Revised at 5:35 a.m., on Saturday, August 28, 2010.
One or two mischief-makers have tampered with articles at The Pretend Encyclopedia, aka Wikipedia, regarding black racist Maurice Clemmons’ ambush massacre of four white police officers in Lakewood, Washington on November 29. (See my 2008 American Renaissance exposé, “Wikipedia on Race.”)
In the article, “Maurice Clemmons,” someone slipped in,
Prior to his alleged involvement in the shooting, Clemmons had at least five felony convictions in Arkansas and at least eight felony charges in Washington.
Alleged involvement? Editors will tell you that saying “alleged” is an ethical obligation, but they act out of prudence, based on a healthy respect for the libel laws, such as they are.
If a man is falsely accused, and able to clear himself before the statute of limitations runs out for a civil suit, he can sue for defamation any media outlet that falsely accused him. That’s why, when media operations want to defame a man while protecting themselves from costly litigation, they use “anonymous sources,” often government officials who are themselves seeking to railroad the subject in question, say by poisoning the jury pool (see the Bernard Goetz and Steven Hatfill cases). But the protection of the media is so broad, due to the Supreme Court’s decision in the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, which said that a victim must prove “actual malice”:
Held: A State cannot under the First and Fourteenth Amendments award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves ‘actual malice’ - that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
And the High Court made that standard almost impossible to satisfy, at least against Big Media, which can almost always get away with pleading “absence of malice.” (Although the Sullivan decision was limited to the press libeling or slandering public officials, somehow it was extended over the years, in practice, to other public figures, and then to private persons.)
But once a bad guy gets his, there’s no obligation, ethically, prudentially, or legally, to say that he “allegedly” committed a crime that a study of the facts says he did. Indeed, it would be both morally perverse and idiotic to refrain from stating the obvious.
Maurice Clemmons was identified by a coffee shop employee as the killer; identified by the weapon he left at the scene of the crime as the killer; identified by the Glock pistol that he had taken off of one of his victims, and possessed at the time that Seattle PD Officer Benjamin L. Kelly shot him dead, as the killer; identified by the blood that he left on the seat of the first getaway truck, registered to one of his businesses, as the killer; identified by his old cellmate, then-fugitive Darcus Allen, who has admitted driving Clemmons to the coffee shop, as the killer; identified by his friend, Quiana Maylea Williams (originally misidentified as his sister), who tended to his wound, and had a blood-stained carpet to show for it, as the killer; and finally, identified by the slug fired into his gut by heroic, dying Lakewood PD Officer Greg Richards, as the killer.
And in the article, “Lakewood, Washington,” either the same deceiver or an ally slipped in the second sentence in the following paragraph.
Officers killed in the line of duty
On November 29, 2009, four Lakewood Police Department officers were shot and killed. Police believe Maurice Clemmons walked into the Parkland Forza Coffee shop at around 8:15 a.m. After approaching the counter, he turned and started shooting. Dead at the scene were Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39, and officers Tina Griswold, 40, Ronald Owens, 37, and Greg Richards, 42. Each of them had served with the department since its inception. Two baristas and several customers in the shop were not injured. Clemmons was shot and killed by a Seattle police officer two days later.
These are the only Lakewood Police Department officers who have died in the line of duty.
“Police believe”?! Police know. As do we all.
The redefining of black criminals as only “allegedly” guilty is a black thing. Black racists increasingly refer to convicted black criminals as only “allegedly” guilty committed the crime for which they were convicted. That is because for black racists, no black can be guilty of committing a crime in Ameri-kkk-a. It’s just the white man’s allegations, and the white man’s laws, which most blacks refuse to recognize, no matter how heinous the criminal, and even when the victims are themselves black. This mentality is a pillar of what I call the paranoid, black supremacist, jailhouse philosophy of law. “Jailhouse,” because that’s where it began, only now most blacks at all levels, including the penthouse, have the mentality of a bunch of convicts.