Last July, Daniel Hambrick, a 25-year-old black man, was fatally shot while running from a white Nashville police officer. Now Hambrick’s family has filed a federal lawsuit arguing that local officers are too quick to use lethal force and that the police department encourages a culture of “fear, violence, racism, and impunity.”
Filed on March 11, the wrongful death lawsuit argues that the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department encourages a belief “that without constant police vigilance and the threat of police violence Nashville’s black community would degenerate into violence and anarchy.”
Because of this alleged culture of paranoia, the lawsuit says, officers in the city overpolice black neighborhoods and aggressively stop black motorists — practices the family says contributed to the fatal shooting of Hambrick.
Hambrick’s family is seeking $30 million in damages.
Although the officer who shot Hambrick, Andrew Delke (also 25 years old), became the first Nashville officer to be charged for an on-duty shooting when he was indicted on a first-degree murder charge in January, the lawsuit accuses the department of evading accountability for its broader practices. The family argues that the department has avoided enacting programs to reduce racial disparities in traffic stops and has resisted adopting a body-worn camera program, despite local officials having allocated money for cameras.
The local police union has said that Delke’s shooting of Hambrick was justified, while community activists and Hambrick’s family say Delke unnecessarily escalated the encounter and shot Hambrick solely because he was running away.
This lawsuit joins a long line of recent federal suits filed by the families of black men killed in police shootings. Collectively, these lawsuits argue that recent high-profile police shootings cannot be removed from a larger context: the policies of the departments that train officers.
With convictions in police shooting cases still rare, these lawsuits have become a key mechanism for families seeking both a formal acknowledgment that misconduct occurred and a permanent change in how these police departments operate.
Police argue that the Daniel Hambrick shooting was justified. His family disagrees.
On July 26, 2018, Delke, then an officer with the city’s juvenile task force, was looking for stolen vehicles when officers spotted a white Chevrolet Impala driving in an “erratic pattern.”
According to an affidavit filed last year, the officer became suspicious after the car did not drive past officers despite having the right of way. When Delke looked up the vehicle’s license plate, he found the car was not stolen — but he continued to follow it anyway, “to see if he could develop a reason to stop the Impala.”
Delke later lost track of the car but came across a different white car in a parking lot. Mistaking it for the Impala, Delke pulled up, and Hambrick, one of the people near the car, ran. Delke chased after him.
The affidavit notes that at that point, the officer had no reason to believe that Hambrick was involved in any criminal activity.
Delke later said that he saw a gun in Hambrick’s hand during the chase, and the officer claimed that he gave “several commands” for Hambrick to drop the weapon, according to the affidavit. Delke shot at Hambrick four times, hitting him in his head, torso, and back. The fourth bullet hit a nearby building.
The shooting immediately caused outrage, with local community members and Hambrick’s family arguing that he had not committed a crime and was shot unnecessarily. The police department argued that Delke had a reasonable fear that Hambrick would shoot.
The Nashville district attorney released surveillance video of the shooting last August. It shows Delke stopping and firing at Hambrick as the man ran away. Police have said that Hambrick was raising his arm to shoot, but due to the blurriness of the video, this claim is difficult to confirm.
The local police union has maintained that the shooting was justified, and has created a website calling attention to Hambrick’s arrest record, repeatedly referring to the man as a “convicted felon,” pointing to his prior convictions on robbery and assault charges. Late last year, a judge ruled that the defense could discuss parts of this history in court, despite Delke being unaware of it at the time of the shooting.
The union also strongly opposed an activist-led effort to create a citizen oversight board in the wake of the shooting, arguing that citizens lacked the knowledge to judge officer behavior. Yet Nashville voters approved a ballot amendment to create the board by a 59 to 41 percent margin last year, and the new 11-member panel is expected to begin meeting in the near future.
The lawsuit argues that the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department’s policies played a role in the shooting
Delke has maintained that he was not wrong to shoot Hambrick, and his lawyers have said that the officer was following his training when he fired.
The lawsuit from Hambrick’s family does not dispute this, but rather uses the claim to argue that Nashville officers are trained to rely on lethal force and to treat black people as criminals.
The lawsuit focuses in part on the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department’s policies around traffic stops, citing statistics from the department’s annual reports on traffic stops to make the case that the department stops a disproportionate number of black drivers, a discrepancy that cannot be explained by crime levels in predominantly black neighborhoods.
Delke, who had been working as an officer for less than two years at the time of Hambrick’s death, is noted to have stopped far more black drivers than white ones. “The ratio of black to white drivers that Officer Delke subjected to traffic stops was consistently above the average of other MNPD officers patrolling in the same geographic zones,” the lawsuit says, citing data on Delke’s traffic stops.
