Perhaps, in places throughout the nation, before the daily flag salute, this past day was marked with a moment of silence for those who died in 9-11.
I wonder at this, at how pausing to honor the fallen is always considered appropriate at flag ceremonies.
On this day, it might be worthy to note there runs an unseen similarity to what the NFL flag-kneelers are doing. In protesting the police killings, are they not, to some extent, observing the deaths of those who have been killed? Is this not, to some extent, a form of pausing in observance of people who have lost their lives? If the timing is appropriate when we observe the deaths of veterans, and police officers and thousands of others, why then is it not appropriate when it comes to those who have fallen at the hands of police?
Or, would we even be offended that they should be classed as being among our fallen? Would we suggest, they should have listened to the police, and should not have provoked the police? Would we say that to class them with those who have died at the hands of foreign terrorism is wrong?
I am not of such an opinion. I think it not wrong to protest their deaths when the American flag is presented and the Anthem is played. I think it not wrong for someone to drop to a knee at such a moment.
Bless America, and bless those who observe those who have fallen -- all those who have fallen.
(Note: A few small changes were made to this blog 9/12/18.)
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
There is a Mentality that Brought about the Dallas Shooting
An police officer in Texas is returning home, but gets confused and enters another home instead of her own. Spotting the home occupant, and thinking he is an invader in her home, the police officer shoots him dead.
The news story I read made no mention that the rightful home occupant threatened the officer, nor that he had a weapon. He apparently posed no danger.
But, she shot him dead, the same.
There is a mentality some of us have. There is a code of conduct. It says, if someone enters your home as a bandit, you have the right to kill them.
Even if Officer Amber Guyger had been in her own home, this shooting would have been wrong. It would have been right in the eyes of many. Many would have even applauded her. Still, it would have been wrong. Wrong it wrong, even when it is popular.
The news story I read made no mention that the rightful home occupant threatened the officer, nor that he had a weapon. He apparently posed no danger.
But, she shot him dead, the same.
There is a mentality some of us have. There is a code of conduct. It says, if someone enters your home as a bandit, you have the right to kill them.
Even if Officer Amber Guyger had been in her own home, this shooting would have been wrong. It would have been right in the eyes of many. Many would have even applauded her. Still, it would have been wrong. Wrong it wrong, even when it is popular.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Castle Law and Officer Guyger
Officer Amber Guyger allegedly -- thinking it was her own home -- stepped into the home of Botham Jean, saw Jean, and gave him verbal commands . . .
And, when he ignored her, she hot him dead.
The Castle Law gives greater right to kill people who invade your home. Did Officer Guyger have those liberties in mind when she pulled the trigger? Was she thinking, if this person is in my home, then I have the right to kill him?
The Castle Law might not be as liberal as it is in many states, and I do not know if Officer Guyger even was justified under the Texas version of the law. But, I see great dangers in such laws.
I read the Texas law a little, but not enough to come up with an answer as to whether the Texas version of the law gave her the right to kill if in her own home. Here's a portion of that law:
And, when he ignored her, she hot him dead.
The Castle Law gives greater right to kill people who invade your home. Did Officer Guyger have those liberties in mind when she pulled the trigger? Was she thinking, if this person is in my home, then I have the right to kill him?
The Castle Law might not be as liberal as it is in many states, and I do not know if Officer Guyger even was justified under the Texas version of the law. But, I see great dangers in such laws.
I read the Texas law a little, but not enough to come up with an answer as to whether the Texas version of the law gave her the right to kill if in her own home. Here's a portion of that law:
| Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person | ||
| is justified in using deadly force against another: | ||
| (1) if the actor [ | ||
| against the other under Section 9.31; and | ||
| (2) [ | ||
| [ | ||
| believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: | ||
| (A) to protect the actor [ | ||
| other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or | ||
| (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of | ||
| aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual | ||
| assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. | ||
| (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the | ||
| deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that | ||
| subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: | ||
| (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person | ||
| against whom the deadly force was used: | ||
| (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was | ||
| attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied | ||
| habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; | ||
| (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was | ||
| attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the | ||
| actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or | ||
| (C) was committing or attempting to commit an | ||
| offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); | ||
Where are the Leaders Pledging to Protect the Citizens?
I search the story for a mayor, or a senator, or somebody saying the criminals will be brought to justice, that every resource the city has will be utilized to apprehend the perpetrators and bring an end to the shootings going on in Chicago.
