The “Nigga Moment.” It still fascinates me. But keep in mind I’m not so much taking a position on these sorts of racial issues, as just free-styling an historical and sociological background in which to evaluate them.
The latest spinoff of the pop saga of the angry, white racist cop who kills innocent black baby boys for sport, is the sad story of Walter Scott. While this dramatic, heart-rendering narrative, is not entirely unfounded as an historical theme, it is at this point largely a load of self-serving hyperbole and excuse-making on the part of the criminal, ignorant, and violent elements of the “black community.” In many cases it is furthered and escalated to hysterical levels by well-meaning but ill-informed sane and civilized African American’s who are on the one hand the very victims of their own community’s criminals, yet on the other hand, for reasons of misplaced loyalty, feel obligated to defend these very elements.
At the heart of this self-hating, guilt-driven sentiment is the notion: “There but for the grace of God go I.”
The “hood” is owed. The “hood” with all its lack of opportunity for jobs and education is the cause of all the “black community’s” problems. If I can fix the “hood” I can fix the world for every black person in America. The notion that the “black community” creates the “hood,” rather than the “hood” creating the “black community” is entirely beyond their grasp. There is something about the “hood” they imagine, that makes black people be the way they are. They are merely the product of this disadvantaged environment. The fact that nobody’s forcing them to stay there never motivates them to leave, no matter how impoverished or disenfranchised or un-empowered, repressed or oppressed they claim to be there.
In my own suburban neighborhood, black flight to the suburbs is driven openly according to most black proponents, by the express desire to escape the “hood,” and the last thing my black neighbors want to do is bring the “hood” with them. The hood is full of their idiot cousins, and nobody’s in a big hurry to relocate these idiots to the ‘burbs. Not because they’re black–because they’re black and idiots. Violent, criminal idiots. If being educated, employed, affluent, literate and informed makes you less “black,” then that’s just the price these “Uncle Toms” are willing to pay.
As I write this, I’m listening to Dr. Benjamin Carson declare his candidacy for the United States’ presidency. Carson is one of the highest paid, most internationally respected authorities on brain surgery. He also grew up in the “hood” of all “hoods,” Detroit. Went to all the same schools as any other oppressed, hopeless little black kid. Somehow, Ben Carson never ended up an ignorant, dead thug in the middle of the street with all his homies holding their hands up for the cameras and burning down the Kwik Trip.
How is this possible? And why is it the “black community” so keen to “Uncle Tom” guys like Carson out. Guys like Colon Powell, Clarence Thomas, or any other “black” success story that doesn’t overtly embrace the notion that the only reason the “black” man can’t get ahead in this country is due to white racism.
Ironically, this narrative is arguably even more vehemently injected, fabricated, rationalized, justified, promoted, inflated and perpetuated by self-hating white liberals, many of them too young to have any idea what the Civil Rights Movement was about or what America’s actual social conditions were before and during it, hence, they all too eagerly swallow whatever the “black community’s” “leaders” are serving up. A case in point illustrating the latter would be the incoming replacement for John Stewart on the Daily Show, Trevor Noah, who upon being introduced to his new audience put his hands in the “hands up–don’t shoot” position, (which never happened) and joked that he never thought he’d be more afraid of cops in America than he was in his native South Africa.
Now, many readers at this moment might find that reference amusing, but it would take a whole other essay to illustrate the ignorance of that “joke” by exposing the sheer white-on-black horror of the South African social and political genesis from Apartheid to whatever you call it now. Or more pertinently, the even more heinous black-on-black horror perpetrated by Saint Nelson Mandela and his little, murderous wife, Winnie. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/new-daily-show-host-trevor-noah-recently-trashed-americans-as-stupid/
And of course, there is also the question of whatever the “black community” really is as a practical matter these days, because there are two or three “black communities” in reality–one of which is apparently stuck in a time warp, where it subsists on a modern, neo-socialist public welfare system in the “hood,” and yet complains as if it were still being horse-whipped and forced to pick cotton from sunrise to sunset, live on table leavings of the “master,” and scrub a meager subsistence out of all the crap food white folks won’t eat and jobs the white man won’t stoop to do. This “black community” is husbanded by “black leaders” like Al Sharpton, who make a handsome living riling up the natives, promoting riots and mayhem, servicing murderers and apologists for murderers, and extorting guilt money or protection money out of “The Man.” But there is another “black community” that has become just plain successful Americans who now have little in common with the “hood,” being several generations from it. Some of these are so out of touch with their own history, like Oprah Winfrey for example, who is worth 2.6 billion dollars, that they think “racism” is exemplified by a Swiss clerk in an exclusive Zürich boutique suggesting she consider a $10,000.00 handbag, instead of the $38,000.00 one she wanted to ogle.
