LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


All Americans Should Despise #BlackLivesMatter

The Hypocritical Hashtag continues to ride police brutality lies toward an anarchy destination intended to diminish all in America. They taunt toward widespread armed conflict, and Americans will have to fight them – one way or another – to end the current tensions. No “diplomatic solutions” exist that would allow the republic to continue.

I’ll not revisit the 2013 “Trayvon Martin was murdered” discussion, which involved no police officers; an all-female jury in Florida exploded that myth, except to mention that, even though “protests” of the thuggish teen’s death went international, #BlackLivesMatter and their supporters took an “L” in that case.

Because the black lesbian-run organization cannot accomplish their objectives by exploiting disputes between regular citizens. They desire to weaken American governability and, therefore, require disputes that call American governance into question, no matter what a court might decide. Civilian disputes do not accomplish that; however, incidents involving police use of force do.

The next year, Eric Garner, a black veteran of 30 prior arrests by NYPD, chose to resist his 31st arrest, a foolish decision that cost him his life. Also in 2014, Michael Brown, a black strong arm felon in Ferguson, MO, who assaulted a cop in a separate incident and tried to take to take the officer’s gun; Brown was blown away for his trouble. With these deaths, #BlackLivesMatter had struck gold, and they championed both deceased criminals:

In 2015, #BlackLivesMatter:

In 2016 #BlackLivesMatter:

The pattern is readily discernible.

Interestingly, all this – and more – occurred on Obama’s watch; it was a recurring theme during his final term. One wonders where the nation would be now had Mrs. “Blacks are Super-Predators Who Must Be Brought To Heel” Clinton prevailed in 2016, whether she would have poured oil on troubled waters, or poured troubled water on existing grease fires?

Of course, we can never know that answer. More importantly, it likely doesn’t matter; #BlackLivesMatter’s pursuit of their agenda was not dependent upon who ascended to the U.S. Presidency in 2016.

#BlackLivesMatter wants to assassinate American governance by: attacking law enforcement’s legal and moral authority; championing the cause of sketchy blacks who die from interacting with law enforcement; needlessly destroying lives and property in reatlation for those deaths, and then leaving black fingerprints prominently displayed at their mayhem scenes.

This effectively reduces blacks to Lee Harvey Oswald-style patsy’s, seen as angry, weak, and useful idiots. And black who support the Hypocritical Hastag play the patsy role well:

  • Practicing victimology and affirming the false premise of police brutality,
  • Marching & destroying in support of dead blacks with whom they’d likely not share a meal were they alive, and
  • Denying black culpability for the state of relations between them and law enforcement

These same blacks appear even more the patsy as all learn their questionable cause, already hijacked by foreign globalists, has been taken over by young non-black socialists, desiring to end the West; as few as 1 in 6 #BlackLivesMatter protesters are actually black. Yet blacks will likely take the blame for any damage done to the country, as they seem unable or unwilling to distance themselves from either the name of the movement, even as city after city is impacted by the widening madness.

And, while the black patsy’s divert public scrutiny, the Hypocritical Hashtag gathers money from corporations and globalists to distribute to non-black progressives and socialists, especially those seeking (re-) election to public office.

And those officeholders are faithful to the Hypocritical Hashtag’s “Destroy America, Blame Blacks” objective, with Minneapolis’ City Council President referring to the desire to be secure in one’s home at night as a “privilege” to which taxpayers are not entitled. However, she neglected to tell CNN why it was appropriate for taxpayers to provide city councilmembers the privilege of private security while going without the “privilege” of public policing.

Meanwhile, the vanishing Minneapolis Police Department has issued guidance to citizens on how to be safe as robberies and carjackings increase in the city: obey the criminals. No mention of any police presence or that they will respond to calls for help. The logical short-term outcome: more dead and injured in that city as citizens fight crime on their own. And you can expect the same to occur in other Democrat-run municipalities, especially where left-leaning (POC) females have any governmental authority.

BlackLivesMatter efforts against American governance and American Law & Order should be hated, despised, and terminated – with extreme prejudice. They have one goal: to destroy America’s Constitutional Republic. If you continue to allow them to masquerade as “protesters”, instead of regarding them as domestic constitutional enemies, they could succeed.

