Categories
A Victory! Cops Darwin would of approved of this! Stupid Hit

What happens when you bring a Knife to a Gunfight

Categories
Cops

Sad

Categories
Born again Cynic! Cops

‘What took so long?’ Anti-crime Eric Adams slams Cuomo’s gun violence emergency declaration and vows to ‘turn this city around’ after winning Democratic NYC mayoral primary

  • Eric Adams on Tuesday was declared Democrat nominee for NYC’s mayoral race
  • On Wednesday, the former NYPD police captain spoke of his plans for the city
  • He said Andrew Cuomo’s gun violence plan – announced on Tuesday – was too long in the making, and insisted it urgently needed to be implemented
  • Adams, 60, praised Cuomo for describing gun violence as a public health crisis
  • He also hit back at criticism from podcast host Toure, who said Adams could not make the city safer given his police background 
  • ‘It’s time for us to stop believing that we should have the right tweets — we should have the right safe streets,’ said Adams on Wednesday morning 

New York City‘s likely next mayor has criticized the state’s governor for his gun violence ‘disaster emergency’, asking Andrew Cuomo: ‘What took so long?’

Eric Adams, a 60-year-old former NYPD police captain, on Tuesday was confirmed as the winner of the Democratic primary, putting him on track to secure victory in the strongly-Democrat state at November’s election.

He wasted no time in attacking Cuomo, also a Democrat, and used his first interview to condemn the veteran governor.

Asked for his response to Cuomo’s gun violence plan, Adams replied: ‘My first question is, what took so long? And why has it taken us so long, watching these babies die, year after year after year? No one seems to care.’

Eric Adams, who is on track to be elected mayor of New York City in November, on Wednesday morning said that Andrew Cuomo's gun violence reduction plan should have been ushered in earlier

Eric Adams, who is on track to be elected mayor of New York City in November, on Wednesday morning said that Andrew Cuomo’s gun violence reduction plan should have been ushered in earlier

Adams, 60, served as a captain in the NYPD and then entered politics, becoming Brooklyn borough president. Asked for his response to Cuomo’s gun violence plan, he replied: ‘My first question is, what took so long? And why has it taken us so long, watching these babies die, year after year after year?’

Adams campaigned on a ticket of improving law and order in the city, which is seeing soaring violence.

New York City has seen 765 shootings in the city so far this year, compared to 555 shootings during the same time last year.

Cuomo on Tuesday unveiled a $139 million seven-point plan, with emphasis on violence reduction initiatives, jobs and training for those at risk of getting swept up in gun crime, and making the gun manufacturers more accountable to victims’ families.

New York became the first state in the nation to declare gun violence an emergency on Tuesday as Cuomo pointed the finger at the manufacturers of weapons as one of the main reasons behind the spate of shootings and killings that is at its highest level since the early 2000s.

Cuomo is finally taking action over the surging crime rate in the Big Apple and the rest of the state, by signing legislation allowing for a lawsuit to be brought in cases where ‘reasonable controls and procedures are not in place’.

He also closed a loophole that allowed people with outstanding warrants for their arrest to purchase guns and said that they want to form a council aimed at gun-violence prevention.

However, critics have claimed it is ‘political grandstanding’ and that an increase in gun violence has been caused by ‘soft-on-crime’ policies such as the early release of prisoners, treating criminals ‘like victims’ and calls to defund the police.

Cuomo has long had a contentious relationship with the current mayor, Bill de Blasio, and in response to Adams’ criticism blamed the incumbent.

‘Policing is a local government issue managed by the mayor, and Mr Adams is right that it has taken too long to step up and take charge on the gun violence issue,’ said Rich Azzopardi, an advisor to Cuomo.

‘The governor is stepping in because too little has been done by the local leadership.

‘The governor mandated all local governments reform their police systems last year, and some made more progress than others.’

It came as Adams criticized the state's governor for his gun violence 'disaster emergency', asking Andrew Cuomo: 'What took so long?' (pictured: Cuomo signs bills declaring gun violence a public health emergency)

Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, was in Manhattan on Tuesday to sign into law a $139 million plan to combat gun crime in the state. Almost half of the money will go to violence prevention initiatives and finding jobs and training for young people deemed most at risk

However, critics have claimed it is 'political grandstanding' and that an increase in gun violence is caused by soft crime policies

However, critics have claimed it is ‘political grandstanding’ and that an increase in gun violence is caused by soft crime policies

NY first state to declare gun violence as a public health emergency
Adams mingles with supporters during his election night party, late on June 22

Adams mingles with supporters during his election night party, late on June 22

Adams did praise Cuomo’s plan to invest more money in violence prevention, and said Cuomo was right to describe it as a public health crisis.

‘It’s going to allow the easiest accessibility to finance and money,’ he said.

‘We need to teach, treat gun violence as a public health emergency. Every agency in the city, in this country, must be part of dealing with gun violence because if we deal with the gun violence, we’re going to start dealing with the feeders of violence.

‘We’ve ignored that for far too long.’

Over the Fourth of July weekend, 51 people were shot in New York state with 26 of those in New York City alone. At least two of those were killed.

