A Failure To Properly Socialize

So unlike most of those out protesting with the discredited "hands up don't shoot" signs, I've been reading the transcripts of the witness testimony. As I read Dorian Johnson's portion I was struck by how he, and Brown, were examples of our, the grown adults of our communities, failure to socialize our children.

Says Dorian:

So we are walking down the street...and traffic started going, but no one blew their horns, no one made irregular turns to get around us like we were in the way and no one yelled out their windows, you guys are in the way, get out of the street, anything like that.

What Dorian is saying is that the adults in the community never set an expectation of behavior and therefore never enforced such behavior. And because the adults never made him observe what we call common courtesy and civilized behavior, Dorian later took offense to a police officer doing exactly what the adults in his community should have done: told him to "get the fuck out the street".

It is our failures to teach these "little things" that add up that causes problems. I've passed a lot of people in the middle of the street, crossing the street and wide diagonal angles that puts them in the street far longer than necessary. Folks who will take their own sweet time and look at me like they dare me to hit 'em. Nobody says anything. Why? Mr. Brown demonstrated why.

Believe me, the people who aren't annoyed by this behavior and attitude are far and few between.

An Appropriate Malcolm X Quote

“Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.”

― Malcolm X

Ferguson grand jury papers full of inconsistencies

Tell me about it. A few gems:

One woman, who said she was smoking a cigarette with a friend nearby, claimed she saw a second police officer in the passenger seat of Wilson's vehicle. When quizzed by a prosecutor, she elaborated: The officer was white, "middle age or young" and in uniform. She said she was positive there was a second officer — even though there was not.

I see police. Everywhere.

Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online.

So was it that her 'racist views" that made her see Brown hitting Wilson or...?

Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then "stood over him and finished him off." But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from, and that can be the only assumption that I have."

This is what I saw....while not looking.

Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head."

But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

Sir. I can see through walls.

"I ain't feeling comfortable," he said.

My nose! My NOSE!!

Malicious Prosecution

There is a legal term called Malicious Prosecution:

While the two claims are similar, malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims have some essential differences. A plaintiff can sue for abuse of process when a defendant starts a legal process with the intention to obtain results for which the process was not designed. A plaintiff can sue for malicious prosecution when a defendant “maliciously” prosecutes a criminal case or uses a civil proceeding against the plaintiff when the defendant knows he or she doesn’t have a case. In addition, the plaintiff must have already obtained a “favorable termination” of the defendant’s malicious case before he or she can sue for malicious prosecution.

Anyone familiar with this legal concept understands why the DA spent so much time with a grand jury and why the DOJ will be unable to do anything to Wilson other than make a lot of noise for public consumption

Essential Elements of Malicious Prosecution
A successful malicious prosecution claim requires all of the following:
beginning or continuing a criminal or civil legal proceeding
without reasonable grounds to believe the allegations of the proceeding with a purpose other than simply getting a judgment in the proceeding, and that
the proceeding has terminated in the favor of the person being prosecuted or sued (i.e. the future plaintiff in the malicious prosecution suit must first win the suit against him or her).

As we can see what Crump and others have been asking the DA to do is to engage in malicious prosecution. Also by calling on the feds, they are trying to get that entity to engage in malicious prosecution.

Even if the people bringing the criminal or civil proceeding think they have a winning case and are suing for a legitimate reason when they begin the case, they can be guilty of malicious prosecution if they discover a reason they cannot win during the case, but continue the case for improper motives anyway. [ My underlines]

What Benjamin Crump and others have been calling for is for the DA to try a case "just because" rather than by following the law. Had the DA done so, the city could have been sued for abuse of process. And example of a city being sued for malicious prosecution

#Ferguson: The Very Definition of First World Problem

Three things stood out to me:

1) Apparently a lot of people in Jamaica were talking about Ferguson.

2)Most of Africa had nothing to say. Most of Africa is not online. Similar for South America. Similar for South-East Asia.

3) Barely blip in Russia and I believe that was the sole doing of Russia Today.

They Never Wanted Justice

Matt Walsh over at The Blaze tells that hard truth:

This decision is not what you wanted, I realize, but that’s only because you never wanted justice at all. You wanted a certain outcome, and you have demanded that outcome from the very beginning, before listening to the other side, before looking at the evidence, before hearing from all of the witnesses, before giving the dust a chance to settle. You came to a conclusion based on rumor and conjecture, and you have not strayed from that conclusion or adjusted it or even acknowledged that any other conclusions are possible. This, my fellow citizens, is not the behavior of people who want justice and fairness. This is the behavior of a lynch mob. This is the behavior of tyrants who are perfectly willing to send an innocent man to jail if it means winning some kind of bizarre ideological victory. This is behavior that ought to be exposed and shamed, in no uncertain terms.

I'd end up quoting the entire piece. There is no escaping this logic.

Witness 14

One of the two most credible witnesses I've read thus far. Had this gone to a trial, this witness along with witness 11 would likely have sunk the prosecutions case. While I disagree with this witnesses assertion as to what was "necessary". I applaud and deeply respect his stated motives for coming forward and telling his story.

..and so after uh, weighing ourselves, and I'm not coming forward, what I'm coming forward now now because it's weighing on me. You know, but uh, the reason I hadn't, I hesitated is because one I live in the area, two if the things that was said by other people who, which is not really what happened and I was a eye witness to it...by living out there if you go against what they are saying, I think they might nut up. Uh, go crazy...

Allow me to stop here for a minute. This guy has stated unequivocally that what was being said in August by "other people" was wrong. I repeatedly pointed out various outlets and characters who were repeating information that was wrong. These outlets and "reporters' ought to be named and shamed and put out of work. Secondly, it is a sad commentary that our so called "black leadership" helped to create and/or foster an environment where truth tellers had to hesitate before telling their truths. That is completely unacceptable.

If I see it at any time that this is gonna cause or bring....or bring any drama towards us or...., it's ended.

Okay?

I'm sorry.

It's ended. Okay.

....

