Yesterday, we shared an NPR article on our Facebook page, and one of the reader comments was essentially that NPR needs to go away because of their extremely liberal, anti-law and order bias. It is a bias that is plainly obvious to supporters of law enforcement and to most conservatives. Heck, for that matter, it is even obvious to Ken Stern, the former CEO of NPR (who did a great interview about that bias with Tucker Carlson – watch the video).
Reading the previously mentioned comment on our FB page reminded me of a couple of interactions I have had, one of which was specifically related to NPR.
About a year and a half ago, I wrote a blog post here in which I was discussing the extremely anti-cop bias of Facebook, which was evidenced by their refusal to remove a certain graphic image of a cop being murdered by a black lives matter “activist.” Apparently, that blog post somehow caught the attention of a reporter for NPR who contacted me and wanted to interview me about the incident.
I mulled it over for several days. The national exposure on a large media outlet could do wonders for the pro-law enforcement side of the discussion, but eventually I decided against it. When I declined, I told the reporter specifically that I was not going to do the interview because of NPR’s very liberal, anti-cop bias that had been plainly demonstrated for a long time, but even more so since Ferguson. The reporter swore up and down that she would do my side justice, but based on their history, I just could not trust them.
A couple days after I made the decision to decline the interview, I was at a family function at my parent’s house, with a number of my relatives from my parent’s generation, several of which are very liberal. Somehow, the topic of the potential NPR interview came up and when I told them I had declined, they asked why. When I told them it was because of NPR’s blatant bias, they acted as if I had personally insulted them. I was scorned for saying such a horrible thing. Apparently, not only did both of these relatives listen to NPR daily, but apparently they were completely unaware that NPR has a liberal bias.
To be perfectly frank, the reaction by my liberal relatives to my “NPR is biased” comment really caught me off guard. They got very defensive, and actually began accusing me of being ignorant and of making things up. As I sit here thinking back on the situation, it still feels completely bizarre. It was as if I had just insulted their favorite child or something, and then blamed them for the actions of the child I was insulting. I really have no better way of describing it.
Fast forward up to a couple of months ago. My wife shared a pro-cop news article on her personal FB page. A friend of a friend commented on it calling it BS and began spewing back all sorts of disproven BLM talking points. Normally I try and stay out of conversations on her FB page because she has a great many liberal FB friends and I don’t want to turn her page into a giant political argument, but this particular person was way out of line and did not have the slightest clue what he was talking about, so I stepped in to shut him up.
During the ensuing conversation, which surprisingly was fairly civil, I shared an article written by Kyle Reyes and published at the New Boston Post, one in which he listed a number statistics that disproved many of the BLM lies this guy was regurgitating. I wish I could recall which piece it was, but it escapes me at the moment.
His response to me was along the lines of “you give me something from ‘the hub of conservative thought’ and I am supposed to believe it?” He continued saying that anything from a site that is biased has to be discounted and should hold less weight than “facts” reported by “unbiased sources” like the ones he was using, like the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
I was dumbfounded. I replied something akin to “You’re kidding right? You realize that all media outlets are biased, right? Some lean left, some lean right, some try to maintain a better balance than others, but they all have a bias. At least the New Boston Post was telling you their bias right up front.”
His response was curt, and he basically called me an idiot for suggesting “real media outlets” were biased, and then he dismissed my opinion as worthless.
So, what is the point I am trying to get across by relating these personal anecdotes? Let me pose a question to you as part of my answer to that: Do you know any conservatives who would argue that Fox News does not have a conservative bias? How about The Daily Caller? Or Breitbart? I sure don’t. Everyone I know who leans right freely admits the bias of all the various news outlets, left or right. The same cannot be said for those I know who lean left. While they will tell you all day long that Fox News is very right wing, they will not dare suggest the liberal sources lean left.
While media bias is indeed a big problem in this country right now, in my mind the much bigger problem is people who dogmatically swear the media is unbiased. If you accept the bias, and know which way the bias leans, you can take the story in proper context. Essentially, you have the key with which to decipher the truth. However, if you refuse to accept that the media has a bias, then everything the media says is taken as gospel, because if they have no bias, by extension there is no bias in their reporting. That blind acceptance of biased “news” as unbiased is causing the divide between left and right in this country to grow, and it is tearing this country apart. Something needs to be done to correct that, and soon. I only wish I knew what that something was.
