Why the heck this man man have so much respect? Why does his word mean so much?

Caboose · Feb 5, 2007

The main I'm talking about is Al Sharpton. How come whenever someone says something racist or stupid about black people they have to go on the Al Sharpton show or the Jesse Jackson show the next day to make it right? How come Al Sharpton can say so much bull**** without ever really being criticized. I found this article on Sharpton and the Sean Bell thing. I think this is an excellent article:

No, the Cops Didn’t Murder Sean Bell
Heather Mac Donald

And here’s what decent black advocates would say.

New York’s anti-cop forces have roared back to life, thanks to a fatal police shooting of an unarmed man on November 25, 2006. The press is once again fawning over Al Sharpton, Herbert Daughtry, Charles Barron, and sundry other hate-mongers in and out of city government as they accuse the police of widespread mistreatment of blacks and issue barely veiled threats of riots if they do not get “justice.” A Sharpton-led march down Fifth Avenue on December 16 called for an end to “police terror” and the firing of Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

The allegation that the November shooting was racially motivated is preposterous. According to press and police reports, a group of undercover officers working in a gun- and drug-plagued strip joint in Queens had good reason to believe that a group leaving the club was armed and about to shoot an adversary. When one of the undercovers identified himself as an officer, the car holding the group twice tried to run him down. The officer started firing while yelling to the car’s occupants: “Let me see your hands.” His colleagues, believing they were under attack, fired as well, eventually shooting off 50 rounds and killing the driver, Sean Bell, 23. No gun was found in the car, but witnesses and video footage confirm that a fourth man in the party fled the scene once the altercation began. Bell and the other men with him all had been arrested for illegal possession of guns in the past; one of Bell’s companions that night, Joseph Guzman, had spent considerable time in state prison, including for an armed robbery in which he shot at his victim. According to some credible reports, Bell and his entourage were involved in illegal drug dealing; that someone with them would have been armed, then, is plausible.

Nothing in these facts suggests that racial animus lay behind the incident. (Though this detail should be irrelevant, the undercover team was racially mixed, and the officer who fired the first shot was black.) But even more preposterous than the assertion that the shooting hinged on race is the claim by New York’s self-appointed minority advocates that they care about the well-being of the minority community. If they did, here are seven things that you would have heard them say years ago:

1. “Stop the killing!” Since 1993, 11,353 people have been murdered in New York City. The large majority of victims and perpetrators have been black. Not a single one of those black-on-black killings has prompted protest or demonstrations from the city’s black advocates. Sharpton, Barron, et al. are happy to let thousands of black victims get mowed down by thugs without so much as a whispered call for “peace” or “justice”; it’s only when a police officer, trying to protect the public, makes a good-faith mistake in a moment of intense pressure that they rise as vindicators of black life. (As for caring about slain police officers, forget about it. Sixteen cops—including several black policemen—have been killed since 1999, not one of whom elicited a public demonstration of condolence from the race hustlers.)

Had Sean Bell been shot by a fellow club-goer, the protesters and their leaders would not have paid a single moment’s attention to his death. They purport to care about him now for one reason only: he provides a pretext to attack the police. Ever heard of Earl Williams? Of course not. Like Sean Bell, who’d been out celebrating before his planned marriage the next morning, Williams was a groom-to-be. One week after Bell’s shooting, some robbers had pistol-whipped their victims and forced them to strip, when the 52-year-old Williams happened to pass by the Brooklyn crime scene. The thugs killed him, for good measure. Here was a case of pure depravity, but no one in the “minority community” has bothered to raise one word of lament. Get shot in cold blood by a lowlife, well, that’s just the way it is. But if you are in that rarest of minorities—someone killed by the police in a good-faith but possibly mistaken shooting—your name will be known around the world in 24 hours and you will be mourned as a martyr to injustice and brutality.

Among other crime victims in New York’s minority neighborhoods in just the first week after the Bell shooting were: 26-year-old Dennis Mack, killed at point-blank range during an attempted robbery; a 26-year-old man fatally shot in the Bronx; another man hit by stray bullets; employees of a sandwich shop in Brownsville who were fired at during a robbery; and three elderly men robbed at knifepoint by a parolee in Queens. Those minority victims who survived will have to rely on the police and the courts, not the race “advocates,” for vindication.

If the city’s black advocates paid even a tiny fraction of the attention that they pay to shootings by criminals as they pay to shootings by police, they could change the face of the city. If demonstrators gathered outside the jail cell of every rapist and teen stickup thug, cameras in tow, to shame them for their attacks on law-abiding minority residents, they could deglamorize the gangsta life. Think you’ll find Sharpton or Barron patrolling with the police in dark housing-project stairways, trying to protect residents from predators? Not a chance.

