Abortion Barbie?

To: Rush Limbaugh

From: Eddie Griffin

 

Why do you call my state senator Wendy Davis “Abortion Barbie”? Is it the color of her hair, or because she filibustered an amendment to the Texas Abortion Law? Or, is it both?

 

I consider your usage of term “Abortion Barbie” a slur, not against Wendy Davis but the Barbie doll, and against the little girls that grew up adoring her. It is reminiscent of the days of Goldie Hawn on Laugh In when she was typecast as the “dumb blond”. Beauty without a brain was a typical locker room joke among boys about blonds back in the day. Not only was this blond stereotype perceived being not very smart, but she was also portrayed on the movie screen as the poor helpless maiden who always fainted at the first hint of danger, or the girl tied to the railroad track screaming for help from some chauvinist hero. Do you remember?

 

So what are you saying? Are you insinuating that Wendy Davis is a dumb blond, fearful and weak and a helpless maiden in a man’s world, just because she does not wave around her Texas six-shooter as a macho posture in the gun rights debate?

 

Really, I beg your pardon, sir. Wendy Davis did not get into her position as a leader of our community for any of the above reasons. She is proven. She has defied the odds and been victorious in battle.

 

As a constituent of Texas Senate District 10 and a friend of Wendy Davis, let me not lose sight of the fact that a slur against her is a slight against all her constituents, who voted for her, and love and adore her for her courage.

 

SECONDLY: As for the Abortion Issue, it seems to me that FOX News and other you other outside media come into our state in the 9^th inning and want to coach the rest of the ball game. It only goes to show your ignorance of the fight in Texas over abortion, which has been going on for a long time before you Johnny-come-lately got here. Start with the fact that Texas already has an abortion law. Are you surprise? It is authorized under the state’s Health and Safety Code, which was enacted in 2003, and amended in 2011 and 2013.

 

Sec. 171.003 reads: An abortion may be performed only by a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state.

 

Like it or not, the first five words say it all: An abortion may be performed. The law dictates the terms and conditions under which a doctor can administer an abortion in Texas. For example, in a situation where the life and health of a pregnant mother hangs in the balance and a decision has to made whether to save the unborn child or the mother, who should make the call as to which one lives and which one dies? I do not believe politicians are equipped to make that decision. It is a decision to be made only by a woman, her husband, and her doctor. Spiritual counseling helps.

 

If there is a starting point in this abortion debate, it would begin with the Texas 78^th Legislature and a bill signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry. All of this Pro-Life versus Pro-Abortion juxtaposing is nothing but a false dichotomy created by the media for political entertainment. The real problem arises, not between pro and con factions, but the wording of the law as it is written.

 

For example: In the 2013 amendment SB 5, Sec. 171.061(9), the law defines an “Unborn child” to mean “an offspring of human beings from conception until birth.” Under the 2003 law, Sec. 171.061(4) defines the “Gestational age” to mean “the amount of time that has elapsed since the first day of a woman’s last menstrual period.” Sec. 171.016(a) speaks of “gestational increments” measured “from the time when a woman can be known to be pregnant to full term.” Moreover, Sec. 171.041, which is cited as “Preborn Pain Act”, in subsection (1), Post-fertilization age means “the age of the unborn child as calculated from the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum.” In other words, for the purpose of the law, pregnancy begins when the sperm fertilizes the ovary egg.

 

Most women do not know that they are pregnant after missing one menstrual cycle. Some delay until after the second missed cycle. But by then she is legally pregnant, which means that provisions and restrictions of the law kick in. The so-called morning-after pill RU-486 then falls under the strict regulations of state law, though it is approved for distribution by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

 

Those who believe that the life of an unborn child begins at the fertilization of an egg are counting their chickens before they hatch. And, for those who believe in the bible, they should know that life begins before biological conception. As God told Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you.” (Jeremiah 1:5). In other words, God knows each of us before we are born. However, we do not become a “living soul” until God breaths into us the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). If life is meant to be, God will make it happen. Otherwise, man is in error if he thinks that he can will life into existence.

 

There was just such case in Wendy Davis’ district which proved the fallacy of man’s thinking that God’s will is for every conception to come to life. The case centered on Erick Muñoz and his late wife Marlise, who died during the earliest stage of her pregnancy. The man fought for the right to lay his wife to rest and have some closure for his grief. But the Texas abortion law prevented it. Therefore, the woman’s corpse was kept on life support for two agonizing months, while political opportunists championed a misguided cause for a right-to-life for an embryo that was still at the developmental stage of a tadpole. Why? Because the law defined an unborn child at the point of conception, doctors were forbidden from terminating the pregnancy.

