Here are some thoughts on the statement by former federal special counsel Robert Mueller today.
So nothing changes with Mueller statement today, but here are things to bear in mind.
It bears repeating that Barr testified he asked Mueller three times if the DOJ policy on not indicting a sitting president had anything to do with his failure, and I mean failure, to decide if there was an indictable offense on Trump. Mueller assured him that it did not. He had one job and couldn’t pull the trigger, so, when given the chance Mueller lateraled to Barr.
Mueller’s statement, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so” turns the Constitution on its ear. Prosecutors don’t “clear” anyone of anything. They either indict or decline to indict.
That Mueller said this certainly clarifies one thing: He wants to smear Trump and by extension the rule of law. You’re presumed innocent until proven guilty. You’re not guilty until the sanctimonious ‘state special counsel’ ‘clears’ you. It’s outrageous that he made this statement at this time to stir up the emotions and the tempest in the House.
“Personnel is policy,” as smart people, including Donald Rumsfeld, have said before. To that end, these “fair and independent” people Mueller hired shared his distaste with Trump. Andrew Weissmann, the disgraced former federal prosecutor, was the guy who did the hiring. Weissmann was last seen at Hillary’s election HQ election night weeping. As we found out recently from documents obtained by Judicial Watch, Weissman was the hiring manager for the Mueller team. He hired people with whom he was simpatico which explains why most, if not all, the lawyers working on the Trump investigation were Hillary Clinton partisans who had given thousands to her campaign. Mueller’s statement today clarified that he was right there with them. It’s why the ridiculously conflicted Andy McCabe made sure that Mueller got the job before he was fired for lying.
I cannot WAIT for the results of the latest Inspector General report, and the two other investigations (that we know of) going on to find the derivation of this “witch hunt.”
Trump’s an affront to official Washington. It’s why he won. Get over it.
There has always been closely guarded and understandable resistance on the part of law enforcement to opening our profession to the public eye. It’s been a long standing tenet that what we do in public should be held close to the profession. The thought is that what the public wants to know should be filtered through a ìneed to know” screen.
We used to believe that law enforcement was only really understood by us cops. We believed we were the final arbiters and interpreters of events, especially those of great public interest or controversy.
That public policy is still the modus operandi. Unfortunately, it’s a presumption that prosecutors and the courts–the other major components of the criminal justice system– share and support. It’s outdated.
There was a time when the criminal justice system called the shots from crime to conviction–the where and when the flow of information to the public was controlled and calculated. The story was told and interpreted through the words and action of a system with a vested interest in protecting an image, and in fairness a concern for public servants. That doesn’t mean there was an unjust intent. It’s
just the way it was.
But now, the playing field, the equipment and the rules have all changed. The only thing that hasn’t changed is the police’s badly out-positioned playbook. And it’s the
police and their relationships in individual communities which now finds the profession mired in a lack public confidence and trust.
Social Media Fallout
The unrelenting onslaught of the use of social media and a profession poorly-prepared to deal with its result will continue to erode both confidence and trust in the cops.
Now, the story of the street isn’t told first by those who are quick on the draw with guns, but with the adept use of online audio and video. The story may or may not give an accurate picture as events unfold, but without argument, that becomes the ‘truth’ until it’s undone later by the facts of the event. In the meantime, and in real time, the damage is done and the ‘truth’ as told in the moment is embedded in the public eye and public consciousness. It’s not fair. Rarely is.
Police administrations across this country and political ‘leadership’ get blamed for the imagined offenses.
The criminal justice system is then ordered to ‘fix it.’
It’s time for the street cops to get back their reputations. To do that, they should just let the cameras roll. Real time. Real story. Let ’em go.
Police body cameras are only a half a decade from becoming a legislated mandate in many states in the country. It’s futile for police to believe that the outcry
for that technology as a tool in their everyday lives will somehow be a passing fad. Flatly, that will not happen.
The ubiquitous nature of street cop cams will eventually result in judges requiring them for evidence.
