“As long as the NRA and its allies push rhetoric that makes white people (and white cops) see all crime with a black face, the right to bear arms for people who look like her — or who look like Philando Castile — exist only in theory.” – Radley Balko in How the NRA’s allegiance to cops undermines its credibility on gun rights [via washingtonpost.com]
I thought the cop who killed Castille was Hispanic.
You are correct. And Castile was high on marijuana. It is why he did not follow directions and reached for something, which the police officer was within reason to presume a gun. Stupid will get you killed. Marijuana makes you stupid. Castile was killed. These facts don’t fit the narrative of idiots like this writer in Wapo.
There is no proof that Castile was high, just that he had THC in his system and that he has used within the past few days. When one dies the tissues release any THC into the blood stream thus showing elevated levels. However some have used that as proof positive that he was high at the moment however there is no corroborating evidence that he was high.
Sounds like you’re a fan of the mota
The point is that he was a criminal. The legal limit for THC in you bloodstream is 0.
Somehow, I don’t lose sleep when cops shoot stupid criminals. All he had to do was follow basic instructions and he would have been on his way. (Despite being a prohibited person in possession.)
The fact that he tested positive for THC is a pretty strong indication of stupid, regardless of the level.
Neh. Where there’s smoke, there’s s bong.
Ever notice how it’s always the druggies and/or criminals with long rap sheets who end up in these fixes? Then comes the obligatory wave of apologists to spin tge story that “weeeellllll……..that was all in the past (past meaning about five minutes ago), so you can’t hold that against him!”
Riiigght. Regardless who’s in the right or wrong in these cases, the fact usually remains that it’s some druggie criminal who’s in these cases to begin with. Here’s a tip: clean up, dry out, get your act together, and you’ll be amazed how much trouble passes you by and never finds you.
If it wasn’t for rationalization the potheads wouldn’t have much to focus their attention.
Actually the last time I touched the stuff was 30 years ago when I was a teen. No interest in it. I keep my drug use to nicotine and alcohol. As for “well it’s illegal” studies show that a majority of the nation thinks it should be legal. It’s a stupid prohibition if not a nearly unenforceable law. Remember the work of Robert Peel and his efforts to rationalize criminal justice.. He was not engaged in criminal behavior. But lets say he was high, for those that think LEOs should shoot people for breaking the law, does that apply to DUIs? Jay walking?
“The point is that he was a criminal. The legal limit for THC in you bloodstream is 0.
Somehow, I don’t lose sleep when cops shoot stupid criminals. All he had to do was follow basic instructions and he would have been on his way. (Despite being a prohibited person in possession.)”
So you’re saying that cops are within their rights to shoot people who fail to follow stupid gun laws, like unknowingly carrying within 1000 feet of a school, and things like that? They’re criminals too, technically, and that technicality is just as asinine as “Philando Castile used Marijuana sometime in the past week.” It’s not like we’re talking about someone who is high on PCP, like the perp in the article from yesterday, here.
And following basic instructions? The only “instruction” he got was “don’t pull it out,” and he was not pulling the “it” in question out. If he was ever GIVEN clear instructions he could have followed them, but he was not. Obviously he acted stupidly, and would still be alive today if he had just kept his hands on the steering wheel, but that hardly absolves the officer, the person who was supposed to be in control of the situation, for how badly he handled it.
Don’t get me wrong, Balko is certainly letting his general anti-cop stance bias his view in this article; the NRA giving a wishy-washy response on this one case doesn’t mean they are bad when it comes to protecting the rights of black gun owners in general. But that doesn’t excuse doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction; just because the left always exaggerates and misrepresents these Black Lives Matter incidents, and we don’t like them, doesn’t mean that we should ignore a clear case of police misconduct in the Castile case.
HES said: “But lets say he was high, for those that think LEOs should shoot people for breaking the law, does that apply to DUIs? Jay walking?”
I didn’t see anyone here saying the police “should shoot people for breaking the law”, not even jaywalking or DUI?
Did I miss something?
That’s a nice strawman argument, isn’t it?
Marijuana use is detectable via urine sample test for thirty days after usage, that is not to say the subject was under the influence at the time of testing only that the subject used marijuana within thirty days of the test.
“there is no corroborating evidence that he was high.”
corroborate – confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
evidence – that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
proof – evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
The term corroborating evidence usually means evidence that supports another piece of evidence. The tests that show he had THC in his system is evidence that he was high.This evidence would corroborate any statement or other evidence that he was high. The tests are not proof.
Balko’s done some nice work on the militarization of our civilian police, and his criticism of the NRA is valid, but citing this incident undermines his credibility.
Agreed. I liked Warrior Cop.
As others have pointed out Balko has done some very useful real journalism over the last 15 years or so and is solidly pro 2A. I imagine that most all of us occasionally in frustration, say things that are counter productive. Read at least a sampling of the body of his work before you judge him over this one quote. Consider also if you have ever said anything over the top.
At least two people have made this claim. Here’s Balko, in his own words, in the linked article: “I should disclose here that generally speaking, I favor the right to own and carry a gun.”
One: why did he feel the need to “disclose” his support for RKBA in this particular article, and, two: that’s the strongest statement that an ostensibly strong supporter of the second amendment can make in that instance?
He put that statement in there for those who are not familiar with his work. If you want further proof look at the body of his work. He doesn’t have to virtue signal like a light house as so often happens with progressives.
When I saw his name, I was genuinely surprised too, as everything I have read by him was very intelligent. I guess everyone eventually has to play the game and reflect a narrative that the boss-men require.
@Chip
He writes for the Washington Post. To their editors and target audience, a statement like that is practically akin to declaring you like your babies grilled medium-rare.
I agree with every word Balko wrote in the WaPo article. Cops are getting crazier and crazier by the day as the acceptable level of risk associated with police work declines by the day. Cops scare the shit out of me.
You clearly don’t know Balko’s narrative. He has exposed police abuse of white people as much as minorities. He is not a race warrior.
Exactly. His concern is laser focused on the individual and their free exercise of their liberties. He will go after anyone who tries to control a person or abridge their rights. As its been said, he is very pro 2A
Really ? You must be stoned,as by your statement , that has to be the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. I take you didn t watch the video.
Millions of Americans smoke marijuana. Smoking marijuana does not make you a stupid person. I personally know dozens of otherwise upstanding citizens that smoke weed casually while in polite company. That includes doctors, teachers, accountants, lawyers, and business owners to name a few.The very idea that someone deserves to get shot because he smoked marijuana is appalling. Such disregard for peoples basic human right is appalling. Behavior such as that is liken to a police state. If the government told you tomorrow owning guns is illegal, how many of us would give them up the next day? I would guess a small minority. Disregard for a states laws is no indication of ones morality. Morality and the law are at times mutually exclusive. Decent people who love and take care of their families, and wake up and go to work every day, smoke Marijuana. Very few of them will ever deserve to be executed at a traffic stop.
He was not shot because he used marijuana he was shot because he failed to heed the instruction of the LEO. He may have not understood, or been unable to understand the officers instruction. It is a shame that a man lost his life, but it was not simply because he used drugs.
