Please comment any resources, mutual aid groups, etc. And ill add.
"May I add to your resource list a really great website: http://aworldwithoutpolice.org/
And also recommend Assata the autobiography by Assata Shakur. Really shows the pigs for what they are."
Yes, we mean literally abolish the police by Mariame Kaba
##Reading Recommendations
Alexander, M - 'The New Jim Crow' (2010)
Davis, A - 'Are Prisons Obsolete' (2003)
Jackson, G. - 'Blood in My Eye' (1972)
Vitale A.S - 'The End of Policing' (2017)
##How to Join
Go to Perusall.com
Create an Account
Click on Enroll in a Course
Enter this code: HAYACA-PVMCJ
Questions you should regularly ask yourself when outraged about injustice:
What resources exist so I can better educate myself?
Who's already doing work around this injustice?
Do I have the capacity to offer concrete support & help to them?
How can I be constructive?
“In The Spirit of Abolition” - Jailhouse Lawyers Speak Calls For Shut ‘Em Down Demonstrations
“Solidarity Doesn’t Mean Making Statements” - Laura Whitehorn On The Material Practice Of Anti-Racism
Also included are some very good theory recommendations:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/angela-y-davis-are-prisons-obsolete
http://www.usprisonculture.com/blog/
https://twitter.com/prisonculture
https://archive.is/XUJu8
https://abolitionistfutures.com/full-reading-list
http://www.deanspade.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Building-an-Abolitionist-Trans-Queer-Movement-With-Everything-Weve-Got.pdf
He's framing it as "if you were in a situation would you follow your training or not?", he's made her say that she would not be distracted from her training no matter what. He's using that to argue that the officer simply followed his training to the letter in a stressful situation, ignoring this fire fighter woman was simply exactly what she would have done in a similar situation at her own job.
Honestly, that's 100% worse.
It's interesting how he led her. The line of questioning is a lose lose for the witness. If she says "yes I would be distracted" then she gives the defence the ability to argue in favoure of the confusion of the situation and she's lent her weight to that. Whereas if she defends that she would follow her training to the letter no matter what distractions were coming from the sidelines she is lending her weight to the argument that Chauvin just did exactly what she would do -- follow the training to the letter.
At least that's what I see here from that line of questioning.
Right, I get it now, but the injury was caused by both the training and the failure to re-assess behavior during and in the midst of a situation. The prosecution should really be laying the groundwork for analyzing police training. Does it say in the handbook, you should sit on someone's neck for 9 mins? No. If a situation is getting testy, how many cops are supposed to be on the scene? Why were reinforcements not called? Does the handbook say nothing on the checking of the perp's health? The answer is probably NO to the last one. So he is failing to follow his training where it is most convenient, the killing of a black person.
deleted by creator
I agree
They're going to argue that even if the training is wrong that the officer is not responsible for the death. They're going to argue that he was both following the training and under a deeply stressful situation.
This will be how they play every single witness, providing the same no-win lose lose line of questioning and loading up both sides of their argument with witnesses. All witnesses will be forced into supporting either one side of their argument or the other. Jury is going to be a mess.
I actually doubt that the training is wrong. Because the entire veneer of accountability by cops to civies is that they are trained professionals and have procedures to handle these situations. So unless the defense is really ready to argue "hey the cops manual says you should murder someone if they are initially noncooperative", then the prosecutor can argue, what kind of person joins the force, murderers, do.
I'm getting frustrated, this is just heartbreaking.
Yeah the training almost certainly doesn't say to do that. But the combination of "following the training" and "getting it wrong in a stressful situation" is what will create the mess in the jury.
You don't need to prove jackshit as a defender of the cops in this scenario you just need to undermine the responsibility of this particular cop in the eyes of the jury. That is enough to prevent prosecution.