Tag Archives: Race Hustling

Eric Holder’s DOJ finds officer Darren Wilson innocent in Michael Brown shooting

Ferguson protesters shut down highway
Ferguson protesters shut down highway

Normally, I would not post on this, but I think I must because of the way that the mainstream media and the culture as a whole swallowed a narrative that bashes police officers, and by extension the rule of law, and even the responsibility that criminals bear for their own actions.

Hot Air introduces the Department of Justice’s findings:

The DOJ — Eric Holder’s DOJ — is clear as can be that it thinks Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown.

[…][The DOJ report] was a considered argument that not only is Wilson not guilty of a federal civil rights charge, he’s not guilty of a criminal offense of any sort. Had Wilson gone to trial, he could have submitted this as his motion to dismiss and the court might well have torpedoed the indictment before opening arguments.

Hot Air extracts some of the most interesting parts of the report, and I am injecting some photos of “hands-up” Democrats in between the findings.

Page 82:

Wilson’s version is further supported by disinterested eyewitnesses Witness 102, Witness 104. Witness 105. Witness 108. and Witness 109. among others. Those witnesses all agree that Brown ran or charged toward Wilson and that Wilson shot at Brown only as Brown moved toward him. Although some of the witnesses stated that Brown briefly had his hands up or out at about waist-level, none of these witnesses perceived Brown to be attempting to surrender at any point when Wilson fired upon him. To the contrary, several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. For example. Witness 104 stated that as Wilson ran after Brown yelling “stop, stop. stop.” Brown finally turned around and raised his hands “for a second.” However. Brown then immediately balled his hands into fists and “charged” at Wilson in a “tackle run.” Witness 104 stated that Wilson fired only when Brown moved toward him and that she “would have fired sooner.” Likewise. Witness 105 stated that Brown turned around and put his hands up “for a brief moment.” then refused a command from Wilson to “get down” and instead put his hands “in running position” and maned running toward Wilson. Witness 105 stated that Wilson shot at Brown only when Brown was moving toward him. These witnesses’ accounts are consistent with prior statements they have given, consistent with the forensic and physical evidence, and consistent with each other’s accounts. Accordingly. we conclude that these accounts arc credible.

Democrats:

Democrats say "hands up!"
Democrats say “hands up!”

Page 84:

When the shootings are viewed, as they must be, in light of all the surrounding circumstances and what Wilson knew at the time, as established by the credible physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, it was not unreasonable for Wilson to fire on Brown until he stopped moving forward and was clearly subdued. Although, with hindsight. we know that Brown was not armed with a gun or other weapon, this fact does not render Wilson’s use of deadly force objectively unreasonable. Again. the key question is whether Brown could reasonably have been perceived to pose a deadly threat to Wilson at the time he shot him regardless of whether Brown was armed. Sufficient credible evidence supports Wilson’s claim that he reasonably perceived Brown to be posing a deadly threat. First. Wilson did not know that Brown was not armed at the time he shot him, and had reason to suspect that he might be when Brown reached into the waistband of his pants as he advanced toward Wilson. S

[…]While Brown did not use a gun on Wilson at the SUV, his aggressive actions would have given Wilson reason to at least question whether he might be armed, as would his subsequent forward advance and reach toward his waistband. This is especially so in light of the rapidly-evolving nature of the incident. Wilson did not have time to determine whether Brown had a gun and was not required to risk being shot himself in order to make a more definitive assessment.

Democrats:

Another Democrat says "hands up"
Another Democrat says “hands up”

Here’s a witness who was disqualified:

Witness 101 is a 22-year-old black male who was walking in the middle of Canfield Drive with Brown when they encountered Wilson. Witness 101 made multiple statements to the media immediately following the incident that spawned the popular narrative that Wilson shot Brown execution style as he held up his hands in surrender. These media interviews occurred prior to Witness 101 giving his two statements. First, FBI and SLCPD jointly interviewed Witness 101 on August 13. 2014. in the presence of Witness 101’s mother. Witness 101’s two attorneys, and an individual who explained that he was in charge of Witness 101’s personal security. Witness 101 subsequently testified before the county grand jury.