The claims from Hambrick’s family are not the first time these sorts of disparities have been criticized in Nashville. The Tennessean notes that a 2016 report from a local nonprofit called Gideon’s Army “suggested severe and institutional racial discrimination on the force” when it came to traffic stops. A 2018 report requested by Nashville police and conducted by the NYU School of Law’s Policing Project also found racial disparities in traffic stops.
The lawsuit argues that the department has largely ignored these reports, claiming that it “continues to deny that there are improper racial disparities in stops and has done nothing to reduce such disparities.”
For its part, the department says that it “looks forward to vigorously defending this lawsuit and correcting the plethora of misinformation it contains.”
Hambrick’s family says they hope the suit leads not only to an acknowledgment that what happened to their loved one was wrong and should not have happened, but also to a change in the police department’s practices.
“We want the responsible parties to be held responsible,” Joy Kimbrough, an attorney representing Hambrick’s family, told reporters on Monday. “We don’t think this was merely misconduct.”
[Read] How to Research Trends: Move Beyond Trendwatching to Kickstart Innovation For Free
Amazon 2-day shipping: Why packages sometimes arrive later
In less than two decades, Amazon single-handedly transformed the way we think about online shopping. Before Prime launched in 2005, two-day shipping was virtually unheard of — now more than 100 million people use the service, and they expect the things they order online to arrive at their doorsteps in 48 hours or fewer.
There’s just one problem: Amazon, which has focused on obtaining customers at all costs for decades, seems to be looking for ways to cut down on shipping costs. In some cases, that means weaning Prime users off the near-instantaneous shipping they’ve come to expect.
From the beginning, free two-day shipping was Prime’s biggest draw. Memberships were cheap — $79 a year in 2005 and $119 today — and users had the option of paying a small fee to get their orders delivered in just one day. Today, Prime is about much more than package delivery: Users can order everything, from groceries to a house cleaner, through Amazon. But as Amazon has expanded, the promise of free two-day shipping — the main draw of Prime — has begun to come with a lot of caveats.
That’s not to say Amazon is totally changing course. In 2014, Amazon launched Prime Now, a service designed to deliver products in an hour or less, for some New York City-based users. (It expanded to other major cities in 2016.) Amazon often makes headlines for the grueling work expected of its in-house delivery fleet — or, more accurately, the network of contractors that deliver packages to Prime users across the country — a sign that it continues to take its shipping promise seriously, often at the expense of workers. But even as Amazon has doubled down on ensuring speedy delivery, it has begun looking for ways to rein in customers’ desire for instant gratification, a phenomenon it arguably helped create, in an attempt to cut costs and streamline its supply chain.
The result? Prime orders don’t necessarily arrive in two days anymore, nor are they always delivered to customers’ homes. All of this makes sense from a financial perspective, but that may not be enough to win customers over.
Prime customers pay for — and expect — quick, free shipping. They aren’t always happy about Amazon’s cost-cutting efforts.
Two-day Prime shipping isn’t necessarily a thing of the past, but it’s undeniable that Amazon delivery isn’t as seamless as it used to be.
Amazon will no longer deliver some small items, like razors or hair ties, individually. Instead, customers have to purchase $25 worth of these “add-on” items before Amazon will send the box out; the point, according to the company, is to give customers access to “low-cost items that would be cost-prohibitive to ship on their own.” Since 2011, Amazon has given users the option to have packages delivered to “lockers,” which are basically branded PO boxes, instead of to their homes or offices. Most recently, Amazon rolled out Amazon Day, a new delivery option that lets customers choose a specific day for all of their orders to arrive, is the company’s latest cost-cutting effort.
All of this makes sense from a financial perspective. Delivering packages to a single location instead of hundreds of individual homes cuts costs, and requiring customers to meet a delivery minimum for small orders helps Amazon consolidate deliveries, as does the Amazon Day program.
But the response to these new initiatives has been mixed at best.
Last December, Fast Company’s Mark Wilson wrote about how Amazon Prime is “getting worse,” claiming the company had all but abandoned its promise of two-day shipping for most products. “That little Prime logo used to mean something,” Wilson wrote. “Now it feels like a ruse that lulls shoppers into a false sense of security, until they go to checkout and see a shipping arrival date far later than anticipated.”
“This cuts through the greatest promise of Prime. It’s not just the free, two-day shipping. It’s that it’s so reliable, you never have to think for more than a second about buying something. In this sense, Prime was constructed to be great for the consumer (so efficient) and great for businesses (mindless impulse shopping!). … It doesn’t help that we’ve seen a slow dilution of Prime itself over time, with the rise of Prime Pantry and Add-on Items. They force you to buy a minimum number of items to get the best deal, adding back the very psychic burden Prime had eliminated from the equation of online shopping in the first place.”
