Tag Archives: American law enforcement

Blacks: give respect to get respect

Posted on by

Steven-Hildreth-Jr-FacebookProven by a black man in a hoodie wearing a Glock, on a vehicle stop in Tucson.

Who:

  1. Wasn’t killed by cops, and
  2. Wasn’t issued a citation, and
  3. Favorably wrote about the cops on Facebook

What a unique and novel concept for black males to consider.

From Breitbart.com:

Armed Black Driver Uses Facebook to Support Two Cops Who Pulled Him Over

by Awr Hawkins

On October 27, driver Steven Hildreth Jr. was armed and wearing a hoodie when he was pulled over for a broken headlight in Tucson, Arizona.

The officers had to disarm Hildreth because of the close promixity of his Glock to his wallet. After checking his registration and dialoguing with Hildreth, the officers returned his Glock to him, complimented the way he had treated them, and sent him on his way. When Hildreth got home, he returned the compliment by taking to Facebook to point out how reasonable the stop went and how approaching officers with respect instead of divisive language and movements might be the key to more reasonable stops around the country.

Mr Hildreth ended his Facebook post with this:

I’m a black man wearing a hoodie and strapped. According to certain social movements, I shouldn’t be alive right now because the police are allegedly out to kill minorities. Maybe… just maybe… that notion is bunk.

Maybe if you treat police officers with respect, they will do the same to you.

Police officers are people, too. By far and large, most are good people and they’re not out to get you. I’d like to thank those two officers and TPD in general for another professional contact.

We talk so much about the bad apples who shouldn’t be wearing a badge. I’d like to spread the word about an example of men who earned their badges and exemplify what that badge stands for.

Because of this incident, are things going to change in the black community?

No, of course not.  This man is a soldier with the National Guard.  In the eyes of Black Lives Matter he’s already a “sell-out.”  He’s already defending the Caucasoid Power Structure.  He hasn’t called Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke an “Uncle Tom.”  He hasn’t continuously spread the “hands up don’t shoot” lies about Michael Brown.  He’s not advocating the killing of cops.

In truth, black lives don’t matter.  Certainly they don’t matter more than anyone else, they don’t matter to me and they don’t matter to the bulk of the US.  They sure as hell don’t matter to politicians locally, at the state level or in DC.  And they don’t matter to the American Media Maggots.  Black urban male lives are useful only as tools to angles on various stories for the AMM.

Maybe Chris Rock had it right in this video, made a number of years ago, after all:

Young urban black males have become something of a doomed culture.  One of the largest things that doomed cultures lack is the ability to conduct introspection and self-examination. This requires not only self-awareness but an amount of education, which by and large most urban blacks not only do not seem to possess but apparently have no interest in acquiring. That mindset does not allow for alternate propositions or methods. To a degree various corruptive cultures are also responsible for the overall decline of this nation. The “gangbanger” culture has been more corruptive than most and runs across all — and I mean ALL — ethnicities. There is Mexican rap, there is Tongan rap, there is Icelandic rap.  This stems from the young black urban male culture and is endemic globally.  It is not a productive cultural element.

The corruption has been so terribly inculcated over the years that most urban blacks are completely unaware that those who “promise more” to blacks are actually their slavemasters, and provide the chains with which altogether too many blacks willingly and ignorantly bind themselves.

The Demorats, under Johnson’s “Great Society,” helped to remove the black male from the family equation by dint of cash promised to young black mothers without fathers. When blacks discovered they could get cash in certain non-familial situations and, further, acquire more cash with more children, the culture was on its way down. This, of course, bled over into the rest of the nation and helped to create the dooming entitlement philosophy.

Here’s the bottom line.

Black lives don’t matter to each other.

So I have to ask an obvious question that apparently others haven’t the intelligence or courage to pose: if black lives don’t matter to each other, then why should I give one whit about whether an urban black male dies or not?

It is an amazing thing to me that there isn’t a mass uprising of those persons who finally realize what is being done to blacks by blacks.

I summarize: it would appear that most evidence — clearly provided by Demorats and Leftists — indicates that black lives truly do not matter.

When I see blacks respecting themselves, I may change my beliefs.

A little respect goes a long way.

I’m not holding my breath.

BZ

 

 Share

When troops SHOULDN’T follow their “leaders”

Posted on by

NO TO UNLAWFUL ORDERS1. THE MILITARY:

Under Leftist regimes, such as today’s under Mr Obama (and please notice, significantly, since 2008, I have never successively linked in my blog the words “Obama” and “President”), the military is nothing but a useful mule or tool for various forms of societal change.

The Left, frankly, despises and disdains the military — all its members, its leaders, its troops — unless and until it can be corrupted for use regarding a societal, global — and not a national DEFENSE — issue.

