure from the EU
Andrea
Carlo
@andcarlom
2 hours ago
In the
midst of what seems increasingly akin to a burgeoning cold war between the UK
and the EU, one attention-grabbing story has been hitting the headlines:
reports of hundreds of Britons fleeing Spain to avoid deportation.
As the
account goes, around 500 British migrants living in Spain have supposedly left
the country for fear of being “booted out”, some saying within a matter of
days. “My application has been rejected and we are on our way home – my wife is
in tears,” said Costa-basted Brit Shaun Cromber, who admitted to voting Leave
without “realis[ing] it would come to this”.
A closer
look, however, reveals a rather different picture – and one that would place
the matter squarely in Britain’s hands.
To begin
with, any Briton who lawfully settled in Spain prior to the Brexit deadline at
the end of last year has their right to stay covered by the withdrawal
agreement. Unlike in the UK, where EU nationals have been made to apply through
the Settlement Status scheme, Britons residing in Spain merely need to register
through self-declaration – an even simpler process than what we have in
Britain.
On the
other hand, Britons who came to Spain from the start of this year will only be
allowed to stay visa-free for 90 days within a 180-day period, like in other
Schengen states. As such, any of those who have found themselves fearing for
their future are individuals who did not make the deadline, or even longer-term
residents who have been unwilling to declare residency. Both the British and
Spanish governments have insisted that there are no plans to forcibly deport
any Briton living in the country.
Commenting
on the story, Sue Wilson, chair of the “Bremain in Spain” activist group for UK
nationals living in the country, noted that “overstayers should be aware that
they are no longer EU citizens and will be treated as third country nationals…
these rules are not new, and the Spanish, or any other EU government, are not
to blame for the position we’ve been put in.”
Her
thoughts were echoed by Debbie Williams, a Welsh resident in Spain and fellow
campaigner: “While I am sympathetic to those who tried to make it,” she told
me, “I believe that anyone who entered the country after the transition period
ended should expect to abide by the Spanish immigration rules. It’s always been
clear what ending freedom of movement would mean.”
Once you
strip away the drama and incendiary language from these reports, you’re left
with nothing more than a tale of the Brexit boomerang coming back to hit us on
the head. But at the same time, the story also illustrates a wider, deeper
point – namely just how much we’ve lost by giving up freedom of movement.
The right
to free movement between EU states has been routinely pillaged by Brexiteers
since (and before) the Leave campaign started. Politicians and tabloids spoke
of “migrant workers flooding Britain”, invoking images of cataclysmic invasions
and deluges. Aside from the inflammatory and even racist undertones to such
rhetoric, it crucially ignored a major part of the story: that freedom of
movement is and has always been a two-way street – one that Britons had been
benefiting from for decades.
It’s tragic
how little the British public was informed about the benefits of free movement,
or of the variety of things they would stand to lose upon Britain’s departure
from the EU. One viral tweet – capturing the surprise of a young woman’s
Brexit-supporting parents upon discovering they could no longer access certain
Sky content in Spain – provides a small but emblematic snapshot of this.
But
ultimately, however it may pain many – especially those on the Remain camp –
Britain chose Brexit. In 2019, the country was given a chance to vote out Boris
Johnson and his hard Brexiteer aides, and yet it gave him one of the biggest
parliamentary majorities in recent memory.
One can sit
back and blame the first-past-the-post system, or look at how 52 per cent of
votes went to parties supporting a second Brexit referendum, but that doesn’t
change the facts on the ground. Johnson’s vision was (and remains, if opinion
polls are to go by) the preferred choice for Britain among the electorate. His
victory is just as much an endorsement of Brexit as it is a collective failure
of opposition parties to unite successfully against him, which means that even
we Remainers, in our own way, are partly responsible for the current state of
affairs.
If a group
of Britons can no longer freely stay in Spain and feel they have to leave the
country to avoid being caught up in legal entanglements, the responsibility
lies on Britain and Britain alone. We can’t blame Spain or the EU for not
unlocking the cage we’ve built for ourselves.
Meritocracy,
touted as an age-old British value, is founded upon the principle of giving to
each what they deserve. As someone who campaigned passionately against Brexit,
I am keenly aware of just how many didn’t ask for us to go down this path. And
– regardless of political views – I feel sympathy for any Briton caught in a
difficult situation abroad.
Nevertheless,
in life, we sometimes make choices we regret, or have to endure those made by
others against our will. It’s time that, as a country, we collectively own up
to a decision made five years ago and accept its consequences – warts and all.
Backlash grows against Georgia voting rights law
Backlash grows against Georgia voting rights law
BY MARTY
JOHNSON - 04/02/21 06:00 AM EDT
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/546100-backlash-grows-against-georgia-voting-rights-law
Georgia
lawmakers are on defense as prominent companies and business executives have
come out in opposition to legislation signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp (R)
that has been criticized as an effort to stifle Black and Brown voters.
Georgia-based
Coca-Cola and Delta on Wednesday joined a growing number of corporations this
week criticizing the omnibus bill, called SB 202.
