Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Review: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

It is quite rare, in this day and age, that I get to see a movie with an original story line that is so well written and directed, that I find myself truly forgetting that I am sitting in a movie theater. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is exactly the type of cinematic experience I recommend every movie lover and story lover enjoy.

This movie will drag you out of your seat and make you to empathize with people who are completely unlikable, laugh at things that are tragic, and make you want to hope where there is hopelessness.

Frances McDormand gives a remarkable performance of a grieving mother who cannot reconcile the past without justice. Unable to find peace, she approaches the problem just like she has approached everything else in her life - through confrontation. Her son, ex-husband, the chief of police, and an admirer; all bear the brunt of her abrasive and determined crusade to get a measure of revenge.

Woody Harrelson plays the Chief of local Police. A career lawman who has done well for himself, he is terminally ill, which is apparently the town's worst kept secret. He brings to the story the thematically relevant issue of racism among some police officers, where he shelters a deputy accused of wrongdoing. Butt he is a man of law, giving Frances McDormand's character all the latitude she is legally entitled to, despite her attack that is aimed at him.

Sam Rockwell plays the deputy who is rough around the edges. He is a brute force individual, who has been accused of racism in the past. He attempts to uphold the law and protect his boss, the chief of police at every step; even when it means pushing the envelope of what is legally allowed. He is a foul mouthed, disorganized, and nasty individual that doesn't evoke anyone's sympathy in the beginning. Yet he is key to the unfolding of the story's final chapter.

The theme of the story centers on justice and a measure of revenge. Whether it is revenge for a lost daughter, a fallen co-worker, or any other wrongdoing that a person has been subjected to; the exposure to hatred and anger are key. Throughout the entire movie, the carefully woven undertones show that if you hold on to the hatred and anger, you ultimately become the instrument of injustice - the very opposite of your initial intent.

Judging by the reaction of the theater's audience, it is my understanding that a lot of people didn't get the ending. The problem is that we, the audience, have been often exposed to movies that process everything for us right down the final meaning. It is far rarer to experience a move that leads you down the path to the finale, where all parts are aligned, and leave the finale up to the viewer's interpretation.

--------------------------------------------
SPOILERS BEYOND THIS LINE
--------------------------------------------

My interpretation of the ending is that it doesn't particularly matter whether the suspect is guilty of this particular crime or another crime. It doesn't matter whether the suspect dies or not. What matters is that Sam Rockwell's character finally found his ability to be a detective, guided by a letter from his late chief. What matters is that Frances McDormand's character knows she is not alone and that she finally has hope due to the work of a dedicated police officer. Here is what we know before the screen fades to black:

1) Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell know that the man they are chasing is not the man responsible for the death and rape of Frances McDormand's daughter.

2) They have reconciled themselves that the man they are chasing is evil because he has committed a crime.

3) They have not finalized the decision to kill the suspect. They agree to see how things play out, to determine if he will pay for his crime with his life.

The moral of the story is that the aspect of anger and vengeance that both of these characters live with is a destructive force. It made them both chase down a man who is not responsible for the specific crime at the center of the story. Just because the man must be "guilty of something", forces both main characters to come to the brink of becoming the Judge, the Jury, and the Executioner.

The only plausible poetic unwinding version of this story leads me to believe that the execution will not occur. Whether it is Rockwell's character realizing that it is wrong to take a man's life for another crime, or McDormand's character understanding that killing a man for a different crime will not bring back her daughter; the leading towards this path ultimately is foreshadowed by the doubt in their dialogue as the screen fades to black.

A highly enjoyable cinematic experience. Highly recommended.

I give it 5 out of 5 gummy bears!!!

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Real Crime

Media Madness
Due to the profit-first nature of the modern news era, the real crime committed is by the news media, both conventional and internet-based. This crime manifests itself as a tidal wave of suggestive reports that tend to focus on the worst sensationalist aspects of our society, even when they're untrue. As a result, majority of the population's minds are already set, before any real allegation is put forth. In the world of modern news, everything that glitters is ratings gold.

The problem with Law Enforcement is that it rarely receives the accolades for getting the difficult job done right on a daily basis. However, it always gets crucified in the media when there is even a hint of wrongdoing. It is especially lucrative for the media ratings if that wrongdoing could be made to look racially motivated.

Don't get me wrong - sometimes criticism against the Police is well deserved and there certainly is a history of racial profiling such as traffic stops and searches. However, more often than not, the perceived notion of wrongdoing is promoted by the media for the sake of ratings. Furthermore, if you can get a connotation of a Racially motivated crime by the Police, the ratings will be off the charts. You can get a lot more viewers to tune into the news later in the evening if you pitch a racially motivated crime by the Police, than you can just by simply presenting the news objectively. The concept of a sensationalist story that has no conclusive evidence, just the perception of wrongdoing, is the trademark template of the top prostitute in the 21st century - the news media. 

