Testimony of Mr. Jamiel Shaw

I have nothing to add. This video says it all.


The Fall of Brian Williams

The recent story where Williams made claims to being in Iraq and nearly shot down have led to him being suspended for six months without pay.

It turns out that he has been telling a version of this story for quite some time but none of the versions appear to be remotely truthful. 
Brian Williams, anchor and managing editor of "NBC Nightly News," has been suspended without pay for six months following his continued misrepresentation of events surrounding his coverage of the Iraq War, NBC said Tuesday night.
Just prior to his suspension, he did make an attempt to apologize:

There are now reports suggesting this is not the only time the anchor has taken liberties in telling stories on the air.

I think most all of us expect to hear people embellish their stories. It certainly happens even when it's not intentional because we tend to experience things differently. When someone is directly involved in a situation, their perception is magnified while someone looking from the outside might see the same situation quite differently.

So far it does appear that Williams has indeed been lying but, why? What causes a person who is so widely recognized to lie about anything like this? Is it ego or is it just a need to feel more important? The mistake is certainly one of carelessness.

There is no telling where his career will go from here. It seems as though many are willing to forgive but, will that forgiveness lead to being able to trust again? Whether he comes back or not, he certainly has lost credibility with the public.

It is also clear that Williams needs to work out some matters with himself. More than repairing his image in the public, it will be important for Williams to address some serious issues with himself. He will have to ask himself what led him to make such silly remarks? What caused him to tell a lie to his audience? Only by answering truthfully to himself will he be able to carry on and avoid making any more foolish mistakes.


Why I Cannot Believe Amanda Knox

Amanda Knox Source

This article is written with the assumption that the reader has a general understanding of the case. If you are one of the lucky ones who currently know little to nothing about this case, it might behoove you to just continue ignoring it. I will not be held responsible for any reader being sucked into the Knox-vortex. It is time consuming and life-sucking.


Quick Post Update

I know I've been busy lately.

So far 2015 has been quite busy for me... life seems to be moving pretty fast. I am working on a very large post concerning Amanda Knox.

I will be doing more updates soon but, just wanted to get a post out there and let people who read know I have not meant to ignore my blog.

Hope everyone is having a great New Year!




Happy Festivus! Airing My Grievances

In honor of Festivus I decided to make a list ...

I've got a lot of problems with you people and now you're gonna hear about it!

Don't argue with me. I'm right. If you do these things, I assure you that you are pissing people off and one day you might get punched in the mouth, in which case you would deserve it.

1) Ya know when it's daytime but the sun is covered with a wall of clouds? Overcast. Yeah, during this time about 90 percent of people use headlights, while about 10 percent of you have not only managed to buy a vehicle without daylights but you drive around without putting your lights on. This is absolutely annoying. People cannot see you well and apparently you are shocked when people pull out in front of you. Put your damn lights on, moron. You know damn well people can't see you well and you can see that most everyone else has their lights ON. Just because it's daytime, doesn't mean you don't need your lights. Put them on, a$$clown.

2) You just got done shopping at the grocery store or Walmart and you take your cart outside in order to load your vehicle and then what do you do? Well, if you're a decent person you put the cart back or you can even put the cart in one of the stations that are conveniently located in the damn parking lot.

Of course it never fails whenever I go the super market, some jerk-off always manages to have left their cart in a parking stall prohibiting me from gaining access to that stall. Put the damn cart back, people!

Even worse, after I go to put my cart back, I tend to collect a few on my way, ya know cause I'm a decent person, and some a$$ face decides to put their cart near me because they just expect me to put it back for them. I've even had to snap back at a man doing this, "That doesn't belong there." He somehow looked surprised and finally managed to put his cart in the cart station.

You are not entitled to be a jerk. The world doesn't owe you any favors. Yes, they have people who collect carts but, did you not have a father at home to teach you how to behave appropriately? It's seriously the rudest and laziest type of behavior I witness from week to week. Unload your groceries or whatever and get your fat a$$ moving with the cart and walk the 20 or 30 feet necessary to return the damn cart. It's not that hard. There is NO excuse for your lazy a$$. If you have kids, it's all the more important that you teach them to be decent people, rather then teaching them  to be lazy blockheads.

3) If you or anyone you know decide to walk around at night, it would behoove you to wear light colored clothing. I swear to goodness, I do NOT understand how it is people do not know to wear light colored clothing. You are an idiot who deserves to be hit by a car at night. Crossing in the middle of the street, not even at an intersection AND wearing all black at night is akin to putting your tongue on metal pole in the dead of winter. It's plain stupid.