 

As Marlise Muñoz’s corpse decayed, the more deformed the fetus. Eventually, God prevailed. But it would seem that under Sec. 171.002(3) and Sec. 171.0124(c) of the law that the doctors could have terminated the pregnancy on the basis of “medical emergency” provisions. But the punitive sanctions in the law would put the doctors at risk of being charged with a misdemeanor under Sec. 171.018 and fined $10,000 and possibly losing their license to practice medicine, insofar as the Texas Medical Board was given the police power to enforce this law (Sec. 171.062).

 

Nevertheless, we have found that once a law is on the books, it is rarely abolished. Rather, it is eroded over time by new amendments. Likewise, the Abortion of Law of Texas has been changed quite a bit since its 2003 origin.

 

Another example: The law alludes to the victims of rape and incest, but makes no exceptions to its strictures except under Sec. 171.046 (a) where the life and health of the mother is jeopardized, and Sec. 171.046 (c) where an abortion can be performed “on an unborn child who has a severe fetal abnormality”.

 

The law does not forbid any woman from getting an abortion, as long as it complies with the aforementioned constrictions upon doctors. But the only specific provision for victims of rape or incest is Sec. 171.012(2) (C), which says:

 

… (2) the physician who performs the abortion or the physician’s agent informs the pregnant woman that: (C) public and private agencies provide pregnancy prevention counseling and medical referrals for obtaining pregnancy prevention medications or devices, including emergency contraception for victims of rape and incest.

 

What need does a victim of rape and incest have for “emergency contraception”? To insure that she does not get pregnant the next time she is violated?

 

The big deal with the outside media has been focused on Wendy Davis’ filibuster against the 20-weeks Post-Fertilization prohibition in Subchapter C. If people had ears to hear, instead of their preconceived ideas, they would have heard Wendy herself say that the 20-week restriction was the least of the problems with the law. In fact, in an interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “She has said she would have backed a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy if parts of the law had been different.”

 

This list above is only a few of the flaws. Again: The severability clause in Sec. 171.048 provides that if any part of the law is found to be unconstitutional by the federal court, all other portions of the law remains in effect. And if the court “declines to impose the saving construction described by this subsection, the Supreme Court of Texas shall provide an authoritative construction of the objectionable statutory provisions that avoids the constitutional problems while enforcing the statute's restrictions to the maximum possible extent.” In other words, if any part of the law is deemed unconstitutional by some lawsuit, the state of Texas will fix the discrepancy itself, no thanks to any outside interference from the courts and the federal government. Nothing changes in the intent of the law.

 

The 2003 law originally provided for the publication and distribution of information “designed to inform the pregnant woman of public and private agencies and services that “are available to assist a woman through pregnancy, childbirth, and the child’s dependency”, according to Sec. 171.015(1) (A). This indexed list would have included agencies like Planned Parenthood which provided a full range of healthcare services for poor women, including cancer screening, mammograms, and counseling, besides making medical referrals for abortions. But the 2010 amendment narrowed the list to only adoption agencies and excluded all agencies that made referrals for abortion, no matter how medically necessary- See Sec. 171.015(1) (B-C). Moreover, in anticipation of future mass closings of Planned Parenthood facilities, the law provided certain waivers for expectant mothers who had to travel more than 100 miles to receive the same medical services that they previously had been receiving at their neighborhood clinics.

 

No, Texas does not prohibit abortions as many outsiders think. Instead, it concentrates abortion-related services into the hands of fewer medical practices, in certain geographical areas of the state, and only for those who can afford to travel back and forth over a great distances to receive it.

 

~ eddiegriffin_basg@yahoo.com

 

 

A Prayer for Erick Muñoz

Our prayers go out Erick Muñoz for the healing of his family, now that he can finally lay his wife to rest. Of course, it may be of little consequence the court ruling gave him no comfort, only relief.

 

It is tragedy enough to lose a wife and an unborn child. But this tragedy is compounded by people like the Texas Alliance for Life in Austin who issued a statement saying it was saddened by the judge’s order to take Marlise Muñoz off life support:

 

“The decision fails to recognize the interests of the unborn child, who is a separate patient,” the statement said. “We believe the intent of the legislature, as expressed numerous places in Texas law, is to protect the lives of unborn children to the greatest extent possible.”

 

There is something missing here between the ears called common sense. What did they expect? Did they imagine that a female corpse, after 2 months into rigor mortis, to carry a 22-week old fetus to term, while it is already in the process of mutating? Mr. Muñoz only mentioned his heart sickness having to endure the stench of his wife’s rotting flesh, while on hospital visits. As she mortifies, the fetus deteriorates. But had the Texas Alliance for Life had its way, this could have gone on for seven more months.