2. “Police killings of innocent civilians—each one of them a horror—are nonetheless rare.” The instances of an officer shooting an innocent, unarmed victim are so unusual that they can be counted on one’s fingers. Last year, of the nine suspects fatally shot by the police, two had just fired at an officer, three were getting ready to fire, two had tried to stab an officer, and two were physically attacking an officer. Far more frequent are the times when the NYPD refrains from using force though clearly authorized to do so. So far this year, officers have been fired upon four times without returning fire. In 2005, there were five such incidents. And the NYPD apprehended 3,428 armed felons this year, 15 percent more than last year.

Each arrest of a gun-toting thug involves the potential for the use of deadly force yet is almost always carried out peacefully. On December 2, less than a week after the Sean Bell shooting, a rookie officer tackled and handcuffed a robber whom he had just witnessed fatally shoot a man without himself firing a shot. If Officer Tomas Castro has been publicly celebrated for peacefully getting a killer off the streets, it has not been recorded. The department trains officers incessantly on how to arrest violent felons without resort to deadly force; due to that training, such force-free arrests as the one that Officer Castro accomplished are the overwhelming norm.

The department has dramatically driven down the rate of police shootings over the decades. In 1973, there were 1.82 fatal police shootings per 1,000 officers; in 2005, there were 0.25 such shootings per 1,000 officers, bringing the absolute number of police shootings down from 54 in 1973 to nine in 2005. The NYPD’s per-capita rate of shootings is lower than that of many big-city departments.

Yet New York Times columnist Bob Herbert charges the police with an unbroken pattern of “blowing away innocent individuals with impunity.” The “community,” he wrote on November 30, “which is sick of these killings, is simmering.” What are “these killings” about which the “community” is simmering? Herbert reaches back over three decades and adduces five prior to the recent shooting of Sean Bell. Each was a disaster that provoked the NYPD to scrutinize its tactics. But the number of innocent bystanders killed by criminal thugs in New York dwarfs the number of innocents killed by the police. After the shooting, Sharpton said that the minority community has to fear police officers as much as it fears robbers, a conceit that his followers echo. “The police [are] killing too many of our black men. Every time something goes wrong, the first thing they do is to pull out their gun,” said a marcher at Sharpton’s Fifth Avenue “Shopping for Justice” march. These are baseless claims. What is true is that stoking the myth that the police are a threat to blacks harms the minority community by inflaming anti-cop sentiment and r****ding community cooperation in the fight against crime in inner-city neighborhoods.

Here’s a simple proposition: Why don’t the anti-cop agitators shoulder the responsibility for public safety in even one inner-city neighborhood, in lieu of those dangerous NYPD officers? They would never have the courage to do so, but if they did, it would be a safe bet that fatalities would go up rather than down.

3. “The police work every day to save lives.” If New York City murders had remained at their early 1990s highs, instead of dropping from 1,927 killings in 1993 to 540 in 2005, 13,698 more people—most of them black and Hispanic—would have been dead by last year. They are alive today thanks to the relentless efforts of the NYPD to bring the same level of safety to poor minority neighborhoods as to Greenwich Village and the Upper East Side.

The undercover officers who killed Sean Bell over the weekend were working the strip club in Queens where the incident occurred at 4 am because of its record of illegal guns and drug sales. Their intentions that night were to protect the residents of Jamaica and the occupants of the club from violence. That they ended up killing an unarmed man is undoubtedly a nightmare for them almost as horrific as it is for the victim’s family.

It may turn out that the officers failed to follow departmental procedures during the incident (though the NYPD’s rule against firing at cars that are trying to run an officer over seems highly unrealistic). If so, the city will hold them accountable. The criminal-justice system may even find them criminally liable. But there is absolutely no evidence that racial hatred lay behind either the officers’ presence at the club or their behavior once there—contrary to the outrageous slander of New York City Councilman Al Vann, who called the shooting of Bell and other police shootings the product of “a discriminatory mind, a prejudiced mind,” adding, “We have to admit [that] the problem is . . . institutional racism.”