Teach your children to wear light colored clothing at night, especially if they are going to be out wandering around in the street when the sun is not up. It's not that hard. It's called having common sense but amazingly enough too many people lack.

Okay, that's it for now but, I have a feeling I will be adding to this.

Happy Festivus!!!!


Lena Dunham Meg Lanker -Obsession With Conservative "Rapists"

As I'm sure most of you have heard the name Lena Dunham by now, I decided to weigh in on this story...

Apparently, Lena is a writer for a TV show. I don't know. Honestly, I looked her up, never heard of her, never heard of her show either. I really don't watch TV much so, it's not surprising that I have never heard of her. It seems she is quite loved by many in Hollywood and appears to be revered as some typical leftist/feminist. The very first time I heard about her was over a book she wrote this last year, "Not That Kind of Girl."

The first wave of attention was garnered over some passages in her book that referred to her relationship with her sister. In the book she makes some unusual statements about growing up with her younger sister and exploring her sister's body. Okay, we've all heard of children who sex-play but the stories that are in Dunham's book are unnecessary and creepy.

She claims she would bribe her sister with candy in order to kiss her. She also states that she would lie in bed with her sister while she would sex-play with herself and even goes so far as to describe herself as behaving much like a sexual predator.

The worst of all these jaw-dropping confessions has to be:
One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist, and when I saw what was inside I shrieked. “My mother came running. “Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!” 
My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things that I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been such a success.
When Lena was criticized about these passages and their undeniable creepy and bothersome imagery, she lashed out. She took to Twitter and went into what she referred to as a "rage spiral" because apparently this woman has never been criticized for her behavior and even more vexing is the fact that she believes her actions to have been normal.

Let me just tell you what I find terribly alarming. The way Lena writes this passage conjures up images of erotica. "Carefully spread... She didn't resist..." The child is one year old, she is likely accustomed to having her diaper changed. The addition of describing her sister not resisting is superfluous and smutty.

Then she goes on to say her mother didn't even ask her why she was looking at her sister because "This was within the spectrum of things that I did"? Why would a mother accept this as appropriate behavior? What on earth is the matter with her mother? The passage forces us to question this mother since a child of one year is not prone to stuffing things into their private area.

Where does a one-year-old gather pebbles, then later place them inside their vagina, and somehow have the acumen of believing they were playing a prank? Huh? I guess because her mother is apparently a brain-dead idiot, Lena thought her audience would also believe such an insipid story. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a few neurons that either she or her mother were placing objects inside of that poor baby's vagina. So yes, this story should indeed cause one to be alarmed. Why Lena is so shocked by the reaction she received only shows how truly sheltered  this woman has been up until now. Of course the other explanation is she just made the whole thing up.

Just as the dust was settling from these passages, more claims from her book about a man raping Lena while she attended college began to be discussed in the news.

As for this story, Lena offers up some pages describing a bad date. A man named Barry who was a ...wait for it.... CONSERVATIVE on her very liberal Oberlin College campus, who wore purple cowboy boots, had a mustache, worked at the school library, and had a voice like Barry White took her out and then had rough sex with her. She later confesses in the book that the sex was not only rough but unwanted.

As it turns out, there was indeed a Barry that went to Oberlin during the time period she describes and he was indeed a prominent conservative on campus. There were no other Barry's at the college during that time and certainly no other conservatives that even remotely fit into her description of who this man was. Breitbart's website did an exclusive story about figuring out who this "Barry" character was. The man they found has no idea who Lena is and he has been fighting to clear his name. For months he tried getting Random House (the publisher), and Dunham to clear his name.

On September 30th, 2014 Lena's book was released. It would be the the first week of October that Barry would contact an attorney about clearing his name. Not until Dec 8th and 9th would Random House and Dunham publicly clear Barry's name. Random House has also offered to pay any legal fees Barry has incurred. Lena writes:
To be very clear, “Barry” is a pseudonym, not the name of the man who assaulted me, and any resemblance to a person with this name is an unfortunate and surreal coincidence. I am sorry about all he has experienced.
Her article carries on about her and her views and her ideas. She offers no empathy for the man she very clearly set-up from the beginning. If the man wasn't Barry, then why did you chose that name? Why was this man her target? Is it because she has such a hatred of conservatives she believed it to be funny to ruin an innocent man's life, rather than go after the ACTUAL man that violated her? Or is this just a made up story created to attack her adversaries?