Across the state, 14 victims were in Buffalo, five in Syracuse, three on Long Island, two in Utica and one in Rochester.

During the holiday weekend, 13 people in the state died of COVID-19.

New York City police officers investigate the scene where a man was shot and killed in Brooklyn on June 11. Gun crime is soaring in the city, and across the state

New York City police officers investigate the scene where a man was shot and killed in Brooklyn on June 11. Gun crime is soaring in the city, and across the state

New York City police officers with the Crime Scene Unit investigate the scene in Brooklyn on June 11

New York City police officers with the Crime Scene Unit investigate the scene in Brooklyn on June 11

Adams was attack earlier on Wednesday by former MSNBC host Toure – a left-wing podcast host with a large following.

Toure claimed on Twitter that Adams wouldn’t live up to his promises to bring change to the city’s police department.

‘If you marched in NYC last year to protest police violence and this year voted for Eric Adams to be Mayor, I don’t understand you,’ Toure said.

‘Cops cannot get us to the real police reform we need.’

 

Adams insisted that he was indeed the man for the job.

‘I say that it’s time for us to stop believing that we should have the right tweets — we should have the right safe streets,’ he told CNN.

‘I say that when [Touré] gets on the subway, he does not want to be pushed to the subway tracks, and he doesn’t want to be slashed.

‘He does not want his son to be like young 10-year-old Justin, who was shot and killed in Rockaway by gun violence.’

And Adams said he was confident that New York City could lead the nation in reducing violent crime.

‘I know how we can turn around not only New York, but America,’ he said.

‘New York is going to show America how to run cities.

‘We’re in a terrible place, and we can turn this country and city around.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

New Leaks Shows ATF Running Background Checks On Gun Buyers Retroactively by John Crump

Millions of law-abiding citizens submit to background checks, as intimated by the president's comment to reporters. (Dave Workman)

New Leaks Shows ATF Running Background Checks On Gun Buyers Retroactively (Dave Workman)

MARTINSBURG, WV –-(Ammoland.com)- AmmoLand News learned through a leaked Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) conference call that the agency is starting to run gun buyers retroactively through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

In the conference call, the ATF leadership asked its Industry Operations Inspectors (IOI) to collect information on the customers that used concealed carry permits instead of obtaining a background check through the NICS. The purpose of obtaining this information would be to run the customer’s data through the NICS to see if the customer would have received an approved or denied status. In addition, the IOI will pass on the names and information of customers denied by the NICS to the criminal branch for a special agent to follow up.

Some states, such as Alaska, allow gun buyers to use their concealed carry permits to buy a gun instead of being subjected to a background check through NICS. Gun buyers in these states believe that using a concealed carry permit to purchase firearms gives them a level of anonymity that the NICS doesn’t provide.

The information from the firearms background check paperwork (ATF Form 4473) is not submitted to the FBI when the customer uses their permit. Before the new policy, the only time the government would know a person bought a gun is when the FFL goes out of business, a trace request is submitted, or the customer buys multiple handguns within a seven-day period.

Congress wrote an exemption to the mandated background check using the NICS into the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1998. However, the ATF has not been a fan of states letting their citizens use their concealed carry permits to buy guns without going through the NICS. In fact, the ATF has told states like Michigan that they can no longer use the concealed carry permit exemption.

According to the Brady Act, states can let gun buyers use concealed carry permits instead of going through the NICS if the permit meets or exceeds the NICS requirements, and the issuing agency performs a background check on the permit applicant using the NICS. However, even though states like Michigan meet all the conditions laid out in the Brady Act for a NICS exemption, The ATF had an issue with how some issuing agencies implemented the law.

Some sheriffs used the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to perform background checks instead of the NICS. The NCIC database is where the NICS database pulls most of its information. They claimed since that the sheriffs were not following the proper procedure, that the FFLs of the state could not use the concealed carry permit to buy a gun.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) sued the ATF over their decision to revoke the NICS exemption for Michigan and other states. GOA claimed that the ATF did not have the right to reinterpret the Brady Act law. The ATF stopped revoking exemption status for states once the lawsuits started to be filed in multiple states by the gun rights organization.

It seems like the ATF has found another way to run customers through the NICS. Unfortunately, the ATF would not provide AmmoLand News a comment.


About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

Categories
Cops

I Asked Massad Ayoob About Saying Nothing

Categories
Cops Darwin would of approved of this!

He all most won the Darwin Award in Louisville

Categories
All About Guns Cops

And Ft Leavenworth is mighty hot right now! Stolen Army Assault Rifles Keep Showing Up In California

Authorities in California’s agricultural heartland weren’t looking for a military assault rifle when they went to investigate the domestic assault case, but they found one.

It was in the garage of a Spanish-tiled home in Fresno that police stumbled upon the AK-74. Its distinctively banana-shaped magazine — loaded with 20 rounds — was in a nearby storage container.

AK-74s are similar to their more famous cousin, the AK-47. Every two seconds, they shoot three bullets. Because of how rapidly they fire, civilians cannot legally possess them in the United States without a license.

