Bettie Jones, Black Female, Opens Door & Chicago Police Fatally Shoot Her

Below is a petition regaring Bettie Jones, a Black woman, age 55, and Quintonio LeGrier , both murdered by ONE Chicago Police “accidently” when she opened her door.  Though caught on camera, despite us seeing Black men, women and children being slaughtered left and right (for hundreds of years), and despite the fact that even the Chicago Police Department admits they did indeed shoot her… BUT THEY SAY IT WAS ACCIDENTAL…

So accidental makes it acceptable? No, of course not! But that doesn’t stop them from somehow managing to give us the same results as we always get: the police were not wrong.

See more information on Bettie Jones below and please sign the petition and share… Thank you….

The morning after Christmas my wife’s aunt, Bettie Jones, was shot and killed by a Chicago police officer. She was 55,  a mother of five with many grandkids, and in good spirits. She was active in her community and in church every Sunday. The Chicago Police Department admitted she was shot on accident as she answered her door.

We’ve seen nationwide the same repeating story. A police officer uses excessive deadly force with ample video evidence. Prosecutors send the case to grand jury instead of charging the officer. This grand jury process is postponed months or years to quell public outrage. Ultimately, a grand jury does not indict any officer of wrongdoing.

A grand jury “meets in secret, behind closed doors. Its proceedings are usually one-sided, and are very different from a trial. Unlike a public trial, the accused person is not present (unless he or she is called as a witness), nor is his/her counsel present (even if he is called as a witness). Also, witnesses are not cross-examined.”

On December 28, a grand jury decided that the officers who killed Tamir Rice RIP, a 12 year old playing with a toy gun in a park and shot within “2 seconds” of  officers arriving, would face no charges. A grand jury decided that 2 seconds is enough time to evaluate a situation and use deadly force against a child. This process continues to fail our society.

Police arrived after being called by Antonio LeGrier, who lived in the apartment above Bettie, when his son Quintonio LeGrier, “who was suffering mental problems” and, according to his parents, became aggressive against his father, threatening him with a baseball bat.” His father called the police expecting they would help him.

Bettie and Quintonio were both fatally shot by one police officer, who opened fire on Quintonio from a distance (shell casings were found 20 feet away). My aunt Bettie was struck in the chest by the officer’s multiple shots. That officer was called to diffuse the situation, not to shoot on sight, not to kill, but to protect human life.

This isn’t new for the Chicago Police Department. They are currently under investigation by the Department of Justice. But while that investigation takes place, I want to see uncompromising justice for my family and the LeGriers. That will not happen if this case is sent to a grand jury.

The grand jury process should not be used in the killings of Bettie Jones & Quintonio LeGrier and the process should be banned for police shootings, just as states like California have done.

Quintonio LeGrier was a very smart kid studying electrical engineering at NIU. He developed emotional problems after spending most of his childhood in foster care. Not a criminal, but a hardworking student and beloved son going through a hard time. My aunt was loved and did not deserve to be killed in her own home.

Please sign my petition calling on State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez to not send this case to a grand jury and for the Illinois legislature to ban the grand jury process in Illinois police shootings.  

US Marine Facing 15 yrs for Facebook Post ….

One more reason I don’t do facebook, one more reason I’ll keep speaking my mind. No threats are made rather opinions, I don’t believe he really meant it when in an angry rant he put “kill” -this is just another way they are trying to take out people who are fed up. Being fed up and using phrases that aren’t meant to be real but could be made to seem real is all I see his words as: talk, anger and rightful anger, at other governments harassment of people and drugs.
Keep your own opinions – it is are scaring them. Never stop educating others!
A repost from daily tech (link follows):

Speechcrime charges on the rise in the U.S., marine is also involuntarily committed for his protest speech

Frustrated with the U.S. “War on Drugs”, which he believed was a farce, and with a seeming increase in police violations of U.S. citizens’ civil liberties, Matthew Michael created a group on Facebook, Inc.’s (FB) social network targeting the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency with angry statements.

