News by Professionals 4 Professionals


16-year-old wounded in shootout with police

16-year-old Wounded In Shootout With PoliceBuy Photo

File photo(Photo: The Detroit News)Buy Photo

Two 16-year-olds were arrested, and one was shot, after an alleged robbery at a bus stop on Detroit s west side spilled over into a CVS store and a shootout with police early Thursday morning. Detroit police received a 911 call at 4:58 a.m. The caller said that a robbery had just taken place at a bus stop near McNichols and Wyoming, said Michael Woody, director of media relations for the Detroit Police Department. Some five or six males were reported to be involved, and reported to be armed. At least a few of the suspects were spotted running into a nearby CVS. A security guard and a clerk had been held at gunpoint toward the front of the store, Woody said, but officers arrived by 5 a.m. That CVS, a 24-hour store, is on the 10000 block of McNichols, just west of Wyoming. Officers quickly arrested one suspect and recovered a weapon in the middle of the store, Woody said.

As officers moved toward the back of the store, a second unit covered the back door in case suspects tried to flee, Woody said. That s exactly what happened, but when the suspect went out the door and saw officers, he allegedly fired shots. Officers fired back and struck the suspect. How many times he was hit was not immediately known, nor was his condition. He was taken to a local hospital as was undergoing surgery Thursday morning, according to authorities. When officers made the arrest, they recovered a weapon from the suspect and shell casings from the gun, Woody said. Police believe that three to four more males who took part in some aspect of the incident are still on the loose.

[email protected][1]

Read or Share this story:


  1. ^ [email protected] (

UK deploys 1000 soldiers to protect key sites after bombing

British police and intelligence agencies arrested three more suspects Wednesday in connection with the Manchester suicide bombing[1] and moved quickly to secure key sites across the country, including Buckingham Palace and the British Parliament at Westminster. Home Secretary Amber Rudd said the bomber, identified as British-born Libyan Salman Abedi, “likely” did not act alone when he killed 22 people and wounded dozens at an Ariana Grande concert Monday night in Manchester. She said he had been known to security forces “up to a point.”

Many at the concert were young girls and teens enthralled by Grande’s pop power. The youngest victim of the bombing named so far was just 8 years old. Officials are examining Abedi’s trips to Libya and possibly Syria as they piece together his allegiances and try to foil any new potential threats. The government said nearly 1,000 soldiers were deployed Wednesday instead of police in high-profile sites in London and other locations.

Police said three men were arrested Wednesday in south Manchester, where a day earlier a 23-year-old man was also arrested and a number of homes were searched. Britain raised its threat level from terrorism to “critical” after an emergency government meeting late Tuesday amid concerns that the 22-year-old Abedi may have accomplices who are planning another attack. The changing of the guard ceremony at Buckingham Palace was canceled Wednesday so police officers can be re-deployed, Britain’s defense ministry said. The traditional ceremony is a major tourist attraction in London.

The Palace of Westminster, which houses the British Parliament in London, was also closed Wednesday to all those without passes, and tours and events there were cancelled until further notice. Armed police were also seen on patrol outside St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, another popular tourist spot. The Chelsea soccer team announced it would cancel Sunday’s victory parade in London that was to have celebrated the team’s Premier League title win this season. “We are sure our fans will understand this decision,” the team said, adding that the parade would have diverted police from the bombing investigation.

The victims: ‘A beautiful little girl,’ ‘a very gifted student’[2]

Suicide bomber Abedi was born in Britain to a Libyan family, grew up in Manchester’s southern suburbs and once attended Salford University there. Police on Tuesday raided his house, using a controlled explosion to blast down the door. Neighbors recalled him as a tall, thin young man who often wore traditional Islamic dress and did not talk much.

Manchester police arrested a man early Wednesday at a house just a 10-minute walk from Abedi’s home. Police also raided and searched a property elsewhere in Manchester where Abedi’s brother Ismail is thought to have lived. British Prime Minister Theresa May chaired a meeting Wednesday of her emergency security cabinet group to talk about intelligence reports on Abedi and concerns that he might have had outside support.

Officials are probing how often Abedi had traveled to Libya, which has seen an eruption of armed Islamist groups since dictator Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown and killed in 2011.