The weapon recovered by chance in 2019 was stolen eight years before from Fort Irwin, a base in California’s Mojave Desert where many soldiers trained before tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The three thieves had base access because they were military police — the soldiers who’d get the call when there was a break-in. To get into the supply warehouse known as Building 934 they cut through a fence, forced open one door and cut through another to enter the arms storage room.

One of them was affiliated with the Fresno Bulldogs street gang. Sgt. John Rodriguez said in an internal interview that he had joined the gang as a fifth grader but was no longer active. That was March 2011 — four months before the heist of 26 AK-74s and a sniper rifle.

After the theft, Rodriguez and Pfc. Harvey DelValle II took off nearly 300 miles to Fresno to unload their haul. At the home of an associate, the two soldiers began calling potential buyers.

This was how the weapons of war made their way onto the streets of Fresno. The guns were among at least 1,900 U.S. military firearms that an Associated Press investigation found were lost or stolen over the last decade.

Authorities around Fresno recovered some of them quickly.

Less than two weeks after the theft, agents tracked one down in the detached garage where a Bulldogs member, Moses Zapien, lived with his girlfriend.

READ MORE:Sacramento Mayor Joins Group Pushing For Reparations For Black Communities As Country Celebrates Juneteenth As Federal HolidayThe gun was on a shelf above their bed. Someone had tried to scratch off the serial number. The magazine, with bullets, was inserted.

Zapien told authorities he’d bought it to protect his home for what he considered the bargain price of $200. The garage was in a neighborhood that a century ago housed a railroad depot boom town, but was now gang territory.

Zapien said that he understood the source of the weapon was a Bulldogs member who worked at a military base and was “putting one back on the street for work for the gang.” The gang started in prison and its members have been accused of running guns and drugs, and operating networks of human trafficking and prostitution.

Another six AK-74s reached gang hands through an extended negotiation, according to what Rodriguez’s associate, Nathan Granados, told federal investigators.

About a week after the theft, Rodriguez and Granados met in the back room of a tattoo shop with three gang members who’d arrived in a white BMW SUV. Rodriguez brought one of the AK-74s inside for show and tell.

The discussion was promising enough that the two groups reconnected later and continued to negotiate. Around midnight, they drove to a home for the exchange. Rodriguez went to the backyard cellar and retrieved six guns. The Bulldogs handed over $1,400 and the deal was done.

How many remain in gang hands is unclear. Some of the 26 stolen guns have surfaced by happenstance. In June 2012, an insurance adjuster found one inside a vehicle that had been repossessed from a felon.

The three soldiers were convicted in military courts and sentenced to between six and 20 years in prison. At least 14 civilians were charged.

Categories
Cops Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom Hard Nosed Folks Both Good & Bad Interesting stuff Leadership of the highest kind

Unspeakable Truths about Racial Inequality in America written by Glenn Loury

This is the text of a lecture delivered by the author as part of the Benson Center Lecture Series at the University of Colorado, Boulder, on February 8th, 2021.

I am a black American intellectual living in an age of persistent racial inequality in my country. As a black man I feel compelled to represent the interests of “my people.” (But that reference is not unambiguous!) As an intellectual, I feel that I must seek out the truth and speak such truths as I am given to know. As an American, at this critical moment of “racial reckoning,” I feel that imperative all the more urgently. But, I ask, what are my responsibilities? Do they conflict with one another? I will explore this question tonight.

My conclusion: “My responsibilities as a black man, as an American, and as an intellectual are not in conflict.” I defend this position as best I can in what follows. I also try to illustrate the threat “cancel culture” poses to a rational discourse about racial inequality in America that our country now so desperately requires. Finally, I will try to model how an intellectual who truly loves “his people” should respond. I will do this by enunciating out loud what have increasingly become some unspeakable truths. So, brace yourselves!

I begin with a provocation: Consider this story from my hometown newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, that ran on May 31st, 2016. (Things have only gotten worse since.) I ask you to bear with me here because these details matter. We must look them squarely in the face:

Six people were killed, including a 15-year-old girl, and at least 63 others were wounded in shootings across Chicago over Memorial Day weekend.

The total number of people shot during the weekend this year surpassed the 2015 holiday, when 55 people were shot, 12 fatally, over Memorial Day weekend.

The most recent homicide happened late Monday in the Washington Park neighborhood on the South Side.

Officers responding to a call of shots fired about 11pm found James Taylor lying on the ground near his vehicle in the 5100 block of South Calumet, according to Chicago Police and the Cook County medical examiner’s office. Taylor, who lived in the 6500 block of South Ellis, had been shot in the chest and was pronounced dead at the scene, authorities said.

Witnesses at the scene were not cooperating with detectives.

About the same time, a man was shot to death in the West Rogers Park neighborhood on the North Side.

Officers responding to a call of shots fired about 11pm found 39-year-old Johan Jean lying in a gangway in the 6400 block of North Rockwell, authorities said.

