I saw a security video a few weeks ago of a man in a Walmart looking at BB guns. He picked it up, looked at it, and apparently -- as I have done with many items in a store -- walked around with it in his hand for several minutes probably still debating in his mind whether to buy it or not. He returned to the aisle where he picked it up, probably still thinking about it.
In the meantime, somebody apparently called the police and reported that a man was walking around Walmart with a gun, and apparently embellished by saying he was pointing it at people ... I say embellished because nowhere on the security tape did it ever show him pointing it at anyone.
While he was standing in the aisle still considering the purchase, police came in the store (this is all on video camera) and, unprovoked, shot the man dead.
This was obviously wrong, and fortunately it was caught on camera so there is no question that it was an unjustified shooting.
I told you that story to tell you this one.
Back in August, according to eyewitness statements that were supported by forensic evidence that matched the description of the event from the officer involved -- a young man went into a store, took some things that weren't his to take, and shoved a smaller man -- the store owner or manager -- aside when he tried to stop him.
The police were called. An officer who was on a call in the area responding to a medical emergency involving a child
The young man who had taken the merchandise and assaulted the owner/manager apparently did not take kindly to being told what to do, and a struggle ensued with the officer still inside the car. The young man tried to take the officer's gun.
Presumably, it wasn't to check it for safety or admire it and give it back.
In the struggle, the gun was fired, inside the vehicle, grazing the young man's thumb.
The suspect retreated and was ordered to stop. Eventually he did stop, turn around, and began to charge the officer from whom he had just tried to take a gun ... again, probably not to take it to his friends for show-and-tell.
The young man was a large man, physically capable of taking most normal sized men, including the officer. He had shown a willingness to steal, assault, and if he had a weapon -- which he showed a willingness to obtain by force -- probably assault with a deadly weapon. He stole, assaulted a citizen, assaulted a cop, tried to take his weapon, resisted arrest, and was coming back for more, with a vengeance.
So far in this story, who has done anything wrong?
Put yourself in that officer's shoes. In a few seconds, a strong, large, angry young man who had just tried to take his gun would be on him and would likely try to take it again, and not, presumably, use it to play a friendly game of spin the
The officer fired several rounds. The young man stopped. He began charging again. The officer fired some more. The young man fell, mortally wounded.
Now we are supposed to use this incident to change things for the better, so this never happens again.
Only we are not allowed to talk about the things that would actually make things better. Like what kinds of moral lessons are taught to kids by what is known and celebrated as "black" culture? As if culture has a race. As if race determines culture. And as if all cultures are equal.
They are not.
Multi-culturalism is a lie. It is a useful lie for those who want to divide and conquer. It is a useful lie to those addicted to hits off the crack-pipe of false righteous rage. It is a useful lie for those who don't want to take responsibility for the direction of their own lives, but rather to blame others for their position in life.
America was once heralded as a melting pot, which absorbed parts of the cultures of its immigrants over time, but still had an overarching cohesive culture. If that's what we mean by multi-culturalism, I'm on board. But it's not what the pushers of Multi-Culturalism™ are talking about. They are talking about multiple disparate cultures within a defined geographical area. Without an overarching culture, that cannot be a nation. It is a recipe for implosion.
Enter the race-baiters and community organizers -- the first is a subset of the second -- who have political agendas -- to stir up anger by whatever means necessary. Repeating stories that support their narratives as fact. Attacking anyone who doesn't agree as racist. Then this attracts the usual suspects. The anarchists, the communists (who should be mortally opposed in theory, but they do have the common goal of destroying our current system of law so they more often than not appear shoulder-to-shoulder at these things).
Last night after the decision was announced, after the riot started -- I saw two young men interviewed. Both of them talked about other incidents. Both repeated the "hands in the air" story that the evidence refutes. One repeated the "shot in the back" story (".... shooting the whole time") that the evidence refutes.
They weren't there. They heard these stories repeated in the media and believed them because it supports their worldview that white cops are out to get black men because they're black. Whic may happen in certain cases -- and it is wrong.
But is that what happened here? This time? Doesn't seem to matter to them. This was to be representative justice for all the times it is the case. Which is no justice at all. It is not justice for Michael Brown. Michael Brown did just about everything he could to ensure he would be shot. It is a tragedy that he did so, but he did. It is not justice for Officer Wilson and his family. He would likely be dead, and dead because he was doing his job -- part of which is finding and arresting people who commit crimes. Like theft. Like assault. Like vandalism, looting, arson.
Justice is prosecuting the police that shot the guy with the B.B. gun in Walmart, and not prosecuting the guy who tragically killed someone in self-defense.
Another commentator kept interjecting that 1 in 3 black men go to jail. Which may very well be true. But it's not because they're black. It's because young black men commit crimes at much higher rates than any other demographic. That is what needs to be stopped.
The way to stop it is not to have more lenient police. If anything, that would further encourage it.
The way to stop it is for "black culture" to be re-defined. To once again embrace morals as it did well into the 1960's. To take pride in the right things -- not now big a thug you can be or how many ho's you can abuse. To take pride in being fair, and honest, and working hard. To learn what the system is and why it is good, like Frederick Douglas did. To stop looking at themselves as victims, even when they are victimized. To take control over the parts of their lives they can take control over. To do the things it takes to overcome the unfair stereotypes that have more and more become self-fulfilling prophecies.
I can hear it now. "Thank you for 'Whitesplaining™' that."
Well ... you're welcomed, first off. But secondly, that's just another way of saying "Shut Up." "I don't want to hear it."
Well there's your problem right there. If an opinion can be invalidated based upon race, then I guess we really do have a long way to go. If we do have a long way to go, it's likely because we're moving in the wrong direction. Because we aren't addressing the root problems.
And it isn't poverty. There are poor people all over the world who don't assault and steal and kill each other in tragic numbers. There are poor people in Ferguson who don't. There are poor black people in Ferguson who don't. No, it's not poverty.
It's morality.
1 comment:
EXCELLENT article!
Post a Comment