Excuses like bad batteries and poor lighting and ìI forgot to turn it onî will either become cause for unfavorable jury instructions, or prosecutors will be told by courts to dismiss the case for the lack of best evidence.
Go Live 24-7
But that is not enough. It’s time for a police departments with enlightened management, and a high degree of faith in the accountability of their supervisory structure, to take body cameras live and unedited to the street.
From roll call to end-of-shift letís go live everyday. Every moment. Every stop. Every call for help. Letís go tell our story in real time, streaming information to the public who wants us to be right and to support us.
Thatís right, a reality show like none other. It’s what the public pays for and it is what they admire about what we do. It’s also what they criticize but still support.
And here’s why. Prosecutors, defense counsel and courts would be in hysterics over such a proposal.
The idea that the cops would move to a live streaming relationship with the community as they deal with matters yet to be adjudicated and without the ìguiding touchî of the rest of the system is, well, to say the least, heresy.
It removes the blindfold from the figure holding the scales of justice and how can that possibly work?
But riddle me this. When the streets are burning in North Carolina,or Baton Rouge or Baltimore and the cops are taking incoming spit,rocks and bottles. When they’re being cursed in New York or assassinated in Dallas… where is the rest of the criminal justice system to support their image and protecting their lives and careers?
This will be a painful move for the police. In moving forward this way by informing the public in real time, there will be some individual casualties. What makes it worth the switch is that the public will learn truthful and timely information about the true value of quality policing.
And, can you imagine getting to watch on YouTube,Twitter, etc., the daily humdrum live-stream of one police officer helping a kid with a flat tire on a bike a ride home or giving a jump for someone with a dead battery? Soon, reality police shows would be old news.
But there’s a more important reason to bring policing live to social media. It will force the profession to fast-forward on the policy changes it needs to make to better hire, train,and hold accountable a new generation of police officers,deputies, and troopers.
This coming generation is well equipped and internally hardwired todeal with the realities of modern technology and the instant-information age that cops operate in every day.
Right now, this next generation of our protectors is at a great disadvantage. They’re just waiting for a better grade of police administrations and political leaders to give them the tools they need to win the image battle.
Let’s just cut to the chase and go live, 24-7, and let the average American see what the average cop sees live and in real time.
Bernie Giusto is a former Lieutenant and Public Information Officer for the Oregon State Police, Chief of the Gresham Oregon Police Department and Multnomah County Sheriff.
In the latest video, the Senior Director of Medical Services for the National Planned Parenthood negotiates the sale of baby parts — for something every other company considers a “profit”.
This third video by a group called “The Center for Medical Progress” shows the head of the Medical Services for Planned Parenthood, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, discussing the sale of baby parts:
The group shows what it claims is the price list for the baby parts:
Non profit? What do you call this?
“I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a non profit. They just don’t want to — they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that, you know, seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that.” Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
And here’s what they were selling. See the entire video below, but here’s a still shot of a pie plate displaying just-recovered baby parts for sale:
The above photo shows two legs, kidneys, and spinal cord among other things.
Would you believe *American Express if it said ‘doing a little better than break even’ wasn’t actually a profit?
Would you believe it if *Bank of America said that?
If *Adobe didn’t call its sales at better than break-even a profit, wouldn’t you laugh at them?
*Nike? *Groupon? *Verizon? *Progressive?
*All of those companies (and many more) are Planned Parenthood corporate sponsors. Find the list here because Planned Parenthood has scrubbed them from its website.
Planned Parenthood receives more than $500,000,000 per year from your tax dollars.
It claims the videos, like this one below, entrapped the players into saying things they didn’t mean to.
If you give credence to that argument then ask yourself this: What would it take for YOU to negotiate the price of human baby parts?
Cops dress as panhandlers to spy if drivers are wearing seat belts or using cell phones.
On a warm July day, police officers dressed in civvies and stationed themselves at two intersections. One, according to a press account, at the intersection of Highway 210 and Arden and this one, Highway 210 at Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino.
