connecting*the*dots

14 Responses to “bad management doesn’t begin to cover it…”  

1. 1 darkmoon Jun 28th, 2006 at 12:03 pm

   Like I said. There’s a whole bunch of issues that tie together. Sure, now we know about the informant and such. But like you said before in conversation, the informant was playing all sides and the feds didn’t know the police knew, vice versa, etc. Perhaps that at the time, no one made a command call to pull the informant or use the information or even if the informant was still wrapped in the situation.

   In any case, just because you can make a case from point A to point F, doesn’t mean that in legal bounds someone can’t take an alternative route to arrive at point G.

   That’s the point of it. I agree that police inactivity played a large role. But since the big fuss about it wasn’t made 30 years ago, it’s tough to pull off something with the time changes.

   I think I’ve figured out what the thing about the TRC is now that I dislike. Everytime I say I don’t want to read the report, or voice my end of it… it’s like getting hit over the head by a Jehovah’s witness. It feels like I MUST agree with whoever about the tragedy. Way too aggressive approach. If anything, those that are more open minded will do what they can to make more effort to either bolster their opinions or educate themselves. Like I said, when I saw the documentary, it definitely voiced more for myself. But it still doesn’t change the fact that I’m still cynical about most things I can’t control. I can also see the point of the city not wanting to apologize along with the rest of the perspectives.

   That’s opinions for ya. People don’t always agree and it becomes a brutal fistiecuffs. :p

   Oh… btw, the “bad management” comment was in reference to what might have “possibly” been the case with regards to the police views. Outside of the possible tampering or corruption or what have you, this happens more often than naught in govt type positions and can be viewed as such in defense of the department. Being objective about it of course. Subjectively, the department with the recent dealings seem to be have all sorts of issues, perhaps going back past 79. heh.

2. 2 Sean Coon Jun 28th, 2006 at 12:48 pm

   26 police officers were assigned to cover the “Death to the Klan March�

   that’s the point of this post. it has nothing to do with the TRC. if you think the notion of reconciliation is stupid, that’s one thing, but the facts surrounding 11/3/79 have been documented in books, documentaries and trial evidense / testimony.

   from the greensboro justice fund:

   • It was contact with Cooper that prompted Dawson to travel around central North Carolina speaking at KKK meetings, rallying them to come to Greensboro to attack the march.
   • By no means did Dawson conceal his activities from police. Prior to November 3rd the mayor and the Chief of police were discussing in official meetings the fact that the Klan was coming armed to Greensboro, possibly with a machine gun, to confront the marchers.
   • The police gave informant Dawson, and therefore the Klan, a copy of the signed parade permit before they gave it to the march organizers. The parade permit clearly stated the site of the origins of the march and the special proscription against weapons.
   • Not just the police. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was aware of and involved in Nazi activities. The BATF had placed an undercover agent in the Winston-Salem Nazis that summer.
   • Special Agent Bernard Butkovich had been present at the initial Nazi/Klan collaboration meeting in September “the United Racist Front” brought together to respond to the threat of the WVO’s successful anti-Klan demonstration in China Grove.
   • Butkovich was present at all subsequent Nazi planning meetings and had actively encouraged the Nazis to go to Greensboro with weapons.
   • Butkovich’s information was made available to his superiors, regional police (including Greensboro) and FBI.
   • Butkovich’s investigation strangely ended on the morning of November 3 and he did not go with the marchers, but he was occupied flying in an ATF plane with another agent “in the vicinity of Greensboro” at the time the attack occurred.
   • The regional Federal Bureau of Investigation had information from several sources about the upcoming violence:
   • Dawson contacted his old FBI control agent about his activities.
   • There was discussion of impending “fireworks in Greensboro” in the regional FBI office the night before the attack.
   • The FBI, according to its own report, was surveilling the Workers Viewpoint Organization organizers prior to the murders. The existence of that investigation was later denied and the information was never made available to the victims.
   • Police withdrew, and were not confused. On the morning of the attack, informant Dawson was clearly in charge. He called Cooper twice that morning to tell him all the Klan had guns. This information was discussed in the police morning meeting to prepare for the march.
   • Cooper watched the Klansmen and Nazis load their guns into their car caravan that morning. Cooper was never out of radio contact with the force.
   • With all this information at their disposal, police were actively pulled from the march site as the Klan loaded their guns. In the Greensboro Civil Rights Suit, Officer April Wise testified that she had gone to the neighborhood to investigate a domestic dispute just prior to the attack. She was called by the police dispatcher and told to “clear the area”. This highly unusual order was corroborated by at least two cb radio listeners.

