Tag Mexico

http://moveonup.ning.com/profiles/blogs/detroit-300-black-male-citizen-patrols-the-danger-of-vigilantism
Black men are routinely portrayed as crime figures- not crime fighters! Those choosing criminality and promoting it culturally ( in music; videos; clothing; etc ) now face rising opposition.
Detroit 300 is a very proactive, majority Black male citizen patrol working with police in a no-nonsense manner to get more chocolate Klansmen arrested!
HURRAY! AMEN! ALL PRAISES DUE TO GOD!!! These groups ( MAD DADS also immediately comes to mind ) represent the natural next step in the civil rights movement- opposing inner city violence without excuse nor apology.
We hae a Catch 22 regarding American public safety. Selective silence on Black homicide is seen elsewhere as support of crime.
Conversely too many Black men opposing crime would invariably prompt cries of ” vigilantism” from alarmed White observers more comfortable with perceived inaction.
While operating within the law, some Detroit 300 members and unaffiliated posers have crossed the line. Thankfully no George Zimmermans have emerged from their ranks and I don’t expect one to. They do a good job policing their own and are vital to culture change where they live.
Their legal war against rogue shooters; rapists and thieves is where the mainstream civil rights alphabet soup should be- fighting destructive elements within Inner City America.
WARNING: Black vigilantism is no better than vigilantism classic. Black versions of Byron Dela Beckwith ( activist Medgar Evers murderer ) and Bernhard Goetz ( New York’s Subway Vigilante ) represent horrific steps backward in advocacy.
Black male citizen patrols don’t have the luxury of violating rights or targeting suspects for summary assassination for at least two reasons.
POINT ONE: Vigilantism is wrong- no matter who does it.
POINT TWO: President and Attorney-General aside, we do not have enough clout among police; prosecutors and judges to provide ( illegal ) cover the way White vigilantes have until relatively recently.
Now, accused vigilantes of any color get tough treatment from the criminal justice system.
It’s against this back drop that the Detroit 300 and other Black male citizen patrols navigate with the danger of vigilantism allegations waiting in the wings more than other concerned citizens doing the same thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p1M9aZB5iw Detroit 300 initial press conference footage.
NADRA ENZI AKA CAPT BLACK promotes creative crime prevention and homeless outreach. (504) 214-3082
NADRA ENZI AKA CAPT BLACK
ANTI-CRIME ACTIVIST
CHOCOLATE KLANSMEN ALERT! SPEAKER
http://moveonup.ning.com/profiles/blogs/chocolate-klansmen-alert-speaking-tour
 

Originally posted: http://sundial.csun.edu/2011/10/vigilantes-should-be-able-to-fight-crime-without-being-interfered-with/
By Ron Rokhy
Since its inception, America has had its fair share of criminals — and people who fight them.
But before there even was a Supreme Court to combat crime, one group did: we, the people. In 1760, citizens in North Carolina took up arms against corrupt officials, marking the first known instance ofvigilantism in America’s history.
Branded as vigilantes, citizens who skip due process and punish criminals in the name of justice are seen as heroes by their peers, but many times, their actions are deemed unlawful by the government — and could land them in hot water.
But should their actions be illegal? Is it wrong for private individuals to take matters into their own hands and fight for what’s right when it can’t be done through legal means?
Absolutely not. Vigilantes, in a way, are like a bandage. When the legal system’s armor cracks and people like OJ Simpson use loopholes to get away with murder, or when victims get hit with frivolous lawsuits from burglars who injure themselves during break-ins, they step in and try to  glue everything back together.
America has a certain law that makes little sense: If someone witnesses a non-violent crime, such as a break-in or a theft, they’re not allowed to physically interfere. Putting their hands on a criminal could result in assault charges, such as the case of the Phoenix Jones, the real-life Seattle superhero, who pepper-sprayed two people he said were fighting.
Crime-fighters like Jones and his rag-tag group of criminal fighters, who patrol streets donning capes and costumes, shouldn’t be arrested for stopping criminals, they should instead be given medals for supplying the public with the swift kind of justice that our government can’t always provide.
People shouldn’t be forced to sit idly by and wait for police to show up. If they feel they can stop a criminal in the process of an illegal act, they should do so without the fear of getting hit with excessive force charges.
In 2010, a man in Washington was brought up on assault charges because he kicked a burglar in the face as police arrived and witnessed the event. Indicting people for forcefully punishing those that wronged them is counterproductive because it shows tolerance towards crime.
Criminals caught in the act shouldn’t enjoy protection just because a citizen busted them instead of a police officer — they should have little to no rights at all.
Don’t want to get beat? Don’t do something stupid. Simple, really.
However, some people argue that vigilantes risk getting the wrong person, violating the “innocent until prove guilty” presumption. For example, Michael Zenquis was wrongly beaten in the summer of 2009 because a group of people thought he was a child rapist.
That being said, it’s important to note that the legal system faces the same kind of downfall.
Alton Logan spent 26 years in a prison after being falsely convicted of a murder he did not commit. If mistakes are grounds for deeming something illegal or immoral, then our justice system fits the bill as well.
As a society, we should embrace self-policing and actively be involved in it, even if it means cracking down harshly on criminals.

