Earlier today, I stumbled upon a comment on Facebook about a music video that was uploaded.
YouTube user BAM MUSIK uploaded the video last Friday. Since then, the video produced more than 4,700 views. The music video is called Blocka (B-Town) The video can be viewed through this link or through the embedded video attached to this blog post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUIrUOdzwmo
The name of the raper is currently unknown.
EDIT: 6/22/2013: The DJ's name is DJ Boi Wonda.
The newly-made YouTube account lists a few sponsors that helped with the individual whom organized the music.
Inappropriate Content:
There is just so much bad content found in this video, I had to share some of the details I noticed while watching this video.
Even though the music video is called Block A, it could very well be a real drug-dealing apartment complex. What does Block A consist of?
A fairly easy access point.
A guard to check on who is coming in.
A crazy-looking man.....
who owns a handgun.....
who supplies and does cocaine.....
and has thousands of dollars (mostly 20's, 50's, and 100's)
Drug activity (pot and drinking whiskey).
Smoking pot and showing off some expensive rims.
Some sort of tattoo with the letter B stamped on there. Could be a gang tattoo.
Children posing in multiple shots.
Direct Location:
There were some places within the video that shared locations in which the video was made.
This one stood out to me not just because they are signs that show they are going into Burlington, but because they were moving into the town. In the title of the blog, I suggested that all, if not one, of the individuals were in fact from Chicago. The reason being is because of the previous video that was created last December in which shows aerial views of Chicago.
One of the first street signs shown in the video was the intersection streets of 400 South Central Ave. and 1100 Maple St.
This specific intersection is where one of the locations was depicted from the video. What's interesting is the fact that the gas station Circle K had a shooting incident earlier last year.
In the video, there were some images of guns, references of firing firearms, and making comments in firing such weapons. Perhaps they promote such activity as what had happened in Circle K.
Just down the street from that location is this place. I know very little about the building but it seems to be important for the individuals in the video to be doing their thing in front of the place.
I know some years ago, there was a building nearby the shoe shop that was considered as a bar. From what I heard, an individual was killed in that bar. If you were dressed in something they didn't like at the time, they would beat you up royally.
The final location shown in the video was 1100 Aetna St. and 2000 Summer St.
The location is basically behind Walgreens nearby Family Video.
What happens now?
Currently, there is no information being provided by The Hawk Eye about it. Its probably not well-known yet, seeing that the video hasn't spread much within the news media or social networks.
There may be a possibility of the Drug Task Force and the Burlington Police Department investigating this matter. If so, this could explain the silence The Hawk Eye is currently doing.
We'll wait and see what happens next.
EDIT: 6/22/2013:
The music video that was produced wasn't necessarily uniquely made. Some of the lyrics and tones from the music were altered. The original music it was based from was Blocka by the rapper Pusha-T. You can eitherclick the link to watch it or watch it through the embedded video on the blog. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfR00nu5xQw
Here are the lyrics to this song. Keep in mind that not all of the lyrics that come from this video is similar to the one produced in Burlington. Lyrics were found on http://rapgenius.com/Pusha-t-blocka-lyrics
Recently, an article was published by The Hawk Eye about neighborhood watches and how they are becoming more ineffective in the area. The article's title seems to insist that the neighborhood watch is defeated.
While there are many reasons why neighborhood watches are failing, there are still other factors in play as to why the neighborhood watches aren't holding up.
Many neighbors are often unreliable or too busy:
Living in an town with severe inflation for more than 40 years has created many individuals to either leave the city or stay behind and work their butts off to make ends meat. This can go with the factor of which people are constantly moving away, thereby leaving houses open to someone new.
When someone new comes along, it would be difficult to earn their trust and become reliable or not to help support the cause. Since crime in this town has been rising and new individuals are moving in from another state, its difficult to know whether the neighbor has a clean-slate record or just got out of jail for beating someone up.