Your subjective experience is your own. Living in Colorado I have had the unfortunate experience of watching a whole lot of people turn their lives upside down for the goal of getting high. Many good students are now shells of their former selves. Anyone who says that Mary Jane isn’t a gateway drug doesn’t have any experience working in a school. Adolescents are getting their hands on it and using it at increasing rates and the only people who are for it that I know today are government bureaucrats who get to spend the tax money and “legitimate” businessman. If your state comes up for a vote to legalize pot don’t vote for it. I promise you will regret it.
Deserve and execute are words that have nothing to do with a self defense shooting, and that’s how police are judged in these situations. They have to meet the same burdens and standards as non-leos.
The only time deserve comes into context is if the shooter deserves to go to jail or whether the shooter deserved to defend themselves. It has nothing to do with whether the deceased deserved to be so.
The only time execute should come into play is if the deceased had executed someone or was attempting to do so, or the shooter did not act in self defense and did execute the person. And simply saying that the shooter executed them doesn’t make it so.
I generally disregard anyone who uses the terms execute and deserve in these conversations because the use of those terms illustrates that that person doesn’t know what they are talking about.
They’ll label him a white hispanic klan member if they damn well please. Just like they did to ol Z man.
“I thought the cop who killed Castille was Hispanic.”
The term you are looking for is “White Hispanic”, like Zimmerman.
Is someone who speaks English and has 8 great-grandparents from Italy called “Italian” or worse? What about someone who has 8 Hispanic great-grandparents? Many have assimulated into American culture and even entered the middle class.
“White Hispanic” is a media made-up term. It was created because media needed a way to blame white people for killing a poor, hapless, misunderstood, under-sized, innocent black child who tried to beat down a neighborhood watch volunteer.
The term has nothing to do with national origin of anyone. The term was needed to ensure the Zimmerman incident could be heralded as a racist killing.
White Hispanic is a real thing. Hispanic is a cultural, national origin term, not a racial term, so a Hispanic can be of any race. Charlie Sheen is a white Hispanic (birth name: Carlos Estevez). There are tons of other examples.
The media usage of the term is ridiculous and racist, but it’s not a fiction.
Does it matter the police officer was Hispanic? You sound just as ridiculous.
Take it up with Balko. He’s the one who said: “As long as the NRA and its allies push rhetoric that makes white people (and white cops) see all crime with a black face…“
He was a white Hispanic. Like Zimmerman. s/
Not black equals white. Didn’t you know race is binary and gender isn’t?
Hilarious.
Writer who is purportedly concerned about increasing powers of government and police departments attacks the defenders of the rights of the individuals. Footnote: ultimately progressives will be progressives even if they have some claim to individual rights.
He is calling out the NRA for the convenient and curious silence over the incident and their questionable response that seemed to be a commercial for a product. He is by no means a progressive. In fact he is about as anti progressive as they come.
Yet he makes noises similar to every other soft-communist in the media
I as of yet have not seen any compelling reasons why this particular incident should have received special attention from NRA.
Did NRA speak up in the Levar Jones shooting (officer Sean Groubert was convicted)? Did NRA speak up in the Walter Scott shooting (officer Michael Slager was mistrialed, and then pled guilty to federal charges)? Did NRA speak up in the Bobby Canipe shooting (officer Terrance Knox was not charged)? I can go on and on.
If the issue is unlawful/unconstitutional/unwarranted use of force by the police, then why the selective outrage regarding Philando Castile?
It appears to me that NRA’s silence over the incident is, while perhaps convenient (in that NRA doesn’t appear to get involved with misuse of police authority), it certainly isn’t curious or unusual. It is par for the course. One can fault the NRA for not tackling the issue, but one cannot credibly claim a racial basis for their inaction.
Levar Jones was not carrying, and as you say, Groubert was convicted. No 2A issue, and justice was done.
No 2A issue, and justice was done.
Not carrying, no 2A issue.
These are bad examples, clearly distinguishable from the Philando Castile case.
I think the Corey Jones case may turn out to be comparable, but charges are still pending.
“I as of yet have not seen any compelling reasons why this particular incident should have received special attention from NRA.”
Because they said they would comment. They boxed themselves in on that one. To me it is an integrity issue that they failed on. Yeah it is not their job or even prudent to comment on every case (or even most cases) but once they said they would they needed to.
It is one incident. It is one incident where there are mixed allegiances. Yes, the NRA has a tie to the police. At the same time, the NRA has strong ties to legal gun owners. So, their silence is not unexpected.
So a prog attempts to use this one incident to claim some big bad problem exists in the NRA. We can nod our heads in agreement or we can toss the BS flag. I doubt that few among us condone what happened, but many admit that even though we detest and abhor the outcome, it’s not a black mark on the NRA. Remember, they pulled no triggers in this incident.
Supporting NRA haters will bear sour fruit.
The problem is that the NRA is trying to play both sides of the fence, supporting cops and supporting non-badged civilian carry.
Virtually every gun law that a LEO will enforce is, by definition, infringement on the 2A.
The NRA cannot easily say that it is supportive of the government-tyranny-limiting 2A, AND the agents of said government tyranny.
The NRA is the guy with a Gasden Flag and a Back the Blue flag next to each other. Blue Lives Matter and Come And Take It are, honestly, mutually opposed positions.
Sure, the 3%ers love them some cops when the cops aren’t kicking in doors in their neighborhood looking for a bombing suspect, but at some point their patriotism and their badge worship are going to butt heads.
I’d like to think that dichotomy exists in several members of the police forces, too…but I just never hear a cop suggest that maybe they shouldn’t be doing (insert your favorite infringement here).
“I just never hear a cop suggest that maybe they shouldn’t be doing (insert your favorite infringement here).” I’ve heard plenty of police say that they won’t enforce a law if it passes. I’ve even heard a few who say they won’t enforce a law that has passed for reasons ranging from the law being legally unenforceable to “we’re not doing it.”
And yes, I am talking about gun laws.
13% of the population, 50% of the homicides. Perhaps if this was not the case, cops wouldn’t get nervous when pulling over black armed robbery suspects?
Too bad it’s too late to send them back.. Or is it?
What’s this “them” garbage? Skin color is not determinism. We just need to clean up the culture and take down the gangs. I would start by labeling them as insurgents not subject to protection under federal, state, or international law. Then I would send the Marines house to house to round up every known gang associate. Best part, it would be perfectly consitional and perfectly legal.
“Best part, it would be perfectly consitional and perfectly legal.”
Scratch a patriot and you’ll find statist. Goes to show that all the rhetoric about God-given or natural or civil or human rights is all just B.S. If someone can get the law on their side, then they have the power of the state in their hands and can bend their neighbors to his will.
Good grief. If 5 SC members declared tomorrow that the entire Bill of Rights is void, that would be constitutional, too, because the SC determines what is constirutional. Having the law on your side doesn’t mean you’re right. It just means that someone else’s ox us being gored.
Skin color no, but IQ yes.
However when 95% of blacks continue to vote for free shit and the party that keeps them in chains and destroys any hope of self determinism… well you could say skin color does make a difference.
Well, there you have why I think ancapitalism is the silliest thing in existence. In the 21st century a nation state is essential to protecting individual liberties. With that acknowledgment, a balancing test has to be performed. Do we protect the liberties of career criminals at the expense of the safety of everyone else? What possible rationalization would you have for not rounding up every known gang member and associate?
You need to do some reading if you believe that nonsense. But you get you panties in a knot over “them”?
Lincoln planned to let/send “them” all back to “their” homeland.
