Political Beast: Police Procedures [or: “Gee, does this sound boring?”]

[ACLU-Mississippi/Blake Feldman (right-bgd.)]

When Political Beast decided to go back to the subject of police-community relations, we were a bit hesitant, since we’ve covered this pretty thoroughly in a former article, but, since this is the subject of [some podcast discussion] by DeViney and Wellein, we thought we’d go over some of the questions some of you have asked about the topic.

What the heck is the “Broken Windows Theory,” and why should I care?

The Broken Windows Theory is a theory that was developed in 1982 by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, positing that if small crimes, like vandalism, jaywalking, or littering are prevented, then more serious crimes, like breaking and entering, stealing cars, or assault would be less common. The theory makes sense, but the devil in this case is NOT in the details.

It’s in something called…implémentation.

The only way to stop smaller crimes is to interfere more with people’s lives. Policies like “Stop and Frisk” were put in place based on the Broken Windows Theory, and have led to, let’s just say, problems. As in, people don’t like the police, police don’t like them back, and people get shot. Like cop people and not-so cop people. This leads to two basic approaches: 1) Get Proactive! This approach means cops come into greater contact with the public BEFORE a crime is committed. Contacty stuff like going door to door, introducing themselves, asking if they can help in any way, eating free hot dogs at the 7-11, picking up their free large, one-topping pizza at Domino’s, and flirting with your teenage daughter at Applebee’s.

You see how this can be productive.

If by proactive, however, we mean police are pulling over more and more people just because they look suspicious, or stopping guys on the street because they’re wearing baggy clothes or sleeping with a cop’s ex-wife, this could result in people, like, getting mad…and getting shot.

What are the pro’s & con’s of Body Cameras? Of Gun Cameras?

Body cameras (if they’re turned on) can give an accurate record of what occurs during an arrest, and can show the color of the back of the shirt of a black teen when it gets a hole put in it by a white police officer. This also means officers can be held accountable for their actions when interacting with the public. If they follow policy, the body cameras are their best friends. If they don’t, Black Lives Matter show up with Rev. Sharpton. Gun cameras are cameras that are not running until the officer pulls his gun out of its holster. This means battery life is much longer, and it means a camera is on, pointed at the suspect at the most critical moment in a cop’s line of duty. Also, many gun cameras immediately notify dispatch that the officer has his gun drawn, so there’s no need to be distracted with radioing in. The down sides are that the cameras are an extra $500 or so out of what is probably an already-strained budget, and they don’t show the stupidity of the officer or the suspect that led to the gun being drawn to begin with.

A Young Lady Dramatically Remains Silent in a Stoic Display of Support of “Black Lives Matter”

What steps could the police and city officials take to improve police-community relations?

I watched a 60 minutes segment a month or so after Bill De Blasio was elected mayor of New York City, who announced at his swearing-in ceremony that he was doing away with “Stop and Frisk.” The tv news magazine was trying to weigh the results of this new policy. The results seemed to be that 1) crime was going up, and 2) relationships between police and the community had been improved. Also, a possible third conclusion was that we haven’t really had enough time to tell what the long-term effects will be.

Police procedures touch every aspect of the community, and how we allow the police to interfere with our lives and how we react to their interference tests the very tensile strength of society’s thread. The police should probably stop or pull over about 20% less suspects than they do currently, and that time should be spent instead fraternizing (yes, I am encouraging fraternizing) with the community, as we mentioned before. Political Beast believes this is not only the most effective tool for fixing tension, but is has the added benefit of being the right thing to do.

What are the pro’s & con’s of allowing police officers to live outside of the municipality they work for?

This is a great question that seems simple enough: should we require cops to live in the communities they police? The upside to allowing cops to live outside their jurisdiction is that you’re more likely to retain good officers, especially if you’re the chief of a large, urban city. Letting your policemen and women move their families out to the suburbs, with bigger houses, bigger yards, and better schools is quite a poignant way to hold on to talent. Also, some officers don’t like living in such close proximity to the people they’re policing. They feel like, after work, it’s time for a break.