 

We forget that God made us, and not we ourselves (Psalms 100:3). Who would overrule God to create life where there is no life? No matter our fortunate journey from sperm to worm, until God breathes into us the breath of life, we cannot become a living soul (Genesis 2:7). The body is not the spirit, and without the spirit the body is dead. And the dead cannot raise the living. And a dead womb cannot bring forth life.

 

Marlise Muñoz is decaying. In a short while, her remains will turn to dust and skeleton, and only her memory remains. Who, then, can raise the dust to life? Or bring life up out of the dust? Can a dead Egyptian mommy give birth simply because their embalmed bodies are preserved?

 

What is disturbing is those who would preserve life do very little to support it. Otherwise, we would pave the way for the next generation of healthy babies, and reduce the infant mortality rate. Would these same people fight for life, with the same zeal as they fight for the right to life? Would they fight for adequate health care and food, as hard as they fight for a dead woman to give birth?

 

When Job cried out, “Or why was I not as a hidden stillborn child, as infants who never see the light? (Job 3:16)”, he makes us realize that if it is the will of God, then a child is born. If not, the unborn remains as an infant “who never saw the light”.

A Letter of Thanks to Wendy Davis from Eddie Griffin

 

From: Briana Russell, born January 14, 2014

Dear Wendy,

 

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to visit me at my home on this past Christmas Eve and bringing presents for my grandchildren. You were there for us when the hope of Christmas was the most dismal, and the life of my unborn grandchild hung in perils. You were the answer to our prayers. May the Lord bless you, your family, and your team for answering the desperate cry for help from me and my family, and moreover for your sweet and kind words of consolations to the destitute.

The last of your gift cards went to buy my newborn granddaughter some baby formula. Briana Russell was born on Tuesday, January 14, 2014, a healthy child and blessed, thanks, in part, to a fairy godmother that lifted a burden off an old man’s shoulders and saved Christmas for her family, before she was born.

 

 

 

Praise to the Lord, for He is good and His mercy endures forever.


I give thanks also to the Everman Church of Christ family who also heard our cry and came to our rescue. It is hard on the eyes of an old man to see his grandchildren homeless, with another on the way... stranded on the streets in the middle of an ice storm. And, I shuttered at the thought of my daughter-in-law, eight months expectant, trying to navigate on 4-inch thick ice, in soaked wet cold tennis shoes, trying to move their stuff from a rented motel room, after money ran out, in search of somewhere else to go. Had the mother slipped and fallen on the ice, we would have no doubt lost the baby.



Tears are hard to come by, for a prideful old man. But when I see Baby Briana’s sweet and innocent face, realizing she knows nothing of how she got here, I break down.

On the first Sunday of her life, the baby was in the church nursery, watched over by her angel and a loving and caring saint, a Sunday teacher who knew the weary young mother needed a surrogate for just a little while to rest.

I remembered looking into the eyes of a worried 5-year sister-to-be, when times were bleakest, and grandpa promised her that everything was going to be alright, when there seemed to be no way, no how.


But blessed be the name of the Lord, for he is wonderful and does marvelous things. Now grandpa has some peace and relief from his anxieties.

As a footnote: When the picture above was taken of grandpa and the baby, I was talking to her, telling her about a fairy godmother named Wendy who saved her family’s Christmas just before she was born.

 

Taser Death ruled Natural Causes

by Eddie Griffin

 

-Excerpts from Star-Telegram “Heart disease, not Taser, killed Fort Worth man, autopsy finds”, September 4, 2013

 

A Fort Worth man who died in May after police shocked him with a Taser during a drug raid died of natural causes, the Tarrant County medical examiner has ruled. The shock from the Taser did not contribute to the death of 34-year-old Jermaine Darden, said Linda Anderson, a spokeswoman for the Tarrant County medical examiner’s office…

 

The medical examiner’s office ruled Darden’s cause of death as “sudden cardiac death” due to heart disease and “application of restraint”…

 

Anderson said “application of restraint” refers to Darden’s hands being handcuffed behind him. She said, however, that forensic pathologists believe that being handcuffed had no impact on Darden’s death and that he could have died of heart disease even if he’d not been restrained.

 

According to the autopsy report, officers used the Taser on Darden twice — for five seconds each time — after he failed to comply with instructions during the execution of the search warrant.

 

A team of forensic pathologists reviewed the case, including video that showed Darden being stunned with the Taser and continuing to struggle. 

 

 

COMMENTARY by Eddie Griffin

 

So they say: It was not the taser that killed Jermaine Darden, and neither did the handcuff restraints contribute to his death. He could have died of a heart attack on his own. Therefore, the Fort Worth police officers were only incidental in his death. After a four months investigation, this is what they come up with.

 

 

If anyone believes this, they are “hoodwinked”, as Malcolm X would say.