As you can see from the photo above, this is a typical spot for panhandlers. Even Google Street View captured one as it buzzed by to take this photo in 2014. So it was no big surprise when drivers may have spotted this guy when they got off the highway:
Wait, what did that sign say again?
I AM NOT
I’ll bet a steak dinner that unsuspecting drivers, who usually ignore the signs of panhandlers who occupy off ramps and intersections because they’re mostly scam artists, didn’t even bother to look at the sign. Even if they had, it would have been difficult to read the scribbled eye chart, ‘if-you-can-read-the-last-line-you-have-20/20-vision’-style sign.
The officers’ objective was to pretend to notify people of their sting without actually doing it, in order to catch people driving without seat belts or using their cell phones.
According to the Press Enterprise (which, by the way, changed its first headline and story from the sting op to touting the story as one about a ‘study’), the officers would observe the cockpits of the cars and trucks as they exited the highway to determine if drivers were wearing seat belts or using cellphones and radio ahead to other cops with a description of the scofflaw.
According to the PE:
At the end of the day, 50 vehicles were stopped, and 33 people were cited for cellphone violations.
In a recent study of traffic of Waterman Avenue, there were 10, 371 daily trips in one section alone and that did not include ingress and egress of a state highway. This is another way of saying that 33 people cited for cellphone violations is a statistical nothing-burger.
However, it wasn’t nothing for the drivers and passengers of 50 vehicles to be stopped and hassled by police who apparently had nothing better to do that day than dress up as homeless people and harass otherwise law abiding citizens.
There will be people outraged, I’m sure, by the tone of this piece. The ‘how dare you, Victoria’ crowd who have heard of the horrible accidents caused by drivers using cell phones or heard about severe injuries suffered by those who didn’t use their seat belts. I’ll stipulate some of the horrible stories and stupid people using cell phones while driving. I’ve heard it all before after talking and writing about cell phone laws for years now.
Yes, it’s illegal to use your cell phone and drive, but it shouldn’t be.
Since I’ve done this all before I’ll just quote myself from this story about the bogus statistics about cell phones and accidents:
Early on statisticians used the fact that cell phones were present in cars as ‘proof’ they were complicit in a crash.
Then came the evidence that hands free cell phone use was no safer than holding a cell phone. Studies showed it was the act of talking that was the distracting aspect. What to do? Like the folks who morphed “man made global warming” into “climate change,” safety poohbahs conflated the parade of horribles from cell phones and driving under an umbrella label called, “Distracted Driving.”
The demonization of cell phones persists, of course. I mean, hundreds of lawmakers can’t be proven wrong, can they? A recent study purported to claim that cell phone use is worse than drunk driving.
Now there’s another study showing that talking to your kids in the back seat is a distraction.
Carnegie Mellon/London School of Economics study confirms cell phone chatting and driving don’t increase chances of car accidents, unless you’re a moron, that is.
Researchers say they’re surprised by the results of their own study of U.S. data which shows there’s no correlation between chatting away on cell phones and driving.
You want to see distracted driving? Cell phone use while driving? Not wearing seat belts while driving? Check out a cop sometime.
A 2013 study found half the cops don’t wear seat belts. Many cities install computers for cops to use while talking on their cell phones or two-ways while driving. Watch sometime.
I don’t blame them. They probably think these are stupid laws, too.
But when you have to resort to tactics like these to punish people for disobeying a law whose usefulness is at best suspect, you’ve lost the moral high ground. In short, you’ve lost the argument in favor of such laws.
Days after the Baltimore’s Freddie Gray riots, there was another incident that almost became another apocryphal ‘Hands up, Don’t Shoot’ moment.
A version of his post was originally published by Victoria Taft at PoliticalVanguard.com
Sometimes you watch the news or hear ‘man on the street’ interviews on the radio and later, when the truth comes out, wonder to yourself, ‘Where did that cockamamie story come from?’
In the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri, interviews contained in both the Grand Jury testimony and the federal investigation revealed Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, conceived of the ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ narrative and began to spread it around.