Wilson’s complaints about Prime suggest a bait-and-switch strategy. Amazon got 100 million people to become Prime users by guaranteeing frictionless service, but now that it’s gotten a sizable chunk of the market hooked on quick, free shipping, it’s trying to cut delivery costs by scaling back on the very thing that got customers interested in the first place. Put another way, Prime is built on the idea that shopping should be frictionless; Amazon has now introduced a degree of friction that wasn’t there before, and some customers aren’t happy about it.
“I can’t help but feel the frustration around how the false sense of shopping confidence is blown when Amazon simply uses the PRIME lockup as a gimmick,” one reader wrote in response to Wilson’s article. “The ‘prime’ benefit of getting your stuff when you expect it is gone, and it’s not just because of the holiday shipping crunch.
Amazon changed customer expectations regarding shipping. Now it’s changing them again.
One of Amazon’s core principles is “customer obsession,” a “vigorous” desire to “earn and keep customer trust.” (Amazon has, by the way, also been known to use customer obsession as an anti-union talking point.) Put simply, customer obsession means giving the customer what they want as cheaply and quickly as possible — e.g., within 48 hours or fewer — at the expense of profits.
Anne Goodchild, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington who focuses on supply chain transportation and logistics, told me that Amazon significantly altered customer expectations and shopping patterns.
“The status quo [has been] that we take ourselves to the store, pick up the goods, and go back to our homes. That’s actually a pretty inefficient way of doing the last mile: We all individually use our cars, and that kind of commuting creates a great travel burden,” she said. “Delivery services, to some extent, have the potential to be an improvement. [They consolidate] a lot of deliveries — hopefully — into one vehicle like a UPS truck. They have strong incentives, profit incentives, to do that in an efficient and cost-effective way.”
The problem, she said, occurs when delivery becomes too quick. “As we move toward faster delivery, it gets harder to consolidate.” The promise of instant delivery means that customers can buy virtually anything they want without thinking about it; they don’t always think to consolidate their purchases into a single order, because there’s no need to. (A 2018 survey by the optimization platform Feedvisor found that 46 percent of Prime members shop online more than twice a week.) “When we’re not paying some sort of personal cost for the trip, I think it’s easy to overlook how much travel we’re adding,” she said.
Other retailers have attempted to compete by offering similarly fast shipping. “After Amazon, we have things like ShopRunner and even Target [now] saying that if you order certain items, you can get two-day shipping,” Ambulkar said. “I don’t see two-day shipping going away. I think there’s definitely more and more businesses adopting it.”
Even as other retailers lower their shipping times to keep up, Amazon appears to be tweaking its two-day shipping promise. Prime may be cheap and easy for customers, but the cost of all those deliveries adds up quickly. Amazon spent $21.7 billion on shipping costs in 2017, according to its annual report. That’s nearly twice the amount it spent on shipping in 2015.
“Amazon has pursued a growth trajectory rather than a profit one,” Goodchild added. “I think everyone would agree that their strategy has been to please customers and, in doing so, grow their market share.”
But now that it has more than 100 million Prime customers, Amazon is looking for ways to make Prime more profitable — which could end up alienating some of the customers it has made an effort to court.
Justin Smith, the founder of TJI Research, an analytics firm that focuses on Amazon, told The Goods that Amazon is looking for ways to make Prime more efficient — and cost-effective. “Lockers or other pickup points, or encouraging customers to ship items in the fewest number of boxes possible, which might mean getting it a bit later than if you had shipped items separately,” are all part of that strategy.
“I also think that because of how big they are, they are able to become smarter about predicting what items people are going to order in different regions,” Smith added, “and I believe they’ve been able to put items in warehouses closer to where they expect people to order them from in order to reduce the distance that items have to be shipped when they’re ordered. If that can be done efficiently, I think you reduce the individual shipping volume as well as decrease the delivery time, which improves the customer experience.”
It’s also better for the environment. Transportation is one of the biggest contributors to carbon dioxide emissions in the US, and medium- and heavy-duty trucks — the kinds of freight vehicles that are often filled to the brim with Prime purchases and other online orders — are responsible for nearly one-quarter of the total transportation footprint. These trucks, which used to deliver the bulk of their loads to stores and other retail hubs, are now increasingly dropping packages off to individuals. All those one-off orders add up, both financially and environmentally — but, because this type of delivery is often more convenient for the consumer, this has become the new normal.
Not everyone agrees with the premise that more efficiency will result in greater customer satisfaction. Saurabh Ambulkar, a management professor at Northeastern University, said customers who have come to expect two-day — or even same-day — delivery might not readily accept more optimized, less customer-friendly options. “The whole [promise] was that Amazon can deliver the thing to my house, so why do I need to go to the central locker to get something? Why do I need to go to the store?” he said. “If I have to step out of my house to get something, they lose that competitive advantage that they have, but they have to do some of it [in order to] ease the pressure on the supply chain.”