Ok. This is where we dig into the nitty gritty details of IQ, criminality, and genetics development.
1. The genes for melanin production do not interact with what we know about genetic IQ potential. (I use potential here, because that’s important.) IQ is a function of ethnic group, specific family line, and development. Same way being from a family of body builders makes it easier for you to develop athletically, but does not guarantee such development without intervention and being from a family of scrawny sticks does not prevent above average athletic performance if enough effort is applied. IQ is largely the same. It is important to not mistake intellectual development for education as the two are related, but not identical.
2. Certain cultural practices inhibit IQ inheritance and development. On the inheritance side, we have strong evidence that first cousin marriage is a great way for your gene pool to go stagnant. Certain forms of religion, are similarly challenging. Not all religion as some of the greatest scientific developments in human history have come from seeking to understand God, but highly dogmatic “this is the way it is and if you question it we’lol burn you” practices. Similarly cultural attitudes the equate intlectual development to an “out” group pose a challenge. A good example is inner city kids who try to excel intellectually being accused of “actin white” and derided for it.
As I like to say, genetics is not determinism. A good personal example is my grandfather who was the son of a kulak farmer who got the Ukrainian equivalent of the Presidential Meal of Freedom for his work in Geology and whose daughter defended her PhD thesis at age 22.
What we have here is a complicated interweaving of cultural problems reinforcing genetic issues. 40 acres and a mule was retarded in 1865 and it’s retarded today.
I agree with you, Pwrserge, that race and IQ are linked, but disagree that IQ is not deterministic. Even liberals like Sam Harris understand that IQ does correlate to wealth on an individual level and collectively even up to a national level. We need to break down the taboos around discussing intelligence if we want to fix social problems. If we pretend it doesn’t exist we will continue to do things like plundering the white middle class to transfer trillions to failing black communities which never improve. I don’t know what the solutions are but we should let the best minds figure it out without screaming racist Nazi at them. To me having to sending the marines into black communities is an admission of failure. There has to be a better way than the authoritarian route and building more prisons to control black crime. If contemporary white American culture and higher standards of law and order are anathema to many black people maybe we let them make their own laws in their own places. Basically let’s stop trying to pretend race doesn’t exist and we can use federalism until we come up with a better solution.
Blacks are only genetically different by the melanin genes?? Really? You are equating iq and education as being one and the same. Iq is more so potential. You can’t raise your iq in the same manner as a skinny kid can raise his amount of muscle. Iq is pretty much a strictly “as born” potential metric. Iq is more about abitlity. It doesn’t test current knowledge, hence a 13 year old girl can score 140. Sure you can practice and perhaps fudge up a few numbers, but no amount of practice will take Tyrone from a 79 to a 119. It just doesn’t work like that. Your argument is valid for level of education and discouragement therof in the black community, but that is irrelevant to their iq. Where this not substantially genetics based, why do the same trends pop up in that specific race, even on different continents and across different cultures? Why is any research that shows any potential genetic differences surpressed? This is like arguing poodles and labs are not genetically different. It is also of note that people have no trouble with positive racism. Claim that blacks are genetically predisposed to be better at basketball or have large genitals and they will proudly boast all day, everyone laughs, etc. Point out anything negative on the same basis and the “we are all the same except melanin ” crowd trounces oetcit can’t be both ways. There are reasons that demographic dominates many sports and crime metrics, no matter the continent they live on, or culture they are a member of.
Oops, sorry Pwrserge, you do not assert that race and IQ are linked. My mistake, I misread. I assert that it is linked. My comments after that stand.
“What possible rationalization would you have for not rounding up every known gang member and associate?” The known part. However if someone is a “known” member of a “known” criminal enterprise, then they should be locked up under RICO laws because they are “known” and that means we have all the evidence needed to prove the case. If we don’t have that evidence, then they are not “known” members.
Also the no trial part. Then they can just lock up anyone and claim they’re a member of a gang.
I’m kinda of the mind that people sporting gang tats should be rounded-up, as they openly declare they are part of an illegal association. Still, the notion that shooting them on site might be considered self-defense action for police.
Stop…..arresting someone for being so stupid as to display a gang tat is no less stupid than two open carriers marching into a police station. Both typed are acting stupid, and deserve whatever they get.
Right?
As I’ve said before, deserves got nothing to do with it. But otherwise, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
“Too bad it’s too late to send them back.. Or is it?”
Seriously?
How about offering hardcore criminals the option of taking a suitcase full of cash to renounce their citizenship and never come back under pain of death. I bet the statistics would bear out 100k payments to some folks being a bargain to society. Humane, voluntary and I bet many people would take the offer.
It’s worse than that. Black males commit most of that 50% but are only about 4% of the population, not 13% which includes women and children.
With the 13-15 year olds doing a fair share of the armed carjackings, you probably would need to open up your percentages just a bit to include children.
IF post references WAPO, THEN delete post ASAP. (add NYT and LAT)
I don’t like the NRA’s coziness with cops but as the Fudd’s die off it’s changing.
However this scenario has nothing whatsoever to do with the point Radley’s trying to make.
If he wants to blame some entity for the “fear of a black man” phenomenon he might want to revisit the 70’s-90’s+ where Democrats at all levels where using imagery of drug-crazed, white-raping, gun-toting minorities to push their agenda through white America.
There would have been no AWB, drug war, 1st Amendment battle or crime bill without it. Tipper Gore did more to terrify suburban shut-ins than 2 Live Crew ever did.
I wonder if I should go through the trouble of trying to find Radley Balko’s thoughts on Miosotis Familia?
I will also add: Balko’s assertion here is self-contradictory:
The her referenced in the quote is Shaneen Allen – whom the NRA was out in front in defending.
The really egregious logical fallacy in Balko’s article is that he assumes a false, racial premise (and one that, again, he refutes in his own article) regarding NRA’s reluctance to speak out against police abuses.
Perhaps that closing race-baiting is the virtue signal required for Balko to be published inWaPo?
He specifically praises the NRA for their early and proactive advocacy for Shaneen Allen. The quote, in context, is part of making the case that the NRA needs to do more to advocate for gun owners in their interactions with some of the most powerful government employees they’ll encounter: police officers. That doesn’t mean becoming anti-police, but it does mean evaluating how police train and their mindset toward the job and the public.
The article is worth reading. Balko is making a valid criticism of the NRA and how it presents itself. If the NRA heeded his advice, it would be a more effective guardian of our rights.
Well, said, I wish I had been awake enough to say it.
Which is why using her in his closing statement is contradictory. Again, here’s what he said:
As long as the NRA and its allies push rhetoric that makes white people (and white cops) see all crime with a black face, the right to bear arms for people who look like [Shaneen Allen]… exist only in theory.
To put that statement in context, then, Balko is essentially saying: “NRA was at the forefront of exonerating Shaneen Allen, and NRA pushes rhetoric that makes people see Shaneen Allen as a criminal.”
Nonsense.
Exactly. He is making a very valid criticism. Some folks will always react in objection when made to examine themselves or their positions.
Chip, he was pointing out the counterproductiveness of the NRA having to clean up the NRA’s mess in her case. It’d be better if there was no mess in the first place.
How was the Shaneen Allen incident the NRA’s “mess”? Seems to me that the fault for that mess lies squarely with the State of New Jersey.