One killed, and at least twelve wounded in just one day of the continuing wave of shootings. I read down the list. These are random killings. These are not Tom and Jack sitting on the porch arguing, and one of them pulls out a gun and shoots the other. No, these are people taking a stroll, and getting shot. These are people being in their cars, and someone pulls up alongside them and shoots them.
What are we at, about 2050 shootings so far this year?
And, in how many of these have the shooters been apprehended? The words jump out at me from the story of Sunday's shootings. "Authorities say no one has been taken into custody." Yes, I think occasionally, the perpetrator of a crime is caught before the night is over. Sometime, if police are in the area, they respond and catch the person before he can get away.
Does that happen often in Chicago? You have a tidal wave of shootings. Surely, you must be seeking to saturate the affected areas with a large police presence -- enough officers that you can catch some of the shooters.
And, as wondered at the top of this story, where are the city officials, or state officials, saying they will not let the criminals get away with this? Where are the officials who would promise to protect the citizens?
Oh, I am not in Chicago. I have not been following this story but for a week. Perhaps such statements and pledges are being uttered, and such pursuits are being made.
But, I wonder.
One killed, and at least twelve wounded in just one day of the continuing wave of shootings. I read down the list. These are random killings. These are not Tom and Jack sitting on the porch arguing, and one of them pulls out a gun and shoots the other. No, these are people taking a stroll, and getting shot. These are people being in their cars, and someone pulls up alongside them and shoots them.
What are we at, about 2050 shootings so far this year?
And, in how many of these have the shooters been apprehended? The words jump out at me from the story of Sunday's shootings. "Authorities say no one has been taken into custody." Yes, I think occasionally, the perpetrator of a crime is caught before the night is over. Sometime, if police are in the area, they respond and catch the person before he can get away.
Does that happen often in Chicago? You have a tidal wave of shootings. Surely, you must be seeking to saturate the affected areas with a large police presence -- enough officers that you can catch some of the shooters.
And, as wondered at the top of this story, where are the city officials, or state officials, saying they will not let the criminals get away with this? Where are the officials who would promise to protect the citizens?
Oh, I am not in Chicago. I have not been following this story but for a week. Perhaps such statements and pledges are being uttered, and such pursuits are being made.
But, I wonder.
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Chicago Should Act Quickly
I am not in Chicago, to know what facilities you could convert to jails and prisons. I understand, though, they have a shortage of prisons. It becomes imminent that you create prison space as quickly as possible.
As in, within months.
You have a crisis, with -- I believe -- 2025 shootings to date. Relying on Alderman Anthony Napolitano as the authority, three things are fueling the violence. One, the large amount of drugs being poured on the streets; Two, a high number of guns being on the streets; and, Three, an out-of-control stolen goods industry.
So, you address each cause.
Drugs, I do not know that the perception that the war on drugs failed didn't result in us relaxing the war on drugs too much. There has also been a resistance to incarcerating too many people, as we have noted more people are incarcerated in America than in other nations. We've had a backlash to that. And, there has been the blossoming of the libertarian belief that it is wrong to toss someone in jail, in the first place, just for drugs, for they do no one but themselves any harm.
If drugs are a problem -- if they are fueling the violence in Chicago, perhaps you go back to fighting them. The alternative that libertarians would argue for is legalization. If you legalize the drugs, the criminal element no longer has those drugs for industry.
I will only say, for now, that as long as the drugs are illegal, you have to fight the crime, or it will have free rein. Arrest the drug pushers as quickly as we did in times past, convict them as surely as we did back then, and reopen enough prison space to house them.
Drugs? Hire enough police agents to track down the suppliers and dealers. Enforce things seemingly so small as possession (even if you use alternate deterrents instead of incarceration). Work with federal officials to stem the flow of drugs from their source -- Mexico or wherever.
The second item in Alderman Napolitano list of three: Too many guns on the street. I think to skip over this. For the moment, I do not have an answer. I suppose a little bit of an answer is to enforce the laws you have, if you determine they are Constitutional. It is said Chicago has more gun control than most cities, but the laws aren't enforced.
The third item, the large industry of stolen goods. Obviously, you need to better secure your properties, both residential and commercial. Is some of the theft is at gunpoint, during the day, so you cannot just secure the building tightly against walk-in gunmen? More officers, more patrols should at least cut into the problem.
Chicago's problem is drawing national attention. There is concern throughout the nation. The things I mention above are surely being discussed and considered. I would say, do the things that are obvious, but do them quickly. Sitting around and musing at the problem does no good if you don't get right out and get something done.
As in, within months.
