Posted on 11/26/2002 11:43:30 AM PST by mrustow
Terrorism is not confined to foreigners who murder Americans abroad, hijack airliners and crash them into American skyscrapers, or send anthrax-laced letters through the U.S. Postal Service. Likewise, terrorism's supporters are not limited to foreign leaders and the U.N. Terrorism lives on the streets of America's cities, and is robustly supported by American activists, elected officials, and by the mainstream, American media. The main form such domestic terrorism takes, is a war on the law-abiding populace by criminals. The supporters of such terror, have focused their efforts on handcuffing white, urban police officers, so that urban terrorists may have license to rape, rob, maim and kill.
The war on America's white urban police began in the 1960s, with the claim by the New Left -- which combined communism and racism, and is now known as "multiculturalism" -- that the police were an "occupying army" in the nation's urban slums, as if such neighborhoods were foreign nations. The war on the police really took off, however, in the late 1990s, with the advent of the racial profiling hoax, whose supporters insist that police officers arbitrarily harass, arrest, and even murder black boys and men, based solely on the color of their skin.
The War on the Police works on four levels: By denying white police the right to use physical force to subdue or detain black males, or to defend themselves against physical assault, even to save their own lives; by demanding that all police interrogations be videotaped, so as to highlight tactics that police are legally permitted to use in questioning suspects that urban blacks dislike, and will use as a pretext for acquitting the guilty; via jury nullification, in which jurors ignore good police work and instead set brutal criminals free; and through the movement to get all convictions of violent black criminals thrown out.
Handcuffed Police
The most high-profile current case of a handcuffed, white police officer is that of Inglewood, California Officer Jeremy Morse. In a much-played, July 6 video, in which Officer Morse throws 16-year-old suspect Donovan Jackson onto a car's closed trunk, Morse is seen to be bleeding from wounds inflicted by Jackson, and Morse claims that he punched Jackson only because the latter had squeezed the officer's testicles. According to Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez, however, Officer Morse did not have a right to strike Jackson, even in self-defense. And as Morse's criminal defense attorney, John Barnett, told Middle American News, although Jackson insists that he was assaulted by Hispanic, black, and Middle-Eastern police colleagues of Morse, the City of Inglewood has singled out the white officer, Morse, for prosecution.
The movement to handcuff white police officers gained momentum with the 1991 Rodney King case. Following a protracted, high-speed chase, unlike passengers in King's car, who cooperated with police, the severely inebriated King resisted arrest. In attempting to subdue King, LAPD officers beat him with their batons, as they were trained to do. A bystander filmed the struggle on videotape. In showing the tape thousands of times, however, TV news programs always edited out the beginning, when King violently resisted arrest. The officers were tried for assault and other charges, acquitted, and Los Angeles blacks responded with 20th century America's most violent urban riots: 54 dead, over 2,000 wounded, and billions of dollars in property damage.
The Justice Department responded to the riots by subjecting the LAPD officers to the double-jeopardy of a federal "civil rights" trial, in which they were duly convicted. Police all over the country got the message: Black suspects were to be treated with kid gloves. The new dispensation emboldened violent, black criminals and their supporters.
In April, 2001, Cincinnati police Officer Steven Roach shot fleeing black suspect, Timothy Thomas. Thomas was wanted on 14 misdemeanor warrants, and a had a history of running from police. Officer Roach, who had an exemplary record, thought he saw the fleeing Thomas reach for a weapon. Fueled by media reports that implied that white policemen were murdering black men (almost all of whom were violent felons who had attacked, and even murdered police), and black community leaders who called for violence, black Cincinnatians responded with several days of riots. As Cincinnati's criminal class saw the police back down, there ensued an explosion of violence lasting weeks. Officer Roach was thrown to the mob, and indicted for manslaughter. He was acquitted at trial.
Videotaping Interrogations
On September 24, the lawyers and supporters of the five men who were convicted for the 1989 Central Park Jogger attack demanded that all police interrogations henceforth be videotaped. In a lengthy report the next day, amid repeated claims that innocent people routinely confess to crimes they did not commit, ABC-TV News reporter Geraldine Sealey argued for videotaping all police interrogations as an item of criminal justice reform. Oddly, Sealey never once mentioned the demand by the lawyers of the Jogger's attackers. The timing of the demand and Sealey's article reeked of collusion.
In 1989, the five attackers, then teenagers, confessed in their parents' presence, incriminating themselves and each other. (The attackers also confessed to many additional assaults from the same night, for which they were never tried.) The convicted attackers' lawyers insist that the confessions were coerced, while their media shills insinuate that there is no such thing as an uncoerced confession.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police may legally use cunning and deception in interrogating suspects. Police may lie to suspects, telling them that they possess evidence incriminating the suspects, or that witnesses or accomplices have made statements incriminating them. The demand that all interrogations be videotaped, is based on the knowledge that many jurors -- especially urban blacks -- will find such practices repugnant, and use them as a pretext for acquitting guilty defendants.
