The last truly evil people in America
One group of people in America is truly evil. No, I’m not referring to Muslim terrorists. Yes, the two Boston bombers were Muslims, but they don’t represent all Muslims. I’m not saying this to be politically correct, or because modern society demands proclamations against any kind of bias. I know not all Muslims are terrorists because of all the time I’ve spent with Muslims in several countries. I’ve trusted many with my life, and would do so again.
So who could I be referring to? Are black gang members the last evil people in America? Absolutely not. Sure, they’ve killed thousands more blacks than the Klan ever tried to. Sure, they’re responsible for fear, crime and murder plaguing many black neighborhoods nationwide. But that doesn’t mean they’re evil. We know they’re not evil because Sheila Jackson Lee, the most intelligent woman ever elected to congress, recently proclaimed, “Don’t blame the gang bangers. Blame the guns.” (Before you ask, yes I did throw up in my mouth a little bit when I sarcastically accused Lee of being intelligent.)
So what about Mexican cartel members and their American associates? No, they’re not evil either. They’re only satisfying the insatiable American demand for drugs. They only engage in brutal firefights on Mexican streets because the U.S. is supplying them with weapons. Yes, they torture and murder opponents, and dump their dismembered bodies in public parks. They abduct beautiful young girlfriends of law enforcement officers, then videotape themselves torturing, raping and murdering the women. But gosh darn it, it’s not their fault. If it wasn’t for us damn Americans, they wouldn’t do any of those things. If we weren’t all doing drugs and sending guns to Mexico, those poor misguided cartel guys would never commit such crimes. Nevermind that most Americans don’t use drugs, or that many of the weapons in Mexico are military-issue weapons and explosives that aren’t available on the American market. It’s still our fault, not the cartels.
So who are the last truly evil people in America? White male conservatives, of course. You guys are inherently evil. And if you don’t believe me, just ask almost any media or far-left personality who spoke publicly after the Boston bombing.
In the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon attack, many theories were floated about who was responsible. The usual conspiracy theorists popped up with claims about a “false flag” attack, screamed “revolution!” and excitedly fantasized about being guerilla warriors fighting the American government. A few people took notice of the target location and date. Boston, the heart of the American Revolution. April 15th, tax day and “Patriots’ Day.”
I’m no expert, but I’m more than a little familiar with terrorism. I considered the possibility that right-wing extremists had carried out the attack, and decided it was extremely unlikely. Generally speaking, right-wing wackos don’t target the American population. McVeigh killed a lot of innocent Americans, but his target was a government building. Bombings intended to kill masses of random people aren’t the usual style of the far right. There have been exceptions such as Eric Rudolph, but my gut told me this attack wasn’t right wing terrorism.
The attack did, however, bear the signature of Islamic terrorism. Multiple, simultaneous attacks are a hallmark of bombings in the Middle East. When the FBI said the bombs had been made from explosives in pressure cookers, I was almost positive the bombers were Muslim. In Afghanistan, pressure cooker IEDs were extremely common.
But as I said, I wasn’t 100% positive. I have no inside information about the investigation, and know better than to reach any conclusions based solely on media reports. I made an initial assessment, understood I might be surprised, and waited for more information. But what did some of our public, especially the extremely liberal part, decide about the bombers?
Just after news of the bombing broke, Michael Moore, a man whose genius and objectivity is rivaled only by the great Congresswoman Lee, tweeted “2+2=”. Later he tweeted, “Tax day. Patriots day”. Actor Jay Mohr decided “the 2nd amendment has to go”. On CNN, Peter Bergen (among others) gave several reasons why the bombers were likely right wing extremists. Peter O’Donnell blamed the NRA for slowing the investigation. Chris Matthews talked about domestic terrorists being from the far right.
But Salon.com outdid all of those lightweights with this: “Let’s hope the Boston bomber is a white American”. (http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/)
In this essay, author David Sirota claims that “white privilege” means we lump all Muslims together whenever a Muslim carries out a terrorist attack, but we don’t do the same when a white person commits a crime. Sirota pleads, “That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.”
Sirota’s essay mentioned nothing about the brutal murders of a child and two innocent young women. No words were wasted hoping for successful recovery of the horribly injured. There wasn’t even a reasonable call for the public to withhold judgment until the investigation produced objective results. There was only a blatant appeal to white guilt over alleged “white privilege”.
