what if the worlds/were a series of steps/what if the steps/joined back at the margin

1 Comment

His Name Was Michael Brown

He was a man and he was our brother. He was not perfect. He liked to smoke marijuana, he may have committed a crime that day, he may have not always been perfect. That is why he is one of us. None of us are perfect.

I have smoked marijuana, and I may or may not have committed crimes. With all the legislation that binds us in this police state of America, it is doubtful to find very many American adults who have not committed crime in one capacity or another. It is certainly none of your business, as I am innocent of all crime I may or may not have committed until the state can provide a solid case against me to commit me to jail or prison, and it most definitely is not a reason for me to be shot. The difference between me and Michael is that I am white and assumed to not be dangerous.

Michael Brown may or may not have argued with a police officer, and may or may not have acted in the less than perfect manner. But I have acted out around police, and I have not only lived to tell the tale but was helped by the police officers I was difficult toward. I am not the only white person who has been helped by police whereas my black peer counterparts are afraid of the sight of a police vehicle. I am not a perfect human being. Michael Brown was not a perfect human being. Neither of us deserve death over our mistakes.

The only perfect people are Darren Wilson. The only perfect people are Robert McCulloch. The only perfect people are the people who say that this is not about race. The only perfect people are those who believe that it is reasonable for Wilson to have feared for his life due to a demon wearing a black man as a suit.

His name was Michael Brown and he was a human fucking being.


Leave a comment

The Legal Cyborg

Atomic Geography

The recent unanimous US Supreme Court decision, Riley v California, ruled that police need a  warrant to search the cell phones of those they arrest.  At issue was whether or not searches of the cell phone of an arrested person was a search incident to the arrest.  Such searches are allowable because they can find objects harmful to the safety of the arresting officer, and prevent the destruction of evidence.  The Court found that neither concern applied to information accessible by cell phones and that police should obtain warrants to authorize such searches.

This is of course an important finding, but my purpose here is to look at some of the ideas about communication technology embedded in the decision.  The most obvious example and widely quoted is the following.

mmw_newspaper[1]These cases require us to decide how the search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones, which are now such a pervasive…

View original post 790 more words