Investigators later deemed doubtful Johnson’s ability to see the last seconds of his friend’s life because of where he claimed to be hiding.
But, by the time he was finished, Johnson was on TV blatantly spouting the ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ narrative, and people, later ruled not credible by the authorities, picked up the story and lied under oath.
It was untrue but it was everywhere. And even after it was disproved, protesters still used it.
Protesters used the ‘hands up’ meme in Baltimore, well after the world learned it was bogus.
Just days after the riots in Baltimore, ‘the big lie’ almost happened again.
A man was stopped by cops and subdued after he pulled out a revolver at Pennsylvania and North — the flashpoint of the original riots.
MSNBC host, Joy Reid, was on the ground and spoke to the “victim’s” relative, who revealed the name of the man “shot” and the fact he was only reaching at his waist band.
Fox News was on live and reported the “shooting”, but walked back the story within minutes. Shepherd Smith apologized and said they’d “screwed up”.
MSNBC never recanted, and instead blamed Twitter for their story.
MSNBC went on the air, with a person actually on the ground, and reported a falsehood for which they never apologized. They also talked to the “victim’s” family member who lied about the incident and never apologized.
But MSNBC was right about one thing: They saw the story on Twitter. I know that because I did too.
The Tweet talked of a shooting and contained a link leading to a live-stream of the “shooting” scene.
And here’s what I saw:
After hearing a gun shot, people came upon the scene only to see a man lying on the ground. Police surrounded him.
Within seconds, a few people on scene began pronouncing the man face down on the ground had ‘been shot’.
Though there was no blood and angry people were close enough to see, the story caught fire.
Soon, a bigger group of angry people converged at the site and, within seconds, a couple of angry men began confronting cops within inches of their faces and accusing them of shooting the black man on the ground. You can hear their voices saying:
The police shot him! They done shot him, bro! They shot him? They shot in him the back, man!
Another voice rang out urging people to go after one of the cops:
He’s the cop! He’s the cop!
That prompted a man to confront an officer — as if picking a school yard fight — getting within inches of the officer’s face and taunting:
You shot my man, yo? You shot my man, yo? You shot my man, yo?
The man recording the event and putting it out over the internet pronounced:
Hey, police just shot someone! Police just shot SOMEONE IN THE BACK! Tweet it out, please? POLICE JUST SHOT SOMEONE. They just shot someone and they maced someone. They shot that man in the back. Tweet it out. BALTIMORE POLICE JUST SHOT A MAN IN THE BACK! Now they’re macing people for no reason!
Then he beckoned them to come riot:
Come to Penn and North now.
Soon, the woman caught on tape and who was used in several TV news stories came along to declare:
I watched that man shoot him! I watched it with my own eyes!
Guy taking video:
File a report on the M******F****r!
He escalated his rhetoric and urged riot again:
Come down to Penn & North NOW! Those M*****F*****r cops. They maced someone. Tweet it out!
And someone did. And that’s when I saw it and MSNBC News did, too.
But just when you think things could spin out of control, they got worse. Someone’s voice in the crowd authoritatively pronounced:
They just shot that man in the back.
The person recording the event embellished:
Baltimore police just shot a man in the back. Baltimore police just shot that man in the back. THEY HAD HIM IN CUFFS AND THEY F*****G SHOT IN HIM THE BACK!
Almost none of what they said was true. They just made it up.
Police did pepper spray some of the people who were getting out of control and pushed them down the street and out of the way of the take down.
A Baltimore police officer told anyone who asked him that the man was seen with the gun. WBAL radio reported he’d been spotted via the ‘City Crime Watch’ camera. When he saw cops, he reached for his gun, dropped it, the gun discharged and cops seized upon him:
A fleeing suspect pulled out a revolver, which went off, and no officers fired their weapons, police said, denying conflicting reports from people at the scene.
