Police told suspects black from very 1st shot fired! (D.C. SNIPER TERROR)

World Net Daily ^ | March 28,2003 | Paul Sperry

[Salvation]

** He took a statement from a Papa John's Pizza employee working two doors down from Michaels, who said he heard the rifle report and turned to see "two black males with short hair" driving slowly away in a dark-colored "beat-up vehicle," the source said.

The witness told the detective the men were "laughing and high-fiving themselves" as they left the parking lot, according to the investigator, who requested anonymity. The car then sped up as it exited the parking lot, as if "fleeing the scene," as the witness reportedly put it.**

Why didn't this get into the mainstream media? Race??

[_Jim]

It's all in my previous post as excerpted from the WND story -

- this witness's *statement* was taken, judging solely from the time-line in the WND story, *after* the second shooting some 45 minutes later ... there was ample time, therefore, for the pizza delivery guy to have heard (on radio or seen on TV) reports of the second shooting and in his mind the pizza delivery guy could have mistakenly coupled together a couple of not necessarily related 'factors' -

- his original observations plus any 'ideas' that may have popped into his mind while listening/viewing further coverage of the second nearby shooting.

It could also be that the WND story/parts of the story are erroneous ...

[Travis McGee]

Is this story getting much play in Maryland news?

[Coop]

Okay, I see what you're saying. Thanks for the clarification.

[Travis McGee]

Moose is more disgusting that a rancid diseased feces covered slug.

Of course, in the movie version he will be played by Danny Glover, and will be shown as a genius and hero, personally arresting M&M, pistol in hand.

[anymouse]

I doubt he could find the front, even if he was detailed there.

[FirstTomato]

Moose was and is a racist, against whites. If he was a white man who had done that kind of crap against blacks, he wouldn't even have a job any longer.

The tragedy about this kind of politically correct Democratic/socialist/leftist policy is that it invariably hurts minorities more than it helps.

Here in Baltimore, a white police chief was forced to retire when black activists insisted on it. His crime? Two black women were raped, they reported their assailant was black, and the chief issued a directive to his men to be aware of any suspicious black men at a particular bus stop. Outrage ensued and the police chief forced out and the police forced to look at possible perps who didn't even fit the description. Result? The rapist was never caught. But the black Democratic activists had their victory, for what its worth.

[maica]

The family of the final victim, a bus driver, should sue Moose for wrongful death. It only took a couple of hours for the perps to be found after a BOTL was publicized for that car. It seems to me that they would have been found sooner were it not for the wishful thinking of Moose.

[oyez]

I just told an associate that he would have problems finding the enemy.

He will be instructing his MP's avoid racially profiling the iraqis we are capturing.

[cgk]

Apparently Glover doesn't want to make any more movies where his character totes guns, and only continued to make the Lethal Weapon films because of the guaranteed paychecks. He makes me ill.

[maica]

Mentioned on the morning talk show briefly and referenced to World Net Daily. The anti-war protestors - from college professors to die-iners are taking up most of everybody's attention.

[Travis McGee]

He makes me ill also.

[maica]