One downside is that, in an emergency, more than half your force could be an hour away. There are, in fact, some suburbs where the police employed by the big city center outnumber the officers employed in the suburb itself. The more insidious problem is that it leads the citizens in the city to feel like they’re being policed by an outside, occupying force. They never interact with the police in any but a negative way, and they never see these officers without a badge and a gun. Similarly, it can lead to a lack of empathy on the part of the police, since they only ever interact with the public in the same negative way.

In Minneapolis, the city has come up with a compromise. Starting out, an officer has to live in the city itself for a number of years, but then are allowed to move outside the city, hopefully after having built those important relationships within the community.

What is the difference between racial profiling and criminal profiling?

Racial profiling is confronting or detaining someone because of the color of their skin. Statistically, minorities commit a larger percentage of crimes, so simply using this easy math, police know they will catch more criminals if they focus on blacks. This is against policy in every precinct in America.

Criminal profiling is looking at the physical situation, location, actions, body language, and speech of a suspect and determining that you have probable cause to confront them. This is what every police academy tries to instill in their cadets. Whether they’re successful or not is determined through the sacred process of suing the pants off any police department that can pay.

What is the “Ferguson Effect” and what can be done to overcome it today?

The Ferguson Effect refers to a situation in Ferguson, just outside of St. Louis, MO, where a supposedly-unarmed black 18-year-old was shot (supposedly in the back) by a white officer. The officer was found not-guilty, after being tried outside the jurisdiction where the shooting occurred, since the court felt he could not get a fair trial because of anger in the community. The effect of the confrontation, the shooting, the trial, and the anger has been that more and more, police officers are choosing not to interfere when they suspect a crime is being committed. This is because of fear of a confrontation becoming an escalation. Thus, more crimes go without scrutiny and (therefore) unpunished.

What could be done to overcome this would be to train better, so that police will feel confident in their investigative skills and prepared to de-escalate better when the situation gets hot. They could also quit being so quick to use their sidearm and readier to use non-lethal weapons, or no weapons at all. But the most important part of this entire midterm exam is what I want to say here: the question is fallacious. It’s based on an assumption that the Ferguson Effect is bad. It isn’t. Political Beast will now attempt to articulate for a third time an opinion that law enforcement should spend less time harassing people and more time getting to know people. Well, the Ferguson Effect takes care of one half of that.

What information of substance can be gleaned from the FBI Report on Law Enforcement Officers killed in 2016 that would be informative to a public and the media who seem more interested in police killings of citizens?

Ok, so nobody asked me this question, but it’s important, so shut up and read:

The FBI report shows that assaults and killings of law enforcement officers has gone up significantly from 2015-2016, and that the most common cause of death is an ambush with a firearm. Obviously, this shows a decreasing level of respect and an increasing level of animosity toward the police. What was the most interesting fact to me was where the report broke down the deaths by age and years of experience. There was very little difference in the rate of attack or rate of death, whether the cop was in his/her 20s with 3 years on the job, or was 45 with 15 years on the job. I would’ve thought that with experience would come caution, and it might, but that also could be offset by complacency.

[COURTESY OF: WBCO.com] Dallas police officers stand in a line near the site of shootings in downtown Dallas, early Friday, July 8, 2016. Snipers opened fire on police officers, police said; some of the officers were killed. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

What would be the most informative fact to come to light would be if one were to read this FBI report, then read a report showing the rate of the police shootings of civilians over the last few years, which shootings have gone DOWN. What is critical for the public and the media to understand, is that police shootings are simply reported on more and more often, because ratings go up when you talk about them. Simultaneously, more and more confrontations are caught on camera, so we can actually SEE them now. This makes for even better press, but also hotter anger. Thus, the increased shooting of police officers reported in the FBI document.