The Guardian
As a member of the community, patrolling San Diego from the shadows, I as the Guardian and our Street Team are now blogging to keep you, our neighbors, “in the know” regarding matters of security and patrol.
Feel free to join our Street Team, whether costumed or not, and make a positive difference.
 

Originally posted: http://www.fotolog.com/poluzza/65648625

DARK GUARDIAN, CIVITRON, CAPTAIN OZONE, SUPER BARRIO… no son nombres cutres de superheroes sacados de algun comic… Estos son SUPERHEROES REALES que operan en USA y Mexico
Tienen hasta su propia base de datos de heroes, sus grupos y cada uno defiende su territorio de rateros, maltratadores y demas delincuentes de poca monta….
Alguna ya se ha llevado un susto y mas de uno ha sido detendio por extralimitarse en sus funciones de “vigilante”
Cualquier chalado yanki, experto en artes marciales, exmarine o lo que sea puede fabricarse su propio traje y lanzarse a defender las calles de su cidudad
A Londres ya ha llegado la moda de los Superheroes reales, ¿cuanto tardara en llegar a nuestro pais?
De momento estos son los mas famosos: http://reallifesuperheroes.org/rlsh-roster
English Translation
DARK GUARDIAN CIVITRON, CAPTAIN OZONE SUPER BARRIO … crappy names are not taken from any superhero comic … These are REAL SUPERHEROES operating in USA and Mexico
Have up their own database of heroes, their groups and each group defends its territory of thieves, abusers and other petty criminals ….
Some have already taken a shock and more than one has been detendio by overstepping its boundaries to “police”
Any crazy Yankee martial arts expert, exmarine or whatever can make its own suit and start to defend the streets of his cidudad
A London fashion has reached the real Superheroes, how much will take to get into our country?
At the moment these are the most famous: http://reallifesuperheroes.org/rlsh-roster