While discussing inner departmental politics with a friend I was forced to take a step back, breathe a little and use my brain in an attempt to understand some of the more political things which have occurred in my career. I was not able to conceive of an answer directly, even after multiple attempts which led my ADHD empowered brain to a new chain of thoughts. I asked myself what has been truly important in my career looking back all of these years? It certainly wasn’t “who got that good gig in Detectives” or “Look who got promoted but why?” While some of those questions occupied much of my time during my career years, the more important thoughts garnered some amount of recognition.
I realized in a grand moment of temporary clarity the things in my career which resulted in meaningful change. It certainly wasn’t the shiny medals or the various accommodations I received from the Department. While I didn’t mind receiving those awards and was proud to have served, there wasn’t much substance contained. Often times a medal can be diminished by unwittingly comparing actions to someone else’s who have received a similar accommodation. The entire thought process seems to dilute the potency of such achievement leaving something to be desired. More importantly i observed great accomplishments in the many selfless acts of my partners which they thought were “no big deal” or “just part of the job.”
So grand realizations of those moments of pride came flowing back to me. There are so many lives touched by an officer serving for the good of the population rather than the good of the order. There are those rare calls for service or events which may spiral into an entirely new positive experience for an individual or victim. These types of effects can be difficult to perceive and takes a certain amount of introspection.
When an officer makes an arrest it is simply part of the job, we don’t get too excited about it. sometimes we get into a foot pursuit, chase somebody down and win the fight but a lot of those times no charges are filed. Sometimes the idiot we arrested just made a dumb mistake or was too emotional to behave like a civilized human being. Sometimes the subject was too socially stupid to warrant any pride from a resultant arrest. Sure there is the “job well done” feeling where Officers pat each other on the back the same way a carpenter looks back on his work and says “wow I did a good job on that cabinet” yet there is more to it than that.
True evil does exist. The willing and malicious damnation of fellow man through unspeakable acts of cruelty are defined as such. If we can nab one of them it is a fortuitous event which can be boasted of. Most of us count that type of arrest on one hand at the end of a long career. When you get to put that one away for good the effects upon time and space are astounding. That serial rapist won’t hurt anymore children. The sick kidnapper who imprisoned his victims for months and induced a feared loyalty upon them will be worshiped via fear no more. These are the events far more precious than a silver medal or a fancy letter from the Chief. The two may coincide and an officer may wear proudly upon his chest a mark of such achievement but the act itself is the source of pride. Everything else is just a distraction or a public relations campaign.
It doesn’t end there. When an officer picks up a child with a skinned knee who fell off of their tricycle while the parent was inside smoking crank. When the woman whose child was found dead in a puddle by no mistake of her own is hugged by the responding officers who tried to save her. And when the officer places his hand on the arrested juveniles shoulder with a stern but warm look on his face and says “you can do better,” these are timeless as well. For that child the Officer shall never age, even after he has long since left this world. In the mother’s eyes the Officer’s boots will always shine in unison with that badge and those shared tears. Nothing can dry the memory of those heroes who stood with her when the world crumbled all around. And for the demon behind bars, that fiery gaze will forever be tormented by he who delivered justice. Even if the Department or the public didn’t happen to notice that time.
The effects of a job well done are unending and incalculable. They truly spiral in every direction, undeterred by negative media attention, bad Departmental Policies or negative social attention. Those events are real and exist in a way which is infinitely repeatable yet important and distinct with each occurrence. The events are unchangeable and cannot be destroyed. The good will shown by officers who care is eternal and no hateful group or negative media attention can damage those moral deeds, for they have already been commuted.
Officer’s of the law stand proud during your career and do not minimize the great things you have done. Don’t listen to the garbage being spewed by public figure heads, brave keyboard bloggers or self righteous critics, they haven’t experienced the personal risk and reward system. Think back upon your career with pride and look upon the momentous life changing events you took part in for the better. Nobody can take that away from you unless you let them.
Good job and anybody who doesn’t think so or recognize it would never understand such an achievement anyways.