Jean, who lived in the 100 block of North Ashland in Evanston, was shot in the neck and taken to Presence Saint Francis Hospital in Evanston, where he was later pronounced dead, authorities said. Police said he was 25 years old.

A source said the shooting stemmed from a dispute between two women. One of them has a child with the man and the other was his girlfriend. Both women were armed, and the man was eventually shot during the argument. No weapons were recovered from the scene.

About 5.20pm Saturday, a man was shot to death in the Fuller Park neighborhood on the South Side.

Garvin Whitmore, 27, was sitting in the driver seat of a vehicle with a passenger, 26-year-old Ashley Harrison, in the 200 block of West Root, when someone walked up to the vehicle and shot him in the head, according to police and the medical examiner’s office.

Whitmore, of the 5800 block of West 63rd Place, was pronounced dead at the scene at 5.29pm, authorities said.

All of the victims were black people. Sixty-three shot, six dead, one weekend, one city. Here’s the thing: reports such as this could be multiplied dozens of times, effortlessly. If a black intellectual truly believes that “Black Lives Matter,” then what is he supposed to say in response to such nauseating reports—that “there is nothing to see here?” I think not.

Violence on such a scale involving blacks as both perpetrators and victims poses a dilemma to someone like myself. On the one hand, as the Harvard legal scholar Randall Kennedy has observed, we elites need to represent the decent law-abiding majority of African Americans cowering fearfully inside their homes in the face of such violence. We must do so not just to enhance our group’s reputation as in the “politics of respectability” but mainly as a precondition for our own dignity and self-respect.

On the other hand, we elites must also counter the demonization of young black men which the larger American culture has for some time now been feverishly engaged in. Even as we condemn murderers, we cannot help but view with sympathy the plight of many poor youngsters who, though not incorrigible, have nevertheless committed crimes. We must wrestle with complex historical and contemporary causes internal and external to the black experience that help to account for this pathology. (There’s no way around it. This is pathology. The behavior in question here is not okay. That one can adduce social-psychological explanations does not resolve all moral questions.)

Where is the self-respecting black intellectual to take his stand? Must he simply act as a mouthpiece for movement propaganda aiming to counteract “white supremacy”? Has he anything to say to his own people about how some of us are living? Is there space in American public discourses for nuanced, subtle, sophisticated moral engagement with these questions? Or are they mere fodder for what amount to tendentious, cynical, and overtly politically partisan arguments on behalf of something called “racial equity”? And what about those so-called “white intellectuals”? Do they have to remain mute? Or, must they limit themselves to incanting anti-racist slogans?

I don’t know all of the answers here, but I know that those victims had names. I know they had families. I know they did not deserve their fate. I know that black intellectuals must bear witness to what actually is taking place in our midst; must wrestle with complex historical and contemporary causes both within and outside the black community that bear on these tragedies; must tell truths about what is happening and must not hide from the truth with platitudes, euphemisms and lies.

I know, despite whatever causal factors may be at play, that we black intellectuals must insist each youngster is capable of choosing a moral way of life. I know that, for the sake of the dignity and self-respect of my people as well as for the future of my country, we American intellectuals of all colors must never lose sight of what a moral way of life consists in. And yet, we are in imminent danger of doing precisely that, I fear. Here’s why. 

The first unspeakable truth: Downplaying behavioral disparities by race is actually a “bluff”

Socially mediated behavioral issues lie at the root of today’s racial inequality problem. They are real and must be faced squarely if we are to grasp why racial disparities persist. This is a painful necessity. Activists on the Left of American politics claim that “white supremacy,” “implicit bias,” and old-fashioned “anti-black racism” are sufficient to account for black disadvantage. But this is a bluff that relies on “cancel culture” to be sustained. Those making such arguments are, in effect, daring you to disagree with them. They are threatening to “cancel” you if you do not accept their account: You must be a “racist”; you must believe something is intrinsically wrong with black people if you do not attribute pathological behavior among them to systemic injustice. You must think blacks are inferior, for how else could one explain the disparities? “Blaming the victim” is the offense they will convict you of, if you’re lucky.

I claim this is a dare; a debater’s trick. Because, at the end of the day, what are those folks saying when they declare that “mass incarceration” is “racism”—that the high number of blacks in jails is, self-evidently, a sign of racial antipathy? To respond, “No. It’s mainly a sign of anti-social behavior by criminals who happen to be black,” one risks being dismissed as a moral reprobate. This is so, even if the speaker is black. Just ask Justice Clarence Thomas. Nobody wants to be cancelled.

But we should all want to stay in touch with reality. Common sense and much evidence suggest that, on the whole, people are not being arrested, convicted, and sentenced because of their race. Those in prison are, in the main, those who have broken the law—who have hurt others, or stolen things, or otherwise violated the basic behavioral norms which make civil society possible. Seeing prisons as a racist conspiracy to confine black people is an absurd proposition. No serious person could believe it. Not really. Indeed, it is self-evident that those taking lives on the streets of St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago are, to a man, behaving despicably. Moreover, those bearing the cost of such pathology, almost exclusively, are other blacks. An ideology that ascribes this violent behavior to racism is laughable. Of course, this is an unspeakable truth—but no writer or social critic, of whatever race, should be cancelled for saying so.