What type of worldview must an American have to hope an American was responsible for bombing innocent American civilians? I have to admit, I had a bias as well; I hoped the bomber wouldn’t be American. I hate the thought of one of my countrymen murdering other countrymen for ideological reasons. I initially thought the Oklahoma City attack was the work of Muslim terrorists; when McVeigh was identified as the bomber, I added a sense of betrayal to the horror and sorrow I already felt. To my mind, there is nothing positive about Americans murdering Americans. Sirota apparently feels differently. A white American blowing up other Americans is reason to celebrate, because it helps his causes.
Salon.com, which hadn’t taken Sirota’s essay down as of yesterday, isn’t exactly a fringe, ultra-far left web site. My impression is that Salon is a fair representation of liberal thought. I seriously doubt Salon would ever publish an essay titled “Let’s hope the Boston bomber is a black American”, or Arab American, or Hispanic American, or Asian American. David Sirota would probably drown himself in patchouli oil before insulting any minority. But publicly hoping a white American was responsible is fine. Because you white conservative guys are the last truly evil people in America. You’re fair game.
The media and far-left America are extremely concerned that we’ll blame all minorities for the actions of a few. This is reasonable. But the same people have no problem blaming all of white conservative manhood for a multitude of crimes, committed by whites or not. Maybe I’m crazy, but that strikes me as hypocritical.
I think we need to call a spade a spade here. If you’re a white conservative male, much of the liberal world, which includes most of the media, hates your freaking guts. They feel no need to show you any respect. They don’t think twice before suggesting you’re responsible for horrible crimes (such as when ABC’s Brian Ross suggested the Aurora theater shooter was a member of the Tea Party). Even when the hoped-for right wing bomber turns out to be a pair of Muslims, you white guys still get blamed (the overwhelmingly white, conservative and male NRA is delaying the bombing investigation!). James Holmes and Adam Lanza weren’t conservative, but white conservative males who believe in gun rights are responsible for the massacres they carried out. No, seriously. Some far-left people actually believe that.
Of course, David Sirota’s wishes have been partially answered. One of the bombers was in fact a white American. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became a citizen last September 11th, and you can’t get more Caucasian than being from the Caucasus. The media and far left probably wanted to dance a victory jig when the bombers’ pictures were released, and I heard a few commentators focus on the “young white male” description. Unfortunately for Sirota, the bombers are also Muslim and Chechen. They’re white, but darn it, not the right kind of white.
This threw a monkey wrench into the media and far left’s plans. I’m sure they wanted to gloat and howl about an evil white conservative male bomber, which would by extension prove all white conservative males are evil. But since the bombers turned out to be darkish Muslims, now they have to shift gears and show that two Muslim bombers DON’T prove all Muslims are evil.
This leads me to believe the media and far left are racist as hell. But in far-left America, hating white conservative males isn’t just permitted, it’s encouraged. Maybe it’s even mandatory.
Just as I know too many good Muslims to let anyone’s prejudice change my view, I also know too many good white conservative males to let the media or far left change my view. As a matter of fact, a lot of white conservative males risked their lives running toward the blast sites to help victims. Many others risked their lives chasing down the bombers. Much of the media and far left was completely wrong about white guys carrying out the attacks, and failed to give any credit at all to white guys who, along with many others, rendered invaluable assistance at the bombing site and during the investigation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not claiming all white conservative guys are angels. When one does something evil, I want the media to report it, as they should with any other horrible crime. But be objective about it.
Maybe the people who hate white conservative males finally learned a lesson. Maybe, when the inevitable next tragedy happens, they won’t default to the standard “It’s the white conservative guy’s fault”. Maybe they’ll step back, take a breath and say, “Hey, if all Muslims aren’t responsible for the actions of two bombers, maybe all white guys aren’t responsible for the actions of a few wackos.”
Long ago we as a nation learned not to yell “A black guy did it!” whenever an unknown suspect committed a crime. After 9/11, we rejected the notion that all Muslims were responsible for the actions of a few. Someday the media and far left might decide that opposing racism actually means not being racist, even toward white males. Maybe they’ll stop praying, and hinting, that white conservative males are evil, murderous monsters.