   a big fuss was made 30 years ago, but it was made by the communist victims. they couldn’t get the state or federal prosecutors to introduce evidense of eddie dawson or bernie butkovitch’s dealings until the civil trial.

   that means the prosecutor — paid for by the taxpayers to defend our rights (as in the state vs “xxx” or the federal government vs. “yyy”)– wouldn’t bring evidense to light that incrimminated law enforcement.

   like i said before, the TRC didn’t uncover this information — it’s been public knowledge for years. trying to convince leadership to apologize is a waste of time. if successful, it would be an empty gesture.

   so if the benefits of reconciliation are too soft for your tastes, that’s fine. i’m beyond trying to change that opinion. just understand the facts of what went down.

3. 3 darkmoon Jun 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pm

   That’s the point. I don’t think it’s stupid. I think that forcing others that don’t exactly care one way or another is stupid. You can’t possibly think that “democracy” prevails when we thought 30 years ago that Communist were all bad, and yet now on the back end of things, we’re starting to look more and more like the government structure.

   It’s like trying to explain to a Republican that we’re not a true democracy, and a representative republic. Or the fact that Communism in its purist form is nothing like governmental renditions of it.

   Wasn’t 79 pre-Cold War basically? That’s about when we had this “Russia = Communism = bad” thing going and started the Iron Curtain.

   In ANY case… see.. this is the issue. Just because I don’t agree, means that I think reconciliation is stupid. That’s the same logic behind … I understand why Google is censoring in China, so that must mean I support censorship. Bleh.

   If we were to reconcile everything bad we’ve ever done, then we might as well start with capitalism in general. It supports greed which is one of the seven sins. How about trying to reconcile that one?

   It’s not the facts that need to be understood. Like I said before, I know what went down (besides the guy in the documentary part). It’s that if you take the subject in context of the times, everything still can be explained against the ideal views. It’s like trying to tranlate the Bible in current day when it was written historically, in both Hebrew/Greek and in a different time. Context changes a lot of things. Of course, I’ve also accepted a darker side of humanity while everyone tries to see it in a rosy bright “good side”. Which is why people can’t explain corruption to the n-th degree. All falls back to human nature is greedy due to society’s encouragement and you can’t fight it unless you give it all and become Buddhist or something.

   TAKE THAT! :p

4. 4 Sean Coon Jun 28th, 2006 at 1:58 pm

   let me be clear, as i guess i’m not doing such a good job with my perspective… i’m finished trying to change the opinion of anyone regarding “apologies.” instead, i’m focusing my conversational attention to the facts.

   all i care about from this point out (well, maybe a week ago) is that when engaged in these types of conversation, i provide factual information that can be digested by others at their own pace.

   dude, we can contextualize away the concept of the sun rising, but if the 7am rays melt a snowflake into a drop of water, the snowflake is still gone.

   comparing this planned, tactical maneuver by the police to translating the bible in the current day is a form of hyperbole.

5. 5 darkmoon Jun 28th, 2006 at 2:04 pm

   You’re making the assumption it was a “planned, tactical maneuver.” For all you know, maybe the police just didn’t like the CWP or some were in league with the KKK. Heck, vice versa works too.

   The fact is, you’re making assumptions of the causes based on the results. You can’t do that.

   Multiple causes can result in the same effect. Since there is no proof of one way or another, you’re piecing together what you know and then making the hypothesis that it’s a “planned tactical maneuver”. That’s very different than stating it as “fact”.

