Well, you had to figure it was going to happen at some point with protesters thinking that blocking the public way was a great idea.
But before everyone decides to jump on the bandwagon of how terrible this is, let me utter one name that would resonate in my mind if I were to have to decide whether to stop for protesters or drive through them:
REGINALD DENNY.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
And then there's this...
An answer to the question why mob violence will not get you what you want.
Let me see if I can channel this properly:
- You need to treat us fairly, as equals! When frustrated we will lash out, have tantrums like children, even when the targets of our violence are not guilty or even are those who support us.
- We are not criminals! How about we loot that store over there!
There is a clear disconnect here with regard to the social covenant we all agree to so as to live in a peaceful society and be treated with respect and dignity. I realize that, in modern times, a ideology has emerged that asserts that we are all allowed to do as we please simply because we are alive. But a society functions as a unit when its members all hew to common standards and goals. That being the case, to demand that one be treated with respect when one is incapable of treating others that way, is pointless. When one considers the most viable means to attaining a respected position in society to be acting in a lawless manner, they defeat their own purpose.
We hear a lot about stereotypes of young black males. Where to you think they come from? They emerge from the same process that leads to stereotypes of white Americans. Please tell me how acting in violent and lawless ways helps to overcome the stereotype, how the apparent lack of emotional control helps to change such views? When you seem to be trying so hard to fulfill every negative stereotype you can, when you decide to lash out at those who are blameless, then you are creating enemies, not supporters.
I wonder what all those liberals will do if the "protesters" decide to come and burn shit down in their neighborhoods. I suppose they probably have gates and private security. For me in my world, with no gates or security except what I bring with me, the answer is, quite blunt; don't bring that shit to my neighborhood, to my front yard. You won't like how it goes down. If defending myself against your indiscriminate violence makes me a racist, then I guess I'll have to be one.
Let me see if I can channel this properly:
- You need to treat us fairly, as equals! When frustrated we will lash out, have tantrums like children, even when the targets of our violence are not guilty or even are those who support us.
- We are not criminals! How about we loot that store over there!
There is a clear disconnect here with regard to the social covenant we all agree to so as to live in a peaceful society and be treated with respect and dignity. I realize that, in modern times, a ideology has emerged that asserts that we are all allowed to do as we please simply because we are alive. But a society functions as a unit when its members all hew to common standards and goals. That being the case, to demand that one be treated with respect when one is incapable of treating others that way, is pointless. When one considers the most viable means to attaining a respected position in society to be acting in a lawless manner, they defeat their own purpose.
We hear a lot about stereotypes of young black males. Where to you think they come from? They emerge from the same process that leads to stereotypes of white Americans. Please tell me how acting in violent and lawless ways helps to overcome the stereotype, how the apparent lack of emotional control helps to change such views? When you seem to be trying so hard to fulfill every negative stereotype you can, when you decide to lash out at those who are blameless, then you are creating enemies, not supporters.
I wonder what all those liberals will do if the "protesters" decide to come and burn shit down in their neighborhoods. I suppose they probably have gates and private security. For me in my world, with no gates or security except what I bring with me, the answer is, quite blunt; don't bring that shit to my neighborhood, to my front yard. You won't like how it goes down. If defending myself against your indiscriminate violence makes me a racist, then I guess I'll have to be one.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Ferguson...so here's the thing. (UPDATED AND EXPANDED)
Huffington Post, among other media outlets, has for months now, demonized Officer Darren Wilson. They consistently talk of him having killed Michael Brown - an "unarmed teen" - which, of course, he was. But the use of the term in this this case is not meant to inform, but to inflame. He was an "unarmed" and potentially assaultive teen who was the size of some of the largest NFL defensive linemen. So, he was not called "a hostile and belligerent giant teen intent on assaulting a police officer", even though indications are that he had a history of physical assault (not unusual in such large adolescents) and a disposition to match, given video of his confrontation with a store manager just prior to the events that lead to his death. So let's start right away by debunking the "gentle giant" notions and agree that he likely chose to be combative with Wilson; a poor and irrational decision that contributed to his death.
None of this is meant to suggest that his death was not a tragedy. In fact, none of this even needs to refer to his race or the race of the LEO (of course, to the media and those intent of being disgruntled, this is essentially the sole defining feature of this unfortunate affair.
What this does is set the stage for disaster, no matter who gets killed (and clearly someone was destined to die in this situation).