Coca-Cola
CEO James Quincey called the new measures "unacceptable" and “a step
backwards,” while Delta CEO Ed Bastian said the bill “includes provisions that
will make it harder for many underrepresented voters, particularly Black
voters, to exercise their constitutional right to elect their representatives.”
Chuck Clay,
a former GOP Georgia lawmaker and current political strategist, said the
backlash from corporations could have the potential to damage Republicans.
Peach
State-based businesses are saying “we create Georgia, we're the biggest
employers here and we're not satisfied,” Clay told The Hill. “Do you want that?
No. Does it hurt? Yes. Does it have a long-term impact? That’s to be seen.”
Kemp for
his part has defended the legislation.
“I’m glad
to deal with it,” the governor said of the corporate backlash while appearing
on CNBC's “Closing Bell.” “If they want to have a debate about the merits and
the facts of the bill, then we should do that.”
The
criticism from top executives comes as activists and Democratic lawmakers have
put pressure on Georgia-linked corporations to take a more aggressive stance
against the legislation, which the state’s General Assembly passed in a
party-line vote last Thursday.
Stacey
Abrams, a Democratic rising star who ran for governor of Georgia, described
companies’ initial responses to the bill as “mealy-mouthed,” while adding that
it wasn’t “yet” time to boycott any business or firm.
Dozens of
Black executives, spearheaded by former American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault
and Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier, also recently signed a letter decrying the new
regulations.
Some GOP
strategists are skeptical that the corporate pressure will deter Republicans
who are supportive of the bill.
“I think
it's performative, I think we're gonna be moved on to something else by next
year,” strategist Jay Williams said.
Ford
O’Connell, another GOP strategist, added: “Corporations are going to realize
that they shouldn't have caved to the pressure the Democrats are putting on
them in the media.”
The battle
over the legislation comes as both parties gear up for the 2022 midterm
elections, when Republicans will aim to retake control of Congress after losing
both of their Senate seats in a special runoff election in Georgia in January.
One of those freshman Democrats, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), is among those
up for reelection.
President
Biden has also stepped into the fray, calling the passage of the Georgia law
“Jim Crow on steroids” in an ESPN interview Wednesday.
The
president also said he would support Major League Baseball moving the All-Star
Game — currently scheduled to be played in Atlanta this summer — out of Georgia
in response to the law.
League
Commissioner Rob Manfred said he had discussed the possibility of moving the
game with Tony Clark, president of the Major League Baseball Players
Association, but didn’t elaborate on when the league would make a decision.
Abrams and
other activists have also compared the Georgia law to Jim Crow laws, which
racially discriminated against and intimidated Black Americans, largely keeping
them from voting.
Democrats
have in particular highlighted the Georgia law’s restriction on groups not
being able to give out items, including food and drink, within 150 feet of
polling places.
Prominent
groups, including the ACLU, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights and New Georgia
Project, have filed lawsuits against the new measures.
“What
they're saying is that there's both sides to this story, and it's not,” Nsé
Ufot, CEO of New Georgia Project, told The Hill a week before the bill became
law. “We have to formally forcefully and vocally reject the politics of white
nationalism.”
Some
Democrats have been accused of spreading misinformation about the law.
The
Washington Post gave Biden “4 Pinocchios” on Monday after he said that SB 202
“ends voting hours early.”
While the
bill does mandate poll hours be from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., it allows polling places
the choice to expand hours from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
The law
also minimizes the period in which a Georgia resident can apply for a mail-in
ballot. However, it makes mandatory an additional Saturday during the early
voting period for polls to be open and makes Sunday poll hours optional.
Democrats
have criticized the bill for the limit on drop boxes — one for every 100,000
active voters or one per early voting site — and the fact that they will be
kept inside early voting places and won’t be accessible when the site isn’t
open. Additionally, Georgians will be unable to use the drop boxes once early
voting ends, the Friday before Election Day, which could lead to mailed ballots
not arriving in time.
Other
controversial aspects of the bill include the new photo ID requirements for
absentee voting and the restructuring of the state’s election board. To apply
for an absentee ballot, Georgia voters must now show proof of driver’s license,
state-issued ID or the last four digits of their social security number if they
lack an ID.
Previously,
Georgians only needed to provide a signature that matched with what was on
record.
The Atlanta
Journal Constitution reported that when Kemp signed the bill into law, over
200,000 Georgia voters don’t have a driver’s license or state ID.
A 2006
study from the Brennan Center for Justice for Justice showed that up to one in
four Black Americans lacked government-issued ID, more than twice the overall
rate.
The
legislation also strips Georgia’s secretary of state from chairing the state
election board. The chair will now be selected by the state legislature and
since each chamber of the body elects one member to the five-person panel, the
board will now be tilted in favor of whatever party has control of chambers.
Republicans control both at the moment.
Clay, the
GOP strategist, noted that some of the animosity toward the bill could stem
from several proposed provisions that gained national attention — the
elimination of no-excuse early voting and no early voting on Sundays, for
example — were more severe.
“There were
other bills, having to do with elections that I think would have potentially
fit much more into that category,” Clay said. “They [appeared] to be more
partisan, they were certainly more restrictive, but they didn't pass.”
