Police in North Miami, Fla., told WSVN-TV officers responded Monday to a 911 call reporting a man with a gun threatening to commit suicide. Yet Charles Kinsey, a behavioral therapist, told the TV station the witness and later the police may have mistook the autistic man’s toy truck for a gun.
Hold that thought for a minute.
“I’m going to the ground, just like this with my hands up. And I’m laying down here just like this. And I’m telling him again, 'Sir, there’s no need for firearms. I’m unarmed, this is an autistic guy. He has a toy truck in his hand,’” Kinsey
First and foremost as you can see in the image this guy is posing no threat at all. That, in combination with his declaration makes for a no reason to shoot. That officer should be seeing felony assault charges. Why not attempted murder? because he shot Kinsey in the leg.
Now my second point is, this is yet another example of "random" people calling police about a [black] man with a gun. I've said it before and I'll say it again, in a country with a right to carry, calling the police about a man walking with a gun should get a "and?" response. Also I strongly believe that some of these calls are actually citizens trying to get someone killed. It's like swatting without the video games.
One last point: I fully expect there to be a more blatant example of police shooting an innocent person due to the targeting of police by certain people. This may be an example of such an event.
back when I was young and naive I thought feminism was about equality for women. I had women who in their early lives could not have their own credit cards. Women who could not own property by themselves. Today such a thing would strike me as odd. Indeed for a couple of generations now, such a thing cannot even be imagined. Yet these kinds of things happened and I was glad to support putting such rules into the dustbin of history. But as I grew older I realized that what passes for feminism now has nothing at all to do with equality and everything to do with control of [heterosexual] men often accompanied by the criminalization of male masculine behavior.
Today I saw an article in the Daily Mail that gives us indisputable evidence of this:
A police force revealed today it has become Britain’s first to recognise misogyny as a hate crime.
Nottinghamshire Police is recording incidents such as street harassment, verbal abuse, unwanted physical approaches and taking photographs without consent within the hate crime definition.
It also includes using mobile phones to send unwanted messages, unwanted sexual advances and ‘unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement’, possibly including wolf whistling. [my underlines]
Physically approaching a woman is a crime? Do these idiots not know that "uninvited" verbal and physical contact is how people make new friends?
The force’s chief constable Sue Fish said: ‘I’m delighted that we are leading the way towards tackling misogyny in all its forms.
‘It’s a very important aspect of the overall hate crime work being conducted and one that will make Nottinghamshire a safer place for all women.
Firstly. Sue Fish should be removed from office and barred from any government policy making body. Secondly, since when are men second class citizens in the UK? Since she has declared this to be a about the "safer space" for women, it is clear that the "law" is not about equal protection and equal applicability but about conferring special and preferred status to women simply because they are women. This action by the police shows feminism as the farce that it is. Those that approve of this do not think women and men are equal, they think women are weak and in need of special protections from society. This attitude was the exact same reasoning given for denying credit cards and property ownership. Women were too mentally weak to control themselves and property and therefore had to be under the guidance and control of men.
A force spokesman said: ‘Unwanted physical or verbal contact or engagement is defined as exactly that and so can cover wolf whistling and other similar types of contact. If the victim feels that this has happened because they are a woman then we will record it as a hate crime.
‘This doesn’t necessarily mean that a criminal offence has been committed, but means we will carry out risk assessments and offer support as we would to any victim of a hate crime.
About this whistling thing. Personally I find such behavior to be low class. That said though, nobody is harmed by whistling. As a matter of fact such behavior is considered complimentary by those doing the whistling therefore making the designation "hate crime" even that more untenable.
Lets consider the example given by the police:
‘I was eating in a takeaway when a man asked for some of my food. I said no. He started shouting at me, calling me a ‘fat f***ing bitch’ and getting more and more angry. He then threatened to assault me. I felt really scared and had to get a taxi home.’
Apparently this was a homeless man. There are laws against threatening violence against anyone so there is no need for "hate crime" bullshit.
‘A builder near a school shouts vile abuse to every woman, including pregnant women or women with their children. Women are scared to walk past him and go out of their way to walk down other streets in the area.’
Question: WHAT exactly did these men say? Second question: Describe these men.
‘A man stepped into my path and said “Hello” and he then followed me... He came up to me and said “I like you” and tried to put his arms around me, completely invading my personal space. I pushed him away and told him firmly to get away from me and leave me alone. I then witnessed him try the same behaviour to another woman... another man stepped in and challenged his behavior.’