But let's start by asking "What should Wilson have done?" What options did he have? Well, upon initial contact, perhaps he should have waited for backup prior to approaching Brown. Of course, we have to acknowledge that this may not have solved the problem or prevented the tragedy. It certainly may also have inflamed tensions when a cadre of officers ends up approaching a belligerent and "unarmed teen", a gentle giant (does this sound like the prelude to a Rodney King event). It may have ended up with wrestling, clubbing and tasing (all caught on video), which would have been roundly criticized. But it may have avoided a fatality. But Wilson didn't wait; that is not evidence of maliciousness; naivete or even poor situational awareness, but not malice. There is no evidence that he did not follow procedure.
Perhaps, once he realized that Brown was large, high, belligerent and combative, he should have decided that survival (both his and Browne's) trumped the law and simply left, backed off. Of course, that is not what we expect of our LEOs, that they allow potential law-breakers to go free because it might be difficult or risky to stop them. I also expect, given Brown's demeanor, that he had a history of intimidating people physically and thus, perhaps, this was what Brown expected - he would intimidate the officer into leaving him alone. But that is not what happened, either. Sadly, this seems to be what the "community" thinks should happen; that a young black male should simply be left to do as he will.
What would you have done if you were in Brown's place? Let's start at step 1: Would you have robbed a small convenience store, taking cigars and shoving the manager out of your way as you left? Would you then, when approached by an LEO after such an act, have decided it was better to initiate combat than de-escalate, fight rather than comply? If you place total blame on Wilson for this event, then you are saying this is what you would have done as well, that there was nothing wrong with how Brown reacted. sadly, this is what many in the "community" seem to be saying; that Brown's behavior was excusable.
So, what was Wilson to do? Even Joe Scarborough was able to realize that "...cops are jerks to everybody, when you don't do what cops tell you to do. I'm 6-foot-4. I weigh way too much. I'm a big guy. If I'm coming at a cop on Staten Island, and I go into the car, if we believe the grand jury report, do we believe the cop would act differently towards me than Michael Brown?"
So, what was Wilson supposed to do? I know for most people it is not possible to imagine themselves in that place, most would not ever choose to work in a profession where they might have to potentially encounter such an individual. Most who are complaining about it would probably not walk down the street where Brown lived - they have great empathy for African-Americans, but would be too fearful to walk that street. And, if they did, Brown would likely rob or assault them.
But think on it - what would you do? Small decisions made without awareness or anticipation of their potential outcome lead to a large confrontation. Consider yourself in Wilson's place - it is your job to stop this person who is walking in the middle of the street. Upon contacting him, it becomes apparent that he took part in a recently reported robbery. Can you figure into your decision as to whether to do your duty his race, color or size? Do you decide not to do your job because he is black and you are white? Does your responsibility change due to these elements? Do we have to sets of laws?
The answer has to be no, that it does not; so you move forward doing your job. So, when the shit hits the fan, what do you do? You contact and attempt to stop a suspected criminal who decides that he will not comply, not be taken. Someone 80 - 100 lbs larger than you decides to resist arrest or detention via attack and is beating on you. You are overwhelmed, you are not match in a physical fight, you are trapped in your vehicle and there is a clear disparity of force and dangerous intent, You are trying to detain him, protect yourself, he is trying to kill you. You fear for your life, you have been struck a couple of times and you feel it is likely you will be rendered unconscious. Suppose, as an LEO, you are carrying a gun, and in this scuffle this individual has already grabbed for your gun and you are certain that, should you be incapacitated, the gun will be taken and used on you.
That is your dilemma. Of course, there are more than enough armchair quarterbacks, looking at the scene from plush couches in cozy offices, academicians who have never set foot in a dangerous neighborhood, looking back at it without knowing what it is like to be in that moment. They know what you should have done. Sing Kumbaya with Brown and all will be well. But let's leave them to their fantasies and be real. For all the twists and turns that could have kept these players from ever crossing paths, here you are. What do you do? There are people who will not be reasoned with - especially with an LEO when they have just committed a crime - this was one of them. So if that is your choice, you are dead - story over, and likely very little media attention to your death. Or, you can defend yourself as best you can.
So the two choices are pretty clear at this point; when it has come this far, the situation dictates that you either die or defend yourself. By the time this event got to this point, the end was inevitable; someone was going to be killed. Should Wilson simply allowed himself to be killed? Would you (be honest)? There are those who would think that was the better solution; that for all the social ills of our times, it is better for a white cop to die than a black teen. That would be "social justice".
Polls find that Americans are deeply divided on the issue of culpability in this case. That is because, as noted above and contrary to what you will hear elsewhere, this is not a simple equation and there are things that both might have done to de-escalate the situation. Once it reached its peak, it was too late for that.
I know - this all relies on logical thinking, which is short supply these days. White cop, black teen, no brainer.