Let’s be really honest, there’s no simple fix for these and other serious problems. I’m reading James Wilson’s Thinking About Crime, published in 1975, where he develops a series of theories about how to improve policing. Wilson addresses all of these issues. In 1975. Not much has changed, so I hold out no hope that one measly article in an online magazine is gonna crack the nut. What CAN change is if you and I approach community policing the way we should approach our health: we don’t just go in to the doctor and take orders. We ask questions, we do our own research. We become an active participant in our own health care. The same goes for our local police. Don’t wait on them. Walk up and introduce yourself. Learn their names. Tell them what you think. And keep the questions coming.

Coker, Gabe

Gonzo State: [Untitled]

“Bentley! Bentley. I suggest…I suggest that you do something different with your life right now.” This instruction was delivered by my boss (at the time) to his unruly Huskie, but it might as well have been given to my entire generation.

As always, the day had given way to night and my mind had wrestled with itself long enough. I needed sanctuary, strong drink and a blank expression with which to watch the news on screens behind the heads of the locals. With the mind of a fried pie I careened my car down a thoroughfare of an unincorporated town in West Virginia, roughly sixty miles from Washington D.C.

“Babylon,” I came to call D.C. as a Sailor stationed in Bethesda, which was appropriate enough that no one cares to question the nickname. It was by a sense of awe, despair, disgust and reverence that I came by it the hard way some years ago.

The Christmas lights around Arlington had shone brightly on my most sentimental evening, awash with history and the sort of romance that saw my Army counterpart’s cheek against mine, her words in my ear accompanied by my kiss on her neck.

Then, the other shoe dropped and zang! I’m departing the parking garage of Target near P.F. Chang’s, a sudden desperate attempt to keep a fellow servicemember alive and out of trouble, and barely having arrived in Rockville, Maryland, found myself in the company of a remarkable amount of police officers. While all was eventually sorted out (one way or another), I did discover that being handcuffed, face down on the pavement amidst a soft rain gave me an amazing opportunity to learn and reevaluate the nonsense I’d allowed a foothold in my life. “Teachable moments,” I’ve come to call such events with a wince oft confused for a smile, and rightfully so.

Let no good deed go unpunished.

“It was all downhill from there,” I uttered to my glass and coaster on the bar, awaiting another potent haul of ethanol. “Or is it, ‘down on the bed’ from there? Not nearly as catchy.” The general uproar that passed for ambience as karaoke loomed large made my private social commentaries a non-factor.

“Hell,” I continued, mulling over the equal parts glory and horror of yesteryear, “if I was a woman they’d’ve labeled me a slut.” This was most certainly true, as I had responded to the eventual collapse of the genuine, heartmelting romance that blossomed in Arlington by carousing. I went on to live up to the archetype of heathen in the Navy, only I hadn’t needed a new port. D.C. had an endless supply of trysts for me to temporarily bind the wound of heartbreak with. I had largely imploded things with she myself, but damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead, aye?

“Aye, got it!” I said, louder than intended as my libation arrived. Few noticed, none cared. But I digress.

Every single horror of the corruption of public life crept its way into Walter Reed the two years I’d been there as the primary Army and Navy hospitals merged there in Maryland. It was a handful of miles from the epicenter of our Federal Republic, our Representative Democracy. Whatever label you prefer, the genuine, tender romance and the unnecessary legal crucible were equal parts of the same story.

So it was yesterday and is today and will be tomorrow. Wars and rumors of wars will abound along with the usual ugliness, while the bountiful opportunities, resplendence, and monuments sacred to America and Her Republic will ring hollow for any looking for that chapter. However, for those with a soul not set for self-destruct, there was the beauty and elegance and love that I discovered in Babylon. For my part, I vacillated between the cauldron of brutality and the essence of hallowed humanity.

Lucifer and a third of his fellow angels rebelled (at least in part) over the perception that God valued something fashioned from dirt over them; we hamstrung ourselves with our humanity during that time (2011-2013) in Bethesda, both our frailties and our strengths.