As above; Describe the man. Secondly as said before, once he tried to "put his arm around men" we have a law for that It's called assault.
‘As I child I had men shout comments such as “are you legal yet” at me.’
Again, IMO, low class behavior. But two things: First: It shows the men in question did not want to engage in pedophilia which is a good thing. Secondly had that question been asked by a man this particular woman liked we wouldn't have heard about it. Indeed this author has had women who were of questionable age volunteer their legal status.
‘I have been followed home, chased through the streets by two men, and asked for sexual favours from a taxi driver. I believe the abusers targeted my vulnerability as a young woman or child who would not be able to fight back.’
First and second examples are called stalking. It's illegal. Follow the law. The third example is likely a fireable offense. And no the women aren't targeted because they are young, they are "targets" because they are considered attractive. Heterosexual men make advances on women they find attractive. This is how it works in the natural world.
‘I have been repeated shouted at in the street since 13 years of age. The shouts at times have been very sexually explicit and have caused me to fear for my personal safety, to take a different route, quicken pace, telephone for help etc. I have been followed by strangers and had to take a different more public route to avoid risk of assault I feared may otherwise occur.’
13 years of age meaning: showing secondary sexual characteristics typical of a female having entered mid-late stage puberty. Again I think it's low class to shout at a woman one doesn't know, particularly words of a sexual nature. I would ask again, citing the recent events in places like Rotherham what these men looked like. When we were shown the video of "walking through manhattan" we saw something quite peculiar about the people who were approaching the woman featured in the video. I don't doubt that men are following some women, I'd just like to know if they are importing the problem.
The unfortunate thing about this, aside from confirming that feminists actually believe women to be not equal in capacity is that the "rules" are so broad as to invite abuse by those who wish to mess with a man who has pissed them off somehow.
Somewhat lost in the reporting on the Dallas shooting was the use of drones to kill US citizens on US soil. Previously we have had drones kill US citizens abroad such as Anwar Al Awlaki. The reasoning given there that he was an enemy combatant having declared war or joined a group that had declared war on the US.
What is new is that a drone (they need not fly) was used to kill a citizen who at the time he was blown up posed no danger to any civilian. He was holed up. The drone could easily determine whether he had explosives on his person. The drone could have been used to "flash bang" the suspect or used a low yield explosive that would have injured but not killed him.
I have said in the past that the use of drones will negatively impact warfare as the usual inherent risk of man-to-man combat is taken away and killing becomes a cool and easy endeavor. We should be extremely concerned with the use of drones to kill suspects no matter how guilty they seem to be by circumstances.
I don't like Deray Mckesson. I don't like that institutions that should know better paid him to "teach". I don't like the fact that someone thought it was a good idea to pay the man $165k to do "HR" work. Many members of the BLM crew are unintelligent frauds who have and will continue to get people killed in their pursuit of blowing up their egos (and bank accounts). But in case you think I'm simply "hating" let me present the following:
Note what Deray wants:
Keep disrupting Trump all summer so that martial law can be declared before the election
Deray wants martial law imposed. For what end?
Get martial law imposed so that Obama can stay in office.
Deray wants to stop the proper electing of the president of the US in order to keep Obama in office so that Deray's preferred policies can remain in effect where they exist and implemented where they do not.
Who is the Nazi? Who is the fascist?
This seems to me to be a "perfect storm" of events, assuming this narrative to be correct. If it is correct that Philando was reaching for his identification prior to informing the cop that he had a gun, then I think a jury would find reasonable doubt to acquit. An officer seeing a gun and the person in possession of that gun reaching in that direction, can reasonably infer that his life is in danger and generally doesn't have to wait to be shot in the face to shoot that individual. And to be clear, officers have been shot by people in their cars with wives/girlfriends and whomever else in the car. [inserted underlines]
I also noted that it was odd that the officer was so nervous and had his weapon drawn for a traffic stop. Well now evidence has come out to explain a few things:
The Falcon Heights, Minnesota police shooting of Philando Castile is based around an entirely false narrative. Castile and Ms. Diamond Reynolds (Facebook video uploader) were pulled over by police because Castile matched a BOLO Alert for an armed robbery suspect from four days prior.
Yes. I know "fit the description" is a common excuse for harassment but in this case the fellow does look like the person in the robbery.