It’s not likely. But we can always hope.
Filed under: Writing | 35 Comments
Tags: Boston bombing, media, racism, Tsarnaev
chrishernandezauthor 
Thank you for daring to say this, but you didn’t say quite enough. There’s always a lot of talk about White Privilege, but not enough talk about Male Privilege. It does not exist.
Suz,
Can you explain what you mean? I think I get your meaning, but want to make sure I didn’t misunderstand.
Different races will always perceive each other with an element of “other,” as some degree of Us vs. Them is necessary for survival, and likely genetic. However, “othering” one sex of the same race is an artificial division, one created and nurtured by feminism. Feminism is a driving force behind the Left’s efforts to demonize the so called “powerful” would-be oppressors, also referred to as ” -ists.” As an advocate for men’s human rights, I’m pointing to the 800 pound gorilla in the room – feminism and it’s drive to control masculinity. Masculinity doesn’t fear freedom; masculinity values freedom.
When most people, conservatives and libertarians included) talk about White Male privilege, their focus is on “White,” far more than “Male.” Nobody is allowed to speak or think about the reality of Male Privilege. Once people actually define it, they realize that most males are far less privileged than most females.
Suzanne,
That’s thought-provoking. I’ve heard that theory in little bits and pieces, but hadn’t heard it explained that way. Unfortunately I’m on a phone right now and can’t type a long response, but I’ll mull that over and get back to you with more thoughts and questions.
Thanks Chris. As someone who is half-white/half-hispanic, a veteran, a white collar professional and a fiscal conservative, I empathize with your point. “White guilt” has opened the door wide to the left, liberal community for open racial warfare on “white America.” I don’t believe that the majority of Americans share in this hatred but there are enough who obviously do. Especially those more obvious minorities who make themselves susceptible to such vitriol because it perhaps appeals to their desires to have/want more. It is these very people, that prey on those more susceptible, in the name of advancing their own twisted agendas that make me the most sick to my stomach. I’m certain that our Nation’s founding fathers would collectively hang their heads in shame if they could see what all their hard work has now resulted into.
Rob,
I agree with your comments. And I think you’re right that the majority of Americans don’t feel that way, but some of the ones who do have strong voices in the media.
Chris
But Chris, if white guys hadn’t done it, wouldn’t we have carpet bombed somebody by now? I mean, don’t you remember when we bombed Harlem after the African-American sniper incident?
Next you’ll say that there might be other considerations at work when formulating a response to domestic vs foreign terrorists, besides the color of their skin.
Nick,
I would never, ever suggest anything like an objective response. Perish the thought.
I read your article, I see you quote a website, a couple gun control advocates, then spout off a bunch of theories and maybes. Then you lump all left wing folks into a group of “white male hate mongers”, pal, you bring a whole new meaning to the word “hypocrite”. It’s moronic propaganda b.S. like this that’s gonna keep this country from working together to solve the issues and fix the problems we have created here in the last 40 years.
Dan,
I quoted an article from a prominent web site, and gun control advocates who are prominent media personalities. I didn’t quite lump all left wing folks into one group; I actually made sure to use terms like “much of the far left”. You disagree, and that’s fine. Most of my liberal friends disagree, and I had a good debate with one of them today. I’ll ask you to address the substance of the argument though, instead of just attacking me personally. Do you disagree with my contention, that much of the far left is quick to blame white males as a collective, but won’t do the same with minorities? Do you disagree that there’s something wrong with a prominent liberal web site publishing an article asking people to hope the bomber was a white American?
Obviously, I disagree with your characterization of my essay as propaganda. I also wouldn’t call myself a hypocrite or my writing moronic, but hey, I’m biased :).
Thanks for commenting, and I hope you respond to my questions. Not being sarcastic, you’re welcome to come back and continue the discussion. As I’ve said before, I don’t want this site to be an echo chamber. Dissenting opinions are appreciated.
Chris
After the 5000th response, it ceases being a stereotype, and starts being a descriptor.
This country isn’t designed to work together to “solve the issues and fix problems”.