So, uh after talking to.....cause....was adamant for me not to say anything. not going to say anything but is really scared. Um, I talked it over with another fan....the other family members and let 'em know that it was weighing on me and uh I decided after seeing and hearing certain civil lead...civic leaders say certain things that I know, they were true but not quite accurate. And I want to set it straight, because the family needs to know what actually happened.... Okay, on the day of the incident I always sit, I stay on the floor, my bedroom window. I can look straight down Canfield towards west Florissant. And I was at that time, I was looking out the window and I happen to see two young men coming down the street, but they were in the middle of the street and I was like what the heck are they doing? Why are they in the middle of the street? I didn't really think much of it because a lot of people walk out in the street. I've walked it, but a closer to the curb, but I have walked in the street. A lot of us do that. And then I saw the police truck and he passed him a few feet and then he backed up. When he backed up I knew something was about to happen, so I got up and went to the door and I came out and stood on the porch. By the time I got there they were tussling, in the car, it looks like, I don't know if the officer had grabbed him or the boy reached into the car. I didn't see that part. But, I dispute the fact that the officer was out of that truck. He was not. They were wrestling in the truck, 'cause when he was wrestling with him I saw something fly. I don't know it if was a hat or something, then I heard a shot. "Pow." The boy backed up and ran and I'll show you in a diagram. And he got to a certain spot which was maybe 25 30 feet maybe more. You can measure it, I'll show you. And when he turned to face the officer he raised his hands but he didn't raise them all the way up. He raised them up and looked and you could see that something was on his hands and he looked down like he was looking at his side and he looked at, and then he turned and faced the officer like what happens why ya know. I gonna, I don't know what was going through his mind but if I had a guy shot I would have came at like why did you shoot me or ya know whatever. The officer exited the vehicle came around back he's about, at the, well I can't say he was on the passenger side but he wasn't quite at the end of the truck-....

The officer the boy was still standing on the, on the, on the partially on the parking lot and on the grass. 'Cause he had ran that way. The officer came out came around got into his stance. And he said "stop."

I'm gonna pause here for a minute.

Right here we have felony assault on a peace officer. Then we have what can be reasonably thought to be attempted murder of a police officer and on top of that failure to obey police commands to stop moving.

Because the boy looked up at him and he took two steps, about two or three steps. Pow, pow he fired off about three rounds and he hit him the boy kinda wiggled. And when he came back up he had the weirdest look on his face and he started coming forward. Not in a, like he was trying' to attack him, it's like he's coming to him like to plea with him stop. The officer did say, "stop, stop, stop." Well after the third time, he let loose. And the boy was coming forward slowly. Real slowly. But you could see that he was hurt, 'cause he was like this. And rocking back and forth. He wasn't in a upright position he was kinda hunched over. And as he was coming forward and he fired off the volley he was falling. He didn't fall to his knees, he fell straight down. And as he was going, he kept firing. He kept firing. Until he hit the ground. Okay.

Now this witness is a witness meaning he really cannot speak to whether the Officer viewed Brown as threatening. What is significant here is that he says that Brown was ordered to stop 4 times and ignored those commands. What person in their right mind looks at a cop with a firearm pointed at them, telling them to stop and still moves towards the cop?

Was Brown suicidal? I'm going to skip a bit of the statement.

..And after that it was everyone started coming from the back, saying "oh my God. He had his hands in the air, tellin' him don't shoot, don't shoot, don't shoot." He never uttered a word [ my underlines]

This credible witness to the entire event has demolished the "don't shoot" narrative.

,because after hit that that that second boll...first vole, he could. it was like he couldn't talk. He was like, cause he couldn't believe what was happening. You know. And he was kinda and I'm going to say it again. He was walking forward. But not in a menacing way [note: Once told by a police officer to stop, any walking movement in any direction is seen as a threat], he was coming to him as if to....help me, stop or something. It awe, after he said the last time the officer said stop, he just let loose. To me he was already injured. If he had not fired that last volley, I think the boy might have survived. "cause it looked like he hit him here, okay. But as he was going down, I don't know where the bullets hit him. You know, all I saw was his body going down and the guy, and he was steady firing. Okay he st...he never came out of his stance. You know and I know you, do both of you know what I am talking about?

Okay, and like I said when that happen that's when everyone come back and all of them start saying things like oh he was on his knees, and when they shot him he shot him on his knees. Uh, then they came by and and they said oh he was laying down and the officer came and shot him in his head. No, he may have, if he does have a head shot it was because he was coming down [Note: I already diagrammed exactly how that head shot would have happened. This witness who saw the events supports that supposition]. That's the only way I could see it. Okay, I've fired weapons, I've been training myself, I've gone to gun ranges and everything else. As he was coming down that the only way I could see that...if he was hit in the head, it was as he was falling. He did not intentionally shoot him, walk up and shoot him in the head but he did not have to fire that last volley [note: in his opinion but he wasn't the peace officer so his opinion doesn't mean anything.]. That's what killed him, to me. Because he didn't look like he was ready. You know. He was, to me and I'm going to say it, he was executed. He had made up his mind he was going to kill him. Because he was a big guy but that big guy was on his way down after that first volley. He wasn't getting ready to go down. And then when he started shooting again he was really coming down. And that's all I have to say about that. [ My underlines]

This is where I diverge from the witness. The peace officer doesn't have the luxury of being on the porch watching it all go down and then like quicksilver from X-Men, jump up and move shit around. By the witnesses own words, Brown was told to stop four times. That he was still moving after the first volley rather than, you know, stopped, he brought that second set on himself. Also, by the autopsy, we know that the other shots hit him in the arm. That may have hurt but that was not going to bring him "down".

And I'm going to re-iterate, when he fired that last volley which he did not have to do [note: in his opinion], that boy was gonna go down [note: he knows this how?] And he might have lived because if they could have got the EMT's to him they, right then he may have lived. [note: by the autopsy that is a correct statement since brown only sustained other shots to the arm]...He had no intention of letting him come, move [note: which is how police operate]. None. Maybe he got caught up in the heat of the moment or whatever was his intention I cannot read that officer's mind, but he did not have to fire that last volley [note: because though he cannot read the officer's mind, he can read the officer's mind as to know that the officer didn't think it was necessary.]

Witness Intimidation In Ferguson

Witness 46:

He told me that he needed to talk to me with you all and to state what I seen and told him I was scared because I've been gettin' a lot of calls that's threatening me and only thing, I don't even know these people. I don't stay, I used to live in Ferguson, I have a cousin live in Ferguson I go over and see him in them apartments[emphasis and underlines added]

Wait till I post up Witness 14....

"Did I Actually Witness A Police Officer Being Murdered?"