Or, consider the educational achievement gap. Anti-racism advocates, in effect, are daring you to notice that some groups send their children to elite colleges and universities in outsized numbers compared to other groups due to the fact that their academic preparation is magnitudes higher and better and finer. They are daring you to declare such excellence to be an admirable achievement. One isn’t born knowing these things. One acquires such intellectual mastery through effort. Why are some youngsters acquiring these skills and others not? That is a very deep and interesting question, one which I am quite prepared to entertain. But the simple retort, “racism”, is laughable—as if such disparities have nothing to do with behavior, with cultural patterns, with what peer groups value, with how people spend their time, with what they identify as being critical to their own self-respect. Anyone actually believing such nonsense is a fool, I maintain.

Asians are said, sardonically, according to the politically correct script, to be a “model minority.” Well, as a matter of fact, a pretty compelling case can be made that “culture” is critical to their success. Read Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou’s book, The Asian American Achievement Paradox. They have interviewed Asian families in Southern California, trying to learn how these kids get into Dartmouth and Columbia and Cornell with such high rates. They find that these families exhibit cultural patterns, embrace values, adopt practices, engage in behavior, and follow disciplines that orient them in such a way as to facilitate the achievements of their children. It defies common sense, as well as the evidence, to assert that they do not or, conversely, to assert that the paucity of African Americans performing near the top of the intellectual spectrum—I am talking here about academic excellence, and about the low relative numbers of blacks who exhibit it—has nothing to do with the behavior of black people; that this outcome is due to institutional forces alone. That, quite frankly, is an absurdity. No serious person could believe it.

Nor does anybody actually believe that 70 percent of African American babies being born to a woman without a husband is (1) a good thing or (2) due to anti-black racism. People say this, but they don’t believe it. They are bluffing—daring you to observe that the 21st-century failures of African Americans to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the 20th century’s revolution of civil rights are palpable and damning. These failures are being denied at every turn, and these denials are sustained by a threat to “cancel” dissenters for being “racists.” This position is simply not tenable. The end of Jim Crow segregation and the advent of the era of equal rights was transformative for blacks. And now—a half-century down the line—we still have these disparities. This is a shameful blight on our society, I agree. But the plain fact of the matter is that some considerable responsibility for this sorry state of affairs lies with black people ourselves. Dare we Americans acknowledge this?

Leftist critics tout the racial wealth gap. They act as if pointing to the absence of wealth in the African American community is, ipso facto, an indictment of the system—even as black Caribbean and African immigrants are starting businesses, penetrating the professions, presenting themselves at Ivy League institutions in outsize numbers, and so forth. In doing so, they behave like other immigrant groups in our nation’s past. Yes, they are immigrants, not natives. And yes, immigration can be positively selective. I acknowledge that. Still, something is dreadfully wrong when adverse patterns of behavior readily visible in the native-born black American population go without being adequately discussed—to the point that anybody daring to mention them risks being cancelled as a racist. This bluff can’t be sustained indefinitely. Despite the outcome of the recent election, I believe we are already beginning to see the collapse of this house of cards.

A second unspeakable truth: “Structural racism” isn’t an explanation, it’s an empty category

The invocation of “structural racism” in political argument is both a bluff and a bludgeon. It is a bluff in the sense that it offers an “explanation” that is not an explanation at all and, in effect, dares the listener to come back. So, for example, if someone says, “There are too many blacks in prison in the US and that’s due to structural racism,” what you’re being dared to say is, “No. Blacks are so many among criminals, and that’s why there are so many in prison. It’s their fault, not the system’s fault.” And it is a bludgeon in the sense that use of the phrase is mainly a rhetorical move. Users don’t even pretend to offer evidence-based arguments beyond citing the fact of the racial disparity itself. The “structural racism” argument seldom goes into cause and effect. Rather, it asserts shadowy causes that are never fully specified, let alone demonstrated. We are all just supposed to know that it’s the fault of something called “structural racism,” abetted by an environment of “white privilege,” furthered by an ideology of “white supremacy” that purportedly characterizes our society. It explains everything. Confronted with any racial disparity, the cause is, “structural racism.”

History, I would argue, is rather more complicated than such “just so” stories would suggest. These racial disparities have multiple interwoven and interacting causes, from culture to politics to economics, to historical accident to environmental influence and, yes, also to the nefarious doings of particular actors who may or may not be “racists,” as well as systems of law and policy that disadvantage some groups without having been so intended. I want to know what they are talking about when they say “structural racism.” In effect, use of the term expresses a disposition. It calls me to solidarity. It asks for my fealty, for my affirmation of a system of belief. It’s a very mischievous way of talking, especially in a university, although I can certainly understand why it might work well on Twitter.

Another unspeakable truth: We must put the police killings of black Americans into perspective

There are about 1,200 fatal shootings of people by the police in the US each year, according to the carefully documented database kept by the Washington Post which enumerates, as best it can determine, every single instance of a fatal police shooting. Roughly 300 of those killed are African Americans, about one-fourth, while blacks are about 13 percent of the population. So that’s an over-representation, though still far less than a majority of the people who are killed. More whites than blacks are killed by police in the country every year. You wouldn’t know that from the activists’ rhetoric.