Some people just can’t seem to understand the difference between being vigilant and being a vigilante. One is a responsible citizen, doing their part to make their community a better place. The other is a criminal, no better than those they seek to stop.
A vigilante is someone who sets out to take the law into their own hands, to enact justice on their own. When someone steps outside their door fully expecting to use force on another person, that person is premeditated in their use of force. They aren’t just prepared to use force, but are hoping to. They are looking for the opportunity to kick some ass.
If you set out to fight crime through the use of force, then you are going to break the law. Let me clarify this. If you are planning on.. not preparing to use force to defend yourself or others.. but actually planning on the use of force to make criminals pay for their crimes, then you are planning to break the law.
If I am on a neighborhood patrol and I see someone being mugged, and the victim is in danger of harm, then yes, I will step in and use force to protect the innocent. Legally [in my jurisdiction] I am allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop the criminal. What’s the difference you ask? If I know I may use force against a criminal when I go out on patrol, aren’t I planning on kicking someone’s ass? No.
Just because I acknowledge that there may be a time and place for the application of Hard Power (the use of physical force), does not mean that I am planning ahead of time to go out and stomp a criminal into the pavement. While a vigilante mindset not only sees the need for violence, but is looking for the chance to use it. Where I might seek to use alternative methods to violence, if circumstances allow, a vigilante is already predetermined on their course of action. Their intent is clear. They are out to exact justice and mete out punishment.. and break the law while doing it.
Let me give a very famous and clear example of what I mean by being prepared to use Hard Power (physical violence), but choosing to use Soft Power (non-physical means) to de-escalate a situation. If you watch the video of Dark Guardian as he enters Washington Park and confronts a drug dealer, you are witnessing a true superhero at work, not a vigilante. He confronts the drug dealer, the situation gets tense, the moment could erupt into violence at any moment, but it does not. Even had the drug dealer not backed down and left the park like he did, Dark Guardian did not escalate the situation to where the use of physical force would have been needed. He would have stepped away and called the police. At no time was it Dark Guardian’s intention to jump the dealer and punish his wicked and evil ways. However, during the entire situation, Dark Guardian was prepared to use his martial arts to defend himself if needed.
Without a doubt Dark Guardian’s approach in the video was confrontational. He approached the dealer with the clear intent of forcing the crook out of the park, but he wasn’t planning on putting the boots to him to accomplish his goal. This is different then the vigilante mindset. He wasn’t going to enact his own brand of justice on the dealer, even though he was being confrontational. He wasn’t going in looking to pick a fight.
In the vigilante mindset, one sets out to accomplish their goals through the use of violence to exact punishment. Their goal is not to chase bad guys away, or to call the police to report a crime. Criminals must pay for what they have done, and the vigilante is going to collect on those debts. The vigilante is judge, jury and executioner, even if they leave the punks tied up in front of the police station for the cops to find. They pick fights. They want to engage crooks in combat. They escalate situations unnecessarily. Their ends justify their means. But their ends put them on the wrong side of the law, and they are no more morally superior then the criminals they confront.
Additional-
Yes, it is possible to use force and not be a vigilante. It is the intent that makes a vigilante. A vigilante wants to go out and purposely use force to stop crime.
Someone might break the law unintentionally while stopping a criminal from hurting someone, but that does not make them a vigilante. Nor does it make them morally wrong. Yes, the law was broken (maybe they used too much physical force, or whatever), but just because they broke the law does not make them a vigilante
I can not, nor will I, ever condone the intentional commission of a crime in the fight against criminals.
 

Originally posted: http://bigthink.com/ideas/19080
By Tal Pinchevsky on March 15, 2010, 7:15 PM
It sounds like a ridiculous premise for a bad Hollywood script. A very, very bad Hollywood script. But a confluence of forces over the past two years could be contributing to a bizarre rise in real-life, mask-and-spandex super heroes. With a heightened sense of online activism and large-scale cuts in a number of police forces, these pseudo-superheroes appear to be part vigilante, part activist. That’s right, superhero activists.
The cuts in police forces across the Western world, from England to Michigan, have inspired fears of impending crime waves. And while not every region has seen a sudden rise in crime, the past few years have seen the emergence of a fascinating networks of street-fighting superheroes inspired by a century of iconic comic culture. A culture, mind you, that has seen recent record prices for old superhero comics.
In a bizarro parallel of online activist networks, a number of traditional mask-and-spandex pseudo-heroes have taken to the web to mobilize. One of the first calls from action came from a New Jersey resident calling himself Phantom Zero, a masked man who seemed to fashion himself more a humanitarian than a crimefighter. The idea of the superhero-as-activist has indirectly contributed to a number of sites, like Superheroes Anonymous, which looks to inspire “the superhero in all people through outreach, education, and creative community service.”
But community activists (of sorts) are doing more than borrowing the basic superhero ethos. There has even sprouted a national network of costumed individuals patrolling streets across the country. You can follow a number of them on an official World Superhero Registry. And in a bizarre case of life imitating art, mainstream media, both print and online has embraced the work of these individuals in a not-completely-ironic way. Even Hollywood has jumped on the concept of the DIY superhero with upcoming films like Kickass and Defendor.
So is all this emerging superhero activity a vigilante uprising or a call to activism? Perhaps a bit of both. Either way, there is no denying the dozens of people suddenly fashioning themselves in the Superman mold.  Some, like Captain Australia, even have their own web site. With 2010 already declared the year of the real-life superhero, it’s hard to tell how many of these street fighters are embracing a true activist imperative. There are some we already know of, including Mexico’s Superbarrio, who acts primarily as a political organizer. Nobody’s saying masked vigilantes are the future of activism, but it certainly appears to be a new take on an old standard.
 