Did we make the case against humanity with our failures? I’m not so sure. The defeatism and Apocalypticism of the admittedly conflicted era that was the “new” Walter Reed circa 2011-2013 stands apart from now in several ways. Without the deflating drudgery of rattling them all off, at the very least one could look their friends and enemies in the eye. Betrayal and intrigue might be lurking around the next corner (per the modus operandi of Babylon and the government circuit as a whole) but those seeming eons ago politics was still the art of compromise. Then-POTUS Obama (D-IL) and then-House Speaker Boehner (R-OH) can hardly be soberly accused of engaging in the politics of blood sport we’ve now.

Now? Depending on their background, looking one’s enemies and/or friends in the eye might get you flagged on any number of social media platforms and could very well get you labeled with some sort of “-ism”, as one type of “-ist” or another. A whole decade ago Section 230 was applied within the spirit of its creation, lending the happenings online a sort of Wild West vibe when juxtaposed to the great cosmic gag-reel taking place now.

“What is Section 230?” one might ask. This, too, is a well-placed and unscripted question, but it makes little difference when Louis Farrakhan can spit his vile verbal excrement at hapless passerby on social media, but not Donald Trump. No, indeed. Hardly an avid defender of the former POTUS, I nonetheless present our Federal support and protections for our Silicon Valley overlords as Exhibit A for the how/why (either/and/or) the Federal Communications Commission has adequate pretext to cry foul. This is tantamount to “collateral censorship”, or censorship by proxy. That’s the biggest item George Orwell didn’t foresee in my favorite novel, “1984”: private enterprise conducting the censorship, and not the state itself.

Since I’ve likely lost anyone who hates The Donald for my defending his First Amendment rights, I might as well toss a grenade in this burgeoning dumpster fire. Wouldn’t Joe Manchin lead off that way?

“The wind only blows sometimes.” “He’s exactly right!”

While hardly the binary option both the Communists of the Far Left and the Fascists of the Far Right want all the Sheeple to give an “Amen!” and believe, the conflict between being a John Locke liberal in favor of largely laissez-faire capitalism (not the crony kind) with a strong, (but) limited Federal government and in wanting a respectable return on our investment in Section 230 protections granted Silicon Valley (and company), it is amusing on a perverse level.

“Afterall,” I told myself, “everyone hates a centrist, so you might as well enjoy it, Jack. The good news is, only White elitists are storming off after closing your column a few paragraphs back. They can kick rocks. There’s surely a Mother Jones article or athletic mutant defecating on the very flag that enables their miserable existence out there, somewhere, that they can flee to. Still miserable, but they showed me! No First Amendment for the people who make us think and shit.”

It was only at the end of this paragraph that I realized I wasn’t just thinking this as I tapped it into a note on my phone for later insertion into this very diatribe. I was muttering much of it out loud.

“Ignore the madness of a world that has made this swashbuckler appear normal. Ignore the celebutante-rejects aghast at those not absorbed in Chinese spyware ‘social’ apps available on any mainstream App Store.”

And why not? Afterall, the Communists now want the populace to swallow the latest swill their Thought Police have puked out, and nod slowly, basking in the wisdom of the notion that Black children being taught mathematics is racist. Conversely, the Fascists want the citizenry at-large to embrace their latest, unintelligible Reductio Ad Absurdum that beating cops to a pulp while shouting racist terms at the non-White officers is okay as long as they’re patriots. Thin Blue Line and all. “Thin Blue Line”, you ingrates? Put the straw down.

“Dear God Almighty,” I mumbled into my Long Island Iced Tea, nearly gone due to the urgent need to anesthetize myself. No reply, and not because He wants us to forget He exists, but because it’s the pizza we ordered, and it has arrived with all the trappings. Whose fault is that?

The lunacy in the former example is in those on the Far Left who by proxy think the Black intellect is so dormant, psyche so timid, that there need be no Black doctors, economists, engineers, et cetera, in the future. Mathematics is a rather integral part of the process of those career paths. Who’s holding who back with racist ideology again, exactly?