And then there are the offspring of the “just plain successful American” black community. That’s a mix often falling into the same socio-political/psychological gestalt of the younger generation of self-hating white liberals. They hate their “bougie black” parents and call them “Toms” and sellouts. I suppose if they had the right encouragement they’d be spouting Winnie Mandela slogans and lighting up their mom and dad in a tire necklace. They do in fact, spout Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X, and yet, have no idea that either of them would probably bitch-slap them across the room for most of the truly lazy, stupid demands they’re making on the “white man,” in lieu of getting their precious asses out of bed in the morning and getting a job or going to school or both.
On 4 April 2015, North Charleston South Carolina police officer Michael T Slager, 33, pulled over Walter Scott, aged 50, over for a routine broken tail light infraction. A few moments later, Slager shot at Scott eight times after a scuffle, as Scott fled the officer. Or so the video quickly released to the public on its own suggests. But the truth is, he’d already fled officer Slager. When this video starts, Slager had just caught up with him and apparently tried to Tase him into submission with little or no effect. The video itself establishes that when the Taser failed, the officer was first clearly attempting to hang on to Scott and detain him by non-lethal means. Granted, I’m about the only one exploring these details so far in this light, but this is going to be an important point when the case comes to court. I’m just giving you a “heads up” so you won’t be too disappointed. With this video alone, I can almost guarantee that even second degree murder is a stretch. Manslaughter might even be an overcharge. Racism isn’t even going to come into it once again. But don’t take my word for that. This isn’t the only video. The dash-cam footage is even more helpful to this police officer.
Scott was hit in the back five times from a distance of 10-40 feet, the last two of which were later ruled to have been (either of them) fatal. Now, the Mike Brown case was first to raise the seemingly intuitive (to the ignorant) but illogical claim that a cop shooting a suspect eight times is inherently unfair and excessive. The public apparently watches too many old gangster films where a cop puts a .38 Special slug in a guy’s leg or shoulder, and he immediately puts his hands up and says, “You got me. I surrender.” Unfortunately for that argument, as this video shows, the cop’s first six shots of what was almost certainly the fairly hefty .40 Smith and Wesson, at fairly close range had no effect on the suspect whatsoever.
The reality of marksmanship on the fly, is that you don’t hit what you’re aiming at most of the time so you keep aiming and shooting till the target stops moving, which is exactly what this officer did. Again, having decided to use deadly force, this is simply proper procedure. (I’m not qualified to debate the issue of whether or not this case presents a valid reason for using deadly force because it all may be justified by police procedure and policy and dismissed as a “bad call” but little more.) The object of shooting at a suspect is not to get him to put his hands up and say, “OK, OK, fair enough, you got me.”
Likewise, the popular sentiment is that shooting a suspect in the back is inherently unfair and excessive. But in the words of Raylan Givens, “If you wanted me to shoot you in the front, you should’a run towards me.”
Unlike most of the other recent, high-profile boasted instances of “cop execution” of young black men, this incident was fortunately recorded by a passer-by on his phone camera, and the video went viral by the next day or so. Scott was also a mature adult, who at least initially responded to officer Slager’s routine detainment quite politely. Specifically because of the release of the video to the public, the officer was immediately arrested and charged with murder. The local mayor and police chief made a national spectacle of how outraged they were. The investigation was immediately surrendered to South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, and federal investigators. The local cops and prosecutors backed as far away from it as they could, and both mayor and police chief sternly denounced Slager essentially as a murdering fiend on national and local media. Officer Slager was later fired. That too was quickly announced to the public media.
Now, when I say the incident was “recorded,” that’s not entirely true. Only roughly 20 seconds of the actual interchange was caught by the witness, Feidin Santana. His total video runs about 3 minutes. The first, most critical part of the encounter was obscured by trees and bad camera movements. Then, as the camera stops blurring and the trees move clear of the lens, we see a flicker of what looks like a scuffle between the officer and Scott at its very instant of conclusion, Scott apparently having just broken away. Something flies off to the right and there is some large black object on the ground near Scott’s feet. Still frames at the start of the breakaway show what looks like a taser wire connecting Scott with the officer.
It’s also very curious the story Santana told the media. By his own account he did see a scuffle. And even more curious, is the detail that Feidin Santana claims he handed the footage to the family, and the family claims to have delivered it to the police, and yet, hours later an “anonymous” source had delivered it to the New York Times.