By Ioan Grillo/Mexico City
“Leave Obama alone!” grunts the suited man, as Hillary Clinton is shown mocking her rival on the TV in this smoky bar. “Let her talk, she’s telling the truth,” his companion retorts through a bottle of beer. “Obama doesn’t know what he is doing. Hillary’s got the experience for the top job.”
Such a conversation might be commonplace in bars from Houston to Cleveland as the U.S. warms up for decisive Democratic primaries in Ohio and Texas. But this one is being conducted in Spanish, hundreds of miles south of the Rio Grande. U.S. elections grab attention around the world in ways that no other foreign election does, because the outcome of the race to lead the last economic and military superpower could have consequences everywhere.
The connection is even more pronounced in Mexico, where the government estimates that fully half of the population has family in the United States. And many of the issues being debated by the candidates — immigration, the North American Free Trade Agreement and a war in Iraq that Mexico was asked to support — have long been concerns of the Mexican public.
In 1996, a Mexican activist-wrestler who calls himself Superbarrio Gomez even declared himself a “candidate” for U.S. president, and held mock campaign rallies on both sides of the border. Wearing a superhero cape and wrestler outfit, Superbarrio promised to abolish the Border Patrol and Drug Enforcement Agency, “to deal a blow to international drug trafficking.”
But this year, Mexicans are more interested in what the American candidates are saying. The war of words between Obama and Clinton has been plastered across the front pages of Mexican newspapers and aired in prime time TV news shows. Many Mexicans are impressed that a woman or a black man could lead their powerful northern neighbor, a possibility that makes them reflect on the social hierarchies in their own country. Mexico has never had a woman president and no Mexican of pure Indian roots has headed the nation in more than a century. “When a black man arrives to be President of the United States, and even more when the child of black and white — a mulatto — it will be like the first Christian emperor of the pagan Roman Empire,” wrote columnist Paz Flores in the Mexican newspaper El Norte. “It will be the beginning of the end and the start of something new.”
Living hundreds of miles away from black-Hispanic tensions that plague some U.S. cities, many here identify with Obama as a person of color challenging a traditionally white power structure. Others like the candidate simply because he is a charismatic figure whose speeches are able to move even those for whom English is a second language.
“Obama speaks more directly and to the point than the others,” says Veronica Aguilera, 30, an architect from the Mexican capital. “You feel he is saying what he really believes.” Still, Hillary Clinton maintains a solid fan base in Mexico. Many here are still grateful for the Clinton Administration’s 1994 financial bailout of Mexico during the peso crisis. Senator Clinton’s criticism of NAFTA also finds sympathy here, where millions of corn and bean farmers say U.S. imports are destroying their livelihoods.
For some Mexicans, the issues is not Hillary or Obama, but simply getting the Democrats back into the White House. Political analyst Jose Antonio Crespo argues that either one, as President, would improve relations with Mexico, although he sees Clinton’s experience as giving her an edge. “A victory for Obama would represent more of a radical change,” he says. “But Hillary Clinton would be a more realistic leader.”
Others see the ascent of a former First Lady as worrying sign of family political power, comparing it to a recent bid for the presidency by a Mexican first lady. Marta Sahagun, wife of former President Vicente Fox, had positioned herself as a candidate to follow her husband, but eventually declared she would not run for office as her husband’s administration faced allegations of corruption over the national lottery.
Despite Mexicans’ traditional sympathy for the Democrats, Senator John McCain also has plenty of supporters south of the border, because of his track record on immigration. “There has been a lot of immigrant bashing in the campaign but McCain has not been part of it,” says Rep. Jose Jacques Medina, a leftist lawmaker who was an immigrant activist in California for more than 30 years. “It’s surprising, but the candidate with the best record on immigration is a Republican.”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1718520,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