With regard to blacks and others sympathetic to the Hypocritical Hashtag, Americans of all stripes will be forced to weigh concerns for their “issues” against the welfare of the nation. They may gain a new understanding of President Lincoln’s words to Horace Greeley. What follows is a paraphrase which may represent an American consensus:

I would save the Republic. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Republic will be “the Republic as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Republic, unless they could at the same time save #BlackLivesMatter, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Republic unless they could at the same time destroy #BlackLivesMatter, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Republic, and is not either to save or to destroy #BlackLivesMatter. If I could save the Republic without heeding any #BlackLivesMatter concerns I would do it, and if I could save it by hearing all #BlackLivesMatter issues I would do it; and if I could save it by hearing some and ignoring others I would also do that. What I do about #BlackLivesMatter, and their supporters, I do because I believe it helps to save the Republic; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Republic. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

As slavery was not the paramount issue in 1862, neither can #BlackLivesMatter’s version of police brutality be the paramount issue in 2020. The Hypocritical Hashtag is no less subversive and seditious today than slaving Confederates were in the 19th century. They should be similarly treated and despised because, now as then, only #TheRepublicMatters – other concerns are unimportant.

Protect the Consequences of Resisting Arrest from Calls for ‘Change’

Busting the current police brutality myth, which beget the accompanying #DefundThePolice insanity, hinges upon the answers to these question:

  • Is it a societal imperative to arrest those accused of violating the law, so that they might answer allegations made against them?
  • Do those who frustrate that imperative commit a separate offense that society allows is judicable “in the field” – rather than in a court of law – and which can be immediately punishable by death?

The answer to those questions help determine the allowable limits of police use of force, informs the definition of “brutality”, and helps to demonstrate the level of funding law enforcement requires to introduce suspects to the criminal justice process.

No matter the angle from which I consider the questions, my conclusion does not vary:

Any society, whose order and security depends on members respecting its body of laws, must consider it imperative that those who resist arrest – to answer for alleged violations of law – be subject to extrajudicial consequences, should they continue to resist, up to and including death.

Consequently, law enforcement agencies must have the authority, the resources, and the public support to subdue criminal suspects and bring to the legal process to determine their guilt or innocence, provided they are willing to be surrender or be subdued. If suspects will do neither, the case for them remaining alive in American society is not strong.

Before I go further, I cite the example of Ms. Parker and Mr. Barrow, a.k.a. Bonnie and Clyde. The Depression Era crime couple were so feared for their skills, and homicidal persistence, in resisting arrest, that law enforcement killed them via ambush in May 1934. They were not that period’s only notorious criminals who were so treated.

The point: it has been long established, even before Bonnie and Clyde died in a car riddled with more than 100 rounds of ammunition, that those who would not go willingly to be examined by and judged under the law could be killed by those who enforce the law.

Yes, I know how that sounds and, before you heat the tar by which you would affix feathers to me, I would have your answer to the following question: what alternative recourse does society have against those who will not submit to the process of an examination of criminal allegations against them?

And, more germane to current political environment, would be the question: is there any cause for which society should remove law enforcement’s authority – the duty, ability, or the means – to deliver any alleged violator to that examination process – alive or dead – in accordance with the alleged violator’s demonstrated preference?

Consider another example: Eric Garner of New York City, who died at age 43 as a direct result of resisting arrest. The 6′ 3″, 350-lb. diabetic with heart problems was fatally arrested on July 17, 2014.

On that day, Garner was suspected of selling untaxed cigarettes, often a Class A misdemeanor in New York. The police did not create this law; society did, via the legislative processes of New York State. Of course, elected officials are seldom present to prevent or address the (unintended) consequences of their edicts; some ignore those consequences altogether. Nevertheless, the police are bound, by oath, to uphold, rather than to debate, the law.

Once confronted, Garner had a societal obligation to submit to arrest, so his guilt could be determined. It was an obligation he tried to avoid before; Garner had been arrested 30 times before by NYPD, including for resisting arrest.

On July 17, 2014, Garner not only denied his obligation, he told officers, “This ends today!” Faced with such defiance by an alleged criminal, what options were available to society and its law enforcers? Should police have:

  • Tried arresting Garner at a later time, when he was in a better mood?
  • Dropped the matter, gone away, and left Garner be?

