• For Whom the Bell Tolls: American Law Enforcement

    President can’t un-ring a bell

    Seems that President Obama has been busy trying to un-ring a bell he’s been ringing with enthusiasm since his first day in office. However, he’s finding out that you can’t un-ring a bell—even a political bell. The bell I’m talking about is the one chiming a condemnation of American law enforcement. The clamor began early in his presidency when he divined without any investigation that the Cambridge police officers investigating a burglary acted “stupidly.” Other examples of his apparent dislike of the police are myriad and well known.

     

    The “Hands up, don’t shoot,” myth

    President Obama knows that the Ferguson trope, “hands up, don’t shoot,” never happened. He knows because his own Department of Justice (DOJ) under his fellow cop-hater, former Attorney General Eric Holder, told him it never happened—following an overwhelmingly thorough investigation.

     

    President Obama fails to set the record straight

    So, anyone think it might have been helpful in quelling the social animus against the police, which is bolstered by such myths, if he’d personally announced that “hands up, don’t shoot” was a lie? Instead, Obama has tacitly supported the lie, first, by failing to denounce it, and second, by inviting the group primarily responsible for spreading this myth, Black Lives Matter, to the White House.

     

    Bestowing presidential legitimacy

    Our president has bestowed a vicarious legitimacy on cop-haters, including those who have chosen to act out violently. The president doesn’t even have to be overt; his lack of support for the police is obvious from his past actions and comments: He said, if he’d had a son, he’d have looked like Treyvon (Martin), anti-police, race activist Al Sharpton has repeatedly visited Obama at the White House, Obama restored relations with communist Cuba without an agreement to take custody of a cop-killer who’s enjoyed sanctuary in Cuba for decades, and he nominated to head the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ an attorney a man who voluntarily took the case of a notorious cop-killer. Most recently, the president spoke negatively about American cops while on a visit to Poland.

     

    According to Obama, a rainbow doesn’t include a blue hue

    There are so many other examples of his animosity toward police officers. However, one of the most poignant anti-police displays, after having bathed the White House in rainbow colors following the Supreme Court decision establishing recognition of gay marriage, was his recent refusal to light the White House in blue, following the massacre of five Dallas police officers. I’m not saying the rainbow display should not have occurred, but what could possibly be the president’s resistance to such a “uniting” gesture between cops and their communities?

  • The Right Should Stop Getting Suckered by the Left on Police Issues

    The right falls for it every time.

    There is another insidious, political tactic the left employs, and too many on the right fall for it. The left perpetuates myths such as the Michael Brown “hands up, don’t shoot” fairytale and perpetrate frauds such as the federal consent decrees the DOJ has slapped on more than twenty of the nation’s major police departments including Seattle in a move to quasi-federalize American law enforcement. It was the perennial cop-critic Attorney General Eric Holder’s DOJ (through FBI investigators) that found that Brown never put his hands up in surrender and plead for Officer Wilson not to shoot him. A Seattle University professor proved the data used by the DOJ to extort Seattle into its consent decree was bogus. Regardless of these circumstances, many on the right often concede “a significant problem with the practice of racial bias in the criminal justice system, particularly by police officers, generally, exists.” Why do we do this? Because most people don’t understand police work because the cops’ leaders, largely, suck at teaching society what it does and how and why.

     

    White cops hunting black men? Black Harvard professor says, “No.”

    Does it bother anyone when the left asserts that police officers are racist and are “hunting down black men in the streets” when the statistics don’t even approach supporting it? In fact, no one was more surprised than the black, Harvard professor who conducted a newly-released study, which delved into whether or not police officers were killing black men at an inordinate rate. According to the study by Professor Roland Fryer, “Black suspects are actually less likely to be shot than other suspects.” Fryer and his students spent 3,000 hours studying ten major U.S. police departments before arriving at their conclusions.

     

    Why does the left eschew perspective and context?

    Does it bother anyone when President Obama and others cite the discrepancy in the rate at which black suspects are shot by police versus white suspect, but they fail to put this statistic into proper context by simultaneously citing the massively lopsided murder rates for black men compared to white and Hispanic men?  Heather MacDonald, in her new book The War on Cops, points out that ProPublica published the results of a study that found, “young black males are 21 times more likely to be shot dead by police than are young white males.” However, MacDonald also points out how misleading this statistic is when not put into the proper perspective—as Paul Harvey might have told us, “…the rest of the story.” MacDonald writes, “…young black men commit homicide at nearly ten times the rate of young white and Hispanic males combined.” Is it any wonder these young men will have lethal contact with police at a disproportionate rate? Why won’t the president put this issue into proper context by supplying both sides of a statistical equation? Could it be that he is more beholding to party and social justice politics than he is to being the president of all Americans?

     

    The left excels at perpetuating myth and fraud.

    Regardless of the existence of perception-correcting, contextual data, the myths and frauds continue because the left is deft at corralling the right into accepting a portion of their false premises. The right stipulates to 10% of the left’s argument, thus tacitly quasi-validating the remaining 90%. I just heard one of my favorite radio hosts, Michael Medved, concede that the Minnesota shooting of Philando Castile was “questionable,” and Castile shouldn’t have been shot. The suspect, Castile, is a known criminal with a long record, had reportedly already threatened another person with his gun, which precipitated the 911call, refused to comply with the officers’ instructions, and reportedly still had the gun in his pocket. Michael questioned whether or not the officers were in imminent danger. Well, after over two decades on the streets, I can tell the good talk show host that the danger doesn’t get much more imminent than a suspect armed with a gun. It seems that if Castile had his way, Minnesota would be joining Texas in mourning dead cops.