NO! We will not believe it. We need to see the video tape, because there are discrepancies between the official reports and the eyewitnesses accounts. Isn’t this the reason why Police Chief Jeff Halstead purchased the taser video cameras, so there would be more transparency? Pictures don't lie. But medical examiners have been known to concoct a fabricated cause of death. How can the ME conclude that “maybe” Darden would have died on his own? "Maybe" is not a medical conclusion for cause of death.

 

 

Maybe and maybe not, there is plenty of room between "maybes" for skepticism and cynicism. Another scenario could be this: Maybe Mr. Darden started dying the minute he was tased. How long does it take for a person's heart to stop beating after being electrocuted with 50,000 volts of electricity? Simply because it did not occur instantly like zip, even being struck by lightning, it takes time to expire. Sure, while he was complaining about not being able to breathe, he was in fact in the process of dying. So goes maybes and their theories.

 

They can say what they will, however. But this we know from past experience. TASER International, the maker of the stun gun, has a history of suing every medical examiner who attributes cause of death to their taser. And what is more intimidating is that they have never lost a suit. Therefore, ME's are terrified to rule against the company, and the company, in turn, rewards them with perks like lavish vacations disguised as medical conferences, all expenses paid for by the TASER International.

 

To obscure the true cause of death, ME’s created a lexicon of psychobabble, with terms like "death by excited delirium" and "in custody death syndrome", and now "cardiac arrest by natural causes". We note that this ruling comes only after learning that Darden was asthmatic with a heart problem. Thus, they claim, in so many words, he would have died anyway.  For all intent and purpose,  they could have very well said it was Mr. Darden's time to die, and God simply called him on home.

 

Psychobabble may sound medical to the ignorant. But it is an insult to our intelligence. We have been through this before. We discovered many years ago medical examiners covering up the cause of death of inmates in the state penitentiary, after prisoners who had been beaten to death by prison guards. They used to rule death by natural causes after the victim's body was laid to rest. (Credit some local funeral directors for exposing these facts).

 

Eddie Griffin -eddiegriffin_basg@yahoo.com 

 

 

CORRESPONDENCE to the Chief of Police Jeff Halstead from Eddie Griffin

 

 

April 22, 2009

 

Dear Chief Jeffrey Halstead:

 

Thank you for coming out to the Minority Leaders and Citizens Council Meeting. The pleasure of meeting you was mine. I have attached the statement that I delivered to you, with regards to the tragic tasering death of Michael Jacobs.

 

When all is said and done, the question is: Did the officer do her job, according to law and according to policy?

 

Secondly, we must not try to ascribe the cause of death to the victim. Michael Jacobs did not cause his own death. Even if he were on his death bed, he still had a right to life, and no one should take it away from him, without due process of law. To say he died because of "excited delirium" would add insult to injury.

 

Thirdly, we must recognize that he died as an innocent man, guilty of no crime, and that he died at the hands of the Fort Worth Police Department. We cannot leave a vacuum in the assumption of responsibility. To say that no one is responsible would be playing the ignorance card.

 

Fourthly, Taser International, Inc., the maker of the device, issued specific product warnings against Taser usage in cases where there might be a "Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome". These cases call for heightened discretionary judgment in deployment, because the risk of death to the subject is much higher.

 

Therefore, the death of Michael Jacobs calls into focus the FWPD policy's alignment with the manufacturer's product safety warning.

 

Are officers trained to recognize a "Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome" and how to avoid it?

 

As one of your officers admits, it's not the use of tasers, but the abuse of tasers that kill people.

 

But who is accountable? Civil damages, in whatever amount, can never compensate for the loss of life.

 

Let me point out again: Tasers are deadly. If officers are trained to think that these devices are non-lethal, this may be why so many officers deploy the instrument, without fully weighing the consequences.

 

A Day of Blogging for Justice has already been called by the AfroSpear against the use and abuse of taser. Bloggers from around the world will be protesting taser deaths of people like Michael Jacobs. Amnesty International will add another number to the total death count, and we continue to call for a moratorium. This movement is beyond anyone's control and has a life of its own. Nevertheless, I am a co-signer and supporter.

 

At the very least, we should recognize that tasers have caused too many deaths (351), that the Taser is a deadly weapon, and should be reclassified as lethal force, and used with the same appropriate caution and discretion, if used at all.

 

Sincerely,

Eddie Griffin

 

Postscript: Taser death toll now 806. #529 is Michael Jacobs, Jr. and #782 is Jermaine Darden.

 

 

Excerpt from Eddie Griffin (BASG)

Blogging For Justice Day, April 19, 2009, AfroSpear

 

 

The Taser, produced by Taser International, Inc. (Nasdaq:TASR), is the latest toy put into the hands of law enforcement to subdue resistive subjects during apprehension and arrest. But the product manual for the device warns of its misusage.

