Thanks to Eric Holder, we Know Officer Wilson was Innocent.

A day after Jonathan Capehart wrote about facing the truth about Darren Wilson’s innocence, his article in the Washington Post has over 5000 comments, much of them accusing President Obama and Eric Holder of racism for wanting to take a closer look at Brown’s death.

Bullshit, all of them.

Michael Brown killed himself with Officer Wilson’s gun despite having no apparent reason to want to die that day. Darren Wilson was a member of a department which had recently arrested an innocent man, beat him up, locked him up, and charged him with bleeding on their uniforms. Several witnesses, including at least one who didn’t seem to have any reason to lie, said Brown had his hands up. Wilson was cleared of wrongdoing after a rigged hearing in which jurors were given false information.

It’s not racist to think that the whole incident required a real investigation from someone outside of Ferguson.

Thanks to Eric Holder, we know Officer Wilson was innocent. Someone who accepted Office Wilson’s story without any confirmation is someone who feels that police should never be investigated for killing Black people.

Ferguson Findings Worse then You Might Think

When I saw headlines announcing that the Justice Department figured out that the Ferguson, Mo. Police Department was racist, I figured, “no shit”. I assumed somebody crunched some numbers somewhere and came up with a report showing Black people get ticketed and arrested, and occasionally shot to death, more often then White people. But report is, in fact, worse than just that.

The Washington Post has an article and a link to the Justice Department’s report, which includes

a 32-year-old African-American man sat in his car cooling off after playing basketball in a Ferguson public park. An officer pulled up behind the man’s car, blocking him in, and demanded the man’s Social Security number and identification. Without any cause, the officer accused the man of being a pedophile, referring to the presence of children in the park, and ordered the man out of his car for a pat-down, although the officer had no reason to believe the man was armed. The officer also asked to search the man’s car. The man objected, citing his constitutional rights. In response, the officer arrested the man, reportedly at gunpoint, charging him with eight violations of Ferguson’s municipal code. One charge, Making a False Declaration, was for initially providing the short form of his first name (e.g., “Mike” instead of “Michael”), and an address which, although legitimate, was different from the one on his driver’s license. Another charge was for not wearing a seat belt, even though he was seated in a parked car. The officer also charged the man both with having an expired operator’s license, and with having no operator’s license in his possession. The man told us that, because of these charges, he lost his job as a contractor with the federal government that he had held for years.

.

It’s worth noting one paragraph which won’t make it to most of the media outlets out there

We thank the City officials and the rank-and-file officers who have cooperated with this investigation and provided us with insights into the operation of the police department, including the municipal court. Notwithstanding our findings about Ferguson’s approach to law enforcement and the policing culture it creates, we found many Ferguson police officers and other City employees to be dedicated public servants striving each day to perform their duties lawfully and with respect for all members of the Ferguson community. The importance of their often-selfless work cannot be overstated.

But other than that, the report describes a racist department who’s dirty deeds have had devastating effects on their victims.

False Analogies about Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman

Ever since the public outcry about the initial failure to arrest George Zimmerman last year, several right wing bloggers found that a nice way to get hits is to find a story about a Black on White killing, accuse liberals & the media of covering it up, and accuse Black people of being irrational.

An early example from the American Thinker asks what would happen if the races of Martin and Zimmerman were reversed, and procedes to answer:

There would be no white mobs in the street chanting “No justice, no peace!” There would be no whites holding a “million hoodie march” in New York City. There would be no white equivalent of Al Sharpton, […] And there would be no national media attention from biased, left-wing “reporters.” […] We know this because in fact, such an event occurred in 2009 [..] Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor’s car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.

The American Thinker must spend a lot of time thinking up ways to spin false conclusions from actual facts. There are similarities, but the Scott-Cervini shooting is not a negative image of the Zimmerman-Martin shooting. For one thing, it’s generally agreed upon that Cervini was actively involved in a crime during the shooting. More significantly, Roderick Scott was arrested and tried.

A more recent and disturbing example comes from The Daily Caller. This post is disturbing because there are no similarities. It’s simply an example of Black on White crime posted to incite hatred. The post begins with “WARNING: THIS POST IS RACIST”, but despite the sarcastic deflection, it is. Its only saving grace is the racism displayed by the author, Jim Treacher, pales against the racism of many of the commenters. Mr. Treacher and his readers should also note that when President Obama said his son would look like Trayvon Martin, it’s because there actually is a faint resemblance. If you look at every Black thug you see in the news and decide he looks as much like Obama as Martin did, you might be a racist.

If you can stand to read the comments on the Daily Caller post, you’ll notice some written by commenters brave enough to speak truth to the bigots and idiots who make up much of the Daily Caller’s readership. Many point out the primary difference: The four thugs of the Daily Caller post were arrested and treated like murderers.