As the witness testimony rolls in, the the eternal shame of many so called "respectable" news media, all of whom should be sitting down their so called reporters and explaining how unemployment benefits work, we find Witness number 10:

I seen Mr. Brown in the window of the police car looked...it appeared as they were wrestling through the window and one gunshot had let off. And, Mr. Brown took off running and my first thought was like "oh my gosh" did I actually just witness a police officer being murdered because it took a while for the police officer to get out of the car and pursue the suspect. And I wanna say maybe six seconds, but it seemed like it was forever after the the the first gunshot. So, tyne police officer exited the vehicle with his weapon drawn pursuing Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown was quite a distance and he stopped and when he stopped he didn't get down on the ground or anything. He turned around and he did some type of movement. I never seen him put his hands up or anything. I can't recall the movement he did. I'm not sure if he pulled his pants up or-or whatever he did but I seen some type of movement and he started charging towards the police officer. The police officer then returned fire. Well, not returned fire on Mr. Browm. Um, if I had to guess the shots and the-the distance between him and, a, Mr Brown, it would have to be five to ten yards and the shots that were fired was four, five to six shots fired and Mr. Brown was still standing up. Um, and my thoughts was while he's missing this guy this close, is he-is he hitting him or because Mr. Brown there was no reaction from him to show that he had been hit. Um, after that, Mr. Brown then paused. He-he-he stopped running and when he stopped running the police officer stopped firing. And, then Mr. Brown continued, started again to charge towards him and after that the police officer returned fire and um well not returned, I'm using the wrong...a started to fire once more at him. Um, if I had to guess the rounds that were fired then it would be four to five more shots and after that Mr. Brown collapsed and fell to the ground.

Grand Jury Documents

For those of you interested in those pesky things called facts and documentation.

I. Told. Y'all.

Not An Accident

Forget Ferguson. This right here is the real deal.

Unlike Mr. Brown, this guy hadn't just tried to rob a store and assault the manager.

Unlike Mr. Brown, this guy didn't grab up a police officer and grab up that officer's gun.

No. This guy was taking the stairs in a building (something the author does all the time).

The police are saying that this was an accident. This is unacceptable. Unless they can show that there was either a crime in progress or that the police had reason to believe an armed person had entered the stairway after or on the way to commit a crime, there is no reason for this officer to have had his gun drawn and chambered.

Currently there is talk about how he can be fired because he was on probation as a new cop. But this here looks very much like criminally negligent homicide. He was walking in a stairway where unarmed residents come and go. Again. Short recordings that a crime was occurring or that a suspect had fled into the stairwell, this guy should be seeing charges.

A panicked rookie cop in a pitch-black housing project stairwell killed an unarmed man with a single gunshot to the chest as the officer fumbled around in the darkness with a flashlight and a handgun.

The fatal shooting, which officials described as a tragic accident, happened during a vertical patrol late Thursday — months after the superintendent of the Brooklyn development asked NYCHA to fix the stairwell lights

And note:

I shot him accidentally,” the devastated cop confessed to his colleagues. His partner Landau never pulled his weapon from its holster.

Bratton and de Blasio agreed the shooting was a terrible mistake — although Liang had yet to tell his story to police.

Never pulled his weapon. This means there were no suspects that they were looking for or a crime they were responding to. Otherwise Landau would have had his gun drawn covering their back.

Not Surprising In The Least Bit

From RT.com:

He took to the university campus waving an infamous black-and-white flag - the emblem of the Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS/ISIL). “ISIS is misunderstood. We just want our own state. Why does America keep bombing us? America and Western imperialism are to blame, not ISIS,” he was shouting in the video released by Fox news on Wednesday

However, the students, who Horowitz says in his blog “clearly have a lot of intellect,” didn’t react at all.

“A couple of thousand students walked by me and not saying anything negative. In fact, there were some positive responses. [It] really blew me away,” he said in an interview with RT. “Not a single person has a negative response. It was completely shocking.”

There was no harsh condemnation of the group and no one mentioned the IS’ beheading of three US citizens.

One passerby nodded towards Horowitz and said, “Good luck.”

And then.

he returned with an Israeli flag, trying to show the ‘tolerance’ of Berkeley students.

However, he received less-than-warm reception as the students started assailing him with hatred.

“F*** Israel,” exclaimed one man, “You’re killing kids,” said another.

“All of Israel are killers,” added a woman.

“That flag you wave is the psychological genocide of this planet. This institution is part of the people who enslaved the whole planet,” one of passerby said in a tirade.

In his RT interview, Horowitz said that one student told him that Israel is “the worst country in Europe,”

I'm not at all surprised by this. There is this disease on the left in which being critical of imperialism means that one cannot also be critical of the actions of those either under imperialism.

When it comes to black folks it is similar. One is free to discuss White Supremacy at length. One may not however discuss the dysfunctional habits of black folks because black folks under White Supremacy have no agency.

Now to be fair, I don't have a foundational problem with ISIS wanting it's own state and engaging in revolution to get to that end. This is how countries and nations have been created and changed throughout history. I do object to the means by which ISIS deals with it's enemies and it's fundamentalism.

Simply put one can condemn the settler state that is Israel AND the actions of ISIS. This is not hard people.

Maybe I Missed Something

From the Daily News:

Students at Booker T. Washington High School in Norfolk and the NAACP slammed Amy Strickland ― a former teacher of the year ― for retweeting an offensive joke apparently mocking interracial couples, WAVY reported.

So, so far a person re-tweeted a tweet without commentary. I don't see what the problem is.

The tweet featured a photo of high school couples posing for a prom photo: Each of the girls were white, and all of the guys were black. The photo’s caption read, “Every white girl’s father’s worst nightmare.”

Which wasn't HER caption. It was the caption on the original photo. So again. I don't see what the problem is.

Students told the school’s principal about their find ― and planned the Monday walkout when the school failed to take action.

So they found a retweet on her page with a caption they considered offensive and ran to the principal to get her in trouble.

So in essence if you retweet a tweet of someone else without commentary YOU are now the author of the original tweet? Really?

“I could have been any one of the boys in the picture,” junior Michael LeMelle told the TV station Monday. “And I really don’t see myself … as anyone’s worst nightmare.”

Ok. That's nice. See so what you do is retweet with a comment to that effect or AT the original tweeter and say "Nah". Problem solved.

On Tuesday, the school board said it was investigating.

But the probe ― which was announced only after the student walkout ― should have launched days ago, activists said.