None of this is meant to suggest that his death was not a tragedy. In fact, none of this even needs to refer to his race or the race of the LEO (of course, to the media and those intent of being disgruntled, this is essentially the sole defining feature of this unfortunate affair.
What this does is set the stage for disaster, no matter who gets killed (and clearly someone was destined to die in this situation).
But let's start by asking "What should Wilson have done?" What options did he have? Well, upon initial contact, perhaps he should have waited for backup prior to approaching Brown. Of course, we have to acknowledge that this may not have solved the problem or prevented the tragedy. It certainly may also have inflamed tensions when a cadre of officers ends up approaching a belligerent and "unarmed teen", a gentle giant (does this sound like the prelude to a Rodney King event). It may have ended up with wrestling, clubbing and tasing (all caught on video), which would have been roundly criticized. But it may have avoided a fatality. But Wilson didn't wait; that is not evidence of maliciousness; naivete or even poor situational awareness, but not malice. There is no evidence that he did not follow procedure.
Perhaps, once he realized that Brown was large, high, belligerent and combative, he should have decided that survival (both his and Browne's) trumped the law and simply left, backed off. Of course, that is not what we expect of our LEOs, that they allow potential law-breakers to go free because it might be difficult or risky to stop them. I also expect, given Brown's demeanor, that he had a history of intimidating people physically and thus, perhaps, this was what Brown expected - he would intimidate the officer into leaving him alone. But that is not what happened, either. Sadly, this seems to be what the "community" thinks should happen; that a young black male should simply be left to do as he will.
What would you have done if you were in Brown's place? Let's start at step 1: Would you have robbed a small convenience store, taking cigars and shoving the manager out of your way as you left? Would you then, when approached by an LEO after such an act, have decided it was better to initiate combat than de-escalate, fight rather than comply? If you place total blame on Wilson for this event, then you are saying this is what you would have done as well, that there was nothing wrong with how Brown reacted. sadly, this is what many in the "community" seem to be saying; that Brown's behavior was excusable.
So, what was Wilson to do? Even Joe Scarborough was able to realize that "...cops are jerks to everybody, when you don't do what cops tell you to do. I'm 6-foot-4. I weigh way too much. I'm a big guy. If I'm coming at a cop on Staten Island, and I go into the car, if we believe the grand jury report, do we believe the cop would act differently towards me than Michael Brown?"
So, what was Wilson supposed to do? I know for most people it is not possible to imagine themselves in that place, most would not ever choose to work in a profession where they might have to potentially encounter such an individual. Most who are complaining about it would probably not walk down the street where Brown lived - they have great empathy for African-Americans, but would be too fearful to walk that street. And, if they did, Brown would likely rob or assault them.
But think on it - what would you do? Small decisions made without awareness or anticipation of their potential outcome lead to a large confrontation. Consider yourself in Wilson's place - it is your job to stop this person who is walking in the middle of the street. Upon contacting him, it becomes apparent that he took part in a recently reported robbery. Can you figure into your decision as to whether to do your duty his race, color or size? Do you decide not to do your job because he is black and you are white? Does your responsibility change due to these elements? Do we have to sets of laws?
The answer has to be no, that it does not; so you move forward doing your job. So, when the shit hits the fan, what do you do? You contact and attempt to stop a suspected criminal who decides that he will not comply, not be taken. Someone 80 - 100 lbs larger than you decides to resist arrest or detention via attack and is beating on you. You are overwhelmed, you are not match in a physical fight, you are trapped in your vehicle and there is a clear disparity of force and dangerous intent, You are trying to detain him, protect yourself, he is trying to kill you. You fear for your life, you have been struck a couple of times and you feel it is likely you will be rendered unconscious. Suppose, as an LEO, you are carrying a gun, and in this scuffle this individual has already grabbed for your gun and you are certain that, should you be incapacitated, the gun will be taken and used on you.
That is your dilemma. Of course, there are more than enough armchair quarterbacks, looking at the scene from plush couches in cozy offices, academicians who have never set foot in a dangerous neighborhood, looking back at it without knowing what it is like to be in that moment. They know what you should have done. Sing Kumbaya with Brown and all will be well. But let's leave them to their fantasies and be real. For all the twists and turns that could have kept these players from ever crossing paths, here you are. What do you do? There are people who will not be reasoned with - especially with an LEO when they have just committed a crime - this was one of them. So if that is your choice, you are dead - story over, and likely very little media attention to your death. Or, you can defend yourself as best you can.
So the two choices are pretty clear at this point; when it has come this far, the situation dictates that you either die or defend yourself. By the time this event got to this point, the end was inevitable; someone was going to be killed. Should Wilson simply allowed himself to be killed? Would you (be honest)? There are those who would think that was the better solution; that for all the social ills of our times, it is better for a white cop to die than a black teen. That would be "social justice".