Sadly, a couple of days ago, on Friday September 16, 20016, an Oklahoma cop shot and killed an unarmed black man, Terence Crutcher. There is absolutely no denying that, because that is what happened. But that is where the honesty in the discussion taking place on social media and in teh mainstream media ends.
Yes, the cops shot him, but does that mean they “murdered” him? If you were to search the hashtag #TerenceCrutcher on just about any social media platform, you will likely be inundated by comment after comment proclaiming the cops murdered him, or worse.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Yesterday, numerous people were tweeting out this screen grab of the official police statement, while calling the statement a lie (wording used varied by commenter).
I’ve watched a couple of the videos (helicopter and 1st responding officer’s dash cam – both videos linked here) and I will admit that the dash cam looks really bad, mainly because we can’t see anything past the officers. On the other hand, the video from the helicopter provides us a much better view of what happened, but neither of those videos can be taken as the sole piece of evidence.
(Helicopter video above)
(Dash cam video from 1st responding officer above)
Now, based on those videos, I can say, without any doubt in my mind, that the police statement is absolutely 100% correct. Just to clarify, agreeing that the official police statement is accurate does not necessarily mean that I am saying the shooting is justified. More on that later.
Slightly off topic, but one thing worth noting here because far too many people are making a huge stink about it online: the comment in the helicopter video where one officer says “that looks like a bad dude” is not something that went out on the radio. That was recorded via the helicopter’s communication system that allows the pilot and observer to speak to each other. If you don’t believe me, watch the in-car video again and listen to the police radio traffic in the background.
First, we have the mainstream media spreading lies. Take this headline (below) from the ABC News main website (not a local station, this is ABC corporate). Half true, half incendiary lies. Yes, Crutcher had no gun; no his hands were most definitely NOT up when he was shot. ABC was not by any means the only mainstream “news” station to have a similar headline. What is this, Mike Brown all over again? Can we at least stick to the truth?
Then there are the countless morons drawing the false comparison between Terence Crutcher and Ahmad Khan Rahami (the NYC & NJ terrorist bombing suspect), saying the cops killed Crutcher because he was black, but they only arrested Rahami.
The dude who planted bombs was taken alive, but #terencecrutcher gets shot and killed for car being broke down. WTF!!??
I guess, you know, because cops like Muslim terrorists who shoot at them better than they do black men? I mean, that is what these idiots are insinuating, is it not?
The fact of the matter is the cops fired numerous rounds at Rahami, and struck him and unknown number of times (I’ve 1-2 times). Yes, the cops shot both men. Sadly, the ONE SINGLE round that was fired at Mr. Crutcher clearly (from the helicopter video) struck, at minimum, some vital organs, if not an artery, which is evidenced by the extreme about of blood visible almost instantly. Both men were rushed to the hospital after being shot, one of them survived.
There are many other morons out there, including Shaun king (the crazy white guy who thinks and pretends he is black) who the liberals at the NY Daily News have seen fit to give a large platform to, preaching that the cops had no reason to have their guns drawn and had no reason to even put Crutcher in handcuffs (because many people have asked why they didn’t cuff him) because he had not committed a crime. Well Shaun, your legal expertise is severely lacking. It is not necessary that someone have actually committed a crime in order for cops to handcuff them, or point guns at them. If the cops suspect they may have committed a crime, they can be detained, in handcuffs even. If they are refusing to cooperate, force can be used. More on that later.
Yet another thing far too many people are hung up on is that Crutcher “was unarmed.” Yes, he was, but in the beginning of this incident, Crutcher and only a single officer were involved in the encounter. None of us knows what transpired during that encounter, but we do know that whatever it was, it was tense enough that the female officer, who was much smaller than Crutcher, got on the radio and requested Code 3 cover, and it was enough to cause her to draw her weapon and point it at Crutcher. You see, while Crutcher may not have been a bad guy (I have no idea if he has a criminal history or not), there is no way for a responding cop to know that, and in order for cops to avoid being hurt or killed, we automatically assume everyone is a bad guy until we figure out otherwise, less something like this happen:
Further expanding on the irrelevance of the whole unarmed argument, Crutcher began ignoring the officer’s commands, he turned and walked back to his vehicle. As he walked, his hands were in the air, but they were only in the air until he got to his driver’s door. At that point, his hands dropped and he began digging in the car, still ignoring the officer’s commands. Honestly, when watching this video, it immediately made me think of a video EVERY cop has seen in training, and I would be willing to bet it was going through those cops’ minds too. The shooting death of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller.