If that guy had been shot by officers another big lie would have gathered even more momentum. As it was, this was bad enough. Later, the paid professional protesters, of whom Deray McKesson is one, launched an assault on the media.
Deray was on the ground in Ferguson and won some fame for his activism there. Then he packed his bags and showed up in Baltimore. He was identified by Wolf Blitzer of CNN as a Baltimore community organizer. Deray, originally from Baltimore, is not.
I’d show you Deray McKesson’s original tweet, but he blocked me after I outed him as a professional peripatetic protester.
Wresting the narrative is important.
Trayvon Martin thought George Zimmerman was gay and was worried the neighborhood watch captain would sexually ‘molest’ him. We found that out in Zimmerman’s trial from none other than Martin’s girlfriend, Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Martin as he eyed the man watching him.
The teenager was also high on marijuana, his toxicology tests showed THC in his system when he got into it with Zimmerman.
And he was coming back from the store where he purchased items to make ‘Sizzurp’ to get another high. But to the media and in the world of the Reverend Al Charlatan, Martin was a be-haoloed teen angel who was just trying to get home with his Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea.
Michael Brown was a 6’4″ 300lb ‘Gentle Giant’ who wouldn’t hurt a fly. He traveled the streets of Ferguson in his cap and gown, setting an example for all youth while readying himself for his college career. He was only trying to comply with Officer Darren Wilson. He put his hands up and innocently pleaded with the malevolent Officer not to hurt him.
Reality: He ‘jacked up an old Asian man at the store, took a bunch of Swisher Sweets to roll blunts and attacked a cop, going for his gun.
Things in Baltimore were bad enough. Six cops are under indictment. You don’t have to lie to make things look bad, they already are.
The left tried to make it worse, foment riots and create another urban legend and new narrative. And you saw it in real time.
Danielle and Alexander Meitiv of Maryland allowed their children to go out and play by themselves, again, and they’re once again in trouble with the law.
Last year the Meitivs let their six year old daughter Dvora and their ten year old son Rafi walk about a mile home by themselves. The Meitivs had to sign a parenting contract before their kids were allowed to go home.
The Washington Post reports that on Sunday police found the children two and a half blocks from their home, put them in the back of the police cruiser and, according to the Meitivs, detained them for nearly six hours without letting them use the bathroom or eat.
Rees Lloyd’s Caustic Commentaries: Where did “Equality” go?
Why is there so little attention given in the Garner case in New York by the media, and in remarks by government officials from Obama on down, all of whom are otherwise so exercised about racial inequality, about the fact that the supervising sergeant at the Garner take-down was a black female, a key fact which is rarely even mentioned let alone focused upon despite its essentiality?
Why this apparent “unequal” treatment, compared with how the supervising officer, Sgt. Stacy Keen, was treated in the infamous Rodney King case in Los Angeles?
That is, I remember being interviewed years ago during the Rodney King case and riots in Los Angeles by the late broadcast legend George Putnam on his Original Talkback Show in L.A. (now hosted by his longtime producer and sidekick, Chuck Wilder). I was interviewed as a civil rights attorney about the vilification of Sgt. Stacy Keen by the media, and demands by liberals, race hustlers, and rioters for Keen to be criminally prosecuted, all apparently happy to toss away his and other cops’ presumption of innocence in the name, hypocritically, of “equality.”
The contrast between the treatment of Sgt. Stacy Keen, white male supervising officer at the scene in the Rodney King case, and Sgt. Kizzy Adoni, the black female supervising officer at the scene in the Garner case, is as manifestly unequal as, for instance, “black and white.”
Sgt. Stacy Keen was vilified although he never punched, kicked, or clubbed King. Keen in fact used a “taser” on the out-of-control King rather than beat him down or shoot him.
However, the taser had no effect on King, which is some indication of what the cops were dealing with when trying to arrest out-of-control convicted felon Rodney King. So Sgt. Keen tried a second taser before resorting to batons and “swarming” the huge Rodney King as officers are trained to do.