After pointing out all the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in his testimony, the report concludes:

Witness 101 has a misdemeanor conviction for a crime of dishonesty likely admissible in federal court as impeachment evidence. As described above, material parts of Witness 101’s account are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence. internally inconsistent from one part of his account to the next, and inconsistent with other credible witness accounts that are corroborated by physical evidence. It is also unclear whether Witness 101 had the ability to accurately perceive the shootings. Witness 101 likely crouched down next to a white Monte Carlo as Wilson chased Brown. The Monte Carlo was facing west with a view of the passenger side of the SUV. Brown ran in the opposite direction that the Monte Carlo was facing. Witness accounts vary as to whether Witness 101 was ducking for cover on the passenger side of the Monte Carlo with his back to the shooting, or whether he fled the scene prior to the final shots being fired. Both Witness 101’s inconsistencies and his ability to perceive what happened, or lack thereof, make his account vulnerable to effective cross-examination and extensive impeachment. Accordingly, after a thorough review of all of the evidence, federal prosecutors determined material portions of Witness 101’s account lack credibility and therefore determined that his account does not support a prosecution of Darren Wilson.

Now, I want you to think about what it meant that the mainstream media in this country, and their allies in the Democrat party, were able to cause riots, vandalism, crime, and all manner of unrest because of a lie. Did you fall for it? Do you know anyone who did? I would like to think that the same people who went rioting will hear about this from their favorite media propagandists, but I don’t they they will. After all, getting to the truth is the last thing the media wanted to do. They won’t cover the correction to their lies. They wanted to cause divisions, and prop up the Democrat party as the savior of colored people.

I recommend that everyone watch this 15-minute TED.com talk with Sharyl Attkisson: (H/T Drew)

For the record, my skin color is about the same as Sheila Jackson Lee, above.

One of the murdered NYPD police officers was a chaplain-in-training

The rhetoric of the leftist mob
The rhetoric of the leftist mob

Nancy Pearcey shared this story from the Christian Post about Officer Ramos.

Excerpt:

Officer Rafael Ramos was passionate about serving God and saw his work as a police officer as a form of ministry; he would have been commissioned as a lay chaplain this past Saturday, the day he was killed.

Ramos was shot and killed execution style along with his partner, Wenjian Liu, on Saturday by a lone gunmen who took his own life inside a New York City subway station after committing the double murder.

Rev. Marcos Miranda, the president of the New York State Chaplain Task Force where Ramos was studying to be certified as a chaplain, remembers the officer as kind man.

“It was an honor to have him (Officer Ramos),” Miranda told The Christian Post. “He had just taken the 10-week course and was a faithful member of his local church, Christ Tabernacle. He was due to graduate this past Saturday, where we graduated 144 chaplains. Ramos would have been a lay leader and been endorsed by his denomination.”

“I will remember his kindness the most — even the kindness in his eyes — in our talks, he asked what I thought of him being a police officer, and I said it was an honorable job. He said he thought it was ministry because he was helping those in need. He never thought he could be a chaplain, he saw himself doing this type of ministry after he retired from the NYPD. He was very excited about that possibility,” Miranda added.

Miranda is not the only person to remember Ramos’ faith and passion for the Lord.

“My cousin had a couple of priorities in his life,” Ramos’ cousin, Ronnie, told The Wall Street Journal on Sunday. “One was God, because he was a God-loving man. I wish I could be half the man my cousin was. He was sweet. He didn’t deserve to die.”

[…]Ramos turned 40 this month and was due to graduate from a community-crisis chaplaincy program, which was incredibly important to the father of two.

Ramos’ 13-year-old son, Jaden, posted a heartfelt message about his father on Facebook, which has since gone viral.

“He was the best father I could ask for,” Jaden wrote. “It’s horrible that someone gets shot dead just for being a police officer. Everyone says they hate cops but they are the people that they call for help. I will always love you and I will never forget you. RIP Dad.”

Why did these two minority men, one Hispanic, one Asian, get shot?

Famous black economist Thomas Sowell has the answer in his latest column.

He writes:

Mayor de Blasio has made anti-police comments with Al Sharpton seated at his side. This is the same Al Sharpton with a trail of slime going back more than a quarter of a century, during which he has whipped up mobs and fomented race hatred from the days of the Tawana Brawley “rape” hoax of 1987 to the Duke University “rape” hoax of 2006 and the Ferguson riots of 2014.

