What is being demonstrated at this time is the inability for a large number of multiracial individuals all over this country to comprehend the reality of a large number of these black males committing crimes, illegally carrying firearms, and actually attempting to use them, and using them, as was the case in New York and Berkley MO.
It is also a very vivid demonstration that many of these Blacks are using these events as nothing but a rationalization and false reason to go out and act out in an anti-social manner against anything they can attack, loot and destroy. The only positive aspect of these issues are that the entire United States is now able to see how these various groups of certain multiracial demonstrators use any reason or excuse to riot, fight, loot and destroy things in their own neighborhoods no matter what the issue may be that provided them with any possible excuse they can align themselves with throughout the United States.
Michael Brown was committing crimes, Eric Garner was committing a crime, Antonio Martin was committing a crime and yet all of these individuals who are rioting and complaining do not mention the fact that these individuals were committing crimes. Their actions are what what initiated the encounters and then the actions of these criminals is what caused the reactions of the officers who were actually doing their jobs protecting the communities they were sworn to protect.
In addition, when ill informed media commentators ask questions as to whether the weapon was loaded or if the suspect actually fired at the officers before the officer fired at them and killed them continue to put non-relevant ideas into the minds of these already law breaking individuals who are rioting and looting, this causes an additional exacerbation and provides these rioters with more ignorant questions to ask and more ignorant information to use as their fodder for their ill conceived and irrational rioting and lawless actions. That is the other aspect that is inconceivable to view and try to comprehend when mayors sit back the allow these individuals to commit crimes out in the open in a notorious manner on television and order their officers to not take any police action at the peril of the officers on the scenes and the residents whose property and belongings are being looted and destroyed. Is this justice and is this what mayors are elected to do during their tenure?
These mayors are telling the other individuals in their cities to just sit back and not worry because, as one of the borough leaders from New York said "these individuals are just frustrated." I study the law every day and create course, teach university students and law enforcement officers all year long and have a license to practice law and have been an attorney for the past 22 years and I have to tell you that I have never seen an amendment to laws that allow for FRUSTRATION as an affirmative defense to looting, burglarizing, assaulting police officers, delaying traffic, delaying ambulances, fire trucks and police in their response to emergency calls. This is a crime to prevent these responses due to illegally protesting without a permit in the middle of traffic when everyone who is need of these services have the same rights, and in these cases more rights, as the individuals who are illegally demonstrating and rioting. Let there be no mistake of which label needs to be applied to these activities because it is not demonstrating under the First Amendment, it is RIOTING, as was called for by Michael Brown's step-father and was responded to by the crowds present at that original demonstration the night of the verdict which then turned into a complete riot.
It is truly amazing that some of the Borough presidents were actually elected to their positions because they were supposed to be intelligent and sensitive to their all of their constituents. It is mind boggling that theses individuals are blind to the demonstrated facts which were posted on social media by the subject himself who executed the two New York Police Officer. He himself stated that he was going to New York to kill two cops to make up for and in revenge for the killings of Brown and Eric Garner. How much clearer can this be that the Mayor allowing the crowds to break the law in New York when they were demonstrating without a permit and allowing them to make statements about killing cops now had no nexus to this subject deciding to go from Baltimore Maryland to New York City to kill two cops. This subject went through several states before he arrived in Brooklyn and did not kill a cop anywhere except where the crowds were chanting What do we want to kill a cop and when to do we want it now." However, the one consistent black Borough Leader, whose name escapes me but I have watched now for 6 days on CNN, still claims, as does the subject's family that there is no proof that he went to New York to avenge the deaths of Brown and Garner. Can they really expect intelligent and educated people to buy their misrepresentations when the proof is there in writing from the subject himself.
These Borough presidents are also part of the problem because they cannot be open and honest and admit that the people are breaking the law and that comments, and I am so tired of hearing the word rhetoric being used by many people who more than likely never used it before they heard it on the CNN broadcast, that were made directly caused this subject to come to New York. In addition, why did the suspect in Tennessee, who has advised he is going to go to New York to kill cops, choose New York as to where he is going to go to kill cops? I truly believe that someone in 10th grade can figure this out and yet adults cannot do this in a proper manner. Or is it that they do not want to do this because they are more interested in using these events for their own benefit and look good in front of their constituents?
