Thread: OBAMA IGNORES SLAIN WHITE POLICE OFFICER WHILE HONORING GRAY AND BROWN

Topic - The President.

The criminal's champion, be it gang banger or illegal alien. JMO

OBAMA IGNORES SLAIN WHITE POLICE OFFICER WHILE HONORING GRAY AND BROWN



REUTERS/JASON REED

by WILLIAM BIGELOW8 May 20151892

Barack Obama makes a habit of castigating police for their misbehavior, and by his actions, it could easily be assumed that he is disinterested in engendering any sympathy for police, even those killed in the line of duty, while he fans the flames of anti-police rage by honoring those killed by police.

As Instapundit points out in comparing Obama’s actions vis-à-vis police, Obama honored Freddie Gray — who, according to CNN, had over 20 criminal cases filed against him before his death in police custody — by sending Cabinet Secretary Broderick Johnson, chair of the Obama administration’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force; Heather Foster, an adviser in the White House Office of Public Engagement; and Elias Alcantara from the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to his funeral.
The Washington Post reported Obama sent three government officials to Michael Brown’s funeral: Johnson and two officials who worked in the White House Office of Public Engagement, Marlon Marshall and Heather Foster. Brown robbed a convenience store before his fatal encounter with Officer Darren Wilson.

Both Gray and Brown were black.

Yet at the funeral on Friday for Officer Brian Moore, 25, a white NYPD officer who was cold-bloodedly murdered by a black man, Obama sent no one, according to New York 1, despite the fact that tens of thousands of uniformed officers stood in formation outside the church and hundreds of others attended the funeral inside.

The NYPD reported that Moore and another officer, Erik Jansen, 30, were sitting in an unmarked police vehicle in Queens last Saturday when they saw Demetrius Blackwell adjusting something in his waistband. Moore pulled up behind Blackwell, who allegedly pulled a gun from his waistband and opened fire on both officers.

Deputy Inspector Mike Coyle of the NYPD said of Moore, “He was every commanding officer’s dream. If I had an army of Brian Moores, there’d be no crime in the city. He could walk into a room, and his smile would turn your day around if you were having a bad day. A real crime fighter, a true believer, a heart of gold.” Moore had made close to 160 arrests in his brief career and received two exceptional police service medals. On his off-days on Mondays, he always visited his mother.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ray-and-brown/

He doesn't go to soldiers funerals either. There is a huge disconnect between our elected officials and the people of the United States. We have serious issues with police targeting black people, it's not a new problem, just a very old one that has yet to correct itself, so I have no problem at all with politicians doing everything they can to shine light on the problem and work towards resolving it.

However, attending funerals isn't how it's done. It's ending the War on Drugs, removing illegal aliens from our country, reducing legal immigration, passing the FairTax that will encourage redevelopment of our urban areas, and protecting our trade so industry returns to our country with all its good jobs, investment and technology, and of course, holding police officers responsible when they murder a citizen in the same way as when a citizen murders a police officer. We can't have 2 standards, one for police and another for citizens, we must have only 1 standard.

Over 20 charges filed against him by officers of the same force that tried lying about what could be causing his death. Now with a proven credibility problem, as I sit on a jury, the words from that police force from a witness stand means nothing, as it does from the FBI.

Until all of our police prove that they are capable of and actively do police their own, I am a hard sell.

Judy wrote:

We have serious issues with police targeting black people, it's not a new problem, just a very old one that has yet to correct itself, so I have no problem at all with politicians doing everything they can to shine light on the problem and work towards resolving it.

Family secret: What the left won’t tell you about black crime

By Jason L. Riley - - Monday, July 21, 2014
(The following is excerpted from “Please Stop Helping Us” by Jason Riley. Copyright ©2014 by Jason Riley. Used by permission of Encounter Books. All rights reserved.)

In the summer of 2013, after neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, a Hispanic, was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, the political left wanted to have a discussion about everything except the black crime rates that lead people to view young black males with suspicion. Presi*dent Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to talk about gun control. The NAACP wanted to talk about racial profiling. Assorted academics and MSNBC talking heads wanted to discuss poverty, “stand-your-ground” laws, unemployment and the supposedly racist criminal justice system. But any candid debate on race and criminality in the United States must begin with the fact that blacks are responsible for an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes, which has been the case for at least the past half a century.

Crime began rising precipitously in the 1960s after the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, started tilting the scales in favor of the criminals. Some 63 percent of respondents to a Gallup poll taken in 1968 judged the Warren Court, in place from 1953 to 1969, too lenient on crime; but Warren’s jurisprudence was sup*ported wholeheartedly by the liberal intellectuals of that era, as well as by politicians who wanted to shift blame for criminal behavior away from the criminals. Popular books of the time, like Karl Menninger’s “The Crime of Punishment,” argued that “law and order” was an “inflammatory” term with racial overtones. “What it really means,” said Menninger, “is that we should all go out and find the n–– and beat them up.”