Before answering, understand that society has no ability to secure themselves against lawless individuals, absent the ability to physically compel participation in the process to evaluate alleged crimes, at a time of society’s choosing. Therefore, no option, allowing Garner to decide when or if he would respond to the allegations, is acceptable in a society of laws, for then Garner’s prerogatives – apart from the law – would matter more than the rights of society governed by the law.

So again, what were society’s options when faced with Eric Garner’s refusal to be arrested?

For those who say he should have received due process, no one who does not submit to the legal process is due anything from it. By definition, those who resist arrest choose to be outside of the legal process and its protections, and remain in that position until they change their mind – or have it changed – and submit. Garner never changed his mind, never surrendered (The phrase “I can’t breathe!” is not the same as “I surrender!” and, as painful and difficult as it may be, if a person can talk, then they can breathe). Garner was not robbed of due process under the law; he chose not to be under the law where due process resides.

And a third time, what were society’s options when faced with Eric Garner’s refusal to be arrested? They were two:

  1. Not enforce the law, or
  2. Bring whatever pressure was needed to overcome Garner’s resistance.

If a living Garner would not yield, then – tragically – he risked death. It was Garner’s choice: either be taken to a precinct and be processed for a misdemeanor offense, or have a physical battle with police that he would not be allowed to win. To this day, his choice seems unreasonable to me, especially in light of the fact he was married with a family.

Let’s switch gears and consider the contrasting and less recent example of Eric Robert Rudolph, the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park, and abortion clinic, bomber who was apprehended in May of 2003. His alleged crimes included murders, more heinous transgressions than Garner’s, and his 7 years on the run showed him no more interested in answering for them than was Garner.

So why is Eric Rudolph serving a life sentence behind bars, while Eric Garner serves an eternal one beneath a headstone? While the thoughtless will cite differences in their race; two other differences are more explanatory:

  1. Garner confronted the cops who came for him; Roberts evaded capture for 7 years, and
  2. Garner violently resisted his arrest; Roberts was taken into custody without incident.

The same is true of Dylann Roof, who shot and killed 9 blacks in a South Carolina church on June 17, 2015. After fleeing the state, ostensibly to evade capture, he was arrested without incident the next day in North Carolina.

All three men – Garner, Rudolph, and Roof – were apprehended by police. The two who accepted their societal obligation to submit to arrest, then to be charged and examined, are alive today and answering for murder; the one who refused that same societal obligation is dead, because he would not answer for selling untaxed cigarettes.

Truth is, the moment of arrest creates the possibility of another crime – resisting arrest – separate from violations of which one is already suspected, more important for society to prevent or stop at any cost. Because a society who cannot, when necessary, compel members to join a process of legal examination can enforce no law and, of necessity, becomes a society of men. Therefore, resisting arrest threatens societal order and security in ways no other crime can.

To blunt that threat, it becomes imperative that societies value the ability to compel their members to join their legal processes more than they value the lives of members who refuse to join those processes.

This is why the current lies about police brutality are so dangerous: they degrade confidence in, and the morale of, law enforcement and increase the likelihood that those who commit crimes will avoid a process where they might be evaluated and judged in accordance with law:

In all 3 cities, #BlackLivesMatter was active, ensuring that everyone who resisted arrest was seen as a victim of police rather than an enemy of society.

It is also why #DefundThePolice will fail American society. Taking from police departments will only embolden criminals who see police lacking the numbers, resources, and subsequently the will to respond to lawlessness, and cities sending unarmed employees to address “nonviolent” issues. This will ensure more resist arrest opportunities as police officers will now rescue alternate “first responders” who before would not be on scene until after police had controlled the situation.

Lies regarding police brutality, and efforts to remove police funding, are calculated to lessen the likelihood that alleged criminals are arrested and brought to the legal process. They demoralize police and attack bonds of trust and empathy between police departments and their communities, by promoting the unlawful prerogatives of suspects over the lawful rights of society. This leads to communities with heightened criminality made even less safe through reduced police activity and resources.

The (“protesters’”) intended outcome? A more anarchical society – lawless and ungovernable – which cannot continue either as a collection of democracies or, more importantly, as a constitutional republic. This, and nothing short of this, is the “change” that is sought.