No, he’s saying that despite the great job the NRA did on the Allen case, overall they are establishing a poor reputation on this issue by not addressing the problems in police/citizen interaction. What’s worse, the fact that those interactions are, for various reasons, disproportionately with minority individuals helps feed into the perception that the NRA is racist.
There’s no contradiction in someone performing well in one instance and badly overall. A baseball player might be a great fielder, and hit a grand slam one time, but still bat .125 overall.
I know that there will be a lot of knee jerking to this but folks need to keep in mind that both Radley Balko and Jacob Suliman are screaming libertarians, are very pro 2A, and neither are the “But…” type. The article is spot on. The NRA is too often mute when it comes to criticism of law enforcement when officers, deputies, and agencies over step their bounds. It’s lousy politics and works against efforts to expand their base. This hurts the general ability to blunt the efforts of progressives and in the end will hurt the 2nd amendment overtime.
Then perhaps Balko et al should use less-inflammatory examples. Oh, right: because (as with SJWs) that would leave them with next to no examples.
Balko is a SJW? That’s probably the funniest thing I’ll hear today and it’s not even noon yet.
Maybe your reading comprehension will improve in the afternoon.
It’s funny when people who’ve never built anything criticize as unwise, off base, and wrong headed those who’ve built a 5+ million member organization with millions upon millions in annual revenue. Curious, that.
Tell ya what, why don’t you go build something into America’s oldest and one of its most successful civil rights organizations and show us all how it’s done?
So the NRA can do no wrong? Come on.
Just because an organization has been successful, or is right in most areas, doesn’t mean they won’t be off track in one area. This is such an example for the NRA.
Are gun owners better served by an NRA that won’t call for cops to be better and more informed when encountering them? Are the police better served? If the NRA honestly evaluated these interactions, it would be a better organization for all its constituencies.
Exactly. This is a well deserved call for introspection. The NRA blew it on this one and it is of importance because of the visibility of this case. The NRA had a great opportunity to grow the organization here and lets be honest, that translates to pro 2A votes. The great thing is that they wouldn’t have had to rely on lies or distortions like so many others top accomplish their goals.
Who, except you, established perfection as the standard? Hmmm……strawman-lover? Exactly.
This guy decries the NRA for lousy politics and counterproductive base building. Well. If he’s pontificating and judging, is it too much to challenge his credentials, i.e., what has he ever built that’s comparable? Hmmm?
Moreover, the facts on the ground belie his entire point. The NRA just put their incomprehensible longshot candidate into the White House. Lousy politics, you were saying? The NRA boosted membership from approx. 3 million to over 5 million in the past decade or so. Working against membership building, is that so?
These are obvious points I’m embarrassed to take time to have to make, so I consider it my good deed for the day helping to get some of you uninformed folks up to speed on current events. You’re welcome.
As always, when I encounter the pissier portions of the peanut gallery here, this is my stop. You may have the last word and every word thereafter. Feel free to rail against me in uninformed (and unread) rage.
The only one arguing perfection here is you, Jonathan. Just because the NRA has been great in most areas doesn’t mean they are immune from mistakes and missed opportunities. They’re a great organization that would be even better if they handled this issue more skillfully.
You need to be pretty f*cked up in the head to write something like that.
But then again it is the msm….
Thuggery shouldn’t be acceptable in a civilized society, no matter whether it wears baggy pants, tactical black or a business suit.
Hardly “thuggery”. The inner cities are at war. We as a society are ignoring this and there are consequences to this. What needs to happen is that we need to shut down the welfare state and the inner city insurgents that it supports.
“at war”
Not much of a war since both crime rates and welfare rolls have been on a four decade downward trend.
As usual, scaremongering is the basic tactic to shill for government overreach and power grabs.
“…since both crime rates and welfare rolls have been on a four decade downward trend.”
What would be the downside to accelerating said decline?
Nothing at all. But your barely implied presumption that militarized police and tactics is responsible for that decreasing trend is ludicrously incorrect.
“Send in the Marines”
Holy cow!
If there is one thing which the founders were allergic to, it is the use of the regular military in domestic situations. It’s one of the primary justifications in the Declaration of Independence. It’s clearly prohibited by the Constitution.
It’s the use of the military in domestic police actions – under the post-reconstruction posse comitatus act – that is illegal, but it’s not unconstitutional; the Constitution is silent on the matter. He is saying that if you declare them foreign insurgents (MS-13, for example) for having a de facto declared allegiance to other than the US, use of the military, and, of course, the National Guard or Coast Guard, which do not fall under posse comitatus, or citizen militia is perfectly warranted. You could make the case for terror cells, as well, if connected to a declared foreign enemy.
You just don’t use Marines to hand out traffic tickets.
Doing the above neatly skirts some of the handcuffs that apply to police behavior. In what is essentially a declared war in the homeland, the military/POTUS determine the terms of engagement. And that’s probably the issue; police these days are sufficiently militarized in many cities to act in place of the military in practice – they just are constrained by civilian law enforcement rules.
I agree, however, that it remains to be concerned. We all know about mission creep, and we all know that the federal government is like a camel with its nose under the tent – and then shortly, Marines ARE handing out traffic tickets – stuck on the end of a bayonet.
“There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”
The quote is from a fictional character, Admiral Wm. Adama, but it’s no less true for that. I am the NRA, and I’m not thrilled with the NRA’s response to the Philando Castile shooting.
@ Pwrserge: “The point is that he was a criminal. The legal limit for THC in you bloodstream is 0.” That’s your answer? When last I checked, the United States was not Singapore, and we do not execute those convicted of drug offenses. There are reasons we have gradations in our criminal justice system. Murder=/=jaywalking.
If you’ve ever put meds of one different type in a pill bottle for a different type, or one with no label (maybe a Vicodin and a methocarbomal in a vial on your keychain for those bad-back days?) you’re a criminal as well, but that shouldn’t be grounds for identical treatment to Castile, should it?
Maybe someone takes a shot of bourbon to ‘stretch’ that prescription pain-killer’s effect because they only have enough to get them through half the weekend until they can get to the doctor’s office and get their prescription re-approved. Would you have them kneel in front of a lime pit and have a round put in their ear because “he was a criminal”?
A cancer patient smokes some weed to keep their appetite up in some backwater state without legal marijuana. Do we put them against the wall for a firing squad to liquidate?
Maybe your son or daughter is having a hit with them, just because it’s fun; do they go to the wall as well?
What I’ve described above may be against the law, but how does killing these ‘offenders’ serve justice? Should there be no mercy to temper justice?
That traffic stop could have occurred to any one of us, and the officer that slew any one of us would also have described that person in the most awful of depictions to justify their behavior.
Castile’s death may not technically have been murder, but it was surely an unjust homicide.
Can y’all come up with a better strawman argument, please? This one is so overplayed.
Castile was not executed due to drug use. Castile was shot because the officer believed him to be reaching for a firearm. The officer was acquitted of manslaughter because the jury (apparently) found that belief to be reasonable.
The drug use is relevant because a) it rendered Castile a criminal, and a person prohibited from lawful possession of said firearm, and b) it more than likely influenced Castile’s behavior and reactions during the traffic stop.
(I’ll yield the floor to someone to chime in with another strawman.)
Oh look, Chip is still pandering his lies regarding THC intoxication.
That Castile’s gun possession *might* be illegal (possession in vehicle does not necessarily require a CCL) has absolutely nothing to do the cop being a trigger-happy fool. One wonders why you consider this relevant. Oh right, you’re just grasping at straws.