Too much crime is happening all at once; police aren't reliable enough to handle the situation properly:
Another factor that I see as to why neighborhood watches are failing is because criminal activities have been constantly increasing. There is a scarcity of individuals being caught who have committed illegal acts.
This is often due to the lack of funding, training and apathy from the Burlington Police Department and its affecting the way they are catching criminals.
For example, officers usually unwillingly pursue someone to the extreme of arresting an individual, like looking into surveillance tapes or releasing the tapes to the public to help identify the criminals. This also includes high speed chases.
Without proper cooperation with law enforcement, neighborhood watches would be as useless as tits on a bull.
Officer Grimsaw is incorrect when it comes to limited resources. They have plenty of officers. IF they are willing to do neighborhood watches, they can cover a small portion of an area for a period of time followed by the next new area. The problem is many of the officers aren't willing to do that and that they want to instead do as little work as possible. That way they would be paid just as much as if they were to do the extra work. I don't see in buying three new squad cars would mean they are lacking resources.
Solution:
The only realistic solution in dealing with criminals breaking into ones home, mugging ones self or any other activity is by owning a firearm with proper licensing.
Another solution is moving out of Burlington and West Burlington completely.
There have been plenty of reports of thefts and muggings going on in the city that are getting away with stealing one's things. Criminals do this day and night without any fear of officers patrolling the streets regularly, like Osborn Street, GreenWay, or even South Hill.
Police are out manned and ill-trained to find a good chunk of criminals involved in the city to put behind bars.
The article doesn't list the name of the video on Youtube that it refers to, however this is the video in question that helped started the suit. In fact, the video was split through five parts.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
In the same article, another settlement happened 14 months ago by a different person, going against another Sheriff Deputy Eric Joseph Staub, as well as the sheriff's office, the city of Burlington, the Burlington Police Department, Des Moines County, Burlington Officer Chris Chiprez, and the Southeast Iowa Narcotics Task Force.
Both of the victims do, in fact, have a criminal background record and was linked to recent events, however it's not alright for the law enforcement to be as illegally controlling as possible.
So here are my questions that I'm thinking about when it comes to these incidents and settlements.
Why isn't law enforcement not being punished enough?
This question arises as this guy has been in trouble with the lawsuits when it comes to stretching his power onto civilian individuals. Assaulting and using a Taser without having a serious incident shows that Sheriff Staub and Sheriff Deputy Purdy shouldn't be around civilians when he's armed with their position.
After the settlement of the 2008 incident ended in January 2011 he returned in active duty. Staub only received a 30-day suspended jail term, a minimum of $55 fine, and a 15-day suspension when he returned. That doesn't sound like much of a reasonable punishment for assaulting someone during an altercation.
The others whom were involved in it listed no details of what was taken against their action. They may have had similar charges and fees pressed on them.
Then a settlement in March of this year came up and this time it was Sheriff Deputy Purdy whom had a settlement from a previous suit that started an incident in 2009. This time, the list of punishments wasn't placed in the article. Did he receive the same punishments as Staub's at last year's settlement or were the punishments more severe?
Even though these incidents were from a few years ago, the punishments one of them received last year isn't going to create a great effect to prevent him from doing it again. It wouldn't be too much of a surprise if there's another sheriff's deputy listed in the newspaper again with a similar suit.
The Burlington Police Department had some both reported lawsuits and unreported incidents that never goes through a court system due to lack of evidence, lack of money, and the majority of court-approved lawyer's stand with the officers, Department of Human Services workers, and other government and city workers. services.
As for the other officers and some of the members of the drug task force, its uncertain whether they learned their lesson better than what the Sheriff and Sheriff Deputy had done.
Why isn't The City of Burlington doing enough to combat the issues created by law enforcement?
The city has a long history of law enforcement officials pushing their boundaries of what is illegal and what isn't. The City of Burlington hardly addresses the issues unless a suit is filed and eventually a settlement is made. They don't punish the departments localized in the town in order to decrease the likelihood of having another suit because some people wants to push their boundaries further.