What is there to investigate. A RT (retweet) without commentary is neither an endorsement or refutation of the original statement. It is merely passing it through your account to your followers (if private) or the public (if public). Anyone else is free to look at or further interact. I note the conspicuous absence of any mention of any commentary by the assistant principal.

While Dillard applauded the students for their peaceful protest, he urged the school to reprimand Strickland and take control of the school

Reprimand her for what? What exactly is there to reprimand her about? They don't like what she retweets? Hello, can we say "prior restraint of speech" (if that is a public school)? They will be lucky if it turns out that they are dealing with yet another white guilt having white person ready to fall down sobbing and apologizing. They will he VERY unlucky if this woman has any backbone and sues the pants and skirts off anyone who touches this case. She will win if she does

"Because They Did Not Believe He Was Armed"

Two officers approached Mr. Gonzalez with their firearms pointed at him and told him to stop. He continued running, and the officers decided not to use lethal force because they did not believe he was armed.

And

The officer put his finger on the trigger of his gun, pointed it at Mr. Gonzalez as he came up the stairs, and told him to stop. But, Mr. Gonzalez continued running and the officer did not shoot because he did not believe Mr. Gonzalez was armed. It was later discovered that Mr. Gonzalez had a knife.

And

“After attempting twice to physically take Gonzalez down but failing to do so because of the size disparity between the two, the officer then attempted to draw her baton but accidentally grabbed her flashlight instead,” the report said. “The officer threw down her flashlight, drew her firearm, and continued to give Gonzalez commands that he ignored.”

Ferguson: Unarmed man shot because he posed a threat to officer.

White House: "Unarmed" man NOT shot because he posed a threat to the president.

One of these scenarios is wrong.

Question: Do any of these people actually have orders to shoot threats? Or do they just talk to them and hope they comply?

Anything Could Happen But The Odds Are...

From Clergy reach out to wary high school students in wake of Brown shooting

How many of you had that thought it could have been me?” said the Rev. Robert White, a St. Louis pastor, to nearly 50 students in the library of East St. Louis High School Thursday.

This is a heavily loaded question. If one is talking about a totally random event like a car running off the road into a sidewalk then INDEED it "could" have been you.

However when an event is determined by the behavior of more than one party, the "coulda been me" argument starts to fall apart. On the one hand in the real of possibility, ANYTHING can happen. But when we analyze situations we often find that the probability falls or rises based on other items. The problem with a lot of common black thought is that race in and of itself mediates certain outcomes with police when they actually do not.

“Tell me,” he said to a girl at a front table. “Why are you saying that could have been you?” “Because I’m black,” Monecia Hudson, a junior, told him. “It really doesn’t make a difference what gender you are. Police — they don’t care who you are. If they feel you’re doing something wrong they’re going to do whatever they feel.”

Let me stop off race and turn to gender. I usually upset certain women when I discuss the issue of women hitting men and men hitting those women back such as what happened recently on the F Train in NYC. A large number of women (and men) are quick to condemn those men who strike back and say that those persons who agree with that support violence against women. My only comment to such persons are as follows: Are you the type who would strike a man (or anyone else for that matter) for any reason other than self defense? If not then why are you supporting those persons who DO strike men (or other people) for reasons other than self-defense? Secondly do YOU engage in such behavior? if not then you have nearly zero chance of finding yourself in such a situation even IF you were involved with a man disposed to striking back.

The result is universal: Silence.

Similar logic works here. Brown is not dead because he is black. He is dead because he acted inappropriately to someone with a firearm who was ALSO a peace officer. Brown would be alive today and likely in jail or probation, if her had done the following:

1) Did not walk down the middle of the street obstructing traffic. 2) Did not attempt to take and use Wilson't firearm even IF Wilson had grabbed Brown up through the car window or "hit him with his car door". 3) Upon running and being fired upon, stopped with his hands WAY over his head, not only to his side as some witnesses stated, 4) Not moved towards to officer but stood still.

With this in mind, the proper question that should have been asked of the students should have been:

How many of you would assault a police officer? How many of you would run away from a police officer after assaulting him? How many of you would disregard an order to stop and continue to move towards an officer you just assaulted?

Seen this way none of the hands should have gone up. And that is the real lesson of "could have been me".

Civilization requires a certain level of responsibility and behaviors. The same way we expect, as we should, a certain level of behavior from police, we should also expect and require a certain level of behavior from citizens.

Back Story: Get It Right LA Times

So while awaiting the grand jury decision the LA Times decided to post a "back story" on the events in Ferguson. Of course there were problems.

St. Louis County grand jury is expected to decide soon whether to indict a white police officer who fatally shot an unarmed 18-year-old black man on Aug. 9 in Ferguson, Mo., setting off protests and unrest. Here’s what we know about the deadly encounter involving Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson, and what’s likely to happen next.

Well unlike August when he was a "teen" the unfurling narrative still presents the "unarmed" angle. Though anyone with sense knows full well that an "unarmed" person is not the same as a "non-threatening" person. And also never mind that Brown was already on tape assaulting the manager. See, this is what we call the Set Up. The implication here is that Brown is innocent (because he's black) and that Wilson is guilty because he is white and therefore racist.

Wilson has not spoken publicly about what happened, and no direct video of the shooting has surfaced.

Because? Because Ferguson police do not use dash cams or body cams. In most police misconduct (and citizen misconduct) cases, the cameras are turned on after the initial contact. Someone getting stopped by a police officer doesn't cause a camera to be turned on but a cop hitting someone after the stop does. So absent the video (which the ghost thinks should be mandatory for all law enforcement personnel) We have witness statements and forensics. We already know through research that witness statements are not entirely reliable. So forensics gets a higher weighting than "I swore I saw so and so do such and such".

the confrontation began when Wilson, on patrol, spotted Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson, walking in the street.

Well actually the confrontation started when Wilson, who was called to respond to a report of a strong arm robbery at a convenience store came upon Brown and Johnson walking in the middle of the street obstructing traffic which included a now emergency vehicle. This part is important because "on patrol" implies that Wilson was simply driving around looking for someone to mess with. The actual case shows that Wilson was in a state of high alert trying to get to a scene of a crime. Entirely different mindset.

Wilson “observed the two individuals, he requested that they get out of the roadway. The deceased became belligerent towards Officer Wilson,” the report stated.