The science doesn’t support your ad hominem.
The general impression supported by many studies is that cannabis causes cognitive decline, particularly with long-term usage. Majority of studies have suggested a significant cognitive decline in cannabis abusers compared to non-abusers and healthy controls. A report by Bartholomew et al. suggested that cannabis use has a detrimental effect on prospective memory ability in young adults but users may not be aware of these deficits. Cannabis is known to produce substantial acute effects on human cognition and visuomotor skills. Many recent studies additionally revealed rather long-lasting effects on basic oculomotor control, especially after chronic use…
Certain specific neuropsychological parameters have been found to be affected. Most commonly and consistently reported are response time, prolongation of word viewing time, basic oculomotor deficit, residual verbal memory and executive functioning.
(Source)
Oh, and here’s a fun one, focusing on executive function (there’s plenty more, but I’ll focus on the ones that may have impacted Castile):
Information processing: They found that users in the abstinent state showed significantly slowed information processing speed compared with controls; however, functioning normalized after smoking cannabis. According to the authors, this finding shows that abstinence following chronic cannabis use may result in a deficit in information processing, which normalizes after acute intoxication.
Decision-making: The researchers did find, however, that both THC groups were significantly slower in decision-making than the placebo group. On another decision-making task Ramaekers et al. (2006) found that, compared to the placebo group, subjects receiving THC were significantly less likely to make correct decisions. Additionally, those in the THC groups required longer planning times (latency to respond) than the placebo group. It appears then that the acute effects of cannabis on decision making and risk taking are somewhat discrepant and may indicate a dissociable difference in functions. Overall, there is evidence that acute cannabis use has observable deficits in aspects of planning and decision making particularly with regard to response speed, accuracy and latency.
Source)
And there’s plenty more available.
Perhaps chronic marijuana use renders some people unable to articulate logical arguments, thereby subjecting the rest of us to old, busted strawman arguments.
Blatant misdirection on your part, as always. Your claim that Castile is actively under the effects of THC is unjustifiable since THC is stored in body fat and released post-mortem. Therefore all your drivel about how he was under the influence during the traffic stop is bunk.
Ignoring that obvious sidestep, your copy/paste conflates immediate versus chronic effects (no doubt you will claim Castile was smoking in the crib), the effects of THC on difference aspects of cognition: only decision making matters in this case, not memory related items. In regards to executive decision making what is the effect with Castile’s active dosage (which might well be zero)? You have no idea.
Lastly, your ignorant copy/pasting comes directly from the NIH, the federal government funded mouthpiece whose goal is to justify government prohibition both before and after passage. Your second copy/paste is a typical example: NIH compares chronic, heavy users versus the placebo group, with no other groups in between, using government sourced THC at dosages well above what is available in the black market. This is bad science. Incidentally, since marijuana is schedule A, research is restricted to government controlled agencies. How convenient.
Here are some other studies that contradict the NIH with regard to executive decision making, I’ll leave it up to you to read them (and your own copy pasting, since you obvious didn’t bother reading them): Robbe, 1994; Heishman et al, 1997; Fant et al, 1998; Sexton et al, 2000; Smiley, 1999; Hart et al, 2001
“The science” is not settled, it is very much ongoing despite the government’s attempt to stymie independent research.
“Perhaps chronic marijuana use renders some people unable to articulate logical arguments”
Heh. Your copy/pasting one-source summaries does not constitute a logical argument. 🙂
“thereby subjecting the rest of us to old, busted strawman arguments.”
How is that phrase a strawman when you yourself declared that Castile’s drug use is relevant? Directly quoted:
“The drug use is relevant because a) it rendered Castile a criminal, and a person prohibited from lawful possession of said firearm, and b) it more than likely influenced Castile’s behavior and reactions during the traffic stop.”
I already addressed point b above. Point a is only relevant if you believe Castile’s possibly illegal possession of a firearm alters the legal circumstances around police use-of-force (pro-tip: it doesn’t). That did not stop you from mentioning this irrelevant point countless times in defense of Yanez shooting Castile.
So feel free to give a reason why you bring up an irrelevant, meaningless point. Are you actually trying to build a logical argument with said point, or are you just rambling like a fool? Let’s hear it.
Loath as I am to wade into this the nonsense here needs to stop. I’m going to cover a bunch of shit here that might not be explicitly in this particular thread but I’m not going to post half a dozen responses on this story.
The presence of marijuana matters in one regard and not in any other. It matters only in relation to the claims that Mr. Castile was a “legal concealed carrier”. That argument cannot be advanced because, whether you like our drug laws or not, the 4473 and surrounding law is clear: it is unlawful to have a gun while a user of or addicted to marijuana. That argument however is nothing more than a post-event issue.
Other than a PR issue after the fact the pot matters not one fucking iota. Apologies for the length here, but let’s go through this and you’ll note the tomfuckery on both sides of this case.
1) The officer makes a stop because the person he’s stopping seems to him to resemble an armed robbery suspect. Great, that’s perfectly fine. However, believing, as he claims to have, that the man is a violent and armed criminal he does not initiate a “felony stop”. That’s a fuckup and a big one. It’s a training problem.
2) The officer makes contact with Mr. Castile and things are going smoothly right up until the time that the suspect tells the officer he has a gun. Then things go to shit in a matter of seconds. The problem here again, is a training issue. What the officer and a ton of people who’ve commented on this shooting don’t understand is this: Unless otherwise trained when someone is confronted with an unexpected situation that is frightening they often attempt to complete an action that was already in progress. Call it a “brainfart” or “getting inside the OODA loop” or whatever you want. That’s how our brains generally work.
Mr. Castile was ordered to produce his ID, while doing so he mentioned that he was in possession of a firearm. The cop flipped shit and started screaming and pointing a gun. For most untrained people that results in their brain kind of shutting down and trying to complete the action in progress before assessing the situation because our brains basically can only handle one significant operation at a time. In this case he was probably reaching for his wallet and didn’t stop. All he could really do was say “I’m not reaching for it” because, in relation to the gun, he wasn’t reaching for it. He was reaching for his wallet. At that point the officer opens fire. Again, a training issue. The cop very likely doesn’t realize what he’s done to the brain of the suspect because, in all probability, no one ever told him this. Again, a major fuckup and a training issue.
If you don’t believe me about this, come on over to my house and we’ll test it. You can sit in your car and I’ll point a loaded pistol with a round in the chamber at your braincase. Let’s see how well you do when I start screaming orders at you. Yeah, I ain’t gonna get any takers on that one and for a couple damn good reasons. But note: you’d be going into that situation knowing it was about to happen and knowing that I’m probably not crazy enough to actually shoot you (Or am I? Mwhahahaha!) because it’s a test of your reaction which means you have some advantages Mr. Castile didn’t. For your average person I give it 20-1 in favor of you fucking up and me having a “reason” to shoot you in the face. That loaded pistol with a round in the chamber pointed at your face makes thinking clearly pretty darn difficult for a lot of people.
Now, let’s rewind here for a second on the marijuana and a couple other factors. Defenders of the cop say the marijuana was an issue while defenders of Mr. Castile point out that his weapon didn’t have a round in the chamber. Both facts are irrelevant because the officer didn’t/couldn’t know these things at that point in the encounter.