It was designed to establish a government so hopelessly unworkable that it could only do something when there was near unanimous agreement across three disparate branches, which largely insured that government’s only sphere of activity was protecting the pre-existing rights of all citizens, and leaving them the hell alone for the other 99.999% of their daily human activities. As Casey Stengel used to tell folks, “You could look it up.”
@$$clowns trying to “solve the issues and fix the problems” ARE the problem, because thinking government is supposed to make your life wonderful got us to the craphole we’re sitting at the bottom of today, and it started not 40 years ago, but closer to 140, when the government began to overshadow the people and dictate to them, rather than the other way around.
Just possibly, you might have read about this in a class, a newspaper, or something like.
Last month we went to see my wife’s dad and his wife, she is from Mass. and as left wing as they come. She started in on me , asking if I owned an (assault weapon) and large cap mags. I said yes I did, she replied that I was part of the problem and my fault the children were murdered.WTF!
Joe,
Thank you for illustrating one of the points of my essay!
My usual reply to questions like than (when it isn’t “none of your business”) is “Nope. My AR is semi-automatic and my 20 and 30 round magazines are standard capacity”. I refuse to allow them to define the terms being used.
Oh, and good write up Chris!
Thanks Randy, I appreciate that.
Chris, I agree many on the left are angry dangerous fools.They are the first to blame “right wing” persons for anything horrendous committed and the last to admit wrong when it’s proven it was a leftist. I’m beginning to wonder if there is much other evil going on
One thing that I find truely amazing was how quickly the local law enforcement personnel adopted a jack booted thug stance in the Boston area. I know that there are many fantastic law enforcement people within the country, but it really disturbs me to see the tactics adopted whilst searching for these two bombers. I know, “public safety” and all of that, but Gestapo comes more to my mind. Are our civil liberties just a sham?
I was in one of the “locked down” communities, and it was indeed quiet on the streets. But south of the Mass Pike we didn’t have police going door to door (at least in my neighborhood). From a theoretical libertarian perspective it was ALL wrong: lockdown, warrantless entry and thus home invasions, and so forth. In the non-ideal real world it’s a little murkier. My personal stance is that the Boston-wide (+multisuburb) lockdown (“voluntary” or not) was wrong and foolish and sends the wrong message to bad guys in general in addition to being at best an expensive inconvenience to millions of people. The no-go lockdown (in that specific Watertown neighborhood ONLY) was probably reasonable under the circumstances, but entering private homes without warrant, under conditions as they were, was plain wrong. As for anyone arguing that letting in the cops was “voluntary” so it’s all okay, that’s just stupid. When a bunch of heavily armed guys full of catecholamines, believing God, the Right and what some incorrectly believe to be the Law on their sides wants in, only a foolish or crazy-brave person is going to discuss the fourth amendment on his or her doorstep.
What really concerns me is the lessons that will be taken away from all this. Like dogs and small children, politicians draw the wrong conclusions all too easily in the wake of their misbehavior. Earlier this year Governor Deval Patrick essentially declared martial law by shutting down eastern Massachusetts after a big snow storm. No one allowed on the roads, big fines for those flouting His Decree. There was no shitstorm of outrage, and more importantly, little if any political cost, so why not do it again? It’ll show I’m bold and decisive!
I view the Waterdown NEIGHBORHOOD lockdown like field surgery, or a code blue situation. Sometimes you do have justification for doing stuff that is ordinarily bad or wrong, but you have to very carefully limit the physical scope and duration during which ordinary standards are held in abeyance. For example, I remember sticking a large-bore needle into a young woman’s neck, with neither anesthesia nor her permission. However, there were mitigating circumstances: she was coding in the cardiac ICU and I was inserting a central venous line while other team members were doing CPR. (She lived, BTW.) However, the stuff we did during that emergent episode does not mean I am now granted the right to semi-arbitrarily stick a needle into her neck again, or anyone else’s for that matter, because it was the least-worst thing to do at the time in that emergency. Also, during that code when we did all sorts of frankly brutal and invasive stuff it did not mean that I had the right to cop a feel, or go through her wallet, or anything like that. My fear is that the politicians will conclude (analogously) that because we resuscitated her in that instance, now it’s okay to tear open young women’s gowns, break their ribs (doing CPR), shock them, and all that, because it was the least-bad/right thing AT THAT TIME in THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. At any other time it wouldn’t be right, it’d be criminal assault. But so far I’ve seen IMO disturbingly little after-action review as to the rightness or wrongness of the actions that went down last week.