Here's another passage that bothers me:
I have a certain empathy for the journalists who asked me questions like whether I regret how much I drank that night or what my attacker would say if he was asked about me. These ignorant lines of inquiry serve to further flawed narratives about rape, but these people are reacting to the same set of social signals that we all are — signals telling us that preventing assault is a woman’s job,..."
Yes, yes, it IS a woman's job to do whatever she can to prevent an assault. I don't understand how feminists can preach to people about empowerment and then drop the ball when it comes to advocating for women to empower themselves by taking care of themselves, protecting themselves. I agree, there are many cases in which a woman will be assaulted no matter what. If a guy is interested in raping a woman, it's likely he will find a way to do it. However, women DO need to take responsibility for their actions and they do need to do whatever they can to prevent themselves from being attacked. Be alert; don't get wasted in public or at a party; don't accept drinks from strangers; don't leave your drink unattended; don't use drugs. Also, be a friend. If you're out with a friend, watch them. Don't ever just drop someone off and drive off - wait for them to enter their home.

No, I'm not saying blame the victim but if you know damn well how certain actions are perceived then don't give anyone the fuel for those harsh assertions to be made in the aftermath. We ALL make mistakes and we ALL do foolish things but, if we can limit these mistakes by learning from them, we can limit the chances of those mistakes turning into life-changing moments.

Interestingly, Lena also made some small headlines by hiring on artists to perform at her tour. Multiple cities and multiple performances for no pay! Mind you, Lena is not hurting in the money department and can easily afford to pay these opening acts yet it wasn't until pressure was applied that she finally submitted and agreed to compensate those artists with money for their performances.

Lena's case is not the only case where a liberal woman makes accusations about a unnamed conservative - meet Meg Lanker.

Earlier in 2014, this young liberal college student thought it would be entertaining to go onto a Facebook page called UW Crushes. This page is for students who attend University of Wyoming and want to post about their crushes. One scathing and alarming post read:
“I want to hate f--- Meg Lanker-Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican b----” [sic]
Well, Meg found out about this post and created her own response:

                                                                                                    Ethics Alarms

Well, it turns out that Meg wrote this to herself. Yes, this woman decided to write a hate post to herself and then she turned around and responded to her own threat.

"Remember, there was a creeper that took the time to think this up and type it..." Yes and that creeper was Meg herself.

Even more disturbing is the fact that Meg has been in trouble before. In 2006, she decided to point a gun at her ex-boss, a man who had previously fired her.
Lanker-Simons “admitted to having (a) gun in (her) purse and pulling it out and waving it around (the) victim,” according to the affidavit. 
She pled guilty and received six- years of probation. At the time, Lanker-Simons went by the name Meghan Michelena, according to the Laramie Boomerang.

It's easy to look at these woman and dismiss them as being stupid, fat, man-hating feminists. I'll admit, I have a habit of lobbing insults from time to time. However, this salty language does nothing in a productive sense. So setting the easy insults aside, one must ask - what the hell is going on here?

You would think that Dunham and Lanker would have some cognizance of the fact that false allegations ultimately end up hurting women who are true victims. Is it any wonder that so many people immediately become skeptical the moment someone is accused of rape, when many of the cultural references we have end up being false?

In November of 2014 Rolling Stone published a now-infamous article entitled, A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA. The story is emotionally-packed concerning a young girl named Jackie who attends the University of Virginia. She describes a horrific scene that played out one evening at a frat house party where she was drugged and finally raped by several of the fraternity members.

The story is compelling and easy to believe. Anyone who has attended a frat party can relate to the confusing ambiance that seems to be a universal trait of such parties. Young freshman girls offered hard-liquored drinks disguised as fruity refreshments and being led off to the rooms on a higher floor can been seen as commonplace. The point is, when reading the story, it seemed possible even probable.

Yet, after the story was published the details were called into question. The story that Jackie told Rolling Stone was not the same one offered up to her friends that night. Her friends did not notice any blood on her and they deny ever encouraging her to keep her mouth shut, rather they wanted to take her to the hospital. There are also discrepancies about who she named as her attackers. In any case, you can read more about it elsewhere but, the main issue here is that her story has turned out to be generally false and cannot be confirmed. Again, I have to ask - what the hell is going on here?

Why would any woman feel some benefit for themselves or for others by making false accusations?

