Wednesday, December 17, 2014
The Ferguson Case and Eric Garner
We judge words, not voice inflection, smirks upon a face, nor color of skin. To the many who thanked me for the analysis...I hope I was thanked for the labor, not the result. For analysis does not have "a dog in the fight", that is, an agenda.
The truth is the truth.
In the span of 30 days, we saw:
An accuser of Bill Cosby was truthful in her account of being drugged and raped, while an accuser of a college football player was lying.
Both cases could have blown up with cries of racism.
Racism was not a part of the analysis; only the application of proven principle in an even-handed manner.
The results are what they are. Statement Analysis doesn't artificially "score" upwards, nor downwards, based upon rape, even though police exams might...
We recognize that words, having been used millions of times by the subject, will guide us to the truth, and separate it from deception.
Having watched the nation react to Ferguson, I was slow to analyze, knowing that the results would likely not change any racist mind. Yet, there was also the case of Eric Garner, which bothered me much more than Ferguson, that coincided with Ferguson, yet did not draw the same emotional reactions from our nation's leaders as did the Ferguson case.
Why was that?
Why did the President of the United States react mutely to the death of Eric Garner, while taking dramatic steps in the Ferguson case?
Having analyzed the interview of the Ferguson shooting, veracity and reliability within the language show that Darren Wilson was truthful in his account of the shooting. He responded to a robbery and found a beligerent who attacked him, causing the officer to respond with lethal force. At the time of the interview, the fabrication of "hands up" was not yet propagated in media.
The Eric Garner case has not had a full interview or analysis, therefore, few statements have been available for analysis.
Eric Garner had a lengthy history of arrests and was an avoidable death, with critical mistakes made all around.
1. Eric Garner made the decision to resist arrest. This is something that places responsibility with him.
2. The officer used a choke hold, which is not allowed by NYPD. This places responsibility with the officer.
Yet, what was the police responding to?
In the Ferguson case, the responding officer was sworn to protect life and property, and both were in danger as he arrived on the scene. A chronic law breaker who had just committed a robbery, the shooting victim boldly walked in the middle of the street, in defiance of laws he would not submit to. He had been raised in lawlessness, and died as a result of it. His mother and step father reacting with staged shock at the Grand Jury's lawful finding, and called for violence, looting and destruction in their own neighborhood.
But in New York, someone, somewhere, made the decision to send police to respond, not to a dangerous situation, but to one selling untaxed cigarettes.
Or, that is, lost revenue.
Garner was a giant of a man, which would, automatically, put his breathing in question.
His widow stated that his death was not a case of race, much to the disappointment of Al Sharpton, who has made a handsome living manipulating and race baiting. He has produced nothing, but has lived off the pain and fear of others in life. His language reveals a racist and an opportunist, yet he was embraced by the President of these United States.
Garner knew what police were there for and he resisted, using his massive girth to force them to become physical. Going outside the boundary of their own rules was wrong, just as resisting arrest was wrong.
Yet, someone in authority, somewhere, made the decision to send armed officers to a locale where no violence had taken place, and no danger to life or property existed; only lost revenue.
We have yet to hear the name of the authority who made that fateful decision.
Had a summons been mailed, the cops who responded to Garner would not have been put in the place of "tax collectors by force", and could have let the court system take its course. I recognize that had Garner failed to respond, eventually would have elicited a warrant for his arrest and then...
perhaps someone of skill could be called in to arrest him without incident, relying upon verbal skills; something noticably absent from the video.
I recently asked some officers about the cry, "I can't breathe! I can't breathe!" of which the answers were singular: it is something they hear regularly, and it could be that since "most everyone claims it", the responding officers did not take it seriously. Garner's size, alone, should have suggested otherwise.
Garner's widow said he was a "lazy man" and she felt that the local officers did not like Garner, and claimed that they often taunted him, making it personal. With this, she said, it was still not racist.
In Ferguson, a Grand Jury got to the truth, of which Statement Analysis agrees. The White House responded to the rule of law as has become a norm:
they simply disregarded it with Holder going now after a federal indictment. In other words, this administration is going to punish an officer for not being the same skin color as the criminal to satisfy their own racism and political agenda.
They are racists decrying racism.
Eric Garner did not deserve to die. His widow's frustration goes deeper than this. She said he was a "lazy man" who hated to work and did not wish to follow rules in life, but made his own.
He lived life by this philosophy and because of it, he died.
In Ferguson, the young man was raised in lawlessness and violence, and it was in bold defiance of the rule of law, he died, a justifiable death.
Now, the racism of our President will seek to punish the police officer.
This sends a signal to police officers everywhere about their work, the risks they take in responding to calls where suspects have different skin pigment than their own.
We learned that several grand jurors asked Darren Wilson, "Why didn't you run away?"
This shows the inability to think critically, if not "think" at all.
What message has been sent to law enforcement?
If you are a white police officer and the belligerent suspect is not white, perhaps you should walk away, and pretend to not see him, or seek to get back up that is of the same skin color. If you are a white officer and your partner is black do you betray him?? This is insane.
Poor test scores do not translate into strong critical thinking and if there is one attribute that is so very necessary to one who is carrying lethal force it is critical thinking.
The danger to the community is immeasurable.
We now have policing by pigment tone, with safety judged by color. This is illogical.
You don't think that black police officers will stop and wonder if they need to pull their gun on a white suspect, going forward? Pendulums swing both ways. They know that where there is outrage, there is backlash, and must also consider the consequences.