The madness in the latter example is at least as vivid and particularly poignant from people on the Far Right who think cops can do no wrong. You say The Filth went too far in Example X? “I say they didn’t go too far enough!” some neo-Successionist will bleat with the fervor of a patriot, by God. Just a patriot to another country, and not this one. But why quibble about it? Sure, seems reasonable enough to pass muster on “Squidbillies.”

Imitation being the highest form of flattery, the method to the unorthodoxy of this publication has never been less necessary. Both extremes in the sadly binary world of Castro and Mussolini neophytes demand the long-term vision, the sort of engaging in politics (again, “The Art of Compromise”) as a year-round endeavor that there is no app or “hack” for. The marathon, not the sprint, is what is at hand. I’d rather flatter the Edward Brooke III, the Alexander Hamilton, the Barbra Streisand, the Hunter S. Thompson and even the Master Shake with imitation than embrace the intellectual suicide of either Irredeemable America or Exceptional American Unilateralism.

Whichever clown car takes the stage from either extremist wing of discourse, they both will assure us that we’d feel so much better if only we’d embrace their brand of groupthink. Tsk, tsk, I know, but such is the rot of the putrescence we’ve inexplicably opted to wallow in.

What both teams of malcontents mean is we’ll feel much better carrying all of our favorite shows with us on all of our devices as they continue embezzling and funneling money to the duopoly in Babylon. The royalty on Capitol Hill will then reward our wholehearted faith with continued malignant governance and further insolvency on every level (social, fiscal, geopolitical, et al).

“Who knows?” I mumbled with a shrug. “With any luck, the dead will walk again and we’ll have an existential reason to disallow the Neanderthals in Congress from fucking the same coconut over and over while saying they’re carrying out the people’s business. All, naturally, with a straight face. And pursed lips. Can’t forget the ‘duck face.’ Gotta meet my fellow Millennials halfway.”

“You say something, Hun?”

The bartender had taken notice of my glass being devoid of strong drink, and grew concerned. Animals entering sexual congress with fruit, however, passed muster.

‘Of course it did,’ I thought, but could only reply with a low rasp as I exited my barstool.

“Yes, Ma’am. Check please.”

And on the 8th day, God made bears. Lots and lots of bears.

Does this era need introduction? Or, rather, may a suitable introduction be written? I report, you deride.

1: In any rational era, the sudden appearance of lurid photographs of well-known public figures tends to happen without the consent of those captured in the images. Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Anthony Weiner, et al. Notable exceptions to this are of the celebutante variety who sport last names such as Hilton and Kardashian, but then, their deliberate release of self-incriminating material isn’t indicative of a rational era.

That there’s a Stairway to Heaven but a Highway to Hell is indicative of expected traffic volume.

The great Jerry Falwell, Jr., well his undeniable greatness as an Evangelical Christian minister and university president is so ineffable, so vast, that he was no longer able to be confined by any notion of modern decency. If that’s still a thing, that is. Either way, the photograph posted containing the erstwhile head of Liberty University (and descendent of the late and decent Jerry Falwell) is disturbing on several counts. Let’s take a look:

Now, I’m not sure if it’s the ghastly attempt at humor (yeah, “black water”, haw haw haw!), the self-caricature of the gut and the unzipped pants combined with the awful rug on his counterpart (who is not his wife, for those keeping score at home), the fact that students of said Evangelical university get expelled for drinking and/or extra-marital sexual encounters, or that this wasn’t a leak at all that makes this such a disgrace. He could’ve just said it was a faux Black Dog in his glass and been done with it.

The man (so-called) “leaked” it via his own social media aperture, and then delivered a truly abysmal mockery of an apology on-air, and I quote: “I’ve promised my kids I’m going to try to be…I’m gonna try to be a good boy from here on out.” Rock and Roll, Jerry!

Oh and Mrs. Falwell, when your marriage does end, remember: you [expletive deleted] your rebound, and that’s it. You don’t permanently abscond from reality and keep [expletive deleted] them long-term and/or marry them. Especially, I might add, if you plucked them from the extras of “The Walking Dead.”