For all race-baiting bloggers who dig through the news for Black on White crime and ask where the outrage is, I can do the same: Where’s the public outcry against Gary Smith, a White Army Ranger who shot and killed a Black Army Ranger in the head, and was found guilty of manslaughter rather than 2nd degree murder. Apparently putting a gun to someone’s head and pulling the trigger is “negligent”. Where’s the outrage against James Biddinger, a White man who stabbed Kevin Mbayo to death in an argument over a clogged toilet. Where’s the outrage over Natalia Wilson, who murdered a mixed race 8 year old boy and his mother over a romantic quarrel.

All of these cases went by without Black mobs chanting “No justice, no peace!”, without Al Sharpton, and without national media attention.

It should be obvious that there must be some reason other than the fact that Trayvom Martin was Black and George Zimmerman is half-White for the Martin-Zimmerman case to have caused such outrage. That reason (among others) is, Zimmerman wasn’t going to be arrested. It’s simply not true that Black people go hysterical when a White guy shoots a Black guy.

I was accused of being ready to convict Zimmerman without a trial. That is not true. Zimmerman may be found innocent and that verdict may even by justified. If there was a timely investigation into the shooting, then Zimmerman’s trial would just be another crime which may or may not have gotten any notable coverage.

Any blogger who posts a Black on White crime and wonders about why that crime doesn’t get the attention that Trayvon Martin’s shooting has gotten, at the very least, hasn’t done his homework. At worst, that blogger is deliberately calling for racial violence under the guise of some sick version of justice.

Update July 14th: And I should have mentioned Michael Dunn

A moron or a liar, but certainly a racist, plays to a cheering crowd.

A friend posted on facebook a link to Hank Williams Jr. bashes Obama at Iowa State Fair, and added,

“We’ve got a Muslim president who hates farming, hates the military, hates the U.S., and we hate him!” (and the crowd goes wild with applaud)

Hank Williams Jr can’t seem to get it right. In order to stay relevant some people will say anything to get attention. This guy’s top venue–is performing at “state-fairs”. He (along with a select group) are still on the “President is a Muslim” trip. Let’s not laugh at little Hank-hank, maybe he will go away.

Personally I don’t think hoping he’ll go away will be enough. I’d rather call the miserable low-life and his peers out on their lies and their warped beliefs.

First, Obama and Democrats have done plenty to support the military, while Republican leaders talk about supporting the troops while voting against military benefits, pay raises, and jobs programs for veterans. Republicans in congress love the military the way McDonald’s loves cows, and I’m getting sick of military members being lied to about their “support”.

Second, as a commenter on the article asked, “And who is holding up the Farm Bill?…”

Third, I wish we could move from “Obama isn’t a Muslim” to “It doesn’t matter if he’s a Muslim because the United States Constitution is absolutely clear about ‘No Religious Tests‘”.

Hank Williams is a moron or a liar, but certainly a racist, and hoping his type will go away isn’t going to help this nation break out of the gridlock caused by bigotry and ignorance.

Southern Democrats Should Support Marriage Equality, As Should We All.

Here in Southern Virginia, I’m baffled and depressed by the number of Democrats who wax conservative when discussing homosexuality, and cite Jesus as the reason for doing so. But there are plenty of Christian laws that we don’t enforce in this country. In the Bible, Jesus said, “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife”. But there is no law against being single, and no law against living with your parents, so why should there be a law against gay marriage?

Those who discriminate against homosexuals do so not because they love God but because discriminating makes them feel superior. The rules that we naturally love are the ones that we can easily follow while others struggle to do so. Those of us who are straight men are not straight because we’re law abiding or disciplined or moral. We’re straight because we like pussy. Does that make us more godly? Closer to Jesus? We share a quality that we share with most roosters, billy goats, and male dogs. I can think of no quality that I share with a billy goat that makes me feel morally superior to people who don’t share that quality. I might if I were a vegetarian.

Discriminating by sexual preference is as abhorrent as discriminating by race. Supporting laws against homosexuality doesn’t make you a good Christian, supporting religious doctrine doesn’t make you a good American, and liking pussy doesn’t make you a good man. All Americans, and especially Democrats, should support the president, support marriage equality, and stand against discrimination.

Why Black-on-White Crime Statistics are Not an Appropriate Response

A friend (real friend, someone I actually know) posted this on facebook last week:

Dear Racist FB Friends: I know that black people kill white people, just like white people kill black people. It’s OLD NEWS. Old, ancient, boring, sickening news. Can we please focus on loving one another instead of spreading hate and discontent and fomenting racism? Every time I see one of you post *yet another* status about black-on-white crimes, I feel a little sicker and even more disheartened about our world. Move on.