Mike,
Good points. I don’t agree with them all, but you raise interesting questions and made a good analogy. You’re absolutely right that some legislators, or anyone in authority for that matter, will push boundaries and try to use past “success” as justification to keep taking freedom.
I don’t think we can criticize the officers for asking consent to search, no matter how they were armed or dressed. In certain situations, life is just going to suck no matter what. Those guys had a reason to be heavily armed and armored, and if that scares people, we really can’t mitigate that.
My gut reaction is to believe almost all interaction between the police and citizenry was positive. If it had been a brutish semi-martial law situation, residents wouldn’t have been outside cheering the officers. Maybe abuses happened in specific cases in Watertown, but apparently the majority of the community didn’t feel like they had been abused. Before I make any pronouncements on the incident I’m going to wait for more information.
Thanks for giving us a Boston perspective, that was good information.
Chris
Chris,
I have no problems with the police being heavily armed (in some cases) and wearing body armor, “scary” or not, as I want them to be safe as possible. I’m sorry if I gave another impression. To torture the medical analogy further, if I’m doing some invasive procedure on a patient with communicable blood-borne disease, it’s too bad if someone is offended by my face shield/splash guard. And those cops were facing someone wanting to actively harm them, whereas I’d get hurt only by mischance.*
As to the home entries, despite having been less than a mile from the action, I know no more than anyone else watching the TV news, so I’m almost certainly wrong about a number of things. I was under the impression that there was systematic entry and search of every home in the area, and further it was unclear how much was really asking consent and how much was “We need to search your house so we’re coming in, do you have any objections?” Technically the latter could be construed as a request, but also it’s a thinly veiled threat. That said, re-reading my first paragraph above I have to admit to being a bit of a smartass: was trying for some rhetorical flourish incorporating “Dieu et mon droit” but looks like I failed. It wasn’t intended to be a blanket condemnation of all the police involved. Doubtless some were of the “civilian scum!” mentality (I’d be interested in your perspective about the proportion of such persons in SWAT-type units versus the overall police population), but yes, most were not. It was also a sort of response to the people who’ve commented elsewhere remarks to the effect of “I’d like to see the cops try that here in . I got my ARs, there’d be a line of dead cops on the porch.” Really? That’s irresponsible, foolish and plain wrong on many levels. So, I’m still not comfortable with all that happened regarding home searches, if my understanding is correct, but I didn’t intend to accuse the police of stormtroopery either.
*Mischance in most cases. However, a nephrologist just told me of an HIV-positive dialysis patient he once had who, when she failed to get her way, would yank the exchange needle out of her AV-fistula and spray people with her blood. Those fun and games were bad enough with medical professionals, but then one day she extended this to other patients and their families in a waiting area. Not germane to the topic at hand, but a WTF? story I can’t get out of my head.
Mike,
Understood, no worries. The medical analogy is very appropriate. And I imagine getting stabbed with an HIV positive patient’s needle would kind of suck.
Chris
Whoa, Bob. “Gestapo” is way too strong of a term. An organization dedicated to massacring innocent men, women and children bears no resemblance whatsoever to MA cops searching for bombers. USC violations appear to have happened; but a warrantless/consentless entry into a house isn’t the same as gassing helpless civilians, or lining up and machine-gunning villagers. Comparing the two ultimately only weakens the true horror of the Holocaust.
I get your point; LE did get real military, real quick in response to Boston. That needs to be addressed. But they did NOT act like Nazis.
Chris, I saw several videos of what appeared to be homeowners being given the bums rush out of their own property so that the heavily armed police could do a sweep of the property. I didn’t see one person asked if they consented to a property search. They were just shoved out and yelled at to keep their hands above their heads.
What I wonder about is: how many of our law enforcement folks will act like this when it comes to laws leading to disarmament. It seems many are willing to follow orders of those appointed over them.
Video of the Louisianna National Guard and New Orleans police come to mind also. How everyday citizens were systematically disarmed.
Unfortunately, I feel that our nation is rapidly degrading into a police state, where our God given rights guaranteed by our Constitution is a thing of the past.