Some will argue that Mr. Castile was high. We, quite literally, cannot know that. Sorry, not possible. Stop arguing it. Further, again, it’s irrelevant because the cop doesn’t know if Mr. Castile is high or not. On top of that, even if the cop knows there’s pot in the car due to an odor he has no way of knowing if Mr. Castile is transporting pot, high on pot or just a DD for someone who’s done the responsible thing and is having him drive because they’re too high to operate a car.
3) Inconsistencies in the story the cop tells make him look bad to those who are suspicious of his actions or the police in general. The officer stated that he opened fire to protect the child in the back seat. That’s a WTAF? type of statement no matter how you cut it. His actions precipitated a one way gunfight in close proximity to the child and HIS bullet missed her by like nine inches. That’s not protecting a child. If anyone other than a cop made that claim while effectively shooting AT a child we’d be in jail. Further the cop states that he knew where the gun was but then it turns out he didn’t. That could be an honest mistake or it could be a CYA. People on the various sides will see it in the light that best supports their argument.
However, what is basically un-arguable is that the officer clearly acted in a way that was pure panic. He sticks his gun INTO the car at, or nearly at, contact distance with the suspect. That lets the suspect potentially wrestle for the weapon and also raises the chances that contact with the suspect knocks the gun out of battery. Dumb. As I say here often: Panic fucking kills. Yet again, a training issue.
What this case comes down to is that the whole thing was a complete and utter clusterfuck BUT, the shoot was, IMHO, legal. The officer fucked up repeatedly and put himself in a situation that he shouldn’t have, but again, I stress: that’s a TRAINING ISSUE. I don’t think the guy put himself in such a shitty situation on purpose. He simply didn’t know any better. He didn’t handle the situation as best he could but he had a legitimate fear for his life and a suspect that was reaching for something the officer couldn’t actually see. The suspect’s non-compliance was a direct result of the officer’s actions but that doesn’t change the fact that legally speaking there was non-compliance involving a weapon.
So, the pot an the unloaded gun and the child and everything else are completely extraneous to the actual shooting. The shooting hinges on the fact that for whatever reason (the most likely being the one I’ve explained above) Mr. Castile didn’t stop reaching for something when the officer told him to stop. Maybe the cop was too jumpy for the job, maybe Mr. Castile was high or stupid. Maybe (likely) it’s a miscommunication on what’s being reached for and an overreaction by the officer which disrupted Castile’s ability to think. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe doesn’t matter at all. What matters is Castile reached, the cop told him not to, he didn’t stop and the cop shot him. How that happened is a tragedy but it did happen and that’s what actually matters. Everything else surrounding this case is bullshit one side or the other is cooking up to try to bolster their arguments when the real crux of the matter is the reaching and, potentially (if we want to learn from this mess) why the reaching continued when the suspect was ordered to stop.
Washington led an army against citizens when he was president.
“Washington led an army against citizens when he was president.”
But that was OK because, you know, booze/taxes.
The point was that Rocky was wrong on every point except maybe “It’s one of the primary justifications in the Declaration of Independence.” I was late to this year’s reading of the Declaration, and it was the first one I’ve been to, so I don’t have the thing memorized yet. Though there is material for people who think the courts are letting cops get away with murder.
As long as blacks commit crimes out of proportion to their population, police will see crime with a black face. There, fixed it for you, Radley. Spare me the white guilt. Philandro Castile was a big boy who chose to carry while intoxicated. He was technically guilty of a felony when stopped (drug use makes you a prohibited person after all). When black America ‘grows up’ and accepts that there are rules in society and being poor or being minority doesn’t mean you’re above those rules, the rate of ugly incidents with the police will drop like a stone.
First, I’m not white. That’s offensive. I’m “European American.” As a white cop and card-carrying NRA member, I can tell you that all races have criminals. Lots of them. I must have missed the NRA literature that says “kill black people.”
I’m not really a “meme” guy, because I don’t do social media and I’m not plugged into pop culture like that. However, the ones playing on the “Did you just assume my gender?” theme going around managed to find their way to me. They crack me up.
Your post makes me think that there is hilarity potential in a “Did you just assume my race?” meme. Although, for all I know, that may already exist and have been around awhile unbeknownst to me.
Another round of racebaiting by criminal apologists and self-appointed spokesmen bent on lining their pockets at the expense of minorities.
If these people spent a fraction of the time addressing real issues like black illegitimacy rates and the urban culture hostile to honest work and beholden to instant gratification, as they do whining about thugs who get shot, they might actually accomplish something useful in this world.
You know, Asians allegedly face rampant racism in this country. Yet, as a demographic, they have better than average stats on just about everything good: crime rates, college and grad school graduation rates, median household incomes, etc.
In fact, every race and nationality has been subject to racism in this country, at various points, including whites up to today. (Ask the Poles, the Italians, the Irish, for example. Don’t believe me? Haul your white rear down to the government HR department in any major city. See if you can get a job at the Courthouse, or City Hall, tgr DMV, or the airport, or in any local government office.
Maybe not everybody hates somebody else, but surely everybody is hated by at least someone else. Such is life. Deal with it and quit putting yourselves into disadvantageous situations and blaming racism.
His beat is police abuse of power and it’s victims. That is enough of a subject to keep more than one man busy every waking moment. Someone else will have to cover the self destructive aspects of urban black culture. Balko puts a shit ton of effort into his work, as much as anyone else here likely. He also writes publicly for a fairly wide audience. If commenters here, myself included, had their most problematic statements made subject of an article none of us would fare very well in that article.
Now we’re moving into the excuse making for the Excuse Makers stage? Good grief.
As a former long-time “Reason” magazine subscriber, I’m well familiar with his histrionics, er, I mean, writing.
Unfortunately for you and your racebaiting buddy, reputations can be built or broken on a single act, utterance, or writing. In his case, it’s many years of the same. He is what he is. Own it.
As an example of his idiocy, he’s 100% against drunk driving laws. In his view, you should be able to drink your fill and drive all you want on public streets. Unless and until you actually injure somebody, there should be no punishment.
How nice. As a test program, may we start with the school bus driver who picks up his kids? How about the airline pilot(s) on just his flights? He’s just a yellow “journalist” sensationalist posing as a libertarian. Who cares if he’s occasionally, incidentally right in stopped clock fashion?
“As a former long-time “Reason” magazine subscriber”
That is funny coming from a guy who trashes libertarians every chance he gets.
Do you enjoy lying on the internet?
Oh, the irony. Man that praises communist soldiers as “freedom fighters” on the one hand and then claims he’s not a statist on the other calling another a liar.
The hypocrisy burns.
Ends justifies the means, tho, amirite?
Boy oh boy. Do you even know what “irony” and “hypocrisy” means? You should look up and learn big boy words before using them.
Anyways, I already asked you elsewhere to explain how the French resistance in WW2 (dominated by communists) were not freedom fighters, you have not done so. Your ignorance of context makes you sound like an infant… makes sense, given your advancing years. 🙂
“Ends justifies the means, tho, amirite?”
Says the guy defending American involvement in Vietnam. The irony, it is too much. See how that is the correct usage of the word “irony”? Try and catch up.
The way you define freedom fighters, comrade more dead soldiers, would include Mao and Stalin. After all, china was invaded by japan and russia was invaded by germany. So for a couple of years they met your definition of freedom fighter. But they were communist. Like you.