A New York Times reporter, Cara Buckley, coyly echoed this inflammatory charge several days after the shooting. In referring to the undercover officer who fired the first shots at the car, she says: “The officer’s fear, if that was what motivated him, was unfounded” (emphasis added). We will leave aside the spurious judgment that just because no gun was ultimately found on the car’s occupants, the officer’s fear of a gun was “unfounded.” The officer, after all, had heard Sean Bell say, “Let’s **** him up,” and Bell’s friend, Joseph Guzman, respond, “Yo, get my gun.” That officer was then the target of an oncoming vehicle driven by Bell. The most offensive part of Buckley’s statement, though, is her suggestion that the officer might have been motivated by something other than fear—and what else could that be but racism or some kind of violent animus?

The New York Times, Al Vann, and other City Council hotheads such as Helen Foster notwithstanding, someone who believes that black lives are worth less than white lives is not going to put his own life at risk working in dangerous environments trying to get guns away from criminals.

4. “If you witnessed a crime, help the authorities solve it.” The police could probably lock away just about every dangerous thug roaming the streets if they got more cooperation from witnesses and people with knowledge of the crime. Instead, they often encounter a wall of hostile silence in minority communities. Bystanders sometimes deliberately block officers chasing a criminal. The stigma against helping the police—referred to derogatorily as “snitching”—is pervasive. “If you’re a snitch, people want to kill you,” a teen robber in a Brooklyn crime-rehabilitation program that I observed this spring explained. Helping the police is seen as helping the enemy, defined in racial terms. Even black officers are part of the hated white establishment. “Black cops, I disrespect them. They sucking the white man,” asserted another juvenile delinquent in the Crown Heights rehab program.

Many law-abiding residents of crime-ridden neighborhoods buck this self-defeating social norm. They attend police-community council meetings in their local precinct month after month, learning about police initiatives, and they report anonymously on drug deals and vice hot spots. They are the eyes and ears of the department, and without their help, the NYPD might not have achieved the unmatched crime drop of the last decade.

It would be astounding if any of the anti-police activists leading protests about the Sean Bell shooting had ever attended a precinct community meeting or offered to help the police solve crimes. Presumably, they have more important things to do than work to improve the quality of life in minority neighborhoods. Let the police take care of that. But even if the anti-cop activists can’t be bothered to give a few hours a month to fight crime, they could at least use their bully pulpit to call on others to share what they know about criminals and to help get violent offenders off the street before they injure more people and property. Instead, their opportunistic cop-bashing only increases the hatred of the police and the stigma against cooperating with them. As a result, more lives will be taken by cop-eluding barbarians.

5. “The NYPD and the criminal-justice system investigate every police shooting with profound seriousness; they will not rest until the facts are uncovered and justice done.” The premise of the current grandstanding by “minority advocates” is that the authorities would shrug off the recent shooting without heat from the street. One thinks of the rooster in the fable, who believes that his crowing raises the sun. “Business will not go on as usual until we get justice for Sean Bell,” Sharpton said four days after the shooting. It is not Sharpton and his cronies who are getting justice for Bell, however. The street agitators could all go home (sometimes, as in the case of Sharpton, to suburbia) and wait quietly for a resolution, and the system would proceed just as diligently to assign fault if fault was present and to hold any wrongdoers accountable.

Other publicity-hungry politicians are just as desperate to add their voices to the post-shooting hue and cry. New York senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton released a joint statement in the week after the incident: “It is of the utmost importance that the investigating authorities, led by the Queens district attorney, conduct an aggressive, impartial investigation to ferret out the facts.” What do they think would have happened without this self-righteous piece of boilerplate? That the “investigating authorities” would have conducted a biased, halfhearted investigation?

Every time the anti-police lobby issues superfluous demands for a “full investigation” and threats of violence if “justice” is not done, they send the destructive message that the police are indifferent to the loss of life. Or they send a worse message still: “I’m not asking my people to do anything passive anymore,” said City Councilman Charles Barron. “Don’t ask us to ask our people to be peaceful while they are being murdered. We’re not the only ones that can bleed.”

6. “Police officers make mistakes; tragically, those mistakes are sometimes deadly.” Perhaps Al Sharpton, Charles Barron, and Jesse Jackson have never made an error of judgment, except for Tawana Brawley and suchlike. Perhaps, too—though this is truly unlikely—they have had to confront the possibility that they are facing someone about to shoot them and that they must decide in a split second whether to shoot first. Perhaps in such circumstances, they would never ever make the wrong decision. If so, perhaps they are justified in strutting around like beings of superhuman prescience and infallibility.

But police officers are like other human beings: they do make mistakes. And because they are carrying lethal weapons, in order to counter the illegal firepower packed by lowlifes, very occasionally those mistakes take an innocent life. The police department works incessantly to make sure that its officers never make a fatal error. It tries to drill into officers reflexes that will guard against wrong split-second judgments. It constantly reviews its training and official procedures to improve those reflexes. But out in the field, even the best training can prove inadequate to the pressure and confusion of a possibly deadly encounter.