"Observed" is standard police speak. Of course he "observed". they were likely in his way as he was responding to the reported crime. "requested" is also police speak. It is likely that he yelled at them. He likely had his siren and/or lights on (though that was never mentioned and would actually be relevant). Of course Wilson would not be 'nice" as he is trying to get to a scene of a reported crime.

"As Officer Wilson attempted to exit out of his patrol vehicle the deceased pushed his door shut and began to struggle with Officer Wilson, during the struggle the Officer’s weapon was un-holstered. The weapon discharged during the struggle.

Of course this leaves out pertinent information such as the fact that AFTER yelling at Brown and Johnson, Wilson continued on to the location of the reported crime. It was AFTER he heard the description of the suspect, and the description matched one of the persons he just yelled at, that he turned around to confront Brown Secondly, by pushing the door onto officer Wilson, Brown committed assault on a peace officer. You'd think that noting that would be relevant to the "back story". Secondly the fact is that the gun discharged twice in the vehicle and that witnesses say that Johnson took off running after the first shot. Which would imply that he could not have seen everything that transpired after that first shot.

Johnson says that when the incident began, Wilson used profanity to tell the young men to get out of the street, hit Brown with his car door while trying to open it, then grabbed Brown by the neck.

So Wilson, sitting in his vehicle, after cussing at Brown, attempted to knock Brown down with his door. Then failing to exit his vehicle, reached out the window to grab up Brown? Do those events even sound right to you. If anything the order would have to have been "Grabbed first, opened door after". And even in that case why would a police officer entrap his arm in a car door window grabbing onto a suspect when he knows he has to lose contact when the door is fully opened? Reader: Try that at home. Get a buddy. Grab him by the neck out your car window and then open the door and see how that works out for you(Convertible owners exempted).

“They’re not wrestling so much as his arm went from his throat to now clenched on his shirt,” Johnson told MSNBC. “It’s like tug of war. He’s trying to pull him in. He’s pulling away, that’s when I heard, ‘I’m gonna shoot you.’”

Lets take this at face value. If Wilson in fact did this, it would be an epic training fail on his part. What purpose does pulling Brown into the driver's side front seat serve for Wilson? Is he gonna shoot Wilson in the head while his head is in the driver's seat? Knock him out with his gun? "Then he heard 'I'm gonna shoot you." He heard who say that? A police officer who is being assaulted WILL say "stop or I'll shoot". Since Wilson was being assaulted it is highly likely that he said something to that effect. Therefore it still cannot be seen as evidence of malice for him to be heard saying "i'll shoot." because we know he's in a scuffle. Secondly, if Wilson was interacting with Brown after realizing that Brown fit the description, that would explain why his gun was unlatched or unholstered when Brown reached for it. Professionals do not unlatch their guns because they KNOW that a 'free" gun is an invitation for an opponent to become armed.

After the first shot wounded Brown, Johnson said, Brown ran and Wilson chased him. Wilson then shot Brown in the back, and Brown stopped, turned with his hands up, and said, “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!” according to Johnson’s account to MSNBC.

Of course the autopsies (there were 3 done)showed that Brown was not shot in the back. The LA Times should have noted right there and then that Johnson't statement in that regard was false. Secondly, even IF Brown said anything like "I don't have a gun" it does not follow that he is not a threat. He is still obliged to follow all police directions and it is HIGHLY unlikely that Wilson told Brown to walk towards him. Police tell you to lay down on the ground with your hands on your back.

As Wilson stood face-to-face with Brown, the officer shot him several more times, Johnson said.

Of course johnson's testimony was contradicted by other witnesses.

No. Among the earliest details to provoke fury from residents and demonstrators were witnesses’ statements to the media that Brown had his hands raised in surrender when Wilson shot him.

Well they may have thought that was what they saw. So far the leaked GJ evidence and the autopsy indicates that Brown's hands were at his sides, elbows near his hips which is a far cry from hands over his heads claims made by others and which I demonstrated could be indicative of someone attacking someone

One witness, Tiffany Mitchell, told MSNBC that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away, and Brown’s body jerked as if he had been shot. Mitchell said Brown “turned around and put his hands up, and the officer continued to walk up on him and shoot him until he goes all the way down to the ground.” Another witness, Piaget Crenshaw, gave a similar account.

With all due respect to Tiffany Mitchell, her testimony is contradicted by other accounts.

But by all means LA Times, don't let these other witness accounts get in the way of your narrative.

The Washington Post sparked controversy last month when it reported that several black witnesses had provided testimony to the grand jury that largely supported Wilson’s account of events.

Controversy. Why is that controversial? Now THAT would make for a good news story.

After the grand jury’s decision is released, McCulloch’s office has promised to release all evidence and testimony from the proceedings, which are conducted in secret. The prosecutor would have to seek a judge’s approval for such a move, however, and if there is an indictment, some of the information might remain confidential until trial.

If they do release this information then I hope they take every precaution to make sure that the witnesses who spoke truthfully have their identities protected. The reason GJ activities are secret is to protect both the reputations of those under investigation but also to protect the witnesses from retribution.

Missouri law provides wide latitude for police to use deadly force, particularly if the officer believes it’s necessary to protect his or her safety or the safety of others. But that law might not shield Wilson. “If Michael Brown was trying to surrender at the time, that makes this defense not applicable,” Washington University law professor Peter Joy said. “So the question is: Was Michael Brown clearly trying to surrender at the time that the fatal gunshots were fired?”

No, actually the standard is whether Wilson, the accused believed his life was still in danger, not whether someone thinks Brown was surrendering. I'm surprised a law professor misunderstands this point. If the witness statements that Wilson took steps back as Brown stepped towards him, then it goes to show Wilson's belief that he was in danger.

Taxpayer Paid Part of JP Morgan's "Penalty" Because...

The government made sure to not call it a "penalty".

Taibbi noted that $7 billion of the settlement was tax deductible, meaning “American taxpayers coughed up $2.4 billion of this settlement for JP Morgan Chase. An ordinary person, when they suffer a criminal penalty, they cannot deduct that from their taxes… because the government very specifically did not call this a ‘penalty’ in the settlement … that allows the bank to deduct that money, which means all of us get to pay a big chunk of that fine for them. Which is incredible.”

Notes On The F Train 'Slap' Video

So yesterday I saw the now infamous F train slap video.