Photo essay originally published online at Hemispheric Institute of Performance and Politics at New York University
“Yo comparto la idea de que tiene que haber una transformación de la política económica, y si la política económica se está dictando desde Wall Street, desde el Departamento de Tesoro […] el gobierno norteamericano tiene un papel sustancial en diseñar esta política económica … Por eso, lo que yo estoy haciendo es atacar por los dos lados. Con la organización social, con la gente en movimiento, con propuestas de modificar la propiedad económica, y con la candidatura a la presidencia, para modificar de fondo esta política. Y sin dar el beneficio de la duda, en la cosa de la candidatura, podemos perder aquí, pero no podemos perder en el movimiento social.”
The Future is Now
In favor of progressive transnational politics via what can be understood as global gobernance, Superbarrio 1995’s electoral campaign for US president proposed that the citizens of the Americas must have the right of self-governance by having control over the US electoral vote. In other words, Latin Americans, and Latinos/as alike, must be able to participate fully in the US electoral process by having a representative voice. Superbarrio Gomez for US president against the “politics of fear” was the logic consequence.
Nine years later, from September 20, to October 4, the “Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride”, a national march organized by labor and pro-immigrant rights organizations toured the US nation. Their claims, the provision of voting rights to non-US citizens. In the tradition of the 1961 “Freedom Rides”, more than 120,000 immigrants arrived to Flushing Meadows Park in Queens, New York, the largest pro-immigrant march in US history. Predictions attest that by 2080, Mexico’s north and the US southwest will unify. The Mexicanization of California has already taken place long ago, now we are in the North East.
“Voy a estar en Harvard el próximo viernes, y me da miedo encontrarme a los mexicanos ahí, porque son ellos los que están pensando en qué va a hacer nuestro presidente, y hoy están estudiando un material nuevo que se llama: desastres económicos nacionales. La gente tiene una politización muy alta, tiene una conciencia social también muy alta, la gente ha desarrollado sus aspiraciones y sus formas de organización. El gobierno no ha sido recíproco con este sacrificio.”
“The problem of NAFTA is not about workers, it is about corporations because they are the ones benefiting from this situation….the corporations take the industry to México because the conditions are different, that is the problem. When the workers can find and meet each other, when they can talk between them, the problem is clear…it is not our problem it is the corporation and the government’s problem. We want to be a voice that identify these problems and think together about the solution. The workers from Canada, the workers from the U.S., from México should think together what is the solution about the problem of unemployment, social security, and work with unions…”
“…una política económica de carácter CONTINENTAL en donde también se puedan tener medidas para las plantas nacionales.”
While John Kerry, Rudolph Giuliani, and George W. Bush propose an America to reconcile either class division or national security promises, in 1995 Superbarrio’s campaign proposed an America comprised of alternative transnational political cultures. Superbarrio’s unified America, in conversation with Benito Juarez “America for Americans”, incorporated the participation of Latin American and Latino/a civil societies within and beyond the US.
“El concepto americano hasta nostros mismos lo hemos tenido que asumir, ya que nos hemos negado a nosotros mismos nuestra condición de americanos nacidos en el continente.”
Superbarrio has been a fundamental figure in Mexico City’s electoral concientization, the way in which winning for the majoritarian class became a real political imaginary. Superbarrio’s premonitory discourse further promoted the possibilities of global governance as the only consequential logic in a global world economy and its centralized accumulation of capital. Superbarrio’s candidacy for U.S. President promoted a cross-border alliance among workers in the search of what are human rights, decent working and living conditions. Because the U.S./Mexico border has been the location to rehearse and promote the dehumanization of the labor force, and NAFTA its later institutionalized model, Superbarrio’s transnational mobilization becomes the wrestling scenario to conceptualized “new geographies of governamentality” (Appadurai 2002). Superbarrio’s transnational activism became a fight for alternative forms of global citizenship in which to keep the mask on means to own one’s home within and beyond the Nation.