Now, 1,200 may be too many. I am prepared to entertain that idea. I’d be happy to discuss the training of police, the recruitment of them, the rules of engagement that they have with citizens, the accountability that they should face in the event they overstep their authority. These are all legitimate questions. And there is a racial disparity although, as I have noted, there is also a disparity in blacks’ rate of participation in criminal activity that must be reckoned with as well. I am making no claims here, one way or the other, about the existence of discrimination against blacks in the police use of force. This is a debate about which evidence could be brought to bear. There may well be some racial discrimination in police use of force, especially non-lethal force.

But, in terms of police killings, we are talking about 300 victims per year who are black. Not all of them are unarmed innocents. Some are engaged in violent conflict with police officers that leads to them being killed. Some are instances like George Floyd—problematic in the extreme, without question—that deserve the scrutiny of concerned persons. Still, we need to bear in mind that this is a country of more than 300 million people with scores of concentrated urban areas where police interact with citizens. Tens of thousands of arrests occur daily in the United States. So, these events—which are extremely regrettable and often do not reflect well on the police—are, nevertheless, quite rare.

To put it in perspective, there are about 17,000 homicides in the United States every year, nearly half of which involve black perpetrators. The vast majority of those have other blacks as victims. For every black killed by the police, more than 25 other black people meet their end because of homicides committed by other blacks. This is not to ignore the significance of holding police accountable for how they exercise their power vis-à-vis citizens. It is merely to notice how very easy it is to overstate the significance and the extent of this phenomenon, precisely as the Black Lives Matter activists have done.

Thus, the narrative that something called “white supremacy” and “systemic racism” have put a metaphorical “knee on the neck” of black America is simply false. The idea that as a black person I dare not step from my door for fear that the police would round me up or gun me down or bludgeon me to death because of my race is simply ridiculous. That is like not going outdoors for fear of being struck by lightning. The tendentious interpretation of every one of these incidents where violent conflict emerges between police and an African American, such that the incident is read as if it were the latter-day instantiation of the lynching of Emmett Till—that posture, I am obliged to report, is simply preposterous. Fear of being “cancelled” is the only thing that keeps many white people outside of the alt-Right from saying so out loud. “White silence” about anti-racism is not “violence.” Nor is it tacit agreement. But it should worry us.

I also want to stress the dangers of seeing police killings primarily through a racial lens. These events are regrettable regardless of the race of the people involved. Invoking race—emphasizing that the officer is white, and the victim is black—tacitly presumes that the reason the officer acted as he did was because the dead young man was black, and we do not necessarily know that. Moreover, once we get into the habit of racializing these events, we may not be able to contain that racialization merely to instances of white police officers killing black citizens. We may find ourselves soon enough in a world where we talk about black criminals who kill unarmed white victims—a world no thoughtful person should welcome, since there are a great many such instances of black criminals harming white people. Framing them in racial terms is obviously counter-productive.

These are criminals harming people, who should be dealt with accordingly. They do not stand in for their race when they act badly. White victims of crimes committed by blacks oughtn’t to see themselves mainly in racial terms if their automobile is stolen, or if someone beats them up and takes their wallet or breaks into their home and abuses them. Such things are happening on a daily basis in this country. We shouldn’t want to live in a world where such events are interpreted primarily through a racial lens. People are playing with fire, I think, when they gratuitously bring that sensibility to police-citizen interaction. That will not be the end of the story.

Yet another unspeakable truth: There is a dark side to the “white fragility” blame game

Likewise, I suspect that what we are hearing from the progressives in the academy and the media is but one side of the “whiteness” card. That is, I wonder if the “white-guilt” and “white-apologia” and “white-privilege” view of the world cannot exist except also to give birth to a “white-pride” backlash, even if the latter is seldom expressed overtly—it being politically incorrect to do so.

Confronted by someone who is constantly bludgeoning me about the evils of colonialism, urging me to tear down the statues of “dead white men,” insisting that I apologize for what my white forebears did to the “peoples of color” in years past, demanding that I settle my historical indebtedness via reparations, and so forth—I well might begin to ask myself, were I one of these “white oppressors,” on exactly what foundations does human civilization in the 21st century stand? I might begin to enumerate the great works of philosophy, mathematics, and science that ushered in the “Age of Enlightenment,” that allowed modern medicine to exist, that gave rise to the core of human knowledge about the origins of the species or of the universe. I might begin to tick-off the great artistic achievements of European culture, the architectural innovations, the paintings, the symphonies, etc. And then, were I in a particularly agitated mood, I might even ask these “people of color,” who think that they can simply bully me into a state of guilt-ridden self-loathing, where is “their” civilization?