As Boston and Massachusetts have very stringent gun control laws and most citizens are disarmed already..maybe those particular law enforcement felt that they could act with impunity.
Chris,
Good thought provoking read as always. As a political science major, I’m usually in classes with a majority of liberal minded students. And professors. I always find it funny when one mentions the archetypical white conservative terrorist. Further more, in the grand irreverence of college students everywhere, lots of jokes are exchanged when I point out that as a veteran, southerner, conservative, NRA memeber with a Gadsen flag hung in the window of his room in the fraternity house, I should probably be on a watch list, or possibly on my way to Gitmo.
The degree to which to the mainstream media, Wolf Blitzer in particular, were slobbering at the mouth in regards to the attack being in Boston, on Tax Day, and Patriots Day was astounding. It is almost pavolonian in nature.
Spemack: someone from class probably IS trying to get you on a watch list. I don’t mean this in some black-helicopter paranoid way, but I’d be stunned if some would-be revolutionary firebrand* doesn’t think you’re dangerous to others. Heck, he might think he’s going to save you from yourself. Poet and crank (it’s a compliment) Robinson Jeffers said it well years ago:
“Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy
And the dogs that talk revolution,
Drunk with talk, liars and believers.
I believe in my tusks.
Long live freedom and damn the ideologies,”
Jeffers’ advice is not practical, nor constructive for a functioning society, but he was a poet. Practical was not his job.
* A would-be revolutonary quite possibly with a trust fund and an investment-banker parent, yet. My college dorm was full of those types.
Bob,
I’ve seen one video, and from the camerman’s perspective there was no way to tell is the residents were asked or ordered. Yes, it LOOKS like they were forced out at gunpoint; on the other hand, the officers may have said, “We got a report the guy was in this house! Can we search?”
“Sure, do whatever you have to!”
“Okay, come on out! Make sure you keep your hands up!”
“You got it! Honey, kids, come outside, right now!”
Unlikely, but possible. I’m waiting that family to tell their story. If they were forced out and their home searched without consent or a warrant, that’s a serious USC violation that must be addressed.
But for what it’s worth, I don’t believe LE or NG will participate in mass confiscations. I recently talked to someone from FEMA about the Katrina confiscations, and got the impression that the confiscations were viewed as a huge black eye.
Then again, maybe I’m giving you the Texas perspective. I just don’t see it happening here.
Chris
Given your experience in law enforcement, perhaps you would have a different perspective on what might have happened in the interactions these Bostonians recall, but it sounds like one gentleman at least was just told to get out of his house in a way that he recalls as with guns pointed at him.
Artemis,
Definitely a lot to worry about in that video. I’d have to hear the rest of the story. One thing that stands out: the black resident seemed to be describing a situation where the police thought the suspect was in his house (officers with weapons ready yelling at him to get out, then rushing in). That’s not a systematic search, or at least doesn’t sound like it to me. That sounds like they had reason to target that specific house.
If officers actually did go house to house and force everyone out, then enter and search without consent or a warrant, then it doesn’t matter that they apologized later or that some residents weren’t upset about it. The Constitution is most important when things are at their worst.
Chris;
Understand that coming from a law enforcement background you have a bias here. When the big loud, shouting, scary man with a gun tells me to get my hands up and go to my lawn, I hear “or else” afterwards whether he said it or not. For all the good things they did that day, it is still okay to admit that they acted like thugs, because they damn well did.
Nonsense.
Let’s go with your argument; all the police forced their way into people’s homes and searched without consent. Since you said “they acted like thugs”, I’ll assume you’re not talking about specific officers, you’re referring to all of them. How many actual thugs force their way into people’s homes, make sure a criminal isn’t inside, then leave? I’ve been dealing with thugs for almost 20 years. Thugs go into people’s homes, assault them and take things.
How many homes had doors kicked in? How many homeowners have come forward and claimed they were forced to allow the police inside? And what difference does it make if the officers were loud and had guns? Scary is a subjective term. Every single time I’ve asked for consent to enter someone’s home or search their car, I’ve had a gun visible on me. If that makes me “scary”, that’s just life. Should the officers have stripped down and gotten rid of their weapons before asking for consent to search?
I find it very hard to believe that officers terrified all those people, forced entry into their houses, and the officers were so traumatized afterward that they came outside by the hundreds or thousands to cheer for those officers.
You just said they did a lot of good things that day. I agree. And I’m sure there were SOME abuses committed by SOME officers; that doesn’t mean they were thugs, no different than bloods or crips committing home invasions in South Central. It means they screwed up in a stressful, confusing situation. Those abuses and mistakes MUST be addressed, but that doesn’t mean those officers were thugs.
No, a more apt and basic definition is that thugs threaten people with violence to get what they want. If these law abiding homeowners had refused orders shouted with guns pointed at them in violation of gun safety rules, at the very least a beating would have ensued, more likely they would have been shot or electrical or chemical torture would have been administered. So if you obey someone threatening you with deadly force with no cause, they are not a thug. They are only a thug if you don’t do exactly as they illegally order and they needlessly batter or attempt to murder you for it, and then only if every one of them does it in every single instance. The “all or none” thing is no good. He wasn’t saying every cop was a thug, you shouldn’t counter by saying none were simply because all the victims did as they were told. Victims of non-badged thugs sometimes don’t get hurt if they do as the thugs tell them and empty the register or what have you. The perps in those cases are still thugs.
In the same vein as the disussion here, I found an essay by an ex DEA agent that explained how even so called OathKeeper LEO’s would be participating in gun grabbing raids. As a ex LEO (and OathKeeper) myself, I found the premise quite plausible.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/hathaway3.1.1.html
What do you think?
Delf,
I skimmed that article, and I don’t even believe it was written by a cop. Military forces and resources are commonly used in LE operations? No, they’re not. Posse Comitatus applies; only state military resources can be used to assist LE, and only in very specific and narrowly defined circumstances.
This article looks like it was written by someone who thinks he knows what LE is really like. Cops routinely get called into the station to serve warrants in the middle of the night? And the chief whips us up into a frenzy? No we don’t, and no they don’t. Chiefs are usually administrators with no direct participation in street operations, and are often looked on as being so far away from reality that they have no real say over how we police.
This article reads like a sex manual written by a virgin who watched a lot of porn.
Delftsman3
I hate to say it but I think you’ve been hit square in the face with sarcasm. I’ve been a cop for 35 years and that includes assignments as every position mentioned in the story except SWAT commander and Chief of Police. The story is hyperbole and fantasy. It just doesn’t work that way. Since some of the content at Lew Rockwell borders on the fantastical, I’m not sure if the author was aiming at a tongue in cheek piece or if it was intended as a discussion provoker. Either way, don’t think it was accurate.
BTW, I think if we see full scale prohibition and confiscation it will come incrementally. First you see a prohibiting large magazines. Some cops enforce that law and some cut the offender some slack “you could get in trouble, better leave this at home, sir. ” As time goes on it becomes more the norm and enforcement increases. Then we see another small encroachment, perhaps the next time it is semi auto pistols, then after that. “Assault Weapons “.
Thats how opinions and societal change usually happens. An example would be DWI enforcement. Years ago, it was a pain and most cops didn’t like to mess with it, far easier to put the guy in a cab. Fast forward to present no one thinks DWI is acceptable and there are whole specialty squads dedicated to DWI enforcement.
There is one aspect of white privilege that I have come to feel many of the far left, at least, act like they believe, even if they won’t say it, that I feel is incredibly detrimental to everyone. And that is the idea that only white males have actual agency and responsibility for their wrong actions. Every other group, being oppressed by a white male run society, is no longer subject to individual criticism for their actions. Only the white male has the freedom to make his own choices and therefore the responsibility to be punished for them.
It’s not quite so simply that white males are hated, but that they are seen as the only ones who are not victims of their environment, and therefore the only ones who can be held properly accountable. If a white guy blows up a building, it’s because he was a bigot/nutjob/evil person. Whereas any non-white (and here non-white is extended to essentially anyone who isn’t of northern european descent and Christian) blows up a building, regardless of their opinions on jews/black/gays/any freedom we might value, is at least a somewhat justified victim of the white American hegemonic system.
There are grains of truth in this argument, but it is taken far past any sense of sense or logic and is offensive to everyone involved.