And they murdered more innocent victims than the folks that invaded them in the first place.
You double down on your little song and dance about freedom fighters. And I will continue to point out that you are at best a communist supporter. If not an actual communist.
Never having been a cop, I can’t tell whether cops fear black people because of the disproportionate number of criminals in black communities, or because a disproportionate number of black people hate cops for enforcing the law.
I’m not sure it matters. Black people and cops are at odds, and because of Balko, BLM, the Democrats and all the other racial arsonists, there is absolutely no chance for reconciliation. None.
It’s not about race, it might be about copsucking, or at least the NRA’s reluctance to piss off LE…
Which is odd, because the “Jackbooted Thugs” reference of the 1990s was quite popular outside of government/Fudd/copsucker circles and gained the NRA a few thousand members.
Anyone care for a head count of people who actually read the article? 😉
Naah, but I can see that as a valid question, given the reactions of some folks posting here.
Politics being what they are, the NRA cannot allow the anti-gunners to paint it as “Anti Cop.” Every gun owner must realize that fact by virtue of how hard the Bloomberg prople work to make it falsely appear to be the case. This why there is an LE Division and a host of programs for cops. The rank and file officers are with gun owners and WE need them.
OTOH, the NRA is a Second Amendment civil rights organization. An organization that has gotten right to carry to become the national norm in 20 years. NRA is color blind based on my inside experience and how hard the Anti-gunners work to exploit any seeming split.
I live less than a mile from where Mr. Castile was shot and I have carefully followed the case. NRA was smart to stay out of it. Mr. Castile was an “unlawful user of marijuana” and prohibited from lawful firearm possession and from lawfully holding a Minnesota carry permit. In addition, he did not follow the protocal taught by all instructors that I lnow for dealing with police contact. Mr. Castile is NOT a “poster boy” for carry permit holders.
Had the NRA jumped in early, the Antis would have made hay out of the NRA defending a gun “criminal” and the focus properly on Officer Yanez’s overreaction would have been lost. With the NRA in the limelight, the prosecutor could easily have dodged bringing the manslaughter charge if he wanted to.
Thr NRA made the right choice.
The car stop was bogus from step one. The victim shaming after the fact to justify the unjustified continues. Pot use is not punished by gunfire. Even Yanez’s partner can not support what is clearly, a missuse of force.
So what was wrong with the officer’s probable cause?
thanks very good reviews
As a NRA member I am surprised that Balko and the Washington Post are so concerned about steering the NRA into a more ethical and politically correct direction. Thanks guys!*
*note sarcasm
Balko’s general criticism is valid. The NRA has a blind spot when 2A clashes with state/local LEOs. These clashes disproportionately involve the poor who are disproportionately represented by minorities. However, Balko should’ve stopped at socio-economic impact and not extended his argument to race because color’s irrelevant.
I thought Balko was smarter than that. His writing on SWAT teams was interesting. There’s a good documentary called Peace Officer, in which he was interviewed. I don’t know what has happened to the guy.
As an NRA member, I avoid criminals and crime-ridden places. Not because of the race or color of the people who live there, but because of what they do. I’m in New Jersey, so here’s a simple example: Paterson and Newark have large black population. Fort Lee has a significant Korean population. Edison is called “little India” because it has a large Easter Indian population. Of these 4 cities, guess which 2 I avoid at all cost? Now take a wild guess at which 2 cities the ethnic minorities of Fort Lee and Edison also avoid? Is that because we are all racists? Or do we just have this weird fetish of not wanting to be perforated by crossfire while some gangbangers address their disputes on the streets of Newark or Paterson in broad daylight?
Sorry, I see no difference. There is no magic force field around any of those places. NJ burbs are no less crime free. At best your crime of choice changes. Address does not make you a criminal. Nor your ethnicity.
WTF are you talking about? NJ suburbs have the same crime rate as Newark, Camden or Paterson? Since when? Those 3 cities alone make up the vast majority of Jersey’s violent crime. Of course being one race or another does not make you a criminal, I never said it does. But you don’t find many Koreans or Eastern Indians in those cities. And those who do live there hardly commit any crime. Hence I worry a lot more about going to Newark than Fort Lee or Edison, for example.
Balko’s argument includes examples of police no-knock raids at the wrong address (investigation rushed by PD out of necessity) where the local PD shoot/kill a gun owner waking up to defend their castle yet the NRA is silent. When the startled shooter kills a cop in the middle of a midnight no-knock at the wrong address, they are sent up the river with nary a peep from the NRA. These mistaken no-knocks mostly happen in poor areas.
This is a valid criticism of the NRA’s lack of response.
Bingo.
I found this one of the more significant statements in the article:
“These raids are designed to distract, confuse and disorient. So it’s of no surprise that when they go wrong, innocent people (or even people guilty of drug crimes, for that matter), might confuse the raiding cops for criminals.
To make matters worse, some police agencies consider legal gun ownership a reason to use these tactics.”
IMHO the NRA doesn’t comment on certain “matters” because of politics.
Policing in the past 20 or so years has become a serious hornet’s nest that I didn’t pay much attention to or know a ton about until my friend’s husband went to the police academy. In that case the guy was former Navy and he was appalled by the way the Academy was run. Basically the instructors we’re a bunch of people rejected for military service but who wanted a job with a gun. They ran the academy in ways they envisioned the military operating but without actually knowing how it operates.
The result was a bunch of instruction involving buzz words like “tango” and “dynamic” and “kinetic” that basically taught students that everyone not in a blue uniform was a “potential hostile”.
Combine that attitude with the retarded amount of gear some departments get, and then have to justify the maintenance costs on, add in some union tomfuckery, some political bullshit from elected officials, sprinkle in a dash of bipolar disorder on the part of the public and top with the problem of the amount of money at stake with contracts and pensions and you get a political rat’s nest.
Then take an individual case like Castile which is a clusterfuck from beginning to end and the NRA, wisely IMO, just doesn’t want to walk through that mine field because really, there is no overall upside to weighing in. No matter what stance they take a huge number of people will take it badly. In that regard it’s like the NRA weighing in on caliber wars.
Sometimes it really is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
The thing is, they could weigh in generically on the issue of police/citizen interaction and its implications for the Second Amendment. That’s entirely in their wheelhouse, and would serve their membership. It would be straightforward to do without getting embroiled in all the other fights as well.
That they haven’t done so is a huge missed opportunity.
While I pretty much agree with the idea of a generic weigh in, seen in the light of a recent shooting, that opinion is likely to be taken as a criticism of one of the parties to the recent shooting and rile up one side or the other.
The Castile shooting, as I said, was a clusterfuck from beginning to end. Touching it, even tangentially, probably isn’t worth the trouble. The vast majority of people on “both sides” of the argument are too emo about the whole thing and, IMHO, don’t really understand what they’re talking about. There’s no reason to get into such a fight in most cases.
“The Castile shooting, as I said, was a clusterfuck from beginning to end.” Sometimes, it turns out that it is the fault of everyone involved. The only people involved who didn’t actively make the situation worse were the baby and other officer. (I’m not going to be surprised when someone explains how either one of them made it worse).
Carlos T, you’re right. This is another paragraph I thought highly important:
“In short, the NRA seems to think we’re at risk of creeping tyranny and abuse of power from all sectors of government except from the men and women armed, badged and entrusted with the power to kill. That’s a problem, because if armed agents who enforce the laws on the ground aren’t required to respect our rights, our rights don’t really exist.
