Dozens of activists have been indicted for opposing the construction of a massive police facility outside Atlanta.
Over 60 protesters have been indicted on RICO charges for their efforts to block construction of the massive police training facility known as “Cop City” outside Atlanta.
The indictment out of Fulton County court last Tuesday charges 61 protesters with violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Many are facing additional charges of domestic terrorism or money laundering. The indictment was handed up by the same grand jury that handed up the indictments against Donald Trump and his co-defendants, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and is being prosecuted by Georgia Republican Attorney General Chris Carr.
Over the past year and a half, Georgia police have made dozens of arrests at the proposed site for Cop City, with charges ranging from alleged property damage and trespassing to domestic terrorism.
In May, Atlanta police arrested the organizers of the Atlanta Solidarity Fund, a bail fund for the protesters of Cop City. One of the fund’s organizers who was arrested, Marlon Kautz, had predicted in February that the state would level RICO charges at the protesters.
“We understand that this movement is as broad as society itself. It includes environmental activists, community groups, faith leaders, abolitionists, students, artists, and people from all over,” Kautz said in February.
“But police, prosecutors, and even Governor Kemp have been trying to suggest in the media and in court that the opposition to Cop City is actually the work of a criminal organization whose members conspire to commit acts of terrorism. In essence, they’re trying to concoct a RICO-like story about the movement.”
Kautz, along with fellow Atlanta Solidarity Fund organizers Adele Maclean and Savannah Patterson, is listed in the RICO indictment and is also facing an additional 15 counts of money laundering.
The date listed on the indictments is May 25, 2020, the day George Floyd was murdered by police officer Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis. Although this predates any Stop Cop City protesting, it’s possible that the attorney general’s office plans to link the Stop Cop City movement with the larger protests that followed Floyd’s death.
In June, Atlanta District Attorney Sherry Boston announced that her office would withdraw from criminal cases tied to the Cop City Protests, which the state’s Republican attorney general had leveled at protesters. Boston cited the domestic terrorism charges specifically and said that she and Attorney General Chris Carr had “fundamentally different prosecution philosophies.”
The new indictment out of Fulton County is the state’s latest attempt to suppress political protest and dissent, even in the wake of violent police brutality—and to push through the massive $90 million police facility, no matter the cost.
This is a pretty scary precedent to set and will likely have a chilling effect on all social movements going forward...
Chilling? I imagine it'd have a warming effect. As in it will be much warmer with all the molotovs flying.
Seriously though, if they actually committed a crime in the process of protesting, then I guess it's feasible to use rico. But if this is just an effort to stop protests, that's only gonna make people protest harder. Doubly so because of what they are protesting here specifically.
OK wait I just read the domestic terrorism part. Where the hell is that coming from?
That's the fun part, if you're the law then anything you don't like is now a crime
The lesson here is no not bother with above ground activism. Go underground, be anonymous, don't worry about breaking the law, do what you need to do to defeat evil.
Well if they punish peaceful protesting, then people just won't protest peacefully.
Someone in Atlanta protest was charged with domestic terrorism. Don't know any more than that. But if they actually did something bad then that's on them and they need to be part of it. Nonviolence is the way
Non-violence is for privileged people who can afford to do nothing and expect nothing.
I didn't know that MLK, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela were all privileged people who did nothing and expected nothing.
I guess I should have known from MLK's famous "Letter from a Birmingham hotel room".
The three people you mentioned were all privileged people who "can afford to do nothing and expect nothing." You took a possibility and argued against it as an absolute, that's disingenuous and paints you as either having something to subvert or lacking basic reading comprehension.
But lets take a look at your champions of Peace
Gandhi - "...would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor"
Mandela - https://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-nelson-mandela-legacy-violence-20131206-story.html
MLK - Fuck that early shit, what about his last speech. The one where he knew his non-violence was probably going to get him killed.
"It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it’s nonviolence or nonexistence" MLK advocated against non-violence because he feared genocide. To me, the brink of genocide is the perfect time to be violent.
"And also in the human rights revolution, if something isn’t done, and done in a hurry, to bring the colored peoples of the world out of their long years of poverty, their long years of hurt and neglect, the whole world is doomed." - It's been 60 years, do you think we achieved MLKs Dream in a hurry?
"But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech." - This article is literally about criminalizing assembly and speech you don't like. Eroding away the freedoms MLK relied on for non-violence to be feasible.
MLK was driven by hope and religion, not by seeing reality with clear eyes. He wasn't afraid of him of dying because he knew he would go to heaven. It got him killed and his movement stymied. Violence defeated Non-Violence.
Do you have anyone else?
You think that Gandhi, the father of non-violent action was actually in favor of violence? You have no idea what's going on and no amount of discussion will convince you.
You have made up your mind based on your feefees and are upset they don't match with reality, so you try to change reality.
You are genuinely a moron and nothing can help you if you think MLK advocated against non-violence. You completely missed the meaning of that phrase: "it’s nonviolence or nonexistence."
Read the rest of his speech where he says:
"We are masters in our nonviolent movement in disarming police forces; they don't know what to do."
https://genius.com/Martin-luther-king-jr-ive-been-to-the-mountaintop-annotated
Followed by a description of exactly how non-violence achieved its goals. What the fuck do you think this means:
"We don’t have to argue with anybody. We don’t have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don’t need any bricks and bottles. We don’t need any Molotov cocktails. We just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, “God sent us by here, to say to you that you’re not treating his children right." "
You fucking idiot.
Your reading comprehension is lacking. Nothing you claim I said was in my comment. If it were you could quote it. And then you resort to name calling. Who'd the idiot? The one with citations or the one wildly flailing about "reality" and using words like "feefees."
"Who'd the idiot?"
I rest my case.
You didn't cite anything. You just copied and pasted without citations. I don't think you know what a citation is.
I posted all that so other people could see how incorrect you are. You can't even read your own comment, let alone mine.
You're a 2 day old account. Stop getting banned and you won't have to make new ones all the time.
Quote me. Your write about my statement but you seem to have not understood it. Quote me or keep looking for typos. One will convince people you're right. The other convinces people you need to be right.
I think Angela Davis has the most succinct rebuttal to the point you seem to be trying to make, but you are going to miss the point if you don't watch this entire clip. (Which you are free to choose not to do.)
Her final sentence ties the entire thing together, but will ring hollow without hearing the rest first.
MLK was not alone in protesting for civil rights, and while he didn't like violence, the other people in the space did what they had to.
The same can be said of both Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela.
They were the voices of calm and reason, resolute in their defiance but not willing to actually resort to violence, but they were not the only voices. It can be argued that MLK, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela would have all been ignored if not for the willingness to commit violence that others in their movements had.
But were they "privileged people who did nothing and expected nothing"? That's the actual comment I responded to.
At the end of his life Malcolm X renounced violence. Unfortunately he was publicly killed by the Nation of Islam.
Even your quotes aren't quotes. That's not what was said. We all have access to the thread, my guy. Get your shit together.
“privileged people who did nothing and expected nothing” is a far cry from "privileged people who can afford to do nothing and expect nothing"
When the people don’t defend themselves against oppressive tactics, the government keeps pushing. We need to push back and it if comes to defending my life and my families, if violence is the only way then so be it
Indeed. It's self defense
It's worth mentioning that non-violence when speaking in a political framework doesn't exclude destruction of property or looting. Something a lot of people either don't know or intentionally ignore. The George Floyd protesters were largely non-violent in the sense that they didn't injure cops or bystanders