 

Product Warnings for Law Enforcement from the Manufacturer

 

Obey Applicable Laws. Carry and use the TASER device in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws as well as your law enforcement agency’s guidance—policies, procedures, training, etc. Each TASER device discharge must be legally justified.

 

Avoid Weapons Confusion. Handguns have been confused with TASER devices. Learn about the differences in physical feel and holstering characteristics between the TASER device and your handgun. This will allow you to confirm device identity under stressful situations.

 

Select Preferred Target Areas. The preferred target areas are the subject’s torso (center mass) or legs. Avoid intentionally aiming a TASER device at the head or face without justification.

 

Avoid Sensitive Areas. Significant injury can occur from TASER device deployment into sensitive areas of the body such as the eyes, throat, or genitals—avoid intentionally targeting these areas without justification.

 

Avoid Known Pre-Existing Injury Areas. When practical, avoid deploying a TASER device at a known location of pre-existing injury (e.g., avoid targeting the back for persons with known pre-existing back injuries, avoid targeting the chest area on persons with a known history of previous heart attacks, etc.). These injuries may be provoked by such deployment.

 

Beware—TASER Device Can Ignite Explosive Materials, Liquids, or Vapors. These include gasoline, other flammables, explosive materials, liquids, or vapors (e.g., gases found in sewer lines, methamphetamine labs, and butane-type lighters). Some self-defense sprays use flammable carriers such as alcohol and could be dangerous to use in immediate conjunction with TASER devices.

 

Control and Restrain Immediately. Begin control and restraint procedures as soon as it is reasonably safe to do so in order to minimize the total duration of exertion and stress experienced by the subject.

 

Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome Awareness. If a subject is exhibiting signs or behaviors that are associated with Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome, consider combining use of a TASER device with immediate physical restraint techniques and medical assistance. Signs of Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome include: extreme agitation, bizarre behavior, inappropriate nudity, imperviousness to pain, paranoia, exhaustive exertion, “superhuman” strength, hallucinations, sweating profusely, etc.

 

Continuous Exposure Risks. When practical, avoid prolonged or continuous exposure(s) to the TASER device's electrical discharge. In some circumstances, in susceptible people, it is conceivable that the stress and exertion of extensive repeated, prolonged, or continuous application(s) of the TASER device may contribute to cumulative exhaustion, stress, and associated medical risk(s).

 

Other Conditions. Unrelated to TASER exposure, conditions such as excited delirium, severe exhaustion, drug intoxication or chronic drug abuse, and/or over-exertion from physical struggle may result in serious injury or death.

 

Breathing Impairment. Extended or repeated TASER device exposures should be avoided where practical. Although existing studies on conscious human volunteers indicate subjects continue to breathe during extended TASER device applications, it is conceivable that the muscle contractions may impair a subject's ability to breathe. Accordingly, it is advisable to use expedient physical restraint in conjunction with the TASER device to minimize the overall duration of stress, exertion, and potential breathing impairment particularly on individuals exhibiting symptoms of excited delirium and/or exhaustion. However, it should be noted that certain subjects in a state of excited delirium may exhibit superhuman strength and despite efforts for expedient restraint, these subjects sometimes cannot be restrained without a significant and profound struggle.

 

Permanent Vision Loss. If a TASER probe becomes embedded in an eye, it could result in permanent loss of vision.

 

Seizure Risks. Repetitive stimuli such as flashing lights or electrical stimuli can induce seizures in some individuals. This risk is heightened if electrical stimuli or current passes through the head region.

 

Muscle Contraction-Related Risks. The TASER device can cause strong muscle contractions that may result in physical exertion or athletic-type injuries. In certain instances this may be serious for some people, such as those with pre-existing conditions and/or special susceptibilities. This may also occur in instances Sudden in-custody death results from a complex set of physiological and psychological conditions characterized by irrational behavior, extreme exertion, and potentially fatal changes in blood chemistry.

 

Secondary Injury Risks. TASER-induced strong muscle contractions usually render a subject temporarily unable to control his or her psychomotor movements. This may result in secondary injuries such as those due to falls. This loss of control, or inability to catch oneself, can in special circumstances increase the risk(s) of serious injury or death. Persons who are physically infirm or pregnant are among those who may be at higher risk.

 

Strain Injury Risks. It is possible that the injury types may include, but are not limited to, strain-type injuries such as hernias, ruptures, dislocations, tears, or other injuries to soft tissue, organs, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, and joints. Fractures to bones, including vertebrae, may occur. These injuries may be more likely to occur in people with pre-existing injuries or conditions such as pregnancy, osteoporosis, osteopenia, spinal injuries, diverticulitis, or in persons having previous muscle, disc, ligament, joint, or tendon damage.