Most of the time, many of their court-approved lawyers that are given to individuals aren't trained enough or independent enough to go against the city, as well as governmental city programs, like Young House, Department of Human Services, law enforcement offices, etc. They'll rather take more a stand with larger government and the city than helping the individual whom is effected. As far as a suit goes, the punishments for individuals like the Sheriff is lowered and reasonable enough to the offender rather than punishing them to the fullest potential.
Placing more restrictions under the department that was effected in the lawsuit will help minimize outcomes of future events.
Why isn't the areas listed in the suits not doing enough to keep potential violators from holding their job?
After the two suit settlements, as well as other incidents not issued from a suit case, its a question that runs through people's minds.
Like a workforce, law enforcement have background checks to see if the person for hire is capable of holding their job and whether or not they had a history of criminal activities in some part of their lives.
The problem with this concept is that after probation period of a certain criminal activity is finished, the record is removed from the system and its not allowed to be talked about when it comes to employment and other talk. This means an officer from the department could get the job if the record doesn't show that he had a past of assaulting individuals when his probation period was up.
The departments don't have strict enough background checks, as well as psychological checks to find individuals whom would later be involved in suit cases, like in 2011 and this year.
Its probably most likely that the departments don't want to let anyone go due to the lack of law enforcement they have. Its not for certain why they keep offenders with minimum punishments active in the force.
What can be done to combat against law enforcement brutality?
Decades ago, it was common for a couple of officers in the town to assault civilians and forcing them to admit to a crime that wasn't committed. While those officers are long retired and eventually passed on, the similar effects today are caught more and more by camera and other recordable devices.
According to Iowa Code § 727.8 (2009), it states that
"...Thus 2 general exceptions are that a person can record if opening present and participating in or listening to the conversation (one party permission), and radio and television receivers. State v. Fox, 493 N.W.2d 829,831 (Iowa 1992). Iowa is a one party state allowing interception based on the consent of one party to the conversations. Other states may be one party, two party or all party consent, so these state laws need to be reviewed."
This means that if an individual whom is in the general area of a conversation, whether listening or participating, can record anything due to Iowa being a one party state in allowing the recording. This means that if I see and hear an officer pulling someone over, I can legally record video, audio, and even take photographs of the situation without violating any laws from the state's constitution.
If an officer tries to intimidate the person and telling them that isn't allowed, its going against the officer's part of telling the truth that its indeed legal to do so. The city nor the law enforcement has the authority to go against the person making the recording if they are participating or listening to the conversation. Going against it would violate the state's Code and a suit can be made against the city and the business of interest that is going after.
Having to record information is best to keep the context of the situation than writing it down. If a camera isn't present, write down the incident as quickly as possible. The more recent the writing, the better a person can recall the incident through doing so. Make sure to write as many details as possible, like the last name of the officer, badge number, etc. This can be done through recording and taking photographs as well to help better generalize the person doing the activity.
If the information wasn't recorded, but was recorded through a dashboard camera, the person whom was involved can request a copy of the tape from police station or the court house. Tapes can be taken from the court house if it was presented in a court case and anyone can retrieve a copy of the tape if the person has court-related information that was presented on-hand.
The information recorded can either be an incident involved from another individual as long as the person was present at the location at the time. It gives the person who was affected a better chance to deal with law enforcement.
If the incident happened recently and involved with one's self, take care of it as soon as possible. The sooner its taken care of the better. A suit can be made, as well as reporting the officer(s) in question to the situation that has been done.
+Video+-+YouTube%27+-+www_youtube_com_watch_v=QUIrUOdzwmo.png)
+Video+-+YouTube%27+-+www_youtube_com_watch_v=QUIrUOdzwmo.png)
+Video+-+YouTube%27+-+www_youtube_com_watch_v=QUIrUOdzwmo.png)