American law and order should have the UNQUALIFIED support of the American people. American law enforcement should have the QUALIFIED support of the American people, something they have long enjoyed. While no one believes the police are perfect or that they should have a free hand, they are American in their allegiances and, regarding pursuit of what benefits the American people, far more trustworthy – and worthy of funding – than #BlackLivesMatter.

Recent erosions of that qualified support should be repaired, and further attempts to erode it actively resisted, for it is more vital to the nation than preserving the life of anyone who’d rather not be “inconvenienced” by the process of answering allegations that they violated American law.

Brownian Black Movement

In 1827, Scottish botanist Robert Brown, looking through a microscope at pollen grains suspended in water, observed small particles that moved about irregularly, similar to the red dots in the “water” of blue dots below:

Translational_motion

The phenomenon Brown observed bears his name: “Brownian Movement” – the random motion of particles suspended in a fluid. The particles neither move on their own, nor move with any purpose. Instead, they get knocked around by the fluid.

Brownian Movement seems to describe many American blacks: particles suspended in the fluid of American culture and current events. Blacks neither create the events nor control the impacts. Instead, they get knocked around by them, often according to someone else’s agenda. For example:

The Rise of Barack Hussein Obama

Barack Obama’s historic election elated blacks. From the 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address that brought him national prominence, to his improbable triumph over Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democrat Party Presidential Nomination, blacks supported Obama, so strongly that he could take their vote for granted, in the primaries and in the general election.

But where were the blacks directing the Obama “event”? They were generally not part of Obama’s inner circle, in either his first or second administration. Instead of embracing the black church, Obama distanced himself from his black pastor of more than 2 decades – a controversial man who performed his wedding and baptized his children – before securing the 2008 nomination. Some questioned his black “bona fides”.

Unsurprisingly, white acceptance led to Obama’s success. During the 2008 campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) “praised” Obama as “a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.'” Joe Biden (D-DE), who also sought the Democrat nomination, called Obama “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Of the nearly 69.5 million votes Obama received in the General Election:

    • Less than 22% came from blacks,
    • Less than 10% came from hispanics, and
    • Less than 3% came from asians….

…and more than 60% came from whites. By providing fewer than one of every four Obama votes, blacks resembled the girl who could not keep her grandmother’s fried chicken “secret”:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7j3sUWohE[/youtube]

Only this time, “Shake N Bake” was, “Who elected Obama?” The black voter response: “Those white folks…and I helped”.

Six years, and one re-election, later, blacks: have lost economic ground, absolutely, and relative to whites; feel less empowered; saw latino and homosexual concerns receive higher priority than theirs; became America’s most racist group; and felt disrespect from the president.

Blacks did not create Obama; he was thrust upon them…and knocked them around.

The Trayvon Martin Shooting

Trayvon Martin’s death, on February 26, 2012, sparked outrage over a white man shooting and killing an unarmed black teenager.

But Martin’s killer is not white. That small detail did not prevent Trayvon-inspired “revenge attacks” on whites, both before and after the trial; the “popular” narrative was impervious to fact.

Sympathy for Sybrina Fulton, Martin’s biological mother, was sincere, and nationwide, even though Trayvon did not live with her when he died. Alicia Stanley,Trayvon’s stepmother, actually raised him…from the age of 3. Blacks generally ignored this (step-) mother’s pain – Stanley was displaced at Martin’s funeral and at Zimmerman’s trial. Sybrina Fulton’s exploitation of the son she did not raise, copyrighting protest slogans, less than a month after his death, also seemed to go unnoticed.

However, Fulton’s opposition to “Stand Your Ground” laws, in Florida and in Washington, D.C., did draw attention…even though police found “Stand Your Ground” irrelevant to her son’s case, and even though “Stand Your Ground” was not part of Zimmerman’s defense.

That legal experts called Zimmerman’s arrest affidavit “irresponsible and unethical”, and considered Zimmerman “overcharged”, angered more blacks than it informed. News that a grand jury indicted the prosecutor who charged Zimmerman for falsifying his arrest warrant made more blacks question the system than question the prosecution’s case.