A videotaping requirement would also bog down manpower and money in the procuring, taping, cataloguing and storing of videotapes, and cause detectives to censor themselves during interrogations, thus compromising their effectiveness. As one prosecutor said, videotaping would make it impossible to get convictions via confessions -- which is the point.
Further, amid specious claims of "coerced confessions," the requirement that all future interrogations be videotaped would be used, ex post facto, to re-open the cases of the justly convicted, in order to get new trials with suppressed confessions, which would lead to many of America's most vicious criminals being released to rape and murder again.
Jury Nullification
Increasing numbers of black jurors refuse to convict black suspects, even absent a confession, and no matter how much incriminating evidence weighs against them. The most notorious such cases are those of Lemrick Nelson Jr. and O.J. Simpson.
In 1991, amid calls by a black mob to "Kill the Jew!" a black male stabbed orthodox Jewish scholar Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Before Rosenbaum died, he pointed out Lemrick Nelson Jr. as his assailant, demanding of him, "Why did you do this to me?" The murder weapon was found in Nelson's pocket, drenched in Rosenbaum's blood. Nevertheless, in 1992, a racist, black and Hispanic Brooklyn jury acquitted Nelson -- and then went out to celebrate with the defendant and his attorney.
In the O.J. Simpson case, Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ron Goldman, were butchered with a knife in 1994. Blood evidence linking O.J. Simpson to the crime was found on his socks and SUV, and Simpson had no alibi for the time of the murder (actually, he gave three different, ever-changing alibis). No matter. In 1995, a predominantly black Los Angeles jury acquitted Simpson on all counts.
Overturning Convictions
The attempt to have the convictions of five of the men who attacked the Central Park Jogger overturned, is an outgrowth of a movement that goes back at least to the 1970s.
During the 1970s, former boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter and John Artis were tried and convicted, retried, and convicted yet again for three 1966 racial revenge murders in a Paterson, New Jersey bar. Overwhelming evidence against Carter and Artis, however, did not dissuade a movement uniting Hollywood socialists and black supremacists, who fought to have the men freed. And in 1985, federal district Judge Lee Sarokin obliged them. In an act of egregious judicial misconduct, Sarokin vacated the convictions against the two men. In his decision, Sarokin ignored the evidence, made factual claims that were clearly contradicted by the trial transcripts, and violated legal procedure by insisting that the prosecutor had engaged in misconduct in claiming that the men had engaged in racial revenge murders, even though at least one witness said that the killings were out of racial revenge, and Artis admitted that Carter had spoken of "shaking" (racial retaliation murder). Sarokin was so intent on freeing Carter and Artis, evidence and juries be damned, that he was willing to grasp at any legal or illegal straw to get his wish.
While the movement to handcuff police was meant to harm white law enforcement officers, in conjunction with the demand that black slums be patrolled by black officers, it has resulted in the murder and wounding of black officers. Thus, the war against white police officers is, ultimately, a war on all police officers. And since when you handcuff the police, people die, this war ultimately targets law-abiding citizens of all colors.
Yeah? so what?
Lot's of people die every day. Many in the course of performing their jobs.
Cops are NOT special and it's time they let go of the prima donna attitudes about it.
Pity that Al Qaeda can do that and we cant.
Forgive me but my memory has totally failed me in recalling this guy's name; BUT, there was once a meek, mild mannered Electrical Engineer who lived in NYCity & regularly used the public xportation system to get hither & fro'.
Anyway, he'd been harrased, beaten, mugged -- & on a number of occasions, mind you -- & naturally, the cops couldn't, wouldn't and/or didn't do a damned thing for this guy.
Well, *one* day he'd decided he'd had enough.
He decided he wasn't going to live his life in abject fear of the societal animals & misfits who're really out there running amok on the loose, anymore.
So?
In SPITE of NY's strict anti-gun laws, he bought himself a weapon & began to carry it everywhere to protect himself.
Well sure enough, one night on the way home from his job on the subway?
A pack of 4, maybe 5 animals decided he *looked* like an, "easy mark" and proceeded to ask this man for his wallet.
Now here's where it gets really fuzzy because as the facts go he either refuses them, or, voluntarily gives his wallet to one of these thugs.
Then he nonchalantly pulls out his weapon & wastes 'em right there & then.
I recall this man had been driven to such an extreme breaking point of pent-up anger & frustration he was probably at that moment quite insane becuase he even asked one of the -- now hemmoraging thugs laying these gasping -- "You want another one, good! Here." & >kapow!<
He drilled the asshole, again.
By now people around watching this going down have fled; and, so he's alone [then], right?
He casually puts his weapon back in his jacket & walks right out the door & on home to eat his dinner.
There was a hue & cry unlike anything heard in a long time in the Big Apple, about this.