Again, the second taser didn’t stop King, who was desperate not to be arrested because of his criminal record, which might mean a return to prison. It was only after that failure of the second taser to stop King that Keen instructed subordinates to swarm King and use their batons to control King.
The famous video showing batons being used on Rodney King were edited by the media to show the beating, but not the preceding conduct of King that necessitated the use of those batons. Television news edited the tape to eliminate King’s conduct; Spike Lee did the same, beginning his movie on Black Muslim Malcolm X with the video–stripped of King’s acts prior to use of the batons.
The world was informed by the media through the video that out-of-control white cops were furiously beating with clubs a black man concerning a traffic offense.
Rodney King was thereafter sanctified as innocent black victim of white racism. Sgt. Stacy Keen was simultaneously vilified in the media as a white racist cop, including for tasering King, although the same media, black hustlers, white revolutionists, and self-righteous rioters today wail that Garner should have been tasered rather than taken down physically.
Sgt. Keen, despite trying to control King by taser, twice, was criminally prosecuted, as were his subordinates. In fact, Keen was held out as the most guilty because he was the senior officer at the scene.
However, the jury — which considered all of the evidence, including all of the video showing not just King being beaten with batons but the actual beginning of the video showing the out-of-control actions of King which brought on the use of batons — acquitted all the officers of criminal charges, including Sgt. Keen.
That brought on the Rodney King riots. Fifty-three people would be killed in the Rodney King Riots by rioters, mostly blacks and Hispanics, aided and abetted by white self-declared “revolutionists.” Those people died in vain. To the best of my knowledge, there was not a single prosecution, let alone conviction, for murder, in any degree. The apparent reason for non-prosecution was not to disturb a black community so easily moved to riot to get its way, and not to be subject to equal application of the rule of law, while demanding equal application.
Meanwhile, Rodney King was elevated from his well-earned status as a lowlife black habitual criminal, wife and woman beater, later arrested aficianado of alley-love with transvestite male prostitutes, into a sainted icon of innocent black victimization by white racist cops. This same elevation to iconic black “victim” status — in complete defiance of all facts and evidence to the contrary — has been similarly accorded in the contemporary “post-racial” (sic) presidency of Barack Obama first to Trayvon Martin; then to Brown in Ferguson; and now to Garner in New York.
After Sgt. Keen’s acquittal in the criminal prosecution, the federal government in the Rodney King case, desperate to avoid even more rioting, then brought the second prosecution of Sgt. Keen and the other white officers in federal court for violations of Rodney King’s “civil rights.” That jury found Keen and all but one of the others guilty, and King was awarded some $3-million dollars, proving crime does pay.
The career of Sgt. Keen, branded an evil white racist, was, like that of officer Wilson in Ferguson in the Brown Case, ruined–despite Keen’s outstanding record as law enforcement officer.
There is a little publicly known fact about Sgt. Stacy Keen that should convince even the most diehard black race hustler, e.g., Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, or self-righteous white progressive liberal, e.g., Obama, DeBlassio, Pelosi, or “revolutionists,” that Stacy Keen was no racist. I was interviewed by George Putnam about that fact years ago during the Rodney King case–but the other media somehow did not find it important to print or broadcast.
That fact is this: There was in the Ramparts Division, one of the worst in L.A., a frequently arrested, lowlife black career petty criminal who was known to be infected with AIDs, which didn’t stop him from engaging in various criminal acts but was wasting him away on the way to killing him. One day, as he was brought in on yet another arrest, he fell to the floor writhing in convulsions. One cop, who knew well he was infected with AIDS, rushed over to him, and saved his life by mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. That white cop was Stacy Keen.
Now, consider: Would a “white racist” really act immediately to render mouth-to-mouth resuscitation knowing the the recipient was Aids-ridden criminal on a death track from Aids? That was what Sgt. Stacy Keen, alleged “racist white cop,” did to save a black criminal dying of Aids. Not to put too fine a point on it–would you?