At the time she wrote this, I hadn’t seen many posts or comments about the black-on-white vs white-on-black crime ratio, but since then it’s become ubiquitous.

I image there are people who don’t understand why black-on-white crime statistics aren’t relevant to the outrage over the delay to arrest George Zimmerman. The following is an attempt to explain it.

I am White. There exist violent thugs who are White. Those thugs do not represent me. They are not my agents. I get nothing from their crimes. When a White murderer kills innocent Black people, the White race does not get a point. And I am not personally responsible for George Zimmerman’s actions.

The same would be true if I were Black, in reference to Black criminals. Black criminals don’t act on behalf of law abiding Black people. The Black race gets no points for crimes against Whites. There have been Black people committing violent acts against White people in retaliation for Trayvon Martin, but most Black people have nothing to do with them, and are not responsible for their actions.

The outrage over Mr. Zimmerman is not about the actions of criminals. It’s not even about George Zimmerman. The outrage is about the apparent approval of Trayvon Martin’s death by the lawmakers and enforcers who are supposed to keep us safe. It’s about the feeling of some law abiding citizens that race and demographics, rather than deeds, determine who gets punished for crimes and who gets to go free.

Gun ownership is much higher among White people than Black people, so stand-your-ground laws do not provide equal protection. While laws and attitudes which encourage vigilantism might increase the amount of people who kill criminals, they also increase the amount of people who mistakenly kill innocents who they assume to be threats. People who fear falling into the “assumed threat” category don’t see this as a fair trade-off.

Some White commenter’s have asked, since so many Black people kill so many White people, why isn’t it White people who are protesting against Blacks? But White people have protested, and the result has been laws and attitudes which enabled George Zimmerman to track down Trayvon Martin and start a confrontation with him while armed and ready to kill.

One particularly mean spirited writer suggested that Blacks and Whites should call it even, considering the balance of racial oppression against the violence of Black criminals. But again I emphasize, criminals are not agents of law abiding citizens, and should not be treated as their representatives.

Instead of Blacks protesting Whites and Whites protesting Blacks, law abiding citizens should protest criminals. And instead of laws which promote confrontations, we should have laws that reduce crime. These laws include youth programs, police outreach and increased patrols (by which I mean more cops, not more overworked cops), better education, safe public transportation, and perhaps even increased gun ownership.

The protests aren’t about equaling the balance of cross-race crimes or the desire to protect Black criminals as equally as White criminals. The protests are about equal protection of the law and and a desire to protect law abiding citizens.

It’s OK to Defend the White Guy

Three innocent Black people were murdered by two White men in an unprovoked hate crime in Tulsa. Two years prior, the father of one of the murderers was killed by a black man after the father knocked the black man down with a stick for making threats against his daughter. In the comments of a story about this horrible crime, I disagreed with a commenter who said the father had it coming, and found myself arguing against people who I might normally agree with and being “liked” by people who I might not “like” in return.

Being progressive doesn’t mean always defending the Black guy. It means looking at the facts and not jumping to conclusions. It means not retaliating against people just because they remind you of others who did you wrong. It means not convicting unless you’re sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, while at the same time trusting facts and logic to guide you towards getting it right more often. And it means considering mitigating circumstances, even if the subject is a crotchety old White man beating a Black guy with a stick.

Edit: I added “by two White men” in the first sentence for clarification.

Update: Soon after I added “White men” I read that Mr. England is Native American. For now, I’ll leave my words up there as written.

George Zimmerman’s Heritage is Inconsequential

When I started looking at headlines about the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, one of the top results from Google was a you-tube video titled “(Jew) George Zimmerman Kills (Black kid)Trayvon Martin”. Then I found on Breitbart.com, “Media Labels Hispanic Man White in Shooting of Black Teen”.

We know now that George Zimmerman is Catholic. His father, Robert Zimmerman is apparently white and, based solely on his name, may be of Jewish decent. His mother is Peruvian.

George Zimmerman’s heritage is not of much consequence. We know that racial stereotypes can be held even by those affected by those stereotypes, as illustrated in the Clark Doll experiments. George Zimmerman assumed Trayvon Martin was a trouble maker who didn’t belong in his neighborhood, and while it’s possible that his assumption wasn’t based on Martin’s race, it seems extremely likely that it was. It wasn’t based on his own race.

Trayvor Martin’s death illustrates an important fact about race in America. That fact is not that Jews hate Blacks, Latinos hate Blacks or even Whites hate Blacks. The fact is that all of us too often assume the worst about Black people.