‘Look for the helpers’ A longing for Mr. Rogers[3]

France’s interior minister said Abedi is believed to have traveled to Syria and had “proven” links with the Islamic State group. British officials, however, have not commented on whether Abedi had links to IS or other extremist groups. Rudd said Britain’s increased official threat level will remain at “critical” as the investigation proceeds and won’t be lowered until security services are convinced there is no active plot in place. She also complained about U.S. officials leaking sensitive information about Abedi to the press. Rudd said Britain’s operational security could be harmed by the leaks, taking “the element of surprise” away from security services and police.

“I have been very clear with our friends that that should not happen again,” she said.

In addition to those killed in the concert attack, Manchester officials raised to 119 the number of people who sought medical treatment after the attack. Sixty-four people are still hospitalized, Jon Rouse of the Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership said Wednesday. Officials say 20 of them are being treated for critical injuries. Many of them had serious wounds that will require “very long term care and support in terms of their recovery,” Rouse said.

Officials said all those hospitalized had been identified. As soldiers replaced armed police at Buckingham Palace, 10 Downing Street and Parliament, London Police Commander Jane Connors said the goal is to “make our city as hostile an environment as possible for terrorists to plan and operate.”


  1. ^ Manchester suicide bombing (
  2. ^ ‘A beautiful little girl,’ ‘a very gifted student’ (
  3. ^ A longing for Mr. Rogers (

Why Do We Have Borders, Anyway?

During arguments in federal appeals court last week, a lawyer representing Hawaii argued that Donald Trump’s travel ban for people from certain Muslim-majority countries was simply beyond the pale. “The government has not engaged in mass, dragnet exclusions in the past 50 years,” former Obama administration solicitor general Neal Katyal said, referring to the president’s (still blocked) ban of a “whole class of people” as “something new and unusual.”

It’s been looking for some time now like Donald Trump’s most notorious policy will make it all the way the US Supreme Court. But even under Barack Obama, the United States was pretty damn inaccessible to a “whole class of people”: the world’s poor, who often can’t afford travel visas and have traditionally been legally and customarily excluded from immigrating[3]. The fact is we live on a planet that has largely come to accept and operate within a system of defined and militarized borders. So even if you abhor his shameless appeals to nativism, Trump’s ban (cruelly) reinforces a concept almost everyone you know buys into. But should they? Reece Jones, associate Professor at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and author of the recent book[4] Violent Borders: Refugees and the Right to Move, isn’t so sure. He thinks getting rid of borders should be your ultimate goal if you believe in human rights for all people and that recognizing and reckoning with the system of borders itself is essential to dismantling it.

I recently spoke with Reece about how to make sense of debates about the Muslim ban and Trump’s proposed wall given the way borders have worked over the centuries, and what it means to be alive when the international border system is at a violent crossroads.

VICE: Why should we be paying attention to borders as a concept right now?
Reece Jones: I’ve been studying borders[5] for 15 years, and over that time, I’ve noticed two big trends. The first is the construction of border infrastructure, the deployment of a lot more agents at borders, the construction of walls at borders the spending of a lot more money on borders. In the 1990s, there were 15 border walls around the world. Today, there’s almost 70 of them. I also noticed this really troubling trend of the dramatic increase of the number of people dying at borders. If you look at the data from the 1980s or 1990s, we’re talking about maybe a few hundred deaths per year at borders globally. It just wasn’t something that [widely] existed: civilians dying trying to cross a border. By the mid 2000s, that number was 1,500 to 2,000 people dying per year, and of course that number has gone up even more dramatically in the past few years. In 2015, there were more than 5,000 deaths at borders; in 2016, a staggering 7,500 people died or went missing trying to cross a border. That’s why I decided to write this book: to think about why are so many people dying at borders and what the connection is between borders and this violence that surrounds them.