This is not to say that the public and elected officials should automatically excuse every police shooting—which they are obviously far from doing. But to presume that every mistaken shooting represents a system-wide failure is inaccurate and unrealistic. The New York Times darkly commands: “[T]he Police Department must . . . confront the fact that a disaster that everyone swore to prevent seven years ago has repeated itself in Queens.” But because cops are humans and therefore fallible, it is impossible to prevent every wrongful shooting—without emasculating the police entirely. The New York Times has itself made a few mistakes over the last seven years; perhaps it, too, needs to confront its persistent fallibility.

7. “The police concentrate their efforts in minority communities because that is where the crime is.” Race hustlers accuse the police of “racially profiling” and targeting minorities for unjustified police action. After showing up in New York for his time in the Sean Bell spotlight, Jesse Jackson announced: “Our criminal-justice system has broken down for black Americans and young black males. We’ve marched and marched, bled too profusely, and died too young. We must draw a line in the sand and fight back.”

Memo to Jackson: The police have a disproportionate number of interactions with blacks because blacks are committing a disproportionate number of crimes. That fact comes from the testimony of the victims of those crimes, themselves largely black, not from the police. In New York City, blacks committed 62 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults from 1998 to 2000, according to victim and witness identification, even though they make up only 25 percent of the city’s population. Whites committed 8 percent of those crimes over that period, though they are 28 percent of New York residents. These proportions have been stable for years and remain so today. It’s not the criminal-justice system that has broken down for young black males; it’s families and other sources of cultural support. Changing the subject and blaming the police just perpetuates the problem.

The furor over the Sean Bell shooting shows no sign of abating; if anything, the specious racial rhetoric is becoming more ugly and dangerous. To the extent that the exploitation of this tragic event makes the police turn a blind eye to crime in the ghetto (as was once the case) or think twice about engaging with possible criminals—indeed, the New York Sun reported in late December that arrests around the Jamaica strip club had dropped about 40 percent since the shooting—the most direct victims will be the hundreds of thousands of innocent, upstanding minority New Yorkers.
Click to expand...

Caboose · Feb 5, 2007

god im an idiot. i screwed up the thread title. I meant "why does this man get so much respect? not why the heck this man man have so much respect.... im stupid.

hotballa · Feb 5, 2007

because even though Sharpton is an idiot, he's being an idiot for his people, a fact that most of them probably identify with. Sharpton is only there because mainstream America (53 million at last count in 2004 ) insists on continuing to not treat blacks as equals.

basso · Feb 5, 2007

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Batman Jones · Feb 5, 2007

basso said:

R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Click to expand...

Hi, basso!

I trust from your yellow-bellied retreat from the "support the troops all the way" thread that you'll be shutting your smug yap from now on when it comes to "supporting" the troops?

Awesome.

basso · Feb 5, 2007

Batman Jones said:

Awesome.
Click to expand...

indeed.

Batman Jones · Feb 5, 2007

basso said:

indeed.
Click to expand...

Weak.

A member of the troops you pretend to support posted in your thread about supporting the troops. He doesn't meet your standard for supporting himself. In fact, according to your rules for supporting the troops he's on the side of terrorists. I think you owe him an explanation.

Until you give him the respectful response he deserves (not to mention responding to the sound thrashing your "I wasn't wrong" post received), I'm not real interested in your soggy media bashing.

Steve_Francis_rules · Feb 6, 2007

hotballa said:

he's being an idiot for his people
Click to expand...

I don't believe for a second that he's doing anything for his people. He seems to care only about himself.

Invisible Fan · Feb 6, 2007

Caboose said:

god im an idiot. i screwed up the thread title. I meant "why does this man get so much respect? not why the heck this man man have so much respect.... im stupid.
Click to expand...

He is twice the man for his size.

orbb · Feb 6, 2007

And here’s what decent black advocates would say
Click to expand...

speaking of decent...how do you defend emptying 50 rounds into the car? christ.

Caboose · Feb 6, 2007

It seems like the cops thought their life was in danger. I would probably do the same thing. They were dealing with criminals. The reason that they confronted them was that someone yelled that those men were going to get a gun to shoot someone.

hotballa · Feb 7, 2007

orbb said:

speaking of decent...how do you defend emptying 50 rounds into the car? christ.
Click to expand...

you mean the shooting where 2 of the cops were black and the other 2 or 3 were hispanic?

bad judgment by the cops, but hindsight is 20/20. It wasn't racial, just bad judgment.