The late William Stuntz, a Harvard law professor, addressed this history in his 2011 book, “The Collapse of American Criminal Justice.” “The lenient turn of the mid-twentieth century was, in part, the product of judges, prosecutors and politicians who saw criminal punishment as too harsh a remedy for ghetto violence,” wrote Mr. Stuntz. “The Supreme Court’s expansion of criminal defendants’ legal rights in the 1960s and after flowed from the Justices’ percep*tion that poor and black defendants were being victimized by a system run by white government officials. Even the rise of harsh drug laws was in large measure the product of reformers’ efforts to limit the awful costs illegal drug markets impose on poor city neighborhoods. Each of these changes flowed, in large measure, from the decisions of men who saw themselves as reformers. But their reforms showed an uncanny ability to take bad situations and make them worse.”

Crime rates rose by 139 percent during the 1960s, and the murder rate doubled. Cities couldn’t hire cops fast enough. “The number of police per 1,000 people was up twice the rate of the population growth, and yet clearance rates for crimes dropped 31 percent and conviction rates were down 6 percent,” wrote Lucas A. Powe Jr. in “The Warren Court and American Politics,” his history of the Warren Court. “During the last weeks of his [1968] presidential campaign, Nixon had a favorite line in his standard speech. ‘In the past 45 minutes this is what happened in America. There has been one murder, two rapes, forty-five major crimes of violence, countless robberies and auto thefts.’”

As remains the case today, blacks in the past were overrepre*sented among those arrested and imprisoned. In urban areas in 1967, blacks were 17 times more likely than whites to be arrested for robbery. In 1980 blacks comprised about one-eighth of the population but were half of all those arrested for murder, rape and robbery, according to FBI data. And they were between one-fourth and one-third of all those arrested for crimes such as burglary, auto theft and aggravated assault.

Today blacks are about 13 percent of the population and continue to be responsible for an inordinate amount of crime. Between 1976 and 2005 blacks com*mitted more than half of all murders in the United States. The black arrest rate for most offenses — including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes — is still typically two to three times their representation in the population. Blacks as a group are also overrepresented among persons arrested for so-called white-collar crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement. And blaming this decades-long, well-documented trend on racist cops, prosecutors, judges, sentencing guidelines and drug laws doesn’t cut it as a plausible explanation.
“
Even allowing for the existence of discrimination in the criminal justice system, the higher rates of crime among black Americans cannot be denied,” wrote James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein in their classic 1985 study, “Crime and Human Nature.” “Every study of crime using official data shows blacks to be overrepresented among persons arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for street crimes.” This was true decades before the authors put it to paper, and it remains the case decades later.

“The overrepresentation of blacks among arrested persons persists throughout the criminal justice system,” wrote Wilson and Herrnstein. “Though prosecutors and judges may well make discriminatory judgments, such decisions do not account for more than a small fraction of the overrepresentation of blacks in prison.” Yet liberal policy makers and their allies in the press and the academy consistently downplay the empirical data on black crime rates, when they bother to discuss them at all. Stories about the racial makeup of prisons are commonplace; stories about the excessive amount of black criminality are much harder to come by.
“High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination,” wrote Mr. Stuntz. “The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segrega*tion but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans — and of African American control of city governments.” The left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Washington under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the United States today are run by blacks.

Black people are not shooting each other at these alarming rates in Chicago and other urban areas because of our gun laws or our drug laws or a criminal justice system that has it in for them. The problem is primarily cultural — self-destructive behaviors and attitudes all too common among the black underclass. The problem is black criminal behavior, which is one manifestation of a black pathology that ultimately stems from the breakdown of the black family. Liberals want to talk about what others should do for blacks instead of what blacks should do for themselves. But if we don’t acknowledge the cultural barriers to black progress, how can we address them? How can you even begin to fix something that almost no one wants to talk about honestly?
Jason Riley is a member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3ZkI4kyQp
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Originally Posted by MW

Family secret: What the left won’t tell you about black crime

By Jason L. Riley - - Monday, July 21, 2014
(The following is excerpted from “Please Stop Helping Us” by Jason Riley. Copyright ©2014 by Jason Riley. Used by permission of Encounter Books. All rights reserved.)

In the summer of 2013, after neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, a Hispanic, was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, the political left wanted to have a discussion about everything except the black crime rates that lead people to view young black males with suspicion. Presi*dent Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to talk about gun control. The NAACP wanted to talk about racial profiling. Assorted academics and MSNBC talking heads wanted to discuss poverty, “stand-your-ground” laws, unemployment and the supposedly racist criminal justice system. But any candid debate on race and criminality in the United States must begin with the fact that blacks are responsible for an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes, which has been the case for at least the past half a century.