Take the recent case of Bill Cosby. None of the accusations have been taken seriously until now and it's only because multiple women have been victims. Without those other women corroborating the stories, I'm afraid that nobody would ever believe these women.

Rape is indeed something very serious and it can only be taken seriously when real victims come forward, not those that seek to be victims in order to catch headlines to further some delusional political agenda. Are these women so spiteful and filled with hate of conservatives and/or men that they felt it would be funny or a positive thing to falsely accuse a conservative of making threats or rape? How did they believe things would play out? Did they really believe they were so slick that they would outsmart everyone and get away with destroying lives over their obsessive hate? Where is the liberal outrage? Why are there not other liberals standing up and demeaning these women for ultimately hurting real victims?

I'm unsure about the Jackie-story. There is no indication that politics had anything to do with the accusation but certainly the fact that the story appears to be a hoax about rape is what makes the story another distraction that ultimately hurts victims and helps perpetrators go untouched.

I can't think of anything more hateful than launching a full-on false accusation campaign against a group of people for the sole purpose of advancing an agenda. I would hope that this is not the type of behavior that most liberals approve of but so far, it seems like many on the left side seem to not have much of a problem with Dunham or Lanker. In fact, some people are actively supporting these two and even congratulating them for their bravery?!

It is a bit odd, isn't it? I would say that both of these women indeed need help and it's clear from Dunham's stories along with her unusual parents that either she was abused or she did engage in abuse. I'm not quite sure. If Lena were a young boy who did exactly the same thing with her sister, would the same people supporting her, claiming she did nothing wrong, be saying the same thing? Or worse if Lena were  a Republican saying these same things, would these same people insist she did nothing wrong? "Oh she was just exploring." Would that truly be the answer they would give? I think not.

It seems as if neither of these women have been criticized before. They have led a life that allows them to believe they did nothing wrong. Portraying oneself as a victim of a man is somehow endearing and should be congratulated. Lanker has even been rewarded for her blog, while Lena's book continues to gain attention and praise. They are drama queens who are desperate for attention.

In the end we have to keep things into perspective. We must acknowledge that these woman do not speak for all woman. We must also encourage women to take charge of their own lives, do everything they can do to personally ensure their own safety and to speak up when it's appropriate.

To those women who would falsely accuse someone of such a horrific crime for the sake of politics, for the sake of attention, YOU are the problem and YOU are the ones making life out there for REAL victims painful. You are causing real victims to stay silent while perpetrators are free to attack again. Please stop. Get help because you are doing nobody any favors. The ends do not justify the means.


Lena Dunham's father is an artist of some kind. If you'd like to view his "work" which resembles something a child would draw, you can click here. Be aware that many of these paintings are quite perverted and are NSFW.











When All They Can Do Is Call You a Racist Part II

So, my first article was okay but I feel as if perhaps I've left some things out so I will just continue here...

1) I feel this entire Ferguson episode can be looked upon as an opportunity for conservatives to better engage in dialogue with many blacks. We first need to acknowledge, there is a segment of the black population that does indeed feel as though the system is against them. Whether this feeling is justified or not, we must at least acknowledge this.

Putting aside our egos, even our ideology for a moment can give us an opportunity to further investigate the problems and concerns that many black people have. Let's think of honest, sincere ways to inform blacks that we are not racist; we are not against them; we as conservatives are actually quite inclusive of all people. The time has come for us to all learn how to better communicate with those that feel so oppressed.

2) Try to keep the argument focused. Yes, black on black crime does occur in larger numbers but, bringing up this fact seems to be quite unproductive in any conversation. I have stated before in the previous article that this merely appears as if we are trying to move away from the original argument.

The first focus needs to be about asserting the importance of equal treatment for all. In our courts a man is innocent until proven guilty. While our justice system is not perfect, it is one of the best for this reason. Every man deserves to be treated equally under the law.

2) I do believe that racism still exists however, I feel as though people have a right to be stupid. I do not condone the behavior of certain folks who are publishing information about people who's opinions they do not like and view as being racists for the purposes of trying to get these people fired from their jobs.

There is a website that is currently browsing social media - mostly Twitter and Facebook and then taking the time to try and locate where these people live, work, and their phone numbers. Even worse, they are publishing scripted phone calls where a person is encouraged to call the person's place of employment and proceed to try and get them fired. While I agree that most the posts are overtly racist and distasteful, while I was browsing the website it appears as though they have already had to make a correction since one of the accounts they "exposed" was actually hacked by someone else. Not only did the person have to deal with her account being hacked, she was further harassed by this mob on the internet, until they were informed of the hack.