From the radio dispatch of Officer Jeronimo Yanez:
“I’m going to stop a car. I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.”
“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery. The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose.”
I had to chuckle at the "wide set nose" because that was NOT what jumped out at me about the similarities.
I'm not going to grab all the information from the other site. Go there and see it for yourself.
If this information holds up to scrutiny it is HIGHLY likely the officer will be exonerated and would unlikely face a trial. But even worse BLM members and sympathizers who stoked emotion rather than even headed thinking will have been responsible for incitement to murder and attempted murder and in all honesty the Race War of 2016.
So this morning the news shows that an officer shot a man in a car during a traffic stop. Report was that there was live streamed Facebook video footage. Thus far the footage does not show the traffic stop from beginning to end. We only see what happens after Philando is shot.
Reportedly the couple and their child were stopped for having a broken taillight. The NY Times reports the following:
Falcon Heights is a small, predominantly white and middle-class city of about 5,500 residents, bordering St. Paul on the northwest. The two officers who stopped them were from the nearby city of St. Anthony, which provides police services under contract to Falcon Heights, and one officer approached Mr. Castile, who was driving, and said he had a broken taillight, Ms. Reynolds, who is also black, said.
“He tells us to put our hands in the air, we have our hands in the air,” she said. “At the time as our hands is in the air, he asked for license and registration.
“My boyfriend carries all his information in a thick wallet in his right side back pocket. As he’s reaching for his back pocket wallet, he lets the officer know, ‘Officer, I have a firearm on me.’ I began to yell, ‘But he’s licensed to carry.’ After that, he began to take off shots – bah, bah, bah, bah, ‘Don’t move! Don’t move!’ But how can you not move when you’re asking for license and registration? It’s either you want my hands in the air or you want my identification.” [my underlines]
This seems to me to be a "perfect storm" of events, assuming this narrative to be correct. If it is correct that Philando was reaching for his identification prior to informing the cop that he had a gun, then I think a jury would find reasonable doubt to acquit. An officer seeing a gun and the person in possession of that gun reaching in that direction, can reasonably infer that his life is in danger and generally doesn't have to wait to be shot in the face to shoot that individual. And to be clear, officers have been shot by people in their cars with wives/girlfriends and whomever else in the car.
In addition at that point it was too late for the "he's licensed to carry" because the "reaching" has already occurred. That is, the perceived threat is already in action. That she yelled could have increased the officer's fear.
Since I do not own a firearm, nor am I licensed to carry one concealed, I would have to ask those who instruct gun owners whether they are told to inform the officer of the gun on their person PRIOR to reaching for anything or not. It seems to me that if a person has a firearm on their person, legally, they would announce it and ask the officer how they want to proceed.
With all this said, unlike Mr. I Don't Follow Directions from yesterday, I think there is a strong wrongful death case here in the minimum. Better communication would likely have prevented this death and if Mr. Castile is in fact licensed to carry then he was breaking no law and he was following the directions given to him by the officer. If there were no warrants pending, then the officer had little reason to be so prepared to shoot which makes for an inquiry about his mental state.
Sometimes support for the cops comes from unexpected places. In May 2016, a 38-year-old drug trafficker named Toby Jones received a 40-year federal prison sentence for repeatedly trying to gun down a federal informant, in the process shooting three people. He told the judge: “Even with all the latest police shootings on minorities in Chicago, I don’t blame these cops one bit for most of their decisions in the field. And the black community has to first come to grips with why these cops are so afraid,” the Chicago Sun-Times reported. Stories of heroic cops go untold, Jones said, “but as soon as a black kid gets shot, everyone is in an uproar.”
Activists and politicians are proposing the usual “root causes” solution to the current crime wave—more government programs—as well as less usual ones, such as abolishing the police department. The mayor’s Police Accountability Task Force wants the mayor and Cook County to “implement programs that address socioeconomic justice and equality, housing segregation, systemic racism, poverty, education, health and safety.” Such top-down spending ignores the normative breakdown that renders government social services largely futile. The bakery where Fisher works has been hiring for the last five years; he tells the “young brothers” about the jobs. “Half of them don’t show up; the others have drugs in their system. Half want to hang out and make the fast money that can get you in jail,” Fisher observes. [my underlines]
If you are a lover or hater of black people, you don't look forward to the newspaper reports on the first workday after a summer holiday.