Crime began rising precipitously in the 1960s after the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, started tilting the scales in favor of the criminals. Some 63 percent of respondents to a Gallup poll taken in 1968 judged the Warren Court, in place from 1953 to 1969, too lenient on crime; but Warren’s jurisprudence was sup*ported wholeheartedly by the liberal intellectuals of that era, as well as by politicians who wanted to shift blame for criminal behavior away from the criminals. Popular books of the time, like Karl Menninger’s “The Crime of Punishment,” argued that “law and order” was an “inflammatory” term with racial overtones. “What it really means,” said Menninger, “is that we should all go out and find the n–– and beat them up.”

The late William Stuntz, a Harvard law professor, addressed this history in his 2011 book, “The Collapse of American Criminal Justice.” “The lenient turn of the mid-twentieth century was, in part, the product of judges, prosecutors and politicians who saw criminal punishment as too harsh a remedy for ghetto violence,” wrote Mr. Stuntz. “The Supreme Court’s expansion of criminal defendants’ legal rights in the 1960s and after flowed from the Justices’ percep*tion that poor and black defendants were being victimized by a system run by white government officials. Even the rise of harsh drug laws was in large measure the product of reformers’ efforts to limit the awful costs illegal drug markets impose on poor city neighborhoods. Each of these changes flowed, in large measure, from the decisions of men who saw themselves as reformers. But their reforms showed an uncanny ability to take bad situations and make them worse.”

Crime rates rose by 139 percent during the 1960s, and the murder rate doubled. Cities couldn’t hire cops fast enough. “The number of police per 1,000 people was up twice the rate of the population growth, and yet clearance rates for crimes dropped 31 percent and conviction rates were down 6 percent,” wrote Lucas A. Powe Jr. in “The Warren Court and American Politics,” his history of the Warren Court. “During the last weeks of his [1968] presidential campaign, Nixon had a favorite line in his standard speech. ‘In the past 45 minutes this is what happened in America. There has been one murder, two rapes, forty-five major crimes of violence, countless robberies and auto thefts.’”

As remains the case today, blacks in the past were overrepre*sented among those arrested and imprisoned. In urban areas in 1967, blacks were 17 times more likely than whites to be arrested for robbery. In 1980 blacks comprised about one-eighth of the population but were half of all those arrested for murder, rape and robbery, according to FBI data. And they were between one-fourth and one-third of all those arrested for crimes such as burglary, auto theft and aggravated assault.

Today blacks are about 13 percent of the population and continue to be responsible for an inordinate amount of crime. Between 1976 and 2005 blacks com*mitted more than half of all murders in the United States. The black arrest rate for most offenses — including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes — is still typically two to three times their representation in the population. Blacks as a group are also overrepresented among persons arrested for so-called white-collar crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement. And blaming this decades-long, well-documented trend on racist cops, prosecutors, judges, sentencing guidelines and drug laws doesn’t cut it as a plausible explanation.
“
Even allowing for the existence of discrimination in the criminal justice system, the higher rates of crime among black Americans cannot be denied,” wrote James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein in their classic 1985 study, “Crime and Human Nature.” “Every study of crime using official data shows blacks to be overrepresented among persons arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for street crimes.” This was true decades before the authors put it to paper, and it remains the case decades later.

“The overrepresentation of blacks among arrested persons persists throughout the criminal justice system,” wrote Wilson and Herrnstein. “Though prosecutors and judges may well make discriminatory judgments, such decisions do not account for more than a small fraction of the overrepresentation of blacks in prison.” Yet liberal policy makers and their allies in the press and the academy consistently downplay the empirical data on black crime rates, when they bother to discuss them at all. Stories about the racial makeup of prisons are commonplace; stories about the excessive amount of black criminality are much harder to come by.
“High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination,” wrote Mr. Stuntz. “The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segrega*tion but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans — and of African American control of city governments.” The left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Washington under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the United States today are run by blacks.

Black people are not shooting each other at these alarming rates in Chicago and other urban areas because of our gun laws or our drug laws or a criminal justice system that has it in for them. The problem is primarily cultural — self-destructive behaviors and attitudes all too common among the black underclass. The problem is black criminal behavior, which is one manifestation of a black pathology that ultimately stems from the breakdown of the black family. Liberals want to talk about what others should do for blacks instead of what blacks should do for themselves. But if we don’t acknowledge the cultural barriers to black progress, how can we address them? How can you even begin to fix something that almost no one wants to talk about honestly?
Jason Riley is a member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3ZkI4kyQp
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

You're quoting THIS Jason L. Riley? Really?

"Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders" -- Jason L. Riley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDK9Ic2qx3I

Excuse me, MW, but uh, this guy has no more credibility on "black crime" than he does on immigration.

Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders

(Gotham, 2008)

Share


Book Forum
June 18, 2008 12:00PM
Auditorium/Wintergarden
Featuring the author, Jason L. Riley, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, with comments by Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report. Moderated by Daniel Griswold, Cato Institute.


In a provocative new book, Jason Riley makes the case for welcoming more legal immigrants to the United States. Drawing on history, scholarly studies and first-hand reporting, Riley argues that today’s newcomers are fueling America’s prosperity and dynamism. He challenges the prevailing views on talk radio and cable TV that immigrants are overpopulating the country, stealing jobs, depressing wages, bankrupting social services, filling prisons, resisting assimilation and promoting big government. Comments will be provided by one of the nation’s leading political analysts.

I guess he did his research long before he published his book in 2008, and of course, the past decade proves him wrong across the board on every issue he challenged. All new net job growth since 2009 has gone to immigrants who stole those jobs from Americans, wages have declined or remained stagnant and their buying power has declined across the board, social services are bankrupt borrowing on national debt to cover their costs, prisons are full with more arrests every year, there has been almost no assimilation and oh my has big government been promoted with Obama Care and so much more with the number of Medicaid recipients having increased from around 49 million in 2008 to 70 million in 2014, a near 50% increase in just 6 years all while massive immigration continues to increase.

It was Saturday night, I was probably about 4 years old, riding in the back seat, when I noticed for the first time the city cop standing on the corner. I asked who was he, why did he wear blue uniform. I was told that he was the policeman and that should I need help when in town (That corner was the corner of the block that sheltered all the bars in that town) I should find him and he would help me. I said what if I get scared and run, my Mother said, "OH, never run from a policeman, he might shoot you!" I asked if his gun was in that black holster, Mom responded, "yes, it is and he always wears his gun." That was a Saturday night lesson that I never forgot. I still think it should be a Saturday night lesson taught!

Judy wrote:

You're quoting THIS Jason L. Riley? Really?

"Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders" -- Jason L. Riley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDK9Ic2qx3I

Excuse me, MW, but uh, this guy has no more credibility on "black crime" than he does on immigration.

It doesn't matter who the comments come from if there is sense in what they are saying. It's not always fair to debunk someone on one issue just because you don't agree with their position on another. Personally, I think the guy made a lot of sense and presented the issue very well, regardless of what you think of him as a person. How about you argue his points because you disagree with him, not simply because you don't agree with him on an unrelated issue. I agree with him that many of the problems blacks are facing in our country today are self created.

Oh, nice attempt at trying to change the subject. The topic of this thread is not about border security.

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:



It doesn't matter who the comments come from if there is sense in what they are saying. It's not always fair to debunk someone on one issue just because you don't agree with their position on another. Personally, I think the guy made a lot of sense and presented the issue very well, regardless of what you think of him as a person. How about you argue his points because you disagree with him, not simply because you don't agree with him on an unrelated issue. I agree with him that many of the problems blacks are facing in our country today are self created.

Oh, nice attempt at trying to change the subject. The topic of this thread is not about border security.

Yes, I saw that you agree with him, that's why you posted his article. My point is that when he supports the very immigration policy that causes high unemployment among black Americans, the key cause of the low wages and high levels of poverty they experience which leads to poor neighborhoods and inner cities where many reside, then there will be higher levels of crime in those neighborhoods, whether urban or rural.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

Household Poverty and Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012

Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., RTI International, Lance Couzens, RTI International, Erika Harrell, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, Lynn Langton, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, Hope Smiley-McDonald, Ph.D., RTI International


November 18, 2014 NCJ 248384


Presents findings from 2008 to 2012 on the relationship between households that were above or below the federal poverty level and nonfatal violent victimization, including rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. This report examines the violent victimization experiences of persons living in households at various levels of poverty, focusing on type of violence, victim's race or Hispanic origin, and location of residence. It also examines the percentage of violent victimizations reported to the police by poverty level. Data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. During 2012, about 92,390 households and 162,940 persons were interviewed for the NCVS.


Highlights:

• For the period 2008–12—
• Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).
  
• Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).
  
• The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
• Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
• Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
  
• Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).
  

So if you want to agree with someone who is as completely wrong on his topic of black crime as he is on his topic of immigration, that's fine, but wrong he is on both, and terribly so.

Judy wrote:

So if you want to agree with someone who is as completely wrong on his topic of black crime as he is on his topic of immigration, that's fine, but wrong he is on both, and terribly so.

What makes you more knowledgeable on black crime than him? Just asking ........