Now, everything I just said exemplifies “racist” and “white supremacist” rhetoric. I wish to stipulate that I would never actually say something like that myself. I am not here attempting to justify that position. I am simply noticing that, if I were a white person, it might tempt me, and I cannot help but think that it is tempting a great many white people. We can wag our fingers at them all we want but they are a part of the racism-monger’s package. If one is going to go down this route, one has got to expect this. How can we make “whiteness” into a site of unrelenting moral indictment without also occasioning it to become the basis of pride, of identity and, ultimately, of self-affirmation?

One risks cancellation for saying this, but the right idea is the idea of Gandhi and Martin Luther King: to transcend our racial particularism while stressing the universality of our humanity. That is, the right idea—if only fitfully and by degrees—is to carry on with our march toward the goal of “race-blindness,” to move toward a world where no person’s worth is seen to be contingent upon racial inheritance. This is the only way to address a legacy of historical racism effectively without running into a reactionary chauvinism. Promoting anti-whiteness (and Black Lives Matter often seems to flirt with this) may cause one to reap what one sows in a backlash of pro-whiteness. Here we have yet another unspeakable truth which, as a responsible black intellectual, it is my duty to apprise you of.

On the unspeakable infantilization of “black fragility”

I would add that there is an assumption of “black fragility,” or at least of black lack of resilience lurking behind these anti-racism arguments. Blacks are being treated like infants whom one dares not to touch. One dares not say the wrong word in front of us; to ask any question that might offend us; to demand anything from us, for fear that we will be so adversely impacted by that. The presumption is that black people cannot be disagreed with, criticized, called to account, or asked for anything. No one asks black people, “What do you owe America?” How about not just what does America owe us—reparations for slavery, for example? What do we owe America? How about duty? How about honor?

When you take agency away from people, you remove the possibility of holding them to account and the capacity to maintain judgment and standards so that you can evaluate what they do. If a youngster who happens to be black has no choice about whether or not to join a gang, pick up a gun, and become a criminal, since society has failed him by not providing adequate housing, healthcare, income support, job opportunities, etc., then it becomes impossible to effectively discriminate between the black youngsters who do and do not pick up guns and become members of a gang in those conditions, and to maintain within African American society a judgment of our fellows’ behavior, and to affirm expectations of right-living. Since, don’t you know, we are all the victims of anti-black racism. The end result of all of this is that we are leveled down morally by a presumed lack of control over our lives and lack of accountability for what we do.

What is more, there is a deep irony in first declaring white America to be systemically racist, but then mounting a campaign to demand that whites recognize their own racism and deliver blacks from its consequences. I want to say to such advocates: “If, indeed, you are right that your oppressors are racists, why would you expect them to respond to your moral appeal? You are, in effect, putting yourself on the mercy of the court, while simultaneously decrying that the court is unrelentingly biased.” The logic of such advocacy escapes me.

On achieving “true equality” for black Americans

I am reminded, amidst the contemporary turmoil, of the period after the Emancipation, more than 150 years ago. There was a brief moment of pro-freedmen sentiment during Reconstruction, in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, but it was washed away and the long, dark night of Jim Crow emerged. Blacks were set back. But, in the wake of this setback emerged some of the greatest achievements of African American history. The freedmen who had been liberated from slavery in 1863 were almost universally illiterate. Within a half-century, their increased literacy rate rivals anything that has been seen, in terms of a mass population acquiring the capacity to read. Now, that was really very significant, for it helped bring them into the modern world.

We now look at the black family lamenting, perhaps, the high rate of births to mothers who are not married and so forth—but that is a modern, post-1960 phenomenon. In fact, the health of the African American social fiber coming out of slavery was remarkable. Books have been written about this. Businesses were built. People acquired land. People educated their children. People acquired skills. They constantly faced opposition at every step along the way, “no blacks need apply,” “white only,” this and that and the other, and nevertheless they built a foundation from which could be launched a Civil Rights Movement in the mid-20th century, that would change the politics of the country. As my friend Robert Woodson is fond of saying, “When whites were at their worst, we blacks were at our best.” Such potentiality seems now to have been, in a way, forgotten as we throw ourselves, as I say, on the mercy of the court. “There’s nothing we can do.” “We’re prostrate here.” “Our kids are not doing as well, our communities are troubled, but here we are, and we demand that you save us.”

This is the very same population about which such a noble history of extraordinary accomplishment under unimaginably adverse conditions can be told. So, pull yourself up by the bootstraps is a kind of cliché, and people will laugh when you say it, and they’ll roll their eyes and whatnot. Take responsibility for your life. No one’s coming to save you. It’s not anybody else’s job to raise your children. It’s not anybody else’s job to pick the trash up from in front of your home, etc. Take responsibility for your life. It’s not fair, and this is another, I think, delusion. People think there is some benevolent being up in the sky who will make sure everything works out fairly, but it is not so. Life is full of tragedy and atrocity and barbarity and so on. This is not fair. It is not right. But such is the way of the world.