Interesting article from yesterday's Washington Times --



The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

Civil rights bias
Edward Blum and Roger Clegg
Published March 27, 2003

---

     Ever since it began insisting that the only way to stop racial discrimination is through the use of racial preferences, consistency has never been a strong point for the civil-rights establishment. To see this, one needn't do more than compare "Wrong Then, Wrong Now: Racial Profiling Before and After September 11, 2001"— a report just published by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) with the position the organization is taking in the University of Michigan affirmative-action cases, which will be argued before the Supreme Court Apr. 1.
     "Wrong Then, Wrong Now" endeavors to compare the old-fashioned, street cop–type of racial profiling with the post-9/11 profiling of Arabs, Muslims and Middle Easterners. The Leadership Conference is against both, and there is no logical inconsistency with that. But, that's not what's remarkable about the report. What is remarkable — and foolishly inconsistent — is the contradiction between the civil rights establishment's opposition to the use of race by law enforcement agencies to prevent crime or terrorism, on the one hand, and its adamant support of universities using race in admissions, on the other.
     The contradiction is most glaring in the report's own definition of profiling: "Racial profiling is any use of race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin by law enforcement agents as a means of deciding who should be investigated . . . . Under this definition, racial profiling doesn't only occur when race is the sole criterion used by a law enforcement agent in determining who [sic] to investigate . . . . Selective enforcement based in part on race, is no less pernicious or offensive to the principle of equal justice than is enforcement based solely on race."
     Fair enough. According to the definitions set out by the Leadership Conference's own report, race should never be a factor a law-enforcement officer takes into account when attempting to prevent crime or terrorism. Police can't dodge the fact that they are discriminating by arguing that race is "just one of the factors" they consider in deciding whom to pull over.
     Yet, compare this position with the stance the Leadership Conference took in a friend-of-the-court brief filed at almost exactly the same time with the Supreme Court. The cases there challenge the use of race in university admissions at the University of Michigan. The brief says: "LCCR support the use of race as one factor in admissions policies to preserve diversity in the nation's colleges and universities." It furthermore states, "At the University of Michigan and elsewhere, race is only one of many factors considered in admissions decisions. The court should be loath to constrain education professionals in making these important decisions, particularly when those decisions have a reasoned, empirical basis."
     Confused? Join the club.
     The Leadership Conference is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It is saying that university educators can use race as one factor among others in admissions because, in its view, that helps minorities. But cops and homeland defense officers should never use it as a factor in their line of work, because, in its view, that hurts minorities.
     It's no wonder so many ordinary citizens are exasperated about the civil rights establishment's views on race and ethnicity. Is race something we are supposed to pay attention to or ignore? Regardless of how the Leadership Conference tries to argue for both sides, it doesn't work.
     Consider what happens if you follow their reasoning: If race can be one factor among many in college admissions, then why can't race be one factor among many during the sentencing phase of a criminal trial? After all, African Americans statistically have higher recidivism rates than whites. Why can't race be one factor among others used by credit officers in assessing who's eligible for a loan? Default rates for blacks are higher than for whites, after all. From these real-life situations, it is a short hop to questioning why race can't be just one reason among many for a restaurant owner to refuse service to a group of somewhat rowdy teen-agers, who just happen to be black. It's a slippery slope, and the best way to stay off it is to refuse to allow race to be considered in any of these situations.
     If the Supreme Court takes the advice of the Leadership Conference and adopts the "one-factor-among-many" approach to school admissions, it will usher in another generation of racial confusion and polarization, to say nothing of litigation.
     Either race tells us something significant about an individual, or it doesn't. If law enforcement agencies can't use race to prevent crime or terrorism, then neither can universities use race to achieve racially proportionate student bodies.
     It's that simple. The Leadership Conference can't have it both ways.
     
     Edward Blum is a senior fellow and Roger Clegg is general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity in Sterling Virginia. (www.ceousa.org)

[arm958]

The same officer called Moose a "self-promoting clown."

A very accurate description. I lived in Portland, Oregon when Moose was police chief there. I would add "utterly incompetent" to the officer's description. When Moose was finally fired from Portland (disguised as Moose's desire to "move on"), I remember feeling sorry for the citizens of Montgomery County, Maryland. Their search committee failed them.

[Travis McGee]

Liberal is a synonym for hypocrite.

[AlexW]

Political Correctness is going to destroy us.

[In God I trust]

Any of these sound familiar?

I am deeply saddened. Saddened that one life was loss because this Chief could not let it be known that the killer was a black man.

Shame on you Mr. Moose, Shame on you.

What has Chief Moose ever done to us?

This is not my racism Chief Moose.

[dagnabit]

Yes, he was in a reserve unit that has been called up. He was going to work security at Andrews AFB, but, there was also a possibility that he would go to Kuwait.

[dagnabit]

Did you know that other witnesses described a blue Caprice?

[Coop]

I believe I had heard of one Caprice report prior to the APB being put out on the two evil cowards.