Most of us know what some of that violence looks like: military guards at the border, or migrants killed or injured by negligent or abusive smugglers. But in the book, you refer to a much broader conception of what makes borders dangerous.
There are different types of border violence. There’s obviously direct violence carried out by border guards, where they kill people trying to pass through border spaces. We see that on the US-Mexico border: There have been something around[6] 35 or 36 people since 2010 killed at the US-Mexico border by the US Border Patrol. The Indian border security force is notorious for killing people at its edges: More than a thousand Bangladeshis have been killed by the India’s border security force in the past 15 years. That’s a very violent border with direct violence carried out by the border agents. But borders are also an example of structural violence, of using a system of laws and regulations that deprive other people of opportunities through the imposition of borders. The other ways borders are violent emerge from those structural factors. To me, the act of creating a border is inherently violent. If you draw a line and say, “What’s on this side of the line is mine and what’s over there is yours,” that relies on the threat of violence. If someone violates that and comes into the space that’s yours, eventually the only option is to use some sort of force to move them out. It relies on the implicit claim that violence will eventually be enacted to enforce that claim. Border guards are the most obvious iteration of that, but the whole legal system is based on the same sort of logic of implied violence.

The way that most people die crossing a border, however, is not at the hands of a border guard, but instead it’s because of all the infrastructure that has been built at borders. Because of the walls and the guards that are there, people are funneled to more dangerous places to cross. Instead of being able to cross from Tijuana to San Diego as many people in the 1950s and 1960s would have done, today those sections of the border are quite closed. So instead, people have been funneled to these much more remote places to cross the border. And indeed that’s the strategy of the border patrol: Their documents talk about making it harder to cross the border in order to deter people from crossing. I would read that to say, “We are going to kill some people who try to cross the border by making it really dangerous to cross, with the hope that will convince other people not to make this dangerous trip.” That’s why there are so many people dying today at borders; that’s why, in 2016, despite all of this focus on people on security and even humanitarian policing in the Mediterranean, there were nevertheless the most deaths ever last year.

When and why did the borders we all know begin to emerge in the first place?
We tend to think of borders as if they are these natural things that have always existed. But of course the idea of borders and the idea of having countries is a very recent phenomenon. It’s something that’s emerged really in just the past few hundred years, and in a lot of the world, the last 50 years or 75 years since World War II. It’s really a new and somewhat radical experiment for thinking about the relationship between people and land. The history of borders and maps are very closely tied to each other. It’s not by chance that the system of borders that we have today emerges as cartography advances the ability of people to depict the world at a very large scale, because then it becomes possible to draw lines on maps and to then use those lines to make claims of control over territory. There were, of course, in the distant past, edges to the control of different groups, but they weren’t depicted on maps, and they weren’t fixed lines in the way that we imagine them today. That system really comes into being in the late 1600s in Europe and is spread around the world through colonialism. As Europe colonizes the rest of the world they change the political systems there to match their system of borders, territory, and sovereignty. There are periods where that system starts to break down. That can be most obviously visualized with Germany in the 1930s. So after World War II, the idea of the United Nations is to create what is essentially a global clearinghouse to systematically establish the borders of all of the countries around the world. When a state joins the UN, they have to agree to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all the other member states: It essentially forces all countries to respect each other’s borders. After WWII and after the period of decolonization that followed through the 1970s, borders have been really quite fixed.

Primarily, a system of borders is a system for controlling resources, it’s a system for controlling people, and it’s particularly a system for excluding other people from access to those resources. It protects some sort of privileges that have accrued in a particular place whether that’s control of the resources, wealth, or a set of cultural or political practices in that place and it excludes other people from the ability to have access to it.