Somehow, Sharpton’s rhetoric, NBC’s editing “errors”, and a non-threatening image of Trayvon Martin, which differed from the unarmed teen Zimmerman met:

young trayvonthreatening trayvon

masked these inconsistencies, and blacks got knocked around by a false narrative which put them at odds with the facts, the legal system…and other Americans.

Donald Sterling’ Clippers

Audiotape of Donald Sterling’s private conversation with a mistress became public on April 25, 2014; the fallout came quickly.

The next day, current and former NBA players offered their opinions, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver called the recording “offensive and disturbing”, other NBA owners weighed in, and Clippers’ players protested…before losing their playoff game.

The following day, a second recording surfaced, and president Obama commented. By April 28th, just 3 days after the first tape leaked, sponsors severed ties with the Clippers.

Then, Commissioner Silver dropped the hammer, on April 29th:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHCgmVikntw[/youtube]

banning Sterling, for life, from the NBA. After more drama, Sterling’s estranged wife sold the Clippers, on May 30, 2014.

And so, the word went forth: major sports franchise owners cannot make racist remarks….even if in private…

Even if their bigotry is common knowledge since last century

Even if they pay 7- and 8-figure annual salaries to black men who play and coach a game…

Even if they are generous philanthropists, with multiple NAACP Lifetime Achievement Awards

Apparently, what a man does, publicly, to benefit blacks is less important than what he says, privately.

Blacks did not create the Sterling tapes; they simply bought into the politically correct doctrine that only those with “approved thinking” can supply entertainment in the U.S., and that violating someone’s privacy, or even the law, to enforce that doctrine is acceptable. The NBA needed “cover” for its income-stream-preserving exorcism of Donald Sterling, something it has wanted for 3 decades, and blacks unwittingly obliged…gaining nothing in return, apart from sound bites.

NFL Domestic Violence

NFL players behave better than those they entertain yet, from media reports, one might believe the league is full of wife-beaters and child abusers.

Ray Rice’s one-hitter-quitter episode with then-fiancee, now wife, not only cost the running back his job, it also threatened Roger Goodell’s tenure as NFL Commissioner. The ensuing desire for “justice” was so strong that other things apparently did not matter.

It didn’t matter that Mrs. Rice did not want her husband on trial (after all, it was their private altercation, not a prize-fight). Instead of praise for acknowledging her role in the incident, or standing by her husband, some labeled her a gold digger.

It didn’t matter that New Jersey dropped charges against Rice, or that a female arbitrator overturned his suspension from the NFL.

All that mattered, to many, was calling the NFL soft on domestic violence…and blacks boarded the bandwagon.

Adrian Peterson’s child abuse case, took political correctness to a different level. Not because it involved a child, not because it damaged Peterson’s Father of the Year candidacy, but because of reactions like this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_w9aeTeKY4[/youtube]

Cris Carter’s rant, against his mother’s child-rearing and values, garnered wide praise. Yet, watching successful black men question the judgment of those who raised them, and the biblical values that sustained blacks in America for centuries and through difficult times, is disturbing.

Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are now events by which the politically correct knock around what remains of traditional black family connections and cultural values, at a time when blacks desperately need both.

Bill Cosby “Sexcapades”

If Cosby’s troubles were about exposing a powerful man’s past sexual misdeeds, either to validate victimized women or to “educate” the public about his character, then another “Bill”, Mr. Clinton, would answer for sexual allegations, dating back to 1969 (plus a recent lawsuit involving sex with minors); especially since:

    ● Many Cosby “accusers” waited decades to speak out, with no independent verification; Clinton victims reported incidents when they occurred, often with 3rd party attestation,
    ● Cosby “accusers” claim he drugged them, without bodily harm; Clinton victims often reported physical abuse, and
    ● Clinton wielded more power, as a governor and president, than Cosby ever could as a comedian.

The lack of timely reporting or corroboration make proving the allegations against Cosby improbable, even if they are true. Consequently, the anti-Cosby argument is not, “Look at all the evidence against him,” but rather, “All those women cannot be lying!”

Brian Banks, who lost a football scholarship and 5 years of his life, might disagree. So might members of the Duke Lacrosse team, whose accuser now serves time for murder. Indeed, false rape allegations are not uncommon, and the women who make them rarely face negative consequences. Cosby’s accusers will likely speak with impunity.