Polls find that Americans are deeply divided on the issue of culpability in this case. That is because, as noted above and contrary to what you will hear elsewhere, this is not a simple equation and there are things that both might have done to de-escalate the situation. Once it reached its peak, it was too late for that.
I know - this all relies on logical thinking, which is short supply these days. White cop, black teen, no brainer.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Coming soon to a locale near you...
Even Huffington Post will tell you that it is going to happen here.
We have already seen our junior home-grown versions of this, with workplace beheadings and assaults on LEOs. If you are naive enough to really believe it will not happen here, that a massive national security apparatus can stop something like this, then you are a fool.
"Visions of sugar plums" are dancing in your head if you think that you can rely on your government to keep you safe from lone, random, dedicated, and enthusiastic killers. So all you Moms Demanding Action and others who think that we can build a fantasyland by disarming all those who would obey the law have a good time when they come for you. All of you who think your rights are so important but mine (as in 2A) are not, enjoy it when yours are taken from you and you do not have the means to resist. As usual, you will wait for others to fight your fights for you, those who will resist your foolishness. If you are fortunate, you may wake up to this before it is too late.
Shall we predict the future? ISIS-inspired gunmen will start committing violence around the country; mass shootings at malls, theaters, schools, attacks on LEOs, maybe even firing on a MDA protest. A great outcry will go up to disarm the public in order to insure safety - they will be left defenseless dhimmi.
We have already seen our junior home-grown versions of this, with workplace beheadings and assaults on LEOs. If you are naive enough to really believe it will not happen here, that a massive national security apparatus can stop something like this, then you are a fool.
"Visions of sugar plums" are dancing in your head if you think that you can rely on your government to keep you safe from lone, random, dedicated, and enthusiastic killers. So all you Moms Demanding Action and others who think that we can build a fantasyland by disarming all those who would obey the law have a good time when they come for you. All of you who think your rights are so important but mine (as in 2A) are not, enjoy it when yours are taken from you and you do not have the means to resist. As usual, you will wait for others to fight your fights for you, those who will resist your foolishness. If you are fortunate, you may wake up to this before it is too late.
Shall we predict the future? ISIS-inspired gunmen will start committing violence around the country; mass shootings at malls, theaters, schools, attacks on LEOs, maybe even firing on a MDA protest. A great outcry will go up to disarm the public in order to insure safety - they will be left defenseless dhimmi.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
What certainty looks like
This is one example of what it looks like when people know the answer and no data are needed.
Why investigate?
Once more we listen to aggrieved parents and their attorney as if these are factual sources.
UPDATE: I am no friend of the KKK, but this is what happens when one groups, any group, thinks it can riot, loot and acost others with impunity. People will defend themselves; even people who have hateful pasts have a right to defend themselves.
Why investigate?
Once more we listen to aggrieved parents and their attorney as if these are factual sources.
UPDATE: I am no friend of the KKK, but this is what happens when one groups, any group, thinks it can riot, loot and acost others with impunity. People will defend themselves; even people who have hateful pasts have a right to defend themselves.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
You mean anti-weapon rules don't work?
Huffington, as usual, loudly announces a shooting at Delaware State University. Of course, any shooting is unfortunate, but it is also clear how liberal and anti-gun HuffPost is when you read that the shooting resulted in non-life threatening injuries. When one is trying to score points all incidents deserve national attention.
But what do the rules at DSU say about having weapons in residence halls?
*******
Weapons
Because of the threat of violence in our society, we are very concerned about weapons in our residence halls. Therefore, we prohibit the possession of weapons or those items that a casual observer might perceive to be a weapon (e.g., toy guns, stun guns etc.). Persons found to be in possession of such items or weapons may be charged with a violation of the Code of Student Conduct. For further information on this policy, please read the student handbook.
*******
What? Prohibiting weapons on campus didn't prevent this shooting? You mean someone intent on committing a crime with a firearm was not deterred by their prohibition on campus?
Shocking!
But what do the rules at DSU say about having weapons in residence halls?
*******
Weapons
Because of the threat of violence in our society, we are very concerned about weapons in our residence halls. Therefore, we prohibit the possession of weapons or those items that a casual observer might perceive to be a weapon (e.g., toy guns, stun guns etc.). Persons found to be in possession of such items or weapons may be charged with a violation of the Code of Student Conduct. For further information on this policy, please read the student handbook.
*******
What? Prohibiting weapons on campus didn't prevent this shooting? You mean someone intent on committing a crime with a firearm was not deterred by their prohibition on campus?
Shocking!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)