Recently, we have had two decisions by grand jury not to indict Police Officers in separate and distinctly different cases. I am talking about the tragic deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri and Eric Garner in New York City.

Both cases have been sensationalized by the media with suggestion of white Police Officer misconduct that lead to the deaths of black males. However, upon further review these cases are more about decisions made by individual police officers, rather than a racism epidemic suggested by the mainstream media and Al Sharptonians - (those who seek personal gain through false championing of civil rights). 

Michael Brown and Darren Wilson
The Ferguson Missouri case involved Michael Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson, who robbed a convenience store and were on their way back. The officer, Darren Wilson, initially told the two men to walk on the sidewalk, as opposed to the path of moving vehicles. He then remembered about the convenience store robbery and decided to confront the two men, pulling his vehicle across the path of Michael and Dorian. At this point, Michael Brown approached the vehicle and began and altercation with the Darren Wilson, which led the the first discharge of the officer's firearm. Michael ran away from the vehicle after the first shot was fired. When Darren Wilson called Michael Brown back to the vehicle, Michael Brown proceeded to charge at the officer presenting a threat to his well being. This is the point at which Darren Wilson discharged his firearm in the direction of Michael Brown, mortally wounding him in the process.

As soon as this story broke out, the news outlets focused on statistics about black and white, about perceived prejudice and racial inequality that had nothing to do with the key factors in this incident. As a result, in the minds of many young adults who seek out perceived injustice, Darren Wilson was already tried and convicted of a murder and a hate crime. While it is certainly true that the deceased in this case was black and the police officer was white, this information is secondary and inconsequential to the sequence of events here.

Matter of fact is that Michael Brown committed a crime and Darren Wilson attempted to apprehend him in connection with that crime, when Michael Brown resorted to violence striking the police officer in the process and wrestling for his firearm. In this country, when someone resorts to violence, everyone has the right to self-defense. There's almost no doubt that Darren Wilson protected himself and the community by using his firearm to stop a criminal in his tracks. It is tragic and unfortunate, but Darren Wilson was doing his job fairly and justly. The grand jury also reached the correct decision in this case. While the assistant District Attorney's conduct was inappropriate in presenting the grand jury with an inactive law, it simply did not apply in this case. At the end of the day, in this case justice was served.

Eric Garner and Daniel Pantaleo
The Staten Island New York case involved Eric Garner who was previously sighted selling loosies (loose cigarettes), which is considered a petty crime. Eric Garner was visibly upset at the officers approaching him repeatedly and went on a rant pleading to Police Officers to leave him alone. When he refused to be taken in to custody, the Police Officers approached him and Eric Garner came up behind him, putting him into a choke-hold (which is a technique that has been prohibited by the NYPD since 1993). Eric Garner was then seen on the ground saying "I can't breathe". He was pronounced dead at the hospital. The coroner's report read the cause of death as the compression of the neck and chest. There is no doubt that other health issues contributed to the cardiac arrest and death of Eric Garner, but the main catalyst was the illegal choke-hold by Daniel Pantaleo.

Once again, the news media was salivating at the prospect of disseminating toxic and divisive perceived racism in this case. It was all in the name of ratings, it usually always is these days. The news outlets and online publications became awash with opinions as facts that were so inflammatory, it sparked protests. In this case, however, as opposed to the Ferguson Missouri case, the officer Daniel Pantaleo has been summoned to court before on racial profiling charges and misconduct with respect to minorities.

Regardless of any real or perceived racism, let's proceed to the matter at hand. The video reveals the entire incident, which leaves very little to no room for any ambiguity. There was more than enough manpower available to apprehend Eric Garner without the use of an illegal choke-hold. The tape shows Daniel Pantaleo using the choke-hold to take down Eric Garner, as  Eric Garner notes he has difficulty breathing. In this case, the grand jury decision is the highest forms of injustice toward Eric Garner and his family. There is more than enough evidence in this case to proceed to trial and level a conviction.

What we have learned
Regardless of whether any misconduct occurred, the news media puts forth a highly suggestive case of racism any chance that presents itself, because it is good for the ratings and ultimately the news company's bottom line. This kind of reporting makes the public conduct it's own trial based on suggestive misrepresentation, feelings and public opinion, and not all of the facts at hand. It is a dangerous phenomenon that must be dealt with by education and tolerance.