     

    Stop getting suckered in by the left.

    Let’s not get suckered into conceding ground that is ours and on which we should stand firm. While all cops and police departments can always improve, this does not automatically mean that the police, generally, are doing anything wrong. Just because the left doesn’t like the way law enforcement is conducted does not automatically make it bad. Of course, cop-haters don’t like the way law enforcement is done. Even some good citizens don’t like police work when they’re on the violating end of it. When discussing use-of-force policies, I’ve had cop-critics who know me say, “well, you’re not like them (other cops who use force).” I tell them that I’m exactly like the vast majority of cops who used force sparingly but aggressively enough to achieve my law enforcement and officer/public safety goals—before someone shoots me.   

     

  • Not Anti-Police Brutality, Just Anti-Police

    Not divided? According to who???

    My iPhone just tingled, alerting me that President Barack Obama just made the statement the United States is “…not as divided as some have suggested.” I suppose he has to say this following his apparent indictment of police officers involved in the recent shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota. It strikes me that before preliminary investigations are conducted, never mind the comprehensive ones necessary to arrive at legitimate conclusions, America’s president and attorney general, along with several other well-known politicians and political activists, have summarily condemned the officers as “racist murderers.” They don’t even treat radical Islamic terrorists in this manner.

    Psychic Governor!

    Minnesota’s governor, Mark Dayton (D) made the clairvoyant pronouncement that if the driver had been white, the officer would not have shot him. No wonder the people of Minnesota elected him, possessed of such awe-inspiring psychic powers.

    There is a difference!

    President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch can’t seem to mention the Dallas police officers and civilians killed and wounded without mentioning (seemingly on equal footing) the two men who were recently killed by cops during law enforcement incidents. Anyone think this is not divisive for traditional Americans who generally, and rightly, trust the police and give them the benefit of the doubt they deserve? It brings up another point in the elevating of the black men shot by police to automatic “hero-victim” status. Anti-police critics tend to talk about the statistics of suspects shot versus police officers shot as if they’re supposed to be equal as if it’s not “fair” that more suspects are killed than cops.

    I don’t know what happened and neither do you.

    Now, the Minnesota shooting is not clear as to what negative behavior, if any, led up to the officer shooting the driver. The shooting of Philando Castile may be as heinous as critics say, or there may be other factors not yet known. The Facebook video taken by his girlfriend shows only the aftermath and nothing that led up to the shooting. I don’t know what happened and neither do you. However, it’s pretty clear from the video of the Baton Rouge incident that Alton Sterling was resisting the police officers. Whether or not the shooting was justified, I don’t know what happened and neither do you. It’s also clear from so many of these “controversial” police shootings that the majority of the people shot were involved in suspected law breaking at the time. Even Walter L. Scott, the South Carolina man who a police officer inexplicably shot in the back, had violated a traffic law and then committed a felony when he ran from the police officer. I don’t know what the officer, who’s been charged with murder, was thinking. Scott was clearly a victim. However, is it right for the left to elevate him to the rank of some sort of hero as if he’d been shot while leading a civil rights protest?   

    Myth: Hands up, don’t shoot.

    What is it about these anti-cop groups, continually ranting about their constitutional rights, who then fail to allow for police officers  the same fundamental constitutional right to the presumption of innocence all other Americans have? They want to be judge, jury, and executioner. They see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, and if evidence is discovered that doesn’t fit their narrative or prove their conclusions, they simply dismiss or ignore it. The “hands up, don’t shoot” myth is a perfect example.

    A legal lynching?

    As a result of these two shootings, we hear supposedly responsible people saying irresponsible things: Reverend Jesse Jackson called the Alton Sterling shooting, “a legal lynching.” What does he know that I don’t? Lynching is a historically powerful word, especially to black folks, and with good reason. However, it seems that Rev. Jackson’s employing it so irresponsibly and frivolously doesn’t do history, race relations, or intellectual honesty any service.

    Obama: Race relations worse.

    I’ve written before that the one thing I expected from President Obama’s election would be, at least, an acknowledgment of America’s admirable work toward redemption from its dreadfully racist past. However, this is obviously not the case. Race relations have gotten worse under Obama despite the president’s previously stated view that America is not as divided as some people suggest. A vague statement to be sure, but where is the evidence for that view?

    The knee-jerk president.

    President Obama is an intentionally divisive political figure. He actively works to divide people. His continual slams against Republicans and conservatives, and his signature legislation are good examples. Obamacare was passed solely by Democrats and is loathed by Republicans—as well as most Americans. He is a one-term senator, community agitator elevated by a historical, harmonic convergence of circumstances to the highest office in the land. His knee has repeatedly jerked, as he made statement after statement, many later proved wrong, that worked to divide Americans. Anyone remember how “stupidly” the Cambridge police acted while investigating a possible burglary at a black professor’s house or his sending administration officials to attend assault and robbery suspect Michael Brown’s funeral?

    Why racist if a black liberal president?

    Recently CNN did a report on the state of race in America. The story’s main gist came from a statement made by First Lady Michelle Obama: “I didn’t know how racist America was until it elected its first black president.” To arrive at this conclusion, the story pointed to incidents where Republicans had publicly chided the president, such as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s finger-wagging at Obama on an airport tarmac and South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson’s blurting “You lie!” during a state-of-the-union address. Of course, we all know how respectfully Democrats treated President Bush.

    Why not racist if  black conservative president?

    Let me ask you this: The Democrats deem some Republican politicians racist because they dared to challenge a politically divisive president who happens to belong to the primary opposing political party, right? Well, then, how many of you think Republicans would have been “racist” if America had elected a black conservative president?