You have a crisis, with -- I believe -- 2025 shootings to date. Relying on Alderman Anthony Napolitano as the authority, three things are fueling the violence. One, the large amount of drugs being poured on the streets; Two, a high number of guns being on the streets; and, Three, an out-of-control stolen goods industry.
So, you address each cause.
Drugs, I do not know that the perception that the war on drugs failed didn't result in us relaxing the war on drugs too much. There has also been a resistance to incarcerating too many people, as we have noted more people are incarcerated in America than in other nations. We've had a backlash to that. And, there has been the blossoming of the libertarian belief that it is wrong to toss someone in jail, in the first place, just for drugs, for they do no one but themselves any harm.
If drugs are a problem -- if they are fueling the violence in Chicago, perhaps you go back to fighting them. The alternative that libertarians would argue for is legalization. If you legalize the drugs, the criminal element no longer has those drugs for industry.
I will only say, for now, that as long as the drugs are illegal, you have to fight the crime, or it will have free rein. Arrest the drug pushers as quickly as we did in times past, convict them as surely as we did back then, and reopen enough prison space to house them.
Drugs? Hire enough police agents to track down the suppliers and dealers. Enforce things seemingly so small as possession (even if you use alternate deterrents instead of incarceration). Work with federal officials to stem the flow of drugs from their source -- Mexico or wherever.
The second item in Alderman Napolitano list of three: Too many guns on the street. I think to skip over this. For the moment, I do not have an answer. I suppose a little bit of an answer is to enforce the laws you have, if you determine they are Constitutional. It is said Chicago has more gun control than most cities, but the laws aren't enforced.
The third item, the large industry of stolen goods. Obviously, you need to better secure your properties, both residential and commercial. Is some of the theft is at gunpoint, during the day, so you cannot just secure the building tightly against walk-in gunmen? More officers, more patrols should at least cut into the problem.
Chicago's problem is drawing national attention. There is concern throughout the nation. The things I mention above are surely being discussed and considered. I would say, do the things that are obvious, but do them quickly. Sitting around and musing at the problem does no good if you don't get right out and get something done.
More Boots on the Ground Helps in Policing as Well as in War
If you don't have police, you have crime.
I listened in on Laura Ingraham's town hall in Chicago tonight, learning the city is about 1,000 officers short. The blame was laid at Mayor Rahm Emanuel's feet, with it being noted you would have to ask him why he closed down three police stations.
Since when do you shutter police stations? Since when is that a good idea?
One of Ingraham's guests pointed to three causes: One, A high amount of drugs pouring into the city. Two, a high amount of guns on the streets. Three, A high amount of stolen goods being trafficked.
Some are suggesting more gun control for this city already famous for gun control. I don't know whether gun control is an answer. To me, it seems the greater answer is to hire more police officers, and more detectives to investigate the crimes.
I also consider on the three causes cited by Chicago Alderman Anthony Napolitano. If he is right on the things fueling the violence, obviously you fight to shut off the flow of drugs into the city, you search for ways to reduce the number of guns (okay, I guess you might consider gun control), and you seek to stop the amount of goods being stolen.
Hiring more officers plays into solving two of those three things. More officers gives you better odds at stopping the flow of drugs into the city. More officers gives you more resources to fight the amount of goods being stolen.
In a war, boots on the ground can be a big factor. Put enough boots on the ground that you catch some of the theft as it happens, simply by being in the neighborhood and spotting the crimes as they are unfolding. And, put enough boots in the office that once the crimes are committed, you can track down the criminals and bring them to justice.
Thursday, September 6, 2018
If Your Game is more Important than Your People, Your Nation is Ruined
In a dream I wish I would have had, I saw Colin Kaepernick walking into the stadium tonight, for the opening game of the NFL season.
"Colin, are you going to kneel for the Anthem?" someone yelled.
"Yes, even if I'm in the stands, I'm going to kneel," he said.
"Isn't that disrespectful?" another yelled.
"Kneeling has always been considered a way of showing respect, until now," he replied. "If I kneel, or if one of these guys down here kneels, then they don't count it for much, though, do they?"
"Are you here to see if any of the players will kneel?" someone asked.
"Certainly am," he said.
"Aren't you all washed up?" a guy in a red T-shirt asked.
He didn't answer, but another person in the crowd answered for him: "He's a Superbowl quarterback. He played played well in that game, leading the 49ers back before they lost."
"You a communist?" someone yelled.
He didn't answer.
"You call policemen 'Pigs'?"
"Don't you care about the servicemen who have lost their lives?"
