#Jacob Blake

[theseprettylittlepixels]

Jacob Blake

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Gloria Oladipo at The Guardian:

On Monday, Daniel Penny, a 26-year-old white man, was acquitted of all charges related to the 1 May 2023 killing of Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old unhoused Black man with severe mental illness, on a New York City subway train. Penny was charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide after he choked Neely for nearly six minutes, causing his death. The Marine veteran claimed self-defense after an unarmed Neely made threats to passengers and complained of being hungry and thirsty, according to witness testimony. In a police interview following Neely’s death, Penny referred to Neely as “just a crackhead” who was “acting like a lunatic”. Experts say Penny’s acquittal fits into a longstanding pattern of how white vigilante crime is treated in the US, with white killers celebrated and Black victims denigrated.

“In situations where people of color have tried to defend themselves, it’s a whole different result,” said Mark Brodin, a professor of law at Boston College Law School. “It’s as transparent a double standard as you can ever imagine. And race is the only explanation. Class enters into it with Mr Neely, his mental problems entered into it. But race is at the top of the pyramid.” Despite widespread outrage about Neely’s killing in New York City, Penny received an onslaught of support from those on the far right after his arrest. A crowdfunding campaign for Penny’s legal fund amassed more than $2.9m in the months after the incident. (Neely’s burial funds, on the other hand, raised just $150,094.) The Fox News host Greg Gutfeld called Neely a “violent mess” who was “better at impersonating Michael Meyers than Michael Jackson”, referring to Neely’s previous impersonations of the pop star. And another Fox News pundit, Kayleigh McEnany, laughed alongside her colleagues at protesters who gathered to condemn Neely’s killing.

Following his acquittal, Penny has been praised by conservatives, including the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis; Ben Shapiro and Meghan McCain, who called those critical of Penny “lunatics”. Such commentary is part of an “unfortunate spiral” in which news outlets, platforms and people “demonize individuals for existing”, said the NAACP president, Derrick Johnson. “The fact that [Penny] called this individual [a] crackhead shows his state of mind. He didn’t see this person as someone who was human [or who] more or less had the right to live.” Brodin said that Penny’s acquittal was virtually certain, given the “history of the legal system sending these people out the back door at the courthouse. You can set your watch to it,” he said of cases in which white vigilantes claimed self-defense. “There’s just no accountability with these people.”

For example, George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager, in Florida in 2012, Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two men and injured a third during a Black Lives Matters protest in Wisconsin in 2020, and Bernhard Goetz, who shot four Black teenagers on the New York City subway in 1984, were all acquitted. Vigilantes like Penny are also generally portrayed and celebrated as “heroes”, Brodin added. Goetz was hailed as the “subway savior��� by New York tabloids. And Rittenhouse received messages of support and fundraisers following his arrest for first degree intentional homicide. (Rittenhouse’s victims were all white, but the protest he traveled to was against the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man. Rittenhouse’s defense team said that he traveled across state lines to the demonstration to “help people”.)

Acquittal of white vigilantes takes place for several reasons, said Brodin. For one, standards of self-defense are based on a perpetrator’s testimony that they believed they were in danger, with the burden of proof in a criminal case high and jurors being “vulnerable to fear mongering by the defense lawyers”.

The acquittal of Daniel Penny is yet more proof that White vigilante violence is A-OK.

See Also:

The Dean's Report: MAGA’s cheering of Daniel Penny killing Jordan Neely is what white supremacy looks like

[reasoningdaily]

[saintheartwing]

Rittenhouse did not "attack people who attacked him first". he shot a street medic. he should have spent the rest of his life in jail

That's not true though. The "Street medic", you mean Grosskreutz? Grosskreutz was armed. He literally had drawn a pistol when he got to Kyle after Anthony Huber hit him in the head with a skateboard and knocked him down. Then when he tried to wrest the gun away, Kyle shot him. Rittenhouse, still ON the ground, had his hands up after Huber was shot but then when Grosskreutz advanced on him while pointing his gun up, Kyle shot him in the arm. It's a clear self-defense case, they didn't have a right to attack him to begin with. The first person who attacked Rittenhouse as Joseph Rosenbaum, who had been chasing Rittenhouse for no good reason. He lunged at Rittenhouse when he got close enough, and evidently either grabbed the barrel of the rifle (evidently he had burn marks on his hands which only happens when you hold a rifle that gets shot) and then Rittenhouse shot him.