There are a number of things about this video that deserve commentary:

1) Street (or Subway) Harassment: It was only a few weeks ago that we were shown a video of a woman walking around NYC for 10 hours where she was "harassed" by random men. The worst thing that happened to her was that one dude walked beside her as if she was with him and a second one was quite persistent about getting the mute Shoshana to at least say "no thank you".

This guy was apparently minding his own business on a subway while at least 3 young women berated him about his choice of clothing and who proceeded to physically assault him over it. Lets see how long it takes for the regular feminists to spend time discussing the "sense of entitlement" that these women had and how dangerous it can be for a man minding his own business on a train.

2) As I discussed in my lengthy piece about the facts of domestic violence, black women are the leaders of initiators of domestic violence (30%). I said then, as I'll say here, if we want to deal with domestic violence in black communities we have to deal with the women who initiate this violence. These women believe that they have a right to put their hands, feet or objects on men when they are upset and this is unacceptable.

This video shows just how early this sense of entitlement to hit men starts.

3) Equal Treatment: There are people who believe in equality for women and then there are feminists. This video is an epic show of what equality looks like. See, there is this rule that men generally understand. The rule is simple: If you hit someone, expect to be hit back. Therefore it is in your best interest to not hit someone unless you know you can "take them".

This general rule is why inter-male violence is generally low. Men regularly size each other up, particularly on the first meet in order to make a threat assessment. Is he fit? How large is he? How big are his arms? Does he have dominant or passive body language? etc. Women on the other hand given their relative weakness usually default to the "he's a physical danger" pose when confronted with most males. It's assumed he cannot be "taken out" in unarmed conflict. This became codified in cultural norms in that men do not hit women BECAUSE women are weaker. However along with this code is that women do not assault men. The only exceptions that have been allowed have been "emotional outbursts" where women were allowed to slap a man when he upsets her. This code, which is quite sexist, is based on the idea that women, like children, were and are incapable of controlling their emotions (prone to hysterics, a word based on their reproductive organs).

What is happening of late is that many women want the equality without the corresponding responsibility. Equality means that you don't operate under the sexist assumption that women are incapable of controlling their emotions and therefore their arms and hands (or feet). Equality means that you don't hit men when you are upset. equality means if you do hit a man when you're upset, that you expect to be hit back. Any other expectation is one of privilege. Unearned privilege at that.

And this is what we saw in the video. The female initiated the verbal confrontation. She elevated the situation by lashing out at any man that upset her. Then she struck out at man who had made no physical or verbal threats to her.

It is clear to me that Mr. 8 Ball jacket is the victim here. He was not only assaulted by the female (verbally and physically) but other people assaulted him when he retaliated against his assailant. He was minding his business. He shouldn't be wanted for arrest, he should be wanted as a victim of a crime and as a witness against the people who assaulted him on that train.

Of course there are going to be people reading this who think I'm advocating violence against women. This is the usual claptrap of those who seek to excuse and diminish the very real (and documented) violence committed by women against men (and other women). The fact is that the ONLY principled position here is that nobody, male or female is obligated to allow other people to assault them. They are within their rights to "dissuade" anyone who has already assaulted them from continuing to do so. I believe that men and women have equal rights to defend themselves. I believe that women are not children and are quite capable of controlling their bodies. It's high time the rest of society catches up with this.

The Recent ACA Court Case

The Ghost is pro Single Payer. I've said a few times that the proper and constitutional way that the federal government to cover everyone, which is and was entirely possible, was to simply amend medicare/medicaid to all citizens and legal residents (illegal immigrants get proper and humane emergency treatment and then a one way ticket home).

But no. Instead we got a 200+ page law that nobody read before voting on that was designed to provide customers to healthcare corporations with the federal government acting as enforcer and collection agency. Something that NEVER should have happened.

So it turns out that since nobody read the law, they didn't notice that little piece of text that said:

“through an exchange established by the state.”

Someone on This Week actually said that sentence didn't mean what it said. Seriously. I think the reason that fellow could even move his mouth to say such nonsense about the law, is because too many people on the left thik that laws mean whatever they think it means at the time rather than what it actually says. For example when the charges were brought against Zimmerman, I pointed out the problem with murder because it requires intent. There was ample evidence in the offering that provided reasonable doubt as far as intent is concerned and therefore Zimmerman should have been charged with criminally negligent homicide with a focus on the totality of the event.

People actually said that I must "be on Zimmerman's side" because to them, the fact that I understood the law and the concept of reasonable doubt, that somehow to be on Trayvon's side I had to disregard what the law says. You don't convict someone of a crime because you think "eh, it's close enough to X". Judges give explicit instructions as to what the law is and how a jury is to look at evidence. Why? Because the language of the law matters.

Another example, a man was tried for shooting up skirt videos in Mass. He was acquitted because the relevant law did not cover what that man did (the mechanics). So even thought the state wanted and perhaps meant that such behavior be deemed criminal, the law as written did not support such a contention. Judges are required to follow the law not what they think or wish the law to be. They cannot legislate from the bench (even thought not a few have been getting away with just that). Legislating comes from a legislative body. Not the executive or the judicial bodies. Which brings us back to the ACA.

The language is very clear to those who understand the English language (something that is apparently becoming a problem....). Lets look at the sentence:

“through an exchange established by the state.”

In this sentence "an exchange" is the object. "Established" is the action. That object is established by "the state". The state is the party that does the action (establishment) of "an exchange" that whatever is gone "though".

Simple English. In the US the "state" or "states" always refers to one of the 50 states. When talking about the federal government, it is referred to as The Fed. Don't believe me? Look at the full text of the ACA

Do a search for "state". It shows up 75 times in the document. Here's a relevant example:

Subtitle C—Medicaid SEC. 1201. FEDERAL FUNDING FOR STATES.

And

AMOUNT OF INCREASE.—Notwithstanding subsection (b), the Federal medical assistance percentage for a State that

See? Fed. State.

Another:

f the number of percentage points by which— ‘‘(I) such Federal medical assistance percentage for the State, is less than

Now look at the actual paragraph that contains the quote in question:

In the event that allotments provided under sec- tion 2104 are insufficient to provide coverage to all chil- dren who are eligible to be targeted low-income children under the State child health plan under this title, a State shall establish procedures to ensure that such children are screened for eligibility for medical assistance under the State plan under title XIX or a waiver of that plan and, if found eligible, enrolled in such plan or a waiver. In the case of such children who, as a result of such screening, are determined to not be eligible for medical assistance under the State plan or a waiver under title XIX, the State shall establish procedures to ensure that the children are enrolled in a qualified health plan that has been certified by the Secretary under subparagraph (C) and is offered through an Exchange established by the State under sec- tion 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For purposes of eligibility for premium assistance for the purchase of a qualified health plan under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and reduced cost- sharing under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, children described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to be ineligible for coverage under the State child health plan.