When examining any police use of force, from a simple twist lock all the way up to deadly force, there is one thing that must be considered, and that is whether the cop’s actions were “objectively reasonable.” That phrase and concept come to us via a US Supreme Court Case that was heard in 1989, Graham v. Connor. The court ruled that only the information known to the cop at the time of the encounter (not facts later discovered), in conjunction with that cop’s training and experience, would lead another equally trained/experienced officer to make a similar decision. In other words, were the cop’s actions objectively reasonable with the information they had at the time.
One last thing that we need to clear up before I delve into my opinions on this shooting; murder, by legal definition, is the unlawful, intentional killing of a human being.
Later
Ok, so now that we’ve got the lies and half-truths addressed, let me offer my own opinion, however limited.
As I said, I’ve watched the videos. From other reports, whether or not they were accurate, it appears the first officer encountered Crutcher while driving to another, unrelated call. Per those reports, Crutcher was not cooperative from the onset. While we do not see the beginning of the encounter, we do see that he is not cooperative from the time he is on camera. As soon as they have him in camera view, he is turned away from the solo, much smaller female officer, who has her gun drawn, and Crutcher is walking away from her. Crutcher continues to walk away, ignoring commands, and walks to his car and begins reaching inside the car. Crutcher is shot while still reaching in the car, falls to the ground and does not move again.
What I can assume based on the facts is that the encounter between Crutcher and the female officer is confrontational at a minimum. If it was not, she would not have requested code 3 cover. If the encounter is going bad enough that you are requesting code 3 cover, it is reasonable to have your gun drawn.
Cops have every legal right to detain Crutcher at the onset of this encounter. His car, which they have no way of knowing it is even his, is stopped in the middle of the street, and is actually on the wrong side of the road. According to the reports, he approached the cop and was immediately confrontational. That is two things that are not normal, which should lead anyone to wonder what is going on. Since it is the cops job to investigate situations like this, and the cops are present, it is legal and reasonable to detain those who are involved. If the subjects are cooperative, handcuffs may not be used, but if the subject is uncooperative, as Crutcher clearly (from the video) is, handcuffing him would be normal (once sufficient cops were on scene to do so). So yes Shaun King, the cops could very well have legally detained Crutcher in handcuffs.
As cops encounter any situation, we have no magical way of knowing who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. The first thing that gives us an inclination of which side of the spectrum they fall on is their behavior. Crutcher, at the earliest point we see him in the video, is most definitely not acting like a good guy. Acting in a confrontational manner, and refusing to follow lawful commands, only serves to put the cops more on edge, and put you in more danger.
Crutcher walks all the way to the driver’s door of the vehicle and begins reaching through the open window, doing something that the cops cannot see. This is yet another red flag to the cops, and any cop in that situation is going to be assuming the worst.
We have no idea what was said between Crutcher and the initial officer. Depending on what Crutcher told her, she could have had very real concerns that Crutcher might be planning on taking offensive actions towards her or the other cops. For all we know, he could have said “I’m going to grab my registration from inside the car” or just as easily, he could have said “I’m getting my gun and am going to kill you.” The fact of the matter is, none of us knows what was said, and none of us should assume one way or the other.
So, the million dollar question is, did those cops “murder” Terence Crutcher? The shooting appears to have been intentional, so half of that murder question is a yes, but was it unlawful? We do not have enough information to make that call. Granted, lacking any knowledge of cop work, and looking at the videos, especially the in-car camera, it looks bad, but we cannot judge the incident only on what we see.
With that said, I suspect it will be found to be a lawful shooting, based on everything going on here. I think the objective reasonableness standard will be found to have been met in this case.
Would I have fired? Damn, tough call. Some cases are a slam dunk “absolutely!” This is not one of those cases. I wish I knew what was said, and what transpired before the cameras were on scene. With what we have available, I don’t know.