Make no mistake about it. There is political mileage to be made siding with demagogues like Al Sharpton who, as demagogue in chief, has been invited to the White House dozens of times by its commander in chief.

Many in the media and among the intelligentsia cherish the romantic tale of an “us” against “them” struggle of beleaguered ghetto blacks defending themselves against the aggression of white policemen. The gullible include both whites who don’t know what they’re talking about and blacks who don’t know what they’re talking about, either, because they never grew up in a ghetto. Among the latter are the president and his attorney general.

Such people readily buy the story that ghetto social problems today — from children being raised without a father to runaway murder rates — are “a legacy of slavery,” even though such social problems were nowhere near as severe in the first half of the 20th century as they became in the second half.

You would be hard-pressed to name just five examples from the first half of the 20th century of the kinds of ghetto riots that have raged in more than 100 cities during the second half. Such riots are a legacy of the social degeneracy of our times.

Calling this social degeneracy “a legacy of slavery” is not just an excuse for those who engage in it, it is an excuse for the ideology of the intelligentsia behind the social policies that promoted this degeneracy.

Let those who have laid a guilt trip on people in our times, for evils done by other people in past centuries, at least face their own responsibility for the evil consequences of their own notions and policies. If they won’t do it, then the rest of us need to stop listening gullibly to what they are saying.

I wonder if the leftist leaders who demonized the police feel sorry for what they did now. I know that they want to claim now that they never meant things to go this far, but things did go this far. And I think that there is a direct connection between the rhetoric of the leftist leaders and the deaths of these police officers. Maybe instead of complaining about the police, they should complain about how subsidizing single motherhood with welfare and repealing welfare reform causes fatherlessness, and how fatherlessness causes young men to commit crimes. But they can’t do that, because that’s where their votes come from – government dependency.

Did leftist hate speech get two cops killed in New York?

Here’s the news story from WPIX.

Excerpt:

In a horrific targeted shooting that has stunned the city, two police officers sitting in their car in Brooklyn were shot and killed execution-style Saturday afternoon by a killer who had a “strong bias” against police.

“They were quite simply assassinated, targeted for their uniforms, and for the responsibility they embraced to keep the people of this city safe,” Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said at a news conference on the deaths of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.

They were murdered at about 2:47 p.m.  outside 98 Tompkins Ave., both in full uniform while sitting in their patrol car. Ramos was in the drivers seat and Liu was in the front seat beside him.

According to Bratton, the killer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, 28, assumed a shooting stance and fired his weapon several times through front passenger window. They never had the chance to draw their weapons; indeed, they may never had seen their assailant.

[…]Brinsley was posting disturbing information on Instagram, Bratton said, which had a strong anti-police bias.

“I’m Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours…Let’s Take 2 of Theirs,” Brinsley wrote in one of his Instagram postings. He posted more disturbing messages as he headed north to New York City.

My headline for this post is meant to pose a serious question. I am often told by leftists that opposition to things like abortion, gay marriage, radical Islam, etc. is dangerous because someone reading it will get angry and commit an act of violence. This is why we have government-run censorship panels to charge people who utter “hate speech” which could expose people to violence.

Does this ever happen on the right? I am not familiar with any case where conservative speech has incited violence. Conversely, leftist hate speech often incites violence. Consider the case where Southern Povery Law Center publishes a map with the Family Research Council building, and calls them a “hate” group. That map is then picked up by a gay activist who then picks up a gun and storms the building in an act of (literal) domestic terrorism. It seems to me that we need to be considering what is and is not hate speech when we have actual violence being committed.

Well, this time we have two dead cops, murdered execution-style. So how about the speech of the leftist race hustlers? Shouldn’t the government-run censorship panels investigate them for hate speech that actually did incite violence? Instead of focusing on speech that merely disagrees with other people, we should look at crimes like this one and ask ourselves – whose speech incited this crime?

In a related video, we can see that the police are certainly unhappy with the way that socialist leftist New York mayor Bill de Blasio spoke negatively about the NYPD:

I wonder if de Blasio understands why they did that?

If we really were to get serious about blocking the leftist hate speech that causes violence, we would probably have to regulate most mainstream media news networks – definitely MSNBC. And most universities, too.

UPDATE: Answering Muslims has discovered that the shooter cited a passage from the Quran prior to the shooting.