The War on the Police

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Odd that he focuses so much on the Hurricane, which was a much more contentious case, than the left's preposterous idolization of Mumia Abu Jamal, Philly's cop-killer and scumbag extraordinaire.

I don't think cops deserve special treatment. But I think it is in our best interests if existing laws that protect all citizens were enforced when they were violated against the persons of cops. Once they realize that no one is backing them up, they will either go bad on us or give up, neither of which is a pleasant scenario.

Civil liberties are hugely important, but there has to be some allowance made for situational realities that exist in the inner city. That allowance is *NOT* to give cops even more privileges, but to make carrying concealed firearms a reality for all law-abiding citizens, one that will not result in punishment for self-defense.

Videotaping sounds like a good idea. I think most people are predisposed to accept some degree of sleight of hand on the part of interrogators (within reason of course), because that is how interrogations have been portrayed on TV and in Hollywood for decades. The only reasons a jury would find such behavior reprehensible and worthy of acquittal per se would be if 1) it *was* that bad 2)they were going to acquit the guy anyway and needed an excuse (card-carrying democrats, perhaps).

I think, Poohbah, some latitude should be permitted within interrogations, and I think it is a fairly clear line between subterfuge and coercion. The accused have many recourses that are the counterpoint of such subterfuge, especially summoning a lawyer, the 5th amendment, due process...

On an aside, there was some government bigwig visiting the business school building of my university today, I don't know which bigwig but the guy who built the school (Huntsman) has such luminaries as Dick Cheney on his list of personal friends, so I can imagine. Anyway, when I went to park my bicycle out in front, I was summarily ordered to leave by some suit and his jackbooted (literally) police associate. No "Excuse me sir, but could you move your bike elsewhere" but rather a peremptory "Get out of here". Some long repressed hatred of authority welled up within me; I wanted to ask the trooper if he got his outfit at the Gestapo Surplus. But I moved quietly. Then as I went to meet with a professor there some bodyguard/secret service type guy dominating the hallway. Since when people stare at me I am wont to stare back, I was the focus of his attention. I know they were just doing their jobs, but I hate being treated like a criminal when I am so obviously just going about my business. Perhaps that is why my usual general affection for policemen is not there today...I dunno.

"...-- we have to start caring less about cops getting killed. "

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.

Here's the problem with your position: although a policeman's life is intrinsically no more valuable than anyone else's, not only do police widows think otherwise, so do crooks, and 95% of civilians. Treating cop killings the same as ordinary murders won't result in a much-desired evenhandedness, but will result in all murders getting second-class treatment.

There is no question that the police have a tough and dangerous job, and that most encounters between the police and the public have ended peacefully. However, due to police brutality and excessive force towards some minorities in the past and allegations of abuse, deaths in custody and unjustified shootings; minorities, blacks in particular are using this argument as an excuse to exercise their own abusive and ill-treatment towards the police. Furthermore, Liberal politicians and leftist judges who by nature look down at the police are making their job increasingly difficult to perform.

Sounds about right to me. Also sounds like a recipe for chasing good men away from The Job.

Odd that he focuses so much on the Hurricane, which was a much more contentious case, than the left's preposterous idolization of Mumia Abu Jamal, Philly's cop-killer and scumbag extraordinaire.

He dealt with Mumia in an earlier article for the same outfit.

True.

Actually, since the Second Amendment applies to all law-abiding citizens, no special allowances need be made for the slums. We need only respect folks' Second Amendment rights the same in the slums as in the suburbs.

Yup, that was the guy's name, alright.
Thanks for the clarification of the facts too, mr.

"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."

Unbelievable.
I'm speechless.

"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."

Well, as I already said, my friend.
Won't take people too long to figure out what to do.

...&, more importantly what not to do.

Forgive my incoherence. What I meant to do was draw the contrast between what usually follows the first statement of that paragraph (either "so the police need to have the equivalent of martial law, zero tolerance, etc" or "so we have to understand the root causes of crime and help minorities bla bla bla") and what the actual solution is, which is removing arbitrary constraints from the citizenry. But I am pleased we are in agreement, even through my garbled prose.

I hold the leftist judges responsible for creating this type of atmosphere in the court rooms. How do we get these judges out and replace them with fit judges? There has to be accountability with no only these judges but with the idiots who appointed them.

Very important point. As per the Constitution, on the federal level the solution to this problem flows from a better man getting elected, since it is the President who appoints federal judges.

Oops! I just remembered that socialists have a postmodern interpretation of the Constitution, according to which there is no author, and they can interpret it any way they wish. And their interpretation is that the choosing of federal judges is the sole prerogative of the Democratic Party. And so they subverted the President's prerogative for the past two years, and are still prattling on that he has gone from having "no mandate to govern" to having a "limited mandate."

(Not to mention their little game of trying to impose last minute, lame duck executive orders that they never had to endure on a GOP president.)

In any event, Bush must now cram four years of work into two years, with no rectification for the damage done the first two years. However, I think he's then going to get another four years to work on things. Now the question is, will he do the right thing?

On the local and state level, of course, the solutions are different. I live in New York City, which shall remain a law-free area for the foreseeable future.

You made a legal claim. I asked you for its basis in law, but you chose to play word games, and now say "its simple for most people."

What the heck is your problem? I already said I dont care what some court "ruled". I made no "legal claim" other than a claim based upon common law. Police claiming they have evidence, when they do not, is fraud. Plain and simple. If you wont realize you have a brain, and recognize this as fraud regardless of what some MEN "ruled", then you are beyond my help.

First, you made a veiled theological claim, but wouldn't come clean. Now you switch to "common law." Another poster made a simple, straightforward argument for the same position without playing your games.

Like I said, fraud is obvious to most people, and I had no wish to explain it to you. I like to use Biblical references because so many here like to use the Bible as justifications for all sorts of things. Hence, I ask "does a man-made court overrule the Bible?". Meaning, if a court says, "Sure, you can lie to get information from a suspect", then God's opinion on baring false witness is moot?

Now I am reminded again why I wasn't too surprised when the Left reacted to 9/11 by inciting opposition to America in foreign newspapers, inventing atrocities in Afghanistan, opposing any sorts of restrictions on illegal Muslim immigrants who had been ordered deported, conjuring up "hate crimes" out of minimal security procedures (woman ordered to remove scarf at airport), lobbying for an American-paid global anti-poverty program, demanding that we house captured Al Qaeda in mainland, civilian jails, taking up the cause of people who lied to get airport security clearance, and other platforms which shared the goal of not simply damaging America's interests but of actually causing physical harm to Americans, both soldiers and civilians.

After all, we had seen them following a similar policy in the realm of criminal justice for years but had never dared to articulate the conclusion made obvious by the points of their agenda: the Left hates their fellow Americans, and they want us to die.

Yup. I'll add to that only that those lefties traditionally referred to as "dupes" or "sympathizers" are simply those who refuse to openly identify their loyalties, or rather disloyalties, and those who refuse to think out the consequences of their choices.

The question "does a man-made court overrule the Bible" is not a legitimate question. The Bible says a lot of things, e.g., that an adulterer must be publicly stoned to death, and that certain fibers may not be used with others. Some say the Bible forbids the eating of pork, while others see no such prohibition. So, even the superficially simple answer of placing the Bible as ultimate court of appeal, instead of ending debate, only begins it. So, no, that won't cut it, on the issue of police deception.

And so I do not yet see a convincing argument against deception in dealing with the guilty.

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.