By N.S.
Michael Tomasky, in The New Republic
Item two: Stop traffic stops
This police execution, and it can only be called that, of Patrick Lyoya of Grand Rapids, Michigan, is beyond belief. Lyoya, who was on his hands and knees with the cop on his back, had apparently reached for the cop’s Taser, but for God’s sakes, doing so doesn’t invite a cop to put a bullet in the back of a human being’s head—“like an animal,” as Lyoya’s father said. What kind of depraved mind thinks that is an appropriate use of force? If this cop, whose name we don’t yet know (and what right has the Grand Rapids Police Department to withhold his name, by the way?), is ultimately acquitted, God help us.
The policy issue here is traffic stops. You’ll have noticed, I’m sure, that many of these killings start as traffic stops, this one included.
Question: Why do armed police officers make traffic stops? There’s no logical reason for it. There should be an unarmed force of traffic officers who make these stops. Even if the motorist has a gun, how likely is he to use it on a uniformed officer who is unarmed? I’d say extremely unlikely. [N.S.: He can’t believe his own words. Then again, he’s paid to lie.] The armed motorist will know that shooting an unarmed peace officer is a really bad idea and will likely land him in prison for many years. The presence of the cop’s gun serves only to escalate matters.
[First, it was that police were doing something which somehow escalated matters in encounters with black criminals. Now, it’s the mere presence of their gun. What’s next? The mere presence of a White in a police uniform? Bet on it!]
In addition, traffic stops should just be minimized anyway. What’s the point? If somebody’s doing 60 in a 25 mph zone, sure, pull them over, they’re a danger. But say someone has expired tags. [N.S.: This wasn’t the issue with Patrick Lyoya, but it’s one of the lies that democrats and black supremacists formulated and are running with.] Just take a picture and send them a letter telling them they need to renew or pay a fine by X date. [The nypd tried that years ago. Black scofflaws simply ignored the dunning notices, and when the police came to arrest them years later, screamed “racism!” and “That was years ago,” and “It wasn’t me!” Tomaskey can’t possibly be that ignorant.] And some of the reasons for these stops are so picayune as to suggest that cops are looking for action—looking to hassle black people specifically. Sandra Bland, the Texas woman whose 2015 death in a jail cell was ruled a suicide [It was ruled a suicide, because it was a suicide, not as Tomaskey insinuates, a murder. And why did Sandra Bland commit suicide? Because her black family refused to spend the $500 necessary to bail her out!] was stopped because she failed to engage her turn indicator while changing lanes. [But that’s not why she was arrested. She was arrested, because she went crazy and picked a fight with the hispanic cop who’d pulled her over.]
Think about that. The cop in her case had a history of making “pretextual” traffic stops on very minor infractions and hoping to find evidence of criminality [Garbage.]. What’s the point? Obviously, cops are given incentives to make these arrests. That incentive structure has to be decimated. The vast majority of people aren’t breaking the law.
A number of jurisdictions are considering or have recently implemented putting unarmed officers in charge of traffic stops. In a few years, we’ll have good data, and I have no doubt it will show that deaths are down. But of course, just once, one of these unarmed officers will be shot, and fox news will go crazy with it, and Republicans will demagogue it, and whatever progress has been made will be lost.
[Anticipatory lying.]
First off,how can anyone tell--if the driver of this(or any car) is black when the cop decides to stop it.You can't tell from a block or two back--unless you're assuming that fact--because you're in a ghetto neighborhood.But there's no way to KNOW the driver is a black thug,Mex thug or Jewish thug(that's a joke.)
ReplyDeleteObviously,this "nig excuse-maker" of a writer,agrees with the premise that most blacks are the lawbreakers in traffic situations--because to cease those traffic stops would end "discriminatory policing"--just like that(snap of the fingers).What he ignores is the fact that many wanted criminals of serious felonies are caught during these "minor stops"--or is he against felons being caught as well?Rhetorical.
It's easy to gloss over the underlying behavior of blacks--which is the reason they are stopped in the numbers they are--a sign of liberal ignorance.
--GRA
BLACKS ROBBING CEMETERY OF FLOWERS AND FLAGS ON WEST SIDE GRAND RAPIDS.
ReplyDeleteThis is a minor exclusive,because as I was picking up some flowers,at a shop,for my mom for Easter,an older,White man alighted from his pick-up truck as I walked by.
He blurted out,"You know,a lot of the flowers in the cemetery up the street are being stolen by blacks--flags too.I put flowers up there and the next week they were gone.I placed a flag at one grave--the next day--gone.I asked the cemetery people what's going on and they said 'black kids(teens) are stealing them like crazy.'