By now, he was being peppered with unfavorable questions. He took some of them, and didn't answer others. Finally, he held his hands out, palms down, as if to say, "Enough."
"Hold on," he said. "Whatever you do or do not like about me, you need to know what this is all about. You speak about our servicemen, and how they have given their lives fighting for freedom. They go to places like Afghanistan, and Iraq, and they fight against the social injustices suffered by the people in those countries."
He paused, then went on. "What about the people suffering injustices here?" he asked. "Do we just tell them to move to another country, and then maybe we'll fight a war for them. But, as long as they are living here, they are none of our concern?"
He looked at the crowd. None of them were saying anything.
"This doesn't make sense," he said. "The soldiers fighting for the rights of those in foreign lands come home heroes. Now, I'm alright with that. But, me? If I stand up for the rights of those here in America, I'm the most unpopular person in the country."
He looked around. Still nobody was saying anything.
"You ought to be with me on this one," he said. "Maybe you don't choose to kneel during the National Anthem, but you ought to be with me. These aren't people in some far away land. These are people right here in America. Some of you have a saying, don't you? What is it, 'America First'? Well, isn't that what you say? These people are your own, don't you care about them?"
Most of the crowd was quiet, but one person spat on the ground and answered Kaepernick. "They're not our own. Don't call them that," he said.
Kaepernick gave him a sharp look, but the man continued. "They're criminals. And, if a police officer tells you to do something, you do it. You don't give him at attitude."
Kaepernick sighed. "Boston," he said. "This league has a team in Boston -- in that area. You know what is happening there? They have about 1,000 unsolved murders in three communities dominated by blacks and immigrants. You ask the police about those murders, trying to learn if they are even investigating them, and they don't even have all the background information on the victims, or if they do, they don't release it. Ask yourself why there should be more unsolved murders there than other places. Are these just poor black people, and they don't matter? It doesn't matter if poor blacks are murdered, so why solve these cases?"
He paused. Looked around. Everyone was quiet.
"Chicago," Kaepernick said. "The NFL has a team in Chicago. A month ago, there were 74 shootings that weekend, 12 of them were fatal. That's equal to a pretty significant mass shooting, isn't it? You go ahead and say we can't blame it on the police, but can we? There are nights when these parts of town have few police on patrol. If you don't have a police presence, you are going to have crime. If you don't care about these people because they are just poor black people -- and you think they are all criminals, at that -- then you aren't going to go help them. Some people say the police are afraid to go into these districts. I don't know; I think they just don't care. One in twenty shooting are solved? What does that tell you? Are they even investigating them adequately? After all, why patrol these neighborhoods and why investigate when these people are murdered? They're just black people, and -- and according to some of you, criminals at that."
As he said the last sentence, he looked straight in the eye at the guy who had said they were not our own people, but just criminals.
Kaepernick was still staring at him, but he continued."If people in Iraq need some help, we'll send an army. But, if its people in Chicago, we might not even have an officer available."
His gaze left the man, and searched the rest of the audience. "Oh, by the way, yesterday, the trial of Jason Van Dyke got underway. He's the Chicago officer accused of murdering LaQuan McDonald. You know him? LaQuan was the guy walking down the middle of the street when the officer unloaded 16 bullets on him, 14 of them after he had already fallen to the ground. That's 16 bullets just for jaywalking."
Kaepernick looked around the crowd, anger in his eyes. "You ask me why I don't salute during the National Anthem. You expect me to salute that? You expect me to salute all that?"
The teams were now coming on the field and lining up. Kaepernick motioned at them. "People will tell you, Don't even roll the cameras for the National Anthem; Just wait and cut straight to the game. This crowd you are all part of, they don't care about people being killed in Boston and Chicago and Ferguson Missouri. 'Leave us alone about all that,' they say, 'We just came to watch a football game.' "
Kaepernick pulled his fist back over his shoulder, as if a football were in his hand, and he was about to throw a strike over the middle. And, he did deliver a strike over the middle, right to the center of their hearts. "If your game is more important than your people, then your nation lies in ruins," he said as he dropped to one knee for the National Anthem.
"Colin, are you going to kneel for the Anthem?" someone yelled.
"Yes, even if I'm in the stands, I'm going to kneel," he said.
"Isn't that disrespectful?" another yelled.
"Kneeling has always been considered a way of showing respect, until now," he replied. "If I kneel, or if one of these guys down here kneels, then they don't count it for much, though, do they?"
"Are you here to see if any of the players will kneel?" someone asked.