Now, Rosenbaum was off his meds that night. He was mentally not well and a former child sex offender evidently. He was also clearly far taller and older than Kyle, and he's lunging for your gun. Anyone looking at this would argue "Well of course he's going to shoot". It's a clear case of self-defense.

Then, when Kyle ran off, people thought (wrongly) he was an active shooter and went after him. Vigilante justice isn't acceptable in our society. That's the whole point of the court system.

And no, you can't argue "Well he was trying to get a chance to shoot somebody". If he had, he wouldn't have kept running away from everyone and would have just prayed and sprayed when the mob advanced on him, but he only shot people who directly attacked him first. And you also can't argue "he shouldn't have been there". NOBODY should have been there, it was nighttime and everyone was breaking a curfew imposed by the police and the city, and there's been RIOTS going on, you shouldn't be out on the streets during riots, especially not at night, and it's even MORE unjustifiable to be out doing it when the inciting incident was the Jacob Blake shooting, which turned out to be a clearly justified shooting given how he wasn't simply shot in the back, he had gone to his girlfriend whom he sexually assaulted's house, (he stuck is fingers in her genitals and said "Smells like you've been with other men) was violating a restraining order, when the cops came and told him to leave he fought with them, he tanked a taser, several cops tried to hold him down but he fought them off, and then when he made to get in his girlfriend's car while also holding a knife...the car which had HER KIDS in it, BTW...THEN he got shot. What else were they supposed to do, let him drive off with innocent children and PRAY he doesn't hurt them to get back at his girlfriend? This wasn't a case of an unjustified shooting of an unarmed black man. But social media misinformation got people riled up into rioting at Kenosha.

And you also can't argue "well he had a gun". UNFORTUNATELY we have a second amendment and the law said that type of rifle was legal for him to have. He didn't carry it "Across state lines", it was held at that location for him and he picked it up when he drove there, which was only about 15 minutes away. He had a job there, his dad lived there, it's not like we're talking him driving across the country. This was his town too. And you can't argue he was threatening anybody, there's no evidence he was doing that presented at court. And you also can't argue "him having a gun or him saying in previous videos "God I hate shoplifters I wish I could just shoot these jerks" means he's looking for trouble. If you go into a bar thinking "anybody starts something they're gonna get it"...but then somebody pulls a knife on you and starts trying to stab you, you don't magically lose your right to self defense cuz you were secretly hoping for a fight, even if you came prepared, because other people don't have a right to randomly pick a fight with you just cuz they don't LIKE you or how you look or that you have a legal weapon. You can't decide to try and hurt somebody or kill them just because they're open-carrying at a protest, they have a legal right to it in this nation. Is it cringe? Yes. But it's not against the law.

BTW, even I sometimes think "Ugh I f--king hate this person and that person and I wish they'd drop dead", but if they decided to attack me randomly out on the street, that doesn't mean I can't defend myself. And you can't argue it's not valid because I'd previously said "I hate them and wish they'd drop dead" either, because they still attacked first. That's how self-defense works. Which Kyle demonstrated, the whole time he's literally running away until people are almost literally on top of him and THEN he shoots.

So in short he doesn't deserve to be in jail, it was a pretty clear self-defense case. The evidence presented at court, the video footage, the forensics, all of this made it clear.

[filosofablogger]

♫ Eve of Destruction ♫

I have played this song more than any in my repertoire except perhaps John Lennon’s Imagine.  Interestingly, I played this one on January 6th, 2021, the day the U.S. Capitol and our Congress were attacked by armed insurrectionists attempting to overthrow a free and fair election on behalf of a madman.  Today … there is a war of aggression with Russia trying to eradicate the nation of Ukraine,…

[thingsreadinthedark]

Morning read: Mother Jones, Breonna Taylor

Coming together after such vicious and terrible circumstances to support each other is so necessary. This was an illuminating and important read.