Not withstanding that evidence that Keen was definitely not a racist, Keen was the supervising officer at the scene in the Rodney King case, and, must therefore be branded as a white racist cop. Although Rodney King was not killed, and had no permanent injuries from being batoned, Sgt. Keen was vilified in the media as a racist white cop doing harm to a black victim, Rodney King, out of racist animus.Sgt. Keen, therefore, had to be criminally prosecuted, and, when the liberal California government couldn’t convict him on criminal charges, the feds had prosecute him a second time in federal court for violating Rodney King’s civil rights because King is “black.” The “black community” would stand for no less, equal application of the law notwithstanding.
Now, comes another Rodney King-type case, the Garner case in NY. The NY York police are branded as white racist cops just as in the Rodney King case. Now, however, the supervising officer in the Garner case in New York is a black female sergeant.
Now what? Well, what is happening is that the role of the supervising officer is not treated as it was in the case of Sgt. Stacy Keen in the Rodney King case. Instead, the black female supervising officer is hardly even mentioned as playing a role in the Garner case. Is this “equality” as defined in practice by progressive liberal media and government?
Although Sgt. Kizzy Adoni didn’t try to taser Garner when he resisted arrest, and although she never ordered the officers at any time to stop doing what they were doing, and although there are riots, and although the “post-racial” (sic) First Black President has gravely intoned what we, meaning America, must act to deal with the problem of unequal treatment of blacks who are being killed by racist white cops, which Obama informs has been going on for generations, no one is accusing the black female Sgt. Kizzy Adoni of being at fault in the Garner case; no one is holding her responsible, vilifying her, calling for her termination, or prosecution. Indeed, she is hardly mentioned at all in media reports, or in the spouting of government or other officers, television talking heads or print media pundits.
Why not? If it is all about treating blacks equally with whites, then why is there hardly a mention in the media that thesupervising officer in the Garner case, equal to Sgt. Stacy Keen in the Rodney King Case, is a black female, Sgt. Kizzy Adoni? Is she to be held to a lesser standard? Is holding blacks to a lesser stand not racism?
I am not at all suggesting that black female Sgt. Kizzy Adoni in the Garner case should be treated equally with the way that white male Sgt. Stacy Keen was treated in the Rodney King case–because what happened to Sgt. Stacy Keen was a manifest injustice that should not be inflicted on anyone, white or black.
I am suggesting, however, that it should be explained by the media, Obama, DiBlassio and other spouters of platitudes of equality, why so little attention is being paid to the fact that it was a black female sergeant who was supervising the officers who took Garner down, and who did nothing to order otherwise.
It is, however, indisputable that if black female supervising Sgt. Kizzy Adoni is not guilty of “racism” in what happened to Garner, then no officer is. Perhaps that is an “inconvenient truth,” so to speak, that the media and the government under the progressive liberal racialist rule of Obama nationally and DiBlassio in NY would rather the public not know about.
Indeed. The media, and Obama as President, Holder as Attorney General, DiBlassio as Mayor of New York, and all those self-righteous rioters, race-hustlers, and self-defined white “revolutionists” are once again proving they have no real interest in “equal treatment,” or “justice,” or “an honest dialogue about race,” and that what they are doing is once more providing clear and convincing evidence of their hypocrisy, lack of integrity, and unfitness to govern.
(Rees Lloyd is a longtime California civil rights attorney, a veterans activist, and a member of the Victoria Taft Blogforce.)
Michael Brown was killed by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson on August 9th. Since then, the town has been depicted in the media as more caricature than place. Since the shooting and subsequent protests and riots, it’s become short hand for a slum where ‘disaffected black youth’ run the streets, jack up unsuspecting store owners and are incessantly hassled by the cops.
In fact, Ferguson is a pleasant burg on the outskirts of St. Louis. It’s not a ghetto. Neither is it a fancy gated community. It’s a leafy suburb marked by simple, boxy, unadorned, working class homes. Gutters are full of leaves, not garbage. There’s pride of ownership in these homes. Lawns are mowed, bushes are trimmed.