However, one thing I can say without a shred of doubt in my mind, if Terence Crutcher had cooperated, if he had followed the lawful commands he was given, he would be alive today. Folks, this is not about skin color, none of it is. It is about not doing stupid stuff when the cops are pointing a gun at you.
All of the above is the opinion of me, Matt, an actively employed deputy with 20 years on the job. I realize some folks might dismiss my opinions because I’m one of those evil cops. For another opinion, one from a man who is not a cop, read this article by Bob Owens at Bearing Arms.
** Updated 9-20-16 / 1245 hours Pacific **
Latest Update to this who situation is that not only did the female officer who first contacted Crutcher say that he was acting as if he was on PCP, but the cops located PCP in his car when they conducted a search of it. This does not mean he was necessarily high at the time. We will have to wait for the autopsy and blood tests to determine that.
** Updated 9-20-16 / 1400 hours Pacific **
The Tulsa Police have released two different 911 calls that they received from citizens regarding Crutcher’s behavior and his car. These calls were made prior to the officer contacting Crutcher. So, it now appears that the cops were not the only people who thought he was acting as if he were high.
WTF kind of BS is this? What is the mainstream media trying to do to this country? It is stories like this, headlines like these that are causing all of the problems in America right now. If you have not heard of Korryn Gaines yet, you will very soon.
Reading these headlines, you are left wondering why the horrible evil cops would have dared to shoot this woman, let alone her poor 5 year old son. What horrible sons of bitches those asshole cops are, right?
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
By just reading these headlines, you would think that the cops just shot her. You would never even guess this woman was pointing a gun at the cops, and fired that gun at them, but she was and she did. While they mention that in some of these articles, they still make the cops out to be the bad guys.
We need to get something straight. The public absolutely needs to understand this one simple fact:
It is the suspect’s actions that predicate law enforcement’s responses, period.
Gaines chose not to not go to court for her resisting arrest and traffic charges.
She chose to not answer the door and instead chose to barricade herself inside her apartment when the cops came to her house with an arrest warrant.
She chose to arm herself with a gun and refuse to comply, even after the cops made entry into the apartment.
She chose to point the gun at the cops while holding her 5 year old son in her lap as a human shield (mother of the freaking year right there!).
Gaines chose to threaten to kill the cops with the gun she was pointing at them.
She chose to shoot at the cops.
But somehow this is the cops’ fault? WTF?!?!
Screw the media!
I was only able to find one single media outlet with a headline that truly captures what occurred. Thank you to the Dallas Morning News!
We have a huge problem in America right now, but the problem is NOT the cops, it is the mainstream media who is manipulating large segments of the population.
-Matt
While the Dallas Terrorist attack was being televised live my eight year old daughter became horrified and asked her mother over and over if Daddy was there. My wife tried to explain afterwards about racism, what it meant and why those Officers were being shot at. It was a very difficult discussion and we spoke about it at length everyday. After the President gave his speech at the Dallas Memorial my daughter was left with even more confusion. She wanted to know why the President didn’t like the Police. These are not words I prompted her with but even she saw through the false empathy. My wife suggested she write a letter to the president explaining how she felt.
My daughter edited her letter multiple times and the original told the President that: “He should dislike the bad guys more, the bad guys who do drugs and hurt children.” I thought this was profound but she wanted to erase it because she felt they were truly not her own words but inspired by her parents. She eventually changed the ending of the letter to simply state “Police are good!” This is meaningful not just for me, but for all Law Enforcement out there, our children will listen to what we are teaching them so let us try and teach them the truth whenever possible. If we let the state raise our children the result is chaos.
Obviously I am biased here because I speak of my own child but I could not be more proud. After asking all of the appropriate questions over the last week and coming to her own conclusions she hit the nail on the head with deadly accuracy. Of course the president doesn’t have a great reputation in my household and I won’t ignore the fact that her words are ultimately inspired by my own lessons but isn’t that the point? Aren’t we supposed to foster critical thought in our young?
As a cop I’ve been taught to write at the fourth grade level which is extremely difficult for me yet this is third grade writing in its purest form. It speaks plainly to the message she wants to portray “my Daddy is good” and she is insulted by our leader believing anything otherwise. She feels strongly enough about it to mail this letter to the President and is hopeful for a response. The very idea that I or any of my partners would treat someone differently because of the color of their skin does not fit into her logic. She simply doesn’t believe this is true because she has not seen or heard of it. This is the danger of promoting false narratives.