He said,he asked,"Why?"
I interrupted,"just to steal them."
"Yeah,I don't know--and THEY don't know--but it's happening."
There aren't that many blacks in that area,so they must be driving in at night from blocks away--it's an all White cemetery,by the way.
Tomasky talks about cops picking on blacks,but if cops nabbed these sorry,black cemetary thieves,would that be discriminatory too--in liberal Tomasky's mind? Should cops refrain from patrolling where crime is occurring,as in this cemetery,just because blacks are committing the crime?
Again--all rhetorical.
--GRA
By the way,that type of story will never appear on local news anymore. It's RACIST.
ReplyDelete--GRA
>The policy issue here is traffic stops.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not -- cops cannot allow themselves to be (further) intimidated by the racial grievance industry and/or its 'allies' re whom they decide to check (e.g. run a plate) or stop -- they ought to be free to use their discretion about that -- as long as the car is not stolen or the person isn't wanted there isn't much to worry about -- just follow instructions, show ID, etc, and it will be over in a few minutes.
Of course the 'issue' with Blacks is that a lot of them do have something to worry about when stopped by a cop -- the Kim Potter case is a recent example.
If there is a 'policy issue' here, it's whether cops ought to allow themselves to be drawn into a position where a physical confrontation is possible, or worse actually engage in a physical struggle.
In my opinion, the general answer is NO -- albeit there will be some cases where it cannot be avoided.
The main reason is that cops have a service weapon on them, and if they lose control over it during the struggle it could be used against them.
Especially re this and any similar case, this 'policy issue' is worth thinking about: suspect not known to be wanted or armed, probably got decent images of him on both the dash and body cams, the vehicle is there, and a companion can be held and might ID him later if he runs -- all of this considered, here it would have been better to call for help and draw either the taser or the service weapon when he refused repeated instruction to stay/get back in the vehicle -- then hold him there until help arrives -- if that didn't intimidate him into complying and he started running, let him run: not known to be wanted or armed.
Considering a change in policy about this is mostly for the benefit of cops: they will not be risking their lives fighting with suspects, and in today's political climate they won't necessarily be given the benefit of the doubt if something happens.
Another 'policy issue' might be whether cops ought to be on patrol alone in areas where crime is high (which is synonymous with having a lot of Blacks around) -- you have to wonder if, in this case, the situation would have escalated as it did, and ended as badly as it did, if there had been 2 cops on-scene -- most likely not.
I looked this Tomasky up;normally I'd conclude he's a garden variety liberal idiot and dismiss him. But his kind of illogical rhetoric is having real world consequences IE. Defund The Police and Bail Reform initiatives which are rendering cities like New York to a pre Giuliani crime and despair ridden dystopia, bereft of meaningful law enforcement, justifed as social justice for blacks.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're actually seeing here is the natural progression of so called "civil rights" initiatives from the 60s, ostensibly created to level the playing field and institute justice for blacks, but now unrecognizable as the boundaries of that so called justice have been so expanded, that being denied service on basis of race, or not giving up your seat to a white person is no longer the metric, excusing ANY AND ALL crimes commited by blacks is.
It doesn't matter that the video of this Partick Lyoya incident CLEARLY SHOWS a life and death struggle with a combative suspect who had no intention, at all, of complying with lawful commands and plainly giving the officer no other choice, the delineating metric here is Lyoya is black, the police officer is white, so therefore the laws being enforced are to blame and need to be - and will be - changed. For enforcing them, the white police officer is also to blame and will now endure a Ben Crump led, Derek Chauvinesque persecution to destroy every facet of his life and have him put in prison for as long as possible.
" There should be an unarmed force of traffic officers who make these stops. "
ReplyDeleteFirst they say no traffic stops no matter what.
Then they say use unarmed cops. Legality and precedent says that only the officer observing a moving violation can issue a ticked. So you are going to have to have a lot of unarmed officers on the street for traffic laws to be enforced.
Blacks just hate cops and will attack them, armed or unarmed.
"Because her black family refused to spend the $500 necessary to bail her out!"
ReplyDeleteThat is EXACTLY what it was. She was so depressed that her famblee of a mother and four siblings could not or would not put up $500 to bail her out. All five had jobs probably good paying. But they just refused to help her.
Even if the motorist has a gun, how likely is he to use it on a uniformed officer who is unarmed? I’d say extremely unlikely.
ReplyDeleteIt must hurt to pull a whopper like that straight out of one's ass.