FBI Director James Comey says that police are going easy on crime because they’re intimidated by Black Lives Matter protesters watching them in case they hurt a black person.
The Ferguson Effect
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
29 Comments. Leave new
Could be nice if the kinds of crimes they are ‘going easy on’ are the kinds where they are getting caught abusing people or victimless crimes. Maybe we need more cameras in courtrooms to discourage our legal system from needlessly incarcerating people for victimless crimes and drug possession/use.
Indeed ! The irony of the authorities – the police and the FBI – complaining about ordinary citizens filming their actions, while our environment is filled with these same authorities’ surveillance and closed-circuit television cameras filming everything everybody else does, in addition to tracking their least movement via mobile telephones, would be delicious, were it not so nauseating….
Henri
@ mhenriday –
That is precisely my take on the matter. Unlike Churchill’s “The only thing is we have to fear itself,” this is “The only thing we have to fear is getting caught.”
😀
Surveillance of every computer email, cellphone call, etc. by the police state is okay, but citizens’ recording of police brutality is something to be feared? Give me a break.
Ah, so you ARE senile. You’re thinking of FDR. (Of course credit actually goes to Francis Bacon.)
Okay, I made one mistake. That doesn’t negate the analogy or make you any less an asshole.Got anything else, M-F-er?
Yes, I am an asshole. No mistake there. But you made another mistake by engaging this here “troll.” harharhar
There have been activities that look suspiciously like sit-down strikes by the cops in many cities. Let us tell them the same things they tell us. “You’ve got nothing to fear from the cameras so long as you’re doing nothing wrong.”
Yeah, well, guess what?
The cops may only be marginally neglecting their duties where it comes to “Black” people … even so, they continue to wield their punitive tax citations booklets FULL FORCE against the entire realm of white-trash, because NOBODY seems to care when badge-danglers steal cash and time from poor-white-trash under color of law. Wanna’ beat the shit out of some young little White whore-in-training? Then march in force into a trailer park and butt-fuck the nearest pre-adolescent. It’s the LE way.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/
http://copcrisis.com/reports/
http://www.policemisconduct.net/
DanD
Oh, you White Supremacist! Check your white privilege. Those white trash have all the power. 😉
Is it not possible that at least some of them are good people already stressed over a difficult job?
Absolutely, stress on “some”
Psych studies have shown that many cops & crooks have amazingly similar profiles. Authoritarians who feel that the law is for other people, etc.
The trouble is, our current system makes it more likely that we’ll hire the bad guys and then protect them once they’re on the force. Even the good ones uphold the ‘thin blue line’ declining to rat out those they know to be bad cops.
A cop who protects bad cops is himself a bad cop. So we can agree here as well. Of course said cop fears retaliation and knows that the system will decline to back him up in all likelihood.
Here’s where we won’t agree. The “blacklivesmatter” agitators have a big factual problem with their messaging. Most black murder victims are killed by other blacks. They have a lot of work to do in their own communities. Then there’s the fact that black babies are aborted far more often than other races. (But I’m probably alone here in caring about that.)
Further, not EVERY publicized case of a black man killed by police has been unjustified. Some such as Eric Gardner seem to me to be clearly unjustified. Other cases are murkier.
Here’s where I’d get the most flak, but it’s most important of all. Now, before anyone says “but blacklivesmatter is about POLICE violence” I’ll refer you to Trayvon Martin. The case was made all about racism; even though Zimmerman is Hispanic he was called “white.” Now Zimmerman is human refuse, but that doesn’t change how media framed the story. And again, he was not a policeman.
Contrast this to one of MANY stories of a black man murdering a white. In this example, the victim was random but if the races were reversed, we’d all hear about how the black victim was chosen because of his race. Thing is, the vast majority of interracial violence is black on white. So, if we were to use the same lens on this as the liberal media does on cops killing blacks, we’d have to ask why blacks commit so much violence against whites. Is it racially motivated? Well, who knows because who the hell wants to have an honest discussion of racial issues. Please.
I forgot to add that the media is cherry picking cases of cops killing blacks. Where’s the context of how many were justifiable homicides or what of the unjustifiable homicides of other races?
“the vast majority of interracial violence is black on white”
It’s actually rather more complex. Using as an example FBI 2011 murder statistics
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6
blacks killed more whites (448) than the reverse (193) but due to relative population (2010 census, 211.4 million white, 36.4 black) your chance, as a white, of being killed by a black was about 1 in 500,00, the reverse was about 1 in 200,000- a black was 2 1/2 times more likely to be killed by a white than vice versa. So blacks would make the reverse argument, and it would take a pretty complex Bayesian analysis to really understand who has the better case.
Blacks do commit murder at much higher rates relative to their population than whites do. More than 80% of their victims are black.