There is a reason that a greater number of military officers have voluntarily left or been forced to leave under this administration than most any other.

There is a reason that military chaplains — save those of Islam — have been under attack under this administration than any other.

As Jeff Fuller writes at TheWashingtonTimes.com:

Why troops avoid a fight

Soldiers won’t follow clueless leaders into battles they can’t win

by Jeff Fuller

What does this experience (as delineated in the article if you click it above) offer to those clever, young staffers crafting military tactics and rules of engagement in the White House National Security Council (NSC) for our military units in Iraq and Syria?

Do not expect any military unit, especially a bunch of Iraqi Sunni soldiers led by corrupt Shiite officers, to risk their lives in a fight against ISIS fighters. They will not. And neither would many American troops without effective leaders, adequate weapons, communications, Medevac and close air support, and a fighting chance to win.

A more important paragraph:

But at some point up the chain of command, they have general officers who risked their lives in combat in the past but will not speak truth to the young NSC staffers who set the currently amateurish rules of engagement, define the limits of military power and craft empty speeches in which President Obama declares with a straight face that our goal is to degrade and defeat ISIS.

In other words: our troops are beginning to discriminate and separate the lies from the truths, the wheat from the chaff.  Because their most intimate posteriors are now “on the line.”  A further lesson from history:

As someone who cares deeply for our country and still carries grenade fragments from battle, I can only hope that at some point, our troops will be able to say that their senior military leaders choose the truth over political and career expediency. In Vietnam, much of the foolishness was generated by military officers who either never understood battle or had forgotten its lessons. Now this Peter Principle tendency has been exacerbated by the youngsters who rule the NSC.

To the military: for whom will you die and when, if ever, will you draw the line?

Having written that, there is a serious lesson to be learned — also — by the LE Sheepdogs of this nation:

2. CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT:

I learned quite a number of things in my 41 years of service to civilian law enforcement.  As a Sergeant for a major LE agency on the Left Coast, and having served as my department’s Rangemaster and EVOC Supervisor (and a number of other specialized positions, with another separate three state and federal agencies), I learned that there is a vast chasm between what one says and what one does.  I learned to respect a few ranks but not to respect the persons wearing those ranks because altogether too many of them were corrupt and violated their own oaths — yet were promoted still because of nepotism or melanin or their ability to don the requisite knee pads required for a sundry of appointments and coronations.  They too often spoke one line and physically violated another.  And trust me: cops can sense the stinking bullshit of hypocrites from miles away.  Verbal detritus does not a leader make.

I learned from my SBSLI class that dissent is a good thing.  Dissent was certainly required in this circumstance.

And dissent will become a major, a huge issue in the future of the military and civilian law enforcement.  That is to say: the Sheepdogs.

Just what is a Sheepdog?  I am a long-time Sheepdog, far beyond the years where most average Sheepdogs quit.  I am also a Silverback, far beyond the years where most others with less stamina (or more sense) quit.

That said, what might be a common denominator between military and civilian LE “leaders”?

I say this: there are way too many “test takers” and “test passers.”  There are “managers” who can sort out widgets and beans and push paper, but there is a dearth of true “leaders of men.”  Managers are good with paper and bits and bytes.  Leaders are good with people.  Actual humans.

I am convinced of the incontrovertible: leaders are born.  They cannot be “made.”  Persons either possess “leadership skills” or they do not.  You can see and acknowledge a true “leader” from elementary school right up through college and beyond.  One cannot “teach” what is truly the unteachable: leadership.  True leadership.

And true leadership is this: if I asked my troops to do “X,” would they do it for me?  If another Sergeant asked, would they do it for them?  A true leader gets things done not when he or she demands, but when he or she “suggests” or asks.  Or even by a mere presence, subsumed.  But in the crucible of extremis, would my troops do what I asked?  Frankly, I’d like to think they would if, for no other reason, than how I treated them under “normal.”  They would know that I readily recognize the difference between “standard” and “critical.”

3. THE LOGICAL EXTENSION:

My point being:

In the not too terribly distant future, military troops and civilian LE troops are going to have to make a terrible and critical decision.

Will they follow their so-called “leaders”?

At this point, I would suggest: you should weigh that decision very carefully because many of your “superiors” and “leaders” are neither superior nor leaders.

I suspect and submit that you already know who it is that you would follow, and who it is that you would not.  Those who are — in the colloquial — “full of shit” and those who are not.  Those who treated you with inherent respect, did not take advantage of you, did not make you the butt of jokes, did not rule their rank over you, those who were firm, fair and consistent.  You knew you would encounter the same person over any number of days, and not Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde.

The person who said, if they were “disappointed” in you, you would have a serious internal speech with yourself to the point of questioning your entire ethos.