 

Laser Beam Eye Damage. The TASER device incorporates a laser aiming aid. Laser beams can cause eye damage. Avoid intentionally aiming at the eye(s) of a person or animal.

 

Disabled African-American man was tasered to death by the Fort Worth Police Department

Saturday, May 18, 2013

 

RE: Fort Worth man dies after being shocked by police Taser

Commentary by Eddie G. Griffin

 

 

A disabled African-American man was tasered to death by the Fort Worth Police Department. Jermaine Darden, age 34, a 300-pound asthmatic on a breathing machine, was wrestled to the floor and tased, after police kicked in his unlocked front door on a “no-knock” warrant. Officers claimed he was resisting arrest when he would not comply with their order to roll over on his stomach. But family members claimed the man was having breathing problems, which were especially aggravated when he tries to lie on his stomach.

 

Darden’s mother, Donna Randle describes what happen: “When they came in, they had their weapons drawn like we were members of a drug cartel. There were six people who told the police the man had health problems, yet they continued to do what they did.”

 

She is now asking why the police had to “use such excessive force.”

 

The incident took place in the same neighborhood where Michael Jacobs, Jr., a 24-year old mentally challenged African-American, was tasered to death by police in April, 2009. The City of Fort Worth eventually had to pay a $2 million settlement to the family.

 

Darden would be the seventh taser related death in the city’s history.

 

There have been several attempts by the community to reconcile with the FWPD over racially charged excessive force issues. The problem with taser related deaths should have been settled when Chief of Police Jeff Halstead negotiated with TASER International, the maker of the stun guns, to modify the design of their taser product, which would allow an automatic shut off after a 5-second burst. But change the weapon’s shut-off system does not change police abusive practices in its deployment. Tasers still kill, with or without a 5-second shutoff. And Darden is the second taser related death since Michael Jacobs, Jr.

 

It should be evident here of a violation of police policy. According the WFAA 8 Jim Douglas report, the weapon was deployed multiple times. What is not clear is whether one officer used the override on the 5-second cutoff or whether several tasers were deployed at once. The incident is still under investigation.

 

Besides FWPD policy, whether officers complied with it or not, there are serious human rights and constitutional questions about the right of the accused, and the nature of the heavy-handed gang buster tactics.

 

Human Rights advocates have always contended tasers to be torture in violation of the Eight Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. A victim being stunned by 50,000 volts of electricity is equivalent to being electrocuted by high voltage utility wires, or comparable to the electric chair.

 

More importantly, however, is that a person has the right to life. No one should be summarily executed by electrocution at the whims of a law enforcement officer. This violates the First Amendment Right to life, and the Sixth Amendment Right to Due Process.

 

It would be fruitless, however, to argue constitutional rights issues with the same agency guilty of the violations. If the agency cannot enforce its own policy and the City unable to protect the public, then monetary retribution should be exacted as heavily as possible. Corrections can and will be made, if liabilities for abuses of authority began to cost more than the City can willingly afford.

 

Of course, little defense can be offer for Derrick Anthony Birdow who was tasered to death while in the act of killing a preacher. Some might rationalize his death as justifiable in the heat of the moment. But the point still stands: Tasers kill. And multiple jolts of 50,000 volts of electricity will kill with surety, something every FWPD officer should know. Thus, the killing of Darden should not have come as a complete surprise to the deploying officer or officers.

 

Someone needs to be held accountable. First, there is the officer or officers who deployed the weapon or weapons. Was he or she or they criminally negligent? If they had full knowledge of the Michael Jacobs tragedy, then they cannot claim ignorance.

 

Then there is the FWPD itself. Do loopholes in its policy allow for and exonerate such on-the-spot street summary execution of suspects, contrary to the constitutional rights of the suspect? The officer who tased Michael Jacobs to death claimed she did not know that holding the taser trigger down continued to shoot electricity into his body. Nobody ever told her, and TASER International never educated officers about the risks. What excuse can they offer now to exonerate them of their legal and criminal culpability?

 

The third party is the City of Fort Worth, who are obligated to back the police action and cover their liabilities in cases where excessive force is employed. Shouldn’t they have learned something from the Jacobs’s case? Didn’t they assure the community that this would never happen again where an innocent person would be tasered to death?

 

Fourth, there is TASER International who falsely advertises tasers are non-lethal weapons. They are the guiltiest insofar as they leave cities, like Fort Worth, to pick up the pieces, pay off the wrongful death suits, while they continue marketing their product as if it does no harm.