See? No mention of the federal government.

The only way this goes in favor of the administration is if a majority of the justices buy the [not]legal argument that the congress "meant" something other than what was written or if they wish to legislate from the bench. If they don't buy the "meant to" argument and decline to legislate from the bench, it should be a unanimous decision in favor of the plaintiff. Of course that would mean that either the law would have to be amended, and we know what kind of fight that would be; or the states would have to set up exchanges, particularly if there is a public outcry from those who lose coverage that technically they should have have gotten.

Of course alllllll of this could have been avoided had Obama and his crew passed single payer while the Democrats had the majorities in both houses of Congress. But we know how that went. But now we'll hear them whine about Conservatives this and Republicans that when the total failure was theirs.

Message To Democrats: It's The Law Stupid

*Sorry for typos and stuff, just wanted to get this out before I read too much that influenced my thoughts*

So what happened Nov. 5? Actually the question should be why did Nov 4 happen. If you read the comments on the NY Times the reasons are: Republicans (AKA white men) hate women. Republicans (AKA white men) hate Obama. This would be shocking demonstration of simple mindedness on the part of many of those on the left is partially why Nov 4. happened. While there are definitely those in the Republican camp that do not like Obama in the least bit (I've read their material), the “hate women” theme, prominently trotted out by the Cuomo camp in the last weeks of the NY gubernatorial race, holds no water whatsoever and is a part of the reasons for the events of Nov 4. I'm going to lay out the epic fuck ups that Democrats committed in just the past year that caused the election results to go the way they did.

1) Hobby Lobby: Essentially Obama and his crew decided that not only should the government force people to pay for other people's sexual activity choices, they went so far as to attack the very foundations of US law: the Constitution.

I explained at length that the freedom to exercise one's religion is an enumerated right in the Constitution and therefore any sane and uncorrupted court had to find in favor of Hobby Lobby. The facile argument given by the court dissenters that somehow one cannot establish and run a for profit business in accordance to one's religious beliefs were untenable. The attack on Hobby Lobby was seen correctly in many religious circles as an attack on a foundational right of the citizenry.

That this attack on foundational freedom of citizens to freely practice their religions was doubly insulting as it was couched as an attack on women in general.

Minor point On a court decision note, the hysterical dissent to the Michigan Affirmative Action case by Sotomayor was also a factor though I cannot honestly say by how much. Like the Hobby Lobby case, this case pitted an executive order and some employment decisions against the fundamental political rights of citizens. The proper party lost because Affirmative Action is not a right while the organizing of referendums are. But I won't belabour this point.

2) Middle East: Obama not only abandoned his supposed “anti-war” roots with his attack on Libya, he had the gall to tell the public that he did not need permission or authorization from Congress to do so. He was rightly taken to task by certain members of Congress, none of them Democrats (as far as I recall). How a party that took the White House and Congress based on the outrage of the lawlessness of Bush could sit back when Obama was doing the same thing demonstrated a clear hypocrisy of the party.

In addition to that was the total mishandling of Syria. Now there are two parts to this depending on whether the voter was a “regular Republican” or a member of the “dissident right”. The former embodied by the likes of John McCain had issues with Obama not doing enough to unseat Assad and to aid the “rebels” to fight for Democracy. On the other side were “dissident right” types who agreed with my position (and a number of people on the radical left and a LOT of the moderate public) that the US had no business in the Syrian conflict. They saw, correctly it turned out, that the rebels were, as Assad said, fronts for terrorist groups. The whole “red line” bullshit only went to show that Obama had no clue what he wanted to do. One thing the party “in charge” should not have is a head that appears to not have a clue or to have the guts to do what he says he would do (Congress notwithstanding). Of course, even WORSE for Democrats and Obama was that Assad turned out to be right and the Syrian rebels turned ISIS and started mass murders and world viewable beheadings. This then became linked with immigration, but we're not ready to discuss that just yet.

3) Russia and Ukraine: Like the Middle East, Obama and co. completely messed this up. I pointed out the many instances of flat out lying and misinformation coming not only from the White House but also from major media outlets on the matter. Apparently these folks think that the American public still lives in a US where the major media outlets control the flow of information. They apparently did not realize that US citizens have the ability to read media from other countries right there on their cell phones and work computers. They have no clue that there are a good number of websites (and blogs like this) that report on actual verified information.

Mind you there is an element in the current Republican party that thinks that war with Russia is a good idea and that they have more voice now than before is certainly problematic. But as Pat Buchanan pointed out in his various articles, past presidents, Republican and Democrat alike never made the issue of Ukraine and other satellite countries of Russia a national priority. Why would Obama make it so. So when Russia took [back] Crimea and Obama could do nothing but talk, it once again showed him to be weak and/or weak. It would have been better for Democrats and Obama to have said nothing, particularly since it was essentially known info that US agents had a hand in the coup in Ukraine (and that is exactly what it was).

4) [Illegal] Immigration: If nothing else aside from Ferguson woke many people up in America as to how much Democrats hate a significant portion of the population, it was the response to illegal immigration. Democrats did everything wrong in response to the “surge” in illegal crossings into the US. The law proscribed that all those persons be deported. Period. Instead of following the law, which they had sworn to uphold, they spoke nonsense about these persons being “americans”. They asked Congress to approve millions of dollars to “help” these persons. How else can you describe such a request but a slap in the face of the millions of unemployed, disabled and otherwise needy US citizens by asking for millions of dollars to help folks who have no legal right to be so much as in the borders?

And it wasn't just white people that saw this idiocy. A lot of black folks, who are disproportionately in fields in which illegal immigrants compete saw this for what it was. Never before have I seen Republicans get more than single digit percent of black votes. They broke 10% last night.

It did not help that a number of candidates debated in Spanish. Should never have happened. That put people on notice that the new immigrants from those countries are not interested in basic assimilation.

It did not help that the new media reported on these spanish language adverts in which they said particularly nasty things about Americans (non-latinos) in order to get support for Democrats.