On a Monday afternoon, the neighborhood was quiet where Michael Brown was killed. Considering the media stories of unrest, you’d think an angry mob would be seen at the ready, spoiling for a fight. But no. Ferguson was quiet because people were out of their houses at work or school. There were no mobs. No menacing looking thugs. There were a few friendly looking younger adults seen going in and out of the mini mart where the Michael Brown saga started.
And here’s what it looked like when Michael Brown was last in this store. Michael is wearing the ball cap.
Just a few short minutes later he would be dead.
People were understandably shocked at the death in their midst. The many witnesses–including a rapper who used Twitter to tell of the horror–saw something happen at the cop car and then the shots rang out. But that shock quickly devolved into an official narrative, a meme. To wit: Promising young black man cut down by white racist cop in a cold blooded killing.
The body of Michael Brown lay bleeding for hours in the middle of the Canfield Drive.
There are places scarred by the unrest you’ve seen in the news, yet they look starkly out of place during the day in this well kept town. Down the street from a chic bakery along West Florrisant Avenue sits the demolished gas station, attacked and burned out by a mob.
It was torched to prove…to prove…well we don’t know what the angry mobs who moved in after the police shooting were trying to prove, but they sure were destructive.
The angry mob vows to come back, however–when, if–Officer Darren Wilson is found innocent of discharging his gun as a thug began an assault on him while he still sat in his police cruiser. According to grand jury released by hackers, eyewitnesses say they saw Brown initiate the attack. What happened after that was not leaked and is unclear except that Brown was killed in a hail of bullets.
The local prosecuting attorney has vowed to release immediately all transcripts from the grand jury when the conclusion is made public.
But what about the other victims? Businessesare on the ropes because of the threats of the mobs and customers’ fear of going to pick up Chinese food after dark. Not all, but some. As I reported in the Independent Journal Review,
Business owners in Ferguson, Missouri, are complaining the riots and protests have made people ‘too scared’ to buy stuff at night and they’re struggling to make it.
CBS affiliate KTVI in St. Louis reports restaurant owner Tammy Cao, who owns the Hunan Chop Suey restaurant, has lost thousands of dollars since the August shooting and its aftermath:
We’ve lost $200 to $300 in business nightly, people are afraid to pick up in the night, after dark. People are too scared at night … I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
The losses in revenue are already on top of the money Cao’s and other businesses will have to spend to replace broken windows and other damage insurance won’t cover.
The mobs’ anger has also taken they toll on black owned businesses–looting hard-earned inventory– of one and pushing another business owner to the brink of bankruptcy,
Rokyaya Biteye, the owner of Daba African Hair Braiding, told Reuters she’s on the ropes:
I feel scared about my business. I don’t think it will work anymore.
She has no insurance.
The mob who cries for justice for Michael Brown doesn’t want any for the businesses, the City of Ferguson, or Officer Wilson.
Others are looking for divine justice. This church sits next to the Ferguson Market and Liquor where this horrible story started:
They’ll need all the prayer they can get. Especially if the mobs are shipped back to Ferguson.
“What do we want? Darren Wilson! How do we want him? Dead!”
Nothing is clear in the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri except the unarmed, nearly 300 pound teenager is now dead–cut down by a cop’s fusillade of bullets.
After nights of civil unrest followed by a tenuous keeping of the peace, all hell broke loose again last night as cops tried to impose a curfew.
Over at Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft was the first to bring the following video at a rally of the New Black Panthers calling for the murder of Officer Darren Wilson
But that’s not all. The Feds, already running another investigation into the incident, are demanding they conduct a second autopsy of Brown’s body. The result of the first autopsy as well toxicology testing haven’t been released. That’s right, a week’s worth of protests led by Al Sharpton, The Black Panthers and others have been based solely on the emotional outburst by horrified citizens, the hacktivist group Anonymous, and MSNBC which has been going wall to wall with coverage. That coverage was only momentarily silenced when police released video showing Brown stealing from a convenience store and assaulting the owner.