Silly me. But seriously, though: booze and Evangelicals and social media shouldn’t mix.

2: At times, the headlines write themselves. In their own attempt to swing loose with reality, as it were, Iran has a fabricated aircraft carrier resembling one of those wielded by the United States Navy. “Why”, you ask? An entirely unscripted and well-placed question. For their own propaganda purposes that is, until the entire experiment blew up in their faces. Living out their own version of “delirium tremens”, Iran was so successful in this charade that their accidental destruction of a prop US Navy aircraft carrier poses a threat to a major thoroughfare in the oil trade. Posing an existential threat to traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, and things apparently unbeknownst to Iran such as tides can shift the wreckage, endangering oil tankers.

Give the Ayatollah our best. Speaking of “the best”, if you’re going to challenge the world’s preeminent naval power, you’d better come correct. The Battle of Evermore this is not.

3: Biden must face Trump in debate(s). Yes, it’s answering a “double dog dare” from the POTUS and no, you don’t want to give in to the whims of a bully. But if you don’t follow through then it looks like you’re hiding in a basement and afraid to face Donald J. Trump on the stage. What’s the worst that could happen? They then “triple dog dare” one another to a lindy hop dance-off to the “Misty Mountain Hop” or hand out four sticks (one to both members of each ticket) to swing with? Why would you be afraid of that if you’re in the Biden camp unless, per the Trump camp’s assertions, the former Vice President will be unable to remember whether he’s going to California, or another, “y’know, the thing” that the Founding Fathers said? The great equalizer is the human ego. They’ll debate.

This is an event waiting to go wrong. Don’t hang out with bears. [image credit to Daily Caller & Barstool Sports]

4: Meanwhile, the National Park Service has posted a warning urging American adventurers not to confront bears but, if they do, to not take advantage of their slower companions. And no, this is not made up. Nor is the response of a pack of humans, recently, to a bear arriving in their midst. They didn’t flee or otherwise attempt to discourage the bear; instead they took pictures of their merry band whilst feeding the bear. Good call, ‘Murica.

5: Bill Barr’s appearance was a disgrace for everyone except the Attorney General. For committee chairman Nadler, to open the hearing with that statement was an outrage; and Jordan, thanks for the monologue on things that happened before Barr was back on the job and for God’s sake put your damn coat on!

6: Stat of the Week: the POTUS’ campaign is knocking on 1 million doors a week; the former VPOTUS’ camp is knocking on 0. As in ZERO. Z-E-R-O. This sort of nonsense only seems like nonsenseuntil the time when the levee breaks. Underestimate the mad media genius of The Donald at your peril.

Y’know what? Let’s just cancel everything. If everything’s priority one, then nothing is priority one.

7 June 2020

Black Lives Matter: Let’s cut through the fat together, shall we? Yes or yes? Good. With that, we have a problem in America. Several, actually. We live in a police state, for one thing, and for another, paramount now, is said police state taking a particular interest in African Americans.

Let’s also consider the unbelievable, highly-classified powers of FISA courts to spy unopposed on our own people without their knowledge indefinitely, the ability of the Federal government to suspend the Constitutional rights of American citizens suspected of terrorism via the Patriot Act and the inexplicable repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act (which forbade the Federal Government from using propaganda on American soil). Are you drinking what I’m pouring?

With no malice in my heart toward the many fine police officers across the land (a few I’ve known personally), I say again: we live in a police state.

Over the past decade alone, we have seen increasing examples of the use of excessive force on a disproportionate number of black Americans. Data clearly shows that Whites compose 76.5% of America’s citizenry while Blacks make up 13.4% of it, the former were shot to death by police 370 times versus 235 for the latter.

For those who want to bring out FBI data displaying prevalence of crime amongst inner city black neighborhoods, recall the negligible difference in drug use between whites and blacks and the parity in gun culture between the two.

