JOE MANCHIN 2020!

[Beet]

BLM aren't disputing the statistics that non-police homicide is the number one cause of death for young black males. The difference is that no one endorses gang violence. Your, my, NJ's salaries (or future salary once he gets out of college) aren't going to hire more gang members and give them pensions. The gang members aren't killing people in the name of the public. Similar to cancer, heart disease, and other violent criminals, violent gang members are properly seen as a threat to mainstream society. When a gang member is caught in a killing, they don't get union representation in addition to legal; and they aren't sent back out to rejoin the gang. Rather they are arrested, charged, and very often sentenced to long terms. Treat illegally violent cops the same way and I guarantee things would settle down quick. What BLM is saying is that just because you are charged with enforcing the law, it doesn't make you above the law.

As far as why this issue generates so much anger, it's because when young boys are murdered by the cops and the government either doesn't charge them, or keeps them on the force, or tries to cover it up, the implication is that your own government doesn't consider the lives of your own children worth protecting. Hence, the rather plaintive slogan "Black Lives Matter." You've said you have a son, Fuzzy. How would you feel if our United States government acted as if his life was nothing? Would you be pleased?

[Beet]

BLM aren't disputing the statistics that non-police homicide is the number one cause of death for young black males. The difference is that no one endorses gang violence. Your, my, NJ's salaries (or future salary once he gets out of college) aren't going to hire more gang members and give them pensions. The gang members aren't killing people in the name of the public. Similar to cancer, heart disease, and other violent criminals, violent gang members are properly seen as a threat to mainstream society. When a gang member is caught in a killing, they don't get union representation in addition to legal; and they aren't sent back out to rejoin the gang. Rather they are arrested, charged, and very often sentenced to long terms. Treat illegally violent cops the same way and I guarantee things would settle down quick. What BLM is saying is that just because you are charged with enforcing the law, it doesn't make you above the law.

As far as why this issue generates so much anger, it's because when young boys are murdered by the cops and the government either doesn't charge them, or keeps them on the force, or tries to cover it up, the implication is that your own government doesn't consider the lives of your own children worth protecting. Hence, the rather plaintive slogan "Black Lives Matter." You've said you have a son, Fuzzy. How would you feel if our United States government acted as if his life was nothing? Would you be pleased?

I have three (3) sons, two of whom are adults, one (1) of whom has, indeed, had trouble with the law, and has served some jail time.  I care about all of their lives.  I have real reason to believe that during one arrest, police officers used undue force, and I don't say this lightly.  I should also say that I told my son to immediately go to an ER and document his injuries, and he didn't do so.  He was also quite intoxicated at the time of that arrest, so who knows what happened.  I live in the real world, however.  

That being said, every time an officer shoots and kills a suspect who turns out to be unarmed is not a murder, nor is is always a crime, nor is it always unjustified.

What BLM is, in fact (if not explicitly) asserting is a subject's right to resist a lawful detention or arrest.  Police have the RIGHT to detain persons for any number of lawful reasons, the most common being to issue a traffic citation.  They have the right to detain an individual who is fleeing a crime scene where suspicious activity has occurred, and where police have reason to believe that a person has information on that activity.  They have a right to arrest a subject about whom they have probable cause (a pretty low standard) to believe that a subject committed a crime.  This is hardly an unreasonable concept; police are entitled and empowered to take certain actions to investigate possible crime and they are entitled to give lawful directions to persons,which persons are required to follow, for the sake of ensuring their own safety while investigating a possible crime.

What never seems to be pointed out is that Michael Brown (in Ferguson, MO), an active suspect in a strong-arm robbery of a frail woman at a convenience store at the time of his death, refused to follow the lawful commands of a police officer, and, indeed, presented a threat to that officer's life and safety.  That he didn't have a gun does not make this murder; he was actively resisting the officer with physical force, and his claim of having his hands up saying "Don't shoot!" has been more than adequately debunked as an organized effort of folks making false statements (a crime, btw) about what happened in Ferguson.  

What never seems to be pointed out is that Eric Garner (in Staten Island, NY) was actively resisting a lawful arrest.  Yes, it was a minor misdemeanor, and, yes, the law he was arrested on was, IMO, a "revenue enhancer" (don't sell untaxed cigs), but the arrest of Mr. Garner was lawful.  The choke hold applied to these officers was against NYPD policy, and for that, officers face civil liability and career ramifications, up to and including termination, but it is not an "illegal" choke hold, and it would not have been applied had Mr. Garner not resisted a lawful arrest.  Mr. Garner was a morbidly obese diabetic with hypertension and asthma and over 30 arrests on his record who came down with a case of "I'm not going to jail today!".  What if every criminal suspect took that tack?  How dangerous would law enforcement, as a profession, be then?  How safe would the average citizen be?

I care very much about the rights of the accused.  Folks have the right not to be subjected to force when they are passive and compliant, and they don't have a right to use extra force just because a subject is mouthy and disrespectful.  Putting up with disrespectful jerks is part of their job.  Persons in jail or prison should not be subjected to "punishments" at the whim of officers; confinement is the punishment, in and of itself.  But police have a right to be safe in their persons and a duty to apprehend suspected criminal lawbreakers, at whatever level of resistance they put forth.  To call every incident of a police officer shooting a suspect a "murder" is flat out ignorance; it's just not the case, and to insist that it is, or something close to that is, represents a denial of facts.  SJWs have some valid issues, and those issues (treatment of prisoners, prison privatization, oppressive lenghts of sentencing, racial disparities in sentencing) merit serious discussion.  Calling every police shooting of a suspect a "murder" is just ridiculous, but there are many folks who seek to be uninterested with facts.  Perhaps Joe Manchin, or SOMEBODY, can help bring the Democratic Party to its senses on this matter.

BLM is not saying that people have the right to resist arrest, in any way, shape, or form. They are not saying Michael Brown was right to try to reach into that police officer's vehicle, and they are not saying Eric Garner was right to resist the police, either. Not explicitly, and not implicitly. Every time I've heard an African-American adult who supports BLM talk about what they tell their sons, it's always obey and respect the police, the police can hurt you. It's never any variation of "resist the police."

No one is saying that every time a police officer shoots someone, it's murder, any more than any time someone who is not a police officer shoots someone, it's murder. That would be absurd; might as well take all guns from the police. All BLM is saying, and all I was saying in my post, is that police criminality should be treated the same as any other criminality. Police do have the ability to murder, just as civilians do. Yes, the police do a dangerous job, and they have powers that civilians don't have, and the job they do puts them in situations where they have a greater opportunity to commit murder or otherwise abuse power. That's not unique to police power. Any time someone is given power, they also have the opportunity to abuse it. But that doesn't mean that when they do, they shouldn't be held accountable. To me, when the police drive up to a kid holding a toy up and immediately execute him, that's a mistake. That's unjustified. Is it murder? That's up to the courts to decide. But it might be. All BLM wants is that just because the man who pulled the trigger was a police officer and not a gang member, it doesn't mean he should be more above the law.