"Certainly am," he said.
"Aren't you all washed up?" a guy in a red T-shirt asked.
He didn't answer, but another person in the crowd answered for him: "He's a Superbowl quarterback. He played played well in that game, leading the 49ers back before they lost."
"You a communist?" someone yelled.
He didn't answer.
"You call policemen 'Pigs'?"
"Don't you care about the servicemen who have lost their lives?"
By now, he was being peppered with unfavorable questions. He took some of them, and didn't answer others. Finally, he held his hands out, palms down, as if to say, "Enough."
"Hold on," he said. "Whatever you do or do not like about me, you need to know what this is all about. You speak about our servicemen, and how they have given their lives fighting for freedom. They go to places like Afghanistan, and Iraq, and they fight against the social injustices suffered by the people in those countries."
He paused, then went on. "What about the people suffering injustices here?" he asked. "Do we just tell them to move to another country, and then maybe we'll fight a war for them. But, as long as they are living here, they are none of our concern?"
He looked at the crowd. None of them were saying anything.
"This doesn't make sense," he said. "The soldiers fighting for the rights of those in foreign lands come home heroes. Now, I'm alright with that. But, me? If I stand up for the rights of those here in America, I'm the most unpopular person in the country."
He looked around. Still nobody was saying anything.
"You ought to be with me on this one," he said. "Maybe you don't choose to kneel during the National Anthem, but you ought to be with me. These aren't people in some far away land. These are people right here in America. Some of you have a saying, don't you? What is it, 'America First'? Well, isn't that what you say? These people are your own, don't you care about them?"
Most of the crowd was quiet, but one person spat on the ground and answered Kaepernick. "They're not our own. Don't call them that," he said.
Kaepernick gave him a sharp look, but the man continued. "They're criminals. And, if a police officer tells you to do something, you do it. You don't give him at attitude."
Kaepernick sighed. "Boston," he said. "This league has a team in Boston -- in that area. You know what is happening there? They have about 1,000 unsolved murders in three communities dominated by blacks and immigrants. You ask the police about those murders, trying to learn if they are even investigating them, and they don't even have all the background information on the victims, or if they do, they don't release it. Ask yourself why there should be more unsolved murders there than other places. Are these just poor black people, and they don't matter? It doesn't matter if poor blacks are murdered, so why solve these cases?"
He paused. Looked around. Everyone was quiet.
"Chicago," Kaepernick said. "The NFL has a team in Chicago. A month ago, there were 74 shootings that weekend, 12 of them were fatal. That's equal to a pretty significant mass shooting, isn't it? You go ahead and say we can't blame it on the police, but can we? There are nights when these parts of town have few police on patrol. If you don't have a police presence, you are going to have crime. If you don't care about these people because they are just poor black people -- and you think they are all criminals, at that -- then you aren't going to go help them. Some people say the police are afraid to go into these districts. I don't know; I think they just don't care. One in twenty shooting are solved? What does that tell you? Are they even investigating them adequately? After all, why patrol these neighborhoods and why investigate when these people are murdered? They're just black people, and -- and according to some of you, criminals at that."
As he said the last sentence, he looked straight in the eye at the guy who had said they were not our own people, but just criminals.
Kaepernick was still staring at him, but he continued."If people in Iraq need some help, we'll send an army. But, if its people in Chicago, we might not even have an officer available."
His gaze left the man, and searched the rest of the audience. "Oh, by the way, yesterday, the trial of Jason Van Dyke got underway. He's the Chicago officer accused of murdering LaQuan McDonald. You know him? LaQuan was the guy walking down the middle of the street when the officer unloaded 16 bullets on him, 14 of them after he had already fallen to the ground. That's 16 bullets just for jaywalking."
Kaepernick looked around the crowd, anger in his eyes. "You ask me why I don't salute during the National Anthem. You expect me to salute that? You expect me to salute all that?"
The teams were now coming on the field and lining up. Kaepernick motioned at them. "People will tell you, Don't even roll the cameras for the National Anthem; Just wait and cut straight to the game. This crowd you are all part of, they don't care about people being killed in Boston and Chicago and Ferguson Missouri. 'Leave us alone about all that,' they say, 'We just came to watch a football game.' "
Kaepernick pulled his fist back over his shoulder, as if a football were in his hand, and he was about to throw a strike over the middle. And, he did deliver a strike over the middle, right to the center of their hearts. "If your game is more important than your people, then your nation lies in ruins," he said as he dropped to one knee for the National Anthem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)