6. 6 Sean Coon Jun 28th, 2006 at 2:23 pm

   no, i’m not assuming anything. what i am doing is extending hoggard’s logical point (either they were ordered out of the area or they all had simultaneous brainfarts), by introducing facts of what happened before 11/3 and on 11/3.

   with those *facts* i’m suggesting that these 26 officers (and a separate officer doing her job in the neighborhood) were ordered out of the area.

   that constitutes a “planned, tactical maneuver” to me. maybe not planned weeks in advance, but it was planned (by one or more in charge) and hatched before the shootings occured.

   if you have any other suggestions more logical than that, please, i’m all ears.

7. 7 darkmoon Jun 28th, 2006 at 3:09 pm

   No assumption? You’re extending a “logical point”. Hoggard’s logical point is still hypothesis until you have factual base. Come on Sean. Third grade science.

   Unless you have actual communication transcripts or accounts that are corroborated that logical point, it’s still a hypothesis. In essence, note that even the words you use aren’t giving objective pov. Of course, this is all under the assumption that you’re just presenting the facts.

   Note that you’re suggesting they stay out of the area, but as far as I know, no one has come forth and said they’re doing so right? While I’m not fond of coincidences, it still could have been. Maybe they all knew what was going to happen and were on the outskirts because they knew they could die that day. Who knows. I’m just saying that while probability is that you’re correct about the assumptions, you can’t present that as a known fact.

8. 8 Sean Coon Jun 28th, 2006 at 3:19 pm

   suggesting:

   1. To offer for consideration or action; propose: suggest things for children to do; suggested that we take a walk.
   2. To bring or call to mind by logic or association; evoke: a cloud that suggests a mushroom; a ringlike symbol suggesting unity.
   3. To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply: a silence that suggested disapproval.
   4. To serve as or provide a motive for; prompt or demand: Such a crime suggests apt punishment.

   i *suggested* something based on the facts available to me and what i *suggested*, i gave a name. i never said it was a fact, but i personally lean in the direction that it was a tactical move by the police.

   so are you saying that you lean in the direction that the cops were afraid to do their jobs and just stepped aside as a collective? or do you just throw up your hands, shrug and move on?

9. 9 darkmoon Jun 28th, 2006 at 3:44 pm

   Who knows. Actually I didn’t have a problem with the word “suggest”. My issue was actually the phrase “tactical maneuver”. Tactical assumes pre-planned.

   I’m not saying “I lean” one way or another. I’m saying if you’re presenting all the angles as to why there was police inactivity, then your “tactical maneuver” is as much a valid point as my “subconscious jedi mind trick” theory.

   Let me remind you what you said previous:
   “let me be clear, as i guess i’m not doing such a good job with my perspective… i’m finished trying to change the opinion of anyone regarding “apologies.â€? instead, i’m focusing my conversational attention to the facts.”

   Like I said before: subjectively, I find fault in police and my personal opinion is that they played like you say. But when you bring in legal and other thoughts about “why didn’t the informant…” or “where were the 26 officers…” then I say that there could be a multitude of reasoning. From that perspective, you can’t just play the majority of the probability based on surrounding events.

10. 10 Sean Coon Jun 28th, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    okay, your subjective-self agrees with my deduction… in other words, you agree. so we’ve advanced to the realm of logic.

11. 11 jsykes Jun 28th, 2006 at 8:34 pm

    “Wasn’t 79 pre-Cold War basically? That’s about when we had this “Russia = Communism = badâ€? thing going and started the Iron Curtain.”

    Winston Churchill coined the phrase Iron Curtain in a speech to Congress in the late 1940s. The Cold War lasted from 1945 (division of Berlin) to 1991 (fall of Berlin Wall).

    Just wanted to butt in and clear that up.

12. 12 darkmoon Jun 29th, 2006 at 3:47 am

    Iron curtain, cold war. star wars.. whatever. US history was never my forte. Mainly because it was boring. Now the Roman Empire… now that’s some history. :p

1. 1 Mitch Johnson Is Doing Some City Managing, Alright at connecting*the*dots Pingback on Oct 31st, 2006 at 11:36 pm
2. 2 Burying Infested Bones In Greensboro at connecting*the*dots Pingback on Apr 18th, 2007 at 5:13 pm