For lovers of black people this is because we know that in cities like Chicago and Baltimore there will be a not unusual high body count of mostly black men who have been shot or stabbed, but mostly shot, by other black men. We will be further saddened by the fact that white liberals with their pet negroes will do everything in their power to excuse this behavior by placing the blame on anything ranging from inanimate objects to television advertisements featuring "rich" white people. They will lie to our faces as they try to claim that black on black crime "isn't a thing" and that other races have similar levels of crime (they do not).
Unfortunately this July 4th weekend did not fail to deliver.
he homicide victims included a man in his 30s who police found shot in his abdomen, another man who was found shot dead in a lot across the street from an elementary school and a 31-year-old man who was killed outside his father’s auto shop. The wounded included a 5-year-old girl and her 8-year-old cousin, who were each shot in the leg as they played with sparklers Monday night, the Chicago Tribune reported.
The city tallied 72 homicides for June, and homicides were up nearly 50% for the first half of 2016 compared to the same period last year. The city is on pace to record well over 600 homicides for the year, a bleak yardstick that Chicago last surpassed in 2003.
Johnson and Mayor Rahm Emanuel have blamed lax laws that allow gang members, who are responsible for the bulk of the gun violence, to return to the streets relatively quickly.
You'd be forgiven if you had no idea that 60 mostly or ALL black people were shot with 7 dead in Chicago because over in Louisiana one Alton Sterling was shot by a police officer.
Yes, While there was nary a peep out of BLM quarters about the usual bloodshed in Chicago (which currently has had more shootings that NY and LA combined), There were massive protests and online signifying from the usual quarters about Alton Sterling.
As I have learned from the recent hoaxes and misrepresentation of BLM persons, I waited to see the evidence for myself and I had one question:
Were directions given and were those directions followed?
See, if you look at Ferguson, Garner, Grey and others the one thing they all had in common was that the victim refused to follow directions. I don't know what kind of self-preservation motives these people have but you follow directions first and get the lawyer after. And these days lawyers will work your case for free if you have a legit claim. So I went in search of the video.
Right there in the beginning of this video: "Get on the ground! Get on the ground!" Did Alton get on the ground? No. So we can seriously argue that had Alton followed directions that he would be alive today.
Now I also thought this may have been an Oscar Grant situation because I thought Alton was on his chest (face down). After reviewing a second video:
I realized this was NOT the case. Sterling was face up which means that the officers can reasonably argue that they thought Alton was reaching for a gun given that he had not followed earlier instructions (more on this later). Now I'm not making the case for the officer but the evidence is not on Sterling's side. But if you looked at twitter commentary you wouldn't know this.
Then we have to deal with why the officers were there. We know that an "anonymous" caller said that there was a man outside the store who pointed a gun at someone. After all the things that has gone on recently with shooters, anyone with half a brain knows that calling the police about a man with a gun is going to get a very aggressive response. Was this caller trying to get Alton killed?
On a side note, this is also a possible argument as to why, in a country where one has the right to possess a firearm, calling the police about a man with a gun, warrants any response at all. You'd think that in a country with a second amendment, the police would respond with:
"And?"
But back to the main point. As a civilian you have to understand that a police officer is generally not going to be passive when it comes to certain crimes. Since you don't know why an officer is approaching you it would be in everyone's best interest to put the officer at ease by making it clear you are not a threat. After that is established you can argue about why you have been detained.
Before I close let me address the point made by the black woman in the second video. She made the claim that because Alton was "subdued" that the officer did not have grounds to pull his gun or shoot. This is what happens when you get people who don't know what they are talking about, but have the "right" politics to speak on your program. If this chick had a clue she would recall that Trayvon Martin had one George Zimmerman similarly situated. Martin was allegedly hitting Zimmerman's head against the ground and yet Zimmerman was able to get his gun and shoot Martin point dead. Therefore any claim that just because Alton was down that we was subdued is false. As Trayvon Martin found out, until or unless you have total control of your opponents hands, you are still in danger.
So there we have it. Black Lives Matter only cares if the black life in question is assaulted by some white person (preferably police), but doesn't matter in the least bit if its a part of the day in and day out killings in our communities by our own community members. Black Lives Matters exists to get it's leaders paid ($165k for one of them) and to ease the guilt-suicide complex of white liberals who enable BLM members by giving them access to media outlets. BLM doesn't care about you or your dead in Any-hood USA. If this doesn't prove it to you then you are probably beyond help.