[onlymywishfulthinking]

{presented without comment}

[diioonysus]

red + art

[shesnake]

Louis as this daily herald journalist points out the inaccuracies in his story: i hope this doesn't awaken anything in me

[flytotheway]

John and Paul moments in Midas Man part 1

[thaern]

It's funny how almost everyone is talking about how good job did Blake as Paul in Midas Man but we as a group are ignoring the fact that maybe Leo Harvey is being slowly getting possessed by the spirit of George Harrison

[starsm00n]

I don’t care, if he has brown eyes. I’m on my knees.

[cuylleed]

[frenchcurious]

Edgar P. Jacobs (1904-1987) 1956 illustration for the Blake and Mortimer story 'La Marque Jaune'. - source John Owens.

[mclennonlgbt]

Midas Man review (with spoilers!)

Yesterday I had the unique opportunity to watch a biopic about Brian Epstein. Although the film is currently only available in certain countries, @pauls1967moustache organized a watch party, which I joined. Thank you!!!

"Midas Man" has many advantages. The main one is the leading male role: Jacob Fortune-Lloyd did a great job. He perfectly portrayed Brian's complex personality. He was able to convincingly present both his uncertainty and tremors, as well as his perseverance in promoting the Beatles. Eppy said with full confidence that his boys would be bigger than Elvis - clearly he believed it deeply, even when higher-ups in the music industry laughed in his face. Fortune-Lloyd also convincingly played Brian's emotions related to his sexuality. On the one hand, Epstein did not want to run away from his nature, but on the other - he was well aware that sex between men was a crime and could expose him to blackmail. In one scene, Brian's parents pressure him to be more careful because revealing his sexual orientation in the newspapers could discredit the family business and end the careers of the Beatles and other artists he manages. Brian, filled with guilt, apologizes to his parents for "causing them pain." I have been following this thread with interest and I am glad that it has not been omitted or trivialized.

Unfortunately, the love story disappointed me. It was very cliché. Brian met someone he quickly began to care about. Tex did not reciprocate his feelings, he just wanted to have fun and benefit from Epstein's influence. Ultimately, he left without saying goodbye, stealing money and documents. I know the real Brian dated some shady guys, but it wasn't portrayed very convincingly in the movie. Perhaps Edward Speleers, the actor playing Tex, failed.

How did the Beatles fare? Not bad, but... nothing more. I must praise Blake Richardson, who played Paul - his facial expressions were very reminiscent of McCartney's. Blake was very authentic, I felt like I was looking at Paul. I also liked Wallace Campbell as Ringo. Unfortunately, the remaining Beatles were exaggerated. I'm thinking specifically about George (played by Leo Harvey Elledge). John, on the other hand, lacked depth. I had the impression that he was just a cheeky kid who thought he was entitled to everything. The young Lennon had a more complex personality. Besides, Jonah Lees who played him almost didn't look like him at all xD Speaking of which, the wigs looked terrible in most scenes. I guess there wasn't enough budget for it.

I was surprised (in a negative sense) by the complete omission of an important thread in the history of the Beatles: Brian's infatuation with John. Whether or not Lennon reciprocated the feeling, it was largely Epstein's motivation to pursue the band. When we jumped from 1963 to 1964 and there was no mention of the trip to Barcelona, ​​I was confused. Instead, the creators decided to focus on a fictional romance between Brian and Tex.

The advantage of the biopic is that viewers have the opportunity to meet other artists that Epstein managed. In one scene, Brian proudly introduces us to Billy J. Kramer, Tommy Quickly and... Cilla Black (Darci Shaw). Brian and Cilla's relationship is definitely one of the most touching and adorable elements of the entire film. It is clear that the singer is Epstein's favorite, and not only in professional terms. They are simply a pair of devoted friends. From what I understood, Cilla knew about Brian's orientation and fully accepted it.

"Midas Man" is a decent movie, better than I expected. However, these are not the heights of cinematography. I had the impression that Brian was presented somewhat sweetly, as a person without flaws (perhaps his family took part in consulting the script?). I think a rating of 7/10 would be fair.

[starzioo]

If I were to see my celebrity crush in public. I’m tackling that man to the ground like a D1 LINEBACKER and taking him home with me.

(joking but honestly. not rlly)