Tom Toles for December 05, 2014

Is it just me, or the “librual media,” or have the cops actually been stepping in it a whole lot more lately?

12 million arrests a year in the U.S.. Justice indeed should be blind, and prejudice not exist here. But do folks really think vigilantes like Zimmerman are the answer?

It is in memory of Trayvon Martin that we should perhaps look at the real picture, and decide where the fault truly lies.

Nearly a million of those arrests are of violent criminals. The Zimmerman faction does NOT have the courage to face up to them. Those who do, with integrity, do not need to be cast in the mold with those who fail, and even those are far fewer than “the media” would have folks believe.

Bigotry, and blind hatred HAS been on the rise for the last six years, we should spend as much time, and interest, in exposing those responsible for who, and what, they are, and it isn’t the vast majority of police officers.

To cite a rather under-represented piece of advice, “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” (And yes, Buddhism teaches the same lesson, so it wasn’t “new” back only 2,000 years ago.)

@wmconellyTrue words. The cops were acting like out of control.I saw not a single action of the fat guy in the video which required that kind of action.

If cuffing is appropriate we should use proper force, no more.

“Sir we are going to cuff you, we can do it calmly or we can tase you but we are going to cuff you.”

This Staten Island incident is one of the few that I have seen that both the “Right and the Left” have called outrageous. No witnesses with conflicting reports this time. Its all on video for everyone to see. The only ones to disagree that there was a problem seems to be the Grand Jury, which of course is made up of people who inhabit the borough that is primarily where members of law enforcement reside. In other words an extension of the big “Blue Wall” that protects their own at the expense of the general population.

If the prosecutor wants an indictment, he’ll get it. A friend recently served on a grand jury for six months. In NOT ONE case this the grand jury fail to indict. A grand jury hearing is NOT a trial. The prosecution does not have to prove the defendant is guilty, only that the evidence is sufficient, or ambiguous enough, to warrant a trial. In Ferguson, 12 jurors. Only four of them had to say “no indictment” and there would be no indictment, even if the other eight thought it should go to trial. Failure to indict does NOT mean exoneration any more than indictment means conviction. What it really means in cases like these last two is that the prosecutor, who is undoubtedly in his heart of hearts on the side of the police, did not want an indictment, and did not try to get one.

“Hours after coming out of the police academy, I was told something as a new rookie officer: You’d rather be tried by 12 jurors than carried by six pallbearers. In my impressionable first days, I saw officers leave the precinct every day touching the lockers of their fallen brothers. They started their shift on the defensive, thinking about protecting themselves, as opposed to the communities they served, regardless of the complexion of those communities. One of my white fellow officers once told me that if he saw a white individual with a gun, he took extra care for himself and the individual. When he saw a black individual with a gun, he took care only for himself.”http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/opinion/we-must-stop-police-abuse-of-black-men.html?emc=edit_th_20141205&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60504081&_r=0

Harleyquinn: “The N Word” is no longer permitted. “Thug” now means anyone with skin in double digits on the von Lauchin tiles, and crossburners are using it to the utmost.

If this would have happened to Clive Bundy you would see these guys foaming at the mouth about jack booted government thugs attacking citizens.

But since this happened to a couple of dark complected guys then they deserved it.

I don’t care what was in that officer’s heart. I will accept that he did not want to injure. But anyone who looks at the video can tell that he lost his control. His face is bright red. His arm applying the choke hold is bright red, and his muscles clearly were visible. This person was choking his victim with every ounce of strength he had, whether that was his intention, whether his adrenaline took over, whether whatever. And when his victim was incapacitated, he felt the need to put his full weight on him as his knee pushed his face into the concrete.

He killed his victim on the street. The medical examiner called this incident a homicide. Whether it’s involuntary manslaughter or second-degree murder, this officer is guilty of killing a man.

When it becomes apparent that anyone with a badge can do whatever he wants with impunity, all trust is lost. As a result, many, many good police officers will encounter unnecessary resistance and antagonism, and this is one major consequence most people are not considering. (Except current police officers.)

Certainly not while being funded by the 1%.