Photo essay originally published online at Hemispheric Institute of Performance and Politics at New York University
The voting of Mexicans for Mexican President in the US allows citizens to practice their rights of “national citizenship”. On the other hand, the effect of Superbarrio as a political figure in the US allows us to imagine a utopic space in which the interest of the Latin American majoritarian class is represented not by a corporate State, but by a social fighter at the transnational level. This transnational vote becomes a practice of global governance.
In the year 2000, 9.9 million people were potential candidates to vote for Mexican president in the US. They constituted 16.5 and 17.5 percent of the total of Mexican citizens. Currently, Mexicans, or the children of Mexican nationals living in the US have dual-citizenship. This means, 15 million of US citizens of Mexican descent would be able tovote in the 2006 Mexican presidential election.
————————
Global Governance via National Actors and Cross-Border Government Alliances
“Yo creo que es muy difícil que un solo país pueda lograr una transformación económica únicamente en nuestras fronteras, dentro de su territorio. Creo que tiene que haber una reacción de una serie de países sufriendo el mismo poderío económico de manera tal que permita remontar esa situación, eso es lo primero.”
Currently, there are 22 million Mexicans living in the US from which “10 millions can vote for the 2006” Mexican presidential election if Congress accepts the bill.
Superbarrio’s transnational politics result from their political awareness of a future ruled by corporate and privatized nation-states. NAFTA materialized this future.
“Una nueva política económica tiene que ver con garantizar que los beneficios de esta política vayan a las clases mayoritarias. Actualmente los beneficios están yendo al capital especulador, a las bolsas de valores -Stock market. Esta nueva política económica tiene que priorizar la defensa de la planta productiva nacional, porque la planta productiva nacional es la que ofrece mayor índice de empleo a los trabajadores. La actual política privilegia a las corporaciones transnacionales, y la competencia entre las transnacionales y la planta nacional es muy dura. Es decir, el gobierno no estimula la pequeña industria, o la micro industria sino que privilegia el gran capital extranjero. Eso provoca que la pequeña industria cierre, y el número de desempleados crezca.”

Photo essay originally published online at Hemispheric Institute of Performance and Politics at New York University
Superbarrio’s urban politics collapse the thin border between the “inside” and the “outside” of the wrestling ring. For the legendary Mexican wrestler El Santo, wrestling assumed the risk of dying. “Not many have, but some did.” El Santo explains that the highest risks took place in seconds, for instance, when he “flew” outside the ring into the audience’s chairs. The “outer ring” was the easiest location to break one’s head, or the head of somebody else in the audience. Lethal accidents had to be controlled during actions that took place in seconds. “To think in a second, while I am flying, so that by the time I am landing, I know almost simultaneously how to hit the floor and what to do next.” Superbarrio, like El Santo, performs in the confines of the “outer ring”; he risks his head, and his mask, in the dangers of political activism. Superbarrio inverts the wrestling rings inside out turning the streets into a ring of urban politics and performance.