“In bigger cities, maybe the central locker is closer to the place you work, but in other places, I think delivering to residents is what made Amazon more competitive than other players in the market,” Ambulkar added. “If I have to go to a central locker, I can just go to the store to get that product.”
Want more stories from The Goods by Vox? Sign up for our newsletter here.
A Man From a Remote African Village Has Been Named Best Teacher and Will Get $1,000,000 for It
When talking about the job of a teacher, many people refer to it as “a calling”. We all want our children to be educated by teachers who love their jobs and who make children feel inspired, interested, and motivated. There are 2 opinions when it comes to teachers: “A talented person will be successful, no matter what,” and “A talented person needs a good teacher.”
A charity foundation that was set up in 2015 by a businessman named Sunny Varkey (and Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, his patron) awards someone as “Best Teacher” every year with a Global Teacher Prize.
Bright Side was really interested in the winner of the 2019 competition because there were 10,000 applications from 179 countries, with a prize of $1,000,000.
Teachers from India, Australia, the US, Kenya, the Netherlands, Brazil, Japan, Argentina, Great Britain, and Georgia made it to the final stage of the competition.
A Kenyan science teacher and Franciscan friar named Peter Tabichi won the award. The award ceremony took place in Dubai and the name of the winner was announced by actor Hugh Jackman.
Peter Tabichi is a teacher in a small African village where the inhabitants often don’t have enough of the most necessary things. Despite this, his students are famous for their wins in international science competitions which is what ultimately attracted the foundation’s attention.
The school these students go to doesn’t look like a school that houses major victories. There is only 1 teacher for 58 students and 1 computer, and in order to make it to lessons, many kids have to cover huge distances on washed-out roads during the rainy season. Most of Tabichi’s students are kids from poor families or they’re orphans. The school is sorely lacking financial support, so Peter donates 80% of the money he makes on the development of the school — the school uniforms, textbooks, and other materials.
7 years ago, he used to teach at a private school but then decided to become a Franciscan friar and leave his job. The code he lives by requires him to have a somewhat ascetic lifestyle and help others. This is why teaching at a poor school is considered charity for Tabichi.
“This win does not belong to me: it demonstrates the achievements of young minds. I am here only thanks to my students’ achievements. A victory gives them a chance. It means that there are no borders for them.”
Tabichi explains how he uses different motivation methods with his students because the secret to success is believing in yourself. Every person can find something they like doing and feel confident. Peter teaches kids to look at things from different perspectives. This is why his projects where students can organize processes and analyze results by themselves are very popular.
The teacher doesn’t say that some of these projects are “cool” and others are “not cool”. The most important thing about them is that the students have to use their imaginations and have to look for new solutions. Tabichi says, “Creativity is extremely important, especially in difficult situations when the resources are limited.”
In this school, there are scientific and creative clubs where every student can showcase their achievements.
“Seeing my learners grow in knowledge, skills, and confidence is my greatest joy in teaching! When they become resilient, creative, and productive in the society, I get a lot of satisfaction for I act as their greatest destiny enabler and key that unlocks their potential in the most exciting manner.”
Tabichi also managed to talk about tolerance: “He created the ’Peace Club’ where there are people of 7 different nationalities and religious beliefs who all visit this school.
People are most interested in one big question: What is he going to spend his prize money on?
His answer? First and foremost, on computer science class, the development of the science lab, and new projects that can improve people’s lives. For example, Peter wants to teach his students to grow drought-tolerant crops. This project is absolutely necessary for life in Africa.
Interestingly, the agreement terms of the foundation say that the winner has certain responsibilities and the prize is not given to the winner right away.
For 10 years, the winner gets $100,000 every year and they have to stay in the profession for 5 years and be a global ambassador for The Varkey Foundation. It means that they have to visit certain events, talk to the media, and participate in training.
We’re deeply impressed by such people! Their stories are bright illustrations of what we call “the purpose of life”. What do you think about this award?
Viral News4 months ago
Tony Robbins: HOW TO START OVER – 2019
Viral News2 months ago
Marvel’s Avengers: Endgame hits theaters April 2019
Viral News3 months ago
Top 5 Viral Plays of the Year // 2018
Viral News5 months ago
16 Game of Thrones Actors You Wouldn’t Recognize Without Makeup
Viral News7 days ago
What Hail Satan? director Penny Lane learned from her doc on Satanists
Viral News4 months ago
15 Famous Men We Didn’t Know Were Handsome in Their Youth
Viral News4 months ago
12 Celebs Who Got Tired of Their Image and Decided to Change Beyond Recognition
Viral News5 months ago
10 Star Couples We Couldn’t Think Would Be Together, but It’s So Cool to See Them Happy