Focus on the case, not the race. In both cases, just by dealing with the matter at hand and how the law enforcement representatives conducted themselves, you could reach the correct decision without getting the racial aspect involved. Would it have mattered if Michael Brown or Eric Garner were white? No! Law enforcement misconduct is the same across the board and must be treated as a failure in terms of conduct, without racial connotation.

If it's not black versus white, the mainstream media doesn't care. Nobody in the mainstream media even blinked at the death of Dillon Taylor in Salt Lake City, Utah on October 1st of this year. He was a white youth shot and killed by the police outside of a convenience store. However, the news outlets mostly did not pick up this story as it wasn't relevant to their agenda of higher ratings and internet traffic. If the story doesn't evoke raw emotion and spirited opinions, it's simply not newsworthy in the 21st century drowned by sensationalist news norm

My Hope for the Future
One of my greatest desires is that the general population will become a little smarter and more skeptical of the information which the news outlets feed them. It is important to take the news media with a grain of salt these days, realizing that in the end these are corporations that need to make a profit. This leads to them being more of an entertainment news machine, rather than real journalists that report genuine news that have to undergo sufficient scrutiny before being presented to the public as factual information.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

Eighteen years after the nation was captivated and divided by a racially-fueled television trial of O.J. Simpson for double murder, the nation once again went through the trial of the State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman. In this case, George Zimmerman was accused of second degree murder and manslaughter for the death of Trayvon Martin.

In this day and age the media has become the ever-present integral matrix in our lives, where we post all content, whether its fact or opinion. And the line between fact and opinion can become blurred at times, due to the sheer volume we are bombarded with in social media every day. However, as intelligent human beings, we are compelled to remain vigilant and recognize what are the facts, regardless of how contradictory they may be to our own personal views and/or feelings.

Feelings and Opinions: Trayvon Martin was killed by the racist George Zimmerman who profiled him as a criminal, which resulted in Trayvon's death. George Zimmerman is a murderer. He is solely responsible for Trayvon Martin's death.

Facts: George Zimmerman was a part of the neighborhood watch, which was created in order to stem the recent trend of home robberies. He was attempting to improve the safety and security within his community. George saw a young man (Trayvon Martin) whom he thought to be suspicious and called the police. While George Zimmerman was advised by the police not to pursue Trayvon Martin, he did pursue the kid (which was later confirmed as a legal act). Trayvon became aware of a man who was pursuing him, and had a phone conversation with a friend regarding the situation. During the conversation, Trayvon on record racially labeled his pursuer as a "creepy-ass cracker". As a result of the conversation, Trayvon was advised by his friend to run from the person who was pursuing him. Instead, Trayvon decided to confront George and instead of attempting to resolve the situation, he assaulted George which resulted in several injuries (to which the medical examiner testified). George Zimmerman discharged his firearm in self-defense, which unfortunately resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin.

During the trial, the judge fairly dismissed any characteristics references of Trayvon Martin's suspensions from school, theft and drug use, because they were in fact irrelevant - Trayvon was not on trial - George was. 

However, characterization of George Zimmerman, his desire to enter law enforcement, his wanna be cop persona, his alleged hatred, his alleged ill will; were all allowed to be portrayed by the prosecution, despite their legal nature being argumentative at best and not supported by any evidence. 

There were no real eyewitnesses who could tell the story as it happened, only witnesses after the fact. As such, expert testimony is the primary basis we all have to go on. The only eyewitness outside of George Zimmerman, was actually Trayvon Martin himself. In this country you cannot presume guilt, but the legal system mandates that you have to presume innocence. That is the right every single one of us holds dear as one of the founding tenants of the American Legal System.

No matter how much your feelings may drive you to say that George Zimmerman was the man solely responsible for Trayvon Martin's death simply because he fired the fatal shot, or because he didn't follow the advice of the police officer, they're simply false. The truth, as shown through factual evidence - is that Trayvon Martin decided to turn confrontational and assaulted George Zimmerman repeatedly until George had no other option but to discharge his firearm in order to protect himself. 

In the end, I commend the jury for reaching the right verdict of not guilty - in this country you have the right to defend yourself. While the death of Trayvon Martin is unfortunate, the act of discharging his firearm by George Zimmerman was justified - it was a single shot fired after forty seconds of assault by Trayvon Martin in which he suffered several wounds that were submitted as evidence. 

George will never be able to get a job in law enforcement, because of this notoriety. He will always be labeled a racist and a bigot, when all he was trying to do is defend himself while helping his community. He will also have to fend off the fanatics' death threats in the short term.