Naturally, the Lamestream quisling mediots tried ever-so-hard to make this mild -- almost pathetic -- little man (the LEA's had a "manhunt" out for) to be some kind of another,"Son of Sam" David Burkowitz type out *hunting* poor downtrodden minority males.
Had it not been for this man's conscious compelling him to turn himself in?
They'd still be looking for this guy.
I don't think he was convicted of anything much more serious than being in possession of a weapon within NYCity limits when all was said & done; &, rightfully so
But I'll tell you this right here & now.
Should this kind of behavior -- by one racial class or any combination thereof -- *suddenly* discover it's "en vogue" for them to go out & terroize another peoples; whereby, said people enmasse become as threatened as this man had?
Look out.
People will quickly *figure* out what needs to be done, alright; &, whether the *authorities* like it, or not.
Those who cannot muster the courage will remain inside their homes, behind their locked doors.
...prisoners of their own fear.
(The Goetz case may have been the turning point, when newspapers started speaking of muggers "requesting" that a victim turn over his money, in order to eliminate the distinction between robbery and beggary.)
You're right, Landru; he should never have turned himself in. He was convicted of illegal possession of a firearm, and may have (I'm not sure) spent a year inside. A few years later, Goetz, already penniless from his ordeal, was sued in civil court by the young man he shot twice and lost, to the tune of, I believe, $2,000,000.
About five years later (ca. 1989), a middle-aged white man being beaten and robbed by a black gang, drew his weapon and killed one robber. For weeks thereafter, the NYPD pleaded with the man to turn himself in, but he fortunately had the good sense to ignore the cops.
How is the refusal by a substantial group to respect the law a "cultural problem"? I know of legal problems and I know of religious problems, but the phrase "cultural problem" is frequently used today by people who want the clout of a religious problem, but who know that they have no religious issue to raise. And of course it has to do with the very real war on cops.
But what the hell am I doing, arguing with someone who hasn't even taken the trouble to read the damned article?
And you're defining "black supremacy" as "conscience"?! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at that, coming from someone who talks of "cultural problems."
My point by using the term "cultural issue" is that this certainly is NOT a legal issue (unless of course your intent is to end my right to Jury Nullification). It's definitely NOT a religious issue. Black jurors refusing to convict black defendants is primarily a racial issue, but with the added tones created in a welfare society which continually celebrates "victims". That, to me is most definitely a cultural issue.
Repeat once more... Black jurors refusing to convict a black defendant is absolutely NOT a legal issue. Every jury has the legal right to refuse to convict.
If you intend to challenge that right, my intent will forever be to challenge every attempt you make.
This debate is about the police. This debate is NOT about the military.
Unless your goal is to militarize the police.
God help us if we slide any further down that slope.
I am not 100% sure of this, but I heard that when Goetz saw a police sketch of himself in the news paper, it was so accurate, he felt he had no choice but to turn himself in. That's the rumor I heard.
Nov. 19, 2002 - Mourners hold vigil for slain minister
Nov. 20, 2002 - Teen pleads guilty in slaying of neighbor, 72
Nov. 21, 2002 - Woman, 68, shot dead in robbery attempt
Nov. 23, 2002 - Man, 27, killed near 13th St., Capitol Drive
Nov. 24, 2002 - Man, 22, gets life for robbery gone wrong
Nov. 25, 2002 - Boy, 15, must stand trial in brutal killing of Young
Milwaukee's resident race-baiter editorialist would have you believe the blame lies with the performance of the assigned LEO's (or lack thereof), that demanding parental responsibility for the demon spawn is just a "feelgood" notion, and that "Civic Leaders" & "Society" has failed these poor youths.
As the cries for wake-up calls are shouted from the rooftops of the media, the mantra is always sickeningly the same. Not once is the blame affixed to the perps unless some sort of mitigating circumstance is mentioned as a prologue or epilogue.
I ask you; just exactly who requires the wakeup call here?
There's no such thing as "society"; society is just people. And as for relying on "civic leaders," most civic leaders are crooks. Crooks are supposed to keep thugs in line?
A society that relies on "civic leaders" (even the less crooked ones) as a first line of defense, is finished. The first line of defense should be a mother's voice, saying "Don't do that!"; the second line is the back of a father's hand. And when a child knows that Line Two is around, he's much more likely to pay heed to Line One.
The area in question exemplifies what used to be known as the "rotten borough problem."
Yeah? so what?
Lot's of people die every day. Many in the course of performing their jobs.
Cops are NOT special and it's time they let go of the prima donna attitudes about it.
Oh, I get it -- we have to start caring less about cops getting killed. Yeah, that's the ticket -- not!
I am not 100% sure of this, but I heard that when Goetz saw a police sketch of himself in the news paper, it was so accurate, he felt he had no choice but to turn himself in. That's the rumor I heard.
You may be right, Mark, in which case I take back what I said.
I never said "less". I just get sick of all the cheerleaders trying to make me care more. They're the same as the rest of us, no more and no less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.