Let's agree, we hate racists. However, there is a danger in going after a man's ability to provide for his family. Putting a man or woman out of job is not going to help them - it's going to hurt us all. Furthermore, if they are already racists, you have permanently assured everyone that they will remain racists because of these actions.

Another problem is that the internet can only give you so much information. The details of a person's address or place of employment could be real, could be fake, could be old and outdated - we just do not know. So, if the information is outdated, a person who has absolutely NOTHING to do with the racist posts via social media could end up being harmed or harassed for doing nothing.

No, I'm sorry. I might hate racists just as much as the next person but, I believe in dealing with people directly or if it's over the internet, just block them and leave them alone. Isolating these people is not only the best for your sanity but, for everyone in general.

3) "Robbing a store doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered!"  No, of course robbing a store is not grounds for being killed. Again, I suppose some depraved people out there do feel this way but I can say that for myself and many others, this is not at all what anyone is suggesting.

The point of bringing up the robbery is that is demonstrates a state of mind that Brown possessed that day and perhaps in general. As far as I know, Brown's record - if he has one - has not truly been vetted. It's tough for me to watch that video of him robbing and grabbing the clerk and think, "Oh, this must be his first offense." Call me crazy but that didn't look like a first-timer move. It's clear he did not have much respect for other people, their property, the law, and certainly no respect for authority.

It's clear that Brown and his friend were walking down the middle of the road. It's also been established that the two of them did not comply with the officer's request to get on the sidewalk. We also know from witnesses and from forensics that there was indeed a scuffle in or around the door of Officer Wilson's vehicle and that's Brown's DNA was found all over the interior door of the vehicle, on the door handle, and on the uniform of Officer Wilson.

Excerpt from Witness 44 interview #2, referencing the actions of Brown:
Yeah, like just instantly the car..pulled backwards, he just instantly like ran to the window like he had something to say to him.
4) There is more testimony and of course the documents have been released. What is important here is that when we have several different witnesses we must understand a few important points:

A) Witnesses can only provide a unique and limited perspective. This basically means that one witness on one side of an altercation or event will have a different view, a unique view, when compared to another witness who is positioned in another area. It is because of this that witnesses can often have differing testimony yet, they are describing the same event.

B) All people are prone to having biases. This is always present and biases can even present themselves when there is absolutely no reason or no emotional attachment to the event or situation. Confirmation bias is what occurs when we have an idea in our mind and instead of applying a true-test methodology to falsify our idea, we often end up merely confirming what we believe.

Let me give you an example of how confirmation bias works. Keep in mind that the following is NOT an intelligence test. It is merely to demonstrate bias. Here is a statement I am trying to TEST:

If a card has the letter A on it, than it will have an 8 on the other side. 

I have four cards that I place in front of you. You are allowed to chose two of them to test this statement. The cards are as follows:

A              J               2                 8

Looking at the cards, which two would you use to test the statement given above? You can go ahead and give yourself some time to think but also think about WHY you are choosing the cards.

(scroll down)

What did you guess? If you are like most people, you will chose the card with the letter A and the one with the number 8. We tend to do this because the original statement gave us both the letter A and the number 8. Without realizing it, by choosing these cards, we are confirming our bias. In essence we find ourselves trying to confirm the statement rather than testing it.

In order to test the statement, "If a card has the letter A on it, than it will have an 8 on the other side," we have to try and falsify it, not support it. The statement says, "If A, than 8" ...so choosing A is necessary because it fulfills the qualification of the statement. We would not chose J because even if it did have the number 8 on the other side, the statement never mentioned anything about the letter J, it mentions only A as a necessity.

Now, if we chose 8 and turn the card over and find an A, that only confirms our BIAS. It could be only a mere coincidence that we find an A, and if we find another letter, that leaves us with the same problem we would have if we chose the J card. The statement only says, "If A, than 8..." so again, because the statement does not say anything about another letter, it would prove/disprove nothing.. Instead we must turn over the 2 and only then if we turn over the card and find the letter A could we prove the statement, or conversely if we found another letter we would disprove the statement - hence, a true-test.

So what's the point here? The point is that you have no attachment whatsoever to this problem. In fact, you could care less about these cards or this experiment yet, if you are like most people, you naturally have a bias of some sort. It's just natural. Our brains like to fill in what we think should be there based on other information given to us. Since the information given used the letter A and the number 8, we naturally assumed that those would be the cards we would use to test the statement.