Perhaps we could all learn from the third grade vantage point and learn to observe what is directly in front of us instead of focusing on the imaginary. We as a people can learn many lessons by simplifying the facts and acting on our own logic, deciding what the “truth” is by seeing this for ourselves. If I were a bigot and a racist she would know about it because it is not something you can hide from your own children. The obvious truth in her mind is vastly different from how the President views the world. What experiences has he had which causes him to believe in a universal falsehood that gives rise to racism in cops where it seldom exists?
Our politicians need to leave their safe, upper class neighborhoods and mansions and view the world for what it truly is. I encourage President Obama to do a ride along with any lawman in any state and think about the things he witnesses. Any of you who are in doubt should also do this, perhaps some of your questions would be answered and the world would reveal itself for how it truly exists in this realm, not the illusory world politicians speak of. Learn from the simple logic of a fourth grader and stop confusing the simple truth of the world. Racism is indeed real but where is it most prominent? Experience this issues from a wider vantage point if you can. Contact your local law enforcement agency and ask them about a ride along, you will be enlightened.
Social media is an interesting armchair style warrior. Lots of opinions and sometimes zero experience or knowledge on a subject. The problem is we Cops don’t always know what someone else might have experienced or what their personal Law Enforcement story is. One reader today regarded this page as a “circle jerk LEO” page which made me remember something. Cops aren’t just Cops anymore we are Diplomats and Ambassadors to society. There is a certain responsibilitiy which goes along with the ideal and is inclusive in the duties of a Law Enforcement Officer.
People who are not cops and have never been cops might never fully understand every facet of our calling. Why become angry with those who are under a differing opinion? Obviously it’s ridiculous to think that Law Enforcement Officers are all racially motivated or on the flip side of the coin that we are all “the right hand of the democratic party’s agenda.” Ignorance can be bliss but I would rather enlighten than insult. All may not be enlightened I realize yet in some occasions it is well worth the extra effort which may benefit the Police Reputation.
I teach my children to ask questions and not simply obey commands given to them by someone claiming to be a leader. I also teach my children to be respectful in the asking of those questions and most importantly to listen to the answer and make their own determination. When people put forth ridiculous ideas regarding cops we should seek to answer those accusations with logic and truth. We can also do it diplomatically if the misguided person isn’t too hostile. We may not reach all using this method but less will also be turned away.
When working the streets I usually allowed the public to ask any question they wanted, so long as it was safe at the time for me to do so. In one particular incident I had made a felony arrest on a subject with a warrant. Several people came out of the buildings nearby and began yelling at me. I feared they would surround me so while I was mentally prepared to kill all of them if needed, I also politely told them to give me a minute and promised to answer their questions.
I put the bad guy in the back seat of my car and secured him safely while asking for a cover unit. The potential mob was still angry but at a safe distance. Once my cover partner arrived I had him keep an eye on my prisoner and I approached the group with a smile. I asked what questions they had and It turned out these people were relatives of the man in my car, or so they claimed to be. It really didn’t matter, at this point I felt a small obligation to attempt an explanation as to why in their eyes “the government was taking away their friend for no reason.”
It was calmly explained I had a warrant for his arrest, explained the booking process and provided information on how they could contact the jail to schedule a visit with the subject. I was then asked about the court process, this time they were much less angry in asking the question. I explained the court process and the likelihood the subject would be in jail until his first hearing which would probably occur on the following Tuesday. I was thanked profusely by most of the group and they returned to their homes. One guy even tried to give me a hug and stated: “now that’s respect.”
Later in the day I had a discussion with my partner who told me it was pointless for me to address the small group. I explained I had only done this when it was safe to do so yet he believed I was wasting my time. It was difficult for me at the time to articulate my reasons for doing so but in short I told him this particular neighborhood might be more cooperative with Law Enforcement in the future if we treated them with a little more respect. I tell this story because I believe it is not a waste of time to explain circumstances which the public may not fully understand. Hell, the whole point of writing here is to hopefully enlighten and educate not just to complain. Otherwise our words only serve to rally those who are supportive and turn away those who may be on the fence.