But some things can still move freely in this system. Labor is trapped, people are trapped, but money isn’t. What’s that got to do with the rise of populist types in the West like Trump?
The current system is what we term “globalization,” but globalization is really only for capital. I’s for consumer goods; it’s for the wealthy to be able to move freely around the world. Consumer goods and corporations very easily cross borders. As corporations are accessing lower wage labor in other places around the world to make quite expansive profits, there’s the need to contain labor, because if people have the opportunity to move to another place where there are higher wages, they would do that, and indeed millions of people are doing that right now. So border restrictions are about precisely that: containing labor and keeping people who would otherwise move to a place with higher wages in a poorer place in order to suppress wages there and to maintain that pool of low-wage, low-skill labor. It’s bad for workers on both ends of it: Workers in other places are trapped where they are, have no other option but to take a really low wage job with often really poor conditions. It’s bad for workers in the US and Europe as well because the jobs they used to have that had been protected by labor unions, had pensions, had healthcare, had relatively high wages those jobs have disappeared as manufacturing jobs have moved abroad. In some ways, Trump’s political moment is a reaction against this exact problem. My suggestion would be to open up movement for people and allow labor to move freely around the world, which would stabilize wages and would remove the incentives for companies to move jobs to other places. The huge advantages built in the current system for corporations would be undermined if labor could move freely. Of course, Trump’s solution is the opposite: It’s to contain both labor and capital. He’s trying to close borders to trade and put limits on the ability of corporations to move across borders. So it’s seeing the same problem but suggesting the exact opposite solution.

Watch our chat with a Vermont mayor trying to welcome refugees from Syria.

What does resistance to that border regime realistically look like? What are the roles for migrants and non-migrants?
I have a passport, and I travel, and in the process, I submit to this whole system that I’m critical of, and it’s definitely a bit of a conundrum. There are millions of people on the move right now who are contained by these rules of citizenship, by borders and walls and the security apparatus, but nevertheless are ignoring it and deciding to go ahead and move anyway, using their feet to protest the unjust system of immigration control that we have. So in a lot of ways they are the real activists who are questioning and raising concern about the system of using borders to protect privileges and perpetuate inequality.

There are, of course, a lot of other people doing things as well. There are organizations like No One is Illegal[7] that provide help for people without documents and assist with legal aid. There are “No Borders” activists who also do things to facilitate people on the move. There’s a number of apps for smartphones that help people with information on how to access safe passage. There’s the Watch the Med project[8] in the Mediterranean that’s a number that people can call if they’re in distress. There are people providing sanctuary for people who don’t have documents. All of these are steps to question the legitimacy of the current rules that we have limiting the movement of other people.

Do you see the mainstream consensus starting to be challenged at all, with a shift toward questioning borders? Is that one way to look at the uproar against Trump’s travel ban?
I was definitely heartened by the protests that rose up in response to Trump’s Muslim ban and wall plans. In some ways, it’s interesting to me that people are so riled up about this Muslim ban, for example, but they seem to be OK with all these other sorts of movement restrictions. What does this ban really do? It restricts the entrance of some elite people from these six or seven countries who were in the past able to get visas to come to the US. If you look at many of these countries, the rejection rates on visas to the US were already more than 50 percent. And the people who were even able to apply for those visas were [often] the elite. So the poor of these countries were already [effectively] banned from coming to the US. Still, it’s an issue that not that many people were talking about ten years ago. I think that the global discussion has really changed dramatically since 2006, when all of those senators voted[9] for that original wall on the border. And my guess is that if that vote were to be held again today that none of them would vote for it even in the more limited form that they thought they were voting for at the time. My hope is that now people have been awoken to the exclusion that happens at borders that they will start to question more of the restrictions that happen in these places. I think you see that happening. People are talking about the problems with borders. Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, said[10] last year that “borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.” It’s not like he’s some obscure guy saying that.

But given the reactionary sentiment around the world, the sort of retreat by some major Western democracies, aren’t borders as indelible as ever in human culture?
These systems are always changing. Two hundred years from now, the people who are alive at that time are not going to be living in the world of states we have today. It’s going to change. For me, it’s going to change upward. We’re going to have some sort of a system that can address a lot of these global issues that have emerged. The idea of these separate countries with absolute sovereignty over territory is an idea that’s waning at the moment. And there are certainly reactions against it waning and you see that with the nationalist fervor in a number of countries. But just because people are afraid of that change does not mean that change is not going to come.

This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Follow Stephen Lurie on Twitter[11].


  1. ^ arguments (
  2. ^ Donald Trump’s travel ban (
  3. ^ have traditionally been legally and customarily excluded from immigrating (
  4. ^ author of the recent book (
  5. ^ studying borders (
  6. ^ something around (
  7. ^ No One is Illegal (
  8. ^ Watch the Med project (
  9. ^ voted (
  10. ^ said (
  11. ^ Twitter (
1 2 3 120