It did not help that Obama announced that he was going to enact [another] Amnesty via executive order after the election in a blatant move to help Democrats at the polls. This showed yet again a blatant disrespect for the basic function of American government: Congress and Executive are equal co arms of government and it is the job of congress to legislate and the job of the executive to execute those laws.

The Democrats have made it quite clear that they wish to remake the demographics of the US. I'm not going to comment on the value of such an intent, but the language used has made it clear that a certain population of men (white, heterosexual and Christian) are persona non-grata in their vision of America. I wrote some years ago that such a blatant disregard for the rights of said population would result in some not good responses. One of them was Cliven Bundy. I expect more of them too.

Then came Enterovirus. Curiously spreading across the US right after illegal immigrants were dispersed. Quite a coincidence. Then Mr. Ebola in Texas.

On top of this was the collusion of big money people on both the left and the right to fund legal immigration in the face of staggering job losses for citizens. By some estimates that I have read, the bulk of jobs created in the US have gone to immigrants. That simply should not be happening. The first job of any government is the welfare of it's citizens. When you have tech companies shedding jobs and importing H1B workers at cut rate wages (and in a recently reported case, below minimum wage, 'cause they “didn't realize it”) you don't import workers.

Couple that with the increasing automation of jobs Democrats (and Republicans) have been dropping the ball. Republicans gained on this issue because when there has been a real discussion of immigration and it's impact on citizens, it comes from a Republican. So Republicans as a party get the credit via a halo effect of sorts. If Democrats were not so busy “creating a new people” as the dissident right puts it, it would take notice of the world of hurt their current immigration policy (not enforcing immigration laws) are having on it's citizens.

So immigration played a large role. If anyone on the left has not read Jeff Sessions writings and floor speeches on the subject I would advise them to do so.

5) Ferguson: This was and will continue to be one of the largest public fuck ups by Democrats and liberals in general. Keeping it on a strictly political realm, that the US atty general took his butt to Ferguson and declared that he was a black man (thereby implying strongly which side he took in the matter) was a signal to many white Americans that US law is not with them. When I say “with them” I don't mean in the Slave or Jim Crow days way. I mean in the basic, innocent until proven guilty, lets get all the facts way. It put them on notice that even the suggestion that if they defend themselves against an attack they will be called racist and be given little regard in the press. This is very dangerous.

These citizens have witnessed knock out games and other attacks that are clearly racially motivated, swept under the rug and called everything but a hate crime. And while they were already [wrongly] miffed about the Trayvon Martin case, the public videos of looting, the suppression of actual facts known very early in the case, by major news media damaged the already tattered reputation of Democrats as being soft on crime. Believe me when I tell you, In my readings on the subject on various sites, many now former liberals were turned by what they saw in regards to Ferguson.

6) Gun Laws: This also was a showdown between enumerated rights and Democrats hell bent on punishing certain segments of the population. After Newton, various states rushed to pass silly laws to restrict access to firearms and ammunition. Though mischaracterized, the vast majority of gun owners have no problem with background checks. But Democrats were not satisfied with that. They wanted limits on magazines. They wanted to tell you what kind of gun you could buy. NO matter how many times it was pointed out that criminals who want guns do not care about ammo magazine limits, gun type limits and the like, Democrats insisted on passing laws that made criminals out of law abiding citizens (Connecticut I'm looking at you). Mike Bloomberg put a lot of money into these attacks on an enumerated right in Colorado and got three representatives recalled (I think one quit before she could be put out) and apparently cost them at the polls.

Never mind that no amount of background checks would have stopped Newton or any other shooting done by someone who was deemed mentally competent and who had a clean criminal record at the time of purchase. Democrats played the fear card (something they never pass the opportunity of accusing Republicans of doing).

Message to Democrats: Stop fucking with enumerated rights.

7) Gamergate: Not really Gamergate but what Gamergate represents. Gamergate is really a stand in for the continued “war on women” angle that the Democrats have been playing for two election cycles now. What has been going on over the past 2 years is a very aggressive, almost weaponized version of feminism that has gotten the White House to bandy about flat out wrong statistics on sexual assault (which includes rape) and harassment. It is getting tiring to hear the same lies told over and over again. Once again, it appears that Democrats think that people can only get information from certain media outlets. Unfortunately for them, every time they trotted out the 1 of 5 lie about rape on college campuses, not a few well researched responses appear. You can even see in the comment sections of MSM where folks have wised up to this bullshit stat. Yet the president and VP continued to insult and attempt to shame men into taking responsibility for actions they had nothing to do with. To add insult to injury this administration actually pressed colleges and universities to make it easier to convict persons accused of sexual assault or rape. This put millions of college age men at risk for false accusations. Somehow Democrats thought that married men and women would somehow be OK with threatening their sons with a completely ruined life at the whim of some college woman who had drunk (not passed out) sex with some guy she met at a party.

I hope Democrats have seen the exit polls and how badly they did with married folks (men and women). No loving parent thinks their kid should be subject to a kangaroo court over drunk sex. Single white women who want the government to force others to pay for their birth control pills may be good with that, but women with actual responsibilities and attachments to men don't much go for that.

That's my overview of what happened. I did not mention the Affordable Care Act because not only has that ship sailed, but whether you like it or not depends on whether you got hit with an increase or whether you got a decrease. People vote for self interest. So it's not so much ideology but more a “did I get something out of it”.

It's Hard To Say?

“There are anecdotes of the girls being racially stereotyped as white sluts or white trash, but it’s hard to say how much of that is racism and sectarianism and how much is classic sexual offender behavior belittling the victims,” he said.

Hard to say?

Ok. If a band of white men grabbed up a black woman and called her a black slut and black trash, would it be "hard to say how much of that is racism"?

How about if a man walking down the street and gets called a "fucking fag" and then knocked out? Would it be "hard to say" that it was "hate crime" based on sexual orientation?

Why is it when non-white people fuck up, liberals have a hard time calling the actions what they actually are?

Black folks go running around knocking random white people in the head, it's not racially motivated. Really? It's called Polar Bear Hunting. How is that not racially motivated?

Mention the high levels of black crime and some liberals will talk about micro-aggressions and being mad because of all the white faces black people see every day that doesn't validate them?

What?

So its acceptable that black folks off each other because they don't see themselves on magazines? What kind of dumb and racist explanation is that?

No NYT it's not hard to say when one is willing to tell the truth. For the rest of us it's pretty damn easy to see.