I. Protest the U.S. Government? Think Again

In one post, he reportedly wrote, “War is near. Anarchy and justice will be sought…I’ll kill whoever I deem to be in the way of harmony to the human race…BE WARNED IF U PULL ME OVER!!”

The posts — while threatening in a vague manner — did not name any specific DEA agents, or even make any clear plan for violent action.

Department of Justice caught wind of the post and has now been given the go-ahead by a federal judge — Judge William Lawrence of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana — to charge Mr. Michael with three counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce.

Each of those charges, according to 18 USC § 875 (the U.S. Criminal Code) carries up to a 5-year sentence. Under U.S. criminal law, sentences can be served consecutively or concurrently (see this helpful Yahoo! News post). The decision of how to assign the sentences, if the defendant is found guilty, is up to the Judge during the sentencing phase.

That means that Mr. Michael faces a maximum prison sentence of up to 15 years, all for speaking out against the government in an incendiary manner in Facebook.

Judge Lawrence argued the case should be allowed to proceed, despite the ambiguous nature of Mr. Michael’s comments, writing, “The First Amendment does not insulate all speech from criminal consequence. Certain categories of speech having little or no social value are not protected, and threats are one such category…. It would be inappropriate for the court to enter a verdict of not guilty based solely on the face of the indictment unless the court could imagine no facts that would render Michael’s posts unprotected. That is not the situation here.”

II. Marine Also Imprisoned Without Trial

The case echoes the story of U.S. Marine Brandon Raub. After honorably serving his country on tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Raub, 26, had grown disillusioned with the U.S. federal government, and like Mr. Michael took to posting vague, frustrated, incendiary commentaries to Facebook.

Those posts led to local authorities and federal agents in Chesterfield, Virginia detaining Mr. Raub and then exploiting the state’s involuntary commitment laws to label the protester as “mentally ill”, effectively imprisoning him indefinitely and without trial in a state-run veteran’s hospital.

Such rulings are questionable given that in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled,

“[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

In other words, unless specific, immediate violence is promised, you’re free to make statements of protest against the government — even violent ones.

III. Speech Crime — a Dark and Dangerous Road

But it’s also important to remember that speech is not action, and often times speechcrime legislation — even mild provisions outlawing threats of imminent violence — proves merely a vehicle to unload more severe censorship upon the unwitting public.

A critical example Germany’s 1933 decision to suspend “the Fundamental Rights” in its Articles of Government if “if public safety and order in the German Reich are considerably disturbed or endangered”. The Third Reich seized the opportunity by staging a fire at the Reichstag building, which they then blamed on protesters/terrorists, leading to a blanket suspension of protest speech against the ruling regime. That censorship proved critical to the atrocities and oppression that ensued, as the Reich was able to send anyone who spoke out against its policies to prisons or concentration camps.

In other words, treating threats of violence as speechcrime can be cleverly used as a prelude to suspending free speech in general, if the ruling regime can argue that a “terrorist” threat (possibly staged) mandates a broader removal of civil liberties. Already accustomed to seeing their speech somewhat limited, the public will provide far less resistance.

In a threatening display of power, the Nazi state would eventually commit to a bloody execution via gun and guillotine of convicted “speechcrime” offenders who belonged to the White Rose movement, who had distributed non-violent fliers in Berlin proclaiming, “Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and protection of the individual citizen from the arbitrary action of criminal dictator-states.”

Today both of America’s ruling parties support so-called “free speech zones”, or their various euphemisms, which essentially block citizens’ right to directly speak out with words or written signs against politicians at political rallies.

And today Mr. Michael faces speechcrime accusations, which echo those of historic regimes past. And while he does not face the death sentence for his speechcrime, he does face the prospect of spending over a decade of his life in prison; all for posting something the U.S. government found threatening.

Please view the original article here for links to resources and info included in original article that I couldn’t repost.