FranchiseBlade · Feb 7, 2007

Caboose said:

It seems like the cops thought their life was in danger. I would probably do the same thing. They were dealing with criminals. The reason that they confronted them was that someone yelled that those men were going to get a gun to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

Actually they were dealing with a wedding party.

mc mark · Feb 7, 2007

FranchiseBlade said:

Actually they were dealing with a wedding party.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

hotballa · Feb 7, 2007

FranchiseBlade said:

Actually they were dealing with a wedding party.
Click to expand...

It was a bachelor party at a strip club known for its affiliation with drugs and prostitution.

I'm not defending the serious lack of judgment in the Bell case, but let's not whitewash the facts about the case.

FranchiseBlade · Feb 7, 2007

hotballa said:

It was a bachelor party at a strip club known for its affiliation with drugs and prostitution.

I'm not defending the serious lack of judgment in the Bell case, but let's not whitewash the facts about the case.
Click to expand...

I'm not white washing anything. If a groom and the rest of his wedding party decide to have a bachelor party a strip club, that doesn't make it reasonable to assume they are dangerous criminals.

The facts were distorted when someone brought out the blanket statement that when discussing the victims we had to remember that they were criminals.

hotballa · Feb 7, 2007

FranchiseBlade said:

I'm not white washing anything. If a groom and the rest of his wedding party decide to have a bachelor party a strip club, that doesn't make it reasonable to assume they are dangerous criminals.

The facts were distorted when someone brought out the blanket statement that when discussing the victims we had to remember that they were criminals.
Click to expand...

The strip club they went to had been closed several times by the police for prostitution and drug dealing.

Anyway, whether they were criminals were not shouldn't have factored into the discussion of the serious lack of judgment by the police. race never should have been an issue in this case since the cops who did the shooting were minorities themselves.

Lil Pun · Feb 7, 2007

hotballa said:

race never should have been an issue in this case since the cops who did the shooting were minorities themselves.
Click to expand...

So minorities can not be racist against their own? Have you ever seen "Boyz N The Hood" or more specifically the scene where the black cop pulls over the 2 black teens and then proceeds to harass them telling them he "hates little n*ggers like you." I know this is fiction but I bring it up because it happens in reality. When people are put in certain positions of power, such as police, some of them begin to think they are better than others beneath them that don't possess the same power, even members of their own race. Just because they're of the same race doesn't mean it's not racially motivated.

Rocket River · Feb 7, 2007

Caboose said:

It seems like the cops thought their life was in danger. I would probably do the same thing. They were dealing with criminals. The reason that they confronted them was that someone yelled that those men were going to get a gun to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

they always seem to be in 'fear of their life' whenever minorities are involved
so
they empty aboud 2 -3 clips then ask questions later

If you make a mistake. . no big deal innocent man dead
I mean . . better them than the cops right?

Rocket River

Rocket River · Feb 7, 2007

Lil Pun said:

So minorities can not be racist against their own? Have you ever seen "Boyz N The Hood" or more specifically the scene where the black cop pulls over the 2 black teens and then proceeds to harass them telling them he "hates little n*ggers like you." I know this is fiction but I bring it up because it happens in reality. When people are put in certain positions of power, such as police, some of them begin to think they are better than others beneath them that don't possess the same power, even members of their own race. Just because they're of the same race doesn't mean it's not racially motivated.
Click to expand...

Hence the Phrase
"You are blue.. . before you are Black."

Rocket River

Forums

Why the heck this man man have so much respect? Why does his word mean so much?

Caboose Member

Caboose Member

hotballa Contributing Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

Batman Jones Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

Batman Jones Member

Steve_Francis_rules Member

Invisible Fan Member

orbb Member

Caboose Member

hotballa Contributing Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

mc mark Member

hotballa Contributing Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

hotballa Contributing Member

Lil Pun Member

Rocket River Member

Rocket River Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Why the heck this man man have so much respect? Why does his word mean so much?

Caboose Member

Caboose Member

hotballa Contributing Member

basso Member Supporting Member

Batman Jones Member

basso Member Supporting Member

Batman Jones Member

Steve_Francis_rules Member

Invisible Fan Member

orbb Member

Caboose Member

hotballa Contributing Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

mc mark Member

hotballa Contributing Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

hotballa Contributing Member

Lil Pun Member

Rocket River Member

Rocket River Member

Share This Page

basso Member
Supporting Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member