 

There is a memorial south of Fort Worth filled with crosses for those killed by tasers, named the Michael C. Jacobs, Jr. Memorial. The official death count now stands at 779, with a cross for Jermaine Darden to be added. Here is a list of those who died by tasers in Fort Worth:

 

·       November 2, 2004: Robert Guerrero, 21, Fort Worth, Texas

·       April 3, 2005: Eric Hammock, 43, Fort Worth, Texas

·       June 24, 2005: Carolyn Daniels, 25, Fort Worth, Texas

·       August 23, 2006: Noah Lopez, 25, Fort Worth, Texas

·       April 18, 2009: Michael Jacobs Jr., 24, Fort Worth, Texas

·       October 29, 2012: Derrick Birdow, 33, Fort Worth, Texas

·       May 17, 2013: Jermaine Darden, 34, Fort Worth, Texas

 

As for the investigation by the FWPD’s major-case unit and the Department’s heavy-handed “no knock” tactic that allowed the police to kick open a family’s “unlocked door”, under the pretext of a big drug raid that eventually cost this disabled man his life, let’s see what they were after and what they netted for their effort:

 

Five people who were arrested:

•         [Suspect No. 1], age 25, suspected of possessing 1 to 4 grams of a controlled substance and 2 to 4 ounces of marijuana.

•         [Suspect No. 2], age 22, suspected of possessing less than 2 ounces of marijuana. Police also found that [Suspect No. 2] was wanted on two warrants from other jurisdictions.

•         [Suspect No. 4], age 27, accused of evading arrest and detention. [Suspect No. 4] also had a warrant.

•         [Suspect No. 5], age 29, and [Suspect No. 6], age 29, both with class C warrants from Fort Worth. [Suspect No. 6], who identified herself as Darden’s cousin, said she has an unpaid ticket for talking on a cellphone while driving in a school zone.

 

In a police report, Officer N.B. Danford was the one who drafted the probable-cause warrant to search for cocaine at the house. The “no-knock” warrant was signed by Tarrant County Magistrate Cheyenne Minick at 3:35 p.m. Thursday, according to the report.

 

The investigation should not begin with the suspects, because there was never any really “big fish” in this expedition, only a few misdemeanor guppies at worst. So they kick down an unlocked door and kill a man for the above probable-causes.



No, the investigation should begin at the determination level of probable cause and a criminal justice system that allows a magistrate who signed off on a “no-knock” (kick-the-door-down) raid to bag a few petty misdemeanor offenders.

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

202-456-1111

Attn: President Barack Obama

 

president@whitehouse.gov

vice_president@whitehouse.gov

comments@whitehouse.gov

 

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

 

RE: Texans Petition to Secede

United We Stand: Divided We Fall

 

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

There have been recent published reports about some Texans desiring to secede from the Union. The most recent includes today’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s editorial. At last count per this writing, there are now 116,070 signatures on a petition for such purpose.

 

Though this number hardly represents the majority of Texans, we recognize that all citizens are entitled by the First Amendment of the Constitution the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.

 

Seeing that you have obligated yourself to a response on a petition with more than 25,000 signatures, I would like to weigh in on your deliberation on this issue, and advise you not to make the same mistake made by President Abraham Lincoln. Instead, you should learn from history, because this secessionist movement in Texas is not unprecedented.

 

When Texas seceded from the Union in 1861, only one-in-four Texans owned slaves. This minority usurped the authority of Governor Sam Houston, the revered father of Texas, who opposed the secessionist movement. Lincoln even offered Houston military help to suppress this uprising. But, for the sake of peace within the state, the governor acquiesced to the rebellious minority who subsequently evicted him from office by force on March 16, 1861. He was replaced by Lieutenant Governor Edward Clark.

 

It is no wonder that this portion of Texas history hardly appears in the history books. Otherwise, it would reveal the illegitimacy of the Confederate government in Texas. The Ordinance of Secession was never put before the majority of the citizens of the state, lest they would have opposed it like the governor.

 

A little known fact is that Texas held large pockets of abolitionists, prior to and during the Civil War. And though that state was separated from the Union, it was divided against itself within. There were pro-Union Texans actively fighting against the Confederacy throughout the war.

 

In the end, African-Americans survived, with the help of their abolitionist allies, and not necessarily by the grace of Abraham Lincoln. Likewise, we believe Texans of abolitionist heritage will survive this secession movement also, despite economic cuts and scale backs by the state to our community.

 

We wish no part in these hostilities, nor do we concur with this petition for secession. When we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and ourselves to be One Nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All, we express our true patriotic colors. Those who pledge allegiance and wave their flags at every public event, and then turn against the United States, are hypocrites, because you cannot cling to two masters: Old Glory and the Confederate southern tradition.

 

I do not believe most Texans hold the same sentiments of Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County, who says, “Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way.” What is at issue is this: If the rest of the United States cannot concur with Texas, then the rest of the states can go their merry out. Texas is big enough to take care of itself. So says the petition:

 

Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union.