I will leave you with this parting opinion of mine - Being asked a question "What are you doing here" is no grounds for instigating a fight and assaulting anyone. no matter how much you feel that the guy is a "Creepy-Ass Cracker". As a result, we are all left to wonder would could have been had Trayvon Martin calmly answered the simple question and did not resort to violence.




Monday, June 24, 2013

“Pussy Riot” - rebels without a clue

I want to begin this article with the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin". This is an American law, for which the freedom fighters of the Civil Rights movement fought for in the 1960s.

Our wonderful society, as well as media madness, has adopted a policy of defending individuals who have been unequivocally proven of wrongdoing, even by our legal standards. This wrongdoing can be a contract you've signed and violated, an oath you have taken and broke, or simply an offensive display against the beliefs of others in front of worshipers on grounds deemed to be sacred.

In this article, the subject is a self-proclaimed feminist punk rock band called “Pussy Riot”. It does not meet the criteria of what we in the United States know as punk rock – they have no rhyme in their words, and demonstrate no musical ability. They just scream out of key verses to roughly chopped guitar chords. Nobody really cared about this band, or their previous performances, until February 21st, 2012, when they went inside the Russian Church of Christ the Savior, and screamed several obscenity-laden verses aimed at the Christian Orthodox faith and its patriarch.  

As a response to this act, seven patrons of the Church of Christ the Savior that were present during the band’s performance on February 21st filed charges with the local police as plaintiffs under the Russian Federation’s Criminal Code. These charges involved disturbance of the peace and hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.  Russian authorities acted swiftly and arrested three members of “Pussy Riot”.  After a prolonged trial, they were convicted of the charges brought against them, and to this day two members (Alyokhina and Tolokonnikova) still remain in prison serving out their two year sentences.  A third convicted member (Samutsevich) was recently released on probation, as a result of her plea to the court and an official apology to the patrons of the Church of Christ the Savior for her actions on February 21st.

The outrage by the Western media and its hoard of left-minded zombies, who have no idea of their own country’s laws, is astounding. The news outlets had no problem making it appear as though the Russian Federation government is responsible for imprisoning the members of “Pussy Riot” for opposing Vladimir Putin and his administration. To the contrary, their prior performances just prove how the far freedom of speech has evolved in modern day Russia. Take a look at public performances by the band on November 1st 2011, December 14th 2011, and January 20th 2012.

Their November 1st performance was aimed at political opposition to Vladimir Putin’s administration and chided that the ballots Russians cast are nothing more than toilet paper. Their December 14th performance was rallying a revolt against the justice and prison system for the conviction and holding of political activists who were arrested during an earlier political protest on a western equivalent of misdemeanor charges. Their January 20th performance was a straight berating of Vladimir Putting himself with lyrics like “Putin pissed himself”. Although members of the band were fined 500 rubles ($17) each for violating rules governing free assembly and protests for igniting a smoke bomb in a crowded public area, none were incarcerated. This clearly shows, that the Russian government was more than willing to let “Pussy Riot” perform in public all they wanted and actually recognized their freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

However, the members of “Pussy Riot” just wanted to push the buttons further in order to get a defining response and actually violated the rights church-going worshipers on February 21st of 2012. On that day, they filed into the church of Christ the Savior and disrupted the worship of ordinary citizens in order to push their own beliefs onto others. Their intention to offend ordinary citizens to gain a reaction from the authorities is ultimately what led to their convictions, not their hatred of the Putin administration.

I am an Atheist and I firmly believe that there is no higher power. However, I recognize that this is my belief. And if others are to respect my beliefs, I should respect theirs. Therefore, I respect religious individuals and their faith. Someone very wise once said: “Religion is like a penis. It’s ok to have one. It’s ok to be proud of it. But don’t whip it out in public and start pushing it up against everyone”. Well, that’s what “Pussy Riot” did – figuratively speaking, they took out their vaginas and rubbed them in the faces of everyone in that church on that day. And for that action, several members of “Pussy Riot” got their retribution.  

In my opinion, the punishment fit the crime. It is unfortunate that far too many uneducated and/or ignorant individuals chose to side with this perverted ball of hatred. But then again, it’s not the first time in world history that the people have been led by hatred under the guise of a higher justice.

On a side-note, the term pussy can be manipulated into various nouns, verbs, and adjectives in Russian jargon.  One such popular manipulation leads to a word-specific translation of “to pussy around” (пиздеть), whose meaningful translation into American jargon is “to bullshit”. As such, one may conclude that the true meaning of the band “Pussy Riot” is in fact a “Bullshit Riot”. Having examined the facts carefully, it seems very fitting.