The Supreme Court could rule the NRA’s way on the Castle Doctrine for the next 25 years, but if the police continue to kick down doors with impunity, law-abiding gun owners will be at risk, and the Second Amendment will be more of an empty gesture than a constitutional protection. The Supreme Court could rule the NRA’s way on conceal carry for the next 25 years, but if the organization keeps pushing the line that cops are at war, that the populace is dangerous, and that every citizen is a possible threat, the right to carry a gun in public will always be constrained by cops conditioned to see every weapon as a threat to their existence.”
For all the egregious incidents around the nation, I still support cops, sheriffs, deputies, and the occasional Federal agent (I blame all those years of watching X-Files), though my trust is conditional. As long as I comply with their directions, my HOPE is that I’m not given a new set of 9mm orifices, and my trust will remain intact.
If an officer is feeling stressed, or things are moving too fast, and my compliance is not guaranteeing my continued lifespan beyond our encounter, then my only legal recourse is to take an asc wooping, or take some vitamin lead. That is a position that is untenable. The constant outcome of cases that appear egregious, in which law enforcement is cleared wafts wrongly to both concerned people and those with ulterior motives, BLM as example.
I am not claiming that LEO’s are blanket guilty, and if it comes across that way, understand such is not my intention. When you see the egregious offenses by certain LEO’s in certain circumstances that appear as violations, the ability to question is automatically seen as anti-cop. While that may be true for many, in my case, I try to take a measured approach. Which in many of these cases is hindered by the citizen’s actions, and the LEO training that focuses on terminal ballistics, based on my observations. I can’t speak for actual LEO’s, I try to ere on the side of caution, but there has to be some measure of understanding that these incidents hamper efforts from the LEO community to change their culture within, in a positive way. Doesn’t it?
The solution has to be at least two-fold, we need communities to fix the rampant single parent problem, to reign in their children, and for law enforcement training to change beyond its present iteration. When 5 officers are kneeling on a suspects back, neck, head, and legs, and screaming stop resisting, it appears to non-police as excessive. Is it SOP at the time, I’d imagine most definitely. But instead of laying there with several hundred pounds on your body, is it not a natural human reaction to squirm, move, or try to extricate oneself from such a position? This excludes cases where people are in possession of a firearm, or edged weapon looking to hurt/kill officers. Just some thoughts from down here in the navel.
I can’t argue with anything you’ve said.
Each situation is different and could be improved but the emo folks won’t permit a rational discussion and, on the other side, neither will the political folks.
Agreed, it’s a perpetual pickle.
“I blame all those years of watching X-Files.” For your support or for it only being occasional? It’s funny either way.
I support the police, I just not try not to interact with them outside of the courthouse. My last interaction with a police officer that had nothing to do with me being a lawyer was when I was staring at a plain clothes officer’s gun because it looked all weird. (It was a Glock in a retention holster the likes of which I’ve never seen before. I couldn’t actually see the gun itself because of the holster covering the end of the slide). I went up to him to ask because I didn’t want him wandering what I was doing staring at his gun. He was polite and friendly.
“As long as the NRA and its allies push rhetoric that makes white people (and white cops) see all crime with a black face…”
I must have missed that tv ad where the NRA says that all crime is committed by black people.
Looks like the only way the NRA is going to change for the better is when all the old “white” people die off and young mixed race people take it over.
Looking over the comments shows how confused and close minded Americans still are. There are lot of excuses and tribalism still suppressing progress.
I never liked the NRA. I don’t want to join the current NRA. I think giving money to the NRA is a bad idea. Feels like the more money the NRA has the less they do.
On one hand, you talk about “Old White People” needing to die off for the better, yet complain about Americans for their “excuses” and “tribalism” “suppressing” progress.
As someone who is not old and white, I can’t help but notice your subtle hypocrisy, and full blown ignorance. Whether or not you like the NRA is one thing, but don’t use excuses to promote another form of tribalism.
I was talking about the org’s current day perception and strategy. As of now a lot of people consider it to be the so called old white male, hunter, Republican organization that is more concerned about law enforcement than the average citizen. Personally, I’m not saying that it’s tribe “old people” versus tribe “young people” or tribe “full blooded European” versus tribe “mixed race.” Obviously, the NRA isn’t all white old people.
Even children get older and I’m getting older too. As time goes on Americans will become more diverse/mixed physically, culturally, etc. The NRA can’t stick to their current ways. Basically, when the NRA becomes a diverse organization that is more inviting and defends everyone’s human rights equally, will they actually be the org that members claim it to be.
The NRA’s propaganda doesn’t change the current reality, it only appeases their base for a little longer. Eventually they have to do something of substance. If they stay the course, they will continue to shrink and human rights will continue to disappear in the US.
I hope America doesn’t get more diverse. I hope it does what it has always done, and we take the good of immigrants’ cultures and leave the bad (or at least try to). There is a reason we can’t tell the Irish from the English from the German from the French from the Pole. It’s because all those different peoples merged into a new nationality of American and were no longer diverse. It took a long time, but it happened.
And skin color doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with how we see race. As a kid growing up, I only thought there were two races because all the Asians and Hispanics just seemed like other people to me, and the media kept pushing a white/black dynamic. Once I was older, and realized all the Asians and Hispanics were not “white,” I still thought of my hometown as 98% white until someone pointed out that all the Asians and Hispanics did not count white.
And BLM supports “cop killers”.
Back in the day the NRA called federal cops “jackbooted thugs.” Now one can scarcely imagine them even suggesting that anything cops do is bad.
This kind of article / “analysis” is bait, to draw the already identified other team down into the weeds. It doesn’t matter if you win on the facts and argument, and often you’ll get out-argued as they’ve picked the terrain. Every time you or they say something, it *feels* like you are wrong, in the frame they have set.
You engage on their turf, they’re gonna win. You engage on turf they have chosen, they’re gonna win. You pick the turf, or better, you pick the turf, while letting them think they are picking the turf. (Has nobody read Sun Tsu?0
The counter-move is don’t take the bait, in general, and concretely with bait like this one, move *up* in abstractions, not *down” to details.
They’re really making a difficult, detailed argument. “This particular detail – support for cops.” “Through a twisty maze of passages, all different.” “Really mans this other thing which is bad.” (“Which BTW cuts off a bunch of other things you could be for, and t’s up a bunch more ad homenims for us.”)
Below is a tad inflammatory for the purpose, and I’m not NRA-Dana. But, a scrubbed up version of this:
“We think everybody has the right to armed self-defense.”
“Thanks for making our point, that armed citizens are an American value. When someone’s abusing you, you are your own first responder. Nothing there about the color of the abuser, or whether they are wearing a uniform.”
When cops are righteous second responders, we recognize that, too. Good people and good cops are on the same side. (Again, nothing about color, there.)
“We’re the NRA. Arms are for Americans.”
I think I am interested in your concept, but just now quite sure of your point/thrust. Can you re-phrase, with point/counter-point un-entangled with admonition?
The quote is just plain wrong. The title and point of his article might not be. Claiming every white person is racist and using a non-white guy as the example of racist white people is just stupid and undermines the argument you were trying to make, which has nothing to do with racism and should stand on its own.
Comments are closed.