Here, then, is my final unspeakable truth, which I utter now in defiance of “cancel culture”: If we blacks want to walk with dignity—if we want to be truly equal—then we must realize that white people cannot give us equality. We actually have to actually earn equal status. Please don’t cancel me just yet, because I am on the side of black people here. But I feel obliged to report that equality of dignity, equality of standing, equality of honor, of security in one’s position in society, equality of being able to command the respect of others—this is not something that can be simply handed over. Rather, it is something that one has to wrest from a cruel and indifferent world with hard work, with our bare hands, inspired by the example of our enslaved and newly freed ancestors. We have to make ourselves equal. No one can do it for us.

 

Glenn Loury is a professor of economics and faculty fellow at the Watson Institute at Brown University and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. You can follow him on Twitter @GlennLoury.

Categories
All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Cops

WHAT HAPPENS NOW IN CA’S ASSAULT WEAPON BAN!!! Miller v. Bonta

Categories
Cops Hard Nosed Folks Both Good & Bad

It sounds to me that somebody has just had enough & a lot of Folks are rightly really scared

Belgium’s anti-lockdown ‘Rambo’ facing terrorism charges, TRACELESS for 5 days while several countries join manhunt efforts

Belgium’s anti-lockdown ‘Rambo’ facing terrorism charges, TRACELESS for 5 days while several countries join manhunt efforts
Hundreds of troops from Belgium, and beyond, have now thoroughly searched a vast area in the country where a fugitive soldier armed with highly dangerous weapons is believed to be hiding. However, no trace of him has been found.

A well-trained sniper from the Belgian army, Jurgen Conings, who has combat experience in several war zones including Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, disappeared on Monday. Having reportedly left life-threatening notes to several top officials, the 46-year-old man is believed to have taken several anti-tank missiles, a submachine gun and a handgun with an ability to pierce bulletproof vests from his unit’s ammunition depot. He himself is believed to be wearing the vest.

Conings is now a “terrorist suspect,” according to Belgian media. The federal prosecutor’s office has been investigating him for “attempted murder and illegal possession of weapons in a terrorist context,” the VRT broadcaster reported. Authorities also believe the suspect has not been “acting on impulse,” but is rather well-prepared.

ALSO ON RT.COMBelgium deploys military in manhunt for heavily armed ‘far-right’ soldier who decried life under ‘politicians & virologists’Throughout the week, some 400 Belgian troops, from both the army and the police, have been rigorously searching the Hoge Kempen National Park in the Belgian province of Limburg. Helicopters, armored cars and trucks were deployed for the manhunt, while hundreds searched the nature reserve meter by meter equipped with thermal cameras. Forces from Germany and the Netherlands have been mobilized, as the area where Conings is believed to be hiding borders these countries. Dutch special units are also on standby on their side of the border in case the man tries to cross.

A number of mosques in the Limburg province have closed, local media reported, due to the heavily armed man’s known far-right extremist views.

RT

Police have been listening through phone calls and looking at CCTV camera footage, but Conings “seems to be completely disconnected from the world,” Belgium’s VRT broadcaster reported. His girlfriend appealed to Conings on local television, asking him to “make sure it stops” and not to hurt anyone.

Earlier, a car belonging to the suspect was found. The military man, who had also been training other soldiers for foreign missions, has reportedly booby-trapped his vehicle with four rocket launchers inside. A grenade with a set of wires linking it to the car’s doors are said to have been discovered. There have also been reports that Conings left his service medals on his parents’ grave, with sources suggesting he did it on Tuesday.

Conings’ girlfriend, Gwendy, is reported to be the one who alerted the authorities to her partner’s disappearance on Monday. She reportedly discovered several letters left behind, with local media quoting Conings as writing he “could no longer live in a society where politicians and virologists have taken everything away from us,” so he “would join the resistance and would not surrender.”

The trained soldier also reportedly made threatening notes to the country’s Defense Minister Ludivine Dedonder who is now under extra protection, VRT reported. “You trained me to become who I am, I am now going to use that against you,” the fugitive sniper reportedly wrote. He is also said to have threatened Belgium’s chief virologist Marc Van Ranst, now in charge of anti-Covid measures, and has been seen in the vicinity of the official’s home.

He’s been preparing for his action for days, and it turns out that he was effectively close to his target on Monday night, staying [near Van Ranst’s house] for more than two hours,” Minister of Justice Vincent Van Quickenborne said, as quoted by De Morgen.

According to Het Nieuwsblad, claiming to have seen Conings’ letters, he wrote, “I know that I will suddenly be the enemy of the state. They will look for me and find me after a while… I don’t care if I die or not, but then it will be my way.”

As of Saturday morning, no signs of Conings appear to have been found, and local media reported they had been moved further away from the command post. They also said a major column of military vehicles had left the area, with only a small police presence remaining, however it is yet unclear whether search efforts are being relocated.

Meanwhile, the evasive terrorist suspect has been gaining popularity on social media.

Facebook groups with thousands of members openly support Conings, while a petition has been launched on a popular platform to “let Jurgen live.” Belgium’s Interior Minister Annelies Verlinden has criticized such sympathy. “People who make him a hero, or a Rambo character or a movie hero, they are mistaken, I think,” she said in an interview for local television, adding, “That man is indeed dangerous and has very dangerous intentions.”