America glorifies violence, and that crosses ethnic lines. Don’t believe me? Look at what I call “Dollar Voting”, in essence, what we value and spend our money on. What does our art and culture reflect? If we’re being real, it ain’t peace. Does hip hop culture lend itself to violence? Listen to the top ten hits of the genre and get back to me; but before you get back to me, let me know what Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Jerry Reed and “The Dukes of Hazzard” were all about while you’re at it.

As for the movement itself, “Black Lives Matter” is driving home a simple point: yes, every house in the neighborhood matters but only one of them is on fire.

We hardly need a hashtag for Blue (Police) Lives Matter; they roam about largely unopposed, vested with a badge and lethal weaponry, and we provide a safety net (union, pension, et cetera) and, in general, blanket support to include the high probability that bad actors aren’t held accountable in court.

All Lives Matter? Do they? Maybe I’d be more decisive in answering these questions if every new episode of “Death By Cop” didn’t always star a black man.

– Jack DeViney

*************

New Orleans Police Department preps for ongoing confrontation and protest throughout downtown.

All Lives Matter(?): Two things can be true at once. In fact, very few things in our world are mutually exclusive of themselves. One can, for example, be in favor of the events in the George Floyd case never happening again and find the phrase “Black Lives Matters” offensive. They are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. This depends on your definitions of words. Words matter. Words have meaning. Facts matter. Facts have meaning.

If by any definition, one is not a racist, but they will not stand shoulder to shoulder with Black Lives Matter signs, or they won’t kneel down in front of a mob of protestors, they become….what? Insensitive? Divisive?

To be true to this point, I believe “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter” are equally asinine. We don’t protest on things we agree upon. We don’t stand outside and shout “the sky is blue”!

Are things worse now than the mid-1960’s? Or do we see public discord in 3D now? We report, you deride.

The assertion that a black man can not step from his home without fear of imminent death from a racist ‘Mericuh is as equally preposterous as the media’s “1619” narrative that America is as systemically racist as at any time in our history. Really? Where’s the poll of young, black men asking them if they’d rather live in 1865, 1965 or 2020? I must’ve missed that astute revelation.

Instead of regurgitated statistics that the left/media refuse to acknowledge anyway, how about we come at this from a novel approach. [So] what is your suggestion? I mean, with all of the statistics stating the exact opposite of your point, what are we doing wrong? Are our hiring standards too low? Is training being swept aside to fast-track officers onto beats? Do we provide immunity to officers that is unnecessary and counter-productive? Let’s get to the “nut cutting” as they say.

If we want to turn this into another narrative where the right just refuses to admit there is a substantial issue and is instead hiding behind years of conservative practices…show me! Where are the statistics that support any of this nonsense? That show America is systemically racist and prejudiced against black Americans? Where are the politicians that you are particularly citing as responsible for these aggressions? Or is it just “orange man bad”, with his “basket of deplorables”?

Once again, the left/media have overplayed their hands. We were told millions of Americans would die if we didn’t shut the world down indefinitely. Now if you have a small business and want to re-open smartly so that you don’t lose everything, you’re killing grandma! We were told that if we would just allow LGBT marriages, all examples of bigotry would be history. Now if you’re a Millennial male that won’t go out with a trans-woman (a man by all scientific facts and definitions), you’re a homophobe! And now, if you won’t march to the beat of this drum, well, you’re just a racist. Or worse, an “Uncle Tom.”

It’s tiring. It’s divisive. It’s unnecessary. This issue is one we must agree on, or we don’t have a country. You cannot have law and order if one group is being systematically hunted down and killed by those sworn to protect us.

Facts matter. Statistics matter. Two things can be true at once.

– Michael R. DeViney, Jr.

Political Beast: Police Procedures [or: “Gee, does this sound boring?”]

Coker, Gabe

Gonzo State: [Untitled]

Six Degrees of Knowin’ Nothin’: [Untitled]

Contrast: Black Lives Matter v. All Lives Matter (et al)