I started a text conversation with one of my favorite and most trusted beat partners regarding this subject and he summed it up quickly and accurately while heading out the door. In a short text message which took him less than a minute to write he hit the nail on the head and went on to prove my point here. Examine the following text message:
“I think we have a responsibility to speak rationally and logically when we speak for the side of law enforcement. It becomes obvious that we are cops in these discussions, so why portray ourselves as irrational asshats. We both know that law enforcement officers in general are not out there hunting minorities and just trying to f with people, but there are people out there who legitimately think otherwise. We have legitimate arguments which carry serious weight. I think we do us and the real issues a huge disservice when we just yell and down talk people. I think some people start seeing the validity of our points when we calmly explain them.”
I read through the news today after a recent terrorist attack upon Police Officers in Dallas. Men and women serving their country and communities were attacked because of the clothes they wore and the color of their skin. Alternatively it is reported almost everywhere these attacks were in response to “two innocent black men being gunned down by police” yet the facts are not yet fully known. To respond violently based upon initial emotion is to discredit the American process and disregards civility entirely.
When historians look back upon the last several years what will our defining moments be? I often consider this point of view because as a student of history I realize the human condition is cyclical. Consider our greatest accomplishments and triumphs where Americans had a common goal, pulled together and achieved wondrous results. These American achievements need not be stated they are so powerful.
I use the Rosetta Stone as my example of ancient human achievement. The rock was found in 1799 by French soldiers and now resides in the British Museum. Written upon the enormous rock is a series of accomplishments and instructions for Egyptian priests. It is written in two languages and three scripts. It is amazing to me how multiple cultures collided in an era of little technology to create something this long lasting. (You can read more about this fascinating topic at: http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/writing/rosetta.html)
What do the words of the Rosetta stone say? What do they mean? We live in a culture now where it doesn’t matter. Facts are considered boring while violent emotions are considered exciting and relevant. Idols fuel emotionalism as a movement and as role models to America’s youth. A popular musician of our time, Jay Z has released a new song which he addresses the problem. Here is an example of one lyric: “Got my hands in the air in despair/don’t shoot/I just wanna do good.”
Perhaps the music is moving, maybe the lyrics are meaningful but they are not responsible. The words themselves are perpetuated by lies and drive further emotion instead of logic. That emotion is endorsed by powerful leaders of the state and the message becomes misconstrued. Violence is the result and ignorance is the tool.
Music, Television and Movies are not seen as entertainment in our time, they are words and actions to live by. Fantasy is our hero and I still wonder what America’s common goal is. We are divided on all things in regards to morality and justice and I cannot fathom what stamp of human achievement our generation has left upon history. If our Rosetta Stone is chaos, lawlessness and anarchy I wish to distance myself from it as far as possible.
I have children though, so I cannot wallow in despair and would like to leave them something to cling to. We spend so much time trying to convince the emotionally misguided that our own children often become neglected from the truth. More and more I disconnect myself from popular media, social media and even news networks. I teach my children how to think for themselves and encourage them to try and leave the world a better place when they leave it. More than anything I tell them to suppress emotion and use logic to respond. This is how we build a lasting monument to our prosperity as a nation. A nation not divided but as one people and as unified Americans.
A monument to our civilization needs not be represented by division and destruction. Through our common children we must build something greater than we have now. Utilizing morality and logic we must build a culture which welcomes all as Americans and respects the tenements of our rich history. A foundation which shrugs off its mistakes and moves swiftly and accurately to correct them. A foundation which withstands the decaying sands of time and utilizes a profound goal as opposed to destruction with no purpose.
Let me see if I have this straight… Which one of these scenarios passes the bullshit-o-meter, and which does not.
1) Mother of suspect, who was not present during the incident, says the suspect was not armed and was shot in the back while running away from the Senior Police Officer (rank indicating he has been around a while) for nothing more than running away.
Now I realize it might be a stretch of the imagination to think a gang banging coke dealer would have a gun, but, I think I know which of those two scenarios sounds more likely to me.
But, to hear some of these #BlackLivesMatter, #AkielDenkins defending, #Raleigh hashtagging fools talk, you’d be stupid to believe think the second version was accurate.