The video, taken on a cell phone by witness Feidin Santana, shows Slager firing eight shots atScott, the father of four children, as he ran away. The Post and Courier reported that Scott was shot multiple times in the back, according to Charleston County Coroner Rae Wooten. His death was ruled a homicide.
In the three-minute video, Slager can be seen approaching Walter Scott after shooting him, yelling at him to “put your hands behind your back.” Scott is motionless, face down on the ground. Slager then handcuffs Scott as another officer, Clarence Habersham, comes to help Slager.
The video was released to the media on Tuesday by an anonymous source. Santana, who recorded the video gave it to Scott’s family, who turned it over to law enforcement, officials said.
Santana told NBC News he was walking to work when he saw Slager chasing Scott. He began recording when he heard Slager try to use the Taser.
He said he heard no warnings from the officer before he fired. None can be heard in the video.
Santana said the officer “made a bad decision,” and “you pay for your decisions in this life.” He told Scott’s family he didn’t release the video immediately because he wanted to see how police handled the case.
“He wanted to see what reports were coming from the North Charleston Police Department because of the fact that they may have told the truth,” Scott’s brother told TIME on Wednesday. “And when they continued with the lies, he said, ‘I have to come forward.’”
“It’s not about race. It’s about power,” attorney L. Chris Stewart, the Scott’s attorney told the Los Angeles Times. “That officer thought he could just shoot this man. He thought Mr. Scott was expendable.”
The popular contention is, without the video we’d never know what really happened and the officer would never be charged with anything:
“What if there was no video? What if there was no witness? Where would we be without that video,” Justin Bamberg said at a presser with the family on Tuesday night. Bamburg is one of the Scotts’ family attorneys and also represents South Carolina’s House District 90.
Family attorney L. Chris Stewart called the witness who recorded the video a “hero,” saying that video evidence disproved initial reports that Scott reached for the Slager’s Taser.
Stewart added that the witness is working with investigators and may eventually come forward. Bamberg told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell that the witness contacted the family following the shooting. They were the first to watch the video.
“If there was no video, I do not believe that officer would be in jail,” Bamberg said. “From what the video shows, I think that provides the necessary ammunition to hold this officer accountable.”
The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, a state agency also known as SLED, was later contacted and promptly launched an investigation.
“I don’t think anybody can see that and not see that what that officer did was murder Mr. Scott in cold blood,” Bamberg said. “What would have happened if this witness did not have the courage to stand up and do the right thing and decide that what he witnessed was wrong? I’m glad we don’t have to ponder that.”
The truth here again is, Michael Slager is essentially a political prisoner. The video record substantiates most of Michael Slager’s story, as does both the “eye witness'” testimony and the dash-cam. Oh yes, there’s dash-cam video. A couple of them.
The officer apparently claimed that the suspect “got” his Taser over the radio, and much is made of him later moving it, or something else near the body. But of course that’s huffing out shorthand to his fellow officers in the heat of the chase and struggle. What the video and Santana’s account do establish is that the Taser was in play, apparently deployed on the suspect without subduing him, that the suspect wrestled with the officer over the Taser, and that something, part of the Taser system and possibly other parts of the officer’s duty belt equipment went flying off onto the ground. So perhaps the suspect didn’t “get” as in “take” the Taser, but he did apparently disable it. Was that actually a lie on the part of the officer, or just semantic games being played on the part of those in a position to have to placate potential rioters?
Likewise, when the Taser went out of play, the officer clearly first tried to lay hands on the suspect, but again this ended with the suspect breaking free and running. (And this is quite clear in the video if you break it down to individual frames.) The question remaining then, is why did this officer at that moment decide to use deadly force to stop this suspect?
The officer is alleged to have said he felt in danger for his life. Well, at the moment of the shooting perhaps this wasn’t very evident, but we didn’t see the level or length of his entire struggle with Scott. What we do see of it suggests it was pretty furious, that Scott may have grabbed at guns and Tasers and a lot of things, and that the officer was obviously unable to achieve any level of control or superiority over the suspect. It’s entirely plausible that officer Slager was well into a “fight mode” and genuinely concerned about this perpetrator getting at his weaponry or overpowering him right up to the time he broke and ran. There’s nothing implausible about that at all even with the video–it’s largely supported by the video.
But what may seem to us as casual viewers like plenty of time to think about what to do next, rather than just start shooting, would have flashed by in an instant to a police officer in “fight mode.” In reality the decision to resort to the firearm was probably made during the fight. The moment Scott flung himself free and ran, Michael Slager pulled his weapon and fired it–that does not constitute any sort of pondering and reasoning time. For a civilian, yes, he’s probably guilty of manslaughter. Walter Scott has no legal requirement to obey the commands of a civilian. But the police have special license to use force, even deadly force, to arrest or detain the citizenry. It’s hard to say how far that double-standard goes in defending this particular officer’s actions in this particular case. And don’t judge by the Mayor’s desperate condemnations, nor his chief of police who he cut off and muzzled. This is probably not all that incriminating in real life, if the actual law is followed.