And many blacks are hearing their message, meaning Cosby’s message, critical of failed black behavior:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gh3_e3mDQ8[/youtube]

…is heard, and regarded, less.

Blacks did not create the Cosby rape allegation “event”…but it knocks them around, so that many no longer receive a needed word, for the messenger has been (falsely) tarnished.

Michael Brown, Eric Garner Demonstrations

Michael Brown was an unarmed black teenager whom a cop shot and killed. Some remember Brown as a “good kid”, college bound with a bright future.

Apparently, they did not know the Michael Brown who had gang affiliations, who had an arrest record, who committed strong-armed robbery the day he died, or who assaulted a cop, tried to take his gun, and then made a run at him.

Those who entertained the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” story accepted a false Michael Brown narrative. Though disproved, it fueled riots and looting that still scar Ferguson, and many still cling to it.

Eric Garner, who died when NYPD used a choke hold while arresting him, is a more sympathetic figure than either Michael Brown or even Trayvon Martin. Instead of attacking police officers, Garner asked them to leave him alone; instead of fighting a man with a gun, Garner broke up a fight. Instead of a violent man, the video of his last moments show a man in distress.

What the video does not show is Garner’s history with NYPD of 30 arrests, or that he was out on bail, on multiple charges, when he died.

There was no reason for Garner to die that day, the police are at fault for his death. However, how does Garner, a veteran of 30 prior NYPD arrests, not know how to avoid a police takedown…especially when other men face arrest and stay unharmed, despite extreme emotional upset:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHm7Tujca4[/youtube]

Yet, people “demonstrate” throughout New York, chanting, “I can’t breathe” and other sayings. They also take their message to restaurants, as though white diners either caused or support the lack of a grand jury indictment in Garner’s death.

Which leaves blacks knocked around by protesters who “peacefully” advocate violence, deteriorating relations between the mayor and police force of a leading American city, and calls for “change” that will neither happen nor help.

The Obama event marginalizes blacks politically and maintains their issues at a low national priority; The Martin event showed blacks as more emotional than factual; The Sterling event showed blacks as willing to harm those who’d done them more good than harm; the NFL Domestic Violence event saw black men attacking traditional black values; the Cosby event punishes black men who unabashedly speak to traditional black values; and the Brown and Garner events work to remove black confidence in police and in the justice system.

Blacks created none of these events, yet they buffet the black community, affecting their political, economic, social, and cultural standing. Currently, it is hard to identify a true black voice or direction, one more attentive to what blacks value more than to what excites them. And the events that knock them around make constructive voices and directions harder to identify. However, until blacks, as they did before, find those voices and directions, and navigate American culture and events, instead of getting knocked around by them, they will continue to resemble the red dots you see here…

Translational_motion

Ferguson, MO: Cue the Doobie Brothers for Too Many Blacks

There are two primary lies about events in Ferguson, MO, since August 9, 2014:

    1. That Michael Brown’s death was an injustice, part of the increase in police brutality in the U.S., and

    2. That the protests which have followed have anything to do with a search for justice.

To gain clarity regarding the first primary lie, it is useful to summarize events related to Brown’s death.

Sometime before 11:51AM on August 9th, surveillance cameras captured the following footage of a strong-arm robbery at a Ferguson, MO, convenience store:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHxXGvXQrno[/youtube]

Strong-Arm Robbery is 2nd Degree Robbery, and a felony, in the state of Missouri. Another man in the video, Dorian Johnson, confirmed, through his attorney, that he was present with Brown when the incident occurred, while attorneys for Brown’s family left-handedly acknowledged the incident while calling the video an irrelevant sideshow.

Officer Darren Wilson did not know of Brown’s robbery, nor was that why he happened upon Brown; however, the video, and the attorney admissions, demonstrate Michael Brown committed at least one felony on the day he died.

Brown family attorneys also acknowledged an altercation between Brown and Officer Wilson before the shooting.

That altercation involved Michael Brown assaulting Officer Wilson and seeking to gain control of the officer’s weapon. That is either first- or second-degree assault in Missouri; both of which are felonies. Trying to take Wilson’s gun put deadly force on the table as an appropriate response, at Officer Wilson’s discretion.

