Its seems to be that everyday across the country (even across the world) police brutality occurs on a daily basis. Several years back, as little as ten years ago, evidence of a civilians bruised up face or body along with a testimony was sufficient to persue an investigation towards an aggressive police officer(s). In today's modern world, security has reached new boundaries with the assitance of advanced technology, in hopes for a better and safer enviornment for society. Just New York City alone has over 3,000 livestream CCTV survelliance cameras, monitered around the clock by the NYPD , not to mention that, Europe has over 500,000! cameras themselves.
I then ask myself, If it took one bystander's videotaped footage of four LAPD officers on March 3rd, 1991 (The famous Rodney King Beating) to apprehend those police officers, then how come the courts are not locking up more of these abusive cops like wild fire on a daily basis??
Here's why: The public isn't OutRaged enough!! That incident caused so much tension between the black community in Los Angeles, as soon as it aired on the news. In fact, when the police officers were tried in a state court and were aquitted, that was enough to spark the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. Then after a Federal trial for civil rights violations had found two of the officers sent to prison and then the other two aquitted.
Im not implying that we should all go out rioting to get results when every little incident occurs, but we do need to be smart about our actions when taking it up with the courts. A mass of concerned individuals for their community with a loud voice, proof and a valid point can make anything happen. The way these police officers take out their frustrations on people in accordance of "doing there job" well, these HD cameras with excellent zoom in & out capabilities can provide more than enough evidence to convict these criminals with a badge.
Anger can mobilize our response for corrective action, however, uncontrolled anger can affect our personal and social well being.
"Temper is a weapon that we hold by the blade." ~ Sir James M. Barrie
Lets do something, rather than nothing!
Saudi Royal owns Fox News
Remarks by Dan Senor, a former Bush administration official, on Fox News this week led to a call to boycott the channel.
During his appearance on Fox News on Monday, Dan Senor, a former Bush administration official, hinted darkly that Feisal Abdul Rauf — an imam who was first recruited to promote religious tolerance in the Middle East on behalf of the United States government by the Bush administration — had, in the past, received financial support from a Saudi foundation established by a man with supposed radical ties. Mr. Senor did not mention the prince’s name but said:
The Kingdom Foundation, so you know, is this Saudi organization, headed up by the guy who tried to give Rudy Giuliani $10 million after 9/11 that was sent back, funds radical madrasas all over the world.
Last week, Sam Gustin pointed out on AOL’s Daily Finance blog that the prince owns a good portion of the channel on which he was vilified:
The stridency with which Fox News personalities attack the downtown Islamic center — red meat for the millions who tune in each night — is an example of the often uneasy relationship and occasionally diverging interests between many of News Corp.’s properties, in this case Fox News and its parent corporation. For example, News Corp.’s second-largest shareholder, after the Murdoch family, is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the nephew of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, and one of the world’s richest men.
Through his Kingdom Holding Co., Alwaleed owns about 7 percent of News Corp., or about $3 billion of the media giant.
Karl Jeffs/Getty Images News Corp.’s two largest shareholders, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and Rupert Murdoch, last year in the United Arab Emirates.As John Cook explained on Yahoo’s Update blog, several Fox News anchors and guests have gone to great lengths in recent weeks to suggest that the Muslim center is a front for radicalism by insisting that we must “follow the money” of the people who might donate money to it:
The opponents of the proposed Cordoba Initiative Islamic center planned for Lower Manhattan are fond of suggesting, by way of lengthy and often confusing chains of causation and association, that its principal planner, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is connected to terrorism.Mr. Cook noted that the implication that Prince Alwaleed’s foundation spreads radicalism seems to stem from its donations to projects like one undertaken last year by the Islamic Development Bank, which is building three community centers in Malawi, each of which will reportedly include a mosque, a health center and a primary school.
“The imam has been tied to some shady characters,” Fox Business Channel’s Eric Bolling recently said, “so should we worry that terror dollars could be funding the project?”
The same day that Mr. Senor appeared on Fox, another News Corp. property, The Wall Street Journal, reported that “Controversy over the community center, which will contain a mosque and other facilities, has helped fan anti-Muslim rhetoric in the U.S. far from Lower Manhattan in recent weeks.” Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism expert who monitors jihadist Web sites told the newspaper, “We are handing al Qaeda a propaganda coup, an absolute propaganda coup,” with the uproar over the center.
As my colleague Frank Rich pointed out several years ago, someone should really tell all journalists who think that they are emulating Woodward and Bernstein by repeating the mantra “follow the money” that the phrase was invented by the screenwriter William Goldman for the Hollywood version of “All the President’s Men.”
But taking the Fox pundits at their word, Jon Stewart suggested on The Daily Show this week that the best way to keep the Saudi prince from making money and then possibly using it to back the mosque project, is to boycott Fox News:
This is the proposed ‘terror mosque.’ We know that it’s a ‘terror mosque’ because the money may be coming from a bad guy, who definitely owns part of Fox News. Now, we know that he’s a bad guy because we just heard it on Fox News.
And by hearing it on Fox News, watching Fox News, I’m increasing their viewership. And their advertising rates go up. Now, part of that money goes to the bad guy we learned about on Fox because he’s their part owner — Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — allowing him then to make it rain, so to speak, on the ‘terror mosque.’
My point is this: If we want to cut off funding to the ‘terror mosque,’ we must, together as a nation, stop watching Fox.