Like I say, don’t be disappointed. You all thought Zimmerman was a slam-dunk. You thought Darrel Wilson was open-and-shut. You thought Mike Brown was a “gentle giant,” and Trayvon Martin was a four-year-old chased down by an evil redneck and shot mercilessly on his front porch just because he was black. (They were both thugs, and both died in the process of assaulting those who pulled the trigger on them. Don’t take my word on it. That’s Eric Holder’s report on it.) The only sure thing all these Slager videos prove beyond any doubt is that officer Slager had probable cause to first detain, and then arrest and use reasonable force upon this particular suspect. Walter Scott died as a result of violently resisting a perfectly legal arrest. The only question is, just how far assaulting a police officer goes in justifying said officer shooting you as you flee his custody.
And now we go to the dash-cam video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u20r9vYIc_8
So, once again, looking at the dash-cam record, when you start parsing this story out, you don’t have a vicious pig-white racist cop pulling some innocent black man out of his car for no reason and chasing him down to kill him because he’s black. What you have, even with just the existing, superficial, public evidence, is a cop who righteously pulled over a car with a tail light that was out. You have a perfectly polite questioning of the car’s driver by that cop. This short interview reveals that while the driver has a license, he has no proof of insurance, no title or registration for the vehicle, and a spotty story about how he had just bought it, or was in the process of buying it, and was just driving it in the meantime so he didn’t have all the paperwork done on it yet. So, that’s smelling a little fishy already.
Then the driver tries to get out of the car and is told to stay. A moment later the driver makes a dash for freedom. What the first “heroic” video released to the public doesn’t show you then, is that this story actually starts with a perfectly civil traffic stop and progresses rapidly to a cop chasing a possible perpetrator of grand theft auto, which results in a fight over a Taser, where Walter Scott, as the “heroic” video begins, forcefully breaks free from an officer attempting to righteously arrest him.
All we see in Santana’s clip is a few frames of the end of a wrestling match over the officer’s Taser as it starts. The Taser has already been apparently deployed on the suspect but has no obvious effect. The Taser and other objects, possibly from the officer’s duty belt are clearly seen getting flung away, or otherwise batted off or flying to the ground. When grabbed by the officer, the suspect twists free and once again bolts away and the officer at that point takes out his gun and fires at the suspect until he stops running, killing him in the process.
One way to spin this sequence of events is:
Cop Assassinates Random Black Man!!!
Another way to present this sequence of events is:
Cop Uses Questionable Deadly Force in the Apprehension of a Suspected Felon.
It’s essentially a political decision which way to go with it.
So, yes, there will be a show-trial and the lengthy public hurling of serious charges at officer Michael Slager by prosecutors who will become “black community” heroes. That might make the neighborhood happy, but might well have little legal effect. Outside of the attempted race-angle and threats of riot, pillage and looting, Slager might end up being found guilty of little more than policy violations and procedural errors.
And if the original trial doesn’t go favorably, he’ll probably win or get greatly reduced penalties on appeal to a more neutral court and community. Which is not to say he’s entirely pure in this shooting. It’s likely he sweetened his story a bit, if not outright lying about the incident. For one thing, it’s fairly clear he may have tampered with the scene to better prove his claim that his Taser had been taken from him, though frankly, the “heroic” video proves that much anyway, so it was a pretty stupid thing to do if that’s what happened. It’s also fairly clear that both officers present thought Scott to be dead or beyond medical help, because they may have claimed to have tried CPR, but this isn’t apparent in the video. Then again, the ballistic/forensics have since proven that two of Scott’s wounds were probably immediately fatal so CPR would have been worse than pointless.
But obviously, no matter how you spin it, there is no indisputable and “clear” assassination of a random black man by a white cop that was supposed to be in Santana’s “heroic” video. No, that’s just what we were told to see by the mayor, police chief, and media in the heat of embarrassment and panic of threatened riot.
One still has to ask, was using deadly force justified? Well, the most popular contention is no. (It’s not surprisingly, an almost unanimous belief in the “black community.”) The cop should have chased him down again. Or just let him get away. A black life is worth more than a tail light. A black life is worth more than a stolen car.