So, Brown committed two felonies before Wilson shot him; the second made his death a defensible outcome, not an injustice. Therefore, characterizing Michael Brown’s death as police brutality mocks legitimate instances of excessive force by law enforcement against blacks….which we are told is out of control

However, on that matter, a review of Justice Department data on police contact with, and police violence against, citizens shows:

    • Police contacts with the public declined, more than 11%, from 2002 to 2008 (pg. 2, Table 1),
    • Whites had at least 7 times more face-to-face police contacts than blacks; hispanics also had more contacts than blacks (pg. 5, Table 6), and
    • More than twice as many whites either endured, or were threatened with, police force as blacks (pg. 12, Table 18).

Additionally, the incomplete data that indicates police kill 96 blacks annually also shows that number to be less than 1/4 of those killed by police. Does that correlate to police hunting blacks? Compared to the more than 2,400 blacks killed by blacks annually, the number who die at the hands of police definitely appears a lesser problem.

Which differs from saying it is no problem: consider the case of Eric Garner, killed by an illegal NYPD chokehold:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo[/youtube]

There are no meaningful similarities between the Brown and Garner cases?

    • Michael Brown committed crimes the day he died; Eric Garner did not,
    • Police encountered Brown because he blocked traffic; police encountered Garner because he broke up a fight,
    • Brown had a criminal juvenile record; Garner had police run-ins over untaxed cigarette sales,
    • Brown assaulted a cop; several cops assaulted Garner, and
    • Brown died in the role of attacker: Garner died, futilely telling his attackers he could not breathe.

Further, while it took 108 days and 3 autopsies to get a straight story on Brown’s death, it took only 7 days to rule Garner’s death a homicide, directly attributable to police. And while a St. Louis County grand jury has already decided in the complex and emotionally-charged Brown case, a New York City grand jury has yet to decide on charges in a case where the crime is on tape, and the medical examiner has ruled.

So, where was the demand for that officer’s arrest? For releasing his identity and address? Why the days of racial outrage and riots for a guy who attacked a cop, but only a leisurely stroll for a guy whom cops attacked?

There was no injustice in the case of Michael Brown; rather a lack of acceptance of a grand jury determination. In the case of Eric Garner, there is neither justice nor much of a reaction.

Unless blacks cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, the unequal response to cases that occur at roughly the same time is odd, especially when the more clear-cut excessive force case gets a relative ho-hum response…and especially when the numbers do not support that there is a massive rise in the number of blacks killed by police, but decrease in the number of face-to-face contacts instead.

Regarding the second lie…why are so many arrested protesters not even from Ferguson, MO, whether back in August, or more recently in November?

If the idea of the protests is to better things for blacks in Ferguson, then why did protesters ignore Natalie DuBose’s, “Just don’t burn my shop down, don’t destroy it,” pleas, regarding the storefront that was her sole income source? Did putting her out of business “set things right with Mike”? Or were they psychic, knowing that their destruction would result in more than $200,000 in donations to offset her losses?

Are they expecting something similar for the dozens of other businesses destroyed after the grand jury made its determination? Or for the dozen or more that were looted the day after Brown died? Somehow, it is doubtful that the “out-of-towners”, responsible for most of the damage in Ferguson, are really concerned about what is left.

The only ones likely to get any “justice” from this debacle will be the same ones who benefited after a similar incident – the decedent’s parents. When Sybrina Fulton copyrighted t-shirt slogans, regarding her slain son, Trayvon Martin, less than a month after his death attorney Benjamin Crump was already on the case. When Lesley McSpadden, Michael Brown’s mother, confronted Brown’s paternal grandmother, over the sale of t-shirts, and a comment over whether McSpadden had a copyright on her son’s name precipitated a violent attack, Benjamin Crump was on that case as well.

All other blacks are to accept that:

    • Only sympathy for parents of dead blacks is justice,
    • Destroying your community shows you care for it,
    • Cops, who kill 1 black person for every 25 blacks kill, are the ones hunting young black men.

Of course, the problem is not that these outlandish things are said to black people; the problem is the number of blacks willing to accept them as true…

Somebody cue the Doobie Brothers…
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJe1iUuAW4M[/youtube]

page 1 of 1

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Welcome , today is Tuesday, March 19, 2024