In 1770 on King Street in Boston several soldiers were attacked by an angry mob. They opened fire, and five died. The soldiers and their officer were all quickly indicted for murder by a Boston grand jury. John Adams, in spite of death threats made against him for defending the perpetrators of the “Boston Massacre” as it was later called, agreed to represent them at trial. In his summation, Adams said "I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you. – Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defense; if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind; this was a provocation, for which the law reduces the offense of killing, down to manslaughter, in consideration of those passions in our nature, which cannot be eradicated. To your candor and justice I submit the prisoners and their cause.” In the end, the jury found two of the nine defendants defendants guilty of manslaughter. John Adams wrote that “the verdict of the jury was exactly right.” In the case of the “Massacre” the soldiers were assailed by night and outnumbered. In Ferguson a trained and armed policeman confronted a single already-wounded man in the middle of the day. True, Brown was 292 pounds and stood 6’4", but Wilson is 210 pounds and also 6’4", and presumably in decent physical shape and trained to handle himself. When the fatal shot was fired, hitting Brown in the head, he had already been hit five times, and was falling forward. Even if you believe that everything happened exactly the way Wilson said it did, the conclusion is that, if one less shot was fired, Brown would neither have died nor escaped nor harmed Wilson any further. I don’t think any jury would have convicted Wilson of murder, but manslaughter is a different thing, and that he will not even face trial for that, given the conflicting and inconsistent evidence, is astonishing. In the Staten Island case, it is even worse. Manslaughter does not require that one intends to kill another person, and while in neither of these cases do I think the officers intended to kill, they did kill. Can anyone imagine that, if Wilson had been another black resident of the neighborhood, who had pulled up beside Brown and told him to get out the street, and everything else happened exactly the same, that Wilson would not have been charged with anything?

“Why were 16 of the 18 eye witnesses ignored to get that officer no billed over the incident without a court trial?”

I hope this is a rhetorical question. I have no way of knowing the answer. It seems to me that eyewitnesses would be less reliable than the videos that are circulating, regardless. But I see no reason not to gather evidence when it is available.

“Skittles are a drug? Sugar possession is a capitol offence?”.should be; the stuff will kill you.

“… and the cops doing too much to enforce a tax on a cigarette. That should scare anyone!”.When it comes to due taxes, municipal, state and federal collectors go all out with a dedication and zeal unsurpassed by any murder investigation. They will spend thousands of dollars to collect a few hundred. Or, simply wait, while the interest clock ticks by every day..About 20 years ago, a local man & wife were mislead by a bank, which loaned them money to develop some extra land they owned. After embezzlement & mis-management was found, the Feds took over the bank, and called in ALL loans IMMEDIATELY. Despite The bind in which he was caught, and he DID have a very legitimate reason to petition for redress, the Feds said “PAY UP!” or face seizure of your home & property! They came out in force, at first, but backed off because of local resistance. The Ferds simply waited a few months, until volunteer watchers had to return to their homes, then swooped in, late at night, arrested both, (imprisoned 5 years) and took everything. I had a front-row seat to this “lawful government action”.

I know I added no names or details. I will say that it occured in Hamilton MA at least 15-20 years ago. II live in the next towm; Ipswich). The bank was in Haverhill MA. I posted from memory, although I read about it often, knew that family involved, though not intimately. I knew another local who tried to intermediate for him with the IRS, during the holdout, which lasted several months. A number of people from Maine, NH, VT, CT and other states came to help him guard his home agianst an IRS take-over. However, the local press supported him, The IRS backed off and played the waiting game. As months passed, many of his supporters returned to their homes, until one night, the IRS rushed into the house, and arrested him.

The family owned several acres of undeveloped property behind their home. Living in a wealthy community, in Massachusetts no less, taxes were not cheap. The family applied fo a loan to develop the acreage into home lots, their plan was approved by the town. When getting the loan, the bank said that they would lend him the amount in two installments.Totalling about $1 million, they gave him half to get certain steps completed, then they would give him the other half to finish. He had completed all the first part, and was expecting to receive the remainder of the loan when the Feds took over the bank. As stated above, the Feds called in ALL loans at once. He pleaded that he could not repay the loan until he sold the several proposed house lots, and that some of them were already eyed by buyers. He followed the instructions of the bank! But the Feds said NO. Give us the money.As far as I know, tax avoidance was not the issue. And I will not print the family’s name here.old, I did not make this up. My first, and this post come from general memory.

7th cartoonists with the same piece.