More whites are killed by whites – so does that mean it’s okay for a black cop to shoot an unarmed white kid in the back?
There is another factor besides the population imbalance Russel mentioned & that is poverty. If you divide up your population by income level instead of race you find that poor people are more likely to commit violent crimes than are the rich. Black people are more likely to be poor than whites.
There is another factor as well, a study of unsolved homicides in NYC in 2013 found that 86 percent of least year’s homicides involving a white victim have been solved compared with 45 percent of murders with a black victim and 56 percent of murders involving a Hispanic victim.
If only 45% of black murders have been solved, then it is statistically possible that the remaining 55% were victims of white-on-black violence. I do not assert that they were – but when over half are unsolved, then the statistics are obviously skewed.
“poor people are more likely to commit violent crimes than are the rich.”
That’s because the rich hire the poor to commit violent crimes for them.
See myriad US war crimes financed by the rich that will never be prosecuted.
While I’m impressed at the civility of everyone, I don’t think my point was understood. Put simply, if the blacklivesmatter people actually believed that black lives matter, they’d have a less hypocritical and more comprehensive, helpful, and aware message than “white people are bad and racist and all cops are evil and kill blacks for giggles.” As is nearly always the case with race issues, it’s about politicking and ideology instead of pursuit of truth and the betterment of society.
@Jack – There is nothing hypocritical about blacklivesmatter – but there is something hypocritical about spouting white supremacist talking points under the guise of ‘fairness’
Statements like “white people are bad and racist and all cops are evil and kill blacks for giggles.” are plain, old fashioned intellectual dishonesty. (unless you can provide a link to a black lives matter proponent stating that.)
@glenn – I like it, it’s true, but it wasn’t where I was headed. 😉 Inside the country, if a poor person robs you he’ll do it with a gun or a sock full of pennies. If a rich person does it, he’ll do with with a computer or a lawyer. (and he won’t get prosecuted. At worst, he might have to give you your money back)
I was using a bit of the ol’ hyperbole. A bit. So blacklivesmatter is not saying that white cops kill blacks for no other reason than racism?
> So blacklivesmatter is not saying that white cops kill blacks for no other reason than racism?
The burden of proof is on you to show that they are.
Simple question for the Black Lives Matter posts – and simple answer: Why do you think “Black Lives Matter” is even an issue in the USA?
It is because of the history of racism in the USA and the mistrust and suspicion that still exists between many blacks and whites. Attitudes and feelings can’t be legislated away – it takes time to wound all heels! 🙂
Ah, but the onus of “ending racism” is always on whites. Why is that?
Or here’s a thought: constantly opening old wounds doesn’t heal them.
The race agitators aren’t after peace and justice. They’re getting exactly what they aimed for: a more divided, weakened, and suspicious citizenry.
> Ah, but the onus of “ending racism” is always on whites. Why is that?
This is not a true statement. The onus of ending racism is always on the perpetrators. In the US, the whites are in the majority and held black slaves. They hold the power, and so yes, it is their (our) responsibility to end that.
During WWII, the Japanese held highly racist beliefs about other Asians. To this day, many groups of Asians have racist beliefs about other Asians. Please explain how the onus is on whites to end that.
I wasn’t aware of the huge media campaigns to fight racism between Asians.
Total non sequitur. We are discussing your statement, “but the onus of “ending racism” is always on whites.”
I gave an example of a case where there were no whites are involved, and asked you to explain how whites were obligated to end it.
If you cannot, then we have discovered that your original statement is in error.
The point that went right over your head is that nobody cares or talks about racism unless it can be pinned on whites.
During WWII, the Japanese used women from occupied (Asian) territories as sex slaves. I’m pretty sure their families talked and cared about that.
Papa Doc Duvalier was biased against those with white blood. An estimated 40,000 Haitians died under his rule from 1957 to 1971. Do suppose that people talked and cared about that?
The question isn’t “why people aren’t talking?” but rather “why aren’t you listening?”
Just saw an article talking about how LA, NYC & Philly cops are boycotting Quentin Tarantino’s films ‘cuz he took part in a demonstration protesting police shootings. Yah, that’s gotta be effective – he released his last film in 2012. What are they going to do? Boycott some drive-in where they’re still showing three-year-old films?
Maybe we need another question on the police application form. “Do you act like a spoiled five year old whenever anyone criticizes you?”
There are (at least) three major classifications of crooks in modern society. There are the independent freelancers, next are the institutional privateers, and finally, there are the government-sponsored gangbangers, also known as cops/police-officers/jackboots.
They are all in competition for the same prize, that being the unwillfully surrendered cash and property of the general public. And while the cops generally hate competition, they will (at the management level) make limited alliances with the other two classifications in order to make a quick “killing.”
The epitome of this paradigm is the government’s criminally competitive CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE programs.
DanD