 

Please note also that the petition requests “peaceful” separation. Otherwise, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. would be as seditious and criminal as an Al Qaeda plot. Therefore, so far, the petitioners are within their rights. But the minority does not have right over majority rule as the usurpation of power in 1861. Whereas the Texas Ordinance of Secession was never put before the citizens of the state, no such petition to secede should ever be enacted with the concurrence of the will of the majority living in the state.

 

Therefore, Mr. President, my advisement would be to let Texas vote its way out of the Union. If there are counties that still cleave to the Union, they should be allowed to. El Paso and Houston are already drafting petitions to secede from the state of Texas. So also is Austin.

 

The mistake made by President Lincoln was trying to forcefully hold the Union together. Texas is already separated from the Union by continued resistance to federal authority and policies. The basis of the petitioners’ grievance is this: The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government's neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending.

 

But when a Texan, George W. Bush, was in the White House, turning a surplus economy into a deficit, there was not a peep in Texas about secession. The petitioners’ desires to separate themselves from continuing economic “difficulties” ignores the true origin of our economic woes.

 

How can these petitioners gripe about economic conditions, on the one hand, and boast about the state’s economic solvency, on the other. If Texas is doing so good economically as they boast in their petition, then on whose behalf are they complaining? Do they assume guardianship of the rest of the United States to speak on their behalf? And how can 116,070 petitioners speak for the entire state of Texas and the entire American people?

 

If Texas truly wants to secede, then let it be by democratic referendum. If passed, the state of Texas should then be regarded as a foreign government. Abolitionists should not be forced to pledge allegiance thereto, nor have their freedoms by armed forces or treats of lynching, as in the past. Instead, pro-Unionists living in the state should be treated as patriots abroad.

 

We would support the federal government closing its facilities and moving to other states. Federal contracts to the defense industries should be cancelled. Federal construction should cease. And, federal grants and aid should be cut off or doled out on an as-needs basis, as to a foreign government.

 

It is not necessary to be overly concerned about pro-Union citizens in the state, as Abe Lincoln did in 1861. We will survive, though divided we fall.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Eddie Griffin

Obama Wins: Texas Talk Secession

By Eddie Griffin
Tuesday, November 13, 2012

 

We can understand some angry temperament after the election of President Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. But all this ranting about Texas seceding from the union is nonsensical. It is akin to a spoiled child who, when he cannot get his way, pitches a temper tantrum. Such a child, we recognize, needs a time-out to cool off and come to their senses.

 

Texas needs some time for self-reflection and soul-searching, lest we make ourselves a bigger laughing stock than our governor has made us. We, Texans, are more than just a crop of 25,000 signatures on a petition to secede from the union. This minority of dissenters cannot usurp the voice of the majority unless we let it. This is what happened with the writing of Ordinance of Secession in 1861 and the annulment of the Texas allegiance to the Union. The change in the state’s constitution was never being put before the populous for approval.

 

At the time secession, only one-fourth of the property holders in Texas owed slaves. This minority of pro-slavery advocates usurped state power and forcefully evicted Governor Sam Houston from office for his refusal to take an oath to the Confederacy.

 

Thus, Texas became a Confederate state through secession, not by popular consent, but by minority usurpation. Lest history repeats itself, someone must speak for the majority and set the records straight.

 

The United States of America came to the rescue of Texas during the Republic’s War for independence against Mexico. The nation absorbed the state’s $10 million debt and made it a part of the Union in 1845. And, even after Texas broke away to join the ill-fated Confederacy, the state was allowed to return to the Union fold on March 30, 1870, on nothing more than a promise to preserve the Union and write a new constitution that recognized the rights of African-American freedmen.

 

When we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, we proclaim that we are One Nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All. But there are some who would send a mixed message to our children after losing an election for the presidency in 2012:

 

“Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way,” says Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party.

 

Even more, a judge from Lubbock predicted over the summer that the president's reelection could even lead to a civil war. The Cincinnati Tea Party proclaimed the nation dead after the election.

 

Were these not the same sentiments of the slave states when Abraham Lincoln won the election of 1860?

 

The irony in all this is the fact that Governor Sam Houston opposed secession, wherein Governor Rick Perry talks out of both sides of his mouth. He was the first to raise the specter of secession. Now he is opposed to it… maybe. Nobody knows what Perry will do. If he opts for peace and reconciliation, then he has must realize that he has already kindled a fire in 20 states which will be hard to quench by only a few peacemakers.

 

What will become of all the defense industry contractors in the state of Texas? What will become of all the federal employees in the state? What will become of the federal highways passing through the state? What will become of all the federal dollars to colleges and universities in the state for research? What will become of federal Title 1 funds to public schools? If Texas expulsed everything associated with the United State of America, it will become another Mexico, begging for trade and commerce from the other 49 states.