When you have a case that was so emotionally charged from the beginning and stories being told all around about who did what and when and how, it's hard for some witnesses to be truly objective about what they witnessed. They may fill in details in order to satisfy those around them. Nobody wants to be perceived as the "weird one" or the odd person out. People like to conform; it's a part of evolution and survival. Biases are natural and whenever we consider any witness, we must always understand that this does occur. Again, this is yet another reason we find that multiple witnesses can often have great disparities about what they saw.

If a person has a biased opinion of police in general, their minds will have a difficult time with looking objectively at an event.  A person might "fill-in" details that confirm their bias about cops. Any action by a police officer can then be interpreted as being something quite negative.

We now understand that bias can happen when we are not even aware, so imagine how hard it is for someone to ignore their bias when a case like this is extremely emotional and political?

The fact that there were indeed African-American witnesses that conclusively support the police officer's version of the story, and are quite similar, makes these witnesses extremely credible.

C) When police investigate, they too may have biases so, they must "test" each of the statements given to them. The investigation in this case shows that the witnesses' statements were indeed helpful but ultimately it would be the forensics that filled in the information, giving a full picture of what occurred.

D) Witnesses are important only to a certain degree. Both the defense and prosecution can use witnesses for support or to debunk claims made by the other side. In the end however, eye witnesses can be notoriously unreliable. It really depends on the case, where it occurred, when it occurred, and the circumstances surrounding the event or crime. This leads to the next point...

5) Our best evidence comes to us through forensics. Objective evidence can be collected and tested in the lab. DNA for example is not bias. Either the DNA matches the suspect or it does not. In this case the autopsy is the most comprehensive objective evidence we have. Now of course interpretations of an autopsy can produce bias and this is why multiple autopsies were performed.

In this case, we do know that Brown was not shot from behind; he was not shot while the officer was standing above him; he was not shot with his hands up. While witnesses can help support this, it is not necessary since the autopsies confirm these facts.

6) Evaluation of objective evidence and witness testimony can determine credibility. There were several problems with witnesses during the investigation. These issues were exposed during interviews and during the Grand Jury procedure. For example, witnesses made statements based on assumptions.

Grand Jury Volume XVI October 27, 2014 Page 77:
Q. So it was after you learned that the things that you said you saw couldn't of had happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen? 
A. Yeah, to coincide with what really happened.

This is just ONE example and let me tell you, the further I went along in reading the volumes that were published the more clearer it became just how utterly ridiculous this entire case was from the beginning.

7) There is a sad story that underlines this entire case. The fact is, we have people who were afraid to go to the police for fear of being harmed and we have youth who believe that they should never trust the police nor should they respect the police. These are very real and serious issues that need to be addressed.

It's definitely time to open up a dialogue. I can only hope that there will be enough people interested in actually taking the time to listen, rather than spending their time shouting out catchy phrases about injustice or name-calling.

Eric Garner, another man who died after being arrested by the police caught the attention of many after that Grand Jury returned a no indictment ruling on the police in that incident.

In that case, Eric was a career criminal selling cigarettes in an illegal manner. He refused to comply with authorities and as such he was placed in a hold and taken down. This action has been blamed as the cause of his death. Medical attention was given and he died en route to the hospital.

It's fairly certain the man would not have died under normal circumstances. Eric was an extremely obese man who suffered from asthma and other health problems. Had he cooperated with authorities, there would have been no need to take him down in the manner that was presumed. It seems to have been his intimidating size that prompted the police to take the actions they did.

One could easily argue Garner should not have been arrested in the first place. That would require a discussion on our current over-reaching laws. However there is no denying that a person really takes their own lives in their hands when they forcibly refuse to be arrested.

It is quite doubtful that race was involved as some motivating factor with the police in either of these cases yet, the racist narrative seems to be the only one considered by many people.

Racism can very well be a factor in some cases where the person being arrested is of a different skin color than the arresting officer. Police brutality can and does occur. However, each case must be looked at objectively and individually. Many actions by police are indeed justified and they are motivated by circumstance, not race.

How can we move forward in our discussions? How can we better acknowledge the full picture and communicate with those who are only seeking to confirm their bias, rather than looking objectively at the facts?

Links and Resources: 





  The Alternative Conservative                  

Get Our Latest Posts Via Email - It's Free

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner