upworthy

Justice

Democracy

How this protest image became an instant icon

She was arrested shortly after the photo was taken.

A photo by Jonathan Bachman.

A woman confronts the police at a Black Lives Matter rally.

A stunning photo of a Black woman confronting police at a Black Lives Matter rally blazed across social media, with some calling it a touchstone image that will stand as a powerful symbol for many years to come.

The photo, captured by Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, comes from a Black Lives Matter rally in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on July 9, 2016 . Police in full riot armor are shown descending on the poised, well-dressed woman, apparently about to be cuffed.


Her name is Ieshia Evans, then a 35-year-old nurse from Brooklyn, NY who had not been to a protest rally before. She was arrested for blocking a public roadway shortly after the image was taken.

DeRay McKesson, one of the most prominent voices of the Black Lives Matter movement, was also arrested at the rally. McKesson was released after 16 hours in a cell; he told the New York Times that he felt Saturday's mass arrests were unlawful as the protesters were peacefully assembled on the side of the highway.

"What we saw in Baton Rouge was a police department that chose to provoke protesters to create, like, a context of conflict they could exploit," said McKesson. Over 100 other protesters were also arrested.

The protests were a direct response to the killing of 37-year-old Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge on July 5, 2016 after two officers shot him repeatedly outside a convenience store. Shortly after Sterling's death, a school cafeteria worker, Philando Castile was shot and killed by police in Falcon Heights, Minnesota while reaching for paperwork in his car. And at a protest rally in Dallas following Falcon Heights, five police officers were killed by snipers.

The violence over those few days has proved to be an intensely raw and revealing piece of American history. Bachman's photo will surely be one of the images that lasts.

This article originally appeared seven years ago.

Justice

Wrongfully convicted man proves his innocence using an episode of 'MythBusters'

John Galvan was only 18 years old when he was arrested for a crime he did not commit.

Justice (and scientific education) served.

The Discovery show “MythBusters” delighted investigative junkies and movie buffs alike in the years following its launch in the early 2000s. The stunt-filled show featured special effects experts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman testing out the validity of everything from duct tape islands to mechanical sharks using scientific methods.

Back in 2007, 39-year-old John Galvan was 21 years into serving a life sentence for a crime he didn’t commit, when he caught a rerun of “MythBusters” on the prison television. The episode, “Hollywood on Trial,” which originally aired in 2005, shows Hyneman and Savage failing to light a pool of gasoline using a cigarette—a classic action film trope.

Not even a rolling fully lit cigarette could ignite a flame. In other words, the myth was officially “busted.This bit of information immediately caught Galvan’s attention, for it would be the very catalyst needed to prove his innocence and reclaim his freedom.

In September 1986, a fire broke out in a two-flat apartment building in southwest Chicago, killing two brothers—one of whom was suspected to be involved in a gang called the Latin Kings. Their siblings managed to escape and told police that a female neighbor had threatened to burn the building down as retaliation for her own brother’s death, an act supposedly committed by the gang.

The woman denied involvement and instead pointed the blame at Galvan, along with other neighbors interviewed by the police. Although Galvan had been asleep at his grandmother’s the night of the fire, he had no other evidence proving his innocence, and was arrested. He was only 18 years old.

Using violence, torture and deception tactics (which remain legal in 46 states), Detective Victor Switski eventually coerced Galvan into signing a confession after threatening that he could face the death penalty and end up “laying next to” his late father.

mythbusters sets man free

A photo of Galvan as a child.

Instagram


Galvan’s signed statement claimed he had started the fire by throwing a bottle filled with gasoline at the building and then tossing a cigarette into the pool of gasoline on the porch to ignite it. Which, again, is scientifically impossible.

Galvan immediately called his lawyer Tara Thompson, who had serendipitously been watching the same episode. Thompson and Galvan had been working on his third post-conviction petition, and both were thrilled to have stumbled upon some compelling evidence in the most unlikely of places.

“I remember I was excited, I was extremely happy because that just added to the other things that were coming together at that time. I felt like finally this is starting to all come out,” Galvan recalled.

Thompson added, “It was honestly shocking to me … I feel like all of us have seen movies — like Payback is a famous one — where they light the gasoline in the street with a cigarette and a car explodes, and I really had never given much thought to whether or not that might be real.”

“When I watched this MythBusters episode, as a lawyer, it made me realize that there are things you have to look deeper into — you can’t assume that you understand the science until you’ve looked into it,” she added.
innocence project

Tara Thompson (left) and John Galvan (right).

Instagram

The show’s findings were echoed by experiments conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). It made more than 2,000 attempts to ignite gasoline with a cigarette under various conditions and every attempt failed.

It wouldn’t be until 2017 that Galvan got his evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction claims. Thompson not only presented their findings, but also seven witnesses—including those who attested to also being tortured by the same detective who had interrogated Galvan, and an arson expert who testified that what Galvan falsely confessed to was scientifically impossible.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, prosecutors still denied that the science was correct.

“Even then, they really did not want to accept that this was not possible,” Ms. Thompson recalled. “I find that very telling about the state of science and the law … that these things that we probably should accept as true in the legal space, the system does not always want to accept.”

Galvan would have to wait until 2022—and after several appeals—to gain his freedom. He was exonerated largely based on the fact that he was abused into involuntarily signing his confession, rather than any changes to the science of the case.

Rebecca Brown, director of policy for the Innocence Project, says it speaks to “the critical importance of establishing mechanisms for people to get back into court when science changes or evolves, or when experts repudiate past testimony.”

“A ‘change-in-science’ statute here would have allowed for a presentation reflecting those changes in arson science and could have likely expedited Mr. Galvan’s exoneration,” she explained.

good news

He'll never get those 35 years back, but he's going to make the best of the time he has left.

Instagram

Adjusting to a new life outside the prison walls after 35 years has been no easy task, but Galvan is nonetheless taking his newfound freedom in stride. He’s most looking forward to having his own space to call home and getting back to drawing and painting. If you would like to support Galvan, check out his Amazon wish list.


This article originally appeared two years ago.


via Steve Hostetter

A comedian defends himself against a heckler police officer.

Some people just haven't gotten the memo: You really don't want to heckle comedian Steve Hofstetter. He's become one of my favorite stand-up acts both because he's just funny but also because of his brilliant ways of shutting down hecklers and other rude patrons who show up for his live act.

In this case, Hofstetter was in the middle of a bit where he quipped, "I don't like people." It was part of a larger joke recalling how he'd had a bad interaction with a police officer but that he was "still alive" because he was a white male.


Hofstetter was talking about how most cops like the joke but others get offended. His point was that if you get offended by a joke about cops killing innocent people, you're probably not a good cop. Just as he was finishing up the joke, a person in the front of the audience got up. When Hofstetter politely asked the guy to stop talking so loudly, the man said, "I'm going."

He then followed up, telling Hofstetter, "You disrespected me, so I'll disrespect you."

The man then went on a tirade, stealing a drink from another customer and getting into an argument with the club's bouncers. He also got into a shouting match with another patron before finally stepping outside.

Hofstetter tried to lighten the mood, joking, "I think he's mad that the Meghan Trainor concert was canceled last night. Maybe he's all about the bass, I don't know."

He then disclosed to the audience that the heckler had actually approached him before the show, asking Hofstetter to roast some of the friends the man had shown up with, which he refused to do.

That's when one of the heckler's companions told the comedian that the heckler was actually himself a cop. And that the man the heckler was shouting down was actually another cop who was embarrassed by his bad behavior.

"I know to drive slowly when I leave," Hofstetter joked.

But just to make it clear that he wasn't out to give all cops a hard time, the comedian noted that he actually thinks most cops are good people; he just wants them to speak up more when a bad cop does something wrong, comparing it to how comedians call out each other all the time when one of them crosses the line. And that's something we should all be able to get behind without the need for a hilarious punchline.


This article originally appeared on 12.12.16

Democracy

Single mom perfectly explains to Congress why the U.S. poverty line needs a total rehaul

"I'm not asking you to apologize for your privilege but I'm asking you to see past it."

Photo by Ev on Unsplash

Nearly 12 percent of the U.S. population lives in poverty. That's more than one in ten Americans—and the percent is even higher for children.

If you're not up on the current numbers, the federal poverty line is $12,760 for an individuals and $26,200 for a family of four. If those annual incomes sound abysmally low, it's because they are. And incredibly, the Trump administration has proposed lowering the poverty line further, which would make more poor Americans ineligible for needed assistance.


However, debates over the poverty line don't even capture the full extent of Americans struggling to make ends meet. For many people, living above the poverty line is actually worse. These are the folks who make too much to qualify for aid programs but not enough to actually get by—a situation millions of working American families find themselves stuck in.

Amy Jo Hutchison is a single mother of two living in West Virginia, and a community organizer for West Virginia Healthy Kids and Families and Our Future West Virginia. She has also lived in poverty and been part of the working poor herself. In an impassioned speech, she spoke to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform about what poverty really looks like for working families—and even called out Congress for being completely out of touch with what it takes for a family to live on while they're spending $40,000 a year on office furniture.

Watch Hutchison's testimony here (transcript included below):

Ms. Hutchison Testimony on Proposed Changes to the Poverty Line Calculation

"I'm here to help you better understand poverty because poverty is my lived experience. And I'm also here to acknowledge the biased beliefs that poor people are lazy and the poverty is their fault. But how do I make you understand things like working full-time for $10 an hour is only about $19,000 a year, even though it's well above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour?

I want to tell you about a single mom I met who was working at a gas station. She was promoted to manager within 30 days. She had to report her new income the DHHR within 60 days. Her rent bumped from $475 to $950 a month, she lost her SNAP benefits and her family's health insurance, so she did what poor people are forced to do all the time. She resigned her promotion and went back to working part-time, just so she and her family could survive.

Another single mom I know encouraged her kids to get jobs. For her DHHR review she had to claim their income as well. She lost her SNAP benefits and her insurance, so she weaned herself off of her blood pressure medicines because she—working full-time in a bank and part-time at a shop on the weekends—couldn't afford to buy them. Eventually the girls quit their jobs because their part-time fast food income was literally killing their mother.

You see the thing is children aren't going to escape poverty as long as they're relying on a head of household who is poor. Poverty rolls off the backs of parents, right onto the shoulders of our children, despite how hard we try.

I can tell you about my own with food insecurity the nights I went to bed hungry so my kids could have seconds, and I was employed full time as a Head Start teacher. I can tell you about being above the poverty guideline, nursing my gallbladder with essential oils and prayer, chewing on cloves and eating ibuprofen like they're Tic Tacs because I don't have health insurance and I can't afford a dentist. I have two jobs and a bachelor's degree, and I struggle to make ends meet.

The federal poverty guidelines say that I'm not poor, but I cashed in a jar full of change the other night so my daughter could attend a high school band competition with her band. I can't go grocery shopping without a calculator. I had to decide which bills not to pay to be here in this room today. Believe me, I've pulled myself up by the bootstraps so many damn times that I've ripped them off.

The current poverty guidelines are ridiculously out of touch. The poverty line for a family of three is $21,720. Where I live, because of the oil and gas boom, a 3-bedroom home runs for $1,200 a month. So if I made $22,000 a year, which could disqualify me from assistance, I would have $8000 left to raise two children and myself on. And yet the poverty guidelines wouldn't classify me as poor.

I Googled 'congressman salary' the other day and according to Senate gov the salary for Senators representatives and delegates is $174,000 a year so a year of work for you is the equivalent of almost four years of work for me. I'm $24,000 above the federal poverty guidelines definition of poor. It would take nine people working full-time for a year at $10 an hour to match y'all's salary. I also read that each senator has authorized $40,000 dollars for state office furniture and furnishings, and this amount is increased each year to reflect inflation.

That $40,000 a year for furniture is $360 more than the federal poverty guidelines for a family of seven, and yet here I am begging you on behalf of the 15 million children living in poverty in the United States—on behalf of the one in three kids under the age of five and nearly 100,000 children in my state of West Virginia living in poverty—to not change anything about these federal poverty guidelines until you can make them relevant and reflect what poverty really looks like today.

You have a $40,000 dollar furniture allotment. West Virginia has a median income of $43,000 and some change. People are working full-time and are hungry. Kids are about to be kicked off the free and reduced lunch rolls because of changes y'all want to make to SNAP, even though 62 percent of West Virginia SNAP recipients are families with children—the very same children who cannot take a part-time job because their parents will die without insurance. People are working full-time in this country for very little money.


They're not poor enough to get help. They don't make enough to get by. They're working while their rationing their insulin and their skipping their meds because they can't afford food and healthcare at the same time.

So shame on you. Shame on you, and shame on me, and shame on each and every one of us who haven't rattled the windows of these buildings with cries of outrage at a government that thinks their office furniture is worthy of $40,000 a year and families and children aren't.

I'm not asking you to apologize for your privilege but I'm asking you to see past it. There are 46 million Americans living in poverty doing the best they know how with what they have and we, in defense of children and families, cannot accept anything less from our very own government."

In addition to Hutchison's testimony, a coalition of 26 patient organizations, including the American Cancer Society Action Network, American Heart Association, and United Way, wrote a joint letter opposing the proposed lowering of the poverty line, stating:

"The current Official Poverty Measure (OPM) is based on an old formula that already does not fully capture those living in poverty and does not accurately reflect basic household expenses for families, including by underestimating child care and housing expenses. The proposed changes to the inflation calculation would reduce the annual adjustments to the poverty measure and therefore may exacerbate existing weaknesses, putting vulnerable Americans – including those with serious and chronic diseases – at great risk. Further lowering the poverty line would also give policymakers and the public less credible information about the number and characteristics of Americans living in poverty."


This article originally appeared on 03.10.20