Racism is stupid.
Yes, it is stupid. To not hire the "Best and Brightest" is to not hire that which is best for the department, or the company. In an attempt to stamp out racism, racism is used but called "hiring quotas", which eventually led to discrimination against some United States citizens.
Where one applicant scored an 85% on his police exam, it was "adjusted" down to a 73%, due to "racial sensitivities" allowing for someone who scored lower, to be hired instead. The one who studied long and hard to score well found a career somewhere else other than law enforcement, though it was his dream. A lesser qualified officer was hired, in his place.
This helps no one, but hurts everyone. It is, in my religious faith, the sin of "respecter of faces"; something not only forbidden, but it is stupid.
If I own my own business and person A can produce 12 widgets per hour, and person B is willing to only produce 8 widgets per hour, which one will I hire?
If the business next door to me will hire Person B due to skin color preference, do so, which will only allow me to better compete as I hire the best for the job.
Jackie Robinson's numbers justified Branch Rickey's contract. That there was a Negro League was the choice, and I don't know if Hispanics, for instance, were not allowed to play in the Negro League, but eventually, as is the case, drive for excellence won the day. People rather see excellence more than matching skin color. There are no "affirmative action law suits" filed against the NBA for not hiring enough players with lighter skin that I am aware of, yet ticket holders sure seem to love the game and spend a lot of money.
What would happen to a NBA team that decided to only hire players by race; specifically matching the race of the majority of people in their neighborhood?
By this criteria, my guess is that initially, a lot of tickets would be sold, and a lot of rallying cries would be heard.
By the second season, the horrific losing team, yet all the same color faces as the neighborhood, would be playing to an empty auditorium.
Said auditorium, replete with crickets in the background, would be shut down and out of business.
In 1972, as a young boy, I was thrilled, taking cues from my father, when the NY Mets received Willie Mays, in time for Mother's Day game, in which the great Mays homered, and made a spectacular play leaping into the air, coming down to tag out a runner. My father was peculiar in whom he allowed his sons to look up to, not wanting us to emulate 'bad guys' in baseball. Mays' race wasn't discussed, but his fielding, hitting, running and how his hat flew off his face, was.
A few years later, we met "Dr. J", Julius Irving, who was a polite gentleman towards us, much as Joe Namath had been when we met him. Neither man's race was discussed, though my father stayed off the topic of Namath's "girlfriends", not wanting us to learn improper lessons from "Broadway Joe."
We cheered home runs and boo'd strike outs.
When Hank Aaron broke The Babe's record, we listened as my father decried the threats Aaron had been under, as ignorant.
Lessons well received.
England freed their slaves without a single shot being fired.
Economics have a way of working things out.
Many of us had thought, before Barak Obama took office, that the nation had made strides against the folly of racism. Many people thought Obama was the "change" they so wanted. He even was given a Nobel Peace Prize for...well, for just having dark skin. He hadn't accomplished anything...yet.
Had he manned up, he would have refused the award and politely told the committee, "wait until I accomplish something, first."
I believe many Americans voted for him, sans resume, simply to show the world that they were not racist, even as they made a conscious decision to vote racist, rather than by resume. (There was nothing in Obama's resume to indicate qualification for office other than getting a few street sign names changed.).
What will he be remembered for?
Pollsters tell us that a major drop in support for him has been among black voters.
For me, he will be remembered for the famous "you didn't build that" speech, insulting the Protestant work ethic that made America great.
For others, it will be the "Great Divider in Chief" who used the most powerful organization in the world, the IRS, to silence his enemies, while ignoring the plight of inner city blacks by his lawless actions and threats, including the tearing down of the border of security for the people.
Ferguson was just another opportunity for the opportunists which includes Al Sharpton, President Barak Obama, and Eric Holder.
It is a strange twist of fate that these men, so intent on proving the messianic nature of government as the all provider of mankind, sent out, through its endless bureaucratic tentacles, armed men to take down Eric Garner for...
selling untaxed cigarettes.
It is greed of which all evil blossoms. Nothing in our world exhibits greed more than government, which is an insatiable drain upon our wealth, lining the pockets of its own, more than anyone else.
Ever see a welfare recipient get wealthy?
It was the tariff that 600,000 plus Americans died for, in a divided country.
It is "jobs" according to the President, that has caused him to threaten, bully, and intimidate border states, should they seek to enforce immigration laws, even while blacks protested saying that this would hurt their own struggle for the American dream.
Lawlessness caused the death in Ferguson. Our President's disdain of the rule of law mimics that of the step father who cried out to an angry mob,
"Burn the bitch down!"
Was it righteous indignation that caused looters to stroll through Walmart with shopping carts full of...
That'll learn 'em.
Who owned the businesses that were burned down?
For my personal religious belief, racism is a sin, but it is a stupid sin, that yields nothing but trouble; and trouble it has brought, and trouble it will always bring, because it is illogical.
It is our own leadership that is not simply fanning the flames, but much more so as adding gasoline to that which should have been extinguished long ago by now.
They have a reason, a very selfish reason, for keeping the fire going.
It's the genesis of sin, and the very reason wars are fought, no matter what the victors later write.
Fame is but an instrument for which greed is satiated, though never able to be.
There will be more, and as long as a public is willing to believe an excitable lie rather than boring fact, there will always be a platform for the opportunists to go front and center on us, and line their own pockets on the tears of the broken hearted.