The officer in Berkley Missouri was there on a call he received from his dispatcher and while speaking with the suspect he had a firearm pulled on him and took the proper action he needed to do, and that anyone else would do who was carrying a gun, if someone pulled a firearm on them threatening their lives would have done. Yet, even though this was a clear cut and blatant criminal act perpetrated by an 18 year old Black criminal there were Black rioters that came out immediately seeing another opportunity to show their FRUSTRATION to burn, riot and injure police officers who were doing their job to protect them and their community. This entire event was captured on a neutral video camera and still a Borough leader from New York comments on the response by the rioters spawned by this valid and justified shooting as being an act of these people based upon them being FRUSTRATED. Again, someone please provide me with the reference to see where FRUSTRATION is now an affirmative defense in the United States Legal System.
A very unique idea here would be to approach this from a very logical and legal perspective, which I truly do not, based upon all of the research I have been conducting, and examine how these things occurred and how they would have been different.
Michael Brown; If he did not commit a strong arm robbery and not bully and threaten the store owner after committing this entire situation may have had a completely different outcome due to the Officer seeing the cigarillos in his hand while walking down the middle of the street. If he would have not been walking in the street when there were sidewalks available. It should be noted he was not just walking in the street, he was waling in the MIDDLE of the street. If he would have spoke to the officer, if he would have not attacked the officer and would have followed the orders of the officer where the person being arrested knows the officer is making or attempting to make an arrest and if you are being unlawfully arrested you DO NOT have the right to resist in accordance with the statutory laws in Missouri. Why do so many states in the United Stats have these statutes? Because they wanted to prevent exactly what is happening in these cases with resistance leading to confrontations and the need to use force to the extent of deadly force.
Lets examine the actions of Eric Garner in New York City. He was committing a crime and was told he was going to be arrested and resisted. This was not his first time that he was performing these criminal acts. If he would have complied with the officers orders and allowed them to take him into custody then there would not have been a need for the officers to have had to use force to take down this very big and very heavy man, who was similar in size as Michael Brown. It is very difficult to explain to anyone who has not tried to arrest an individual who is resisting and fighting and to try not to injure or hurt the subject. When I began police work in 1975 and someone was really resisting arrest you would punch the person in the jaw and knock them out and take them into custody. I was in a training session last week for an Under 100 class and one of the videos showed a good sized and in shape officer have a subject come at him and he punched the subject in the jaw and knocked him out and that was the end of the issue. This type of action does not allow for these types of extended altercations usually resulting in the officer being hurt or the subject being hurt or killed. Just complying with the officers orders would have caused the confrontation not to occur and if it down after he complied then the officers would have been in trouble for their actions.
If the rioting which was allowed to occur in Ferguson would have been stopped by the orders of the Mayor and Governor it may have placed a different idea in the mind of Eric Garner to decide to resist and draw a crowd around him during his arrest for him committing a crime. If the rioting in Ferguson and the out of hand illegal demonstrations in New York, with the calling for the killing of cops now, would have been quelled then maybe the subject from Baltimore would not have decided to post that he was going to New York to put wings on two pigs as revenge for the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.
A person yelling fire in a movie theatre is responsible for the results if there was no fire and this is taught in law schools all over the country for decades Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919). However, no one wants to make the nexus or connection between these comments and the resulting actions which were exactly what each called for such as 'Burn this Bitch down" in Ferguson and '
"we want cops to be killed now" in New York. How interesting that the burning occurred a little while after these comments were made in Ferguson and a few days after the comments we want cops killed now two cops are executed in New York City where the comments were made; however, the astute borough presidents and representatives in this area in New York do not see this connections. Is this self-imposed blindness or their real true feelings and mindset coming out notwithstanding them being on world wide television and intelligent and educated people listening to these individuals making these ridiculous comments.
The actions of the New York City Mayor are unprofessional and also biased. You do NOT bring your personal life or family issues into your profession. This is especially true when you are in the middle of a controversial issue which is occurring across the nation. You need to support your employees and need to support the residents you have been elected to represent. You do not have the responsible to take the side of a group of people who are protesting in an illegal fashion, committing crimes by closing down streets and closing down bridges. You do not need to be making comments about how you had to tell your biracial son how to act when encountering police like other parents with black children have had to do for decades. It appears that the mayor is not really prepared to perform the duties of his office and unless he takes a crash course and gets his mind properly focused he is going to have a great deal of issues in the future to deal with on a continuous basis.
How can any progress ever be made if these borough leaders cannot be honest and see the reality of what is occurring and place the blame where it belongs and then move forward.?
References
Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