What negates most of the validity of this argument, is that there was only one party in this misadventure who knew why Walter Scott was running away, why he was wrestling with a cop and his Taser over what ostensibly was a routine traffic stop. That was Walter Scott. So the real lesson to be learned here, is that before you flee the cops, you should always ask yourself: Is my life is worth more than a broken tail light? Or in Walter Scott’s case: Is going back to jail for delinquent child support less harsh than being Tased, and then shot in the back?
But the “black community” persistently denies that this is a fair and reasonable line of self-examination.
It can be fairly argued that Trayvon Martin decided his own life was not worth as much as a chance to be whoopin’ the ass of some “Crazy Ass Cracker.” Mike Brown decided his own life was not worth as much as a box of stolen cigars. Walter Scott decided his own life wasn’t worth as much as a short stint in jail.
Now, you may also well argue that Trayvon Martin didn’t know George Zimmerman had a gun. How could poor Trayvon know that Georgie was a “cheater” who wouldn’t take his “Ass Whoopin'” like a man? (Which in the end became the fallback position for those who still defend Martin as a total victim, entirely innocent of contributing to his own demise in any way.)
But wasn’t Trayvon Martin supposed to be bright enough to have known that Zimmerman might have had a gun? (And this particularly in Florida.) That anyone, even his hoodied homies might have a gun? Or a knife? Or a bat, or even just a big rock?
Cops always have guns. Does the “black community” not understand this?
Wasn’t Eric Garner smart enough to know that selling illegal, untaxed cigarettes in broad daylight, day after day, is going to get you repeatedly arrested? Shouldn’t he have known that a tall, 400 lb man resisting arrest is going to result in a swarm of cops leaping into a giant scrum to help out? Didn’t we establish this well enough with Rodney King?
And wasn’t Mike Brown, the up-and-coming college boy, supposed to be smart enough to know that walking down the street with stolen merchandise is going to attract law enforcement? How could he not understand that when being simply asked by a cop to get out of the middle of the street, that responding by punching out the police officer and trying to take his piece away is almost guaranteed to get himself shot?
How could anyone not know that?
Wasn’t Walter Scott smart enough to know that when you run from the cops you’re making yourself a highly probable target for physical violence from as many police officers who can catch you and hold you there till others arrive to join in?
And what is it that makes admittedly reasonable black folks like Walter Scott immediately run, or fight, or do some other guilty-looking, stupid thing every time a cop is in the vicinity? Does every single black man in the United States of America have outstanding warrants?
Is that it?
If the “black community” insists upon depicting white cops in particular, and all white males in general, as rabid wolves and vicious predators, why does the “black community” continue to encourage and justify engaging in the exhibition of prey-behavior? Remember what Chris Rock says about running from the police:
“If the cops have to come and get you, they’re bringing an ass-kicking with them.”
Which brings me to Baltimore and Freddie Gray. When I started this article I had meant to spend a paragraph or two at the end here on what was then only a day old in Baltimore. But it’s since become the top circus act of the Civil Rights carnival. And sure enough, Al Sharpton finally showed up to get a piece of it. So, I’ll get to it when I can.
For the time being, I’ll simply point out that, true to every single one of these other high-profile claims of white racism, the execution of black males, and white-cop racism specifically, when you look closely at the facts, there is more often than not, at least one very obvious, and very serious logical or evidential snag in the “black community” narrative. First up is Freddie Gray’s professional criminal caree. He’s a heroine dealer and a thug. Bona-fide hood. Then comes the fact that he ran like a bunny at first sight of a cop, and three of them quite naturally chased him down on bikes. So all else aside, he followed the pattern.
The case Freddie Gray’s death itself is a little complicated and mostly unexplained as of yet, but the real problem is that in Baltimore, and the Neo Civil Rights Mafia freaking out over it, has yet to find a plausible angle in the events and evidence from which to get a half-plausible shot at showing the world that a vast, white racist conspiracy is the cause of it all.
Oh yes, they’re trying pretty darned hard to incorporate Baltimore, the most spectacular of all recent race-riots, into their race-baiting saga of alleged white Republican oppression and injustice. But, the entire Baltimore city council is black and Democrat. The mayor is black and Democrat. The state and city prosecutors are black and Democrat. Half the police force is black. Most of the city is black. And half of the six cops being charged are black. The most heinous of these “Killer Cops” is the driver of the van which was allegedly used to kill Freddie Gray. The driver is black. The only cop charged with “2nd Degree Depraved-Heart Homicide” is this black driver of the van. The white cops are actually out of the picture, because they loaded Freddie into the van and went back to their bike patrol.
So Freddie Gray was killed by a black cop, in the care of black cops, on a police force that was half black, under a black chief of police, a black mayor, and black city council. When you start pointing fingers of blame, they’re all aimed at black, liberal, Democrats.