I was once told, by an ancient and doddering Sergeant in my department many years ago, that one must only do three things to have a successful career: 1) Do you job, 2) Tell the truth, and 3) Don’t be malicious.

It would seem that too many of our so-called “leaders” violate one or more of those aspects on a continuing basis.  Some seem to get promoted for it.

If you think — after all of this — that I’m leading up to something, you would be correct.

A country that allows political hacks to set military operations policy has lost its way. And we are lost, for sure.”  — Lt. Col. Jeff Fuller

“God bless America, the finest experimental nation ever created at the hands of Mortal Men.”— BZ

So I said back in 2006.

The point is this.  At some time, there will be upheaval in the US.  It’s just going to occur, plain and simple.  America cannot keep on its current path of unsustainable spending and philosophy.  There is only so much cash and good will to be found in the American Taxpayer — who foots the bill for not only the United States but much of the rest of the planet as well, in terms of largesse to other countries.

When that crash comes — and I do not know when or how it will manifest itself — there must be in the military and civilian LE spheres those who will truly honor their oaths.  They must truly be Oathkeepers.  They must respect the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Bottom line: there will come a time when soldiers in the military and law enforcement officers must follow their conscience and their oaths, because their leaders are going to order them to abrogate law.

It’s coming.

They must be prepared.

BZ

 

 Share

Thomas Sowell: paying the price

Posted on by

Thomas-Sowell-QuoteSeldom do I quote the bulk of articles I consult for reference here in my blog, with rare exceptions.

This is one exception, and I gladly, gladly proffer credit to economist Thomas Sowell.

Take it away, sir, Mr Sowell:

Baltimore is now paying the price for irresponsible words and actions, not only by young thugs in the streets, but also by its mayor and the state prosecutor, both of whom threw the police to the wolves, in order to curry favor with local voters.

Now murders in Baltimore in May have been more than double what they were in May last year, and higher than in any May in the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the number of arrests is down by more than 50 percent.

Various other communities across the country are experiencing very similar explosions of crime and reductions of arrests, in the wake of anti-police mob rampages from coast to coast that the media sanitize as “protests.”

None of this should be surprising. In her carefully researched 2010 book, “Are Cops Racist?” Heather Mac Donald pointed out that, after anti-police campaigns, cops tended to do less policing and criminals tended to commit more crimes.

If all this has been known for years, why do the same mistakes keep getting made?

Mainly because it is not a mistake for those people who are looking out for their own political careers. Critics who accuse the mayor of Baltimore and the Maryland prosecutor of incompetence, for their irresponsible words and actions, are ignoring the possibility that these two elected officials are protecting and promoting their own chances of remaining in office or of moving on up to higher offices.

Racial demagoguery gains votes for politicians, money for race hustling lawyers and a combination of money, power and notoriety for armies of professional activists, ideologues and shakedown artists.

So let’s not be so quick to say that people are incompetent when they say things that make no sense to us. Attacking the police makes sense in terms of politicians’ personal interests, and often in terms of the media’s personal interests or ideological leanings, even if what they say bears little or no resemblance to the facts.

Of course, all these benefits have costs. There is no free lunch. But the costs are paid by others, including men, women and children who are paying with their lives in ghettos around the country, as politicians think of ever more ways they can restrict or scapegoat the police.

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice has been leading the charge, when it comes to presuming the police to be guilty — not only until proven innocent, but even after grand juries have gone over all the facts and acquitted the police.

Not only Attorney General Holder, but President Obama himself, has repeatedly come out with public statements against the police in racial cases, long before the full facts were known. Nor have they confined their intervention to inflammatory words.

The Department of Justice has threatened various local police departments with lawsuits unless they adopt the federal government’s ideas about how police work should be done.

The high cost of lawsuits virtually guarantees that the local police department is going to have to settle the case by bowing to the Justice Department’s demands — not on the merits, but because the federal government has a lot more money than a local police department, and can litigate the case until the local police department runs out of the money needed to do their work.

By and large, what the federal government imposes on local police departments may be summarized as kinder, gentler policing. This is not a new idea, nor an idea that has not been tested in practice.

It was tested in New York under Mayor David Dinkins more than 20 years ago. The opposite approach was also tested when Dinkins was succeeded as mayor by Rudolph Giuliani, who imposed tough policing policies — which brought the murder rate down to a fraction of what it had been under Dinkins.

Unfortunately, when some people experience years of safety, they assume that means that there are no dangers. That is why New York’s current mayor is moving back in the direction of Mayor Dinkins. It is also the politically expedient thing to do.

And innocent men, women and children — most of them black — will pay with their lives in New York, as they have in Baltimore and elsewhere. 

Thomas Sowell has said and written it.

And I believe it.

BZ

 

 Share