You be the judge…
-Matt
UPDATE: Several of the aforementioned #AkielDenkins defenders paid a visit to our Facebook page and began spamming the page with pictures of Denkins holding a baby and smiling. They began trying to convince us that Denkins was a good guy, that everyone in that neighborhood (including the people posting the comments) run from the cops because it is “just not a good time for them to do their time” in jail, and that people in that neighborhood hide guns in their yards to “make the neighborhood safer.”
The “news media” likes to play the same game with photos. They are always digging up innocent looking photos of the person killed. You may recall some of the photos of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin that the “news media” aired in nearly every broadcast.
As if those photos are somehow supposed to be evidence that Denkins was a good guy, that he was a good father, that he was not a criminal, that he did not do something that justified a cop shooting him in self defense. As for the rest of their comments, if you believe people are hiding guns in their yards to make their neighborhood safer, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Here, here are a couple of photos of another guy pictured with a child. He must also be a good guy who did nothing wrong, right? I mean, that is the logic we are going with here, right?
No? Hitler was not a good guy?
Well then, I guess a photo of a guy with a child is only evidence of one thing, that the guy was photographed with a child. It is not evidence of him being a good guy, unless of course you are going to try and argue that Adolph Hitler was a good guy. (Hint for the historically inept, he was not a good guy)
-Matt
UPDATE: Oddly enough, as the evidence begins to come out, it would appear that Officer Twiddy did NOT in fact just randomly shoot Akiel Denkins in the back, 7 times, for nothing more than running away.
I am shocked I tell you, SHOCKED!!!! (<- that was sarcasm)
But seriously, I’m not shocked at all. To be honest, this is exactly what I expected to hear. Despite what the lying media, the lying racist race baiters, and people like President Barack Obama would have you believe, the cops are NOT going around randomly killing innocent black men for no reason.
-Matt
The freaking mainstream media (MSM) just cannot help themselves in pushing the cops are the bad guys agenda! In this case, NBC News runs a story about a black city councilman calling for people to commit felony assaults on cops and this is the lame ass headline?
“Mississippi Councilman Kenneth Stokes Calls to Pelt Cops With Rocks”
I find that headline odd, since what he actually said was: “What I suggest is we get the black leadership together, and as these jurisdictions come into Jackson we throw rocks and bricks and bottles at them.”
Now granted, they included the quote in the story, but the headline seriously downplays what he said. They really can’t seem to help but push/drive/defend the agenda that the cops are the bad guys. Beyond the headline, the story itself barely mentions the statement made by the councilman, nor does it remotely delve into his long history of making similarly MORONIC comments directed at first responders, such as this one.
Now, just for a second, imagine what the headline would have read if that was a white cop saying the very same thing about black criminals. Holy f–kballs would that have been one hell of a headline! And the story? We would be reading about every single past allegation of any misconduct.
But hey, the MSM does not really have an agenda, right? Or do they?
-Matt
The media bias in this country has long leaned to the left (lean is an understatement), but they lean further left by the day. Take for instance these headlines regarding a recent event in Iowa where Senator Marco Rubio was tossing footballs to some kids. While technically accurate, these headlines are extremely misleading.
1) Sen. Marco Rubio throws a beautiful pass. 2) Boy fails to catch it. 3) Headline: “Rubio hits kid in face with football”
Broaden the concept a bit.
1) America provides opportunity to pursue happiness.
2) Man fails to grasp it, or intentionally avoids it.
3) Headline: “Poor Hardest-Hit by Culture of Greed”
If you want, you can watch the video where in “Rubio intentionally beaned a small child in the face with a football” here:
That is how the American media handles the reporting of such a trivial event when it involves a conservative presidential candidate. For a contrasting view, I wonder how they would handle coverage of a minor event, such as the improper handling of top secret government emails and cover up of said handling, by a progressive liberal politician?
Well, wonder no more:
Notice, the “presser was testy” and Clinton is “fighting back” about the email server. No mention of her totally cavalier dismissal of valid questions regarding the national security risks that were posed by her illegal actions.
If you missed how Clinton responded to questions about the intentional wiping of her personal email server, you can see that here:
Yep, no media bias here… Nothing to see folks, keep moving, and trust your “news” sources for they are unbiased and totally reliable…
